Ex-Post Evaluation of the INTERREG III Community Initiative
TASK 5: IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF A REPRESENTATIVE
SAMPLE OF PROGRAMMES
PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
EVALUATION REPORT, elaborated by Jan Szczucki, Policy & Action Group Uniconsult, Poland
Panteia and Partners: EureConsult S.A. (Luxemburg) Policy Research and Consultancy (Frankfurt / Germany) GÉPHYRES EURL (Roubaix / France) The Radboud University (Nijmegen / The Netherlands)
Reference R20090284/30922000/LTR/CWI
January 2010
This study has been financed by European Commission Directorate General for Regional Policy, Evaluation Unit
Quoting of numbers and/or text is permitted only when the source is clearly mentioned. INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Table of contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 3 1 RESEARCH INTEREST AND METHODOLOGY ...... 4 1.1. Outline and characteristic features of the programme ...... 4 1.2. The financial implementation of the programme...... 5 1.3. Dynamic financial analysis ...... 11 2 PLANNED RESULTS, ACHIEVEMENT RATES AT MEASURE LEVEL AND TREND PATTERNS ...... 14 2.1 Reviewing the programming quality and the programme relevance on the basis of the results achieved ...... 21 2.2 The level of complexity and experimentation achieved by co-operation...... 24 3 PROJECT-LEVEL CO-OPERATION UNDER THE PROGRAMME ...... 27 3.1 Selection of the project sample...... 28 3.1.1 Project 1: Enjoy Cieszyn...... 30 3.1.2 Project 2 Cooperation of University of Technology of Opole and Technical University in Ostrawa as regards rational use of energy ...... 35 3.1.3 Project 3 Modernisation of road infrastructure relating to Polish – Czech T.G. Masaryk bicycle route ...... 37 3.1.4 Project 4 Protection of main underground water reservoirs by way of reorganizing sewage management in Lubawka...... 40 3.1.5 Project 5 Czech and Polish media cooperation: Let’s get to know each other 42 4 ANALYSIS OF FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE CHARACTER OF THE PROGRAMME ...... 47 4.1 Main factors fostering (or hampering) integration and means to promote positive factors or to overcome persisting obstacles...... 53 4.2 Extrapolating results on effectiveness and impacts to all INTERREG programmes ...... 53 5 IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND IMPACTS IN TERMS OF UTILITY AND EFFICIENCY ...... 55 5.1 The external coherence of the programme ...... 55 5.1.1 Regulatory compliance and interaction / co-ordination with other Structural Funds programmes ...... 55 5.2 The intrinsic performance of the programme ...... 59 5.2.1 The overall governance and management system of the programme...... 59 5.2.2 Programme monitoring system...... 68 5.2.3 The Community added value and the sustainability / durability of the programme ...... 69 6 OVERALL FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 71 6.1 Final conclusions ...... 71 6.2 Policy recommendations ...... 72
R20090284.doc 2 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Poland – Czech Republic Programme Interreg IIIA was the first programme implemented on the Polish-Czech border under the INTERREG Initiative. In general the implementation of the programme was very efficient and there were no major problems.
What should be emphasised is the fact that the cooperation between the administrative structures of both countries was very good. This can be proven by the fact, that the successor to the programme i.e. the Poland – Czech Republic European Territorial Cooperation Objective 3 Programme, has been launched as a first ETC bilateral programme both in Poland and Czech Republic.
The Programme was managed by the Czech Ministry of Regional Development (Managing Authority) in cooperation with the Polish Ministry of Regional Development (National Authority). An important role, particularly in the application stage, was also played by the Joint Technical Secretariat located in Olomouc (Cz) in which the staff from both countries were employed.
The measures of the programme were largely oriented on modernisation and development of the existing infrastructure – mostly roads. This was justified by the fact that the infrastructure in neighbouring regions has been very much underdeveloped and in order to stimulate socio – economic development a lot of investment in infrastructure was needed.
Important parts of the programme expenditures were been allocated to micro-projects, these projects usually relate to various types of cultural and sports events, exchange visits of children and young people. Such projects played an important role in promoting the programme, especially among the local communities. The micro-projects component has been successfully managed by the Euroregions.
A relatively small portion of funds was allocated for the support of SME’s and activities relating to the labour market and common services for local people. This can be explained by the concentration of the programme on infrastructure investments, the lower priority attributed for these areas by the institutions managing the programme as well as by the fact that for labour market activities a lot of money was allocated within the respective national operational programmes in both countries.
Within the programme the lead partner principle has not been applied, but the projects’ selection criteria included many aspects aimed at evaluating the possible cross-border impact and cross-border cooperation.
Indicators of the programme achievements (both at measure and priority level) have been surpassed many times. This can be evaluated as a success of the programme, but it also may show that the selection of the indicators as well as their target values have not been sufficient throughout the programme.
In general designing the indicators to be able to measure the real cross-border impact both at the programme and individual projects level seems to be an important challenge, also for the present European Territorial Cooperation Programme.
Regardless of the indicators and the levels achieved, the programme has substantially stimulated cooperation between neighbouring regions in both countries. This is also confirmed by the very high number of applications within the present ETC Programme.
R20090284.doc 3 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
1 RESEARCH INTEREST AND METHODOLOGY
The scope of research is specifically determined by the terms of reference for the Ex-post Evaluation for INTERREG III and the method proposed in the Inception Report. In this pilot evaluation we strictly follow the terms of reference and the corresponding methodology.
1.1. OUTLINE AND CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF THE PROGRAMME
The area in which the programme was implemented comprised 5 regions on the Czech side and 4 regions on the Polish side. While on the Czech side NUTS III regions were identical to the regions in terms of the country’s administrative division, in Poland they covered parts of two voivodeships: Dolnośląskie and Śląskie and the entire Opolskie voivodeship. As a result, the capitals of the 2 regions and the seats of the relevant authorities (Marshal Office - urząd marszałkowski – self-governing authority and Voivodeship Office - urząd wojewódzki – state administration) remained outside the area eligible for support under the Initiative Interreg IIIA Poland – Czech Republic.
The qualification area included: − 5 administrative regions NUTS III (kraj) on the Czech side: Liberecký region, Královéhradecký region, Pardubický region, Olomoucký region, Moravskoslezský region; − 4 NUTS III regions on the Polish side: Jeleniogórsko – Wałbrzyski, Opolski, Rybnicko – Jastrzębski, Bielsko – Bialski. These 4 NUTS III regions belonged to 3 administrative regions mentioned before (Dolnośląskie, Opolskie, Śląskie).
The global objective of the programme was the improvement of the quality of living conditions and standards in the cross-border areas concerned through common actions of societies and organisations from both sides of the border.
The specific objectives on the priority level included: − Increasing economic integration of the Czech-Polish border; − Improving conditions for economic growth of the cross-border area; − Improving conditions for sustainable environmental development and/or regeneration of the cross- border area; − Further social integration of the Czech-Polish border
The programme comprised three priorities: further development and modernisation of the infrastructure to improve the competitiveness of the cross-border area, development of local society in the cross- border area and technical assistance.
Structural interventions in the context of the programme were co-financed, up to a maximum of 75% of the eligible cost of a project.
The budget of the programme in a breakdown into respective measures was as follows:
R20090284.doc 4 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Table 1.1 Financial allocation Total eligible Share of expenditures Total public priority/measure (euro) spending ERDF (%) in overall budget 1. Further development and modernisation of infrastructure 30,307,556 30,307,556 22,730,666 65,9% 1.1: Supporting development of infrastructure of cross- border importance 14,152,699 14,152 699 30,8% 30,8% 1.2:Development of environmental protection and anti-flood infrastructure 6,299,591 6,299,591 13,7% 13,7% 1.3:Development of business- related and tourist infrastructure 9,855,266 9,855,266 21,4% 21,4% 2. Development of local communities in the cross- border region 13,341,141 13,341,141 10,005,855 29,0%
2.1: Development of tourism 3,183,900 3,183,900 6,9% 6,9% 2.2: Supporting local initiatives (micro-projects) 6, 900,591 6,900,591 15,0% 15,0% 2.3: Development and support for cross-border organisational structures and networks 3,256,650 3,256,650 7,1% 7,1%
3. Technical assistance 2,355,235 2,355,235 1,766,426 5,1% 3.1: Management, implementation, monitoring and control 1,646,595 1,646,595 3,6% 3,6% 3.2: Promotion and evaluation of the programme 708,640 708,640 1,5% 1,5%
Total 46,003,932 46,003,932 34,502,947
The size of the budget placed the programme among the programmes with medium-sized budgets.
The budget focused mainly on Priority 1 for which two-thirds of the overall budget of the programme was allocated. It involved mostly infrastructure investments.
1.2. THE FINANCIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME
The Terms of Reference, which the preparation of this evaluation is based on, assumed an in-depth evaluation, concerning the financial aspects of the programme. In line with these assumptions the study aimed at exploring areas covered by the planned and actually disbursed expenses and also to what extent the structure of expenditure within the framework of a particular programme corresponds to (or differs from) the expenditure under all Interreg programmes, programmes within a particular strand and cluster.
The study was prepared based on codes of intervention on a 3-digit level. The data for evaluation purposes was provided by the European Commission.
The objective of the analysis was to indicate differences between the planned and actually disbursed expenses, to explain the underlying causes and to compare the distribution of expenses against the assumed priorities of the programme.
The financial analysis according to codes of intervention was discussed in detail with the representatives of the Managing Authority (JTS was not really responsible for financial management; hence, its
R20090284.doc 5 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
representatives address this matter to a limited extent only). The representatives of the Managing Authority drew attention to several important elements: − data provided by the European Commission contains information about the division of the expenses as assumed primarily according to codes of intervention based on Programme Complement. However, the programme Complement did not contain such data, therefore, it is unclear who made such a division and on what criteria the decision was based. The representatives of both the MA and the JTS were not able to provide an explanation as to where such data came from; − data regarding expenses at the disposal of the Managing Authority differ very significantly from data available to the European Commission. Representatives of the Managing Authority had considerable doubts with regard to the data provided by Brussels. In the further parts of the study we shall try to indicate the basic differences in data; however, for obvious reasons (data comparability) we have founded our study on the data provided by the European Commission; − attention was drawn to the fact that in the data of the European Commission certain codes of intervention have identical expenses with exactness of up to one euro cent, which naturally raises doubts with regard to the reliability of such data (this applies - for instance - to codes of intervention 163, 164, 171, or 341, 343, 344 and 345); − representatives of the Managing Authority (as well as of the National Authority) also pointed out that the division of expenses according to codes of intervention (such information was included, among others, in subsequent annual reports) was of no material importance for them and the codes of intervention did not really serve the purpose of financial analyses.
In general there should not be any discrepancies in classifying expenses under various codes of intervention. Every project was classified under one or more codes of intervention; if more than one code was used all the expenditures were broken down into 2 (3, 4 etc.) equal parts. It should also be emphasized that all the expenditures under the micro-projects component (measure 2.2.) were classified under the code 172 (non-physical investments).
Within the framework of the programmes financed under the Community Initiative Interreg, expenses were qualified under 94 codes of intervention. A majority of expenses (for all the Interreg programmes) were qualified in codes 413 and 414 (technical assistance, e.g. monitoring, studies, evaluation) 312 (roads) 130 (rural areas development) 131 (encouragement of tourist activities) 172 (non-physical investments (development and provision of tourist services, sporting, cultural and leisure activities, heritage) 323 (services and applications for the citizen - health, administration, education). In general the structure of the codes of intervention involving the greatest number of programmes was relatively similar: the following codes appeared in most programmes: 130, 230, 172, 411, 412, 413, 220 and 173.
Below we present the analysis of expenditure within the Community Initiative Interreg IIIA Poland – Czech Republic Programme according to the codes of intervention, compared to expenditure within the Interreg Programme, strand A and the cluster that included the project concerned. In the third column we present the data received from the Managing Authority. The range of differences is of such size (e.g. for the codes 163, 171, 172, 174, 318) that the whole analysis included in this chapter (based mostly on the date provided by the EC) can be seriously questioned.
R20090284.doc 6 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Table 1.2 Analysis of Expenditure within the Community Initiative Interreg IIIA Poland – Czech Republic Programme Interreg PL-CZ Interreg PL-CZ CI Interreg CI Interreg 2007 - cluster2 data from the data from the Strand A European Managing Commission Authority1 163. Business advisory services 4.59% 0,18% 2.09% 2.61% 1.07% technology) 164. Shared 4.59% 0,00% 1.85% 2.20% 1.33% business services 171. Physical 4.59% 20,31% 1.86% 2.49% 2.94% investment 172. Non-physical 4.92% 15,85% 2.60% 3.37% 5.30% investments 173. Shared services for the 4.92% 3,05% 1.74% 1.96% 1.14% tourism industry 174. Vocational 4.98% 0,17% 0.81% 0.72% 1.05% training 182. Innovation 10.94% 5,96% 2.01% 1.97% 1.84% and technology 210. Labour 3.25% 0,81% 0.96% 1.25% 0.57% market Policy 312. Roads 25.61% 31,62% 5.55% 7.64% 7.12% 318. Multimodal 8.54% 1,90% 1.03% 1.08% 3.20% Transport 324. Services and applications for 4.59% 0,60% 1.63% 2.07% 1.38% SMEs 341. Air 3.61% 0,00%3 0.23% 0.24% 0.53% 343. Urban and 3.61% 6,08% 1.41% 1.93% 6.55% industrial waste 344. Drinking 3.61% 2,96% 1.41% 1.72% 0.85% water 345. Sewerage 3.61% 5,53% 1.05% 1.42% 1.05% and purification 411. Preparation, implementation, 2.79% 3,65% 2.04% 1.82% 1.55% monitoring, publicity 412. Evaluation 0.42% 0,41% 0.32% 0.28% 0.25% 413. Studies 0.42% 0,40% 6.05% 4.00% 6.71% 414. Innovative 0.43% 0,04% 7.61% 1.08% 3.48% actions 415. Information - 0,45% - - - to the public
Analysing the numbers and types of codes of intervention for the programme in question, certain significant differences with the all Interreg programme, the strand A and the cluster may be indicated.
Expenditure under the programme involves 19 codes of intervention, which proves a relatively considerable level of concentration.
Ranking first are expenses allocated for roads (code of intervention 312) accounting for over 25% of the entire programme. While the importance of the code within the framework of all programmes is also high such a high share of road investments is specific for the analysed programme. It is almost five times greater than for the entire Interreg III and more than three times greater than for strand A and the
1 These data present all the expenditures at the end of the programme, before the final certification, so minor corrections are still possible. 2 The cluster to which the Czech Republic – Poland Programme belongs included the following programmes: D-PL - Saxony- Poland, D-CZ - Saxony-Czech Rep., Italy-Slovenia, D-DK - Fyn-KERN, Spain-Morocco, FIN-RUS Karelia, Gibraltar - Morocco (UK) Italy-Albania, Italy-Adriatics, Czech Republic-Poland, Poland-Slovakia, Poland-Ukraine-Belarus, Lithuania-Poland-Russia, Hungary-Slovakia-Ukraine, Hungary-Romania-Serbia & Montenegro, Slovenia-Hungary-Croatia 3 At least this difference can be easily explained. One of the projects has been incorrectly coded under this code, while in fact there were no such expenditures.
R20090284.doc 7 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
analysed cluster. This may be attributable to the specificity of the Polish and Czech borderland (mainly highlands, substantial underdevelopment in road investments) and the preferences of the authors of the programme (considerable impact of regional authority representatives on its development may have led to the preference of infrastructural projects).
Another crucial difference concerns expenses under code 413. In this case, the share of expenditure in the studied programme is much lower than for the entire Programme but also for strand A. What is interesting is that significant differences also occur with regard to the cluster. Expenses within this code are 15 times smaller than in the case of the reference group. This may be simply another side of the same phenomenon – concentration on infrastructural expenses. There is a possibility, that in some cases studies were classified under another code (like 182); it is quite difficult, however, to check if it is true or not. One should remember, however, that these expenditures are within the technical assistance budget, which has slightly different characteristics than the other Programme expenditures.
Another interesting observation regards expenses under code 182 Innovation and technology transfers, establishment of networks and partnerships between businesses and/or research institutes. These expenses are more than five times greater than in the case of the programme, strand and cluster. This observation requires careful analysis as it remains in certain conflict with the tendency described earlier. The situation may be explained in two ways. Relatively high expenses in this category could have been influenced by the projects of cooperation between the universities of both countries (including one described in further sections of this report). Moreover, as it was presented in the expenditures table, within this particular code of intervention there are also substantial differences between data obtained from the European Commission and those available to the Managing Authority.
A similar situation may apply to the code of intervention 318 (multimodal transport). According to data it ranks second in terms of importance (accounting for as much as 8.5% of overall expenses) which is (even if not to such a high extent) characteristic for the entire cluster, whereas the data obtained from the MA differs significantly from the data provided by the Commission.
The cluster to which the studied programme belongs has relatively high expenses within the code of intervention 343 (urban and industrial waste). This is partially reflected by the programme that is studied, despite the fact that the share of these expenses is almost twice as low (for the EC data) than for the entire cluster.
Below is an analysis of the programme’s expenditure according to codes can be seen, taking into account priority areas in accordance with the Lisbon Strategy4.
4 Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006, Annex IV
R20090284.doc 8 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Figure 1.1 Analysis of the programme’s Expenditure According to Codes
12,00%
10,00%
Expenditure 8,00% share Programme
6,00%
Expenditure 4,00% share Interreg
2,00%
0,00% 164 Shared business 182. Innovation and 210. Labour market 318. Multimodal 324. Services and services technology transfers policy Transport applications for SMEs
The number of codes of intervention corresponding to priority areas wherein the disbursements under the programme were made is rather limited. In areas that have been addressed by the programme, the share of expenditure surpassed the average for the entire Interreg Initiative many times (as is the case with codes 182 or 318). It should be noted that particularly in these areas there are serious doubts as to the reliability of data in a breakdown into codes of intervention. The data made available by the Managing Authority indicated that real expenditures, at least for codes 182, 210 and 318, was considerably lower than shown by the presented data.
If the data provided by the MA are correct it means that the expenditures on the Lisbon related themes are very small, almost minimal. This would be in line with the opinions of the Managing Authority. According to them what the region mostly needs is support for infrastructure, rather than the support in the Lisbon priority areas. This might also be related to the quite ambiguous position of the Czech Government on the Lisbon Strategy. We were trying to investigate this, but since the problem seems politically quite sensitive, it was not successful.
In the following table we also present the intensity and gap measures, in comparison with all the Interreg programmes.
R20090284.doc 9 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Table 1.3 Intensity and Gap Measures, in Comparison with all the Interreg Programmes Interreg Absorption Intensity Gap PL-CZ CI Interreg Expenditures Actual rate measure measure Absorption share of share of planned (PL- expenditures Interreg rate (PL-CZ) expendit expenditures CZ) (PL-CZ) ures 163. Business advisory services 4.59% 2.09% 1 478 290 1 478 759 100,03% 75,94% 219,62% 131,72% technology) 164. Shared 4.59% 1.85% 1 478 290 1 478 759 100,03% 72,00% 248,11% 138,93% business services 171. Physical 4.59% 1.86% 1 478 290 1 478 759 100,03% 84,58% 246,77% 118,27% investment 172. Non-physical 4.92% 2.60% 2 081 876 1 587 403 76,25% 74,79% 189,23% 101,95% investments 173. Shared services for the 4.92% 1.74% 2 081 876 1 587 403 76,25% 72,17% 282,76% 105,65% tourism industry 174. Vocational 4.98% 0.81% 2 105 755 1 605 214 76,23% 81,39% 614,81% 93,66% training 182. Innovation 10.94% 2.01% 3 993 394 3 525 521 88,28% 77,67% 544,28% 113,67% and technology 210. Labour 3.25% 0.96% 1 221 244 1 047 099 85,74% 76,99% 338,54% 111,37% market Policy 312. Roads 25.61% 5.55% 7 960 893 8 255 972 103,71% 82,28% 461,44% 126,04% 318. Multimodal 8.54% 1.03% 2 653 631 2 751 991 103,71% 82,93% 829,13% 125,05% Transport 324. Services and applications for 4.59% 1.63% 1 478 290 1 478 759 100,03% 76,14% 281,60% 131,38% SMEs 341. Air 3.61% 0.23% 1 181 173 1 162 815 98,45% 85,79% 1 569,57% 114,75% 343. Urban and 3.61% 1.41% 1 181 173 1 162 815 98,45% 89,26% 256,03% 110,29% industrial waste 344. Drinking 3.61% 1.41% 1 181 173 1 162 815 98,45% 83,47% 256,03% 117,94% water 345. Sewerage 3.61% 1.05% 1 181 173 1 162 815 98,45% 82,77% 343,81% 118,94% and purification 411. Preparation, implementation, 2.79% 2.04% 1 234 946 897 753 72,70% 65,15% 136,76% 111,58% monitoring, publicity 412. Evaluation 0.42% 0.32% 175 388 134 976 76,96% 60,61% 131,25% 126,97% 413. Studies 0.42% 6.05% 175 388 134 976 76,96% 78,46% 6,94% 98,09% 414. Innovative 0.43% 7.61% 180 703 139 066 76,96% 75,00% 5,65% 102,61% actions
This table contains a lot of interesting data on the programme:
− The absorption rate on almost all the codes of intervention is very high in comparison with the data on the whole Interreg. Only for 2 of the codes (vocational training and studies) the gap measure is below 100%. − There are a large number of codes in which the intensity measure is very high. Actually it is higher (and usually much higher) than for the whole Interreg for almost all the codes except 2 (studies and innovative actions). − The highest intensity measure is for code 314 - air (almost 1,570%). According to the representatives of the MA and JTS this is an error, caused by the wrong attribution of the code of intervention to the particular project, since there were no projects in this area. − Relatively high intensity measures exist also for codes 318 (multimodal transport) 174 (vocational training) 182 (innovation and technology) and 312 (roads). Of these codes it is quite easy to explain only the two last codes. In terms of roads the programme was very concentrated on infrastructure and roads infrastructure played an important part thereof. In terms of innovation and technology there were quite a lot of cooperation projects between universities as well as some other research projects. It is also possible that the expenditures under this code were overrepresented since some of the projects classified under this code should be classified elsewhere (such as the television
R20090284.doc 10 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
cooperation project described later or the cooperation between sport schools). The very high intensity of codes 318 and 174 is very difficult to explain – in these areas the MA data are quite different. − The very low intensity regards only 2 codes – 413 (studies) and 414 (innovative actions). It is quite possible, that some expenditures of these types could have been classified under the code 182. This can also be explained by the concentration of the programme on infrastructure.
1.3. DYNAMIC FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The programme was implemented within a relatively short time; therefore, the financial analysis of the distribution of expenditure is moderately helpful.
The programme was actually launched in 2005 after quite a long approval process by the European Commission. In January 2005 the first meeting of the Monitoring Committee was held, during which the Programme Complement was adopted. The first applications were submitted in spring 2005; the first meeting of the Steering Committee was convened on 20-21 June 2005. During the programme, 3 meetings of the Steering Committee and 6 meetings of the Monitoring Committee were held. In addition, the circuit procedure was applied frequently for both committees, when making decisions of minor importance.
Presented below is the rhythm in which the funds under the programme were made available. As shown, the bulk of expenses was incurred and certified in 2007. In general, there were no problems as regards the pace of funds distribution and spending under the programme. Certain delays (mentioned earlier) occurred in the second half of 2005 on the Polish side and related to a rather substantial postponement (5-6 months) in signing contracts with applicants. These delays may be attributed to imprecise organisational solutions and formal uncertainties, concerning the method of transfer of resources, contract signing and the form and content of contracts as well as the division of tasks between the respective institutions under the programme. These delays also stemmed from the fact that voivodeship offices, which were supposed to play a key role in the process on the Polish side, were involved in the entire process at a relatively late stage. In the later stages of implementation the process of signing the contracts was quick and no substantial delays occurred.
R20090284.doc 11 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Figure 1.2 Financial Implementation of the Programme
40 000 000 90,0%
35 000 000 80,0%
70,0% 30 000 000
60,0% 25 000 000 50,0% 20 000 000 40,0% 15 000 000 30,0%
10 000 000 20,0%
5 000 000 10,0%
0,00 0,0% 2005 2006 2007 2008
The progress of expenditures by measures (without technical assistance) presented below, shows a little diversity. In general the progress expenditures within the infrastructure related measures was a little quicker than in the other measures. For the measure with the highest budget (1.1) all the money was spent in 2006 and 2007.
Figure 1.3 Progress of Expenditures by Measures (without technical assistance
Share of expenditures in particular years by measure
10 000 000
9 000 000 8 000 000 7 000 000 6 000 000 2008 2007 5 000 000 2006 4 000 000 2005 3 000 000 2 000 000 1 000 000 0 1.1. General 1.2. 1.3. Business and 2.1. Tourism 2.2.Microprojects 2.3. Cross border (mostly roads) Environmental and tourism development structures and Infrastructure anti-flood infrastructure networks development infrastructure
R20090284.doc 12 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
The most important findings in the area of general description and financial implementation of the programme can be summarized as follows:
− Almost one quarter of all expenditure was made within code 312 (roads). Ranking as second were expenses under code 182 (innovation and technology). Substantial expenditure was also made under codes 174 (vocational training) 172 (non-physical investments) and 173 (shared services for the tourism industry).The data provided by the Managing Authority differs substantially from the data available from the EC. − The programme had a higher intensity of expenditures across almost all the codes of intervention except 412 (studies) and 413 (innovative actions). − The analysis of differences between the amounts planned and those actually disbursed is difficult since such differences largely arise from currency exchange differences which – particularly at the end of the expenditure period – could have significant impact. − The structure of expenses within the framework of the programme clearly differs between the structure for Interreg and for the cluster to which the programme in question belonged. Expenditure on road investments, innovations and technology transfer and multimodal transport are above average, whereas e is expenditure on studies or innovative actions is far below average. − The structure of planned expenditure reflects the demand. In general, there were no problems regarding the disbursement of the planned funds. The budgetary changes related to the shift of funds under technical assistance to support the implementation of projects and minor shifts within the priorities. − Given the fact, that majority of money was spent within just 2 years (2006 and 2007) it is difficult to analyse the dynamic patterns of expenditures. In general, however, the money within infrastructure related measures was spent slightly faster than the money for the other measures. − The dynamic financial analysis is very difficult, owing to the short period of implementation of the programme. The differences between the measures however, can be explained by the higher complexity of projects implemented within Priority 2, which required longer preparation time.
R20090284.doc 13 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
2 PLANNED RESULTS, ACHIEVEMENT RATES AT MEASURE LEVEL AND TREND PATTERNS
This chapter presents the planned and achieved results of the programme. The achieved values are based on the 2007 annual report; therefore it is possible that the final values shall be somewhat higher.
The indicators are founded on the level of priorities and respective measures. Two indicators have been specified for the entire programme: the intensity of cross-border co-operation measured by number of projects planned/prepared in co-operation and number of projects jointly realised and the intensity of cross-border impact measured by number of projects contributing to the development of cross-border networks. Owing to the fact that the final report on the programme has not been completed yet, there is no final information on the achieved values.
The indicators have been specified for the respective priorities (for Priority 3 Technical Assistance indicators are of qualitative character; due to the specificity of the priority they are omitted in the further part of the study). It is worth emphasizing that the definition of project also includes a micro-project, although the entire micro-projects fund of the given Euroregion was called a “project” and evaluated as a project by the Steering Committee.
The table below presents the achieved levels of indicators for respective priorities.
Table 2.1 Achieved Levels of Indicators for Respective Priorities Priority 1 Value achieved in case of Value of indicator as Type of projects Monitoring indicators Target value achieved vs. value indicator completed by assumed the end of 2007 Number of infrastructure projects 10 28 280% planned/prepared in co-operation Number of infrastructure projects jointly Impact 2 6 300% realised Number of projects contributing to the 1 8 800% development of cross-border networks Number of projects improving cross- border mobility, accessibility and 11 28 254% communication Number of projects aimed at environmental protection and flood 6 11 183% Output prevention Number of projects aimed at improvement of business-related 5 7 140% infrastructure Number of projects aimed at 9 13 144% improvement of tourism infrastructure
R20090284.doc 14 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Priority 2 Value achieved in case of Value of indicator as Type of projects Monitoring indicators Target value achieved vs. value indicator completed by assumed the end of 2007 Intensity of cooperation as regards development of local communities in the cross-border region Number of projects planned/prepared in 140 209 149% co-operation Impact Number of projects jointly realised 25 45 180% Intensity of cross-border impact Number of projects contributing to the 7 38 543% development of cross-border networks5 Number of projects aimed at 6 19 316% development and promotion of tourism Number of projects aimed at development of contacts between 250 867 347% Output communities Number of projects aimed at development of co-operation of 6 45 750% organisations
The indicators clearly indicate that the assumed values have been achieved in practically every case and surpassed, many times. This may point to several factors – the quality of programme performance and undervalued level of indicators as well as their questionable selection and definition. This method of defining indicators has certain advantages but also disadvantages. The advantage is the simplicity of calculation of achieved values: only the type of implemented projects must be analysed. However, there are certain limitations, in order to ensure that indicators adequately reflect the reality; a methodology must be prepared on how to qualify respective projects as contributing to the achievement. As far as we understand, such a methodology was not developed. In case of certain indicators, there should be no interpretation problems due to their clarity and unambiguousness (e.g. indicator “Number of projects aimed at environmental protection and flood prevention”) in case of others, this may prove more difficult. For instance, the indicator “Number of projects planned/prepared in cooperation” is subjective – the definition of a planned project can hardly, if at all, be subject to operationalisation. Just like “Number of projects aimed at development of contacts between communities” may include just about all implemented projects and micro-projects. However, as assumed this indicator was supposed to measure the number of micro-projects aimed at cooperation between local communities.
As far as we understand there was no widely accepted and used methodology developed on how to classify the individual project under the given category, thus, whether it contributes to the given indicator or not. Moreover, in general when the indicator is based on the “number of projects”, the small projects, which have a limited impact, contribute to it to the same extent as big projects with considerable impact.
The operational objectives of the entire programme are to some extent taken into consideration in the indicators on the level of priorities. The operational objectives of the programme were “Increasing economic integration of the Czech-Polish border, improving conditions for economic growth of the cross-
5 This indicator was interpreted as describing the new networks only, while almost the same indicator in Measure 2.2. was interpreted as concerning both new and existing networks.
R20090284.doc 15 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
border area, improving conditions for sustainable environmental development and/or regeneration of the cross-border area and further social integration of the Czech-Polish border”.
At the level of respective measures, a substantial number of indicators were defined. Similar to the level of priorities, their values were achieved and surpassed by far. However, in this particular case there were indicators that had not been achieved.
Compared to indicators at the level of measures, the same observations are true, as in the case of indicators for the level of priorities, i.e. relatively high subjectivity in their formulation.
Some of the analysed indicators additionally point to the absence of adequate studies in determining their target value. In many cases, they seem undervalued (or the determination of the achieved value is subjective, to a considerable extent). If the indicator “Number of individuals influenced by the developed common transport systems” exceeds the assumed value 332 times, then it is necessary to ask whether it was determined accurately and the achieved values measured correctly.
Below we present a graph including cumulated expenditures in 2007 and 2008 and the value of indicators reached (2007) broken down by measures. It clearly shows that: − The indicators mostly exceeded the target values in case of “soft project” (priority 2). The values achieved seem to prove, that the either the target values were based on not well thought out assumptions or the methodology of counting the values was not developed precisely enough. − The expenditures broken down by measures show that within the infrastructure measures (priority 1) the spending was much faster, than in priority 2 and final spending equalled or even exceeded the available budget. It should be emphasised, however, that both under and over spending in some cases are a result of currency rate fluctuations. − There is no relation between the amount of expenditures and indicators value; actually there is even an almost negative correlation between the indicators and actual expenditures.
Figure 2.1 Cumulated Expenditures in 2007 and 2008 and the Value of Indicators Reached (2007) Broken Down by Measures
1200% 1087%
1000% Average value of the product indicator - 2007 800%
Share of 600% 562% expenditures (ERDF) vs. assumed expenses - 2007 400% 295% Share of 212% expenditures 200% 171% (ERDF) vs. 118% assumed expenses 89%104% 98% 98% 100% 86% 65% 75% 77% 52% - 2008 40% 37% 0% 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3.
Below we present the data on all the indicators on the level of measures.
R20090284.doc 16 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Table 2.2 Indicator at the measure level Measure Indicator Indicator Assumed Achieved % Average % level level level performance performance for the entire group Measure 1.1 Supporting Number of projects aimed at construction/re-construction output 6 17 283% development of cross-border and border road connections infrastructure of cross- Number of projects aimed at development of common output 2 5 250% border importance transportation systems (including multi-mode centres) Number of projects aimed at restoration of former border output 1 1 100% 171% and customs control buildings and their adaptation to new function Number of projects aimed at construction/re-construction of output 2 1 50% cross-border information and communication networks Length of constructed/re-constructed cross-border and result 10,000 m 51,301 m 513% border road connections 606% Number of developed cross-border and border road result 5 35 700% connections between counties Number of people influenced by the developed/re- impact 2,000 60,086 3,000% developed cross-border information and communication networks Number of people influenced by the developed common impact 3,000 996,094 33,203% 9 201% transportation systems Number of jointly planned projects impact 4 12 300% Number of jointly realized projects impact 1 3 300% Measure 1.2 Development Number of projects aimed at development of common output 1 4 400% of environmental protection systems for waste liquidation and anti-flood infrastructure Number of projects aimed at construction/re-construction of output 2 3 150% a sewage treatment plant 212% Number of projects aimed at counteracting floods output 2 6 300% Number of projects aimed at restoration of degraded output 1 0 0% industrial areas Number of commonly utilized sewage treatment plants result 1 2 200% 100% Surface of restored industrial areas that were degraded result 5,000 m2 0 0% Number of constructed/re-constructed sewage treatment result 1 6 600% plants Number of plans/development studies regarding result 2 1 50% environmental infrastructure 3 603% Number of inhabitants influenced by actions aimed at impact 20,000 2,693,029 13,465% counteracting floods Number of jointly planned projects impact 2 6 300% Measure 1.3 Development Number of projects aimed at modernisation of output 2 3 150% 118% of business-related and objects/buildings intended for business purposes tourist infrastructure output 2 1 50% Number of projects aimed at establishing/development of cross-border information & advisory centres and incubators
R20090284.doc 17 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Measure Indicator Indicator Assumed Achieved % Average % level level level performance performance for the entire group for SMEs Number of projects aimed at establishing/modernisation of output 3 3 100% cross-border communication systems regarding business and tourism Number of projects aimed at construction/modernisation of output 7 12 171% tourist facilities Surface of modernized business facilities/buildings result 1,500 m2 4,086 m2 272% Surface of objects developed for newly established result 0 0% 120 m2 enterprises Length of constructed/modernized tourist and horse-riding, result 20,000 m 60,532 m 303% 144% bicycle and skiing routes Number of cross-border information & advisory centres result 0 0 2 established for SMEs Number of SMEs benefiting from assistance of cross-border Impact 200 165 82% advisory centres Number of enterprises located in built/modernized facilities impact 4 11 275% - number of jointly planned projects impact 6 11 183% 188% - number of jointly realized projects impact 1 3 300% - number of projects supporting the development of cross- impact 1 1 100% border networks Measure 2.1 Development Number of projects aimed at development of common output 2 3 150% 1 087% of tourism places with Internet access/interactive database of tourist facilities and attractions Number of projects aimed at common advertising, output 1 27 2,700% promotional and marketing campaigns as regards tourism Number of projects aimed at development of studies, output 1 5 500% strategies and analyses for the protection and promotion of natural and cultural heritage of the region Number of projects aimed at development of new output 1 10 1,000% integrated products and cultural & tourist services Number of projects aimed at establishment of common result 1 2 200% 1137% tourist information centres Number of established joint tourist information centres result 2 2 100% Number of developed new integrated tourist result 1 41 4,100% products/services Number of places established with Internet access and result 2 3 150% interactive databases for tourists Number of accomplished promotional activities Impact 2 129 6,450% 1 870% Number of developed studies/analyses/strategies as impact 1 5 500% regards tourism - Number of jointly planned projects impact 6 16 266%
R20090284.doc 18 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Measure Indicator Indicator Assumed Achieved % Average % level level level performance performance for the entire group - Number of jointly realized projects impact 3 8 266% Measure 2.2 Development Number of projects aimed at joint cultural events output 70 289 413% 295% of tourism Number of projects aimed at joint educational activities output 35 110 314% Number of projects aimed at joint sports events output 45 143 317% Number of projects aimed at joint action with regard to output 25 34 136% environmental protection and land planning Number of projects aimed at organisation of conferences, result 25 187 748% 446% seminars and workshops Number of projects aimed at organisation of joint result 20 22 110% exhibitions Number of projects aimed at development of studies, result 30 82 273% strategies and plans Number of joint cultural and sports events and educational result 150 979 653% activities Number of joint activities in relation to environmental Impact 25 17 68% 2257% protection and land planning Number of organized exhibitions impact 20 17 85% Number of organized conferences, seminars and workshops impact 25 378 1,512% Number of studies, strategies and plans impact 30 44 146% Number of persons involved in local initiatives impact 15,000 845,526 5,636% - number of jointly planned projects impact 128 426 333% - number of jointly realized projects impact 16 66 412% Number of institutions, organisations and enterprises impact 120 2,194 1,828% involved in local initiatives Number of projects supporting the development of cross- impact 1 103 10,300% border networks Measure 2.3 - Development Number of projects aimed at development of joint output 1 9 900% 562% and support for cross-border cooperation networks as regards business initiatives organisational structures Number of projects aimed at establishing cooperation output 2 19 950% and networks between universities, research institutions and SMEs
Number of projects aimed at regular cross-border output 1 2 200% cooperation in employment Number of projects aimed at establishing partnership output 1 2 200% between rescue services Number of projects aimed at development of cooperation result 1 3 300% 1337% and exchange of information between Czech and Polish media Number of developed joint projects in education, research result 2 25 1,250% and science Number of established partnerships between organisations result 2 52 2,600% and institutions
R20090284.doc 19 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Measure Indicator Indicator Assumed Achieved % Average % level level level performance performance for the entire group Number of established partnerships between Czech and result 1 12 1,200% Polish media Number of students participating in the established Czech – Impact 80 8,506 10,632% 2057% Polish educational programmes Number of institutions and organisations included in the impact 15 77 513% cross-border networks and structures Number of collaborating Czech and Polish media impact 2 14 700% Number of jointly planned projects impact 6 17 283%` Number of jointly realized projects impact 6 7 117% Number of projects supporting the development of cross- impact 6 6 100% border networks
R20090284.doc 20 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
2.1 REVIEWING THE PROGRAMMING QUALITY AND THE PROGRAMME RELEVANCE ON THE BASIS OF THE RESULTS ACHIEVED
Due to a limited period of implementation of the programme and the fact that it had not yet been subject to mid-term evaluation, only limited data are available for the purpose of reviewing programming quality and verifying relevance of the adopted assumptions.
Given that the programme was implemented in areas wherein support was earlier available under pre- accession programmes (Phare CREDO and Phare Cross Border Cooperation) the adopted direction of measures was based on the experience of the previous programmes. For the development of the programme a special task force was appointed composed of representatives of the respective regions and Euroregions as well as other stakeholders. The task force was made up especially of representatives of local authorities and governmental administration. That fact could have a major impact upon the shape of the programme and the adopted priorities.
According to the information from Managing Authority, no larger controversies arose during the work of the task force. Priority topics with regard to the directions of support were obvious to all: development of cross border passes, development and modernisation of roads, activities aimed at improving the condition of environment, mainly through the protection of water (development of sewage and sewage treatment plants) activity aimed at ensuring the collection and destruction of waste, integration of the action of rescue forces on both sides of the border (fires and floods). At the same time, mental preconceptions were considered a vital barrier – changing the way how people on the other side of the border are perceived and encouraging cooperation seemed absolutely crucial. As emphasized by many respondents, the border is still alive in people’s minds. Consequently, a decision was made to allocate comparatively substantial funds for the micro-projects’ component. It is those minor “soft” projects that should help overcome these barriers most effectively.
The needs assessment and SWOT analysis were based on the knowledge and experience of members of the task force and on the analyses performed on both sides of the border by consulting companies contracted for this purpose.
Below we present the strengths and weaknesses described in the SWOT analysis:
Economy: sufficient raw material basis and varied structure of industrial branches, well-developed tourist, recreation and spa facilities with numerous natural and cultural attractions, location between strong economic centres vs. negative profile of economy (declining heavy industry, obsolete technologies) and large share of agriculture in some areas (Polish part) insufficient preparation of plots convenient for economic activities and information for investors, unsatisfactory basis for research and development, insufficient support of SMEs, lack of capital for industry, commerce and services, insufficient promotion of cross-border tourism, tourist attractions and infrastructure requiring investments. Environment: improving air quality, existence of specially protected areas, national parks, nature reserves, sustainable agriculture and revitalisation of forest ecosystems vs. disintegrated ecosystems in the mountains, forests, insufficient anti-flood and anti-erosion protection and monitoring of natural INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
disasters, insensitive interventions into land and locations during the construction and operation of mining facilities (Czech side) insufficient measures for revitalisation of landscape. Employment and education: good quality of secondary and higher education system, low cost of labour vs. unemployment rates above the national averages and a decrease in the number of new jobs, unsuitable specialisation of secondary vocational schools and apprentice training schools, inappropriate re-qualification system. Infrastructure: favourable location - crossroads of European TEN corridors VI and III, proximity of airports, dense transportation network, numerous border crossing points vs. mountainous character making the development of technical infrastructure difficult, bad state of existing communication networks, with some connections missing with border crossings, problems with accessibility of small villages in the mountains in peripheral areas, insufficient number of terminals for combined transport Population: neighbourhood with the partner of similar features, objectives and close language vs. negative natural growth and net migration balance in many areas, a decrease in the population (particularly a decrease in young people) of village and peripheral areas, increasing number of socially non-adaptable citizens.
Strategy of the programme reflects the main elements emphasized in the SWOT analysis quite well. Elements, which do not seem to be reflected well enough in the strategy, include activities related to the situation on the labour market (high unemployment rate) and – to a smaller extent – concrete actions aimed at SME support.
Table 2.3 Overview: the quality of intervention logic Criterion / scoring Excellent Sufficient poor Data use and analysis The analyses and data adequately describe the specificity of the regions covered by the programme; however, in some cases the data provided could be more detailed. Focus The analyses focus on areas covered by the programme; however, in some areas they are not specific enough. Clear conclusions The analysis does not result in any clear conclusions as regards optimal directions of support. Quality and logic of the SWOT analysis is rather SWOT analysis basic and concise, though it correctly relates to the present and future situation of the region. Consistency of the The strategy refers to a large programme strategy part of the elements indicated in SWOT analysis. To little extent it addresses the social exclusion problem and the worsening condition of public transport. Determination of programme The breakdown into measures measures and their scope is relatively clear. Minor doubts relate to the division between measure 1.3 and 2.1 (Provision of business and tourism related infrastructure and tourism development)
R20090282.doc 22 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
The Community Initiative INTERREG was implemented at the Polish – Czech border for the first time, whilst cross-border cooperation programmes had been implemented earlier on the same boundary, financed under PHARE Programme. Consequently, while promoting the programme, attention was paid to differences between the present initiative and the earlier programmes, as well as adequate qualifications of potential applicants obtained through numerous training events and informational meetings.
A decision was made not to apply the lead partner principle during the programme. On one side concerns were voiced that the organisational and administrational structures of both countries were not prepared to do so. Differences were pointed out in legal systems, in particular the administration law and public finances law. Another problem was posed by provisions on public procurement, in both countries; they are intricate and vary significantly in several key areas. The initial experience of the European Territorial Cooperation Objective 3 programme proves that unfortunately these concerns were justified, at least in part. On the other hand, attention was also paid to the fact that the partners had not been prepared to work hand in hand within such a system. The lead partner principle enforces trust and confidence towards the partner on the other side of the border. In such a situation different rules of project management and a different approach to the projects on both sides of the border was another threat (Polish control officers were generally regarded as more strict). It should be borne in mind that also because of the absence of the said principle; projects of a varied cross-border impact were undertaken.
As the lead partner principle was not applied, the projects were classified into 3 types:
Joint projects: A joint project was prepared and implemented by partners from Poland and the Czech Republic. To ensure co-financing of the projects under ERDF funds for each partner, each of them was required to file a separate application to carry out a part of the joint project on that particular side of the border. These two projects were referred to as twinning-projects, in which measures undertaken on both sides of the border complemented each other.
Such projects were prepared jointly with the partner on the other side of the border and envisaged – to a large extent – common and concurrent performance of the activities. Such projects, if they fulfilled formal criteria, were evaluated and considered on a joint basis. Upon approval of the projects by the Steering Committee (both projects were evaluated at the same meeting of the Steering Committee) separate contracts were signed with beneficiaries from Poland and the Czech Republic. The cross-border character of such projects was expected to manifest in the joint preparation and implementation of the project with the contribution of the partner on the other side of the border.
Complementary projects: Complementary projects were developed in cooperation with the Czech partner and assumed the accomplishment of complementary activities on both sides of the border. Such activities did not necessarily have to be undertaken at the same time. Separate applications were filed with JTS. Such projects could be complementary to the projects that were already implemented.
Individual projects: Such projects were prepared, submitted and financed by a partner from one country but featured clear cross-border impacts. In case of such projects a declaration of cooperation was required, signed by the partner from the each side of the border that was interested in the project. The number of each type of project submitted and awarded and their relative share, is presented further on in this report.
R20090282.doc 23 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
2.2 THE LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY AND EXPERIMENTATION ACHIEVED BY CO- OPERATION
With regard to the programme concerned, at times there is not enough information about the intentions of the programme’s developers. As, to a large extent (despite somewhat different organisational solutions, in particular concerning the implementation of the lead partner principle) institutions involved in Interreg IIIA Programme and the current programme (European Territorial Cooperation – Objective 3) are the same (MA, JTS and Euroregions). Respondents tended to “intermingle” elements of programmes, completed Interreg and the present programme, i.e. Objective 3. The Programme was also prepared quite a long time ago (5 years) so in many cases the key actors do not fully recollect the whole process.
The analysis of the indicators presented in the previous chapter clearly shows they have been exceeded considerably. However, both the representatives of MA and JTS are aware of the difficulty of assessing the actual quality of the performance with the use of the adopted indicators, especially as most of them do not refer to the quality of performance but to the number of projects of a respective type.
According to the respondents, the most important effects of the programme should manifest in the awareness of the communities on both sides of the border. These effects can be hardly measured, if at all.
The measurement of the cross-border impact of the implemented projects posed an important problem. It is possible that the actual cross-border impact of some projects was quite limited. Meticulous and comprehensive analysis, carried out mostly by JTS staff, of the level of cooperation and cross-border impact served as an element that was supposed to minimize the risk that financial support would be granted to a substantial group of projects of minor cross-border impact. However, such an analysis was naturally based on the information contained in the applications.
It is very hard to evaluate the actual cross-border impact of the accomplished projects. It seems that practically nobody has such information. According to the information obtained (at least for the Polish side) control procedures conducted upon completion of the projects focused chiefly on financial matters (the eligibility of expenditures) and legal matters (adequacy of public procurement tender procedure) and accomplishment of the assumed indicators (number of events organized, metres of roads built, etc.). In some cases the auditors were, to a limited extent, interested in the actual cross-border impact (naturally, if such an impact was not clear from the assumed indicators).
The whole programme – and to some extent also the projects – was to a very small (if any) extent aimed at experimentation. This fact was caused by the following reasons: − the concentration of the programme on infrastructure has not left too much room for experimentation; − the “culture” of the projects’ preparation and implementation in both countries which in most cases is concentrated on achieving tangible results, rather than on experimentation and learning effects; − the procedures of control of the implemented projects. Concentration on financial and legal issues, while not looking at the deeper results (like learning effect) in some cases led to the implementation of quite “safe” projects, characterised by the low risk of failure. INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Of course it is possible to identify some projects, which were experimental. Experimentation was more difficult in case of normal (large) projects, and easier for micro-projects, in which case (because of the limited size of those projects) the risk was relatively limited.
Given the limited scope of this evaluation and the much dispersed information on the results of the projects’ implementation it is quite difficult to identify and describe the projects which contained a high experimentational component. In general experimentation was not the main goal of the programme and the number of such projects was probably very limited. This may also be influenced by the approach of the state administration in both countries which placed a strong emphasis on the formal side of project implementation (achieving the assumed targets etc.). The persons interviewed were not able to provide a good example of a project that was characterised by a high level of experimentation. We can, however, provide some examples of projects that have a substantial learning effect: − One of the projects described below as one of the 5 examples (“Enjoy Cieszyn”) had a substantial learning effect for the network of partners and especially the City of Cieszyn. The project was quite successful in terms of achievement of its goals but unfortunately during the project implementation there were several formal mistakes and inaccuracies which resulted in a decision being made by the supervising institution (Urząd Wojewódzki in Katowice) not to reimburse the project expenditures. This painful experience was very important for the project partners. They learnt how important the correct financial management of a project is, as well as the profound control of the formal aspect of project’s implementation. This experience is being used in the currently implemented project within the European Territorial Cooperation Objective 3 programme. − The measure within which the level of experimentation was probably relatively high, was the Measure 2.3 “Development and support for cross-border organisational structures and networks”. Within this measure several projects of cooperation between universities were implemented (one of which is described below). These projects were, to a certain extent, experimental in 2 areas: in some cases they were related to scientific research (experimental as such) although given the size and objectives of the programme they were not research projects; the Interreg experience (in some cases these projects were the first Structural Funds implemented by the given university) was also very important in terms of learning how to prepare, implement and report for such a project. In some cases the formal requirements were perceived as too complicated and time consuming (and such projects were discontinued) in other cases universities successfully applied for support within the current programme or the other national operational programmes. − The management of the programme also has an important experimental component, especially with regard to the functioning of the Joint Technical Secretariat staffed by people from both countries. The operation of the JTS was generally very well evaluated by the applicants and the project promoters. − There might have also been a few projects of an experimental nature (although this must have been micro-scale experimentation) within the Micro-projects component. It is very difficult to describe a concrete project, as the total number of projects was as high as 508 and detailed information on their implementation is practically unavailable (to get more information it would be necessary to study the final reports, available at the level of Euroregions as well as to organize interviews with the project partners). It is certain that for many local communities (most of the applications for such projects were submitted by local government) such projects were a very valuable experience both in terms of specifics of implementation of the Structural Funds project (especially for the “soft” projects
R20090282.doc 25 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
in which the local government experience is much more limited) as well as in terms of the type of the project which in some cases were experimental (e.g. some innovative tourism projects).
The most important findings in the area of programme quality and results achieved can be summarized as follows: − Generally the performance and some characteristic of the programme are similar to the other Interreg III A programmes, e.g. the problem of defining indicators and their target values. The important difference is the strong concentration on infrastructural projects. − The analysis in principle confirms the necessity of intervention, although to a certain extent the data available is insufficient. The indicators are not very useful in measurement of the success of the programme, as it appears that their selection and particularly their target value (in most cases substantially exceeded) were not thought out well enough. − Most of the expenditures were done within 2 years (2006 and 2007) slightly faster spending in the case of infrastructure related expenditures. − The implementation was not delayed; minor delays caused by prolonging the time allowed for preparation of the subsidy contracts did not influence the implementation of the whole Programme. The start of the programme was slightly delayed, as the approval process by the European Commission was relatively long. − The experimentation and complexity of projects was, in most cases, at quite a low level, also because of the domination of infrastructure projects. Of course the main goal was to stimulate long- term cooperation; unfortunately it is very difficult to assess to what extent this goal was achieved. − Certainly the projects implementation contributed to the increase of quality and sustainability of cooperation, although because of the lack of the lead partner principle, results in this area are less good than they would have been if this principle had been applied.
R20090282.doc 26 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
3 PROJECT-LEVEL CO-OPERATION UNDER THE PROGRAMME
Before selection of the project sample that will be described in detail, we looked at the total number of projects submitted and awarded throughout the whole programme. The following graph shows the distribution of submitted and awarded “large” projects (not the micro-projects)6:
Table 3.1 Overview: the quality of intervention logic Joint Projects Complementary Individual projects Total projects
Priority 1
Projects submitted 32 34 112 178 Projects approved 20 19 39 78 Priority 2 Projects submitted 36 21 66 123 Projects approved 34 20 47 101 Total Projects submitted 68 55 178 301
Projects approved 54 39 86 179
As can be seen, the majority of projects submitted and (but to a much lesser extent) awarded were individual projects. Fortunately during the projects’ evaluation, the joint projects had a priority, which we can see from the graph below showing how many of the submitted projects (broken down by type) were actually awarded the grant. Almost 80% of the submitted joint projects was awarded, while in the case of individual projects this share was below 50%.
Figure 3.1 Projects that were awarded the grant
Share of the approved projects
100% 79% 90% 71% 80% 59% 70% 48% 60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Joint projects Complementary Individual projects Total projects
6 We dot not include projects implemented within Priority 3 (technical assistance) given their specific nature. INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
We can also present the distribution of awarded projects broken down by region (please note that figures do not include micro-projects) is as follows:
Figure 3.2 Distribution of awarded projects broken down by region
33 35
30 26
Moravskosleszký 25 Olomoucký 20 19 Pardubický 20 17 Královéhradecký 14 Liberecký 15 Dolnośląskie Opolskie 8 10 Ślaskie 5
5
0 1
The largest share of projects came from the Moravskosleszky region, on the Czech side, and from the Dolnośląskie region on the Polish side.
3.1 SELECTION OF THE PROJECT SAMPLE
One of the important elements of this evaluation was the selection of a sample of five projects intended for an in-depth study and direct interviews with the representatives of the project partners. In close cooperation with JTS, a broad sample of several projects was selected, from among which eventually five projects were chosen. The selection included criteria such as the differentiation of projects (among others in terms of size, number of partners, and reflection of priority areas). An overview of firstly the sample of several and ultimately the five projects subject to interview is presented in the table below. It should be noted that in case of Interreg Poland – Czech Republic the selection of projects was fairly more complicated – as mentioned before the projects were filed by organisations/institutions on one side of the border only (and on that side the expenditure was effected) while the role of the other side was usually limited.
R20090282.doc 28 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Table 3.2 Selection of Projects INTERREG-A Priority Topics (Communication) Pre-selection of projects Promoting urban, rural and coastal development Enjoy Cieszyn (CZ) Enjoy Cieszyn (PL) Encouraging entrepreneurship and the development of View Point on Jagodowa Mountain (CZ). small firms (including those in the tourism sector) and local employment initiatives Promoting the integration of the labour market and social ---7 inclusion Sharing human resources and facilities for research, Cooperation of Technical University in Ostrawa and University of technological development, education, culture, Technology in Opole as regards rational use of energy (CZ) communications and health to increase productivity and Cooperation of University of Technology in Opole and Technical help create sustainable jobs University in Ostrawa as regards rational use of energy (PL)
Encouraging the protection of the environment (local, Protection of Main Underground Water Reservoirs by way of global) increasing energy efficiency and promoting reorganizing sewage management in Lubawka (PL) renewable sources of energy Improving transport (particularly measures implementing Modernisation of road infrastructure relating to T.G. Masaryk more environmentally-friendly forms of transport) Polish – Czech bicycle route (PL) information and communication networks and services and T.G. Masaryk bicycle route (CZ) water and energy systems Developing cooperation in the legal and administrative Cross-border alerting and response system for flood exposure in spheres to promote economic development and social the border area of Śląskie voivodeship (PL) cohesion Increasing human and institutional potential for cross- “Polish – Czech media cooperation: A border that bonds” (PL) border cooperation to promote economic development and “Polish – Czech media cooperation: Let’s get to know each other” social cohesion. (CZ)
Eventually, the in-depth study focused on the following projects:
1. Enjoy Cieszyn (PL, CZ). 2. Cooperation of University of Technology in Opole and Technical University in Ostrawa concerning the rational use of energy (PL, CZ). 3. Modernisation of road infrastructure relating to T.G. Masaryk Polish – Czech bicycle route (PL). 4. Protection of main underground water reservoirs by streamlining sewage management in Lubawka (PL) 5. Polish – Czech media cooperation (PL, CZ).
Description of selected projects
Introduction
One of the fundamental aspects of the entire programme, as underlined earlier, was the absence of the lead partner principle. For this reason, joint effort varies from project to project. Three of the described projects were joint projects – identical projects were submitted by partners on both sides of the border and their performance was in fact a joint effort; however, the projects were supervised and accounted for separately before the competent authority in the particular country. Nevertheless, this solution was more problematic (and practically impossible) in case of infrastructural projects. With regard to such projects, the cooperative element and importance of the cross-border factor, mainly concerned the coordination of a range of infrastructural activities on both sides of the border within a planned framework (one of the described projects bears such character) or the impact of a particular
7 Practically in this area there were no projects implemented within the programme. Perhaps single projects related to it were included in micro-projects administrated by the respective Euroregion. This issue is very interesting and shall be addressed later.
R20090282.doc 29 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
infrastructural project carried out on one side of the border upon the situation on the other side of the border.
The fourth project featured an individual character but reflected a broader strategy of cooperating partners on both sides of the border. The last, fifth project, related only to the Polish side, though it did in fact have a cross-border impact.
3.1.1 PROJECT 1: ENJOY CIESZYN
I. Background information The objective of the project was to create a new regional tourist product known as “Enjoy Cieszyn”, which is to help develop cultural cross-border tourism on the Polish – Czech border. The new tourist product consists of a series of cultural events, i.e. festivals, concerts, exhibitions and other events held throughout the year in the Polish Cieszyn and the Czech Cieszyn, towns situated in the border region (practically speaking it is one town, divided by the border). The intent of the authors of the project was to reinforce and make the most of the existing cultural cooperation between Polish and Czech partners authorities of both towns, local institutions and social organisations operating in the region, for the benefit of tourism development. The project was implemented during the period from February 2006 to December 2007. The budget amounted to € 252,000 (eligible costs) including financial support from the European Regional Development Fund of over € 199,000.
II. Selection process The project qualified for financial support during a rolling application procedure. The Town of Cieszyn acted in the capacity of applicant. The application was filed twice in two successive procedures. The first application had to be withdrawn and amended by the authors because it contained non-eligible costs, i.e. fees of artists invited to join cultural events organized under the project. This mistake resulted, among others, from unclear, at least for the project promoters, information contained in the applicant’s guide. After the incident with the application of Cieszyn the guide was corrected. The authors prepared a second version of the application; however, this meant they had to find new sources of financing a significant part of the budget, relating to the previously mentioned fees. These costs were financed from the town’s budget and funds contributed by institutions and organisations organizing cultural events, which in turn gained such resources from national grants and sponsors.
Despite financial problems, the actions planned within the project were carried out together with the Czech partners. All events planned had been realized in previous years with success. The “Enjoy Cieszyn” project did not aim to generate new artistic events but to develop one tourist product taking advantage of the already renowned events. This was to be accomplished, among others, with a mutual name - catchword for different cultural events (“Enjoy Cieszyn”) joint logo sign, joint calendar of events, publications and promotional gadgets sharing a uniform graphical layout, etc. The objective of the project was also to expand the scale of cultural events that were organized and to strengthen local institutions and cultural societies.
The cultural cooperation between both towns, i.e. the Polish Cieszyn and the Czech Cieszyn has long since (from the political transition in 1990s) sought to overcome biases and to help the Polish and Czech communities in the region of Śląsk Cieszyński get to know each other. The complicated relations stem
R20090282.doc 30 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
from the difficult history of the region. Cieszyn is a very old town, presumably founded in the 9th century. For centuries, it was situated at the Polish and Czech border, with a varying state affiliation. The border conflict in 1920 between Poland and Czechoslovakia brought the division of the town along the Olza River. The left-sided suburbs assigned to Czechoslovakia established a new town: Czech Cieszyn.
The major part of the town was claimed by Poland. The conflict and the division of the town affected the relations between the Polish and Czech communities within the region. Mutual biases and antagonisms were fuelled further in 1938 when Poland seized the Czech part of the town. After the war, the border along the Olza River was restored and Cieszyn remained a town shared by Poland and the Czech Republic. After 1989 (political transformation in Central and Eastern Europe) the authorities of both towns as well as social leaders recognized the need to prevail over these barriers and biases. This need became the main motto of integration-oriented cultural initiatives undertaken jointly by both towns. The “Enjoy Cieszyn” project is related with these initiatives.
Cieszyn and the neighbouring region of Śląsk Cieszyński on both sides of the border have many historical and natural features, which motivate the development of cross-border tourism. The aim of the developers of the project, besides integration of local people, was to promote tourism and economic development of the region.
III. Partnership and sustainability The “Enjoy Cieszyn” project, like other projects of the Czech Republic – Poland Programme, was formally not a joint Polish and Czech initiative, even if it was actually undertaken in close, working collaboration between Polish and Czech partners. In formal terms, it was cooperation of two independent projects – Polish and Czech, under an identical title and with the same actions, yet performed by two separate entities, i.e. the self-government of Cieszyn in Poland and the self-government of Czech Cieszyn. There was no lead partner, according to the rules applied in the programme.
The project of the Polish Cieszyn had a more complicated organisational structure than its twin Czech project, with a partnership initiative of the town and eight institutions/organisations operating in both the town and the region. On the Czech side, the application was submitted by the town of Czech Cieszyn alone, which managed the project independently. The complicated organisational structure of the Polish partnership produced certain obstacles during the application preparation phase (necessity of multiplying required documents) and in the implementation phase (necessity of coordinating several partners). The partnership’s leader (town of Cieszyn) had no experience in such a complicated project, which was one of the causes of the mistakes made during the project implementation phase (e.g. acceptance of non- eligible costs) whereas the Polish Cieszyn had problems with obtaining a refund of the project costs under the European Regional Development Fund.
The “Enjoy Cieszyn” project included a series of cultural events, e.g.: − International Festival of Vocal Music “Viva il Canto” (August): presentation of various musical forms from orchestral (oratories, symphonies, operas) to chamber music; focus on musical education and promotion of young artists; − Film Festival “Borderland Cinema” (April): presentation of prominent Polish, Czech, Slovakian and Hungarian films; exhibitions, concerts and meetings with film directors and actors;
R20090282.doc 31 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
− International Theatre Festival “Without Barriers” (May): presentation of the most interesting Polish, Czech, Slovakian and Hungarian spectacles; exhibitions, meetings with actors and open-air events; the first prize “The Broken Barrier” for overcoming cultural and geographical barriers between nations; − International Decade of Organ, Choir and Chamber Music (October): a series of concerts of all centuries in historical interiors; − Jazz Meetings (November): a series of jazz concerts with musicians from Europe and the US; exhibitions, lectures and workshops;
− Old Music Festival (June): concerts of old music in the churches in Cieszyn;
− Gospel workshops (April): conducted by a foreign trainer;
− Horror on the Castle Mount (last Saturday of the summer holidays): a parade of children in disguise; competitions, presentations, concerts, shows of fights between knights, fireworks;
− Three Brothers Festival (June): reminiscence of the legend about the beginning of the town in year 810; a three-day event on the markets of both towns;
− International festival of young artists (September): four days of events aimed at promoting the works of young artists: spectacles, concerts, exhibitions, happenings, workshops;
− Treasures of Cieszyn Trówła (September): a three-day festival of regional arts and crafts.
Most of these cultural events were organized in both towns, both the Polish and Czech Cieszyn. They shared one agenda formulated in such a way to allow the public to move from one town to the other to attend the events. Every concert, exhibition or event had a combined Polish and Czech audience. The promotional materials, visualisations and speakers were bilingual, i.e. Polish and Czech. The project helped build up mutual contacts and draw the local communities living on both sides of the Olza River, the border river, closer to each other. Many events were attended by tourists from other regions of Poland and the Czech Republic as well as other countries.
Cultural events were prepared and conducted by town institutions (e.g. the cultural centre or museum) or societies grouping animators, supporters of arts and artists (e.g. musical societies). Every Polish organisation had its counterpart on the Czech side and both worked together to prepare and deliver a particular event (e.g. concerts or theatrical festivals). Joint working groups were established to collaborate on an everyday basis. Thus, the project helped intensify cooperation on an institutional level among local institutions and organisations. Cooperation was established also at the level of the municipal authorities (Cieszyn in Poland and the Czech Cieszyn). A master cooperation agreement was concluded and a working team was appointed to coordinate the activities of both projects (of the Polish and the Czech version of the “Enjoy Cieszyn” project). Despite these efforts, the level of institutionalisation of the partnership was lower than in the case of other mutual cross-border projects (e.g. projects under the Operational Programme for cross-border cooperation 2007 – 2013).
Given that a series of cross-border cultural events has taken place in Cieszyn for several years, the need to continue such activities was generally recognized and accepted by all partners – both the Polish and the Czech – involved in cultural initiatives. For this reason, no needs assessment was conducted for the purpose of the project.
R20090282.doc 32 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
The “Enjoy Cieszyn” project in terms of contents did not bear an innovative character but capitalized on the previous skills and experience of cooperation between Polish and Czech partners. The originality lay in the form of project preparation and management – through formal partnership of the local authority and eight institutions and societies. The role of the lead partner was assumed by the town authority represented by the Department of Education and Culture. This form of partnership proved too difficult for inexperienced staff of the Town Hall, problems related to coordination and supervision of partner organisations emerged, in particular concerning financial supervision (no cases of misuse were reported, nevertheless formal mistakes were made in expenses and their records). The representatives of the project promoter complained during the study that in the course of the project it was difficult to obtain advice and counsel from the institutions managing the Czech – Poland programme. Such assistance was necessary as the documents of the programme relating to expenditure qualification were – according to the project promoter – vague and new interpretations were suggested. It was not until the end of the project that control procedures were performed revealing inaccuracies, though much depended on the interpretation of imprecise regulations by the control officers. After this experience, the town authorities decided to discontinue the partnership formula in further projects and resumed the previous subcontracting concept (subcontracting tasks to institutions and societies).
The entire planned cultural programme under the “Enjoy Cieszyn” project was implemented according to the schedule. All the assumed project indicators (number of events, number of attendants, number of publications, etc.) had been accomplished. The activities within the framework of the project stirred a huge amount of interest among the public in both towns, the neighbouring region as well as among the tourists. Opinions expressed by the public were decisively positive, which manifested among others in publications and programmes of local and regional media. Information about cultural events in Cieszyn was provided in the nationwide press, radio and television. The joint Polish – Czech cultural initiative involving for the most part young people in the region on both sides, has undoubtedly contributed to the strengthening of mutual contacts, mutual familiarity and elimination of biases. The project helped generate a specific, culture-based tourist product: the catchphrase “Enjoy Cieszyn” is still functioning, understood as a series of cultural events recurring every year. In addition, a joint promotion for all events is carried out.
However, the financial side of the project presents itself somewhat differently. At the beginning of the project, the town of Cieszyn paid out funds to cover overall costs of the events to all partners, institutions and societies realizing the events from its own budget. It was a comfortable situation for the project partners, allowing them to prepare the planned events without constraints.
It also contributed to the success of the initiatives, but at the same time the town assumed the full risk of responsibility for the disbursements under the project. Once the project was completed, the control procedure performed by supervising institution (Urząd Wojewódzki in Katowice) revealed inaccuracies in the expenditure of the project (among others, financing of non-eligible costs, violation of public procurement procedures, not revealing income from the project). According to the controlling institution the inaccuracy was gross enough to justify a request for total withdrawal of financial support for the project (withdrawal from refunding any costs of the project). The project author (Town Hall of Cieszyn) appealed against this decision, proving mistakes made by controlling officers, providing explanations and correcting own faults. It also sought to obtain a refund of the incurred eligible costs, accepting a partial financial fine. This situation has affected the way the project is perceived by its authors. They are
R20090282.doc 33 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
disappointed that the actual success of the project in the cultural, social and economic areas has not been recognized and the entire opinion about the project of the institutions managing the Czech Republic – Poland programme was narrowed to the rejection of financial settlements. It should be noted that, according to them, the control procedures did not reveal any wrongdoing, just formal mistakes. According to respondents representing the local authorities, Cieszyn had implemented many projects financed from the structural funds but in no other operational programme had it encountered any such rigorous and bureaucratic (“orthodox”, according to one of the respondents) approaches to financial settlements as in Interreg IIIA. Another element of the picture is the fact that the Czech partners did no have problems in the settlement of their twin project.
It difficult to evaluate the real actual level of inaccuracies and formal mistakes; we should mention, however, the opinion of the representatives of the National Authority. According to them the project was not well managed from the very beginning and the project promoters were provided with enough support and advice in terms of improving the formal situation of the project. Unfortunately at the end of the implementation period the size of violation of formal rules was very extensive.
Despite deep frustration and concerns regarding the consequences of possible withdrawal of the financing (possible staff consequences in the Town Hall) the persons involved in the project did not cease the active cultural animation in the town. At the end of the project, events were continued in ensuing years (2008 – 2009) comprising the offer of the “Enjoy Cieszyn” tourist product and are planned in the future. These events are financed from the town budget, national funds and by sponsors gained through cultural institutions and societies in Cieszyn. All activities are undertaken in cooperation with the authorities, institutions and social organisations in Czech Cieszyn.
Together with the Czech partners, a project is pending aimed at supporting cultural activities in both towns, financed under the Operational Programme Cross-Border Cooperation 2007 – 2013 Czech Republic – Poland. Its objectives are similar to the objectives of the previous project. The town of Czech Cieszyn acts as the lead partner in the new project.
IV. Learning and indirect effects The developers of the “Enjoy Cieszyn” project gained some experience in performing twin cross-border projects financed under EU funds, though, to a large extent; they gained such knowledge through trial and error. At present, they believe they should not have engaged in such a major and complicated project when undertaking an EU project for the first time. Nevertheless, such experience will be valuable when implementing other projects financed under 2007 – 2013 programmes, e.g. by the European Social Fund. Negative experience with financial management concerning their first EU project did not discourage them from applying for support for further projects. At the moment they have no problems in settling the project costs even though the control procedures are performed by the same institution that questioned expenditure under the “Enjoy Cieszyn” project. They learnt how to supervise expenditures of the institutions and organisations collaborating with the town hall better, others they apply measures ensuring correct spending in the form of bills of exchange.
The strengthened will of cooperation between authorities of both towns and the cultural leaders of the communities in Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn along with the development of practical skills of joint
R20090282.doc 34 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
organisation and management of cultural events has become a very special effect of the “Enjoy Cieszyn” project. This manifests in the joint Polish – Czech offer, which is not only continued but also extended.
3.1.2 PROJECT 2 COOPERATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY OF OPOLE AND THE TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY IN OSTRAWA CONCERNING THE RATIONAL USE OF ENERGY
I. Background information
The objective of the project was to extend cooperation in the scientific and didactic fields between the University of Technology in Opole and the Technical University in Ostrawa in order to expand the academic level at both universities and to elevate the level of education. In fact, two identical projects were performed, one financed the activities undertaken by the University of Technology in Opole and the second one financed the activities of the Technical University in Ostrawa. Both universities are among the major institutions of higher education in their regions. The University of Technology in Opole employs 450 academic teachers and has more than 12,000 students studying at six faculties. The Technical University in Ostrawa has seven faculties with 24,000 students.
II. Selection process
The project was selected within the rolling application procedure, though because in fact, as is the case of other projects, the meetings of the Steering Committee played the decisive role and those meetings were held only twice, the procedure was more of an open competition.
The basic advantage of the project was the fact that cooperation between both institutions (specifically the Faculty of Electrical Measurements of the Technical University in Ostrawa and the Faculty of Electrical Power and Measurement Systems of the University of Technology in Opole) had some history dating back to the year 2000 and was financed under the inter-governmental “Contact” programme supported by both governments. However, funds were lacking for closer cooperation. Cooperation was also easier because Ostrawa is located near Zaolzie, i.e. an area with a large population of Polish minority, where in historical terms the cultures of both nations mingle. For this reason the knowledge of at least basic Polish is greater there than in the border region.
III. Partnership and sustainability
The project, despite being formally divided into 2 parts, which was necessary because of the absence of the lead partner principle in the programme, was strictly of a partnership character. The shape of the project was developed by academics of both universities working together and performed jointly. Both applicants filed separate applications (however in this case the applications were subject to a joint evaluation). The contracts were concluded with each of the applicants separately by a relevant institution from the particular country. Settlements and control of performance were also performed independently.
The signing of the project-related contract was delayed, as was the case of almost all projects of the first phase of the selection process; hence, it was necessary to introduce considerable changes in the schedule. While waiting for the contract signing, the applicant could implement the project (the
R20090282.doc 35 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
qualification came into effect from the date of filing the applications) though of course from their own funds; however, facing risk (though only in theory) that the contract would not be signed at all.
Within the framework of the project, several visits of academics and students of both universities had been arranged. The visits of academics focused in particular on research issues, whereas the visits of students aimed at becoming familiar with the other university, cooperating enterprises, the curriculum or conditions of study. Tutors gave lectures at the university in the other country. For both universities research equipment was purchased that was useful in joint research projects. The staff of both universities working on doctor and habilitation theses followed several months of internship at the university in the second country. Several joint conferences and scientific workshops were organized. The scope of cooperation related to broadly understood issues regarding generation of energy and alternative sources of energy, such as wind power facilities or sun powered units.
In general, the implementation of the project and its effects were considered very satisfactory. Thanks to the project, the relations between both universities were strengthened and knowledge was gained about the functioning of the other partner university. An interesting element of the project was the ability to learn about the collaboration between the university and the industry in the region; both universities work closely with enterprises, though each adopts a different approach in this respect. The project was also positively evaluated by both the academic staff as well as the students. Within the framework of Interreg Programme, other projects of cooperation between these two universities were undertaken but involved different faculties.
The applicants pointed out significant bureaucratic burdens relating to the performance of the project, for instance the obligation to sign every page of the project application. The settlement and method of accepting accounting documents relating to trips to the Czech Republic posed another problem – translation from Czech language of an invoice for a petty sum was demanded, whereas the cost of such translation exceeded the value of the invoice and the settled costs.
On the Polish side during the preparatory phase explanations and interpretation were provided by JTS and Urząd Marszałkowski (regional government). During the execution phase, both these institutions played a minor role, Urząd Wojewódzki (regional branch of the state administration) played the key role as the authority signing the contract and settling the funds.
Another example of unwarranted stringent reporting requirements was the fact that upon completion of the project an inconsistency was found (due to rounding off– as established later) equal to 1 grosz (0,01 zloty, i.e. 0,25 euro cent).
IV. Learning and indirect effects
Most certainly the project helped strengthen the bonds between both universities (above all between the faculties). This cooperation has been continued; under the European Territorial Cooperation Objective 3 programme, another project of cooperation was filed and accepted, this time focusing on didactic matters. The current project relates to such issues as activities aimed at improving the effectiveness of courses, criteria and rules of student enrolment and the role of scientific teams in the didactic process. Emphasis is also placed on the cooperation between the university and the labour market administration
R20090282.doc 36 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
(well developed in the Czech Republic and unfortunately very poorly developed in Poland) allowing the determination of the chances of graduates of the respective faculties on the labour market and therefore motivating amendments in the curriculum.
It is also interesting that both partners, when deliberating which university should assume the lead partner role, agreed that it should be the University in Ostrawa owing to the fact that the formal requirements on the Czech side are slightly less rigorous.
The project produced several key results. In particular the representatives of both universities gained knowledge about the specificity of an institution of higher education in the neighbouring country. Another important element was the cooperation of both universities with the industry, which is much more developed on the Czech side. The project was also one of the first projects financed from structural funds to be undertaken at the University of Technology in Opole. For this reason it had a somewhat pioneering character and certain related problems were greater than if it had been undertaken one or two years later. In this area, however, the learning effect was substantial.
Concerning the implementation of such projects in the future, the applicants pointed out that it would be beneficial if certain limited changes in the project were introduced, naturally at the consent of the institution serving as the other side of the contract. In the application preparatory phase (in particular as regards such “soft” projects) not all activities can be envisaged which should take place. Sometimes a planned activity may turn out to be pointless and can be substituted; unfortunately, within the framework of Interreg, changes concerning the shape of the project were impossible; changes could relate only to minor shifts between budget categories.
Regrettably, sometimes due to rigorous formal requirements – in the opinion of the applicant’s representatives – the enthusiasm for similar projects within the present European Territorial Cooperation Objective 3 programme is diminished. Other academics, observing requirements concerning reporting and settlement of funds within Interreg, agreed that even when assuming successful results – the related effort was too large and decided not to file projects, e.g. within the framework of the European Territorial Cooperation Objective 3 programme.
3.1.3 PROJECT 3 MODERNISATION OF ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE RELATING TO POLISH – CZECH T.G. MASARYK BICYCLE ROUTE
I. Background information
The objective of the project was to modernise the street in Kudowa-Zdrój connected with the bicycle route of T.G. Masaryk (president of Czech Republic in-between war years). The refurbished street serves as the route of the Polish – Czech bicycle route of T.G. Masaryk, allotted jointly by the Polish side (Kudowa-Zdrój community and the National Park of Stołowe Mountains) and the Czech side (Nachod and Hronov towns, Velke Pořiči community and the tourist society “Branka”). The route is more than 20 km long and links the most attractive places on both sides of the border. The development of the Masaryk bicycle route was the subject of several other projects financed under the funds of the programme. The route and related bicycle paths are very strongly promoted by local authorities on both sides of the border. Another feature of the route is the fact that it connects places where President Masaryk stayed or visited before the war.
R20090282.doc 37 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
The modernized road leads to the Polish and Czech border pass Czermna – Mala Cermna, which is a tourist pass. It is also the road that goes to part of Kudowa-Zdrój and places accommodating several tourist attractions, including the greatest attraction, i.e. the Chapel of Skulls with several thousand of skulls of people that died in the 17th and 18th century. This road enjoys considerable traffic, mostly of tourist character, including bus traffic (group excursions).
The section of the road (of approx. 800 metres) which was re-developed, was uncomfortable and dangerous before the completion of the project. Because of the trees growing along the road buses could not overtake each other, there was no pedestrian pavement and pedestrians were forced to use the road. In view of these factors, the bicycle riders hardly ever used the road. A considerable number of collisions and accidents involving buses, vehicles, bicycle riders and pedestrians were recorded.
II. Selection process
The project was selected within the rolling application procedure, though, as is the case of other projects the meetings of the Steering Committee played the decisive role and those meetings had been held only three times, the procedure was more of an open competition.
In the opinion of the project developers the project had two primary advantages. Unquestionable was its cross-border impact (which was a serious problem in case of other road investments) the modernized section of the road leads directly to the border pass, even if it is a tourist border pass (hence accessible only for pedestrians and bicycle riders). Because of this, the border crossing has become easier and safer. Another advantage of key importance is the fact that the project reflects the strategy of development of bicycle tourism in Kłodzko Valley, in particular the area of Kudowa Zdrój, in combination with the bicycle routes on the Czech side of the border.
III. Partnership and sustainability
Although the investment was performed entirely on the Polish side, it was strictly connected with the activities on the Czech side. Historically speaking, the Czech side disposed of a much better developed and maintained network of bicycle routes. Within the framework of the programme, several investments were carried out on the Czech side, whereupon the Masaryk route has acquired a new quality. The European funds were spent on the bicycle path at Kladska Street in Nachod, the development of a bicycle path from Male to Velke Pořiči (Nachod town and Velke Pořiči community) and the refurbishment of the road from Velke Pořiči to Male Čermne (Kralowehradecki County). In total on the Czech side four construction investments were prepared and realized within Interreg IIIA. On the Polish side further investments have been performed under the present programme (European Territorial Cooperation – Objective 3) whereas under Interreg a complementary project was undertaken, i.e. the publication of a regional map with pedestrian and bicycle routes by the National Park of Stołowe Mountains crossed by the Masaryk bicycle route and close to Kudowa Zdrój.
The project was implemented by Kudowa-Zdrój town, the partners on the Czech side include Nachod town, Velke Pořiči community and Kralovehradecky kraj (provincial self-government). All investments
R20090282.doc 38 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
were performed on the Polish side, cooperation with Czech partners comprised mostly of coordination of the course and direction of further development of bicycle routes and access roads.
IV. Learning and indirect effects
With regard to the implementation of the project, no large problems had been encountered. The only large problem was related to the delay in the signing of the contract (as is the case of other Polish projects filed during the first phase). The project was filed in spring 2005 (thus it was assumed that works would be launched in the same year) while the contract was not signed until February 2006, which entailed the necessity of introducing significant changes in the project schedule. The investment was performed without problems. To streamline the modernisation of the road during the period of works (several months during summer 2006) the road was closed for traffic, which was re-directed.
In formal terms the project was implemented without problems. Upon completion it audited by Urząd Wojewódzki, which did not find any material inconsistencies. During the phase of project preparation assistance was provided by employees of the Contact Point of Urząd Marszałkowski in Wałbrzych as well as by the staff of the Joint Technical Secretariat in Olomouc. The representatives of the applicant consider such assistance as being very valuable. In many cases they needed it as the procedures of the programme were not always clear and moreover were subject to changes.
The one problem that upset the realisation of the project related to changes in regulations and guidelines. Generally, however, concerning the formal aspects, the project was much simpler than during the current programme (ETC – Objective 3) where the level of complexity concerning the flow of reports and financial resources is much greater. In this context the advantage of Interreg was that the contracts were signed in Polish currency and the applicant was not exposed to exchange risk, which was very serious, especially last year due to considerable fluctuations of the Euro – Zloty exchange rates.
The measures undertaken within the framework of the project in question have been continued and cooperation between the partners on both sides of the border is even closer. At present as a continuation of Interreg IIIA, i.e. Programme of European Territorial Cooperation – Objective 3, several other projects, related to the described project, are pending. One of the most important is the direct connection of the largest towns on both sides of the border, i.e. Kudowa-Zdrój and Nachod with a bicycle route. At present the shortest connection between the towns runs along national road no. 8 with intensive traffic, also freight transport.
It is not easy to specify the effects of the project since no studies were conducted regarding, for example, the improvement of safety on the modernized road (a lesser number of accidents and collisions) or intensification of bicycle traffic and flow of tourists interested in using bicycle routes. The basic indicator of the project performance was the shortening of the duration of travel along the modernized road, which naturally has been achieved, however due to its short length (800m) it is just several seconds (sic!). Based on observations it can be assumed that the number of accidents has decreased considerably (according to project promoters before the modernisation an accident or collision was reported almost every few days, while now there are almost no such occurrences). The number of persons travelling on bicycles is constantly growing. A majority of these are tourists from the Czech
R20090282.doc 39 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Republic. For instance, in the Aqua Park open in Kudowa Zdrój, approx. 30-40% of visitors come from the Czech Republic, a number of them arrive on bicycles.
3.1.4 PROJECT 4 PROTECTION OF MAIN UNDERGROUND WATER RESERVOIRS BY WAY OF REORGANIZING SEWAGE MANAGEMENT IN LUBAWKA
I. Background information
The objective of the project was to build a sewage system in a part of Lubawka town. The town is located near the Czech border and serves as a border pass. A considerable part of the community is not connected to either a water system or a sewage system. The project comprised the construction of a sewage system in one part of the town in a district near the skiing mountain with approximately 300 residents.
Lubawka is a town characteristic to this part of the Polish and Czech border region, representative as regards local problems. Until the political transition, there were 3 major enterprises in the town (as in Kamienna Góra, the nearby capital of the county) employing around 1000 – 1500 people each, operating in the clothing, furniture and asbestos production industries. At present two of these enterprises no longer exist, replaced by minor businesses employing no more than 100 persons. The third enterprise is still operating but was compelled to change the production profile (ceased production of asbestos goods) and employs approx. 200 people. These profound economic changes led to rapid increase of unemployment (at its peak in the mid 1990s the unemployment rate equalled 45%) and a range of negative consequences (increase of social pathologies, decreased proceeds to the local budget, migration of people) ensued.
II. Selection process
The project was selected within the rolling application procedure, though as is the case in the other projects the meetings of the Steering Committee played the decisive role and those meetings had been held only 3 times, the procedure was more of an open tender procedure.
The basic reason for selecting the project was its exceptionally good rationale, founded on relevant geological surveys. Projects comprising the construction of a sewage systems are commonly financed across Poland because of considerable regress in this respect, also in the Polish – Czech border region. In case of such projects their cross-border impact is somewhat problematic, a great part of the Polish – Czech border runs along a watershed (line between drainage basins) hence any potential water contamination due to leaking septic tanks does not affect the purity of rivers on the other side of the border. In this particular case the applicant managed to prove that, due to geological conditions, underground contamination caused by leaking septic tanks may – as a result of the system of underflows – pollute the underground main reservoirs of water no. 344 Karkonosze, reservoir no. 342 Niecka Wewnętrzno-Sudecka (Krzeszów) and reservoir no. 343 Dolina Rzeki Bóbr (Marciszów) from which water is also collected on the Czech side. The fact, that such convincing evidence was submitted, was one of the basic factors influencing the decision to support the project financially.
R20090282.doc 40 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
III. Partnership and sustainability
In the course of the project preparation the community attended training courses and information meetings organized by the Joint Technical Secretariat. It also communicated the Contact Point in Wałbrzych and JTS in Olomouc. The assistance of both institutions was considered very valuable.
In the phase of application filing only one problem had arisen regarding the application generator (special software) which did not allow for application closure owing to inconsistent control sums. This inconsistency was caused by rounding. The problem was solved, but the assistance of a Czech company, which developed the programme, was necessary.
The programme’s implementation was problem-free. All investment tasks had been completed in due time. Owing to the low level of prosperity of local people the financial support also covered house drains connecting the sewage system with the respective houses (usually in Poland that cost is borne by the interested parties). With another solution it was possible that the residents would not be able to afford connection to the sewage system and the feasibility of the investment would be questionable.
Because of the project’s specificity, the partnership approach was applied to a limited extent in its preparation and execution. The project’s partner on the other side of the border was Zacieř County with which Lubawka has been collaborating for years. Both partners had been and are performing many common (or commonly planned) projects in the area of infrastructure and soft projects, such as common sports or cultural events.
An important feature of the project in question was its association with the long-term strategy of action of both Lubawka community and its partners on the other side of the border. Numerous other projects are undertaken aiming to improve water purity and environmental protection, which are one of the key areas of Interreg Initiative.
Without financial support under the Interreg Initiative the project probably would not have been implemented or would have been implemented much later. The town and community of Lubawka is one of the less prosperous communities within the region; however, at the same time it has considerable tourist potential and enjoys a favourable location near national road no. 3. The project was co-financed by Voivodeship Environmental Protection and Water Management Fund in Wrocław.
The effects of the project were mainly of a local character but should also be evaluated in view of the wider strategy of the partners on both sides of the border. Most of their activities focus on improving the condition of the neglected infrastructure. The improvement of infrastructure is absolutely necessary for the development of tourism, both on the Polish and the Czech side of the border. In Lubawka there are plans to build a large, 5-star hotel founded on the once magnificent and presently almost completely ruined railway station building (second in terms of size in the region). The hotel is bound to attract tourists, provided that the investment is realized.
R20090282.doc 41 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
IV. Learning and indirect effects
The project to a small extent, produced new know-how and experience for the partners on both sides of the border due to its character.
Nevertheless, the project is characteristic considering the needs of a number of communities. It has practically no innovative elements and its cross-border impact is rather limited (though evident). On the other hand, such projects must be submitted by less prosperous communities (contrary to the relatively wealthy Kudowa-Zdrój). It is only natural that inhabitants expect the local authorities to satisfy their basic needs (such as access to water and sewage systems) and wherever such needs arise, the local authorities will not be able to advocate more ambitious and innovative projects on a larger scale.
It is worth noticing that Lubawka has benefited largely from the Micro-projects Fund within the framework of the programme, managed by Euroregion Nysa. It implemented four projects, relating to the organisation of folk festivals, popularisation of cross-country skiing, organisation of sports competitions as well as cooperation and exchange programmes for children and young people.
3.1.5 PROJECT 5 CZECH AND POLISH MEDIA COOPERATION: “LET’S GET TO KNOW EACH OTHER”
I. Background information
The objective of the project was to establish cooperation between public regional TV stations from the Czech Republic and Poland, the Czech Television Ostrawa Division and the Polish Television Katowice Division. The subject matter of such a cooperation was to prepare and perform a joint programme offer for the residents of the border regions in Silesia in Poland and Morawsko-Śląski region in the Czech Republic. The key message of the joint offer was to eliminate biases, preconceived notions and barriers between the Czechs and the Poles and to promote economic, social and cultural benefits for both nations in the neighbourhood. The project was implemented during the period of July 2005 - November 2007. The project’s budget amounted to KCZ 9,020,500 (eligible costs) including the support under the European Regional Development Fund of KCZ 6,765,375.
II. Selection process
The project was selected for financial support within the rolling application procedure. It was graded highly with a maximum of 100 scores. The project was appreciated for both its pioneering character – establishment of cross-border cooperation between media – as well as its social objectives, influencing views and knowledge about the communities living on both sides of the border.
Before the project, despite the close proximity (Ostrawa and Katowice are located at a distance of 100km) the Czech Television and Polish Television never worked together in any cyclic programmes of informational and television journalism character. The Polish Television in Katowice realized individual single programmes about the Czech and Polish – Czech relations addressed to the residents on the Polish side of the border, but these programmes were irregular, low-budget, aired outside prime time and not based on any studies of the viewers’ needs. The Television in Ostrawa has a small Polish team supporting the news unit and prepares materials in Polish language targeted mainly to the Polish minority living on the Czech side of the border (approx. 50,000 people). Apart from local news, Ostrawa Television
R20090282.doc 42 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
prepared longer programmes about Poland and the Polish – Czech relations from time to time. Journalists from both stations had infrequent personal contacts and acquaintances, some exchanged informational materials, but no framework cooperation was established. However, Ostrawa Television was interested - both its management as well as the journalists - in establishing cooperation with the Polish media, unfortunately no suitable occasion had yet occurred. The possibility of collaboration emerged with the Interreg IIIA programme. The cooperation between the Ostrawa Television and Katowice Television was established at the initiative of the Czech side, however the stimulus was provided by the Polish Consul in Ostrawa, who informed Czech journalists about the Interreg programme and encouraged them to prepare a relevant project. The Ostrawa Television appointed a team responsible for related works. It contacted Polish journalists and at a meeting in Katowice convinced them, that such collaboration would be beneficial. Katowice Television appointed a twin team and both teams embarked on cooperation. Hence, the project was in fact prepared in a partnership relation, though for formal reasons it was not a joint project of the editorial teams. The Polish side prepared its own project of a similar name: “Polish – Czech Media Cooperation: A Border that Bonds”.
III. Partnership and sustainability
The “Let’s Get to Know Each Other” project, like many other projects under the Czech Republic – Poland Programme, was actually not only prepared but also implemented in strict working collaboration of Polish and Czech partners. Project coordinators held monthly meetings, often attended by station directors. In formal terms, however, it was cooperation between two independent projects – the Polish and the Czech, bearing similar titles and implementing the same measures, but nevertheless undertaken by two separate entities – public televisions in Katowice (Poland) and Ostrawa (Czech). It was another example of a twinning project. Such a situation in this case did not serve as an obstruction, unlike in many other projects, since from the very beginning the partners adopted a “common objectives – independent implementation” formula. The teams of reporters from the Czech Republic and Poland agreed on a joint programme offer comprising a regular weekly television programme of 52 episodes of about 20 minutes. The framework scope of the programme’s contents was agreed (i.e. fields of interest) but particular contents of each part were prepared independently by each television station. This way Ostrawa Television prepared its own 52 episodes and Katowice Television prepared the same number of episodes. The Polish television produced only a Polish-language version of the programme, whereas the Czech television produced all parts in bilingual version (with Polish subtitles). This was due to the willingness to attract numerous Polish-language viewers living in the Czech border region.
Two press conferences were prepared and held jointly, attended by representatives of both teams.
The programme was recorded by both televisions on both their own territory and the territory of the neighbouring country. The topics addressed by the programme included a wide range of issues: − Economy (e.g. effects of introducing Euro currency – pros and cons, private cross-border trade); − Labour (e.g. possibilities of running business in the neighbouring country, effects of working emigration); − Law (e.g. effects of Schengen Agreement, ownership regulations – possibility of acquiring property); − Culture (e.g. information about cultural events in the border region, joint Polish – Czech cultural events); − Tourism (e.g. attractive spots, regional cuisine in Poland and the Czech Republic);
R20090282.doc 43 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
− Sports (e.g. favourite sport disciplines of Poles and Czech, national sports idols); − Customs (e.g. biases regarding Poles and Czechs).
Both television stations agreed on the framework division of the number of programmes with regard to topics and sequence of topics, whilst maintaining some flexibility.
The Czech programmes were aired in the regional programme of the morning news & cultural section and in the digital TV programme of countrywide coverage. This way the programmes were viewed in the whole country. In addition, the programmes were available on-line via the Ostrawa Television website. From the opinions expressed by viewers (phone calls, e-mails, and Internet message boards) the programmes of the whole series were viewed by a wide audience, not only local people. Regular viewing surveys made by Ostrawa Television proved that the “Let’s Get to Know Each Other” project stirred huge interest, which was confirmed by abundant entries on the project’s website. Based, among others, on such correspondence the team responsible for the project could chose the topics that are the most attractive for the audience. In a sense an interactive survey of the viewers’ expectations was conducted on an on-going basis.
Programmes dedicated to tourism enjoyed the greatest attention from the audience. Many viewers could learn about the features of the border regions and other regions in Poland, expressing such opinions in their e-mails and phone calls. For instance, unknown to Czech viewers was information about vineyards and the production of wine in Poland, which stirred huge interest. Such knowledge may be expected to manifest in the tourist activity of the Czech tourists in Poland. The programmes prepared by Katowice Television had a similar effect on the Polish viewers.
Both the Czech “Let’s Get to Know Each Other” project and its twin Polish project “A Border that Bonds” have significantly enhanced knowledge among the local communities of the border region - and in case of the project by Ostrawa Television also among the public in other regions of the Czech Republic – about economic, tourist, social or cultural features in the neighbouring country. In result the projects helped recognize the benefits of the neighbourhood and weaken the negative preconceived notions and biases.
The project was innovative, realized in an area wherein so far no cross-border cooperation has been maintained, i.e. in the area of collaboration of the most opinion-forming regional media and public television.
IV. Learning and indirect effects
Both parties of the partnership have a positive opinion about mutual cooperation and its results. Not only have professional contacts between the TV professionals from Ostrawa and Katowice been established, but also many personal friendships and acquaintances have been made between the persons performing the project on both sides of the border. On the Czech side, there is a strong will to continue collaboration with colleagues from the Polish television. The team realizing the “Let’s Get to Know Each Other” project established contacts with the Polish Television – Wrocław division. A joint project prepared with a partner from Lower Silesia is underway. Journalists from Ostrawa want to expand that collaboration to the entire
R20090282.doc 44 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Polish – Czech borderline. Wrocław Television with a large coverage seems the best partner in this ambitious project.
The management of Ostrawa Television wants to establish tri-lateral cooperation with Polish Television and Slovakian Television, which however seems impossible under the present programmes of cross- border cooperation.
While maintaining contacts with Katowice Television, journalists from Ostrawa also want to undertake new forms of collaboration extending beyond the projects, which are possible due to the resulting bonds and exchange of information. The Czechs found out that the archives of Katowice Television contain materials of the Czech television, which once were held by Ostrawa Television but lost due to flooding in 1997. They wish to lease and copy these materials in order to restore their archives. In a sense this will become another, indirect and long-term effect of the “Let’s Get to Know Each Other” project.
In general the five described projects are all quite different. They reflect, however, quite well the nature of the projects implemented within the programme, with its strong concentration on infrastructure development.
Below we present the most important findings, concerning the analysed projects:
Table 3.3 Most Important Findings on Analysed Projects
Project level findings Extrapolation to the programme level
1. Analysis of the project with respect to the components of Three of the analysed projects were most certainly common actions; the synthetic indicator one was part of a broader programme of common actions, whereas one demonstrated the character of an individual project, though with a cross-border effect. In case of four projects cooperation related to both project preparation as well as its implementation. Three of the undertaken projects were joint projects. Like within the entire programme, the lead partner principle had not been applied in any of the projects, though some projects (especially “Enjoy Cieszyn”) involved a considerable group of partners. The level of complexity and innovation of the projects varied, though in general it was not high. The most innovative was perhaps the project that aimed at the cooperation of two TV stations. Also, the geographical impact of the projects varies. In some cases it applies to chosen regions in both countries (cooperation of TV stations) but usually it bears a local or sub-regional character. In the preparation phase, a common diagnosis or evaluation of needs was incidental and somewhat informal.
2. Analysis of project durability and sustainability The sustainability of the described projects and related actions is different. In case of projects (Kudowa) included in a broader programme of development of bicycle routes network on both sides of the border, the project is continued, partially with the use of financing available under the present programme (ETC – Objective 3). Also, common cultural actions are undertaken on both sides of the border in Cieszyn, though the risk, that a refund of project expenditure, may be denied can affect the scale of such collaboration and its financing under European funds. Both universities cooperate (Opole and Ostrawa) taking advantage of the funds under the new programme. The Ostrawa Television is planning to establish cooperation with Wrocław Television. Furthermore, the project of Lubawka community (though demonstrating relatively the smallest component of cross- border cooperation) is continued in the form of actions undertaken together with the Czech side. Naturally, it is a matter of question whether the projects would be continued if the funds under ETC – Objective 3 Programme had not been available. It may be assumed that this would apply (though to a much lesser scale) to the programme aimed at the development of bicycle routes and also contacts – stemming from the location and
R20090282.doc 45 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Project level findings Extrapolation to the programme level history – of both parts of Cieszyn. The remaining projects/actions – lacking such external support – probably would not be continued.
3. Feedback examination Priority areas and the allocation of funds under CI Interreg Poland – Czech Republic were commonly considered justified and corresponding to the needs of the region. Attention was often given to the relatively high level of bureaucracy of the programme and not always sufficient support during the implementation phase and lack of pre-financing, which practically divested the weakest institutions of the possibility of applying for support.
4. Analysis of individual and organisational learning and The individual and organisational learning element manifested in the indirect effects analysed projects to a varied degree. To the highest degree it was noticeable in the projects of both universities and TV stations. In a rather awkward manner it manifested in the Cieszyn project, where it related mainly to the complicated formal side of the project.
R20090282.doc 46 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
4 ANALYSIS OF FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE CHARACTER OF THE PROGRAMME
The length of the Polish – Czech border is 796 km. The border has a combined highland and valley character. In total the programme covered an area of 46,623 km2, including 23,134 km2 on the Czech side and 23,489 km2 on the Polish side. The area of coverage included the following regions:
Czech Republic: − Liberecký − Královéhradecký − Pardubický − Olomoucký − Moravskoslezský
Poland: − Jeleniogórsko-wałbrzyski − Opolski − Rybnicko-jastrzębski − Bielsko-bialski
The border area is characterised with a rich cultural heritage of several ethnic groups. Cultural, political and trade contacts were constrained in the second half of the 20th century due to the policy of both countries. After the transition year 1989 and in result of de-centralisation tendencies, the foundations of cross-border cooperation were re-established, among others by creating Euroregions. The collaboration of the public administration is complemented by local cultural and integration initiatives of the citizens and NGOs operating in the region.
The Polish – Czech borderland is varied, the settlement structure is scattered on the Czech side with a large number of communities and dense on the Polish side. The scattered settlement structure and dominance of small and average sized towns does not provide conditions for strong centres of developments. The largest towns on the Czech side include Ostrawa, Olomouc, Hradec Králové, Pardubice and Liberec and on the Polish side – Bielsko-Biała, Jastrzębie Zdrój, Rybnik, Opole, Wałbrzych and Jelenia Góra. The peripheral areas comprise mainly highlands, the large distance to regional centres and communication barriers are the main causes of high unemployment rates and low business activity of the region.
The regional Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita calculated vs. purchasing power in 2008 amounted to 80,4% for the Czech Republic and 57,5% for Poland of average GDP per capita in the EU. In 2002 GDP per capita in respective Polish sub-regions of the border regions, compared to the average in EU, ranged from 37% (Jeleniogórski-Wałbrzyski subregion) to 47,6% (Bielsko-Bialski subregion). The GDP per capita for Poland at that time was 45,6% of the average GDP per capita in the EU.
INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
The border region has a relatively well-developed transportation system. The III Pan-European transport corridor runs through the area. Despite a rather dense network of roads and railways, some connections are unavailable and their development is difficult due to the mountainous character of the borderland. In addition, the economic and tourist potential of the region is limited because of nonexistent modernisation and gradual deterioration of the roads’ technical condition. Also, the relatively dense railway network has low technical parameters with many sections not electrified and single-tracked.
The establishment of Euroregions was a very important phase in the integration of border regions after 1989. The first Euroregion covering Poland was Nysa-Nisa. As early as 1991 the representatives of local and regional authorities of Poland, the Czech Republic and Germany launched cooperation aimed, among others, at improving the living standards of the people, to foster economic development, to improve the condition of the natural environment and to build border passes. Other Euroregions at the Polish – Czech border include Glacensis (1996) Pradziad – Pradĕd (1997) Silesia (1998) Śląsk Cieszyński – Tĕšínské Slezsko (1998) and Beskidy – Beskydy (2000; Polish – Czech and Slovakian Euroregion).
The beginnings of cross-border cooperation financed from the funds of the European Commission date back to 1995 when, within the framework of Phare CBC programme, border cooperation was established on the Czech, Polish and German border in the Nysa region. The annual programme was implemented under both separate projects (modernisation of roads, water treatment plants) and the Joint Small Projects Funds. In the years 1997 – 1999 Phare Credo programme was performed in the region of the Polish and Czech border. A very important support instrument, preparing the ground for INTERREG IIIA programme, was Phare CBC which has been realized since 1999. Within the framework of the programme, projects had been accomplished that support both the local economy and human resources of the region as well as infrastructure.
At present the Poland – Czech Republic 2007 – 2013 Programme (European Territorial Cooperation – Objective 3) is in progress, which covers the same area as INTERREG IIIA, extended by the area of one county on the Polish side.
Under task 4 of the ex-post evaluation a methodology for all programmes was developed. It comprises key features and factors describing the context in which respective programmes are undertaken, i.e. geographic type of land, the political administrative nature of the common border, level of cross-border economic disparities (measured with GDP) and existence of common historic ties.
R20090282.doc 48 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Figure 4.1 The Taxonomic Position of the PL – CZ Programme
The taxonomic position of the PL- CZ Programme
160,00%
140,00%
120,00%
100,00%
80,00% % deviation from the mean
60,00%
40,00%
20,00%
0,00% A.1.1. Geographic A.1.2. The political A.1.4. The level of A.1.5. The existence type of land administrative nature of cross border economic of common historic the common border disparities ties
In the case of all criteria, better conditions for cooperation are proved by results below the average. Therefore, it is clear that the situation of the analysed Programme is varied. With regard to external conditions for cooperation, in the case of some of the indicators, it is in a more favourable situation, whereas in others it is in a less favourable situation.
The characteristics of the common border (border dominated by highlands, though of diverse height and accessibility: the lowest accessibility in the West – Karkonosze Mountains and the greatest in the East – Ostrawa region) does not promote cooperation. In addition, in communist times the border was strongly guarded, even the governments were not interested in expanding connections and for this reason locations at a close distance on both sides of the border did not have convenient connections.
The border between both countries is an internal border of the European Union; in addition, both countries are members of the Schengen zone. In this area the fact that the result of the analysis is above the average most likely results from the fact that data from the time before the EU accession of both states was applied for calculation purposes.
The level of economic differences is considered very low. In general, this is reflected in reality, though on the local level such differences may be discernible. The situation of the various cooperating towns or counties is very varied; some (especially those which hosted major enterprises that became bankrupt or have limited employment) are in a worse situation than the neighbours on the other side of the border.
Historic ties between both countries and a similar language are apparent. In this region, however, there are areas with a problem potential (even if slight). An area historically disputable between the two countries is Zaolzie, currently affiliated with the Czech Republic. A Polish minority lives in the region. Fortunately, many factors indicate that the thorny history is of an increasingly lesser importance and cooperation between both countries in this region is developing well. The examples of the projects described in this report by us prove that.
R20090282.doc 49 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Another factor that was analysed was the density of border passes per 100 km of the common border. In this aspect the Polish – Czech border is situated slightly above the average for all borders under Interreg IIIA – the average density of border passes is 54,42 vs. the average of 46,6.
In general, it may be assumed that the type of border encourages cooperation, while geographical conditions (mountains) may pose a certain barrier.
Another group of criteria subject to analysis related to the extent of priority topics (defined in Interreg Communication) and the concentration of expenditure of the programme. The results in these areas are presented in the following table:
Table 4.1 Priority topics and concentration
A.2.1 Extent of “priority topics” A.2.2 Concentration
PL-CZ 4,00 0,96
Mean strand A 4,77 0,87
% deviation from the mean 83,85 110,34
As shown, the programme includes 4 priority topics, where it ranks slightly below the entire “A” strand. Such result is not surprising as the programme bears a clearly defined profile. The concentration of expenditure of the programme is also relatively considerable, 96% of the budget allocated to 6 major measures accounts for a result well above the average.
The effectiveness and efficiency of the overall implementation process The same group of criteria was dedicated to the analysis of efficiency and effectiveness and sustainability at the programme and project level. In this case the scales used in respective criteria have a varied direction. In general, except for the scale used in the “degree of project sustainability” column, the remaining scales are structured in such a way that a higher result stands for a better performance of the programme.
Table 4.2 Analysis of Efficiency and Effectiveness and Sustainability at the Programme A 4.1 - The overall A 4.2 - The overall A 4.3 - The A4.5 - The “financial “degree of overall degree of overall “degree performance of the programme achievement of robustness / programme” sustainability” sustainability of projects” PL-CZ 0,78 2,00 3,378 55,00 Mean strand A 0,82 2,33 1,51 50,78 % deviation from the 95,12 85,86 223,17 108,31 mean
In these terms, the analysed programme is considered relatively good. A little below the mean is the level of financial performance of the programme, however it should be emphasized that the programme was included in a group of programmes with a shortened period of performance owing to the fact that both countries joined the European Union only in 2004. The financial sustainability (budget and programme changes) is considered good with a result of 86% for the mean within strand A.
8 Data based on calculations on the basis of Annual Report 2007.
R20090282.doc 50 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
The programme achieves high results with regard to the value of achieved indicators well above the mean (in this case in the absence of information about the value of indicator in the database it was calculated on the basis of annual reports). However, it should be noted that the fact that most indicators had been significantly surpassed does not have to stem from outstanding accomplishment of the programme’s assumptions and objectives, but may imply that target indicators were determined cautiously. Close to the mean is also the robustness and sustainability of the project, surpassing it slightly.
Below is a summary of key external factors that have impact on the quality of cooperation.
R20090282.doc 51 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Table 4.3 Summary of Key External Factors
Determining factors Effect at programme level Effect at project level Context factors characterising the cross-border area Cross-border: topographic / geographic Cooperation is partially limited due to The impact of natural conditions upon nature of the common border natural conditions (highlands) and also cooperation is very varied since the same sometimes by underdeveloped network conditions differ in different places of the border. of roads and railway connections. In some places high mountains become a barrier However, these factors are not of key for cooperation, in other – cooperation may importance. thrive aimed at the development of skiing routes or common promotion of regions on both sides of the border. Cross-border: political / administrative Both countries are members of the Since the projects were actually implemented, nature of the common border European Union; therefore, there are no supervised and settled in respective countries, formal obstacles in such cooperation. administrative problems, wherever such Nevertheless, certain minor differences problems aroused, were of internal character. in legal and administrative systems of Naturally, situations occurred when the same both countries pose a certain problem, solutions or expenditure (in case of common because of which the lead partner projects) were accepted in one country and not principle had not been applied under accepted in the other country. Applying such Interreg IIIA, though it is applied in the solutions resulted in a lesser level of cooperation current programming period. between the applicants. In general the Joint Technical Secretariat comprising staff of both countries was very well perceived in its assistance in solving the existing problems. Cross border: density of border crossing At present as both countries have The problem of border crossing possibilities was possibilities joined the Schengen treaty, the border insignificant at the project level. Some projects between them bears an open character. focused on the improvement of accessibility and However, while a greater part of the communication between both countries. In some programme was implemented, the cases the lack of convenient railway connections countries had not yet joined the was a certain barrier, despite the existence of a Schengen zone, hence the number and railway line, for example on Opole – Ostrawa character of border crossing possibilities route. was of great importance. The number of border passes is relatively considerable though varied, depending on natural conditions. Part of the road passes – because of their location in highlands – is less accessible in winter due to intensive snowfall. Cross-border: economic disparities As highlighted before, economic In some projects economic differences could differences between both regions are play a certain role. Exchange rate differences, relatively small, though locally however, were of no greater importance for the (between particular communities) they applicants as contracts were signed in the may be considerable. national currency (PLN, CZK) and settled in it. Cross-border: existence of historic ties Language similarities and historic ties The similarity of languages and their partial & converging cultural/linguistic most certainly facilitate cooperation. On knowledge in some of the regions (especially circumstances. the other hand, there are certain Zaolzie) smoothes the progress of significant cultural differences between communication between partners on both sides both nations, which usually do not of the border. Then again, differences between obstruct collaboration. both languages are significant enough that some similarities occasionally could have hindered communication. Historic factors determining cross-border cooperation Previous co-operation traditions The history of cooperation between At the level of respective towns or communities, both countries is rather complex. cooperation on a larger scale in fact started after Complicated historic experience – on 1989. The positive role in this respect was one side the long-term dispute over played by the establishment of Euroregions and Zaolzie, including its seizure by the programmes of cross-border cooperation under Polish army in 1938, and also the Phare programme. participation of the Polish army in the invasion of Czechoslovakia in August 1968, whereas on the other hand generally good relations between the nations, including cooperation in combating communism, for example under Polish – Czechoslovakian Solidarity. Prior existence of specific legal No legal instruments were applied that The absence of the lead partner principle instruments would extend Resolution 1260/1999. originated from the expected practical problems The rules of programme implementation in its implementation rather than from legal were regulated by an inter- constraints (though to little extent these had governmental agreement. some bearing). Prior existence of permanent co- From the institutional pint of view the On the project level Euroregions successfully operation structures. basic role in stimulating cross-border administered the micro-project component. cooperation was played by Euroregions, which exist along the entire Polish – Czech border.
R20090282.doc 52 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
4.1 MAIN FACTORS FOSTERING (OR HAMPERING) INTEGRATION AND MEANS TO PROMOTE POSITIVE FACTORS OR TO OVERCOME PERSISTING OBSTACLES
In comparing the programme with others analysed in earlier phases of this evaluation, the following results were achieved:
Table 4.4 Results Achieved
1. Historical criteria (not included in si 01 8 the real rate) si 02 50 si 03 70 Σ 128 2. Criterion si 04 70 common identification of needs si 05 70 Σ 140 3. Criterion si 06 90 Governance and partnership si 07 50 si 08 90 Σ 230 4 Criterion si 09 75 Nature and location of common si 10 55 projects si 11 00 Σ 130 5 criterion si 12 52 Density of common actions si 13 54 si 14 54 si 15 53 si 16 54 si 17 53 Σ 320 6 Criterion si 18 70 Impact of projects Σ 70 Gross score si 4 – si 18 890 Real Rate RR 59,3
When analysing the above results, it cannot be excluded that the actual evaluation of the programme based on the above criteria could be slightly lower. For instance, si 06 indicator regarding the share and rights to vote in Monitoring Committees should have the value of 70 since the representatives of NGOs and social and economic partners are present only on the Czech side and act only in an advisory capacity, whereas si 11 indicator is visibly underrated (both these issues were addressed in the Interim Report).
4.2 EXTRAPOLATING RESULTS ON EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPACTS TO ALL INTERREG PROGRAMMES
The analysed programme is a good example of a programme, which is implemented between 2 neighbouring countries with many similarities, but in which case the border cooperation was very limited for many years. After 1989 cooperation was slowly developed, but the important stimuli were EU aid programmes (mostly Phare) as well as creation of the Euroregions.
The experience of the programme also shows (as in many other Interreg programmes) that the indicator system does not really reflect the real achievements of the programme. Both the Managing Authority as well as the Joint Technical Secretariat are fully aware of this. They underline that the most important
R20090282.doc 53 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
(and at the moment not measured) effect of the programme is changing attitudes and prejudices on both sides of the border.
Below we present a summary of the main features of the programme in comparison with the other Interreg programmes.
Table 4.5 Summary of the Main Features of the Programme in Comparison with the other Interreg Programmes Results of the in-depth analysis of the Already suggested by Strength of evidence for Interreg Poland – Czech Republic Programme the results of task 1 and 2 1. High performance of financial yes Clear evidence implementation 2. There were only minor shifts in yes Clear evidence programming 3. High achievement rate at yes Clear evidence programme level 4. Projects are robust and yes Clear evidence sustainable 5. Indicators do not really measure yes Clear evidence the real quality and sustainability of cooperation
R20090282.doc 54 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
5 IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND IMPACTS IN TERMS OF UTILITY AND EFFICIENCY
5.1 THE EXTERNAL COHERENCE OF THE PROGRAMME
5.1.1 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND INTERACTION / CO-ORDINATION WITH OTHER STRUCTURAL FUNDS PROGRAMMES
Coherence with the European regulations and documents
The Programme falls under INTERREG strand A. The most important European regulations applicable for Interreg include several EC communications on Interreg as well as key Structural Funds regulation i.e. Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 and the Regulation on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999) and Regulation 438/2001 on administration and control systems
The programme, both in its official documents and in implementation rules, fully respects the existing regulations. The most important document was the Commission Communication 2004/C 226/02, as this is the most specific EC document concerning the Interreg Initiative. As it was published when the CIP document has been almost completed it was not possible to reflect it in this document, but its priorities were taken into account in further activities of the programme. The existing programme documents (CIP and PC) do not directly refer to this and the other communications on Interreg.
During the process of the programme implementation there were no controversies or discussions with the EC concerning its coherence with the European regulations.
Coherence with other Interreg programmes
There were other Interreg Programmes active in the area covered by the programme. On the Polish side it was Interreg III A Poland – Saxony, partially covering the same territory on the Polish side (jeleniogórski – wałbrzyski subregion) and Interreg III A Poland-Slovakia overlapping in one of the sub- regions of Slaskie voivodeship (Bielsko-bialski sub-region). There were close links between those programmes and the described programme. In the Poland-Slovakia programme the Polish Ministry of Regional Development played the role of the Managing Authority, in the Poland – Saxony Programme the Managing Authority was on the German side. The good cooperation was also possible through the Euroregions, e.g. some of the Euroregions used the application formats from the micro-projects’ component prepared for the Poland – Saxony Programme.
A similar situation was also observed on the Czech side: there was Interreg IIIA Czech Republic-Saxony, covering one of the areas covered by the described programme (Liberecky Kraj) and Interreg IIIA Czech Republic – Slovakia, covering one of the Czech regions eligible also for the Poland - Czech Republic programme (Moravskosliezsky Kraj). What is interesting is that both the Czech and Polish Interreg IIIA INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
programmes with Saxony had a common JTS (located in Dresden) as well as common www page. Managing Authority was also on the German side.
As far as Interreg Strand B (Baltic Sea and CADSES for Poland, CADSES for the Czech Republic) and Strand C are concerned, in both cases they were coordinated by the respective departments of the Polish and Czech Ministries of Regional Development.
Both the Managing Authority and the Joint Technical Secretariat maintained contacts with ESPON and Interact programmes and their staff took advantage of the events and training courses organized within their frameworks. These were usually considered valuable and helpful. With regard to the exchange of experience, attention was paid to the lack of funds and lack of decision-making about their allocation to finance meetings with representatives of Interreg programmes at other European borders. According to some respondents, though such meetings were held incidentally, more of such meetings would be welcomed. In particular attention to this matter was given in view of the introduction of the lead partner principle within the new programming period for the Poland – Czech Republic Programme.
This principle is applied on most borders of the “old” members of the European Union and it would be interesting and useful to learn the related organisational details and methods of solving various problems, e.g. difference of legal systems, building mutual trust and responsibility between partners, swiftness of financial flows, etc.
Coherence with the other EU policy interventions
The implementation of the programme was generally well coordinated with other measures financed under the Structural Funds on both sides of the border. The key underlying factor was the fact that the programme was coordinated by key institutions responsible for the deployment of structural funds on both sides of the border, i.e. Polish and Czech Ministries of Regional Development, acting as the Managing Authority and the National Authority accordingly. The implementation of the programme also involved – in particular in its initial phase – promotion and submission of applications. The institutions that were in charge of regional programmes were urzędy marszałkowskie on the Polish side and krajskie uřady on the Czech side.
A clear division of financing possibilities by the “national” operational programmes and INTERREG Initiative was done at several levels. In the preparation phase, during information seminars and training sessions attention was paid to the importance of the actual cooperation between partners on both sides of the border and the cross-border impact of the project. With regard to the contacts with respective institutions applying for funds, the key role was assumed by Contact Points on both sides of the border and the Joint Technical Secretariat. The task of the Contact Points (besides informing about the method of preparing a project application or a catalogue of qualified costs) was to suggest to potential applicants which projects qualify for support under Interreg. In this content the Contact Points were supposed to play the role of an institution rejecting projects that obviously did not qualify for the programme. Naturally, both the Contact Points and JTS could not forbid the applicant to apply, however without doubt their activities had limited to a large extent the number of projects of minor cross-border impact.
R20090282.doc 56 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
The evaluation of projects was a fundamental selection mechanism. The criteria focused on the actual cross-border cooperation and cross-border impact (this matter is addressed in the section relating to project evaluation criteria). According to our information, such evaluation was reliable and the staff of the Joint Technical Secretariat was committed to it. Such an evaluation was not final. The final decision about the projects granted with support was eventually made by the Steering Committee, which sometimes – as mentioned earlier – caused changes in the ranking list.
In reality, despite emphasis on maintaining the programme’s specificity, the matter of coordination of INTERREG Initiative with national programmes had remained – it seems – a serious concern. Respondents pointed out that often funds under the programme were the only chance for projects that did not manage to obtain financing under national programmes. For such projects the cross-border effect and true cooperation between the partners were doubtful. Naturally, a large part of such projects was probably rejected due to formal or technical reasons; nevertheless, even such projects were probably provided with financial support in some cases.
As pointed out by respondents, the only way to minimize the risk of awarding such projects is to tighten project requirements. From this point of view the introduction of the lead partner principle (despite related formal complications) in the present programming period should be considered as very positive. This principle imposes real, not just fictitious, cooperation.
There is no jointly accepted strategy of cooperation between 2 countries, other than the programme, so in some case the programme was based only on documents prepared by both countries individually9.
Relationships with external organisations and networks Before the Second World War the Polish – Czech border looked absolutely differently. Its length with the Czech part of the former Czechoslovakian Republic was only approximately 80 km, while at the moment it is almost 800 km. This is caused by the fact that almost all the present territory of Poland bordering the Czech Republic belonged to Germany. So the war cut all the existing relations and because of the huge population displacement it took a long time to rebuild them. Moreover, although after the war the border was established in its current state, due to the fact that it was ruled by the communist regime the contacts between both countries were mostly official. The situation became even worse after the Polish troops’ participation in the August 1968 invasion.
One of the few examples of good cooperation at that time, were the unofficial organisations such as the Polish-Czechoslovakian Solidarity.
The situation changed after the fall of communism in 1989. Several connections were established and several fields of cooperation emerged. They include the common development of tourism and common promotional activities, anti-flood protection (the second Polish river Odra originates in Czech territory) as well as environment protection. The cooperation was developed between informal groups, NGOs (these 2 groups had, as we already mentioned difficulties in benefitting from the programme’s assistance) and local governments.
9 e.g. Strategy of Development of the Polish-Czech Borderland, Governmental Centre for Strategic Studies, Katowice 2000,
R20090282.doc 57 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
An important role is played by the Euroregions, covering the whole border. Their role within the programme has also been very important. They stimulate cooperation between the local communities. Thanks to this, but also to EU programmes such as Interreg and the active approach of mayors on both sides of the border, in many areas there is very good cooperation between local governments.
The situation looks slightly worse at the level of regional governments. Officially the cooperation is good, but due to high levels of staff fluctuations in both countries and the language barrier there is still much to be done.
Programme reputation The Programme had a good reputation in the neighbouring regions. Both the local authorities and the local communities appreciated its support and were aware, that without this support, it would be impossible to implement some important projects that are valuable for people on both sides of the border. This opinion has been confirmed by the interviewed mass media representative. He emphasized also the very important role of the micro-projects component, which enabled many communities to learn how to prepare and implement the project as well as to promote the programme and the idea of cross border cooperation.
The good reputation of the programme can be confirmed by the very high number of applications to the present ETC Objective 3 Programme, which exceeded the available financial allocation.
Although decision makers (mayors, key civil servants) certainly distinguished the Interreg intervention from the other EU funded programmes, it is quite possible and understandable, that for the “normal people” all EU intervention was perceived as EU assistance, without understanding the differences between individual programmes. This can be explained by the fact that the resources allocated for the Objective 1 (now Convergence) regions in the Czech Republic and Poland both in 2000-2006 and 2007- 2013 programming periods were very large and that all the regions on both sides of the border were eligible for such assistance.
The Programme had quite a wide coverage in the media. Usually a good occasion to describe its achievements was the completion of a project (like the opening of a new road) or an interesting event (in this case it was usually financed within micro-projects) like a sport competition. The programme has also been promoted very actively, especially by the Euroregions and the JTS as well as by both Managing Authority and National Authorities. The mass media had very good access to any information about the programme.
Some of the persons interviewed expressed the opinion that it is a pity that in the current programming period, for the present programme, the Interreg brand is not used and the programme is known as “Objective 3 – European Territorial Cooperation”. According to them, the Interreg brand was identifiable in the region (for the key people) and the new name means that it will take time and resources to promote it, which might be difficult, since the full name is quite long and the short name “Objective 3” does not mean much to non-experts. This opinion is not shared by the mass media representative. According to him the name of the programme was not that important for the promotion of the programme.
R20090282.doc 58 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
The main factors which could have threatened the good reputation of the programme included some delays in the implementation (delayed signature of the contracts at the beginning of the programme operation and delays in payments) as well as quite unfavourable conditions for the smaller organisations.
The most important findings in the area of external coherence of the programme as well as its reputation can be summarized as follows: − The rules of programme implementation are laid down in an inter-governmental agreement. The remaining issues are regulated under the provisions of the relevant national legislations. − The programme was implemented according to the regulations and basically no substantial deviations occurred. − The Managing Authority also plays an important role in the implementation of the other Interreg programmes (as Managing Authority or National Authority). Both the MA and JTS maintain contacts with Interact and ESPON initiatives. The meetings and materials organized by both programmes are usually considered as being useful and helpful in the implementation of Interreg. − As a rule, the measures under Interreg had been coordinated with other Structural Fund interventions, in particular the key programmes of Objective 1. This has been taken care of by the National Authority and the Managing Authority, whereas with regard to assistance in preparation of the projects it was done mainly by Contact Points. However, the situation could actually not always be avoided when an applicant decided to file an application to Interreg, upon an unsuccessful application to the national programme, emphasizing only the purported cross-border impact. − The intervention was well-coordinated with the cross border bodies (mostly Euroregions). The coordination with the NGO sector and the SME representatives was limited – their representatives were only present in the Czech part of the Monitoring Committee with an advisory vote only. − The local perception of Interreg is very positive, although since in both countries there was massive EU assistance for the Objective 1 regions, in many cases it could have been perceived as part of this assistance, not as the specific Interreg programme. The programme has also been well promoted. According to some interviewed persons a very important promotional role was played by the projects that were implemented within the micro-projects component.
5.2 THE INTRINSIC PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAMME
5.2.1 THE OVERALL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OF THE PROGRAMME
Programme management – general rules
The system of programme management was relatively complex. The basic rules of the management system and division of obligations were regulated in an agreement between the governments of the Czech Republic and Poland, signed by the Ministers of Regional Development and on the Polish side also by the Minister of Finance.
The role of the programme’s Managing Authority was assumed by the Czech Ministry of Regional Development (Ministerstvo pro místní rozvoj). On the Czech side, also the Paying Authority was appointed, assumed by the Czech Ministry of Finances. On the Polish side, the role of coordinator was assumed by the Ministry of Regional Development (National Authority) and the Ministry of Finance (Sub- paying Authority).
R20090282.doc 59 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
An important role on the Czech side was played by the Centre for Regional Development (a department of the Ministry of Regional Development). Its tasks included the organisation and functioning of the Joint Technical Secretariat (positioned within its structure).
An important role in the process of programme management was assumed by the Joint Technical Secretariat located on the Czech side in Olomouc. It was located in the structures of a unit of the Czech Ministry of Regional Development, i.e. the Centre for Regional Development. Its staff recruited half Czech employees and half Polish employees. The Polish staff was delegated to work in JTS at three relevant marshal offices in the regions covered by the programme.
The Joint Technical Secretariat was responsible for the selection and major part of the evaluation of the projects. It also assisted the Managing Authority in the operational management of the programme, providing services to the Monitoring Committee and preparing preliminary versions of annual reports on the implementation of the programme.
JTS was also responsible for the promotion of the programme and dissemination of information about the programme. Within the framework of the programme a special fund was allocated for micro-projects (i.e. projects with value up to € 20,000). The financing of micro-projects was provided under Measure 2.2. The micro-projects component was managed by Euroregions of the Polish – Czech border: Nysa, Pradziad, Glacensis, Silesia, Śląsk Cieszyński and Beskidy.
The programme implementation structures can be described as a mixture of both a centralised and decentralised approach. The key institutions (Managing and National Authorities, Paying and Sub-paying Authorities) are central institutions located in Prague and Warsaw, respectively. Both the paying authorities do not have the branches in the regions. In Czech Republic the Centre for Regional Development (CRD) (which operates within the structure of the Ministry of Regional Development) has its regional branches (but not in all the regions). The Centre played an important role during both the projects’ preparation and its implementation. Also the Joint Technical Secretariat is located within the structures of the CRD. In Poland the Ministry has only very limited regional structures (they operate only in very few regions). As far as the implementation of Interreg Poland - Czech Republic is concerned; an important role was played by the Ministry branch in Katowice (located outside of the programme area, but in the capital of one of the 3 regions covered by the programme).
During the process of the programme preparation as well as during the projects’ selection, an important role was also played by the regional governments in both countries (urzędy marszałkowskie and krajskie uřady, respectively). In both countries the contact points were located within the structures of regional governments.
Below we present the locations of the most important institutions involved in the programme’s implementation.
R20090282.doc 60 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Table 5.1 The Locations of the Most Important Institutions Involved in the Programme’s Implementation Czech Republic Institution Role Location Ministry of Regional Development Managing Authority Prague (capital city) Ministry of Finance Paying Authority Prague (capital city) Joint Technical Secretariat (Polish and Olomouc Czech staff together) Centre for Regional Developments (part Intermediate Authority II Level: Prague (capital city) of the Ministry) preparing contracts to be signed by the Olomouc Ministry, control of the programme Ostrava implementation, Hradec Kralove
Krajskie uřady (regional government) Intermediate Authority - general Olomouc support of the programme, evaluation Ostrava of applications, promotion, role in the Hradec Kralove monitoring system. Pardubice Liberec Euroregions Management of the Micro-projects Euroregion Nysa – Liberec component Euroregion Glacensis - Rychnov nad Kněžnou Euroregion Praded - Vrbno p.Pradědem Euroregion Silesia – Opava Euroregion Sląsk Cieszyński Ceský Tešín Euroregion Beskidy – Frydek Mistek Poland Ministry of Regional Development National Authority Warsaw (capital city) Katowice (regional branch) Ministry of Finance Subpaying Authority Warsaw (capital city) Urzędy Wojewódzkie (state Intermediate Authority – signing of the Katowice administration) contracts, control procedures, transfer Opole of funds Wrocław Urzędy Marszałkowskie (regional Running Contact Points, general support Katowice government) for the programme, participation in Opole projects’ selection Wrocław Contact Points Promotion of the programme, support Bielsko-Biała for the applicants Opole Wałbrzych Euroregions Management of the Micro-projects Euroregion Nysa – Jelenia Góra component Euroregion Glacensis - Kłodzko Euroregion Praded - Prudnik Euroregion Silesia – Racibórz Euroregion Sląsk Cieszyński Cieszyn Euroregion Beskidy – Bielsko - Biała
The Monitoring Committee played an important role in the programme management process. On the Czech side the Monitoring Committee was composed of representatives of the Ministry of Regional Development, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Environmental Protection and representatives of all regions covered by the programme as well as all Euroregions. In addition, on the Czech side the meetings of the Committee were attended by – acting in the capacity of advisors – representatives of the Czech – Morav Confederation of Labour Unions, Association of NGOs, Commercial Chamber of the Czech Republic and the Centre for Regional Development of the Czech Republic. On the Polish side the Committee was composed of representatives of the Ministry of Regional Development, the Ministry of Finance, Voivodeship Offices from each of the regions covered by the programme, urzędy marszałkowskie from the 3 regions and also all Euroregions.
The meetings of the Committee were also attended by – as advisors – representatives of urzędy marszałkowskie responsible for environmental protection matters.
On the Polish side there were no representatives from any institutions other than the public administration (except for Euroregions, which are developed by local authorities and hence in fact bear a quasi public character) whereas on the Czech side such representatives attended the meetings, however
R20090282.doc 61 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
only in the capacity of advisors. The absence of representatives of any sector other than public administration must raise serious doubts. It must have unquestionably influenced the decision-making process and the priorities of the programme. The composition of the Monitoring Committee should be regarded as problematic. Naturally, it may be argued that on the Polish side business organisations are much weaker since attendance therein is not obligatory. Also, the structures grouping NGOs are not that strong. While this is undoubtedly true, such constraints should not lead to a situation where the representatives of business milieus and NGOs are practically absent in the process of making decisions concerning the programme.
Projects’ selection The selection of projects within the programme was conducted in two ways. One method applied to major projects filed to JTS and the other to micro-projects (up to € 20,000) handled by the respective Euroregions.
Regarding the component of major projects (handled by JTS) applications could be submitted only to JTS, whereas on the Czech side they could also be submitted to regional divisions of the Centre for Regional Development. This situation was most certainly less favourable for Polish applicants, who had either to travel to Olomouc (JTS seat) or send the application by post. Having little trust as to the reliability of the post service, applicants rarely dispatched their applications, rather choosing the personal delivery, whereby they could – upon a preliminary formal control on site – make necessary corrections and if needed – file the application once again. In addition, the time factor was of essence. Despite the rolling applications procedure, the dates of the Steering Committee meetings were decisive. If an application was filed too late, it could not be considered until the next meeting and as a result the chances for the realisation of the project dropped dramatically. During the period of the Programme’s implementation the Steering Committee meetings were held only 3 times.
The project applications were prepared using ELZA application generator prepared by the Czech side. The Polish language version of ELZA was provided quite late, whereupon the deadline for submission of applications was postponed for the Polish side. The formal evaluation was made directly upon submission of the application. If the application was delivered personally by an authorized representative of the applicant, the formal evaluation was performed jointly by the representative of JTS and the applicant. If any formal shortcomings were revealed in the formal evaluation phase, they could be corrected, provided that there was sufficient time before the meeting of the Steering Committee.
During the phases of preparing the applications all the applicants could benefit from the support provided by both the contact points and the JTS. Since in many cases the formal requirements were quite complex such assistance was very useful for the applicants. Moreover support has been also provided through numerous training events and workshops.
If the application was delivered without the presence of an authorized representative of the applicant, the formal evaluation was made by two members of the Joint Technical Secretariat. The next stage was the evaluation of the project’s eligibility which was performed by 2 members of the JTS staff from the given country.
R20090282.doc 62 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Upon completion of this phase, an expert evaluation was performed. Experts were appointed by competent bodies of regional authorities, on the Polish side urząd marszałkowski, on the Czech side Krajski uřad. The approach to an expert evaluation differed on both sides of the border. On the Czech side all projects, regardless of specificity, were evaluated by one expert, most often a member of staff of the regional authority. In Poland projects were evaluated by various experts (specialists in the field of the given project) working for urzędy marszałkowskie and external experts. Experts evaluated the project in terms of technical, financial, regional aspects and sustainability. Each project could score up to 50 points.
The evaluation phase in some cases could have been organised in a different way to avoid some problems (and this is the case in the present ETC programme). Experts evaluating applications filed by organisations and institutions of their own region (usually known to them) in some cases assigned relatively high scores to maximise their chances. Eventually, since it was the case only for some experts and regions, this was corrected by selection of projects’ not necessarily according to the order of the ranking list, which was also controversial (although formally allowed) way of solving this problem. Doubts were cast related to the fact that various types of projects (roads, sewage, and tourism) could be evaluated by one and the same expert (this applied to the Czech side only)10.
The next phase of the evaluation focused on cooperation between project partners. The evaluation was conducted by one Czech and one Polish member of staff at JTS. After which the cross-border impact was evaluated by an expert representing the applicant’s country and JTS members of staff representing the other country. All evaluations were input and stored in the programme monitoring system. Projects could score up to 50 points for this component.
At the end of the evaluation process, the ranking list of applications was sent to members of the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee was composed of representatives of both countries: decisions were made in such a way that first the national delegation voted on the matter and only when both delegations voted in favour of an application or a resolution, was a relevant decision made. The Steering Committee was composed – on the Czech side – of the representatives of the Ministry of Regional Development, Ministry of Environmental Protection and all krajski uřad and Euroregions. On the Polish side the composition of the Steering Committee was similar and included representatives of all urzędy marszałkowskie and all Euroregions as well as representatives of the Ministry of Regional Development. All these persons attended the Committee’s meetings as decision-makers. The members of staff of JTS and an EC representative attended the meetings as advisors. The representatives of entrepreneurs or NGOs did not attend the meetings of the Steering Committee, not even in the capacity of advisors. As in the case of the Monitoring Committee, such a situation should be considered negative. Similarly, concerning the business representatives, their opinions could be considerable in case of both infrastructure and “soft” projects.
The final decision about project financing was made by the Steering Committee. What is interesting is that the Steering Committee sometimes introduced significant changes in the ranking list (one of the reasons for this has been already described) and such changes related almost solely to the Polish side.
10 The way of projects’ evaluation is different within the present Programme.
R20090282.doc 63 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
For instance, at the first meeting of the Steering Committee concerning Measure 1.1 projects ranking 2,3, 5 and 11 (sic) on the ranking list were chosen. Likewise for the same Measure at the next meeting of the Steering Committee projects ranking as 2,5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13 and 15 were chosen. It is purported that such changes compared to the ranking list were supposed to ensure an even distribution of projects between respective regions. At the same time, in case of both meetings of the Steering Committee, the projects on the Czech side were chosen according to the ranking list. The fact that such substantial changes were made, questioned the reliability of the technical evaluation.
The selection and implementation of projects in case of Euroregions, managing a pool of micro-projects in the value of up to € 20,000, was different. In this case both the selection and evaluation of applications was the responsibility of the Euroregions. The “umbrella” projects (a project was understood as a fund of micro-projects for the entire Euroregion) filed earlier by respective Euroregions were evaluated by the Steering Committee of the programme.
The competitions for micro-projects were announced by the respective Euroregions concurrently on both sides of the border by both the Polish and Czech Euroregion secretariat. The formal evaluation was performed at the level of the Euroregion secretariat. The technical evaluation of applications was carried out by external experts. To avoid conflicts of interests, in many cases a cross-section evaluation was performed – the staff of A Euroregion secretariat evaluated applications from B Euroregion and vice versa.
A Steering Committee was appointed in every region to make the final decision about the list of qualified projects. The Committee was usually composed of representatives from both countries, a majority of whom (typically all) represented regional self-government authorities. The representatives of JTS, the Managing Authority and the National Authority participated as observers in the meetings of the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee at the level of Euroregions usually accepted the results of the expert’s evaluation, occasionally only requesting minor corrections in the shape of the projects (e.g. removal of non-eligible expenditure, etc.).
The contracts with applicants under the micro-projects were concluded by the Euroregion. The Euroregion also controlled the implementation of the micro-projects and made payments. The Euroregions were controlled by voivodeship offices (in Poland) and regional divisions of the Centre for Regional Development (in the Czech Republic). Within this system, the requirements of the controlling institutions were sometimes directly conveyed to applicants. In some cases these requirements were very formal, which regrettably affected the reputation of the Euroregions.
Projects’ implementation Once the projects had been selected, contracts were signed. On the Polish side the party to the contract was the Voivodeship Office (governmental authority) on the Czech side it was the Centre for Regional Development. On the Polish side after first submission of applications and after the decision of the Steering Committee many applicants waited approximately 6 months before being able to sign the contract. This delay was mostly caused by the lack of preparation of implementation structures (Urzędy Wojewódzkie) and the fact that they were not involved enough in the preparatory phase of the programme, so in some cases they had different vision of the necessary procedures and documents to
R20090282.doc 64 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
the National Authority. This problem was corrected, however, during the following stages of the Programme’s implementation and the contracts have been signed quite quickly.
Another specific feature of the programme on the Polish side was the partial change of partners involved in the implementation process. From the moment of contract signing, both the Joint Technical Secretariat as well as the Contact Points (and hence also the Marshall Offices) no longer played their key roles and were practically not involved in the implementation of projects. In addition, institutions that took over the supervision of the realisation of projects, i.e. voivodeship offices, were involved in the early phases of the programme far too little and hence their knowledge about it varied and was not profound. The fact that the involved institutions changed considerably had produced – according to some interviewed persons – certain unfavourable results. The interpretation of some provisions in the application phase provided by the Contact Points and JTS differed from time to time from the interpretation of voivodeship offices. Another problem was the fact that though individual voivodeship offices are subject to one centre (the Ministry of Administration and Internal Affairs) their approach to the implementation of projects and strictness of control does in fact vary. Of the three involved regions, one of the offices was considered very strict, one rather liberal and the third as somewhere in between. This could lead to (and most certainly did lead to) an uneven approach by the applicants, depending on the region of their operations.
The management of the programme was also hindered by the fact that practically up to the very end of the programme the computer monitoring system (SJ Monit) operated only on the Czech side. This was due to software failures and also because the Polish language version was not delivered until very late. This situation is totally different in the present programme, where the system is fully operational in both languages from the beginning of the programme’s implementation.
Certain doubts also stemmed from the fact that voivodeship offices, owing to the nature of their position in the public administration structure, are dedicated largely to supervision and control, whereas regional development handled by the Ministry of Regional Development and urzędy marszałkowskie is beyond their competencies. For this reason, while in terms of control of projects it can be assumed that the activities were performed effectively11, the offices, according to some project promoters, did not seem to provide enough advice or support to applicants during the entire process. It has to be emphasized, however, that for the project promoters the Voivodeship Offices organised training events e.g. on the preparation of payment requests, naturally, the applicants could also ask the staff of JTS for assistance and such assistance was provided, nevertheless all final decisions were made by the personnel of the relevant voivodeship office.
The system on the Czech side was organized a little differently. The key role was assumed by regional divisions of the Centre for Regional Development (an institution subject to the Ministry of Regional Development, wherein JTS was also positioned).
The controls of the project implementation and the settlement/transfer of funds on the Polish side were the competence of relevant voivodeship offices, whereas on the Czech side the competence lay with various divisions of the Centre for Regional Development. However, in fact (particularly in view of the
11 Because of the very effective system of control no money had to be returned to Brussels because of irregularities identified.
R20090282.doc 65 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
lack of a computer system for project monitoring functioning on the Polish side) there was a shortfall of monitoring of the undertaken projects. Another hindrance often pointed out by the applicants was the lack of the possibility to adjusting the project’s structure. While certain minor budgetary changes were allowed (shifts between budget categories made in a defined mode) it was impossible to introduce any changes to the project. Changes in this context mean any change in the type of event (conference, training) topic of event, etc., rather than any substantial change. This problem was also recognized by Voivodeship Offices, which pointed that sometimes such changes could have been beneficial for the project.
Generally, each project was controlled at least once before the final payment. Such control was conducted on-site or in the applicant’s premises in case of soft projects. The control actions involved the implementation of the project and achievement of the assumed indicators. The actual realisation of the investment was evaluated, together with all the related documents and with regard to soft projects – also documents such as attendance lists, training materials, etc. In the course of such a control procedure, attention was paid to the identity of accounting evidence with copies thereof sent together with applications for funding, and also the correctness of the public procurement tender procedures (if any). In general, major inconsistencies were relatively rare.
Some respondents pointed that the control procedures focused on the formal aspects of the project, i.e. the fact that a road was built, a seminar or training held etc. To a lesser degree attention was paid to the actual cross-border effect of the project; however, obviously such control would have been much more difficult. This issue was rightly underlined by the staff of JTS, who pointed out that because of the absence of fully uniform control rules on both sides of the border, combined with a varied and usually limited experience of the project controllers, with regard to the cross-border effect, the actual cross- border effect of a number of finalized projects can hardly be estimated on an ex-post basis.
As regards the control of a project’s sustainability, on the Polish side its rules were defined in the “Guidelines – Controlling the sustainability of projects within the framework of INTERREG IIIA Programmes”. In accordance with these guidelines, at least 10% of the projects undertaken within the framework of the programme are subject to a sustainability control. The projects are controlled gradually and 3 years upon completion of the project. The selection of a sample takes into account the risk of bias (evaluated based on the applicant’s experience, size of project, earlier inconsistencies – if any). In the results the sample for a group of projects of considerable risk was greater (approx. 15%) whereas the group of a lesser risk – proportionately smaller.
The sustainability control included: analysis on whether the project had not been substantially modified according to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (art. 30) whether the project was implemented in accordance with the signed contract as well as with existing national and European regulations, whether the objective of the project was not changed, if the necessary data about the project were properly kept and if the beneficiary fulfilled the promotional obligations as regulated by the contract.
As we can see sustainability control concentrated on the formal aspect of the project, although with some limited elements concerning the essence of the projects (objective of the project). In reality for the infrastructural projects the sustainability control concentrated on checking whether the given investment (road, wastewater facility etc.) still exists in a good shape and the owner has not been changed. In case
R20090282.doc 66 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
of the “soft” projects this control was much more difficult. It is quite possible, that its range and priorities were a little different, depending on the controlling institution. What is usually checked is the continuation of the cross-border cooperation between the project partners (for the joint projects). If the project included the creation of an institution (e.g. support centre) or web page the control checks if it still exists. Concerning this, the sustainability control is much more similar to the audit, than to the ex- post evaluation.
The management system should be evaluated in an ambiguous way, but rather positively. There was a prevalent positive opinion about the valuable role of the Joint Technical Secretariat and the very positive fact that its staff comprised representatives of both nations. It seems that the principle of common programme management was – as regards the activities undertaken by JTS – fully observed. During the phase of applications election and programme promotion, JTS initiated numerous training and promotional activities, organizing information meetings, training courses and workshops for potential applicants. These were generally recognized as very helpful. Likewise, the role of the contact points was very helpful. On the Polish side, contact points were positioned in Urzędy Marszałkowskie or divisions thereof in the area covered by the programme (2 capital towns of voivodeships covered by the programme remained beyond the supported region) in Bielsko-Biała, Opole and Wałbrzych. Contact points were responsible for providing basic information about the programme as well as giving advice on the qualification of a certain type of project for support under the programme. Similar points operated on the Czech side, located in the seats of regional government
In general the cooperation between the various institutions was quite good, especially between the JTS, MA and NA, as well as with the Contact Points. Representatives of all these institutions met regularly to discuss the progress of implementation and the current problems. Such meetings were usually organised in the seat of JTS in Olomouc or in another locations. Also the meetings of the Monitoring and Steering Committees as well as training events provided good opportunities for discussions.
As far as cooperation on the level of both the ministries of regional development (MA and NA) as well as with both paying authorities is concerned, all the persons interviewed expressed their opinion that it was very good. This opinion can be confirmed by the fact that the ETC Objective 3 Programme Poland – Czech Republic has been started as the first ETC Programme in both countries.
During the later stages of the programme’s implementation (after beginning of implementation of the projects) representatives of Urzędy Wojewódzkie also took part. Regretfully they were not involved in earlier stages of the programme, so it took time to transfer all necessary knowledge about it. Also, as we have already mentioned, since the role of JTS in the projects’ implementation stage was very limited (which probably was not a very good solution, leading to lack of continuation of the support for the projects) there was no necessity to meet very often.
Cooperation between the Euroregions and most of the institutions taking part in the programme was also quite good.
R20090282.doc 67 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
A problem to which attention was commonly called was the considerable formal complexity of settlements and reporting and also the variety of the prevailing guidelines and forms. In the initial phase of the programme substantial delays occurred on the Polish side with regard to the signing of project contracts. The delay was caused by the fact that organisational structures had not been adequately prepared to undertake the programme and also by related formal uncertainties. One of the commonly criticized implementation arrangements was the lack of advance payments – in all cases (both for major and micro-projects). In some cases there was only a final payment; in some there were interim payments. Such arrangements implied that access to the programme was heavily limited for institutions without adequate amount of working capital, especially for NGOs.
5.2.2 PROGRAMME MONITORING SYSTEM
The programme monitoring system was based on the SJ Monit computer application developed by the Czech side. Unfortunately, while on the Czech side, following certain initial problems, it was widely applied, on the Polish side it was used to little extent. This was due to the fact, that for a long time there was no Polish version of this software and when eventually it was available – it was decided that its implementation in the closing phase of the programme would produce problems rather than benefits. In addition, the Czech company that developed the computer application failed to provide a telephone support service in the Polish language. Hence, the decision as described above was reached. This experience, however, was fully taken into account in the present programme (Objective 3) when the monitoring system is fully integrated and available for both countries.
Both the Managing Authority and JTS attributed a limited role to the system of indicators as the basis for programme monitoring. In this context, as mentioned earlier, attention was paid to problems relating to the identification of reliable and adequate indicators. In particular, difficulties were stressed regarding the measurement of effects (in relation to both the programme and respective projects) in the core area, i.e. overcoming barriers between both nations, elimination of biases, etc. To develop such indicators could be possible, but would require complex and high-priced public opinion surveys or another (maybe less expensive) way of analysing the impact of the programme on the local communities on both sides of the border. The credibility of attributing the observed changes, if any, to Interreg Initiative could become another problem.
Programme evaluation Because of the comparatively short time of programming (both States became EU members in May 2004) a mid-term evaluation was not carried out. An ex-ante evaluation was performed upon programme preparation. No programme evaluation is planned.
Lack of ex-post evaluation (this study, given limited time and resources allocated, can only help a little in this area) can be only explained by the fact that it was not required formally. Since there were very many institutions involved in the programme implementation (especially on the Polish side) we are deeply convinced (also on the basis of experience in preparation of this study) that “full scale” ex-post evaluation would be of great help for all the programme stakeholders. Although the main deficiencies of the programme have been corrected in the current programme (monitoring system, introduction of the lead partner principle, improved indicators, representation of NGOs and social partners in the Monitoring Committee) it is certain that there are still areas in which more feedback on the actual direct and indirect
R20090282.doc 68 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
effects of the programme, as well as on problems and barriers in projects’ implementation, are very much needed.
5.2.3 THE COMMUNITY ADDED VALUE AND THE SUSTAINABILITY / DURABILITY OF THE PROGRAMME
In a financial sense the only change made within the framework of the programme related to a shift of funds from Technical Assistance to other priorities as well as some minor shifts within the priorities.
The Community added value under the programme may be described as relatively varied. It can be argued that such added value was contributed mostly by projects accomplished within the component of micro-projects featuring high socio-cultural added value. Such projects (at least part of them) increased knowledge about own common history and owing to direct interpersonal contacts helped both sides to get to know each other. Relations between both sides engaged in the implementation of such projects (at least for joint projects) in many cases are longer lasting and it is a very important effect of the programme. A number of projects on a greater scale (unlike micro-projects) can also be assessed highly, including some presented in this report.
As regards the socio-economic and institutional value added, accomplishments were much more inferior. A very small number of projects addressed issues relating to the labour market or even broader – social policy. Nor were there many projects aimed at SME support. Quite good achievements can be observed in the field of tourism development – in some cases the communities on both sides of the border are promoting their product together; in some case there are attempts to work out the common tourist product.
The absence of the lead partner principle in many cases did not promote close institutional contacts. The Programme reinforced, however, the role of Euroregions, which are very important cross border institutions. All the persons interviewed emphasised the very positive role and high quality of work of the Joint Technical Secretariat, employing both Polish and Czech staff. The work of the JTS reflected the main objectives of the programme very well.
It is difficult to evaluate the sustainability of relations between the project promoters and the activities continued by those financed under Interreg. It seems that the most sustainable bonds (and the greatest chance to continue the performance of projects) exist wherever partners share a joint strategy of action or interests – this may involve joint projects in tourism, like one of the projects described in this report. In such situations, when the project is not a one time event, but something that contributes to a well prepared long term set of actions, the possibility of continuing cooperation is much higher.
The deficiency of funds may be perhaps a barrier to the continuance of soft measures. As the structural fund’s support should be used only one time and cannot serve as a regular support for any event, the applicants that benefited under Interreg will encounter serious problems with gaining funds for the same objective under the present programme (ETC – Objective 3). This approach is naturally comprehensible (European funds should not replace national funding) however, on the other hand in many cases such funds constitute the only source of financing for specific types of activities.
R20090282.doc 69 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
The most important findings in the area of external coherence of the intrinsic performance of the programme can be summarized as follows: − Cross border cooperation can be described as relatively well developed, especially at the level of local self-governments. In most cases the local authorities on both sides have concluded formal cooperation agreements. − Cooperation took place during the meetings of the Monitoring Committee and the Steering Committee and also involved the Joint Technical Secretariat. Cooperation was also established between the Managing Authority and the National Authority and the Paying Authority and the Subpaying Authority. Because the project supervision system was separate, institutions responsible for signing contracts and controlling project performance on both sides of the border cooperated to a lesser degree (urzędy wojewódzkie and centre for regional development) − A monitoring system was applied as an instrument of programme management within a limited scope. Most indicators pertained to the number of projects of a respective type, which did not allow for tracking their actual impact on the accomplishment of the assumed objectives of the programme. − Financial management at programme level of was relatively efficient. A problem especially faced by less prosperous applicants related to the shortage of advance payments and also to delays in interim and final payments. The lack of possibility of applying for advance payments practically excluded minor NGOs from funding as they could not finance the project from their own, inadequate resources. − The selection of projects was performed according to slightly different rules for projects filed with JTS and for micro-projects filed in a relevant Euroregion. The evaluation procedure was formalized perhaps even too much during the formal evaluation. In general the whole procedure was prepared and implemented adequately. Certain doubts may only relate to the fact (with regard to some Polish projects evaluated by the Steering Committee) that in some cases the list of projects changed considerably when compared with the ranking list. − The Community Added Value varies. It can be assumed that there was community added value in certain micro-projects and in some soft projects. − During the course of the programme no substantial changes occurred. One of the changes related to a shift of funds for technical assistance to activities aimed at supporting particular projects, there were also some minor shifts within the priorities. − It is not easy to evaluate wether the projects were robust and sustainable. The answer to this question is based on a personal opinion of the persons engaged in the programme. Opinions in this respect were unfortunately very varied. One of the representatives of Euroregions claimed that almost 100% of micro-projects financed in his Euroregion had noticeable cross-border impact and in most cases cooperation would be continued. JTS representatives were much more sceptical (naturally, as this concerned major projects). It should be stressed that while it is easier to obtain information about respective projects at Euroregion level, hardly any of the institutions involved in the programme had complete knowledge about the results of the projects and their continuation, if any. − A major part of the projects that were financed are projects, the durability of which should be financed by competent public institutions (e.g. roads) or which should be self-financed (e.g. sewage investments). Problems with financing may relate – as mentioned earlier – to projects comprising a series of regular events, whether it be sports or cultural.
R20090282.doc 70 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
6 OVERALL FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 FINAL CONCLUSIONS
The Poland – Czech Republic Programme was first implemented on the Polish-Czech border under the INTERREG Initiative. Despite certain minor delays the implementation of the programme was generally problem-free. In the application phase potential applicants were provided with sufficient training and advisory support from the Joint Technical Secretariat and Contact Points. The cooperation between implementing institutions from both countries should be evaluated as very good.
There were no large delays in the disbursement of funds and the differences between expenditure assumed for respective measures and expenditure actually disbursed, were mainly the result of exchange rate differences.
The measures of the programme were largely oriented on modernisation and the development of existing infrastructure (roads, sewage systems, sewage treatment plants, anti-flood infrastructure). On both sides of the border, needs with regard to infrastructure investments were and are considerable. Another important area of expenses were the so-called micro-projects, usually relating to various types of cultural and sports events, exchange visits of children and young people. A relatively small portion of funds was allocated for supporting SMEs and activities relating to the labour market and common services for local people. This is probably attributable to the fact that governmental and self-governmental authorities are over-represented in programme management bodies, for which infrastructure investments are usually of key importance, and also because access to funds under the programme is difficult for institutions without considerable working capital, in particular non-governmental organisations because of the absence of an advance payments system.
Concerning project selection, evaluation criteria focused on real cross-border cooperation and cooperation between partners, though naturally the absence of the lead partner principle made such an evaluation more problematic. Nevertheless, the greatest share of projects accepted are joint projects, which proves that selection criteria rightfully took the “joint” aspect into account.
Indicators assumed under the programme (both at measure and at priority level) had been surpassed many times. While it may prove the success of the programme, it also points to the disputable selection of such indicators and lack of adequate bases for identifying target values.
On the other hand, it is difficult to describe the actual effects of the programme even if it most certainly has contributed to closer relations between communities on both sides of the border and more intensive cooperation between them. Indicators, despite high values, are not adequate and precise enough in depicting the actual results of the programme. Moreover, apart from indicators, there is no other information facilitating precise estimate of the actual effects of the programme and their impact on motivating cross-border co-operation. INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
6.2 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations arising from the programme and its performance must relate to the programme being implemented within the current programming period. Interreg experience was taken into consideration during the programme’s development; unfortunately, in some cases the applied solutions raised certain controversies.
The Interreg IIIA programme is continued by the programme conducted over the years 2007 – 2013 (European Territorial Cooperation – Objective 3) which differs considerably from the Interreg IIIA programme. The main difference is, as mentioned before, the implementation of the lead partner principle (at least with regard to major projects). This significantly increases the chances for financing projects prepared and realized jointly; naturally here it concerns projects of a cross-border character.
As mentioned earlier, there are certain doubts concerning organisational arrangements in relation to the said principle. The 1% expenditure level on the other side of the border is considered as much too low and ineffective to eliminate projects of minor cross-border impact by some stakeholders. On the other hand some of the interviewed persons rightly pointed out, that even the projects that have a small share of expenditures on the other side of the border (e.g. even 1%) can have a substantial cross-border effect. Serious doubts also relate to financial flows. Under Interreg this issue was considered a problem sometimes, even if it was not a key concern. In the present programme, because of the considerable complexity in the flow of funds, payment procedure could take much more time. Combined with a lack of pre-financing this hinders the application possibilities of minor organisations with the weakest financial standing. In particular, this relates to non-governmental organisations for which long payment periods and no advance-payment financing pose a barrier which is almost impossible to overcome.
The problem that did not transpire in Interreg but is quite significant under the ETC Programme involves exchange differences. Contracts are denominated in EURO (under Interreg – national currencies were applied – Polish zloty and Czech korona) and expenses are settled according to the currently applicable exchange rates. Considering the recent fluctuations in exchange rates and the extended period for payment, final beneficiaries may incur severe losses due to exchange differences (even if gains are also possible).
We are fully aware that the solution to the issues addressed herein is not easy, in particular in view of the financial crisis and problems of the public finance sector on both sides of the border. Because of the conditions of financing (in particular the absence of pre-financing) the weakest organisations, above all NGOs, have poor access to the programme, whereas the projects of III sector, complementing major infrastructure projects, could serve the accomplishment of the programme’s objectives well. In addition, it is worth emphasizing that projects of NGOs could help expand the areas financed by the programme, for instance the labour market and more broadly speaking – social policy, very important and hardly present under Interreg, an area in which many organisations operate. Most certainly on the labour market (in situations when considerable groups of Poles work on the Czech side of the border) there is a large potential for generating projects attempting to solve related problems.
R20090282.doc 72 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
While within the framework of operational programmes in both countries there are considerable funds allocated for measures aimed at the labour market, which could at least partially advise labour market institutions against submitting projects relating to cross-border issues, it nevertheless seems that there is a need to undertake such projects. In some sense the competition of national programmes could have also involved programmes oriented on supporting entrepreneurship, for which it is not easy to develop interesting projects, especially in view of the weakness of business organisations on the Polish side of the border.
When mentioning this issue, we are tackling another important area, i.e. concentration of the programme on infrastructure investments, to a large extent undertaken by regional authorities. Apart from the aforesaid labour market, the intervention of the programme, to little extent, addressed common services for local people (except for measures relating to fire protection and anti-flood protection). This was probably due to the priority of infrastructure investments as well as the complexity of such projects. In some areas (e.g. transport services) concerns were raised with regard to aid and related constraints. It seems that such areas should become more and more important; nevertheless to facilitate the preparation and implementation of similar projects, technical support for potential applicants appears to be expedient (for example in the form of training or basic advisory services financed from technical assistance funds) combined with a demonstration of good examples from other cross-border projects.
Giving good examples both on the level of project management and the profile of supported projects would be – in our opinion – most useful. It could be achieved by means of study visits in Interreg programmes that attained the highest scores as well as meetings with representatives of other programmes.
A very important matter in view of the programme’s reputation and social recognition is the method of controlling the performance of projects and support at implementation level. It has been often pointed that while support during the application phase provided by Contact Points and JTS was absolutely sufficient, during the actual execution of projects such support was not always sufficient. In view of substantial complexity of the programme’s documentation (beneficiary’s guide, qualification rules, and reporting forms) often subject to changes, the lack of adequate support could have generated concerns among many beneficiaries.
This issue is closely related to excessive – according to many respondents – bureaucracy and formalisation of implementation rules. Naturally, strict control of expenses and project results is absolutely crucial and natural, sometimes however – coupled with construal ambiguities and changes in documentation – it led to discouragement among the applicants, who were often undertaking interesting and valuable projects.
In the future it is very important to solve the matter of selecting and measuring indicators both at the programme level (measures and priorities) and the project level. As mentioned earlier, indicators under Interreg IIIA had been surpassed in most cases; nevertheless it does not necessarily prove the quality of performance. In the future more attention should be paid to precise estimates of the real level of indicators accomplished under the programme. To achieve this, the help of expertise or social and business studies may be necessary.
R20090282.doc 73 January 2010 INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic - Poland
Concerning the indicators based on the number of a certain type of projects, guidelines should be developed with regard to the method of qualifying a certain type of projects for a particular indicator. The current programme lacked such guidelines, thus entailing a high level of individual approach. For indicators based on the number of undertaken projects, it may become necessary (which would naturally involve greater costs) to obtain surveys (e.g. public opinion surveys).
In our opinion only a changed approach to the concept of indicators and methods of measuring them will help restore their factual role, i.e. proving to what extent intervention in the form of the programme generated the assumed effects. The moderate value of the present set of indicators is obvious for both the Managing Authority as well as for the JTS. It is true that the most desired effect of the programme, i.e. closer relations between communities living on both sides of the border can hardly be measured. Certainly, is it much more difficult to measure such relations than the benefits arising out of the construction of a sewage system. On the other hand, attempts at making such measurements should be undertaken; otherwise the effects of the programmes will remain hardly assessable.
It should be emphasized, however, that in many areas the new Objective 3 programme is based on the lessons learnt during the programme and certain rules and procedures minimize the probability of problems quite common for the programme.
R20090282.doc 74 January 2010