Ongoing evaluation of the Cooperation Programme Interreg V ... · Ongoing evaluation of the Cooperation Programme Interreg V-A Slovenia-Croatia Final report, August 2017
Post on 17-Aug-2019
213 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Ongoingevaluationofthe
CooperationProgrammeInterregV-ASlovenia-Croatia
Finalreport,August2017
2
Programme:CooperationProgrammeInterregV-ASlovenia-Croatia
Contractingauthority:GovernmentofficefordevelopmentandEuropeancohesionpolicy
Contractor:Nov’narazvojd.o.o.
Evaluator:JulijaMarošek
Placeanddate:Prevalje,31August2017
3
Tableofcontents
1.Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................5
1.1.Purposeofevaluation......................................................................................................................................5
1.2.Methodologicalsteps......................................................................................................................................5
2.Collectionofdataandanalysis................................................................................................................................6
2.1.Abouttheprogrammeandmainmilestones..................................................................................................6
2.2.ImplementationoftheOpencall....................................................................................................................7
2.2.1.Supporttoapplicantsintheapplicationphase......................................................................................7
2.2.2.Receiptofapplications,assessmentandselectionprocedure.............................................................11
2.2.3.Timelineforprocessingofapplications................................................................................................15
2.3.Overviewofprojectsapprovedinthe1stand2nddeadline..........................................................................15
2.3.1.Listofapprovedprojects.......................................................................................................................16
2.3.2.Geographicaldistributionoftheapprovedprojects............................................................................17
2.4.Selectedfinancialdata...................................................................................................................................18
2.6Communicationactivities...............................................................................................................................19
3.Evaluation..............................................................................................................................................................24
4.Conclusionsandrecommendations......................................................................................................................32
5.Annexes..................................................................................................................................................................35
5.1Listofinterviews.............................................................................................................................................35
ListoftablesTable1:StructureoftheCooperationProgramme....................................................................................................6
Table2:Receivedandapprovedprojectsunder1stand2nddeadlineforsubmissionperPriorityAxes.................11
Table3:Qualityassessmentcriteriaandtheirimportanceinthetotalscore.........................................................13
Table4:Qualityassessmentofapplications............................................................................................................13
Table5:Timelineforprocessingofapplications.....................................................................................................15
Table6:ListofapprovedprojectsperPAsandspecificobjectives..........................................................................16
Table7:LocationofPPsbyNUTS3areas(projectsapprovedunder1stdeadlineanddirectapproval)................17
Table8:CommittedERDFfundsperPriorityAxes....................................................................................................18
Table9:Projectbudgetsoverview(totalcosts)–1stdeadline.................................................................................19
Table10:PA1-Expectedcontributionofapprovedprojectstotheprogrammeoutputindicators......................27
Table11:PA2-6c-Expectedcontributionofapprovedprojectstotheprogrammeoutputindicators.................28
Table12:PA2-6d-Expectedcontributionofapprovedprojectstotheprogrammeoutputindicators.................29
Table13:PA2-6d-Expectedcontributionofapprovedprojectstotheprogrammeoutputindicators.................29
Table14:TA–InterimachievementofTAprojectstotheprogrammeoutputindicators.....................................30
Table15:Achievementofcommunicationstrategytargets....................................................................................31
4
ListofchartsChart1:Usefulnessofthesupportingdocumentsforpreparationofapplications..................................................8Chart2:Usefulnessofworkshopsforapplicants........................................................................................................8Chart3:Assessmentofspecificelementsoftheprojectdevelopment....................................................................9Chart4:UseofeMSinprojectapplicationphase……………………………………………………………………………………………….10Chart5:Partsofapplicationthatweremostdifficulttoprepare............................................................................10Chart6:Assessmentofthesupportprovidedbytheprogrammebodies...............................................................11Chart7:Receiptofapplicationsonthedayof1stdeadline......................................................................................11Chart8:MostcommoncommunicationchannelsusedbyLPs................................................................................22Chart9:Assessmentoftheprogrammewebsite.....................................................................................................22
AbbreviationsCBC Cross-borderCooperation
CP CooperationProgramme
eMS electronicMonitoringSystem
ETC EuropeanTerritorialCooperation
FLC FirstLevelControl
HR Croatia
IP Investmentpriority
JS JointSecretariat
LP LeadPartner
MA ManagingAuthority
MC MonitoringCommittee
NA NationalAuthority
PA PriorityAxis
PP Projectpartner
SI Slovenia
SO Specificobjective
5
1.Introduction
1.1.Purposeofevaluation
ThepurposeofthisevaluationwastoassesstheprogrammemanagementandimplementationwiththemainfocusontheopencallprojectapplicationandselectionprocedureandontheimplementationoftheCommunicationstrategy.Evaluationquestions:
• Howefficientandeffectivearetheprogrammestructures?• Howefficientandeffectivearetheprogrammeprocedures?• Whatistheprogressoftheprogrammetowardsachievingtargetsofspecificobjectives?• Whatistheprogressinimplementationofcommunicationstrategyandachievementoftheset
objectives?
1.2.Methodologicalsteps
Methodologicalsteps:
Step Timeline
1. MeetingswithJStoclarifythetasks April2017
2. DesignofthequestionnaireforLPsincooperationwiththeJS April2017
3. Analysisofsecondarysources April–May2017
4. ProcessingofonlinesurveyforLPs May2017
5. Interviewswithprogrammebodies June2017
6. Observation,judgment,assessment June2017
7. Draftreport July2017
8. FinalReport August2017
TheanalysisisbasedonthemonitoringdataprovidedbytheJointSecretariat(JS),datafromApplicationForms of approved applications in the 1st deadline of the open call, and data available on theprogrammewebsite.Theoverallcut-offdatewas10May2017(i.e.whentheprojectssubmittedtothe2nddeadlinewere selected),whereasdataon theachievementof indicatorsof theCommunicationstrategyreferto31December2016.
LeadPartners (LPs)of all appliedprojects in the1st deadlinewere invited to takepart in anonlinesurvey.Thesurveywasopenedfrom20Aprilto15May2017.91LPs(someLPsappliedwithseveralprojects),wereinvitedtoparticipateinthesurvey.30responses(33%)werereceived,ofwhich8(27%)fromCroatianand22(73%)fromSlovenianLPorganizations.Theinterpretationoffindingsshouldbemadewithsomereservationregardingvalidityfortheentiretargetgroupofapplicantsorbeneficiaries.
QualitativedatawerecollectedfrominterviewswiththeManagingAuthority(MA),JointSecretariat(JS),NationalAuthorities(NAs)inSloveniaandCroatiaandFirstLevelControl(FLC)inbothcountries.
Main secondary sources used: Cooperation Programme Interreg V-A Slovenia – Croatia,Communication strategy, Application Pack published on the programmeWebsite, and ApplicationForms.
The approved projects are still in the early phase of implementation, therefore the assessment ofprogress towards theachievementof theprogrammespecificobjectiveswasmadeon thebasisofexpectedcontributionsofprojectsapprovedtotheprogrammeoutputindicators.
Duetolimitedresourcesforanalysis,theassessmentfocusedonsmallernumberofaspects.
6
2.Collectionofdataandanalysis
2.1.Abouttheprogrammeandmainmilestones
Theprogrammeareacomprises17NUTS3regions:9statisticalregionsinSloveniaand8countiesinCroatia.TheprogrammeontheSloveniansideincludesonenewregion–Zasavska.Theprogrammeareahas31,728km2and3,285millionpeople(2013).TheCooperationProgramme(CP)comprisesfourPriorityAxes(PA)andfiveSpecificObjectives(SO).Theprogrammebudget is55.7millionEurowith46.1millionEuroofERDFcontribution.
Table1:StructureoftheCooperationProgramme
PROGRAMMEVISION
“TheCooperationProgrammeINTERREGV-ASlovenia-Croatiaaimsatpromotingsustainable,safeandvibrantborderareabyfosteringsmartapproachestopreservation,mobilizationandmanagementofnaturalandculturalresourcesforthebenefitofthepeoplelivingandworkinginorvisitingthearea.”
PROGRAMMEOBJECTIVES
Priorityaxis1:Integratedfloodriskmanagementintransboundaryriverbasins
Priorityaxis2:Preservationandsustainableuseofnaturalandculturalresources
Priorityaxis3:Healthy,safeandaccessibleborderareas
Thematicobjective5:
Investmentpriority5b–Promotinginvestmenttoaddressspecificrisks,ensuringdisasterresilienceanddevelopingdisastermanagementsystems Specificobjective1.1:
FloodriskreductioninthetransboundaryDragonja,Kolpa/Kupa,Sotla/Sutla,Drava,MuraandBreganariverbasins.
Thematicobjective6:
Investmentpriority6c-Conserving,protecting,promotinganddevelopingnaturalandculturalheritage
Specificobjective2.1:
Active heritage preservation throughsustainabletourism
Investmentpriority6d-Protectingandrestoringbiodiversityandsoilandpromotingecosystemservices,includingthroughNatura2000,andgreeninfrastructure.
Specificobjective2.2:
Protectingandrestoringbiodiversityandpromotingecosystemservices
Thematicobjective11:
InvestmentPriority11:Enhancinginstitutionalcapacityofpublicauthoritiesandstakeholdersandefficientpublicadministrationbypromotinglegalandadministrativecooperationandcooperationbetweencitizensandinstitutions.
Specificobjective3.1:Buildingpartnershipsamongpublicauthoritiesandstakeholdersforhealthy,safeandaccessibleborderareas
EXPECTEDRESULTS
Result1.1:acommonstrategicandimplementationapproachforbetter-coordinated,coherentandstrategicfloodriskmanagementintheborderarea.
Result2.1:Theborderareawillpreservesomeofitsmostimportantculturalandnaturalheritagesitesbutwillalsoincreasetheirquality,sustainabilityandattractiveness.
Result2.2:Improvedconservationstatus(CS)ofcross-borderNatura2000speciesandhabitatstypeswhichareofcommoninterestforpreservation.
Result3.1:Neworstrengthenedexistingcross-borderstructuresthatwillenablecross-borderdeliveryofservicesinpublicinterestorimproveaccesstosuchservicesinperipheralborderareaswithsignificantgapinservicedelivery.
Priorityaxis4:TECHNICALASSISTANCE
Specificobjective4.1:Providetheefficientandfrictionlessenforcementofthecooperationprogramme.
Source:CPInterregV-ASloveniaCroatia
7
The Cooperation Programme Interreg V-A Slovenia-Croatia (CP) was approved by the EuropeanCommissionon1October2015.
All key programme and project implementation procedures are supported by a new electronicMonitoringSystem(eMS).It isusedbyallprogrammebodies,applicantsandbeneficiaries,howeverwithdifferentlevelsofaccessibility.TheeMSbecameoperationalinSeptember2015.
DescriptionofmanagementandcontrolsystemwasapprovedbytheAuditAuthority.
Thekick-offeventwasorganizedinCelje(SI)on9December2015.
TheMonitoringCommittee(MC)wassetupon its1stmeetingheldon30November–1December2015.Atthesamemeetingthedocumentationfortheopencallforproposals,theprogrammeeligibilityrules,criteriaforapprovalofstrategicprojectsandCommunicationstrategywereapproved.
TheCPforeseesthreetypesofprojectsandtwodifferentselectionprocedures:strategicprojects(PA1)andTechnicalassistanceprojects(PA4)aredirectlyapprovedbytheMC,non-strategicprojectsunderPA2andPA3areselectedonthebasisoftheprocedureforopencallforproposals.
TheopencallforproposalsunderPA2andPA3waspublishedon15January2016.By10May2017,applicationsreceivedtotwodeadlineshavebeenprocessed.Underthe1stdeadline,5projectswereapprovedandSubsidycontractssignedinOctober2016,while9projectswerepostponed.Another12projectsfromthe2nddeadlinewereapprovedand17postponedatthe4thMCmeeting.
PA1strategicprojectFRISCO1wasconditionallyapproved inApril2016,whileFRISCO2wasunderpreparation.
2.2.ImplementationoftheOpencallforproposals
TheOpencallsystemenablestheapplicantstosubmitprojectapplicationscontinuouslyafterthecallislauncheduntiltheprogrammefundsareavailable.TheJSpublishesdeadlinesagreedbytheMCtowhichapplicationsneedtobesubmittedinordertobeincludedintheprojectselectionprocedureatthefollowingMCmeeting.
2.2.1.Supporttoapplicantsintheprojectgenerationandapplicationphase
TheMA/JSincooperationwiththeNAsprovidessupporttopotentialapplicantsinprojectdevelopmentandpreparationofapplications.ThemainformsofsupportaretoagreatextentharmonizedbetweentheCBCprogrammesmanagedbySloveniaandcomprise:
• The CP and guidance available at the programme website: open call, application pack,frequentlyaskedquestions,otherrelevantinformation,suchasasummarisedmethodologyforthecalculationofprogrammeindicators;
• InformativeworkshopsforapplicantsareorganisedbytheMA/JSandincooperationwiththeNAs.Usually,oneworkshopisorganisedontheCroatianandoneonSlovenianside.Materialspresentedatworkshopsarepublishedontheprogrammewebsite;
• TheJSofficesoperateinLjubljana(SI),Buzet(HR)andKrapina(HR).Thestaffisaccessiblebye-mailorphoneandfacetofacemeetingscanbescheduled.TheJSprovidestechnicalsupportandadvice;includingITsupportconcerningtechnicalquestionsrelatedtotheeMS.
• Content based support and advice is provided by theNAs in Slovenia and Croatia (e-mail,phone,facetofacemeetings).
Usefulnessofprogrammedocumentsandguidelines
TheLP-surveyrespondentsassessedusefulnessofthekeydocumentsneededforthepreparationofprojectproposals,whichareallavailableattheprogrammewebsiteinCroatian,EnglishandSlovene.
8
IntheviewofLP-surveyrespondentstheoverallusefulnessofthesedocumentswasverygood.FAQswerenotfoundveryusefulby11%ofrespondents,whereasthosesharesweresmallerfortheCP(7%)andmanual(4%).
Chart1:Usefulnessofthesupportingdocumentsforpreparationofapplications
Workshopsforapplicants
Workshops for applicants were organised after deadlines for submission of applications wereannounced.Inthe1stround,oneworkshopwasorganizedoneachside,whereasinthe2ndroundthreeworkshopswereorganized.Therewasgreatinterestforattendingtheworkshopsinparticularduring1stdeadline.Afterallplaceswerebooked,theJSenabledlifestreamingoftheworkshopinOpatijaontheinternet.
TheCPprogramme,contentandrequirementsoftheopencallincludingguidanceregardingeligibilityofcostsandinformationandpublicitywerepresentedatworkshops.Inthe2ndround,mostcommonmistakesmadebyapplicantstothe1stdeadlineandasessiononhowtopreparequalityCBCprojectswere added. TheNAs also organized a thematicworkshop dedicated to potential applicants underInvestmentpriority6dinthe2ndround.
RespondentstoLP-surveywhoattendedtheworkshopsforapplicants,assessedthemveryuseful(21%)anduseful(71%);8%foundtheseworkshopsuseless.
Respondents’ proposals for improvement ofworkshops:
-Presentbestpracticeprojects;-Putmorefocusonconcreteproblems.The JS observed thatmany applicants came to theworkshop unprepared.More questionswere askedduringbreaksthanintheplenary.Theattendanceatthe2ndroundwasnotsobig.Itisassumedthatapplicantsdidnotrecognizeaneedtoattendoncemoreastheyhadalreadyparticipatedinthe1stround.
Chart2:Usefulnessofworkshopsforapplicants
Developmentofprojectproposals
67%ofthesurveyedLPsappliedwith1project,30%with2projectsandonerespondentappliedwith4projects(3%ofallrespondents).
veryuseful,10,33%
useful,18,60%
notuseful,2,7%
Cooperation Programme
veryuseful,7,23%
useful,22,73%
notuseful,1,4%
Implementationmanual
veryuseful,7,26%
useful,17,63%
notuseful,3,11%
FAQs
veryuseful,5,17%
useful,17,56%
notuseful,2,7%
notattended,6,20%
Workshop forpotentialbeneficiaries
9
Respondentsassesseddifferentaspectsoftheprojectdevelopment.Mostchallengingfor84%oftherespondentswastounderstandStateAid,67%founditdifficulttoensureco-financing,whereas60%haddifficultiesinaligningtheprojectwiththeCP.Formingapartnershipwaseasy/veryeasyfor73%ofrespondents.
Chart3:Assessmentofspecificelementsoftheprojectdevelopment
AccordingtotheJS,aboutonethirdofapplicantscameforindividualconsultations.Applicantswererequestedtosendabriefdescriptionoftheprojectideainadvance.
TheJSaddressedtechnicalquestions,manyreferredtounderstandingtheprogrammeindicatorsandmethodologiesbehindthem.ContentrelatedissueswerediscussedwiththeNAs,sometimesmeetingswiththeJSandNAinSloveniawereheldtogether.Queriesreceivedbyphoneore-mailoftenreferredtoinformationthatwasalreadypublishedintheapplicationpack.
TheNACroatiausedtoprovideadviceonlybyphoneore-mail.Individualconsultationswereforthefirsttimeorganized inthisprogrammeandwereassessedverypositive.Queriesofapplicantsoftenrelatedtohowownco-financingcanbeensured.Manyprojectideasaddressedinvestmentpriority6c.Applicantsneeded informationregardingthemonitoringofthenumberofvisitorsorwhichculturalheritagecouldbeaddressedinprojectsasinCroatiathereisnouniformregisterofculturalheritage,whereastheinformationcanbee.g.evidentfromcountyspatialplans.TheNAobservedthattheoverallqualityofprojectideaswasnotverygood.SMEshavesofarnotbeenabletofindthemselvesinprojectsaddressingtheinvestmentpriority6c.AccordingtotheNA,theprojectapplicantsfocusedverymuchon tourism whereas other areas were tackled to a lesser extent. Indicators under the investmentpriority6darequitecomplexandapplicants found itdifficult toalignthemwithownproject ideas.Althoughtherewashighinterestforthispriority,whichwasreflectedalsoinwellattendedadditionalworkshoporganizedbytheNAs,notmanyapplicationswereeventuallysubmitted.Thereareseveralpotential applicants on the Croatian side. However, they seem to have focused capacities tomainstreamnational programmes,whichwere of a bigger size. As deadlines of these programmesoverlapped with the open call, they found it difficult to work simultaneously on both/severalprogrammes. Beside social and health care, the projects under PA3 have not yet addressed othersectors,whatmaynothavebeenstressedenoughatworkshops.
TheNASloveniasupportedapplicantswithregardtoinformationonrelevanceoftheproposedprojectfor theCP,eligibilityof investments,StateAid,…Onaneedsbasis, theNAconsultedwith relevantministries.Mostqueriesconcernedtheinvestmentpriority6candonlyafew6d.SlovenianNAnotedthat applicants were facing challenges in establishing the project intervention logic, e.g. how todistinguishbetweenoutputsanddeliverablesorhowtolinktheprojectwiththeprogrammeresults.Also, the partnerships tended towork on specific local needs of individual partners and put themtogetherwhereasrealcrossborderchallengesandpotentialswerenotconvincing.Thisreflectsalsolackofothernational/regionalprogrammessupportinginvestmentneedsofmunicipalities.
3
3
1
0
1
19
19
11
5
9
8
5
18
20
18
0
3
5
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
partnershipcreation
aligningprojectpartners'interests
aligningproject ideaswithprogrammegoals/content
understandingstateaid
ensuringco-financing
Developmentofprojectproposals
veryeasy easy difficult verydifficult
10
ContentsthataretobeaddressedbytheInvestmentpriority6dareveryspecificandthenumberofcompetentorganizationsontheSloveniansideissmallerthanfortheinvestmentpriorities6cor11.Thepublishedsummaryofthemethodologyforcalculationofindicatorsdoesnotseemtobesufficientfortheapplicantstounderstandthecontext,especiallyfortheinvestmentpriority6d.
It was also noted that the scope of the PA3was not sufficiently examined by applicants and thusopportunities for the development of quality projects have not yet been properly addressed.Cooperationbetween the twoNAs is consideredvery good, communicationwith regard to specificprojectideasisquitecommon.
Byassessmentoftheprogrammebodies,itwasratherchallengingfortheapplicantstofindtherighttimingforconsultations.Intheearlyphasethepartnershipswerenotyetfullyformed,whileinthelatestagesnotmanychangescouldbemade.TheapproachoftheNAinSloveniawasnottomeetwiththeapplicantsinthelast14daysbeforethedeadlineforsubmission.
PreparingapplicationsineMS
20%oftheLP-surveyrespondentsfoundthesystemverydifficultand67%difficult.Thesystemwaseasytouseforonly13%oftherespondents.TheProjectbudgetwasmostdifficulttopreparefor73%andtheWorkplanfor53%oftherespondents.
SeveraldeficienciesoftheeMSwerementioned:
• Thesystemwasnotfounduserfriendly,notclearwhattheapplicationrequiresuntilyougetthere;
• Itwashardtokeepanoverviewoftheentereddata(tickingofboxes,pdfwasdifferentfromdataenteredineMS,difficultieswiththesavingfunction,numbersindifferentpartsdidnotmatch,clickingenterafterinsertingabudgetlinescouldbringyoutoadifferentbudgetline,…);
• Bilingualentryofdatageneratesadditionalmistakes;• ProblemswithloginsorloginsofPPs,systemwasfreezingdown;• ITservicesupportnotsufficient;• Theprojectbudgetistoodetailedandbilingualentriesarenotnecessary;dividingprojectto
implementation period is excessive and very time consuming for the needs of projectassessment
• Overallplatformisok.
Chart4:UseofeMSinprojectapplicationphase Chart5:Partsofapplicationthatweremostdifficulttoprepare
Assessmentofsupporttoprojectdevelopmentprovidedbyprogrammebodies
RespondentstotheLP-surveyassessedthesupportprovidedbytheJSasverygoodorgoodin68%,foraquarterofrespondentsthesupportwassatisfactoryand7%assesseditaspoor.TheNAinSlovenia
veryeasy,0,0%
easy,4,13%
difficult,20,67%
verydifficult,6,20%
PreparingapplicationineMSwas
0 5 10 15 20 25
ProjectOverview
Partner
ProjectDescription
Workplan
ProjectBudget
Projectbudgetoverview
Attachments
Mostdifficultparts
11
wasassessedsimilarastheJS,whereastheNAinCroatiahasgreatersharesofthoserespondentswhofoundtheservicessatisfactoryorpoor.
Chart6:Assessmentofthesupportprovidedbytheprogrammebodies
2.2.2.Receiptofapplications,assessmentandselectionprocedure
Submissionofapplicationstothe1stdeadline
Thepurposeof theopencall is toallowapplicantscontinuoussubmissionofapplications. In the1stround,82%ofallapplicationsweresubmittedonthefinalday,16%adaybeforethedeadlineandonly2%ofapplicationswerereadyandsubmitted2daysbeforethedeadline.
Chart6,whichwaspreparedbytheJS,shows that applicants practicallyworked until the lastminute. Half ofapplications were submitted on thedayofthedeadlineafter4p.m.andaquarterbetween8p.m.andthefinalhourofreceipt.
Chart7:Receiptofapplicationsonthedayof1stdeadline
Overviewofreceivedandapprovedprojects
High interest for theprogramme recognisedatworkshopswasalso confirmed inahighnumberofreceived applications, 203 in total, ofwhich 91 in the1st (includingoneempty) and112 in the2nddeadline.ThehighestinterestwasforthePA2–IP6cwith68%ofallreceivedapplications,followedbyPA3with22%,whilePA2-IP6dwasaddressedby8%ofapplicants.ThetotalnumberofprojectstobeimplementedunderPA2-6cincreasedsignificantly,whiletheprojectsapprovedunderPA2arestillverylowcomparedtoreceivedapplications.
Table2:Receivedandapprovedprojectsunder1stand2nddeadlineforsubmissionperPriorityAxes
Applications1stdeadline PA2-IP6c
PA2-IP6d
PA3-IP11 Total
Submittedapplications,%ofreceivedtobothPAsunder1stdeadline 63(69%) 7(8%) 21(23%) 91(100%)
Administrativelycompliant&eligibleapplications,%ofreceivedunderIP
16(25%) 1(14%) 9(42%) 26(29%)
verygood,8,29%
good,11,39%
satisfactory,7,25%
poor,2,7%
JS
verygood,1,6%
good,7,44%satisfactory,6,37%
poor,2,13%
NA-HR
verygood,6,30%
good,7,35%
satisfactory,5,25%
poor,2,10%
NA-SI
12
ApprovedprojectscomparedtosubmittedunderPA-IP 3(4.7%) 0(0%) 2(9.5%) 5(5.5%)
Applications2nddeadline PA2-IP6c
PA2-IP6d
PA3-IP11 Total
Submittedapplications,%ofreceivedtobothPAsunder2nddeadline 76(68%) 10(8%) 25(22%) 112(100%)
Administrativelycompliant&eligibleapplications,%ofreceivedunderIP
45(59%) 7(70%) 15(60%) 67(60%)
ApprovedprojectscomparedtosubmittedunderPA-IP 9(12%) 2(20%) 1(4%) 12(11%)
Source:JS/MA,programmewebsite
Administrativeandeligibilitycheck(ABcheck)
TheintentionoftheMAinallcooperationprogrammesmanagedbySlovenia(SI-AT,SI-HR,SI-HU)wastoincreasetheefficiencyoftheassessmentandselectionprocedureandtokeepupwiththeplanneddynamicstoannouncetwodeadlinesforreceiptofapplicationsperyear.
Experiencefromthepreviousprogrammeperiodshowsthatsignificantshareofapplicantshadtobeasked for clarificationsormissingdocumentsunderABcheck.Now,more responsibilitywasput toprojectpartnersalsowithregardtosecuringsufficientfinancialandoperationalcapacityandpropermanagement of investments. Investment documentation is not examined anymore within the ABcheck.PPsdeclareandconfirmcomplianceoftheprojectwiththeprogrammerulesandrequirementsbysigningoftheProjectPartnerstatement.Incasethestatementisatlaterstagesfoundfalse,PPscanfaceprosecutionbythepenalcode.
TheABcheckinthe1stroundresultedin71%ofrejectedapplications.TheJSanalysedthatmainreasonsfor rejection were formal mistakes (data not completely filled in or not compiled in the requiredlanguage,inconsistenciesbetweendifferentpartsoftheapplicationwerefound,datainannexesnotcompletedorattached,etc.).18projectssubmittedtothe1stdeadlinemade1formalmistake.Therewerealsoeligibility issues:notallPPswereeligible toparticipate in theprogramme,min.andmax.budgetrequirementswerenotrespected,preparationcostswereabove2%ofthetotalbudgetoftheLP,etc.
Applicants inthe2ndroundweremoresuccessfulandtherateofapplicationsthatpassedABcheckincreasedto60%,howevertheshareofadministrativelyincompliantapplicationswasstillquitehigh.
TheMCdecidedonits4thmeetinginMay2017thatfrom3rdroundon,theapplicantswith1formalmistakeincriterionA.4referringtocheckoflanguagerequirementswillbeaskedbymeansoftheeMSe-mailtoprovidesupplementswithinfivedays.
FortheJS, theABcheckwasperceivedchallengingespeciallywithregardtocheckingof theformalcompliance.Sometimesthedifferencesbetweenthelanguagesweredifficulttospotatfirstsightandadditionalattentionwasneededasspaceintheapplicationformismadefor3languagesduetothelayoutwhichispreparedalsoforstrategicprojects,whicharepreparedinEnglish.
Qualityassessment
TheassessmentproceduresandcriteriaarepublishedinthePart3oftheImplementationmanualforbeneficiaries.ThesurveyedLPsself-assessedtowhatextenttheywerefamiliarwiththose:
• 57%oftherespondentswerefullyand30%partlyacquaintedwiththeassessmentandselectionprocedure,13%werenot
• 60%checkedqualitycriteriawhenpreparingtheapplication,33%gotfamiliarwiththecriteriaand7%not.
13
Thecriteria forqualityassessmentweredesignedon thebasisofHIT tools. Theprogrammehas inaccordancewithincreasedresultorientationattributedthehighestimportancetostrategicaspectsoftheprojectassessment.
Table3:Qualityassessmentcriteriaandtheirimportanceinthetotalscore
Setofcriteria Sub-criteriaandmax.points Max.points
%oftotalscore
Strategicassessment
Relevanceandstrategy(C1-C2),max.9points
Project’s contributions to theprogramme’sobjectives,expected results andoutputs(C3-C8),max.27points
Horizontalprinciples(C9),max.3points(1foreachprinciple)
39PA2:44%
PA3:41%
SpecificleadingprinciplesforPA
6c:4guidingprinciples,(C10-C13),max.12points
6d:3guidingprinciples,(C14–C16),max.12points
11b:6guidingprinciples,(C17-C22),max.18points
PA2:12
PA3:18
PA2:13%
PA3:19%
Cooperation Cooperationcharacterandcooperationapproach(C23-C26),max.17points17
PA2:19%
PA3:18%
Operationalassessment
Management(C27),max.3points
Workplan(C28-C30),max.12points
Budget(C31),max.6points
21PA2:24%
PA3:22%
TotalPA2 89 100%
TotalPA3 95 100%
Source:Implementationmanualforbeneficiaries,ownanalysis
Qualityassessmentofapplicationsisperformedby4assessorsoftheJS(2fromSloveniaand2fromCroatia)whoarenotinvolvedintheprojectdevelopmentsupport.Theassessorshavebeenrecentlyengagedandhadlittleexperiencewiththepreviousprogramme.IntheviewoftheMA/JS,theuseofinternalassessorsprovedmuchbettercomparedtoengagementofexternalassessorsinthepreviousprogrammeperiod.TheJSobservedthatinternalassessorshavebetterknowledgeoftheprogramme,areimpartialandmorecommitted,justificationsofgivenscoresarewellarguedandconcrete.
Thetimeframeforassessmentwasachallengeastheassessorscannotdevotetheirtimeexclusivelytoassessmentastheyneedtoworkonothertasksatthesametime.
Eachapplicationisassessedindependentlybytwoassessors.Thefinalscoreiscalculatedasaverageofthetwoassessments.Assessors’commentsaresummarizedinagrid,whichispresentedtotheMC.AsobservedbytheJS,differencesbetweenindividualscoresofassessorswerenotbigandwereinmostcasesupto5points.
Table4:Qualityassessmentofapplications
Applications1stdeadline PA26c PA26d PA3 Total,%ofallassessments
Numberofapplicationsscored70%andmore(73+pointsPA2) 3 0 2 5(19%)
Numberofapplicationsscoredbetween63-72points(PA2) 7 0 2 9(35%)
Number of applications scored less than 70% (less than 63points)
6 1 5 12(46%)
14
Applications2nddeadline PA26c PA26d PA3 Total,%ofallassessments
Numberofapplicationsscored70%andmore(73+pointsPA2) 9 2 1 12(19%)
Numberofapplicationsscoredbetween63-72points(PA2) 12 1 4 17(26%)
Number of applications scored less than 70% (less than 63points)
22 4 10 36(55%)
Source:JS,ownanalysis
Assessorsattendeda trainingorganisedby theMAfor threeprogrammes (SI-AT,SI-HR,SI-HU).Theteamwasadditionallyharmonizedinternally.MostchallengesinassessmentwererelatedtotheIP6d.TheassessorhasapossibilitytoconsultwithexpertsinaccordancewithprovisionoftheMC.
In terms of quality, both deadlines show that close to one fifth of the assessed projects could berecommendedforapproval.Theshareofprojectsrecommendedunderconditionshasdecreasedinthe2ndround,whiletheshareofthosenotreachingthethresholdincreased.
The JS observed that applications which were prepared with the support of external consultantsseemedtobeofhigherquality.Overall,thepartnershipsaresimilartothoseinthepreviousperiod,somecontinuedcooperationbyupgradingtheprojectsimplementedinthe2007-2013period.
MCdecisiononprojectsproposals
TheMCdiscussesprojectsassessedbytheJS.Projectsareclustered in3groups(recommendedforapproval,recommendedforpostponementandrecommendedforrejection).
TheMCprocedureonselectionofprojectshasanewstepcomparedtothepreviousperiod–thereisapossibility topostponeaproject thathasprospects tobeapproved if certainconditionsaremet.SupportoftheJSandNAsregardingimprovementsisavailable.Intechnicalaspects,theapplicantscanworkonthesameapplicationintheeMSwhatisconsidereduserfriendlycomparedtotheprojectsthatfailABcheckandhavetoentertheentireprojectonceagain.
6outof9postponedprojectsinthe1stroundwereassessedinthe2ndone,ofwhichfourwereapprovedandtwofurtherpostponed.Thenumberofpostponedprojectsincreasedto17inthe2ndround.
Facetofacemeetingswithapplicants
FacetofacemeetingsbetweentheLPsofapprovedprojectsandprojectmanagers(assessors)oftheJS are organised to clarify any open issues, e.g. methodologies for the monitoring ofproject/programmeoutputindicators,targetgroups,adjustmentofthetimelineforimplementation.TheJSnoticedatthosemeetingsthatsomepartnershipsneededmoretimetogetorganisedandkick-offwhatcausedminordelayscomparedtotheinitialplans.Oneofthereasonsisthatsomeprojectpartnershaveinthemeantimealsoappliedforandbecomeengagedinprojectssupportedbyotherfunds.Theyhadtoorganisesufficientresourcestoworkeffectivelyonallprojectstheycomittedto.
Applicants whose projects were rejected or postponed, have the possibility to clarify the projectweaknesses.ReasonsfortheprojectpostponementorrejectioncanbeclarifiedwiththeheadoftheJS,whereastheNAscansupporttheapplicantsinfurthercontentrelatedquestions.
Respondents’commentabouttheassessmentandselectionprocess
• Assessmentsshouldbecompletedin3-4monthsfromthesubmissionofapplications;• Administrativechecksaretoodetailedandtaketoomuchtime;procedureshouldbechanged
tofocusmoreonqualityaspects(expressionofinterestshouldbeused);• Projectsshouldnotberejectedforadministrativemistakes;thisleadstodifficultiesinfinding
projectpartnersasnowmanyprefertocooperateintransnationalprojectsinstead;
15
• Transparency of decisions should be improved – decision letters should include qualitativeinformationabouttheassessment.
2.2.3.Timelineforprocessingofapplications
14outof30LP-surveyrespondents(47%)foundthedurationofassessmentprocedureasexpectedand43%longerthanexpected,andfor10%theprocedurewasshorterthanexpected.
Thetimefromthereceiptofapplicationtosignatureofthesubsidycontractwas7monthsinthe1stand7,5monthsinthe2nddeadline.Betweenthetworoundsthereisasubstantialdifferenceinthenumberofapplicationsassessedforqualityandthetimeusedfortheassessment.Inthe2ndroundthequalityassessmentprocedurewasmoreefficient.Theprocedurefromthesubmissionofapplicationsto theMCdecisionwasdone in20weeks in the1st round.The2nd round, inwhich2,6 timesmorequality assessmentsweremade, took25weeks. Considering that the JS staff couldnot allocate allworkinghours for theassessmentonly, theeffective timeneeded for theassessmentwasactualllyshorter.
ThetimefromtheMCdecisiontothesignitureofsubisdycontractsvariesbetweenprojects.Itdependson the conditions to be fulfilled by applicants, the readiness of project partners to start with theimplementation,andsimilar.
Table5:Timelineforprocessingofapplications
Steps 1stdeadline
Startdate-enddate
2nddeadline
Startdate-enddate
0.PublicationoftheOpencall/announcementofthedeadline
15/01/2016- 24/05/2016(website)
1.Informativeworkshopsforapplicants 17/02/2016(RogaškaSlatina,SI) 11/10/2016(Črnomelj,SI)
22/02/2016(Opatija,HR) 10/10/2016(Tuhelj,HR)
17/10/2016(Samobor,HR)
2.ReceiptofapplicationsineMS 11/03/2016at23:59:59 14/11/2016at12:00
3.Administrative&eligibilitycheck(ABCheck) 14/03/2016–15/04/2016
(91applications,24workdays)
14/11/2016–05/01/2017
(112applications,37workdays)
4.Qualitycheckofapplications 16/04/2016–01/07/2016
(26applicationsx2assessments,54days)
06/01/2017–07/04/2017
(67applicationsx2assessments,65workdays)
5.Stateaidcheck/opinionforprojects 06/07/2016–01/08/2016 10/04/2017–24/04/2017
6.MCmeeting–decisiononprojects 30/08/2016–31/082016
(20weeksfromsubmissiontoMCdecision)
09/05/2016–10/05/2017
(app. 25 weeks from submissiontoMCdecision)
7.Preparationandsendingoutdecisionletters 01/09/2016–09/09/2016 11/05/2017–26/05/2017
8.Face-to-facemeetingswithbeneficiaries/PreparationofERDFcontracts
19/09/2016–07/10/2016 29/05/2017–23/06/2017
9.SigningofERDFcontracts 14/10/2016 4/07/2017
10. Duration from submission of application tosigningoftheSubsidycontracts
app.7months app.7,5months
Source:JS/MA,programmewebsite
16
2.3.Overviewofapprovedprojects
2.3.1.Listofapprovedprojects
OnestrategicprojectwasapprovedinPA1(directapproval).
5projectswereapproved in the1stdeadlineof theopencall,ofwhich3address thePA2-6cand2projectsthePA3.Inthe2nddeadline,9projectswereapprovedunderthePA2-6c,2underthePA2-6dand1projectunderthePA3.
Table6:ListofapprovedprojectsperPAsandspecificobjectives
Projectacronym PPs/associatedpartners
Maintopicsaddressed&keyoutputs
FRISCO1 8 Coordinatedfloodriskmanagement(jointmodels,mapsandtoolsforeachofthesixtargettransboundaryriverbasins(Kupa/Kolpa,Sutla/Sotla,Drava,Mura,DragonjaandBregana)withtheassociateddesigndocumentationforoptimalstructuralmeasures,improvedphysicalalertsystems,andtheoutputsofawarenessrising/capacitybuildingactivities)
Malabarka2 8 Protection, promotion, valorisation of maritime cultural heritage throughsustainabletourism(interpretationcentres,centresofexcellence(platformofexperts),newjointdestinationMalabarka,jointtourismitineraries,networkofpromotioncentres,promotioncampaign)
DETOX 9* Sustainabletourismproductsofruralareas(6revitalisedculturalmonuments,2jointCB-touristproduct,workshopsandevents,portal,mobileapplications)
ENJOYHERITAGE 9* Interpretation of natural and cultural heritage for the young and families(interpretation products, visitor centre, small scale investments, trainingactivities)
DEMENCA 7* Optimizationofsocialcareservicesforpeoplewithdementia(CBinstitutionalcooperation structures, capacity building for service providers,recommendationsandguidelines,pilotedoptimisationofservices).
STAR 7* Ageingofthepopulationandsettingupofdifferentformsofdeinstitutionalizedlong-termcare services for theelderly (CBprogrammeofdeinstitutionalisedlong-termcare,capacitybuilding for socialworkers, settingupof2day-carecentres)
Riviera4Seasons2 6 Activepreservationofculturalandnaturalheritagebypromotingsustainablegreen tourism. The project builds on the result of the ‘365 Days of Riviera’supportedin2007-2013.Developingpotentialsforgreensustainabletourisminthecountryside,capacitybuilding,destinationmarketing.
CLAUSTRA+ 9 Development of a tourism product CLAUSTRA on the remains of theClaustraAlpiumIuliarum,alateRomandefencesystemspanningfromRijekatothe Posočje area. Key activities included concept development, promotion,management and active conservation and presentation of archaeologicalremains.
KRASn'KRŠ 7 Preservationofthenaturalandculturalheritageofthekarstlandscapeintoasustainable tourist destination including typical landscapes: lowland contact,Alpineandmaritimekarst.Adjustmentofofferstotheneedsofmodernvisitorsand integration of small fragmented offers and promotion of less knowhotspots.Developmentoffourinterpretationcentres.
ECooL-Tour 16* Enhancement of sustainable tourism, entrepreneurship and economiccooperationbyimprovingthecapacitiesoflocalstakeholdersanddevelopmentofanewjointtransboundarytouristoffer,whichwillcomprise17newservicesrelatedtothepreservationofheritage.
17
Projectacronym PPs/associatedpartners
Maintopicsaddressed&keyoutputs
Uživamtradicijo 14* Establishmentofaculinarytrail fromPannoniatoAdriatic,offeringvisitorsauniqueexperienceoflocaltraditions,customs,cuisinebyorganisingattractiveprogrammes based on sustainable co-operation of local providers in severaluniqueareas.
Prebujanje/Buđenje 6* Diversification, improvement and strengthening of the competitiveness ofexistingcultural tourismcontent in the region.DevelopmentofCBC tourismproductbasedonthevalorisationofarchaeologicalsitesinGoričanandŠentiljandestablishmentofregionaltouristcentres.
ZELENOŽELIMO 11* Development of new touristic offers based on inclusion of heritage inconnection with rural products into new touristic experience. Fourmicroproductswillbedeveloped,supportedbyinvestmentsintoinfrastructure.
ŽIVACOPRNIJA 16* TheprojectaddressesthepotentialofthehinterlandoftheMaribor-PohorjeandoftheIstriaasrecognisedtouristdestinations.Developmentofaintegratedcross-border culture and tourism product called Living Magic–the Tales ofPohorje and Istria and a supportive environment for the development andcreationofnewjobs.
MISTERION 8* The project connects the unique natural and geological and archaeologicalfeaturesoftheareaofBelaKrajinaandKamenje,whichhavesofarnotbeenpresented to wider audience, such as Kuščerjeva Kongeria, the only livingundergroundmusselintheworld.
LIKE 12* The project addresses challenges of the the karst edge area,whose naturalresources are under increasing pressure of visitors including sports andrecreation. It aims at establishing an effectivemanagement andmonitoringmechanismoftheNatura2000areastoreducepressuresonbiodiversityandensuringprerequisitesforformalprotection.
ČIGRA 6 TheprojectintendstomaintainastablepopulationofternsongravelhabitatsalongtheSavaandDravariversandtoimproveitsconservationstatusinNatura2000sites.Byapplyingappropriatehabitatmanagementgravelislandswhichhost tern colonies will be preserved and thus its long-term suitability fornestingofternswillbeensured.
+Health 12* TheprojectaddressesthequalityandaccessibilityofhealthcareservicesinCBareabystrengtheningpartnershipsofpublicbodiesandstakeholdersthroughcommondevelopmentofCBproceduresandcertificationof institutionsandoperationofaCB-centreofexcellenceandhealthdestination.
Source:website,projectapplications/*includesassociatedpartnerswhodonotgetreimbursedfromERDFfunds
2.3.2.Geographicaldistributionoftheapprovedprojects
Sixapprovedprojectsareimplementedby41PPsand7AssociatedPartners.WhileCroatianPPsarerelativelywelldispersedacrosscooperatingregion,theSlovenianPPsaresofarconcentratedinonly3of9programmeregions.
Table7:LocationofPPsbyNUTS3areas(projectsapprovedunder1stdeadlineanddirectapproval)
Slovenia Croatia
NUTS3region No. of projectpartners(LP/PP)
Nuts3regions No. of projectpartners(LP/PP)
Pomurskaregija Primorsko-goranskažupanija 5
Podravskaregija 6 Istarskažupanija 4
18
Savinjskaregija GradZagreb 4
Zasavskaregija Zagrebčkažupanija 1
Posavskaregija Krapinsko-zagorskažupanija 1
RegijaJugovzhodnaSlovenija Varaždinskažupanija 3
Osrednjeslovenskaregija 8 Međimurskažupanija
Primorsko-notranjskaregija Karlovačkažupanija 1
Obalno-kraškaregija 8
Totalpartners 22 19
Source:applicationforms
2.4.Selectedfinancialdata
CommitmentofERDFFunds
18.7%oftotalERDFfundsavailablefortheimplementationunderPA1,PA2andPA3werecommittedby theprogrammeunderdirectapprovaland1stdeadlineof theopencall. Funds for theTechnicalAssistance were committed in full at the start of the programme implementation. Under the 2nddeadlinefurther26.6%offundswerecommittedwithinthePA2andPA3.By10May2017,48.9%ofallprogrammefundswerecommittedandnopaymentsmadeoutoftheprogrammeyet.
Table8:CommittedERDFfundsperPriorityAxes
1stdeadline 2nddeadline Programme funds(CP)
ShareofERDFfundscommittedin%
ERDF ERDF 1stdeadline 2nddeadline 1st+2ndd.
PA1(5b) 3,460,307.50* - 10,026,557 34.5% 34.5%
PA2(6c) 3,650,280.35 8,975,295.1128,074,358 13.0% 38.3% 51.3%
PA2(6d) 0.00 1,778,102.66
PA3(11) 955,949.40 731,629.42 5,013,278 19.1% 14.6% 33.7%
Subtotal 8,066,537.25 11,485,027.19 43,114,193 18.7% 26.6% 45.3%
TA 3,000,000 - 3,000,000 100%
Total 46,114,193 48.9%
*projectapprovedunderdirectapprovalprocedure/Source:CPSI-HR2014-2020,MA/JSdata.
Averagesizeofprojectbudgets
TheopencalldefinedminimumandmaximumrequestedERDFfunds(max.85%oftotalprojectcost)foreachPA:
• PA2:min.100,000Euroandmax.2,500,000Euroand• PA3:min.100,000Euroandmax.1,000,000Euro.
Average project budgets show that requested ERDF funds were bellow the max. possible value,reachingintotal41%underPA2and56%underPA3.
19
Table9:OverviewofaverageprojectsizeinEuro
PriorityAxis No.ofprojects
No.ofPPs AveragetotalprojectcostsinEuro
AverageERDFbudgetperprojectinEuro
AverageERDFbudgetperPPinEuro
PA1–5b 1 8 4,070,949.98 3,460,307.50 432,538.44
PA2–6c 12 78 1,237,801.53 1,052,131.29 161,866.35
PA2–6d 2 14 1,053,777.35 889,051.33 127,007.33
PA3–11 3 19 661,795.62 562,526.27 88,819.94
Total 18 119 1,278,750.55 1,086,198.02 164,298.86
Source:JS,owncalculations
Theprogrammeintroducedsimplifiedcostoptionstoreduceadministrativeburdenforbeneficiaries:
- Flatrateof20%ofdirectcostsotherthanstaffcosts/10%forprojectsincludinginfrastructureandworks
- Officeandadministrativeexpenditureshallbereimbursedbytheprogrammeaccordingtoaflatrateof15%ofeligibledirectstaffcosts(budgetlinestaffcosts),nodocumentingrequired.
Useofsimplifiedcostoptionsinprojectsapprovedinthe1stdeadline:
• 30outof41PPs(73%)plannedofficeandadministrativecosts,whicharecalculatedona15%flat ratebasis,8PPs in1projectsdidnotplananycosts in thiscategory,3PPs instrategicprojectdonotuseflatrateforcalculationofthesecosts;
• 20%flatrate/10%forstaffcostsoptionwasusedby9PPs(22%)in3differentprojects.
2.5.Implementationandfinancialcontrols
10LP-surveyrespondentsself-assessedtheprogressinimplementationofprojects:
• 2(20%)implementaccordingtoplan• 2(20%)facedminordelays• 1(10%)facedmajordelays• 5(50%)areintheinitialphaseofimplementation.
TheJSreceivedmanyquestionsfromPPsatthestartofimplementation;requestsforprojectchangeshavealreadybeenreceivedinthefirst6monthsofimplementation.
FeedbackonFLCchecks
FLCinCroatia isorganisedwithintheAgencyforregionaldevelopmentforallprogrammes.TheFLCdepartmentisorganisedwithintheDirectorateforFLC,ServiceforCBCprogrammes.Atpresentthereare2FTEassignedtotheSI-HRprogramme,withtheobjectiveofincreasingthestaffto4FTEwhenthenumberofprojects increases.ThecontrollersarepaidfromtheTechnicalAssistancefunds.Thereisalsoapossibilitytoassigncontrollersfromotherprogrammestosupportcontrolsincaseofincreasedwork.
Nationaleligibilityguidelineswereissuedalongwiththeprogrammeguidelinesandarepublishedontheprogrammewebsite.FLCcontrollersparticipateintheworkshopsforbeneficiaries,whichwerewellattended. FLC staff is also available tobeneficiariesoverphoneore-mail to informandadviceongeneralquestionsregardingtheeligibilityofexpenditure.ThistypeofsupporthasbeentoalargeextentusedbythebeneficiariesespeciallywhenthePPsstartwiththeimplementation.
AccordingtotheFLC,atpresentthecontrolsarebeingimplementedwithoutsignificantproblemsandwithindeadlines.Asof8 June2017,allpartnerprogressreports forthesixapprovedprojectsweresubmitted;thereportsforthestrategicprojecthavealreadybeencheckedandcertified,whiletherest
20
ofthepartnerprogressreportswerebeingchecked,forthe3projectscontrolswereinthefinalstage,and2inprogress.
FirstresultsoftheFLCchecksshowthattheshareofineligiblecostsisnotsignificant;mainlyerrorsincalculationofcostshavebeen identified (e.g.useofdifferentexchangerate).Fewprogressreportswererevertedsothatbeneficiarieswereabletocorrectmistakes(e.g.incaseswherethebeneficiaryhasfailedincalculatingstaffcosts).Inonecaseaconflictofinteresthasbeenidentified.FLChasaccessto court registers where e.g. the ownerships and potential conflicts of interests in procurementprocedurescanbechecked.
Byobservationofthecontrollers,projectpartnerswhocooperatedforthe1sttimeinaCBCprogramme,usually facemorechallenges inpreparationof reportsand itsqualitywas lowercomparedtomoreexperiencedprojectpartners.
Firstprogressreportshavesofarincludedmainlystaffexpenditure,whiletheexpenditureforexternalservices,suppliesandworkswereclaimedinminorshares.Projectpartnersusevarietyofmethodsforcalculationofthestaffcosts.
FLCinSloveniaisorganisedcentrallyforallCross-border,transnational,andinternationalprogrammes.
Onecommonnationalmanualoneligibleexpenditurewasprepared.Ithighlightsnationalrequirementsandrelatestospecificprogrammelevelmanuals.
AccordingtotheHeadofFLC,thereisahighlevelofharmonisationofthecontrollers’workbetweentheCBCprogrammesmanagedbySlovenia(withAustria,Croatia,Hungary).Checklistsweredesignedon the basis of HIT tools, minor differences exist between the CBC programmes, however notsignificant,theymainlyrelatetospecificprogrammecontents.
TheworkflowsandproceduresoftheFLCchangedinordertoavoidkeyproblems,whichoccurredintheperiod2007-2013bothundertheCBCandtransnationalprogrammes.Allfinancialcontrollersnowworkonallprogrammes.Fireachprogramme,aprogrammemanagerandasubstituteisassigned.TwomeasureswereundertakentospeeduptheFLCchecks:
• Projectpartner reportswithexpenditurebellow10,000Euroarenotchecked. Expenditureincurredinthereportingperiodhastobeclaimedinoneofthefollowingreports.However,ifsuch reports have been submitted, they have been briefly pre-checked and basic findingscommunicatedtothePPviaeMSinordertotakethemintoconsiderationwhenpreparingthefollowingreport.
• TheFLCissuesthecertificateforexpenditurefoundeligibleinacurrentcheckwithouttheneedforadditionalclarificationsorsupplements.Fortheexpenditurethatcannotbecertifieddueto missing evidence/documentation, the PP receives a list of requests for supplements orcorrections,whiletheexpenditurecanbeclaimedinoneofthefollowingreports.
ApositiveaspectisthattheLPcanreceivecertificatesfromSlovenianPPsquicker.Theweaknessisthatashareofcertifiedexpenditureislowerwhenthesubmitteddocumentationisincomplete.FLCseesaroomforimprovementofthequalityofreports,whatwouldleadtohigher%ofexpenditurecertifiedduringtheinitialcheck.
FirstPPprogressreportshavesofarbeencheckedandcertificatesissuedwithnodelays.Onaveragetheprocedurewascompletedin1-2weeksfromthereceiptofthereport.Asof2June2017,65%ofthepresentedexpenditurecouldbecertified(alargeportionofuncertifiedexpendituregoestooneprojectonly).
OnlyafewSlovenianPPsdecidedtoclaimstaffcostsonthebasisofflatrate.
OverallobservationoftheHeadofFLCisthatagreatshareofPPsalreadycooperatedinCBCprojectsin the previous period. Although there is a certain level of experience and knowledge, the level ofrepeatedmistakesisstillhigh.
21
Itwasalsomentionedthatprogrammesadopteda6-monthreportingandthatreportingperiodsarebeingmostlyalignedwiththecalendaryear.ThismeansthatmostPPreportsunderETCprogrammesaresubmittedtotheFLCinalmostidenticalperiodsoftime.Wherepossible,theMA/JSoftheCPSI-HRhasalreadytriedtomakeadjustmentsofthereportingperiods.
2.6.Useofe-MS
JointSecretariat
TheJShassofarbeenmainlyinvolvedinsolvingdeficienciesinoperationoftheeMSforapplicants.ThecapacitiesoftheITmanagerassignedtotheprogramme(1/6ofFTE)werenotsufficient.SomecorrectionshadtobedonebyInteractprogramme,whatwastakingapp.3-4months.SofartheJShasnotyetusedthesystemforanalyticalpurposes.
NationalAuthorities
AccesstoapplicationformsduringtheassessmentphasewastoolimitedintheviewoftheSlovenianNA.ApplicationsareaccessibleineMSfortheStateAidcheckandthenopenedagainwhenmaterialsforMCbecomeavailable.IftherearemanyprojectstobediscussedattheMCmeeting,thetimeforpreparation is not sufficient. Pdf formats of the application forms are not useable (poor layout,sometimesdatainthesystemdoesnotappearonpdf).
Using the eMS is not perceived difficult. However, its advantages have not yet been exploredsufficiently.Thereisroomforoptimization.
FLCunits
ByexperienceoftheCroatianFLC,theeMShasbeenoperatingwell,minor issuesweredetected inrelationtoimportofexchangeratesandweresolved.ThecommunicationwiththeJSinaddressingoftheissueswasverygoodandeffective.
The controllers observed one deficiency of the eMS. A project partner has by mistake submittedunfinishedprogressreport,whichwasrevertedbytheFLCforthebeneficiarytofinaliseit.However,theeMSregistereddateofthesubmissionofthereportonthedayofthefirstunwantedsubmission,whichwasalsothestartingdateforthe90-daydeadlineforfinalizationoftheFLCwork.
AccordingtoFLCSlovenia, theeMShasnotbeenfoundveryuser-friendly;dailycontactwiththe ITsupport was taking place. Main weakness is its slow operation, which is linked to the technicalcharacteristicsoftheITsystemsusedbythegovernmentandnottoeMSassuch.Therewereissuesrelatedtosavingoftheperformedchecksthatresultedinrepeatingoftheworkingsteps.Itisthusnotuncommonthatcontrollersstilluseprintoutsanddochecksonpaper,takenotes,…Workingwithlongfilesofdatarequiresalotofscrollingupanddown,manyclicksarenecessarytogetintothesystem.
2.7.Communicationactivities
TheMCadoptedtheCommunicationstrategyoftheprogrammeonitsfirstmeetingon30/11-01/122015.TheStrategydefinescommunicationobjectives,keymessagesandtargetgroups,communicationtoolsandactivities.
22
Chart8:MostcommoncommunicationchannelsusedbyLPs
Inlinewiththecommunicationstrategy,theprogrammewebsiteisthemaincommunicationtoolforcommunicatingwiththe (potential)beneficiaries,generalpublic,programmepartners/expertpublicandthemedia.Itoperatesin3languages(English,Croatian,andSlovenian).
53%oftheLP-surveyrespondentsusedthewebsitetofindoutaboutfundingopportunities;whereasothercommunicationchannelssuchaskick-offevent,partners,mediawereusedtoafarlesserextent(app.20%-23%).
Thefocusoftherecentcommunicationactivitieswasonpromotionofthefundingopportunitiesandinformationforpotentialapplicantstoprepareprojectproposals.
Thewebsite provides information about theprogramme structures and their contacts, programmedocuments and open call documentation necessary for the applicants, decisions taken by theMonitoringCommittee,guidelinesandinformationfortheprojectbeneficiaries.Newsrelatedtotheprogrammeimplementation,events,workshopsandprojectnewsarealsopublishedonthewebsite.Aninteractivemapwasdeveloped,whichshowsthelocationofprojectsandPPs.
In2016,around229,000visitstothewebsiteweremade,ofwhich24,434uniqueones.
AllLPswhotookpartinthesurvey,followtheprogrammewebsiteandmostfounditappropriateinalllistedaspects.Thehighestratesweregiventoaccessibilityofthe information,whilemostroomforimprovementrelatestotheusefulnessofinformation.
59%oftherespondentsaresubscribedtoane-newsletter;ofthose59%readeachissueand41%mostofissues.In2016,26e-newsweresentto386subscribers.
Chart9:Assessmentoftheprogrammewebsite
16
6
6
7
8
7
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Programmewebsite
Kick-offevent
Programmebodies
E-news
contactedbyapotentialpartner
massmedia
Finding outaboutthecallforproposals
11
10
7
18
17
17
1
3
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Informationaccessibility
Informationaccuracy
Informationusefulness
Programmewebsite
verygood good satisfactory
23
800copiesoftheprogrammebrochureand100copiesoftheCooperationProgrammedocumentwerepublishedin2016.
Besides 5 workshops for applicants and beneficiaries attended by around 550 participants, 3promotional events were organized: a kick – off event, onemajor event which promoted fundingopportunities and presented the achievements of the CP was organised together with the finalconferenceoftheOPSlovenia-Croatia2007-2013on29November2016andaceremonialopeningoftheJSbranchofficeinBuzetwasorganisedon2December2016.These3eventsattracted350visitors.
24
3.Evaluation
• Evaluationquestion:Howeffectiveandefficientaretheprogrammestructures?
Theassessmentfocusedprimarilyontheprogrammebodiesinvolvedintheprocessingoftheopencall.
Thefollowingjudgementcriteriawereusedforassessment:
• Humanresourcesaresufficienttoimplementtheprogramme;• Proceduresandworkprocessesareestablishedandfollowed;• Programmebodiescooperateineffectiveway.
The programme bodies operate effectively within the framework established for the programmeimplementation.
PersonneloftheMA,JS,NAsandFLCisappointed.Intermsofthecurrentneeds,thepersonnelseemsufficient apart from IT manager whose resources allocated to the programme could have beenincreased.NeedsforsupportwithregardtoperformanceofeMSweresubstantialinparticularatthebeginningoftheapplicationprocesses.
MostoftheJSpersonnelisnew,howeverabletotakeonthejobeffectivelywiththesupportoftheHeadofJSwhohasexperiencefromthepreviousprogramme.SeparationoffunctionsbetweentheprojectsupportandprojectassessmentwithinthestaffoftheJSissecuredandrespected.TheMAandNationalAuthoritiesarewellexperiencedandcanprovidesoundsupporttoapplicants.
Thework of theMonitoring Committeewas not analysed.However, theMCmeetings seem to beeffective.Bothcountriesorganisepreparatorymeetingsatnationallevel,whichisagoodpractice.
Programme procedures related to the application, assessment and selection of projects andproceduresregardingreportingandfinancialcontrolsaresetandrespected.Theoverallcooperationbetweentheprogrammebodiesseemseffective.Intermsofsupporttoapplicants,thecommunicationbetweenNAsandJSwaswellestablished.
Theefficiencyofthesestructuresiscloselylinkedwithestablishedproceduresandprocesses,whichareassessedinthefollowingevaluationquestion.
• Evaluationquestion:Howefficientandeffectivearetheprogrammeproceduresandprocesses?
Judgmentcriteriausedintheassessment:
• The programme bodies (MA/JS, NAs) provide relevant support to project applicants in theapplicationphase;
• The programme procedures regarding the application, assessment and selection are userfriendlytoapplicants;
• Thequalitycriteriaallowforselectionofprogrammerelevantandfeasibletoimplementcross-borderprojects;
• Theprogrammeproceduresrelatedtoprogrammeassessmentandselectionareimplementedefficiently;
• TheFLCcontrolchecksareefficientandeffective;• TheeMSallowsforefficientandeffectiveworkfortheusers.
Application,assessmentandselectionprocess
Thesupportinprojectdevelopmentwaswellaccessibletoapplicants.Thebeneficiariesassessedthequalityofreceivedservicesrelativelygood.Basedontherangeandqualityofreceivedapplications,furtherneedsforsupportexist.
25
TheuserfriendlinessoftheapplicationformandoftheassessmentandselectionprocedureismuchreducedcomparedtothepreviousprogrammeinparticularduetoaverystrictABcheckandrathercomplex financialpartof theapplication form.Ontheotherhand, thepostponementofprojects isconsideredmoreuserfriendlyasitgivestheprojectpartnershipsasecondchance.
Qualitycriteriaobserverelevantelementsinassessmentofprojects,whereasintheoverallstructuretheweightgiventooperationalaspectsisrathersuppressedcomparedtostrategicrelatedones.
Theproceduresinplacewereimplementedfairlyeffectively.Attheoverallprogrammelevel,itisearlytoassesstheefficiencyoftheassessmentandselectionproceduresasoutcomesofonedeadlineaffectthefollowingoneintermsoftheworkloadandtimefortheapplicants,theJSandNAs.
Projectdevelopmenttoolsandsupport
Theoverallsupportprovidedtoapplicantswasappropriate.TheMA/JSandNAsfollowedupidentifiedweaknessesandwithinpossibilitiesofferedadditionalsupport(e.g.additionalworkshopforapplicantsunder6-d,improvementsofeMS).
The project application pack published on the programmewebsite comprises relevant informationneeded to develop a project proposal and submit an application. The Implementationmanual forbeneficiariesiswellstructuredintokeycontents/phasesandofferssoundguidancetoapplicantsandbeneficiaries,whichwasalsoreflectedintheLP-surveyfeedbacks.TheApplicationFormisbasedonHITtools.Harmonisationhasbroughtmorecomplexityintoplanningwithintroductionof‘deliverables’andrequirementsforaverydetailedpresentationoftheprojectcosts,whatwasalsotimeconsuming.
The LP-survey and the feedback of the JS/NAs revealed further needs of support to applicants:improving the competence for establishing a proper intervention logic alignedwith the one of theprogramme,understandingmethodologiesformorecomplexindicators,especiallyunder6cand6d,understandingtheStateAid.
Projectassessmentprocedure
TheABcheckprocedurewassimplifiedcomparedtothe2007-2013periodandagreaterresponsibilityformanagementofinvestmentsandprovisionoffinancialandorganisationalcapacitieswasgiventoapplicants.Difficulties inworkingwiththeeMSandexclusionofthepossibilitiestodealwithformalmistakeswasastepawayfromuserfriendlyproceduresforapplicants.MChasslightlyalleviatedtheprocedureforapplicantsfrom3rddeadlineonwards.
Rejections for formal reasons however increased the workload at the overall programme level.ApplicantswhoreapplywiththesameprojecttotheoneofthefollowingdeadlineshavetoinserttheprojectoncemoreintheeMSandtheJShastoperformthechecksonceagaininfull.Thisgivesspacefor generation of further formal mistakes and failing the AB check can further demotivate theapplicants.
Thus,onlyahighlevelofadministrativequalityofsubmittedapplicationscanpositivelyaffectoverallefficiencyatprogrammelevel.
Qualityassessmentshowedthatassessorsharmonisedtheapproachtoassessmentverywell,whatwasreflectedinrelativelysmalldifferencesinmajorityofassessmentsasestimatedbytheJS.Resultsoftheassessment indicate that the quality of projects in general is quite low; approximately half of theassessedprojectsdidnotreachthethreshold.
The criteria for quality assessment in general cover relevant aspects that are usually considered inassessmentofapplications.Someofthespecificguidanceforinvestmentprioritiesarerathercomplextounderstand,howeverwelldesigned to steer theapplicants towardsdevelopingprojects thataremostappreciatedbytheprogramme.Comparedtootherprogrammes,theassessmentofcontributiontowiderstrategiesisnotdirectlyincludedinthechosencriteria,althoughtheinputsarerequestedintheapplicationform.
26
57%(PA2)and60%(PA3)ofmax.scoreisgiventothestrategicandIPspecificcriteriawhatreflectstheorientationof theprogramme towards the importanceof selecting theprojectswhich address theplanned objectives and results of the cooperation programme. Although the assessment looks atrelevant operational aspects, these seem rather supressed in the overall weighting. Especially thecriterionC31 (financialplan),which includes several important judgmentcriteria inone, represents6.7%(PA2)and6.3%(PA3)intheoverallscore.
MCdecisionsonprojects
TheprocedureoftheMChasbeeneffectivelyfollowed.Thepostponementofprojectsisconsideredagoodapproachforapplicants,althoughtheyaresubjecttorepetitionoftheentireprocedureinthenextround.Thenumberofpostponedprojectshasincreasedfrom1stto2ndround,whichontheotherhandalsoincreasestheworkallocatedtothesameproject.Theeffectivenessofthisstepintermsofapostponedprojectbeingfinallyapproved,istoearlytoassess.
Timeneededforassessmentandselectionprocedure
Within theexisting framework,where the resourcesof the JS toperform theABcheckandqualityassessmentarefixedandlimitedandtheapplicationformsandassessmentgridsbeingrathercomplex,theprocedurewasimplementedefficientlyespeciallyinthe2ndround.Thereseemtoverylittleroomforshorteningtheassessmentstepsandmaintainingthequalityoftheprocedureatthesametime.
FLCchecks
TheFLCcheckshavesofarbeenperformedefficientlywithnodelays.
ApproachestotheimplementationofFLCchecksdifferbetweenthetwocountries.SlovenianPPsarein less favourable position compared to the Croatian counterparts as regards the requests forsupplementandcheckingofthereportswithexpendituresbellow10,000Euro.
Possibleeffectsofthecreated‘sittingducks’bytheSlovenianFLContheachievementofperformanceindicatorsaretooearlytoassess.FLCcheckprocedurecanbeconsideredmoreefficientwithregardtotimeusedforcompletionofacheck(whatwasalsothemainintensionoftheFLC),howeverintermsofeffectivenessattheoverallprogrammelevelthiswillverymuchdependonthequalityofreceivedPPprogressreports.
FortheLPsthesituationwillstilldependontheefficiencyofboth,theCroatianandSlovenianFLCunits.
eMS
TheeMShassofarnotyetperformedoptimally,especiallywithregardtotheneedsofapplicantsandpartlyoftheFLC.
Itisexpectedthattheincreaseduseofthesystemwilleventuallycontributetorecognisingitsbenefits.At present there is much room for improvement of the eMS. An overall weakness is that manycorrectionsorimprovementsstillhavetobemadebytheInteractserviceswhosecapacitiesalsoprovedinsufficient.
• Evaluationquestion:Inhowfarwassimplificationandharmonisationachieved?
Judgementcriteriausedinassessment:
• TheuseofHITtoolscontributestoharmonisationandsimplification• Simplifiedcostoptionscontributetosimplificationoftheimplementation
The programme uses HIT tools, which are incorporated in the eMS. In this respect it is likely thatharmonisationwithotherprogrammeswillbeachieved.Harmonisation is toagreatextentalreadyachieved between the CBC programmes managed by the Slovenian MA. On the other hand, theharmonisedapplicationformshavebecomemorecomplexforapplicantstoprepare.
27
Theextentof actual simplificationon thepart of the simplified cost options is early to assess. Thehighestcontributionisexpectedontheaccountofofficeandadministrativecosts,whereastheuseofflat rate for staff costswillbemore limitedandwithmorepotentialunderPA1andPA2-6c,wheresubstantialinvestmentcomponentsareexpected.
Evaluation question:What is the progress of the programme towards achieving targets ofspecificobjectives?
Theprogrammeisduetoarelativelylongprogrammingperiodinaveryearlyphaseofimplementation.Theactualprogresstowardstheachievementoftargetsofspecificobjectivescannotbeassessedyet.Theassessmentwasmadeonthebasisofexpectedcontributionsoftheapprovedprojectstotargetsoftheprogrammeoutputindicators,whatshouldbetakenwithsomereserve.
Basedontheexpectedprojectoutcomes,theprogrammeislikelytoprogressverywellinallPAsexceptforsomespecificareasortypesofcooperationthathavesofarnotbeenaddressedyetoraddressedto a lesser extent. Most challenging to achieve seem targets related to the improvement of theconservationstatusofhabitatsinPA2-6d.ProjectsaddressingthesafetyandconnectivityinPA3werenot yet approved,while theprogress in engaging SMEs in sustainable tourismdevelopment is alsomoderate.
GeographicaldistributionofthePPsisrelativelybalancedontheCroatiansideandquiteconcentratedontheSlovenesidewithmostPPslocatedinOsrednjeslovenskaregion(after2nddeadline).
PA1:Integratedfloodriskmanagementintransboundaryriverbasins
PA1-Specificobjective1.1:FloodriskreductioninthetransboundaryDragonja,Kolpa/Kupa,Sotla/Sutla,Drava,MuraandBreganariverbasins
34.5%ofERDFallocatedtothePA1werecommittedtothefirststrategicproject,whichdealswithfloodrisk management in the areas designated by the CP. The project contribution to the programmeindicators5b-1and5b-3isexpectedtofulfilthesettargets.Thesecondproject,whichisexpectedtocontributetotheachievementsmeasuredbyindicatorsCO20and5b-2,isstillinpreparation.ProjectdevelopmentismonitoredbytheMC.
Table10:PA1-Expectedcontributionofapprovedprojectstotheprogrammeoutputindicators
ID PA1-OutputIndicatorMeasurement
unitTargetvalue
(2023)
Expectedcontributionfromapprovedprojects
value %oftarget
CO20 Populationbenefitingfromfloodprotectionmeasures Persons 1.500 0 0%
5b-1Transboundaryriverbasinswithjointtools,modelsandmapsforfloodriskmanagementdeveloped
Number 6 6 100%
5b-2 Transboundaryriverbasinswithpilotstructuralfloodriskreductionmeasuresimplemented Number 4 0 0%
5b-3
Peoplewithincreasedprofessionalcapacityduetotheirparticipationincross-borderactivitiesintransboundaryfloodriskandriverbasinmanagement
Number 20 20 100%
Source:JSandowncalculation
PA2:Preservationandsustainableuseofnaturalandculturalresources
51.3%ofERDFallocationtoPA2iscommittedto14projects.
PA2-Specificobjective2.1:Activeheritagepreservationthroughsustainabletourism
28
TheprojectsaddressingSO2.1aremost represented in theprogramme.Alreadythe first3projectsapprovedunderthe1stdeadlineareexpectedtocontributesubstantiallyorevenleadtoexceedingthetargetsof theprogrammeoutput indicators.Another9projects from the2nd roundwill contributefurther. The partnerships have so far to a large extent included small investments. It seems thatprospectsforthedevelopmentofneworimprovedCB-touristproductsarealsogood.ComparedtotheprogrammesSI-ATandSI-HU,thedefinitionofaCBproductismorepreciseinthisprogramme.
Althoughitisnotpossibletopredicttheactualoutcomesoftheimplementation,theindicatortargetsseem to have been underestimated with the exception of the CO01 and CO02. Considering theexperiencesofar,theinvolvementofSMEsinprojectpartnershipsislikelytoprogressataslowerpace.
Table11:PA2-6c-Expectedcontributionofapprovedprojectstotheprogrammeoutputindicators
ID PA2-OutputIndicatorMeasurement
unit
Targetvalue(2023)
Expectedcontributionfromapprovedprojects
1st %oftarget 2nd %of
target1st+2nd
%oftarget
CO09
Increaseinexpectednumberofvisitstosupportedsitesofculturalornaturalheritageandattractions
visits/year 50.000 62.800 126% 156000 312% 218.800 438%
6c-1Smallscaleinvestmentsinvisitorinfrastructureandpreservationofculturalandnaturalheritage
Number 15 17 113% 40 267% 57 380%
6c-2
Neworimprovedcross-bordersustainabletourismproductsanddestinationsintegratingnaturalorculturalheritage
Number 20 13 65% 47 235% 60 300%
6c-3 Personsparticipatingincapacitybuildingactivities Number 500 600 120% 2939 588% 3.539 708%
CO01 Numberofenterprisesreceivingsupport Enterprises 7 0 0% 3 43% 3 43%
CO02 Numberofenterprisesreceivinggrants Enterprises 7 0 0% 3 43% 3 43%
Source:JSandowncalculation
Specificobjective2.2:Protectingandrestoringbiodiversityandpromotingecosystemservices
Compared to the SO 2.1, the pool of potential applicants with capacities to engage in projectsaddressingbiodiversityandecosystemservicesissmallerandtheexpectedprogrammeresultsontheotherhandquitespecificandtargeted.
Theprogressinachievementofmosttargetslookspromisingdespitethatnoprojectwasapprovedinthe1standthatonlytwowereapprovedinthe2ndround.
ConsideringtheshareoffundsalreadycommittedinthePA2,thetargetsoftheCO23seemdifficulttoachieve.Questionableisalsotheachievementoftherelatedkeyimplementationstep6dKIsetfor2018:10,000hasurfaceareaofhabitatsplannedtobesupportedwithapprovedprojects.
29
Table12:PA2-6d-Expectedcontributionofapprovedprojectstotheprogrammeoutputindicators
ID PA2-OutputIndicatorMeasurement
unit
Targetvalue(2023)
Expectedcontributionfromapprovedprojects
1st %oftarget 2nd %of
target1st+2nd
%oftarget
CO23Surfaceareaofhabitatssupportedtoattainabetterconservationstatus
Hectares(ha) 31.000 0 0% 220,82 1% 220,82 1%
6d-1Implementedpracticaldemonstrationsofmeasuresinnatureinsupportofbiodiversity
Number 10 0 0% 6 60% 6 60%
6d-2Jointstudiesandtoolsforassessingandpromotingecosystemservicesdeveloped
Number 3 0 0% 12 400% 12 400%
6d-3
Personswithimprovedpracticalskillsandcompetencesforimplementationofbiodiversityprotectionmeasuresandvalorisationofecosystemservices
number 250 0 0% 290 116% 290 116%
Source:JS,owncalculation
PA3:Healthy,safeandaccessibleborderareas
Specific objective 3.1: Building partnerships among public authorities and stakeholders for healthy, safe andaccessibleborderareas
33.7%oftheERDFallocationtoPA3iscommittedto3approvedprojects,whicharelikelytoexceedbothoutputtargets.Thisalsoindicatesthattargetsweresetinamodestmanner.
In terms of sectors targeted, so far only cooperation initiatives in social and health areas weresuccessful,whereassafetyandconnectivity/accessibilitychallengesremainunaddressedevenafterthe2ndroundofprojectselection.Whatisnotableisratherpoorqualityofapplications(e.g.inthe2ndroundtwothirdsofassessedprojectsdidnotreachthethreshold).
TheprogrammeoutputindicatorsareselectedwellintermsofthePAobjectives.Basedonthecontentsofapprovedprojectstheoutcomesarelikelytogobeyondwhatisbeingmonitoredwithindicators.E.g.accesstonewproductsandservicesorimprovedqualityofservicesforspecifictargetgroupsisexpectedtobeachieved,howevernotyetobservedbytheprogrammelevelmonitoring.
Table13:PA3-11Expectedcontributionofapprovedprojectstotheprogrammeoutputindicators
ID PA3-OutputIndicatorMeasurement
unit
Targetvalue(2023)
Expectedcontributionfromapprovedprojects
1st %oftarget 2nd %of
target1st+2nd
%oftarget
11-1 Institutionsparticipatingincross-borderstructures Number 45 20 44% 33 73% 53 118%
11-2
PersonsrepresentinginstitutionsandstakeholdersfromtheprogrammeareawithimprovedskillsandcompetencesinCBservicedelivery
Number 300 536 179% 290 97% 826 275%
Source:JS,owncalculation/note:datafrom2ndcalltakenfromapplicationforms–stillsubjecttoclarificationswiththeJS
30
PA4:TechnicalAssistance
Specificobjective4.1:Providetheefficientandfrictionlessenforcementofthecooperationprogramme
Achievement of the output indicators show that the programme was effectively set up for theimplementation and that services regarding support activities and programme promotion are alsoprogressingwell.
Table14:TA–InterimachievementofTAprojectstotheprogrammeoutputindicators
ID TA–OutputindicatorMeasurement
unitTargetvalue
(2023)
Achievedby31.12.2016
total %oftarget
TA-1 JointCBprojectsimplementedandconcluded Number 57 0 0%
TA-2 JointCBinformationalandpublicityevents Number 10 7 70%
TA-3Employeeswhosesalariesareco-financedbythetechnicalassistance FTE 12 11,67 97%
TA-4 e-MonitoringSystemestablished Number 1 1 100%
TA-5 Firstlevelcontrollersestablished Number 2 2 100%
TA-6ProgrammeevaluationplanpreparedandapprovedbyMonitoringCommittee(MC) Number 1 1 100%
TA-7ProgrammecommunicationplanpreparedandapprovedbyMC Number 1 1 100%
TA-8Guidingdocumentaddressedtoapplicantsandbeneficiaries Number 1 2 200%
TA-9Information,consultationandtrainingmeasuresforapplicantsandbeneficiaries Number 8 5 63%
Source:JS,owncalculation
• WhatistheprogressinimplementationofCommunicationstrategyandachievementofthesetobjectives?
ThegeneralobjectiveofcommunicationistoenhancethepublicawarenessoftheEUsupportforprojectsintheareaofCBCthroughtheeffectiveuseofcommunicationinstruments,especiallybycommunicatingtheexistenceoftheEuropeanFundsandaddedvaluethatthecohesionpolicyrepresentsfortheCPInterregSI-HRintheperiod2014-2020throughthewidearrayofinstruments.
Programmelevelspecificobjectives: Specific-projectlevelobjectiveisto:
- ensurewell-functioninginternalcommunicationbetweentheprogrammebodiestomaketheprogrammefunctioneffectively,
- provideinformationonallprogrammerelatedissues(programmedocuments,eligiblearea,availablefunds,etc.),
- stronglypromotethefundingopportunitytoactivatethepotentialbeneficiaries,
- supportbeneficiariesinallphasesofprojectimplementationtoguaranteethebestpossibleoutcomeoftheprojects,
- activelycooperatewithotherInterregprogrammestoshareinformationandbestpracticesandlearnfromoneanother,
- informbeneficiariesofthedutiesattachedtothefunding,
- supportandencouragebeneficiariesincommunicationactivities,
- underlinethebenefitsofCBCforthegeneralpublicintheprogrammearea.
31
- generalpublicinformationonco-financedprojects,- promotethebenefitsofCBCintheprogramme
area.
Source:CommunicationstrategyoftheCPInterregV-ASlovenia-Croatia2014-2020,version1,December2015
TheachievementofobjectivesoftheCommunicationstrategyisprogressingwell.Activitieshavebeenimplemented in linewith the envisaged phases of communication. The programme has effectivelycommunicatedtheopportunitiesforparticipationintheprogrammewhathasbeenreflectedbothinthe attendance of the workshops and received applications. The general public so far has beenaddressedtoalesserextent.
The programme website as the main communication tool is structured in a meaningful way andregularlyupdatedwithnewsthatmainlytargetpotentialapplicantsandbeneficiaries.
Visits to the programme website exceeded the targets for 2023 by 244% only in one year, whatindicates that these were set in a very modest manner. Targets for other indicators in thecommunicationstrategyweresetmorerealisticallyandtheirachievementisprogressingwell.
Table15:Achievementofthecommunicationstrategytargets
Indicator Measurementunit
Baselinevalue Targetvalue
2023
Achievedbyendof2016
%achieved
RecognisabilityoftheCPInterregSI-HR percentage 0% 60%
Survey2019,2023 -
Knowledgeofthe
Programmewebsitepercentage 81% 90%
Survey2019,2023 -
Numberofvisitstothe
websitevisits 0 10000 24434 244%
Numberofworkshopsperformed
workshops 0 12 5 42%
Number of participants atworkshops
participants 0 250 550 220%
Numberofmailinglistmembers addressee 0 500 386 77%
Numberofcreated
Informationmaterialsissues 0 1000 900 90%
Numberofevents
performedevents 0 8 3 38%
Numberofparticipants
ateventsparticipants 0 600 350 58%
Source:Communicationstrategy,JS
32
4.Conclusionsandrecommendations
Programmestructuresandprocedures
Theprogrammedeliverymechanismas setup initially is alreadyapproaching the receiptof the3rdroundofapplications.ApartfromminorlooseningoftheABcheckrulesafterthe2ndroundnototherchangesinproceduresweremade.Thereisstillsomeroomforsomefine-tuningoftoolsandsupportprovidedtotheapplicantsorbeneficiaries.
Conclusions Recommendations
Conclusion1:Theprojectdevelopmentsupporttoolsandservicesarealreadywelldeveloped.Needs,whichwereidentifiedwithregardtounderstandingtheprogrammeinterventionlogicandrelatedprojectdesignshouldbefurtheraddressed.
Recommendation1:TheJSshouldcomplementtheImplementationmanualforbeneficiariesinthePart2withsomeconcreteexamplesofprojectinterventionlogicclearlyshowingthelinkageswiththeprogramme,whichhavebeensofarbeenpresentedonlyatconceptuallevel.
Recommendation2:TheJSshouldpublishontheprogrammewebsitealsothecompletedocumentavailableinEnglish,whichexplainsthemethodologiesforthecalculationoftheestablishedsystemofindicators.ThisisofparticularimportancefortheprojectsaddressingPA2.
Recommendation3:TheJSshouldcomplementtheworkshopforapplicantswithlessonslearnedfromqualityassessmentsofapplicationsusingpracticalexamples–goodandnotsogoodpractices.
Conclusion2:TheABcheckproceduresofarhasnotbeenuserfriendly.Italsoincreasestheworkloadfortheapplicantswhoreapplywiththesameprojectandfortheassessors.Minorimprovementsweremadeforthe3rddeadlineonwards.
Recommendation4:TheJSandMCshouldobservetheoutcomesoftheABcheckinthe3rdround.IftheshareofapplicationspassingtheABcheckdoesnotincreasetoaround80%,furtherpossibilitiesforclarifyingtheformalmistakesshouldbegiventotheapplicants.
Conclusion3:TheeMSprovedtobedifficulttouseformanyapplicants.Improvementscouldonlybemadetosomeextent.
Recommendation5:TheMAandJSshouldcontinueworkingonimprovementsofthesystem.Ifnecessary,thecapacitiesoftheITmanagersupportshouldbeincreasedtemporarilytoaddressdeficienciesthatcanbesolvedinternally.
TheMAshouldalsonegotiatewiththeInteractpossibilitiestoimprovetheefficiencyofsupportservices.
Amongothers,thePdflayoutoftheapplicationformshouldbeimprovedanddiscrepanciesbetweentheeMSandpdfversioneliminated.
33
Conclusion4:FLCcheckprocedureforSlovenianPPsarelessuserfriendlythanforCroatianPPsandincreasestheneedforsecuringfinances.Improvementofthequalityofreportingisexpected.
Recommendation6:TheFLCSloveniashouldgivethepossibilitytoSlovenianpartnersreportingforthe1sttimeforaprojecttocomplementthereportduringthesamecheck.ThisshouldhelpbuildcapacitiesofPPsforqualityreportingandcontributetoachievementoftheperformancetargetsin2018.
Recommendation7:FLCSloveniashouldcheckallreportedexpenditureineachperiodregardlessoftheclaimedamount.
Recommendation8:TheFLCshouldmonitortheeffectsoftheintroducedmeasures.Ifappropriate,FLCshouldbemoreflexiblewithregardtocomplementingofthereportswithaviewtoensurethehighestpossiblecertificationofexpenditurewithinthesamecheckprocedure.
Conclusion5:ReportingperiodsunderthisprogrammemainlycoincidewiththereportingperiodofotherETSprogrammes,whatcanleadtobottlenecksintheperformanceofFLCchecksfortheSlovenianPPs.
Recommendation9:Whereappropriate,theMA/JSshouldincooperationwiththeLPsfurtherseekforpossibilitiestoadjustthereportingperiodsinordertoavoidasmuchaspossibletheoverlappingwithmajorityofotherprogrammes.
TheMA/JSandFLCsshouldregularlycoordinatetodetectandmitigatechallengesthatcouldaffectcreationofdelaysincertificationofexpenditure.
Effectivenessoftheprogramme
Conclusions Recommendations
Conclusion6:ThequalityofprojectsunderthePA3ingeneralislow.Thesafetyandconnectivitytopicshavenotyetbeenaddressed.
Recommendation10:TheJSshouldinformapplicantsonidentifiedgapsandincooperationwiththeNAsandMCmembersengageinproactiveprojectdevelopment.E.g.theprogrammecouldbepresentedtopotentialinstitutionsinthesectorsnotyetaddressed,thematicprojectdevelopmentworkshopsorprojectclinicscouldbeorganised,similartowhathasbeendoneforapplicantstotheinvestmentpriority6d.Theseactivitiesshouldstartearlyenough,beforetheannouncementofthenextdeadlineforsubmissionofapplications.
34
Conclusions Recommendations
Conclusion7:Theprojectsaddressingtheimprovementofconservationstatusofhabitatsseemdifficulttoprepare.
Recommendation11:Theprogrammebodiesshouldengageproactivelyintheprojectgeneration.Potentialinstitutionsshouldbeencouragedforcooperation.Shouldtheoutcomesofthe3rdroundnotbepromising,theMCshouldconsiderreassessmentoftheprogrammetargets.
Conclusion8:TherangeofoutputandresultindicatorsinthePA3israthersmallandisnotlikelytocaptureallimportantoutcomesoftheimplementedprojects.
Recommendation12:Inthenextevaluation,whenprojectoutcomeswillbecomevisible;theMA/JSandtheevaluatorshouldrevisetheinterventionlogicofthePA3andifappropriate,considerdevelopadditionalindicators.
ImplementationoftheCommunicationStrategy
Conclusions Recommendations
Conclusion9:Themainfocusofthecommunicationactionssofarwason(potential)beneficiaries,whatwasinlinewiththeCommunicationstrategy.
Recommendation13:Thecommunicationactivitiesaimedatgeneralpublicshouldbeintensifiedwithincreasedimplementationofprojects.Synergieswithprojectbeneficiariesinpromotionoftheprogrammeanditsoutcomesshouldbemade.Interactionswiththegeneralpubliccouldbeintensifiedthroughsocialmediaawarenessraisingcampaigns.
35
5.Annexes
5.1Listofinterviews
Date Name Programmebody
2June2017 ŠpelaDragar FLCSlovenia
6June2017 DimitrijPur ManagingAuthority
6June2017 VesnaResinovič ManagingAuthority
6June2017 TadejBaškovič JointSecretariat
6June2017 TerezaČernigoj JointSecretariat
6June2017 BarbaraKrašovec JointSecretariat
6June2017 UrškaTrojar NationalAuthoritySlovenia
6June2017 VesnaSilič NationalAuthoritySlovenia
12June2017 MislavKovač NationalAuthorityCroatia
14June2017 InesHorvat FLCCroatia
14June2017 AnaStaniša FLCCroatia
top related