Evaluation of cross-border cooperation programmes

Transcription

1 Evaluation of cross-border cooperation programmes Zoltan Pamer Junior Research Fellow Regional Research Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Pécs, 7 April 2016

2 EU enlargement Effects of EU enlargement: Growing number of EU members states; Growing number of border regions; Growing population living in border regions; Cross-border cooperation is a tool of Europeanisation (Scott-Liikanen, 2010); Growing number of cooperation programmes inside the EU borders; Tailor-made tools for cooperation (PHARE CBC, IPA, ENPI) (Popescu, 2008). Source: (4 April 2016)

3 Evolution of territorial cooperation in the EU structural policy 1990: launch of INTERREG Community Initiative (Perkmann, 2007); 2000: introducing the current three-strand system in INTERREG III 2.3% of regional policy budget (Perkmann, 2006); 2004: a set of new INTERREG IIIA programmes for new member state borders; 2007: European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) has become cohesion policy Objective 3; 2014: further mainstreaming : conformity with Thematic Objectives; return of Interreg as umbrella brand. Source: (4 April 2016)

4 History of Austria-Slovenia cooperation Source: ESPON (2013): ESPON TANGO Territorial Approaches for New Governance. Case Study Report. Governance of natural areas in the Alpine Adriatic area: Trilateral Nature Park Goričko-Raab-Örség. Final Version; p : Trigon Cooperation Agreement (Carinthia/AT FVG/IT Slovenia/SFRY); 1969: Quadrigon Cooperation (extended to Croatia/SFRY); 1978: Alps-Adriatic Working Community (AAWC) (Nadalutti, 2015); 2001: Euroregion Styria Slovenia (Zimmermann- Kubik, 2003); Further noninstitutionalised Euroregion initiatives (CESCI, n.d.).

5 Project-based cooperation: Conspace Source: Conspace (2006): CONSPACE WP3 Polycentric development in the CONSPACE region. recommendation report. Eds: Bory, Barbara Puchinger, Kurt; p. 32. Common Strategy Network for Spatial Development and Implementation Purpose: compare spatial planning tools and methodologies (CADSES, 2006); Austrian regional (Styria, Carinthia) initiative policydriven (Perkmann, 2006) and top-down (Pálné, 2009) approach; Asymmetric participation: strong regions (AT, IT), weak regions (HU, HR), nation state (SI). Newly centralised Slovenia (Nadalutti, 2015; p. 5).

6 Project-based cooperation: Matriosca Source: Conspace (2006): CONSPACE WP3 Polycentric development in the CONSPACE region. recommendation report. Eds: Bory, Barbara Puchinger, Kurt; p. 18. Management Tools and Relations for Interregional Organisation to Strengthening Co-operation In Adria-Alpe- Pannonia ; Austrian regional initiative; Purpose: laying down the foundation of cooperation of old and new member states (CADSES, 2006) as framework for the EU Future Region ; Similar representation weaknesses.

7 Slovenia-Austria Cross-border Cooperation - Source: Austria Slovenia INTERREG IIIA Community Initiative Programme ; p. 10. Wide range of potential cooperation areas; : mixed financing PHARE and ERDF; Relatively low development disparities compared with border of other neighbouring countries; Graz Maribor agglomeration; asymmetric industrial capacities, rural hinterland, good conditions for tourism (Zimmermann-Kubik, 2003); : INTERREG IIIA AT-SLO: 63,74 MEUR; Economic cooperation; Human resources development; Sustainable spatial development. Management based in Vienna, some capacities in Ljubljana.

8 Slovenia-Austria Cross-border Cooperation - ERDF financed, ; Management structure set up in Maribor; Budget: 74 MEUR + TA; Priorities: Competitiveness, knowledge and economic cooperation (SME development; tourism, framework for knowledge-based economy, thematic fields of strengths; Sustainable and balanced development: management of natural resources, environment and energy, urban and regional development. High number of horizontal objectives. Source: Operational Programme Cross-border Cooperation Slovenia-Austria ; p. 9.

9 Programme evaluation Overall aims of the Programme: fostering the international competitiveness and visibility as well as the quality of the cooperation; by joint development, sustainable and innovative use of the common potential and opportunities in the regions. Aim of programme evaluation: Assess the effectiveness of the implementation of the programme. Overview and an explanation of the socio-economic factors affecting the success of the program/projects; deviations from the strategic goals/indicators. Review the effectiveness of the projects Assess the sustainability of achieved direct effects (and outcomes) Identify anticipated benefits to the programme area for the local population.

10 Hypotheses H 1 : commitment of funding does not necessarily imply fulfilment of indicators; H 2 : large urban centres concentrate activity and funding; H 3 : asymmetry in regional government structure implies asymmetric organisational activity patterns.

11 Programme evaluation Date Projects selected Priority 1 Priority 2 1 st call 9/ nd call 1/ rd call 4/ Strategic projects Total Number of projects running running 20 Programme implementation took place through two onestep open calls, one twostep call + two strategic projects; Originally planned small project fund not implemented; 89 projects financed; Total ERDF: 67,1 M Committed: 67,3 M Absorption: 58,9 M (87,48%) 10 0 Source: SI-AT (2015): Ex-post evaluation of the Operational Programme of Cross-border Cooperation Slovenia-Austria Final report; p 9.

12 Programme evaluation Programme indicators were defined on the three levels: Degree of cooperation accordingly to 4 cooperation criteria; Areas of cross-border cooperation defined upon the number of projects successfully implemented in selected thematic areas; Priority-level thematic indicators: number of projects... Cumulative, multiple appearance of projects indicators do not reflect real achievements. Overperformance is easy, however targets have not been met.

13 Performance of indicators Code Indicator Target Realized 42 Number of projects respecting two of the following 40 9 criteria: joint development, joint implementation, joint staffing, joint financing 43 Number of projects respecting three of the following criteria: joint development, joint implementation, joint staffing, joint financing 44 Number of projects respecting four of the following 4 6 criteria: joint development, joint implementation, joint Code staffing, joint financing Indicator Target Realized 46 Developing joint use of infrastructure Developing collaboration in the field of public services Reducing isolation through improved access to transport, ICT networks and services 49 Encouraging and improving the joint protection and management of the environment 50 Number of people participating in joint education or training activities from which female at least % (43%) 61 Projects involving SMEs Number of projects with bilingual products Source: SI-AT (2015): Ex-post evaluation of the Operational Programme of Cross-border Cooperation Slovenia-Austria Final report; pp. 11, 13.

14 Performance of indicators Priority 1: Competitiveness, Knowledge and Economic Cooperation Indicator Target Number of correspondi ng projects 63 Improved competitiveness and internationalisation of industrial sector and SMEs SME development 64 Number of projects under SME development Tourism 65 Number of investment projects in the tourism sector (e.g. information systems) Number of soft-aid measures in tourism development Framework for knowledge-based economy 67 Number of RTD projects Thematic fields of strengths 68 Number of projects Source: SI-AT (2015): Ex-post evaluation of the Operational Programme of Cross-border Cooperation Slovenia-Austria Final report; p. 18.

15 Performance of indicators Priority 2: Sustainable and Balanced Development Indicator Target Number of corresponding projects 69 Strengthening cooperation on regional and national level, in particular in aspects of sustainability Management of natural resources 70 Number of projects Environment and energy 71 Number of environmental projects Number of energy projects Number of risk prevention projects 5 4 Urban and regional development 74 Number of projects in urban and regional development 75 Number of public transport projects 4 0 Social and cultural development 76 Number of cultural cooperation projects Number of cooperation projects in the area of health 3 9 Source: SI-AT (2015): Ex-post evaluation of the Operational Programme of Cross-border Cooperation Slovenia-Austria Final report; p. 19.

16 Geographical distribution of partners Source: SI-AT (2015): Ex-post evaluation of the Operational Programme of Cross-border Cooperation Slovenia- Austria Final report; p 23.

17 Geographical distribution of partners Most active cities (no. of PPs): Graz (50); Klagenfurt (56); Maribor (56); Ljubljana (46); Murska Sobota (26) Kranj (18) Villach (17) Leoben (4) Celje (4) Most active partners (no. of PPs): Amt der Kärntner Landesregierung (AT): 10 Amt der Steiermärkischen Landesregierung (AT): 6 BSC Kranj (SI): 6 E-Zavod (SI): 6 Mariborska razvojna agencija (SI): 6 Fachhochschule Kärnten (AT): 5 Gospodarska zbornica Slovenije (including Območna zbornica Koroška SI): 5 Pomurski tehnološki park (SI): 5 Technologieoffensive Burgenland (AT): 5 Universities: University of Maribor: 8 faculties in 16 projects; University of Ljubljana: 7 projects; Technische Universität Graz: 4 projects; Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz: 3 projects; Klagenfurt University: 1 project

18 Geographical distribution of funding Regions with the highest share of financial commitment (%): Podravska (16,33) Klagenfurt-Villach (16,29); Graz (15,78); Pomurska (8,42) Gorenjska (7,35) Osrednjeslovenska (7,02) Unterkärnten (5,33) Koroška (4,84) Oststeiermark (4,64) Savinjska (4,55) Regions with the highest share of disbursed funding (%): Graz (16,21); Podravska (15,58); Klagenfurt-Villach (15,57); Pomurska (8,62) Gorenjska (7,47) Osrednjeslovenska (7,20) Unterkärnten (5,48) Oststeiermark (5,11) Savinjska (4,81) Koroška (4,58)

19 Geographical distribution of funding Absorption capacity by regions (%) Source: SI-AT (2015): Ex-post evaluation of the Operational Programme of Cross-border Cooperation Slovenia-Austria Final report; p 28.

20 Further topics analysed inter alia Geographical impact of projects; Coherence of projects thematic focus with achievement of indicators; Distribution of projects, funding and absorption capacity of different types of partners; Target groups of projects; Tangible results of projects; Project outputs and added values; Cost-efficiency of projects; Modes of project sustainability; Achievement in horizontal policies; Socio-economic impact of the programme;

21 Conclusions H 1 H 2 H 3 Priorities have been defined unclear, without real focus and lacking thematic concentration; Standard Calls for Proposals were preferred, more innovative or targeted elements (strategic projects) have been used marginally or not at all (small project fund); Indicators don t represent programme performance: achievement is possible through financing of high number of projects. Lead partnership and partners are concentrated in dominant regional centres (Graz, Maribor, Klagenfurt); More balanced activity of smaller regional centres in Slovenia than in Austria; Territorial distribution of funding follows regional activity patterns. Regional public administration is missing in Slovenia, business support institutions and universities play a more dominant role.

22 Thank you for your attention