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

2. 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

3. Overview of funding
IPA ( ) EUR 11.5 billion (including Turkey)
IPA ( ) 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 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

4. Changes from IPA 2007-2013 to IPA 2014-2020
IPA ( ) 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Outcomes of CBC
IPA ( )
Reconciliation & confidence building – overcoming historical divisions, tensions
Enhanced international cooperation between public administrations at national and local levels
IPA ( ) 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 ( ) 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

8. 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

9. Visibility of EU CBC funding
Many visibility activities. Considered to be improving compared with IPA ( ). 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

10. 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