1st call for proposal

BASIC INFORMATION

Operation Summary

Index Number 1CE084P4 Utilisation of post-mining potentials for sustainable re-development in Title Central European mining cities and regions Acronym ReSOURCE

Lead Partner District of county, Economic Region Chemnitz-

Lead Partner Country

Priority 4

Duration 1/2009 – 3/2012 (39 months)

ERDF funding requested 2.691.625,10 EURO %: 79

TOTAL BUDGET 3.418.598,60 EURO

Brief summary of the project proposal (Section 1 of the Application Form)

In most cases, mining cities and regions experience dramatic crises when mines are closed. Resources are left behind, which are referred to as „problems“ or „risks“, e.g. rising mine water, artificial and hazardous landscapes, unused facilities, unfavourable image. At the end of mining, affected cities and regions have to re-invent themselves. Searching a future perspective some of the mentioned resources have the potential as starting points for sustainable re-development: From mine water geothermal energy can be generated, stockpiles used for biomass production, facilities become living monuments, mining traditions be turned into tourist attractions. However, the utilisation of these potentials is not a self-runner. Creative concepts are needed as well as the change of strategies, but also sound investigation of feasibility. Since company obligations are limited to the status ex-ante, the exploration of post-mining opportunities is a challenge to be tackled by the regions themselves.

ReSOURCE partners jointly explore such potentials. They aim to produce best-practice examples and guidelines on how to improve competitiveness and attractiveness of post-mining regions. Two key aspects will be focussed in ReSOURCE that have not been addressed in a comparably pro-active way before: 1) utilisation of natural and cultural post-mining resources, 2) innovation capacity building. Partners jointly implement pre- investment studies, pilot actions, competitions and summer schools. Strategies are improved to establish sound fundaments for sustainable post-mining development.

Due to the fact that potentials are similar in all European countries a transnational environment provides great gains and opportunities for sharing innovative approaches. Studies and pilot actions with transferable results, exchange of experience and other forms of collaboration will be main activities, supporting post- mining regions to catch up in competitiveness and to move towards sustainability.

ReSOURCE is a joint initiative of 7 mining regions from 5 countries characterised by small and medium sized cities. All of them are seeking to actively influence their disadvantageous situation at the end of mining. In their search for new perspectives they are accompanied by 3 scientific institutions, well-known for their outstanding competence in urban and regional development. ReSOURCE brings together regions in different post-mining phases: some of them already in the post-mining era, in others mining is still running. Thus,

ReSOURCE_Quality Assessment sheet.doc – p 1/11

knowledge and experience can be directly shared within the partnership. Additionally, experiences and knowledge from preceding or running projects that investigate similar topics will be drawn on and utilised. Core outputs are an internet knowledge base providing inspiration for post-mining utilisation approaches, a handbook covering methods for post-mining regional development, and a final strategic paper addressed to national and European policy makers.

Partnership Institution Country District of Chemnitz county, Economic Region Chemnitz-Zwickau Lead Partner Germany Landratsamt Chemnitzer Land, Scherbergplatz 4, 08371 Mr Carsten Debes Contact person, details Phone: +49 (0) 371 3660 206, Fax: +49 (0) 371 36 60 207 E-Mail: [email protected]

All partners listed by institution, country and financial contribution

Partner budget Institution Country ERDF: Public Cof.: TOTAL District of Chemnitz county, Economic LP Germany 493.869,95 164.623,32 658.493,27 Region Chemnitz-Zwickau 2 IBA Fürst-Pückler-Land Cooperation Germany 237.184,10 79.061,37 316.245,47 Technology and Start-up Centre 3 Germany 252.530,53 84.176,84 336.707,37 "Mansfelder Land" Leibniz Institute of Ecological and 4 Germany 200.932,90 66.977,63 267.910,53 Regional Development Registered Association "Steirische 5 Austria 311.065,40 103.688,47 414.753,87 Eisenstraße" Karl-Franzens-University of Graz - 6 Institute of Geography and Regional Austria 110.794,96 36.931,65 147.726,61 Science Czech 7 Micro-Region Sokolov-East 360.292,42 63.581,01 423.873,43 Republic Local Self-Government of County Rank 8 Hungary 248.488,15 43.850,85 292.339,00 Town of Salgótarján Regional Development Centre Zasavje 9 Slovenia 390.338,31 68.883,23 459.221,54 Ltd. Urban Planning Institute of the Republic 10 Slovenia 86.128,38 15.199,13 101.327,51 of Slovenia

ReSOURCE_Quality Assessment sheet.doc – p 2/11

Location of Partners

ReSOURCE_Quality Assessment sheet.doc – p 3/11

QUALITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

RECOMMENDED 74/100 FINAL AVERAGE SCORE UNDER CONDITIONS

Final Scores per Criteria

Evaluator 1 Evaluator 2 1 Relevance of the proposal 22/25 20/25 2 Partnership technical and operational capacity 15/20 15/20 3 Implementation and Methodology 15/20 15/20 4 Quality of the outputs and Sustainability of the expected results 18/20 15/20 5 Budget and cost-effectiveness 7/15 6/15

Assessment Conclusions

The proposal is focused on strategies and implementation oriented actions to better use specific natural and cultural resources (biomass production, geothermal energy, cultural mining heritage) of post-mining regions as potentials for their development which is highly relevant for AoI 4.1. It will build on the knowledge of a number of EU-projects from different spaces and strands and shows strong cooperation bonds with running projects/networks.

The partnership is composed of well experienced regional key players predominantly Regional Development Agencies of 7 mining regions (DE, AT, CZ, HU, SI). These regional actors will be supported by 3 research institutes in the field of urban and regional development (DE, AT, SI). The partnership is characterised by a strong presence of DE partners (4 out of 10); presence of countries involved is not always ensured by the presence of public institutions aimed at ensuring the political/institutional durability (AT) and by a strong presence of DE partners (4 out of 10).

The approach of the proposal integrates implementation orientation actions (pre-investment and feasibility studies) with intense transnational knowledge management activities focused on new strategies and actions for post-mining regions. Nevertheless, transparency of the approach and the work plan suffer from the concentration of most activities for post mining potentials in only one WP (WP 4 with 62% of the total budget). In addition, in WP4 also the high amount of external expertise (1,2 Mio. €) is needed, but the links to the outputs of the work plan are not always described in a consistent way.

The transfer elements in the proposal are well developed, supported by scientific institutions and additional backing provided by the “Network of Central and Eastern European Mining Cities and Regions” (MINEC). Nevertheless the interfaces between the network activities are not specified. The sustainability of the core outputs (a final strategy paper, a post-mining knowledge base and handbook) are well conceived and stable and financial follow-ups are foreseen.

The budget does not always show a justified allocation of financial resources to single work packages, together with an insufficient coherence with the work design and imbalanced distribution between partners.

Based on the above, the project is recommended for funding. Nevertheless, the assessors share the opinion that certain conditions should be set forth by the Monitoring Committee and fulfilled by the project before signing the Subsidy Contract. In addition, specific contractual conditions following the results of the State Aid compliance assessment are presented.

ReSOURCE_Quality Assessment sheet.doc – p 4/11

Conditions for approval

• Add one core output each for actions 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3. • Make sure that all core outputs are clearly linked with one type of action. In addition, make sure that all process assumptions for the core outputs include clear and realistic descriptions of target groups, results (not outputs) and their quantification. • Split cumulative outputs into separate outputs in all thematic work packages. In addition, check for every output in WP3-5 the number of the participating PPs. • Fine tune the list of external expertise items by making sure that no item addresses different outputs. In addition, ensure consistency with terminology of deliverables and provide sufficient degree of detail. • Ensure that local sub contracting will be well coordinated at the transnational level to safeguard efficient project and knowledge management, and make sure that deliverables are submitted in a language enabling other partners to reflect the results. • Clearly define interfaces with MINEC activities, particularly in WP2. • Foresee one integrated communication plan as output and revise outreach figures. • Reduce coordination and communication costs (WP1+2) by 10%; reduction should mostly target costs of actions 1.2, 1.4, 2.2 and 2.3. • Ensure budgeting of audit costs in accordance with the national FLC systems set by the countries involved in the partnership. • Shift costs budgeted under budget line “Other, WP1” to correct budget line of external expertise. • Reduce external expert costs in WP4 by 10%. • Specify the costs for the “post-mining knowledge base” by splitting involved amounts per budget line and per partner. • Specify external expertise costs in WP5 charged for PP4 and PP6 for the benefit of CZ and HU partners per item. In addition, note that associated institutions should not get sub-contracted. Amend the outline section and the budget section if needed. • Clarify the LP’s share of “coordination and financial management” costs. Likewise, clarify common cost shares of PP33 and PP7 in WP1. Ensure sound budgeting of coordination costs by PP8 and PP10. • Clarify low budgets of PP8, PP9 and PP10 in WP1 and of PP3, PP4 and PP6 in WP2. In addition, clarify high budget of PP9 in WP4. • Clarify budgeting of external expertise costs for PP7 in WP4 (96% of its budget foreseen for external expertise) in terms of involvement of the partner institution. • Clarify the differences in the budgets of the 3 scientific partners (PP4, PP6 and PP10) in view of their similar contribution to the entire project. • Overall, clarify the ownerships of both investments. In addition: o For investment N°1, specify costs per item, and shift the amounts related to external expert services (e.g. costs for planning) to the correct budget line. Furthermore, clarify the relations between the owner of the drilling (LP) and the user (Municipality of Zwickau) and clearly explain how the drilling will be managed – especially as far as savings are concerned - within project duration as well as after project finalisation. o For investment N°2, provide information with regard to the legal status of the local mining museum as well as the type of activities generally carried out. Furthermore, clarify the relations between the ownership of the site and its management. Also, clarify whether entrance fees will be requested. • Change legal status of PP10 (SI) in Section 4 of the application form from public equivalent body to public authority and submit a revised “Declaration on Administrative and Financial Capacity and Legal Status”.

Contractual conditions

• Ensure that the drilling will be used for public scope (production of energy for heating schools, public offices) during at least 5 years after the closure of the project. Eventual selling of the drilling must be done at market conditions. • Training activities foreseen in actions 4.2.5 and 4.3.5 and implemented by PP 5 and PP2 should be organized on an open access basis and free of charge for all potential users.

ReSOURCE_Quality Assessment sheet.doc – p 5/11

Evaluator 1 Evaluator 2 Criteria Strengths (+) & Weaknesses (-) Strengths (+) & Weaknesses (-)

+ The project objectives are very clearly described + It addresses regions that are facing heavy and highly relevant to the overall programme structural changes of their economic base after goals. mine closure, that need integrated development + The link to other relevant EU and national strategies and actions in order to avoid policies is very clearly provided and explained. unbalanced development and safeguard + The target groups and indirect beneficiaries have polycentric settlement structures. been very clearly identified and quantified and + Innovative elements are sufficiently clearly Relevance of the the proposal is highly relevant to their needs. outlined: early availability of the knowledge base proposal + The project includes clear elements of of related project, stimulation the regional innovation. innovation process in regional that are in particular need for new strategies

– Nevertheless comparing the approach of the proposal with the envisaged results and effects of the INTERREG IIIB CADSES projects READY a lot of similarities are evident.

+ The Lead partner has excellent experience in + A highly competent partnership that combines key managing co-operation projects. players like Regional Development Agencies of Partnership + The proposed partnership has excellent technical post mining regions from seven cities (in HU) and technical and expertise. regions (in DE, AT, CZ, SI) accompanied by three operational research institutes from DE (IÖR), AT (Uni Graz) capacity and SI (Urban Planning Institute).

– Strong presence of DE PP.

ReSOURCE_Quality Assessment sheet.doc – p 6/11

Evaluator 1 Evaluator 2 Criteria Strengths (+) & Weaknesses (-) Strengths (+) & Weaknesses (-)

+ The selected approach is very suitable to produce + The project design is overall highly suitable the intended outputs and results. combining a clear implementation orientation + The proposal is based on numerous previous and approach with intensive transnational knowledge current EU cooperation projects. management activities focused on new strategies + The partner’s roles and their responsibilities have and actions for post mining regions in 3 main been very clearly outlined. thematic fields in a transparent way + Strong efforts have been made to integrate – With regard to the decision making process the experiences of different previous INTERREG IIIB Implementation Lead partner retains a right for a veto due to the CADSES projects (READY, REKULA, REVITAMIN) and Methodology overall responsibility dealing with mining regions during the project development phase.

– Transparency of the work plan suffers from the concentration of most activities for post mining potentials in only one WP (WP 4 with 62% of the budget) with a high share of external expertise (57%).

+ Core outputs are very coherent with activities + Transfer element is well developed and will foreseen. receive addition support from the “Network of Quality of the + Project results are likely to be transferred and Central and Eastern European Mining Cities and outputs and adopted and transfer activities are foreseen. Regions” (MINEC). Sustainability of + Communication and knowledge management the expected strategies are very clearly defined and effective. results + Institutional/legal structures are very well conceived and stable.

ReSOURCE_Quality Assessment sheet.doc – p 7/11

Evaluator 1 Evaluator 2 Criteria Strengths (+) & Weaknesses (-) Strengths (+) & Weaknesses (-)

– The proposed budget is not sufficiently coherent – High total budget in WP1, WP2 and WP4. with the design of the work plan. – High share of external expertise costs which, in – The operation is not sufficiently balanced with addition, are overall not properly defined (e.g. regard to financial contribution. unclear involvement of partners, no split of costs Budget and cost- per item, or wrong budgeting.). effectiveness – Insufficient definition of some investment costs. – Lack of correspondence between the budgets of several partners and their involvement in activities.

ReSOURCE_Quality Assessment sheet.doc – p 8/11

STATE AID COMPLIANCE

The project proposal:

Does not contain any risk of State Aid compliance Does contain a risk of State Aid compliance and has been identified by the partnership Does contain a risk of State Aid compliance but has not been identified by the partnership Does not allow to identify the risk of State Aid compliance1 X

DESCRIPTION ADDITIONAL INFORMATION YES NO Involvement of assimilated partners √ Presence of investments √ 2 investments Use of 10% budget flexibility rule √

Indicative Breakdown of the Community Contribution by Categories Priority theme dimension (according to Commission Regulation No. 1828/2006 of 8 Code December 2006) 1 R&TD activities in research centres R&TD infrastructure (including physical plant, instrumentation and high-speed computer 2 networks linking research centres) and centres of competence in a specific technology Technology transfer and improvement of cooperation networks between small businesses (SMEs), between these and other businesses and universities, post-secondary education establishments 3 of all kinds, regional authorities, research centres and scientific and technological poles (scientific and technological parks, technolopoles, etc.) 4 Assistance to R&TD, particularly in SMEs (including access to R&TD services in research centres) 5 Advanced support services for firms and groups of firms Assistance to SMEs for the promotion of environmentally-friendly products and production 6 processes (introduction of effective environment managing system, adoption and use of pollution prevention technologies, integration of clean technologies into firm production). Investment in firms directly linked to research and innovation (innovative technologies, 7 establishment of new firms by universities, existing R&TD centres and firms, etc.) 8 Other investment in firms 9 Other measures to stimulate research and innovation and entrepreneurship in SMEs 10 Telephone infrastructures (including broadband networks) Information and communication technologies (access, security, interoperability, risk prevention, 11 research, innovation, e-content, etc.) 12 Information and communication technologies (TEN-ICT) 13 Services and applications for the citizen (e-health, e-government, e-learning, e-inclusion, etc.) 14 Services and applications for SMEs (e-commerce, education and training, networking, etc.) 15 Other measures for improving access to and efficient use of ICT by SMEs 16 Railways 17 Railways (TEN-T) 18 Mobile rail assets 19 Mobile rail assets (TEN-T) 20 Motorways 21 Motorways (TEN-T) 22 National roads

1 Original statement by the State Aid expert. Further information requested and conditions set. ReSOURCE_Quality Assessment sheet.doc – p 9/11

Indicative Breakdown of the Community Contribution by Categories Priority theme dimension (according to Commission Regulation No. 1828/2006 of 8 Code December 2006) 23 Regional/local roads 24 Cycle tracks 25 Urban transport 26 Multimodal transport 27 Multimodal transport (TEN-T) 28 Intelligent transport systems 29 Airports 30 Ports 31 Inland waterways (regional and local) 32 Inland waterways (TEN-T) 33 Electricity 34 Electricity (TEN-E) 35 Natural gas 36 Natural gas (TEN-E) 37 Petroleum products 38 Petroleum products (TEN-E) 39 Renewable energy: wind 40 Renewable energy: solar 41 Renewable energy: biomass 42 Renewable energy: hydroelectric, geothermal and other 43 Energy efficiency, co-generation, energy management 44 Management of household and industrial waste 45 Management and distribution of water (drinking water) 46 Water treatment (waste water) 47 Air quality 48 Integrated prevention and pollution control 49 Mitigation and adaptation to climate change 50 Rehabilitation of industrial sites and contaminated land 51 Promotion of biodiversity and nature protection 52 Promotion of clean urban transport Risk prevention (including the drafting and implementation of plans and measures to prevent 53 and manage natural and technological risks) 54 Other measures to preserve the environment and prevent risks 55 Promotion of natural assets 56 Protection and development of natural heritage 57 Other assistance to improve tourist services 58 Protection and preservation of the cultural heritage 59 Development of cultural infrastructure 60 Other assistance to improve cultural services 61 Integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration x Development of life-long learning systems and strategies in firms; training and services for 62 employees to step up their adaptability to change; promoting entrepreneurship and innovation 63 Design and dissemination of innovative and more productive ways of organising work Development of specific services for employment, training and support in connection with 64 restructuring of sectors and firms, and development of systems for anticipating economic changes and future requirements in terms of jobs and skills 65 Modernisation and strengthening labour market institutions 66 Implementing active and preventive measures on the labour market 67 Measures encouraging active ageing and prolonging working lives 68 Support for self-employment and business start-up

ReSOURCE_Quality Assessment sheet.doc – p 10/11

Indicative Breakdown of the Community Contribution by Categories Priority theme dimension (according to Commission Regulation No. 1828/2006 of 8 Code December 2006) Measures to improve access to employment and increase sustainable participation and progress of women in employment to reduce gender-based segregation in the labour market, and to 69 reconcile work and private life, such as facilitating access to childcare and care for dependent persons. Specific action to increase migrants’ participation in employment and thereby strengthen their 70 social integration Pathways to integration and re-entry into employment for disadvantaged people combating 71 discrimination in accessing and progressing in the labour market and promoting acceptance of diversity at the workplace Design, introduction and implementation of reforms in education and training systems in order to develop employability, improving the labour market relevance of initial and vocational 72 education and training, updating skills of training personnel with a view to innovation and a knowledge based economy. Measures to increase participation in education and training throughout the life-cycle including through action to achieve a reduction in early school leaving, gender-based segregation of 73 subjects and increased access to and quality of initial vocational and tertiary education and training. Developing human potential in the field of research and innovation, in particular through post- 74 graduate studies and training of researchers, and networking activities between universities, research centres and businesses 75 Education infrastructure 76 Health infrastructure 77 Childcare infrastructure 78 Housing infrastructure 79 Other social infrastructure 80 Promoting partnerships, pacts and initiatives through the networking of relevant stakeholders Mechanisms for improving good policy and programme design, monitoring and evaluation at 81 national, regional and local level, capacity building in the delivery of policies and programmes. 82 Compensation of any additional costs due to accessibility deficit and territorial fragmentation 83 Specific action addressed to compensate additional costs due to size market factors 84 Support to compensate additional costs due to climate conditions and relief difficulties

ReSOURCE_Quality Assessment sheet.doc – p 11/11