1. Małopolska experiences in interregional cooperation INTERREG and Programmes of Investment for Growth and Jobs Grzegorz First Marshal Office of the Małopolska Region, Kraków

2. AGENDA: General observations 1. General observations 2. Małopolska in Interreg 2007 – 2013 - connection with SF and regional policy 3. Visions / conclusions for 2014 - 2020

3. Polish Regions in SF structure 2007 - 2013 REGION AS: MA – Regional Operational Programme  MA – Regional Operational Programme IB – Human Capital Operational Programme  IB – Human Capital Operational Programme Beneficiary and participation – in ETC / Transborder strand  Beneficiary and participation – in ETC / Transborder strand Beneficiary – in ETC / Interregional and Transnational  Beneficiary – in ETC / Interregional and Transnational Conclusion – participation in ETC is a chance not obligation

4. Małopolska and other PL regions in ETC 2007 – 2013 Advantages for regions observed so far: possibility of cooperation with developed regions  possibility of cooperation with developed regions  support for regional solutions (good practices, „other do”)  opening for supraregional perspective („my problem is not only mine”)

5. Małopolska and other PL regions in ETC 2007 – 2013 Problems for regions observed so far:  comparing with orther OP, ETC / INTERREG without direct infrastructure and „hard” results has less competitive position  linkage of project results with regional activities (a lot of documents, plans, recommendations without specific address) Conclusion – Interreg (esp. IE) connected with the needs of specified addresses ￫ MA, regional authorities, policymakers

6. Małopolska backround for Interreg TWO ASSUMPTIONS OF REGIONAL AUTHORITIES 1.Organizational 2.Thematical HOW ? WHAT ?

7. Małopolska backround for InterregOrganizational:  Interreg in one unit with regional policy (to 2014 in one Department with MA!) (to 2014 in one Department with MA!) Close cooperation with departments and organisational units whose activities are related to Interreg goals  Close cooperation with departments and organisational units whose activities are related to Interreg goals Connection with Regional Operational Programme  Connection with Regional Operational Programme Region open to the other subjects with regional competencies / issues (academia, think-tanks etc.) - working with the project from bottom perspective  Region open to the other subjects with regional competencies / issues (academia, think-tanks etc.) - working with the project from bottom perspective Conclusion: Interreg in strict connection with regional policy and Operational Programmes, strategic documents etc. HOW ?

8. Małopolska backround for InterregThematical:  Implementing projects in line with the Strategy and the goals of the Board of the Malopolska Region: and the goals of the Board of the Malopolska Region: innovation, environment, demographic change, innovation, environment, demographic change, natural and cultural resources, tourism, rural areas natural and cultural resources, tourism, rural areas  transfer of knowledge and know-how from the projects to regional policy  enhancing NGO participation – open calls for proposals related to project preparation (2011 – EGTC, 2013, 2015) Conclusion: the idea of project from regional problem not from Programme (problem first) WHAT ?

9. 2007 - 2013 Małopolska in Interreg 2007 - 2013 9 projects within the Marshal Office 27 in the region  14 INTERREG IVC  9 Central Europe  4 Baltic Sea Region IE 2014-2020

10. Impact on regional policy and SF – two examples

11. SMART+ for SME Innovation and Promotion of RTD Duration 2010 – 2013 Goal: to foster innovations in SMEs in partner regions especially by supporting regional institutions through sub-projects Thematic scope to foster the participation of SMEs in networks and clusters to provide them with better access to RTD and business partners to improve accessibility of funding for SMEs

12. SMART+ for SME Innovation and Promotion of RTD Impact on policy and SF Regional Implementation Plan SMART + Regional Innovation Strategy (smart specialization) Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020 (preparings in 2013!)

13. CLUE Climate Neutral Urban Districts in Europe Duration: 2012 - 2014 Goal: to increase the regional potential in pursuing development policy towards low-carbon economy using new solutions and technologies in urban areas  identify good practices to increase the local and regional capacity in policy development,  identify and assess technologies, systems, and solutions as well as reporting and monitoring tools for the development of climate-neutral urban

14. CLUE Climate Neutral Urban Districts in Europe Impact on policy and SF  Innovative in region Manual ”Małopolska Smart Cities – directions of development”  Contribution to the Regional Operational Programme 2014- 2020 CT 4 - Regional Energy Policy – descitpion of challenges and priorities

15. Malopolska challenges for 2014 – 2020 Małopolska Investment Plan for 2015 – 2023: Interreg projects as a support for regional policy and SF Special thematical areas of needs of SF in region  innovations (transfer of knowledge – financial intruments and cooperation with profit subjects)  spatial policy  rural areas  demographical changes natural and cultural resources, tourism  natural and cultural resources, tourism

16. Malopolska challenges for 2014 – 2020 Proposed projectsRegional needs vs Interreg Europe in 1st call Addressed to the ROP (5) Addressed to the Crossborder Operational Programme PL-SK (1) – LP L of S from MA Mostly influence on Programme content very high high

17. Malopolska final conclusions  need to integrate actions of local and regional stakeholders active in the field of projects – letter of support is a good idea  integrating issues in ”cross-thematic bundles” e.g. smart city, rural areas, reindustrialisation, energy etc. – maybe learning platforms?  new chances for MA – change of vision on Interreg as a tool for support of MA 2014 – 2020  IE projects can have influence on financing of ROP projects – good motivator!”  the key problem and challenge is how to efficiently transfer project outcomes to the SF instruments /goal 1/ (coordination of processes - timeline, involving stakeholders, etc.) esp. in the Programme content, calls etc.

18. Thank you for your attention