EU Funding in Western Balkan Countries Effectiveness & visibility, with special focus on cross-border cooperation Roderick Ackermann/ Blomeyer & Sanz 11.07.2018

Introduction Objectives Not an evaluation Research still in progress Limited scope & budget Research consists of Interviews with small number of strategic stakeholders/ actors Review of publicly available information EU Funding in Western Balkan Countries

Overview of funding IPA (2007-2013) EUR 11.5 billion (including Turkey) IPA (2014-2020) EUR 11.7 billion (including Turkey) National programmes represent about 70% of IPA II (including Turkey). Total national programme funding allocated to the Western Balkans amounts to about EUR 4 billion Regional programmes represent about EUR 3 billion (including Turkey). Includes territorial cooperation: EUR 395.2 million, which includes CBC between IPA countries in the Western Balkans: EUR 83.3 million CBC main thematic priorities: tourism, cultural and natural heritage, environmental protection and employment and social inclusion. EU Funding in Western Balkan Countries

Changes from IPA 2007-2013 to IPA 2014-2020 IPA (2014-2020) changes expected to lead to better outcomes More focus on outcomes – EC M&E guidance to EUDs Closer alignment between IPA & national policies at the programming stage Sectoral approach and thematic focus Visibility – more emphasis on awareness raising For CBC, simplification of management: One managing authority per CBC programme Partners in neighbouring countries submit a single joint application, progress reports, etc. EU Funding in Western Balkan Countries

What is effectiveness? Extent to which programmes produce results Results are defined defined in Regulation (EU) No 236/2014 Paragraph (12) of the preamble  as being comprised of outputs, outcomes, and impacts Outcomes are durable changes in performance, behaviour, attitudes, perceptions, etc., of target groups, institutions, systems, etc. Outputs are not a proxy for outcomes. Without outcomes, outputs serve little purpose Limited research about impacts (wider changes) Therefore we focus on outcomes EU Funding in Western Balkan Countries

Added value of EU-funded CBC Provides funding for peripheral regions that have little access to other funds – fills gaps, focuses on neglected sectors Does not duplicate other funding ‘Soft’ objectives e.g. good neighbourly relations Accessible to partners with lower capacity e.g. local authorities, NGOs and strengthening their capacity Flexibility to implement projects fine-tuned to local needs Community led, enhances ownership However, lack of linkage to national policies beyond the programming stage limits CBC added value EU Funding in Western Balkan Countries

Outcomes of CBC IPA (2007-2013) Reconciliation & confidence building – overcoming historical divisions, tensions Enhanced international cooperation between public administrations at national and local levels IPA (2007-2013) brought together stakeholders that would not normally work together Shared understanding and commitment to border areas But little substantive, systematic assessment of outcomes due to programme design: Poorly defined objectives, inappropriate indicators Emphasis on accountability in evaluation, rather than critical social learning Little to no evidence of sustainability of the outcomes IPA (2014-2020) CBC at early stage of implementation More emphasis on monitoring of outcomes. Will reporting & analysis be any better in practice? EU Funding in Western Balkan Countries

Visibility strategy/ guidelines Council conclusions of 15/12/2015 on improved strategic communication IPA 2015 & 2016 Information & Communication Programme EC confidential strategy EEAS communication taskforce EC communication & visibility requirements for implementing partners EU Funding in Western Balkan Countries

Visibility of EU CBC funding Many visibility activities. Considered to be improving compared with IPA (2007-2013). Examples of innovative approaches EC considers that public awareness is good on basis of proxy indicators e.g. number of applications for grants. But: What about the wider public? What about perceptions and understanding? Limited systematic research into public awareness and understanding of CBC funding Visibility mainly concentrated in CBC regions? What about general population? Lack of substantive assessment of outcomes is a missed opportunity for raising public awareness & understanding EU Funding in Western Balkan Countries

Conclusions Need to improve assessment of outcomes and impact: More systematic and substantive assessment of outcomes (less reliance on anecdotal evidence which may not reflect wider experiences) Increase emphasis on critical social learning – accountability without real learning provides only limited accountability More evidence of outcomes supports visibility (as noted in EC guidelines) Need for more systematic analysis of public awareness & understanding, not only within programme & project circles. Further simplification of administrative procedures for grantees EU Funding in Western Balkan Countries