Ex-Post Evaluation of the INTERREG III Community Initiative (European Regional Development Fund)
TASK 5: IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF PROGRAMMES
PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
EVALUATION REPORT, elaborated by
• Margarita Sanz / Roland Blomeyer, Blomeyer & Sanz, Spain • Philippe Doucet, Géphyres, France
Panteia and Partners: EureConsult S.A. (Luxemburg) Policy Research and Consultancy (Frankfurt / Germany) GÉPHYRES EURL (Roubaix / France) The Radboud University (Nijmegen / The Netherlands)
Reference R20090272/30922000/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 analysis of PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Table of contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
1 INTRODUCTION 8
2 RESEARCH INTEREST AND METHODOLOGY...... 9
3 IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND IMPACTS IN TERMS OF EFFECTIVENESS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS...... 10
3.1 THE FINANCIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME ...... 10 3.1.1 Financial analysis across the intervention codes ...... 10 3.1.2 Dynamic financial analysis...... 11 3.1.3 Intermediate conclusions ...... 14 3.2 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROGRAMME...... 15 3.2.1 Planned results, achievement rates at measure level and trend patterns... 15 3.2.2 Reviewing the programming quality and the programme relevance on the basis of the results achieved...... 16 3.2.3 The level of complexity and experimentation achieved by co-operation...... 21 3.2.4 Intermediate conclusions ...... 21 3.3 PROJECT-LEVEL CO-OPERATION UNDER THE PROGRAMME ...... 22 3.3.1 Selection of the project sample ...... 22 3.3.2 In-depth evaluation of projects realised under the priority topics of the Community Initiative...... 22 3.3.3 Good practice projects with particularly strong territorial cooperation demonstrating the Community added value of INTERREG programmes...... 39 3.4 ANALYSIS OF FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE CHARACTER OF THE PROGRAMME ...... 41 3.4.1 Important contextual factors characterising cross-border / transnational programme areas ...... 41 3.4.2 Historic factors determining the character of cross-border/transnational / inter-regional co-operation ...... 43 3.4.3 Intermediate conclusions ...... 43 3.5 RE-CONSIDERING THE “DEPTH & INTENSITY OF TERRITORIAL CO-OPERATION”...... 44 3.6 MAIN FACTORS FOSTERING (OR HAMPERING) INTEGRATION AND THE MEANS TO PROMOTE POSITIVE FACTORS OR TO OVERCOME PERSISTING OBSTACLES ...... 46 3.7 EXTRAPOLATING RESULTS ON EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPACTS TO ALL INTERREG PROGRAMMES 46 4 IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND IMPACTS IN TERMS OF UTILITY AND EFFICIENCY ...... 48
4.1 THE EXTERNAL COHERENCE OF THE PROGRAMME ...... 48 4.1.1 Regulatory compliance and interaction / co-ordination with other Structural Funds programmes ...... 48 4.1.2 Intermediate conclusions ...... 49 4.2 THE INTRINSIC PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAMME ...... 50 4.2.1 The overall governance and management system of the programme...... 50 4.2.2 The Community added value and the sustainability / durability of the programme...... 52 4.2.3 Intermediate conclusions ...... 54 5 OVERALL FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 55
5.1 OVERALL FINAL CONCLUSIONS ON THE IMPACT OF THE INTERREG III PROGRAMME ...... 55 5.2 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS...... 56
R20090272.doc 2 November, 2009 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
ANNEX 3.1.1 INTERREG IIIB WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN EXPENDITURE, ABSORPTION RATE AND COMPARISON WITH INTERREG III, STRAND B, AND CLUSTER (CATEGORY 2) ...... 58
ANNEX 3.1.2 EVOLUTION OF THE INTERREG IIIB MEDOCC PROGRAMME BUDGET ...... 59
ANNEX 3.2.1. INTERREG IIIB MEDOCC PROGRAMME PROGRESS MONITORING DATA...... 60
ANNEX 3.2.2 INTERREG IIB MEDOCC PROGRAMME LOGICAL FRAMEWORK...... 70
R20090272.doc 3 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report deals with the INTERREG III Strand B (transnational) programme MEDOCC 2000-2006 as approved on 27 December 2001 (European Commission decision C (2001) 4069). The programme area covers seven Member States (Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, United Kingdom, Greece, and Malta) as well as Switzerland (associated country) and the MEDA countries, and has a total ERDF budget of some € 119 million. The programme structures are located within the Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport. The programme is based on the earlier INTERREG IIC programme Méditerranée occidentale Alpes latines. The programme evaluation was conducted on the basis of a review of available documentation at programme and project level, and interviews with the European Commission DG Regio, the Joint Technical Secretariat (Transnational Secretariat) the Managing Authority, and the Project promoters for a sample of projects (THON.DOC, SADMO, MEDCYPRE, TECHNOLANGUE, and WERMED).
Financial implementation With regard to the programme’s financial performance, the overall absorption rate (73%) is below the average of the INTERREG III programmes (79%). Reasons for the below average financial performance include the late approval of the OP and deficiencies in the programme management and control system. Programme expenditure concentrated on a limited number of intervention fields, i.e. 76% of the total expenditure relates to the areas of studies (code 413) innovative actions (code 414) and information to the public (code 415). The below average financial performance of the programme may have resulted from factors other than an insufficient level of the “effective demand”, in particular the lack of an efficient communication strategy turning a latent into an effective demand.
To support the participation of non-Member States, operations co-funded by the ERDF and MEDA were explicitly envisaged in the MEDOCC OP. The total budget earmarked by the MEDA Programme for MEDOCC-MEDA operations over the 2004-2006 period amounted to € 4.5 million (€ 1.5 million per participating country).1 However, in practice, no MEDA partner of any approved MEDOCC-MEDA project managed to sign the required MEDA subsidy contract with the MEDA national authorities by 31 December 20072.
Effectiveness The MEDOCC programme monitoring system was characterised by a large number of physical indicators. Moreover, these indicators were neither “objectively verifiable”, nor “SMART”. Had they been used to monitor the programme performances, these indicators would have been of little help. In fact, the programme monitoring system was used on an inconsistent basis.
Many projects were limited to studies, exchanges of experience and other “soft” actions dealing with issues of regional or local relevance. Some other study projects, especially under Priority Axis 3, addressed issues of transnational relevance; however, the final outcome did not match the OP expectations.
The programme start was slow (late approval of the OP) and other factors delayed its implementation,
1 Commission européenne, EuropeAid Office de coopération, note “Programme de voisinage MEDA pour la coopération transnationale et transfrontalière – Participation des pays MEDA au programme MEDOCC, modalités de mise en œuvre” 2Cf. INTERREG IIIB Espace Méditerranée occidentale, Rapport annuel d’exécution 2007, p. 21.
R20090272.doc 4 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
including the relatively long time that elapsed between the 2nd and 3rd call for proposals, and a protracted expenditure certification process.
The overall quality of the cooperation was undermined by a lack of focus and consistency, and comparatively weak leadership. Progress was made in comparison with the previous INTERREG IIC Western Mediterranean – Latin Alps experience, but much room for improvement remains after the INTERREG IIIB programme.
Programme context and history Looking at the context factors characterising the MEDOCC programme, the strong urban-rural disparities at the programme-level are particularly noteworthy, whilst at the project level, partnerships are generally centred on partners with somewhat similar urban-rural characteristics. The MEDOCC area is further characterised by limited overall accessibility, and this is particularly valid between programme countries (i.e. cross-border). Moreover, the degree of transnational economic convergence is limited.
The MEDOCC programme is based on a limited previous transnational cooperation tradition (only INTERREG II) and this applies to both, the programme and project level. There are no specific legal instruments facilitating trans-national cooperation and there are only few permanent transnational cooperation structures.
External coherence Shortcomings in the management and control system of the MEDOCC programme were detected. Deviations mainly occurred with regard to the implementation of strategic priorities, with a fairly open project selection approach leading to a lack of focus. There has been rather weak coordination within the “World of INTERREG”, i.e. with interventions from other INTERREG strands (limited to CADSES and INTERACT). There is no evidence of coordination with mainstream Structural Funds support despite the programme area being strongly anchored within Objective 1. Finally, inter-institutional coordination was limited to the programme structures, with overall sound inter-institutional coordination, though there were problems over clear delimitation of tasks / overlaps between the central (MA, PA, JTS) and the transnational structures (National Coordinators).
Intrinsic performance Formal cooperation across the transnational programme area was generally limited and cooperation instruments are limited to INTERREG. Concerning monitoring and evaluation, there has been no systematic use of the indicator system, and no genuine programme monitoring, with evaluation limited to the formal requirements. Moreover, the MEDOCC programme suffered from difficulties over financial management (lower than average financial absorption) and there were significant problems over national certification. The audit performed by the European Commission detected serious shortcomings in the programme management and control system. Whilst strong project selection criteria existed, the actual project selection process appears largely opportunistic. Community Added Value was largely limited to providing funding for activities that would otherwise not have been implemented, however, there is evidence of added value in terms of socio-cultural value added (mutual knowledge of geographical, historic and cultural conditions, broadening of linguistic knowledge etc.). Overall sustainability is considered limited, and at project level, whilst there are strong intentions of continuing cooperation, it appears that this is largely related to obtaining further funding under INTERREG IV.
R20090272.doc 5 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Conclusions The MEDOCC programme is characterised by a weak overall depth & intensity of programme / project level cooperation. The limited previous cooperation experience and the very heterogeneous nature of the programme area are likely to have contributed strongly to this.
Whilst the MEDOCC programme has supported many projects of strong local and regional relevance, there is limited evidence of a genuine contribution to the programme’s wider strategy objectives. Indeed none of the many studies produced under the programme contributed to the development of a genuinely transnational spatial vision as established under other INTERREG Strand B programmes. Whilst there is project-level evidence of cooperation having strengthened individual and institutional capacities, there is no reliable monitoring data to support this. Community Added value remains largely limited to providing a source of funding for activities that would have otherwise not been implemented, and continuity is strongly linked to obtaining follow-up funding under INTERREG IV.
It is also unlikely that the MEDOCC programme has made any significant contribution to territorial integration. Whilst there are examples of projects targeting at greater convergence within the programme area, efforts were too thinly spread to achieve “critical mass“ (136 projects spread across 45 specific objectives).
Due to external circumstances, there was no progress with regard to integration with the programmes.
A stronger strategic focus and a re-orientation towards a more limited number of issues of transnational relevance could have been facilitated by insights from monitoring and evaluation. However, the programme failed to effectively establish genuine monitoring systems and did not benefit from the mid- term evaluation in terms of its strategic orientation.
Concerning sustainability, it is likely that a stronger communication strategy might have led to national efforts in providing stronger support to projects. However, programme communication remained weak, and there are examples of good transnational results failing to have an impact due to national-level obstacles. Finally, the exclusive programme management structures (no genuine involvement of socio- economic partners) are not conducive to sustainability – project partners are largely left on their own to ensure sustainability as nobody else takes notice of results that might otherwise have lent themselves to “mainstreaming“ / scaling-up.
Whilst less tangible and therefore difficult to measure, the MEDOCC project-level evaluations indicate that territorial co-operation can facilitate a significant level of individual and institutional capacity. Especially, when directly involving experts / practitioners (as opposed to limiting partnerships to generalists / administrators) there is significant scope for transferring problem solving approaches from more to less experienced partners and to raising the latter’s awareness to possible problems - an awareness that would take a significantly longer time to develop in the absence of transnational exchange of experiences.
R20090272.doc 6 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Recommendations With a view to enhancing the operation of the INTERREG IVB MED programme, two recommendations can be noted:
1) Key-players should be identified and mobilised on a more pro-active basis. As many other INTERREG IVB programmes, the MED OP defines a very broad spectrum of potential beneficiaries of the various priorities. This is quite understandable for such a reference document, in which any arbitrary limitation of the programme audience should be avoided. But the Communication Plan of the MED programme does not shed any further light on the type of audience who should be targeted by the communication strategy. We believe that many organisations likely to play a decisive role in strengthening cooperation in the MED area (business incubators, transport operators, environmental protection bodies, etc.) may have hardly heard of INTERREG or were deterred from participating because of their insufficient familiarity with ERDF-funded programme procedures. It is really essential to encourage such key-players to join or set up MED project partnerships. Otherwise, the “opportunistic” practices experienced during the past programming period are likely to reappear, reserving the benefit of programme subsidies to a circle of INTERREG insiders.
2) Despite the relatively disappointing outcome of attempts made in the framework of the MEDOCC programme, it would still make sense to elaborate a joint spatial vision to provide on maps a geographically differentiated picture of strategic policy choices. Needless to say, these maps should not only cover the coastal and neighbouring regions included in the cooperation area but also, and more importantly, maritime areas. This would be in line with the maritime “spatial planning” approach advocated in the Green Paper “Towards a future Maritime Policy for the Union”. Such a document would assist the Monitoring Committee in identifying various priorities prior to launching calls for strategic projects.
R20090272.doc 7 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
1 INTRODUCTION
This report deals with the INTERREG III Strand B (transnational) programme MEDOCC 2000-2006. The initial version of the MEDOCC programme was approved on 27 December 2001 (European Commission decision C (2001) 4069). The third version, including Greece and Malta, was approved on 8 December 2004 (C (2004)4911). The programme’s official language is French and the programme area includes:
− SPAIN: Andalucía, Aragón, Cataluña, Islas Baleares, Murcia, Valencia, Ceuta and Melilla;
− FRANCE: Corse, Languedoc-Roussillon, Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, Rhône-Alpes;
− ITALY: Basilicate, Calabre, Campanie, Emilie-Romagne, Latium, Ligurie, Lombardie, Ombrie, Piémont, Sardaigne, Sicile, Toscane, Val d’Aoste ;
− PORTUGAL: Algarve, Alentejo;
− UNITED KINGDOM: Gibraltar ;
− GREECE
− MALTA
− SWITZERLAND as associated country
− MEDA countries
The programme structures (Managing Authority, Paying Authority, Joint Technical Secretariat) are located within the Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport. The programme is based on the earlier INTERREG IIC programme Méditerranée occidentale Alpes latines. There were two programme evaluations, the mid-term evaluation (ECOTEC) and the related update (ECOSFERA).
The following table briefly presents key financial data for the programme. Table 1 Key Financial Data for the Programme Programme budget (Programme Complement January 2005) ERDF Total eligible cost Priority Axis 1. Mediterranean Basin 14,730,319 26,180,387 Measure 1.1. Structuring the Mediterranean Basin by promoting and strengthening 14,730,319 26,180,387 economic, social and cultural links between the two sea rims. Priority Axis 2. Territorial development strategy and urban systems 19,849,796 35,377,093 Measure 2.1. Territorial and urban development: development of cooperation, 19,849,796 35,377,,093 harmonisation of strategies, pilot actions Priority Axis 3. Transport systems and information society 24,171,836 45,041,169 Measure 3.1. More accessible territories 5,383,069 10,030,668 Measure 3.2. Promotion of intermodality and shift toward more environmentally- friendly transport modes 6,922,813 12,899,791 Measure 3.3. Inland and seaborne shipping 6,922,.813 12,899,791 Measure 3.4. ICT for territorial development 4,934,141 9,210,919 Priority Axis 4. Environment, heritage promotion and sustainable development 52,688,902 94,147,538 Measure 4.1. Protection and promotion of natural resources and cultural heritage, biodiversity / territory / landscape stewardship 15,927, 856 28,460,801 Measure 4.2. Promotion of sustainable tourism 11,375,534 20,326,453 Measure 4.3. Environmental protection, prevention and management of natural risks 14,489,447 25,890,572 Measure 4.4. Management of water resources / combating drought and desertification 10,896,065 19,496,712 Priority Axis 5. Technical Assistance 14,193,408 7,905,604 Measure 5.1. Management, Implementation, Monitoring, Control 10,138,149 5,646,860 Measure 5.2. Animation, Information, Evaluation, Publicity 4,055,259 2,258,744 TOTAL 119,346,457 214,939,595
R20090272.doc 8 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
2 RESEARCH INTEREST AND METHODOLOGY
The scope of research is closely determined by the terms of reference for the Ex-post Evaluation for INTERREG III and the method proposed in the Inception Report. In this pilot evaluation we strictly follow the terms of reference and the corresponding methodology. Interviews with programme and project-level representatives have provided valuable insights for the present evaluation.3
3 Interviews were conducted with Manuela Passos, European Commission DG Regio, 30 July 2009 (telephone interview); Joint Technical Secretariat (Transnational Secretariat) Rome, 24 July 2009; Managing Authority, Rome, 7 August 2009; Project promoter THON.DOC, 25 August 2009; Project promoter SADMO, 3 September 2009; MEDCYPRE, 7 September 2009; Project promoter TECHNOLANGUE, 8 September 2009; Project promoter WERMED, 9 September 2009. R20090272.doc 9 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
3 IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND IMPACTS IN TERMS OF EFFECTIVENESS & SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS 3.1 The financial implementation of the programme
3.1.1 Financial analysis across the intervention codes
As specified in the ToR and the approved Inception Report, an in-depth financial analysis was carried out across the intervention codes of the MEDOCC Programme. The resulting data are displayed in the table attached as Annex 3.1.1.
A first striking feature of this table is the small number of fields of intervention (11 fields only4) referred to in the Programme Complement. At first sight, this could reflect a strong thematic focus of the programme strategy. Paradoxically, a closer examination of the PC leads to the opposite conclusion. The ten measures of the first four priority axes (i.e. exclusive to the Technical Assistance axis) address a very wide variety of topics. A limited number of fields have been allocated to each measure, as can be seen in the table below.
Table 2 Fields of Intervention Associated with the MEDOCC Programme Measures Fields of intervention associated with the MEDOCC programme measures 5
Field code 172 173 174 322 323 324 411 412 413 414 415 Measure 1.1. Structuring the Mediterranean Basin 2.1. Territorial and urban development 3.1. More accessible territories 3.2. Intermodality and more environmentally-friendly transport modes 3.3. Inland and seaborne shipping 3.4. ICT for territorial development 4.1. Natural resources and cultural heritage, biodiversity / territory / landscape 4.2. Sustainable tourism 4.3. Environmental protection, prevention and management of natural risks 4.4. Water sources / drought / desertification 5.1. TA: management, implementation, monitoring & control 5.2. TA: animation, information, evaluation & publicity
As a matter of fact, the broad thematic spectrum is a characteristic shared by most INTERREG IIIB programmes, especially those which placed much emphasis on the horizontal integration of various sector-related policies advocated by the ESDP, which the MEDOCC OP clearly did in its spatial strategy.
To allocate the planned expenditure between fields of intervention, the programme authors faced a dilemma: either reflect this thematic diversity by referring to every relevant field of intervention (the choice made by the NWE programme, for example, which resulted in a list of 67 fields) or streamline the list of reference fields by using those related to a general type of activity (as opposed to a specific policy field). By and large, the MEDOCC approach is based on this second option. Code category 41 has been favoured, especially codes 413 (studies) 414 (innovative actions) and 415 (information to the public). Other codes, namely 172 (non physical investments) 173 (shared services for the tourism industry) 174 (vocational training) 322 (ICT) 323 (services and applications for the citizen) and 324 (services and
4 Among the other INTERREG IIIB programmes, two only (Northern Periphery and North Sea) decided to concentrate on a smaller number of fields (8 and 10 fields respectively). Baltic Sea Region took 16 fields into consideration, Réunion 17 fields, Archimed 19 fields, and each of the seven remaining programmes more than 20 fields. 5 Cf. INTERREG IIIB Méditerranée occidentale 2000-2006, Complément de Programmation, version janvier 2005, pp. 15-16. R20090272.doc 10 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
applications for SMEs) were used on a casual and rather arbitrary basis. For example, it probably makes sense to refer to codes 172, 173, 174 in measure 4.2 dedicated to sustainable tourism, but vocational training (code 174) could be envisaged under several other measures; conversely, other specific codes could have been, but were not, associated to measures 1.1, 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4. Code 322 was associated to each of the four measures of priority axis 3, but these measures arguably concerned further fields of intervention.
Put differently, the use made by the MEDOCC programme of the intervention fields seemingly confirms the widespread view that the reference set of fields failed to fit the specific nature of INTERREG programmes.
Considering the choice made to refer to codes 413, 414 and 415 in most programme measures, the very large share of expenditure (28%, 28% and 20% respectively) allocated to these fields is not surprising, nor is the high value of the IM (intensity measurement) index observed for these three codes in the table of Annex 3.1.1 (be it at the INTERREG, strand B or cluster level). The only exception is the IM value of code 413 (studies) at the cluster level (1,02) which simply confirms the higher propensity of the programmes clustered in category 2 to favour study projects.
With regard to the programme financial performance, the overall absorption rate (73%) is below the average of the INTERREG III programmes (79%) strand B programmes (78%) and programmes of the same cluster (80%)6. Reasons for this relatively poor performance include the late approval of the OP and deficiencies in the programme management and control system (cf. section 4.2.1 below for further detail). The absorption rate is particularly weak (13%) for field 412 (evaluation) but this probably stems from an inappropriate costing in the budgetary forecasts. Moreover, field 412 is associated with Measure 5.2 only, whose financial performance was particularly poor (cf. infra, Figure 3.1.2.b).
3.1.2 Dynamic financial analysis
Figure 2.12 of the First Interim Ex-post Evaluation Report illustrated the annual progress made by the thirteen INTERREG IIIB programmes in terms of certified expenditure over the period 2000-2008. This figure is reproduced below. The annual progress is expressed as a percentage of the total budget originally allocated.
6 Cf. GM indexes : 0.92, 0.93, 0.91 respectively. R20090272.doc 11 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Figure 3.1.2.a. Cumulated certified expenditure of INTERREG IIIB programmes
100% South West Europe 90% Western Mediterranean 80% Canarias-Madeira-Acores
70% Baltic Sea Northern Periphery 60% North Sea 50% Alpine Space Espace Atlantique 40% North West Europe 30% Cadses 20% Caribbean Archimed 10% Indian Ocean - Reunion 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
As was the case for most strand B programmes, the MEDOCC graph presented a flat profile during the first three years (2000, 2001, 2002) of the programming period (due to a slow start) followed by a linear increase of expenditure until 2007. Compared with the curves of the other programmes, that of the MEDOCC programme was in a medium position on the diagram.
The linear overall spending profile of the programme is confirmed in the detailed diagram presented in Figure 3.1.2.b below.
Figure 3.1.2.b. Financial implementation of the MEDOCC programme and programme measures compared to elapsed time
As of 2002, the graph illustrating the programme certified expenditure is remarkably linear, and its slope is virtually identical to that of the time line. The difference between the time and expenditure lines has
R20090272.doc 12 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
almost remained unchanged: from 28,2%7 of the total budget in 2002 to 26,5% 8 in 2007. A majority of programme measures present a similar spending profile, in particular the four measures of Priority Axis 4, whose relative weight amounts to some 44% of the programme budget. There are however four exceptions: Measures 3.1 (Accessibility) and even more 5.2 (TA – animation, information, evaluation, publicity) were clearly underperforming, Measure 3.2 (Intermodality) is characterised by a convex curve (very slow start until 2004, followed by a catch-up phase) and Measure 3.4 (Innovative ICT) is the only one to present an overspend (as soon as 2005).
Only four projects were approved under Measure 3.1, two of which in 2002 following the first call for applications. For reasons that are difficult to elucidate9, these two projects were closed in October 2004, apparently after incurring a small proportion of the monies committed.
No project was approved under Measure 3.2 in the framework of the first call. As no call was issued in 2003, the first four projects were approved following the second call, corresponding to a total € 9,8 million commitment in 2004. Only a marginal amount of expenditure (€ 0,09 million) was incurred the same year, but much more in 2005 (€ 3,7 million) and 2006 (€ 4,5 million)
Measure 3.4 proved very popular. Since the level of commitment turned out to exceed the initial budgetary appropriations, an amount of € 200,000 ERDF funding was shifted from Axis 2 to Axis 3 in December 2007 (see Annex 3.1.2).
The execution of Measure 5.2 was never commented on in any annual implementation report, or in the Mid-term evaluation update (the evaluator simply noted that the relevant data were not made available). The only mention of this measure appears in the Annual Implementation Report 2005, which reproduces a conclusion of the monitoring committee held on 8 June 2005: it is simply stated that the expenditure forecast was seemingly overestimated and that a reallocation of the unspent amount should be considered.
The € 200,000 ERDF reprogramming, just referred to above when commenting on Measure 3.4, was neither the only nor the most significant one. Actually, the programme budget was adapted four times. Apart from the aforementioned shift of funding between Axes 2 and 3, other reasons for reprogramming include the widening of the programme partnership (to Greece and to Malta) and two automatic decommitments. The evolution of the various amounts allocated to each priority axis is presented in Annex 3.1.2; the histogram illustrating the evolution of the ERDF appropriations is reproduced below. Further detail about the five successive versions of the OP is provided below (cf. table in section 4.2.2).
7 28.2% = 28.6 % [Y time value] – 0.4% [Y expenditure value] in 2002. 8 26.5% = 100.0 % [Y time value] – 73.5% [Y expenditure value] in 2007. 9 Neither the annual implementation reports nor the MTE Update provide a clear explanation of the low level of expenditure of these two projects. R20090272.doc 13 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Figure 3.1.2.c. Evolution of the ERDF budget allocated to the five priority axes of the INTERREG IIIB MEDOCC programme
3.1.3 Intermediate conclusions
Code-level analysis Formally speaking, the programme expenditure concentrated on a limited number of intervention fields, in particular codes 413 (studies) 414 (innovative actions) and 415 (information to the public). 76% of the total expenditure has been referenced under these codes.
The highest values of the IMinterreg, IMstrand and IMcluster indexes have been observed for the same codes, except for IMcluster relating to code 413 (studies). However these values should be interpreted with much caution (or simply regarded as irrelevant…) as they most probably result from two main biases: 1) the relatively small number (11) of codes used in the PC; 2) the general use of codes 413 to 415 for operations of all the programme measures, as opposed to the specific use of some other codes for operations funded under a few associated measures only.
Code 412 (Evaluation) presents by far the lowest absorption rate (13%). This rate is relatively low for codes 411 (61%) and 323/324 (66%). It is significantly higher (82%) for codes 172/173/174 than the programme overall absorption rate (73%).
Not surprisingly, the value of the GM index of code 412 is particularly low (GMinterreg = 0.22, GMstrand B = 0.35, GMcluster = 0.72. No strong deviations are observed for the other codes.
Measure-level analysis (static and dynamic) At first sight, an oversized ex-ante budget could be assumed, considering the relatively low absorption rate and the two decommitments. However, the relatively poor financial performance of the programme may have resulted from factors other than an insufficient level of the “effective demand”, in particular the lack of an efficient communication strategy turning a latent into an effective demand. The very notion of “effective demand” is worth spelling out.
R20090272.doc 14 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
It is sometimes wrongly equated to the demand expressed by experienced users of the EU structural funds, who are not necessarily inclined to support a communication strategy meant to raise awareness among newcomers about funding opportunities provided by the programme.
To support the participation of non-Member States, operations co-funded by the ERDF and MEDA were explicitly envisaged in the MEDOCC OP. Some such operations were initiated but faced huge coordination problems. This admittedly ranks among the major weaknesses of the MEDOCC programme implementation. No specific ERDF allocation was ring-fenced for MEDOCC-MEDA projects in the MEDOCC OP and PC, but the participation of bodies based in Maghreb countries (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia) was explicitly encouraged, especially in the framework of Priority Axis 1. The total budget earmarked by the MEDA Programme for MEDOCC-MEDA operations over the 2004-2006 period amounted to €4.5m. (€1.5m. per participating country)10. In practice, no MEDA partner of any approved MEDOCC-MEDA project managed to sign his MEDA subsidy contract with his own national authorities by 31 December 200711
The spending profile of a majority of measures is characterised by a linear trend. Measures 3.1 (Accessibility) and especially 5.2 (TA – animation, information, evaluation, publicity) underperformed. Measure 3.2 experienced a slow start. Measure 3.4 (Innovative ICT) is the only one to present overspending.
The relatively poor performance of Measures 3.1 and the slow start of Measure 3.2 may have to do with the rather complex nature of topics addressed, but administrative reasons are also to be feared. The reasons for the dramatic underuse of Measure 5.2 funding are unclear, but it cannot be denied that insufficient attention was paid to the communication strategy.
The main reasons for re-programming were the inclusion of Greece and Malta in the programme partnership and decommitments. The only budget shift applied in 2007 represented a tiny proportion of the programme funding, and originated in the overspending of Measure 3.4.
3.2 The effectiveness of the programme
3.2.1 Planned results, achievement rates at measure level and trend patterns
A set of no less than 182 physical indicators was defined to monitor the MEDOCC programme performances (cf. Annex 3.2.1).
The quality of the set of indicators, and more generally of the programme intervention logic, is reviewed in section 3.2.2 below. The weaknesses of this set itself are not exceptional among INTERREG IIIB programmes and would have not prevented us from exploiting the monitoring data to some extent, at least to provide partial results. However, other shortcomings also characterised the use made of the programme monitoring system in the annual activity reports:
− the only limited set of core indicators provided in the OP12 and the PC13 relates to progress made towards the achievement of the global objectives; unfortunately, this set does not seem
10 Commission européenne, EuropeAid Office de coopération, note “Programme de voisinage MEDA pour la coopération transnationale et transfrontalière – Participation des pays MEDA au programme MEDOCC, modalités de mise en œuvre” 11 Cf. INTERREG IIIB Espace Méditerranée occidentale, Rapport annuel d’exécution 2007, p. 21. 12 Version of the OP approved by the EC on 8 December 2004, pp. 59-60 R20090272.doc 15 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
to have been exploited; in any event, the related monitoring data have not been published in the annual implementation reports; − baseline information is missing and targets are “moving”; − in the Annual Implementation Report 2007, the monitoring data is limited to projects of some calls for proposals only (e.g. Measure 1.1: 3rd and 4th calls; Measure 2.1: 2nd and 3rd calls; Measure 4.1: 3rd and 4th calls, etc. – cf. Annex 3.2.1); − the values indicated for the (so-called) impact indicators are based on closed projects only, whereas all projects were taken into account to report on the other indicators.
These shortcomings led to the conclusion that no valid, consistent and reliable picture of the MEDOCC programme achievements can be provided on the basis of the monitoring data published in the Annual Implementation Reports.
3.2.2 Reviewing the programming quality and the programme relevance on the basis of the results achieved
3.2.2.1 Quality of the intervention logic
The presentation of the MEDOCC programme strategy in the OP was not very user-friendly. Therefore a clearer presentation of the logical framework (attached as Annex 3.2.2) was included in the PC.
Two driving forces have shaped the strategy: the will to contribute to a better competitiveness and territorial integration of the Mediterranean Basin, and the policy aims put forward by the ESDP14. As a reminder, INTERREG transnational cooperation was meant to deliver a significant contribution to the application of the ESDP policy agenda. This was clearly confirmed in Article 14 of the INTERREG III Guidelines15, in which the European Commission, while recalling the ESDP policy aims, also stressed the need “to avoid dispersal of efforts and seek a strong focus”. Reconciling this requirement and the very broad thematic scope of the ESDP proved challenging for many INTERREG IIIB programme authorities, especially those lobbied by local or regional decision makers familiar with the use of EU structural funds and to whom the idea of a strong focus did not appeal so much.
In the MEDOCC logical framework, the two strategic objectives16 revolve mainly around the competitiveness and territorial integration of the Mediterranean Basin (including the Barcelona Process) i.e. the first driving force referred to above. The concept of “Global Economic Integration Zone” also draws on the ESDP approach, especially its ambition to rebalance the EU territorial development through the promotion of the polycentric development paradigm. At the programme level, the two strategic
13 Version of the PC dated January 2005, pp. 20-21. This set of 31 general indicators includes six indicators relating to the programme level (number of public bodies involved in projects, number of private bodies involved in projects, number of strategic and spatial analyses carried out jointly, number of institutional networks involving public bodies, number of projects involving more than 2 countries, and number of projects involving at least one non-UE country) and 25 indicators relating to the priority axes (all these indicators are about types of activities : number of studies, of networks, of seminars/events, etc.) 14 Namely “development of a balanced and polycentric urban system and a new urban-rural relationship”, “parity of access to infrastructure and knowledge” and “sustainable development, prudent management and protection of nature and cultural heritage”. 15 CEC Commission of the European Communities (2004) Communication from the Commission to the Member States of 2 September 2004 laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning trans-European cooperation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory INTERREG III. Official Journal of the European Union, 10 September 2004 (2004/C 226/02). 16 Strategic objective 1: “Increase Southern Europe’s territorial competitiveness to turn it into a Global Economic Integration Zone” // Strategic objective 2: “Support the Barcelona process to favour a better integration between European regions of the Western Mediterranean area and non EU countries of the Mediterranean basin”. R20090272.doc 16 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
objectives are supplemented with three “global / horizontal objectives”17. Here again, the territorial integration of the Mediterranean Basin remains the overarching question, and the three ESDP thematic policy aims are not referred to.
At the level of the priority axes, the first four priority topics assigned to transnational cooperation by the INTERREG Guidelines are closely mirrored:
Strand B priority topics (INTERREG Guidelines, art. 14) MEDOCC programme priority axes (d) Integration between maritime regions, and of insular regions 1. Structuring the Mediterranean Basin (a) Elaborate operational spatial development strategies on a 2. Territorial development strategy and urban transnational scale, including cooperation among cities and between system urban and rural areas, with a view to promoting polycentric and sustainable development (b) Promote efficient and sustainable transport systems and improved 3. Transport system and Information Society access to the information society (c) Promote the environment and the good management of cultural 4. Environment, heritage promotion and heritage and of natural resources sustainable development
This definition of the priority axes on the basis of the priority topics of the INTERREG III Guidelines is commonplace among programmes of strand B. In the case of the MEDOCC programme however, it could have been more appropriate, for the sake of consistency, to regard the territorial integration of the Mediterranean Basin as a horizontal topic and to limit the number of thematic priority axes to three.
In that case, each of these three axes would have formally supported the territorial integration of the Mediterranean Basin and the Barcelona process. Moreover, it would have been possible to establish a clearer link between these axes and the strategic and horizontal objectives of the programme, while avoiding some overlap between Axis 1 and other axes (e.g. projects on cultural heritage are envisaged in Axes 1 and 4). The choice made to dedicate a specific axis to the Mediterranean Basin integration gives the impression that this axis only is logically linked to the programme strategic objectives, whereas the other three axes are expected to frame a wide diversity of operations under the ESDP umbrella, without clear connections with issues specific to the MEDOCC area.
Such specific issues (migrations, fragmentation by mountain ranges, insufficient development of the short-sea shipping, habitats at risk, to name but a few) were identified in the SWOT analysis of the OP. Bearing in mind the state of progress of the research on EU territorial development issues at the time of elaborating the OP (no ESPON studies had been produced yet) the good quality of this SWOT analysis must be acknowledged.
The programme priority axes are presented in section 1.6 of the OP, in which various findings of this SWOT analysis are reproduced, but no clear cross-referencing links are established between these findings and the various topics addressed by the axes. Yet such links would have been welcome to better define the strong focus recommended in the INTERREG guidelines. In the case of a programme on transnational cooperation, the selection of relevant specific issues to tackle within each axis should be based not only on the results of the SWOT analysis but also on the identification of issues of real transnational relevance, i.e. those issues which, by their very nature, cannot be properly tackled without
17 Global/horizontal objective 1: “Increase the territorial competitiveness of the Western Mediterranean area as a whole” // Global/horizontal objective 2: “Strengthen the cohesion of the cooperation area by harmonizing territorial development policies through deeper inter-institutional integration” // Global/horizontal objective 3: “Promote and initiate more fruitful and numerous transnational cooperation operations contributing to sustainable development, between eligible European regions of the MEDOCC programme and with non EU countries of the Southern Mediterranean”. R20090272.doc 17 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
transnational cooperation18.
Such a selection did not take place in the case of the MEDOCC programme. There is a high number of specific objectives (45 in all, i.e. an average of three projects per specific objective, since 136 projects were approved; this average can also be observed at the level of every priority axis). The main concern of the approach taken in the OP and the PC was to meet as widely as possible the demand of potential project applicants.
This lack of focus can be observed in several INTERREG IIIB programmes, if not all of them. It was often feared that too restrictive an approach would increase the risk of automatic decommitment of funds. To cope with this problem, the response adopted was often to accept a broad definition of the thematic scope of activity offered to applicants, but to offset this by a relatively high selectivity of the project eligibility and selection criteria.
This was also the line taken in the OP and PC of the MEDOCC programme. The list of 19 eligibility criteria includes the requirement of the transnational19 nature of operations and some other demanding criteria (e.g. contribute to a spatial vision, an integrated territorial approach and a stronger identity of the MEDOCC space; contribute to employment, environment quality and equal opportunities; contribute to the implementation of the ESDP and EU policies) along with more classic criteria (completeness of the application submitted, no double-funding, etc.) In the list of selection criteria (17 core criteria + a few extra measure-specific criteria) various items are actually a rewording of an eligibility criterion in a more demanding style (e.g. demonstrate a genuinely transnational approach; significant progress made in terms of ESDP implementation; cross-sector and multidisciplinary approach). This list is thought of as a second set of eligibility criteria. In the first indent of the section presenting the selection criteria, it is specified that “projects must, in compliance with provisions of section 4.3.2. of the OP, have the following characteristics”, etc. This reflects a wrong understanding of the nature of selection criteria (assessing the respective merits of eligible projects, instead of imposing further requirements).
Interestingly, section 4.2.1 of the OP, dedicated to project generation and selection, stressed that other procedures than calls for proposals of a strictly bottom-up style should be applied. It was explicitly envisaged to launch calls geared towards projects initiated, or even directly elaborated, by relevant actors at the national or transnational level on strategic issues overlooked by the other stakeholders20.
18 As opposed to “common issues”, of a more local, regional or national relevance faced by various stakeholders based in different countries. These common issues can be the subject-matter of interesting exchanges of experience between INTERREG project partners, but cooperation is not, strictly speaking, essential to identify and implement the appropriate responses. Examples include urban public transport systems, urban sprawl, rural development, local coastal zone management, heritage conservation, etc. In contrast, issues of cross-border or transnational relevance arise as a consequence of the functional interdependence between (border on non-border) areas of different countries : a step taken in one country will impact on territorial development of areas of another country. Examples include maritime safety, water resource management in cross-border/transnational river basins, short- sea shipping, cross-border urban sprawl, cross-border labour market, etc. 19 No clear definition of the “transnational nature” of an operation was given. The wording of the criterion : “the project must be of a transnational nature AND involve partners from two countries at least” suggests that the involvement of partners from two countries does not suffice to meet the criterion. According to the simplified guidance provided to applicants on the programme web-site, the project should “Show a real transnational approach, involving partners from the various Member States of the MEDOCC area (and include, if possible, partners from the Southern and Eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea)”. 20 “Il convient donc (…) de susciter, et si nécessaire de concevoir, la mise au point de projets dans des domaines particulièrement stratégiques qui répondent aux objectifs majeurs du programme et ne sont pas toujours pris en compte par les acteurs. (…) Pour ce faire, on pourra avoir recours à (…) des appels à contribution pour mettre au point des projets d’initiative nationale ou transnationale dans des domaines particulièrement stratégiques non pris en compte par les acteurs, et si nécessaire la mise au point de ces projets directement par les instances nationales et/ou transnationales d’animation et de mise en œuvre du programme.” Programme opérationnel 2000-2006 INTERREG IIIB Espace de la Méditerranée occidentale (2004, p. 134). R20090272.doc 18 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
The MEDOCC book of projects21 published in 2006 provides an exhaustive list of approved projects. The content of this publication gives the overall impression that the selective and strategic approach announced in the OP was hardly implemented. For example, many projects concentrated on very specialised topics22, without contributing to a cross-sector integrated approach or to the ESDP implementation. A large majority of projects consisted in studies or exchanges of experience on issues of local or regional relevance and did not really contribute to a spatial vision of the MEDOCC space. This was particularly the case of projects approved under of Priority Axis 4, but examples can be found in other priority axes: topics such as the history of the glass industry and the “Mediterranean dietetic networks” were addressed under Axis 1, the organic food industry under Axis 2, etc. Some projects dealt with issues of a more strategic nature, for example to identify so-called “structuring projects” for the successor INTERREG IVB MED programme, which suggests that they originated from a more top-down initiative of the member states involved in the programme or a pre-existing transnational grouping of regions. These projects were approved at a relatively late stage of the programming period. Examples include “PIC RM (Projet d’initiative commune des régions méditerranéennes)” and “I2C (Innovation, compétitivité et connectivité des métropoles européennes)”. Projects concentrating on an issue of real transnational relevance were more the exception than the rule, except under Priority Axis 323, and brought about “soft” results only (studies, networks, etc.) One project, namely MEDISDEC-STRATMED, apparently ambitioned to produce a spatial vision for the MEDOCC area, but the outcome was rather disappointing: indeed, the methodology was based on a tentative harmonisation of national or regional spatial planning strategies instead of concentrating on the identification and tackling of issues of real transnational relevance.
In short, the project eligibility and selection criteria were surely not interpreted too literally by the steering committee, and the set of projects finally implemented did not deliver a very consistent contribution to the programme strategy. This lack of strategic focus24 was further exacerbated by the ambiguity about the programme geographic scope: as its very name indicates, the programme was meant to concentrate its operations on the Western part of the Mediterranean Basin, including Maghreb countries.
Instead, the participation of these countries remained relatively marginal (because of the MEDA-MEDOCC coordination failure) whereas the inclusion of Greece and Malta in the programme partnership proved disturbing.
The quality of the programme intervention logic can be summarised as follows: Scoring Good Average Poor Criterion Data use and analysis Focus Clear conclusions Quality and logic of the SWOT analysis Consistency of the programme strategy Awareness of issues of transnational relevance
21 Programme INTERREG IIIB MEDOCC (2006) Guide Projets, Appels 2002 / 03 / 04 / 05, Edition septembre 2006. 22 23 See for example “ARCOMED” concerning the railway axis Barcelona-Genoa (Measure 3.1) “SECURMED - Approche interrégionale et transnationale en matière de sécurité maritime et de défense de l’environnement dans la Méditerranée Occidentale” (Measure 3.3) “AEM MED Autoroutes électroniques maritimes de la Méditerranée” (Measure 3.4). 24 This “lack of financial concentration on strategic issues” of the MEDOCC programme has been explicitly acknowledged in the INTERREG IVB MED OP. Cf. MED Operational Programme2007-2013 (2009) p. 40. R20090272.doc 19 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
3.2.2.2 Assessment of the programme indicators
Drawing on his familiarity with the LogFrame and Project Cycle Management methodologies, the consultancy entrusted with the update of the Mid-term evaluation carried out a state-of-the-art critical analysis of the MEDOCC set of indicators25. The following weaknesses were rightly raised in the MTE Update report:
− the indicators are too numerous; − the indicators are neither “objectively verifiable” (OVI) nor “SMART 26“: they do not allow to describe the different levels of programme objectives in synthetic, reliable and operationally measurable terms (QQT quantity, quality, time) nor do they provide the basis for a monitoring system27; put otherwise, the indicators are actually more akin to “parameters” (one at least of the three QQT elements is missing) than genuine “indicators”, and different persons using the same indicator would not obtain the same measurement; − the intervention logic is unclear: in the objective tree, there is no link between higher rank specific objectives and lower rank general objectives; a reconstruction of the general, global, specific and operational objectives is needed; − the “result indicators” fail to quantify the effects of activities: far from describing the outcomes of projects implemented under the measure considered, they are nothing else than further output indicators; more generally, many indicators presented as “impact” or “result” indicators are in fact associated with operational objectives and should therefore be regarded as output indicators; − result and impact indicators were defined at the measure level: this seems unnecessary; moreover, quantifying results and impacts at this level is difficult.
The evaluator put forward various recommendations to develop a consistent set of indicators but only in view of the next programming period, i.e. for the preparation of the successor INTERREG IVB MED programme. As far as the MEDOCC programme was concerned, no adaptation, let alone a reshaping, of the set of indicators took place. It seems clear that such an exercise would have proved particularly challenging. Moreover, MEDOCC was certainly not the only INTERREG programme to struggle with the elaboration of a consistent and reliable monitoring system. Even the reference literature28 relating to this topic, while expanding at will on the key-principles of the LogFrame approach, is less convincing when it comes to providing examples of quality “SMART” indicators meant to monitor transnational cooperation programme performances.
As indicated in section 3.2.1 above, we do not think that these weaknesses were such that a partial exploitation of the programme monitoring system would have been ruled out in normal circumstances. Instead, much more the inconsistent use made of this system which precludes any conclusive analysis of the data.
25 Ecosfera S.p.A. (2005) Mise à jour de l’évaluation à mi-parcours du PIC INTERREG IIIB MEDOCC, Décembre 2005. See Heading 5.3 “Le système des indicateurs”. 26 Specific to the objective to measure, Measurable, Available at an acceptable cost, Relevant to the information needs of the manager, Time-bound. 27 Cf. CEC Commission of the European Communities, Joint Relex Service for the Management of Community Aid to Non-member Countries (1999) Project Cycle Management Training Handbook, Section 3.3.5 28 CEC Commission of the European Communities, DG Regio (2000) Working Paper No7 – Ex Ante Evaluation and Indicators for INTERREG (strand A & B) October. INTERACT (2006) Study on Indicators for Monitoring Transnational and Interregional Cooperation Programmes, Research conducted by Ecosfera S.p.A., June. CEC Commission of the European Communities, DG Regio (2006) Draft Working Paper [X] - Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation : a Practical Guide, 23 January. R20090272.doc 20 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
3.2.3 The level of complexity and experimentation achieved by co-operation
It was planned in Annex 5.1 of the First Interim Report to capture “the level of complexity / experimentation achieved by cooperation” through carrying out “a more structured and weighted analysis of indicators which are sufficiently operational, clear and INTERREG-specific”. For reasons that have just been spelled out, this exercise cannot, strictly speaking, be undertaken here.
However, some clues have already been provided in the above section. The strategy set out in the MEDOCC OP was very ambitious, and projects were expected to meet demanding requirements. In practice, the outcome did not match expectations: quite a large number of projects limited their activities to studies, exchanges of experience and other “soft” actions dealing with issues of regional or local relevance. The learning effect of these activities, especially their contribution to a better cross-cultural mutual understanding (cf. section 4.2.2 below) should not be underestimated. Nevertheless, the announced support to the Barcelona process and the contribution to other goals set out in the OP (such as the application of the ESDP policy aims) were relatively marginal.
Compared with the transnational cooperation developed by INTERREG IIC/IIIB programmes around other maritime basins (Baltic Sea, North Sea, Atlantic Rim) the MEDOCC experience seemingly came up with more modest results. A possible explanation could be that the implementation of the programme itself was not framed as firmly as elsewhere. In the other three basins, a joint technical secretariat had already been set up to run the INTERREG IIC programme, whereas preference was given to the so-called “virtual secretariat29“ in the MEDOCC area. During the 2000-2006 period, a managing authority and a JTS performed the duties specified in Article 34 of General Regulation 1260/1999 and Articles 25 & 30 of the INTERREG III Guidelines, but they were assisted by two more bodies: the “transnational secretariat” (some sort of substitute for the former virtual secretariat?) and the “technical assistance help desk”. Such a configuration was of course not likely to favour a strong programme leadership.
Some pre-existing organisations, in particular the Inter-Mediterranean Commission of the CPMR30 and the Network of Mediterranean Institutes were involved in the MEDOCC transnational cooperation. They spearheaded various foresight study projects (AMAT, C2M, PIC-RM) dedicated to the future of transnational cooperation in the Mediterranean Basin. Their influence was surely not negligible, but significantly enough no transnational spatial vision comparable to those produced in each of the three aforementioned maritime basins emerged from these study projects. This is all the more surprising as explicit reference was made to the Barcelona process in the strategic objectives of the MEDOCC programme. Despite this reference, things evolved as if the establishment of too close and explicit ties between the ambitious Barcelona policy process and the MEDOCC field cooperation had to be avoided. Noteworthy is also the fact that the new INTERREG IV B MED OP does not include any mention of the “Union for the Mediterranean”.
3.2.4 Intermediate conclusions
The MEDOCC programme monitoring system was characterised by an excessive number of physical indicators. Moreover, these indicators were neither “objectively verifiable”, nor “SMART”. Had they been used to monitor the programme performances, these indicators would have been of little help. In fact, the programme monitoring system was used on an inconsistent basis.
29 Actually a euphemism referring to a network of national secretariats. 30 Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions R20090272.doc 21 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Many projects were limited to studies, exchanges of experience and other “soft” actions dealing with issues of regional or local relevance. Some other study projects, especially under Priority Axis 3, addressed issues of transnational relevance. But the final outcome did not match the OP expectations.
The programme start was slow (late approval of the OP) and other factors delayed its implementation, including the collective resignation and replacement of the entire first JTS team, the relatively long time elapsed between the 2nd and 3rd call for proposals, and a protracted expenditure certification process.
The overall quality of the cooperation was undermined by a lack of focus and consistency, and an insufficient managerial and political leadership. Progress was made in comparison with the previous INTERREG IIC Western Mediterranean – Latin Alps experience, but much room for improvement remains after the INTERREG IIIB programme.
3.3 Project-level co-operation under the programme
3.3.1 Selection of the project sample
The number of projects (136) and the scope of themes under the MEDOCC programme are quite large (145 specific objectives). In a preselection of projects the evaluators, together with the JTS, first looked at the themes and their relationship with the priority topics of the INTERREG Communication. Secondly, we explored the available project documents to determine projects that reveal interesting insights into the mechanisms to be analysed and could generate sufficient results for such project case studies.
The pre-selection concluded with the following projects:
− TECHNOLANGUE – Università Genova (IT) BP (co-financed by project partners) − WERMED – Sassari/Genova (IT) BP − MEDCYPRE – CND/IPP Firenze (IT) BP (collaboration with NON-EU partners) − REVER MED – Sevilla (SP) − MYTILOS/MYTIMED – Toulon (FR) − THON.DOC – Creta (GR) − SADMO – Moura (PT)
The analysis of project documentation identified TECHNOLANGUE, WERMED, MEDCYPRE, THON.DOC and SADMO as the most suitable projects for in-depth evaluation. This selection was also guided by the project leaders’ availability for interviews during August / early September 2009.
3.3.2 In-depth evaluation of projects realised under the priority topics of the Community Initiative
In terms of introduction to the project-level evaluation, the following points can be noted:
A total of 136 projects were approved under the MEDOCC programme’s four project priority axes (17% under priority 1 Mediterranean Basin, 18% under priority 2 Territorial development strategy and urban systems, 19% under priority 3 Transport systems and information society, and 46% under priority 4 Valorisation of heritage and risk prevention).
R20090272.doc 22 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
The programme’s annual implementation report 2007 provides information on 65 individual projects (in general terms, Annual Report information on projects is rather descriptive, and does not allow for a genuine assessment of effectiveness or sustainability; the focus is on describing activities; however, short sections on problems and modifications allow an insight into efficiency issues).
Note that 7 projects failed to comply with their reporting obligations (i.e. information in the annual report is limited to presenting the partnership and a summary description of the project). In relation to project implementation, the following problems are noted: 12 projects note general implementation delays (e.g. Delays caused by the late approval of their application); 14 projects note that administrative procedures (programme or national procedures) account for implementation delays; 10 projects note delays over financial procedures (several projects note problems caused by the suspension of programme payments). 16 projects note problems concerning certification, i.e. very slow certification. Whilst this seems to have affected partners in all programme Member States, certification problems are mostly noted for Italy and Greece. Only two projects note major “political“ problems: GONETWORK notes the impact of the war in Lebanon on its Lebanese partner (the Lebanese partner had to withdraw from project activities). ROM had to cancel activities in Israel due to some of the partners’ reluctance to travel to Israel. 14 projects note partnership problems, including inactive partners (e.g. PAYS.DOC excluded one partner) or communication / coordination problems due to very large partnerships (e.g. MEDINS, SPACE). Only two projects note language difficulties. Five projects note technical problems (i.e. Problems related to the realisation of project content) or objectives that were too ambitious.
Appraisal of the five selected projects according to the evaluation criteria The following pages contain the reports of the five project case studies (THON.DOC, MEDCYPRE, SADMO, TECHNOLANGUE, WERMED) based on document analysis and interviews with partners.
Project study 1: THON.DOC (Adding value to tuna fishing as cultural heritage in the Western Mediterranean)
THON.DOC aimed at developing new alternative tourism products by combining cultural heritage traditions and tuna fishing in the Mediterranean. THON.DOC was selected in the framework of the fifth round of project selection under measure 4.2. Partners were drawn from Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain and Tunisia (the implementation period was from 1 August 2006 to 30 September 2008 with a total budget of €1.6 million (ERDF contribution of €1 million).
PARTNERSHIP The size and nature of the partnership were indeed adequate for addressing the needs identified in the partner areas. These needs related to the finding of alternative sources of income for fishermen, valorising the local cultural heritage and contributing to local development. The eleven partners came from five Mediterranean countries that participated in the project partnership and presented a good composition of public authorities at all levels (local, sub-regional, national) of research institutions and practitioners from Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Tunisia. The partnership was composed of government representatives at national, regional and local level as well as a national research centre, two universities and a practitioner, that is, an organisation promoting aquatic tourism in Naples. This composition, outlined below, helped the project to benefit from different perspectives. All the areas involved faced common developmental challenges and had a significant fishing sector.
A national level partner was the Ministry of the Environment of Tunisia; Partners at the regional and sub-
R20090272.doc 23 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
national level: Department of Agriculture and Fishing of Andalusia in Spain and Two Greek Prefectures; Local level partners: a municipality from Portugal and from Spain and two communes from Italy; Partner Universities and research centres: La Sapienza of Rome and the University of Athens, as well as the National Research Council in Italy. Dohrn Aquarium and Zoo in Naples.
The lead partner principle was applied under the project, the Greek partner was clearly the leader of the project, setting out the guidelines for action and coordinating the efforts of all partners.
The expectations of the project partners regarding the project goals were not entirely homogeneous at the start but eventually the partners moved on to common ground. More specifically, the project started by being focused on tuna which is a traditional fishing product in Spain, Italy, Portugal, however, fishing tuna is forbidden in Greece. Hence there was a need to broaden the project and focus it on all fishing potential, not just on tuna. Hence it was decided to start first by studying the historical traditions, the environment, recording the potential of the fishing sector etc. and aiming at finding alternative sources of income for fishermen, around tourism and culture.
There were some initial difficulties but once clear instructions were given on what was to be expected from each partner, the partners delivered what they were expected to. The cooperation was seamless. The project partners managed to achieve a mutual exchange of experience on the project’s themes, a joint development of policy, strategies and they piloted joint projects testing a common approach developed by the project.
Unfortunately however, the effect of the project on national / regional / local-level political and administrative processes was disappointing for the project partners, at least in Greece and in Portugal. The policy environment was more supportive in the other partner countries.
The project leader raised the awareness of policy makers, and even though lip service was paid, in reality nothing changed in the legislation to allow tourists to go on fishing boats in Greece and in Portugal.
The project did have an effect on the wider population living in the project partner areas concerned. In particular, in Greece, a fishermen’s feast was established to show the potential to the wider public. The population of fishermen took part in these initiatives with enthusiasm, but again, there is no take up from the local or national government to continue these initiatives. Conversely, in Italy, the local community and the local authorities really embraced the project initiatives to help fishermen develop tourism activities by receiving tourists on board, taking them on fishing trips, then exploring the gastronomy of the catches together. The tourist packages are now developed contributing to year round tourism in the area.
SUSTAINABILITY The project leader believes that the project could not have been undertaken without INTERREG funding in any form, since the transnational partnership could not have been sustained any other way and since it would be difficult for other sources of funds to be found to complete these ambitious tasks.
In Italy, the project has attracted additional partner funding beyond the level of co-financing formally required. In other partner countries, this was not the case, but in Italy both funds and moral support were very forthcoming.
R20090272.doc 24 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Apart from receiving ERDF funds, the “win-win situations” generated by the project for all the partners involved lie in the protection of cultural heritage, even if the project does not continue. This is especially true for Portugal and Greece where the legislative framework does not contribute to the success of the project.
The project has also triggered new regional/local activities or investments that would not have taken place without the project. In particular, tour operators are showing interest in advertising and organising fishing tours thanks to the project. In Italy and Spain, these tourist packages are taking place and the local communities have embraced the project leading to tourism around fishing all year round. The results in Portugal and Greece are less spectacular, but nevertheless, tour operators are showing interest there too, indicating that the impact of the project on the local economies may be long lasting in all partner countries.
Another lasting investment is the creation of the Mediterranean observatory of fishing tourism, which gathers indicators on the local fishing economy and can be sustained in the future to help adapt local development policy in the areas covered by the observatory.
The project partners have continued co-operation after the end of INTERREG co-financing period, they are still in touch with each other to explore future projects together. The project partners have already participated together in submitting an application for a follow-up project under INTERREG IV, focusing in the related fields of deep sea tourism and archaeological sea tourism. According to the project leader, the application had a strong innovative element as it was intending to use optical fibre to enable visitors on a boat to see underwater archaeological sites on a plasma screen. The project was however not selected. Despite this, the project leader expects that the project partners will find other ways to continue their satisfactory cooperation in future.
According to the project leader, the key success factors that helped to sustain co-operation after the end of INTERREG co-financing, was the commitment of the project leader himself, the provision of clear guidelines on what needs to be done, and building mutual respect among partners.
PECRCEPTION OF INTERREG The perception of the project leader about the application and selection procedures was that the procedures were very efficient and worked without problems. It is noteworthy to mention that this project has apparently not experienced any implementation problems concerning the INTERREG procedures (confirmed by the MEDOCC 2007 Annual Report).
LEARNING On the one hand, the project has enhanced awareness of common challenges and development perspectives between the partners. However, in some places, for example in Greece, there was some tension between the project promoters and prefecture level local authorities.
The project has encouraged inter-cultural understanding among the partners and has also encouraged organisational learning between individual partners. Indeed, the project partners were able to increase their capacities to be able to tacke problems in their areas more efficiently. This was true both for the individuals involved in the project and for their organisations which gained a much greater awareness of local problems and exchanged ideas about solving them. The project involved 11 partners who found ways of transferring know how between themselves and worked very well together.
R20090272.doc 25 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
However, as mentioned above, tensions among the local actors and stakeholders within the same locality were a challenge, at least in Greece. One of the aims of this project was to improve integration between local development and cultural and environmental resources, by promoting communication among local actors. This was achieved to some extent, but for example in Greece, some legislative obstacles could not be overcome. The project needed for the Royal Decree 666/66 of 1966 to be changed so that fishing boats in Greece could be allowed to also undertake some tourism-related activities in order to promote fishing tourism, but this has not been changed in Greece. Similar legislation is in force in Portugal and this has not been changed either. In other partner countries, such as Spain and Italy, the local and national government support was more forthcoming and the project has made a difference in the local economies. Tourist packages were developed in which visitors can participate in fishing excursions for specific types of fish according to the season and then follow it up with cooking lessons, learning about the type of fish caught etc.
Project study 2: MEDCYPRE (fighting de-forestation and forest fires with genetically modified cypress trees)
MEDCYPRE aimed at developing new fire fighting and soil erosion control approaches through the development of new types of cypress trees. MEDCYPRE was selected in the framework of the fourth round of project selection under measure 4.3. Partners were drawn from Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Malta and Greece (implementation period from 1 January 2005 to 30 June 2007 with a total budget of €1,5 million (ERDF contribution of € 0,9 million).
PARTNERSHIP The SWOT analysis was jointly prepared on the basis of contextual specificities and local needs / issues of each partner. The selection process ensured that each partner was seriously interested in the project, due to the benefit they could obtain for the implementation of genetically modified cypress (“Cypress Canopy”) that could be used to fight de-forestation and prevent fires. Some further ideas for the project came out after visiting non-EU partners (Turkey).
Each partner was selected by the leading partner on the basis of criteria of: real local interest due to related problems, previous successful experience in similar projects and willingness to follow up the project. Therefore the analysis of joint problems and possible future development was a key component in the selection of project partners. In the preparation of MEDCYPRE partners commented on and proposed changes to the draft prepared by the lead partner.
The number of partners may be considered high compared to the average standard Interreg III B MEDOCC. Nonetheless, due to the complexity of the project, it was necessary to involve project partners from all EU countries and Mediterranean countries from Portugal to Turkey.
In fact, both the level of resistance of clones of cypress and the rates of growth and adaptation of the clones themselves depend on climatic conditions.
The lead partner of the project, together with all the involved partners, identified certain principles of conduct that allowed a stronger leadership and ensured the correct implementation of project initiatives (that have been jointly agreed by all project partners). The conduct stated that after the agreement, the accepted initiatives have become “mandatory” for every partner, with enforcing powers by the leading partner. The lead partner had scientific and managerial expertise that was recognised at European level
R20090272.doc 26 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
and this made it easier to manage MEDCYPRE.
SUSTAINABILITY The objective of INTERREG is to “launch” projects and for MEDCYPRE these steps included the establishment of experimental plots with a single experimental design, using the same plant material common in the field, organising training courses in different countries, the publication of manuals, brochures and books. Therefore the overall expectations of each partner were homogeneous and clear from the beginning, with a shared overall plan and final objective. Due to the diversity needed to experiment with the introduction of cypresses in different context and habitats, the whole project could not have achieved any result if all of the partners were not fully on board. In return, local partners could not have benefited from such high-level technology without their participation and full commitment to the project.
The overall objectives and cooperation activities were quite complex and sophisticated. In fact, on one side they involved many different regions from various EU and non EU countries such as Italy, Spain, France, Greece, Malta, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, Israel; on the other they aimed at a joint experimentation of the successful adoption of a certain type of cypress to avoid desertification of green- lands and to be used as a barrier from and a prevention of fires. The general scientific objectives were established by partners and were aimed at achieving certain results useful in practice for the EU participating countries and third countries (Morocco, Tunisia, Israel, Turkey and Portugal Algarve). As an example we can cite the use of a common scientific experimental protocol of work and the exchange of experiences and ongoing results between the partners, on a quarterly basis.
MEDCYPRE has sponsored meetings with local governments and suggested legislative actions to facilitate actions in emergencies (preservation and enhancement of the avenue of cypresses of Bolgheri, national monument, and the investigation on the genetics of cypress Cipresseta of Fontegreca). Particularly, every quarterly meeting was structured in a way that a whole day was left to the discussion with local authorities and other policy-makers, allowing an in-depth policy debate, as well as technical discussion, on the key political and institutional issues for the project (day one was aimed at sharing advancement, while day two was devoted to technical training). Although no regulatory change emerged from such meetings, many small initiatives have been adopted at the very local levels by local authorities and regulatory bodies (i.e. in Italy administrations in Livorno, Campania, Tuscany introduced / strengthened some local initiatives after suggestions from the project team).
Moreover, the project has taken into serious consideration the impact of its actions on the labour market, equal opportunities and sustainable development. The main impacts were the improvement of the market for the specific type of cypress targeted by the project, both in terms of sales from nurseries and of improved scientific research activities on the matter. Although it is now far too early to measure real impacts, as there are still no final results for the experimentation, the sole discussion and policy debate has already had an impact of a 10% increase in the sales of such cypress in local markets (figure given by the project manager). Gender issues still remain in the sector, not in the employment of female researchers, but in the workforce of the forest patrols.
The project could not have taken place in the absence of Interreg financial support, mainly due to the highly experimental component of its workplan. On the one hand, few institutions dedicated to innovative research are actually keen on the idea of putting their results into practice, while on the other, the SMEs that seek to use commercial products (patented scientific purposes of financial products) do not give
R20090272.doc 27 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
attention to non-commercial ones (such as a “Cypress Canopy” deployment to fight forest fires). Through the co-funding of Interreg it has been possible to accelerate the transfer of selected plant material in successful products, processes and services useful to the user. It must be said though, that the project focussed on a particular type of cypress clones which are of limited interest to nurseries selling ornamental cypresses, but nonetheless may be a commercial success if the expected results are confirmed.
Whilst so far no additional funding has been used, beyond the funding that was formally requested for the project, the successful development of cypress trees suitable for timber production, for the protection of soil and to slow the progression of aridity and fires, is likely to lead to nurseries developing an interest in participating in the development of these clones with their own funding to further develop this initiative of applied research.
LEARNING The project has enabled the EU partners and those of third countries to work together on emerging problems (aridity progression, soil protection, fires) and on possible feasible solutions through the introduction of cypress clones. Moreover, although the discussed problems are universal, the identified solution at the Mediterranean level may trigger new activities at the regional level. For example, extra funding has been contributed by the Tuscany region of Arsa after the formal end of the Interreg project, with a view to selecting a suitable cypress for the area of “Crete Senesi” (in the Italian Province of Siena). A further initiative by the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Production has funded a further three-year project to select superior clones of MEDCYPRE and ensure their propagation. Moreover, the Province of Livorno is providing funding for the protection of the cypress-lined avenue of Bolgheri, and the Campania Region for the establishment of a clone orchard with candidates selected in the Cipresseta Fontegreca.
MEDCYPRE launched the project with the consensus of partners to voluntarily assume the commitment to continue the project at their own expense. Therefore, since the end of the Interreg project, data are still collected twice a year according to an established protocol, by sending them to the lead partner who processes them annually. On the basis of such an analysis, the programme can be modified to ensure the selection of successful clones.
The collaboration between partners has been active and productive because the ultimate objective is to fulfil the real need to find a feasible, economic and ecological solution to the issues of aridity and fires. This favourable situation maintains the commitment to continue the project even after its financial closure.
There is no institutional cooperation so far, mainly due to administrative issues, as many institutions have an annual budget and cannot make any commitment to a multi-year budget for the project. Nonetheless, at the time of submission of the draft, the MEDCYPRE project leader had requested a commitment from the partners to continue the project with their own funds. Therefore, although there is no official agreement, local administrations have so far supported the continuation of the project every year.
The overall perception of the Interreg support is positive. The project has produced and published several publications with a strong focus on local needs and characteristics (brochures and handbooks describing local issues). Most importantly, Interreg / Medocc funding has supported all the project’s strands and has been instrumental in the activation of local resources (additional financing). The specific strength of
R20090272.doc 28 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Interreg is its clear focus on “practical experimentations” that transfer scientific knowledge to local practices. As stated by the project manager: “we (the scientific partners) finally saw an application of our theories “in the field”, while local administrations have benefited from scientific knowledge that is usually inaccessible to them”.
The perception of the project application and selection procedure is generally positive, while the only criticism emerged on the lack of efficiency by the programme structures with regard to the procedures for the accountability and reporting of local partners’ expenditures. The process has been perceived as too slow and bureaucratic. For example, irregularities or lack of clarity in 10% of the overall expenditures should not result in a blockage for the whole funding, as such a delay will negatively impact the next activities planned for the project.
The project enhanced the consciousness of common challenges and development perspectives, as the selection of clones particularly suitable to counteract some common natural risks, such as appointments aridity, soil erosion and fires. Furthermore, the implemented solution may have ecological and economic common benefits in terms of prosperity and economic development for rural communities and the nursery industry as well as those for timber production. The recognition of common interest even beyond the project partners, is the very fact that technicians from local governments not involved in the project are increasingly requesting support for interventions for the local cypress from either the project leader (chef de file) the project partners or by increasingly visiting the site MEDCYPRE www.cupressus.org.
The project encouraged inter-cultural understanding among the partners and individual / organisational learning, during every meeting of MEDCYPRE. In fact, each meeting was organized, at a different location and had a duration of 3 days: one day to visit the experimental plots and to debate on the problems; one day to organise a training course for local technicians involved in the management of cypress trees and plants at nurseries; the last day to share issues, knowledge and recommendations by meeting with both public and private institutions, political representatives, concerned organisations and associations, socio- economic and environmental area where the meeting was held. This approach has ensured an extensive spread of technical and generalist knowledge to the benefit of partners, technical staff and beyond.
The partners of MEDCYPRE consisted of organisations that have developed innovative methodologies and others with a strong interest in moving these new methodologies directly into practice. This combination has proven to be one of the strongest points for the project and surely facilitated the transfer of knowledge on the management of cypress in the countries of southern Europe and Mediterranean countries. This cross fertilisation between the partners has allowed the publication of manuals, brochures and books promoting the culture of cypress, and moreover has provided customised support and knowledge sharing for the partners’ specific local needs.
The transfer of knowledge at the interregional level has not been possible so far. In fact MEDCYPRE has just “launched” this collaboration and is still waiting for “concrete” results (success in the implantation of cypress trees) to be transferred successfully to other countries and economic realities. As an example, it can now be said that some of the initial assumptions, such as the hindering effects of a cypress in case of a forest fire, are being confirmed through experimentation and therefore increasingly appreciated and considered by public institutions. The proposed solution of the barrier of cypress trees is feasible, economical and even ecologically sound. It just will take some further years to prove the validity of the proposal, launched thanks to the Interreg support.
R20090272.doc 29 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Project study 3: SADMO (Desertification Evaluation and Control System for the Western Mediterranean
SADMO aimed at developing new methods for addressing soil erosion in the Mediterranean. SADMO was selected in the framework of the fifth round of project selection under measure 4.4. Partners were drawn from Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy and France (implementation period from 1 September 2006 to 30 June 2008 with a total budget of € 0,9 million (ERDF contribution of € 0,6 million).
The project’s overall objective was to develop an innovative methodology to obtain necessary information on desertification processes in the western Mediterranean. The project integrates technology and methodologies relating to the acquisition of information with different tele-sensors (satellite images, aeroplane photos, terrestrial photograms and terrestrial laser systems) on the field measures and computerised observation techniques of particular importance. The output of the project was a set of axes and models, which allow for the cartographic development of desertification indicators. These techniques were implemented in some regions with high desertification risks, the pilot areas were the left bank of the Guadiana (Alentejo, Portugal) and the province of Almeria (Andalucía, Spain).
Among other objectives, SADMO aimed at characterising the main spatial pattern of the desertification phenomenon, using the information obtained for certain indicators such as climate, soil and vegetation. The interaction between those environmental factors can be used to describe the desertification process. Hence, the assessment of the spatial local relationship between extreme climatic events and relevant biophysical factors (soil and vegetation) may provide an important tool to understand the process dynamics and to recognize critical areas. The project was aligned with the main objectives and orientations of national and international programmes against desertification. From that perspective SADMO could be seen as a kind of valorisation strategy, providing tools for the conservation of landscapes and natural resources, which might be endangered by the phenomena associated to desertification.
PARTNERSHIP The setting up of the project proposal included a collaborative a priori analysis about the problems and potential solutions, involving the various partners since the beginning, benefiting from the common knowledge on each others’ work. The project can be described as a joint project, with common actions and a thourough joint implementation of the envisaged activities, responding to partner’s tasks and expectations. The nature and size of the partnership was considered adequate for addressing the major needs of the project in the various partner’s areas.
The partnership of the project involved the following institutions:
− Instituto de Estudos Superiores de Recursos Naturais (Portugal) − Comissão de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional do Alentejo (Portugal) − Consejo Superior Investigaciones Científicas/ Estación Experimental Zonas Aridas (Spain) − Democritus University of Thrace / Laboratory I of Hydraulics of engineering (Greece) − Etrúria Innovazione SCPA / Unità di Siena (Italy) − Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique / INRA – Unité de Biométrie (France) − Instituto Superior Técnico / CEHIDRO (Portugal) − Universidade de Jaén / Dpto. Ingeniería Cartográfica, Geodésica y Fotogrametría (Spain)
R20090272.doc 30 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Regarding the effect of the project on political and administrative processes, there were some outputs that had an impact on a national / regional level, namely on the issues related to climatic extremes and the management of natural resources. For example, one of the project conclusions was that the climatic extremes, droughts in particular, tend to be affect wider spaces since the 70s until now. And this effect was verified for the South of Portugal and Spain. This conclusion from the project is extremely important for the management of water basins in the context of future severe droughts, in particular on the shared basins between Spain and Portugal (e.g. Guadiana River).
The project had a strong technological and instrumental dimension and it might be seen as highly relevant from a decision support system perspective. Nevertheless the significant level of complexity and sophistication may also be seen as a limitation from the point of view of a wider utilisation by other potential end users (e.g. local and regional administrations). The technological characteristics of the project can also make its results and outputs appear less obvious from the perspective of the wider population, despite its relevance and intrinsic value. The communication strategy was based on the organisation of scientific seminars (open to the general public) the creation of a web-page, the publication of scientific papers and the presentation of communications in events.
The output of the project integrates and systematizes various methodologies in an instrument for regional control and management, which integrates an information system – data base (DB) geographic information system (GIS) of the regions, networks of data acquirement and transmission concerning the indicators – and a soft component constituted by the methodologies and algorithms of data treatment. With these methodologies and monitoring techniques, the pilot areas may become privileged observatories for the control and management of the desertification phenomenon. The thematic of the project (desertification in the Mediterranean regions) and the search for tools for a better understanding of the phenomena in its various dimensions, can be seen as a focused approach toward the goals that were defined for the MEDOCC programme. Considering the cross-border nature of the problem of desertification and the need for common approaches involving various Mediterranean countries and regions, it may be easily understood why it was considered suitable from the perspective of the INTERREG support.
The cooperation between different stakeholders from the various affected regions is seen as a key priority for tackling the problem of desertification and therefore, in this case, the benefits extended the gains resulting from the ERDF-subsidy. The project would not have taken place without that funding and it did not trigger additional partner funding beyond the level of co-financing formally required. Nor did the project trigger new regional and local activities or investments connected to it, nor did it generate new jobs besides the ones linked with the tasks defined. Nor did the project trigger new regional and local activities or investments connected to it. This is a type of project with public interest and social- environmental relevance, with relative costs in terms of total budget, which would be hard to raise or to achieve without the support of a public funding programme.
The leading partner was responsible for the general coordination of the project including the management of the budget and the administrative tasks (e.g. acquisition of services and equipment; information activities; elaboration of technical and financial reports; etc.). The leading partner also assumed the technical coordination of the project, managing the working connection between the different partners and also the links to potential beneficiaries.
The major common advantages (“win-wins”) from the project were at the level of technology and
R20090272.doc 31 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
knowledge transfer, resulting in the creation of a proto-network for desertification monitoring and control, benefiting all the partners involved. The high standard and the complementary nature of the scientific and technological background of the partnership were the main success factors that helped to sustain co-operation after the end of INTERREG co-financing. The project’s partnership continued co- operation, applying for another project in order to spread the concept of SADMO to African countries. In the project perception, INTERREG as a funding tool is seen as an appropriated funding tool to tackle the kind of problems approached in SADMO. However in practice, it was not seen as an efficient funding tool because the reimbursements took too long and had limited flexibility in terms of budget, which sometimes was difficult to manage.
LEARNING At an organisational learning level, from the point of view of the various institutional participants, the dissemination of knowledge took place, resulting in internal capacity enhancement. The knowledge that was accumulated may be used as a basis for planning and programming activities (e.g. regional administration) in order to adapt and to cope with the desertification phenomena.
Good inter-organisational relations were also established (e.g. coordination, collaboration, cooperation, networking) whose elements are the basis for enhancing organisational learning processes in contexts where multiple stakeholders or partners, with diverse skills and agendas interact. In the case of desertification, inter-organisational relations are critical in order to overcome problems caused by the complex, diffuse and fragmented nature of the phenomena associated to desertification (interaction of several processes and factors e.g. climate, soil, agricultural practices, water use, etc.).
Project partners were able to increase their respective capacities to better be able to tackle major needs and problems prevailing in their areas. For example, in that regard the project encouraged a transnational transfer of know-how (e.g. response to severe droughts and the management of water basins shared between Portugal and Spain). A wider range of stakeholders “outside” of the immediate project partnership may also take advantage of that knowledge for the management of existing water basins, in particular of the Alqueva dam and the associated irrigation network. Severe droughts and salinisation must be carefully managed in order to minimize the effects on existing or future agricultural projects.
Desertification is a complex problem in southern European regions but also in the near north of Africa, representing one of the major challenges that those territories are facing. Climate change and global warming may significantly impact on those dynamics by exacerbating the problems, especially in terms of availability of natural resources (e.g. water, soil, organic matter). Resilience will be a critical property for the various systems to support the disturbances without significant damage and that will depend on the capacities to adapt, to learn and to innovate.
The SADMO project may have a contribution to make in that regard, helping to understand and to anticipate potential outcomes of the desertification dynamics in those territories and maybe in far distant regions, which may also learn from the experience.
Project study 4: TECHNOLANGUE
TECHNOLANGUE aimed at developing new methods for the planning of transport systems in the Mediterranean (development of interactive internet-based mapping systems). TECHNOLANGUE was
R20090272.doc 32 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
selected in the framework of the third round of project selection under measure 3.4. Partners were drawn from Italy, Portugal, Greece and Spain (implementation period from 1 June 2004 to 31 August 2006 with a total budget of € 2,2 million (ERDF contribution of € 1,3 million).
PARTNERSHIP The partners have not specifically adopted a SWOT analysis, although they jointly discussed the pros / cons of the context for the project and have screened all the possible risks since the project start-up together.
The project involved many participants, selected due to their interest in the project scope and objectives, therefore ensuring a truly common approach. Each action implied a joint discussion among all of the partners and adopted solutions or results were essentially an agreement and / or a negotiation among partners’ positions / ideas.
The project covered many diverse areas that could guarantee an adequate coverage of the urban, social and cultural diversity of Mediterranean Europe. Such a selection aimed also to highlight and discover commonalities among very distant and diverse partners / regions. The project involved 14 partners, speaking 7 different languages, and selected among relevant research centres and competent public administrations. The project aimed at highlighting and understanding the methodological diversity among the approaches of Mediterranean Universities and research centres specialized in urban planning.
The leading partner was the Genova Universite Centre, and was in charge of coordinating and managing all partners’ activities and their relations, improving the ability of a proper communication among different cultures. The leading partner was also in charge of interacting with non-European partners and improving the existing relationship with them throughout the various project cycles. The role of the leading partner was essential, as partners were at very different “starting points” in their understanding of, and approaches to, planning, particularly in their levels of understanding of European standards and rules. In this sense the project leader promoted a shared set of rules and terminologies, but left each partner free to further develop it on the basis of its own cultural and professional background.
The project planned various local meetings held in all different locations where partners were based. Those meetings involved all the project partners but focused on local issues and interests. This process allowed and increased convergence on interests among project partners. Only very few partners left the partnership, as they did not show a true interest in the project aims and objectives. One of the key criteria in the partner selection was the diversity among all participants and the relevance of local cultural aspects in the approach of each partner, as well as a variety in geographical, historical and architectural aspects.
The project investigated and discussed several pivotal aspects in contemporary planning, understanding the deep impacts they could have on existing practices and promoting a mix of various styles and approaches to develop a truly Mediterranean approach to urban planning. Throughout the project development each partner experimented some improved planning focussing on each regions’ priorities and needs. The project and the multilingual book later produced, have received awards from several relevant international institutions, including the European Commission.
Representatives from regional and local authorities participated in all the meetings and exchanges planned throughout the project. This participation had some clear effects in their administrative decision.
R20090272.doc 33 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Notably, the Tunisian partners, after their participation to some of the meetings, denied the authorisation to a big construction project that was already approved, as they understood it was detrimental to the wider urban planning of their territory. Other administrations implemented some of the techniques they developed through the project, such as some park that they saw during the visits to distant regions. Nonetheless, no clear follow-up has been carried out to investigate the real effects and impacts of the project on the involved institutions. Most of the administrations used the developed methodology to measure and monitor the correct advancement of their ongoing and future projects.
The impact of the project on the broader population was obvious in some cases (i.e. when some administration implemented good practices that were presented to them by other project partners).
SUSTAINABILITY The project could not have been implemented without Interreg funding, as individual partners (research and university institutions as well as local administrations) would not have had any access to such financial support. No additional funding was triggered by the project beyond those allocated by the project partners.
All the partners could benefit of a truly multi-cultural exchange on issues of the maximum relevance for urban planners. Often partners would bring their local experts in the discussion promoting truly multi- cultural debates (historic, political, anthropological, architectural) often producing new scientific knowledge with some theoretical and/or practical relevance for the whole Mediterranean region.
The lack of monitoring of the project’s consequences for all the partners did not help provide a clear picture of the broader project’s impacts, in terms of further institutionalisation or additional investments triggered by the project.
No official partnerships endured after the end of the project, although many scientific papers were produced and joint conferences, leading to the establishment of informal networks. Participation in the project was instrumental for most of the project staff to pursue a career in the field within a wide range of organisations.
The project was not meant to endure after the Interreg financing. As expressed by the project leader, its main aim was “to disseminate seeds” among different Mediterranean regions and “contaminate” the various project partners with each other’s traditions, heritages and specificities (i.e. animate the establishment of formal and informal partnerships). Interreg was perceived as an essential contribution to promote and execute the project. Nonetheless the excess of administrative tasks and duties was negatively perceived. Particularly, the excess of forms and documents to be fulfilled has been perceived as extremely bureaucratic. The time spent in such activities was considered far too long and counterproductive for the actual management and implementation of the project.
The delay in the first level controls has been a serious problem, as partners had to anticipate financial resources and wait several months before being refunded. Moreover, the project team suffered from the “re-funding” modality of Interreg (i.e. advancing funds with subsequent reimbursement) as often Universities and research institutes had problem in anticipating financial resources.
The various changes within the Managing Authority (MA) also created some problems of continuity, as
R20090272.doc 34 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
well as difficulties in the accountability of the MA towards the project team.
LEARNING The project surely enhanced the consciousness of common challenges and development in urban planning in the Mediterranean regions. In fact this was exactly the aim of the project through the endured discussions, debates and knowledge sharing that characterized all the project activities.
The different scientific meetings and discussions, as well as the on-site visits that reinforced the debates, surely enriched both the individuals and the organisations that attended such meetings throughout the project cycle.
The way most of the administration put into practices what they learned throughout the project, is a proof of the fact that they increased their capacity for better tackling local needs and problems in the area of urban planning.
The very core of the project was based on transnational and cross-border cultural, scientific and technological exchanges. Each phase in the project had strong components of inter-regional interactions, as well as inter-cultural exchanges at the scientific, project and institutional levels.
Often external stakeholders, mostly local experts and/or practitioners invited by project partners and local administrations, attended the meetings and discussions organized throughout the project.
Project study 5: WERMED
WERMED aimed at establishing an innovative seaborne transport routing system guided by weather forecasts (weather routing). WERMED was selected in the framework of the fourth round of project selection under measure 3.3. Partners were drawn from Italy, Greece and Malta (implementation period from 1 July 2005 to 31 October 2007 with a total budget of € 1,8 million (ERDF contribution of € 1 1 million).
SELECTION PROCESS Each partner was selected for its possible strengths and competencies and added value in the project. Therefore the actions were expressly promoted jointly, where the whole team was interacting in each initiative (although each partner had some clear responsibilities). For example, the “state of the art analysis” (task 1) was a joint activity to understand and share all available information, while the experimentation phase (task 3.1) was shared by all partners. Every day a partner was in charge of collecting experimental data, elaborating the overall information, and writing the report for the day (“bulletin”).
The partnership was initially expected to involve all countries in the MEDOCC programme area. After some first contacts, the countries that showed a strong interest and could guarantee their co-funding were involved. Therefore Greece, Malta and Italy were selected. This group has ensured a wide coverage of the Mediterranean regions, with a wide diversity in culture and expertise. Also within each regional area, partners were selected to ensure diversity: technological service providers, research institutions and public bodies. Partners in each role were selected only after they had ensured their interest and collaboration throughout the project.
R20090272.doc 35 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
PARTNERSHIP The project has identified a clear leading partner, the University Consortium based in Sassari, in charge of monitoring the advancements and coordinating the activities. The leading partner actively promoted the group exchanges and supported each partner in their roles.
The project has not followed a SWOT analysis, although the consortium discussed and analysed the main characteristics of the context, limitations and opportunities for the project. This culminated in a joint analysis by all the project’s partners. The team was aware of the possible limitations due to the geographical aspects of the sea, but tried to understand those as strengths and possibilities for further applications of the adopted technology.
All the partners had clear objectives and complementary roles in their participation in the project. Service providers were interested in expanding their service capacity and experimenting with new applications, regional institutions were interested in understanding further developments to improve their transport systems and provide further and better services to their citizens and to European visitors, while research centres were interested in promoting an experimentation that was unique for the Mediterranean Sea. None of the partners could have promoted such a project in the absence of the other, as each of them provided its own specific knowledge, expertise and capabilities. The interest and sophistication for the project was the introduction of a technology, the “meteorological navigation”, that was introduced since the ‘90s in bigger seas but has never been experimented with within the Mediterranean Sea. The technology is based on a sophisticated system that uses meteorological data, ADSL networks and advanced computing systems, to provide captains with the best water routes to avoid climatic problems. The project tried to turn previous limitations (geographical dimensions) into strengths for the introduction of such a technology. Particularly, a “spread use” of different competencies and skills among different partners in different regions of the Mediterranean was experimented with, therefore creating a distributive service which is collaboration among Mediterranean subjects (and not “just” a national service). The different Mediterranean partners were in fact providing data, elaborating them, and collecting feedbacks throughout the Mediterranean Sea.
Although the impact in terms of changes in administrative processes has not been strong, the project manager perceived a great interest and enthusiasm by the involved political and administrative bodies throughout the project. Notably, all the administrations discovered potentials they were not aware of and most of those are continuing to experiment the emerged solution in newly financed projects. Also private partners, such as the navy company “Grandi Crociere” that was involved in the experimentation, have shown interest in the use of such technologies.
The broader population has been positively affected during the 2 years of experimentation of the technology on big boats. This experimentation has surely improved the quality of travel for the passengers of the company “Grandi Crociere”, the large company that was selected for the project. Nonetheless, a greater benefit will come only with the adoption of such technologies in the future. So far there is no clear result in these terms. Possible future advantages might come about with the adoption of such technologies for small-medium boats, not considered in the current project but possibly included in further projects to be approved.
SUSTAINABILITY The project could not have taken place without the support of Interreg. In fact, the overall investment was far too ambitious for single partners, while no partners, in the absence of Interreg, would have
R20090272.doc 36 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
invested in a shared collaboration with other potential “competitors”. This emerged as the key value of Interreg, notably pushing for a joint collaboration among partners that would not have worked together otherwise (for economic and territorial reasons). In the words of the project leader, “only through Interreg could the project assemble such partners… as Interreg actively pushes for joint collaborations, therefore stimulating the collaboration among different subject and territorial areas”.
No additional funding has been triggered. Nonetheless “Grandi Navi”, the company that supported the experimentation phase, has put additional resources in the form of time devoted to the project by some of its personnel on board. In fact, captains on board were providing daily feedbacks on the results of the day-by-day experimentation process.
The project has been essential in spreading a technology that was unknown to most of the administrative partners prior to the project. The main advantage for project partners was the “consciousness of a complete new set of technological opportunities” (in the words of the project leader) for all the project partners. Including the possibility of joint collaboration in the collection, management and delivery of meteorological data and information throughout the Mediterranean.
The collaboration among partners has continued through follow-up projects funded by other sources (such as the ARCHIMED programme). Currently a new follow up project, including new partners, is about to be approved, as all the partners “are working for an institutionalisation of the project”.
The partnership therefore has continued after the Interreg support, and has successfully applied for other funding schemes.
The main success factor has been the creation of a real team. In fact, although the subject always receives warm support by potential partners, the main strength has been the ability of the team to slowly move away from misunderstandings and diversities, therefore adopting a shared language to create added-value from the team’s diversity. This aspect is perceived by the project leader as the key lasting result, an outcome that ensures further developments for the project. The perception of being a group was not there at the beginning, and has emerged through the experimentation phase, when partners spent valuable time together, for each of the experimentation activities, in order to ensure the quality of the initiative.
As mentioned, although no clear signs of further institutionalisation of the project have emerged so far, each partner individually and through follow up joint projects, is pushing for a further institutionalisation of the emerged results and the overall project structure.
The overall Interreg process from application to selection is considered a fair one, although the criteria of selection were not particularly transparent to the project team (the project was presented under the programme’s transport measure, which received very few proposals). Interaction with the JTS and the MA was excellent, once the overall project was approved.
Administrative duties were nonetheless considered onerous and could be improved. Particularly, the slowness of “1st level controls” has affected several partners, as it has implied long times for financial transfers, sometimes even up to 6/7 months. As often partners were using bank loans to anticipate their expenses, the extreme lengths in the controls negatively affected the financial flows for the project partners.
R20090272.doc 37 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
A final issue is the difference among Member States in dealing with the national co-funding. Partners in countries where financial support (25%) is automatically granted, i.e. Italy and Greece, have advantages over others where State support is not guaranteed and financial support needs to be found by project partners, i.e. Spain.
LEARNING Initially, the main difficulties for the project were due to cultural and linguistic differences. Project partners had different educational and professional backgrounds and, although they all shared English as a common language, there was a lack of common understandings and concepts. This was due not only to difference in nationalities, but mainly in professional skills, among members of academia, service providers and administrative partners. Throughout the project phases, the partners learned from each other and understood that they were facing similar problems (different weather routings often shared similar issues). Therefore the project was instrumental, and successful, in developing a common understanding of challenges and development perspectives for a shared objective of better routes though the Mediterranean Sea.
In the words of the project leader, the key outcome of the project has been the “sharing of a common (technical) language for our daily interaction, which allowed the project partners to understand each other in spite of their strong diversities”. This has been instrumental in the solution of technological issues. Furthermore the project has improved each partners’ internal capacity, by accessing to new technical / administrative / scientific knowledge that was not in their organisational (and individual) background.
The project has allowed all the partners to interact with very different organisations, therefore improving their capacity to work as a team within unusual and very diverse contexts. This capacity has allowed each partner to better understand difficulties and opportunities beyond their usual areas of interest. Technical partners have shared administrative difficulties and opportunities, while administrations now have a better knowledge of a wide range of technological opportunities that were not even known before the project. All these improvements have had positive impacts in the capacity of each partner to increase their capacity to tackle main issues in the improvement of Mediterranean transports’ quality. Particularly, partners have understood and experimented the potentials of a “distribute approach” in weather routing management, beyond the single country / regional level.
The main objective, and the consequent outcome, of the project was the creation of a “distributive capacity” in the management of Mediterranean weather routing. Apart from the experimentation of an up-to-date technology, the main criticality (and the main success) for the project, was to build a shared capacity of collaboration among Mediterranean regions and partners. A collaboration where each partner could share its key competencies/skills and work with others in a shared pan-Mediterranean process. This was possible through several meetings of the “steering committee”, with 8/9 meetings per year and sub- committees created ad-hoc to tackle emerging issues. Moreover, the transnational transfer of know-how has been possible through the daily interaction throughout the experimentation process, where all the partners were discussing emerging issues and defining joint solutions. The main result for the project was therefore the experimentation of a shared process in which local specificities were shared for the benefit of a common service for all Mediterranean regions.
Other stakeholders beyond the project partners were engaged through 3 “project meetings” held in Italy, Malta and Greece and two further “open events”. There, some 200 local stakeholders participated in
R20090272.doc 38 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
illustrative conferences, showing benefits of the project and the experimented technology, as well as the pan-Mediterranean approach, in improving routes within the Mediterranean Sea. The conferences were open to local institutions and authorities interested experts and companies, as well as students. As a follow-up to each internal “project meeting”, an open conference was organised involving several local stakeholders. Each open conference was advertised through local media and was promoted through local institutional and professional networks.
3.3.3 Good practice projects with particularly strong territorial cooperation demonstrating the Community added value of INTERREG programmes. THON.DOC (Adding value to tuna fishing as cultural heritage in the Western Mediterranean)
A. General information − Keywords: piscatorial tourism, alternative tourism, fishing − Region: Mediterranean − Programme strand: INTERREG III B MEDOCC, part of Strand B of the INTERREG Community Initiative Programme referring to Transnational Cooperation − Duration: 2006-2008 − Funding: Member States contribute approximately 14% of the total allocation. − Total budget € 1,607,999.98, ERDF participation: € 1,000,000
B. Project aim: the story of an idea and turning it into reality (concept, partners, expectations, the application procedure)
The project aims to promote an alternative form of tourism, Piscatorial Tourism. That is, tourism dependent on fishing and valorising local cultures dependent on fishing, which can be considered part of aquatic tourism and sustainable ecotourism. The project promotes the traditional tuna fishing and the production of fish roe.
The basic objective of THON.DOC was the elaboration and experimentation of an innovative touristic programme based on the exploitation of the cultural heritage and of the environment which is related to tuna fishing and the production of roe. Fishing tourism constitutes an innovative touristic product and like agro-tourism it represents an alternative holiday model. It offers the possibility to tourists to come in contact with the sea and the fishermen, to take short lessons on the sea biology, cooking lessons and lessons in treating fish and fish products.
The main objectives of the project were: • Diffusion of knowledge related to the sea, to kinds of fishes and to the environment near the coast. • Knowledge of the different cultures and increased understanding of the mentality and the way of thinking of people who live on marine resources. • Respect for the environment with the creation of relations with the environment and between the people who live and work in it. • The possibility to increase the population of fishermen and their families. • Creating a source of additional income for fishermen or tapping into alternative sources of jobs.
R20090272.doc 39 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
In practice, the project aimed to develop tourism related to fishing activity, whereby tourists would, for example, visit a place to participate in fishing for specific fish in specific seasons (e.g. squid in January, in May etc) to learn about how products such as ore are prepared, to take cooking lessons to prepare fish, participate in celebrations and events such as the sardine feast etc.
C. Political and strategic context The project had expectations from the policy level in Greece and in Portugal, for the legislative framework to be changed to allow fishing boats to receive tourists on board. This unfortunately did not change in either country, stopping the impact of the project, recording the current situation, piloting some changes and raising the interest of the local communities. In contrast, in Italy and Spain, the policy environment was more responsive at all levels, allowing the project ideas to take hold and contributing to local development in fishing areas.
D. Implementation: The story of activities and co-operation among partners and with external stakeholders. There were some initial difficulties but once clear instructions were given on what was expected from each partner, the partners delivered what they were expected to. The cooperation was seamless. The project partners managed to achieve a mutual exchange of experience on the project’s themes, a joint development of policy strategies and piloted joint projects testing a common approach developed by the project.
E. Effectiveness: What did the project achieve? The project partners carried out research concerning the fleets, fish catches and traditional recipes of cooking the fish of each region.
The project also created a Mediterranean fishing observatory which compiled data on: lists of fishing boats in the participating areas, fishing history in each area and the dynamics of fish catches in each region, the protected species, EU and national fishery legislative framework, nutritious value of fish catches, traditional recipes for cooking local fish catches.
Thematic meetings with fishermen, their associations, the Port authorities, the researchers etc. were held and questionnaires investigating the problems of modern fishery were created. The conclusions from these questionnaire surveys were disseminated to the Ministries of Shipping and of Agriculture and to Fisheries. Promotion and publicity activities were held through articles in the local press and the production of audiovisual material for the promotion of the programme (such as cook books, DVDs, etc).
F. Sustainability: how are the partners cooperating currently? Currently, the partners are maintaining informal contact with the aim of exploring future opportunities for cooperation, as cooperation under the INTERREG project worked seamlessly.
G. Conclusions The project has shown potential to provide alternative sources of income to fishermen through tourism and culture. However, in some of the project countries, the legislative framework was not changed. In Portugal and Greece, legislation that did not allow fishing boats to accept tourists onboard remained in place, hence limiting the impact of the intervention in local societies where fishing is a significant part of the local economy.
R20090272.doc 40 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
3.4 Analysis of factors that determine the character of the programme
3.4.1 Important contextual factors characterising cross-border / transnational programme areas
The MEDOCC programme area is characterised by rather heterogeneous urban-rural relations, comprising some of the Mediterranean’s most urbanised areas (e.g. Barcelona, Sevilla, Valencia, Marseilles, Rome, Athens) as well as several predominantly rural regions, e.g. the region of Alentejo in Portugal (19 inhabitants per square km in 2002). The Portuguese region of Algarve, the Spanish, French and North-Italian MEDOC regions, Malta, and to a lesser extent Greece, stand out for being among the EU’s NUTS2 regions with the highest population increase, whilst some of the South-Italian regions and Eastern Greece experience a drop in population. The population increase is mainly due to immigration (EUROSTAT regional yearbook 2008, pages 15-18).
Comparing the MEDOCC programme area with other INTERREG Strand B programmes (Typology Strand B) the area is classified as “low urban influence - low human intervention“ (same classification as the INTERREG Strand B programmes Northern Periphery and Archimed).
Over recent years, there have been significant improvements in accessibility in Spain, Portugal, Southern Italy and Greece (e.g. via Cohesion Fund support). For example, in Spain, there has been a significant Structural Funds contribution to expanding and improving transport infrastructure (co-financing of over 1200 km in roads / 60% of the national increase in roads leading to travel time savings for road travel of 1.2 million hours per year; co-financing of 400 km of high speed rail). (See EC, Mapping progress, Key findings from the updates of the mid-term evaluations European Cohesion Policy 2000-2006, February 2007 and EC, Growing regions, growing Europe, Fourth report on economic and social cohesion, May 2007, page 96). However, transport infrastructure (road and rail) between the countries remains weak (e.g. between the Portuguese region of Alentejo and Extremadura in Spain or between the French/Spanish border). Generally, motorway and rail density is low in the programme region under 50 km of roads per 1000 km2, with the exception of North-Western Italy (for road). (EUROSTAT regional yearbook 2008, pages 125-126).
Comparing the MEDOCC programme area with other INTERREG Strand B programmes (Typology Strand B) the programme area ranks fifth among the 13 Strand B programmes: the degree of overall accessibility is calculated at 85% (EU average = 100) – similar to the CADSES programme (89%) and well above the average for the 13 Strand B programmes (75%).
Considering transnational disparities in economic terms, there remain significant differences in economic development between the programme’s 42 NUTS2 regions (not including Gibraltar, as the EUROSTAT dataset used does not include GDP data for Gibraltar). With 89% of the average EU27 per capita GDP (in PPS) for the programme region, the differences range from just under 60% (Dytiki Ellada in Greece) to over 135% (Lombardie in Italy). The programme’s wealthier regions are located in Northern Spain, France, Northern Italy and East Greece; the poorest regions are located in Southern Italy and Western Greece. GDP per inhabitant (% points of the average EU 27) has grown in Spain and Eastern Greece, whilst there have been significant drops in GDP per inhabitant in Italy (-2 to -7 percentage points). South-Eastern Italy and some of the Western Greek Islands count among the few regions where GDP per inhabitant has fallen to under 75% over the period 2000-2005. (EUROSTAT regional yearbook 2008, pages 38-47).
R20090272.doc 41 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Comparing the MEDOCC programme area with other INTERREG Strand B programmes (Typology Strand B) the value for the programme area is calculated as 3.11, i.e. the fifth highest rate (determined on ground of the overall deviation ratio between the lowest and highest income levels (i.e. 10 aggregated highest & aggregated lowest GRP/capita values at NUTS 3 level) existing within the programme area (quantitative / Eurostat data for 2005). Regional gross domestic product in the MEDOCC partner regions is shown in the table below:
GDP (in PPS) per capita in % of the EU-27 average, by NUTS 2 regions (EUROSTAT, 2006)
Member NUTS2 region 2002 2006 State
Andalousie 75.2 80.8
Aragon 106.8 111.7 Catalogne 121.9 122.8 Spain îles Baléares 119 114.1 Murcie 84.6 87.1 Valence 96.2 95.4 Ceuta 86 94.6
Melilla 83.7 94 Corse 89 85.8 Languedoc-Roussillon 90 86.1 France Provence - Alpes - Côte d’Azur 107.4 104.6 Rhône-Alpes 115.6 111.2 Anatoliki Makedonia, Thraki 62.4 60.9 Kentriki Makedonia 73.3 75.6 Dytiki Makedonia 75.2 76 Thessalia 68.9 68.1 Ipeiros 68.3 70.6 Ionia Nisia 79 73.9 Greece Dytiki Ellada 61.2 59.8 Sterea Ellada 89.1 93.5 Peloponnisos 71 77 Attiki 120.2 129.1 Voreio Aigaio 63.5 67.4 Notio Aigaio 98 96.2 Kriti 85.7 82.8 Basilicate 78.4 74.3 Calabre 69.8 67 Campanie 72 66.1 Emilie-Romagne 140.2 126.6 Latium 132.7 123.2 Ligurie 112.9 105.3 Italy Lombardie 149.5 135.1 Ombrie 105.9 96.6 Piémont 123.2 114 Sardaigne 83.2 79.5 Sicile 70.8 66.9 Toscane 122.6 113 Val d’Aoste 130.2 121.9 Algarve 81.1 81.2 Portugal Alentejo 69.3 72.6 Malta 79.5 76.9
R20090272.doc 42 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
3.4.2 Historic factors determining the character of cross-border/transnational / inter- regional co-operation
The MEDOCC programme area is characterised by a limited transnational co-operation tradition. Whilst there is generally a good co-operation tradition between neighbouring MEDOCC countries, genuine transnational co-operation traditions (note for example the CPMR’s Inter-Mediterranean Commission or the Network of Mediterranean Institutes) were only initiated after the political changes in some of the MEDOCC countries (e.g. establishment of democracies in Spain and Portugal in the 1970s). The MEDOCC programme is based on the previous INTERREG programme, i.e. Interreg II C “Méditerranée occidentale Alpes latines“ (approved on 5 August 1998, 23 individual projects). The MEDOCC OP notes the programme area’s limited transnational co-operation tradition as one of the main factors constraining the effectiveness of the INTERREG II C programme.
Comparing the MEDOCC programme area with other INTERREG Strand B programmes (Typology Strand B) there is a similar track record in trans-national cooperation as seven other Strand B programmes that initiated cooperation under INTERREG IIC (however, with a late date of approval) or other ERDF pilot schemes for trans-national cooperation (only three Strand B programmes did not cooperate prior to INTERREG IIIB).
Moreover, genuine transnational cooperation is constrained by the weak development of inter-state agreements covering all MEDOCC Member States (however, national laws do allow for cooperation agreements between regional / local territorial authorities).
A comparison with other INTERREG Strand B programmes shows that this is a common feature for all 13 programmes (“No specific inter-state agreement existing, but possible use of specific co-operation provisions in domestic law (e.g. conclusion of co-operation conventions between local / regional authorities from another country) and/or of other national law-based / Community law-based instruments that are not specifically designed for decentralized territorial co-operation”).
Finally, there are no permanent transnational co-operation structures beyond those set up for the management of INTERREG IIC / IIIB programmes. Again, this is a common feature for all INTERREG Strand B programmes (with the exception of the Baltic Sea programme).
3.4.3 Intermediate conclusions
Looking at the context factors characterising the MEDOCC programme, the strong urban-rural disparities at the programme-level are particularly noteworthy, whilst at the project level, partnerships are generally centred on partners with somewhat similar urban-rural characteristics. The MEDOCC area is further characterised by limited overall accessibility, and this is particularly valid between programme countries (i.e. cross-border). Moreover, the degree of transnational economic convergence is limited.
The MEDOCC programme is based on a limited previous transnational cooperation tradition (only INTERREGII) and this applies to both the programme and the project level. There are no specific legal instruments facilitating trans-national cooperation and there are only few permanent transnational cooperation structures.
R20090272.doc 43 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
3.5 Re-considering the “depth & intensity of territorial co-operation”
The MEDOCC programme’s synthetic indicator value was calculated as 78.6 (real rate, source: Synthetic Indicator database (SYIND data final status)). This compares with an average rate of 82.5 for the 12 INTERREG Strand B programmes that provided the required data (the programme Archimed did not provide data) and is the second lowest rate of all 12 programmes (the programme French Ultra- Peripheral Regions has an even lower rate of 75.89).
Considering the effectiveness analysis, the project-level analysis as well as the analysis of historic factors, the synthetic indicator value can be largely confirmed. The MEDOCC programme scores are in line with the strand B scores for synthetic indicators 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. Lower than average scores were calculated for synthetic indicators 6 (actors on the programme management committee) 7 (joint programme management structures) and 18 (programme impact). For synthetic indicator 7 (joint programme management structures) the lack of any delegation of powers (e.g. with regard to the Joint Technical Secretariat) indicates a possibly even lower score. Similarly, the effectiveness analysis has pointed to the programme’s limited impact in terms of contributing to wider strategic objectives (Barcelona process and ESDP policy aims). This, at the very least, confirms the lower than average score with regard to programme impact (synthetic indicator 18).
R20090272.doc 44 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Synthetic indicator Score
Synthetic Indicator 4 (identification score in line with INTERREG Strand IIIB average (“Challenges were identified through (a) a pre-existing of challenges in programme national / regional development plans or national / regional spatial visions covering PARTS of the preparation) programme area and (b) a joint SWOT analysis involving a broad range of public / semi-public / non- public stakeholders in the programme area.“)
Synthetic Indicator 5 (initial score in line with INTERREG Strand IIIB average (“Programme strategy (priorities / measures) programme strategy) addressed the most important identified problems and needs; financial allocations fully reflected their respective importance“)
Synthetic Indicator 6 (actors on the score below INTERREG Strand IIIB average (“Restricted partnership: Representation of national, regional programme monitoring committee) authorities and economic / social partners. Very limited decision making powers: Only national authorities have voting rights, whereas regional authorities and economic / social partners do not have voting“)
Synthetic Indicator 7 (joint score below INTERREG Strand IIIB average (“The overall programme management structure is joint and programme management highly centralised: State-level administrators directly assume all management functions, but the Joint structures) Technical Secretariat or other support structures may be delegated to a regional authority, local authority, or a permanent cross-border structure.“)
Synthetic Indicator 8 (agreements score above INTERREG Strand IIIB average (“The existence of one or several “comprehensive” or “less on programme management comprehensive” conventions, protocols, and agreements that considerably facilitated the joint process) programme management process“)
Synthetic Indicator 10 (Share of score in line with INTERREG Strand IIIB average (86%) programme NUTS 3 areas hosting one or more of the Lead Partners / Main Partners involved in all approved projects)
Synthetic Indicator 11 (realisation score above INTERREG Strand IIIB average (100%) of specific types of project activities)
Synthetic Indicator 12 (joint score in line with INTERREG Strand IIIB average (100%) projects)
Synthetic Indicator 13 (partner score in line with INTERREG Strand IIIB average (100%) involvement in joint projects)
Synthetic Indicator 14 (cost volume score in line with INTERREG Strand IIIB average (100%) of joint projects)
Synthetic Indicator 15 (ERDF score in line with INTERREG Strand IIIB average (100%) funding for joint projects)
Synthetic Indicator 16 (joint score in line with INTERREG Strand IIIB average (100%) projects in relation to priorities)
Synthetic Indicator 17 (ERDF score in line with INTERREG Strand IIIB average (100%) funding for joint projects in relation to priorities)
Synthetic Indicator 18 (programme score below INTERREG Strand IIIB average (“somewhat“) impact)
R20090272.doc 45 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
3.6 Main factors fostering (or hampering) integration and the means to promote positive factors or to overcome persisting obstacles
The socio-economic integration of the MEDOCC programme area is limited. There are significant disparities in terms of socio-economic development both within individual MEDOCC countries as well as between countries (these disparities are even stronger between the partner countries from the MEDA region). Integration has been hampered by the countries’ main focus on their own economic development (e.g. a strong effort during the past programming period to improve transport and environmental infrastructure). Transnational cooperation has therefore remained very much a “niche activity”.
Moreover, the structures and instruments to develop transnational integration are recent and not very well developed. Differences in institutional / administrative / regulatory frameworks are less of a concern. Whilst differences exist (e.g. strong centralisation in some of the MEDOCC countries such as Greece or Portugal as opposed to strong decentralisation e.g. in Spain) most of the MEDOCC countries are characterised by similar administrative traditions, and mental barriers are mainly focused on the differences between the MEDOCC’s EU Member States and the MEDA countries. There is not much evidence to suggest that the programme tried to overcome such obstacles during the course of implementation. On the contrary, limited attention was paid to ensuring an effective communication policy and this points to a certain degree of “resignation” to existing obstacles.
3.7 Extrapolating results on effectiveness and impacts to all INTERREG programmes
The in-depth programme analysis largely confirms the analysis under the previous Tasks 1 (literature analysis) 2 (horizontal programme analysis) and 4 (synthetic indicators). The MEDOCC programme has achieved a “medium depth & intensity of territorial co-operation”. Limited previous cooperation outside INTERREG has certainly contributed to this, with limited experience of ensuring the integration of transnational cooperation results into national policy and legal frameworks. Moreover, the strong differences within the programme area (e.g. limited transnational convergence, differences with regard to population patterns) are also likely to have prevented stronger effectiveness.
On the whole, the MEDOCC programme largely confirms the patterns and failure / success factors identified under Task 2. Key issues for MEDOCC include the following:
− Identification of programme challenges: strong efforts in identifying the programme challenges via a strong SWOT;
− Suitability of programme strategy: here the MEDOCC programme can be located within the 9% of programmes that “addressed all or most of the important identified problems and needs; financial allocations failed to reflect their respective importance”. The programme’s main problem was that too wide a range of needs were addressed, with a spreading out of resources across the programme’s 45 specific objectives;
− Programme strategy changes: the MEDOCC programme is in line with most Strand B programmes (55%: “Somewhat”. No genuine strategy change, however, changes with regard to financial allocations due to limited take-up under some measures and popularity of other measures (e.g. measure 3.4) and adjustments to reflect the entry of Greece and Malta into the programme partnership;
− With regard to financial progress, the MEDOCC programme ranks in the range 70-80%, and as noted
R20090272.doc 46 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
in section 3.1.1, financial absorption is comparatively low (73% as compared to 78% for Strand B on average) with difficulties in spending the budget for some measures under axis 2 and 5;
− Looking at success and failure factors, the late programme approval was an important factor for the MEDOCC programme as well as the limited experience with previous INTERREG management. Further strong fail factors include the difficulty in mobilising MEDA funding and weak programme promotion and monitoring.
R20090272.doc 47 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
4 IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND IMPACTS IN TERMS OF UTILITY AND EFFICIENCY 4.1 The external coherence of the programme
4.1.1 Regulatory compliance and interaction / co-ordination with other Structural Funds programmes
As far as running the programme is concerned, an audit carried out by the European Commission detected serious shortcomings in the management and control system of the MEDOCC programme. Further detail about these shortcomings is provided in section 4.2.1 below.
Apart from that, it can be questioned whether the programme was implemented in line with the INTERREG Communication and the spirit of the policy debate on which the INTERREG III Community Initiative was grounded. As noted under section 3.2.2.1 (quality of the intervention logic) the programme was not implemented in line with the Operational Programme’s strategy orientations. Indeed, at the project level, there has been a rather limited contribution to the Barcelona process and ESDP policy aims.
Coherence with other INTERREG programmes including ESPON and INTERACT MA and JTS feedback confirms the lack of any particular formal coordination and collaboration with other INTERREG programmes, with the exception of a mutual control of the programmes’ databases to ensure that no duplication of funding had happened for the same projects (during the start-up phase for the programmes). On various occasions the programme had compared its methodologies and tools with the programme CADSES, managed by the same Managing Authority. However, no particular support was given by ESPON, while INTERACT was closer to the programme’s needs, organising some training events and workshops with the programme management on the matter of “eligibility of expenditures”. In this context, the MA and JTS noted that a stronger role of coordination by INTERACT, in order to improve the coordination among ongoing EU programmes, would be appreciated in the future.
Coherence with mainstream interventions There has been no coordination with mainstream programmes or other Community Initiatives. Indeed, there has been no particular coordination with other Objective 1, 2 or 3 programmes, although most of the regions involved were “Objective 1”. This is mainly explained by the time pressure on programme management structures to launch the programme after the operational programme’s comparatively late approval.
Finally, as already noted in section 3.1.3, third country participation has been strongly constrained by difficulties concerning mobilising MEDA funding. A review of the 2007 Annual Implementation report shows that 41 projects involve a third country participation, however, it appears that the role of third country partners has mainly been limited to an observer role, or to minor activity. Very few projects note active third country participation (e.g. one project notes the organisation of steering committee meetings in the third country). The limited role of third country partners is explained by the late operationalisation of MEDA support. Several projects organised applications to the MEDA programme, and it appears that MEDA funding was granted in several cases. However, before MEDA funding could be made available for project activities, agreements had to be concluded with the third country governments. By the time the agreements were concluded, the projects had ended or were nearing their end, and MEDA funding was therefore not used (e.g. BVM (Axis 2, Measure 1) includes a Moroccan partner that applied for MEDA
R20090272.doc 48 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
funding in February 2006, and was granted funding by an EC decision in March 2007. However, the required convention between the EC and the Moroccan Ministry of Finance was only signed in October 2008. This meant that funding was not available before the end of project activities). Third country partners therefore had to use their own resources (there are a few examples of third country partners using their own funds to participate in project activities) or apply for grants to other organisations (MEDCYPRE notes lead partner funding of third country partner activities; MYTILOS notes UNEP funding). The 2007 Annual Report notes that for Tunisia, the failure to mobilise MEDA funds is due to the delays in the designation of the responsible authorities in Tunisia (Annual Report 2007, page 16).
Concerning inter-institutional coordination, there has been no coordination with other agencies / authorities engaged in transnational cooperation. MA / JTS feedback confirms that the overall coordination among Member States has been ensured by the Monitoring and Steering committees, with representatives from all involved Member States.
The Monitoring Committee’s main duties where to deliberate formal decisions and statements for the programme, with one single vote per Member State, while the Steering Committee was responsible for the selection of the projects to be co-funded. Representatives from regional authorities were invited to attend the committee, without voting, depending on the matter to be discussed and the interest of (relevance for) specific regions. The equity in the decision-making process among all involved Member States was ensured through the “consensus” approach, therefore with all favourable votes needed to approve any debated question. This option gave much decisional power to the Member States, although it reduced the decisional capability for the Managing Authority, who could not enforce any decision in the absence of a full consensus by the Member States. The “vertical” coordination between different levels of NUTS was duty of each Member State. In Italy it had the form of a “national committee” that involved all the regional authorities and was used in order to agree on the official positions (on various programmes’ matters) to be taken by the national representatives within the monitoring and steering committees. “Cross-collaborations” among regions from different countries emerged throughout the programme’s implementation, where informal networks among territorial authorities emerged and survived beyond the projects’ implementations. In a later phase the programme’s website opened a specific section that provided details and contacts of each project to facilitate the exchange among programme’s partners.
4.1.2 Intermediate conclusions
Serious shortcomings in the management and control system of the MEDOCC programme were detected. Moreover, the programme was not implemented in full compliance with the spirit of the INTERREG III Initiative. Deviations mainly occurred with regard to the implementation of strategic priorities, with a rather open project selection approach leading to a lack of focus. There has been rather weak coordination within the “World of INTERREG”, i.e. with interventions from other INTERREG strands (limited to CADSES and INTERACT). There is no evidence of coordination with mainstream Structural Funds support despite the programme area being strongly anchored within Objective 1. Finally, inter- institutional coordination was limited to the programme structures, with overall sound inter-institutional coordination, though there were problems over clear delimitation of tasks / overlaps between the central (MA, PA, JTS) and the transnational structures (National Coordinators).
R20090272.doc 49 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
4.2 The intrinsic performance of the programme
4.2.1 The overall governance and management system of the programme
The overall governance and management system of the MEDOCC programme was constrained by several factors, as evidenced by the European Commission payment suspension decision and decommitments. Whilst this was partly caused by a late programme approval and limited previous experience with transnational programme management, there also appears to have been a lack of leadership in addressing identified weaknesses (e.g. with regard to project selection and monitoring and ensuring that projects address the selected policy priorities).
The MEDOCC OP presents the need for joint and more transnational programme structures as one of the key lessons learnt from the previous INTERREG II C experience. Programme management structures include the Managing Authority (MA) Paying Authority (PA) a Transnational Secretariat (TS) (comprising the Joint Technical Secretariat (JTS) and National Coordinators (NC) for each Member State). The MA, PA and JTS are located within the Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport. The Transnational Secretariat represents the programme’s effort to ensure more transnational programme management. According to the programme summary elaborated by INTERACT, the presence of National Coordinators in eight programme Member States has facilitated an exchange of experience in the areas of managing ERDF funds and transnational cooperation. (“This type of structure has a key role in fostering the transnational feature of the programme. Assuring the presence of transnationality in the day-to-day operational management of the programme, the TS help the integration of the different national mentalities on a wider scope.“ - INTERACT, Programme Summary of the INTERREG IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC) Programme, September 2005, page 7). In other INTERREG IIIB programmes however, the establishment of a strong and relatively autonomous JTS was often regarded as conducive to a more transnational approach. A network of national “contacts” or “correspondents” generally performed various tasks (e.g. project generation, communications) in close consultation with the JTS, which remained however the only body considered as the “programme secretariat”.
It is not by accident that this network was renamed “transnational secretariat” in the MEDOCC programme context. Somehow, this choice represents a compromise solution between the requirement to establish one single JTS for each INTERREG III programme and the perpetuation of the old “virtual secretariat” approach inherited from the INTERREG IIC era. It seems clear that during the MEDOCC programme JTS has never been in a position to exert a real intellectual leadership. Working conditions offered to the first team that was recruited led to its collective resignation, at a time when programme activities had still to reach their cruising pace.
One does not quite see either why the creation of a distinct “technical assistance / help desk” was deemed necessary 31. This help desk, whose running was entrusted to Ernst & Young Financial Business Advisors S.p.a., performs various tasks that are generally within the remit of an INTERREG III JTS (assistance with project applicants, assistance to the MA, etc.). There has been limited decentralised programme management: all main structures (MA, PA, JTS) are located within the Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport. Among the eight National Coordinators (TS) there are six central state authorities (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Malta and Switzerland) and two regional-level authorities (France, UK). Note however, that some of the certification activity is delegated to the regional level (Spain). The programme experienced some language problems (French is the programme’s official
31 This body is also named “AT AUG”, (i.e. “Assistance technique à l’Autorité de Gestion”). For further detail, see the INTERREG IIIB MEDOCC Annual Report 2007, p. 23. R20090272.doc 50 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
language). Annual reporting notes that some projects have reported partially in other languages (e.g. EUROMEDSYS II in Italian). There is limited evidence on the functioning of the programme’s monitoring and steering committees. The Programme Monitoring Committee included civil society representatives, however, it appears that their participation in MC meetings has been poor (INTERACT, Programme Summary of the INTERREG IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC) Programme, September 2005, page 7). Overall feedback indicates that the centralised system worked well, with the exception of financial management and control.
Section 3.1.1 above pointed to the relatively weak financial performance of the programme (absorption rate of 73%.) This can be explained by various factors, including the late approval of the OP, and the lack of a common manual on expenditure certification, which has caused delays in the certification process. Moreover, no efficient steps were taken at a sufficiently early stage to secure a proactive tackling of the decommitment risk, as testified by the two decommitments applied to date (€ 445,229 and € 3,969,867, on the 2001 and 2005 appropriations respectively). At the project-level, there is substantial evidence that slow certification procedures were a major factor behind implementation delays (especially in Italy and to a lesser extent in Greece and the remaining MEDOCC countries).
Other deficiencies in the programme management and control system were commented on at length by the European Commission in its recent decision32, following an audit report. These include:
− serious shortcomings in the internal control measures put in place by the managing authority; − serious shortcomings in the certification of expenditure to the Commission by the paying authority; − serious shortcomings in the carrying-out of independent checks; − the lack of reliability of the accounting system and method for collecting financial and statistical data.
Concerning project selection, section 3.2.2.1 has already noted the demanding nature of the project selection criteria. However the project selection criteria were not applied to focus selection on projects addressing the programmes strategy objectives, but allowed the selection of a wide range of diverse and rather specialised projects of local and regional relevance with limited relevance to the programme’s wider strategy objectives. The project selection process can be regarded as transparent and fair, and project-level feedback has, generally, been positive with regard to the project selection procedure.
Finally, concerning monitoring and evaluation, annual programme reporting (Annual implementation report 2007) makes use of financial, output and result indicators. There were no impact indicators applied. Result indicators are weak (e.g. vague result indicators that do not provide information on the quality of the result; result indicators mainly centre around counting the number of participants in project activities, documents prepared, however, they fail to provide any information on immediate change; confusion between output and result indicators).
Annual programme reporting discusses the impact for each project in the section “Description des modalités de prise en compte des priorités transversales”, however the impact is not substantiated with indicators / quantification (and considering the poor quality of indicators, this would not have been possible). See section 3.2.2.2 for a detailed analysis of the monitoring system. In this context it can also
32DÉCISION C(2008) 3581 DE LA COMMISSION du 11-VII-2008 de suspendre les paiements intermédiaires du Fonds Européen de Développement Régional par la Commission pour le programme d’initiative communautaire INTERREG III B "Méditerranée Occidentale" (MEDOCC) entre l’Italie, l’Espagne, la France, le Portugal et le Royaume-Uni, par après étendu à la Grèce et à Malte (CCI n° 2000 RG 16 0 PC 018) R20090272.doc 51 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
be noted that the projects never made use of the available monitoring system (see Annual Implementation Report 2007, page 15). The programme’s mid-term evaluation and its update noted weaknesses on monitoring and proposed improvements; however, these were only of benefit to the follow-up programme under INTERREGIV.
MA / JTS feedback confirms that the lack of effectiveness in the indicators adopted for the monitoring and evaluation of the programme were recognized within the programme team, and the need of introducing new indicators was discussed with the Commission.
Nonetheless, no change has been introduced so far and it is unlikely that any new change could have any impact for the programme evaluation at this stage. Also, a lack of financial resources in the final / evaluation phase of the programme could negatively affect the quality of the overall internal evaluation. The main effort by the programme team has been in the selection and evaluation of projects that, on paper, would effectively suit the programme’s purpose. The ongoing monitoring for the projects has been focused on financial aspects and no resources remained for the final evaluation of to what extent the selected projects have reached their objectives (final assessment limited to the beneficiaries’ final reports). The overall approach to the evaluation (mid-term and update) has been mainly formal, with no genuine effort to use the programme’s indicators. The main efforts were in the selection of projects.
4.2.2 The Community added value and the sustainability / durability of the programme
Evidence of Community added value is largely limited to providing funding that would otherwise not have been available. Significant communication and dissemination activities were developed (based on analysis of Annual Implementation Reports) however, this was mainly limited to the project partnerships. Moreover, dissemination hardly focuses on concepts of EU relevance – mostly on highly specialised issues of rather local / regional relevance, and there is limited evidence of sustainable policy transfer and institutional adaptation.
Considering the political value added (awareness building, subsidiarity, partnership between people etc.) there is no evidence that this has occurred at programme level, and project-level information does not confirm substantial political value added (mainly due to the limited sustainability of project partnerships). Similarly, the evaluators have found limited evidence for institutional value added (sustainable vertical and horizontal administrative partnership despite different structures etc.) or socio-economic value added (mobilisation of cross-border endogenous potentials, opening-up of labour markets etc.). Most project-level cooperation remained too theoretical and short-term to generate such value added. Finally, considering socio-cultural value added (mutual knowledge of geographical, historic and cultural conditions, broadening of linguistic knowledge etc.) it is likely that the project has generated significant added value. Project-level assessments have shown that this is one of the most important MEDOCC outcomes, though there has been no monitoring to substantiate this.
R20090272.doc 52 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Whilst MA/JTS feedback indicates good strategic stability with only minor and formal changes (e.g. integration of Greece and Malta into the programme in 2002 / 2004) the programme’s implementation was characterised by weak financial stability. Actually, the programme budget was adapted four times. Apart from a shift of funding between Axes 2 and 3, other reasons for reprogramming include the broadening of the programme partnership (to Greece and to Malta) and two automatic decommitments (with a further decommitment possible). This financial instability directly affected project implementation as several projects noted the impact of payment suspensions.
The successive versions of the MEDOCC OP are listed in the following table, together with the reference / date of the relevant European Commission decision and the reason for reprogramming.
SUCCESSIVE VERSIONS OF THE INTERREG IIIB MEDOCC OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME Version O.P. dated 33 EC decision date Reason for reprogramming No & reference 27 DEC 2001 1 7 DEC 2001 Programme launch C[2001]4069 23 DEC 2003 2 2003 Inclusion of Greece in the programme partnership C[2003]5326 8 DEC 2004 Inclusion of Malta + indexation + 1st automatic decommitment 3 23 SEP 2004 C[2004]4911 (€ 445,299 on 2001 financial allocation) 14 DEC 2007 4 2007 Transfer of €200,000 ERDF funding from Priority Axis 2 to Priority Axis 3 C[2007]6666 6 JUL 2009 2nd automatic decommitment (€3,969,867 on 2005 financial allocation) + 5 JAN 2008 C[2009]5359 extension of the eligibility period until 2009.
An analysis based on a review of the 2003 call for projects (projects completed in 2006 and reported on in the Annual Implementation Report 2006) confirms that more emphasis should have been placed on ensuring sustainability (especially for second phase projects building on earlier INTERREG IIB or MEDOCC projects (e.g. RURALMED II, SEDEMED II).
Indeed, an analysis based on the 26 projects selected under the third call for projects reveals, that the vast majority of projects are fully dependent on the Structural Funds, and there is hardly evidence on the attraction of other funds. It also appears that most projects ended with the end of the MEDOCC support. Only very few projects have built-in elements that indicate prospects of sustainability (e.g. EUROMEDINCULTURE and RECONFORME note the preparation of a follow-up project; SUBERMED, RESTAURONET, MIREDAF note the establishment of permanent structures (for networking); AMPHORE, RURALMED and SEDEMED note the integration of project outcomes into permanent educational / scientific programmes). However, for the large majority of projects it appears that there was limited emphasis on ensuring sustainability during the course of project implementation. Whilst several projects note good intentions with regard to continuing activities, there is no evidence that this was actually being prepared before MEDOCC support ended. Internet research on the 26 projects of the third call shows that 25 projects have established a project website – in August 2009, only two project-related websites appear active (SSSL and SEDEMED) six websites remain online but have not been altered since the projects ended in 2006, and all remaining 17 project websites have expired.
Looking at the case studies, THON.DOC points to a partially successful approach to ensure sustainability: in developing a new product, i.e. combining commercial fishing with tourism, the project ensured the participation of partners at different levels of government as well as the private sector. This helped raise awareness with regard to the potential of the combined fishing / tourism product and contributed to overcome a restrictive regulatory framework in two of the participating countries (Italy and Spain). For THON.DOC as well as WERMED the involvement of the private sector (practitioners) facilitated the
33 Despite our efforts, we failed to obtain a copy of every OP version and of the revised PC. Therefore we cannot confirm the exact date of some documents. R20090272.doc 53 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
“commercialisation” of new products (tuna fishing / tourism packages for THON.DOC / new meteorological navigation systems for WERMED) and thus contributes to sustainability. Similarly, MEDCYPRE systematically organised exchanges between the project partners and the relevant local authorities in order to promote the adoption of an enabling regulatory framework (re-forestation measures to combat forest fires).
4.2.3 Intermediate conclusions
Formal cooperation across the transnational programme area was generally limited and cooperation instruments are limited to INTERREG. Concerning monitoring and evaluation, there has been no systematic use of the indicator system, and no genuine programme monitoring, with evaluation limited to the formal requirements. Moreover, the MEDOCC programme has suffered from ineffective financial management (lower than average financial absorption); significant problems over national certification (delays, especially in Italy and Greece). The audit performed by the European Commission detected serious shortcomings in the programme management and control system. Whilst strong project selection criteria existed, the actual project selection process appears largely opportunistic. Community Added Value was largely limited to providing funding for activities that would otherwise not have been implemented, however, there is evidence of added value in terms of socio-cultural value added (mutual knowledge of geographical, historic and cultural conditions, broadening of linguistic knowledge etc.). Overall sustainability is considered limited, and at project level, whilst there are strong intentions of continuing cooperation, it appears that this is largely related to obtaining further funding under INTERREG IV.
R20090272.doc 54 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
5 OVERALL FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Overall final conclusions on the impact of the INTERREG III programme
The MEDOCC programme is characterised by a weak overall depth and intensity of programme / project level cooperation (project-level focus on “soft” cooperation, e.g. exchange of experience). The limited previous cooperation experience and the very heterogeneous nature of the programme area are likely to have contributed strongly to this. Moreover, the approach adopted by the INTERREG IIC Western Mediterranean / Latin Alps did not favour the development of a joint transnational programme management culture. The MEDOCC programme authorities had much to learn in this respect. Therefore, considerable energy had to be spent in solving a wide range of programme running issues, which left little time to concentrate on more content-related strategic aspects, including quality project generation.
Whilst the MEDOCC programme has supported many projects of strong local and regional relevance, there is limited evidence of a genuine contribution to the programme’s wider strategy objectives (Barcelona process / ESDP policy aims). Indeed none of the many studies produced under the programme contributed to the development of a genuinely transnational spatial vision as established under other INTERREG Strand B programmes. Whilst there is project-level evidence of cooperation having strengthened individual and institutional capacities, there is no reliable monitoring data to support this. Community added value remains largely limited to providing a source of funding for activities that would have otherwise not been implemented, and continuity is strongly linked to obtaining follow-up funding under INTERREG IV.
It is also unlikely that the MEDOCC programme has made any significant contribution to territorial integration. Whilst there are examples of projects targeting at greater convergence within the programme area, efforts were too thinly spread to achieve “critical mass” (136 projects spread across 45 specific objectives). The programme’s weak thematic focus has been exacerbated by “opportunistic” project selection, i.e. the very demanding project selection criteria are not reflected in the finally approved project portfolio. This can be explained by the lack of proactive project generation strategy. Territorial interdependence between regions of different participating countries, albeit addressed in the OP strategy, was overlooked in practice. Instead of mobilising key-players, i.e. bodies which, in view of their remit, were most likely to tackle issues of transnational relevance, the project generation style primarily targeted insiders of other ERDF-funded programmes.
Due to external circumstances, there was no progress with regard to integration with the programme’s MEDA partners as MEDA funding was not made operational during the course of programme implementation (despite a MEDA allocation of € 4,5 million to the MEDOCC programme, not a single subsidy contract was signed).
A stronger strategic focus and a re-orientation towards a more limited number of issues of transnational relevance could have been facilitated by insights from monitoring and evaluation. However, the programme failed to effectively establish genuine monitoring systems and did not benefit from the mid- term evaluation in terms of its strategic orientation.
Concerning sustainability, it is likely that a stronger communication strategy might have led to national efforts in providing stronger support to projects. However, programme communication remained weak, and there are examples of good transnational results (e.g. combined fishery / tourism products in the
R20090272.doc 55 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
case of THON.DOC) failing to have an impact due to national-level obstacles (e.g. legal frameworks not conducive to supporting impact / sustainability). Considering the strong presence of the programme’s Member States on the programme’s management structures, it is surprising that more support was not forthcoming (again, more “critical mass” might have motivated the Member States to be more supportive). Finally, the exclusive programme management structures (no genuine involvement of socio- economic partners) are not conducive to sustainability – project partners are largely left on their own to ensure sustainability as nobody else takes notice of results that might otherwise have lent themselves to “mainstreaming” / scaling-up.
Key success factors include a stronger selectivity in terms of cooperation priorities / specific objectives (a healthy relation between available resources and objectives to achieve a genuine “critical mass”). Moreover, sustainability is likely to benefit from more inclusive programme structures, which can support the mainstreaming of transnational cooperation results.
Whilst less tangible and therefore difficult to measure, the MEDOCC project-level evaluations indicate that territorial co-operation can facilitate a significant level of individual and institutional capacity. Especially when directly involving experts / practitioners (as opposed to limiting partnerships to generalists / administrators) there is significant scope for transferring problem solving approaches from more to less experienced partners and to raising the latter’s awareness to possible problems - an awareness that would take a significantly longer time to develop in the absence of transnational exchange of experiences.
5.2 Policy recommendations
The INTERREG IVB MED programme is up and running. To some extent, this programme takes over from MEDOCC. However, the geographic scopes of these two programmes are not identical. In particular, non European countries are no longer included in the cooperation area, and cooperation with these is taking place in the framework of the ENPI-funded “Mediterranean Sea Basin Programme 2007-2013.” As the European Neighbourhood Policy regulatory framework and objectives differ from those of the EU cohesion policy, it does not make much sense to extrapolate to this new programme the findings of our analysis of the MEDOCC programme experience. Suffice it to say that this new cooperation framework provides a simple and pragmatic response to the considerable difficulties previously faced by the MEDOCC programme to involve Mediterranean Partner Countries eligible for MEDA subsidies.
As far as the MED programme is concerned, appropriate steps were taken to streamline the management structure and to secure compliance with EU regulations, with particular regard to certification of expenditure, financial control and audits. Content-wise, the programme is characterised by a stronger thematic focus and more realistic objectives. Not surprisingly, the four priority axes of the programme closely mirror the priority areas defined in article 6 (2) of ERDF regulation 1080/2006 (i.e. innovation, environment, accessibility and sustainable urban development). Considerable emphasis has been placed on innovation and competitiveness, much less on urban development, as reflected in the programme budget. Deeply inspired by the Lisbon agenda, this new thematic approach is in sharp contrast with the MEDOCC strategy. In this respect, the respective budgetary weight of the four priority axes is less revealing than various other provisions included in the MED OP to promote genuine and long-lasting cooperation of real transnational relevance. The requirement to involve key-actors in projects pursuing this type of cooperation is repeatedly stressed. In principle projects limited to studies or a mere exchange of experience are no longer admitted. Heading I.3.f “Principles to strengthen governance and
R20090272.doc 56 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
generate good quality projects” is particularly explicit in this regard. Interestingly, the Monitoring Committee will have the possibility to launch specific calls for strategic project proposals.
At first sight, lessons learnt from the shortcomings of the previous MEDOCC experience were fully taken on board in the MED OP, in terms of programme management, compliance with the EU regulatory framework, transnationality and durability of operations alike. It remains of course to be seen whether the sound approach put forward in this document will be successfully implemented in practice. We are not sufficiently familiar with the current achievements of the MED OP to draw any valid conclusion in this respect. However, after a quick examination of the programme reference documents, we believe that two further steps could probably be taken to improve the transnational and strategic relevance of the cooperation.
Key-players should be identified and mobilised on a more pro-active basis. As many other INTERREG IVB programmes, the MED OP defines a very wide spectrum of potential beneficiaries of the various priorities. This rather understandable for such a reference document, in which any arbitrary limitation of the programme audience should be avoided. But the Communication Plan of the MED programme does not shed any further light on the type of actors who should be targeted by the communication strategy. We believe that many organisations likely to play a decisive role to strengthen cooperation in the MED area (business incubators, transport operators, environmental protection bodies, etc.) may have hardly heard of INTERREG or were deterred from participating because of their insufficient familiarity with ERDF- funded programme procedures. It is really essential to encourage such key-players to join or set up MED project partnerships. Otherwise, the “opportunistic” practices experienced during the past programming period are likely to reappear, reserving the benefit of programme subsidies to a circle of INTERREG insiders.
Despite the relatively disappointing outcome of attempts made in the framework of the MEDOCC programme, it would still make sense to elaborate a joint spatial vision to provide on maps a geographically differentiated picture of strategic policy choices. Needless to say, these maps should not only cover the coastal and neighbouring regions included in the cooperation area but also, and more importantly, maritime spaces. This would be in line with the maritime “spatial planning” approach advocated in the Green Paper “Towards a future Maritime Policy for the Union”. Such a document would assist the Monitoring Committee in identifying various priorities prior to launching calls for strategic projects.
R20090272.doc 57 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
ANNEX 3.1.1 INTERREG IIIB WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN EXPENDITURE, ABSORPTION RATE AND COMPARISON WITH INTERREG III, STRAND B, AND CLUSTER (CATEGORY 2)
R20090272.doc 58 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
ANNEX 3.1.2 EVOLUTION OF THE INTERREG IIIB MEDOCC PROGRAMME BUDGET
R20090272.doc 59 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
ANNEX 3.2.1. INTERREG IIIB MEDOCC PROGRAMME PROGRESS MONITORING DATA (Data published in the Annual Implementation report 2007)
PROGRESS MONITORING BY PRIORITY AXIS AND MEASURE PRIORITY AXIS 1 – MEDITERRANEAN BASIN
MEASURE 1.1 – Structuring the Mediterranean Basin by promoting and strengthening economic, social and cultural links between the two sea rims
Quantification of physical indicators. Measure 1.1 – (3rd and 4th calls)
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.1 Output indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Joint (transnational and international) seminars, meetings, forums organised in the framework of No 84 32 38,10% the programme Institutional network supported No 19 7 36,84% Joint sector-related and foresight studies funded No 28 15 53,57% relating to the Mediterranean basin as a whole Partnerships built in connection with a feasibility No 74 47 63,51% study and pilot projects Projects supported on transfer of experience in No 43 26 60,47% the area of vocational training Projects supported in the area of research and higher education, jointly implemented by No 46 20 43,48% universities on both sides of the Mediterranean Basin Cooperation agreements between institutional No 3 1 33,33% actors Partnerships on ICT-related exchange of No 26 6 23,08% experience Information campaigns completed No 53 18 33,96%
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.2 Result indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Participants in platforms (men/women) No 20.947 240 1,15% Actors mobilised (by category) No 510 263 51,57% Proposals of common rules No 89 11 12,36% Integrated Mediterranean spatial planning No 133 16 12,03% projects (by type of activity) Partnership agreements between regional/local authorities of both sides of the Mediterranean No 28 17 60,71% Basin Civil society actors (women and youth No 109 12 11,01% associations) mobilised Joint models and scenarios elaborated relating to No 418 55 13,16% the Mediterranean basin as a whole Key-sectors analysed No 34 21 61,76% Men and women trained following joint initiatives No 2.111 190 9% and programmes New programmes supported (e.g. number of new No 23 0 0% portals) Increase of the take-up of new technologies by % 590 50 8,47% the administrations and enterprises supported
R20090272.doc 60 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Impact indicators are elaborated on the basis of finalised projects
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.3 Impact indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Increase in cooperation agreements between No 82 82 100% institutional actors New measures of coordination between the No 1 0 0% various European mechanisms Individuals benefiting from new vocational training schemes in countries of the Southern No 65 70 107,69% seaboard after one year Internal programme partners making use of the No 69 26 37,68% results of studies produced External programme partners making use of the No 17 14 82,35% results of studies produced Bodies other than project partners mobilised on No 121 9 7,44% issues addressed by the project supported Extra investments (i.e. other than programme investments) induced by recommendations No 5 5 100% resulting from analyses Actions implemented to remedy weaknesses No 8 6 75% identified by studies Non-partner actors taking part in meetings about No 415 555 133,73% project results New non-partner public/private actors utilising No 107 200 186,92% tools proposed in the wake of the programme Institutional actors mobilised in further training No 9 9 100% schemes Extra investments (i.e. other than programme No 300.000 0 0% investments) induced by supported partnerships New non-partner public actors utilising proposed No 14 7 50% tools Meetings non supported by the programme held No 7 7 100% on results of studies
R20090272.doc 61 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
PRIORITY AXIS 2 – Territorial development strategy and urban system
MEASURE 2.1 – Territorial and urban development: development of cooperation activities, harmonisation of strategies, pilot actions.
Quantification of physical indicators. Measure 2.1 – (2nd and 3rd calls)
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.4 Output indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Transnational studies (especially studies contributing to the elaboration of a MEDOC No 51 65 127,45% Spatial Vision) Pilot actions and documents elaborated to make No 64 38 59,38% better known the ESDP and its objectives Transnational seminars, meetings organised about joint visioning issues and information No 138 87 63,04% seminars supported about the outlook for long term cooperation on spatial planning Partnerships (including those involving universities) and technical, institutional, No 11 11 100% transnational newly created networks supported Transnational EEIGs created and supported No 10 9 90% Transnational associations of cities / local No 35 0 0% authorities supported Meetings organised dealing with the environment No 75 26 34,67% topic Exchanges of experience carried out and No 0 0 - supported in the framework of local Agendas 21 Joint portal creation projects supported No 2 1 50% Actions facilitating transfer of know-how relating No 4 4 100% to the information society Transnational networks of producers supported and created to improve territorial % 22 17 77,27% competitiveness and alleviate obstacles to development Projects addressing the development of teleworking and online public services, especially No 3 0 0% in peripheral and insular regions
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.5 Result indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Joint transnational project evaluation No 21 7 33,33% methodologies elaborated Joint models proposed and implemented which facilitate the integrated management of specific No 32 14 43,75% areas Common standards adopted No 9 6 66,67% Administrative institutional technical services No 168 107 63,69% mobilised Linkages established between existing GISs of No 9 0 0% the cooperation area New joint tools for managing metropolitan areas No 5 7 140% implemented Jobs generated through the creation of No 0 0 - transnational structures (men/women) Projects elaborated by the EEIGs No 0 0 - Institutional actors mobilised, participating cities No 293 114 38,91% / local authorities in particular New joint tools for managing metropolitan areas No 30 9 30% implemented Joint training schemes developed No 12 3 25% Joint diplomas recognised in the wake of a No 0 0 - project University exchanges carried out No 5 6 120% New transnational indicators proposed which No 1 1 9,09% contribute to the evaluation of territorial
R20090272.doc 62 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
development policies New urban planning tools proposed which comply No 15 9 60% with Agenda 21 Joint actions for the promotion of rural areas No 24 9 37,50% Internet platforms created No 6 4 66,67% Transnational portals created No 2 2 100% Net job creation in enterprises / institutions through “information technology” projects No 0 0 - supported (men/women) Visits of new portals created in the framework of No 0 0 - projects SMEs assisted in using e-business No 200 0 0% Individuals involved in projects and using teleworking facilities, especially in peripheral and No 0 0 - insular regions (men/women)
Impact indicators are elaborated on the basis of finalised projects
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.6 Impact indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Improvement of spatial planning-related knowledge about the cooperation area, especially No 16 1 6,25% in metropolitan areas, as measured by transnational documents elaborated New regional/local authorities mobilised on No 3 3 100% partnerships coordinating local planning activities New planning documents referring to the ESDP No 11 0 0% New metropolitan area management structures No 9 0 0% set up outside the programme framework Extra investments (i.e. other than programme 30.000.00 € 0 0% investments) induced by supported projects 0 Users of metropolitan area management tools No 18 0 0% developed External programme partners mobilised in the No 240 0 0% wake of projects Cities / regional & local authorities not involved in projects, which make use of results and tools No 45 0 0% proposed in the wake of the programme External (out of programme) partnerships between regional/local authorities coordinating No 9 0 0% local planning activities Individuals using teleworking facilities outside the programme framework but as a result of No 50 0 0% projects, especially in peripheral and insular regions New regional/local authorities mobilised on No 10 0 0% partnerships coordinating local planning activities
R20090272.doc 63 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
PRIORITY AXIS 3 – Transport systems and information society
MEASURE 3.1 – More accessible territories
Quantification of physical indicators. Measure 3.1
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.7 Output indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Number of transnational seminars on transport No 14 9 64% issues organised Number of transnational feasibility studies on No 7 9 129% transport-related investments Number of transnational networks/agreements supported to coordinate transport policies in the No 6 5 83% cooperation area Number of studies about territorial accessibility No 14 13 93% improvement Number of studies about transnational transport No 3 3 100% investment streamlining
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.8 Result indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Number of administrative and/or technical services involved in transnational networks No 52 68 131% aimed at coordinating supported actions Number of private transport operators involved in No 250 409 164% supported actions Joint safety standards elaborated No 1 1 100%
Impact indicators not available for this measure
MEASURE 3.2 – Promotion of inter-modality and shift toward more environmentally- friendly transport modes
Quantification of physical indicators. Measure 3.2
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.9 Output indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Number of transnational feasibility studies on No 12 4 33% intermodality development Number of studies assessing the territorial and No 14 7 50% environmental impact of transport Number of seminars and pilot projects No 23 14 61%
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.10 Result indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Number and diversity of transport actors No 1760 322 18% mobilised (by typology) Identification of new intermodal nodes No 8 0 0% Number of modal shift projects (substitution for road transport) identified following the No 13 4 31% recommendations of the feasibility studies
Impact indicators not available for this measure
R20090272.doc 64 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
MEASURE 3.3 – Competitiveness of inland and seaborne shipping
Quantification of physical indicators. Measure 3.3
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.11 Output indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Number of feasibility studies on inland and No 3 2 67% seaborne transport-related investments Number of projects supported which contribute No 1 1 100% to short sea shipping promotion Number of maritime safety-related operations No 14 10 71% carried out
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.12 Result indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Number of public/private inland and seaborne No 219 200 91% transport operators involved in supported actions Amount of transport infrastructure investment 10,200,00 expected as a result of feasibility studies € 200,000 2% 0 supported Amount of investment in maritime safety 10,900,00 € 900,000 8% upgrading 0 Number of new shipping safety standards No 8 4 50% adopted Number of new e-services No 2 2 100%
Impact indicators are elaborated on the basis of finalised projects
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.13 Impact indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Increase in short-sea shipping freight No 0 0 100% Increase in inland and seaborne shipping freight No 0 0 100% Increase in number of links between islands % 10% 10% 100% Number of new inland and seaborne shipping lines planned in the MEDOCC area as a result of No 0 0 0 the feasibility studies Level of maritime safety upgrading % 15% 15% 100% Number of transport actors not involved in programme activities who make use of project No 200 200 100% results
MEASURE 3.4 – Innovative information and communication technologies
Quantification of physical indicators. Measure 3.4
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.14 Output indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Number of strategic studies conducted No 33 6.75 20% Number of partnerships set up as a result of strategic telecommunication studies, especially in No 36 102 283% underequipped areas Number of studies and networks addressing map- No 4 0.75 19% based ICT development in the transport industry Number of new pieces of equipment produced No 37 21.75 59%
R20090272.doc 65 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.15 Result indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Number of pilot actions implemented No 12 3 25% Number of bodies participating in pilot actions No 71 46 65% Number of new transport service tools developed No 3 0 0%
Impact indicators not available for this measure
PRIORITY AXIS 4 – Environnement, heritage promotion and sustainable development
MEASURE 4.1 – Protection et promotion of natural resources and cultural heritage, biodiversity / territory / landscape stewardship
Quantification of physical indicators (3rd and 4th calls)
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.16 Output indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Number of transnational projects on cultural heritage, landscape and natural resource No 8 6 75.00% protection (including biodiversity) Number of transnational projects on cultural heritage, landscape and natural resource No 3 2 66.67% promotion Number of feasibility studies addressing No 20 19 95.00% environmental issues Number of partnerships supported to elaborate joint cultural heritage, landscape and natural No 56 38 67.86% resource protection tools Number of environmental and territorial No 11 7 63.64% monitoring networks supported Number of transnational seminars dedicated to the promotion of the cultural heritage, No 34 24 70.59% landscapes and natural resources Number of joint heritage promotion actions No 48 19 39.58% supported Number of actions undertaken to disseminate No 37 36 97.30% project results among local authorities
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.17 Result indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Number of transnational data-bases created to list components of the cultural heritage and No 15 9 60.00% natural resources Protected surface areas considered by km² 2,119 1,049 49.50% transnational projects Number of joint methods proposed for No 19 7 36.84% information collection and exchange Number of joint tools and standards elaborated to deal with the promotion of the MEDOCC- No 4 4 100.00% specific biodiversity Number of joint heritage promotion actions No 30 13 43.33% completed by the networks Number of enterprises, universities, research No 59 77 130.51% centres involved in the networks Population (No inhab.) of information campaigns No 9,008,970 1,935,985 21.49% Number of individuals trained No 190 88 46.32%
R20090272.doc 66 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Impact indicators are elaborated on the basis of finalised projects
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.18 Impact indicators * (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) No of visitors of sites assisted by a project 45,000 No - - /year Extra investments (i.e. other than programme € €1m. - - investments) on assisted sites Additional woodland included in protected areas km² - - - Number of extra sites (i.e. not covered by programme activities) where tools and standards No - - - elaborated by a project were adopted More consideration given by the local authorities - yes yes - to heritage protection activities performed Development of cultural heritage / natural No 3 3 100 resource management / protection policies Reduction of the impact of environmental hazards % - Improvement of people’s quality of life - yes yes -
*Missing data. Some pieces of information supplied by project lead partners are not correct or mutually comparable.
MEASURE 4.2 – Promotion of sustainable tourism
Quantification of physical indicators
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.19 Output indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Number of enterprises and craftsmen supported to develop sustainable tourism No 1170 53 4.53% products Number of sustainable tourism projects No 21 17 80.95% supported Number of sector-related feasibility studies No 29 23 79.31% Number de networks set up No 13 10 76.92% Number of awareness raising campaigns No 31 32 103.23% implemented Number of training courses provided No 25 9 36.00%
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.20 Result indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Increase in revenues of supported enterprises % 30 - 0,00% Number of projects identified by the studies km² 22 31 140.91% Number of new tourism products proposed No 41 13 31.71% Population (No inhab.) of information No 251,306,040 13,359,500 5.32% campaigns Number of individuals trained (men/women) No 450 145 32.22% Number of subjects involved in the networks No 1,500,385 1,500,091 99.98% (by typology)
Impact indicators are elaborated on the basis of finalised projects
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.21 Impact indicators * (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Increase of tourist expenditure on projects % 45% 30% 66% No of visitors of sites assisted by a project No 15,000 - - Amount of investments (private/public, exclusive of EU funding) allocated to € - - - sustainable sectors and activities induced by
R20090272.doc 67 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
supported projects Number of extra projets, i.e. out of programme, but identified by conducted No 45 10 22% studies Number of job created by projects in the No 521 12 2% sustainable tourism industry Number of extra actors mobilised by the No 1,020 12 1% results of sector-related studies
*Missing data. Some pieces of information supplied by project lead partners are not correct or mutually comparable.
MESURE 4.3 – Environmental protection, prevention and management of natural hazards
Quantification of physical indicators. Measure 4.3 *
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.22 Output indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Number of actions promoting the development of new technologies and natural hazard prevention No 23 14 61% tests Number of studies dedicated to natural hazard No 14 17 121% prevention at the transnational level Number of actions raising awareness among No 38 17 45% institutional and public actors Number of transnational coordination actions No 35 18 51%
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.23 Result indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Protected surface area taken into account by km² 380,000 380,000 100% transnational projects Number of institutions and regional/local authorities concerned adopting the produced No 256 247 96% models Number of institutions and regional/local authorities concerned adopting joint natural No 14 21 150% hazard prevention procedures Number of joint plans developed aimed at improving natural hazard management and No 9 8 89% prevention in the framework of supported actions Number of regional/local authorities reached by No 60,024 1,155 2% awareness raising actions
Impact indicators are elaborated on the basis of finalised projects
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.25 5.2.1.24 Impact indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Increase in number of tools adopted by regional/local authorities concerned for spatial No 6 6 100% planning in hazard-prone areas Number of joint planning documents elaborated outside the programme framework with a view to No 0 0 0% improving natural hazard management and prevention Number of partnership agreements signed between regional/local authorities outside the No 3 4 133% programme framework but as a result of projects Number of joint planning documents aimed at No 2 1 50% better coordinating knowledge bases.
R20090272.doc 68 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Number of extra actors benefitting from the No 6 6 100% results of supported projects.
* As Mytimed and Vegetpollezone have never delivered any six-monthly reports, we were not in a position to take their results into account in the data displayed.
MESURE 4.4 – Management of water resources / combating drought and desertification
Quantification of physical indicators. Measure 4.4 *
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.26 Output indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Number of public/private transnational partnerships supported dealing with water No 23 14,5 63% resource management or tackling desertification Number of studies on water resource No 23 21,5 93% management supported Number of information actions dedicated to No 33 33 100% water resource and soil management Number of seminars held between relevant administrations on water resource No 29 25 86% management and fight against desertification
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.27 Result indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Number of institutions and regional/local authorities concerned adopting the models No 33 27 82% developed Number of sites concerned No 20 20 100% Number of joint indicators developed No 21 17 81% Number of institutions and regional/local authorities concerned adopting joint No 27 26 96% procedures to assess drought risks and combat desertification Number of joint plans and concepts developed aimed at a more sustainable management of No 5 8 160% water resources
Impact indicators are elaborated on the basis of finalised projects
Target Score Achievement 5.2.1.28 Impact indicators (a) 31/12/2007 rate nit (b) % (b/a) Number of joint plans and concepts developed outside the programme framework to improve No 1 1 100% water resource management Number of partnership agreements signed between regional/local authorities outside No 1 4 400% the programme framework but as a result of projects Number of extra actors benefitting from the No 8 8 100% results of supported projects.
* As no final report was delivered by the Hydranet project, it has not been taken into account to elaborate this table.
R20090272.doc 69 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
ANNEX 3.2.2 INTERREG IIB MEDOCC PROGRAMME LOGICAL FRAMEWORK
(Partially translated from the original French version of the MEDOCC Programme Complement)
1.1.15.2.1.28.1 2 general / strategic objectives: ♦ Increase Southern Europe’s territorial competitiveness to turn it into a Global Economic Integration Zone ♦ Support the Barcelona process to favour a better integration between European regions of the Western Mediterranean (Medocc) area and non EU countries of the Mediterranean basin 1.1.2 3 global / horizontal objectives: ♦ Increase the territorial competitiveness of the Western Mediterranean area as a whole; ♦ Strengthen the cohesion of the cooperation area by harmonizing territorial development policies through deeper inter-institutional integration ; ♦ Promote and initiate more fruitful and numerous transnational cooperation operations contributing to sustainable development, between eligible European regions of the MEDOCC programme and with non EU countries of the Southern Mediterranean.
Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3 Axis 4 Axis 5 Mediterranean Basin Territorial development Transport System, Environment, heritage Technical Assistance strategy and urban Information promotion and sustainable Specific objectives system Society development Specific objectives ♦ Strengthen cultural ♦ Smooth running of relations and integration Specific objectives Specific objectives Specific objectives decision making, Elaborate spatial ♦ Favour the Combine nature and between the two sea ♦ ♦ technical coordination, visions for the MEDOCC establishment of an cultural heritage conservation shores management and control area integrated and development-oriented ♦ Address territorial structures of the Promote cooperation transportation system sustainable resource issues specific to the ♦ programme between decision makers to increase economic, management Mediterranean space ♦ Contribute to to manage territorial territorial and social Stimulate awareness ♦ Strengthen the ♦ animation, information development at different cohesion and raising and preventive actions economic integration of and publicity activities the Mediterranean Basin geographic scales competitiveness. concerning natural hazards ♦ Develop cooperation and water resource between key-players of management the economic regional development
R20090272.doc 70 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Axis 1 Axis 2 Mediterranean Basin Territorial development strategy and urban system
Measure 1.1 Measure 2.1. Structuring the Mediterranean Basin by promoting and Territorial and urban development: development of strengthening economic, social and cultural links cooperation, harmonisation of strategies, pilot actions between the two sea rims. Operational objectives Operational objectives
♦ Diffusion de l’acquis communautaire ♦ Elaboration commune d’un schéma de développement spatial ♦ Développement des politiques nationales et locales en matière de flux migratoires en référence avec les ♦ Mise en réseau des experts et des acteurs institutionnels problématiques du SDEC pour le développement des coopérations et des échanges dans le domaine de l’aménagement du territoire ♦ Sensibilisation de la société civile par rapport à l’identité socioculturelle méditerranéenne ♦ Réalisation d’études, évaluations et analyses sur le thème des fonctions des grandes aires métropolitaines ♦ Harmonisation des procédures administrative et financières communautaires, nationales et locales dans le secteur de la ♦ Identification de nouveaux modèles de gouvernance pour coopération Nord-Sud améliorer l’efficacité des services urbains ainsi que la qualité de vie des citadins ♦ Expérimentation des activités de gestion intégrées du territoire, du patrimoine culturel et des traditions ♦ Développement des relations entre les villes, entre les économiques de la Méditerranée zones urbaines et rurales, entre les zones côtières et les « hinterland », tout comme avec les îles afin de favoriser ♦ Promotion des accords de coopération dans le domaine une articulation territoriale équilibrée et polycentrique économique ♦ Diffusion des nouvelles technologies dans le domaine des ♦ Transfert du savoir faire d’entreprise entre Pays Membres et services publiques et privés, afin d’améliorer l’accès de la Tiers population aux services et réduire les handicaps des zones ♦ Promotion des opportunités de création d’entreprises mixtes périphériques ou insulaires ♦ Promotion des activités de recherche sur le thème de la planification territoriale et de la requalification des zones urbaines dans l’optique d’un développement viable
R20090272.doc 71 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Axis 3 Transport System, Information Society
Measure 3.1 Measure 3.2 Measure 3.3 Measure 3.4 More accessible territories Promotion of intermodality and Inland and seaborne shipping ICT for territorial development shift toward more
environmentally-friendly Operational objectives transport modes Operational objectives Operational objectives
Identifier les déséquilibres actuels en Operational objectives Accroître la compétitivité des ports Définir des cadres de référence matière d’infrastructures de Rationaliser et redistribuer les Méditerranéens en élaborant des destinés à inciter les opérateurs de transport de personnes, de nœuds de communications aux stratégies unitaires de télécommunication à mieux prendre marchandises et d’informations différentes échelles territoriales développement en compte dans leurs politiques d’investissements les aspects du Moderniser l’offre intégrée de Améliorer l’informatisation des Favoriser une mobilité soutenable à développement du territoire transport et la rendre plus travers le transfert du mode routier installations portuaires pour favoriser compétitive par rapport au reste de vers d’autres modes de transport la communication entre les Créer et réaliser des équipements de l’Europe opérateurs du secteur des transports télécentres Améliorer l’accessibilité des régions Atténuer le handicap de l’insularité mal reliées en interconnectant les Promouvoir la navigation maritime et Harmoniser les Systèmes intérieure comme système alternatif d’Information Géographique Augmenter le niveau de sécurité des réseaux secondaires aux réseaux aux transports terrestres passagers et des marchandises principaux Encourager l’utilisation de la Améliorer les services logistiques, Augmenter la sécurité de la télématique sur les thèmes liés aux l’information aux usagers et l’inter- navigation pour les passagers et les transports opérabilité tarifaire marchandises et protéger l’environnement marin Favoriser l’adoption d’Agendas 21 locaux et une meilleure intégration des évaluations d’impact environnemental dans les projets sur les transports
R20090272.doc 72 January 2010 INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Axis 4 Environment, heritage promotion and sustainable development durable
Measure 4.1 Measure 4.2 Measure 4.3 Measure 4.4 Protection and promotion of Promotion of sustainable Environmental protection, Management of water natural resources and cultural tourism prevention and management of resources / combating drought heritage, biodiversity / natural risks and desertification Operational objectives territory / landscape Operational objectives Operational objectives stewardship Elaborer des politiques touristiques Operational objectives intégrant le concept de durabilité Améliorer et partager les Réaliser des analyses et des environnementale connaissances en matière de réseaux de monitorage en matière Améliorer l'action publique dans les prévention et gestion des risques de cycles hydrologiques, de Encourager des modalités domaines de la gestion des niveaux de désertification des alternatives de mise à disposition Développer des méthodes territoires et de la protection et la territoires et recyclage des eaux valorisation du patrimoine naturel touristique du territoire visant à intégrées et outils de prévision des et culturel et de la biodiversité valoriser des sites de qualité, mais risques et estimation des Développer des études sur le de moindre notoriété dommages transfert des ressources hydriques, Réaliser des réseaux privilégiant le dessalement et/ou l’utilisation Favoriser une meilleure répartition Réaliser des réseaux de monitorage l'échange de données et des eaux marines, le contrôle des temporale des fréquentations sur l’ensemble de l’espace d'expérience dans le domaine de phénomènes de salinité des sols l’environnement touristiques Réaliser des plans de protection Sensibiliser à la gestion prudente Former et professionnaliser les civile Former et professionnaliser les des eaux et des sols acteurs acteurs Sensibiliser la population à la Inciter à l’utilisation des énergies Expérimenter, diffuser et intégrer «perception du risque» renouvelables des démarches territoriales de qualité Sensibiliser les acteurs du secteur et de la société civile à la gestion prudente du territoire
Réaliser des programmes de développement durable des R20090272.doc 73 territoiresJanuary 2010ruraux, montagnards et insulaires INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: IIIB Western Mediterranean (MEDOCC)
Axis 5 Technical Assistance
Measure 5.1 Measure 5.2
Management, Implementation, Animation, Information, Monitoring, Control Evaluation, Publicity
Operational objectives Operational objectives assurer le fonctionnement des instances transnationales de décision : Comités de Suivi et assurer le fonctionnement des instances de partenariat de niveau transnational (Conférence de Programmation transnationale du partenariat) assurer la coordination technique transnationale au niveau transnational, et dans chaque Pays au travers du Secrétariat transnational qui assiste partenaire, assurer de façon coordonnée les l’Autorité de gestion, l’Autorité de paiement, le tâches réglementaires en matière d’animation, de Comité de Suivi et le Comité de programmation publicité et d’information au cours de la mise en œuvre du programme assurer le fonctionnement du secrétariat technique conjoint et contribution aux charges de l’Autorité de gestion et de l’Autorité de paiement
au niveau transnational et dans chaque Etat membre, assurer de façon coordonnée les tâches réglementaires en matière de gestion, de contrôle et d’évaluation du programme
R20090272.doc 74 January 2010