MULTIPLICATION EFFECTS OF EU DIRECT AND INDIRECT INSTRUMENTS TO COMPLEMENT NATIONAL FUNDING STUDY REPORT SUMMARY (PROJECT NO IP/D/FINP/ST/ )

Transcription

1 MULTIPLICATION EFFECTS OF EU DIRECT AND INDIRECT INSTRUMENTS TO COMPLEMENT NATIONAL FUNDING STUDY REPORT SUMMARY (PROJECT NO IP/D/FINP/ST/ ) ALMENARA ESTUDIOS ECONÓMICOS Y SOCIALES, S.L. This summary was prepared by Elizabeth Villagómez and Emma Oteo Antuñano from Almenara Estudios Económicos y Sociales, S.L. who are wholly responsible for its contents. ECOTEC Research & Consulting, Madrid provided various inputs and technical assistance 1

2 INDEX OBJECTIVES AND INTRODUCTION...3 CHAPTER 1 DIRECT FINANCING, RURAL DEVELOPMENT...4 CHAPTER 2 DIRECT FINANCING, ENVIRONMENT...5 CHAPTER 3 DIRECT FINANCING, RESEARCH...6 CHAPTER 4 DIRECT FINANCING, TRANS EUROPEAN NETWORKS...7 CHAPTER 5 DIRECT FINANCING, OTHER POLICIES:...8 CHAPTER 6 INDIRECT FINANCING, LOANS AND/OR GUARANTEES...9 CHAPTER 7 INDIRECT FINANCING...10 CHAPTER 8. MIXED FINANCING MODEL...11 CONCLUSIONS

3 OBJECTIVES AND INTRODUCTION The main objective of the study is to provide concrete examples of multiplication of EU direct and indirect financing. The study also aims to reach conclusions indicating the advantages and disadvantages of the different instruments of intervention, and provides, for each example, an analysis of their economic impact (i.e. for beneficiaries, trade, region, employment, etc.) based on available evaluations and other documents found in the literature search. Throughout this study report, the term multiplication will include both financial criteria and criteria used in the eligibility of the various financing instruments themselves. In the first place we take the definition used in the Working Paper produced by DG Regional Policy in January 2002, which refer to additionality and the financial leverage effect. In the second case, as will be explained for each of the areas analysed, the report also incorporates the added value as per the eligibility rules of the programmes and initiatives analysed. Although specific indicators can be used as are suggested by the Commission, others which are even more specific to the programmes or initiatives analysed will also be incorporated. It is important to note at the outset that the documents that accompany the use of the funds (either programming or projects) do not always include all of the expected (ex-ante) or the effective (ex-post) multiplication, although MS or other recipients are required to do so. Although there is a unified methodology on the definition and evaluation of added value in the context of Structural Policies, by their own nature instruments which require project level detail vary in relation to the themes and/or other dimensions established by the guidelines (EQUAL, Phare, MEDA, etc.). The main obstacle and explanation for this is lack of proper data at the required level for relevant indicators to measure these multiplication. Furthermore, direct, indirect and mixed financing modes are determined in very different ways which also affect the extent to which they have greater or lesser multiplication. For example, the indicators used for the determination of Objective 1, 2 and 3 regions for the use of operational programming are not the same used in the criteria for project selection in project driven initiatives and neither are the way in which the needs are identified and the final amounts approved. In the case of projects (which are usually part of different direct finance initiatives, but also affect indirect financing in some cases), monitoring indicators used in internal and external evaluation of projects do not usually include those that can capture multiplication. In the case of mixed financing models these limitations are not so great on the part of MS and have been the object of academic analysis. In fact, the programming is a bottom-up approach that ensures to a greater extent that identified needs are being covered while areas or priorities under project driven initiatives can be considered to be a top-down approach that weakens the scope of recipients as far as meeting needs of beneficiaries and continuing the work from previous initiatives, thus curtailing possible multiplication of initiatives previously financed through EU programmes. 3

4 CHAPTER 1 DIRECT FINANCING, RURAL DEVELOPMENT Name Situation Main features economic impacts and multiplication Disadvantages LEADER II- ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY COUNCILS Ireland National voluntary organisation implementing in three regions/pilot areas (Westmeath, Kerry and West Cork) Programme Community Initiative -. Muintir na Tire is a national voluntary organization which is dedicated to promoting the process of community development in order to enhance the capacities of people in communities, rural and urban, to become involved in local social, economic, cultural and environmental development. There was a combination of public and private partners jointly devising a strategy and innovative measures for rural development in local communities with less than inhabitants). Multiplication by additionality or leverage The project was granted a total of Euro total ( Euro from EU). Carried out two years from In general, according to the expost evaluation of the LEADER II initiative in Ireland, the leverage effect reached a much higher level than expected (around 4 Billion Euro). Multiplication of socio-economic, social, environmental and/or cultural nature There were 12 Community Councils established, against a target of 28. The main multiplication effect of the project, in line with multiplication of the initiative in Ireland and in other countries, regarded job creation and job retention, but there is no readily available information on the impact. Other types of multiplication include: new markets supported; self-confidence; know-how; and rural identity. The quantitative and qualitative of the project undoubtedly contributed to the socio and cultural development of the rural areas mainly by enhancing the skills of their own sources that will be used for the benefit of the community. As to the main advantages, there are a wide range of multiplication. The decentralization of the initiative allows the national management body to select the projects that are considered more suitable for the national policy and for the specific local needs. The project focused on the capacity building which undoubtedly has multiplication. As to the disadvantages, there was no monitoring of the multiplication, so concrete measurement can not be carried out. Also, many of the Community Councils were established in the end of the project and therefore they could not benefit from funding in their first steps of running, which could have speeded up and enhanced the multiplication identified The nature of the project facilitates the achievement of multiplication. Focusing on building awareness and capacity building, the project led to enhancement of self-confidence and transfer of know-how to individuals that could carry out tasks in their rural area. Moreover it raised awareness on the engagement to activities related to the rural areas, via the Community Councils, and undoubtedly it raised awareness on the regarding initiative and generally on European Programs. Although not monitored, this awareness of the existence of finance from the EU is very important since it can generate further investments. 4

5 CHAPTER 2 DIRECT FINANCING, ENVIRONMENT Name Situation Main features economic impacts and multiplication Disadvantages URBAN II PROGRAMME D INITIATIVE COMMUNAUTAIRE URBAN (PIC URBAN) France - City of Le Havre regeneration of urban areas. It received also financial support by Interreg and ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT interventions. Along with Objective 2 funds, Le Havre has also received support from the European Social Fund (ESF), under Objective 3 in both periods. Carried out in the period The areas concerned by URBAN II are the southern districts of the city. URBAN II played an important role in improving the economic and social development in the southern neighbourhoods, which also had a positive influence on the city as a whole. Le Havre comprises more than a quarter of the population in Haute-Normandie benefiting from funding support. Multiplication by additionality or leverage The Structural Funds assistance from the ERDF for the project amount to 10 Million Euro of the total budget of 30 Million Euro. The most important multiplication of this project were the capacity to catalyse a number of other parallel and complementary EU, public and private interventions and to set the foundations for port industry transformation. Multiplication of inherent economic nature General information on the project mentions the achievement, through the whole of the interventions of higher employment levels, more professional training opportunities and more competitive enterprise structure. No specific numbers are available in the information analysed. Multiplication of socio economic, social, environment and/or cultural nature Increased participation of local stakeholders and beneficiaries; improved environment of the neighbourhoods affected. As to the main advantages, the simplification of procedures in URBAN II could serve as a model elsewhere and guaranteed a close link to the dynamic of the social-economic situation of the area. Concentration of efforts from several EU funding stream on a specific deprived area and in an organic and integrated way. As to disadvantages, although the situation has improved, the same structural problems appear to be the main threats to the economic prosperity in the future. The support from other domestic policies should thus continue in the future and it would be desirable that Le Havre and other cities continue receiving funding support from Structural Funds after 2006 addressing the need to continue to consolidate results. The URBAN Programme and the Le Havre project in particular can be considered as a very good example on how integrated approaches on a territorial environment (in this case a urban one) can lead to a clear multiplication of, mainly measurable in terms of: catalysing public and private funds on specific deprived areas, increase local entrepreneurship, stimulate social and economic re-generation. 5

6 CHAPTER 3 DIRECT FINANCING, RESEARCH Name THE V AND VI FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME (FP5 and FP6) FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT - (SOSS, Smart Organisation of Small Services) Situation Modena (Italy) - Saint Denis (France) San Sebastian (Spain) enterprises under the Information Society Technology Programme within FP5 in December 2001 and ended in May Main features SOSS is a project presented to the IST (Information Society Technology Programme) 1 within the FP5 in year 2000.The project objective was to transform weakly structured and dispersed organizations, at times made of single individuals, into a structured and smart organization (SOSS, Smart Organisation of Small Services).The project developed a methodology and an Internet-based Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) platform to support constitution, operation and dynamic adaptation of a new organization for the supply of small services, especially provided for people with need of these services. economic impacts and multiplication disadvantages Multiplication by additional funding or leverage A budget of Million Euro was agreed for the implementation of the European Community section of FP5. Combined with the Million Euro allocated to the EURATOM programme, this has brought the global budget for research during to Million Euro. In the case of the project analysed here, the total project cost was of 2.9 Million Euro and the EU funding was 1.5 Million Euro under a costsharing contract. Multiplication of inherent economic nature The implementation of the SOSS solution made possible to have the competitive advantages of larger enterprises (strong commercial presence, reduced management costs, structured organization) while maintaining the flexibility of small organizations. Multiplication of socio-economic, social, environmental and/or cultural nature The involvement and commitment of the local public authority to support economic activities that have specific problems to reach customers and to maintain a good level of quality benefiting customers. Although contribution to additional employment was marginal, the support to individual companies through leverage management and production circle companies enhanced competitiveness and quality of services (many of which are identified as new sources of employment). The main advantage has been the possibility of using a public-private partnership. The disadvantage now lies in the ability to achieve long-term sustainability of the pilot experiments, although in the case of SOSS this seems to have been achieved. Given the concern that the research funded by the framework programme covers the need to increase innovation and research to ensure that the Lisbon targets are met, as well as to maintain the social relevance of the research, there is a special need to fund projects that meet both criteria

7 CHAPTER 4 DIRECT FINANCING, TRANS EUROPEAN NETWORKS Name Situation Main features economic impacts and multiplication Disadvantages TRANS- EUROPEAN NETWORKS: MADRID BARCELONA-FRENCH BORDER HIGH SPEED LINE Spain and France Transport - The total investment by 2020 throughout the EU is envisaged at 600 Billion Euro. The implemented project analysed here ( ) reached 8.8 Million Euro of expected total investment by The Project High Speed Train South E/F envisages the construction of two new high-speed train lines linking Madrid with the French border through a number of stretches, of which here the partial building of the Madrid-Barcelona stretch is analysed. The project was envisaged to take place between 1998 and Only the stretch Madrid-Lleida has been completed. Multiplication by additional funding or leverage Although the allocations for the project on the part of the Spanish Government are linked to EU funding, because the project is not yet closed the exact numbers on the total amounts can not be given. However, according to Commission documents, the project has involved Million Euro until 2004 in investment and the total investment reached Million Euro. Multiplication of socio-economic, social, environmental and/or cultural nature As for employment creation, some figures have been estimated at the application for funding submitted for the employment for the works to be carried out, both direct and indirect (including jobs in third countries supplying the materials and technical assistance), as well as for the permanent employment. However, these figures could not be confirmed in the context of the present study. Another important effect is that of enlarging and linking travel to work areas and boosting the economic development of the cities where the train stops. The main advantages have been linked to: the added value that Community funding support had on public or equivalent expenditure and on the faster pace to implement the project. The main disadvantages identified were the deficient preliminary planning and weak project management. A more efficient framework programme covered by the TEN-T project would have maximised its multiplications. Also, the lack of ensured funding to complete the project means that a greater investment effort will be needed after 2007 in view of the proposal for the new Regulation of the Cohesion Fund in order to produce and sustain the multiplication identified. The project has benefited from different forms of Community aid, in particular from the TEN budget and the Cohesion Fund. Some multiplication have been identified, in particularly regarding the additionality of the Community aid granted to the project; the financial leverage effect and the employment. However, the multiplication of this project can not be fully measured taking into account that it has not yet been completed. There are a set of recommendations for improving the achievement of the multiplication in the body of the study. 7

8 CHAPTER 5 DIRECT FINANCING, OTHER POLICIES: Name Situation Main features economic impacts and multiplication disadvantages INNOVATIVE MEASURES UNDER ARTICLE 6 OF THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND FUTURISME II Belgium, Austria, Germany, Finland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom SMEs project under the heading Adaptation to the new economy within the framework of social dialogue programming period or the Article 6 of the European Social Fund Innovative Measures Promoted by an EU level organization representing SMEs Two years implementation from The proposed area is of particular importance in reaching the Lisbon objectives. The main aim of the FUTURISME II project was to support the development of social dialogue in SMEs in order to help SMEs overcome the challenges arising from a more dynamic and global economy. Social dialogue experts were invited from national SME organisations to a broad discussion on future issues affecting the social dialogue and the relevance for SMEs. The total budget available was a maximum of 30 Million euro. It is important to point out that it is a continuation of a project under the previous Article 6 programming period. Multiplication by additionality or leverage The Community grant requested was Euro and the total cost of the project was over 1 Million Euro. This particular project complied fully with the complementarity principle on two counts: this project built on a previous one that had been strengthening the social dialogue exposure of SMEs (at regional and sectorial level) and the project did not duplicate but rather complemented activities being covered under other budget headings addressing similar issues (strengthening social dialogue, etc.). Multiplication of inherent economic nature One of the most important results of the project which is likely to have in the future is the steps taken for building a network of SMEs employers at European level and also allowing SME employer organisations to present themselves as independent social partners towards the trade unions. The project also demonstrated that there are some problems in motivating some national associations in exchanging views and learning from other experiences. As a main advantage, the Article 6 projects, by their experimental nature, are to complement and add value to other processes such as the European Employment strategy and the Social Inclusion Process and to the Social Fund expenditure in general. As to disadvantages, the actors involved in the measures -public, private and third sector stakeholders- are sometimes driven by the grants, although the guidelines and selection process can exclude this possibility to a great degree (i.e. via number of years and type of activities that the promoters and partners of the projects must document in the context of the project documentation and the specific call for proposals, as well as requiring promoters and partners to use synergies with other programmes or processes). The multiplication of the Innovative Measures under Article 6 of the European Social Fund Regulation have two different dimensions that can be used for measuring or at least identifying the multiplication : Complementarity with other budget headings supporting similar initiatives; and those derived from the projects themselves in the context of their own objectives and the specific aim and context of the call for proposals. 8

9 CHAPTER 6 INDIRECT FINANCING, LOANS AND/OR GUARANTEES Name APPLICATION OF SOLAR THERMAL ENERGY IN THE MEDITERRANEAN BASIN (ASTEMB). Situation Algeria. Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Palestinian Authority and Lebanon - Alternative energy sources - Project under the MEDA programme. Total budget of 2.3 Million Euro Carried out from 2001 to Main features The main objectives of the project respond to existing urgent social and environmental needs strictly related to the economic development of some Northern African Regions and also related to the increase (up to a tripling) in the energy consumption due to the area s population growth. The project has been conceived in order to favour and promote the development of all endogenous and renewable energies with a particular attention to solar energy. The increase of energy independence of these countries, the reduction of the financial burden related to energy expenses (especially for the non-oil producers) and the crucial contribution to the reduction of the emission of greenhouse gases are the other key objectives of this project economic impacts and multiplication Disadvantages Multiplication by additional funding In order to achieve its objectives, the ongoing MEDA programme was allocated Million Euro for the period. Begun in April 2001 the project we analyse here was carried out in 5 phases with a total budget of Euro with an EU contribution of Euro. Multiplication of inherent economic nature The investment led to the start up of a number of projects which were awaiting adequate financial support. Also economic/competitiveness multiplication can be identified relative to the increase in the diversification of the products offered and produced by the local industry (solar panels). Multiplication of socio-economic, social, environmental and cultural nature There are four main areas of identified: knowledge multiplication related to the improvement and increase of the information related to solar and other renewable energy source systems addressed to: public authorities and decision makers, technical levels, academics and undertakings (over 700 persons trained); environmental multiplication related to the increased awareness of Local Authorities, technicians and the University sector about the risks of non sustainable economic development; social multiplication due to the improvement the quality of life in remote areas; and, finally multiplication due to the diffusion of an ethical industrial culture aimed at promoting a commerce based on safe and sustainable products(i.e. solar panels). The project has clearly demonstrated the large possibilities offered in managing and carrying out such a project with EU and non EU countries working under equity conditions. The main disadvantage consists in the difficulty of monitoring the durable of the project in terms of the large number of applications and subsequent implementation of similar projects. CONCLUSIONS The ASTEMB project example and MEDA programme as a horizontal instrument of cooperation with Third Countries of Mediterranean area represent unique tools to promote an ethical and sustainable development of these, often deprived and nearby areas. They also offer to the EU industry (in this case) an important opportunity to enlarge and diversify their markets towards these countries by offering an organised and systematic framework of transparent and free cooperation. 9

10 CHAPTER 7 INDIRECT FINANCING Situation NAME Main features economic impacts and multiplication Disadvantages FEMIP (FACILITY FOR EURO-MEDITERRANEAN INVESTMENT AND PARTNERSHIP). FINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Malta, Cyprus, Israel, Gaza-West Bank and Turkey Capital investment projects 2002 to date In 2004 lending amounted to 2.2 Billion Euro, the trust fund amounted to 40 Million Euro, and technical assistance to 13.8 Million Euro. The Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP), aims to make the major step forward in economic and financial cooperation between the EU and the Mediterranean Partner Countries including Turkey. The FEMIP s ultimate objective is the development of private sector economic activity and to support projects contributing to the creation of favourable climate for private investment. Multiplication Effects by Additional Funding and Leverage EIB s lending under the FEMIP in 2004 amounted to 2.2 Billion Euro, of which over a third (approximately 760 Million Euro) was devoted to supporting private investment, followed by the lending to upgrade infrastructure including transport, energy and environment. By the end of the FEMIP Trust Fund s first year of implementation, around 20 technical assistance operations had been contracted (5.7 Million Euro out of the total of 13.8 Million Euro corresponded to operations in Turkey). As to the leverage effect, EIB s complementary financial sources in the framework of the FEMIP are put together with the project promoter s own funds and other sources; development of the financial intermediaries and the broader institutional development in general Multiplication Effects of Inherent Economic Nature increase the effectiveness of the Financial Intermediaries and the long-term development of the financial sectors within the MPCs and Turkey. improve the capacity of FEMIP partner countries and private promoters to better prepare investment operations, manage and monitor them. Multiplication Effects of Socio-Economic, Social, Environmental and Cultural Nature environmental impact, which according to the Evaluation of EIB financing in the member countries its environmental practice has not been as rigorous as its policy objectives. The main advantages have been that long-medium finance and new financial instruments are made both available and accessible to the countries financial sectors. Also, FEMIP encourages the cooperation with the competent authorities in the definition of the multi-annual lending programme, as well as the development of partnerships with local banking and other financial institutions. The further reinforcement of the FEMIP in the future will help to improve the climate for private and foreign investment, which in the long term can largely contribute to increasing the development impact. The main disadvantages identified are important obstacles of structural character in the countries of the region that make it difficult for the EIB lending activity to achieve a real and more visible development impact. The gap between the EIB environmental policy objectives and the EIB environmental practice is also a problem as is the lack of rigorous analysis at both the appraisal and the ex post evaluation phase by the EIB and the Financial Intermediaries. With the establishment and the implementation of the FEMIP, the EIB has become the major Multilateral Development Bank lender in the region. The further reinforcement of this financial instrument will increase the EIB s role and visibility. Although the FEMIP was launched recently, some multiplication such as employment can be identified, though not be fully measurable at this stage. 10

11 CHAPTER 8. MIXED FINANCING MODEL Name Situation Main features economic impacts and multiplication EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND: IMPROVEMENT OF NAVAL PORT INFRASTRUCTURES IN VALENCIA, SPAIN Spain joined the European Community in 1986, but the region of Valencia did not start receiving structural funding until 1988, benefiting from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) from that year onward - From 1989 the region of Valencia was designated Region Objective 1 of the Structural Funds (ERDF) and other instruments - Valencia, a region located on the Mediterranean coast of Spain, with a population of over 4 Million people, with a GDP per capita of 89% EU 25 in 2001 and with an unemployment rate of less than 10%. The general objective of this project was to satisfy those services required by a gradually increasing maritime traffic of containers, which could not be absorbed by the existing Containers Public Terminal. The direct beneficiary was the Port Authority of the Valencia region, and indirect beneficiaries were the trade companies operating in the port. The project consisted in enlarging the Southern Dock of the Valencia Port, with the construction of metres of dock and its needed breakwater, its dredging, filling and consolidation and its pavement and construction of roll ways with a total duration of 7 years ( ). Multiplication by additional funding and leverage The operation Action of the ERDF OP Valencia Improvement of naval port infrastructures had a final cost of 171 Million euro (initial cost of the project: 105 Million euro). Within the Structural Funds, the multiplier are to be found in the context of the so-called Community Added Value. This community dimension of an added value relates to the specific benefits which result if the intervention is carried out at Community and not at state or regional level. As to additionality, or measuring the overall public effort which is defined in Article 11 of the General Regulation (EC) No. 1260/1999, the MS must maintain its public or equivalent expenditure at a level at least equal to that in the previous programming period. Here, the ERDF money has had a high level of additionality (in terms of partial additionality), as the project was executed more speedily and in a larger scale. As to the financial leverage effect or acting as a catalyst, we find an absence of fully planned and final expenditure information in terms of financial leverage and in particular private sector leverage. Multiplication of inherent economic nature As a result of the intervention, the Port s activity has increased significantly from a traffic of 16.1 Million tons in 1996 (when the improvements in the Port were being implemented) to 28.5 Million tons in 2001 (when the new infrastructure was already in place).we can conclude that the Structural Funds are identified as having stimulated additional private sector investment in the Objective 1 regions as investment in basic infrastructure and transport has made the region more attractive for private investment. Also, better infrastructure resulting from these operations have stimulated Objective 1 region s competitiveness. Also, 650 direct jobs were created and new indirect employment opportunities took place during that period. The celebration of the Americas Cup is yet another important effect that will have great economic impact and that would not have been possible without European Funding. A large volume of financial resources has been allocated to economic development of the region and, in particular to the port infrastructure in Valencia. This evidences the strong character of additionality of the Community funding. Community financial assistance has largely levered additional public and private investment in the region. The port infrastructure in place is also expected to attract potential investors in the future. 11

12 CONCLUSIONS In some cases it was found that monitoring and indicators for multiplication at project level were difficult to measure. These difficulties arose from the lack of data/information and also from some of socio-economic, cultural, social or environmental nature that went beyond the resources and time limits of this study. Sometimes within the execution of the project or programming multiplication are not measured at all, at least in the documents that we had access to. Some of the can be identified, but can not be measured with the information/data derived from the projects themselves and within their specified time limits and also because at the inception the requirements did not include tracking of impacts. Projects which are allowed longer time frames (either from the beginning or building upon previous projects) facilitate possible multiplication to fully flourish. Long-term would have to be at least identified (but can be approximated through simulation models 2 ). The approach in many of the programmes to widen the scope of partners (regional and local administrations as well as private and non-profit actors) has enhanced greatly the. In none of the projects analysed in this study clear indications of gender mainstreaming were found. Although in some of the projects environmental issues were directly or indirectly addressed, there were no indicators to measure the beneficial. Some recommendations can also be suggested from the analysis of this study: Raising awareness about the existence of EU financing can be very important in generating further investments. Integrated approaches and also integrating lessons learned from previous editions of initiatives (URBAN, Leader, Article 6, etc.) prove to be very valuable in increasing multiplication, especially in the sustainability of the results. Large scale infrastructure projects (namely Trans European Networks) require programmatic approaches and framework programmes in order to coordinate 2 These models exist in various Universities and Research Institutions and can be especially useful in trying to measure the additionality and leverage. 12

13 administrations and agents involved in the management and implementation as well as funding. Develop further the monitoring tools for the identification and measurement of the multiplication through the programme or project cycles (the Evaluation of Socio-Economic Development, The Guide is a good example of how this can be done). Provide mechanisms to ensure continuity and similar levels of funding to complete projects or to take them into the next phase. 13