Interreg Programmes Preliminary Conclusions May 2016

Page 2 Project Overview (1/3) ► OVERALL OBJECTIVE ► Analyze and review the design of 30 Cooperation Programmes for the programming period in order to verify the extent to which: ► The choice of Thematic Objectives and Investment Priorities, respectively Thematic Priorities for IPA CBC, is justified by the development needs of regions involved concentrated ► The financial resources are concentrated based on a prioritization of development needs clear specific ► The Specific Objectives are clear (e.g. the change sought can be easily depicted) and specific (e.g. allow the measurement of the change sought) are logically linked ► The identified Actions are logically linked with Specific Objectives (i.e. will allow to achieve the change sought) clearly defined robust methodology ► The Result Indicators are clearly defined and their monitoring is based on a robust methodology coverimmediate effects ► The selected Output Indicators are able to cover the immediate effects of the Actions ► All of these, are the prerequisites to ensure the monitoring and evaluation of the programmes and to measure their impacts

Page 3 Project Overview (2/3) ► SCOPE ► 30 Cooperation Programmes - CBC, Transnational, Interregional and IPA CBC - with focus on R&D&I (TO 1), environmental protection (TO 6) and institutional capacity of public authorities (TO 11) Thematic ObjectivesThematic Priorities

Page 4 Project Overview (3/3) ► TIMELINE

Page 5 Justification for the Choice of TOs and IPs ► REQUIREMENTS ► Programmes should include a justification for the choice of TOs and IPs, based on identified needs (Art. 8, Reg. 1299/2013) ► CONCLUSIONS strong link ► For all programmes, the selected TOs and IPs present a strong link with the regional needs ► This was ensured by the EU framework: ► The Introduction of pre-defined TOs and related IPs allowed the definition of the high level strategy of the programmes ► The Introduction of (new) template for programming documents facilitated the presentation of the logical framework of the programme (e.g. logical link among TOs-IPs-needs) ► Although not required, some programmes justified the selection of TOs and IPs also by presenting the added value of cross-border cooperation (e.g. transfer of knowledge, common challenges). This demonstrates that most adequate sources of financing are used

Page 6 Concentration of Financial Resources (1/2) ► REQUIREMENTS ► At least 80 % of the ERDF allocation concentrated on max. 4 TOs (Art. 6, Reg. 1299/2013) ► Programmes should include a justification for the financial allocation (Art. 8, Reg. 1299/2013) ► CONCLUSIONS ► High concentration of resources ► High concentration of resources: ► 80% of programmes allocated 100% of EU funds on max 4 TOs ► 100% of programmes allocated (on average) 60% of the EU funds on two TOs ► 53% of the total EU resources (2,2 bln EUR) allocated to 2 TOs ► 29% of the total EU resources is allocated to Environmental Protection (TO 6) ► 24% of the total EU resources is allocated to R&D&I (TO1) ► All programmes presented the criteria used to allocate the financial resources ► However, the level of details and evidences is not homogenous across them

Page 7 Concentration of Financial Resources (2/2) Thematic ObjectivesThematic Priorities

Page 8 Clarity and Specificity of SOs (1/2) ► REQUIREMENTS ► SOs should clearly reflect the change sought and should include the direction of the change (EC Guidance fiche on intervention logic) ► The change sought should be as specific as possible, so that intervention to be supported can contribute to the change and its impact can be and evaluated (EC Guidance fiche on intervention logic) ► CONCLUSIONS ► An improvement was noticed in terms of clarity and specificity of SOs compared to the past, which is mainly due to new regulations ► : General and Specific Objectives defined by Member States and covered a broad range of development needs (e.g. Specific Objective: “To bolster the infrastructure enabling social and economic development and improvement of the environment on both sides of the border”) effectiveness of risk prevention disaster management focus forest fires ► , General Objectives (TOs, IPs) defined at EU level. This allowed MAs to better identify clear Specific Objective (e.g.: “Improve the effectiveness of risk prevention and disaster management with a focus on forest fires”)

Page 9 Links between Actions and SOs ► REQUIREMENTS ► Programmes should set out explicitly the logical link between Actions and the achievement of SOs (EC Guidance fiche on intervention logic) ► CONCLUSIONS ► In all cases, Actions are logically linked with the SOs and are expected to contribute to the achievement of the results sought ► However, the achievement of the expected result strictly depends on the operationalization of Actions (i.e. implementation mechanisms to be put in place by Managing Authorities) ► Thus, a solid monitoring system is required to identify possible deviation from the initial plan Specific Objective Result IndicatorActions Joint stabilization and improvement of natural resources % of protected land on the total of eligible area Cross-border planning and implementation of measures for species and habitat conservation in the context of Natura 2000 Measures to monitor and restore devastated areas Transnational measures to fund ecosystem services

Page 10 Quality of Result Indicators (1/2) ► REQUIREMENTS ► Quality criteria for result indicators (EC Guidance fiche on intervention logic) ► Responsivity to policy (capturing the medium and long-term effects of the policy), normativity (clear interpretation), robustness (reliable, statistically validated), timely collection of data (available when needed) ► CONCLUSIONS ► All Programmes tried to capture the medium and long-term effects by using maximum two indicators. As consequence, in many cases indicators used are often multi-dimensional and their interpretation can be depicted only by means of sub-indicators – to be defined by Managing Authorities in the Monitoring Methodology (e.g. “Level of sustainability of tourism in MED coastal regions”, “Improving institutional cooperation in the programme area”) robustness of the results ► More than half of Result Indicators will be measured by means of surveys, interviews and focus groups with relevant stakeholders (i.e. “perceived improvement”). As such, the robustness of the results might be depended on the operational implementation (e.g. representativeness of the sample population, template of the questionnaire, response rate, etc.). In such cases, it is recommended to cross-check the results with other sources of information (e.g. impact evaluation).

Page 11 Quality of Result Indicators (2/2) ► CONCLUSIONS ► The Result Indicators based on statistical data are more robust and normative (“Number of organisations jointly contributing to environmental resource management”, “Overnight stays of visitors in the program area”) ► However, they are not always able to capture all envisaged changes (e.g. for Specific Objectives “Conserving, protecting, promoting and developing natural and cultural heritage”, most Programmes managed to cover the promotion of natural and cultural heritage by counting the number of overnights stays of tourists and left aside the level of sustainability)

Page 12 Coverage of Output Indicators ► REQUIREMENTS ► Common output indicators (set at EU level) may be insufficient to reflect the Actions envisaged; in this case it is necessary to identify programme specific output indicators (set at Regional level) (EC Guidance fiche on intervention logic) ► CONCLUSIONS ► The mix between common and specific output indicators ensures a good coverage of the immediate effects of envisaged Actions. For example ► Actions ► Actions: construction of local access roads linked to sites of cultural and natural heritage and promotion of environmental friendly tourism common output indicator ► The common output indicator is broad enough to capture the overall effects (“Total length of newly built roads”) specific indicator ► While the specific indicator is reflecting the particularities of the policy ( “Length of reconstructed and newly built green ways”)

Page 13 Final Remarks ► Good progress compared to previous programming periods, by means of more detailed guidance provided by the EC (e.g. definition of common TOs, IPs and Output Indicators). ► Achieved progress concern the overall internal coherence of programmes ► strong link ► strong link among TOs, IPs and regional needs ► concentration of financial resources on prior needs ► clarity and specificity ► clarity and specificity of SOs ► coverage ► coverage of Output Indicators ► Area of improvements still remain with respect to Results Indicators ► Clarity of Results Indicators methodology ► Robustness and/or completeness of the methodology for measuring them ► However, Managing Authorities have the opportunity to increase the monitoring accuracy of the expected medium and long-term changes in the Monitoring Methodology, to be set up in the implementation phase of the programmes