Effectiveness of the South Baltic Cross-border Co

Transkrypt

Effectiveness of the South Baltic Cross-border Co-operation
Programme 2007 - 2013; challenges and aims for the
Programme for the time period 2014-2020
Final report
Effectiveness of the South Baltic Cross-border Co-operation Programme 2007- 2013;
challenges and aims for the Programme for the time period 2014-2020
Final Report
© ECORYS Polska Sp. z o.o.
Łucka 2/4/6
00-845 Warszawa
T +48 22 339 36 40
F +48 22 339 36 49
E [email protected]
W www.ecorys.pl
2
Final Report
Table of contents
List of tables .......................................................................................................................................... 5
List of abbreviations .............................................................................................................................. 7
Summary............................................................................................................................................... 9
1.
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 15
1.1.
Aim of the report.................................................................................................................................15
1.2.
Structure of the report ........................................................................................................................15
2.
General information about the research ....................................................................................... 17
2.1.
Context of the research.......................................................................................................................17
2.2.
Aims of the research ...........................................................................................................................19
3.
Results of the evaluation .............................................................................................................. 21
3.1.
Part I - The level of achievement of Programme objectives provided in the Operational
Programme and the future shape of the Programme in the period 2014-2020 ........................21
3.1.1. Objectives, products and results ...........................................................................................21
3.1.2. Partnerships ...........................................................................................................................45
3.1.3. Future shape of the Programme............................................................................................57
3.2.
Part II - Effectiveness of the projects implementing system that is defined within the
Programme documents...............................................................................................................95
3.2.1. Projects implementation .......................................................................................................95
3.2.2. Administrative structure ..................................................................................................... 111
4.
Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................. 117
Appendix 1 – Case studies .................................................................................................................. 123
Appendix 2 - Methodology of the research ......................................................................................... 143
3
Final Report
List of figures
Fig.1.Eligible area of the South Baltic Programme.............................................................................................17
Fig. 2. Sum of points ascribed to the activities ..................................................................................................39
Fig.3. Sum of points ascribed to the thematic groups .......................................................................................39
Fig. 4. Types of institutions taking part in the South Baltic Programme as AOs ................................................50
Fig.5. Types of the activities undertaken by the Associated Organisations in the projects within the South
Baltic Programme [%]. .......................................................................................................................................51
Fig.6. Types of AOs from the Kaliningrad Oblast. ..............................................................................................53
Fig.7.Types of the activities undertaken by the Associated Organisations from the Kaliningrad Oblast in the
projects within the South Baltic Programme [%]...............................................................................................54
4
Final Report
List of tables
Table 1.Eligiblearea of the South Baltic Programme .........................................................................................18
Table 2. Number of projects supported in each of the Programme priority axis and measures ......................19
Table 3.Programme result indicators and their level of achievement (in green: indicators probable to be
achieved)............................................................................................................................................................23
Table 4. The most common outputs of the projects led by the German...........................................................25
Table 5. The most common results of the projects led by the German ............................................................26
Table 6. The most common outputs of the projects led by the Danish.............................................................27
Table 7. The most common results of the projects led by the Danish ..............................................................28
Table 8. The most common outputs of the projects led by the Swedish ..........................................................29
Table 9. The most common results of the projects led by the Swedish ............................................................30
Table 10. The most common outputs of the projects led by the Polish ............................................................31
Table 11. The most common results of the projects led by the Polish..............................................................32
Table 12. The most common outputs of the projects led by the Lithuanian.....................................................33
Table 13. The most common results of the projects led by the Lithuanian ......................................................34
Table 14. Most common outputs in the Programme’s measures .....................................................................35
Table 15. Most common results in the Programme’s measures .......................................................................35
Table 16. Results of the finished projects ..........................................................................................................37
Table 17. Activities included in the research ....................................................................................................38
Table 18. Results of the crowdsourcing .............................................................................................................41
Table 19. Functions of the AOs in the projects implemented within the South Baltic Programme ..................50
Table 20.Types of AOs from the Kaliningrad Oblast ..........................................................................................53
Table 21.Types of AOs from the Kaliningrad Oblast and their functions in projects .........................................55
Table 22. Compliance between the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and The South Baltic Programme .59
Table 23. Compliance between flagship projects (initiatives) of the Europe 2020 Strategy and The South
Baltic Programme...............................................................................................................................................61
Table 24. Compliance between the investment priorities and The South Baltic Programme...........................65
Table 25. Comparison of the thematic scope f chosen strategic documents ....................................................71
Table 26. Comparison of the thematic scope of chosen ETC programmes .......................................................75
Table 27. Comparison of selected rules in chosen ETC programmes ................................................................80
Table 28. Possible future thematic areas of the South Baltic Programme ........................................................86
Table 29. Comparison between the results of the analyses conducted within the report and the expertise
Challenges and aims for the cross-border cooperation programmes involving Poland ....................................88
Table 30. Average results the quality assessment of the rejected projects ....................................................101
Table 31.Average point value in the quality assessment in the analysed calls ...............................................103
Table 32. Changes in the total point values scored in the quality assessment in project that were two times
rejected ............................................................................................................................................................103
Table 33. Differences between data from the payment application the expenses planed in the application
form .................................................................................................................................................................105
Table 34. Differences between the date of the first payment application the expenses planned for the
corresponding period in the application form .................................................................................................107
Table 35. Recommendations table ..................................................................................................................117
Table 36. List of the respondents of the ITI interviews...................................................................................145
Table 37.List of respondents - Associated Organisations ................................................................................156
Table 38. Crowdsourcing table ........................................................................................................................156
5
Final Report
Table 39. Experts invited to take part in the forum .........................................................................................161
Table 40. List of projects studied .....................................................................................................................162
6
Final Report
List of abbreviations
AOs - Associated Organisations
CPE - Centre of European Projects
ETC - European Territorial Cooperation
FLC - Fists Level Control
GIS - Geographic Information System
ITC - Information and Communication Technologies
ITI - Individual Telephone Interview
JTS – Joint Technical Secretariat
LNG – Liquid Natural Gas
MA – Managing Authority
MC – Monitoring Committee
NGO – Non-governmental organization
OWE – Offshore Wind Energy
PPP – Public Private Partnership
R&D - Research and Development
SC – Steering Committee
SME - Small and medium enterprises
SSI – Semi-Structured Interview
7
Final Report
8
Final Report
Summary
The main objective of the evaluation titled: “Effectiveness of the South Baltic Cross-border Co-operation
Programme 2007 - 2013; challenges and aims for the Programme for the time period 2014-2020” was to
assess the implementation and achievements of the South Baltic Programme. Two detailed objectives of the
research were formulated as follows:
1. To assess the level of achievement of Programme objectives provided in the Operational Programme
and the future shape of the Programme in the period 2014-2020
2. To assess effectiveness of the projects implementing system that is defined within the Programme
documents.
In the evaluation, a variety of research methods has been used. The CAWI surveys, ITI interviews, SSI
interviews, Crowdsourcing, Forum of experts, desk research and case studies were conducted. Interviewed
were representatives from the Management Authority, Monitoring and Steering Committee, Joint Technical
Secretary, National and Regional Contact Points and Euroregions, the Lead Beneficiaries and Partners of
accepted projects, Associated Organizations, organisations, whose projects were rejected, potential
beneficiaries of the Programme and potential recipients of the projects’ effects.
The report is divided into two main parts which correspond with the detailed objectives of the evaluation.
Within each of the parts further thematic areas were delimited.
Part I - The level of achievement of Programme objectives provided in the Operational Programme and
the future shape of the Programme in the period 2014-2020
The implementation of the Programme is successful and the overall objective of the South Baltic Programme
will be achieved. The Programme strongly contributes to creation of cross border networks and undertaking
joint actions within them. It has rather “soft” than infrastructural character. The extensive know-how which
was built within the Programme can be further used in the future initiatives.
Taking into account the results of analyses conducted within the evaluation following thematic areas should
be continued in the next programming period: R&D, innovation; energy, energy efficiency; youth, education,
life-long learning; entrepreneurship development, competitiveness of SMEs.
Detailed findings
1. Objectives, products and results
Objectives of the Programme
The risk of not achieving target values in case of three indicators does not influence the generally successful
implementation of the Programme. It is important to stress that in these three cases the indicators will be
for surely achieved in more than 50%, which is a positive result. Their achievement is also still possible if next
calls for projects from the priority axis 1 will be opened. If so, the next call should first of all be opened for
projects concerning measure 1.2 Integration of the higher education and labour market. Three indicators in
case of which there is a risk that the target values will be not achieved:
• Number of projects with politically welcomed and promoted results (Priority 1) (estimated level of
achievement 67%)
• Number of projects unlocking public and private investments (estimated level of achievement 57%)
9
Final Report
• Number of projects strengthening liaisons between higher education and labour market institutions of
the South Baltic regions (estimated level of achievement 70%)
In some thematic areas the implementation of the Programme was even more effective than expected. The
Programme contributes very strongly to the creation of cross border networks (the corresponding indicator
achieved in over 240%), when undertaking joint actions was one of the most important aspects the
Programme objective. The Programme is also particularly successful in strengthening cross-border
cooperation between the SME’s (over 100% of the indicators target value).
Outputs and results of the projects and the Programme
The Programme outputs are much differentiated. Taking into account all Programme measures the most
common type of outputs are the thematic expertise reports. This indicates that in the projects implemented
in the current Programme an extensive know-how was built, which could and should be further used in the
future projects. The results of the Programme are less differentiated than the outputs. Looking at all
measures the most common results are long term cooperation agreements and new extended cooperation
networks. It indicates the “soft” rather than infrastructural character of the Programme. The partnerships
and cooperation built within the projects are also valuable assets for the future projects and will facilitate
the future partnerships. To a significant extent, the future South Baltic Programme should build on the
current Programme, both when it comes to the substantive issues and projects implementation schemes
(partnerships).
Complementarity of the projects
The complementarity level of the projects supported within the South Baltic Programme is high both within
the Programme measures and between projects implemented within different measures also with projects
implemented within chosen ETC Programmes1. No cases were found in which the content of the project
would duplicate the actions undertaken within other initiative.
2. Partnerships
Finding partners, duration of the partnerships
A significant number of the partnerships was created for the needs of the Programme. At the same time the
beneficiaries declared they want to continue the partnerships in the future. The opportunity to create new
cross-border networks and exchange experiences was also in the opinion of the beneficiaries one of the
most important advantages resulting from participation in the Programme. Because of that the structure of
partnerships (the number of the new ones and continued) should be assessed as positive.
Tasks division between the partners, the efficiency of communication
Most of the participants declare that they know each other’s role in the project and that all partners are
actively involved in the implementation of the projects. The communication between the partners is rather
informal. Problems that occurred in the partnership resulted from: cultural differences, language barriers,
organisational changes and engagement in too many projects at the same time. Generally they do not
significantly affect the implementation of the projects.
Future cooperation
1
1) The Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013, 2) European Territorial Co-operation Objective Cross-border Co-operation Programme
Lithuania-Poland 2007-2013, 3) Central Baltic Interreg IVa Programme, 4) Mecklenburg-Vorpommern/Brandenburg –Zachodniopomorskie
Cross-border Cooperation Programme.
10
Final Report
The Beneficiaries confirmed that they are planning to continue the cooperation with the current partners
after the end of the projects as well. However in the majority of cases there are no detailed plans of such
cooperation, also no plans about sources of financing for the partnership. The Beneficiaries of the South
Baltic Programme are also interested in creating new partnerships with other organisations.
Possible instruments and activities supporting the partnerships
To support the partnerships within the Programme following actions could be undertaken: simplifying the
rules of participation in the Programme, standardising of rules for all countries, providing more support in
pre-financing, preparing a list of recommended partners, organising partners meetings, providing external
support for partnerships and encouraging potential partners to join the Programme by providing more
information about the regions and the Programme itself. In the future programming period all NGOs should
have the possibility to become a Lead Beneficiary. The participation of private companies in the Programme
should be reinforced (not only as AOs).
The Associated Organisations in The South Baltic Programme
AOs are engaged in the majority of the projects realized within the South Baltic Programme. The level of
involvement of the AOs from Kaliningrad Oblast is rather low. The participation of the AOs from the private
sector is slightly less common than of the ones from the public sector. In the case of Kaliningrad Oblast the
public institutions are prevailing. AOs role in the project is differentiated in engagement level and scope.
Generally the Lead Beneficiaries are satisfied with the cooperation with AOs, although they are sometime
less active than expected. The activity of AOs from the Kaliningrad Oblast is limited due to shortage of
financial means. Apart from financial shortages the Russian AOs are highly interested in participation in the
Programme.
3. Future shape of the Programme
Contribution to achieving the objectives of Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region
In the Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region there are five thematic areas that are not implemented by the South
Baltic Programme. These concern: clean shipping, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, maritime safety and
security, major emergencies and cross-border crime.
Contribution to implementation of the Strategy Europe 2020
In its current shape the implementation of the South Baltic Programme contributes to the achievement of
almost all of the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy, though supporting projects concerning thematic
areas accordant with the flagship initiatives. The exception are actions aiming at facilitation connection to
high speed internet.
Differences between the Programme and other ETC programmes covering/ bordering eligible area of the
South Baltic Programme
In the scope of the South Baltic Programme there are some similarities to the analysed transnational
cooperation programme - the Baltic Sea Programme. When it comes to the analysed cross-border
programmes there is a significant difference, mainly in the character of the supported initiatives. The
projects implemented within the South Baltic Programme have soft rather than infrastructural character (as
in the other cross –border Programmes). The South Baltic Programme can be therefore seen as transitional
between the transnational and cross-border programmes or as a linking point between them. It is also
important to stress the unique character of the activity 2.4 Local community activities. All of the actions
realized within this measure are specific for the South Baltic Programme and the measure itself has an
innovative character.
11
Final Report
Beneficiaries’ plans for the future
Most of the participants are satisfied with the current scope of the Programme and are interested in
participating in the future in the Programme with the same scope.
Priorities and activities of the Programme that should be taken into account for the next programming
period
Taking into account the thematic focus of the draft proposal of General regulation previewed within the
paragraph 9 and the results of analyses conducted within the evaluation following thematic areas should be
continued in the next programming period: R&D, innovation; energy, energy efficiency; youth, education,
Recommendations resulting from the first part of the report
Objectives, products and results

For the next programming period clear definition of more detailed but closed list of outputs and
results indicators which will make the aggregation possible;
Partnerships

The rules of participation in the Programme (concerning the formal status of the Lead Beneficiary)
should be changed. All NGOs (not only bodies governed by public law) should have the possibility to
become a Lead Beneficiary. The minimal budget for the projects or certain thematic areas (currently
50 000 euro) should be lowered;

The rules of participation in the Programme (concerning the formal status of the Partner) should be
changed. There should be a possibility of Public Private Partnership (PPP) in the Programme;
Future shape of the Programme

The future shape of the Programme should include: R&D, innovation; energy, energy efficiency;
youth, education, life-long learning; entrepreneurship development, competitiveness of SMEs.
Part II - Effectiveness of the projects implementing system that is defined within the Programme
documents
The overall assessment of the projects implementing system is positive, although there are some possible
changes which could be introduced to increase its effectiveness. Most problems in the implementation
system occur at the FLC level and are referred to the certification process. Important changes needed in the
system concern introducing a seed money facility for projects preparation and the system of advance
payments. Both on the application as well as on the implementation stage there is a need for stronger
support for the potential beneficiaries and beneficiaries by the Contact Point. In order to meet those needs
the Contacts Points should be financially strengthened.
Detailed findings
1. Project implementation
Problems in the project preparation phase
The main problems on the application stage were connected with following issues:
• understanding formal rules of project preparation (cost eligibility, cost sharing between partners,
required formal documents),
12
Final Report
• finding projects partners,
• cost of project preparation - the desired amount of the seed money should be between 20 000 and
40 000 Euro.
In response to these problems it is recommended to strengthen the support provided to the potential
beneficiaries in the projects preparation phase by the Contact Points in terms of workshops, consultations
and partners search – promoting wider use of the projects partners’ data base.
Assessment criteria
The current projects assessment process and the applied assessment criteria are in the opinion of the
evaluator sufficient to provide the selection of the most suitable projects and the criteria are properly
adjusted to the types of the projects. No changes in the project assessment criteria are suggested.
Reasons of projects rejection
Within the South Baltic Programme application rejection rate is high – 58%. The share of the applications
rejected for formal reasons is low (7% of the rejected applications), so activities undertaken to reduce the
rejection rate should concentrate on the substantial quality of the applications. It was observed that the
potential beneficiaries had problems with presenting the logical framework of the projects and defining the
future benefits resulting from the projects (after projects’ completion). These two issues should be stressed
during the workshops and seminars for potential beneficiaries.
Reasons for lack of interest in applying for funding
All of the potential beneficiaries who didn’t apply for funding heard about the South Baltic Programme
before. The most common reason for not applying was that the requirements are too high and application
procedure too complicated and therefore too much time and money consuming. The main suggested change
in the Programme is to simplify the Programme rules and procedures.
Delays in the projects implementation
The analysis of the project application forms and the list of payments showed that there are delays in
implementation of some projects. This was confirmed by the Lead Beneficiaries in the interviews. In some of
the projects the delays are caused by too optimistic preparatory phase. The unexpected changes in the
projects environment can also affect the implementation in the negative way. In general the occurring
delays don’t significantly affect the implementation of the Programme.
Reporting progress on the JST and MA level; Project Progress Reports reimbursement (interim payment) and
reimbursement of the final Project Progress Reports (final payment)
The complaints about the certification project process referred more to the FLC than to reporting process at
the JST or MA level. Some of the respondents were also dissatisfied with the long waiting time that passes
between the acceptance of expenses and reimbursement, but the monitoring data doesn’t show significant
delays. If the process was longer than the average then it resulted from the need of clarification. It can be
assumed that the Beneficiaries are mainly dissatisfied with the length of the expenditures certification by
the FLC, which was not a subject of detailed analysis within the evaluation.
13
Final Report
2. Administrative structure
Contribution of the administrative structure to the achievement of Programme goals and the Support of the
Contact Points and Regional Contact Points
To increase the contribution of the administrative structure of the Programme to the achievement of
Programme goals numerous suggestions were given by the respondents, e.g.: expanding the possibilities of
Regional Contact Points and Contact Points in the areas concern promotion and information though
increasing the financing for Regional Contact Points and Contact Points activities, hiring more staff for these
organisations, hiring more international staff for JTS, introducing advance payments system or, providing the
funds for projects pre-financing and capacity building. There is also a need for support in finding partners
and wider promotion of projects results.
Recommendations resulting from the second part of the report
Projects implementation

Creating for a seed money facility that would offer grants for projects preparation up to 50 000
euro;

Including the topics concerning projects logic and long term sustainability of the project results in
the workshops and seminars for potential beneficiaries;

The Beneficiaries must prepare at the preparation stage a risk analysis for the project
implementation period2;
Administrative structure
2

The Contact Points should be strengthened in terms of financial and human resources;

Introducing the system of advance payments;

Data base of projects partners, which participated the Programme should be elaborated. It should
contain information about the willingness to cooperate and the areas of interest. The data base
should also include information about the other organisations which showed interest in the
Programme and / or participated in Programme’s events. The data base should be used in during
trainings and consultations for the potential Beneficiaries as an example how to find partners;

The data base with the information about the completed project should be elaborated and
popularised among the potential beneficiaries of the South Baltic Programme in the next
programming period. The data base should contain information if the beneficiary is willing to
cooperate in the future in implementation of similar projects.
Although the general suggestion is to simplify the rules of participation in the Programme, introducing obligatory risk analysis will have a
positive influence on the projects implementation.
14
Final Report
1. Introduction
1.1. Aim of the report
The aim of the report is to present the results of the evaluation “Effectiveness of the South Baltic Crossborder Co-operation Programme 2007 - 2013; challenges and aims for the Programme for the time period
2014-2020”. The methodology of the research was previously agreed with the Client in the methodological
report. Based on the results of the research the report presents a list of suggestions and recommendation,
which can be used when planning the scope of The South Baltic Programme in the future programming
period.
1.2. Structure of the report
The report consists of four main chapters. The first chapter is of introductory character and presents the
aims of the report. The second chapter refers to the general information about the research. This includes
the context of the research - basic information about The South Baltic Programme and the aims of the
evaluation. The third part of the report presents the results of the research. It is divided into two main parts:

Part I - The level of achievement of Programme objectives provided in the Operational Programme
and the future shape of the Programme in the period 2014-2020

Part II - Effectiveness of the projects implementing system that is defined within the Programme
documents
The last chapter of the report focuses on the recommendations resulting from the conducted research. In
the appendix 1 are the case studies of selected projects. The detailed description of the methodology
adopted in the evaluation can be found in appendix 2.
15
Final Report
16
Final Report
2. General information about the research
2.1. Context of the research
The main objective of the South Baltic Programme is to strengthen the sustainable development of the
South Baltic region through joint actions which increase the competitiveness and enhance integration
among people and institutions. This objective is implemented through two priority axes:
I.
Economic competitiveness, and
II.
Attractiveness and common identity.
The first axis focuses on actions promoting integration of economic and labour markets in the area, cooperation in technical and higher education, transfer of knowledge and know-how between public and
private actors, and better transport connectivity. The second axis comprises actions connected with
management of environmental threats, promotion of sustainable economic use of natural resources and
cultural heritage with particular attention to tourism, development of renewable energy sources and energy
saving, as well as local initiatives supporting people-to-people contacts.
Within both priority axes financial support can be acquired by beneficiaries from Denmark, Germany,
Lithuania, Sweden and Poland (table 1), as it shown on the map below (fig. 1).
Fig.1.Eligible area of the South Baltic Programme
Source: South Baltic Programme
17
Final Report
Table 1.Eligiblearea of the South Baltic Programme
Country
Regions supported within the Programme
Poland
szczeciński, koszaliński, słupski, gdański, Gdańsk – Gdynia – Sopot, elbląski (adjacent area)
Sweden
Kalmar, Blekinge, Skane, Kronoberg (adjacent area)
Denmark
Bornholm, East Zealand and West / South Zealand (adjacent area)
Lithuania
Klaipeda; Taurage and Telsiai (adjacent areas)
Germany
Bad Doberan, Greifswald, Kreisfreie Stadt, Nordvorpommern, Nordwestmecklenburg,
Ostvorpommern, Rostock, Kreisfreie Stadt, Rügen, Stralsund, Kreisfreie Stadt, Uecker-Randow,
Wismar, KreisfreieStadt
According to the Programme Manual, the Lead Beneficiary in the South Baltic Programme must be either: a
national (governmental), regional or local authority or their association, or an institution that will need to
provide evidence that:

it is established under public or private law for the specific purpose of meeting needs in the general
interest, not having an industrial or commercial character,

it has legal personality,

and it is financed, for the most part, by the State, regional or local authorities, or other bodies
governed by public law; or it is subject to management supervision by those bodies; or having an
administrative, managerial or supervisory board, more than half of whose members are appointed
by the State, regional or local authorities, or by other bodies governed by public law3.
Project partners must in turn fulfil the first two of the above listed criteria.
The project applications are submitted by a Lead Beneficiary in cooperation with project partners. Each
application has to undergo a two-stage assessment. First stage of the assessment covers the formal issues.
The second stage focuses on strategic and operational features of a project (quality assessment). The
assessment is conducted in a 4-point scale and covers following issues:
1. Contribution to the Programme Measures and regional strategic plans;
2. Relevance of the subject tackled and adequateness of the work plan;
3. Innovativeness of the project approach and methodology;
4. Impact on the socio-economic development of the eligible area;
5. Cross-border impact;
6. Scope and strength of project partnership;
7. Impact on the situation of the target group;
8. Dissemination of project results;
9. Durability of the project results;
10. Contribution to the EU Baltic Sea Region Strategy and its Action Plan;
11. Contribution to the renewed Lisbon Strategy and the Gothenburg Strategy;
12. Compliance with horizontal policies (equal opportunities, impact on the environment, information
society);
13. Project management capacity and capacities to implement the project;
3
Programme Manual p.35
18
Final Report
14. Budget quality.
In the last eight calls for proposals 64 projects were chosen, and 63 are currently implemented4 by 760
Partners (incl. the Lead Beneficiaries). Out of this group 15 projects were finished. Table 2. presents the
number of projects implemented within each of the Programme priority axes and measures.
Table 2. Number of projects supported in each of the Programme priority axis and measures
Number of
Activity
projects (Calls
I-VIII)
Number of implementing
institutions
I Economic competitiveness
1.1 Entrepreneurial development
8
101
1.2. Integration of higher education and labour markets
7
82
1.3.Transport accessibility
6
98
II Attractiveness and common identity
2.1 Management of the Baltic Sea environment
10
125
2.2 Energy saving and renewable energy
6
75
2.3 Sustainable use of natural and cultural heritage for regional
10
127
16
152
63
760
development
2.4 Local community initiatives
Total
The Managing Authority is responsible for implementation of the Programme. This function belongs to the
Polish Ministry of Regional Development, Territorial Cooperation Department. The Managing Authority has
asked the Joint Technical Secretariat to do the day-to-day management of the implementation of the
Programme. The Certifying Authority Department within the Ministry of Regional Development is
responsible for financial certification. The function of the Audit Authority belongs to the Polish Ministry of
Finance.
The Joint Technical Secretariat is located in Gdańsk. There are Contact Points in the region from the eligible
area. The Monitoring Committee and Steering Committee were established according to the European
Union rules of programmes implementation. The Monitoring Committee consists of representatives of the
involved Member States and monitors the implementation of the Programme. The Steering Committee
consists of representatives of the participating countries and selects and monitors the operations.
2.2. Aims of the research
Based on the Terms of Reference, the main objective of the evaluation is to assess the implementation and
achievements of the South Baltic Programme. Two detailed objectives of the research were formulated as
follows:
1. To assess the level of achievement of Programme objectives provided in the Operational Programme and
the future shape of the Programme in the period 2014-2020.
2. To assess effectiveness of the projects implementing system that is defined within the Programme
documents.
4
One project - - WINDUP was first chosen in the IV call but one partner withdrawn and the contract was cancelled. The project was accepted
in the VII, when a new partner was found.
19
Final Report
20
Final Report
3. Results of the evaluation
3.1. Part I - The level of achievement of Programme objectives
provided in the Operational Programme and the future shape of
the Programme in the period 2014-2020
3.1.1. Objectives, products and results
This subchapter analyses the present and future effects of the South Baltic Programme. First the
achievement of the results on the Programme level is analysed. In the second part of the chapter the project
results are analysed divided into priorities and measures. Detailed description of the results of chosen
projects can be found in the case studies. Following research questions are answered in the chapter:
 To what extent have the objectives of the Programme been achieved (bearing in mind specified
indicators)?
 What are the results of projects completed and what are the anticipated results of undergoing
projects (divided into priorities and measures), especially in the following areas:
- entrepreneurship development
- high education and labour market integration
- improvement of transport accessibility
- environment management in the Baltic Sea Area
- renewable energy development and energy saving activities
- sustainable use of natural resources and cultural heritage in the regional development
- local societies initiatives development
 Are the projects implemented within the South Baltic Programme complementary to each other and
are they complementary to projects realised within other programmes implemented in the South
Baltic region? If, yes, how does it influence the results of the projects?
To what extent have the objectives of the Programme been achieved? (bearing in mind specified
indicators)?
The analysis done in this subchapter is based on Annual Implementation Report for 2011, the application
forms for the projects approved in the 8th call and the list of projects submitted in the 9th call.
The main objective of the South Baltic Programme is to strengthen the sustainable development of the
South Baltic region through joint actions which increase the competitiveness and enhance integration
among people and institutions. The achievement of this objective is measured trough the result indicators.
For each of the priority axes both universal as well as specific results were defined. The results indicators on
the Programme level refer to the number of projects of meeting a certain criteria.
The level of result indicators achievement of the Programme level is one of the subjects presented in the
Annual Implementation Report. The table 3. below in columns no. 2-4 presents the achievement of result
indicators till the end of 2011. There are six indicators with 0% level of achievement. In other cases the level
of achievement differs between 7% and 47%.
21
Final Report
In the annual report there is also an estimation of the indicators achievement level, taking into account all
approved projects (calls no. 1 –7)5. From this point of view the overall level of target values achievement is
estimated 92%. In case of six indicators the target value has already been reached. In the other six cases it
differs between 50 and 90 %. The lowest achievement values refer to following indicators (for the Priority
axis I):



Number of projects with politically welcomed and promoted results (67%);
Number of projects unlocking public and private investments (57%);
Number of projects strengthening liaisons between higher education and labour market institutions
of the south Baltic regions (50%).
The column 6 presents the estimation of the indicator values taking into account 3 projects, which were
chosen in call no. 8.: HERRING, SBTP and REGFOOD. The information about the assumed values of the
indicators were taken from the application forms. In this estimation the target values will be achieved in
case of 7 indicators.
The 9th call for projects was closed in October 2012. It concerned only the measure 2.4. The 13 projects
which were submitted, requested for 3 191 378,29 euro. The total available founding within this call was
1 300 000 euro. The average requested founding was about 245 500 what means that about 5 project can be
chosen for financing.
Taking into account the projects from the 9th call, it can be assumed that the target value of the indicator
Number of projects with politically welcomed and promoted results will be reached or almost be reached.
The same refers to the indicator Number of projects intensifying intercultural dialogue and better involving
broader public in cross-border activities.
In the announcement for the 9th call of proposals it is stated that for all measures apart from 2.4 there are
no more financial sources available. If this stays unchanged it can be assumed that in the case of 3
indicators the target values won’t be reached. They are:



5
Number of projects with politically welcomed and promoted results (Priority 1) (estimated level of
achievement 67%)
Number of projects unlocking public and private investments (estimated level of achievement
57%)
Number of projects strengthening liaisons between higher education and labour market
institutions of the south Baltic regions (estimated level of achievement 70%)
estimation of the future results of the approved but not yet completed projects
22
Final Report
Table 3.Programme result indicators and their level of achievement (in green: indicators probable to be achieved)
Number of projects creating cross-border networks based on
formal agreements
Priority 1
Number of projects unlocking public and private investments
6.
Planned level of achievement
2012
results
5.
Planned level of achievement
2011 according to Programme
progress report
Number of projects with politically welcomed and promoted
4.
Level of achievement up to 2011
Indicator
3.
Target
2.
Achievement up to 2011
1.
1
15
7%
60%
67%
1
7
14%
214%
243%
0
7
0%
57%
57%
0
7
0%
114%
114%
0
10
0%
50%
70%
1
5
20%
120%
120%
5
30
17%
73%
77%
7
15
47%
280%
287%
0
7
0%
129%
129%
0
10
0%
90%
100%
0
4
0%
125%
125%
3
10
30%
100%
100%
4
20
20%
85%
85%
Number of projects contributing to intensified cross-border
relations between small and medium size enterprises in the
South Baltic area
Number of projects strengthening liaisons between higher
education and labour market institutions of the South Baltic
regions
Number of projects contributing to improved quality and
interoperability of transport connections and services in the
South Baltic area
Number of projects with politically welcomed and promoted
results
Number of projects creating cross-border networks based on
formal agreements
Priority 2
Number of projects unlocking public and private investments
Number of projects improving Institutional capacity in the
management of the Baltic Sea environment
Number of projects increasing commitment to renewable
energy sources and energy saving patterns
Number of projects demonstrating more efficient use of
natural and cultural heritage of the South Baltic area for
regional development
Number of projects intensifying intercultural dialogue and
better involving broader public In cross-border activities
Source: own elaboration based on the Programme progress report 2011
Based on the data presented above and the simulation done for the projects of the 9th call, it shows that
the overall objective of the South Baltic Programme will be achieved. The risk of not achieving target
23
Final Report
values in the case of three indicators does not influence the generally successful implementation of the
Programme. It’s important to stress that in the three mentioned above cases the indicators will be for sure
achieved in more than 50%, which is a positive result. Their achievement is still possible if next calls for
projects from the priority axis 1 will be opened. If so, the next call should be first of all opened for projects
concerning measure 1.2 Integration of the higher education and labour market.
In some thematic areas the implementation of the Programme was even more effective than expected.
The Programme contributes very strong to the creation of cross border networks (the corresponding
indicator achieved in over 240%), when undertaking joint actions was one of the most important aspects the
Programme objective. The Programme is particularly successful in strengthening cross-border cooperation
between the SME’s (over 100% of the indicators target value).
Sustainable development is particularly specified in the Programme’s objective and sustainability should be a
characteristic of all actions undertaken within the Programme. From this point of view is also important to
stress that the indicators concerning renewable energy, energy saving patters and efficient use of natural
resources will be achieved.
What are the results of projects completed and what are the anticipated results of undergoing projects?
The answer to the research question was divided into tree thematic areas: A) Outputs and results of all
approved projects, B) Outputs and results of the completed projects, C) Assessment of the outputs and results
in the opinion of the potential recipients of projects effects.
A) Outputs and results of all approved projects
The information presented in this subchapter is based on the results of the individual telephone interviews
with Lead Beneficiaries and Programme partners. During the interviews the Lead Beneficiaries and Project
Partners were asked to indicate the outputs and results which were or will be achieved in their projects. Also
their opinion about the most important outputs and results was gathered. The data is presented for each
Programme country separately, in form of a table and a correspondent description. A detailed description of
the outputs and results of selected projects can be found in appendix 1 in form of case studies.
24
Final Report
Germany
1. Projects outputs
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Cultural events and exhibitions
educational/training curricula,
good practice brochures/handbooks/examples
information portals
GIS systems and ICT tools
databases
planning/decision support tools
branding and marketing concepts/strategies
business plans
local/regional concepts and action plans
thematic expertise reports
feasibility studies
Activity
Table 4. The most common outputs of the projects led by the German
Beneficiaries
Outputs
When it comes to the outputs of the measure
1.1 projects, German respondents showed
mainly business plans that were worked out. In
projects concerning integration of higher
education and labour market (measure 1.2)
education/training curricula are elaborated. On
the field of the transport accessibility (measure
1.3) the most commonly achieved outputs
were local/regional concepts and action plans.
In the projects implemented within the
measure 2.1 Management of the Baltic Sea
Environment new thematic expertise reports
and good practice brochures / handbooks /
examples were developed. The most often
indicated output in measure 2.2 was the
thematic expertise report. GIS systems and ICT
tools are the most common output of the
projects concerning sustainable use of natural
and cultural heritage (measure 2.3). Within the
measure 2.4 Local community initiatives many
cultural events and exhibitions were and will
be organised.
For the German respondents the most important outputs are as follows: handbooks, data bases, best
practice reports, local and regional action plans, marketing concepts.
25
Final Report
2. Projects results
local brand products
tourist products
infrastructure investments
new/ extended intermediary support structures for
SMEs,
pilot investments
technological solutions
investment proposals/concepts
durable education and training programmes/ courses,
new/ extended co-operation networks
political declarations
long-term co-operation agreements
Results
Activity
In the measure 1.1 Entrepreneurial
development - the most often indicated type
of result was investments proposal and
technical
solutions.
Investments
proposals/concepts also resulted from the
projects implemented within the measure
1.3 Transport accessibility. The most
common results of the projects concerning
integration of higher education and labour
market (measure 1.2), local community
initiatives (measure 2.4) and the
management of the Baltic Sea Environment
(measure 2.1) are new/extended cooperation networks. To the results of the
measure 2.1 also belong long term cooperation agreements. In the measure 2.2
Energy saving and the renewable energy the
projects contribute to durable education
and training programmes/courses. The most
common result in the measure 2.3
Sustainable use of natural and cultural
heritage are the touristic products.
Table 5. The most common results of the projects led by the German
Beneficiaries
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
For the German respondents the most important results concerned knowledge, experience exchange and
network creation. Furthermore investments, master and action plans and marketing concepts were also
assessed as important. The beneficiaries mentioned also strengthening the liaisons between higher
education and labour market and new touristic offers.
26
Final Report
Denmark
1. Projects outputs
1.1
1.2
information portals
GIS systresultsems and ICT tools
databases
business plans
feasibility studies
Activity
Table 6. The most common outputs of the projects led by the Danish
Beneficiaries
Outputs
Within the projects implemented by the
Danish beneficiaries concerning integration
of higher education and labour market
(measure 1.2) the most often indicated
output referred to thematic expertise
reports. In the measure 2.1 Management of
the Baltic Sea Environment to the most
common outputs were planning / decision
support tools, databases, GIS systems and
ICT tools and best practice brochures /
handbooks / examples. In project
concerning energy saving and the renewable
energy (measure 2.2) there are many
feasibility studies that were worked out. In
the measure 2.3 Sustainable use of natural
and cultural heritage the information portals
belong to the most common outputs.
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
In the opinion of the Danish respondents the most important outputs are different tools and systems for
decision support.
27
Final Report
2. Projects results
Table 7. The most common results of the projects led by the Danish
Beneficiaries
tourist products
SMEs,
pilot investments
Results
Activity
When it comes to the results, the most
common are long term co-operation
agreements, which prevail in measure 1.2
Integration of higher education and labour
market and 2.3 Sustainable use of natural
and cultural heritage. In measure 1.2 also
new cooperation networks were created
and in 2.3 political declarations worked out.
The projects concerning the management of
the Baltic Sea environment resulted mostly
in new technological solutions (measure
2.1). On the field of energy saving and the
renewable energy (measure 2.2) new
investments
proposal/concepts
were
prepared.
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
As the most important results the Danish beneficiaries listed cross-border networking and cooperation,
knowledge exchange and new technical solutions.
28
Final Report
Sweden
1. Projects outputs
1.1
1.2
information portals
databases
business plans
feasibility studies
Activity
Table 8. The most common outputs of the projects led by the Swedish
Beneficiaries
Outputs
In the projects implemented within the 1.1
measure led by the Swedish beneficiaries
the most common output are the business
plans. Thematic expert reports prevail in the
outputs achieved in the projects concerning
management of the Baltic Sea environment
(measures 2.1) and energy saving and the
renewable energy (measure 2.2). In the
projects from the measure 2.2 also planning
and support tools are created. The most
common outputs in the
projects
implemented within the measure 2.4 Local
community initiatives are good practice
brochures / handbooks / examples and
feasibility studies.
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
In the opinion of the Swedish projects’ leaders the most important outputs are feasibility studies, good
practice brochures, planning/decision support tools and local actions plans.
29
Final Report
2. Projects results
Table 9. The most common results of the projects led by the Swedish
Beneficiaries
tourist products
SMEs,
pilot investments
Results
Activity
In the projects led by Swedish organisations
concerning the development of enterprises
(measure 1.1) the most common result was
creation new long term agreements. Similar
situation was in the case of projects
implemented within the measure 2.4.
agreements concerning cooperation are the
most common result. Within the projects
concerning energy saving and the renewable
energy (measure 2.2) there are new
infrastructure investments planed. The
projects implemented within the measure
2.1 Management of the Baltic Sea
Environment have in many cases technical
character. Their most common result are
technological solutions.
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
When asked which of the achieved or potential results are the most important the Swedish beneficiaries
indicate first of all the cross-border aspect in form of networks, knowledge and know-how exchange, cultural
exchange. Important is also the gained acceptance of local communities, what makes the continuation of
some projects possible.
30
Final Report
Poland
1. Projects outputs
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
information portals
databases
business plans
feasibility studies
Activity
Table 10. The most common outputs of the projects led by the Polish
Beneficiaries
Outputs
In the case of the projects led by Polish
organizations, in measures: 1.2 Integration
of higher education and labour market, 2.1
Management of the Baltic Sea environment
and 2.3 Sustainable use of natural and
cultural heritage the most common outputs
were thematic expertise reports. In the
measure 1.2 also information portals and
educational and training curricula were
worked out. In the measure 2.1 also
information portals and good practice
brochures / handbooks / examples were
created.
The
projects
concerning
entrepreneurial development (measure 1.1)
focused on branding and marketing
concepts / strategies. Within the measure
2.4 Local community initiatives cultural
events and exhibitions were organized.
2.3
2.4
When it comes to the most important outputs indicated by the Polish Beneficiaries they could be divided
into two groups. In the first one the educational and training programs will be included. They strengthen the
integration and knowledge exchange. Second group are market analyses, which identify the most promising
areas and new technologies.
31
Final Report
2. Projects results
Table 11. The most common results of the projects led by the Polish
Beneficiaries
tourist products
SMEs,
pilot investments
Results
Activity
In measures 1.2 Integration of higher
education and labour market, 2.4 Local
community initiatives the most common
results were the new new/extended cooperation networks. In the projects realized
within the measure 1.1 Entrepreneurial
development new/extended co-operation
networks and new/extended intermediary
support structures for SMEs were created.
The most common results in the measure
Environment were differentiated and
included: political declarations, long-term
operation agreements, durable education
and training programmes / courses and new
investment proposals / concepts. Projects
from the measure 2.3 Sustainable use of
natural and cultural heritage focused on
touristic products.
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
The Polish Beneficiaries indicated the cooperation networks, promotion of the region and knowledge
exchange between specialists in different fields as most important results.
32
Final Report
Lithuania
1. Project outputs
information portals
databases
business plans
feasibility studies
Activity
Table 12. The most common outputs of the projects led by the Lithuanian
Beneficiaries
Outputs
In the projects implemented by the
Lithuanian
leaders,
concerning
entrepreneurial development (measure 1.1)
the most common output were branding
and marketing conceptions/strategies.
Projects concerning management of the
Baltic Sea Environment (measure 2.1)
focused on educational / training curricula.
In the projects from the measure 2.3
heritage the most common type of outputs
were GIS systems and ICT tools.
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
As the most important outputs the Lithuanian respondents indicated good practice books, databases, GIS
systems and feasibility studies.
33
Final Report
2. Projects results
Table 13. The most common results of the projects led by the Lithuanian
Beneficiaries
tourist products
SMEs,
pilot investments
Results
Activity
When it comes to projects’ results, in the
projects
from
the
measure
1.1
Entrepreneurial development these are
mainly technological solutions. In the
projects concerning management of the
Baltic Sea environment (measure 2.1) the
most common results concern long-term cooperation agreements. In the measure 2.3
heritage the projects result mainly in tourist
products.
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
The Lithuanian respondents indicated: stakeholder agreements, investment proposals and technological
solutions as the most important results.
Summary
The information about the most common outputs and results was summarized in the tables 14 and 15. For
every measure the most common outputs and results were indicated. In this way some measure specific
outputs and results were identified.
The projects from the measure 1.1 Entrepreneurial development focused on branding and marketing
conceptions/strategies and business plans. Their most common results are technological solutions.
The projects from the measure 1.2 Integration of higher education and labour market focused on
educational / training curricula and preparation of the thematic expertise reports. As a result new /
extended co-operation networks were created.
The projects from the measure 1.3 Transport accessibility focused on local/regional concepts and action
plans, which resulted in investments proposals/concepts.
The projects from the measure 2.1 Management of the Baltic Sea Environment focused on thematic
expertise reports and elaboration of good practice brochures / handbooks / examples. They resulted in
technical solutions and long-term co-operation agreements.
34
Final Report
The projects from the measure 2.2 Energy saving and the renewable energy focused on thematic expertise
reports. The most common results were investments proposals / concepts.
The projects from the measure 2.3 Sustainable use of natural and cultural heritage focused on GIS systems
and ICT tools. The most common results were tourist products.
The projects from the measure 2.4 Local community initiatives focused on cultural events and exhibitions.
The most common results were new / extended co-operation networks.
Cultural events and
exhibitions
information portal
feasibility studies
thematic expertise
reports
good practice
brochures/handbooks/
examples
cultural events and
exhibitions
Planning/decision
support tools,
databases
local/regional concepts
and action plans
business plans
educational/training
curricula
GIS systems and ICT
tools
branding and marketing
conceptions/strategies
Table 14. Most common outputs in the Programme’s measures
1.2 Integration of higher education
and labour market
1.3 Transport accessibility
Environment
2.2 Energy saving and the
renewable energy
2.3 Sustainable use of natural and
cultural heritage
Source: own elaboration
new/extended
intermediary support
structures for SMEs
political declaration
durable education
and training
programmes/courses
investments
proposals/concepts
new/extended cooperation networks
tourist products
long-term cooperation agreements
technological
solutions
Table 15. Most common results in the Programme’s measures
1.1 Enterpreneurial development
1.2 Integration of higher education
and labour market
Environment
2.2 Energy saving and the
renewable energy
2.3 Sustainable use of natural and
cultural heritage
35
Final Report
Conclusions
When it comes to Programme outputs they are much differentiated. Each of the outputs was indicated in at
least one Programme country as the most common one. The most focused and specific outputs were
observed in the measure 1.1 Entrepreneurial development. These are: branding and marketing strategies and
business plans - types of outputs that are typical for activities connected with support to SME’s. The most
differentiated outputs were observed in the measure 2.1 Management of the Baltic Sea Environment. Taking
into account all Programme measures, the most common outputs are thematic expertise reports. This
indicates that in the projects implemented in the current Programme an extensive know-how was built
which could and should be further used in the future projects.
The results of the Programme are less differentiated than the outputs. There are three types of results: pilot
investments, infrastructural investments and local brand products which were not identified in any country
as the most common. Looking on all measures the most common results are long term cooperation
agreements and new extended cooperation networks. It indicates the “soft” rather than infrastructural
character of the Programme. The partnerships and cooperation built within the projects are also a valuable
asset for the future projects and will facilitate the future partnerships.
Summarising the analysis of Programme outputs and results, it can be stated that to a significant extent the
future South Baltic Programme should build on the current Programme, both when it comes to the
substantive issues and projects implementation schemes (partnerships).
B) Outputs and results of the completed projects
Apart from the analysis of the outputs and results of all approved projects, special attention was paid to the
results of the already completed undertakings. The analysis was based on the end reports section concerning
the projects indicators.
There are 15 finished projects in the Programme. The results achieved by the finished projects were
analysed based on the final reports (see table 16). In total 11 reports were analysed, because for the other
projects the end reports were not yet available. In the analyses the universal (applicable for projects from all
measures) and measure specific results were taken into account. In the case of two out of 11 projects no
universal indicators were mentioned in the final reports. The values of the measure specific results were
available for only one project (CBP). This results from the fact, that for the projects chosen in the 1st call the
universal and measure specific indicators were not obligatory. For this group of projects it was analysed if
their indicators can be possibly translated into the obligatory ones. Other values of the additional result
indicators were not analysed. Their facultative character results in a great differentiation of
chosen indicators, what makes the aggregation almost impossible. For the next programming
period clear definition of more detailed but closed list of outputs and results indicators which
will make the aggregation possible.
R
Based on the information sources described above, it can be stated that to the greatest extent the finished
projects contribute to creating cross-border networks based on formal agreements [CBP, YC3, Violence Free,
SB VALOR, EduPEOPLE, Oversize]. The highest value of this indicator was achieved in the CBP project. It can
be assumed that also the projects Seaside and Four Corners contribute to this indicator but don’t directly
mention this indicator.
Political agreements resulting from project activities to be signed within the project lifetime resulted from
the implementation of 4 projects [YC3, UNITED, Violence Free, EduPEOPLE], especially from the UNITED
36
Final Report
project. Also in the Four Corners project a political agreement was achieved but not indicated as a universal
result.
The indicator referring to the number of investments realized with Programme’s funding within the project
lifetime was reported in two projects [EduPeople, Oversize], but the EduPeople project didn’t archive the
target value. Investments were also implemented within the projects Baltic Museums 2.0 and Four Corners
but not indicated as universal results.
Also, two of the 11 analysed projects reported the value of the indicator concerning number of organizations
involved in new / upgraded cross-border networks based on formal agreements [CBP, EduPeople]. Within the
CBP6 project 51 organizations were involved in the cross-border network. It can be also assumed that in the
projects Seaside, FourCorner there were organizations involved in the networks as in these projects
networks were created.
The results indicators concerning: number of local institutions (e.g. local authorities, NGOs) involved in
intensified intercultural dialogue, number of people involved in intensified intercultural dialog and number
of people from the general public involved in cross-border activities were reported only in one the CBP
project.
None of the finished projects reported the values of the indicators: amount [EUR] of public investments
unlocked but not realized with Programme’s funding and number of new concepts and solutions for more
efficient use of natural and cultural heritage for regional development in the South Baltic area.
CBP
8
Yc3
1
51
35
50
Number of people from the general
public involved in cross-border
activities
in
Number of people involved
intensified intercultural dialogue
Number of local institutions (e.g. local
authorities, NGOs) involved in
intensified intercultural dialogue
Number of new concepts and solutions
for more efficient use of natural and
cultural
heritage
for
regional
development in the South Baltic area
Amount [EUR] of public investments
unlocked but not realised with
Programme’s funding
Amount [EUR] of investments realised
with Programme’s funding within the
project lifetime
Number of political agreements
resulting from project activities to be
signed within the project lifetime
Number of organisations involved in
new / upgraded cross-border networks
based on formal agreements
Project acronym
Number of created cross-border
networks based on formal agreements
Table 16. Results of the finished projects
159
1
UNITED
13
Violence Free
1
SB VALOR
1
1
Seaside
EduPEOPLE
1
Oversize
1
7
1
26033,27
17985,4
Baltic Museums 2.0
6
Capacity Building Project was aimed to help potential beneficiaries of the Programme in the preparation and implementation of crossborder projects. Within the CBP training on project development, cross-border workshops and individual project consultations for the
potential beneficiaries were provided.
37
Final Report
Four Corners
Sum
13
58
16
44018,67
35
50
159
Source: own elaboration based on the projects’ end reports
Projects in which the indicator wasn’t mentioned directly
C) Assessment of the outputs and results in the opinion of the potential recipients of projects effects
In the evaluation the satisfaction level of the potential recipients of projects effects was investigated. It was
done in form of crowdsourcing. An invitation to fill a web based form and express option on a forum was
circulated among the potential recipients of projects indicated by the Lead Beneficiaries and Projects Partners
in the IDI interviews. The form was elaborated based on the information about the currently implemented
projects. Types of activities and thematic groups were differentiated based on the review of the projects.
Most of the potential recipients of project effects are satisfied with the projects results. They underline that
the intercultural dialogue was intensified and the possibilities of creating co-operation networks increased.
More effective ways of working and thinking were worked out. However they also indicated that sometimes
the positive results of the projects are not continued. For example the feasibility studies should be used in
further investment projects.
The potential recipients of projects effects were also asked to indicate which of the current projects’ effect
are the most useful for them. The effects were defined trough types of activities and thematic groups. The
list of activities included in the research is presented in the table 17.
Table 17. Activities included in the research
No.
Name of activity
1
intensifying cross-border cooperation, integration
2
knowledge exchange networks
3
information platforms, information systems
4
collecting data about the region
5
new management concepts , market models
6
strategies, development studies
7
education, workshops, trainings, working out new forms of education, study visits
8
best practices, guidebooks, handbooks
9
new technologies (implementation)
10
new technologies (working out)
11
environmental friendly technologies
12
proposals for changes in legal and strategic documents or working out new strategic documents
13
feasibility studies
14
investment proposals
15
pilot investments
16
modernization of existing infrastructure
17
promotion, promotional events, conferences
38
Final Report
Fig. 2 presents the frequency of activities being chosen by the respondents7. The top-rated (assessed as the
most important) activity was intensifying cross-border cooperation, integration, which reached 87 points.
Only a little bit less important for recipients of project effect were knowledge exchange networks (83 points).
Activities connected with promotion, promotional events, conferences reached 73 points.
87
83
73
67
56
57
54
points
47
53
42
40
41
40
40
35
27
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
activity number
Fig. 2. Sum of points ascribed to the activities
The thematic groups differentiated in the crowdsourcing referred to: spatial planning, urban development,
land management, renewable energy sources, heating systems, energy – general, sustainable transport,
transport – general, protection of environment, tourism, culture, cultural heritage, SME support, higher
education, labour market. The sum of the points attributed by respondents to thematic groups of activities is
presented on the fig. 3.
106
102
85
79
72
points
63
31
36
61
56
55
39
35
27
23
labour market
higher education
SME support
cultural heritage
culture
tourism
protection of environment
transport - general
sustainable transport
energy - general
heating systems
renewable energy sources
land management
urban development
spatial planning
Fig.3. Sum of points ascribed to the thematic groups
Based on data from the fig.3 some the most important groups of activities can be distinguished. The toprated group was sustainable transport, which achieved 106 points. The second most important group was
7
Should be understood as the type of activity undertaken in the currently implemented projects which is the most important in the opinion of
the respondents.
39
Final Report
higher education with 102 points. In the opinion of the respondents little less important are projects’ effects
concerning renewable energy sources (85 points), tourism (79 points) and protection of environment
activities (72 points).
Taking into account both the type of activity and the thematic group the most important types of projects’
effect are (table 18):
 Intensifying cross-border cooperation, integration activities in the thematic fields of: sustainable
transport, protection of environment, higher education, tourism and culture;
 Knowledge exchange networks in the thematic fields of higher education, renewable energy sources,
sustainable transport, tourism and culture;
 Education, workshops, trainings, working out new forms of education, study visits in the thematic field
of higher education;
 Environmental friendly technologies, in the thematic field of transport topic;
 Promotion, promotional events, conferences in the thematic field of culture and high education.
40
Final Report
new management concepts , market models
education, workshops, trainings, working out new forms of
education, study visits
best practices, guidebooks, handbooks
feasibility studies
pilot investments
promotion, promotional events, conferences
sum
3
1
1
5
3
3
0
0
1
3
1
1
0
2
2
31
urban
development
4
3
2
0
1
3
3
4
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
36
land
management
2
3
2
1
2
3
3
2
1
1
2
1
2
0
0
0
2
27
renewable
energy sources
7
8
5
4
4
4
7
7
5
6
7
1
4
4
4
2
6
85
heating systems
3
3
2
1
2
1
3
3
2
1
4
0
2
2
2
1
3
35
energy - general
5
6
5
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
5
1
1
2
3
2
5
55
sustainable
transport
9
8
6
5
6
7
7
5
6
7
8
3
6
5
5
6
7
106
transport general
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
2
23
protection of
environment
9
6
6
2
3
4
4
5
4
4
6
1
4
3
4
1
6
72
tourism
8
8
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
1
4
4
5
2
7
79
culture
8
8
4
3
2
3
7
6
1
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
8
56
cultural heritage
6
6
2
2
3
4
4
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
6
39
SME support
7
6
3
3
5
3
4
3
4
3
4
2
3
2
3
3
5
63
higher education
9
9
7
5
6
5
8
6
6
6
6
3
5
5
5
3
8
102
labour market
6
6
3
3
3
4
5
4
3
3
3
2
4
2
3
2
5
61
Sum
88
84
57
40
48
55
68
58
42
41
54
19
40
35
40
27
74
870
modernisation of existing infrastructure
2
proposals for changes in legal and strategic documents or
working out new strategic documents
information platforms, information systems
3
spatial planning
intensifying cross-border cooperation, integration
Table 18. Results of the crowdsourcing
41
Final Report
Are the projects implemented within the South Baltic Programme complementary to each other and are
they complementary to projects realised within other programmes implemented in the South Baltic
region? If, yes, how does it influence the results of the projects?
The information about the complementarity of the projects was collected in the desk research, benchmarking
(the South Baltic Programme with other ETC programmes) and during the telephone interviews with the Lead
Beneficiaries and Project Partners.
When it comes to internal complementarity of the projects (with other projects implemented within the
South Baltic Programme), the projects implemented under Measure 1.1. Entrepreneurial development,
demonstrate high complementarity with each other. Most of the projects involve the transfer of knowledge
and sharing of experiences and good practices – complementarity of the undertaken actions. Transfer of
knowledge in the projects is implemented not only through online tools, but also by organizing a number of
meetings, conferences, workshops, and study tours which allow for the establishment of new contacts and
creating space for the exchange of views between the spheres of science, business and local authorities. The
thematic scope of the projects is also complementary.
Projects implemented under Measure 1.2. Integration of higher education and labour market, are also
characterized by complementarity in relation to each other. The projects complement in the range of
activities aimed at the labour market integration with the university community through such activities as
analysing the initial situation and the absorption capacity of the labour market, presenting and promoting an
attractive image of areas which participate in the Program as a potential absorptive labour markets.
Complementarity is reflected in types of undertaken activities - organizing exchanges and study visits,
advancing education, adapting curricula to the needs of the labour market, or organizing a career day – all
this leads to the integration of these two spheres.
As for the projects implemented under Measure 1.3., as in the previous two measures - show a relatively
high level of complementarity of the actions. The projects concern promotion and development of different
modes of transport (ferry, plane, bicycle, public transport), including the improvement of the conditions of
carriage of the existing public transport systems. The overall goal of all projects is the reduction of car traffic
and to convince the public to use more environmentally friendly means of transport.
Also projects implemented under Measure 2.1. are complementary. Resource management in the Baltic Sea
environment in implemented projects is focused not only on the area of the Sea, but also in the areas of
rivers and their estuaries – this reflects the complementarity of territorial cohesion. It is worth noting that all
projects can serve an example of effective use of resources and chain of recycling.
Projects under the Measure 2.2. also exhibit complementarity. Their complementarity is expressed in the
diversity of energy sources used - from the wind, through the use of biogas technology by installing energyefficient light bulbs LED lighting systems in urban areas. The energy sources in the projects differ but the
undertaken actions support increasing the use of energy from renewable sources.
In the Measure 2.3 some of the projects defined their objective as developing new tourism products in
different regions involved in South Baltic Programme, and some are based on existing tourist values and
developing their promotion. All projects are related to the topic of the Baltic Sea and therefore the project
implementers who implement the new products will be able to share the experience and then learn how to
properly promote products, thanks to the previously implemented projects in this thematic area.
Projects under this measure are associated with diverse subjects, they are both events and cultural projects,
information, education and tourism, and aimed at social inclusion of excluded groups. Each of them leads to
a common goal which is to improve the attractiveness of the region by improving the situation of different
42
Final Report
social groups, allowing them to develop in different directions. The package of projects thus leading to social
development of the region, the search for a common identity and increase its attractiveness to both local
residents and tourists.
It is also worth to stress the complementarity between projects undertaken in different measures. Some
projects under Measure 1.1. and 1.2. and research conducted within this framework can provide a
theoretical basis for the implementation of projects related to the development of green energy sources
such as biogas, or Liquid Natural Gas, which are placed in Measures 2.1. and 2.2. Complementary are also
e.g. projects under Measure 1.2 and 2.3. related to the increasing interest of oceanography among young
people. Support was allocated to projects which promote the knowledge gained in this field, both at the
level of the education system and at the level of cultural entertainment, which are the Museum of
Oceanography in the area involved in the South Baltic Programme.
From the interviews with Lead Beneficiaries and Partners it results that about half of them was able to
indicate projects to which their undertakings are complimentary. They could also provide names of the
complimentary projects. However in most cases they were not able to say if there are any additional effects
resulting from the complementarity.
The complementarity of activities was also included in project assessment criteria starting from the 5th call.
In the criterion Contribution to the Programme Priority Axes and regional strategic plans one of the issues
taken into account is the complementarity to other projects implemented within the South Baltic
Programme. This should assure that there is no duplication between projects and that they provide clear
added value for the Programme.
The external complementarity of the projects implemented in the South Baltic Programme was assessed in
reaction to the ETC Programmes taken into account in the benchmarking analysis8 (see. chapter 3.1.3, part
1). In each of the analysed ETC Programmes, initiatives which are complementary to the projects from the
South Baltic Programme were identified. The largest number complimentary connections was identified
between the project from the South Baltic Programme and the Baltic Sea Region Programme – 42 % of all
cases of complementarity. In the second place is the complementarity with the Central Baltic Programme (25
%). The connections with the Cross-border Co-operation Programme Lithuania-Poland and MecklenburgVorpommern/Brandenburg – Zachodniopomorskie Cross-border Cooperation Programme are weaker – 15%
and 19% respectively. Also the average number of complementary connections for each measure within the
South Baltic Programme was analysed. The highest results were obtained for the measures 1.1
Entrepreneurial developments (7,8) and 2.4 Local community initiatives (5,0) and the lowest for the
measures 2.1 Management of the Baltic Sea Environment (3,5) and 2.3 Sustainable use of natural and
cultural heritage (3,5).
Summary
the Programme measures and between projects implemented within different measures and also with
projects implemented within other ETC Programmes. No cases were found in which the content of the
project would duplicate the actions undertaken within other initiative.
8
1) The Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013, 2) European Territorial Co-operation Objective Cross-border Co-operation Programme
Lithuania-Poland 2007-2013, 3) Central Baltic Interreg IVa Programme, 4) Mecklenburg-Vorpommern/Brandenburg – Zachodniopomorskie
Cross-border Cooperation Programme
43
Final Report
44
Final Report
3.1.2. Partnerships
Partnerships are a very important element of the South Baltic Programme. Therefore they are thoroughly
analysed in this subchapter. Also the cooperation with the Associated Organisations (AOs) within the
Programme was taken into account. Following research questions are answered in the chapter:
 Were the partnerships created only for the Programme, or did they exist before?
 How does the cooperation between the partners look like? How does the communication between the
leading beneficiary and project partners look like?
 Did the partners apply for EU funds before (from ETC programmes, INTERREG, Phare)?
 Do the partners intend to continue the cooperation? Do they plan to apply for EU funds together? Do
they plan to cooperate also without support of the EU funds?
 Are the beneficiaries interested in creating new partnerships with institutions from the eligible area with
the financing from the EU funds or other sources?
 What kind of possible facilitations (e.g. new financial instruments) could be introduced to help the
cooperation in partnerships?
 How active are the Associated Organisations – (AOs) in the Programme? What could be improved in this
area? What is the added value of their participation in the Programme, taking into account the example
of the cooperation with Kaliningrad district?
Were the partnerships created only for the Programme, or did they exist before?
The information about the how the partnerships were created were collected during the telephone interviews
with the Lead Beneficiaries and Project Partners. The options of the representatives of the institutions
implementing the Programme were taken into account.
About a half of the respondents confirmed that the partnerships functioning within the South Baltic project
existed before. Sometimes the Lead Beneficiaries were specifically looking for additional partners what
resulted from the specific issue covered by the project. The information about the potential partners was
collected during the programme meeting, obtained from the JTS or found in internet.
Slightly different is the opinion of the representatives of the institutions implementing the Programme. They
assess that the majority of the partnerships was created for the Programme. The fact that one of the most
common request to Contact Points and JST was the help in finding partners can be here meaningful.
Summarising the collected answers it can be stated that a significant number of the partnerships was
created for the needs of the Programme. However this shouldn’t be assessed negative, this taking into
account that the interviewed beneficiaries declared they want to continue the partnerships in the future.
The opportunity to create new cross-border networks and exchange experiences was also in the opinion of
the beneficiaries one of the most important advantages resulting from participation in the Programme.
Because of that the structure of the partnerships (the number of new ones and continued) should be
assessed positive.
45
Final Report
How does the cooperation between the partners look like? How does the communication between the
leading beneficiary and project partners look like? Did the partners apply for EU funds before (from ETC
programmes, INTERREG, Phare)?
The information presented in this subchapter is based on the results of the telephone interviews with the
Lead Beneficiaries and Projects Partners.
The “quality” of the partnerships can be also indirectly assessed by taking into account the division of tasks
between the partners and the effectiveness of the communication. Respondents from all Programme
countries said that they are familiar with the tasks of other partners in the project. The Swedish respondents
declared that all partners were involved in the implementation phase of the project, however, depending on
the type of activity they played a variety of roles at this stage. Only in one single case, not all partners were
involved in the implementation of the project, mainly due to limitations in efficient communication between
these institutions / organizations located in different countries. Effective collaboration also occurred on the
financial field - the partners had their separate budgets and participated in co-financing of the project.
The problems in cooperation between partners at the preparation and implementation stage of Project were
not significant. Some difficulties occurred due to cultural differences and language barriers. In one case, the
problems resulted from the withdrawal the partner from co-operation and internal organizational changes in
institution / organization of the Lead Beneficiary. In most cases, there were some tools used for
communication between the main beneficiary and partners. Methods such as: web-based platform, regular
partnership meetings and meetings of the Steering Committee, E-mail and telephone communications, web
conferencing were mentioned.
As a solution to the problems related to partnerships in the future it was suggested that there is a necessity
of informing partners about the consequences associated with the breaking of the cooperation. According to
the respondents, it is also important that partners have already had some experience with similar projects.
In addition, it is expected that partners will use foreign language.
The Danish participants declared that every partner of the project is involved in the implementation. There
were some problems in communication between partners. They mostly resulted from using different
controlling-process systems and possessing different resources for the Programme.
The cooperation between Lithuanian partners was assessed as good. Every partner knows his responsibilities
which of course are different in every example. There are always some minor problems, like e.g. when a
partner is involved in too many projects, and is overloaded with tasks. The communication between the
leading beneficiary and project partners is based on non-formal rules. Skype and e-mails are most common
tools.
According to the German respondents in their projects each partner knows its responsibilities. There were
no major problems in cooperation, but some respondents said partnership is a dynamic process so small
misunderstandings always occur. Moreover, when partners are gathering for one project there will always
be some cases, when they have different point of view or slightly different goals. The communication
between partners is usually non-formal.
In case of projects led by a Polish organization the division of task depends on the partners’ budget, usually
the tasks are divided equally between all participants. There were some problems in communications
between partners and the most serious problem finished with ending of partnership. Also periodic
conference calls, mails and Skype connections are used. In communication between partners some official
ways are in use. In some projects external companies are hired to control this process, which eases the
partnership and actually saves some time and money.
46
Final Report
Summary
The reported problems in partnership were in most of the cases not significant. This is a positive
occurrence taking into account the previous experience in implementing projects supported from EU funds.
The majority of the Danish and Swedish respondents didn’t apply for EU fund before. Some of the Polish
participant applied for funding. The higher share of the organisations with previous experience in EU-funded
project was among the Lithuanian and German respondents.
Do the partners intend to continue the cooperation? Do they plan to apply for EU funds together? Do they
plan to cooperate also without support from the EU funds?
The observation that the partnerships within the South Baltic Programme function relatively good is
additionally confirmed by the fact that respondents from all analysed countries said that they are planning
to continue the cooperation with the current partners also after the end of the projects. However in the
majority of cases there are no detailed plans of such future cooperation, also no plans about sources of
financing for the partnership.
Also the representatives of the institutions implementing the Programme confirmed that the majority of the
partnerships functions good and the eventual problems result mainly from ineffective communication and
problems with cost-sharing.
Are the beneficiaries interested in creating new partnerships with institutions from the eligible area with
the financing from the EU funds or other sources?
The Beneficiaries of the South Baltic Programme are also interested in continuing current as well as
creating new partnerships. The form and scope of the future Partnerships will depend on the thematic focus
of future projects and the directions of the organisation development. The Lead Beneficiaries from all
countries are interested in being a Lead Beneficiary in the future. However they notice some disadvantages
resulting from acting as a Lead. One of them is the much higher responsibility for the project laying on the
Lead than on the other projects’ partners.
What kind of possible facilitations (e.g. new financial instruments) could be introduced to help the
cooperation in partnerships?
Lead Beneficiaries, Projects Partners and representatives of the institutions implementing the Programme.
Also the findings of the expertise “Challenges and aims for the cross-border cooperation programmes
involving Poland” were taken into account.
According to respondents, there are many possibilities to improve cooperation between the partners in the
projects.
47
Final Report
-
The Beneficiaries
The Swedish organisations underlined that it is important to minimise bureaucracy that deters potential
partners. In the opinion of the participants there should also be a list of recommended partners, with whom
the co-operation takes place without problems. It would be welcomed to increase the budget for travel,
what would allow more frequent meetings of stakeholders. According to the respondents there is also a
need of improvement on the partners’ side. They should have the basic knowledge and be interested in the
project in which they’re involved. Also the knowledge of English should be improved.
In addition, the improvement of information flow within the projects (between partners) is needed in order
to enhance the cooperation between partners in the future (this depend on the qualification of the contact
persons). It is also necessary to have more project meetings, especially at the initial stage of the project.
In the opinion of Danish respondents, it would be helpful for future partnerships to plan the preparation
phase in detail and distribute the tasks and responsibilities in the project. Also the rules of communication
should be more strictly defined. Every partner should have a basic knowledge of the programme rules and
reporting expectations.
When preparing the project, the Lithuanian organisations would like to get information about the partner
from an external source, e.g. institutions implementing the Programme. Additional information about
existing specific rules concerning the scope of partnership, agreements, reimbursement, length of the
project, shared costs, etc. would also be helpful.
For German respondents the most important things that could be changed to facilitate the partnership
would be lowering the administrative burdens and a pre-financing mechanism for financially weaker
partners, so they could help in each part of the process and cooperate till the end of the project. Another
thing mentioned is to provide professional external support for partnerships especially at the beginning of
the programme, concerning effective cooperation.
The most common suggestion indicated by Polish respondents was to simplify the rules of participating in
the Programme. That would make the project implementation clearer and understandable at every stage of
the operation. The participants also expect that the Programme institutions will provide more information
about the Programme to potential partners. Meetings for partners (organized by Programme institutions) to
assure that all partners know the rules of the Programme would also be helpful.
-
The representatives of the institutions implementing the Programme
The representatives of the institutions implementing the Programme draw attention to the
problem of participation of the NGOs in the Programme. They should have the possibility to
become a lead beneficiary of a project.9 – what requires changes in rules of participation in the
Programme. Moreover the measure 2.4 is especially dedicated to small projects implemented by
NGOs but the budget of min. 50.000 EUR for the project is too high for NGOs from rural areas.
They cannot be treated equally with large institutions – the rules need to be adapted to their small
structure. They should also be able to get seed money in the project’s preparation phase. A positive
influence on the participation of the NGOs in the Programme could have their stronger engagement on the
Programme planning stage. Inviting them to Programme’s consultation would encourage them to future
participation in the Programme.
R
9
Not all NGO are bodies governed by public law. Especially the following condition is not fulfilled by many NGO: organization which is it is
financed, for the most part, by the State, regional or local authorities, or other bodies governed by public law; or subject to management
supervision by those bodies; or having an administrative, managerial or supervisory board, more than half of whose members are appointed by
the State, regional or local authorities, or by other bodies governed by public law. (Programme manual p. 35).
48
Final Report
It must be mentioned that in general the opinions about the participation of the private sector in the
Programme are differentiated. Some respondents indicate that the Programme should not include private
sector at all, some of them indicate that participation of the private sector will be crucial in phase of
clustering process. Especially the participation of the Russian SMEs is seen as potentially important. Private
sector is also needed in infrastructural and technical projects. The benefits resulting from the potential
participation of the private firms in the Programme were also underlined in the expertise “Challenges and
aims for the cross-border cooperation programmes involving Poland”. It would contribute to
innovation spread and will result in reinforcement of development processes in the regions. In the
opinion of the evaluator as a first step in including the private firms in the Programme the
possibilities of PPP should be previewed.
R
In the interviews with the representatives of the institutions implementing the Programme the problem of
current territorial imbalance between the partners was discussed. The conclusion was that the Programme
itself can influence the willingness to participate to a very limited level. A positive influence was probably
achieved through creation of a Contact Point in every Programme region10 (except for Lithuania).
Summary
As the possible facilitation which could be introduced to help the cooperation in the partnerships the
beneficiaries mentioned simplifying the rules of partners’ participation in the Programme. Also changes in
the project pre-financing would be desirable, so that more support for financially weaker partners would be
possible. An important issue refers to the possibilities for the NGOs to become Lead Beneficiaries. In the
current shape of the Programme only some of them fulfil the respective requirements to be a leader.
How active are the Associated Organisations – (AOs) in the Programme? What could be improved in this
area? What is the added value of their participation in the Programme, taking into account the example of
the cooperation with Kaliningrad district?
A) The participation of the Associated Organisations (in general)
The analysis of the role of the AOs in the Programme was done based on three main information sources.
First of them was the desk research in which all application forms were analysed. The AOs taking part in the
Programme were classified using two criteria: type of organisation and role in the project. Additionally the
information about the AOs role in the projects was also collected during the interviews with the Lead
Beneficiaries and Partners.
-
Results of the desk research
The Associated Organisations are participating in 80% of the implemented projects. Only in case of 13
projects there is no cooperation with any AOs. In general, there are 347 AOs taking part in the Programme.
Almost 18% of them are country administration institutions, over 14% private firms and 13% local
government units. Strongly represented are also schools and colleges – 9% and promotional organisations –
9% (see fig. 4).On the other end of the scale (in minority) are such types of institutions as bank / financial
institutions, church, entrepreneurs associations, public persons and other organisations implementing
projects outside of EU.
10
At the initial stage of Programme implementation there was no official Contact Points in the regions of Zealand and Kronoberg.
49
Final Report
17,9
14,5
12,9
9,0 8,7
4,5
Fig. 4. Types of institutions taking part in the South Baltic Programme as AOs
Source: own elaboration based on the projects’ application forms
organisations aside from EU
public persons
entrepreneurship associations
church
banks / financial institutions
0,8 0,5 0,5 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,3
disabled people's associations
scientific institutions
labour market organisations
sport organisations
cultural organisations
scientific organisations
educational organisations
consultancy organisation s
cultural institutions
touristic organisations
entrepreneurship support …
other organisations
promotional organisations
schools and colleges
local government units
private firms
country administration
2,6 2,4 2,1 2,1
1,8 1,8 1,8 1,6
artistic organisations
5,8
hospitals and social care
7,1
11
The table 19 presents the classifications of the AOs’ role in the projects. There are 6 main categories:
support (general), project implementation, promotion and dissemination, providing own resources and
other activities.
Table 19. Functions of the AOs in the projects implemented within the South Baltic Programme
Group of
Type of activity
project
implementation
(in general)
support (general)
activities
11
No.
know-how, knowledge exchange, advice
1.1
technical support
1.2
political backup
1.3
local/ regional anchoring
1.4
umbrella organization, networking, clustering
1.5
other forms of support
1.6
preparing analyses incl. market analysis
2.1
concept work, ideas
2.2
organisation/participation in project's meetings, discussions
2.3
testing, pilot activities
2.4
monitoring
2.5
evaluation
2.6
Scientific institution- entity of a public character continuously conducting research or development studies
Scientific organization – entity acting on the field of science and research other than a scientific institution
Cultural institution
- entity of the public character involved in the dissemination of culture, can be both state and local government
Cultural organization – entity acting on the field of culture, other than a cultural institution
50
other
activities
providing own
resources
promotion,
dissemination
help with
documentation,
procedures etc.
Final Report
discussion on ideas, plans for future
2.7
help with public procurement
3.1
obtaining permits, administrative decisions
3.2
compliance with standards
3.3
information about law conditions
3.4
feasibility study
3.5
promotion in general
4.1
hosting project's homepage, information on the home page
4.2
preparation of promotion materials, distribution
4.3
technical solutions, models
5.1
regional data (incl. business content)
5.2
land
5.3
hosting events
5.4
Hosting project’s participants exchange (students, teachers etc.)
5.5
covering cost of transport
5.6
taking part in trainings
6.1
recruitment of projects participants, external experts
6.2
The fig. 5 presents in which types of activities the Associated Organisations are mostly active and which type
their function in the project occurs rarely.
% 24,3
18,9
12,5
8,5
4,9
3,6 3,2
2,0
0,4
2,1 2,2 1,6
1,2
0,6 1,1
2,1
1,4
0,1
0,5 0,6 0,4
0,9 0,6
1,1 0,9
0,5
0,1
1,8
2,3
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 6.1 6.2
Fig.5. Types of the activities undertaken by the Associated Organisations in the projects within the South Baltic Programme [%].
Source: own elaboration based on projects’ application forms
The typical activity of the AOs in the projects is the (1.1) know-how, knowledge exchange, advice (24,3%
of the declared activities), (4.1) promotion in general (18,9%) and (2.3) organisation/participation in
51
Final Report
project's meetings, discussions (12,5%). It should be stressed that the functions listed above have very wide
meaning and can be understood differently. These functions can reflect both strong commitment for the
project as wells as week connection with the project, what results from the general character of those
statements. Taking in to account the descriptions included in the application forms is hard assess the actual
level of AOs commitment to the projects implementation.
The next group of AOs activities in the project are much more specific. About 8% of AOs role in the project
requires submission of regional data (including business content) (8,5%). Sometimes they also provide own
technical solutions and models that are implemented in the projects (4,5%).
Taking into account both classifications (type of organisation and its role in the project) following
characteristic combinations can be distinguished:
- 1.1 Know-how, knowledge exchange, advice
Private firms which are strongly represented within the AOs contribute to a significant extent to the (1.1)
know-how, knowledge exchange, advice. From all activities in this group 18% is implemented by the private
firms. Another 11% is done by schools and colleges, 10% by other types of organisations and 10% by local
government units.
-
4.1 Promotion in general
This role is performed by all the types of organisations but to a different extent. The most active on this field
are the local government units – they undertake 15% of the promotional activities. Second group are
promotional organisations (13%), and next private firms, schools and colleges (9% each).
-
2.3 Organisation/participation in project meetings, discussions
Almost all types of AOs declare organisation and /or participation in project meeting and discussions about
the projects. The most active on this field were the local government units (14%).
-
5.2 Regional data (including business content)
In this area three groups of institutions should be stressed: private firms (implementing 19% of this type of
activities), local government units (15%) and country administration (14%).
Summarising the information above, it is worth noticing that the Associated Organisations participate in
such parts of the projects that don’t require significant financial means. Cases in which the AO provides
own resources (category no. 5) are rather rare apart from the technical solutions and regional data. The
participation of the AOs helps projects’ promotion and enlarge the spatial scope of the projects. When it
comes to the types of the organisations there is no clear relation between participation in the South Baltic
Programme as AO and the public or private ownership of the organisation.
-
The Beneficiaries
The German Lead Beneficiaries and project partners were generally satisfied with the cooperation with AOs.
They indicated that AOs are important in: creating further awareness and support around individual
activities, initiating new contacts for the future, providing know-how, creating communication channels.
The Associated Organisations in the project led by Danish beneficiaries were preparing the know-how about
their region, creating communication channels and also facilitating the way to initiate every process based
over there. They were also participating in dissemination of the projects.
The Lithuanian respondents said that the AOs played an important role when it comes to initiating new
contacts for the future, creating further awareness and support around individual activities.
52
Final Report
The Swedish respondents underlined that in the majority they cooperated with the AOs before, and they
decided to continue the cooperation within the South Baltic Programme. The majority of the respondents
was satisfied with the cooperation with AOs. Only few of them assessed the AOs participation in the project
as insufficient (variable over time or less active than expected). The AOs participation in the projects was
important when it comes to knowledge exchange, organization of meetings and conferences, dissemination.
They were providing contacts with business representatives.
The Polish organisations connected with Associated Organisations either strictly for the purpose of the
project or both organisations cooperated already in previous programmes. Associated Organisations were
considered very useful as a source of knowledge, experience and information about an unknown market, as
a technical support of the project or even a reason/initiator for joining into Programme. They were also
supporting in exchange of information on on-going activities.
B) The participation of the Associated Organisations from the Kaliningrad Oblast
The analysis of the role of Russian AOs in the projects was based on the findings from desk research –
application forms analysis and results of the Semi Structured Interviews with the AOs from the Kaliningrad
Oblast.
In the analysis a particular attention was paid to the Associated Organisations originating from the
Kaliningrad Oblast. There are 21 organisations from this region taking part in the South Baltic Programme.
The most numerous are the local government units, country administration entities, schools and colleges (4
organisations each). The structure of the AOs from the Kalinigrad Oblast is presented in the table 20 and on
the fig. 6. What is characteristic that the majority of the AOs from the Kaliningrad Oblast belongs to the
public sector.
Table 20.Types of AOs from the Kaliningrad Oblast
Number of
4
4
4
organizations
promotional organizations
2
2
church
1
artistic organizations
1
private firms
1
Sum
21
1
1
artistic
organizations
2
1
church
scientific organizations
2
private firms
4
2
promotional
organizations
2
scientific
organizations
4
4
local government
units
schools and
colleges
country
administration
Type of organization
Fig.6. Types of AOs from the Kaliningrad Oblast.
The functions of the AOs in projects are differentiated, but in over 30% (of all AOs activities) it is project
promotion (fig. 7). 20% account for the know-how and knowledge exchange and over 11 % for the local /
regional anchoring. The general structure of the functions of AOs from the Kaliningrad Oblast is similar to the
support provided by AOs from other regions. The Russian AOs serve even more to enlarge the spatial extent
of the projects and they have a small contribution when it comes to providing own resources for the project.
53
Final Report
%
31,1
20,0
2,2
2,2
recruitment of projects participants,
external experts
4,4
hosting project participants exchange
(students, teachers etc.)
2,2
2,2
2,2
preparation of promotion materials,
distribution
2,2
4,4
feasibility study
evaluation
2,2
organisation/participation in project's
meetings, discussions
concept work, ideas
political backup
know-how, knowledge exchange,
advice
.
2,2
6,7
4,4
11,1
Fig.7.Types of the activities undertaken by the Associated Organisations from the Kaliningrad Oblast in the projects within the South Baltic
Programme [%].
Comparing the results of both classifications (type of organisation and role in the project) it can be noticed
that some kinds of the organisations fulfil same functions more often than the others (table 21). Activities
focusing on the know-how, knowledge exchange, advice are implemented more often by school and
colleges. The function of local/regional anchoring falls for local government units. Whereas in the
promotional activities country administration and local government units are especially active.
54
Final Report
Table 21.Types of AOs from the Kaliningrad Oblast and their functions in projects
Role of the Associated Organization
promotion,
disseminati
on
concept work, ideas
organisation/participation in project's
meetings, discussions
evaluation
feasibility study
preparation of promotion materials,
distribution
hostingproject participants exchange
(students, teachers etc.)
recruitment of projects participants,
external experts
other
activi
ties
providing own
resources
political backup
project implementation
(in general)
know-how, knowledge exchange, advice
support
(general)
help with
documenta
tion,
procedures
etc.
1.1
1.3
1.4
2.2
2.3
2.6
2.7
3.3
3.5
4.1
4.3
5.1
5.2
5.5
6.2
2
1
private firms
1
1
1
1
Type of organization
1
1
3
3
1
1
3
church
1
artistic organizations
1
scientific organizations
1
promotional organizations
1
1
3
1
1
Total
9
5
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
14
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
During the evaluation Russian Associated Organizations were interviewed in form of Semi-Structured
Interviews. (SSI). It should be noticed that evaluator had problems with contacting some of the
organizations. In some cases the Lead Beneficiaries had no actual contact data of the organizations. This
shows that the cooperation between the Lead Beneficiary and AOs is not always so close as declared in the
interviews.
The interviewed AOs from Kaliningrad Oblast were engaged in the project implementation to a different
extent. Some of them actively participated in the projects and some of them just promoted project results.
All AOs originating from the Kaliningrad Oblast stressed their interest and the benefits for their organizations
resulting from the participation in the projects. The repeated suggestions were to enable the organizations
from the Kaliningrad Oblast to fully participate in the South Baltic Programme. The answers collected in the
SSI suggest that in some cases Lead Beneficiaries didn’t include the expenses connected with AOs to a
sufficient extent in the project budget. In one case this was the reason for the AO to resign from
participation in the project.
55
Final Report
Summary
Summarizing the information collected in desk research and from the Programme beneficiaries, it can be
stated that AOs are engaged in the majority of the projects realized within the South Baltic Programme. The
level of involvement of the AOs from Kaliningrad Oblast is pretty low. The participation of the AOs from the
private sector is slightly less common than form the public sector. In the case of Kaliningrad Oblast the public
institutions are prevailing. AOs role in the project is differentiated. In some cases the AOs are an important
part of the project and expand the effect of the projects for new regions. In other cases the participation is
superficial and input rather low. Generally the Lead Beneficiaries are satisfied from the cooperation with
AOs, although they are sometime less active than expected. The activity of AOs from the Kaliningrad Oblast
is limited due to shortage of financial means. In some cases this was the reason to resign from participation
in the Programme. Apart from such problems the Russian AOs are highly interested in participation in the
Programme.
The representatives of the institutions implementing the Programme have similar observations about the
AOs role as it results from the desk research and interviews with the Lead Beneficiaries and Partners. In
general the AOs role depends on project. There are quite active ones which know what is their role in the
project as well as there are organizations which are in the project only because of the formal requirements.
The added value of Associated Organizations in the project is their knowledge. However, most of the AOs
want also to gain new knowledge and experience thanks to participation in the project. Many of them
operate as links between the project and neighbouring projects within the same thematic fields. They
support the projects in spreading the results and anchoring these results in connected target groups.
Associated Organizations need to be given clear roles and not requested to just sign up for the sake of good
geographical coverage the project wants to demonstrate in the assessment phase.
56
Final Report
3.1.3. Future shape of the Programme
Relation to other programmes, strategic documents and regulations proposals
The following subchapter discusses the proposals for the future thematic scope of the future assistance
programme similar to South Baltic Programme. In the first part, the relation between the Programme and
other strategic documents is analysed. Based on the analysis results, the possible thematic areas for the
future Programme were defined. In the second part of the chapter these thematic areas were verified based
on the interviews’ results.
The first part of this chapter is based on the results of desk research and answers following research
questions:
 How can the Programme contribute to achieving the objectives of Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region
in the next financial perspective?
 How could the Programme contribute to implementation of the Strategy Europe 2020 and in which
areas?
 To what extent is the Programme compliant with the thematic areas and investment proposals
included in the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
on specific provisions concerning the European Regional Development Fund and the Investment for
growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (2011/0275)12

What are the differences between the Programme and other ETC programmes covering/ bordering
eligible area of the South Baltic Programme? How should it differ in the next financial perspective?
How can the Programme contribute to achieving the objectives of Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region in the
next financial perspective?
The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region was adopted by the European Council on the 26.10.2009. It aims
at reinforcing cooperation within this large region in order to face several challenges by working together as
well as promoting a more balanced development in the area. In the strategy 3 objectives (previously in 4
pillars) are distinguished. They represent the three key challenges of the Strategy: saving the sea, connecting
the region, and increasing prosperity. To achieve those aims in the Strategy there were 15 Priority areas
defined. Table 22 presents the priorities of the strategy and their realisation to the activities implemented in
the South Baltic Programme. The South Baltic Programme is highly compliant with the Strategy in 5 of the 15
15 priority areas– the supported projects are implementing the objectives of the Strategy (Priority Area 1 Nutrient inputs to the sea; Priority Area 8 - Entrepreneurship, SMEs and human resources, Priority Area 10 Energy market, Priority Area 11 - Transport links, Priority Area 12 - Education and youth, Tourism, Culture
and Health). In other 4 cases the indicative actions realised within the South Baltic Programme are partly
compliant with the Priority areas of the Strategy (Priority Area 2 - Natural zones and biodiversity, Priority
Area 3 - Hazardous substances, Priority Area 5 - Climate change, Priority Area 7 - Research and innovation).
There are five Priority areas which exceed the thematic scope of the South Baltic Programme. These are:
-
Priority Area 4 - Clean shipping
-
Priority Area 9 - Agriculture, forestry and fisheries
12
Taking into account changes resulting from the compromise on thematic concentration reached during the Danish Presidency COM(2011)
615 final/2, COM(2011) 607 final/2, COM (2011) 614 final, COM (2011) 612 final/2 COM(2011) 611 final/2
57
Final Report
58
-
Priority Area 13 - Maritime safety and security
-
Priority Area 14 - Major emergencies
-
Priority Area 15 - Cross border crime
Final Report
Table 22. Compliance between the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and The South Baltic Programme
Priority Areas of the EU Strategy
Compliance
for the Baltic Sea Region
level
Priority Area 1 - Nutrient inputs to
the sea
High
Priority Area 2 - Natural zones and
biodiversity
Measures within the South Baltic Programme
Indicative action: joint cross-border actions aiming at decreasing the outflows of nutrients and pesticides from small and diffuse sources, such as farms, farming land, smaller settlements and private households
Middle
Indicative action: development of strategies and methods for Integrated Coastal Zone Management and sea use planning based on joint cross-border solutions
2.3 Sustainable use of natural and cultural heritage for regional development
Indicative action: development of cross-border strategies for preservation and use of natural and cultural heritage sites, areas, landscapes and traditions for regional development
Priority
Area
3
-
Hazardous
substances
Middle
Indicative action: joint cross-border actions to enhance local and regional preparedness and response in case of natural and/or environmental disasters on the Baltic Sea, including cross-border risk management systems
and related infrastructure
Priority Area 5 - Climate change
None
Middle
Priority Area 6 - Internal market
2.2. Energy saving and renewable energy
Indicative action: exchange of knowledge, preparation and implementation of joint action plans on renewable energy sources and energy saving patterns
Low
Indicative action: strengthening of platforms and networks for better liaising between small and medium sized enterprises in the South Baltic Area
1.2 Integration of higher education and labour markets
Indicative action: provision and testing of training programmes for SMEs in their activities on the cross-border labour market in order to improve their communication and inter-culture skills
Priority Area 7 - Research and
innovation
Middle
Indicative action: enhancement of research networks (universities and R&D institutions) towards their better linkages to enterprises and local and regional governments
Indicative action: joint research, testing and preparation of small-scale pilot investments in the field of renewable energy belongs to the indicative actions
Priority Area 8 - Entrepreneurship,
SMEs and human resources
Indicative action: joint initiatives of intermediary support structures for SMEs (development agencies, business foundations, chambers of commerce and industry, chambers of crafts, technological parks, business
High
incubators etc.) aimed to improve absorption of innovations and increase of competences in the private sector
1.2: Integration of higher education and labour markets
Indicative action: provision and testing of training programmes for SMEs in their activities on the cross-border labour market in order to improve their communication and inter-culture skills
Priority
Area
9
-
Agriculture,
Low
forestry and fisheries
Indicative action: development of cross-border strategies for preservation and use of natural and cultural heritage sites, areas, landscapes and traditions for regional development
Priority Area 10 - Energy market
High
Priority Area 11 - Transport links
High
Priority Area 12 - Education and
youth, Tourism, Culture and Health
Priority Area 13 - Maritime safety
High
None
and security
Priority
Area
14
-
Major
None
Priority Area 15 - Cross border
None
emergencies
crime
59
Final Report
60
Final Report
How could the Programme contribute to implementation of the Strategy Europe 2020 and in which areas?
The Europe 2020 Strategy for the intelligent and sustainable development was adopted by the Council of
Europe on 17.06. 2012. In the Strategy three priorities were defined:
-
Smart growth
-
Sustainable growth
-
Inclusive growth
As the effect of the priorities implementation 5 targets should be achieved:
1. Employment - 75% of the 20-64 year-olds to be employed
2. R&D - 3% of the EU's GDP to be invested in R&D
3. Climate change / energy:
-
greenhouse gas emissions 20% (or even 30%, if the conditions are right) lower than 1990
-
20% of energy from renewables
-
20% increase in energy efficiency
4. Education
-
educing school drop-out rates below 10%
-
at least 40% of 30-34–year-olds completing third level education
5. Poverty / social exclusion - at least 20 million fewer people in or at risk of poverty and social exclusion
As instruments leading to achievement of the stated above targets 7 flagship projects (initiatives) have been
established. The compliance between those flagship initiatives and the current scope of the South Baltic
Programme was analysed (table 23).
Table 23. Compliance between flagship projects (initiatives) of the Europe 2020 Strategy and The South Baltic Programme
Flagship projects (initiatives) of the
Compliance
Europe 2020 Strategy
level
Measures within the South Baltic Programme
Smart growth
- Digital agenda for Europe
None
- Innovation Union
Indicative action:
enhancement of research networks (universities and R&D
institutions) towards their better linkages to enterprises and local
Middle
and regional governments
Indicative action:
joint research, testing and preparation of small-scale pilot
investments in the field of renewable energy
- Youth on the move
High
1.2 Integration of higher education on labour markets
61
Final Report
Indicative actions:
joint actions of labour offices, business organisations, labour
unions and educational institutions for the preparation of practical
solutions in the field of education and lifelong learning, adaptable
to changing requirements of the labour market and its advancing
integration in the South Baltic area;
development of practical solutions to improve accessibility of
educational centres and availability of new forms of education (e.g.
e-learning, exchange courses for researchers) on the integrating
labour market in the South Baltic area
Sustainable growth
- Resource efficient Europe
Indicative action:
provision of practical solutions to increase sustainability and
quality of passenger transport services in the South Baltic area
High
Indicative actions:
exchange of knowledge, preparation and implementation of joint
action plans on renewable energy sources and energy saving
patterns;
promotion of South Baltic achievements in the field of energy
saving and renewable energy on internal and external fora
- An industrial policy for the
globalisation era
High
Inclusive growth
- An agenda for new skills and jobs
Indicative actions:
joint actions of labour market institutions dedicated to an increase
of the labour force mobility and to counteract negative processes
High
on the cross-border labour market (e.g. “brain-drain”, youth
unemployment, exclusion of gender or age groups, ageing of the
population etc.);
provision and testing of training programmes for SMEs in their
activities on the cross-border labour market in order to improve
their communication and inter-culture skills;
- European platform against poverty
Indicative action:
Middle
joint actions of labour offices, business organisations, labour
unions and educational institutions for the preparation of practical
solutions in the field of education and lifelong learning, adaptable
62
Final Report
to changing requirements of the labour market and its advancing
integration in the South Baltic area
Indicative actions:
joint events increasing involvement of local communities and
institutions, administrative structures, media and NGOs, with a
particularly focus on young generation and on rural areas in the
South Baltic area;
conferences, training seminars and study visits for an exchange of
good practice within specific fields of interest, e.g. economic
planning, employment, social inclusion, youth policies, rural
development, environmental protection, natural and cultural
heritage etc.; establishment and development of durable networks
between NGOs within specific fields of interest, e.g. social and
health care, culture and cultural heritage, environment and natural
heritage, youth, local community development etc.;
preparation of pilot and innovative projects focusing on common
values, such as good governance, exchange of good practice,
promotion of gender equalities etc.; joint actions to create
sustainable development conditions in rural and small town
communities, including joint cross-border co-operation structures;
Implementation of the South Baltic Programme can contribute to achievement of almost all of the objectives
of the Europe 2020 Strategy, though supporting projects concerning thematic areas accordant with the
flagship initiatives.
In the current programming period there is a clear connection between 4 flagship initiatives and the
measures of the South Baltic Programme. The initiatives Youth on the move and An agenda for new skills and
jobs is implemented through the Programme’s measure 1.2 Integration of higher education on labour
markets. The objective of this measure is to strengthen liaisons between higher education and labour
market institutions of the South Baltic regions. The flagship initiative Resource efficient Europe is partly
implemented though the measure 1.3 Transport accessibility, where indicative actions are: provision of
practical solutions to increase sustainability and quality of passenger transport services in the South Baltic
area, and measure 2.2 Energy saving and renewable energy. Another flagship initiative partly implemented
through the projects in the South Baltic is the initiative entitled An industrial policy for the globalisation era.
In the South Baltic Programme a similar scope has the measure 1.1 Entrepreneurial development. Two of the
three remaining flagship initiatives are indirectly implemented by the projects in the South Baltic
Programme. This group includes the initiative Innovation Union, which aims at improvement framework
conditions and access to finance for research and innovation. In the South Baltic Programme the research
and development institutions can be a potential beneficiary in every type of projects. Moreover
enhancement of research networks is previewed in the measure 1.1 and in the measure 2.2. To the
indicative actions belongs joint research, testing and preparation of small-scale pilot investments in the field
of renewable energy. The flagship measure European platform against poverty can be partially implemented
by activities in the measures 1.1, 1.2 and 2.4. In the next programming period actions against poverty and
social exclusion could be distinguished as one of the indicative actions in the current measure 2.4. In the
63
Final Report
South Baltic programme there are no activities previewed which will aim at facilitation connection to highspeed internet. Bearing in mind the differentiation of the regional conditions in the South Baltic Programme
eligible countries support for such kind of actions would be very differentiated in the Programme area.
To what extent is the Programme compliant with the thematic areas and investment proposals included in
the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on specific
provisions concerning the European Regional Development Fund and the Investment for growth and jobs
goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (2011/0275)?
In the article 5 Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on
specific provisions concerning the European Regional Development Fund and the Investment for growth
and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (2011/0275) the thematic objectives for the CSF
Funds and Common Strategic Framework are defined. There are 11 thematic objectives that should be
implemented in order to contribute to the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. In the
following list the thematic areas marked with bold are those to which current measures implemented within
the framework of the South Baltic Programme are compliant. The thematic areas marked with italic are
partly implemented by the South Baltic projects13.
-
strengthening research, technological development and innovation;
-
enhancing access to, and use and quality of, information and communication technologies;
-
enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises, the agricultural sector (for
the EAFRD) and the fisheries and aquaculture sector (for the EMFF);
-
supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors;
-
promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management;
-
protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency;
-
promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures;
-
promoting employment and supporting labour mobility;
-
promoting social inclusion and combating poverty;
-
investing in education, skills and lifelong learning;
-
enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration.
The compliance analyses taking into account also the investment priorities listed in the article 5 is presented
in the table 24.
13
Taking into account changes resulting from the compromise on thematic concentration reached during the Danish Presidency COM(2011)
615 final/2, COM(2011) 607 final/2, COM (2011) 614 final, COM (2011) 612 final/2 COM(2011) 611 final/2
64
Final Report
Table 24. Compliance between the investment priorities and The South Baltic Programme
No.
Investment priorities
1
strengthening research, technological development and innovation
a
enhancing research and innovation (R&I) infrastructure and capacities to develop R&I excellence and promoting centres of
Compliance
Programme measures and indicative actions
level
None
competence, in particular those of European interest;
b
promoting business investment in innovation and research, and developing links and synergies between enterprises, R&D centres
Middle
Measure 1.1
and higher education, in particular product and service development, technology transfer, social innovation and public service
Indicative action:
applications, demand stimulation, networking, clusters and open innovation through smart specialisation […] supporting
enhancement of research networks (universities and R&D institutions) towards their better linkages to enterprises and local and
technological and applied research, pilot lines, early product validation actions, advanced manufacturing capabilities and first
regional governments
production in Key Enabling Technologies and diffusion of general purpose technologies;
development of practical solutions increasing application of international research findings in a concrete business environment
2
enhancing access to and use and quality of ICT:
a
extending broadband deployment and the roll-out of high-speed networks and supporting the adoption of emerging technologies
None
and networks for the digital economy;
b
developing ICT products and services, e-commerce and enhancing demand for ICT;
None
c
strengthening ICT applications for e-government, e-learning, e-inclusion, e-culture and e-health;
None
3
enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs:
a
promoting entrepreneurship, in particular by facilitating the economic exploitation of new ideas and fostering the creation of new
High
firms, including through business incubators;
Measure 1.1
Indicative action:
joint initiatives of intermediary support structures for SMEs (development agencies, business foundations, chambers of commerce
and industry, chambers of crafts, technological parks, business incubators etc.) aimed to improve absorption of innovations and
increase of competences in the private sector
b
developing and implementing new business models for SMEs, in particular for internationalisation;
High
Measure 1.1
Indicative actions: strengthening of platforms and networks for better liaising between small and medium sized enterprises in the
South Baltic area;
testing and dissemination of best systemic and organisational models for the triple-helix concept
c
supporting the creation and the extension of advanced capacities for product and service development;
d
supporting the capacity of SMEs to engage in growth and innovation process;
None
Middle
Measure 1.1
Indicative action:
enhancement of research networks (universities and R&D institutions) towards their better linkages to enterprises and local and
regional governments
development of practical solutions increasing application of international research findings in a concrete business environment
4
supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors:
a
promoting the production and distribution of renewable energy sources;
b
promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in enterprises;
High
Middle
Measure 2.2
Indicative actions:
65
Final Report
c
supporting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in public infrastructures, including in public buildings and in the housing
Middle
exchange of knowledge, preparation and implementation of joint action plans on renewable energy sources and energy saving
patterns;
sector;
joint research, testing and preparation of small-scale pilot investments in the field of renewable energy;
promotion of South Baltic achievements in the field of energy saving and renewable energy on internal and external for a;
d
developing and implementing smart distribution systems at low and medium voltage levels;
None
e
promoting low-carbon strategies for all types of territories, in particular urban areas, including the promotion of sustainable urban
Measure 2.2
mobility and mitigation relevant adaptation measures;
Indicative actions:
f
promoting research, innovation and adoption of low-carbon technologies;
Low
exchange of knowledge, preparation and implementation of joint action plans on renewable energy sources and energy saving
patterns;
joint research, testing and preparation of small-scale pilot investments in the field of renewable energy
g
promoting the use of high-efficiency co-generation of heat and power based on useful heat demand;
5
promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management:
a
supporting dedicated investment for adaptation to climate change;
b
promoting investment to address specific risks, ensuring disaster resilience and developing disaster management systems;
None
None
High
Measure 2.1
Indicative action:
joint cross-border actions to enhance local and regional preparedness and response in case of natural and/or environmental
disasters on the Baltic Sea, including cross-border risk management systems and related infrastructure
6
protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency:
a
addressing the significant needs for investment in the waste sector to meet the requirements of the Union’s environmental acquis
High
b
addressing the significant needs for investment in the water sector to meet the requirements of the Union’s environmental
High
Measure 2.1
Indicative actions:
preparation and implementation of small-scale pilot projects for modern water and waste management, with particular attention
acquis;
for environmental hot-spots in the coastal areas;
joint cross-border actions aiming at decreasing the outflows of nutrients and pesticides from small and diffuse sources, such as
farms, farming land, smaller settlements and private households;
c
protecting, promoting and developing cultural and natural heritage;
High
Measure 2.3
Indicative action:
development of cross-border strategies for preservation and use of natural and cultural heritage sites, areas, landscapes and
traditions for regional development
joint creation of sustainable tourism products (e.g. cross-border thematic routes) respecting protection needs for natural and
cultural heritage
d
protecting and restoring biodiversity, soil protection and restoration and promoting ecosystem services including NATURA 2000
and green infrastructures;
Low
Measure 2.1
Indicative action:
development of strategies and methods for Integrated Coastal Zone Management and sea use planning based on joint cross-border
solutions
e
66
action to improve the urban environment, regeneration of brownfield sites and reduction of air pollution
None
Final Report
f
promoting innovative technologies to improve environmental protection and resource efficiency in the waste sector, water sector,
Measure 2.1
soil protection or to reduce air pollution;
Indicative actions:
Low
preparation and implementation of small-scale pilot projects for modern water and waste management, with particular attention
for environmental hot-spots in the coastal areas;
joint cross-border actions aiming at decreasing the outflows of nutrients and pesticides from small and diffuse sources, such as
farms, farming land, smaller settlements and private households;
g
supporting industrial transition towards a resource-efficient economy and promoting green growth;
Measure 2.1
Low
Indicative action:
Competence building and co-operation between local and regional authorities in the field of local contingency planning and modern
water management
7
promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures:
a
supporting a multimodal Single European Transport Area by investing in the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) network;
Measure 1.3
Low
Indicative action: preparation and implementation of feasibility studies for transport bottlenecks and missing links hindering
formation of a coherent multimodal transport system in the South Baltic area, based on a prioritised list of investments of the crossborder relevance
b
enhancing regional mobility through connecting secondary and tertiary nodes to TEN-T infrastructure
Measure 1.3
Low
Indicative action
joint actions of infrastructure owners, cargo owners and traffic operators dedicated to quality improvement of transport
connections and creation of new links
c
developing environment-friendly and low-carbon transport systems including river and sea transport, ports and multimodal links;
Measure 1.3
Middle
Indicative action
provision of practical solutions to increase sustainability and quality of passenger transport services in the South Baltic area
d
developing and rehabilitating comprehensive, high quality and interoperable railway system;
None
e
developing smart gas and power distribution, storage and transmission systems;
None
8
promoting employment and supporting labour mobility:
a
development of business incubators and investment support for self-employment, micro-enterprises and business creation
Middle
Measure 1.2
Indicative actions:
joint actions of labour market institutions dedicated to an increase of the labour force mobility and to counteract negative processes
on the cross-border labour market (e.g. “brain-drain”, youth unemployment, exclusion of gender or age groups, ageing of the
population etc.)
b
None
supporting employment friendly growth through the development of endogenous potential as part of a territorial strategy for
specific areas, including the conversion of declining industrial regions and enhancement of accessibility to and development of
specific natural and cultural resources;
d
local development initiatives and aid for structures providing neighbourhood services to create new jobs, where such actions are
outside the scope of Regulation (EU) No […]/2012 [ESF];
Middle
Measure 1.2
Indicative actions:
67
Final Report
joint actions of labour market institutions dedicated to an increase of the labour force mobility and to counteract negative processes
on the cross-border labour market (e.g. “brain-drain”, youth unemployment, exclusion of gender or age groups, ageing of the
population etc.)
d
investing in infrastructure for public employment services
9
promoting social inclusion and combating poverty:
a
investing in health and social infrastructure which contribute to national, regional and local development, reducing inequalities in
None
None
terms of health status, and transition from institutional to community-based services;
b
support for physical economic and social regeneration of deprived urban and rural communities and areas;
None
c
support for social enterprises;
None
10
investing in education, skills and lifelong learning by developing education and training infrastructure;
High
Measure 1.1
Indicative actions:
joint actions of labour offices, business organisations, labour unions and educational institutions for the preparation of practical
solutions in the field of education and lifelong learning, adaptable to changing requirements of the labour market and its advancing
integration in the South Baltic area;
development of practical solutions to improve accessibility of educational centres and availability of new forms of education (e.g. elearning, exchange courses for researchers) on the integrating labour market in the South Baltic area;
provision and testing of training programmes for SMEs in their activities on the cross-border labour market in order to improve their
communication and inter-culture skills
11
enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration by strengthening of institutional capacity and the
efficiency of public administrations and public services related to implementation of the ERDF, and in support of actions in
institutional capacity and in the efficiency of public administration supported by the ESF.
68
None
Final Report
Another document which provides framework condition for the future shape of the South Baltic Programme
is the Proposal for a Regulation of The European Parliament and of The Council on specific provisions for
the support from the European Regional Development to the European Territorial Cooperation goal
(2011/0273 (COD)). In this document the general rules for financial support within the European Territorial
Cooperation are described. In the future programming period about 73% of the funding will be spent on the
cross-border cooperation, almost 21 % on transnational cooperation and almost 6% on the interregional
cooperation. This document also presents a new rule concerning thematic concentration and investment
priorities. It should help to focus the support on the most important topic. According to this rule every crossborder or transnational cooperation programme should support projects from maximum 4 of the thematic
areas listed in the previously analysed document (Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL laying down common provisions on the European Regional
Development Fund..). Only within the interregional cooperation program it is possible to implement projects
concerning all priority areas. Besides the investment priorities resulting from the ERDF regulation14, Article
no. 6 lists the investment priorities, which can be additionally supported under cross-border cooperation:
-
integrating cross-border labour markets, including cross-border mobility, joint local employment
initiatives and joint training (within the thematic objective of promoting employment and
supporting labour mobility);
-
promoting gender equality and equal opportunities across borders, as well as promoting social
inclusion across borders (within the thematic objective of promoting social inclusion and combating
poverty);
-
developing and implementing joint education and training schemes (within the thematic objective
of investing in skills, education and lifelong learning);
-
promoting legal and administrative cooperation and cooperation between citizens and institutions
(within the thematic objective of enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public
administration);
Table 25. on the next page summarises the information about the priority areas defined in the analysed
documents. The information is also compared with the scope of the South Baltic Programme. The
compilation shows that there are 6 thematic areas resulting from the strategic documents15 that are not
implemented through the SB Programme. These are
Clean shipping
Agriculture, forestry and fisheries
Maritime safety and security
Cross border crime
Information and communication technologies;
Institutional capacity and an efficient public administration
There are 5 thematic areas that are partly covered by The South Baltic Programme
14
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on specific provisions concerning the European Regional
Development Fund and the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (2011/0275)
15
The documents taken into account: EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, Europe 2020 Strategy, Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on specific provisions concerning the European Regional Development Fund and the
Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (2011/0275)
69
Final Report
Resource efficient Europe
Hazardous substances
Climate change
Research and innovation
Social inclusion and combating poverty
To the third distinguished group belong those thematic areas which repeatedly appeared in the all of the analysed
strategic documents. These are:
Research and innovation
Entrepreneurship, SMEs and human resources
Education and youth
70
Final Report
Table 25. Comparison of the thematic scope of chosen strategic documents and regulation proposals
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND
EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region
OF THE COUNCIL laying down common provisions
Europe 2020 Strategy
Priority Area 1 - Nutrient inputs to the sea
Priority Area 2 - Natural zones and biodiversity
The South Baltic Programme 2007-2013
Flagship initiatives
on the European Regional Development Fund
protecting the environment and promoting resource
efficiency;
Resource efficient Europe
Priority Area 3 - Hazardous substances
Priority Area 5 - Climate change
promoting
climate
change
adaptation,
risk
prevention and management
Priority Area 6 - Internal market
Priority Area 7 - Research and innovation
strengthening research, technological development
Innovation Union
and innovation
Priority Area 8 - Entrepreneurship, SMEs and human
enhancing the competitiveness of small and
resources
medium-sized enterprises, the agricultural sector
Priority Area 9 - Agriculture, forestry and fisheries
(for the EAFRD) and the fisheries and aquaculture
An industrial policy for the globalisation era
sector (for the EMFF)
Priority Area 10 - Energy market
supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy
in all sectors;
Priority Area 11 - Transport links
promoting sustainable transport and removing
bottlenecks in key network infrastructures;
Priority Area 12 - Education and youth, Tourism,
investing in education, skills and lifelong learning;
Youth on the move
Culture and Health
Priority Area 13 - Maritime safety and security
Priority Area 14 - Major emergencies
Priority Area 15 - Cross border crime
enhancing access to, and use and quality of,
Digital agenda for Europe
information and communication technologies;
promoting employment and supporting labour
An agenda for new skills and jobs
European platform against poverty
mobility;
promoting social inclusion and combating poverty;
enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient
public administration.
71
Final Report
72
Final Report
What are the differences between the Programme and other ETC programmes covering/ bordering eligible
area of the South Baltic Programme? How should it differ in the next financial perspective?
In order to define the future shape of the South Baltic Programme a comparison with other ETC
Programmes16 was conducted. Following programmes were taken into account: 1) The Baltic Sea Region
Programme 2007-2013, 2) European Territorial Co-operation Objective Cross-border Co-operation
Programme Lithuania-Poland 2007-2013, 3) Central Baltic Interreg IVa Programme, 4) MecklenburgVorpommern/Brandenburg – Zachodniopomorskie Cross-border Cooperation Programme. As a first step the
level of thematic compliance was assessed (table 26). The indicative actions defined for individual measures
in the South Baltic Programme were compared with the scope of actions in other programs. The types of
actions that were identified as unique for the South Baltic Programme are marked with bold and underlined.
The thematic area concerning support for SME and entrepreneurship is a part of all analysed programmes. A
specific type of action indicated in the South Baltic programme is testing and dissemination of best systemic
and organisational models for the triple-helix concept.
When it comes to the labour market and education the analysed programmes concentrate more on
employment the activities from the South Baltic Programme. Specific for the Programme is the emphasis on
the life-long learning and trainings for SME concerning communication and inter-culture skills.
In the area of transport a potentially distinctive type of activity can be preparation and implementation of
feasibility studies. Joint work on studies, strategies and plans is also a subject of the other analysed
programmes but feasibility studies are not listed as a separate type of document.
A specific type of action in the measure 2.1: Management of the Baltic Sea environment is development of
strategies and methods for Integrated Coastal Zone Management and sea use planning based on joint crossborder solutions. This problem is not covered by any other programme.
From the thematic area concerning energy saving and energy efficiently in the South Baltic programme the
promotion of South Baltic achievements in the field of energy saving and renewable energy on internal and
external forums was distinguished as a separate type of action. This is not the case in the other analysed
programmes but it can be assumed that promotional actions are part of most of the finances projects in this
topic.
Within the measure 2.3: Sustainable use of natural and cultural heritage for regional development there are
three type of actions that are specific for the South Baltic Programme: development of cross-border
strategies for preservation and use of natural and cultural heritage sites, areas, landscapes and traditions for
regional development; preparation and implementation of small-scale pilot investments enhancing tourism
infrastructure in the South Baltic area (e.g. chains of tourist facilities along the Baltic Sea coast, like small
ports or yacht marinas) and development and dissemination of good practice in the field of equal access to
the tourist offer in the South Baltic area (including physical access to sites). Despite these small differences
the general thematic scope of the indicative actions on this field is very similar.
The most differences between the South Baltic Programme and other analysed Programmes is visible when
analysing the activity 2.4 Local community activities. This measure supports networking, know-ledge
exchange, cooperation on different fields. In other analysed programmes some kinds of these actions can be
supported within specific thematic areas but not in a such wide range as in the South Baltic Programme. The
support provided within the measure 2.4 is specific for the South Baltic Programme. In comparison to the
other analysed Programme it is an innovative, forward-looking element.
16
The list of the included Programmes was consulted with the Client in the methodological report
73
Final Report
74
Final Report
Table 26. Comparison of the thematic scope of chosen ETC programmes
European Territorial Co-operation Objective CrossThe South Baltic Programme 2007-2013
The Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern/Brandenburg
border Co-operation Programme Lithuania-Poland
Central Baltic Interreg IVa Programme
–Zachodniopomorskie Cross-border
2007-2013
Ccooperation Programme
Priority 1 Infrastructure support for cross-
Priority Axis 1: Economic competitiveness
Priority 1: Fostering innovations
Actions promoting integration of economic and labour markets in the area, co-
The priority supports innovation sources and facilitation
operation in technical and higher education, transfer of knowledge and know-
of transnational transfer of technology & knowledge, in
The priority shall support small scale infrastructure environment and puts a special focus on the Baltic Sea.
how between public and private actors, and better transport connectivity.
particular targeted at small and medium size enterprises
projects of a clear cross border character and/or The
(SMEs). Another objective is to strengthen the capacity
important for the whole programme area, as well as development of the programme area, making it attractive economic networks and strengthening of
of people for absorbing new knowledge.
preparatory activities for such projects(development for both inhabitants and visitors.
cooperation between enterprises and
plans,
science
Priority Axis 2: Attractiveness and common identity
Actions on management of environmental threats, promotion of sustainable
economic use of natural resources and cultural heritage, with particular
Priority 1. Competitiveness and productivity growth of Priority 1: Safe and healthy environment
Priority 2 Internal and external accessibility
border cooperation and environment in
the cross-border region
joint
strategies,
Priority focuses on protecting and improving our common the border area.
feasibility
studies,
priority
supports
a
sustainable
environmental Priority 2 Support for the cross-border
design
documentation), as well as “soft” activities mainly under
attention to tourism, development of renewable energy sources and energy
The priority addresses transport imbalances, and will
“promotion
and
Priority 2: Economically competitive and innovative
region
saving, as well as local initiatives supporting people-to-people contacts
minimise the impact of barriers for smooth transport of
entrepreneurship” and “development of sustainable
Priority focuses on enhancing the overall economic
human resources, support for cross-border
goods and passengers. The objective is to improve the
cross border tourism”
development and competitiveness of the programme
cooperation concerning health, culture and
Priority 2: Cross-border cohesion and enhanced overall
area. It emphasizes innovations and broad, qualitative
education
quality of the cross-border area
co-operation.
external and internal accessibility of the Baltic Sea
region.
of
business
cooperation
Moreover,
the
development
Priority 3 Cross-border development of
of
connections to facilitate cross-border co-operation and
Priority 3 Baltic Sea as a common resource
Strong co-operation between the local population of the
The objective is to improve the management of Baltic
cross-border region, a solution to social problems, the
Sea resources in order to achieve a better environmental
creation
state. The priority focuses on joint transnational
strengthening of the local market and encouragement of
solutions declining the pollution of the Baltic Sea and
development initiatives at local and regional levels are all
improving sustainable management of the sea as a
indispensable
common resource.
reduction of peripheral restrictions and economic
of
an
to
attractive
ensuring
living
balanced
environment,
a better flow of goods and people is another focus,
together with the utilization of the labour force and the
development of the tourism sector.
development,
backwardness.
Priority 4 Attractive & competitive cities and regions
The priority targets the policy making for sustainable
urban and regional development. It concentrates on
making the Baltic Sea region cities and regions more
competitive on a European scale.
Measure 1.1: Entrepreneurial development



strengthening of platforms and networks for better liaising between small
and medium sized enterprises in the South Baltic area
joint initiatives of intermediary support structures for SMEs (development
agencies, business foundations, chambers of commerce and industry,
chambers of crafts, technological parks, business incubators etc.) aimed to
improve absorption of innovations and increase of competences in the
private sector
enhancement of research networks (universities and R&D institutions)
towards their better linkages to enterprises and local and regional
governments

development of practical solutions increasing application of international
research findings in a concrete business environment

testing and dissemination of best systemic and organisational models for
the triple-helix concept

Strengthened
international
performance
innovation sources and improved links to SMEs
of

Co-operation and networking between business
institutions and entrepreneurs;

Improved transnational transfer of technology and
knowledge

Joint development and implementation of
specialised programmes to meet business needs,
exchange business knowledge and experience,
improve R&D and business linkage;


Broadened public basis
utilisation of innovation
for
generation
and
Improved preconditions for Baltic Sea Region’s
competitiveness in Europe and worldwide

Joint initiatives in support of SMEs;

Implementation of cross-border projects and
activities in the areas of innovation and introduction
of new technologies;

Elaboration of bilateral business catalogues, data
basis, strategies

Exchange of know-how concerning innovation
systems, support to cluster networking, and
technology transfer (KIBS7and market creations)

Development of business networks and platforms

Marketing of the region in order to attract
investments

Common efforts to transform research into new
commercialised products and services

Co-operation in promotion of entrepreneurship

Public sector co-operation in long-term planning,
foresight studies and scenarios

Strengthening of the cross-border
economic infrastructure

Support for the German-Polish
cooperation and networksbetween
enterprises

Support
for
the
cross-border
cooperation ad networks between
enterprises, research institutions and
technology centers to facilitate access
to scientific knowledge and the
transfer of technology
75
Final Report
Measure 1.2: Integration of higher education and labour markets

to strengthen liaisons between higher education and labour market
institutions of the South Baltic regions

joint actions of labour market institutions dedicated to an increase of the
labour force mobility and to counteract negative processes on the crossborder labour market (e.g. “brain-drain”, youth unemployment, exclusion
of gender or age groups, ageing of the population etc.)

joint actions of labour offices, business organisations, labour unions and
educational institutions for the preparation of practical solutions in the
field of education and lifelong learning, adaptable to changing
requirements of the labour market and its advancing integration in the
South Baltic area

development of practical solutions to improve accessibility of educational
centres and availability of new forms of education (e.g. e-learning,
exchange courses for researchers) on the integrating labour market in the
South Baltic area

provision and testing of training programmes for SMEs in their activities
on the cross-border labour market in order to improve their
communication and inter-culture skills
Measure 1.3: Transport accessibility

preparation and implementation of feasibility studies for transport
bottlenecks and missing links hindering formation of a coherent
multimodal transport system in the South Baltic area, based on a
prioritised list of investments of the cross-border relevance

joint actions of infrastructure owners, cargo owners and traffic operators
dedicated to quality improvement of transport connections and creation of
new links

provision of practical solutions to increase sustainability and quality of
passenger transport services in the South Baltic area



joint actions aimed at the integration of socially
vulnerable groups into the labour market;

Innovative methods for inclusion of vulnerable
groups into the labour market

joint education initiatives, elaboration of new
education forms and programmes;

Co-operation to improve matching of labour market
demands for skilled people and co-operation
around vocational education programmes.
Joint actions in improving scope and quality of cross
border transport systems;

Development of joint services for travellers and
visitors

Better integration of areas with low accessibility



Influenced policies, strategies and regulations in the
field of transport and ICT
Promotion of environmentally friendly transport
and public transport;
Logistics and small scale investments in reducing
time and costs of travel and transportation

Co-operation in transport/travellers safety

Joint studies, strategies, assessments and
prioritisations of major infrastructure investments
and infrastructure corridors

Promotion of use of ICT services and development
of cross-border ICT networks

Increased role of sustainable transport

Improved capacity in dealing with hazards and risks,
in both onshore and offshore areas

Influenced policies and strategies
management of Baltic Sea resources
in

joint monitoring and management of natural
resources and protected territories, ecological
corridors;

Co-operation in management of waste, water and
risk prevention especially in and around the Baltic
Sea

Joint actions directed at decreasing pollution from
economical activities (e.g. farms, tourism
infrastructure;


Joint initiatives in the promotion and use of biomass
energy resources, geothermal, hydro, wind and
solar energy;
Co-operation aiming at reducing the environmental
loads and risks related to growing traffic, but also to
eutrophication, hazardous substances and oil spill
especially in and around the Baltic Sea

Co-operation addressing urban environmental
aspects (air, noise, congestion, regeneration, urban
sprawl)

Co-operation in spatial planning

Development of better risk management/ increased
readiness for maritime risks

Co-operation in the field of ecological innovations
and clean technologies

Supporting innovation and improving
competitiveness

Development of better risk management and
increased readiness for maritime accidents and
disasters

Co-operation in energy efficiency and renewable
energy sources
the

Increased sustainable economic potential of marine
resources

For monitoring of the Programme environmental
impacts

Joint actions to improve environmental risk
management
competence building and co-operation between local and regional
authorities in the field of local contingency planning and modern water
management

development/improvement of small-scale
environmental infrastructure of cross border
character.

development of strategies and methods for Integrated Coastal Zone
Management and sea use planning based on joint cross-border solutions

Uptake of Environmental Management Systems and
Audit Schemes in tourism industry (ISO 14.000,
EMAS, Eco-labels, green purchases etc.);
76
exchange of knowledge, preparation and implementation of joint action
Co-operation in innovative methods for job
creation





joint cross-border actions to enhance local and regional preparedness and
response in case of natural and/or environmental disasters on the Baltic
Sea, including cross-border risk management systems and related
infrastructure
Measure 2.2: Energy saving and renewable energy
Improving free mobility of the labour force
Improved capacity and interoperability of different
transport and ICT networks
preparation and implementation of small-scale pilot projects for modern
water and waste management, with particular attention for environmental
hot-spots in the coastal areas
joint cross-border actions aiming at decreasing the outflows of nutrients
and pesticides from small and diffuse sources, such as farms, farming land,
smaller settlements and private households


Measure 2.1: Management of the Baltic Sea environment

joint actions targeted at the improvement of
employment opportunities and cross border
employment;

Improved institutional capacity and effectiveness in
water management

Small scale investment into cross-border transport,
border crossing, energy, ICT infrastructure,
technologies and networks and preparatory

Joint projects concerning
qualifications and vocational
education, education for activities in
the German-Polish eligible area,
environmental education.

Support for cross-border transport
connections, (streets, railways water
ways, bicycle routes

Projects concerning water quality,
protection of nature, landscape and
climate, reducing the environmental
loads and risks
Final Report
plans on renewable energy sources and energy saving patterns

joint research, testing and preparation of small-scale pilot investments in
the field of renewable energy

promotion of South Baltic achievements in the field of energy saving and
renewable energy on internal and external fora
Measure 2.3: Sustainable use of natural and cultural heritage for regional
activities;

development

development of cross-border strategies for preservation and use of
natural and cultural heritage sites, areas, landscapes and traditions for
regional development

joint creation of sustainable tourism products (e.g. cross-border thematic
routes) respecting protection needs for natural and cultural heritage

preparation and implementation of small-scale pilot investments
enhancing tourism infrastructure in the South Baltic area (e.g. chains of
tourist facilities along the Baltic Sea coast, like small ports or yacht
marinas)

capacity-building actions and joint campaigns targeting cross-border
networks of authorities responsible for management of natural and cultural
heritage sites

joint actions promoting the South Baltic area as a tourist destination
exchanging know-how and promotion of Eco-Management and Audit
Scheme as well as joint eco-labelling actions for environmentally friendly
products

development and dissemination of good practice in the field of equal
access to the tourist offer in the South Baltic area (including physical
access to sites)
Measure 2.4: Local community initiatives

Pooled resources of metropolitan regions, cities
and rural areas to enhance the Baltic Sea Region’s
competitiveness and cohesion
joint events increasing involvement of local communities and institutions,
administrative structures, media and NGOs, with a particularly focus on
young generation and on rural areas in the South Baltic area

conferences, training seminars and study visits for an exchange of good
practice within specific fields of interest, e.g. economic planning,
employment, social inclusion, youth policies, rural development,
environmental protection, natural and cultural heritage etc.

establishment and development of durable networks between NGOs
within specific fields of interest, e.g. social and health care, culture and
cultural heritage, environment and natural heritage, youth, local
community development etc.

preparation of cross-border cultural and sport events with a multi-annual
perspective

preparation of pilot and innovative projects focusing on common values,
such as good governance, exchange of good practice, promotion of gender
equalities etc.

joint actions to create sustainable development conditions in rural and
small town communities, including joint cross-border co-operation
structures.


Increased region’s identity and its recognition
Strengthened social conditions and impacts of
regional and city development

Development of new and strengthening of existing
co-operation and social and cultural networks

Cultural co-operation aiming at strengthening
cultural exchange and the area’s togetherness

Development of sustainable cross-border smallscale tourism infrastructure and networks;

Cross border cultural events, activities and peopleto-people co-operation.

Elaboration of joint tourism products;

Co-operation in the field of handicraft

Joint actions in promotion and diversification of
tourism products, in particular eco tourism
products;

Co-operation in the protection and preservation of
culture and historical heritage


Renovation of cultural/historical infrastructure and
heritage objects of cross border importance;
Development of joint cross-border tourism, for
example joint marketing

Elaboration of joint cultural and historical studies
and research activities, establishment of common
databases of cultural and historical objects;

Exchanges of experience in renovation of
architectural historical monuments/objects

joint actions at the improvement of health and
social care services, co-operation between these
services and professionals;

Co-operation that aims to increase active
participation in society of socially marginalised
groups

establishment/improvement of cross-border health,
social and educational infrastructure and
establishment of common public services,
databases, registers, strategies, etc.;

Co-operation in urban specific concerns (e.g.
integration of minorities, drug prevention,
rehabilitation of drug addicts and their integration
into society, migration of rural populations to cities
and prevention of organized crime)

Co-operation in innovative methods in health and
care sectors
Modernisation of small-scale economic infrastructure



Localandtouristicmarketing

Support
for
neighborhoods
cooperation of local organizations as
well as private culture institution,
associations, institution for the
development of good relationships,
social cohesion

Means forsmal projects.
Preparation and implementation of cross
border infrastructure development plans as
part of broader strategies;
Elaboration and implementation of joint
77
Final Report

78
spatial development plans, regional and
sectoral development studies, programmes
and strategies;
Strengthening of administrative capacities for
strategic development and planning, support
to the monitoring of implementation of joint
strategic planning documents
Final Report
As a next step in the Programmes comparison an analysis of following Programmes’ elements/
characteristics was conducted (table 27.):
• Prevailing character of the projects
• Programme indicators
• Project assessment criteria
• Maximal and minimal value of projects
• The participation of associated organisations in the programme
The majority of the analysed programmes supports most of all projects of a infrastructural character. The
South Baltic Programme and the Baltic Sea Region Programme are exceptions.
The indicators system of the South Baltic Programme (3 universal indicators) belongs to the less complex
in comparison to other analysed ETC programmes. Three indicators at the programme level are also in the
Central Baltic Interreg IVa Programme. They refer to the number of projects which respect two, three of four
of the following criteria: joint development, joint implementation, joint staffing, joint financing. In the case
of Lithuania-Poland Programme they had been supplemented with 6 main programme output indicators.
The most expanded indicators systems were adapted in the Baltic Sea Region Programme and PolishGerman Cooperation Programme. There are also differences in the construction of the programme
indicators. In the South Baltic Programme they are based on the number of projects with a specific
characteristic or concerning a specific thematic area. This schema is used also in other programmes, but it is
accompanied with indicators showing the number of people taking part in an event or number of conducted
analysis etc. Such construction of indicators reflects the activities financed in the programme in a more
specific way. However it can also require a more detailed definition of the indicators to assure validity of the
target values.
Project assessment criteria are similar in almost all analysed programmes. The exception in the
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern/Brandenburg–Zachodniopomorskie Cross-border Cooperation Programme. In
this programme there are lists of criteria that have to be fulfilled, have to be fulfilled in a minimal number or
should be fulfilled. Although there are no weights ascribed to the criteria, this assessment system seems to
be the most complicated of all analysed programmes. Because of the complexity such an assessment system
is not recommended.
Other assessment systems are similar as well as the used criteria. There are two standing out criteria in the
Baltic Sea Region Programme and two in the Polish-German cross-border programme. These are:
participation of partners from Belarus, financial support from private sector, benefits for public interest,
promotion of the regional identity, exchange of information and knowledge. Interesting are especially the
first two. A similar criterion to the first one could be used to reinforce the participation of the AOs from the
Kaliningrad region in the South Baltic Programme if such decision would be taken for the next programming
period. The second criterion can be used if the participation of partners from private sector would be
allowed in the future shape of the Programme.
What should be stressed is that in all programmes the assessment criteria are the same for all measures.
Maximal and minimal value of the project was set only Lithuania-Poland Cross-border Cooperation
Programme and the South Baltic Programme. The participation of associated organisations is previewed in
the South Baltic Programme and Baltic Sea Region Programme.
79
Final Report
Table 27. Comparison of selected rules in chosen ETC programmes
The South Baltic Programme 20072013
The Baltic Sea Region Programme
2007-2013
European Territorial Co-operation
Objective Cross-border Co-operation
Programme Lithuania-Poland 20072013
Central Baltic Interreg IVa Programme
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern/Brandenburg
–Zachodniopomorskie Cross-border
Cooperation Programme
Rather infrastructural projects
In the majority infrastructural projects
3 indicators on the programme level.
They refer to the number of projects
which respect two, three of four of
the
following
criteria:
joint
development, joint implementation,
joint staffing, joint financing
Programme indicators are divided
into three groups:
 support for activities cornering
cross-border
cooperation
and
improving
the
environmental
conditions
 support
for
cross-border
economical
connections
and
strengthen economic and scientific
cooperation
 cross-border development of
human resources and support for
cross-border cooperation concerning
health, culture and education
 technical assistance
Character of the projects
Rather “soft” projects
Rather “soft” projects
Small project – rather “soft” projects
Open calls projects – both “soft” and
“infrastructural projects
Indicators list
3 universal indicators for the
Programme and indicator for the
priority axes (priority 1 – 3, priority 2 4)
The indicators concern the number of
project which fulfil predefined
conditions
14 indicators on the Programme level
divided into three categories:
 For monitoring of the Programme
environmental impacts
 For monitoring of the degree of
transnational co-operation
 For
monitoring
of
other
Programme impacts
project which fulfil predefined
conditions
3 core indicators on the programme
level. They refer to the number of
projects which respect two, three of
four of the following criteria: joint
development, joint implementation,
joint staffing, joint financing
6 main programme output indicators
concerning number of: implemented
projects, institutions involved as
partners in each partner country,
cross border structures, events, event
participants, elaborated studies/
analysis / preparatory documents,
built/ reconstructed infrastructure
objects
Result
indicators
are
defined
separately for each of the priorities
project
which
fulfil
predefined
conditions and number of participants
of different actions
80
Final Report
Project assessment criteria
Formal assessment
assessment.
and
Quality
Admissibility check and
Assessment
of
administrative
compliance and eligibility and quality
assessment.
Quality assessment.
Criteria for the quality assessment:
Contribution to the Programme
Measures and regional strategic plans;
Relevance of the subject tackled and
adequateness of the work plan;
Innovativeness
of
the
approach and methodology;
project
Impact on the socio-economic
development of the eligible area;
Cross-border impact;
Criteria for the quality assessment:
Criteria of the quality assessment:
Relevance of the proposal
Coherence of the proposal and quality
of approach
1. Project feasibility: quality and logic
of
project
design,
applicant’s
management capacity, budget
Durability,
transferability
dissemination of the results
2. Project impact: cross-border
cooperation, cross-cutting themes
and
Partnership
Budget and management
3. Project sustainability: long-term
organisational
and
financial
sustainability
Technical admissibility check and
content
assessment:
quality
evaluation and the evaluation of the
general strategic relevance
Content assessment criteria:
Coherence
Budget
Partnership
project
The project includes investments of
transnational relevance.
Impact on the situation of the target
group;
The project has actively participating
partners from Belarus.
Implementation and Sustainability
(incl.
Dissemination,
durability,
management structure)
Dissemination of project results;
The project has financial actors from
the private sector
strength
of
Durability of the project results.
Contribution to the EU Baltic Sea
Region Strategy and its Action Plan
Contribution to the renewed Lisbon
Strategy and the Gothenburg Strategy;
Compliance with horizontal policies
(equal opportunities, impact on the
environment, information society);
Project management capacity and
81
Criteria that should be fulfilled:
financial criteria
Relevance of the project proposal for Quality assessment
the Programme
(priorities and
1. Two of the sub-criteria should be
directions of support)
fulfilled: quality of the cross-border
Cross-border impact of the project
cooperation
Additional quality features:
Scope and
partnership;
Criteria that must be fulfilled:
geographical criteria, project time
frame and the legitimacy of activities.
2. All criteria must be fulfilled:
compliance with strategic document
and durability
3. Some of the criteria should be
fulfilled:
- project serves for public interest
- positive influence on cross-border
structures
-project
doesn’t
affect
the
competitiveness and is not state aid
The project supports in particular the
geographical focus of the Programme
i.e. Helps tackling the existing EastWest divide, touch upon North-South
disparities.
-project promotes the regional identity,
exchange of information and knowledge
The project is a flagship project of the
EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region’s
Action Plan or otherwise consistent
with the Strategy.
-project
protection
-project creates condition for crossborder cooperation
-innovativeness
supports
environmental
-project supports gender equity
-positive influence on the employment
Final Report
capacities to implement the project;
in the region
Budget quality.
-positive influence
economy
Minimal and maximal value of the project
Minimal 50 000 Euro
No information
In open calls: 100 000 -3 000 000 euro
No information
No information
No
No
Small projects 5 000- 100 000 euro
Strategic projects 5 000 0000 euro
Associated Organisations
Yes
82
Yes
No
on the regional
Final Report
Future scope of the programme
This part of the report analyses the future scope of programme. This subchapter has a summary character
and is based on the results of the analyses which are presented in the previous subchapters. It answers
following research questions:
 What were the reasons (other than financial for application of funding in the current financial
perspective?
 Does the subject of the Programme correspond with beneficiaries’ needs? If not, why?
 Are the beneficiaries interested in participating in a similar programme in new financial perspective?
What were the reasons (other than financial) for application for funding in the current financial
perspective?
 Is there a need for infrastructure and / or investment activities, which can’t be financed from
national programmes or other European Territorial Cooperation programmes?
 Which priorities and activities of the Programme should be taken into account for the next
programming period (which of the current ones should be continued), bearing in mind the thematic
focus previewed within the paragraph 9 of the project of General regulation and paragraphs 5 and 6
of the project of Regulation concerns the European Territorial Cooperation 2014-2020?
What were the reasons (other than financial) for application of funding in the current financial
perspective?
The answer to the research question is based on the results of the interviews with the Lead Beneficiaries and
Projects Partners.
The Beneficiaries applied for funding within the South Baltic Programme as it gave the possibility to
implement ideas of the projects they had before. Other reason was the possibility of building networks
with other organisations from the eligible area. The respondents were also asked about the benefits for
their organisation resulting from implementation of the projects. The Polish respondents underlined the
importance of new gained experiences, national and international contact, internalization of business
activities and strengthening the position of the organisation. The Swedish organisations mentioned:
extended knowledge, new skills on how to create a partnership and coordinate an EU-funded project, new
possibilities of co-operation between partners, establishing contacts which will be useful in the future. The
German respondents underlined the experience they gained, the new international contacts and increased
efficiency in the technology transfer activities due to a larger network with similar organizations. The main
benefit for Danish organizations was in general the possibility to gain new experiences. The Lithuanian
respondents pointed out the possibility of financing the project ideas they had before but didn’t have the
resources to implement them. The respondents from all countries also confirmed that in the majority of
cases the projects raised interest of the decision makers in organizations about future participation in the
territorial co-operation programmes.
Summarising the statements of the beneficiaries the most important benefit for the organisations resulting
from the implementation of the projects is the possibility to make new international contacts and enrich
their experiences in projects implementation.
83
Final Report
Are the beneficiaries interested in participating in a similar programme in new financial perspective?
The answer to the research question in based on the results of the interviews with the Lead Beneficiaries and
Projects Partners.
The majority of the respondents (from all Programme countries) expressed the willingness to apply to the
programme in the future funding period to the programme with a similar scope, mostly also continuing
the partnerships created in this programming period. It is also clear that the Beneficiaries are focused on
the implementation of the current projects and don’t have any concrete plans about the undertakings they
are willing to implement in the future.
Does the subject of the Programme correspond with beneficiaries’ needs? If not, why? Is there a need for
infrastructure and / or investment activities, which can’t be financed from national programmes or other
European Territorial Cooperation programmes?
The analysis of the Beneficiaries needs when it comes to the scope of the future projects was done based on
the results of the interviews with the Lead Beneficiaries and Project Partners. Also result sof the previous
studies within the Capacity Building Project were taken into account.
When asked about the types of planned projects, respondents indicated different types of projects - mainly
infrastructural (such as waste water treatment), and also: environmental issues (including energy-saving
technologies), supporting entrepreneurship, recreation and new technologies.
The Danish, German and Lithuanian participants are satisfied with the current scope of the Programme and
are interested in participating in the future in the Programme with the same scope. The Polish respondents
stressed especially tourist promotion, education, research projects or cultural exchange as the thematic
areas of their future projects.
From the information collected in the research conducted within the Capacity Building Project, it can be
concluded that the most needed are projects concerning tourist products and touristic infrastructure,
project referring to use of natural and cultural resources and also development of local communities. Slightly
fewer respondents (project beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries) indicated cross-border sport and
cultural exchange and new forms of education as the most important.
As results from the information recalled above some of the future thematic areas mentioned by the
Beneficiaries in the interviews correspond with the answers to the Capacity Building Survey. These are
tourism, culture and environmental issues. Project ideas concerning infrastructure are new in comparison to
CBP results. Suggestion of the evaluators is that in the next programming period the infrastructural
investments should be taken into account to the similar extent as it is in the current Programme - mainly
in form of pilot investments and small infrastructure.
Which priorities and activities of the Programme should be taken into account for the next programming
period (which of the current ones should be continued), bearing in mind the thematic focus previewed
within the paragraph 9 of the project of General regulation and paragraphs 5 and 6 of the project of
Regulation concerns the European Territorial Cooperation 2014-2020?
The analysis done in this subchapter is based on the results of the desk study, opinions of the representatives
of the institutions implementing the programme, ETC experts, beneficiaries and recipients of projects’ effects.
84
Final Report
The representatives of the institutions implementing the Programme and ETC experts were asked about
their opinion on which priorities and activities of the Programme that should be taken into account for the
next programming period. Their answers are compared with the detailed answers of beneficiaries and
suggestions from the recipients of projects’ effects. If a thematic area was indicated by these three groups of
respondents then three points were ascribed to the thematic area (one point for each group of the
respondents). As a subsequent element the results of the analysis of the strategic documents (one point for
every analysed document) were taken into account. The point values were summarised. If a thematic area is
implemented in all analysed within the evaluation ETC Programmes17 then one point was subtracted from
the sum. The information is summarized in the table 28. Its last column presents the end sum of points
ascribed to each of the thematic areas.
17
The Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013, European Territorial Co-operation Objective Cross-border Co-operation Programme
Lithuania-Poland 2007-2013, Central Baltic Interreg IV a Programme, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern/Brandenburg –Zachodniopomorskie Crossborder Cooperation Programme.
85
Final Report
Table 28. Possible future thematic areas of the South Baltic Programme
Thematic area
R&D, innovation
Representatives of
institutions/ Experts
Beneficiaries
Recipients of the
projects’ effects
Results from strategic
documents? 18
+
+
+
+++
Information and communication technologies
Energy, energy efficiency
+
+
+
Environmental investments
+
+
+
Coastal engineering / costal management
Specific for the
South Baltic?
Implemented in all analysed
ETC Programmes?
Sum
-
5
++
2
++
5
3
+
+
2
Environmental protection, sustainable development
+
+
Nutrient inputs to the sea
+
+
2
Natural zones and biodiversity
+
++
3
Hazardous substances
+
+
2
Clean shipping
+
+
2
Climate changes
+
++
3
Agriculture, forestry and fisheries
+++
Youth, education, life-long learning
+
Efficiency in administration
+
Employment and labour mobility
+
+
Co-operation between education, companies and
municipalities (triple helix)
+
+
Entrepreneurship development, competitiveness of SMEs
+
+
+
+
Transport
+
+
Sport and cultural exchange
+
3
+++
-
2
++
4
2
-
+
+
Promotion
+
+
Development of local communes
+
+
4
+
1
++
3
+
3
+
Tourism
5
+
+++
Internal market
Cultural and natural heritage
2
1
+
3
2
+
3
Maritime safety and security
+
1
Major emergencies
+
1
18
The documents taken into account: EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, Europe 2020 Strategy, Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on specific provisions concerning the
European Regional Development Fund and the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (2011/0275)
86
Final Report
Cross border crime
+
1
Social inclusion and combating poverty;
++
2
Healthy life style
87
+
1
Final Report
The analysis shows there are 5 topics that should be implemented in the future programme period. These
are: 1) R&D, innovation; 2) Energy, energy efficiency; 3) Youth, education, life-long learning; 4) Employment
and labour mobility; 5) Entrepreneurship development, competitiveness of SMEs. These thematic areas
correspond with the thematic aims indicated in the document “Challenges and aims for the cross-border
cooperation programmes involving Poland”. In this document 4 priority thematic objectives were defined, on
which the Programme should focus (80% of the financial means). Additionally a fifth, supplementary priority
axis was suggested (20% of the financial means). It should cover such topics as: promotion of sustainable
transport and removing congestion of the most important networks; promotion of the adjustment to the
climate change, risk prevention and risk management, promotion of employment and mobility,
strengthening the institutional capacity and effectiveness of public administration. In the table 29. the
results of the analyses within this report and the recommendations from the expertise were compared.
Table 29. Comparison between the results of the analyses conducted within the report and the expertise Challenges and aims for the crossborder cooperation programmes involving Poland
Results of the analyses within this reports
Recommendations from the expertise Challenges and aims for
the cross-border cooperation programmes involving Poland
R&D, innovation
Strengthening
innovation (1)
Energy, energy efficiency
Protection of environment and promoting of efficient use of the
resources (3)
Investments in education, competences and life-long learning
(4)
Employment and labour mobility
One of the topics of the fifth, additional priority:
research,
technological
development
and
promotion of employment and mobility (5)
Entrepreneurship development, competitiveness of SMEs
Increasing competitiveness of SME (2)
The proposed thematic focus for the next programme period is as follows: R&D, innovation;
Energy, energy efficiency; Youth, education, life-long learning; Entrepreneurship development,
competitiveness of SMEs. Based on the results of compliance assessment between the
investment priorities and current indicative actions within the South Baltic Programme (see first
part of the chapter 3.1.1) implementation of following investment priorities19 is recommended:
R
R&D, innovation – thematic objective: strengthening research, technological development and innovation

19
promoting business investment in innovation and research, and developing links and synergies
between enterprises, R&D centres and higher education, in particular product and service
development, technology transfer, social innovation and public service applications, demand
stimulation, networking, clusters and open innovation through smart specialisation […] supporting
technological and applied research, pilot lines, early product validation actions, advanced
manufacturing capabilities and first production in Key Enabling Technologies and diffusion of
general purpose technologies;
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on specific provisions concerning the European
Regional Development Fund and the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (2011/0275) and taking
into account changes resulting from the compromise on thematic concentration reached during the Danish Presidency COM(2011) 615 final/2,
COM(2011) 607 final/2, COM (2011) 614 final, COM (2011) 612 final/2 COM(2011) 611 final/2
88
Final Report
Energy, energy efficiency – thematic objective: supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all
sectors

promoting the production and distribution of renewable energy sources;

promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in enterprises;

supporting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in public infrastructures, including in public
buildings and in the housing sector

promoting low-carbon strategies for all types of territories, in particular urban areas, including the
promotion of sustainable urban mobility and mitigation relevant adaptation measures;

investing in education, skills and lifelong learning by developing education and training
infrastructure (thematic objective, no detailed investment priorities);
Entrepreneurship development, competitiveness of SMEs – thematic objective: enhancing the
competitiveness of SMEs

promoting entrepreneurship, in particular by facilitating the economic exploitation of new ideas and
fostering the creation of new firms, including through business incubators;

developing and implementing new business models for SMEs, in particular for internationalisation;
It is a general proposal which should be elaborated in detail based on the regional and local needs. This
would allow combining the top-down and bottom-up approach. It is suggested to include in the Programme
the possibility to implement small-scale investment, especially in the activities concerning energy.
89
Final Report
SUMMARY
Summary of the chapter
The level of achievement of Programme objectives provided in the Operational Programme and the
future shape of the Programme in the period 2014-2020
The level of achievement of Programme objectives is high and the overall objective of the South Baltic
Programme will be achieved. The Programme strongly contributes to creation of cross border networks and
undertaking joint actions within them. The South Baltic Programme has rather “soft” than infrastructural
character. The extensive know-how which was built within the Programme can be further used in the future
initiatives.
Taking into account the results of analyses conducted within the evaluation following thematic areas should
be continued in the next programming period: R&D, innovation; energy, energy efficiency; youth,
education, life-long learning; entrepreneurship development, competitiveness of SMEs.
1. Objectives, products and results
Objectives of the Programme
The analyses showed that the overall objective of the South Baltic Programme will be achieved. The risk of
not achieving target values in the case of three indicators does not influence the generally successful
implementation of the Programme. There are three indicators in the case of which there is a risk that the
target values will be not achieved:
• Number of projects with politically welcomed and promoted results (Priority 1) (estimated level of
achievement 67%)
• Number of projects unlocking public and private investments (estimated level of achievement 57%)
• Number of projects strengthening liaisons between higher education and labour market institutions of
the south Baltic regions (estimated level of achievement 70%)
It’s important to stress that in these three cases the indicators will be for sure achieved in more than 50%,
which is a pretty positive result. Their achievement is also still possible if next calls for projects from the
priority axis 1 will be opened. If so, the next call should be first of all opened for projects concerning
measure 1.2 Integration of the higher education and labour market.
In some thematic areas the implementation of the Programme was even more effective than expected. The
Programme contributes very strongly to the creation of cross border networks (the corresponding indicator
achieved in over 240%), when undertaking joint actions was one of the most important aspects the
Programme objective. The Programme is particularly successful in strengthening cross-border cooperation
between the SME’s (over 100% of the indicators target value).
Sustainable development is particularly specified in the Programme’s objective and sustainability should be
a characteristic of all actions undertaken within the Programme. From this point of view is also important to
stress that the indicators concerning renewable energy, energy saving patters and efficient use of natural
resources will be archived in 100%.
Outputs and results of the projects and the Programme
A) All approved projects
The Programme outputs are much differentiated. The most differentiated outputs were observed in the
measure 2.1 Management of the Baltic Sea Environment. The most focused and specific outputs were
90
Final Report
observed in the measure 1.1 Entrepreneurial development. These are: branding and marketing strategies
and business plans - types of outputs that are typical for activities connected with support to SME’s. Taking
into account all Programme measures the most common type of output are thematic expertise reports. This
indicates that in the projects implemented in the current Programme an extensive know-how was built
which could and should be further used in the future projects.
The results of the Programme are less differentiated than the outputs. There are three types of results: pilot
investments, infrastructural investments and local brand products which were not indicated in any country
as the most common. Looking on all measures the most common results are long term cooperation
agreements and new extended cooperation networks. It indicates the rather “soft” than infrastructural
character of the Programme. The partnerships and cooperation built within the projects are also valuable
assets for the future projects and will facilitate the future partnerships.
Summarising the analysis of Programme outputs and results it can be stated that the future South Baltic
Programme should to a significant extent built on the current Programme, both when it comes to the
substantive issues and projects implementation schemes (partnerships).
B) Outputs and results of the completed projects
The completed projects contributed to the greatest extent to creating cross-border networks and signing
political agreements. However they had no influence on the potential public investments implemented
from other sources than the South Baltic Programme. Also the influence on building intercultural dialog,
measured through number of local institutions (e.g. local authorities, NGOs) involved in intensified
intercultural dialogue and number of people involved in intensified intercultural dialogue was relatively
weak.
C) Project outputs and results in the opinion of the potential recipients of projects effects
Most of the potential recipients of projects effects are satisfied with the results. They underline that the
intercultural dialogue was intensified and the possibilities of creating co-operation networks increased.
More effective ways of working and thinking were worked out. As the most important types of projects’
effect the respondents indicated:

Intensifying cross-border cooperation, integration activities in the thematic fields of: sustainable
transport, protection of environment, higher education, tourism and culture;

Knowledge exchange networks in the thematic field of higher education, renewable energy sources,
sustainable transport, tourism and culture;

Education, workshops, trainings, working out new forms of education, study visits in the thematic field
of higher education;

Environmental friendly technologies, in the thematic field of transport topic;

Promotion, promotional events, conferences in the thematic field of culture and high education.
Complementarity of the projects
the Programme measures and between projects implemented within different measures also with projects
implemented within chosen ETC Programmes. No cases were found in which the content of the project
would duplicate the actions undertaken within other initiative.
91
Final Report
2. Partnerships
Finding partners, duration of the partnerships
A significant number of the partnerships was created for the needs of the Programme. However this
shouldn’t be assessed negative, taking into account that the interviewed beneficiaries declared they want
to continue the partnerships in the future. The opportunity to create new cross-border networks and
exchange experiences was also in the opinion of the beneficiaries one of the most important advantages
resulting from participation in the Programme. Because of that the structure of the partnerships ( number
of new ones and continued) should be assessed positive.
Tasks division between the partners, the efficiency of communication
Most of the participants declare that they know each other’s role in the project and that all partners are
actively involved in the implementation of the projects. The communication between the partners is rather
informal. Problems that occurred in the partnership resulted from: cultural differences, language barriers,
organisational changes and engagement in too many projects at the same time. In opinion of the
respondents it is easier to avoid such problems if partners have already had some experience with similar
projects and fluently use a foreign language. Generally it can be stated the problems in partnerships don’t
significantly affect the implementation of the projects.
Future cooperation
Respondents from all analysed countries confirmed that they are planning to continue the cooperation with
the current partners also after the end of the projects. However in the majority of cases there are no
detailed plans of such cooperation, also no plans about sources of financing for the partnership. The
Beneficiaries of the South Baltic Programme are also interested in creating new partnerships with other
organisations.
Possible instruments and activities supporting the partnerships
The respondents listed two groups of activities that could support the partnerships. The first one referred
to the improvements that could be done by Programme institutions: minimising bureaucracy, simplifying
the rules of participation in the Programme, standardization of rules for all countries, more support in prefinancing, preparing a list of recommended partners, organising partners meetings, providing external
support for partnerships and encourage potential partners to join the Programme by providing more
information about the regions and the Programme itself.
The second group of activities was a list of tasks that should be done by the partners themselves: have basic
knowledge about the Programme, improve the knowledge of English, improve the information flow
between the partners, better distribute tasks in the project and more strictly define rules of cooperation.
There should be some changes in the Programme concerning the participation of NGOs. In the current
shape of the Programme only some of them fulfil the respective requirements to be a leader.
The Associated Organisations in The South Baltic Programme
AOs are engaged in the majority of the projects realized within the South Baltic Programme. The level of
involvement of the AOs from Kaliningrad Oblast is pretty low. The participation of the AOs from the private
sector is slightly less common than form the public sector. In the case of Kaliningrad Oblast the public
institutions are prevailing. AOs role in the project is differentiated in engagement level and scope. Generally
the Lead Beneficiaries are satisfied with the cooperation with AOs, although they are sometime less active
than expected. The activity of AOs form the Kaliningrad Oblast is limited due to shortage of financial means.
92
Final Report
Apart from financial shortages the Russian AOs are highly interested in participation in the Programme.
3. Future shape of the Programme
Contribution to achieving the objectives of Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region
In the Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region there are five thematic areas that are not implemented by the
South Baltic Programme. These concern: clean shipping, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, maritime safety
and security, major emergencies and cross-border crime.
Contribution to implementation of the Strategy Europe 2020
In its current shape the implementation of the South Baltic Programme contributes to the achievement
almost all of the objectives of the Europe 2020, though supporting projects concerning thematic areas
accordant with the flagship initiatives. The exception are actions aiming at facilitation connection to high
speed internet.
Differences between the Programme and other ETC programmes covering/ bordering eligible area of the
In the scope of the South Baltic Programme there are some similarities to the analysed transnational
cooperation programme - the Baltic Sea Programme. When it comes to the analysed cross-border
programmes there is a significant difference, first of all in the character of the supported initiatives. The
projects implemented within the South Baltic Programme have soft rather than infrastructural character (as
in the other cross –border Programmes). The South Baltic Programme can be therefore seen as transitional
between the transnational and cross-border programmes or as a linking point between them. It is also
important to stress the unique character of the activity 2.4 Local community activities. All of the actions
realized within this measure are specific for the South Baltic Programme and the measure itself has an
innovative character.
Beneficiaries’ plans for the future
Most of the participants are satisfied with the current scope of the Programme and are interested in
participating in the future in the Programme with the same scope. They plan projects in following thematic
areas: infrastructure (such as waste water treatment), environmental issues, energy-saving, supporting
entrepreneurship, tourism and recreation, new technologies, education, cultural and sport exchange,
cultural heritage and development of local communities. In the opinion of the evaluators in the next
programming period the infrastructural investments should be taken into account to the similar extent as it
is in the current Programme - mainly in form of pilot investments and small infrastructure.
Priorities and activities of the Programme that should be taken into account for the next programming
period
Taking into account the thematic focus previewed within the paragraph 9 of the draft proposal of General
regulation and the results of analyses conducted within the evaluation following thematic areas should be
continued in the next programming period: R&D, innovation; energy, energy efficiency; youth, education,
93
Final Report
94
Final Report
3.2. Part II - Effectiveness of the projects implementing system that
is defined within the Programme documents.
3.2.1. Projects implementation
This subchapter focuses on the problems in project preparation and implementation. Regarding the projects’
preparation phase the rejection reasons and the assessment criteria are analysed. Also the beneficiaries’
opinion about the main problems is presented. When it comes to the implantation phase mainly the issues
concerning payments were taken into account. Following research questions are answered in the chapter:
 What were the problems on the application stage (e.g. finding a partner, project budgeting,
procedures etc.)?
 What were the main errors that caused projects’ rejection?
 Why some of the potential beneficiaries are not interested in applying for funding?
 Does the projects assessment process provide the selection of the most suitable projects (according
to Programme’s objectives)?
 Are the projects assessment criteria and the conditions imposed on applicants in the application
forms adjusted to the type of the project?
 Is the certification process done by JST and MA efficient? If not, what can be done to optimise the
process?
 Are there any differences between the planed payment timetables and the real ones - on the
Programme and projects levels? If so, how does this situation affect the adequate Programme
implementation?
 Are there any problems with interim and final payment? If so, what is the solution to prevent them?
What were the problems on the application stage (e.g. finding a partner, project budgeting, procedures
etc.)?
The following answer to the research question is based on the interviews results and desk research. In the
individual telephone interviews the Lead Beneficiaries, Projects Partners and representatives of Programme
institutions were questioned. The main document in the desk research was the report form the Capacity
Building Project.
A) Problems on the application stage in general
-
The Beneficiaries
The vast majority of the Swedish respondents (about 90%) notified problems on the application stage. As the
main barriers for the preparation of the project, they indicated a high degree of formalisation of the
Programme (the more attention is paid to the formalities than to substantive matters). It was also difficult
for them to find partners.
The Swedish respondents also stressed the difficulty in accessing additional consultations and guidance.
There were numerous problems with understanding how to fill the application. Respondents also pointed
the difficulties in understanding certain rules, particularly the rules of co-financing among partners. Search
for partners was also problematic for some beneficiaries from Lithuania and Germany. At the initial stage of
95
Final Report
project preparation, Polish respondents had difficulties with preparation of the application form, what was a
result of insufficient knowledge of programme rules. After consultations with institutions and building a
stronger partnership these problems were overcome.
-
The representatives of the institutions
The statements of the beneficiaries were, to a significant extent confirmed by the representatives of the
institutions implementing the Programme. They observed problems with finding partners, understanding
some rules of the Programme such as costs eligibility, qualification of expenses, cost-sharing. The
beneficiaries had also problems with filling in the applications in the sections concerning counting working
hours, calculating salaries, finding the answers for EU questions for horizontal polices, environmental
impact, information society. It should be underlined that many of the problems resulted from the fact that
many beneficiaries don’t read the documents and manuals carefully. The tender rules, as well as the
regulation of having at least two offers when buying any item were deterring partners from getting involved
in the project.
B) Problems resulting from the projects preparation costs
-
The Beneficiaries
For many respondents the project preparation costs were a significant problem (30% of the responents). To
avoid such difficulties the Swedish beneficiaries would prefer to have the possibility of obtaining a small
amount of the initial capital for the preparation of the project. The value of this support should be between
10 000 and 70 000 Euro (but the indicated values fluctuated mostly around the value 20 000 - 40 000 Euro).
In the opinion of the respondents, if the value of the support depends on the value of the whole project, it is
unfavourable for small projects, because they get less money. The same problem was underlined by Danish
respondents. There were problems in including preparatory costs in the budget of the project especially in
the beginning of the process. Furthermore one participant reported that project preparation costs can be a
problem especially for local non-government organizations which have very limited funding to cover these
costs. Also academic institutions have problems with collecting budget for preparation activities (statement
of one the Lithuanian respondents). Although it was stated by only one responded it is worth noticing
because it can be true for small non-government organisation and academic institutions from all Programme
countries. The Lead Beneficiaries from Germany indicated that they would prefer a seed money facility that
would provide grants for project preparation of between 15 000 euro to 60 000. Polish respondents would
like to include preparatory costs in a projects budget to a higher extent than 5% of the project value.
-
The representatives of the institutions confirmed that for many applicants the cost of preparing the
applications was a significant problem.
C) A comparison with the results of a survey circulated within the Capacity Building Project
-
Previous results
In 2011 problems concerning the application stage reported by the Beneficiaries were analysed within the
Capacity Building Project. In the circulated survey the respondents were asked to choose from the list of six
types of difficulties:




96
The necessity to prepare the projects application and other documents in foreign language,
Complicated application process,
Problems with finding the partner (lack of knowledge),
Lack of the possibilities to pre- finance the project,
Final Report


Lack of the possibilities to co-finance,
Insufficient human resources.
The assessment of the above listed problems was analysed, taking into account the respondents’ country of
origin. For the Danish beneficiaries the most problematic was the complicated application process, cofinancing and insufficient human recourses. The German beneficiaries reported problems with pre-financing,
co-financing and human resources. Similar problems concerned Lithuanian beneficiaries. Pre-financing and
co-financing was also problematic for the Polish beneficiaries. They also had difficulties with preparing the
application in a foreign language. The Swedish beneficiaries reported problems with insufficient human
resources, complicated application process and with pre-financing (but to a lesser extent).
Comparing the results obtained in the surveys circulated within the Capacity Building Project and the results
of the interviews within this evaluation some changes can be observed. The respondents didn’t mention
problems with applying for financing in foreign language, human resources and finding sources for cofinancing. Most frequently discussed issues were pre-financing, finding partners and complicated application
process.
Summary
Summarising the information collected in respect to the research question the main problems on the
application stage were connected with three issues:

understanding formal rules of project preparation (cost eligibility, cost sharing between partners,

finding projects partners,

cost of project preparation.
In response to these problems, it is recommended to strengthen the support provided to the
potential beneficiaries in the projects preparation phase by the Contact Points in terms of
workshops, consultations and partners search – promoting wider use of the projects partners’ data
base. The evaluator sees also a for a seed money facility that would offer grants for projects
preparation up to 50 000 euro.
R
Does the projects assessment process provide the selection of the most suitable projects (according to
Programme’s objectives)?
Are the projects assessment criteria and the conditions imposed on applicants in the application forms
adjusted to the type of the project?
The analysis of the projects assessment criteria done in this subchapter is based on the desk research, which
mainly included the information from the Programme manual and Guidelines for Assessors on quality
assessment. The results of the desk research were supplemented by the opinions of the Lead Beneficiaries
and Project Partners collected during the ITI interviews.
The project assessment process is divided into formal and quality assessment. In the quality assessment
projects are assessed according to following criteria:

Contribution to the Programme Priority Axes and regional strategic plans

Relevance of the subject tackled and adequateness of the work plan

Innovativeness of the project approach and methodology
97
Final Report

Impact on the socio-economic development of the eligible area

Cross-border impact

Scope and strength of project partnership

Impact on the situation of the target group

Dissemination

Durability of the project results

Contribution to the renewed Lisbon Strategy and the Gothenburg Strategy

Contribution to the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and its action plan

Compliance with horizontal policies (equal opportunities, impact on the environment, information
society)

Project management capacity and capacities to implement the project

Budget quality
The selection of the most suitable projects according to Programme’s objectives is ensured trough the
criteria: Contribution to the Programme Priority Axes and regional strategic plans. For this criteria following
sub-criteria were defined:



The project objectives are in line with and contribute to achieving the Programme objectives,
The project is in line with strategic plans of regions involved in the Programme,
The project is in line with other strategies and programmes that are important for the South Baltic
area.
In the opinion of the evaluation team the analysed criteria are in general sufficient to assure the
accordance with Programme objectives.
The criteria of Contribution to the Programme Priority Axes and regional strategic and Impact on the
situation of the target group adjust the assessment procedure to the types of the projects. Both objectives
of the measures (which result from the Programme objectives) and the target groups (listed in the
Programme manual) are specific for the types projects recommended for implementation in each measure.
Thanks to these two criteria there is no need for differentiation of the assessment criteria for each type of
the project. The assessment procedure is not complicated and transparent. Also the application form has a
universal character. There are no fields that could be not applicable to a certain type of the project. The
general character of the application form questionnaire can be assessed very positively. This opinion was
also confirmed by the representatives of the institutions implementing the Programme. The assessment
criteria are mainly “soft” criteria, but also there are not many infrastructure projects in the Programme.
The majority of the Swedish Beneficiaries found the project assessment criteria clear enough. However they
would put more attention on projects’ results than on compliance with politics or way of project
implementation. They suggested that there should be a closed list of possible results of the projects. The
opinion of the German and Polish participants was similar. Additionally the German leaders stressed that the
received assessment sheets were very helpful. Project assessment criteria were found complicated and
difficult to understand only by the Danish beneficiaries.
98
Final Report
Summary
evaluator sufficient to provide the selection of the most suitable projects and properly adjusted to the types
of the projects. No changes in the project assessment criteria are suggested.
What were the main errors caused projects’ rejection?
The main errors which caused projects’ rejection were analysed based on the documentation concerning the
consolidated project assessment. Analysed were 83 applications rejected in the calls 2nd – 8th. The data about
the rejection reasons is summarized in the table 3020. For every measure the average rating for each
assessment criteria was calculated. In the case of the 2nd call the rating scale has to be reclassified to assure
compliance with all following calls. The evaluation scale was as follows:




0 - lack of information or does not comply with criterion,
1 – poor,
2 – adequate,
3 – good.
The lowest average rating for every measure was marked in the table 9 with bold. The second type of
information presented for every measure in table 9 is the percent of applications which were assess as poor
in every criteria (1). Rating “0” occurred only in three cases for criteria Project management capacity and
capacities to implement the project and Contribution to the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and its
action plan. The percent values marked in red refer to the highest ratio of the project rated “1” in each
criterion. The end part of the table 9 summarises the data for all measures.
The results of the desk research were supplanted by the observation of the representatives of the institutions
implementing the Programme.
A) Projects rejection rate
In the calls 2nd -8th there 143 applications submitted and 83 rejected. The rejection rate is high - 58%.
B) Formal assessment
Out of the 83 analysed applications, 6 were rejected for formal reasons (7% of the analysed applications).
From this group in three cases it can be said that the rejection was caused by the carelessness of the
potential beneficiary: the application was almost empty and not signed, submitted after the deadline or one
of the co-financing statements could not be delivered. In the other three cases the eligibility of lead
beneficiary and/or partner was questioned. This data was confirmed by the representatives of the
Institutions implementing the Programme. They listed following main reasons for projects’ rejection in the
formal assessment: problems with eligibility, applications signed by not authorized persons, to late
submission of the application and lack of answers in some points of the application.
As results of the above presented data formal shortcomings of the applications are not a significant problem
in the South Baltic Programme. The activities aimed at reducing the rejection rate should be focused on the
quality of the applications.
20
th
As the names of the assessment criteria changed over time in the table 30 the names of the assessment criteria valid for the 8 call were
nd
used. The criterion Fulfilling criteria for territorial co-operation projects was valid only in the 2 call.
99
Final Report
Quality assessment
Almost 93% of the applications were rejected in the quality assessment. Taking into account all projects that
have been rejected, the lowest average rating was given for the criterion Relevance of the subject tackled
and adequateness of the work plan21. There same criterion was the most problematic in measures: 1.1, 1.2,
2.1, 2.3, and 2.4. For the criterion Relevance of the subject tackled and adequateness of the work plan
following sub-criteria are distinguished:
 the project originates from relevant problem / challenge / opportunity in the South Baltic area;
 the project actions are adequate to solve/address the identified problem / challenge / opportunity;
 the project methodology keeps the logic of intervention and ensures proper fit between the project
objectives and planned results and outputs,
 the project considers the concrete points of departure and differing conditions in the participating
countries / regions in its methodology, providing evidence that the project has been jointly
developed;
 indicators are realistic and properly matching outputs and results;
 transparency and careful preparation of the application form is seen;
Lowest point values achieved by the rejected projects in this criterion can indicate that the organizations
have problems with preparing the logical framework of the projects. The ideas for the projects can be itself
interesting but the applicants don’t have enough knowledge and expertise to define what can be achieved
and how to measure the achievements. The second problematic criterion (taking into account all rejected
projects) was the Durability of the project results. This shows that organisations focus on actions that are
needed now and don’t reflect on the future benefits that could result from the project.
What is interesting regarding the projects from the 1.3 measure Transport accessibility the lowest average
point referred to the criterion Dissemination. Also in the measure 2.2 Energy saving and renewable energy
the average point value for this criterion was pretty low (1,3). It can suggest that the potential beneficiaries
of the infrastructure projects can have problems with “soft parts” of the investments such as promotion.
The lowest point value for the 2.2 measure was found out for the criteria Fulfilling criteria for territorial cooperation projects22. However this results is not representative as in the second call, in which this criterion
was used, only one project concerning energy was rejected.
21
rd
The criterion Relevance of the subject tackled and adequateness of the work plan functions starting from the 3 call. In the previous calls
there was a similar criterion Logic and quality of project development
22
Criterion used only in the second call
100
Impact on the socio-economic development of the
eligible area
Contribution to the renewed Lisbon Strategy and the
Gothenburg Strategy
Compliance with horizontal policies (equal
opportunities, impact on the environment,
information society)
Contribution to the Programme Priority Axes and
regional strategic plans
Cross-border impact
Impact on the situation of the target group
Innovativeness of the project approach and
methodology
Durability of the project results
Project management capacity and capacities to
implement the project
Fulfilling criteria for territorial co-operation
24
projects
Budget quality
Relevance of the subject tackled and adequateness
of the work plan
Dissemination
Contribution to the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea
25
Region and its action plan
Assessment criteria
Measure
Average rating
1,7
1,4
2,6
2,3
1,9
1,6
1,6
1,6
1,4
2,7
2,0
1,7
1,4
1,6
2,0
Percent of projects with low rating (1 point)
57%
57%
0%
0%
29%
43%
43%
43%
57%
0%
0%
29%
57%
43%
14%
Average rating
1,6
1,8
2,5
2,4
2,2
1,8
1,5
1,9
1,6
2,4
2,0
1,4
1,4
1,9
1,9
35%
24%
0%
0%
12%
29%
53%
12%
35%
6%
0%
59%
65%
12%
18%
23
24
Only in call no. 2
Evaluation scale 0-3 points
25
In calls no. 5,6,7,8
101
Average assessment value for the measure
Scope and strength of project partnership
Final Report
Table 30. Average results the quality assessment of the rejected projects
23
1,8
1.2. Integration of higher education and labour markets
1,9
Final Report
1.3.Transport accessibility
Average rating
1,8
1,5
2,0
2,3
2,5
1,5
1,5
2,0
1,5
2,5
n/a
1,8
1,8
1,0
2,0
25%
50%
25%
0%
0%
50%
50%
25%
50%
0%
0%
25%
25%
100%
0%
Average rating
1,5
1,5
2,1
2,3
2,1
1,7
1,7
1,8
1,3
1,8
2,0
1,6
1,4
1,8
1,5
50%
50%
10%
10%
0%
30%
30%
30%
70%
30%
0%
40%
60%
30%
10%
Average rating
1,7
1,7
2,7
2,7
2,7
1,7
2,0
2,0
1,7
2,0
1,0
1,7
1,7
1,3
2,0
67%
33%
0%
0%
0%
33%
0%
0%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
67%
0%
1,8
1,7
1,9
Average rating
1,6
1,6
2,0
2,0
2,1
1,4
1,6
1,5
1,4
1,7
n/a!
1,2
1,1
1,5
1,8
38%
38%
8%
0%
0%
62%
38%
46%
62%
15%
0%
77%
92%
62%
23%
Average rating
1,7
1,4
2,1
2,2
2,1
1,3
1,7
1,6
1,3
2,0
1,5
1,5
1,2
1,3
1,9
35%
61%
0%
4%
4%
65%
35%
39%
74%
13%
4%
52%
78%
70%
4%
Average rating
1,7
1,6
2,3
2,3
2,2
1,6
1,7
1,8
1,4
2,1
2,0
1,5
1,3
1,6
1,9
40%
45%
4%
3%
6%
48%
39%
31%
58%
13%
3%
52%
69%
49%
12%
1,6
Average for the Programme
Source: own elaboration based on the results of consolidated projects’ assessment
102
1,7
Final Report
When comparing the average point values for all criteria in the project quality assessment, results for all
programme measures are similar. This value differs between 1,9 (measures 1.2, 2.2) and 1, 6 (measure 2.3).
The quality of rejected applications seems to be similar. The average rating was also similar in the
subsequent calls (table 31). In the analysed calls there were 54 unique projects that were rejected once, and
11 projects that applied for funding in two calls but didn’t get the financing. To see if the quality of the twice
rejected applications increased in the subsequent calls a simple calculation was made. From the rating for
each criterion in the later call the rating from the earlier call was subtracted. The results were summarised.
The end values show, how the quality of the applications changed (table 32). In the most cases the second
version was better than in the submitted the previous calls. For four projects the obtained 5 points what
means that the subsequent applications were assessed for 5 points more than the previous ones.
Table 31.Average point value in the quality assessment in the analysed calls
Call number
Average point value in the quality assessment
2
2,0
3
1,7
4
1,7
5
1,7
6
1,8
7
1,8
Table 32. Changes in the total point values scored in the quality assessment in project that were two times rejected
Change in the total point value
Number of projects
1
3
2
1
3
2
4
1
5
4
Additionally it is important to stress that for almost all surveyed organisations whose projects were
rejected, the rejection letters were a very good source of information about the mistakes they made and
they found them very helpful.
The observations of representatives of the Institutions implementing the Programme were similar to the
results obtained in the desk research. They listed following main reasons for projects’ rejection in the quality
assessment: inadequate budget for the planned activities, mistakes in defining indicators, weak quality of the
work-plan of project (mainly lack of logic, insufficient descriptions of the role of the partners and AOs, no
explanation of the cross-border impact).
Summary
Within the South Baltic Programme application rejections rate it high – 58%. The share of the applications
rejection rate should concentrate on the substantial quality of the applications. It was observed that
the potential beneficiaries had problems with presenting the logical framework of the projects and
defining the future benefits resulting from the projects (after projects’ completion). These two
issues should be stressed during the workshops and seminars for potential beneficiaries. From the
R
103
Final Report
53 once rejected projects 15 were approved in one of the subsequent calls. The analysis showed also that
the quality of the twice rejected projects increased in the subsequent calls. This can indicate that the quality
of the application depends i.-a. on the beneficiaries experience in applying for funding. If so it can be
expected that the quality of the applications which will be submitted to the Programme in the next
programming period will increase (in comparison to the current programing period).
Why some of the potential beneficiaries are not interested in applying for funding?
The opinions of the potential beneficiaries were collected thanks to a CAWI survey. The invitation to fill in the
survey was distributed among over 100 organisations, which fulfilled the current criteria for the Lead
Beneficiaries.
An additional issue that was analysed in the context of the projects’ preparation phase was the question why
some of the potential beneficiaries are not interested in applying for funding. All of the respondents heard
about the South Baltic programme before. The most common reason for not applying was that the
requirements are too high and application procedure too complicated; therefore, too much time and money
consuming. Such reasons as: not corresponding thematic scope, condition of at least one foreign partner in
the project, inadequate values of the possible financing and to short time for preparation of the application
were mentioned less frequently. The majority of the respondents plan to implement new projects in the
future and apply for funding to the next South Baltic Programme. The main suggested change in the
Programme is to simplify the Programme rules and procedures.26 The planned project will probably concern
transport, tourism and institutional capacity building. There are also organisations whose projects were
rejected, which plan to apply for support within the South Baltic Programme to implement projects
concerning education, renewable energy sources and culture.
Are there any differences between the planned payments timetables and the real ones - on the
Programme and projects levels? If so, how does this situation affect the adequate Programme
implementation?
The analysis of the differences between the planned payments timetables and the real ones done in this
subchapter is based on the data from the application forms and the list of accepted request for payments.
Additionally the results of the telephone interviews with the Lead Beneficiaries and Partners were also taken
into account.
When it comes to the projects implementation phase, the issue first analysed concerned the delays in
project financial progress. An analysis of the differences between planed timetables and the real ones was
done. It was based on the application forms and the list of accepted request for payments. The analysis was
done for 60 projects because for 4 out of 64 no application for payment was available yet. From the
application form, sheet “timetable” the information of the planned total eligible spending [EUR] in each
semester was taken into account. This sum was than compared for correspondent semesters with the list of
accepted request for payments. For each semester and for the project as a whole the difference between
planed cost and payments was calculated. Assuming the maximal ratio of financing (85%) only in case of 3
projects the value of the real payments was equal with planned in the application forms. In the remaining
projects the average difference between the planed payments and the real ones (incl. first semester of 2012)
was about 35% (table 33, 34). In case of 6 projects in the application form the first eligible costs were
26
In the CAWI survey directed to the beneficiaries mainly closed questions were used so the possible way of procedures simplification wasn’t
further specified
104
Final Report
planned earlier than the first real payment (table 34). These results suggest that in some project the
preparatory phase is too optimistic.
Table 33. Differences between data from the payment application the expenses planed in the application form
Differences
between data
from the
payment
application the
expenses planed
in the
application form
-28%
Project number
Project tile
WTPB.01.01.00-22-012/10-00
Responsible entrepreneurship - a way of increasing SMEs’ competitiveness during
economic crisis
WTPB.01.01.00-28-006/09-00
Development of Innovative Systems through Knowledge Exchange
WTPB.01.01.00-56-008/09-00
Valorisation of knowledge-intensive ideas in the South Baltic area
-21%
WTPB.01.01.00-56-014/10-00
Eco4Life - South Baltic Network for Environmental and Life Sciences to Boost Cross
Border Cooperation
0%
WTPB.01.01.00-92-007/09-00
Catching the future - Business and development exchange in the South Baltic region
-8%
WTPB.01.01.00-94-010/09-00
Hardwoods are good - supporting entrepreneurs of the forestry hardwood chain in the
South Baltic Region
-15%
WTPB.01.02.00-56-006/09-00
The South Baltic WebLab - a virtual laboratory on marine science for school students
-14%
Linking maritime education with the changing job market for a new generation of
Baltic Sea experts- Generation BALT
Co-ordination and integration of higher education and the labour market around the
South Baltic Sea - COHAB
Intermodal Cross-border Passenger Transport Supporting Regional Integration of
Interface Regions in SBA
South Baltic Global Access (SB Global Access)
INNOVATIVE INVESTMENTS FOR IMPROVED PUBLIC PASSENGER TRANSPORT IN SBA AN UPGRADE OF THE INTERFACE PROJECT (INTERFACE PLUS)
Introducing electric mobility as intermodal transport mean in small & medium sized
cities of the South Baltic area- ELMOS
-58%
Oversize Baltic
-23%
Dredged Materials in Dike Construction - Implementation in the SBR using
Geosynthetics and Soil Improvement (DredgDikes)
Joint use of Danish Decision Support System (DSS) for minimizing use and outflows of
herbicides
Action for the Reinforcement of the Transitional Waters' Environmental Integrity
-8%
-54%
WTPB.02.01.00-72-016/10-00
Application of ecosystem principles for the location and management of offshore
dumping sites in SE Baltic Region - ECODUMP
-67%
WTPB.02.01.00-92-005/09-00
Wetlands, Algae and Biogas - A southern Baltic Sea Eutrophication Counteract Project
WTPB.02.01.00-92-006/09-00
Household Participation in Waste Management
WTPB.02.01.00-94-001/09-00
Modern Water Management in the South Baltic Sea Area
WTPB.02.01.00-94-013/10-00
Modern Water Management in the South Baltic Sea Area - upgrade project (MOMENT
UP)
-6%
WTPB.02.02.00-56-003/09-00
Wind energy in the BSR - the extension
-24%
WTPB.02.02.00-56-004/09-00
South Baltic Offshore Wind Energy Regions
-32%
WTPB.02.02.00-92-009/10-00
Innovation in District Heating- Inno-Heat
-68%
WTPB.02.02.00-94-001/09-00
LED - Increasing Energy Saving through Conversion to LED lighting in public space
-33%
WTPB.02.02.00-94-006/10-00
Sustainable RES-CHAINS in the South Baltic Region (RES-Chain)
-65%
WTPB.02.02.00-94-007/10-00
Wind energy in the BSR 2: Demonstrators - the Upgrade (WEBSR2 Upgrade)
Re-vitalisation of the European Culture Route in the South Baltic Area – Pomeranian
Way of St. James (RECREATE)
-7%
-27%
Enjoy South Baltic! Joint actions promoting the South Baltic area as a tourist
destination- Enjoy South Baltic !
-44%
WTPB.01.02.00-56-014/10-00
WTPB.01.02.00-62-013/10-00
WTPB.01.03.00-56-001/09-00
WTPB.01.03.00-56-005/10-00
WTPB.01.03.00-56-006/10-00
WTPB.01.03.00-56-009/11-00
WTPB.01.03.00-72-002/09-00
WTPB.02.01.00-56-012/10-00
WTPB.02.01.00-62-007/09-00
WTPB.02.01.00-72-009/09-00
WTPB.02.03.00-22-012/10-00
WTPB.02.03.00-22-021/10-00
-44%
-58%
-26%
-8%
-71%
-53%
-41%
-26%
-13%
-27%
105
WTPB.02.03.00-28-019/10-00
WTPB.02.03.00-56-004/08-00
WTPB.02.03.00-56-011/10-00
WTPB.02.03.00-56-024/11-00
WTPB.02.03.00-62-002/08-00
Final Report
-63%
Implementing EU Landscape Convention in the South Baltic Region- LIFEscape
Joint development of cross-border tourism information products by South Baltic
oceanographic museums
Implementation of eGuides with cross-border shared content for South Baltic
Oceanographic Museums (BalticMuseums 2.0 Plus)
Better marina management, harbour network consolidation and water tourism
marketing in the southern Baltic rim- MARRIAGE
Developing the Four Corners as a sustainable destination based on natural and cultural
heritage
-5%
-46%
-71%
-19%
WTPB.02.03.00-92-015/10-00
Art Line
-11%
WTPB.02.04.00-22-007/09-00
Baltic active education network for development of people-to-people initiatives.
-23%
WTPB.02.04.00-22-010/09-00
The South Baltic Area-Violence Free Zone
-23%
WTPB.02.04.00-22-017/10-00
Capacity Building Project
100%
WTPB.02.04.00-28-030/10-00
International Theatre - joint performances in the South Baltic region- IN THEATER
-93%
WTPB.02.04.00-32-029/10-00
South Baltic Winter Bathing Events- Winter Events
-24%
WTPB.02.04.00-92-005/09-00
Youth Cross-border Cooperation and Communication Project
-25%
WTPB.02.04.00-92-022/10-00
WTPB.02.04.00-92-032/10-00
Food Hygiene and Food Safety in the Baltic Region- Focus on Food
Internationalisation of Local Authorities- InterLoc
-49%
WTPB.02.04.00-56-047/11
Baltic Culture Wave
WTPB.02.04.00-94-037/11
WTPB.01.02.00-56-024/11
Creative learning environments - schools building competences to lead and learn in a
rapidly changing world CreatLearn
Labour Market Dynamics and Attractive Business Environments in the South Baltic
Region SB
-57%
-37%
-28%
-62%
WTPB.02.04.00-22-042/11
Preservation of cultural heritage of the South Baltic Region CRAFTLAND
2%
WTPB.02.04.00-56-034/11
Business Culture Partnership
-13%
WTPB.02.04.00-92-044/11
Prevention of Youth Drop-Outs in Sports
-42%
WTPB.02.04.00-22-040/11
South Baltic Academy of Independent Theatre - a Tool of Social Change BAIT
-60%
WTPB.01.01.00-72-019/11
Marine Competence, Technology and Knowledge for LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) in the
south Baltic Sea Region MarTech_LNG
-3%
Source: own elaboration based on the application forms and payments application list
106
Final Report
Table 34. Differences between the date of the first payment application the expenses planned for the corresponding period in the application
form
Differences
between data
from the
Payment
payment
Project number
Project tile
application
application the
period
expenses planed
in the
application form
2011-06-100%
30
2011-12-32%
31
WTPB.01.01.00-92-017/10
Connecting business potentials over the borders GOING ABROAD
2012-06-5%
30
Sum
-16%
2010-06-100%
30
2010-12-100%
31
WTPB.02.04.00-22-021/10-00
Maritime Education and Sail Training for Young People ( M.A.S.T.)
2011-06-72%
30
2011-12-42%
31
Sum
-58%
2008-12-100%
30
year 2009
20%
WTPB.02.03.00-56-003/08-00
WTPB.02.03.00-32-001/08-00
WTPB.02.01.00-92-017/10-00
WTPB.01.03.00-56-008/10-00
WTPB.01.02.00-22-015/10-00
SeaSide - Developing excellent cultural destinations in the southern Baltic
area
United in diversity
2010-0630
2010-1231
2011-0630
Sum
2008-1231
year 2009
-20%
29%
100%
20%
-100%
35%
year 2010
-19%
Sum
2010-0630
2010-1231
2011-0630
2011-1201
Sum
-17%
-100%
2010-1231
2011-06Access by Cycling - Integrating cycling into multimodal transport system and 30
mobility culture- abc.multimodal
2011-1231
Sum
-100%
2011-0630
2011-1231
Sum
-100%
The beneficial use of sewage sludge from small and medium sized
municipalities- Euroslam
Integration and education of students, graduates and SME’s in terms of
industrial design management- DesignSHIP
-100%
-100%
-72%
-87%
-100%
-25%
-30%
-91%
-92%
Source: own elaboration based on the application forms and payments application list
107
Final Report
Additionally, information about the differences in project planning and implementation was collected
during the interviews with Lead Beneficiaries and Partners. Half of the Swedish respondents indicated that
there were some delays in the implementation of the project. Respondents notified such reasons as:
problems with the agreement among the partners, difficulties in gaining stakeholders not previewed earlier
(e.g. external experts). Delays were also caused by difficulties with the process of co-financing.
Organizational delays caused changes and shifts in the financial schedule. Almost half of the Swedish
respondents reported also shifts in the payments for the projects (in relation to the previously established
schedule). There were complaints on delays caused by FLC.
Danish respondents reported some delays caused by lack of resources on partners’ side, and also resulting
from differences between the expected state of affairs and the actual one in project thematic area. There
were also delays resulting from being a new in the programme, which meant no knowledge about how FLC’s
works in each country.
Lithuanian Lead Beneficiaries provided an example that some delays in the projects result from differences
between countries in system of certification on the FLC level. The waiting time for certification of expenses
of the Polish partners was much longer than in other countries.
In case of project led by German organizations there were no major delays in the payments to the projects
or financial progress. However there were some delays in starting projects, due to the process of preparing
the organisations to the implementation, which included internal arrangements like staff recruitment. One
participant pointed out that the administrative requirements should be reduced for limiting the delays, e.g.
FLC procedures in Poland should be sped up.
Polish participants reported some delays which resulted from unexpected changes during the project
implementation, such as changing a partner. There were also difficulties with hiring a new staff. Many
participants reported differences in assumed and actual plan cost, but it worked both ways – in some cases
the actual costs were higher and in some cases lower than expected. The differences were not significant.
R
To avoid delays resulting from unexpected organisational changes or other changes projects’
environment it is recommended to introduce the requirement of preparing at the preparation
stage a risk analysis for the project implementation period.
In the risk analysis, the key risk factors and the strength of their influence on project implementation should
be taken into account. The risk analysis should be obligatory for each project in the preparation phase. The
results of the analysis should be one of the issues discussed with the Contact Points and / or JTS during
project consultations.
Summary
implementation of some projects. This was confirmed by the Lead Beneficiaries in the interviews. In some of
the projects the delays are caused by too optimistic preparatory phase. In general the occurring delays don’t
significantly affect the implementation of the Programme.
108
Final Report
Is the reporting process done by JST and MA efficient? If not, what can be done to optimise the process?
The analysis of the efficiency of the reporting process was based on the opinions of the Beneficiaries, Projects
Partners and representatives of the institutions implementing the programme. The information was collected
during the individual telephone interviews (ITI)
One of the states of the projects implementation which was analysed in detail was the reporting process
done by JST and MA. The majority of Swedish respondents had no critical comments on the reporting
process done by JTS and MA, payments were on time. It was the same in case of Lithuanian respondents.
Two Swedish Beneficiaries were not satisfied with this process, however, they didn’t indicate the reason of
dissatisfaction. In the case of projects led by Danish institutions there were some problems in length of the
whole reporting process, which was difficult for some partners, because the budget did not cover the
delayed period. The German participants are in general satisfied with the length of the reporting process.
However there were two opinions that the answer from JTS was very quick, but they’ve had to wait for
reimbursement quite a long time. The Polish respondents reported problems with the certification but not
on the JST and MA level – rather on the FLC level what was explained as a matter of not enough human
resources in the institution of the controller and also problems with bureaucracy. In general 44% of the
respondents reported problems with the certification on the FLC level.
In the opinion of the representatives of institutions implementing the Programme the reporting process
should run smoother than it is now. It is difficult to shorten this process because of lack of the people who
are responsible for that (which makes the reporting process not effective). On the FLC level it is better when
the system of certification is decentralized as it is in Denmark, Germany and Lithuania 27.
Are there any problems with Project Progress Reports reimbursement (interim payment) and
reimbursement of the final Project Progress Reports (final payment)? If so, what is the solution to prevent
them?
To answer the research question the opinions of the Lead Beneficiaries and the Projects Partners were
collected. Additionally an analysis of the monitoring data was done to get the information about the length
of the time period between the progress report reception by JTS and payment notification28. Also the length
of the clarification process was taken into account.
Less problems were reported by the Beneficiaries when it comes to the interim and final payment.
Lithuanian and Danish beneficiaries reported no problems with payments. Two of the Swedish respondents
indicated that there were problems with interim payments. As barriers to the smooth functioning payments
system the lack of competence of the FLC was indicated. German respondents stressed the long waiting time
between the decision and the actual reimbursement. In one case there was a situation when the period
from clarification completion to refunding was longer than the reporting period. The length of the control
process was problematic for the Polish participants. The respondents assumed that the human resources of
the FLC are insufficient to ensure proper length of the process.
The results of the monitoring indicate that in the first round in 2011 the average time of the between
reception of the progress report and payment notification was 75 days, the minimal was 33 days and in four
cases the whole process took between 120 and 137 days. The clarification process (between sending a
27
The FLC was excluded from the scope of the evaluation. Therefore the problems indicated by the respondents concerning FLC are only
signalized and were not a subject of a detailed analysis.
28
Information sent to the Lead Beneficiary informing about the date of payment and amount of reimbursement.
109
Final Report
clarification request and finishing the clarification process) lasted 22 days on average. Only in three cases the
process took 55-60 days.
In the second round in 2011, the average time of the progress report approval process till the stage of
payment notification took 102 days, the minimal was 31 days, the maximal 186 days. The average length of
the clarification process was similar to the first reporting round in 2011. Usually the longest stage of the
process was the clarification or the period between sending the progress report to MA and progress report
final approval. In the last case the need for additional explanation from the beneficiary or correction of the
report lengthened the procedure.
The complete data for the first round of the reporting process in 2012 was available for 8 projects. In those
cases the shortest period between the progress report reception and payment notification was 42 days and
the longest 69 days. The maximal length of the clarification process was 41 days.
Summary
The monitoring data doesn’t show significant delays that could result from the length of the period between
project progress reports approval and payment notifications. If the process was longer than the average
then it resulted from the need of clarification (questions from JST or MA). It can be assumed that the
Beneficiaries are mainly dissatisfied with the length of the expenditures certification by the FLC, which was
not a subject of detailed analysis within the evaluation.
110
Final Report
3.2.2. Administrative structure
In this subchapter the administrative structure of the South Baltic Programme is analysed. The covered
issues concern the projects’ generating process, support for the beneficiaries and the resources of the
institutions implementing the South Baltic Programme. Following research questions are answered in the
chapter:
 How does the administrative structure of the Programme contribute to achievement of the
Programme goals (Managing Authority, Joint Technical Secretary, National Contact Points, Regional
Contact Points, Country National Coordinators, Monitoring Committee, Steering Committee)?
 Is the assistance of National and Regional Contact Points useful for the Beneficiaries? How to
strengthen their pro-active role in the process of projects generating?
 What are the weaknesses and strengths of the administrative structure in the context of support
offered to the applicants and projects partners?
How does the administrative structure of the Programme contribute to achievement of the Programme
goals (Managing Authority, Joint Technical Secretary, National Contact Points, Regional Contact Points,
Country National Coordinators, Monitoring Committee, Steering Committee)?
The analysis of the efficiency of the current administrative structure of the Programme was based on the
information collected during the telephone interviews with representatives of the institutions implementing
the programme. It was further complemented with the results of the desk research.
The contribution of the administrative structure to the achievement of the Programme goals is generally
assessed as positive by the representatives of the institutions involved. However, there were also some
critical opinions and suggestions for changes. The weak financing structure of the institutions was criticized–
Regional Contact Points and Contact Points are underfunded. One of their main fields of activity is extended
promotion and information but they should be given more financing for these tasks, what could enable them
to expand these activities. This means, that the financial resources on the Technical Assistance for the
Programme should be increased. It should be considered that the Programme is cross-border and now has
more participating countries than typical cross-border programmes, bilateral cooperation programmes.
It is also crucial to employ more staff in Contact Points and Regional Contact Points – their
knowledge and assistance to Beneficiaries is a basis for good implementation of the Programme. It
also requires strengthening the contact Points and Regional Contact Points in terms of financial
and human resources. This opinion was also confirmed during experts’ forum discussion. There
should be also more international staff in Joint Technical Secretary.
R
When it comes to the division of competences the respondents from the JTS and Contact Points indicated
that changes should be introduced in the functioning of the CPE (The Centre of European Projects). The JTS is
subordinated in organisational and financial tasks to the CPE and in the substantial tasks to MA. The
respondents indicated that in practice reporting to the two institutions on different matters in some cases
problematic. The CPE is involved in implementation of five different programmes what sometimes results in
longer procedures or longer time needed to get a decision. Additionally each of those programmes has its
specific, what should be stronger reflected in the functioning of the CPE. In the opinion of the respondents
the role of the CPE in the future programming period should be subject of a separate discussion.
111
Final Report
An additional interesting observation is that the Programme is seen as becoming more transnational than
cross-border. In the opinion of respondents its local character should be emphasized.
When it comes to project implementation it could be more effective when advance payments
would be possible, what is recommended by the evaluator. The respondents also indicated that
there is not enough staff to assess the projects’ reports, and this makes the process of assessment
longer than it should be. After completion implementation the projects are closed, catalogued and
forgotten instead of promoting them and using their results for the future.
R
Summary
In the analysis of the administrative structure of the Programme and its contribution to the achievement of
the Programme goals three important issues were identified: 1) the need to strengthen the Contact Points
and Regional Contact Points in terms of financial and human resources, 2) the need to discus and probably
redefine the role of CPE in the Programme implementation, 3) introducing advance payments in the
Programme.
Is the assistance of National and Regional Contact Points useful for the Beneficiaries? How to strengthen
their pro-active role in the process of projects generating?
The assessment of the assistance of the National and Regional Contact points is based on the opinions
collected during the telephone interviews with the Lead Beneficiaries, Projects Partners and representatives
of the institutions implementing the Programme.
-
The Beneficiaries
The Lithuanian Lead Beneficiaries and Partners were generally satisfied with the assistance they obtained
from the Contact Points and Regional Contact Points. Additionally they underlined the usefulness of support
they got from the JTS. The German Lead Beneficiaries were very satisfied with the individual project
consultations provided by the Contact Point. They obtained specific and targeted recommendations.
In the opinion of Swedish respondents there is a need to increase the awareness about the support that can
by be provided by the Regional Contact Points. Especially the assistance concerning formal issues was seen
as very important (i.e. help with understanding the application procedures). The Swedish Lead Beneficiaries
and partners pointed out that there is a need for more meetings, seminars and trainings concerning such
issues as project budget and reporting. Also help in finding and acquiring partners is crucial. In the opinion of
the respondent, the support provided by the JTS was the most useful. This was the institution that the
beneficiaries contacted the most frequently.
The Polish respondents stressed the useful help of the JTS in Gdansk. Polish beneficiaries suggested that the
Contact Points should be more actively involved in the search for foreign partners for the project. There is
also need for more consultation meetings at JTS, support with financial analysis, information and
professional trainings for those who are joining the Programme for the first time. There was only one
outlying opinion about too much bureaucracy in JTS and changes implementation of the regulations.
The Danish respondents suggested that Contact Points should pay more attention the projects’ promotion.
They would also like to have more meetings, conversations and in general more information about the
Programme prepared for the organisations which could be interested in participation in the projects.
The most needed support that should be provided for the beneficiaries by the Programme institutions was
also analysed within the Capacity Building Projects. For the Danish beneficiaries most important was the
assistance with preparing project’s budget, finding partner and information about the application process.
The respondents from Germany expected help with preparing the budget, elaborating project idea, and
112
Final Report
activities description in the application form. For Polish organizations the most important were: support with
budget preparation, information about the application procedures and help with finding partners. The
Swedish beneficiaries indicated that they need help with preparing the complete documentation, including
budget and developing the project idea.
As it results of the information presented above, the most important needs of the Programme participants
didn’t significantly change over time. They would prefer to have the possibility of participating in more
consultations and meetings including trainings concerning budget and reporting skills. Assistance in
preparing the application is also needed. They need better support in finding partners for the projects.
Similar about the support for the potential beneficiaries expressed the organizations, whose projects were
rejected. What is interesting, they strongly prefer direct contact with the representatives of the institutions
(individual consultations and workshops in the second place). Only few of them opted for info-line or
webcasts.
R
To respond to the needs of the beneficiaries it is recommended to elaborate the data base of
projects partners, which participated in the Programme. The data base should contain
information about the willingness to cooperate and the areas of interest. It should also
include information about the other organisations which showed interest in the Programme and / or
participated in Programme’s events. The data base should be used in during trainings and consultations
for the potential Beneficiaries as an example how to find partners.
-
The representatives of the organizations implementing the Programme highly appreciated the
effectiveness of two main tools for supporting the Beneficiaries - the ideas database, and the Capacity
Building Project. They’re both worth continuing and improving. Additionally an expanded and well
promoted projects database is needed. Such data base should build on the existing projects data base and
contain besides project’s title, name of beneficiary and amount of co-financing, also the description of the
project, all the documents connected with its preparation and realization, and also the list of its results. The
data base should be regularly updated and promoted among applicants. The list of possible results should be
previously elaborated during Programme preparation stage. Such a list would assure aggregation of the
indicators. Currently it is impossible, as there are too many “other results indicators”.
The respondents also indicated a need for wider promotion of the projects. The good-practice from Sweden
shows that the good way of spreading results is to organise “learning conferences” for the audience wider
that only the project partners. Raising media interest would also have a positive impact on the familiarity
with results of the Programme and of the projects.
The recommendation of the evaluator is to elaborate the data base with the information about
the completed project and to popularise it among the potential beneficiaries of the South Baltic
Programme in the next programming period. The data base should contain information if the
beneficiary is willing to cooperate in the future.
R
What are the weaknesses and strengths of the administrative structure in the context of support offered
to the applicants and projects partners?
To summarize all information about the administrative structure and its functioning a SWOT analysis was
conducted. It presents the most important strengths and weaknesses of the system as well as chances and
risks.
113
Final Report
Positive
Negative
- not sufficient human resources, in Regional
Contact Points as well as Contact Points in particular
Internal
- not sufficient financial resources, for Regional
Contact Points and Contact Points in particular
- appropriate administrative structure
Programme implementation (in general)
for
- useful assistance provided by JTS in Gdansk
- satisfied assistance provided by Contact Points
and Regional Contact Points
- good quality of the support provided for the
Beneficiaries (high level of satisfaction)
- not enough staff for projects' assessment
- not enough Regional Contact Points assistance in
partners finding process
- no international stuff in the JTS
- too weak promotion of the Programme at Contact
Points level in particular
- no facilitation for smaller (not rich) beneficiaries at
project preparatory stage, lack of advance payments
and seed funds
- difficult, especially for new participants, projects'
preparation procedures
External
- Programme is well positioned within EU assistance
programmes
- territory covered by the Programme gives the
possibility to implement complex projects with
significant meaning for the whole region
- Programme objectives assure cooperation and
exchange of knowledge between organisations
from the EU and non-EU countries as well as
cooperation with highly qualified market companies
- decentralized system of FLC in some of the
countries
114
- time consuming procedures for payments
certification at FLC
- not enough interest in the Program from possible
project partners
Final Report
SUMMARY
Summary of the chapter
Effectiveness of the projects implementing system that is defined within the Programme documents
The overall assessment of the projects implementing system is positive although there are some possible
changes which could be introduced to increase its effectiveness. Most problems in the implementation
system occur at the FLC and are referred to the certification process. Important changes that are needed in
the system concern introducing a seed money facility for projects preparation and the system od advance
payments. Both on the application as well as on the implementation stage there is a need for stronger
support for the potential beneficiaries and beneficiaries by the Contact Point. In order to meet those needs
the Contacts Points should be financially strengthened.
1. Project implementation
Problems in the project preparation phase
The main problems on the application stage were connected with following issues:
• understanding formal rules of project preparation (cost eligibility, cost sharing between partners,
• finding projects partners,
• cost of project preparation - the desired amount of the seed money should be between 20 000 and
40 000 Euro.
In response to these problems it is recommended to strengthen the support provided to the potential
beneficiaries in the projects preparation phase by the Contact Points in terms of workshops, consultations
and partners search – promoting wider use of the projects partners’ data base.
Assessment criteria
The selection of the most suitable projects according to Programme’s objectives is ensured trough the
criterion: Contribution to the Programme Priority Axes and regional strategic plans. The criteria Contribution
to the Programme Priority Axes and regional strategic and Impact on the situation of the target group
adjust the assessment procedure to the types of the projects. Both objectives of the measures (which result
from the Programme objectives) and the target groups (listed in the Programme manual) are specific for
the types projects recommended for implementation in each measure.
evaluator sufficient to provide the selection of the most suitable projects and properly adjusted to the types
of the projects. No changes in the project assessment criteria are suggested.
Reasons of projects rejection
Within the South Baltic Programme application rejections rate it high – 58%. The share of the applications
rejection rate should concentrate on the substantial quality of the applications. It was observed that the
potential beneficiaries had problems with presenting the logical framework of the projects and defining the
future benefits resulting from the projects (after projects’ completion). These two issues should be stressed
during the workshops and seminars for potential beneficiaries. From the 53 once rejected projects 15 were
approved in one of the subsequent calls. The analysis showed also that the quality of the twice rejected
projects increased in the subsequent calls. This can indicate that the quality of the application depends i. a.
on the beneficiaries experience in applying for funding. If so it can be expected that the quality of the
115
Final Report
applications which will be submitted to the Programme in the next programming period will increase (in
comparison to the current programing period).
Reasons for lack of interest in applying for funding
All of the potential beneficiaries who didn’t apply for funding heard about the South Baltic programme
before. The most common reason for not applying was that the requirements are too high and application
procedure too complicated and therefore too much time and money consuming. The majority of the
respondents plan to implement new projects in the future and apply for funding to the new South Baltic
Programme. The main suggested change in the Programme is to simplify the Programme rules and
procedures. The planned project will concern transport, tourism and institutional capacity building.
Delays in the projects implementation
implementation of some projects. This was confirmed by the Lead Beneficiaries in the interviews. In some
of the projects the delays are caused by too optimistic preparatory phase. In general the occurring delays
don’t significantly affect the implementation of the Programme
Reporting progress on the JST and MA level; Project Progress Reports reimbursement (interim payment)
and reimbursement of the final Project Progress Reports (final payment)
The complaints about the certification project process referred more to the FLC than to JST or MA level.
Some of the respondents were also dissatisfied with the long waiting time that passes between the
acceptance of expenses and reimbursement, but the monitoring data doesn’t show significant delays. If the
process was longer than the average then it resulted from the need of clarification. It can be assumed that
the Beneficiaries are mainly dissatisfied with the length of the expenditures certification by the FLC, which
was not a subject of detailed analysis within the evaluation.
Contribution of the administrative structure to the achievement of Programme goals and the Support of the
Contact Points and Regional Contact Points
To increase the contribution of the administrative structure of the Programme to the achievement of
Programme goals numerous suggestions were given by the respondents, e.g.: expanding the possibilities of
Regional Contact Points and Contact Points in the areas concern promotion and information though
increasing the financing for Regional Contact Points and Contact Points activities, hiring more staff for these
organisations, hiring more international staff for JTS, introducing advance payments system or, providing
the funds for projects pre-financing and capacity building.
116
Final Report
4. Conclusions and recommendations
Table 35. Recommendations table
No
Conclusion
Recommendation
Priority
(1- high,
2- medium,
Recommendation
addressee
Way of
implementation
3- low)
Suggested
time of
implementati
on
Pages of
the
report
The level of achievement of Programme objectives provided in the Operational Programme and the future shape of the Programme in the period 2014-2020
Objectives, products and results
1.
There are many additional result
indicators chosen by applicants.
Their aggregation is impossible so
it is very difficult to make use of
this source of information.
For the next programming period
clear definition of more detailed but
closed list of outputs and results
indicators which will make the
aggregation possible.
1
The new Managing
Authority, Task
Forces for
preparations of
the new
Programme
Elaboration of a
list of output and
result indicators
Beginning of
the next
programming
period
p. 36
The rules of participation in the
Programme (concerning the formal
status of the Lead Beneficiary)
should be changed. All NGOs (not
only bodies governed by public law)
should have the possibility to
become a Lead Beneficiary.
2
The new Managing
Authority, Task
Forces for
preparations of
the new
Programme
Development of
the new rules of
the Programme
Beginning of
the next
programming
period
p. 48
Partnerships
2.
The participation of the NGOs in
the programme should increase.
The small NGOs are often unable to
fulfil
the
conditions
for
participation in the Programme.
There minimal budget for the
projects or in certain thematic areas
117
Final Report
No
Conclusion
Recommendation
Priority
(1- high,
2- medium,
3- low)
Recommendation
addressee
Way of
implementation
Suggested
time of
implementati
on
Pages of
the
report
should be lowered
3.
Private firms can not participate in
the
Programme
as
Lead
Beneficiaries or Partners. However
their knowledge, expertise and
resources can be crucial in
implementing some types of the
projects (e. g. infrastructural) or in
applying the project’s know-how in
practice.
The rules of participation in the
Programme (concerning the formal
status of the Partner) should be
changed. There should be a
possibility
of
Public
Private
Partnership in the Programme
2
The new Managing
Authority, Task
Forces for
preparations of
the new
Programme
Development of
the new rules of
the Programme
Beginning of
the next
programming
period
p. 49
The future shape of the Programme
should include: R&D, innovation;
energy, energy efficiency; youth,
education,
life-long
learning;
entrepreneurship
development,
competitiveness of SMEs.
1
The new Managing
Authority, Task
Forces for
preparations of
the new
Programme (and
the participants of
the public
consultation)
Taking into
account the
indicated
thematic areas
during the works
on the next
Programme
Beginning of
the next
programming
period
p. 88
Future shape of the Programme
4.
118
In the next perspective the
thematic objective are defines in
the Proposal for a REGULATION OF
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND
OF THE COUNCIL on specific
provisions
concerning
the
European Regional Development
Fund and the Investment for
growth and jobs goal and repealing
Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006
(2011/0275) Taking into account
also other the strategic documents
Final Report
No
Conclusion
Recommendation
Priority
(1- high,
2- medium,
3- low)
Recommendation
addressee
Way of
implementation
Suggested
time of
implementati
on
Pages of
the
report
and results of the interviews the
proposal of the future thematic
scope of the Programme was
formulated
Effectiveness of the projects implementing system that is defined within the Programme documents
Projects implementation
5.
The
Beneficiaries
of
the
Programme have problems with
covering the cost of projects’
preparation. The current solution is
not sufficient, especially in case of
smaller
projects.
Smaller
organisations have also problems
with pre-financing.
There is a need for a seed money
facility that would offer grants for
projects preparation up to 50 000
euro.
2
The new Managing
Authority, Task
Forces for
preparations of
the new
Programme
Creating a seed
money facility
Before the
first call for
proposals in
the next
programming
period
p. 97
6.
One of the most important reasons
for projects’ rejection at the stage
of quality assessment was weak
logic of the projects and
insufficient assurance of the long
term sustainability of the project
results
Including the topics concerning
projects logic and long term
sustainability of the project results in
the workshops and seminars for
potential beneficiaries.
3
The new Managing
Authority, the new
JTS and new
Contact Points,
Task Forces for
preparations of
the new
Programme
Adjusting the
thematic scope
of the workshops
for potential
beneficiaries
Before the
first call for
proposals in
the next
programming
period
p. 103
119
Final Report
No
7.
Conclusion
Recommendation
The Beneficiaries report problems
in projects’ implementation when
there
are
unexpected
organisational changes or other
changes projects’ environment
The Beneficiaries must prepare at
the preparation stage a risk analysis
for the project implementation
period.
Priority
(1- high,
2- medium,
3- low)
2
Recommendation
addressee
Way of
implementation
The new Managing
Authority, Task
Forces for
preparations of
the new
Programme
Development of
the current
application form
and Programme
regulation
The new Managing
Authority, Task
Forces for
preparations of
the new
Programme
Allocating more
financial
resources for the
activities of the
contact points
Suggested
time of
implementati
on
Pages of
the
report
Beginning of
the next
programming
period
p. 108
Beginning of
the next
programming
period
p. 111
Underlining the
importance of
risk assessment
during the
workshops for
potential
beneficiaries
Administrative structure
8.
120
The scope of the support provided
by the Contact Points to the
beneficiaries should be enlarged.
The Contact Points should be
strengthened in terms of financial
and human resources.
2
Final Report
No
9.
Conclusion
Recommendation
Some types of organisations have Introducing the system of advance
29
problems with pre-financing the payments .
projects. It concerns firstly smaller
organisations
Priority
(1- high,
Recommendation
addressee
Way of
implementation
Suggested
time of
implementati
on
1
The new Managing
Authority, Task
Forces for
preparations of
the new
Programme
Development of
the new rules of
the Programme
Next
programming
period
2
The new JTS, Task
Forces
for
preparations
of
the
new
Programme
Elaboration and
popularisation of
a data base
Before
the p. 113
first call for
proposals in
the
next
programming
period
2- medium,
3- low)
Long waiting time between
payment approval and the actual
reimbursement was problematic
for the beneficiaries.
10.
The Beneficiaries had significant
problems with finding partners and
expect help on this field from the
institutions implementing the
Programme, first of all from
Contact Points.
Data base of projects partners which
participated the Programme should
be elaborated. It should also contain
information about the willingness to
cooperate and the areas of interest.
The data base should also include
information about the other
organisations which showed interest
in the Programme and / or
participated in Programme’s events.
The data base should be used in
during trainings and consultations
for the potential Beneficiaries as an
29
In contrast to reimbursement
121
Pages of
the
report
p. 112
Final Report
No
Conclusion
Recommendation
Priority
(1- high,
2- medium,
3- low)
Recommendation
addressee
Way of
implementation
The new JTS, Task
Forces for
preparations of
the new
Programme
Completion and
popularisation of
a data base
Suggested
time of
implementati
on
Pages of
the
report
example how to find a partners.
11.
The information about the
completed projects is not widely
enough spread. The probability
that experiences based on their
implementation will be further
used in other projects is rather low.
122
The data base with the information
about the completed project should
be elaborated and popularised
among the potential beneficiaries of
the South Baltic Programme in the
next programming period. The data
base should contain information if
the beneficiary is willing to
cooperate in the future.
3
Before the
first call for
proposals in
the next
programming
period
p. 113
Final Report
Appendix 1 – Case studies
123
Final Report
Activity of the South Baltic Programme
Project title
Marine Competence, Technology and Knowledge Transfer for LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) in the South Baltic Sea Region
Lead Beneficiary
EU founding
Klaipeda Science and Technology Park
1 111 965,73 EUR
Number of partners
9
Number of AOs
15
Short description of the project
The overall idea of the project is to equip local/regional maritime-related businesses with the knowledge and competence on LNG (liquid natural gas)
technologies. This will enable them to be contracted for operating and maintaining the planned LNG terminal investments in Lithuania and Poland. With
this competence the companies can specialize and form cross-border supply chains in South Baltic. Such supply chains can better compete in LNGrelated tenders on the global market.
Complementary projects
No.
Project title
Source of funding
Complementarity description
1.
Clean Baltic
Sea Shipping
Baltic Sea Region
Programme 20072013
The project is focused on development of environmental friendly shipping policy in the Baltic Sea based on
LNG use. This project shows that there is a need to develop LNG sector and knowledge about it.
BSR Stardust
The project aims in finding solutions for the increasing water pollution. These solutions are found by the
The European
local working groups combined of researchers, clusters, SME-network and public actors from different
Union’s Baltic Sea
countries around the Baltic Sea. The project also influences the growth of region by fostering business ideas
Region Programme
beyond the national borders. Also the MarTech LNG project aim is to strengthen the knowledge among
2007-2013
businesses in the field of environmental friendly LNG production.
2.
124
Final Report
3.
Clean North
Sea Shipping
The North Sea
The project is focused on environmentally friendly shipping polices development. It directly promote the
Region Programme LNG use in shipping industry – this gives the possibility to use in practice the knowledge acquired in the and
2007-2013
to bring measurable benefits.
Outputs of the project
The main aim of the project was to create a better access to knowledge and technology on LNG related business activity to build up a better competence
and specialization among the SBSR maritime business supply chain. This knowledge and technology transfer from Sweden, Germany and Denmark to
Poland and Lithuania is the main output of the project. It is going to be created the map of LNG competences in each region. This tool is going to help to
prepare the pre-assessment of regional business potential, which is going to be a basis for forming the regional expert groups and creating the
Knowledge and Cooperation Platform (web based tool). The straight output of it will be the new possibility of easy contact with and among the LNG
experts, training institutions, business entities. What is more the platform also will play the role of knowledge base of LNG technologies as well as
platform for business cooperation. It is also planned to prepare the methodology of trainings for 10 workshops which will be implemented for 10
regional groups created on the base of pre-assessment of regional LNG competences potential. To promote the project, articles in specific newspapers
and magazines will be published (14) and also TV reports will be prepared (2). Also 5000 information brochures will be disseminated. The identified
supply chains will be promoted through the participation in fairs and study visits. The Lead Beneficiary indicates databases and GIS tools as the most
important outputs of the project because they help to create the cluster.
Results of the project
The results of the project are strictly connected with outputs. Mainly it is planned that the core competences in building and operating (maintenance,
loading, navigating) of LNG terminals will be developed. It is also expected that at least 2 cross-border supply chains will be formed, and 50 organizations
will be engaged in new cross-border network thanks to the absorbed knowledge and technology. The Lead Beneficiary indicates that the intermediate
support structure based on cluster idea is the most the important result of the project. Other results have rather soft character – it is expected that the
acquired knowledge and successful technology transfer will cause the increase of region competitiveness, which will have positive impact on investment
attractiveness. What is more, there is a possibility that thanks to undertook promotion and cooperation with public, the better public acceptance for
LNG development will be achieved.
125
Final Report
Project title
The South Baltic WebLab – a virtual laboratory on marine science for school students
Beneficiary
Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research
EU founding
1 114 087,52 EUR
Number of partners
7
Number of AOs
7
“The South Baltic WebLab – a virtual laboratory on marine science and labour markets” - this project’s aim is to popularize and enlarge the interest of
youth about the marine science and to promote university studies connected with oceanography in relevant cities of South Baltic area. Objective of
the project is to answer to future labour market needs on the areas mentioned above. In a perspective of an adverse demographic forecasts it is
crucial to undertake the activities which will encourage pupils to choose the marine science studies. So far these studies were rather unpopular
despite the needs of labour markets.
126
No..
Project title
Source of funding
1.
SPICOSA – Science and
Policy Integration for
Coastal System
6 Framework
Programme
Project is complimentary in a field of connecting policy and environment institutions
together with the educational and labour markets sphere. It has also the aim to integrate
the organisations dealing with life sciences of Baltic Sea with organisations dealing with
other fields of science, as well as to promote the knowledge about the Baltic Shore area.
2.
Generation BALT – Linking
maritime education with
the changing job market for
South Baltic Sea
Programme 20072013
The project aim is to deepen the cooperation of higher education institutions and maritime
business associations in South Baltic Area. This makes it complimentary with WebLab project
– it ensures the continuance of the project aim which is to increase interest in maritime
th
Final Report
a new generation of Baltic
Sea experts
sciences, prepare future experts, and provide the job opportunities for them.
The main output of the project is a multilingual virtual laboratory, where pupils can use scientific methods to cope with oceanographic tasks or to
carry out experiments in fact motion. This laboratory is placed on homepage of the project, and for now contains one of 5 planned interactive
complete modules. The site also contains 12 of 21 planned blogs provided by oceanographic experts (it is planned that till the end of the project there
will appear at least 4 blogs from each participating country) and database of institutions and organizations which are connected with the marine
science. On the website also a database containing the job and internship opportunities in such institutions are created. To enhance the cross-border
cooperation there have already been organized 3 science camps – in Germany, Poland and Lithuania, for young pupils, where they could use in
practice new knowledge acquired in scientific modules on virtual laboratory. Also an event “Science Meets School” is organized –5 two-days took
place.
To promote the project 100 000 leaflets have been distributed. Also press releases are going to be published during the whole durability time of the
project. Also 3 of 5 planned workshops with expert’s panels were organized.
The main expected result of the project is the growth of the interest in marine science and oceanography among young people who are coming faceto-face with the decision about their professional future. Thanks to this increased interest there is an expectation of stronger connection between
higher education and labour market in South Baltic Area as well as in new and extended co-operation networks. It is also expected that results of this
educational programme will be durable, i.e. thanks to exchange between pupils on science camps. The virtual laboratory is expected to be a useful
tool for future school programmes syllabuses as a supplement. Project is also expected to increase the interest in the Baltic Sea environment issues
and awareness of job possibilities in this field, what will motivate young people to start their education on marine science studies.
127
Final Report
1.3. Transport Accessibility
Project title
Access by Cycling - Integrating cycling into multimodal transport system and mobility culture (ABC.Multimodal)
Beneficiary
Hanseatic City of Rostock
EU founding
972 695, 19 EUR
Number of partners
5
Number of AOs
2
The ABC.Multimodal project’s aim is to improve accessibility of cities thanks to integration of cycling with public transport. This approach leads to
creation of a multimodal transport system which will strengthen a sustainable mobility culture. The project aim is to increase the awareness among
politicians, spatial planning experts, transport and traffic experts about the necessity of providing better conditions for developing cycling culture, as well
as to promote this way of transportation between inhabitants of cities involved in project.
128
No..
Project title
Source of funding
1.
Central Baltic Cycling: Development
and improvement of cycling route
network in Central Baltic Area
Central Baltic Sea
Region Programme
2007-2013
2.
Baltic Sea Cycling
Baltic Sea Region
Programme 20072013
The Central Baltic Cycling project’s aim is, as well as in ABC. Multimodal project,
to develop and promote the cycling as a way of transportation. What is more, the
Central Baltic Cycling it also expected to create the cooperation network among
experts on the filled of bicycle tourism, and as a result to promote the region as a
joint tourism destination.
The Baltic Sea cycling project aims to promote and develop cycling in the urban
areas, as well as ABC.Multimodal project. Furthermore it also aims integrating
cycling with other public transport systems in Baltic Sea Region cities. Both
projects assume enhancing the urban mobility by using bicycles and promoting
Final Report
the healthy style of transportation.
The ABC.Multimodal is an ongoing project. It’s realization started in 2011 and the completion is planned for 2014. So far some of outputs have been
achieved. During the spring 2012 in Kalmar it was conducted a survey which aimed to find out what impact cycling consumers have on the commercial
sector as well as what could make more consumers cycle to the areas of commerce. The results of the survey was a basis for local workshop which was
organized in autumn 2012. It is also planned to prepare two more analysis of target groups and target areas – in Gdańsk (mass media area), and Rostock
(corridors along a route from suburbs to city centre). For these selected areas the partners identify users of transport system, their needs, habits and
attitude. Obstacles appeared in each area are going to be discussed during local workshops. There are also planned to be organized 3 think-tank
workshops (1 in each partner city), where international experts will contribute their knowledge and ideas on innovative service or infrastructure solutions
to integrate cycling into multimodal transport system. So far it was also prepared the feasibility study of station for 400 bicycles at the Central Station in
Rostock. What is more, in 2012 has started the new campaign promoting cycling multimodal system. It contains several elements: citylight posters with 4
different photo motifs with cyclists. The first motif with a family has been already presented to promote the project during the Climate Action Day in
September 2012. The common website, which is also the main communication platform for a regional campaign, was created. To promote the project,
the 1st car free Climate Action Day 2012 was organized by the city of Rostock. During the Climate Action Day it was also implemented the panel
discussion with politicians and stakeholders. The discussion topic was the project of bicycle parking at the Central Station feasibility study. Other outputs
which will strictly promote the project are press releases (6) in German, Polish and Swedish language, regularly published newsletters (2 of 6 has already
appeared), web-based photo database, advertising panel. It is also planned to create common marketing concept for promoting cycling and sustainable
mobility in partner cities, as well as training curricula for municipality staff, politicians (with 5 seminars planned), volunteers (2 curricula planned) and
educational interactive learning courses for workshops in schools, cycling tours etc.(50 courses, coaching and promoting units planned). To disseminate
and promote the cycle culture it will be organized also 5 study trips (2 of them, to Copenhagen and Malmo, known as most bicycle-friendly cities, has
been already organized in August 2012). What is more it was also built up the first Cycling Monitor in the city. This monitor shows the number of passing
cyclist per day and per year. Cyclist are counted by a loop in the cycle lane. It is planned that each partner city will enter the monitor in previously
mentioned target areas. It will be constructed the ICT tool for collecting data from Cycling Monitor too. It is also developing the Master Plan describing
the vision of cycling friendly city. It will be prepared also the manual for this Master Plan which is planned to be transferable. There will be prepared 3
action plans too, which include prioritised list of investments for infrastructure and service facilities and, in the end, compiled in one best-practice guide.
The expected results of the project are as following. First of all it is planned that it will appear a measurable rising number of cyclists substituting car
traffic, raised awareness about the potential of cycling in a multimodal transport system and a visible progress towards a sustainable mobility culture. It
129
Final Report
is also expected that the project results will be disseminated among the whole South Baltic Area, thanks to work made by 2 associated organizations as
well as by participating in worldwide conferences. The project’s authors predicts that in each partner city, the city planning strategies and policies of
transportation will include solutions friendly for cycling transportation, as well as the use of multimodal transport networks in South Baltic Cities will
increase. This should lead to increased role of sustainable transport in each of involved city. It is also planned that the further infrastructure which is
planned in the project (such as e.g. Bicycle station in Central Station in Rostock) will be financed from the own resources of each project partners. It is
expected that indirect result of project will be the situation when any investment for transport infrastructure and service will contribute to cyclingfriendly city. This will cause that cycling will be preferable mode of transport for short distances (up to 6km), and for longer distances cycling and public
transport will be combined – this will be an attractive alternative for cars. Thanks to that it is expected to minimize car traffic and parking problems.
130
Final Report
2.1. Management of the Baltic Sea environment
Project title
Wetlands, Algae and Biogas. A Southern Baltic Sea Eutrophication Counteract Project
Beneficiary
Municipality of Trelleborg
EU founding
1 218 040,35 EUR
Number of
partners
9
Number of AOs
2
The "Wetlands, AlgaeandBiogas. A Southern Baltic Sea Eutrophication Counteract Project" aims in exploring the possibility ofinitiatingbiogas productionin coastal
areas. Thanks to implementation of this project it will be possible to transform theorganicwaste (whichisalgaethrown at shoreby the sea), into a renewable energy
sourcefor the region.Cycleuse ofalgaefor the production ofbiomass, from which then the biogass will be produced,relies on producing andharvestingalgaefrom
specialfarmsadapted to thegrowth and reproductionof algae,supplementedby theresourcesthrownatthe edges ofthe seabeaches,and thentransforming them into the
biomassused for theproduction of biogas. Wastes fromthe production of biogas are going to beallocatedas a naturalfertilizerinagricultural landadjacent to theplant.
Algae. Source: WAB Project
131
Wetlands. Source: WAB Project
Final Report
No..
Project title
Source of
funding
1.
CosCo – Regional cycle
development through coastal
cooperation – sea grass and
algae focused
INTERREG IIIC
The project CosCo aims in explaining the phenomenon of macroalgae occurrence on the Sopot beach.
Further, the possibilities of algae utilization will be worked out. The aim of this project is also to find a
solution to keep the places attractive for tourists clean and re-use the waste in a practical way.
2.
Baltic Biogas Bus
The Baltic Sea
Programme
Complementary between both projects is based on the mutual complement of theoretical knowledge and
practical use of the biogas, e.g. as a fuel for buses.
“Wetlands, Algae, and Biogas. A Southern Baltic Eutrophication Counteract Project” is a mainly research project. One of the main outputs is the feasibility study, which
describes the possibility popularisation of use of biogas plants in Pomeranian Region. To prepare the holistic analysis’ a special monitoring station in Sopot was
estabilished. It uses a database collected and prepared also earlier researches in the project. The station’s task is to monitor and to predict the area and time of algae
occurrence in Sopot beaches. A GIS device was also prepared. It is used to indicate the best areas for wetlands construction. All these activities are based on Trelleborg
Municipality experience, where the pilot wetland for macro algae was constructed as well as the pilot –plant. To transfer the knowledge from Trelleborg to Sopot there
were organised workshops for the Polish farmers who are potentially interested in developing biogas plants in Pomeranian Region. Therefore their knowledge about
this ecological and new solution of renewable energy from algae was extended. What is more there were also two information brochures published about the
ecological algae-use cycle. The website of the project is being conducted –all the results and newest information about implementing the project can be found there.
To expand the knowledge there are also planned three conferences with external experts, two of which already took place. The general document of final feasibility
study was preceded by 10 expertises. To inform the community, it is also planned to prepare and popularize the documentary film, which shows dangers of
eutrophication in sea water and ways of recovering the situation. What is more there are also planned to be placed on beaches information signs about the WAB
project and about the danger of algae over-growth in Baltic Sea.
132
Final Report
Launch of biogas plant. Source: WAB Project
As one of the results of the project a cross-border network was planned in which at least 6 institutions will be involved. Additionally it is planned that in 4 institutions
the knowledge and facilities connected with environment management in South Baltic Area will be improved in at least 3 fields or methods. So far all those
expectations were achieved. Moreover the N-nutrients should be decreased for 1000 tons/city/year as well as P-nutrients on the level of 30 tons/city/year. Potential
for biogas production should be maintained at the level of 30 MWh for Trelleborg and for Sopot. The Lead Beneficiary however indicates that these result indicators
may be difficult to achieve because of regional and local conditions. It was also noticed that one of the biggest success of the project is that the local communities were
convinced to make their approach to LNG production more positive.
133
Final Report
Project title
Beneficiary
Rostock Business and Technology Development GMBH
EU founding
1 585 543,04 EUR
Number of partners
10
Number of AOs
9
The South Baltic area is one of the most attractive areas for wind energy production. With its environmental potential it may be one of the most important
renewable energy producing territory. The project aims to promote, through concentrated cross-border actions, offshore wind energy in the South Baltic area. As
the diagnosis showed, this sector is still underdeveloped in comparison to its potential, and regionally differentiated. As this sector is in a take of-phase, now it is
the best moment to share knowledge, experiences and technology among South Baltic area countries to omit obstacles in equal development of this energy
sector.
BaltExpo. Source: SB Offer Project
134
Boat Exhibition. Source: SB Offer Project
Final Report
No..
Project title
Source of
funding
1.
BalticSeaNow.info –
Innovative
participatory forum
for the Baltic Sea
Central Baltic
Interreg IV A
Programme
2007-2013
The project implemented in Finland (Baltic Sea Now Info) aims to increase the awareness of dramatically changing
situation in Baltic Sea waters during last decades. It has strictly ecological approach. As well as South Baltic
Offshore Wind Energy Region Project the Baltic Sea Now Info aims to promote ecological attitude among citizens.
It can be also a platform of exchanging experiences and knowledge about the environment and ways of protecting
it, incl. renewable energy.
2.
Introducing Maritime
Spatial Planning in the
Baltic Sea
Baltic Sea
Region
Programme
2007-2013
Baltic Sea is a common good with its resources, comparable to land resources. Considering this approach, there
should also be prepared spatial plans of Baltic Sea resources. Wind farms, fishing, shipping – these are few
examples of different kinds of use of the Baltic Sea territory. The project is complimentary with South Baltic
Offshore Wind Energy Region’s project when it comes to thematic and education. If the development of offshore’s
wind farms is expected to be sustainable, the spatial plans of maritime space would be more than welcome.
Project “South Baltic Offshore Wind Energy Regions” concerns mainly promotion and educative activities to popularize the knowledge about offshore wind energy
development possibilities. It was planned to organize joint meetings for political and business representatives. As an output of these meetings is a document
“Joint South Baltic Offshore Wind Energy vision” is going to be signed. Additionally business2business meetings will be organized. They will provide building crossborder networks. Project aims also in creating the offshore wind energy cluster based on networks and supply chains created during the project implementation.
The local Offshore Wind Energy [OWE] industry network in Blekinge and in Poland and one cross-border OWE network should be also created. Moreover,
exhibitions and presentations were planned to appear at fairs in Baltic Sea Region and on European level where South Baltic Regions should be promoted as an
OWE territory. So far it was presented on Windforce 2012 in Klaipeda. Project aim is to prepare the qualified labour force to work in wind offshore energy and to
promote it as one of great professional job opportunities. Well-informed labour force is going to be the output of new educational offers and training modules
which increase their competitiveness. To improve the knowledge about offshore wind energy and advantages of it, also a road show on employment opportunities
is organized. This road show is in ongoing stage. It is also planned to organize 3 summer schools (1 of them has already took place in Klaipeda – the “Crash course”)
where onshore and offshore experts meet and exchange their knowledge and experience. Additionally it is planned to prepare the boat exhibition which will take
place in approximately 8 South Baltic harbour cities.
Another product of the project is a website, where current news about events, and progresses of the project can be found. It contains also the wind resource map
135
Final Report
and the knowledge base about wind energy production in every country involved in South Baltic Region Programme. Moreover the Offshore Wind TV was
initiated. The outputs of the project are also support tools for planners and business – one of them is a manual for potential OWE investors and certified learning
course “Design and construction of offshore wind power park”, and finally the report about advantages of Offshore for touristic sector in the South Baltic Area.
The project completion time is planned in January 2013.
There are four major results of project. The first one is rising awareness of the opportunities connected with the Offshore Wind Energy sector which can appear in
the South Baltic Area communities. The position of South Baltic Sea as a potential Offshore Wind Energy region should be also improved and strengthen. The third
one is creation of basis for an OWE cluster creation and development, as well as fostering business development in this thematic area. The last one but one of
most important result is improved labour force potential to develop the idea of using wind energy from offshore South Baltic farms. It is also planned that 15
South Baltic Offshore wind farms will be analysed and promoted, 8 documents and tools to guide and assist potential OWE investors will be prepared, and 10
successful OWE support approaches and methodologies will be adopted from other regions.
136
Final Report
2.3. Sustainable use of natural and cultural heritage for regional development.
Project title
Art Line
Beneficiary
Blekinge County Museum
EU founding
1 006 065, 33 EUR
Number of partners
10
Number of AOs
4
The Art Line project is an international art project. It investigates and challenge the concept of public space. It involves 14 partners (including 4 Associated
Organizations) from every of South Baltic Programme involved countries. Its aim is to create a cooperative platform for art and academia which will strengthen the
institutions, create opportunities for artists, and will interact with people in public space, on the internet, in exhibitions, and on Stena Line ferries between Gdynia
and Karlskrona. The project involves partners from cultural fields – museums, art galleries, centres for contemporary art, etc.
Workshops. Source: Art Line Project
137
Final Report
No..
Project title
1.
Enjoy South Baltic! Joint actions
promoting the South Baltic area
as a tourist destination.
South Baltic
The “Enjoy South Baltic!” project aims in promoting touristic possibilities in South Baltic area
Programme 2007- countries. This is strictly complementary with increasing touristic potential thanks to implemented
2013
cultural events and actions planned within Art Line project.
AGORA 2.0 Heritage Tourism for
increased BSR Identity
Project AGORA 2.0. aims in strengthen the cooperation between scientific experts, NGOs and public
Baltic Region
bodies, business environment and tourism, to highlight the effects of cultural and natural heritage
Programme 2007- projects conducted in countries of Baltic Sea Area. This creates the similarity to Art Line project
2013
which also aims in promoting and extending the cultural impact on touristic, and further, regional
development of involved cities and countries.
2.
Source of funding
The project’s outputs are connected with sharing artworks among all involved countries. There are a few outputs which facilitate this process. The main one is the
web-based platform which provides all the information about the project and about activities during the project implementation. The platform contains also the
cross-border “memory bank” and archives of story-telling, most of new art works created by artist from each participating country, and digital media – lectures,
workshops, galleries from exhibitions (of which 9 has already been organized), and discussion forum for South Baltic institutions.
There are 8 smaller art projects created for the needs of Art Line. Output of these actions are as follows: Telling the Baltic (so far 62 stories collected), Art &
Apparatus (the exhibitions were organized), Baltic Sounds Good (digital music on Stena Line ferries), Beta Test (investigating on role and function of public art),
Space Matters (exhibition and workshop on topic of displacement and dissolutions between real and digital space) , Seminars on Art Technology, Public Space and
Internet, Art Tours. Moreover the open art contest was organized - Baltic Goes Digital. These small projects increase the public awareness about the role of public
art and its influence on public space. All of them have already been implemented. Moreover there are planned digital media workshops and seminars (so far 14
seminars and workshops were implemented), also on Stena Line ferries. The project partners are going to prepare, in cooperation with Stena Line, 2 touristic
packages for passengers of ferries. It was planned to organize 2 meetings with regional tourist organizations to extend their knowledge about implemented
outputs of project and its positive impact on touristic development of region. It is also planned to collect all the experiences and knowledge in the document
“Analysis of concepts and working-methods in digital media and cross-border cultural projects”.
138
Final Report
As public art is one of the most important development driver, the main result of the project is the positive impact on regional development of South Baltic Region
and each city involved. The project makes public space more attractive and will attract more visitors. It is also expected that networks (at least 1 based on formal
agreement) built among cultural and touristic organizations and institutions will be durable and effective. Project contractors plan to achieve 200 000 individual
participants in activities offered by the project. The durability of the project will be provided at least through 2 multiannual events per year prepared between
2013-2018. All this should lead to extended and strengthened knowledge and interest in public space art works.
139
Final Report
2.4. Local community initiatives
Project title
Youth Cross-border Cooperation and Communication Project (Yc3)
Beneficiary
Region Blekinge
EU founding
Local community initiatives
Number of partners
6
Number of AOs
2
The project YC3 is based the result of feasibility study initiated by Region Blekinge and ERB Youth Board. The basis of the project is the political ambition to develop
youth participation in cross-border cooperation. It aims in youth participation and cross-border cooperation as well as intercultural dialogue among young people
from participating countries to increase their participation in social and political life of the South Baltic Area.
Workshops. Source: YC3 Project
Workshops. Source: YC 3 Project
140
Final Report
No..
Project title
Source of
funding
1.
Baltic active education network
for development of people-topeople initiatives(eduPeople)
South Baltic
Programme
2007-2013
Both, eduPeople and YC3 project, aim is increasing the possibilities of education (Yc3 concerns youth,
eduPeople concerns youth and adults). What is more both projects during implementation use
different forms of communication and experiences exchange (lectures, workshops etc.). They also
promote the intensification of intercultural dialogue.
2.
Co-ordination and integration of
higher education and the labour
market around the South Baltic
Sea (COHAB)
South Baltic
Programme
2007-2013
The COHAB Project as well as Yc3 assumes among others the increase of educational and professional
mobility. COHAB Project is implemented mainly among students who live in cities of each Baltic region
country. Project is directed to the people who plan to become a teacher and nurse. The project
implementation may indirectly contribute to the elimination of intercultural barriers in the involved
countries.
3.
Maritime Education and Sail
Training for Young People
(M.A.S.T.)
South Baltic
Programme
2007-2013
M.A.S.T. is also an initiative directed to young people (between 15 and 25 years old) who live In
countries of South Baltic Region. The implementation of the project involves organization of cruises
where youth are educated in fields of social behavior, sailing and culture of the South Baltic Region
countries. Project, as well as COHAB and YC3 promotes the intercultural dialogue, especially among
young people.
Project’s expected outputs were following: creation of interactive website, workshops and seminars’ implementation, study visits, organizing the European top
level meeting “Youth-In-Connection” and other cultural events. It was also planned to create at least one working group, which will develop new ideas for
implementing the project. During implementation phase of the project (2009 – 2011) lots of seminars and meetings were organized (i.a. in Gdańsk and Karlskrona).
The special attention was paid to creating the possibilities of contact and exchange of information and opinion among young people and other beneficiaries of the
project. Questionnaires were prepared where users had the possibility to express their opinion on such topics as: international solidarity, entrepreneurship, social
cohesion, youth influence, cross-border networking, how to lobby, youth responsibility in civil society, mobility, common identity. Also the way of understanding
the term “social participation” by youth has been verified. During the European top level meeting “Youth-In-Cooperation” which was organized in Karlskrona,
young people had the occasion to extend their knowledge about ecological awareness and to exchange their ideas for further development of project’s aims.
141
Final Report
The project authors expected the increase of the participation and influence of young people on the shape of cross-border cooperation, the intensification of
intercultural dialogue, developing contact networks and increasing the level of integration among youth in every involved country. Moreover it was expected that
officials on local level, employers and schools will be involved in project activities and so the cooperation will appear. This would extend the fields of youth activity.
Project implementation should also have the influence on youth mobility. It also indicates them the educational and professional perspectives on international
educational and labour markets. Extended international networks between youth representatives and NGOs should also stimulate the involvement of young
people in implementing the European Union Strategy for the South Baltic Sea Region, while the involvement of regional and local officials should cause the increase
of political support for cross-border cooperation.
142
Final Report
Appendix 2 - Methodology of the research
Desk research
In the desk research following documents were studied:
1.
ROZPORZĄDZENIE RADY (WE) nr 1083/2006 z dnia 11 lipca 2006 r. ustanawiające przepisy ogólne dotyczące
Europejskiego Funduszu Rozwoju Regionalnego, Europejskiego Funduszu Społecznego oraz Funduszu Spójności
uchylające rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1260/1999 [COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying
down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion
Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999];
2.
ROZPORZĄDZENIE RADY (WE) nr 1084/2006 z dnia 11 lipca 2006 r. ustanawiające Fundusz Spójności uchylające
rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1164/94 [Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 of 11 July 2006 establishing a Cohesion Fund
and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1164/94];
3.
Komisja Europejska, Wniosek, Rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w sprawie Funduszu Spójności
uchylające rozporządzenie Rady (WE) nr 1084/2006, Bruksela 28.10.2011 [REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the Cohesion Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006,
Brussels 28.10.2011];
4.
Komisja Europejska, Wniosek Rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego Rady ustanawiające wspólne przepisy
dotyczące Europejskiego Funduszu Rozwoju Regionalnego, Europejskiego Funduszu Społecznego, Funduszu
Spójności, Europejskiego Funduszu Rolnego na rzecz Rozwoju Obszarów Wiejskich oraz Europejskiego Funduszu
Morskiego i Rybackiego objętych zakresem wspólnych ram strategicznych oraz ustanawiające przepisy ogólne
dotyczące Europejskiego Funduszu Rozwoju Regionalnego, Europejskiego Funduszu Społecznego i Funduszu
Spójności, oraz uchylające rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1083/2006 [Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund,
the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and laying down
generalprovisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006];
5.
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on specific provisions for the
support from the European Regional Development Fund to the European territorial cooperation goal (EC) 2011/0273
6.
REGULATION (EC) No 1080/2006 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 5 July 2006 on the
European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999
7.
ROZPORZĄDZENIE KOMISJI (WE) nr 1828/2006 z dnia 8 grudnia 2006 r. ustanawiające szczegółowe zasady wykonania
rozporządzenia Rady (WE) nr 1083/2006 ustanawiającego przepisy ogólne dotyczące Europejskiego Funduszu
Rozwoju Regionalnego, Europejskiego Funduszu Społecznego oraz Funduszu Spójności oraz rozporządzenia (WE) nr
1080/2006 Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w sprawie Europejskiego Funduszu Rozwoju Regionalnego.
[COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1828/2006 of 8 December 2006 setting out rules for the implementation of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund,
the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament
and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund]
8.
KOMISJA WSPÓLNOT EUROPEJSKICH, KOMUNIKAT KOMISJI DO PARLAMENTU EUROPEJSKIEGO, RADY,
EUROPEJSKIEGO KOMITETU EKONOMICZNO-SPOŁECZNEGO I KOMITETU REGIONÓW dotyczący Strategii Unii
Europejskiej dla regionu Morza Bałtyckiego, Bruksela, dnia 10.6.2009, KOM(2009) 248 [COMMUNICATION FROM THE
143
Final Report
COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS concerning the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, Brussels,
10.06.2009];
9.
KOMISJA WSPÓLNOT EUROPEJSKICH, DOKUMENT ROBOCZY SŁUŻB KOMISJI Uzupełniający, KOMUNIKAT KOMISJI DO
PARLAMENTU EUROPEJSKIEGO, RADY, EUROPEJSKIEGO KOMITETU EKONOMICZNO -SPOŁECZNEGO I KOMITETU
REGIONÓW dotyczący Strategii Unii Europejskiej dla regionu Morza Bałtyckiego, Plan Działania, Grudzień 2010
[COMMISSION WORKING PAPER SUPLEMENTED COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE
REGIONS concerning the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, Working Plan, December 2010];
10. Rezolucja Parlamentu Europejskiego z dnia 6 lipca 2010 r. w sprawie strategii Unii Europejskiej dla regionu Morza
Bałtyckiego oraz roli makroregionów w przyszłej polityce spójności (2009/2230(INI) [European Union Strategy for the
Baltic Sea Region and the role of macro-regions in the future Cohesion Policy (2009/2230(INI))];
11. COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT REGIONS 2020 AN ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE CHALLENGES FOR EU
REGIONS
12. Compromise on thematic concentration reached during the Danish Presidency COM(2011) 615 final/2, COM(2011)
607 final/2, COM (2011) 614 final, COM (2011) 612 final/2 COM(2011) 611 final/2
13. INTERACT Position paper on the European Territorial Cooperation Objective. Consultation 5th Cohesion Report;
14. An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy (Barca report);
15. Conclusions of the fifth report on economic, social and EU Parliament. Consolidated Report on Future of ETC;
16. Europe 2020. A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;
17. PROGRAM WSPÓŁPRACY TRANSGRANICZNEJ POŁUDNIOWY BAŁTYK, PROGRAM OPERACYJNY ZATWIERDZONY PRZEZ
KOMISJĘ EUROPEJSKĄ 20 GRUDNIA 2007 [South Baltic Cross-border Co-operation Programme, Operational
th
Programme approved by the EC on 20 of December 2007];
18. South Baltic Cross–border Co–operation Programme 2007-2013, PROGRAMME MANUAL, April 2008;
19. PROGNOZA ODDZIAŁYWANIA NA ŚRODOWISKO PROGRAMU WSPÓŁPRACY PRZYGRANICZNEJ W OBSZARZE
POŁUDNIOWEGO BAŁTYKU 4 czerwiec 2007 [Environment Impact Assessment Prognosis for South Baltic Crossth
border Co-operation Programme, 4 of June 2007];
20. Ewaluacja Ex-ante oraz prognoza oddziaływania na środowisko programu Współpracy Transgranicznej Południowy
Bałtyk 2007 – 2013, Warszawa 2007 [Ex-ante evaluation and Environment Impact Assessment Prognosis for South
Baltic Cross-border Co-operation Programme 2007-2013, Warsaw 2007];
21. ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT ON THE SOUTH BALTIC CROSS - BORDER CO – OPERATION PROGRAMME 2007 –
2013 (2011);
22. Program Regionu Morza Bałtyckiego 2007-2013, Program w ramach celu Europejska Współpraca Terytorialna oraz
Europejskiego Instrumentu Sąsiedztwa i Partnerstwa, Końcowa zatwierdzona wersja z 21 grudnia 2007 [The Baltic
st
Sea Region Programme 2007-2013, final version of 21 of December 2007];
23. Central Baltic INTERREG IV A Programme 2007-2013;
24. Programme Lithuania-Poland 2007-2013;
25. Poland (Zachodniopomorskie) – Germany (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Brandenburg) Cross-border Cooperation
Operational Programme;
144
Final Report
26. Documents concerning Programme implementation;
27. Reports from evaluations concerning the Programme;
28. Documentation from the calls from proposals;
29. Report from the project evaluation „Capacity Building Project”;
30. Challenges and aims for the cross-border cooperation programmes involving Poland – expertise for the Ministry of
Regional Development;
31. Monitoring data – products and results indicators.
ITI Interviews
Table 36. List of the respondents of the ITI interviews
No.
Measure
Project
Institution
acronym
Lead Beneficiary
1
1.1
CTF
Municipality of Ystad
2
1.1
DISKE
The City Commune of Elbląg
3
1.1
GOING
Region Skane, Regional Resource Centre for Women
ABROAD
4
1.1
MARTECH_L
Klaipeda Science and Technology Park
NG
5
1.1
RESPEN
Pomerania Development Agency Co.
6
1.1
SB VALOR
PVA-MV AG
7
1.2
BALTIC
Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research
WEBLAB
8
1.2
COHAB
Univeristy Colleage Zealand
9
1.2
DESIGNSHIP
Gdynia Innovation Centre
10
1.2
GENERATION
University of Rostock
BALT
11
1.2
REGFOOD
University Colleage of Zealand
12
1.2
SB
Rostock Business and Technology Development mbH
PROFESSION
ALS
13
1.3
ABC
Hanseatic City of Rostock
MULTIMODA
L
14
1.3
ELMOS
Rostocker Strassenbahn AG
15
1.3
INTERFACE
Public Transport Association Warnow / PLANCO GmbH
PLUS
16
1.3
SB GLOBAL
ACCESS
145
Final Report
17
2.1
ARTWEI
Klaipeda University
18
2.1
DregDikes
University of Rostock, Chair of Geotechnics and Coastal Engineering
19
2.1
DSSHerbicide
Aarhus Univeristy, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Dept. of Integrated Pest
Management (AU)
20
2.1
HERRING
EUCC - The Coastal Union Germany
21
2.1
MOMENT
The Regional Council of Kalmar County
22
2.1
WAB
Municipalty of Trelleborg
23
2.2
LED
Municipalty of Kalmar
24
2.2
RES-CHAINS
Energy Agency for Southeast Sweden
25
2.2
SOUTH
BALTIC
OFFER
26
2.2
WEBSR 2
City of Rostock
27
2.2
WEBSR2
Energy Agency for Southeast Sweden
Upgrade
28
2.3
Baltic
Stralsund University of Applied Sciences
Museums 2.0
Plus
29
2.3
BALTIC RALLY
The Municipality of Lębork
30
2.3
ENJOT
Pomorskie Tourist Board
SOUTH
BALTIC
31
2.3
FOUR
Regional Municipality of Bornholm
CORNERS
HERITAGE
32
2.3
LIFESCAPE
Self-government of the warmińsko-mazurskie voivodship / Elbląg High-Plaine
Landscape Park
33
2.3
MARRIAGE
Economic Development Corporation VorpommernmbH
34
2.3
RECREATIVE
The Municipality of Lębork
35
2.3
36
2.3
SEASIDE
UNITED
Hanseatic City of Rostock Tourist Information Office Rostock - Warnemunde
Maritime Department / Bureau Hanse Sail
Association of Communes and Districts of Middle Pomerania Region Koszalin,
Poland
37
2.4
BAIT
Bałtycka Agencja Turystyczna BART.
38
2.4
BALTIC
Cultural Affairs and Monument Protection Office Hanseatic City of Rostock
CULTURE
WAVE
39
2.4
40
2.4
41
146
2.4
BCP
CBP
CRAFTLAND
City of Rostock, Cultural Office
University of Gdansk - Pomeranian Centre for Environmental Research and
Technology
City of Pruszcz Gdański
Final Report
42
2.4
CREATLEARN
Kalmar Municipality
43
2.4
EDUPEOPLE
Gdynia Innovation Centre
44
2.4
Focus on
The Environment Department, City of Malmo
Food
45
2.4
IN THEATRE
AleksanderSewruk's Theatre in Elbląg
46
2.4
INTERLOCK
Municipality if Solvesborg
47
2.4
MAST
Municpial Sport and Recreation Centre in Gdańsk
48
2.4
PYDOS
Municipality of Karlskrona, Board of Sport and Leisure
49
2.4
The South
The Network of East-West Women NEWW-POLSKA
Baltic AreaVilence Free
Zone
50
2.4
Winter
Mielno sports and recreation
Events
51
2.4
YC3
Region Blekinge
1
1.1
DISKE
VIDEUM AB.
2
1.1
RESPEN
Pomorska Izba Rzemieślnicza
3
1.2
Partners
4
1.2
Baltic Weblab
SB
Technical University of Denmark, Riso National Laboratory for Sustainable
Energy, Radiation Division
Economic Development Corporation VorpommernmbH
PROFESSION
ALS
5
1.3
INTERFACE
The Municipality and Commune of Ustka
PLUS
6
1.3
SB GLOBAL
Rostock Airport
ACCESS
7
2.1
Dreg Dikes
Gdańsk University of Technology
8
2.1
EUROSLAM
The Administration Municipality of Silale
9
2.1
WAB
Linnaeus University, Marine Science Center
10
2.3
ARTLINE
Baltic Sea Culture Centre in Gdańsk
11
2.3
Baltic
Lithuanian Sea Museum
Museums 2.0
Plus
12
2.4
BCP
Stadtgespraechee.V. (STG)
13
2.4
FOCUS ON
Voivodship Veterinary Inspectorate in Szczecin
FOOD
Organization who opted out from the financing
1
2.4
BYGE
Scania association of Local Authorities
Representatives of institutions
147
Final Report
Type of
institution
Country
Poland
Name and surname
Institution
Inga Kramarz
Ministerstwo Rozwoju Regionalnego
Anna Błeszyńska
Zachodniopomorskie Voivodship
Kinga Krupińska
Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodship
Steffen Schubert/Heike Schütt
Germany
Wolf Born
SC and MC
Lithuania
Deimantė Jankūnaitė
Cecilia Lagerdahl
Sweden
Sebastian Stålfors
Poland
Programme Manager)
Małgorzata Zdunek (JTS Financial
Bornholm)
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern)
(PomorskieVoivodship)
Regional
Justyna Klonowska (Warmińsko-
Contact
Points
Ronald Lieske (Region
Sylwia Skwara
Points and
Poland
Lithuanian Ministry of Internal Affairs
Ministry of Enterprise, energy and Communications,
Sweden
Ministry of Enterprise, energy and Communications,
Sweden
Region Bornholm
Marlis Erichsen (Region Sjalland)
Contact
Vorpommern
Niels Chresten Andersen
Niels Chresten Andersen (Region
Germany
Prime Minister and State Chancellary, Mecklenburg
Tillvaxtverket, Sweden
Manager)
Denmark
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
Josefine Majewski
Robert Mazurkiewicz (JTS
JST
Ministry Of Economy, Construction and Tourism,
Mazurskie Voivodship)
JTS
JTS
Region Bornholm
Region Sjalland
Region Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Pomorskie Voivodship
Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodship
Anna Błeszyńska
(Zachodniopomorskie
Zachodniopomorskie Voivodship
Voivodship)
Sweden
Euroregions
148
Johan Lundbäck (Region Kalmar)
Slawomir Demkowicz Dobrzanski (Euroregion Baltic)
Region Kalmar
Euroregion Baltic
Final Report
Lead Beneficiaries and Partners interview scenario
1. Outputs and results of the projects implementation
1.1 Which of the following results were/ will be achieved in the project? Please add also the quantities
(the interviewer reads to the respondent only the results previewed for the specific measure; the grey cell means that this result
doesn’t belong to the expected results of projects in this activity (accordingly to Programme’s rules))
tourist products
new/ extended intermediary support structures for SMEs,
pilot investments
Activity
Results
1.1: Entrepreneurial development
1.2: Integration of higher education and labour
markets
1.3: Transport accessibility
2.1: Management of the Baltic Sea environment
2.2: Energy saving and renewable energy
2.3: Sustainable use of natural and cultural heritage
for regional development:
2.4: Local community initiatives
1.2 Which of the results in project can be assessed as the most important and why?
149
Final Report
1.3 Is there a risk of not achieving all of the results planned in the project?
1.3.1 If yes, what is the reason of this?
1.4 Which of the following results were/ will be achieved in the project? Please add also the quantities
(the interviewer reads to the respondent only the outputs previewed for the specific measure; the grey cell means that this
output doesn’t belong to the expected outputs of projects in this activity (accordingly to Programme’s rules))
1.1: Entrepreneurial development
1.2: Integration of higher education
and labour markets
1.3: Transport accessibility
2.1: Management of the Baltic Sea
environment
2.2: Energy saving and renewable
energy
2.3: Sustainable use of natural and
cultural heritage for regional
development:
2.4: Local community initiatives
1.5 Which of the expected outputs of the project can be assessed as the most important and why?
1.6 Is there a risk of not achieving all of the outputs planned in the project?
1.6.1 If yes, what is the reason of this?
150
information portals
databases
business plans
feasibility studies
Activity
Outputs
Final Report
2. Complementarity
2.1 Is the project complementary to other projects implemented in the eligible area of the South Baltic Programme?
2.1.1 If yes, what are the complimentary projects?
2.1.2 In what sense is/are the projects complimentary?
2.1.3 Are there additional results of projects resulting from their complementarity?
3. Partnership
3.1 Did your organisation apply for co-financing or implement projects within other EU programmes (ETC programmes,
INTERREG, Phare)?
3.2. What was the reason for applying for co-financing within the South Baltic Programme?
3.3 How did you find your partner/s? What was the rationale behind the partnership establishing? Was it established solely for
the purpose of the project? Did the partners cooperate before the project was launched?Were there any other factors
determining the composition of the partnership (e.g. geographical proximity, similar development problems, same
administration level etc.)
3.4 Do you know all project partners and do you have contact with all of them? Do you know their role in the project?
3.5 Are all partners involved in the project implementation? What was their role in project development? What is their role in
project implementation? What is their role in project financing?
3.6 Were there any problems in the cooperation between the partners in project preparation or implementation phases?
3.6.1 If so, what were the reasons?
3.6.2 What should be done in the future to avoid such problems?
Question for the Lead Beneficiary:
3.7 Did you encounter any specific problems in fulfilling your role? Will you be interested in taking up the Lead Beneficiary role
in future projects?
3.8 Are the any formal rules of communication in the cooperation between the Lead Beneficiary – and the Partner?
3.8.1 If yes, please describe them
3.9 Do you have any conclusions on how to regulate relations within the partnership in the next programme?
3.10 Do you plan to continue the cooperation after the end of the project? Are any joint projects planned?
3.11 In the case of implementation of new projects, do you plan to establish new partnerships?
3.12 What solutions / changes could be implemented in the Programme to facilitate project implementation in partnership?
Questions for Lead Beneficiaries / Partners of projects in which an Associated Organisation is involved
3.13 How did you approach the Associated Organisation(s)? What was the rationale behind establishing the cooperation? Was
it established solely for the purpose of the project? Did you cooperate before the project was launched?
3.14 What is the role of Associated Organisation(s) in the project?
3.15 Is the input of the Associated Organisation(s) in project implementation sufficient enough?
151
Final Report
4. Preparation and implementation of the projects
4.1 Were there any difficulties of the project preparation stage (applying for funding)?
4.1.1 If yes, please describe them
4.2 Did you ask for support from any of the Programme institutions in the project preparation phase? Which of the institutions
did you ask for support? Was the help that you got satisfactory? If not, why?
4.3 Were the preparatory costs of the project a significant burden in the projects preparation phase?
4.4 What solution would you prefer as a form of support for preparing the project proposal?
a) the possibility to include preparatory costs in the project budget to a certain percent of the project budget? Would 5% be
satisfactory?
b) A seed money facility that would provide small grants for the preparation of proposals for individual projects? What should
be the value of this grants?
4.5 Are the project assessment criteria clearly formulated? Are there any elements/aspects of the project which should be
assessed as more/less important?
4.6 Are there any delays in project implementation?
4.6.1 If yes, what are the most crucial reasons for them?
4.7 Are there any differences between planned projects’ financial schedule and the actual financial progress?
4.8 Are the any delays in disbursement of project funds (in comparison to planed schedule of expenses)
4.8.1 If yes, what are the reasons for them?
4.9 Is the length of payments certification on the JTS and MA level compliant with the expectations?
4.10 Are there any delays in payments from Programme to the project?
4.10.1. If yes, what are the reasons for them?
5.1 Have you identified any problems in the project implementation process (e.g. reporting, payments, first level control)
5.2 Support of which of the institutions implementing the Programme was the most useful?
5.3 What kind of activities should be undertaken to support projects generation process and by whom?
6. Durability and added value of the projects
6.1 What are the general benefits your organisation has gained through the project?
6.2 Have you managed to apply the project results in the work of your organisation (e.g. new legislation, routines or standards,
official cooperation agreements/networks, investment decisions etc.)?
6.3 Has the project managed to raise interest of the decision makers in your organisation in future participation territorial
cooperation programmes?
7. New programing period
7.1 Does your organisation plan to apply for the financial support within the South Baltic Programme in the future?
152
Final Report
7.2 What kind of projects is planned in the future? Are there any infrastructural project planned?
8. Additional questions
8.1 Who is/ will be the recipient of projects results after its completion? Please name 5 organisations / institutions
8.2 Any other remarks?
Managing Authority, Steering Committee and Monitoring Committee interview scenario
1.1 Is the division of competences between institutions implementing the Programme correct? Are the any changes that
should be done? Are the financial and organisational resources of those institutions sufficient to fulfil their tasks?
1.2 What other changes in the project implementation system are needed?
2. Next programing period
2.1 What should be the future scope of the Programme? Which of the priorities and measures should be financed in the
next programing period?
2.2 Are there any changes needed in conditions that should be fulfilled to get the financing (e.g. minimal number of project
partners, types of organisations that can apply for funding)?
2.3 Do you have any proposals to improve the territorial imbalance in the distribution of project partners? How to
encourage NGOs and entities from the rural areas to join the partnerships? What about the private sector?
2.4 How to catalogue and manage the projects/programme results at the regional and national level?
Joint Technical Secretariat, National and Regional Contact Points interview scenario
1. Assessment of the application forms
1.1 Do the project assessment criteria and their weights differ depending on the activity and type of project (e.g. for
infrastructural and “soft” projects)?
1.2 What were the most common mistakes in the applications?
2. Projects implementation
2.1 How effective was the assistance for project generation (e.g. project ideas database)?
2.2 What type of problems and doubts are most frequently indicated by the beneficiaries in the project preparation and
implementation phases? Are there any rules of the Programme that seem to be unclear to a significant part of the potential
beneficiaries?
2.3 What kind of support was most frequently provided to the beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries? What share of the
beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries needed support? Was there a difference in the quality of submitted applications
between beneficiaries who asked and didn’t ask for your support in the project preparation phase?
153
Final Report
2.4 Is it possible to shorten the process of certification on the JTS and MA level?
2.5 Were there any delays in interim and final payments?
2.5.1 If yes, what were the reasons for them?
2.6 Were there any problems connected with the „de-commitment” rule, resulting from the delays in projects
implementation?
3. Partnerships
3.1 Did the Beneficiaries have problems in finding project partners?
3.2 How effective are the partnerships within the Programme? Are all partners involved in the project implementation?
3.3 Were there any problems in the cooperation between the partners in project preparation or implementation phases?
3.3.1 If so, what were the reasons?
3.3.2 What could be done in the future to avoid such problems?
3.4 What solutions / changes could be implemented in the Programme to facilitate project implementation in partnership?
3.5 Do you have any proposals to improve the territorial imbalance in the distribution of project partners?
3.6 How to encourage NGOs and entities from the rural areas to join the partnerships? What about the private sector?
3.7 Is the commitment of the Associated Organisations in the project implementation higher or lower than expected? What
is the influence of their commitment to projects implementation?
4.1 Is the division of competences between institutions implementing the Programme correct? Are the any changes that
should be done – immediately or in the future? Are the financial and organisational resources of those institutions sufficient
to fulfil their tasks?
4.2 What other changes in project implementation system are needed? How to catalogue and manage the
projects/programme results at the regional and national level?
5. Next programing period
5.1 During the workshops, conferences and trainings organised for the potential beneficiaries, did they propose projects
which exceeded the thematic scope of the Programme?
5.1.1 If, yes what were those projects about?
5. 2 What should be the future scope of the Programme? Which of the priorities and measures should be financed in the
next programing period?
5.3 Are there any changes needed in conditions that should be fulfilled to get the financing (e.g. minimal number of project
partners, types of organisations that can apply for funding)?
154
Final Report
Interview scenario with Applicants who opted out from the financing
1. Why did you opt out from the financing from the South Baltic programme?
2. Is/ was the project implemented from other resources than SBC Programme?
Yes
No
3. What kind of sources were they?
Own resources
EU sources
Please name the Programme
Other (what kind?)
4. Do you plan to implement other projects?
Yes
No
5. If yes, what will be the subject of planned projects? (please mark below)
Thematic scope
Project character
Soft
Infrastructural
Research, technological development and innovation
Telecommunications infrastructure and information society
Transport
Renewable energy sources
Environmental protection and risk prevention
Tourism
Culture
Planning and rehabilitation
Labour market
Social inclusion
Education
Social and public health infrastructure
Institutional capacity building
Other?
6. Do you plan to apply for funding for the new projects?
Yes
No
7. If yes, for what kind of funding do you plan to apply?
155
Final Report
Others?
8. What kind of support should be offered by the Programme on th initial stage of project application?
9. Any other remarks?
SSI Interviews
Table 37.List of respondents - Associated Organisations
No.
Project Acronym
Respondent
1.
INTERFACE
Immanuel Kant State University
2.
The South Baltic Area Violence Free
Blagosemya
Zone
3.
ARTWEI
The Atlantic Branch of the P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian
Academy of Science, Kaliningrad
4.
Baltic Museum 2.0 Plus
Museum of the World Ocean / Klaipeda Tourism and Culture Information
Centre
Topics which that were covered during the interviews
1. Cooperation between AOs and the Lead Beneficiary / Project partners,
2. AOs role in project preparation and implementation processes,
3. AOs benefits resulting from participation in the project,
4. Suggested changes in the Programme.
Crowdsourcing
Was conducted the potential recipients of the project’s effects. The respondents were asked to answer
following questions:


Are the effects of the projects implemented within the South Baltic Programme satisfactory? Please
explain your opinion
What kind of cross-border projects should be implemented in the area of South Baltic in the future?
For what kind of projects would you like to get the financial support?
The respondents were also asked to fill in following table
intensifying cross-border
cooperation, integration
156
labour market
higher education
SME support
cultural heritage
culture
tourism
protection of
environment
transport - general
sustainable transport
energy - general
heating systems
renewable energy
sources
land management
urban development
spatial planning
Table 38. Crowdsourcing table
Final Report
information platforms, real time
information systems
new management concepts , market
models
education, workshops, trainings,
working out new forms of education,
study visits
best practices, guidebooks,
handbooks
proposals for changes in legal and
strategic documents or working out
new strategic documents
feasibility studies
pilot investments
modernisation of existing
infrastructure
promotion, promotional events,
conferences
CAWI Surveys
CAWI Surveys were conducted with Applicants whose projects have been rejected and with potential
applicants
Survey with Applicants whose projects have been rejected
1. Was the application rejected for formal reasons?
Yes
No
2. Was the application rejected after the quality assessment?
Yes
No
3. For which of the criteria in the quality assessment the project got the lowest point value?
4. Were the explanations provided in the rejection letter satisfactory and helpful?
Yes
No
5. Did you decide to re-apply for founding from the South Baltic Programme?
Yes
157
Final Report
No
6. Is/ was the project implemented from other resources than the SBC Programme?
Yes
No
7. What kind of sources where they?
Own resources
EU sources
Please name the Programme
Other (what kind?)
8. Do you plan to implement other projects?
Yes
No
9. If yes, what will be the subject of planned projects? (please mark below)
Thematic scope
Project character
Soft
Transport
Tourism
Culture
Labour market
Social inclusion
Education
Other?
Yes
No
9. If yes, for what kind of funding do you plan to apply?
Others?
10. What kind of support should be offer by Programme an initial stage of project application?
158
Infrastructural
Final Report
11. Any other remarks?
30
Survey with potential applicants
1. Did you implement projects concerning the South Baltic area in the current financial perspective?
Regions: Poland - szczeciński, koszaliński, słupski, gdański, Gdańsk – Gdynia – Sopot, elbląski , Denmark - Bornholm,
Zealand , Germany- Bad Doberan, Greifswald, KreisfreieStadt Greifswald, Nordvorpommern, Nordwestmecklenburg,
Ostvorpommern, KreisfreieStadt Rostock, KreisfreieStadt, Rügen, KreisfreieStadt Stralsund, KreisfreieStadt, UeckerRandow, KreisfreieStadt Wismar, KreisfreieStadt, Lithuania - Kłajpeda; Taurage and Telsiai Sweden - Kalmar, Blekinge,
Skane, Kronoberg
Yes
No
2. What was the subject of implemented projects?
3. Why didn’t decide to apply for funding within the South Baltic Programme?
I’ve never heard about South Baltic Programme
The scope of the Programme doesn’t correspond to my needs.
The condition to have at least one foreign partner was difficult to fulfil
The maximum/ minimum value of co-financing was not adequate to our needs
Time for preparation of the application was too short
Time for project implementation was not enough
Too high formal requirements
Please describe why
I decided to apply within other cross-border/transnational programmes
Which ones?
Other reasons
Please describe
4. Is/was the project implemented from other funds?
Yes
No
5. What kind of sources were they?
Own resources
30
From the following regions: Poland - szczeciński, koszaliński, słupski, gdański, Gdańsk – Gdynia – Sopot, plus region elbląski
(adjacent area), Denmark - Bornholm, Zealand (adjacent area), Germany- Bad Doberan, Greifswald, KreisfreieStadt Greifswald,
Nordvorpommern, Nordwestmecklenburg, Ostvorpommern, KreisfreieStadt Rostock, KreisfreieStadt, Rügen, KreisfreieStadt
Stralsund, KreisfreieStadt, Uecker-Randow, KreisfreieStadt Wismar, KreisfreieStadt, Lithuania - Kłajpeda; Taurage and Telsiai
(adjacent areas), Sweden - Kalmar, Blekinge, Skane, Kronoberg (adjacent area),
159
Final Report
EU sources
Please name the programme
Other (what kind?)
6. Do you plan to implement other project(s)?
Yes
No
7. If yes, what will be the subject of planned project(s)? (please mark below)
Thematic scope
Transport
Tourism
Culture
Labour market
Social inclusion
Education
Other?
Yes
No
9. If yes, for what kind of funding you plan to apply?
Others?
10. Please suggest changes that should be introduced to the South Baltic Programme
160
Project character
Soft
Infrastructural
Final Report
Forum of experts
Table 39. Experts invited to take part in the forum
No.
Role in South Baltic Programme
Name and surname
Institution
1
MA Poland
Magdalena Jasińska
Ministry of Regional Development,
Poland
2
SC/MC Poland
Inga Kramarz
MinisterstwoRozwojuRegionalnego
3
SC/MC Poland
Radomir Matczak
PomorskieVoivodship
4
SC/MC Poland & Contact Points
and Regional Contact Points
Anna Błeszyńska
ZachodniopomorskieVoivodship
5
SC/MC Poland
Kinga Krupińska
Warmińsko-MazurskieVoivodship
6
SC/MC Germany
Steffen Schubert/Heike Schütt
Ministerium Fur Wirtschaft, Bau und
Tourismus, Mecklenburg Vorpommern
7
SC/MC Germany
Wolf Born
Ministerprasident und Staatskanzlei,
Mecklenburg Vorpommern
8
SC/MC Lithuania
Arūnas Gražulis
Lithuanian Association of Local
Authorities
9
SC/MC Lithuania
Renata Saplinskaitė
10
SC/MC Lithuania
Deimantė Jankūnaitė
11
SC/MC Sweden
Cecilia Lagerdahl
Ministry of Enterprise, energy and
Communications, Sweden
12
SC/MC Sweden
Sebastian Stålfors
Ministry of Enterprise, energy and
Communications, Sweden
13
SC/MC Sweden
Josefine Majewski
Tillvaxtverket, Sweden
14
SC/MC Denmark
Niels Bjerring Hansen
Danish Business Authority
15
SC/MC Denmark & Contact Points
and Regional Points
Niels Chresten Andersen
Region Bornholm
16
JTS Poland
Robert Mazurkiewicz (JTS Programme
Manager)
JTS
17
JTS Poland
Małgorzata Zdunek (JTS Financial
Manager)
JTS
Marlis Erichsen (Region Sjalland)
Region Sjalland
Ulrike Klose / Ronald Lieske (Region
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern)
Region Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Sylwia Skwara (PomorskieVoivodship)
PomorskieVoivodship
18
19
20
Contact Points and Regional
Contact Points Denmark
Contact Points Germany
Contact Points Poland
21
Contact Points Poland
Justyna Klonowska (WarmińskoMazurskie Voivodship)
Warmińsko-MazurskieVoivodship
22
Contact Points Sweden
Johan Lundbäck (Region Kalmar)
Region Kalmar
23
Lisa Wagnborg (Region Blekinge)
Region Blekinge
24
Maria Korner (Region Skåne)
Region Skåne
161
Final Report
25
Mariana Gomez Johannesson (Region
Kronoberg)
Region Kronoberg
26
Contact Points Lithuania
Audrone Auzbikaviciute
Lithuanian Association of Local
Authorities
27
Euroregions
28
Euroregions
29
Euroregions
30
Expert
Slawomir Demkowicz - Dobrzanski
(Euroregion Baltic)
Peter Ratcovich (Euroregion Baltic)
Agnieszka Lipińska (Euroregion
Pomerania)
Piotr Dwojacki
31
Expert
Dariusz Gobis
Pomeranian Chamber of Crafts for Small
and Medium Enterprises in Gdańsk
32
Beneficiary
A. Maleńczyk
Theatre inElblągu
33
Beneficiary
Malgorzata Tarasiewicz
Network of East-West Women
34
Expert
Andrzej Tonderski
POMCERT Pomeranian Science
and Technology Park
35
Expert
Mirosław Właz
Gdańsk University of Technology
Euroregion Baltic
Euroregion Baltic
Euroregion Pomerania
Case studies
Table 40. List of projects studied
No.
Measure
1
1.1
Project acronym
MarTech LNG
Lead Beneficiary
Marine Competence, Technology and Knowledge Transfer for LNG (Liquid Natural
Gas) in the South Baltic Sea Region
2
1.2
Baltic WebLab
The South Baltic WebLab - a virtual laboratory on marine science for school students
3
1.3
ABC Multimodal
Access by Cycling - Integrating cycling into multimodal transport system and mobility
culture (ABC.Multimodal)
4
2.1
WAB
Wetlands, Algae and Biogas. A Southern Baltic Sea Eutrophication Counteract Project
5
2.2
South Baltic Offer
6
2.3
ArtLine
Art Line
7
2.4
YC3
Youth Cross-border Cooperation and Communication Project
162

Effectiveness of the South Baltic Cross-border Co

Transkrypt

Podobne dokumenty

Balticlab 4.0

MARSEILLE

Full text () - Folia Malacologica

ArtLine

full, complete article - Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy