Results orientation in Interreg programs Example of the programme V INTERREG Upper Rhine Annual meeting with the Managing Authorities of Interreg programmes 15 September 2015 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg Thomas KÖHLER Région Alsace, Managing Authority and Joint Secretariat

Overview 1.General conditions/framework 2.Experience in OP drafting 3.Focus on result indicators 4.Experience in programming of projects

1. General conditions/framework ˃Compact programme area ˃Manageable number of programme partners ˃Spatial congruence of the programme area and other structures in the domain of cross-border co-operation in the Upper Rhine ˃Many years of experience in cross- border cooperation ˃Many INTERREG projects and beneficiaries since 1989

2. Experience in OP drafting ˃Challenging: Understanding of the new requirements of the regulatory framework: intervention logic, terms, timing ˃Helpful: Quick agreement with and between the programme partners at both the technical and political level ˃Important: Early communication also to the future beneficiaries of the upcoming "shift in paradigm" ˃Demanding: Creation of a system of manageable indicators ˃Still difficult: Programming as a top-down process

3. Focus on result indicators ˃Main problem: Requirements of the regulatory framework as regards consistency between specific objectives, types of measures, output and result indicators Possibilities of the programme in terms of data availability and resources available for data collecting ˃Result indicators of the Upper Rhine OP: 12 specific objectives 15 result indicators of which: 12 quantitative und 3 qualitative indicators 7 indicators for which until now baselines and target values are missing

3. Focus on result indicators ˃Accept external support due to lack of time and expertise in the programme management ˃Ensure coherence between specific objectives, types of measures, output and result indicators in the counterflow principle ˃Solutions to difficulties encountered: specific objectivetype of measureoutput indicatorresult indicator ˃Allowing methodological blurring due to a lack of cross-border comparability of data ˃Effort and costs related to surveys of baselines and target values to be reduced by exploiting synergies (Ex.: three indicators covered by the same survey)

4. Experience in programming of projects ˃Challenge : Application of the results orientation to the project level: workplan, outputs, indicators, ICT tools, project contract ˃Demanding: Communication with potential beneficiaries: learning together, "shift in paradigm" becomes tangible ˃Remains to be seen: Adaptation of procedures for projects submission and selection to the new challenges. Examples: - the right mix between early guidance and the brevity of the short application form - tools for steering the projects selection

Thank you for your attention!