3rd Evaluation Report

Evaluation of South East Europe
Programme 2007-2013
Final report
Client: VTI Hungarian public non-profit company on regional development & town planning
Rotterdam, Budapest, Sofia, Madrid, 25 November 2013
Evaluation of South East Europe

Programme 2007-2013
Final report
Client: VTI Hungarian Public Nonprofit Company on Regional

Development and town Planning
Marie-Jose Zondag &Elvira Meurs [NL]

CsillaKarlik [HU]
IrenaVladimirova& Daniel Nigohosyan [BG]
JavierFernandez&ValentinaPatrini [ES]
Rotterdam, Budapest, Sofia, Madrid, 25 November 2013
About Ecorys
At Ecorys we aim to deliver real benefit to society through the work we do. We offer research,
consultancy and project management, specialising in economic, social and spatial development.
Focusing on complex market, policy and management issues we provide our clients in the public,
private and not-for-profit sectors worldwide with a unique perspective and high-value solutions.
Ecorys remarkable history spans more than 80 years. Our expertise covers economy and
competitiveness; regions, cities and real estate; energy and water; transport and mobility; social
policy, education, health and governance. We value our independence, integrity and partnerships.
Our staff comprises dedicated experts from academia and consultancy, who share best practices
both within our company and with our partners internationally.
Ecorys Netherlands has an active CSR policy and is ISO14001 certified (the international standard
for environmental management systems). Our sustainability goals translate into our company policy
and practical measures for people, planet and profit, such as using a 100% green electricity tariff,
purchasing carbon offsets for all our flights, incentivising staff to use public transport and printing on
FSC or PEFC certified paper. Our actions have reduced our carbon footprint by an estimated 80%
since 2007.
ECORYS Nederland BV
Watermanweg 44
3067 GG Rotterdam
P.O. Box 4175
3006 AD Rotterdam
The Netherlands
T +31 (0)10 453 88 00
F +31 (0)10 453 07 68
E netherlands@ecorys.com
Registration no. 24316726
W www.ecorys.nl
2
II22696
Table of contents
Executive Summary
Conclusions
Recommendations
Abbreviations
11
Introduction
13
1.1
Context
13
1.2
The evaluation and this third and final evaluation report
14
Project generation and selection
15
2.1
Scope of the evaluation of the project generation and selection
15
Assessment of project generation and selection process and instruments
15
2.2
2.3
15
2.2.2
Assessment of supporting tools
21
Conclusions and recommendations on project generation and selection
22
2.3.1
Conclusions
22
2.3.2
Recommendations
24
Monitoring and implementation
25
3.1
Scope of the evaluation of monitoring and implementation
25
3.2
Performance of the programme
25
3.3
3.4
2.2.1
3.2.1
Summary of previous findings
25
3.2.2
Assessment of the indicator system
25
Geographical & Thematic scope of projects
30
3.3.1
Geographical scope
30
3.3.2
Thematic scope of the projects
35
Monitoring system
37
3.4.1
Summary of previous findings
37
3.4.2
Monitoring Wizard
38
3.5
Programme management system
38
3.6
Conclusions and recommendations on monitoring and implementation
40
3.6.1
Conclusions
40
3.6.2
Recommendations
42
Results of the programme
43
4.1
Scope of evaluation
43
4.2
43
4.3
4.2.1
Summary of the findings of the 1st and 2nd evaluation reports
43
4.2.2
Analysis of results achieved per PA and AoI
43
4.2.3
PA 1. Facilitation of innovation and entrepreneurship
47
4.2.4
PA 2. Protection and improvement of the environment
52
4.2.5
PA 3. Improvement of the accessibility
57
4.2.6
PA 4. Development of transnational synergies for sustainable growth areas
63
4.2.7
Additional analysis with regard to achievement of results
67
Evaluation of the added value
Evaluation of South East Europe Programme 2007-2013
70
4.3.1
Transnational added value
70
4.3.2
Contribution to European Policies
74
4.4
Future perspectives
80
4.5
Conclusions and recommendations on results of the programme and future
perspectives
82
4.5.1
Conclusions
82
4.5.2
Recommendations
85
Programme communication
87
5.1
Scope of the evaluation for communication
5.2
Key results of the 1 and 2
5.3
5.4
st
nd
evaluation report on communication
Progress in programme communication in 2012 and 2013
87
87
88
5.3.1
Progress in transnational level communication
89
5.3.2
Progress in national level communication
93
Conclusions and recommendations on communication
95
5.4.1
Conclusions
95
5.4.2
Recommendations
96
Annex 1: Treatment of recommendations
97
Annex 2: Performance of programme indicators
105
Annex 3: Results of the programme
109
Annex 4: Indicators on communication
113
Annex 5: Questionnaire
117
4
Executive Summary
This executive summary contains the conclusions and recommendations of the third and final
evaluation report from the ongoing evaluation of the transnational programme for South East
Europe 2007-2013.The focus of the report is on the results of the programme and the three
evaluation reports. Furthermore the monitoring and implementation, the communication activities
and the added value of the programme have been evaluated.
Overall it can be concluded that the transnational programme for South East Europe 2007-2013 is
functioning well. More details are provided below.
Conclusions
Conclusions on the project generation and selection procedure
Q1. Do the project selection criteria effectively support the selection of the best quality transnational
projects?
1.
A clear trend towards the fine tuning/narrowing of the spectrum of selection requirements to
more concrete assessment criteria can be evidenced;
2.
A steady adoption of a flexible approach to formal checks en route to a more in-depth analysis
of project content, transnational partnership development and consistency has been detected;
3.
Gradual reduction of the weight of the administrative burden by the introduction of more flexible
approaches to formal and eligibility checks;
Q2. Is the project selection procedure clear and transparent?

4.
Increasing evidence of strategic awareness of project applicants and better project fitting and
integration into the policy transnational framework.
5.
Although the duration of the procedure has been reduced in the 4th call with respect to the 2
nd
one, this has still resulted in a long process.

6.
Despite the partial reduction of the administrative burden (for instance by accepting scanned
documents and faxes), which is judged as a positive improvement, the (sometimes necessary)
administrative requirements may still represent an obstacle for potential quality projects to
apply for financial support;
7.
The geographical and leadership imbalances of projects, although decreased during the
programme life cycle, can still be observed and still need to be reduced.
8.
A trend towards offering more information and feedback on the non-selected project proposals
has been observed by the national bodies and JTS thus increasing the awareness and
knowledge of what worked wrong with non-successful applications. This, without any doubt,
has contributed to the enhancement in the quality of future project proposals.
9.
Also, the use of a two-step approach has supported the generation of quality projects in the
context of the Programme, especially with the third top down and targeted call.
10. A more strategic evaluation analysis has been observed, with a shift from an administrative
check towards a more thematic approach while safeguarding objectivity in the project selection
procedure through the 6-eye principle.
Conclusions on performance of the programme

11. The South East Europe Programme is performing well. The ERDF funding has been fully
committed to 122 projects after 4 calls for proposal. Originally it was foreseen to support 130
projects of average budget of 1.5 MEUR each. However the specific character of 3
rd
call
strategic projects resulted in much higher allocations per project.

12. During the first and the second evaluation report only a limited quantitative assessment was
possible. In the meantime improvements have been made in the monitoring system. The
introduction of the Monitoring Wizard tool ensures that project achievements can now be linked
to programme objectives. The results will be available in the coming Annual Implementation
Report.
13. The Wizard shows that the programme is on schedule with achieving its objectives. 55% of the
output and result indicators are on schedule in achieving their targets (21 indicators have
achieved 45-65% of the target) or are far above the expected figures, 16 indicators have
achieved more than 65% of their target). 45% of the indicators are slightly or largely behind
schedule: 18 indicators have achieved 35-45% of their target and 13 indicators have realised
less than 35% of their target.
Conclusions on the geographical & thematic scope of projects
14. In comparison with the situation in the first and second evaluation reports the geographical
balance of projects over the programme area remains largely the same. All programme
participating countries are covered.
15. Of the IPA countries the participation of Croatia and Serbia are the strongest in the SEE
programme with respectively 59 and 80 project partners.
16. The country most cooperated with is Romania as they are in most projects (107 projects) and
with whom is being cooperated most (701 relationships), followed by Hungary, Italy (both in
102 projects and respectively 668 and 670 relationships), Bulgaria (in 92 projects and 600
relationships), Greece (in 85 projects and 566 relationships) and Slovenia (in 82 projects and
547 relationships).
17. In comparison with the first and the second evaluation report the programme is more balanced
over the different priority axes.
18. Based on the current high level of cooperation between partners coming from the two future
programme areas, the evaluator considers that 20% flexibility may not be enough to meet
cooperation demand in the future.
Conclusions on the Monitoring System
19. In the 2012 evaluation report, both programme management bodies as well as the projects
indicated that IMIS was working well, and that all important data had been collected from the
projects to monitor their progress.
20. The monitoring system IMIS has been supplemented in 2013 with the Monitoring Wizard. Most
important difference between IMIS and the Monitoring Wizard is in terms of establishing links
between project and programme indicators. However, also other improvements are made in
the Wizard (e.g. actual value/target value, no. of contributions).The Wizard also provides more
clarity for the beneficiaries on the interpretation of the indicators.
21. A major improvement according to the evaluator is that the Monitoring Wizard also collects
qualitative information on the nature of projects contribution to the programme objectives.
This means that a project may contribute to programme objectives through one or more of its
output/s and results. In the coming annual report the results on this programme result indicator
will be presented.
6
22. In 2011 JTS started to adapt the IMIS towards the integration of the IPA and ENPI Funds. IPA
Funds have been integrated since the 3
rd
call. For ENPI there are 6 projects which will be
monitored in a separate way.

Conclusions on the Programme Management system
23. The JTS, MA, MC, SCP, CA and AA are in general working well. There is good cooperation
between and within the bodies.
24. There continues to be a difference in the experience of the SCPs. The SCPs could have a
good role in the implementation of the programme.
Conclusions with regard to results: data and methodological limitations
25. It is important to highlight the data and methodological limitations before summarising the
findings on the results achieved in order to interpret correctly the conclusions.
The conclusions are based on the implemented projects under the first call for proposals (30%
of all projects). The additional information on the number, distribution along the AoI and
expected contributions of the contracts concluded under the 2nd, 3rd and 4th call for proposals
allowed making projections on the expectations with regard to achievement of programmes
objectives.
The conclusions are based mainly on the data collected through the SEE programme
monitoring system and Final Activity Reports (FARs). While the quantitative data provides
valuable information, its interpretation was hindered by the lack of background and reliable
qualitative information. The diversity of topics and problems covered did not allow going indepth into the technical issues, which was exacerbated by the huge number of projects and
beneficiaries. Further, only 65% of the 40 completed projects submitted FARs in time to be
made available for the evaluation. While the common programme and project indicators allow
for a comparison between the PA, the lack of specific thematic indicators per PA made it
impossible to analyse subject specific data.
To overcome the difficulties commented above the evaluation team implemented in-depth
review on the results achieved of 8 projects (2 per PA), which was supported by interviews with
the relevant project managers. The projects are presented in the relevant sections of this report
in order to illustrate the achievements and their contribution to programme objectives and
thematic codes of the EC implementing regulation.
Conclusions with regard to results: achievement of programme objectives
26. From the 4 PA supported under the SEE programme the greatest contribution to achievement
of the planned specific programme objectives so far has been made PA 2 Protection and
improvement of the environment. The contributions under this PA are slightly over the planned
contributions and the implementation so far shows good prospects for achievement of the
planned objectives related to this PA. Thus the SEE programme is expected to contribute to
sustainable development and improvement of environment.
The programme made progress and is likely to achieve its specific objective related to
facilitation of innovation and entrepreneurship, knowledge economy and information society
(PA1), despite that the expected contributions under this PA are about 12 % lower than
originally planned. A suboptimal involvement of the public sector was observed in 1
st
call
projects, particularly under AoI1.3. However, this was significantly improved following the
targeted AoI1.3 second call and public sector involvement is high in the 3
rd
Call project and
th
positive in the 4 Call.

27. It is likely the projects implemented under PA4 Development of transnational synergies for
sustainable growth areas will contribute to enhancement of regional and transnational
cooperation and integration. The projects implemented so far show potential with this regard as
well as with regard to making SEE regions more attractive (e.g. through urban regeneration
and tourism based on cultural values).
28. The implementation of PA3 Improvement of the accessibility is less advanced compared to the
other PA since most of the projects are still in progress. Therefore conclusions with regard to
the achievement of specific objective related to physical and virtual accessibility could not be
made at the time of this analysis. There is so far little contribution to improved virtual
accessibility. However the ongoing projects have the potential to bring the planned results with
this regard.
29. On the basis of the above it could be expected that the SEE programme would contribute to
improvement of the territorial, economic and social integration process in South East Europe
and to cohesion, stability and competitiveness of the area. The extent to which this will be
achieved depends on how the programme will address the factors that hamper achievement of
results under the specific PA and will improve transnational and regional cooperation. The
Capitalisation Strategy initiated could have positive role in this process.
Conclusions on communication
rd
The main conclusions of the 3 report concerning communication are the followings:
30. In general it can be said that the recommendations of the previous evaluation reports are taken
into consideration by the JTS, and the communication plan of the programme for 2012 and
2013 integrated some of the recommendations.
1
31. A significant majority of the stakeholders is satisfied with the quality information provided in
time by the JTS in all phases of the programme implementation.
32. The events organized by the JTS were considered to be very useful, and the JTS provided
much more opportunities for the project stakeholders to exchange their experiences and good
practices (annual conference, thematic seminars.)
33. Significant improvement can be observed in the presentation of the results in programme
communication to the general public (e.g. video, developed website, etc), but there is still place
for further developments in creating connections with the media.
34. The capacity, expertise and motivation of the SCPs concerning the communication activities is
still very different in the different member states, and it seems that there is no real chance to
change this situation significantly in the frame of this programme, however it should be done in
the next programming period.
35. The establishment of links with the national, regional and local media was not in the focus in
2012 and 2013 at member state level.
36. Not all the communication indicators are monitored appropriately and it seems unrealistic to
complete the missing data from national and project level.
Please have a look at sub-chapter 5.3.1. for the concrete values
8
Recommendations
Recommendations on project generation and selection procedure
1.
Reduce the duration of the project selection process to the possible minimum, i.e. by covering
administrative and contracting tasks in shorter timeframes.
2.
Further reduce the subjectivity factor, by continuing the improvement of the work done until
now to concretise selection criteria.
3.
To include sustainability as a more determinant and relevant criterion for project selection in
future calls, by allocating it a higher weight in the overall scoring.
4.
To give a higher importance to innovation in the territory and its geographical character in the
selection criteria by identifying strategic projects not only in targeted calls, but also in the
traditional bottom up calls for Proposals.
5.
To ensure a better geographical balance, by encouraging the most recently accessed countries
to take the lead in (part of) projects, thus increasing the transnational balance of the
programme as a whole.
6.
To increase even more capacity building actions for SCPs to ensure a higher geographical
coverage and quality of projects content.
7.
To continue providing transparent and detailed information (feedback) regarding eligibility

results of the selection procedure to project applicants in order to reinforce their capacity and
contribute to the generation of higher quality projects for future calls.
Recommendations on monitoring and implementation

8.
It is recommended to continue the already started capitalisation of the programme results and
pay more attention to promote the results in the coming period.
9.
It is recommended to draw the attention of the decision makers that with the splitting of the
current SEE programme area into 2 new transnational programmes (Danube, Adriatic-Ionian)
the current high level cooperation between the countries of the two new programme areas will
be reduced significantly, furthermore there is one country (the Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia), which is not included in any of the new programmes. It is highly recommended to
use the flexibility rule at maximum level to ensure the future cooperation as wide as possible.
10. It is recommended for the next programming period to pay special attention to the functioning
of the SEE Contact Points, and ensure that the less experienced SEE Contact Points get the
appropriate support and motivation to be able to catch up with the others, and ensure the
quality of the programme management with it in all participating countries.
11. As far as possible try to see for next programming period how the integration of IPA and ENPI
can be included from the start of the programme.
Recommendations on the indicators
12. It is recommended to draw the attention of the project beneficiaries of those projects, which are
currently under implementation, to the fulfilment of those 16 output and result indicators, which
are currently behind the target.
13. It is recommended for the next programming period that the targets of project indicators should
be set at the start of the programme, and they should not be an adding up from figures coming
from project applications.
Recommendations on results of programme

14. In the design of the Priority axes for the follow on and/or similar programmes specific measures
should be taken in order to ensure more representation of the private sector in actions for
improving accessibility (PA3) and more involvement of public institutions in facilitation of
innovation and entrepreneurship (PA1).
15. The electronic monitoring system of the next programmes should ensure smooth integration of
IPA and ENPI funds. In addition, the functions for monitoring output and result indicators and
activities should be improved providing for clearer link between the two categories.
16. Collective efforts by the MA, the JTS and the participating countries should be taken for the
next programming period (next programmes) in order to harmonise the procedures in the
different countries with special attention on simplifying the reporting procedures.
Recommendations on communication
17. It is recommended to continue the presentation of the project results to the general public and
make further efforts to do it at national level also (e.g. establish links with national, local media,
such as newspapers, TV channels etc.).
18. It is recommended to continue the already started capitalisation process, ensure the
appropriate interactivity level of the events in order to provide opportunities for the projects to
exchange their experiences and create links, synergies among themselves.
19. It is recommended for those SCPs who are currently less active in the national level
communication to give importance to the communication activities in their countries for the rest
of the programme, and ask support from the JTS, if it is needed.
20. It is recommended for the next programming period to reduce the differences among the
countries concerning the quality of the national level communication. Define at the beginning of
the programme the annual minimum level requirements for the SCPs concerning the national
level programme communication activities, and it should be monitored by the JTS / MA on a
regular basis.
21. It is recommended for the next programming period to ensure from the beginning of the
programme the collection of the relevant data about the national level media appearances.
10
Abbreviations
Abbreviation and its full name

AA
Audit Authority
AC
Acceding Country
AF
Application Form
CA
Certifying Authority
CC
Candidate Country
CfP
Call for Proposals
DEU
Delegation of the European Union
ENPI
European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument
EC
European Commission
ERDF
European Regional Development Fund
FLC
First Level Control
GIS
Geographical Information System
IMIS
Integrated Monitoring and Information System
IPA
Instrument for Pre-Accession
IVB
Transnational European Territorial Cooperation Programme IVB of 2007-2013 (Interreg)
JTS
Joint Technical Secretariat
LP
Lead Partner
MA
Managing Authority
MC
Monitoring Committee
MoU
Memorandum of Understanding
MS
Member State
OP
Operational Programme
PCC
Potential Candidate Country
PO
Project Officer
PP
Project Partner
PPP
Public Private Partnership
R&D
Research & Development
SCP
SEE Contact Point
SEE
South East Europe
SME
Small and Medium Enterprises
ToR
Terms of Reference
Abbreviation of countries and their full name

AL
Albania
IT
Italy
AT
Austria
MD
Moldova
BG
Bulgaria
ME
Montenegro
BiH
Bosnia and Herzegovina
RO
Romania
EL
Greece
SI
Slovenia
MK
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
SK
Slovakia
HU
Hungary
SR
Serbia
HR
Croatia
UA
Ukraine
11
Introduction
1.1
Context
The South East Europe Programme Area is the most diverse, heterogeneous and complex
transnational cooperation area in Europe, made up of a broad mix of 16 countries with a total
population of 200 million people. For 14 countries the eligible area is the whole territory of the
2
country and in 2 countries only certain regions are eligible under the SEE programme . These
countries are acting as a bridge between North, South, East and West Europe in the European
transportation network system. The stability, prosperity and security of the region are of significant
interest to the EU. The emergence of new countries and with it the establishment of new frontiers
has changed the patterns of political, economic, social and cultural relationships.
What differentiates the South East Europe Programme is not only the number of countries
participating in it, which makes it the transnational programme with the largest cooperation area,
but also the diversity of the participating countries. This is the only transnational programme area
with such a large number of non-EU countries participating. Out of the 16 participating countries 8
are EU Member States, 6 are candidate and potential candidate countries and 2 are countries
participating in the European Neighbourhood Policy. This is a highly complex programme which
presents challenges such as ensuring good mechanisms to contract partners who receive funding
from different instruments: ERDF (European Regional Development Fund), IPA (Instrument for Preaccession Assistance) and potentially ENPI (European Neighbourhood and Partnership
Instrument).
In Italy the eligible regions are: Lombardia, Bolzano/Bozen, Trento, Veneto, Friuli-Venezia-Giulia, Emilia Romagna, Umbria,
Marche, Abruzzo, Molise, Puglia, Basilicata.
In Ukraine: Cjermovestka Oblast, Ivano-Frankiviska Oblast, Zakarpatska Oblast and Odessa Oblast
13
1.2
The evaluation and this third and final evaluation report

The objective of the on-going evaluation of the SEE Programme is to improve its performance. The
Operational Programme has indicated that the evaluation should improve the quality, effectiveness
and consistency of the use of assistance, the strategy and the implementation of the programme.
A first evaluation report has been developed in 2011, a second evaluation report has been
developed in 2012 and this third and last evaluation report is summarising the results and doing a
third analysis in 2013.
This third and final evaluation report focuses on analysing results of the programme (chapter 4.),
summarising and up-dating the information about project selection and monitoring and
implementation (Chapters 2 and 3.), making recommendations for the future (all chapters) and
evaluating the communication activities (Chapter 5.). In the annexes additional information can be
found.
As approach used for the evaluation each year a survey (web-based questionnaire) has been held.
See the separate annex document for the results of the last questionnaire. About 60% of the 122
projects filled the questionnaire (74 people). About 60% of the full JTS and MA filled the
questionnaire. Only 18% of the MC members and 27% of the SCP filled the questionnaire. The
questionnaire was sent to 306 persons (17 JTS/MA staff, 53 MC member, 33 SCP colleagues
(some are both MC member and SCP), 210 beneficiaries). The evaluators got feedback from 101
persons in the survey in 2013 (33%). 10 of them represent the JTS and MA, 8 of them are MC
member, 74 project beneficiaries, and 9 of them represent SCPs. The 9 answers from the SCPs
represent 8 countries from the SEE programme area.
Furthermore interviews have been held each year with the Managing Authority and the Joint
Technical Secretariat. Lastly desk research was an important source of information and the
evaluators participated in most Monitoring Committee meetings.
14
2.1
Scope of the evaluation of the project generation and selection

This chapter presents the findings of the evaluation on project selection and generation. According
to the evaluation plan, three questions have been answered:
Q1. Do the project selection criteria effectively support the selection of the best quality transnational
projects that contribute to the objectives of the programme?
Q3. How could the selection process be improved? - Recommendations
2.2
Assessment of project generation and selection process and instruments
2.2.1 Project generation and selection

The selection of high quality transnational projects is strongly related to the capacity of the
programme to generate good project ideas and partnerships and to adopt appropriate evaluation
criteria. Taking into account the current stage of the Programme, the answer to Q1 mainly focuses
on the evolution of the Programmes capacity to select relevant projects by the use of appropriate
selection criteria. Since the structure and approach of each call also determines the use of specific
criteria, in this section the evaluators briefly analyse the calls selection processes and criteria, by
identifying the most relevant characteristics of each call and analysing their evolution over time,
also taking into account the extent to which the Programme has incorporated the recommendations
st
formulated in the 1 and 2
nd
evaluation reports. Complementary to previous analyses, the results of
th
the 4 call and the two restricted calls launched by the Programme are also covered in this section.
The calls of the Programme
To complete the analyses on the calls for proposals carried out in the previous evaluation reports, it
is necessary to assess the performance of the 4
th
one, which was still open at the moment of
finalising the second evaluation report. The one-step procedure and more traditional bottom-up
approach adopted in this last call were oriented at allocating the budget remaining from the
previous calls. From the initial 342 applications received a lower number with respect to the other
calls due to the one-step approach a first set of 37 projects was approved, implying an initial
success rate of 10.8%. Nevertheless, taking into account the under-spending of projects approved
st
under the 1 and 2
nd
calls, a reserve list of projects was foreseen, allowing a later approval of an

th
additional number of 10+1 projects (which is in total 48 projects under the 4 call), thus increasing
th
the success rate of the 4 call up to 14.04%.

When compared to previous calls, this success rate is a decrease to 3
st
increase to 1 and 2
nd
rd
(strategic) call but an
calls (all previous calls had a two-step application procedure). The highest
number of proposals was submitted under the area of intervention 4.3, showing an important
interest although on average presenting the lowest quality level. On the other hand, overdimensioned budgets were submitted in several cases, as a result of the Programmes end in 2013,
reinforcing the perception of last try opportunity.
Nonetheless, it is important to stress that both the experience gained by the Programmes
Authorities throughout the Programme life cycle, the clear definition and knowledge of what is
expected by the SEE Programme as well as the gradual coaching and higher understanding of the
15
programme by project partners made the difference in the selection of relevant and policy
th
integrated projects during the 4 call. The successful projects are characterised by an innovative
nature, a considerable comprehension of the topics, a high relevance for the programme area, a
coherent and tailored logical frame as well as a strong commitment demonstrated by applicants.
Complementary to the four main calls, the Programme also launched two restricted complementary
calls with the objective to achieve a higher commitment of the IPA and ENPI allocated funds. This
was put in practice through the involvement of additional partners from selected countries into
existing partnerships and projects, consequently ensuring an important added value from both a
territorial and a content-wise perspective. The first complementary call was an IPA call oriented to
Montenegro, directed to the existing projects selected under the 2
nd
open call for proposals of SEE,
whose Lead Partners were invited to involve additional partners from Montenegro by adjoining or
incorporating them to their partnerships. The second one, an additional ENPI call for partners
from Moldova, was foreseen as a way to compensate a substantial leftover of ENPI funds for this
country which remained non-allocated to the projects. This call was opened to the Lead Partners
from the 3
rd
and 4
th
calls willing to additionally involve Moldavian partners. Both restricted calls
foresaw clear steps that involved different actors and criteria.

The innovative way to manage external funds, the implication of both national and programmes
authorities and a strong focus on the quality of the project idea and partnership has helped to
ensure a high coherence with the Programmes priorities and rules as well as to overcome the
challenges related to the use of different typologies of funds in a complex environment. As a result
of this targeted strategy, IPA funds have been fully integrated into the SEE Programme and ENPI
funds show a good alignment to the existing framework.
To conclude this section, and in a synthetic way, the main characteristics of the different calls and
their related approaches, processes and selection criteria have been summarised in a table that
can be found below. This table shows how the Programme has used different approaches in the 4
calls, evolving to more sophisticated methodologies, such as the two-step procedure and targeted
and restricted calls, as well as improving the assessment criteria definition towards the selection of
more integrated projects.
16
Process
Table 2.1
Overview of the calls of the Programme
Items
1st call
2nd call
3rd call
4th call
Steps of
2 steps (first Expression of Interest after
2 steps
2 steps
1 step: single step procedure
the call
which a selection of applicants is invited to
whereby all applicants have to
submit full proposal)
submit the whole package of

information
Approach Fully open - Bottom up
Open targeted Bottom up
of call
Dates
Success rate
Strategic Top down
Competitive, fully open
Targeted and restricted call
Traditional bottom-up
May 2008 March 2009
December 2009 December 2010
June 2010 February 2012
October 2011 June 2012
822 EoIs, 40 projects approved: 4.86%
423 EoIs, 26 approved: 6.14%
49 EoIs, 8 projects approved: 16.32%
342 full applications submitted, 48

projects approved: 14, 04%
Formal
Formal check:
and
Proposal submitted within deadline;
Slight improvement in clarity, transparency and
Clear and efficient rules for participation to
Official application form used;
the call
and submitted.
No formal check
time efficiency
Application submitted in English;

All required parts and annexes are filled in
Minimum
modifications
in
Flexible approach to eligibility check in terms of
comparison with previous calls
administrative documents
Like
Eligibility criteria more clearly defined with
networking/exchange
in
previous
calls,
of
best
respect to previous calls:
practices as stand-alone activities,
Eligibility check:
Timely submission of application form;
as well as proposals with an
Partners from a minimum of 3 partner
The project includes all the mandatory activities
academic
states, located in the eligible area, of

Selection criteria
Lower administrative burden
which at least one from a Member State;
as described in the ToR for the call per priority;

Lead Applicant and financing partners are
Project implementation has not started
eligible;
and it wont start prior to the approval of
Project
the AF;
fulfils
minimum
requirements
developments
focus
of
but
no
transnational
policies/strategies are not eligible.
for
transnational strategic partnerships (same as

previous calls);
17
Items
1st call
Eligibilit
Project complies in general with the OP
y check
2nd call
3rd call
4th call
The composition of the partnership is in line
and has impact in the programme area;
with the prescriptions set out in the ToR for
Proposed types of activities are eligible;
the call per priority;
Beneficiaries have secured co-financing;
The
Beneficiaries are eligible.
specific
partnership
requirements
regarding the limitation of number of projects

to participate in as LP/PP are respected;
Financing partners (ERDF/IPA-I)
cooperate jointly;
ERDF/IPA-I partners have secured public cofinancing;
Selection criteria
ENPI partners have submitted all necessary

documents.
Quality
check
Is
the
partnership
composition
well
partnership criterion
Quality selection criteria are highly coherent with
Minimum
modifications
in
justified and able to contribute in a
related to the balance of partnerships
the ToRs
comparison with previous calls
balanced manner to the implementation of
composition
5 Terms of reference with specific thematic
A minor adjustment can be seen,
the transnational co-operation project?
Higher focus on Previous experience vs.
focus detailed the compulsory activities to be
adding one specific question on
sufficient
cooperation
implemented in order to reach the expected
the sustainability component
institutional and technical capacity to
involvement
outputs
Questions related to investments
achieve the project aims?
Higher focus on clarity vs. logic conceptual
Strategic
approach and work plan
integration
Do
beneficiaries
have
the
To what extent is the project expected to
and
usability
balanced
of
project
requirements:
of
the
relevance
SEE
to
programme
the
area;
Concreteness
overall objectives of the programme?
deliverables
term perspective and impact
Maintenance of the value for money
Higher focus on sustainability, innovation and
provide a significant contribution to the
criterion
geographical character
Priority Axes and Areas of Intervention of
Higher focus on the nature of the problem
the programme?
tackled by the project
Are project deliverables clearly defined
and
partners
provide a significant contribution to the

To what extent is the project expected to
18
Transnationality of
Lower focus on the time perspective vs.
involvement of key figures in the field and long-
and equipment costs have been

dropped
Project activities detail is assessed
Items
1st call
2nd call
3rd call
and are the assumptions on their use
transnationality impact
realistic?
Sound viability plan
Value for money

Are
there
4th call
Innovation component
synergies
and
/or
complementarities with other territorial co-
Sustainability
component
(political,
institutional and financial)
operation projects or other EU funded

policies and programmes?
st
Strengths 1 call: In general terms, the features of the
2nd call: The two step approach allows
3rd call: Strong territorial marketing during pre-
4th call: Increased evidence of
SEE best quality Project and the quality
focusing on project content and partnership
announcement period
strategic awareness
selection criteria share a high level of
levels vs. administrative requirements, thus
Use of knowledge and expertise from other EU
Evidence of in-country stakeholder
correspondence.
producing high quality projects
programmes
development
High competition at SCP level
More
Support to territories with limited presence in the
capitalisation
concrete
and
direct
SEE programme
Partially effective key stakeholders involvement
by bottom up approach
Weakne
The number of projects per country shows a
Long two-step process
Strong imbalance in the leadership of projects is
Majority of Lead Partners from few
sses
geographical
A certain level of subjectivity detected
confirmed
countries
programme where most projects that ensure
imbalance
in
the
SEE
Repetitions of similar requirements in more
No minimum quality threshold per sub-criterion
Duration of the selection process
a high innovation in the territory and most
than one criterion
was defined
Possibility to interpret this 4th call
lead applicants come from very experienced
Streamline the formal and eligibility checks
as a last try the last chance to
countries
under one single category
get access to the programme
Geographical
imbalance
due
to
the
funding.
Comments
experience quality requirement

Need for a higher balance in the relevance
and weight of transferability, sustainability
and innovation as selection criteria/sub-
19
Items
1st call
2nd call
criteria
Poor communication and information on the
project selection results to applicants
Source: Ecorys on basis of information from SEE programme and previous evaluation reports
20
3rd call
4th call
2.2.2 Assessment of supporting tools

Complementary to Q1, this part analyses the main supporting tools that have been developed and
provided by the Programme to project potential beneficiaries and the clearness and transparency of
the selection processes adopted in the different calls.
The supporting tools
In general terms, the assessment made by project beneficiaries with respect to the usefulness of
the available supporting instruments for the generation of quality projects is positive.
The support provided by programme managers, the programme manual, the application packs and
the applicants guidelines are considered particularly useful tools. Nevertheless, a lower grade of
satisfaction can be observed with respect to the usefulness of other instruments, such as the
project idea database, instruction phase seminars focused mainly in financial and administrative
issues and the limited language coverage of official documents that were not always available in all
the languages of the covered countries. Although not being a requirement for any programme
authority and thus being a voluntary initiative of the SEE contact points, it could have provided
additional support to project partners and potential beneficiaries.
The surveys to project beneficiaries, that have been carried out for the purpose of producing the
3
different evaluation reports , show that no relevant differences over time can be observed on the
perception of the usefulness, user-friendliness, accessibility, richness on quality information and
time availability of the different tools that have been put at the disposal of project beneficiaries in
the different calls of the Programme. This can be also confirmed on the basis of the information
provided by the consulted beneficiaries of the 4
th
call. The table above summarises the
beneficiaries perception on the following:

The Instruction phase seminars organised have successfully assisted applicants on financial
and administrative topics and issues At this respect complementary content-wise and thematic
oriented seminars organised at national level would have increased the usefulness of this tool;
The Project idea database, although representing a tool with a high potential, has only partially
fulfilled the applicants expectations and has been scarcely used, confirming that this tool needs
to be more intensively advertised among potential applicants in order to attract their attention;
The capacity of national structures to accompany potential beneficiaries throughout the process
of project generation is a key aspect that was considered as very effective by potential
beneficiaries. The coaching and steering role of the JTS has been crucial in the different calls,
and especially in the 3
rd
one, in order to tailor the projects to the calls requirements and its
expected results;
The efficient communication and exchange of experiences, as well as information and publicity
events, are key factors in all the phases of the programme cycle. At this regard, the strong
territorial marketing during the 4th call pre-announcement period has been certainly recognised;
Meetings between potential Members States and IPA countries' beneficiaries have been of
extreme relevance and utility for both ENPI and IPA calls.
To sum up, there has been an increasing consciousness of the relevance of constant project
support and its correlation with project quality from Programmes Authorities that has resulted in a
more complete and comprehensive selection procedure.
All Lead Partners have been invited to answer the web-based questionnaire of which 60% of the projects (74 of the 122
projects) have filled out the questionnaire.
21
Clarity and transparency of the selection procedure

The beneficiaries perception of transparency is positive, although to some consulted project
th
beneficiaries of the 4 call, more information should have been provided by programme managers
to project applicants regarding the evaluation of their proposals. At this respect, it is important to
stress that previous recommendations were already taken into account starting from previous calls,
where a detailed evaluation summary was provided to the applicants on a request basis.
Nevertheless, the automatic provision of the evaluation sheets with comments for each project as
well as the publication of detailed scoring are factors which have still been underlined as necessary
th
by project applicants of the 4 call. The improvement of the already started path would allow project
applicants to learn from previous mistakes and contribute to higher quality proposal in the future.
On the other hand, previous evaluation analysis recommended the introduction of certain elements
of flexibility at the time of carrying out the formal and eligibility checks; capacity building actions for
SCPs in order to improve the quality of the assistance; and strong support to territories which have
a more limited presence in the Programme, especially with respect to projects leadership. In this
sense, positive steps have been adopted at Programme level in order to take into account these
recommendations and to improve clarity and transparency in the selection process, thus:
Regarding transparency, National bodies and JTS are conscious of the need to increase
transparency where reasons for ineligibility should on request - be explained transparently to
lead partners. Moreover, the quality evaluation analysis applied the 4-eyes principle with an
independent expert scoring of projects and in parallel a JTS project manager also made an
assessment. In case of serious scoring gap, a third person (from the JTS) was also involved to
safeguard an objective approach to project selection;
Regarding clarity, improvements have been made by the JTS in the selection approach
adopted, not anticipating the quality assessment but trying to understand if the projects comply
with the Priority Axis, Area of Intervention and the Programme in general. At this respect, more
th
flexibility was guaranteed under the projects assessment of the 4 call as a way to overcome
possible constraints related to the complexity of the application form (flexibility in the correlation
between the assessment grid and the application form was ensured in favour of the
applicant).The corrections and improvements introduced in the selection criteria also
contributed to increase the clarity and transparency of the whole selection process.
2.3
Conclusions and recommendations on project generation and selection
2.3.1 Conclusions
The table below summarises the conclusions and recommendations of the first and second report
and provides also the conclusions and recommendations of this final revaluation report on project
selection and generation. This is explained in more detail in the text after the table.
Table 2.2
Overview of the answers on the evaluation questions
Evaluation
1st& 2nd Evaluation report
Source used
question
Final
Evaluation
report:
answer
recommendation
Topic 1 Assess project selection procedure and criteria

Q1.
Do
the
Mostly,
Interviews
between criteria and best
important
criteria effectively
quality
transnational
burden, trends towards the fine tuning of
support
the
projects can be observed.
selection criteria, included more focus on
selection of the
However, still need to
sustainability and innovation in the territory.
best
further
22
quality
high
adjust
matching
Desk research
project selection
selection
Mostly, more flexible approach,

alleviation
of
administrative
Recommendations for the future:
Evaluation
Source used
1st& 2nd Evaluation report
question
Final
Evaluation
report:
answer
recommendation
transnational
criteria. High coherence

st
projects?
nd
between 1 ,2
th
and 4
call.
To reduce the subjectivity factor by further

working in concretising selection criteria,
reduce
even
more
administrative
requirements; to increase the weight of the

sustainability criterion for project selection
and to give a higher importance to the
geographical balance.
Desk research
Mostly:
selection
Questionnaire
approach
among
quality,
projects
generation capacity needs
policy
to be further enhanced
selection
(geographical imbalance,
strongly interrelated, therefore a higher
low flexibility, subjectivity).
awareness of project applicants is seen as
Third call with a top down
a prior step for ensuring a higher success
approach
assured
of the project selection]; A positive trend
higher
geographical
towards offering more information and
procedure
clear
and transparent?
coverage
the
step
Q2. Is the project
focuses
but
and
Mostly: Increasing evidence of
on
strategic awareness of project applicants
project
and better project fit and integration into the
the
transnational
and
feedback
framework
project
[project
generation
are
on the non-selected project
involvement of relevant
proposals has been observed; A more
entities.
strategic evaluation analysis has been

observed,
with
administrative
check
shift
from
towards
an
more
thematic approach.
o
Recommendations for future:
To ensure better geographical balance, by

encouraging less experienced countries to
take the lead in projects and provide strong
support
during
Increase
even
project
more
implementation;
capacity
building
actions for SCPs to improve geographical

coverage and quality of projects content;
To keep on improving the process of
transparency and communication in order to
ensure the generation of higher quality
projects for future calls.
Q3. How could
Desk research
the
Interviews
selection
process
Please see Annex
Recommendations for future: Please see

section 2.3.2 below
be
improved?
Q1. Do the project selection criteria effectively support the selection of the best quality
transnational projects?
A clear trend towards the fine tuning/narrowing of the spectrum of selection requirements to
more concrete assessment criteria can be evidenced;
A steady adoption of a more flexible approach en route to a more in-depth analysis of project
content, transnational partnership development and consistency has been detected;
Gradual alleviation of the administrative burden by the introduction of more flexible approaches
with respect to formal and administrative requirements has been observed.
23

Increasing evidence of strategic awareness of project applicants and better project fit and
integration into the policy transnational framework. This is based on the assumption that project
selection and project generation are strongly interrelated. In this case, a higher awareness of
project applicants is seen as a prior step for ensuring a higher success of the project selection.
Although the duration of the procedure has been reduced in the 4th call with respect to the 2nd
one, this has still resulted in a long process;
Despite the partial reduction of the administrative burden (for instance by accepting scanned
documents and faxes), which is judged as a clear improvement, the (sometimes necessary)
administrative requirements may still represent an obstacle for potential quality projects to apply
for financial support;
The geographical and leadership imbalances of projects, although decreased during the
programme life cycle, can still be observed and still need to be reduced.
A trend towards offering more information and feedback on the non-selected project proposals
has been observed by the national bodies and JTS thus increasing the awareness and
knowledge of what worked wrong by the project promoters. This, without any doubt, has
contributed to the enhancement in the quality of future project proposals.
Also, the use of a two-step approach has supported the generation of quality projects in the
context of the Programme, especially with the third top down and targeted call.
A more strategic evaluation analysis has been observed, with a shift from an administrative
check towards a more thematic approach while safeguarding objectivity in the project selection
procedure through the 6-eye principle.
Q3: How could the selection process be improved?
A number of recommendations are included in the section below.
2.3.2 Recommendations
The following is recommended on project generation and selection:
1. Reduce the duration of the project selection process to the possible minimum, i.e. by covering
administrative and contracting tasks in shorter timeframes as much as possible.
2. Further reduce the subjectivity factor, by continuing the improvement of the work done until now
to concretise selection criteria.
3. To include sustainability as a more determinant and relevant criterion for project selection in
future calls, by allocating it a higher weight in the overall scoring.
4. To give a higher importance to innovation in the territory and its geographical character in the
selection criteria by identifying strategic projects not only in targeted calls, but also in the
traditional bottom up calls for proposals.
5. To ensure a better geographical balance, by encouraging the most recently accessed countries
to take the lead in projects, thus increasing the transnational balance of the programme as a
whole.
6. To increase even more capacity building actions for SCPs to ensure a higher geographical
coverage and quality of projects content.
7. To continue providing transparent and detailed information (feedback) regarding eligibility
results of the selection procedure to project applicants in order to reinforce their capacity and
contribute to the generation of higher quality projects for future calls.
24
Monitoring and implementation
3.1
Scope of the evaluation of monitoring and implementation

In this chapter the performance of the implementation and the monitoring system of the SEE
programme is evaluated. The objective of the evaluation of the monitoring and implementation is to
evaluate the performance of the implementation and the monitoring system of the SEE programme
though its monitoring indicators and to give ideas to improve the whole indicator system of the SEE
programme.
In this evaluation the focus has therefore been on a number of specific issues:
Performance of the programme through the indicators
Geographical scope of the projects
Thematic scope of the projects
Monitoring system
This chapter will summarise the results of the previous reports and update it to its current situation
for all specific issues mentioned above. This means that for the indicators an updated table of
performance is included and also an analysis about it (paragraph 3.2). For the geographical scope
the results of the previous report are mentioned and for the thematic scope additional research is
done to see which country is most interested in which area of intervention (paragraph 3.3). For the
programme management and monitoring system the previous two reports are up-dated and further
analysis is made (paragraph 3.4).
3.2
Performance of the programme
3.2.1 Summary of previous findings

In the first evaluation report (2011) the evaluators concluded that the assessment of the indicator
system was not possible as the realised indicators were not available during that evaluation period.
In the second evaluation report (2012) it was still difficult to show the performance of the
programme through indicators as either the target was not available (project level indicators), or the
realization/actual value was not given (programme level indicators), or the indicators seemed to be
completed with incorrect approach (programme indicators).
Although a quantitative assessment was possible only limitedly, the evaluators listed some
observations in both the first, and the second evaluation report. In the first evaluation it was
observed that the programme contained a helpful set of indicators, however that targets were not
quantified and that there were ambiguities for the beneficiaries on which indicators they had to fill.
During the second evaluation report the SEE programme had indicators defined at programme and
project level; however for the project indicators still no targets were defined.
3.2.2 Assessment of the indicator system
Currently improvements have been made in the monitoring system. For all indicators there is now a
target available (extracted from the project applications) and the realization was monitored in the
Monitoring Wizard Report (project basis) and reflected in the annual implementation report 2012
(programme basis).
The SEE programme has indicators defined at programme and project level in:
25
The SEE Operational Programme, section 4.4 (programme level);
The SEE Programme Manual Version 2.1 May 2010, 2
nd
Call for project proposals, Annex 2.
(programme level and project level)
The Annual Implementation Report (programme and project level)
IMIS (programme and project level)
The Application Form (project level)
The Progress Report (project level)
The Monitoring Wizard (project and programme level)
These sources all use the same set of indicators. The programme manual for the 2
nd
call for
proposals also mentions other indicators (input indicators, indicators for the cross cutting issues
and indicators for the TA). The Annual Implementation Report is reporting on the indicators
mentioned in the Operational Programme. The Annual Implementation Report of 2012 also reports
on the indicators defined for the projects. The Monitoring Wizard was introduced in 2012 and helps
to monitor the projects from the point of view of their link to the programme objectives.
Programme indicators
In the second evaluation report the evaluators concluded that the Operational Programme has a
clear description of the indicator system at programme level and that the indicators are specific and
quantified and output and result indicators are interlinked.
Based on the information available in the documents (see annex 2) the following remarks can be
made currently for the programme indicators:
After four calls 122 projects have been approved, which is not far behind the target of 130
implemented projects set at the beginning of the programme. As the budget of the projects is
higher than anticipated, fewer projects were sufficient to allocate all available funds.
Looking at the programme indicators (see annex 2) 55% of the output and result
4
indicators are on schedule in achieving their targets (21 indicators have achieved 45-65%
of the target) or are far above the expected figures, 16 indicators have achieved more than 65%
of their target). 45% of the indicators are slightly or largely behind schedule: 18 indicators have
achieved 35-45% of their target and 13 indicators have realised less than 35% of their target.
One can still question if the number of projects is a good indicator, as the number of projects
does not relate to the content. However, because this indicator has also been used in the
Working Document of the EC as an indicator the evaluator suggested maintaining this indicator
(see evaluation report 2012).
In the 2012 evaluation report the evaluators mentioned that the performance of the number of
contributions has been completed by mentioning the number of projects that have been
approved, instead of number of contributions (of which it is expected to obtain on average 3
contributions per projects). The evaluator recommended to specify what a contribution is and to
correct the performance of the indicator accordingly. In 2012 in the second evaluation report the
SEE programme reported that: Data is reported according to the understanding that 1
approved project equals 1 contribution, which was originally adopted by the Programme
monitoring bodies. This result indicator was further specified and defined in the course of 2012
through an external study aiming at enhancing SEE monitoring system (please refer to section
2.1.6 Qualitative analysis for more details on the study). Therefore, in the next Annual
Implementation Report, the values reported for this result indicator will be overhauled based on
the study feedback. With the introduction of the new Monitoring Wizard there is now a clearer
link between project achievements and the programme objectives as well as a clearer definition
of a contribution together with a methodology to measure the number of contributions.
As the projects started in 2009 and will run until 2014 one can expect that about 50-60% of the targets should be achieved in
2012. When a 45-65% of the target has been achieved we therefore speak of being on schedule.
26
Project indicators
In the Programme Manual for the first call was indicated that the set of indicators would be
developed later. In the Programme Manual of the second call the approach for the indicators was
further elaborated into a set of input, output and result indicators. The programme manual of the
third and fourth call does not contain this information anymore since the indicator system was in the
process of being revised.
In the evaluation report of 2012, the evaluators assessed the indicators set well presented,
comprehensive and limited. However, the evaluators mentioned several points of attention for the
programme. One of the main points was that the indicators are not quantified (are not having a
target) and are not always SMART.
The previous evaluations concluded that more attention should be given to the Lead Partners of the
programme to avoid wrong reporting. Recommendations from the evaluator in this field were:
It would be good to add an explanation of the indicators like it has been done for the indicators
no of successfully implemented projects. For example, when is a project achieving synergy
with an Objective 1 or 2 programme?
The text of the programme manual for the second call is clear but merely written for the
programme than for the applicant/ beneficiary. It might be difficult for the beneficiary to
understand what he has to do with this information. For example table 9 Output and result
indicators related to TA is relevant for the programme but not for the applicants/beneficiary as it
concerns Priority Axis 5 Technical Assistance. Also the input indicators are not so relevant for
the applicants/beneficiaries.
It could be confusing for the applicant to have all the different tables with indicators.
During the interviews with JTS members in 2013 it was clarified that the programme took actions on
the above. The programme has provided indicator descriptions and interpretation in the Monitoring
Wizard tool. In the Monitoring Wizards the JTS asked the projects to check, if they misunderstood
the indicators following the provided interpretation. In case of misunderstanding, the indicators were
revised. This did not happen when the target was too optimistic though because that would require
a project modification.
According to the Monitoring Wizard, the output indicators at project level are progressing
rather well. 8 of 22 indicators a far ahead on schedule (more than 65% of the targets already
achieved halfway through programme implementation). 9 indicators are on schedule (45-65% of
targets achieved). 5 are a bit behind schedule (35-45% of the targets realised). The output indicator
values of the projects are behind on number of press conferences, number of guidelines produced,
joint action plans produced, number of individuals that participated in exchange programmes and
number of promotion concepts (see figure below and annex). This is considering that there are 82
projects still running.
The table below shows to what extent the targets of the indicators have been achieved. Projects of
the first call (which are currently finished) reached their targets quite well. 14 of the 22 indicators
score above 100%, 6 indicators are between the 75% and 100%, and only 2 indicators score below
the 75%. The most problematic indicators are the promotion of concepts (51% of the target) and the
number of joint action plans produced (71%). While the average hits per month on the operations
website and the number of articles/appearances published in the press and in other media were
much more than expected in advance.
27
Table 3.1
Project output indicators after four calls (% of the project targets achieved in each call) dark green +
underscore + > 100%, dark red and italic is < 15%

.
Description
1st call 2ndcall 3rdcall
4thcall TOTAL
No. of articles/appearances published in the press and in other
191%
56%
24%
14%
89%
media (including online media, TV, radio)

2
No. of press conferences
76%
46%
25%
6%
43%
Average of hits per month on the operations website
341%
211%
37%
6%
252%
No. of publications produced (editions, specify: e.g. folder,
92%
84%
1%
0%
80%
newsletter, brochure, report, handbook)

5
No. of transnational events implemented
115%
71%
36%
7%
53%
No. of national events implemented
106%
68%
2%
3%
48%
No. of regional events implemented
104%
76%
17%
4%
50%
No. of study visits organised
184%
79%
58%
1%
90%
No. of studies realised
85%
76%
25%
4%
57%
10
No. of guidelines produced
109%
43%
21%
3%
43%
11
No. of management plans developed
83%
68%
15%
14%
56%
12
No. of joint action plans produced
71%
45%
5%
2%
35%
13
No. of databases created or improved
107%
93%
6%
2%
63%
14
No. of training events, seminars organised
118%
41%
3%
1%
62%
15
No. of participants involved in training events/seminars
89%
39%
4%
2%
53%
16
No. of individuals that participated in exchange programmes
141%
24%
58%
4%
43%
17
No. of promotion concepts
51%
98%
57%
11%
40%
18
No. of promotion actions
142%
102%
36%
10%
82%
19
No. of services developed
124%
43%
0%
16%
60%
20
No. of small scale infrastructure projects
75%
133%
N/A
0%
74%
21
No. of person in charge for administration of projects
132%
99%
100%
51%
88%
22
No. of project meetings held
125%
81%
24%
18%
74%
Source: Ecorys on basis of the Monitoring Wizard (July 2013).
The evaluator is of the opinion that for some output indicators targets set by projects were too high,
which complicated reaching the targets (in blue in the table above):
No. of press conferences
No of studies realized
No. of management plans developed
No. of joint action plans developed
No. of participants involved in training events and seminars
No. of individuals that participated in exchange programmes
No. of promotion concepts
While for other output indicator the projects put a lower and more realistic target:
Average of hits per month on the projects website
No. of study visits organized
No. of promotion actions
No. of person in charge for administration of projects (especially in the first call)
According to the Monitoring Wizard the result indicators at project level are merely on
schedule. 7 of 26 indicators a far ahead on schedule (more than 65% of the targets already
achieved whereas the programme is halfway its implementation). 9 indicators are on schedule (4565% of targets achieved). 6 are a bit behind schedule (35-45% of the targets realised) and only 4
28
are far behind schedule (0-35% of targets achieved). Especially the number of individuals reached
directly through dissemination outputs in the co-operation area (33%), the number of strategies
adopted (25%), the number of private market reactions achieved (19%) and the number of
infrastructures of common interest improved (25%) are lagging far behind schedule.
Table 3.2
Project result indicators after four calls (% of the project targets achieved in each call): dark green +
underscore + > 100%, dark red and italic is < 15%
Description
1st call
2nd call
3rd call
4th call
TOTAL
No. of permanent information sources / channels in
137%
56%
24%
14%
136%
640%
46%
25%
6%
33%
203%
211%
37%
6%
92%
675%
84%
1%
0%
543%
296%
71%
36%
7%
227%
80%
68%
2%
3%
54%
operation (e.g. websites, regular publications)

2
No.
of
individuals
reached
directly
through
dissemination outputs in the co-operation area

3
No. of administrative actors reached directly through

No. of private sector actors reached directly through

No. of SME reached directly through dissemination

outputs in the co-operation area
No. of advanced tools and methodologies adopted to

increase the projects visibility among experts and
wider communities, the public
No. of common positions / agreements formulated
78%
76%
17%
4%
42%
No. of common methodologies adopted
88%
79%
58%
1%
59%
No. of strategies adopted at governmental level
56%
76%
25%
4%
25%
10
No. of innovative products developed
67%
43%
21%
3%
37%
11
No. of policies /instruments improved or developed
77%
68%
15%
14%
42%
12
No. of common standards established (e.g. through
102%
45%
5%
2%
53%
new guidelines)
13
No. of new tools / instruments developed
87%
93%
6%
2%
53%
14
No. of impact studies on environmental issues
89%
41%
3%
1%
61%
carried out (e.g. in pre-investment projects)

15
No. of pilot actions prepared (first application)
72%
39%
4%
2%
48%
16
No. of pilot actions implemented (first application)
86%
24%
58%
4%
40%
17
No. of permanent exchange programmes established
64%
98%
57%
11%
39%
18
No. of staff members with increased capacity
104%
102%
36%
10%
53%
352%
43%
0%
16%
145%
(awareness / knowledge / skills)

19
No. of advanced tools and methodologies adopted to

improve
knowledge
management
within
the
partnership
20
No. of regions proactively promoted
89%
133%
N/A
0%
50%
21
No. of common management structures / systems
84%
99%
100%
51%
63%
99%
81%
24%
18%
76%
established
22
No. of individuals benefiting directly from new /

improved services
23
No. of investment proposals developed
98%
0%
0%
0%
42%
24
No. of private market reactions achieved (e.g. private
44%
0%
0%
0%
19%
116%
83%
32%
22%
107%
42%
76%
0%
3%
25%
activities mobilized)
25
No. of investment projects implemented (specify

volume of investment)
26
No. of infrastructures of common interest improved
29
Source: Ecorys on basis of Monitoring Wizard (July 2013)
Projects of the first call (which are currently finished) reached their targets on 11 of the 26
indicators. The results of the number of individuals reached directly through dissemination outputs
in the co-operation area (640%) and the number of private sector actors reached directly through
dissemination outputs in the co-operation area (675%) were even six times as much as expected.
The projects had most difficulties with reaching their targets on the number of infrastructure
improved (42%), the number of private market reactions achieved (e.g. private activities mobilized)
(44%), the number of strategies adopted at governmental level (56%), the number of permanent
exchange programmes established (64%) and the number of innovative products developed (67%).
The evaluator is of the opinion that projects set their targets for some result indicators too high,
which complicates reaching the targets (in blue in the table above). While for other result indicators
the projects have set their targets more realistically:
Number of administrative actors reached directly through dissemination outputs in the cooperation area
Number of staff members with increased capacity (awareness / knowledge / skills) (especially in
the 2
nd
call)
the number of individuals reached directly through dissemination outputs in the co-operation
st
area (especially in the1 call)
the number of private sector actors reached directly through dissemination outputs in the cost
operation area (especially in the1 call)
3.3
Geographical & Thematic scope of projects
3.3.1 Geographical scope

In comparison with the situation in the first and second evaluation reports of this programme the
geographical balance over the programme area remains largely the same after the fourth call.
Participation of the Member States
The map and table below shows that 38% of the 122 projects have an Italian Lead Partner (46
Lead Partners). Italy is having the strongest involvement both in terms of number of Lead
Partners and of Project Partners (185 project partners). However, if this proportion is related to
5
the population (see table below), Italy is scoring just above average and, in the number of
project partners, even below average.
Slovenia shows the opposite picture. Whereas Slovenia provides the project leadership in only
15 projects, if one relates it to the countrys population, then Slovenia scores far above the
average. Also in terms of number of project partners Slovenia scores far above the average of
the Member States when relating the numbers of partners to the population.
Austria, Greece, Hungary, Italy and Slovenia are scoring above the average on all aspects both
in number of Lead Partners and Project Partners and also when relating it to the population.
Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia are scoring below average on number of Lead Partners (both
in numbers and when relating it to the population). However they score average or above
average on number of Project Partners.
The newest Member States Bulgaria and Romania are not strongly involved as Lead Partners;
however both are represented with large numbers of Project Partners. Relating project partners
to the population, both countries score average or above average among the Member States.
Institutions from countries outside the programme area, e.g. Poland, Belgium and Germany,
also take part in SEE projects as observers, 10% or 20% project partners.
30
For Italy the population of the regions involved in the SEE region is being used.
Participation of the IPA and ENPI Countries

Whereas the ERDF budget of the member states is available for all member states, the IPA and
ENPI funding is available per country. So the participation of the IPA and ENPI countries is first of
all influenced by the budget available.
Of the IPA Countries, Serbias participation is the strongest in the SEE Programme area concerning
the number of project partners. When relating it to the population Montenegro is the strongest
participant with over 40 project partners per million inhabitants. Herewith Montenegro is clearly
scoring above average when relating to the population. The Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia and Montenegro score both average of the IPA countries.
For the ENPI countries, obtaining ENPI funds has been an obstacle. By December 2012 the
Republic of Moldova had signed the Financing Agreement, which allowed for an additional call in
2013 and 6 Moldovan project partners have been able to receive ENPI funding (+1 project from the
th
4 call). Unfortunately, the Financing Agreement with Ukraine could not be signed on time and thus
financing of Ukrainian partners is only possible through the 10% rule. Therefore only the Republic
of Moldova is receiving ENPI support (and is indicated above average in the figure below).
However, when looking at the involvement of the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine as observers
and 10% project partners, Ukraine is more involved (with 24 10% rule project partners and 9
observers in overall 26 projects) than the Republic of Moldova (with 10 10% rule project partners
6
and 3 observers in overall 11 projects) . This is also why in the figure below Ukraine has been
indicated as having an average contribution.
Figure 3.1 Geographical distribution of number of LP and PP per country after 4 calls
0 PP, 24 10%
7 7PP,
10PP
10%
,
10
10
%
Below
&aboveaverag
e MS
Source: Ecorys on basis of information from JTS SEE after 4 calls
Information from the SEE project website, November 2013
31
Table 3.3
The geographical distribution of Lead and Project Partners after 4 calls, both in actual numbers and
number per mln habitants. For each column: blue& underscore is above average, red & italicis below average
MS
LP
LP/mln population
PP
PP/mln population
IPA
PP
PP/mln
population
AT
17
2,0
111
13,1
AL
34
12,0
BG
0,1
143
19,6
BiH
32
8,3
GR
17
1,5
152
13,5
FYRoM
23
11,2
HU
17
1,7
156
15,7
MN
25
40,1
IT
46
1,5
184
6,1
RS
80
11,0
RO
0,3
170
8,0
HR
59
13,4
SK
0,6
58
10,7
SI
15
7,3
109
52,9
Total 122
1,142
Source: Ecorys on basis of information from JTS SEE after 4 calls
Danube and Adriatic-Ionian relations

The analysis of the relations from the partnership point of view in the macro regions of Danube
strategy area and Adriatic-Ionian area countries showed in the second evaluation report a stronger
relationship within the Danube strategy area than within the Adriatic-Ionian area when looking at
which countries are involved in the projects.
Currently there seems to be more balance in the programme. About one third of the project has
50% or more of the Danube strategy countries involved, which means 7 or more of the 14
7
Danube strategy countries . However, also for the Adriatic-Ionian area around one-third of the
8
projects have 50% or more of the Adriatic-Ionian area countries involved, which means 4 or
more of the 7 countries.
The Danube Programme will cover parts of 9 EU countries (Austria; Bulgaria; Croatia; Czech Republic; Germany (BadenWrttemberg and Bavaria) not whole territory; Hungary; Romania; Slovakia; Slovenia) and 5 non-EU countries (Bosnia
and Herzegovina; the Republic of Moldova; Montenegro; Serbia; Ukraine (not whole territory), having the same
geographical scope than the EU Strategy for the Danube Region.
8
Parts of Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania and Greece. As a reference the countries of
the Adriatic CBC programme 2007-2013 have been used.
32
Figure 3.2 Geographical distribution of number of LP and PP per country after 4 calls
Source: Ecorys based on information from JTS SEE
In the second evaluation report also a figure with the privilege relations was included after 3 calls.
The figure showed that the country involved in most projects is Romania, secondly Hungary, thirdly
Italy, fourthly Bulgaria, fifth Greece, etc. Seven countries cooperated most with Romania in
projects.
After four calls Romania is still the country involved in most projects (107 projects), with
whom is being cooperated most (701 relationships), followed by Hungary, Italy (both in 102
projects and respectively 668 and 670 relationships), Bulgaria (in 92 projects and 600
547 relationships). The figure below shows the number of projects each country is participating in.
It also shows that from the accession countries Serbia is being cooperated quite intensively
with and also the newest member state Croatia is doing quite well. The Republic of Moldova and
the Ukraine are most staying behind with cooperation in projects.
33
Figure 3.3 Geographical distribution of number of relationships in projects per country after 4 calls
Figure 3.4
Preference relationships in number of relationships in projects per country after 4 calls
When studying the relationships between countries more intensively between the Danube area
and the Adriatic-Ionian countries, we see that cooperation goes beyond borders of the regions.
For countries in the Danube area 56% of the partners is coming from the Danube region,
while for the Adriatic-Ionian region only 38% of the project partners are coming from
Adriatic-Ionian regions. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is not included in the
Danube area, neither in the Adriatic-Ionian region.
The most recent position of the EC on the two new programmes is that the programmes should
allow for cooperation spaces using the 20% flexibility rule. On the basis of the current high level
34
cooperation between the partners coming from the two future programme areas, the evaluator
considers that this 20% flexibility seems to be not enough to cover the wide variety of partners in
projects, thus it will cause the reduction of the current cooperation level. Both programmes are thus
forced to search for more partners inside their own programme in the future.
Figure 3.5
Preference relationships per area after 4 calls
Source: Ecorys based on JTS information
3.3.2 Thematic scope of the projects

In comparison with the situation in the second evaluation report of this programme there is more
thematic balance over the programme. The main reason for this is that more projects on Priority
Axis 3 have been approved. In the first evaluation report the share of projects contributing to the
third priority was lagging behind, and in the second evaluation report the share was still smaller
than in the other Priority Axis. After four calls about 100% of the available ERDF budget for all axes
has been committed to projects. It means that the entire budget has been allocated to projects. At
the time of writing the data below was available.
Figure 3.6 Division of the approved projects and budget (ERDF) in over the priorities
Source: Ecorys, based on Wizard August 2013
The table below shows in more detail the division of projects and budget over the Priorities and
Areas of Intervention.
35
Table 3.4
Priority
Distribution of projects and (disbursed) budget over priorities and areas of intervention
No. of projects
Planned
(after 4calls)
(ERDF) in EUR
Budget
Actual budget per
Commitment
Priority Axis(after
ERDF
Priority 1
29
44.051.155
1.1
9.567.128
1.2
13
23.278.182
1.3
Priority 2
34
2.1
11.276.889
2.2
10
16.481.283
2.3
11.751.522
2.4
13
19.078.635
Priority 3
25
3.1
11
21.223.612
3.2
8.305.133
3.3
12.672.037
Priority 4
30
4.1
18.395.722
4.2
12
14.112.322
4.3
12.997.279
rate
4calls) in EUR
43.490.626
99%
10.645.315
56.739.828
43.160.834
50.338.329
Total
118
194.290.147
Source: Ecorys, based on Wizard August 2013
58.588.329
42.200.783
45.505.323
189.785.060
103%
98%
90%
98%
The figure below shows the distribution of the 4 themes per country, calculated on the basis of the
no. of project partners. Most countries have a well-balanced spread over the themes and are
involved in all priorities.
When not only considering the ENPI project partners but also the 10% rule and observers, there is
also a balanced spread over the themes for the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine.
The figure below shows also that there does not seem to be a different focus on themes between
the Danube area and the Adriatic-Ionian area. Both areas have equal interest in all themes.
36
Figure 3.7 Geographical spread of projects over the themes after 4 calls (financing partners only)
Source: Ecorys based on info from SEE programme
3.4
Monitoring system
3.4.1 Summary of previous findings

The IMIS system (Integrated Monitoring and Information System) is being used by both the back
office (JTS, MA, MC, SCP, etc.) and the front office (applicants and Lead Partners), and it is well
working. Over 80 % of the respondents of the online survey (22 of 27 JTS/MA/MC/SCPs replied)
indicated that they are satisfied with IMIS, and both the programme management bodies (JTS, MC,
SCPs) as well as the project beneficiaries indicate that all important data has been collected of the
projects to monitor their progress. In both the 2011 and 2012 evaluation reports no significant
problems with the system were reported.
nd
In the 2
evaluation report the evaluator noticed that JTS has started to adapt the IMIS towards the
integration of the IPA and ENPI Funds. The evaluator encouraged the SEE programme to ensure
that this will be operated for both the IPA and ENPI project partners. On the basis of current
interviews with JTS it can be stated that the integration of IPA has been fully integrated in IMIS
rd
since the 3 call, whereas ENPI is not fully adapted in IMIS. For ENPI this counts for 6 projects
what will be monitored in separate way.
37
3.4.2 Monitoring Wizard

The monitoring system IMIS was supplemented in 2013 with the Monitoring Wizard. Most important
difference between IMIS and the Monitoring Wizard is in terms of establishing links between project
and programme indicators. However, also other improvements are made in the Wizard (e.g. actual
value/target value, no. of contributions). The Wizard also provides more clarity for the beneficiaries
in ensuring common interpretation of the indicators according to JTS.
One conclusion coming from the 2012 evaluation report was that at project level each project has
specified targets for the project indicators. In the progress report the performance/realization of
these indicators are indicated. In IMIS the actual values of the indicators have been aggregated, but
not the target value. The evaluators recommend including an automatic aggregation of both the
actual and target value of the indicators based on the application form and the progress reports.
With the introduction of the Monitoring Wizard, the programme monitors the progress of projects on
both performance/realization and targets. There is also a separate field included in to monitor if the
project runs on target or not. However, these targets are not on programme level, but on project
level. To come to programme targets all these targets are counted up, but there was no target set
at the start of the programme. According to the evaluator targets should be set at the start of the
programme, and they should not be an adding up from figures coming from project applications.
In the annual report of 2012 mentioned also that: The monitoring system used at present (i.e. IMIS)
does not include no. of contributions to programme Areas of Intervention in the project indicator
list, against which all projects report. In addition, programme documents have been rather vague on
the exact understanding of a contribution.A major improvement according to the evaluator is that
the Monitoring Wizard also collects qualitative information on the nature of the contribution. This
means that a project may contribute to programme objectives through one or more of its output/s
and results. In the 2013 annual report the results on this indicator will be presented.
3.5

In 2011 and 2012 the overall assessment of the Monitoring Committee, Joint Technical Secretariat
and Managing Authority has been positive. Therefore, and due to the length of the questionnaire, it
was decided not to include questions related to the programme management in the survey of 2013.
Below the results of the previous two questionnaires are included together with the observations of
the evaluator.
Assessment of Monitoring Committee
In both the first (2011) and second (2012) evaluation reports the evaluators concluded that the
9
respondents of the survey indicated that the Monitoring Committee is functioning well or mostly
well, in which the results have been improved over the years. It was concluded that the MC are
addressing the proposals of the JTS well and that there is a good understanding between the
participating countries. The evaluation report of 2012 mentioned however that several respondents
indicated that a more active participation of the IPA countries in the programme and the discussions
during the meetings would be very welcome.
In 2012 164 people were invited to the questions and 46 people responded. 16 JTS/MA were invited and 4 responded, 52 MC
members were invited and 5 responded. 28 SCP were invited and 3 responded. 68 Lead Partners were invited and 34
responded. In 2011 185 people were invited of which 85 responded: 11 JTS/MA, 9 MC members, 11 SCPs, 42 Lead
Partners and 12 Project Partners. See for further information the separate annex on the questionnaire.
38
Assessment of Joint Technical Secretariat and Managing Authority

Considering the results from the first evaluation report (2011) in which 40% of the respondents
considered the JTS/MA well-functioning, results improved considerably in the survey of 2012. In the
second evaluation report 92% of the respondent considered that the JTS is functioning very well.
The functioning of the JTS and MA was described as competent, constructive and proactive.
Furthermore the communication between the JTS and MA was further improved.
Some remarks were made in the first evaluation report concerning the functioning of the JTS/MA,
which suggested avoiding any further staff changes in MA as the JTS suffered an overload of work.
In the second evaluation it was mentioned that the departure of the head of JTS and the
communication officer meant an extra burden for the JTS. Since the preparation of the second
evaluation report there is a new head of JTS and a new communication officer.
Assessment of Contact points
The satisfaction of respondents on the functioning of the contact points decreased between the first
and second evaluation report, although not substantially. In first evaluation 93% of the respondents
considered the contact points functioning well compared to 84% in the second evaluation report.
Based on remarks from the respondents the evaluators concluded (in the second evaluation) that
there was a considerable difference in the way the contact points were functioning, due to
difference in experience, institutional systems, resources available etc. In the first evaluation report
these differences had already been mentioned and remarks made about the level of activity of the
contact points (only 1/3 of the SEE Contact Points is actually active) and the difference in services.
The differences among the different SCPs are confirmed by the respondents in the 3
rd
online
survey also, however in this last survey the question focused only on the communication activities
of the SCPs. (See details in Chapter 5)
Assessment of Certifying and Audit Authority
The evaluators conclude in the second evaluation report that both the Audit Authority and Certifying
Authority are functioning well. However in both previous evaluations it was mentioned that not
everyone has a clear image of what the Audit Authority and Certifying Authority actually do. The 3
rd
online survey did not include questions on this topic.

Overall conclusion and recommendations previous evaluations
Overall the evaluators conclude that the programme management structures are in general working
well. There is a good cooperation and coordination. The main remarks refer to:
A more active participation of the IPA countries in the programme and the discussions during
the MC meetings would be welcomed.
There is still a difference in the experience of the SCPs. The SCPs could have a good role in
the implementation of the programme in all countries.
In the second evaluation report an inventory has been made of the problems encountered by
projects. The most frequent problems in implementation were: different First Level Control
processes in each country; complicated contracting of IPA partners with their authorities; different
cultures and knowledge level of partners; delays in contracting, starting the project and signing
MoU; complex management and reporting procedures; and low level of involvement from
stakeholders and public administrations.
39
3.6
Conclusions and recommendations on monitoring and implementation
3.6.1 Conclusions
Conclusions on performance of the programme
The South East Europe Programme is performing well. The ERDF funding has been fully
committed to 122 projects after four calls for proposal. Originally it was foreseen to support 130
projects of average budget of 1.5 MEUR each. However the specific character of 3
rd
call
strategic projects resulted in much higher allocations per project.

During the first and the second evaluation report only a limited quantitative assessment was
possible. In the meantime improvements have been made in the monitoring system. The
introduction of the Monitoring Wizard tool ensures that project achievements can now be linked
to programme objectives. The results will be available in the coming Annual Implementation
Report.
The Wizard shows that the programme is on schedule with achieving its objectives. 55% of the
output and result indicators are on schedule in achieving their targets (21 indicators have
achieved 45-65% of the target) or are far above the expected figures, 16 indicators have
achieved more than 65% of their target). 45% of the indicators are slightly or largely behind
schedule: 18 indicators have achieved 35-45% of their target and 13 indicators have realised
less than 35% of their target.
Conclusions on the geographical & Thematic scope of projects
In comparison with the situation in the first and second evaluation reports the geographical
balance of projects over the programme area remains largely the same. All programme
participating countries are covered.
Of the IPA countries the participation of Croatia and Serbia are the strongest in the SEE
programme with respectively 59 and 80 project partners.
The country most cooperated with is Romania as they are in most projects (107 projects) and
with whom is being cooperated most (701 relationships), followed by Hungary, Italy (both in 102
projects and respectively 668 and 670 relationships), Bulgaria (in 92 projects and 600
547 relationships).
In comparison with the first and the second evaluation report, the programme is more balanced
over the different priority axes.
Based on the current high level of cooperation between partners coming from the two future
programme areas, the evaluator considers that 20% flexibility may not be enough to meet
cooperation demand in the future.
Conclusions on the Monitoring System
In the 2012 evaluation report, both programme management bodies as well as the projects
indicated that IMIS was working well, and that all important data had been collected from the
projects to monitor their progress.
The monitoring system IMIS has been supplemented in 2013 with the Monitoring Wizard. Most
important difference between IMIS and the Monitoring Wizard is in terms of establishing links
between project and programme indicators. However, also other improvements are made in the
Wizard (e.g. actual value/target value, no. of contributions).The Wizard also provides more
clarity for the beneficiaries on the interpretation of the indicators.
A major improvement according to the evaluator is that the Monitoring Wizard also collects
qualitative information on the nature of projects contribution to the programme objectives. This
means that a project may contribute to programme objectives through one or more of its
output/s and results. In the coming 2013 annual report the results on this programme result
indicator will be presented.
40
In 2011 JTS started to adapt the IMIS towards the integration of the IPA and ENPI Funds. For
ENPI there are 6 projects which will be monitored in a separate way.
Conclusions on the Programme Management system
The JTS, MA, MC, SCP, CA and AA are in general working well. There is good cooperation
between and within the bodies.
There continues to be a difference in the experience of the SCPs. The SCPs could have a good
role in the implementation of the programme.
Conclusions on the monitoring and implementation
The table below shows the conclusions of the first and the second evaluation report and in addition
the conclusions and recommendations of this third report.
Table 3.5
Conclusions on the monitoring and implementation
Evaluation question of topic 2
Source used
How
with 3rd report: Conclusions
dealt
1st&
recommendations
nd
report
Topic 2a Evaluate implementation system

Is the programme consistent? Is there
Programming
Mostly,
a clear link between the SWOT
documents
indicators
although
need
Mostly, although some

indicators
need
Strategy Objectives - Priority Axes
improvement and better
improvement: (e.g. in
Results Outputs?
explanation
relation to targets)
of
AoIs;
Less broad priority Axis.

Is
the
programme
considering
social,
still
relevant
economic
and
environmental changes?
EU &
national
policy
Yes, although crisis has
Yes,
had impact
has had impact, not so
documents
although
crisis
much on the relevance

but on the possibility
of
partners
to
participate
therefore
and
on
the
possibility to achieve
the objectives
Are the planned outputs and results
Programming
contributing to the objectives of the
documents
Yes
Yes
Mostly
Yes,
SEE programme?
Are the projects delivering tangible
Progr.
results?
documents
Mostly
(see
chapter 4)
Interviews
JTS/MA
Is
the
implementation
system
contributing to high quality, effective

and
efficient
contribute
project
to
the
results
Interviews
Mostly
Yes,
JTS/MA & LP
Mostly
(see
chapter 4)
that
programme
objectives?
Is the indicator system supporting the
Progr doc.
Mostly,
monitoring activity effectively? How
JTS/MA
indicator system needs
Monitoring
improvement to be able
steps are made
can
the
indicator
system
be
improved?
however,
the
Currently
with
the
Wizard
to show performance.
Are the partnerships within project
Progr. doc.
(proposals and approved projects)
Interviews
balanced and well representing the
JTS/MA
Yes, mostly
Yes, mostly
Yes, mostly
Yes, mostly. Both the
SEE programme area?

Is there a good balance over the
Progr. doc.
programme area? Are certain regions
Database of JTS
Danube
and
the
41
mostly focusing on certain themes?
Adriatic-Ionian
areas
show equal interest in

all themes.
Is the thematic scope of the approved
Progr. doc.
Yes,
projects contributing to the objectives
Interviews
projects are selected
only
relevant
of the programme?
JTS/MA
Yes,
only
relevant
projects are selected
Topic 2b Evaluate monitoring system

Has all important data been collected
Progr doc
Yes,
to be able to report to EC?
Questionnaire
indicators
although
for
some
improvement is needed
Yes,
although
indicators
improvement
for
some
is
needed
Has all important data been collected
Progr doc
of
Questionnaire
the
projects
to
monitor
their
Yes, mostly
Yes
Yes, mostly
Yes
Yes mostly
Yes
See chapter 6
See chapter 5
progress?
Are the progress reports sufficiently
Progr doc
developed for monitoring purposes?
Questionnaire
How
to
improve
the
pre-defined
reports in the system?

Is the monitoring system working
Progr doc
well?
Interviews
Is
the
monitoring
effectively
supporting
management
system
system
the
of
the
programme?
How
can
the
monitoring
system
Progr doc
provide information for communication
Questionnaire
purposes?
Interviews
1.
It is recommended to continue the already started capitalisation of the programme results and
pay more attention to promote the results in the coming period.
2.
It is recommended to draw the attention of the decision makers that with the splitting of the
current SEE programme area into 2 new transnational programmes (Danube, Adriatic-Ionian)
the current high level cooperation between the countries of the two new programme areas will
be reduced significantly, furthermore there is one country (MK), which is not included in any of
the new programmes. It is highly recommended to use the flexibility rule at maximum level to
ensure the future cooperation as wide as possible.
3.
It is recommended for the next programming period to pay special attention to the functioning
of the SEE Contact Points, and ensure that the less experienced SEE Contact Points get the
appropriate support and motivation to be able to catch up with the others, and ensure the
quality of the programme management with it in all participating countries.
4.
As far as possible try to see for next programming period how the integration of IPA and ENPI
can be included from the start of the programme.
Recommendations on the indicators

5.
It is recommended to draw the attention of the project beneficiaries of those projects, which are
currently under implementation, to the fulfilment of those 16 output and result indicators, which
are currently behind the target.
6.
It is recommended for the next programming period that the targets of project indicators should
be set at the start of the programme, and they should not be an adding up from figures coming
from project applications.
42
4.1
Scope of evaluation
This chapter presents analysis of the programme results in qualitative terms based on the
quantitative data collected as part of the programme management and monitoring. It builds on the
analyses of the previous two evaluation reports and the analyses performed/commissioned by the
JTS.
4.2
4.2.1 Summary of the findings of the 1st and 2nd evaluation reports
The first and second evaluation reports do not contain specific analysis of results due to the early
stages of the programme implementation. Instead they include sections on project case studies and
best practices. The first evaluation report presents the methodology for selection and presentation
of the case studies, while the second evaluation report presents 8 case studies in total (2 per
priority axis). On this basis, best practices were identified for all elements of the project cycle:
preparation phase, implementation phase, publicity, and sustainability. With regard to results the
second evaluation report concludes that it is still too early to assess the results of the projects
(including the selected cases) under the SEE programme. Yet ... the selected cases show that
some indicators have already been overachieved.
4.2.2 Analysis of results achieved per PA and AoI
The results achieved have been evaluated along the 4 PA (excluding the Technical Assistance PA)
of the programme and the AoI (see figures 4.1 and 4.2 below). The factual basis for the analysis as
well as detailed quantitative data is presented in the Annex.
Figure 4.1
Global and specific objectives and priority axes of SEE programme
Source: SEE Operational Programme
43
Figure 4.2
Priority axes and areas of intervention of SEE programme
Source: SEE Operational Programme
The results achieved have been evaluated along the 4 PA
10
of the programme and the AoI. Then
conclusions were drawn on the achievement of the specific objectives and the global objective of
the programme.
The primary source of information for the analysis was the Operational Programme SEE and SEE
Monitoring Wizard report of July 2013, which contains data for all projects of the programme except
3 projects that failed to provide data (2 under second call for proposals and 1 under fourth call for
proposals). The Wizard contains output and result indicators per project, justification of projects
contribution to thematic codes and AoI as well as a summative quantitative data of projects
contribution to PA and AoI.
In addition to the data provided in the SEE Monitoring Wizard report the analysis was supported by
qualitative and quantitative data presented in the Final Activity Reports (FAR) of the completed
11
projects , the information placed on the web-site of the programme and 2012 Annual report of the
programme. Beneficiaries and programme managers opinion has been acquired through web
based questionnaire and interviews. Targeted interviews with 8 selected projects (2 per PA) have
been made in order to get more detailed perception of the results achieved and projects
contribution to the PA and programme objectives.
The monitoring system of the SEE programme uses output and result indicators. The project
contributions have been also reported along the thematic codes listed in the EC implementing
regulation (EC No. 1828/2006) with the objective to measure the results achieved per specific
10
Technical assistance PA is excluded

26 FAR prepared for the completed projects under the first call for proposals have been made available to the evaluators.
11
44
theme. The relationship between the themes and the PA and AoI of the SEE programme is shown
in this Annex.
Data for 22 output and 26 result indicators have been collected with the programme monitoring
system. Of those indicators the following have been used to analyse the results achieved:
Table 4.1
Output and result indicators used to analyse results
Output indicators
Result indicators
5. No of transnational events implemented
2. No of individuals reached directly through dissemination

6. No of national events implemented
3. No of administrative actors reached directly through

7. No of regional events implemented
4. No of private sector actors reached directly through

8. No of study visits organised
5. No of SME reached directly through dissemination

10. No of guidelines produced
7. No of common positions / agreements formulated
13. No of databases created or improved
9. No of strategies adopted at governmental level
14. No of training events, seminars organised
10. No of innovative products developed
15. No of participants involved in training events

and seminars
11. No of policies and instruments improved or developed
16. No of individuals that participated in exchange

programmes
12. No of common standards established (e.g. through

new guidelines)
19. No of services developed
13. No of new tools / instruments developed
20. No of small scale infrastructure projects
17. No of permanent exchange programmes established

22. No of individuals benefiting directly from new /
improved services
23. No of investment proposals developed
24. No of private market reactions achieved (e.g. private
25. No of investment projects implemented (specify
volume of investment)
26. No of infrastructures of common interest improved
Source: SEE Monitoring Wizard
The indicators are common for all PA and therefore would allow comparison between the PAs.
However, the lack of specific indicators makes the evaluation of results related to the specific
objectives more difficult.
Only the projects under the first call for proposals have been completed thus far. Therefore the
st
analysis focuses primarily on the 40 completed projects under the 1 call for proposals. These
represent about 30% of all projects contracted under the programme. The information available in
the SEE Monitoring Wizard report on the projects funded under the other three calls for proposals
enables to complement the analysis with projections on the potential overall achievement of the
SEE programme.
The number of completed and on-going projects per PA is presented in the table below.
45
Table 4.2
PA
Completed and ongoing projects and financial implementation per PA

Number completed projects
Number ongoing projects
Financial implementation by
the end of 2012 (MEUR)
Calls
Comm.
Disb.
Rate (%)
PA1
11
11
13
20
52
16
31
PA2
13
13
13
21
67
23
35
PA3
12
20
51
18
PA4
11
11
10
21
59
18
30
Total
40
40
26
48
82
229
66
29
Source: http://www.southeast-europe.net/en/projects/approved_projects/ and SEE Annual report 2012.
The SEE programme funded 122 projects which contribute to one or more AoIs as shown in the
Figure 4.3:
Contribution is defined as a change, i.e. improvement of a situation in the field which the project is
addressing and related to a certain Thematic Code. Each project can achieve a certain change
addressing several thematic areas (i.e. Thematic Codes), and change in each thematic area is
counted as one contribution. The contribution is a consequence of several achieved project outputs
and results that impact a certain Thematic Code. The project contributes to at least one TC, and it
can additionally contribute to other Thematic Codes. The project at the beginning defines with its
12
planned objectives, outputs and results what kind of changes it intends to bring .
Therefore the number of contribution of the projects to the AoIs and PAs is higher than the number
of the projects.
In total, according to SEE Wizard Monitoring report of July 2013, the funded projects resulted in 301
13
contributions compared to 390 targeted contributions . As seen in the figure below about 7% more
than planned contributions were realised under the PA2 Protection and improvement of the
environment. Under the remaining three PAs the contributions were less than planned ranging
from 12% less contributions than planned under PA1 to 52% less than planned contributions under
14
PA3 . Concerning contributions per AoI it is observed that AoI: 1.2 Develop the enabling
environment for innovative entrepreneurship and 2.4 Promote energy and resource efficiency
managed to exceed the contribution expectations.
Figure 4.3 Actual contributions (dark) and targets (light shades) to the objectives of PA and AoI all calls
12
Final Report on the Methodology, Alianta d.o.o.

Note that, as indicated in the text above, 3 projects failed to submit data
14
The targets of PA3 have been reduced with the second amendment of the SEE programme (2012). However, this has not
been reflected so far in the indicator targets. Therefore the original indicator targets as quantified in the Monitoring Wizard
have been used.
13
46
As discussed above, only those projects funded under the first call for proposals (about 30% of the
total number of projects) have been completed by the time of this report. The number of the
projects that have been completed and contributed until now to PA and AoI objectives is presented
in Figure 4.4 below.
Figure 4.4 Overview of the division of the completed projects of the first call over the objectives of the PA and
AoI. The dark columns are the number of projects and the lighter columns are the contributions in each PA and
AoI
Based on the data presented in Figure 4.4, it is clear that relatively credible conclusions on the
results achieved per AoI will be possible for those AoIs, for which there are at least 3 completed
contributions. As seen from above, due to the small number of contributions to AoIs 1.3., 3.2 and
4.3, it will not be possible to make credible conclusions on the achievement of objectives of these
areas of intervention.
4.2.3 PA 1. Facilitation of innovation and entrepreneurship

Under the PA1 there are 31 projects funded in total, of which 11 have been already completed
(35%). Most advanced in terms of implementation is AoI1.1, where 5 of the funded 6 projects have
been completed in contrast to AoI 1.3 where only 1 of the funded 12 projects has been completed.
In terms of projects contributions - about half of the planned contributions under this PA have been
completed (see Table 0.4 in Annex 3.). It will be possible to draw conclusions on the contribution
of the programme to development of innovation networks (AoI 1.2) as more than half of the planned
contributions have been completed. The same applies to the development of enabling environment
for innovative entrepreneurship (AoI 1.2) where the planned measures have been half completed.
There are only 2 completed contributions to AoI 1.3 which will not allow making conclusions thus far
on the contribution of the programme to enhancement of the conditions to innovation development.
The analysis of output and result indicators (see Table 4.3
) shows that outputs are steadily
delivered with regard to development of guidelines, databases and organisation of training events.
However, the reported number of participants that took part in the trainings is much lower than
expected. The number of developed services so far is slightly lagging behind; however, with the
47
advancement of implementation the achievement is likely to get closer to the target. The result
indicators show steady progress in reaching common agreements and establishing common
standards, adoption of strategies, development of innovative products and new tools and
instruments. Encouraging is the number of the private market reactions achieved, however the
number of the individuals that benefit from the new services for now is much lower than planned
(see result indicators 24 and 22 respectively).
Already there is much higher number than planned of individuals that took part in exchange
programmes. It is likely that the programme will reach the planned numbers of national and regional
events and study visits which will support the enhancement of cooperation between the
stakeholders. The values for the indicator number of transnational events is under revision through
the Monitoring Wizard as an initial misunderstanding has led to reporting both the number of events
and the participants therein. The indicator will be corrected. There is good progress with the
achievement of result indicators that measure cooperation and stakeholders involvement (indicators
02, 03, 04, 05, 07,17). Already there is much higher number of individuals, private sector and SMEs
reached directly by the interventions as opposed to the administration where the percentage is
rather low compared to other stakeholders. This is supported by the explanations provided in some
of the FARs where problems with ensuring cooperation and involvement of public administration in
project activities were indicated.
Table 4.3
PA1 Achievement of indicators until end of 2012

Measure
ment
Unit
Output Indicator Description
Output indicators
05. Transnational events implemented
06. National events implemented
07. Regional events implemented
08. Study visits organised
10. Guidelines produced
13. Databases created or improved
14. Taining events, seminars organised
15. Participants involved in trainings and seminars
16. Individuals that participated in exchange programmes
19. Services developed
20. Small scale infrastructure projects
Result indicators
02. Individuals reached directly through dissemination outputs in the
co-operation area
03. Administrative actors reached directly through dissemination
04. Private sector actors reached directly through dissemination
05. SME reached directly through dissemination outputs in the cooperation area
07. Common positions / agreements formulated
09. Strategies adopted at governmental level
10. Innovative products developed
11. Rgional/local policies and instruments improved or developed
12. Common standards established (e.g. through new guidelines)
13. New tools / instruments developed
17. Permanent exchange programmes established
22. Individuals benefiting directly from new / improved services
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
Aggregated Indicator Values

Target
Applicati
on form
Cumulated
Progress
Reports
%
of
progres
s
n.a.*
178
812
221
96
57
400
16063
635
306
1
55
60
236
76
49
31
313
7 370
820
64
0
33,71
29,06
34,39
51,04
54,39
78,25
45,9
129,13
20,92
0,00
1026
910
1125
8
1044
80
7675
6
109
35
92
170
25
75
7
119
177
358984
1
349,58
12801
11,371
715871
685,175
214159
279,01
31
8
21
43
8
29
5
28,44
22,86
22,83
25,29
32,00
38,67
71,43
3 241
2,72
23. Investment proposals developed (if possible specify volume of

no.
953
2
0,21
investment)
24. Private market reactions achieved (e.g. private activities mobilized) no.
1 131
243
21,49
25. Investment projects implemented (specify volume of investment)
no.
0
0
0,00
26. Infrastructures of common interest improved
no.
2
1
50,00
Source: SEE Annual Report for 2012.
* At the time of writing there was no correct number available.
48
The delivered outputs and results from the completed projects as well as the expected contribution
of the ongoing projects are summarised in Table 4.4 .
Table 4.4 Delivered and expected contributions of the projects funded under PA1
Completed projects
Expected contribution of ongoing projects
Outputs
Results
SMEs supported to apply new
Networks
created
Network for SME support in the animal
technologies and innovation in the area of
for
transfer
of
breeding and horticulture sector
food production and environmental ecoknowledge
and
Networks of SMEs capable of introducing
sustainable tools in textile sector;
dissemination of best
innovation processes
practices
in
the
6 innovative services identified and
innovative field of (1)
Competences of the entrepreneurs as well
tested for raising the awareness and
Serious Games; and
as of the technology and innovation actors and
usage of Intellectual Property Rights in
(2) food production (3)
of the local, regional and national governments
SMEs;
automobile
industry
increased
SMEs needs and innovation potential
(including cooperation
Capacity
of
institutions
supporting
identified with the objective to establish
with other relevant EU
innovation in the food sector built
business park;
organisations
and
Capacity of regional policy makers
Net Portal provides business support
initiatives); (4) regional
strengthened for development of smart
services to social enterprises;
network on innovation
specialization
strategies
for
cluster
National Help Desks were set up, which
created through 13
improvement
during the project lifetime services more
regional laboratories
Structured cooperation models established
than 300 social enterprises.
Improved
between Social Enterprises (SE), profit
Market niches where social enterprises
information
and
organizations, public authorities with the
could develop services in the future were
coordination
of
involvement of financial investors
studied.
research
on
Regional as well as national evaluation
46
Business
intermediaries
embedded
systems
capacities in order to improve framework
Organisations
trained
in
providing
and
industrial
conditions for innovation policies strengthened
intellectual property rights services to
informatics
and
Enabling environment for financial support
SMEs.
development
of
to innovative SMEs created
Training and capacity building activities
guidance
on
Better productivity achieved and more
undertaken in the area of embedded
transformation of the
comparable level of innovativeness between
systems and industrial informatics;
research
into
countries in SEE region
SEE area Electromobile infrastructure
innovation.
Clusters and networks for an improved use
analysed and pilot action on e-mobility in
The
Innovation
of lignocellulosic biomass created
Slovakia undertaken;
Roadmaps
created
Sustainable mechanism for ICT Foresight
7 Technical Working Groups were
served as basis for
established
established to provide scientific and
generating new EU
technological support in fostering technical
Transnational network of wood-furniture
projects.
12
such
innovation in food production.
clusters, wood technology centres, RDAs and
project ideas in the
knowledge poles built
Public awareness raised on food
area
of
food
production innovative technologies;
Mechanisms that will facilitate the exchange
production
were
and coordination of innovation approaches and
Awareness raised among some public
submitted to CIP and
policies for the food sector created
administrations on tenders applying green
FP7.
products and processes (green public
Dialogue, exchange and mobility among
SMEs supported to
procurement) capacity improved with the
public/private research centres increased
apply
new
developed manual.
Early stage funding of innovative projects
technologies
and
Common strategic research agenda on
facilitated
innovation in the area
embedded
systems
and
industrial
of food production and
Networks between the science centres
informatics adopted.
environmental
ecoestablished
Joint Regional Development Agencies
sustainable tools in
Innovative multidisciplinary governance
innovation action plan developed, with
textile sector;
approach at transnational level for the regional
activities until 2020.
The role of Regional
coordination of innovation established
Development
Cooperation
between
science
parks
agencies as promoters
established
of
innovation
Venture initiatives enhanced.
strengthened.
Source: Monitoring Wizard, FAR, SEE programme and projects websites
The completed projects contributed to creation of regional networks of institutions to support

research and innovation in the areas of food production (TECH FOOD), automobile industry
(AUTOCLUSTERS) and serious games (LUDUS). Further clustering was promoted and supported
as part of activities of other projects that were not directly focused on clustering. The support to
49
SMEs consisted of studying of their needs and innovative potential, market studies, training and
provision of (new) services (SEE-IFA, I3E, ISEDE NET, TexEASTile, FIDBE, IPRforSEE).
Development of Innovative Business Parks to Foster Innovation and

Entrepreneurship in the SEE Area developed standards and provided
mechanisms of cooperation and exchange of experience and demonstrated best
practices in the area of Business Park development.
www.fidibe.com
THEMATIC CODE 5
Advanced support services for firms and groups of firms
OUTPUTS
Good practice reports on
innovative business
incubators developed for
Hungary,
Italy, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Romania, Greece, and
Croatia.
Manual for Business
Innovation Parks to support
decision makers and
practitioners on setting up
innovative business parks.
Studies on innovation
potential of each partner
region were developed with
Feasibility studies for the
extension of existing
or setting up of brand new
innovative business parks.
RESULTS
Extension of existing and
establishment of new
business parks in the
partner regions enabled.
SEE innovative business
park association
established.
AoI 1.1
SPECIFIC OBJ. 1
Facilitation of
innovation and
entrepreneurship
Facilitate innovation,
entrepreneurship,
knowledge economy
and information
society by concrete
co-operation action
and visible results
Develop
technology and
innovation
networks in
specific fields
The feasibility Study for the

business park in Croatia
was shortlisted for EU
funding
The Slovakian study on
setting up a creativity and
future visions centre has
been incorporated into the
Trnava University Science
and Technology Park
framework, as well as into
the Regional Innovation
Strategy.
PRIORITY AXIS 1
AoI 1.2
Develop the
enabling
environment for
innovative
entrepreneurship
Within the project partners innovation potential was studied on the basis of which recommendations for
tackling existing constraints were drawn. Collected good practices on innovative business parks, the
needs assessment on the type of services to be provided, supported the extension of existing business
parks and the setting up of the Innovative Business Park Association. A uniform standard was laid down
on the setting up and operation of technological parks with the development of Manual of Innovative
Business Parks taking into account the type of park, its location, legal and organisational structure,
financial planning, and type of services offered. The Croatian partner (BICRO - Business Innovation
Centre of Croatia BICRO Ltd) took on and incorporated the partners best practices to further the
development of Operational Programme 'Regional Competitiveness. In the case of Hungary, the project
results, complemented national strategic planning documents with respect to technologic parks, business
incubators and industrial parks. The partners and associated partners within the Innovative Business Park
Association continue their cooperation in the form of new project applications, which assures the
transferability and sustainability of project results and add to the development of innovation networks. The
regular contact and flow of information between the project partners, led to development of new initiative
(funding will be sought under the Danube programme).
In addition strategic agendas and roadmaps were developed; guidance elaborated how to
transform research into innovation product and awareness raised on innovative technologies
(INTREVALUE). The role of some Regional Development Agencies as promoters of innovation was
strengthened with SEE programme support as demonstrated in the example of AsviLoc Plus project
below.
50
Agencies Supporting Value of Innovation systems in regional and LOCal

economies (AsviLoc plus) contributed to enhancement of the role of the RDAs in
fostering regional innovation
www.asvilocplus.eu
THEMATIC CODE 74
Developing human potential in the field of research and innovation, in particular
through post-graduate studies and training of researchers, and networking
activities between universities, research centres and businesses
OUTPUTS
RESULTS
AsviLoc plus good

practice catalogue
presents examples of
RDAs acting as innovation
promoters.
Italian Marche region introduced the

agent for change and development
service, for in-house training of
professionals who look after the
competitiveness of a company.
RDAs innovation action

plan, which outlines
concrete activities until
2020.
Friuli Venezia Giulia Region (IT)

supported creation of a cluster and
promoting
public-private partnerships in innovation
in the health sector.
Regional laboratories held

to disseminate knowledge.
Web-platform as a
meeting point for public
and private actors
participating in the
innovation process
Competence map for the
mechatronics cluster in
Lower Austria.
Eastern Macedonia and

Thrace regions (EL) supported
clustering in industrial informatics.
North East Region (RO) supported the
development of Transylvania Furniture
Cluster.
Local SMEs in Lower Austria started
working on collaborative R&D projects.
AoI 1.1
PRIORITY AXIS 1
SPECIFIC OBJ. 1
Facilitation of
innovation and
entrepreneurship
Facilitate
innovation,
entrepreneurship,
knowledge
economy and
information society
by concrete cooperation action
and visible results
Develop
technology and
innovation
networks in
specific fields
AoI 1.3
Enhance the
framework
conditions and
pave the way
for innovation
THEMATIC CODE 81
Mechanisms for improving good policy and programme design, monitoring and
evaluation at national, regional and local level, capacity building in the delivery of
policies and programmes
The 13 development agencies and centres from Austria, Italy, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria,
Greece and Croatia, that took part in the implementation of the project, as a result of the SEE programme
support, have now better capacities to promote research and innovation in their regions and became
drivers for stimulating and supporting innovation of local businesses thus contributing to AoI 1.3. of the
SEE programme. The support to public authorities enhanced the creation of enabling environment for
innovation (AoI1.3) and contributed to Thematic Code 81 related to improving good policy and capacity to
deliver policies. The pilot activities carried out in the regions of the project partners supported business
innovation clustering (AoI 1.1). The training and seminars contributed to development of human potential
in the field of research and innovation and the regional laboratories enabled networking between regional
development agents, research centers and business (Thematic Code 74). Pilot actions were implemented
in each of the partners territories involving pilot SMEs (in Marche region (IT) - customer relation
management software; in Friuli Venezia Giulia - internationalization of regional health cluster; in Lower
Austria - competence map of the Mechatronics Cluster; in Varna (BG) - web-based exchange platform for
entrepreneurs, university researchers and local self-government institutions;). Regional development
network supporting regional economic systems was set up. The network worked over the definition of
innovation services, innovation demand and the identification of the regional innovation engines to
support the competitiveness and economic enhancement of the SMEs in the cooperation area.
Partnership and cooperation was strengthened (ClusterPoliSEE project initiated by part of AsviLoc Plus
partners). A memorandum of understanding was ratified, joined by an action plan where description of
common vision and perspective to the creation of an European innovation environment was included.
Regional polices on innovation were developed and set up (policy instruments used by one region were
adopted by other less developed regions). A common position was formulated incorporating action plans
initiatives. The RDAs defined a common action plan (over future projects and initiatives), as well as action
plans at regional level including the flagship of the next programming period.
The ongoing projects would increase the number of networks and add new areas of networking and
clustering as animal breeding, innovative SMEs, biomass, wood furniture, science centres and
science parks. Competences and capacities of the technology and innovation actors and of the
local, regional and national governments will be increased. Regional policy makers will be better
prepared to develop strategies that support clustering as a way to enhance competitiveness and
innovation. Cooperation between Social Enterprises (SE), profit organizations, public authorities
51
and financial investors would be strengthened. The enabling mechanisms for financial support of
innovation ventures will be established.
On the basis of the above the following conclusions with regard to achievements under PA1 could
be made:
Is the thematic scope of the approved projects contributing to the objectives of the
programme?
The thematic scope of the approved projects is contributing to the objectives of the PA1 and the
SEE programme. It is expected the projects funded under this PA to contribute to several themes
related to provision of services to SMEs, transfer of technologies and improvement of cooperation
as well as research and innovation and entrepreneurship. In addition the measures contribute to the
development of human potential in the field of research and innovation and improved delivery of
policies and programmes.
Are the projects delivering tangible results?
The outputs in several cases have been turned into results as common agreements, standards,
strategies, and services provided to SMEs and enhancement of their innovative potential as well as
enhancement of the environment for innovation development including improvement of the
capacities of some institutions to provide new and better services. However, yet the benefits for the
final beneficiaries are to be materialised as indicated by the high number of the private market
reactions (result indicator 24) as result of the implemented of activities and the low number of the
individuals that benefitted from the services (result indicator 22) during the projects lifetime.
Are the planned outputs and results contributing to the objectives of the SEE programme?
The programme made progress in facilitating innovation and entrepreneurship, enhancing the
knowledge economy and the information society. Good level of cooperation between stakeholders
and involvement of partners in project activities is indicated by the number of individuals reached,
private sector and SMEs reached (result indicators 02, 04 and 05). Only the cooperation with public
authorities/organisations proved more difficult at the start of the programme (first two calls), when
suboptimal involvement of the public sector threatened to diminish the results expected with regard
to enhancement of framework conditions. However, the JTS observations are that the involvement
rd
th
of the public sector in the 3 and 4 call projects is high and satisfactory.
4.2.4 PA 2. Protection and improvement of the environment
Under PA2 there are 44 projects funded, of which 13 have been already completed (30%). Most
advanced in implementation is AoI 2.1 where more than half of the projects have been completed.
For the rest of the AoIs the number of the projects yet to be completed is more than twice higher
than the number of the completed projects.
In terms of contributions (see Table 0.6
in Annex 3.), more than half of the planned
contributions under this PA have been completed. Under AoI 2.1 most of the contributions have
been completed with only 4 left to implement. Therefore it will be possible to draw conclusions on
the contribution of the programme to improvement of integrated water management and flood risk.
More than half of the contributions under AoI 2.2 and AoI 2.3 have been also completed which will
enable assessment of the accomplishments in the area of prevention of environmental risks and
promotion of cooperation in management of natural resources. More than half of the contributions in
the area of energy and resource efficiency are yet to be implemented. Nevertheless the
implemented 14 contributions will allow evaluation of the outcomes delivered so far in this area.
52
There is steady delivery of outputs and results with some indicators already getting over half of the
planned targets especially those related to the individuals benefiting from new services, and
reactions from the private market (see Table 4.5
). Lagging behind is the improvement of
infrastructure of common interest. This indicator failed to be achieved by some of the completed
15
projects .
The result indicators show good involvement of stakeholders and that the programme is reaching
the target groups. The indicator on individuals reached directly through dissemination of outputs in
the co-operation area has already been significantly overachieved. However, ensuring sustainability
of the cooperation networks established is challenging, as reported in some FARs and relies on
future projects.
Table 4.5
PA2 Output and result indicators

Output indicators
Result indicators
02. Individuals reached directly through dissemination outputs
in the co-operation area
03. Administrative actors reached directly through
04. Private sector actors reached directly through
05. SME reached directly through dissemination outputs in the
co-operation area
11. Regional/local policies and instruments improved or
developed
12. Common standards established (e.g. through new
guidelines)
23. Investment proposals developed (if possible specify volume
of investment)
24. Private market reactions achieved (e.g. private activities
mobilized)
25. Investment projects implemented (specify volume of
investment)
Source: SEE Annual Report for 2012
Measu
remen
t Unit
Target
Value
Applicatio
n form
Cumulated
value
Progress
Reports
%
of
progres
s
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
1 475
1 213
1 224
120
3 055
129
103
472
8 547
82
11
110
92
180
179
722
45
45
143
4 113
40
7
7,46
7,58
14,71
149,17
23,63
34,88
43,69
30,30
48,12
48,78
63,64
no.
845 767
3 155437
no.
19 491
16 018
no.
18 597
10 283
no.
7 257
5 259
no.
no.
no.
no.
23
118
74
89
12
48
16
37
no.
248
65
no.
65
21
no.
no.
58
5 516 952
31
5 405 406
no.
216
37
no.
111
89
no.
290 008
179999
no.
47
373,09
82,18
55,29
72,47
52,17
40,68
21,62
41,57
26,21
32,31
53,45
97,98
17,13
80,18
62,07
2,13
15
No explanation provided on the reasons.
53
Table 4.6
Delivered and expected contributions of the projects funded under PA2
Completed projects
Outputs
Water
resources
availability
predicted up to 2100 and climate
change scenarios developed;
Flood hazard and risk maps for
the whole Danube compiled in a
Danube Flood Risk Atlas. The atlas
became part of the Danube action
plan
of
the
International
Commission for the Protection of
the Danube River;
A
Common
stakeholders
involvement strategy for the Danube
Floodplain
forwarded
to
the
working group on floods in the EC;
Transnational
Strategy
for
Integrated Water Management in
Agriculture;
A
Continuous
Situation
Awareness
System
for
risk
assessment;
2 pilot plants equipped with
environmental
monitoring
equipment;
More than 450 m3 of bilge water
and more than 170 waste oils
treated and around 2 tonnes of solid
oily and greasy ship borne waste
collected;
Joint international ship waste
management concept;
Database with observations and
breeding data for the White-tailed
Eagle in the Danube area as well as
an action plan;
Natural assets and protected
areas as tourist sites promoted;
Fish
database
for
Danube
protected areas ;
Strategy on Conservation and
Navigation;
Solar DHW Green Paper outlining
the barriers for solar DHW market
development and a model to
overcome these challenges;
Policy guidelines for solar DHW
subventions and other types of
financial aid;
66 private businesses adopted
environmentally friendly techniques
and increased recycling;
Decision Support System to
support
water
resource
management;
Tool that can be used by
environmental agencies and public
administrations
in
assessing
hydropower operation impact on
habitat quality and ecological status
for running waters.
Results
Flood risk management

and
integrated
and
participatory
water
management enhanced;
Contribution
to
the
Tyrolean Forest Strategy
(2020) made.
Awareness raised and
cooperation
between
stakeholder
groups
strengthened on control of
natural disasters.
Nature conservation and
management
enhanced
and promoted. Regional
cooperation established.
66 private businesses
adopted environmentally
friendly techniques and
increased recycling;
Contribution provided to
policy
documents
revisions
of
Greek
National Minerals Policy,
Austrian
Mineral
Resources
Plan,
and
Hungarian
National
Minerals
Strategy;
Development of a national
minerals
policy
in
Romania initiated; project
recommendations will be
incorporated in the new
soil protection regulation
of Italian region of Emilia
Romagna;
Environmental
managers of ports better
prepared to implement
environmental monitoring.

Better management of Nature 2000 sites in the
SEE eco-regions with specific focus on wetlands
(rivers, lakes, coastal shores);
Danube riparian countries adopt harmonized
procedures of waste management;
Implementation of transnational conservation
strategies;
Energy
efficient
public
procurement
introduced;
Improved efficiency of energy resource
consumption in cities;
New innovative financial instruments to
support RES and new forms of energy
introduced;
Innovative and sustainable utilization of lowtemperature geothermal resources enhanced:
Preservation and valorisation of mountain
areas enhanced;
Coherent Framework adopted aiming to
support rational design and implementation of
local strategies for environmental risks
prevention and management, specified for
territories threatened by soil or water pollution;
Strengthened capacity of public authorities and
other institutions dealing with climate change
Involvement of stakeholders in policy
development in the area of climate change
enhanced;
Creation of low carbon policies supported;
Improved integrated policy-making and
strategic planning competences of SEE
municipalities in the field of energy efficiency,
RES and waste valorisation;
Networks developed for the provision of tools
and services to improve the interoperability of
monitoring
activities
and
increase
the
effectiveness of operations for the joint
prevention of environmental risks arising in
cases of emergency;
Enhanced monitoring of maritime and river
traffic and increased coordination capacity for
the mobilization of the relevant authorities and
stakeholder groups in the field of environmental
risks arising from the transportation of
dangerous goods in marine areas and river;
Strengthened awareness and efficiency of
action in emergencies caused by climate
change;
Improved
aggregates
planning
by
development of a Toolbox for Aggregates
Planning as a support to National/regional,
primary and secondary, aggregates planning in
SEE countries;
Increased environmental sustainability of the
intermodal transport networks;
Energy efficiency in buildings improved
through a transnational partnership among local
and regional administrations in SEE for the
exchange of experience, knowledge, good
practices and the implementation of joint actions;
The completed projects contributed to water management and flood prevention (AoI 2.1) through
developed technical studies on climate change, water resources availability, water and land use.
54
GIS and maps were developed on vulnerability and flood risk (CC-WaterS, Danube Floodrisk, DMC
SEE). These are supported with manuals and strategies on water management and it is expected
that they will contribute to enhancement of regional and European water management
(EU.WATER). The Danube Food Risk atlas was incorporated in the action plan of the International
Commission for the Protection of the Danube River and strategic documents were made available
to policy makers including the working group on floods in the EC.
Stakeholder oriented flood risk assessment for the Danube floodplains

(Danube FLOODRISK) contributed to enhancement of flood risk management
along the Danube regions.
www.danube-floodrisk.eu
THEMATIC CODE 53
Risk prevention (including the drafting and implementation of plans and measures
to prevent and manage natural and technological risks)
OUTPUTS
RESULTS
A joint (transnational, harmonized)

method for the creation of flood risk maps
was worked out.
The flood risk awareness of local

stakeholders and even local public
was increased and feedback from
the local level could be
incorporated to the transnational
level.
A Manual of harmonized requirements on

the flood mapping procedures for the
Danube River has been developed.
Flood hazard and risk maps for the whole
Danube have been developed - The
Danube Floodrisk Atlas.
Assessment of the risk situation for power
supply stations, nuclear power stations as
well as for other important infrastructure
in risk areas
8 pilot projects were implemented in 4
countries to reflect the approaches for
flood risk management and mapping and
to support the dissemination process.
Major feedback has been given on
the Floods Directive, especially on
stakeholder involvement.
The project worked out general

guidelines and recommendations
for local stakeholders involvement
in Workshops, with questionnaires
and by collection of lessons
learned.
Document on strategies and best
practice for stakeholder
involvement in flood risk projects
has been sent to the Working
Group on Floods of the EU
commission (Sep. 2012).
AoI 2.1
Improve
integrated
water
management
and
transnational
flood risk
prevention
PA 2
SPECIFIC OBJ. 2
Protection and
improvement
of the
environment
Improve the
attractiveness of
regions and cities
taking into account
sustainable
development,
physical and
knowledge
accessibility and
environmental
quality by
integrated
approaches and
concrete
cooperation action
and visible results.
A Support System for flood risk

management has been applied to
Lower Danube on the Romanian
territory.
THEMATIC CODE 81
Mechanisms for improving good policy and programme design, monitoring and
evaluation at national, regional and local level, capacity building in the delivery of
policies and programmes
The project resulted in the development of local risk management maps for 6 Danube locations (2 in RO, 1 in
AT, 3 in BG) and new risk prevention methods tested in 2 locations (1 in IT, 1 in RO). Danube Floodrisk Atlas
was compiled (incorporating flood hazard and risk maps) and is now part of the Danube Action Plan of the
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River. A manual (Manual of harmonised
requirements on the flood mapping procedures for the Danube River) was developed with harmonized
requirements on flood mapping procedures for the Danube River and methods on vulnerability and damage
assessment. A Common stakeholders involvement strategy for the Danube Floodplain was elaborated and
tested in the pilot actions of the project. A Scoping study of the integration of risk in spatial planning was
compiled, as well as a summary report on Use of risk information and risk maps in spatial planning.
Recommendations on structural and non-structural measures were formulated (on water management and
land planning) facilitating the reporting process with respect to the Flood and Water framework Directives.
The project partners continue their cooperation (in the form of new climate scenario project and integration of
flood risk with respect to land erosion). Transborder management community was established to implement
an early warning system. A common standard on data collection was also agreed upon.
The prevention of environmental risks (AoI 2.2) will benefit from the various tools developed as
climatological monitoring and mapping system, GIS, situation awareness system. Guidelines and
proposals for policy and regulative adaptations and management concepts were drawn as well as
manuals for application of measures. Some of them were already incorporated in strategic
development documents (MONITOR II made contribution to the Tyrolean Forest Strategy).
Capacity was strengthened in the area of environmental monitoring through training and supply of
55
equipment (ECOPORT 8). Awareness was raised and cooperation between the stakeholders
strengthened on control of natural disasters. In addition measures were undertaken to collect and
treat inland ship-borne waste (WANDA).
The management of natural resources (AoI 2.3) was enhanced with development of conservation
measures, restoration measures and promotion of natural resources, supplemented with guidelines,
handbooks, databases, conservation concepts and strategies (Danubeparks, NATREG). Energy
efficiency was supported (AoI 2.4) by various technical studies, maps and GIS developed which
show the potentials for generation of energy from renewable sources as wind, biomass,
hydropower and geothermal energy (SEE HYDROPOWER, ENER SUPPLY, Wide the SEE by
16
Succ Mod). These studies contributed already to the local planning of some beneficiary regions .
The guidelines developed will support entrepreneurs and home owners interested in installing
renewable energy generating facilities. The training provided to technical experts will enhance
provision of services in the area. The policy makers were targeted with awareness raising
campaigns, guidelines and decision support systems. In terms of resource efficiency
environmentally friendly technologies and recycling techniques have been introduced in some
private companies. Resource efficiency was promoted with guidelines and manuals and some
17
contributions were made to policy development in this area .
ENergy Efficiency and Renewables SUPporting Policies in Local level for

EnergY (ENERSUPPLY) contributed to enhancement the usage of renewable
energy sources from geothermal, wind, hydro and biomass energy sources.
www.ener-supply.eu
THEMATIC CODE 39
THEMATIC CODE 41
Renewable energy:
Wind
Renewable energy:
Biomass
OUTPUTS
11 training courses on RES
and EE for local public
administrations have been
performed in eleven countries
of the SEE area.
Renewable energy maps (from
Geothermal, Wind, Hydro and
Biomass energy) have beed
developed
RESULTS
Strengthened expertise of
public local administrations by
means of a know-how transfer
process regarding the
exploitation of renewable
energy sources and a planning
of an efficient energy
management.
AoI 2.4
Promote
energy and
resource
efficiency
PRIORITY AXIS 2
SPECIFIC OBJ. 2
Protection and
improvement of the
environment
Improve the
attractiveness of
regions and cities
taking into account
sustainable
development,
physical and
knowledge
accessibility and
environmental
quality by
integrated
approaches and
concrete
cooperation action
Renewable energy sources

handbook
Has
been
developed in 12 languages
THEMATIC CODE 42
THEMATIC CODE 43
Renewable energy:
Hydroelectric, geothermal
and other
Energy efficiency, cogenration, energy

management
ENERSUPPLY promoted energy and resource efficiency. Within the project more than 35 renewable
energy source maps were developed showing the potential for generating energy from geothermal, wind,
hydro and biomass (including forest and agriculture biomass) energy sources for the selected partner
16
Maps showing the potential for generating energy from wind, biomass, hydro and geothermal energy for
selected partner territories were developed. Part of the Maps and the feasibility studies to them have been
included in the local planning of the 11 local governments of the participating countries of the project ENER
SUPPLY
17
Revisions of Greek National Minerals Policy, Austrian Mineral Resources Plan, and Hungarian National
Minerals Strategy; Development of a national minerals policy in Romania initiated; project
recommendations will be incorporated in the new soil protection regulation of Italian region of Emilia
Romagna SARMa project.
56
territories. Feasibility studies on the potential use were conducted (including an estimate of potential
investment). Some of the maps and feasibility studies were included in the local planning. The Methodology
of energy management systems was applied to perform energy audits of concrete public buildings, check
the energy balance and analyse the possibility to replace traditional energy suppliers - gas and electricity.
The Energy Management System guidelines/ report incorporated the results of the audits, energy balance
and the analysis on supply performed by some project partners. Different target groups (middle
management, professionals, decision-makers etc.) enhanced their capacity and knowledge in terms of
planning, technology and organizational models (through face to face trainings, e-learning).A summer
school was established (following the end of the project), as well as information campaign and web-platform
training to support the long-term improvement of the capacity. A common position on the use of the project
results was endorsed by 10 municipalities (Romania the Council of Dmbovia; Slovakia Michalovce;
Bulgaria Dolni Chiflik, Balchik, Popovo, Aitos, Gorna Oryahovitsa; Serbia the Secretariat Province of
Vojvodina).
The ongoing projects will further build on environmental risk prevention and climate change
adaptation through establishment of networks, enhanced monitoring and strengthened capacities of
the public administrations. Energy efficiency will be further targeted with measures to improve
energy efficiency in cities and in buildings along with support to introduction of new financial
instruments for deriving energy from renewable energy sources and to energy efficient public
procurement. Nature protection measures will target enhancement of the NATURA 2000 sites
management, introduction of conservation measures and preservation and valorisation of natural
resources. Harmonised procedures for waste management are expected to be introduced and
better environmental protection and risk management related to transportation of freight and
dangerous substances introduced.
be made:
programme?
Projects funded under this PA are related to energy (renewable energy, energy efficiency) and
environment (waste, water and biodiversity), climate change, risk prevention, promotion of natural
assets, protection and development of natural heritage as well as improvement of policy and
programmes in the areas concerned. They contribute to the SEE objectives related to quality of the
environment, integrated approaches and sustainable development.
There is already tangible contribution to all 4 areas of intervention: water management and food
prevention, prevention of environmental risks, management of natural resources and energy. The
various tools developed as GIS, maps, manuals and decision support systems have been made
available to policy makers and to the target groups which already resulted in content input to
regional or national policies. The capacity of the stakeholders was strengthened and awareness
among the interested groups rose. The ongoing projects are expected to further build on this.
The projects funded under PA 2 are contributing towards sustainable development, environmental
quality and development of cooperation in these areas. The projects succeeded to involve the
relevant stakeholders including from private and public sector, which enabled achievement of
planned outcomes.
4.2.5 PA 3. Improvement of the accessibility
There are only 5 projects completed so far under the PA3 of the 25 funded in total (20%). This
provides very limited amount of data on which to base the evaluation with 2 projects completed
57
under AoI3.1 and AoI3.3 and only one under AoI 3.2. In terms of projects contributions (see Table
0.8
in Annex 3) there are 10 recorded contributions out of 45 planned in total. Under AoI 3.2
and AoI 3.3 there are less than 5 contributions. Therefore so far it is too early to draw overall
conclusions of the Programmes contribution in the area of improvement of accessibility having in
mind that majority of the projects are yet to deliver results.
For the completed projects the output indicators for the number of guidelines, databases, services
and trainings delivered show (see Table 4.7 ) similar values. The target number of participants in
the trainings has been already overachieved. The result indicators show overachievement in the
development of new tools and common standards (indicators13 and 12) and good progress in
establishment of common positions/agreements, development of innovative practices, improvement
of regional practices and private market reactions achieved (indicators 07, 10, 11 and 24). There is
no progress in adoption of strategies at governmental level (indicator 09). The number of individuals
benefiting from the services is so far less than expected. There are only 2 investment proposals
developed out of the planned 233, no investment projects implemented so far and 1 infrastructure
of common interest improved out of the planned 68. This could, to a great extent, be attributed to
the fact that only 5 of 25 projects under this PA have been completed.
Cooperation and stakeholders involvement seems adequate in terms of reaching the relevant public
administrations, which are the main stakeholders of these interventions. However, the indicator
values related to the involvement of private sector, SMEs and individuals reached are currently
lower than planned (indicators 04, 05, and 02). This could be explained with the fact that public
private partnership as an instrument to involve private stakeholders in transport is difficult to
address at transnational level and that the ICT projects that would naturally involve more SMEs are
yet to be implemented. One FAR reports problems with the involvement of private sector. The
number of cooperation events implemented so far transnational, national and regional is also
lower than the target. However, the indicators on the study visits and permanent exchange
programmes show good progress.
Table 4.7
Output Indicator DescriptionAggregated Indicator Values

Output indicators
Result indicators
02. Individuals reached directly through dissemination outputs in
the co-operation area
58
Measure
ment
Unit
Target
Applicati
on form
Cumulated
Progress
Reports
%
of
progress
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
2 881
2 155
1 857
185
3 769
87
43
137
228
62
31
86
68
105
50
237
17
5
38
578
12
0
2,99
3,16
5,65
27,03
6,29
19,54
11,63
27,74
253,51
19,35
0,00
no.
18 237
933
188 724
1,03
9 983
1 059
10,61
14 485
977
6,74
6559
9
58
59
157
282
2
10
0
16
4,30
22,22
17,24
0,00
10,19
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
Output Indicator DescriptionAggregated Indicator Values

11. Regional/local policies and instruments improved or developed
investment)
mobilized)
25. Investment projects implemented (specify volume of
investment)
Measure
ment
Unit
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
Target
Applicati
on form
180
55
70
2
574
694
Cumulated
Progress
Reports
15
28
28
10108
0,39
233
0,86
433
80
18,48
153 512
68
0
1
0,00
1,47
%
of
progress
8,33
50,91
40,00
Table 4.8
Delivered and expected contributions of the projects funded under PA3
Completed projects
Outputs
Database,
integrating
information
on
PanEuropean
Corridor
infrastructure from both EU
and non-EU countries;
Identified and proposed
funding
sources
and
responsible actors for 14
priority projects to improve
infrastructure
harmonisation
(inland
waterways, road and rail) in
the target area;
Multi-modal
traffic
scenarios and common
mobility standards and
environmental
guidelines
for the SEE area. These
can indicate the traffic
growth
per
particular
transport mode and needs
for
infrastructure
developments in order to
avoid bottlenecks;
Fairway
information
service portal developed
with relevant information
about current conditions of
the Danube waterway.
8 National Action Plans
and joint Transnational
Action Plan for education
and training issues in the
field
of
inland
water
transport;
Inland waterway transport
eLearning
Solutions)
platform (http://www.inesdanube.info/) developed.
SEE Spatial Planning and
Transport
Operative
Strategy 2030 developed.
Results
Improved
urban
mobility in 10 partner
cities - 10 action plans
on implementation of
mobility management
measures developed
and
10
Mobility
Centres established.
Danube
waterway
administration
staff
exchanged knowledge
and experience and
improved cooperation.
Harmonisation and
exchange
between
waterway
administrations
improved, paving the
way for future new
joint services;
Planning with regard
to
regional/transnational
transport
including
multimodal transport
enhanced.
Policy making and
prioritisation
of
investment
in
multimodal
facilities
and
services
supported.
Exchange
of
experience,
harmonisation
of
training curricula, and
development of elearning tools for the
needs of inland water
transport along the
river Danube.
Environmentally friendly, multimodal transport solutions

from the ports in the SEE programme area developed
and promoted;
Increased use of public transport through the introduction
of attractive and sustainable public transportation
solutions/services;
Improved policies related to logistical and multi-modal
port development;
Innovative green intermodal freight transport corridors
promoted;
Better accessibility of the SEE region by bicycle,
opportunities for cycling and public transport connections
enhanced;
Improved waterway transport management
Improved customer awareness on waterway related
services along the entire Danube River;
Increased broadband internet coverage in SEE rural
areas;
Policy and investments improvements, integrated
ticketing and information systems for transport users in
rail services;
Road safety improved in operation of key segments of
the secondary road networks;
Improved access to shared public IT services, resources
& infrastructures;
Harmonized activities related to introduction of Digital
Broadcasting services;
Transnational platform for Analogue to Digital switchover
support in a target region;
Delivery of internet content over digital TV signal and
offering internet experience to vulnerable groups such as
elderly, persons who have limited access to Internet
services due to lack of access (rural) or limited
computer/internet literacy;
Enhanced interoperable use of Intelligent Transport
Systems for traffic monitoring and control along road
transport networks at transnational, regional and local
(urban/peri-urban) levels;
Improved accessibility of touristic destinations in the
whole Danube region;
Improved accessibility to, between, and in sensitive
mountain regions of the Alps and Carpathians;
Improved cross-border mobility of the rail freight flows;
59
The actual contribution made so far to Improved coordination in promoting, planning and operation
for primary and secondary transportation networks AoI3.1 consist of inventories, data bases, traffic
scenarios, mobility standards, environmental guidelines, information service portals, national and
action plans as well as guidelines aimed to support development of infrastructure, facilitate
provision of traffic services, improve maintenance and at the end mobility as a whole in the SEE
region via inland waterway, road and rail transport (SEE MMS, SEETAC, WATERMODE). Air
transport has not been targeted so far. In addition measures targeting administrations as the main
users of the tools and analyses made, with the aim to harmonise and improve policies and
practices, were undertaken (NEWADA, SEETAC, SEE MMS).
Network of Danube Waterway Administrations contributed to establishment of
partnership between the waterway administrations of all Danube countries and
improvement the waterway navigation on Danube River.
www.newada.eu
THEMATIC CODE 32
Inland waterways (TEN-T)
OUTPUTS
Development of fairway information service
portal (NEWADA FIS) which gathers
relevant information about current conditions
of the waterway.
Establishment of 10 WLAN hotspots in order
to provide free of charge access to the
NEWADA FIS portal on neuralgic spots
A national plan for inland waterway
maintenance was elaborated for each
participating country.
Intensified cooperation between Danube
administrations thanks to an expert
exchange programme in the field of
hydrology, hydrography, ecology and
waterway maintenance
RESULTS
Daily business of
transporting goods
and tourists
improved.
Improved services
Intensified
cooperation between
the administrations.
AoI 3.1
Improve coordination in
promoting,
planning and
operation for
primary and
secondary
transportation
networks
PRIORITY AXIS 3
SPECIFIC OBJ. 2
Improvement of the
accessibility
Improve the
attractiveness of
regions and cities
taking into account
sustainable
development,
physical and
knowledge
accessibility and
environmental
quality by
integrated
approaches and
concrete
cooperation action
Knowledge and
experience
distributed among the
participants
The key product of the project is the development of an information service portal (www.danubeportal.com)
with relevant information about the current conditions of the waterway to skippers, vessel operators, logistic
companies, dispatcher, water police and other authorities. The portal contains information on the Danube
waterway conditions including navigation maps, which before the project could have been found on the
websites of the administrations on each country. The project intensified cooperation and exchange of
experience between waterway administrations which on its turn resulted in harmonized practices and
improved the physical accessibility of waterway infrastructure. The project has a follow up Newada duo
which is expected to further improve the information service portal, expand the hotspots of free of charge
WLAN access, harmonize waterway management and establish permanent structure in the face of the
Directors of waterway administrations to ensure sustainability and institutionalization of the cooperation.
60
South East European Mobility Management Scheme (SEEMMS)

contributed to improved mobility in 10 cities (Athens, Belgrade, Elefsina,
Gloma, Iasi, Lecce Ljubljana, Padua, Trogir, Varna
www.seemms.net
THEMATIC CODE 25
Urban transport
OUTPUTS
Development of 10 Mobility Management
plans resulting in 10 Action plans to pave
ground for the implementation of multimodality measures
Establishment of 10 SEE MMS Mobility
Centers
RESULTS
250 Participants have

better understanding on
Mobility Management
SEE MMS net promoted to 30 decision

makers
Creation of a positive
awareness of
sustainable
transportation methods
Development and installation of

information platform to collect and interlink
all public transport information and data
available in the project.
10.000 individuals per

month directly to benefit
from the operation of the
MMS Mobility Centers
Guidelines for decision and policy makers/

planners on the efficient application of
multi-modality in the SEE Cities.
AoI 3.1
Improve coordination in
promoting,
planning and
operation for
primary and
secondary
transportation
networks
PRIORITY AXIS 3
SPECIFIC OBJ. 2
Improvement of
the accessibility
Improve the
attractiveness of
regions and cities
taking into
account
sustainable
development,
physical and
knowledge
accessibility and
environmental
quality by
integrated
approaches and
concrete
cooperation action
SEE MMS helped10 municipalities to produce multi-modal concepts and action plans for an effective
mobility. The project developed 10 feasibility studies (on mobility management measures - one per partner
city), which were embedded in 10 action plans with specific measures and guidelines on application. 10
Mobility Centres were established (using one uniform sign, which adds to their identity). A common
management structure was established (decides on the services to be provided).Guidelines (considering all
national strategic targets) for decision and policy makers/planners on efficient application of mobility
management measures were developed. The dissemination of information on project activities (with webplatform, newsletters) had an immediate social impact on raising the awareness of citizens and
stakeholders on alternative means of transport and their benefits for both inhabitants and cities.
There are no contributions so far considering the completed projects only under the first call for
proposals to AoI 3.2 Develop strategies to tackle the digital divide which in the text of the SEE
Operational programme is defined as the gap between those with regular, effective access to
information and knowledge via Information and communication technologies (ICT) and those
without. The only supported project under this AoI (NELI) facilitated exchange of experience, the
harmonisation of training curricula, and development of e-learning tools for the needs of inland
water transport along the river Danube. It is through its focus on e-learning tools that this project
contributes to AoI 3.2.ICT elements can be found also in some completed PA3 projects, e.g.
NEWADA FIS (fairway information service) portal contains relevant information about current
conditions of the Danube waterway. It also helped harmonise standards for producing Electronic
Navigation Charts for navigation of the Danube. WATERMODE project developed an online
database of multimodal facilities in Southeast Europe. ICT tools for urban mobility management
have been part of the focus of SEE MMS project and tested as pilots. Also, projects funded under
PA1 and PA4 have some contributions to ICT development as part of improving business
competitiveness (PA1 -InterValue, IPRforSEE, I3E, AsviLoc Plus) and in e-government (PA4POLYINVEST, PROMISE). There are also on-going projects under PA3 that would contribute to
this objective (SEE Digi.TV, PPP4Broadband, SECOVIA, SEE TV-Web, SEE-ITS, SIVA, HINT).
The contributions so far made to Improvement in the framework conditions for multi-modal
platforms (AoI3.3) come from two projects. SEETAC assisted the harmonisation of transport data
across EU and non-EU member states to facilitate coordinated planning and implementation of
transport projects of transnational relevance. Traffic models and transport scenarios were
developed to anticipate the need for infrastructure projects in the near future. SEETAC partners
prepared and committed to a Southeast Europe Spatial Planning and Transport Strategy.
61
WATERMODE project developed a set of common indicators for the evaluation of logistics facilities
in line with COM/2007/607 of the European Commission, complemented by Guidelines for the
transferability of these indicators in a broader European context. The project designed an online
database of multimodal facilities (maritime/inland) in Southeast Europe and helped develop policy
documents to help decision makers in prioritising investment in multimodal facilities and services.
Based on transport scenarios, WATERMODE defined recommendations for infrastructure
improvement, which would establish links between ports and hinterland multimodal centres in
Southeast Europe.
The on-going projects will continue to build on multimodal and environmentally friendly transport
solutions for the SEE region, including flexible public transport solutions and enabling and
promotion of sustainable mobility choices (e.g. cycling). Harmonization and improvement of
waterway transport practices and provision of better services form part of the important transport
interventions having in mind the connecting role of the Danube River for the region. Improvement of
rail connectivity and services forms also part of transport strategic approaches to dealing with road
overexploitation and promoting environmentally friendly transport. The funded interventions in the
area of ICT will improve broadband internet coverage in rural areas, access to public IT services,
infrastructure and resources including for vulnerable groups and enable harmonization of practices
and innovative IT solutions.
be made:
programme?
The projects funded under PA3 target information and communication technologies, services and
application for citizens, railways, motorways, urban transport, multimodal transport and inland
waterways. Thus they contribute to the - improvement of physical and knowledge accessibility.
The projects funded under PA 3 contributed to planning and promotion of transportation networks in
the SEE region and planning and investment for development of multi-modal transport. From the
implementation of the first call of projects direct contribution to AoI 3.2, which relates to e-content
and e-learning, comes from one project (the only one approved under this AoI in the 1
st
call).
However, as stated above, ICT elements can be found also in some completed PA1, PA2 and PA4
projects. Further direct contribution to AoI 3.2 is expected to be delivered through the on-going
projects.
The interventions can contribute to improvement of physical accessibility by the studies, tools,
strategies and guidelines produced, if those are used by policy makers and administrations to
improve infrastructure and services. So far the involvement of public administrations is slightly lower
18
compared to the progress made under this PA . On the other hand there has been no progress so
far with adoption of strategies at governmental level, which may indicate some problems with
reaching administrative bodies and turning the outputs into desired results, but also that the topic of
transport requires highest efforts (as it often relates to investments in infrastructures) and it is often
dealt with exclusively at national level (ministries). Nevertheless there are positive signs with this
respect as for instance the Danube waterway services which have been harmonised and improved
(NEWADA). The contribution to virtual accessibility is still limited, but more results are expected to
be achieved after the implementation/finalisation of the on-going projects.
18
The overall progress under this PA is 19% while the progress of this indicator is 11%
62
4.2.6 PA 4. Development of transnational synergies for sustainable growth areas

Eleven projects out of 32 funded under PA4 have been already completed (34%). However these
projects are clustered under AoI 4.1 and AoI 4.2. There is no project completed so far under AoI
4.3. In terms of contributions (Table 0.10
in the Annex 3.) 19 contributions out of 42 have
been realised, which will allow for evaluation of results achieved in tackling cultural problems in the
metropolitan areas and regional systems of settlements (AoI4.1) and for promoting attractive and
accessible growth areas (AoI 4.2). However, the only 2 contributions realised under AoI4.3 will not
allow for making overall conclusions on the contribution to promotion of cultural values for
development.
The output indicators (see Table 4.9
) show good progress with regard to development of
guidelines, databases, and services and overachievement with regard to small scale infrastructure
projects. There is good progress with the trainings organised, however the number of participants
involved in the trainings is lower than planned. This resulted in overachievement of result indicators
related to investment projects implemented and good progress with regard to common
positions/agreements, adopted strategies, innovative products developed. There is less than
expected progress with regard to regional and local policies developed, new tools, and private
market reactions. For the moment the number of individuals benefitting directly from the new
services is low.
The number of the regional and transnational events so far is lower than planned. The same
applies to the number of exchange programmes and individuals that took part in them. Otherwise
the involvement of administrations seems adequate as well as of the private sector and SMEs. The
indicator SME reached directly through dissemination outputs in the cooperation area has already
been overachieved.
Table 4.9
Output indicators
Result indicators
02. Individuals reached directly through dissemination outputs in the
co-operation area
Measure
ment
Unit
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.

Target
Applicatio
n form
Cumulated
Progress
Reports
%
of
progress
1 987
3 067
24 436
166
21897
124
114
350
26 902
61
10
154
524
182
57
819
53
60
109
2687
31
9
7,75
17,09
0,74
34,34
3,74
42,74
52,63
31,14
9,99
50,82
90,00
985 918
301 953
30,63
14276
7 406
51,88
17978
2891
16,08
11816
41
109
67
78
17668
4
45
14
22
149,53
9,76
41,28
20,90
28,21
63

investment)
mobilized)
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
248
106
145
694 954
31
29
26
1172
12,50
27,36
17,93
0,17
100
16
16,00
813
2500006
10
124
2893001
3
15,25
115,72
30,00
of the ongoing projects are summarised in Table 4.10
Table 4.10 Delivered and expected contributions of the projects funded under PA4
Completed projects
Outputs
18 Management plans, including both
feasibility and operational plans or the
reconversion of specific barracks into
Business Support Centres or Incubators;
Property management system for
municipal real estate.
A Governmental Social Responsibility
and Quality Certification System;
Cluster Economic Map in SEE countries
detailed at NUTS III level for identifying
economic sectors suitable for the
development of transnational clusters;
Territorial
Marketing
Strategy
encompassing the whole Adriatic /
Danubian area for joint branding in cluster
promotion.
Cross-Danube Development Strategy
with relevant measures and projects with
focus on strengthening cross-border
linkages.
Spatial Development Support System
model which serves as policy impact
assessment tool;
Public owned real estate inventory in
order to attract private investors and
encourage urban and rural regeneration;
Transnational
Strategy
for
the
Sustainable Territorial Development of the
Danube Area with special regard to
Tourism;
Investment Guide presenting the
potentials for tourism investment along the
Danube;
Transnational strategy and policy
recommendations with special focus on
the economic potential of natural and
cultural resources in the Tisa River
catchment area;
Danube Tourist Information Website
provides an inventory on tourism
possibilities as well as tourist services,
which
the
Danubian
riverside
municipalities can offer.
Results
Participative
planning
in
managing historical
city
parts
strengthened.
Regeneration
of
brownfield
areas
enhanced
Transformation of
industrial zones in
sustainable
production
areas
enhanced
Development
of
transnational
economic
clusters
enhanced
Cross-border
cooperation
strengthened
Establishment of
greenfield business
zones enhanced
Policy
recommendations
for development of
Tisa river catchment
area
taken
into
consideration during
the revision of the
National
Spatial
Plan and concerned
county development
plans (HU and SR).
Tourism in the
Danube
region
enhanced.
Touristic
destinations
and
services
promoted;
Policy development and in the area of
territorial quality and attractiveness supported;
Green and sustainable urban planning
promoted;
Opening new sales channels across SEE
through linking manufacturing productions
(local clusters) with artistic heritage and
cultural production;
Investments in cultural heritage supported;
Limes monuments sustained and preserved;
Increased,
integrated
and
diversified
sustainable tourist supply through 11 local
action plans for Integrated and Sustainable
Tourism at a NUTS3 level;
Increased accessibility and visibility of less
developed tourist areas surrounding the main
tourist destinations;
Innovative solutions to tackle crucial
problems provided for metropolitan areas;
Enhanced capacity of public administrations
to anticipate, understand and strategically
address
the
implications
of
current
demographic change for the sustainable
growth of SEE regions and cities;
Boosting local economies trough promotion
of religious tourism;
Promotion of the natural and cultural
heritage of small, mostly rural areas, through
the launching of heritage entrepreneurship;
Creation of better conditions for seniors to
remain active in the society with focus on
financial and institutional aspects, social
services and quality of the urban living and
working environment;
Improved management of cultural values in
rural areas in order to increase their economic
and social development;
Generation of new income and jobs in
tourism by stimulation of creation of new nonmassive rural cultural tourism destinations;
Integrated urban development was supported under AoI 4.1 through development of databases,
case studies, analyses, regeneration methodologies, revitalisation plans, management plans,
prefeasibility studies, manuals of good practices targeted at improvement of infrastructure and its
64
better management, regeneration of brownfield areas and better utilisation of cultural and historical
heritage (FATE, ReTInA, POLYINVEST, PROMISE). Participative planning and stakeholders
involvement in the planning process was promoted and facilitated (VITO). Improvement of
governmental social responsibility mechanisms were targeted with the developed Governmental
Social Responsibility and Quality Certification System (G.S.R. Model).
Revitalisation of Traditional Industrial Areas in South-East Europe supported

revitalisation of brownfield areas in SEE region through development of brownfield
revitalisation method, model master plan and tool for stakeholder involvement
www.retinasee.eu
THEMATIC CODE 61
Integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration
OUTPUTS
RESULTS
Common brownfield revitalization

method which incorporates the
method on integrated masterplanning and the method for
stakeholder engagement, as well
as a model masterplan and
process management tool for
stakeholder engagement.
Each project partner developed
a revitalisation plan as well as an
investment programme for
selected brownfield area on their
territory.
Harmonized and
promoted Brownfield
revitalization method
Stakeholders
involvement in policy
implementation on
Brownfield areas
revitalization enhanced.
Brownfield revitalization
of 9 areas in the partner
countries enhanced.
AoI 4.1
Tackle crucial
problems
affecting
metropolitan
areas and
regional
systems of
settlements
PRIORITY AXIS 4
SPECIFIC OBJ. 3
Development of
transnational
synergies for
sustainablegr
growth aeres
The programme
shall foster
integration by
supporting
balanced
capacities for
transnational
territorial
cooperation at all
levels
THEMATIC CODE 81
Mechanisms for improving good policy and programme design, monitoring
and evaluation at national, regional and local level, capacity building in the
delivery of policies and programmes
The project addressed one of the outstanding problems in the SEE region related to industrial brownfield
areas, which emerged as result of restructuring of economies and political changes and stay unattractive
and underdeveloped. The revitalisation of brownfield areas could create potential for business development
and job creation. The project enhanced this process through development of common brownfield
revitalisation method which tackles both technical planning and stakeholder involvement including
application of public private partnership. Revitalisation of brownfield areas in the partner countries was
enhanced through the developed technical studies and designs. In Ferrara and Iasi (Italy) investments and
construction works were undertaken. The two exhibitions held enabled the business from the partner
municipalities and brownfield areas to establish contacts and exchange ideas. The project was presented at
different occasions to other towns in the beneficiary countries with similar problems which supported
dissemination of outputs and knowledge. The partner municipalities make efforts to further build on project
results by starting investment programmes and other initiatives in the areas, which however so far is difficult
due to the limited financial resources and still weak capacities of the business in the areas to take initiatives
in this respect.
Balanced pattern of attractive and accessible growth (AoI 4.2) was promoted through territorial,
marketing and development strategies aimed at development of transnational economic clusters,
strengthening of transnational cooperation and tourism development (DONAUREGIONEN+,
TICAD, ADC, DATOURWAY). In addition feasibility studies for transforming and re-developing of
industrial zones, establishment of greenfield business zones and the databases and investment
guides aimed to support investors (SEPA).
65
The Spatial Development Concept of Interregional Co-operation in the

Danube Space provided strategic basis for cooperation of Transdanubian
regions.
www.donauregionen.net
THEMATIC CODE 81
Mechanisms for improving good policy and programme design,
monitoring and evaluation at national, regional and local level,
capacity building in the delivery of policies and programmes
OUTPUTS
RESULTS
AoI 4.2
PRIORITY AXIS 4
SPECIFIC OBJ. 3
Development of
transnational
synergies for
sustainable growth
areas
The programme
shall foster
integration by
supporting
balanced
capacities for
transnational
territorial
cooperation at all
levels
Mapping of existing development

strategies in target area and their
integration into the join planning
information system
Elaboration of Cross-Danube
Development Strategy relating to 21
cross-border regions of partner
countries, which specifies relevant
measures and projects with focus
on strengthening cross-border
linkages.
Development of D+ web portal,
including D+WEB Server and D+
GIS Server as main tools for further
development of Danube spatial
planning information system.
1st systematic
mapping of the
planning strategies
relevant to the
Danube regions on
regional, national
and transregional
levels available via
internet for all project
stakeholders and
other potential users.
Promote a
balanced
pattern of
attractive and
accessible
growth areas
The project is a follow-on initiative of a project funded under Interreg IIIB CADSES which made analysis of
the Danube border regions. The second phase DONAUREGIONEN+ expanded its territorial coverage with
inclusion of Croatia, Ukraine and Moldova and resulted in development of sectoral strategies on
Environment, Settlement Structure and Human Resources, Transport &Technical infrastructure and
Economy for each Danube region of each participating country on which basis and taking into account
other existing strategies in the region 5 Transdanubian strategies were developed for Austria-SlovakiaHungary, Hungary- Croatia-Serbia, Serbia-Romania-Bulgaria, Romania-Bulgaria, Romania-MoldovaUkraine. The strategies were promoted among the municipalities located in the Transdanubian regions.
One pilot project for implementation of measures was developed, which however was not implemented so
far as the application for funding under INTERREG was unsuccessful. The project contributed to better
planning and synergies in Transdanubian regions and will foster transnational cooperation.
As noted above there are two contributions (from the projects TICAD and DATOURWAY)
19
so far to
promotion of cultural values for development (AoI4.3), which have been realised as part of
implementation of the projects, funded under AoI4.2.
Ongoing projects explore the possibility of economic valorisation of cultural and historical heritage
through, for instance tourism, e.g. religious tourism, cultural tourism, and tourism based on yet
unexploited opportunities in rural areas like intangible cultural assets. Other projects build on the
achievement of the already completed interventions in the areas of urban planning including green
and sustainable metropolitan development, tackling demographic problems by supporting
measures for strengthening the capacities of the public administrations to develop and deliver
policies and innovative governance solutions.
be made:
19
As reported in the Monitoring Wizard the two contributions are: Economic potential of natural and cultural resources in
the Tisa River catchment area studied (TICAD); Danube Tourist Information Website developed (DATOURWAY).
66
programme?
The funded projects under PA4 target valorisation of cultural heritage, cultural services, integrated
urban and rural development, social integration and improvement of governance and thus
contribute to the SEE programme specific objective related to fostering integration by supporting
balanced capacities for transnational territorial cooperation at all levels. This PA contributes also to
the specific objectives of improving attractiveness of regions taking into account sustainable
development, as well as to facilitation of entrepreneurship.
The projects funded under the PA4 of the SEE programme supported integrated urban
development and participative planning and management as well as regional growth and
transnational and cross-border cooperation. So far there is very limited contribution to promotion of
cultural values for development as none of the projects targeting this AoI has been completed at the
time of this report. Economic valorisation of cultural assets through tourism is in the focus of the ongoing projects which are expected to deliver results in this aspect. There is good progress with
regard to conclusion of agreements and adoption of strategies. The investments made already
exceed the target. However, there is unsatisfactory progress with regard to individuals that benefit
from the new services despite the good progress reported with the number of the new services
developed which indicates obstacles to turn the outputs into results during the projects lifetime.
There is so far some progress with enhancement of regional integration, which stems mainly from
the joint strategies for development and transnational cooperation. The other implemented
measures related to integrated urban development and revitalisation contribute to the objective of
increasing the attractiveness of regions and cities. Fighting social inclusion (e.g. of Roma minority)
and demographic change effects (migration, ageing of population) could seem to be more of a local
benefit, however these issues refer to movement of people at transnational level. Therefore,
projects addressing social inclusion and demographic change have the potential to design joint
transnational strategies for sustainable development.
4.2.7 Additional analysis with regard to achievement of results
Comparison between the PA
Before interpreting the data and analyses into conclusions it should be considered that the
contributions to the PAs deviate from the plan. There have been more than planned contributions
under PA2 and less than planned contributions under the other PAs. In the case of PA 3 more than
twice less contributions than planned have been realised so far. This means that judging on the
number of the contributions the PA2 has had greatest input to achieving programme specific
objectives.
In terms of output and result indicators (see Figure 4.6
) good progress has been achieved
by all PAs in development of project specific products databases, guidelines, etc. The
achievement of results has been problematic as far as it concerns individuals benefiting from the
new services with exception of PA2. Adoption of strategies at government level may be problematic
for PA3, which is of a concern, as the PA3 is related to regional transport and mobility, which is
overall to be decided and managed at governmental level.
The 30% line in the figures below indicates the average level of progress with implementation of the
projects under all PAs. Thus in average the indicators whose values are above this line over
perform while the indicators with lower values perform unsatisfactory. With regard to interpretation
67
of the data for PA3 it should be considered that the progress with implementation of this PA is only
19%. Thus the broken red line should go lower.
Figure 4.5
Output indicators per PA completed projects
Table 4.11 % of the output indicator targets realised per PA for completed projects
Output indicators
PA1
In %
0,98
33,71
29,06
34,39
129,13
51,04
54,39
78,25
45,9
20,92
0
PA2
PA3
PA4
7,46
7,58
14,71
149,17
23,63
34,88
43,69
30,3
48,12
48,78
63,64
2,99
3,16
5,65
27,03
6,29
19,54
11,63
27,74
253,51
19,35
0
7,75
17,09
0,74
34,34
3,74
42,74
52,63
31,14
9,99
50,82
90
Figure 4.6 Result indicators per PA completed projects
68
Table 4.12 % of the result indicator targets realised per PA for completed projects
Result indicators
PA1
In %
02. Individuals reached directly through dissemination outputs in the cooperation area
349,58
03. Administrative actors reached directly through dissemination outputs
11,371
04. Private sector actors reached directly through dissemination outputs
685,17
279,01
71,43
28,44
22,86
22,83
25,29
32
38,67
2,72
investment)
0,21
24. Private market reactions achieved (e.g. private activities mobilized)
21,49
0
50
PA2
PA3
PA4
373,09
1,03
30,63
82,18
10,61
51,88
55,29
6,74
16,08
72,47
52,17
40,68
21,62
41,57
26,21
32,31
53,45
97,98
4,3
22,22
17,24
0
10,19
8,33
50,91
40
0,39
149,53
9,76
41,28
20,9
28,21
12,5
27,36
17,93
0,17
17,13
80,18
62,07
2,13
0,86
18,48
0
1,47
16
15,25
115,72
30
The data so far shows lower than expected number of transnational events held (see output
indicator N 5) for all PAs. The same applies for national and regional events implemented
(indicators 6 and 7 in the same tables) with exception of PA1. The number of exchange
programmes established is lower than planned for PA4. Involvement of public administration has
proved challenging under PA1. As discussed above this might diminish the impact as public
administration is an important stakeholder in terms of setting polices related to innovation. The
involvement of the private sector actors and SMEs is adequate to the specific needs of the PAs with
the exception of PA3. Very positive sign in terms of achievement of the results related to innovative
entrepreneurship is the significant overachievement of the target values of SMEs and private sector
actors reached under PA1. In terms of individuals reached there is significant over performance for
PA1 and PA2, adequate in the case of PA4 and very low in the case of PA3. This is not of
significant concern as the ICT measures are yet to be implemented and the transport measures
would reach the individuals as end-beneficiaries after realisation of the running projects.
Complementarities between the interventions and the PA
There are complementarities between the interventions and PAs. For example, ICT measures and
clusters supported through the PA1 contribute to the operational objectives related to digital
accessibility particularly targeted with AoI 3.2 of PA3. The transport projects aiming accessibility to
tourist areas support the objectives related to territorial development and promotion of cultural
values (AoI 4.3).
The operational objectives of PA2 are addressed also by certain projects under PA1 (e.g.
innovation in renewable energy sector), PA3 (e.g. sustainable mobility models) and P4 (e.g.
brownfield regeneration). In addition, quite a number of projects take an environmental approach to
transport and thus establish links between PA2 and PA3 (e.g. preventing illegal ship waste disposal
in the river Danube, managing environmental risks in sea ports, marine and river system for
monitoring the transportation of dangerous goods). This complementarity enhances achievement of
the programme objectives but makes assessment of the achievements more challenging due to the
difficulty to attribute achievements to a single intervention/PA. The thorough understanding of the
SEE projects contributions to achievement of the stated objectives therefore requires more in-depth
studies on results and impacts focused on particular area.
69
Outputs library and Capitalisation Strategy

In order to capitalise on the outputs and results as well as the partnerships created new initiatives
have been introduced SEE Outputs Library and Capitalisation Strategy these are available at
the SEE website.
The output library (http://www.southeast-europe.net/en/achievements/outputs_library/) aims to
enable easy search and access to project deliverables. It is expected to be gradually expanded and
updated.
The Capitalisation Strategy introduced 14 Thematic Poles with the aim to strengthen the links
between projects working on similar topics. The thematic poles have been defined on the basis of
the critical mass of projects addressing each topic and have a pole leader project to facilitate
coordination. The activities planned within the thematic poles would enhance not only exchange of
information and efficiency of implementation through exchange on methodology and of outputs but
would also support achievement of results through dissemination of outputs to a wider group of
end-beneficiaries and stakeholders and through the unified efforts to reach policy makers. As a
whole, the Capitalisation Strategy can be considered a beneficial idea in terms of sustainability. Its
contribution will need to be analysed in the future.
4.3
Evaluation of the added value
4.3.1 Transnational added value

As the SEE programme has a transnational and regional aspect, it is expected that the programme
would strengthen both intraregional and transnational cooperation.
The programme allows cooperation between EU member state countries, candidate and potential
candidate countries thus helping, through the exchange of knowledge, experience and practices, to
tackle development imbalances in the SEE area.
The previous evaluation reports concluded that the SEE programme is a unique and innovative
programme due to the large number of countries involved and especially due to the involvement of
different type of countries. The transnational added value of the SEE programme is therefore the
integration of SEE area through partnerships, good practice, tackling problems and learning from
each other. And also that An important element of the transnational added value is the ability of the
SEE programme to contribute to (trans) national policies, although this was not possible to confirm
during the previous two evaluations due to the early stage of implementation of the programme.
The SEE programme contributes to cooperation. 79% of the beneficiaries that reported to the
questionnaire (54 of 68) are on the opinion that the SEE programme has good contribution at
regional level although 31% (21 of 68) think that achievement of truly transnational cooperation and
results remains a challenge. So far overall there is lower than planned number of transnational
events implemented under all PAs and lower number of regional events implemented under all PA
with the exception of PA1. This is difficult to comment as could stem from the fact that the planning
was overambitious in this respect or could indicate some operational problems/constraints to
implement the planned events. Although the number of regional and transnational events is not in
direct relation to the degree of cooperation this type of events are tools to facilitate cooperation and
therefore are important for transnational cooperation programmes.
What are the main deliverables at programme, PA, AoI and project level, which cannot be
reached without the programme?
With the support of the SEE programme many outputs have been already produced as summarised
in the tables below per PA and AoI based on the project reports from the completed projects of the
70
1st call for proposals (about 30% of all funded projects): data has been collected, studies
developed and analyses done, GIS, maps, decision support systems and strategies developed.
Table 4.13 Main deliverables per PA and AoI which could not have been reached without the SEE programme
PA 1 Networks created and measures undertaken to enhance innovation and entrepreneurship
AoI 1.1.
Created networks in the fields of(1) serious games; (2) food production (3) automobile industry (4)
regional networks on innovation.
AoI 1.2 and

AoI1.3
Measures undertaken to support innovation at national and regional level and innovative activities of
SMEs.
PA 2 Measures undertaken to protect the environment and enhance energy efficiency

AoI
2.1.,
AoI 2.2.
and AoI 2.3
Studies, maps, GIS, risk assessment, manuals, pilot plans databases, strategies and guidelines
developed that can contribute to improved and integrated water management, flood risk prevention,
environmental risk management, biodiversity and nature protection
AoI 2.4
Studies, maps, GIS, decision support systems, manuals and pre-feasibility studies delivered,
awareness raised, training and contribution to development of policy documents provided in the area
of renewable resources and energy efficiency.
PA3 Databases and studies delivered targeted at improvement of physical accessibility (transport)
AoI3.1:
Databases, studies, guidelines, multi-modal traffic scenarios developed. Fairway information service
portal established, action plans of improvement of urban mobility developed and mobility centres
established in 10 cities.
AoI3.2:
Database education and training institutions, action plans for education and training in the area of
inland water transport.
AoI3.3.
Strategy and studies on multi-modal transport solutions.
PA 4 Databases, plans, methodologies and strategies delivered to support urban and regional development.
AoI 4.1.
Database, methodologies and management plans on brownfield regeneration. Technical designs,

manuals, studies, business plans and feasibility studies on integrated urban development developed.
AoI 4.2.
Maps, strategies, feasibility studies, guidelines, support systems, databases that promote crossborder cooperation, regional and urban development.
AoI 4.3.
Danube Tourist Information website
Other programmes could have supported similar type of outputs. However, without the SEE
programme, the current dimension of the deliveries could have not been reached. The specific
contribution of the SEE programme is that it enabled deliverables that are produced with the input
of many partners from significant number of countries, covering specific and diverse regions
enabling cooperation of EU Member states, IPA and ENPI countries. Important is the possibility to
transfer knowledge and experience from more advanced and experienced partners to less
advanced and experienced partners and to establish partnerships between EU and non EU
member states thus contributing to further cohesion and integration of the region.
Are the transnational networks (partnerships) contributing substantially to the transnational
or national policies?
The transnational networks and partnerships under PA1 and PA2 are contributing to improvement
of regional and national policy, however slightly less than expected (the progress of PA1 and PA2 is
32% and 38%, respectively while the contributions are about 23-24% in average data until end
2012). The contribution of PA4 to regional and national policies is less, but still tangible about
17% in average, while under PA3 there is no contribution yet to strategies adopted at governmental
level and moderate contribution to regional and local policies and instruments (see figure below).
71
Figure 4.7 Contribution to transnational and national policies
Source: SEE Annual Report for 2012, the data represent the achievements up to the end of 2012
The involvement of public administration and decision makers is important to ensure that the
outputs will deliver the planned policy/management change. However, all groups that responded to
the questionnaire (JTS/MA, SEE Contact Points, Members of the Monitoring Committee and
beneficiaries) have reservations with this regard. Most optimistic is the SEE programme
management where only 2 of 9 project managers that filled in the questionnaire consider that the
involvement of decision makers is fair or poor and most pessimistic are the SCP representatives
where 4 of 5 are on the opinion that the involvement of the decision makers is fair/poor. Forty
percent of the beneficiaries that responded to the questionnaire (27 of 68) share this opinion.
So far there are few reported contributions to national and transnational policies. These comprise:
Revisions of Greek National Minerals Policy, Austrian Mineral Resources Plan, and Hungarian
National Minerals Strategy; Development of a national minerals policy in Romania initiated;
project recommendations will be incorporated in the new soil protection regulation of Italian
region of Emilia Romagna (SARMa project).
Contribution was made to the Tyrolean Forest Strategy (2020) (MONITOR II project).
Are the main stakeholders participating in the programme/projects (analysis at AoI level)?
The main stakeholders indicated in the text of the SEE Operational Programme and identified on
the basis of the type of activities and measures envisaged per AoI are listed in the Annex.
Actual project partners
20
under the projects of the first call for proposals (completed projects) have
been studied on the basis of the information provided on the project partners (including observers)
at the web-site of the SEE programme. The project partners have been divided into the following
groups: (1) Public bodies, (2) Business support organisations, (3) Research organisations and (4)
Other NGOs in order to take into account the diversity of stakeholders and at the same time to
allow comparison between the AoIs and PAs.
On this basis, graphs of the actual stakeholders under the completed projects have been produced
(see Figure below) and then compared with the most relevant stakeholders for each AoI as
indicated in the Annex.
It should be noted that in some cases the project partners changed during implementation due to
resignation of some of them and their substitution with others, which has not been reflected in the
20
Some of the project partners are not real beneficiaries as they took part in the projects as observers and therefore could be
referred to as stakeholders.
72
data provided at programmes web-site. However, this should not distort the overall picture of the
stakeholders and the conclusions made on this basis.
As seen from the stakeholders table (see Table 0.1
in Annex 3) and the graphs, the actual project
partners under PA2 and PA4 match the expectations stated in the Programme about the
stakeholders therefore it could be concluded that the main stakeholders in reality participate in the
activities of the projects supported under PA 2 and PA4.
The main stakeholders for AoI 1.1 and AoI1.2 under PA1 are business support organisations and
SMEs followed by research institutions. This does not match completely with the distribution of the
actual stakeholders (see figure below). Under AoI 1.1 the research institutions prevail, and under
AoI 1.2 the majority of partner institutions represent other NGOs, followed by public institutions.
Business support organisations and research institutions have comparable representation. The AoI
1.3 has different distribution with prevailing number of other NGOs and small number of public
bodies and business support bodies which does not match with the expectations that the main
stakeholders would be from the public bodies followed by business support organisations.
The public institutions are well represented under the three AoIs of PA3 as expected. However, the
number of the stakeholders from the private sector is less than planned with the exception of AoI
3.3. This in parts can be explained with the lack of completed measures under AoI3.2 where the
private sector is the main stakeholder.
Figure 4.8 Actual stakeholders/partners by AoI in the completed projects under the first call
Stakeholders under PA 1
30
40
25
35
30
20
15
10
Public Bodies
25
Public Bodies
Business support
20
Business support
Research
15
Research
10
Other NGO
Other NGO
0
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
2.1.
2.2.
60
25
50
Public Bodies
15
Business support
Research
10
2.4.
30
20
2.3.
40
Public Bodies
30
Business support
Research
20
Other NGO
5
Other NGO
10
0
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
Source: SEE Annual Programme website
Additional information on the wider (outside the project partners) stakeholder participation is
provided by the data collected through the programme indicators on the actors reached from the
public administration, private sector and SMEs. As seen from the figure below. PA1 makes a good
reach to SMEs and private sector which well complements the business support organisations
involved as project partners. PA2 has a stable exposure to both private and public bodies in
contrast to PA3 where the reaching of both administrative and private bodies outside the project
73
partners was difficult. PA4 so far showed a good exposure to SMEs which well complements the
prevailing number of public bodies as project partners.
Figure 4.9 Involvement of administrations and private sector in the SEE projects by PA
Source: SEE Annual Programme website
4.3.2 Contribution to European Policies

How is the programme contributing to the concerned policies?
The projects funded under the SEE programme will contribute to the specific themes, listed in the
EC implementing regulation (EC No. 1828/2006) as shown in the table below. The table reflects all
projects funded under the programme, not only those already completed. It can be expected that
the SEE programme will have tangible contribution only to those themes where the number of the
contribution is significant (see marked in light blue above 5 measures and in darker blue above 10
measures per theme). The thematic code - Improving policy and programme design, monitoring
and evaluation and delivery of policies - as a horizontal theme that cuts across all other areas was
addressed by a significant number of measures.
Table 4.14 Number of contributions per thematic code and respective AoI
Thematic code
3 Technology transfer and improvement of co-operation networks between small businesses
(SMEs), between these and other businesses and universities, post-secondary education
establishments of all kinds, regional authorities, research centres and scientific
5 Advanced support services for firms and groups of firms
6 Assistance to SMEs for the promotion of environmentally-friendly products and production
processes (introduction of effective environment managing system, adoption and use of pollution
prevention technologies, integration of clean technologies into firm
9 Other measures to stimulate research and innovation and entrepreneurship in SMEs
11 Information and communication technologies (access, security, interoperability, riskprevention, research, innovation, e-content etc.)
12 Information and communication technologies (TEN-ICT)
13 Services and applications for the citizen (e-health, e-government, e-learning, e-inclusion etc.)
14 Services and applications for SMEs (e-commerce, education and training, networking etc.)
15 Other measures for improving access to and efficient use of ICT by SMEs
16 Railways
17 Railways (TEN-T)
20 Motorways
21 Motorways (TEN-T)
25 Urban transport
27 Multimodal transport (TEN-T)
28 Intelligent transport systems
30 Ports
32 Inland waterways (TEN-T)
39 Renewable energy: Wind
74
Number
of
contributions
11
16
6
12
16
1
6
1
1
6
2
3
2
6
7
4
3
6
3
40 Renewable energy: Solar

41 Renewable energy: Biomass
42 Renewable energy: Hydroelectric, geothermal and other
4
5
6
43 Energy efficiency, co-generation, energy management
44 Management of household and industrial waste
45 Management and distribution of water (drinking water)
48 Integrated prevention and pollution control
49 Mitigation and adaptation to climate change

50 Rehabilitation of industrial sites and contaminated land
51 Promotion of biodiversity and nature protection
52.Promotion of clean urban transport
53 Risk prevention (including the drafting and implementation of plans and measures to prevent
and manage natural and technological risks)
54 Other measures to preserve the environment and prevent risks
55 Promotion of natural assets
56 Protection and development of natural heritage
58 Protection and preservation of the cultural heritage
59 Development of cultural infrastructure
60 Other assistance to improve cultural services
61 Integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration
70 Specific action to increase migrants participation in employment and thereby strengthen their
social integration
71 Pathways to integration and re-entry into employment for disadvantaged people; combating
discrimination in accessing and progressing in the labour market and promoting acceptance of
diversity at the workplace
74 Developing human potential in the field of research and innovation, in particular through postgraduate studies and training of researchers, and networking activities between universities,
research centres and businesses
81 Mechanisms for improving good policy and programme design, monitoring and evaluation at
national, regional and local level, capacity building in the delivery of policies and programmes.
3
2
7
1
16
7
7
7
6
1
6
13
5
4
66
Source: Ecorys on basis of Wizard, SEE programme and annual report
In addition, the SEE programme contributes to the following main EU strategic initiatives:
Europe 2020 in its parts related to smart and sustainable growth addressed by the SEE
areas related to innovation, competitiveness (PA1) and digital divide (PA3), protection and
improvement of the environment (PA2).
EU Strategy for the Danube Regionin the areas related to improving mobility and
multimodality (PA3), encouraging more sustainable energy incl. climate change mitigation
(PA2, PA1, PA4); promoting culture and tourism, people to people contacts (PA4); restoring
and maintaining the quality of waters (PA2); managing environmental risks (PA2); preserving
biodiversity, landscapes, and the quality of soils (PA2); developing the knowledge society
through research, education and information technologies (PA1, PA3); supporting the
competitiveness of enterprises, incl. cluster development (PA1); investing in people and skills
incl. addressing demographic and migration challenges (PA4); boosting institutional capacity
and cooperation (all PAs).
Several SEE projects have been indicated as examples for the macro-strategy implementation of
the Danube Strategy in the Strategy Action Plan. These are presented in the table below:
Table 4.15 SEE projects listed in Danube Strategy Action Plan
Danube Strategy actions
Contribution SEE programme projects
Inland waterway transport
WANDA, NEWADA, NELI
Environmental risks
DANUBE FLOODRISK, MONITOR II, CC-WaterS
Preserve
biodiversity,
landscapes
and the quality of air and soils
DANUBEPARKS
75
The SEE programme potential (and realised so far) contribution to the above strategies is
presented in the table below:
Table 4.16 SEE programme contribution to Europe 2020 and EU Strategy for the Danube Region
Strategic Priority
SEE programme contribution

Potential
Delivered so far
Europe 2020
Smart growth
Sustainable growth
Inclusive growth
Innovation (PA1)
Measures undertaken to support innovation at national
Digital
society and regional level and innovative activities of SMEs.
(PA3)
Created networks.
With regard to Education, training and lifelong learning sub-priority there is
indirect contribution through training components and training platforms
(examples are NELI, ENER-SUPPLY, CC-WaterS, ECOPORT 8, IPRfor
SEE).
Measures undertaken to support innovation and
innovative activities of SMEs; Created networks;
Databases, studies, guidelines and multi-modal traffic
Competitiveness
scenarios developed to support mobility. Strategy and
(PA1 and PA3)
studies on multi-modal transport solutions developed.
Studies, maps, GIS, risk assessment, manuals,
Combating
databases, strategies and guidelines developed that can
climate
change
contribute to improved and integrated water
(PA2, PA3)
management, flood risk prevention, environmental risk
management and climate change.
Clean
and
Studies, maps, GIS, decision support systems, manuals
efficient
energy
and pre-feasibility studies delivered, awareness raised,
(PA2)
training provided and contribution to development of
policy documents provided in the area of renewable
resources and energy efficiency.
Ensure the sustainability of EU social models by
Agenda for new developing strategies for increasing senior employment
skills and jobs and solidarity between generations
(PA4)
Mobilising support to help people integrate in the
communities where they live, get training and help to
find a job, e.g. by tackling effects of migration flow on
local economy and offering policy-support tools to make
informed decisions on development strategies
European
platform against Social inclusion through designing more effective
poverty (PA4)
programmes for the active integration/inclusion of the
Roma in Southeast Europe
Danube Strategy
76
To
improve
mobility
and
intermodality
road, rail, inland

waterways, air
PA3
To
PA2, PA1, PA4
encourage
Databases, studies, guidelines and multi-modal traffic

scenarios and management platforms developed to
support sustainable mobility. Transnational strategies
and studies on multi-modal transport solutions
developed. Joint strategy for functional specialisation of
medium-size multimodal ports along the Danube;
creating transnational training tools the Danube
navigation sector; coordinate at transnational level the
development of nodal planning for multimodality;
Harmonisation of maintenance and management
practices of the Danube waterway; Design mobility
management plans and info platform to exchange
knowledge and good practices; testing flexible urban
transport solutions using a common mobility toolbox
Studies, maps of RES potential, GIS, decision support
more sustainable
energy
To promote culture
and
tourism,
people to people
contacts
To restore and
maintain
the
quality of waters
To
manage
environmental
risks
To
preserve
biodiversity,
landscapes
and
the quality of air
and soils
To develop the
Knowledge Society
(research,
education and ICT)
To support the
competitiveness of
enterprises
To invest in people
&skills
systems, manuals and pre-feasibility studies delivered,

awareness raised, trainings and contribution to
development of policy documents provided in the area
of renewable resources (biomass, solar, hydro incl.
geothermal, wind) and energy efficiency; climate change
mitigation measures based on different scenarios;
promotion of ICT use in biomass sector; development
plans based on utilising RES potential of disadvantaged
areas
Danube Tourist Information website, establishing
European tourist destinations promoting the Danube
PA4
Region, e.g. Danube Limes, totalitarian heritage;
promoting sustainable and activity tourism in Danube
countries
Scenario studies, vulnerability maps, GIS, risk
PA2
assessment, manuals, databases, strategies and
guidelines developed that can contribute to reducing
agricultural pollution of surface water and safeguarding
drinking water supply; pilot actions to reduce water
continuity interruption for fish migration in the Danube
river basin; designing flood management plans
PA2
according to common criteria; guidelines for floodplain
restoration; spatial planning tools to help anticipate risks
caused by climate change.
Studies, maps, manuals, databases, strategies and
guidelines developed that can contribute to protection of
biodiversity and natural assets; designing management
plans for NATURA2000 sites in line with common
PA2
standards; preparing transnational spatial planning and
development policies for functional geographical areas,
e.g. river basins, mountain areas; designing
development strategies based on natural assets as
economic drivers
Measures undertaken to support innovation at national
and regional level and innovative activities of SMEs, e.g.
design joint strategies and action plans for developing
ICT-enabled clusters, intelligent ambient living
technologies, etc; develop ICT-based tools for
innovation foresighting; strengthen the capacities of
PA3, PA1
research infrastructure through linking researchers and
businesses, providing trainings to boost entrepreneurial
skills of researchers and innovation skills of
entrepreneurs; develop a private-public partnership
model to enable broadband deployment in rural areas;
develop a joint virtual accessibility solutions for public
services
Measures to improve business support and so
strengthen the capacities of SMEs for cooperation and
trade, e.g. trainings, B2B networking events, promoting
public-private
partnership
model,
transnational
clustering of SMEs to increase internationalisation,
PA1
setting up help-desks for enterprises. SEE projects have
undertaken actions to improve the competitiveness of
the agricultural sector through specific support to
innovate and adopt new technologies. Measures are
taken to improve the framework conditions for SMEs by
setting up business support and finance instruments.
The SEE projects contribute to investments in people and skills through
training activities, establishment of training platforms (NELI project) and
77
To
step
institutional
capacity
cooperation
up
and
To work together
to promote security
and
tackle
organised
and
serious crime
exchange of knowledge and experience. In addition, PAIRS project is

working
on
designing
effective
programmes
for
the
active
integration/inclusion of the Roma in Southeast Europe.
Majority of the projects support and promote as well as contribute to capacity
building and establishment of cooperation. Some projects (as WANDA and
co-WANDA, NEWADA and NEVAWA-duo, ENER-SUPPLY, DANUBE
FLOODRISK, SEETAC, MONITOR II, SARMa) have specific focus on
improvement of regional or local policy framework and therefore make
special efforts to engage decision makers.
No direct contribution although projects like MMWD and SEEMIG have
potential to contribute to - better managing migration issues in the Danube
Region.
Source: Ecorys based on policy documents and SEE information
What additional deliveries are provided by the programme (which cannot be provided by
other policy instruments)?
The additional deliverables of SEE programme that cannot be provided with the other programmes
or other policy instruments stem from the nature of the programme and specifically from the
following features:
Transnational cooperation with involvement of more than 2 countries. The projects in average
have about 10 partners which means a wide scope for sharing of experience and
21
dissemination of information ;
Cooperation between diverse partners in diverse region from point of view of experience, EU
membership, culture, religion, management patterns, historical development, policies. This
enables learning from each other less experienced from more experienced, those with
specific expertise in some areas can share it to others without such experience, good and bad
practices can be shared. This enables the processes of harmonisation of strategies and
policies, e.g. in transport networks, disaster prevention and mitigation;
The specific contribution of SEE programme includes:
Created multinational networks;
Contribution to development of regional policies;
Common regional problems addressed;
Facilitated cooperation in various areas;
Shared experience.
The beneficiaries and programme managers that responded to the questionnaire in general
share the above opinion of the evaluators and reported the following added value form the SEE
programme (as noted in the online questionnaire):
A programme that is more domestic and familiar to the region compared to other EC
programmes and initiatives managed from Brussels;
Provides opportunity for collaboration and transfer of experience of different countries (EU
member states, IPA and ENPI countries);
Possibility to establish partnerships and transnational networks;
Possibility to address technical problems with soft measures;
Possibility to tackle topics relevant for a wider geographical areas;
21
The analysis is based on several sources among which the survey. The text that is based on the feedback from the
respondents was made bold to highlight it.
78
How does the programme bridge different policy deliveries?

The mechanisms established to bridge the different policy deliveries are the following:
Inclusion among the project partners as observers of already established networks, EC
working groups/initiatives and international organisations and networks as The International
Commission for the Protection of the Danube River; EC Joint Research Center; Danube
Commission; Central Commission For The Navigation On The Rhine; International Sava River
Basin Commission; Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe;
European Small Hydropower Association; Automotive Cluster West Slovakia; Automotive
Cluster Serbia; Textranet - Textile Transfer Network; Central European Initiative; South East
Europe Transport Observatory, UNESCO;
Capitalisation strategy.
The inclusion among the partners as observers of institutions and networks active in the area of
support enhances the dissemination of information and provides opportunity to promote the
deliverables among the policy makers. Through the Capitalisation Strategy initiative the outputs and
results will be streamlined in thematic areas which will allow complementarily and creation of larger
dissemination and cooperation circles. Since 2012, SEE projects partners have been specifically
encouraged to cooperate with topic-relevant projects from other EU programmes, in order to
facilitate eventual capitalisation of results.
22
So far however, there are few examples to support the above expectations due to the fact that the
programme is still running (only 30% of the projects have been completed) and the Capitalisation
Strategy initiative is yet to gain momentum. The available examples comprise:
Danube Floodrisk Atlas with flood hazard and risk maps became part of the Danube action
plan of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River.
The Working Group on floods in the EC received the Common stakeholders involvement
strategy for the Danube Floodplain (Danube Floodrisk project);
White-tailed Eagle Action Plan developed by the DANUBEPARKS partnership has been
adopted by the Council of Europe. The project exchanged experience with LIFE+ projects, as
well as with BirdLife International and the World Wild Fund;
The outcomes of NATREG have been capitalised on by the LIFE+ project WETMAN;
A.D.C. project established synergies with Clustract project implemented in Baden
Wrttemberg (Germany);
The IT/SI cross-border project IP4SMEs capitalises on SEE projects IPRforSEE outputs;
NELI project built upon outcomes from several projects previously implemented with the
support of FP7 (PLATINA and NAIADES), ERASMUS and Marco Polo II (INeS and EWITA)
programmes. Experience was exchanged with the Dutch-based EDINNA network;
SETA partners have established synergies with several other ETC projects, e.g. Scandria
(financed by the Baltic Sea Region programme), BATCo (financed by Central Europe
programme), Centrope Capacity (financed by Central Europe programme), and SoNorA
(financed by Central Europe programme);
SEE MMC project used the lessons learnt from mobility management activities supported
through Intelligent Energy Europe and Civitas;
SEETAC project maintained close contact with DG MOVE and the TEN-T Executive Agency
and informed them about the project outcomes;
NEWADA project collaborated with IRIS Europe II (TEN-T initiative), FP7-supported RISING
and PLATINA projects;
WANDA project involved the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River,
the Danube Commission, the Central Commission for the Navigation on the Rhine, the
22
SEE Programme annual report 2012
79
International Sava River Basin Commission and the German Federal Waterways and
Shipping Administration in a project advisory expert group;
Project activities of SARMa project were regularly fed with input from other ETC (mainly crossborder) and 7th Framework Programme projects implemented by project partners;
TECH.FOOD project reported that project partners used lessons learnt from their cooperation
to prepare and submit 12 project proposals to the Competitiveness and Innovation
Programme and the 7th Framework Programme;
Several spin-off projects were elaborated by project partners of AUTOCLUSTERS, and one
managed to be financed already during the projects lifetime, i.e. FastInCharge is supported
23
by the 7th Framework Programme .

Under the framework of the Capitalisation Strategy a joint initiatives between the projects in a
thematic pole have been planned as well as common outputs to be produced. The thematic poles
put together the outputs already delivered per specific theme (as for example Competitive SMEs
Support Services) and capitalise the achievement through further actions and deliverables.
4.4
Future perspectives
Which are the most important results of the Programme? Which are the main improvements
in comparison with the previous programme space or with other programmes?
The most important results of the programme are related to the established partnerships and
exchanged experience (there is good progress with the common standards developed under all
PAs). After that come specific policy and management improvements that the project deliverables
were able to instigate so far and will instigate indicated by the good progress with strategies
adopted at governmental level under 3 of the 4 PAs (exception is PA3).
In addition there are signs of:
Good dissemination of support to private sector in the area of innovation- there is already
significant overachievement on the number of SMEs and private sector reached;
Evidence of successfully implemented measures and services for environment protection, risk
prevention and resource efficiency - overachievement of the individuals that benefit from the
new services developed under PA2 and overachievement in the private market reactions;
With regard to the improvements made by SEE programme in comparison to previous programme
and other programmes, SEE introduced new management approaches and tools which support
achievement of results:
Restricted and additional calls;
Capitalisation strategy.
The two restricted complementary calls aimed to achieve a higher commitment of the IPA and ENPI
allocated funds. This was achieved through the involvement of additional partners from selected
countries into existing partnerships and projects, consequently ensuring an important added value
from both a territorial and a content-wise perspective.
Capitalisation strategy, as commented in section 4.2.7 above, is a new approach that aims to
enhance achievement of results by establishment of exchange platforms between the projects
within and also beyond the programme space.
23
The last three examples are listed in the SEE programme annual report for 2012.
80
Which are the main problems which remained unsolved during the recent programme
period?
The analysis presented in this report indicates the following main problems that remain unresolved:
The IMIS is not yet adapted to the integration of ENPI funds;
A more active participation of the IPA countries in the programme and the discussions during
the MC meetings would be welcome;
There continues to be a difference in the experience of the SCPs. The SCPs could have a
good role in the implementation of the programme.
In addition the evaluation of programme results (based on the completed projects under the 1st
call) indicates the following factors that hamper achievement of results and diminish expected
contributions:
Difficulties to reach end-beneficiaries (all PAs with exception of PA 2);
Difficulties to collaborate with public administration (PA1);
Difficulties to involve private sector (PA3);
Difficulties to promote the outputs to the public administrations (PA3);
Smaller than planned number of exchange programmes and participation in them (PA4).
The respondents to the questionnaire see the following elements that could be improved in
future:
Unification of procedures in the different countries;
Simplification of reporting;
Networking with other EU programmes;
Greater involvement of the private sector. Integration of different funds and cooperation
between public and private stakeholders;
Embedding programme activities better into policy contexts. A closer link to the transnational,
national and local programmes/policies to integrate the objectives of the macro regions (such
as Danube, Adriatic-Ionian, Black Sea, Alpine) into the next SEE programme, ensuring that the
objectives of the macro regions will be developed or implemented through the SEE
Programme.
Measures to guarantee achievement of results as:
Introduction of a quality check system or peer-review of the outcomes of the projects;
More focused and addressed activities (tangible results, demonstration activities), stronger
and stricter involvement of all stakeholders (also economy: enterprises, direct or indirect);
The uptake of the project results should be sought with follow up actions.
There are few beneficiaries that are not in favour of the split of the SEE Programme in two
programmes - Danube Region and Adriatic-Ionian as they consider that the territorial diversity that
exist with the SEE programme and which brings one of the main added values of the programme
will be lost.
81
4.5
Conclusions and recommendations on results of the programme and future

perspectives
4.5.1 Conclusions
Conclusions with regard to data and methodological limitations
It is important to highlight the data and methodological limitations before summarising the findings
on the results achieved in order to interpret correctly the conclusions.
The conclusions are based on the implemented projects under the first call for proposals (30% of all
projects). The additional information on the number, distribution along the AoIs and expected
contributions of the contracts concluded under the 2nd, 3rd and 4th call for proposals allowed
making projections on the expectations with regard to achievement of programmes objectives.
The conclusions are based mainly on the data collected through the SEE programme monitoring
system and FARs. While the quantitative data provides valuable information, its interpretation was
hindered by the lack of background and reliable qualitative information. The diversity of topics and
problems covered did not allow going in-depth into the technical issues, which was exacerbated by
the huge number of projects and beneficiaries. Further, only 65% of the completed projects
submitted FARs in time to be made available for the evaluation. While the common programme and
project indicators allow comparison between the PAs, the lack of specific thematic indicators per PA
made it impossible to analyse subject specific data.
To overcome the difficulties commented above the evaluation team implemented in-depth review
on the results achieved of 8 projects (2 per PA), which were supported by interviews with the
relevant project managers. The projects are presented in the relevant sections of this report in order
to illustrate the achievements and their contribution to programme objectives and thematic codes of
the EC implementing regulation.
Conclusions with regard to achievement of programme objectives
From the 4 PAs supported under the SEE programme the greatest contribution to achievement of
the planned specific programme objectives so far has made PA 2 Protection and improvement of
the environment. The contributions under this PA are slightly over the planned contributions and the
implementation so far shows good prospects for achievement of the planned objectives related to
this PA. Thus the SEE programme is expected to contribute to sustainable development and
improvement of environmental quality.
The programme made progress and is likely to achieve its specific objective related to facilitation of
innovation and entrepreneurship, knowledge economy and information society (PA1), despite that
the expected contributions under this PA are about 12 % less than originally planned. The initial
st
suboptimal involvement of the public sector, as observed under the completed 1 call projects and
particularly under AoI1.3, might affect the results expected with regard to enhancement of
framework conditions supporting innovation as far as the role of the public authorities is concerned.
The JTS observations on the 2
nd
and 3rd call projects, however, indicate satisfactory involvement of
the public sector.

It is likely the projects implemented under PA4 Development of transnational synergies for
sustainable growth areas will contribute to enhancement of regional and transnational cooperation
and integration. The projects implemented so far show potential with this regard as far as it
concerns regional strategies and initiatives to support regional integration.
82
The implementation of PA3 Improvement of the accessibility is less advanced compared to the
other PAs therefore no reliable conclusions with regard to the achievement of specific objective
related to physical accessibility could be made so far. There is so far little contribution to improved
virtual ICT accessibility. However the ongoing projects have the potential to bring the planned
results with this regard.
On the basis of the above it could be expected that the SEE programme would contribute to
improvement of the territorial, economic and social integration process in South East Europe and to
cohesion, stability and competitiveness of the area. The extent to which this will be achieved
depends on how the programme will address the factors that hamper achievement of results under
the specific PAs and will improve transnational and regional cooperation. The Capitalisation
Strategy initiated could have positive role in this process.
Table 4.17 Evaluation questions for added value and future
1st& 2nd Evaluation 3rd evaluation report: answer

report
Topic 4a Evaluate the transnational added value
What are the main Desk research
Problem
Problem
solving,
deliveries at programme Questionnaire
solving,
coordination and stimulation
or project level which Interviews
coordination and
of
cooperation
and
cannot
be
reached
stimulation
of
networking
without the programme?
cooperation
and
Integration of SEE Area,
networking
liaising
across
borders,
Integration of
mutual learning
SEE Area, liaising
Networks established,
across
borders,
databases, studies, GIS and
mutual learning
maps, strategies, guidelines,
manuals decision support
tools in the areas of
innovation
and
SMEs,
environment protection and
resource
efficiency,
transport and urban and
regional development.
Are the transnational Desk research
More or less
Yes, but so far less than
networks (partnerships) Questionnaire
Yes, mostly
expected under PA1, PA2 and
contributing
Interviews
PA4
substantially
to
the
Limited contribution under PA3
transnational or national
policies?
Are
the
main Desk research
More or less
Yes under PA2 and PA4.
stakeholders
Questionnaire
Yes, mostly
Private sector less represented
participating
in
the Interviews
under PA3, public institutions not
programme/projects?
enough represented under PA1.
(analysis at AoI level)
Topic 4b Evaluate the contribution to European Policies
How is the programme Desk research
More or less
Contribution expected in the
contributing
to
the Interviews
Mostly
as areas of: cooperation networks
concerned policies?
integrated in the and SME support, ICT, research
selection criteria. and innovation, environment
However,
few protection and energy efficiency,
operations
transport, risk prevention, urban
finalised yet, so and rural reintegration and policy
difficult to say.
and
programmes
delivery.
Contribution to Europe 2020 and
EU strategy for the Danube
region.
Evaluation question
Source used
83
What
additional
deliveries are provided
by
the
programme
(which
cannot
be
provided by other policy
instruments)?
Desk research
Interviews
How
does
programme
different
deliveries?
Desk research
Interviews
the
bridge
policy
Topic 4c Analyse the future

Which are the most Desk research
important results of the (Questionnaire)
Programme? Which are Interviews
the main improvements
in comparison with the
previous
programme
space or with other
programmes?
Which are the main

problems
which
remained
unsolved
during
the
recent
programme period?
Desk research
(Questionnaire)
Interviews
Cooperation,
problem
solving
and exchange of
information
between different
stakeholders
Integration of
SEE Area, liaising
across
borders,
mutual learning
Not one clear
answer
Not one clear
answer
Created
multinational
networks;
Contribution
to
development of regional
policies;
Common
problems
addressed;
Facilitated cooperation
in various areas;
Shared experience.
Inclusion among the
project
partners
as
observers
of
already
established networks, EC
working
groups/initiatives
and
international
organisations and networks.
Capitalisation strategy
Complementarities
between initiatives funded
by several programmes
Involvement of
stakeholders,
Results:
coherence
and
Initiated
policy
and
consistency
in
management improvements;
programme
Established
structures,
partnerships and exchanged
increased level of
experience;
capacity building
Good dissemination of
Few
support to private sector in
operations
the area of innovation;
finalised yet, so
Successfully
difficult to say.
implemented measures and
Furthermore
services for environment
clearer
protection;
procedures, more Improvements:
integrated
Restricted
and
programme,
additional calls;
stability
in
Capitalisation strategy
management
Involvement of
ENPI funds are still not
all
the
fully integrated in the IMIS;
stakeholders, lack
Unification
of
of focus
procedures
in
different
Involvement of
countries;
ENPI
countries,
Simplification
of
involvement of all
reporting;
stakeholders
Involvement of public
(PA1) and private sector
(PA3).
Source: ECORYS
84
1.
In the design of the Priority axes for the follow up and/or similar programmes specific measures
should be taken in order to ensure more representation of the private sector in actions for
improving accessibility (PA3) and more involvement of public institutions in facilitation of
innovation and entrepreneurship (PA1).
2.
The electronic monitoring system of the next programmes should ensure smooth integration of
IPA and ENPI funds from the beginning. In addition, the functions for monitoring output and
result indicators and activities should be improved providing for clearer link between the two
categories.
3.
Collective efforts by the MA, the JTS and the participating countries should be made for the
next programming period (next programmes) in order to harmonise the procedures in the
different countries with special attention to simplifying the reporting procedures as far as EU
rules allow.
85
5.1
Scope of the evaluation for communication

The SEE programme covers 16 countries, so the communication has a very significant role in the
effective programme implementation. The programme has a unique and rich character, which is
interesting for the communication activities, however at the same time it is also a challenge for the
JTS to provide all the stakeholders with the relevant and timely information and inform the public
about the programmes results in an appropriate way. Different approaches are existing in the
member countries concerning the communication activities also, thus it is very challenging to
harmonise the differences.
rd
st
In this 3 evaluation report the results of the 1 and 2nd reports are up-dated and reviewed. In the
st
1 report a very detailed evaluation was made concerning the programme communication both at
transnational and national level, the opinion of all the target groups (JTS / MA, SCPs, beneficiaries,
MC members) were taken into consideration and a comparison was made with the communication
of other transnational programmes. In the 2
nd
and 3
rd
evaluation reports the focus for

st
communication is on the changes, progress in programme communication since the 1 and

2nd reports. The evaluation focuses on those issues, which were said to be a little bit weaker by
some of the target groups previously. The evaluation examines how these issues were treated in
2012 and 2013, how the recommendations defined in the second report had been treated.
The evaluation covers the opinion of all the target groups. The progress in the communication
indicators is also evaluated.
5.2
Key results of the 1st and 2nd evaluation report on communication

In general the communication of the programme was stated to be very good in the 1
st
evaluation report, but some weaknesses were also identified, and some recommendations were
made for improvements. The Communication Plan of the programme was stated to be a well and in
detailed developed strategic principle of communication actions of SEE. The strategic aims of
communication, the target groups, the key messages per target groups, the communication
tools and the tasks and responsibilities for the implementation of the communication activities
are defined clearly. The evaluators found that the main weakness of the SEE programme's
communication was to focus almost exclusively on the beneficiaries, disregarding other key
target groups such as general public and the media. The communication between programme
management bodies Joint Monitoring Committee members, SEE Contact Points, JTS members,
Managing Authority - ran really smoothly without significant disturbances. There was also quite
good cooperation level among programme management and project beneficiaries. The logo
and the slogan were known by all relevant stakeholders of the programme, including decision
makers. Overall it was concluded that the transnational level communication of the SEE
programme was going well. Majority of the project beneficiaries claimed that the usefulness of
events (conferences, info days, workshops) organized by JTS were good or excellent. The
significant majority of the project beneficiaries and most of the management staff assessed that the
programme website was up-to-date and useful. The communication of the SEE programme
at national level was concluded to go more or less well, but it was a problem that some of
the SCPs did not have the desired capacity and expertise concerning communication
activities.
87
In the 2
nd
st
report it was concluded that the recommendations of the 1 report were taken into
consideration by the JTS, the communication plan of the programme for 2012 integrated some of
the recommendations, but the level of implementation of these recommendations were very
different at the time of the preparation of the 2
nd
report. The JTS paid attention to the EU level
communication of the programme in 2011 (participation in the Joint Transnational Conference in

Katowice). Majority of the stakeholders stated that the necessary information was provided by
the JTS in all phases of the programme implementation. The events organized by the JTS were
considered to be very useful, but there was not enough opportunity for the project
stakeholders to exchange their experiences and good practises. It was concluded that there
was still need for further efforts to present the results in programme communication to the
general public and to the media. The capacity, expertise and motivation of the SCPs
concerning the communication activities were still very different in the different member states.
The establishment of links with the national, regional and local media was not in the focus in
2011 at member state level.
Concerning the transnational level communication, the2nd report recommended to continue to
pay attention to the EU level communication of the SEE programme; help the capacity building
or knowledge transfer of SCPs from communication point of view in order to make them capable
to implement effectively the communication activities at national level in all the member
states; provide more opportunities for project stakeholders to exchange their good practices among
each other, clustering events would be useful and need to be developed in the future; further
efforts are needed in communication to the general public and to the media, communicating,
presenting the programme and project results, and the transnational added-value of the
programme; refresh and renew the website of the programme as it is planned, to focus on the
presentation of the programme results, and be more attractive to a wider public with photo
galleries and videos etc.; collect information on all of the indicators of the Communication
Plan, to be able to present that all of them were fulfilled successfully.
Concerning the national level communication, the 2nd report recommended to provide
summaries of programme documents and project results in own language; work more closely and
more frequently with the national, regional and local media representatives. Take steps to
communicate to the general public about project results, and the transnational added-value
of the programme. Organize some media visits, to show them the results of the projects; use
a more friendly, less official language when speaking to the public; increase the capacity of
SCPs with the help of the JTS to organize appropriate knowledge transfer channels between the
very experienced EU member states and those less experienced countries; SCPs should have a
closer relationship with lead partners.
5.3
Progress in programme communication in 2012 and 2013

In order to get a comprehensive picture about the communication activities of the programme (both
from quality and quantity points of view) desk research, interviews were made by Ecorys, and in the
frame of an online questionnaire the opinion of different target groups- JTS staff, Monitoring
Committee members, SEE Contact Points, Managing Authority, beneficiaries - were asked. The
results are summarised in this sub-chapter.
88
5.3.1 Progress in transnational level communication

Coordination of communication activities by JTS
rd
According to the 3 online survey the JTS and the SCPs
24
shared the opinion that the JTS provides
timely communication to SCPs, and the information provided is useful for them. The monitoring
committee members confirmed in the survey that they get the information from the JTS on time,
and the quality of information provided for them is excellent or good. The MC members are also
satisfied with the quality of the organization of the MC meetings by the JTS. It is important to
mention that 97 % of the beneficiaries said that the JTS send their comments on the reports
in time (65 % of them answered clearly with yes, and 32 % said that mostly). 91 % of the
beneficiaries stated that the JTS provides timely, complete and definitive information on
programme procedures. However some beneficiaries
25
mentioned that the definition of indicators
and the final reporting template was provided for them too late.
Almost 4/5 of the respondents from JTS, all respondents of the SCPs, but only half of the
respondents of the MC members believe that the JTS coordinates well enough the dissemination
of joint messages about the SEE programme in all SEE member states. Now the SEE programme
has a brand name. Except one colleague, the JTS staff believes that they keep the beneficiaries
informed about communication initiatives they take part in with the aim to improve the visibility
of the programme. 88 % of the JTS staff who answered the questions believes that the
transnational dimension of the SEE programme is highlighted enough in programme
communication.
68 % of the respondents of the JTS states that the communication between different units of
the JTS is strong and effective, the rest of them have doubts about it. However according to the
interview with the JTS in the everyday work the slow approval procedures in the management
system cause difficulties and sometimes delays concerning the communication activities. The
IMIS could be also further improved in order to be able to provide relevant data for
communication purposes in an easier way.
89 % of the respondents of the JTS said that the EU level communication of the programme is
good or excellent. The SEE programme always participates to the Open Days in Brussels and uses
this opportunity for networking with other programmes and key programme stakeholders. They take
part in the meetings organized for the communication managers of all the EU-funded programmes
and also in the network of communication managers of the transnational cooperation programmes.
Among the EU-level communication activities two articles must be mentioned from 2012 and 2013:
one of them in the Regional Review Magazine, and the other one in the Panorama Magazine
published by DG Regio (in this last one a SEE project was introduced.)
Information availability in different periods of the programme
Significant majority of the JTS colleagues (88-89 % of them), and also the MC members (100 %,
except the financial management), the SCPs (80 %) and the project beneficiaries (85 91 %)
assessed that the JTS provide timely and easy access to relevant information and documents
to SCPs and beneficiaries related to almost all the phases of the programme implementation like
24
In this chapter - similarly to the previous reports the data represented in % format considers the number of respondents who
gave an answer to the specific question within a certain target group (the total number of respondents to a question in a
given target group make up the 100%).Concerning the communication topic the evaluators got feedback from 101 persons
in the survey in 2013. 10 of them represented the JTS and MA, 8 of them was MC member, 74 project beneficiaries, and 9
of them represented SCPs. The 9 answer from the SCPs represented 8 countries from the SEE programme area.
However, the questionnaire was sent to 306 persons (17 JTS/MA staff, 53 MC member, 33 SCP colleagues (some are
both MC member and SCP), 210 beneficiaries).
25
It was mentioned by 2 respondents that they got the definition of indicators after 20 month of project work. Two comments
arrived also about the late delivery of the final report template.
89
publication of calls, project selection, financial management, reporting. In the phase of contract
awarding and the period of the publication of project results programme communication
efforts are considered slightly less effective. It needs to be specified, however, that
st
communication on results could only start once 1 call projects were finalised. 80 % of the
SCP members thought that the availability of information was good or mostly good in all the phases
of the programme implementation. The other 3 target groups of the survey made differences among
the phases. Although the phase of contract awarding was scored the weakest period by both the
MC members and the beneficiaries, still on the whole 83 and 84 % of them were satisfied with the
availability of the information in this period. The JTS scored the contract award period the 2
nd
weakest period from the information availability point of view, only 78 % of them gave positive
answer to the question. However, the JTS members were the least satisfied with the information
availability in the period of publication of project results, as only 55 % of them said that it was
appropriate or mostly appropriate. It is very interesting, that 89 % of the project beneficiaries
thought that they got all the necessary information in this period also.
Joint transnational communication initiatives
After the successful participation of the SEE programme at the Joint Transnational Conference
under the Polish presidency in Katowice in 2011, the programme also took part in joint initiatives in
2012. The SEE programme co-organized a Joint Communication Seminar in 2012 together with
the Central Europe Programme. The seminar included practical workshops on communication
addressed to projects (e.g. how to pass your project message). The European Cooperation Day
should be also mentioned. As a result of the press conference held in the frame of this initiative in
2012 almost 50 articles were published about the programme in Hungarian media. In September
2013 the European Cooperation Day will be held again, and a poster competition will bring the
transnational cooperation programmes closer to the public.
Opportunities to share experiences, events organized by JTS
In the 2
nd
report one of the most important recommendations was to provide more
opportunities for the beneficiaries to share their experiences. It can be stated that there was a
significant positive change in the last 2 years in this respect.
The JTS introduced the SEE thematic capitalisation strategy based on 14 topics, and the
annual event in 2013 was focused on capitalisation and synergy building, thus it was a
perfect opportunity for the projects working at the same field to share their experiences
and build links. On the basis of the feedback of the participants this was a very successful
element of the conference in Bucharest. And this process will be continued in the future.
The thematic seminars also provide opportunities for the project beneficiaries to exchange
experiences. 1 seminar was held in October 2012 in Romania, 1 was held in March 2013 in
Hungary, and other 2 have just been held in September 2013 in Croatia. The 4 seminars are
based on the 4 priorities of the SEE programme, and also connected with the EU2020 strategy.
These thematic seminars allowed for capitalising on current experience in project
implementation by pointing out strengths that need to be preserved in the future programmes
and weaknesses that need to be tackled.
th
In the frame of the lead partner seminar for the 4 call projects 3 projects were invited from
the previous calls to share their experiences with the new projects.
Concerning the future, it is planned that the annual conference in 2014 will focus on the results.
It can be seen from the above mentioned actions that much progress was made in this field in the
programme, and this was confirmed by the result of the 3
rd
online survey also. 87 % of the
responding MC members, 89 % of the responding SCPs, 75 % of the beneficiaries and 2/3 of the
JTS believe that the project stakeholders get enough opportunities to exchange their good
practices with each other. It can be said that there was a positive change recently in this
90
respect, and the annual conference in 2013 and the thematic seminars (2012-2013) were also
mentioned in the survey as good examples. Interactive events are well appreciated by the
stakeholders.
The JTS and the responding SCPs agree that the events (conferences, workshops etc.)
organized by the JTS are useful for the participants. 3/4 of the beneficiaries also share this
opinion. 88 % of the JTS members and 78 % of the beneficiaries think that at the annual
conference the stakeholders get detailed information instead of general level information. The
opinion of the JTS is that the annual conference attracts best the media, but the national level
information events are also popular for the media. One of the SCPs suggested to have more
interactive conferences and workshops in the future, however it was also mentioned that the
annual conference in 2013 was very good from this point of view. The usefulness of the events
organized by the JTS is also confirmed in the feedback given by the participants of the different
events. In the annual event this year there was another innovative solution, everybody who were
interested about it could follow it live through the internet. As it worked well, it is also planned to do
it in 2014 again.
Media, general public, visibility of results
There was a change recently in the programme communication; it was shifted from the
promotion of calls for proposals to the promotion of results and achievements. The overall
goal of the Communication Plan of the programme for 2012 and 2013 was the communication of
the programme results and added value in a credible and effective way, which was in line with
the recommendation of the evaluators from previous reports.
One of the most important developments from this point of view was the preparation of a video26
both long and short version about the SEE programme results , and also about the annual
conference in 2013. It is a dynamic and interesting piece of work, which can attract the general
public. The video is published both on the website of the programme, on the YouTube and in DVD
form, and it will be promoted at national level also. The brochures of the projects coming from the
2
nd
rd
and 3
calls are also published, articles were published and these are also available on the
website of the programme. The website of the European Cooperation Day initiative also provided
an opportunity to introduce a couple of success stories. The SEE programme also created accounts
in the professional community media, in the LinkedIn, which will provide information about the
thematic seminars also.
77 % of the responding JTS staff, 66 % of the responding SCPs said that communication of the
SEE programme to the general public is excellent or good, the opinion of the rest is less positive.
77 % of the responding SCPs, 75 % of the beneficiaries, 66 % of the JTS members and 50 % of the
responding MC members answered in the survey that the communication of the project results,
success stories is appropriate, while 1/3 of the JTS, half of the responding MC members and 1/5
of the responding SCPs and the beneficiaries would expect more efforts in this field. It is
suggested to focus on this issue in the future. However, 90 % of the beneficiaries who
answered the questions stated that they got personalised support in their communication
activities.
The JTS staff is divided on whether the JTS works closely with the media representatives or
not. 2/3 of the responding MC members would expect more efforts from the JTS concerning this
issue. In case of the SCPs 44 % of the respondents think that the communication of the programme
to the media is good. In practice it is a problem, as despite the fact that international communication
events are held, the media who visit these events are from the country hosting the event. In case of
26
18 projects introduced a snapshot of the programme.
91
the European Cooperation Day in 2012 almost 50 articles were published about the SEE
programme; however all of them were published in the Hungarian press. Concerning the media
visits to project sites, it should be organized at national level, but in the frame of the annual
conference in 2011 in Bologna several such visits were organised in Bologna region. At the
same time the JTS is sure that at project level there were some media visits, however they do not
have concrete data collected about it. Unfortunately it is a weakness of the monitoring, that not all
the relevant information is collected from projects and national level.
Website
Concerning the programme website many improvements can be seen since the 2
nd
evaluation
report, which are partly the results of the new framework contract of the JTS. The biggest
development is the introduction of a new section: achievements. As in the previous reports the
communication of the project and programme results to the general public was the major
weakness, this improvement of the website is really welcomed by the evaluators. As part of the
outputs library of the achievements section, the visitors of the website can search for
project outputs on the basis of the 4 priorities and/or specific (capitalisation) topics, types of
outputs, concrete projects, and even by country. The information to this section will be continuously
uploaded. Information about the capitalisation process is also available on the website, and this
section will be continuously developed. The structure of the website is quite user friendly.
Among the other developments of the website the following should be mentioned as positive
examples: there is a gallery of pictures, the newsletters and information about the annual events
of the programme is also available. The long and short version of the video prepared about the
SEE programme is also published on the website, just like the major articles about the programme.
81 % of the beneficiaries, 78 % of the JTS staff, 2/3 of the responding MC members and all the
responding SCPs agree that the regular update of the website is excellent or good. Thus the
efforts made for the improvement of the programme website are appreciated by all the target
groups of the survey. 2/3 of the JTS staff and half of the responding MC members believe that the
target group of the website is not only the beneficiaries, but also the general public.
Newsletter
The aim of the JTS with the publication of the newsletters is to provide a summary to different
target groups (to the stakeholders, to the general public both who knows and who doesnt know
anything about the SEE programme) about all the important activities done in a past period. For
example in December 2012 they provided information about the whole year. The newsletters are
sent via e-mails to the registered readers, whose number is 4.776; and it is also published on the
programme website.
Unfortunately there was a period when the frequency of newsletters published was not so high
st
in 2011 and 2012, and the 1 new newsletter was the above mentioned one in December 2012.
Since then the publication of the newsletters became regular again. (There was a new in April
2013, and 2 more will be published in 2013: in September and in December.) The content of the
newsletters is decided by the project managers of the JTS and the communication manager,
unfortunately it is not typical that the SCPs provide information to it.
In the survey 2/3 of the JTS staff, half of the responding MC members, all the responding SCP
members and 59 % of the beneficiaries answering the questions stated that the usefulness of
newsletters is excellent or good.
92
Indicators
In general it can be stated that the indicators of the communication plan were properly fulfilled
in 2012 and 2013,but the evaluators noticed that still not all of the indicator values are
collected by the JTS. In case of the indicator number of articles in the media in partner states not
all of the information from the SCPs is collected, but the indicator is most probably fulfilled as the
expected value is not too high. It is a weakness that it was not monitored from the very first moment
of the programme, and it seems unlikely that the missing information could be completed at
his stage of the programme. In case of another indicator (number of journalists participating in the
training seminars) the concrete information is not available about its fulfilment, only estimation,
27
which was lower in 2013 than the expected value per year , however in the previous years it was
completed properly. (See the progress in communication indicators in details in Annex 4.)
5.3.2 Progress in national level communication
Media, general public, visibility of project results
The 2
nd
report concluded that the capacity, expertise and motivation of the SCPs concerning the
national level communication activities were still very different in the different member states in
2011. In the 3
rd
phase of the evaluation activity the evaluators realised that this situation didnt
change in 2012 and 2013, however in general the cooperation between the JTS and the SCPs is
good, and it is very positive that they are available for the JTS to contact them in the participating
countries.
Concerning the national level communication, it depends on the SCPs themselves what
communication activities they do in the given year. The minimum requirements about the
national level communication activities are defined only for the whole programme, and there are no
defined annual requirements. The appropriate quality of the national level communication is
not ensured in each and every participating country, as it was confirmed also by the JTS
communication manager during the interviews conducted both in 2013 and in the previous years.
For example when a new call for proposals was launched, some of the SCPs organized national
level information days to support the potential project partners, however as it is not a compulsory
task for them, the information days were not held in all the countries. According to the estimation of
the JTS approximately half of the SCPs are active enough from communication point of view and
represent good quality in national level communication activities. This is partly due to the lack of
time as SCPs deal with numerous programmes in parallel and it is also a problem that not all of
them are convinced about the benefits of programme communication. It can be mentioned that in
2012 Romania was the most active concerning the national level communication events.
In the 2
nd
evaluation report the evaluators found that the establishment of links with the national,
regional and local media was not really in the focus in 2011 at member state level, and this opinion
was confirmed also by the survey results of the 2
nd
report (in 2012). In this years online
28
survey 44% of the SCPs who answered the questions stated that they established links with
the national, regional, local media, and 56% of them answered with no or more or less. None
of the SCPs who filled the survey - organized media visits to project sites to show the results of
the projects. One of them stated that it should be done in the future, however they think that the
SCPs do not have enough power to attract press and media.
27
28
Approximately 3 journalists visited the annual event in Bucharest in 2013 instead of the expected 5 10.
After the online survey was closed, the evaluators got filled in surveys from 4 SCPs via mail also. In the analysis of the
results, these mails were also taken into consideration.
93
The majority of the responding SCPs shared the opinion of the JTS in the survey that the SCPs do
not really contribute to the website and newsletter of the programme, which is managed by the
JTS.
2/3 of the respondents stated that they have or mostly have the necessary capacity and
expertise concerning communication activities, while the rest of them said that they are facing
challenges in this field. However, this is an improvement, as at the beginning of 2012 none of the
SCPs said that they had the necessary communication expertise, 1/3 of them said that mostly and
2/3 of them answered that they had this expertise and capacity more or less. In the
communication plan of the programme for 2012 the JTS aimed to increase the capacity of some
SCPs, especially organizing appropriate knowledge transfer channels between the very
experienced EU member states and those less experienced countries. Each year the JTS invite the
SCPs for a meeting to share their experiences concerning the communication activities (among
other topics). The JTS also try to involve them into the preparation of the communication plan for
the next year. 55 % of the JTS staff who filled in the survey is satisfied with the level of
involvement of SCPs in the communication planning for the next year, while those SCPs who
filled in the survey were mostly satisfied with the level of their involvement. Only one of them was
dissatisfied with it, and said that there is no systematic involvement of the SCPs into the planning.
29
On the basis of this years survey results the majority of the SCPs who filled in the survey
organized national level information events for beneficiaries and other national stakeholders,
and all these events were said to be very useful for the stakeholders, and helped the dissemination
of the outputs and results in the given countries. 81 % of the project beneficiaries who answered
the survey confirmed that these events were useful for them, and 58 % of them agreed that
these events helped to disseminate the outputs and results in their countries. The national
information events provided opportunities for the local media to get information about the
programme.
In this years survey the SCPs were asked to estimate the number of media appearances
regarding both the SEE programme and SEE projects in their countries per year. There were only
four countries who could give estimation (3-4/project/year; 5; 0; and only one of the participating
countries provided the concrete numbers per year), the other respondents said that they did not
have information about it. It is a serious weakness of the national level communication, that the
media appearances are not monitored adequately in all the participating countries.
55% of the respondents representing SCPs in the current survey stated that they have produced
SEE materials in their national languages, such as folders, leaflets, brochures, calendars,
national newsletter. Slightly less than half (43 %) of the beneficiaries answering the question
confirmed that they have information materials in their national languages. Similarly to the last
years results, almost 2/3 of the project beneficiaries are satisfied with the close relationship
between SCPs and lead partners, while 38 % of them would expect more from the SCPs. More
than 2/3 of the beneficiaries are pleased with the support provided by the SCPs with regards
the first level control procedures.
29
94
It is probable that only SCPs who are more active in general filled in the survey, and the evaluators didnt get answer from
those ones who are less active in the field of programme communication.
5.4
Conclusions and recommendations on communication
5.4.1 Conclusions
rd
The main conclusions of the 3 report concerning communication are the following:
In general it can be said that the recommendations of the previous evaluation reports are
taken into consideration by the JTS, and the communication plan of the programme for 2012
and 2013 integrated some of the recommendations.
Significant majority of the stakeholders
30
are satisfied with the quality information provided
in time by the JTS in all phases of the programme implementation.

The events organized by the JTS were considered to be very useful, and the JTS provided
much more opportunities for the project stakeholders to exchange their experiences and
good practises (annual conference, thematic seminars)
Significant improvement can be observed in the presentation of the results in programme
communication to the general public (e.g. video, developed website, etc.), but there is still
place for further developments in creating connections with the media.
The capacity, expertise and motivation of the SCPs concerning the communication
activities is still very different in the different member states, and it seems that there is no
real chance to change this situation significantly in the frame of this programme, however it
should be done in the next programming period.
The establishment of links with the national, regional and local media was not in the
focus in 2012 and 2013 at member state level.
Not all the communication indicators are monitored appropriately and it seems unrealistic
to complete the missing data from national and project level.
Table 5.1
Evaluation questions on communication
Evaluation question of
How to judge /
1st& 2nd evaluation 3nd evaluation report: answer &
topic 3
measure
report
recommendation
Topic 3 Evaluate the programme communication activities

Have the expectations
EU & national
(objectives, results) of
policy
the Communication
documents
Mostly.
Yes, the aims were mostly achieved.
Plan been achieved so

far (in terms of
relevance,
effectiveness,
efficiency)?
How is communication
Programming
The
There was significant progress in
organized at
documents
Communication
transnational level communication from
transnational level? Is it
Interviews
Plan is quite
numerous aspects since the last report.
possible to organize it
JTS/MA
good.
However, there are still place to organize it
better?
Questionnaires
implementation is
better and to pay attention to all the
good
relevant aspects of programme

communication. (See the recommendations
on programme communication in details
below)
How does
Progr.
It is going more or
There are significant differences among the
communication at
documents
less well.
countries concerning the quality of national
national level contribute
Interviews
level communication. More efforts should
to the implementation of
JTS/MA
be made in many countries. Thus the
30
Please have a look at sub-chapter 5.3.1. for the concrete values
95
the overall
Questionnaires
national level communication should be
communication
much better organized, especially the
strategy? How it could
communication of the project and
be more effectively
programme results to the public should be
ensured?
in the focus of communication. Pay more

attention to the communication with
national, regional and local media. (See the
recommendations on programme
communication below)
Is overall programme
Interviews
More or less, it
Mostly, the presentation of the results is
awareness
JTS/MA & LP
should be
more in the focus in this phase of the
satisfactory?
Questionnaires
increased
programme.
How is it possible to
Progr. doc.
More should be
As the national level communication in
improve the visibility of
JTS/MA
done.
some participating countries are not
the programme in all
Questionnaires
efficient enough, these countries should
Partner States?
pay more attention and make more efforts

to have an appropriate national level
communication on the SEE programme.
Establish links with national, local media to
present the local results.
Which further measures
Progr. doc.
are necessary at
Interviews
programme and
JTS/MA
national level?
Questionnaires
see 4.5.2
See the recommendations section.
1.
It is recommended to continue the presentation of the project results to the general public
and make further efforts to do it at national level also (e.g. establish links with national, local
media, such as newspapers, TV channels etc.).
2.
It is recommended to continue the already started capitalisation process, ensure the

appropriate interactivity level of the events in order to provide opportunities for the projects to
exchange their experiences and create links, synergies among projects.
3.
It is recommended for those SCPs who are currently less active in the national level
communication to give importance to the communication activities in their countries for
the rest of the programme, and ask support from the JTS if it is needed.
4.
It is recommended for the next programming period to reduce the differences among the
countries concerning the quality of the national level communication. Define at the
beginning of the programme the annual minimum level requirements for the SCPs
concerning the national level programme communication activities, and it should be
monitored by the JTS / MA on a regular basis.
5.
It is recommended for the next programming period to ensure from the beginning of the
programme the collection of the relevant data about the national level media appearances.
96
Annex 1: Treatment of recommendations

The table below shows the recommendations of the previous reports and how has been dealt with
them.
Table 0.1
Overview how has been dealt with the recommendations of the previous evaluation reports
Previous recommendations
Status
Comment
Recommendations on project selection procedure

Include sustainability as a specific criterion for
Relevant for 2014-
Recommendation already implemented
project selection in the future calls of the 2014-
2020
in
20 Programme, as it should be a corner stone
the
2007-2013
period.
This
recommendation also applies for the
in the Programme implementation.
next programming period
Give a higher importance to Innovation in the
Relevant for 2014-
territory and its geographical character in the
2020
in the 2007-2013 period, starting from
selection criteria, providing a specific section
the 3rd call. This recommendation also
within the sub-criterion 2.5 or creating a new
applies for the next programming period
sub-criterion in the quality assessment.

For future calls of the 2014-2020 programme,
Relevant for 2014-
make more explicit the focus of the value for
2020
in
the
2007-2013
period.
This
money criterion on budget, and increase the
focus on budget, prioritising the coherence of
the financial plan with respect to the different

expenditure types, activities and the work plan
for the project. Similarly, and in order to avoid
eventual misunderstandings, the evaluator
would recommend considering the idea of
renaming the sub-criterion to, for instance,
financial coherence.
Adjust some of the eligibility criteria in order to
Relevant for 2014-
leave no space for interpretation and preserve
2020
in
their eliminative nature (Yes or No questions).
the
2007-2013
period.
This

Provide detailed information on the project
Partially adopted
Starting from the 3rdCfP on, detailed
selection results to project applicants through
evaluation summary was provided to the
evaluation sheets. Learning from previous
applicants on request. During the fourth
mistakes will contribute to higher quality
call, more information has been provided
proposals in the future. It is therefore of
to non-selected project promoters if
paramount importance that project applicants
compared to previous calls. However,
understand the strong and weak points of their
information
proposals
general
remains
sometimes
too
For future calls of the 2014-2020 Programme,
Relevant for 2014-
introduce certain elements of flexibility at the
2020
in
the
2007-2013
period.
This
time of carrying out the formal and eligibility
checks
For future calls of the 2014-2020 Programme,
Relevant for 2014-
Recommendation applying for the next
continue with providing strong support and
2020
programming period
assistance to those territories which have a

more limited presence in the Programme,
especially in respect to project leadership.
97
Status
Increase even more capacity building actions
Not adopted
Comment
Evaluator has not found major efforts on
for SCPs as a key feature for geographical
carrying out specific training and support
coverage and quality of the contents.
to SCPs. It is indicated that capacity

building for SCP is an ongoing process
and it is recommended to take this into
consideration
for
next
programming
period.
Consider slightly changing the remit of the
Partially adopted
Survey undertaken for the final report
Lead Partner seminars at the instruction phase
reveals that beneficiaries still miss some
of the project, giving the same consideration
more thematic approaches in the start-
and time allocation to: A) content based
up training seminars.
matters, B) territorial development issues and

C) the actual transnational component of
projects, with respect to the administrative and
financial components.
For the future calls of the 2014-2020
Relevant for 2014-
Recommendation applying for the next
programme consider the identification of
2020
programming period
Not adopted
The JTS commented that there is no
strategic projects not only in targeted calls, but

also in the traditional bottom up calls for
proposals.
Recommendations on the indicator system
Revise the target of the programme output
indicators as less projects are expected to be
possibility to change the OP only in this
approved.
direction.
Check if the programme output indicators have
Partially adopted
The
programme
has
provided
been filled out correctly as most projects seem
descriptions for each output and result
to be meeting at least 2 of 4 of the cooperation
indicator and projects were asked to
criteria
check,
if
they
misunderstood
the
indicator interpretation and to revise

reported values, if necessary. Flexibility
is applied to targets that are too
optimistic because that would mean a
project modification, and could lead to
many official modification requests.
The evaluator recommends to specify what a
Yes
Modifications have been made in the
contribution is (as defined in the Operational
Monitoring Wizard and this will be
Programme) and to correct the performance of
implemented soon in the next Annual
the indicator accordingly.
Implementation Report
Ensure that there is a better link between
Yes
programme and project indicators by
Monitoring Wizard
identifying which project indicators can be
implemented soon in the next Annual
considered a contribution.
Implementation Report
Include in IMIS also the programme targets of
Partially adopted
and this will be
Projects were asked to revise targets in
the project indicators. This can be done by
the Monitoring Wizards, if they thought
extrapolating the target based on the already
them unrealistic.
approved indicators.
Ensure that there is a better link between the
output and result indicators at project level.
Not adopted
No differences between 2nd evaluation

report and the current evaluation. The
JTS comments that such a change
would entail a total overhaul of the
98
Status
Comment
indicator system.
Ensure that an indicator contains only 1
Not adopted
indicator at project level.
No differences between 2nd evaluation

report and the current evaluation. The
JTS comments that such a change
would entail a total overhaul of the
indicator system.
The evaluators recommend including an
Partially adopted
automatic aggregation in IMIS of both the
Monitoring
Wizard.
However,
actual and target value of the indicators based
programme targets in the MW are still
on the application form and the progress
based on expected project results.
reports.
Include an explanation on how to interpret the
Yes
indicators, like it is done for the indicator

Monitoring Wizard.
successfully implemented projects.

The evaluators advise to check with the Lead
Yes
See earlier
Yes
See earlier
Partners if they are using the same

interpretation of the indicators and to update
the information in IMIS on the programme
indicators.
Ensure that the beneficiary understands how
to interpret and fill the indicators. Some
programmes give a training, or sit together with
the Lead Partner once so that they understand
what is correct and what not.
As the programme will have the first results
Yes, under
The SEE capitalisation strategy has
with the finalising of the first call projects by
implementation
been launched in 2013 and events and
mid-2012, it is recommended to start
outcomes will be promoted through the
capitalising on the results. Most transnational
achievements
programmes have a capitalisation officer to
programme
capitalise the results and promote them at
already contains information on the 14
events such as the DG REGIO open days,
themes of capitalisation.
section
website.
The
of
the
website
throughout countries etc.

Whereas the frequent contact of the JTS with
Fulfilled
the projects is to be praised, the role of the

JTS can only be rather limited in the content of
the projects and recommend the JTS to
communicate this clearly to the applicants (e.g.
JTS has contact with LP, not with PP).
The evaluators recommend that the EC
Yes
In 2012 6 IPA countries signed the
ensures a quick approval of the financial
Financial Agreements. The delay in
agreements with the countries to ensure a
signing the IPA Financing Agreements
timely integration of IPA and ENPI.
affected the starting phase of 3rd call

projects. The consequences were high
underspending in the first reporting
period (i.e. only 1,81% of total budget
reported), which might add to the
increased risk of decommitmentin 2013
(source: annual report 2012)
As far as possible try to see for next
Relevant for 2014-
99
Status
programming period how the integration of IPA
Comment
2020
and ENPI can be included from the start of the

programme.
Recommendations on added value and future
Ensure good involvement of policy making
Relevant for 2014-
level for clearer link to (trans)national and
2020
regional policies, both at programme and

project level. When the policy making level is
involved they will also be more committed to
making a success of the project/programme
and more interested in linking the project to
their policy objectives and be aware of the
macro regional links of the region. At
programme level this involvement will be taken
care of through the stakeholder involvement.
At project level this could be strengthened by
ensuring or suggesting a clear involvement of
policy makers.
Ensure a closer link to the transnational,
Relevant for 2014-
After
this
recommendation
was
national and local programmes/policies. This
2020
formulated it became known that the EC
can be done by integrating the objectives of
had opted for 2 new programmes to
the macro regions (such as Danube, Adriatic-
replace transnational cooperation in the
Ionian, Black Sea, Alpine)into the next SEE
current SEE space for the period 2014-
programme. In this way it will be ensured that
2020 Danube programme and South
the objectives of the macro regions will be
East Gateway (later changed to Adriatic-
developed or implemented through the SEE
Ionian) programme.
Programme. This could be done for example

by giving extra priority to projects which will
contribute to the macro regions through points
in selection criteria. As the future transnational
programmes are requested to focus their
strategy on 4 themes, the SEE programme will
have to select from the macro regions which
topics will be most relevant. It is recommended
that the Taskforce 2014-2020 will discuss how
this will be done and this could be supported
by an external study.
It is recommended to continue to have the
Relevant for 2014-
After
Taskforce for 2014-2020 and to start as soon
2020
formulated it became known that the EC
this
recommendation
was
as possible with the discussion on what focus
had opted for 2 new programmes to
the future programme should take to ensure
replace transnational cooperation in the
that there can also be a lobby towards the
current SEE space for the period 2014-
European Commission and countries.
2020 Danube programme and South

East Gateway (later changed to AdriaticIonian) programme.
It is recommended to ensure that IPA and ENI
Relevant for 2014-
are as much as possible integrated into the
2020
programme from the start to avoid complicated

structures.
Recommendations on good practices
100
The Second Evaluation report included
Status
Comment
conclusions
based
on
practices
and
case
recommendations
studies
(Chapter
and
6).
conclusions/recommendations
best
Those
had
broad character because they were

derived from different projects with the
intention to generalize them and provide
guidance on successful practices. Thus,
all the recommendations of the Second
Evaluation report can be considered to
be still valid as they do not require oneoff action, but rather continuous actions
from programme and project managers.
The main recommendation as concerns best
Capitalisation
practices and case studies is that they need to
communication plans already consider
be distributed. Most beneficiaries claim that
the best practices to be disseminated.
they would like to see good examples of
strategy
and
Video, portfolios, project fairs and other
projects from the SEE programme, but also
Under
from other transnational programmes. Thus, it
implementation
events planned to include best practices.
is recommended that the JTS take actions to

spread information on best practices and case
studies through website, newsletters,
conferences, etc.
Joint conferences of Transnational
A joint communication seminar was held
Cooperation Programmes are a very useful
in September 2012 along with the
tool for dissemination/exchange of good
Central Europe Programme.
practices and the information from this
Under
SEE Programme organised along with
conference and similar events should continue
implementation
the other transnational programmes a
to be distributed among interested parties in
conference in Katowice (Poland) in
the South East Europe region.
September 2011.
More joint events will be envisaged.
Well-functioning SEE Contact Points should be

ensured through constant communication,
trainings, and on-the-job support in order to
have good quality of the applications and
To be implemented together with the

Under
SCPs network with the help of the JTS
implementation
(recommendations
be
stressed
during the SCPs annual meetings)
smooth project implementation.

Continue with the electronic submission of
will
2014-2020
st
documentation for the 1 step of the selection

process, because it saves time, facilitates the
first stage of the proposal and provides the LP
and the other partners with the opportunity to
focus on the technical aspect of the proposal.
Keep the practice of contracting (subsidy
Fulfilled
contract) by the LP in order to avoid delays of

IPA contracts.
It is advised to have Open Days workshops
Improve the use of social media (Facebook,
Twitter, and above all LinkedIn).
not yet
Yes
LinkedIn account has been created in

2013.
Assist project promoters in ensuring good
Under
This was the case for SEETAC so far,
contact with EU decision-makers, encourage,
implementation
more is planned especially for the 3rdCfP
101
Status
and attend presentations of SEE projects in
Comment
strategic projects
EU institutions.
Since training days/on-the-job support on
administrative requirements are considered to
be quite useful for project implementation,
Not adopted
ensure Train-the-Trainer courses.

Intranets are considered very useful by
Under
A tool for presenting the results of the
beneficiaries. In this regard common standards
implementation
projects is being developed at the SEE
and even common environment ensured by
website -
the programme for these intranets could be
autumn 2013
Outputs library active since
beneficial and budget-efficient, because

beneficiaries would not have to develop these
IT tools individually
Another useful IT tool, which could be
not
supported on a programme level is a web-
provider
platform for online discussions between
Not adopted
possible
with
current
website
different stakeholders.
Recommendations on communication at transnational level:
Continue to pay attention to the EU level
Adopted.
The SEE programme took part in the
communication of the SEE programme, as it is
Open Days, meetings organized for the
very important because of the future of the
communication managers of EU-funded
programme.
programmes and TNC programmes,

organized a joint event with the Central
Europe Programme, plus articles were
published e.g. in the magazine of DG
Regio.
Help the capacity building or knowledge
Partially adopted.
The JTS provided opportunity for the
transfer of SCPS from communication point of
SCPs for knowledge transfer in the
view in order to make them capable to
frame
implement effectively the communication
However
activities at national level in all the member
communication activities of the SCPs is
states.
still very different.
Provide more opportunities for project
Adopted.
of
the
yearly
the
SCP-meeting.
quality
of
the
This recommendation was absolutely
stakeholders to exchange their good practices
taken into consideration in the frame of
among each other, clustering events would be
the following:
useful and need to be developed in the future.
capitalisation strategy
annual event 2013
4 thematic seminars
Lead partner seminar for the 4th call
projects.
Further efforts are needed in communication to
Partially adopted
At the transnational level communication
the general public and to the media,
a lot of progress can be realised at this
communicating, presenting the programme
field (e.g. programme video, use of
and project results, and the transnational
YouTube and LinkedIn, renewed website
added-value of the programme. (It is in the
with achievements, brochure, European
focus of the communication plan for 2012, but
Cooperation Day participation), however
it is very important to implement it.)
more should have been done at national

level
in
some
of
the
participating
countries, and the media should have

been used better.
102
Refresh and renew the website of the
Status
Adopted.
Comment
The programme website was renewed
programme as it is planned, to focus on the
and focuses much more on the results of
presentation of the programme results, and be
the SEE programme and its projects.
more attractive to a wider public with photo
The use of videos and the search
galleries and videos etc.
function can be attractive to the general

public also.
Collect information on all of the indicators of
Partially adopted.
the Communication Plan
Majority of the communication indicators

are
collected
properly
just
like
in
previous years. However there is no

concrete information about the media
appearances in the member states of
the programme, and it seems unrealistic
to be able to complete the missing data
at this stage.
Recommendations on communication at national level:
Provide summaries of programme documents
Partially adopted.
and project results in own language.
On the basis of the answers from the

online
survey
not
all
participating
countries produce information materials

in their own languages
Work more closely and more frequently with
Not adopted.
This is the weakest point of the national
the national, regional and local media
level
communication
activities,
and
representatives. Take steps to communicate to
majority of the member countries are not
the general public about project results, and
really dealing with it. Much more efforts
the transnational added-value of the
should be done in this field in the future.
programme. Organize some media visits, to

show them the results of the projects.
Use a more friendly, less official language
Do not have appropriate information to
when speaking to the public.

Try to reach some groups having influence on
answer this.
Not adopted.
others (groups from education, universities,
It was not in the focus of the national

level communication.
NGOS) and use them as link to the wider

public at national level.
Increase the capacity of SCPs with the help of
Adopted.
The JTS organized an event for the
the JTS to organize appropriate knowledge
SCPs, communication was among the
transfer channels between the very
topics to discuss.
experienced EU member states and those less

experienced countries.
Ensure that SCPs have a closer relationship
Partly adopted.
with lead partners.
According to the results of the survey 62

% of the beneficiaries were satisfied with
the relationship between the projects
and the SCPs, however there were
some comments saying that it is better to
ask the JTS directly to get relevant
answers.
103
Annex 2:
indicators
Performance
of
programme
The tables below show the progress made of the programme at the level of the indicators. Several
sources are used to identify the progress made. The annual report of 2012 describes the indicators
st
nd
rd
th
at programme level (output and results) for the 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 call for proposals. There was one
4th call project that was approved only in 2013 and so is not included in the tables. Furthermore the
evaluator has made own calculation for the output indicators at programme level which are based
on the Monitoring Wizard Report (version July 2013).
Table 0.1
Progress on output indicators
Baseline
Target
Status
2007-2015
2011
Status 2012
29
11
(3%)
(38%)
13
(6%)
(36%)
(0%)
(14%)
11
(4%)
(39%)
40
(3%)
(31%)
17
(28%)
(59%)
12
(9%)
(12%)
49
93
(188%)
(358%)
66
122
(51%)
(94%)
Output indicators at programme level

P1: Total no. of projects implemented to facilitate 0
innovation and entrepreneurship
P 2: Total no. of projects implemented to protect
36
and improve the environment

P3: Total no. of projects implemented to improve
37
the accessibility
P4: Total no. of projects implemented to develop
28
transnational synergies for sustainable growth

areas
Total
130
Output indicators at programme level reflecting

the degree of cooperation
No of projects respecting only two of the following
29
criteria: Joint development, joint implementation,

joint staffing, joint financing
No of projects respecting only three of the following
104

No of projects respecting only four of the following
26

Total
130
Output indicators at project level

01. No of articles/appearances published in the
5.582
N/A
6.259
89%
02. No of press conferences
420
N/A
973
43%
03. Average of hits per month on the projects
458.312
N/A
181.758
252%
102.462
N/A
128.703
80%
press and in other media (including online media,

TV, radio)
website
04. No of publications produced (editions, specify:
e.g. folder, newsletter, brochure, report, guideline,
handbook), No of copies disseminated
105
Baseline
Target
Status
05. No of transnational events implemented, no of
Status 2012
2007-2015
2011
529
N/A
1.003
53%
466
N/A
971
48%
1.022
N/A
2.037
50%
514
N/A
573
90%
09. No of studies produced
984
N/A
1.719
57%
10. No of guidelines produced
204
N/A
470
43%
11. No of management plans developed
190
N/A
340
56%
12. No of joint action plans produced
199
N/A
574
35%
13. No of databases created or improved
183
N/A
291
63%
14. No of training events, seminars organised
777
N/A
1.260
62%
15. No of participants involved in trainings and
17.752
N/A
33.398
53%
3.008
N/A
7.054
43%
17. No of promotion concepts
151
N/A
379
40%
18. No of promotion actions
1.128
N/A
1.368
82%
19. No of services developed
193
N/A
321
60%
20. No of small scale infrastructure projects
23
N/A
31
74%
21. No of person in charge for administration of
1.867
N/A
2.125
88%
937
N/A
1.262
74%
participants involved
06. No of national events implemented, no of
07. No of regional events implemented, no of
08. No of study visits organised, no of participants
involved
seminars
16. No of individuals that participated in exchange
schemes
projects
22. No of project meetings held
Table 0.2
Progress on result indicators
Indicator
Base- Tar-get
Status
Status 2012
line
2007-2015
2011
88
17
31
(20%)
(35%)
(13%)
(18%)
13
(18%)
(46%)
11
(32%)
(50%)
(13%)
(21%)
10
(14%)
(29%)
(19%)
(22%)
13
Result indicators at programme level

P1: Total nr of contributions to facilitated innovation,
entrepreneurship, knowledge economy and enhanced
integration and economic relations in the co-operation area
P1: Nr of contributions to established technology and
38
innovation oriented networks in specific technology fields

P1: Nr of contributions to more effective provision of
28
collective business and innovation support especially for

SME
P1: Nr of contributions to improved innovation governance
22
and increased public awareness with regard to innovation

P2: No. of contributions to improved integrated water
23
management and flood risk prevention structures and

systems
P2: No. of contributions to improved transnational risk
34
27
prevention structures and systems

P2:No. of contributions to improved transnational risk
prevention structures and systems
P2: No. of contributions to co-ordinated activities on energy
106
24
Indicator
Base- Tar-get
Status
line
2011
2007-2015
and resource efficient technologies, services and policies

P3: No. of contributions to the co-ordinated promotion,
planning
and
operation
of
primary
and
36
secondary
Status 2012
(25%)
(54%)
11
(14%)
(31%)
(6%)
(25%)
(7%)
(14%)
10
(19%)
(37%)
10
(22%)
(37%)
11
(31%)
(38%)
66
121
(17%)
(31%)
transportation networks
P3: No. of contributions to co-ordinated activities to lessen
32
the digital divide among states and regions especially in the

case of market failure
P3: No. of contributions to co-ordinated activities for
43
increased efficiency of existing transport and to the

stimulated shift to environmentally friendly transportation
systems
P4: No. of contributions to build up and disseminated
27
strategies, skills and knowledge and pilot action for tackling

crucial problems affecting metropolitan areas and regional
systems of settlements
P4: No. of contributions to the provision of partners with
27
new tools for the formulation of their role and the formation
of new partnerships for functional growth areas
P4:No. of contributions to improved joint conservation and
29
better utilisation of cultural values for development and

sustainable tourism
Total
390
Result indicators at project level
60% of 80% of target*

target*
01. No of permanent information sources / channels in
53.182
N/A
38.980
5.965.405
N/A
18.341.
136%
project (e.g. websites, regular publications)

02. No of individuals reached directly through dissemination
outputs in the cooperation area
03. No of administrative actors reached directly through
987
0
47.884
N/A
51.891
749.787
N/A
138.14
218.145
N/A

04. No of private sector actors reached directly through
92%

05. No of SME reached directly through dissemination
543%
95.890

06. No of advanced tools and methodologies adopted to
33%
227%
0
128
N/A
239
increase the projects visibility among experts and wider

54%
communities, the public (additionally description necessary)

07. No of common positions / agreements formulated
170
N/A
406
42%
08. No of common methodologies adopted
164
N/A
279
59%
09. No of strategies adopted at governmental level
47
N/A
191
25%
10. No of innovative products developed
150
N/A
404
37%
11. No of regional/local policies and instruments improved
309
N/A
737
42%
or developed
12. No of common standards established (e.g. through new
87
N/A
165
53%
guidelines)
13. No of new tools / instruments developed
178
N/A
333
14. No of impact studies on environmental issues carried
82
N/A
134
out (e.g. in pre-investment projects)
53%
61%
107
Indicator
Base- Tar-get
Status
Status 2012
line
2007-2015
2011
15. No of pilot actions prepared (first application)
462
N/A
956
48%
16. No of pilot actions implemented (first application)
210
N/A
523
40%
17. No permanent exchange programmes established
25
N/A
64
39%
18.
4.639
N/A
8.679
No
of
staff
members
with
increased
capacity
(awareness / knowledge / skills)
53%
19. No of advanced tools and methodologies adopted to
304
N/A
210
improve knowledge management within the partnership

(additionally description necessary)
145%
20. No of regions proactively promoted
418
N/A
834
21. No of common management structures / systems
138
N/A
219
established
63%
22. No of individuals benefiting directly from new / improved
5.544.593
N/A
services
7.248.0
78
23. No of investment proposals developed (if possible
395
N/A
76%
934
specify volume of investment)
42%
24. No of private market reactions achieved (e.g. private
575
N/A
3.041
2.893.006
N/A
2.712.4
26
N/A
19%
25. No of investment projects implemented (specify volume

of investment)
26. No of infrastructures of common interest improved
27. No of successfully implemented projects
108
50%
N/A
20
107%
106
25%
Annex 3: Results of the programme
This annex contains data and information to support the analyses of Chapter 4.
Table 0.1 Main stakeholders per AoI
PA and AoI
Primary
stakeholders
PA1. Facilitation of innovation and entrepreneurship

AoI 1.1: Develop technology and innovation
Technology
and
networks in specific fields
innovation actors
AoI 1.2: Develop the enabling environment
Business
support
for innovative entrepreneurship
actors/facilities
AoI 1.3: Enhance the framework conditions
National
and
and pave the way for innovation
regional
governments
PA2 Protection and improvement of the environment
AoI 2.1:Improve integrated water
Administrations
management and flood risk prevention
management
bodies
AoI 2.2:Improve prevention of environmental
Administrations
risks
management
bodies
AoI 2.3:Promote cooperation in management
Administrations
of natural assets and protected areas
management
bodies
AoI 2.4 Promote energy and resource
Policy makers
efficiency
administrations
PA3 Improvement of the accessibility
AoI3.1:Improve co-ordination in promoting,
planning and operation for primary and
secondary transportation networks
AoI3.2:Develop strategies to tackle the
"digital divide
AoI3.3:Improve framework conditions for
multi-modal platforms
Second
level
stakeholders
Third
level
stakeholders
SMEs
Research
institutions
SMEs
Business
support
and technologyand
innovation actors
Culture
and
education actors
and
Research
institutions
NGOs
and
Research
institutions
NGOs
and
Research
institutions
NGOs
and
SMEs
entrepreneurs
and
Policy makers and

administrators
Private sector and

entrepreneurs
Financial
insinuations
SMEs
entrepreneurs
and
Policy makers and

administrators
Policy makers and

administrators
Private sector and

entrepreneurs
Research
and
educational
institutions
Financial
insinuations
PA4 Development of transnational synergies for sustainable growth areas

AoI 4.1: Tackling crucial problems affecting
Local and regional NGO, culture and
metropolitan areas and regional systems of
administrations
education actors
settlements
AoI 4.2: Promoting a balanced pattern of
attractive and accessible growth areas
National
and
regional
administrations
NGO, culture and

education actors
AoI 4.3: Promoting the use of cultural values

Culture and NGO Tourism
for development.
actors
entrepreneurs
Source: Ecorys on the basis of information provided in SEE programme
Table 0.2
Energy resource
consumers
Business
support
organisations &
entrepreneurs
Business
support
organisations a&
entrepreneurs
Local & regional
administrations
Contribution of SEE programme PA and AoI to the EC implementing regulation (EC No.
1828/2006) thematic codes

PA and AoI
Thematic codes
PA1 Facilitation of innovation and entrepreneurship 3,5,9,11,13,74,81

Develop technology and innovation networks in specific fields
3, 74, 81
Develop the enabling environment for innovative entrepreneurship
5,9,74,81
Enhance the framework conditions and pave the way for innovation
PA2.
Protection
and
improvement
6,11,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,48,49,50,51,52,53,55,56,81
of
11,13,74,81
the
environment
Improve integrated water management and flood risk prevention
53,81
Improve prevention of environmental risks
11, 53, 54,74,44,81
Promote cooperation in management of natural assets and protected areas
51, 55, 56,81
109
PA and AoI
Thematic codes
Promote energy and resource efficiency
6, 39, 40,41,42,43,44,
45, 48,49,50,52,81
PA3. Improvement of the accessibility 11,12,13,14, 15, 16,17,20,21,25,27,28,30,32

Improve co-ordination in promoting, planning and operation for primary and secondary 16,17,20, 21,25, 30,
32
Develop strategies to tackle the "digital divide"
11,12,13,14,15,28
Improve framework conditions for multi-modal platforms
27,28
PA 3 Development of transnational synergies for sustainable growth areas 50,58,59,61,70,81

Tackling crucial problems affecting metropolitan areas and regional systems of
61,70,71, 81
settlements
Promoting a balanced pattern of attractive and accessible growth areas
61,81
Promoting the use of cultural values for development.
58,59,50,81
Thematic codes
3 Technology transfer and improvement of co-operation networks between small businesses (SMEs), between
these and other businesses and universities, post-secondary education establishments of all kinds, regional
authorities, research centres and scientific
5 Advanced support services for firms and groups of firms
6 Assistance to SMEs for the promotion of environmentally-friendly products and production processes
(introduction of effective environment managing system, adoption and use of pollution prevention technologies,
integration of clean technologies into firm
9 Other measures to stimulate research and innovation and entrepreneurship in SMEs
11 Information and communication technologies (access, security, interoperability, risk-prevention, research,
innovation, e-content etc.)
12 Information and communication technologies (TEN-ICT)
13 Services and applications for the citizen (e-health, e-government, e-learning, e-inclusion etc.)
14 Services and applications for SMEs (e-commerce, education and training, networking etc.)
15 Other measures for improving access to and efficient use of ICT by SMEs
16 Railways17 Railways (TEN-T)
20 Motorways21 Motorways (TEN-T)
25 Urban transport27 Multimodal transport (TEN-T)
28 Intelligent transportsystems30 Ports
32 Inland waterways (TEN-T)39 Renewable energy: Wind
40 Renewable energy: Solar41 Renewable energy: Biomass
42 Renewable energy: Hydroelectric, geothermal and other
43 Energy efficiency, co-generation, energy management
44 Management of household and industrial waste
45 Management and distribution of water (drinking water)
48 Integrated prevention and pollution control
49 Mitigation and adaptation to climate change
50 Rehabilitation of industrial sites and contaminated land
51 Promotion of biodiversity and nature protection
52.Promotion of clean urban transport
53 Risk prevention (including the drafting and implementation of plans and measures to prevent and manage
natural and technological risks)
54 Other measures to preserve the environment and prevent risks
55 Promotion of natural assets
56 Protection and development of natural heritage
58 Protection and preservation of the cultural heritage
59 Development of cultural infrastructure
60 Other assistance to improve cultural services
61 Integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration
70 Specific action to increase migrants participation in employment and thereby strengthen their social
integration
71 Pathways to integration and re-entry into employment for disadvantaged people; combating discrimination in
accessing and progressing in the labour market and promoting acceptance of diversity at the workplace
74 Developing human potential in the field of research and innovation, in particular through post-graduate
studies and training of researchers, and networking activities between universities, research centres and
businesses
110
PA and AoI
Thematic codes
81 Mechanisms for improving good policy and programme design, monitoring and evaluation at national,
regional and local level, capacity building in the delivery of policies and programmes.
Source: SEE Monitoring Wizard report, June 2013.
Data related to Priority Axis 1

Table 0.3
PA1 Completed and ongoing projects
PA 1. Facilitation of innovation and entrepreneurship

AoI 1.1: Develop technology and innovation networks in specific fields
AoI 1.2: Develop the enabling environment for innovative
entrepreneurship
AoI 1.3: Enhance the framework conditions and pave the way for
innovation
Funded
31
6
13
Completed
11
5
5
Ongoing
20
1
8
12
11
Table 0.4 PA1 Completed and ongoing contributions per theme

PA and AoI
Contributions
Thematic codes
Completed/Ongoing
PA1
23/49
AoI 1.1: Develop technology and innovation
10/7
networks in specific fields
AoI 1.2: Develop the enabling environment for
11/23
innovative entrepreneurship
AoI 1.3: Enhance the framework conditions and
2/18
pave the way for innovation
11
13
74
81
2/0
3/1
1/0
1/4
1/4
1/7
Number of themes
5/6
5/11
4/8
1/0
0/6
0/1

Table 0.5 PA2 Completed and ongoing projects
PA 2. Protection and improvement of the environment
AoI 2.1:Improve integrated water management and flood risk prevention
AoI 2.2:Improve prevention of environmental risks
AoI 2.3:Promote cooperation in management of natural assets and
protected areas
AoI 2.4 Promote energy and resource efficiency
Funded
44
5
10
6
Completed
13
3
4
2
Ongoing
21
2
6
4
13
Table 0.6 PA2 -Completed and ongoing contributions per theme

PA and AoI
Contributions
Thematic codes
Completed/Ongoing
PA2
AoI
2.1:Improve
integrated
water
AoI
2.2:Improve
prevention
of
environmental risks
AoI
2.3:Promote
cooperation
in
management of natural assets and
protected areas
efficiency
PA and AoI
Contributions
Completed/Ongoing
Continuation of themes
AoI
2.1:Improve
integrated
water
AoI
2.2:Improve
prevention
of
environmental risks
AoI
2.3:Promote
cooperation
in
management of natural assets and
protected areas
efficiency
11
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Number of themes
44/72
9/4
12/17
0/4
0/1
9/16
14/35
3/3
1/2
1/3
1/4
2/4
52
53
54
55
1/6
1/2
1/1
74
81
Thematic codes
48
49
50
51
56
Number of themes
4/2
5/5
2/5
0/1
0/3
1/1
5/2
3/4
0/1
2/5
0/
1
1/0
4/2
3/4
2/2
1/0
2/4
111

Table 0.7 PA3 -Completed and ongoing projects
PA 3. Improvement of the accessibility
AoI3.1:Improve co-ordination in promoting, planning and operation for
primary and secondary transportation networks
AoI3.2:Develop strategies to tackle the "digital divide
AoI3.3:Improve framework conditions for multi-modal platforms
Funded
25
11
Completed
5
2
Ongoing
20
9
8
6
1
2
7
4

PA and AoI
Contributions
Thematic codes
Completed/Ongoing
PA3
10/43
AoI3.1:Improve co-ordination in promoting, planning

and operation for primary and secondary
11
12
13
14
15
5/23
2/13
AoI3.3:Improve framework conditions for multi-modal

3/7
platforms
PA and AoI
Contributions
16
17
0/6
1/1
30
32
0/3
2/4
Number of themes
1/5
0/1
1/4
0/1
0/1
27
28
Thematic codes
Completed/Ongoing
Continuation of themes
20
21
25
Number of themes
AoI3.1:Improve co-ordination in promoting, planning and operation

for primary and secondary transportation networks
0/3
1/1
1/5
0/1
AoI3.3:Improve framework conditions for multi-modal platforms
2/5
1/2

Table 0.9 PA4 Completed and ongoing projects
PA 4. Development of transnational synergies for sustainable
growth areas
AoI 4.1: Tackling crucial problems affecting metropolitan areas and
regional systems of settlements
AoI 4.2: Promoting a balanced pattern of attractive and accessible
growth areas
AoI 4.3: Promoting the use of cultural values for development.
Funded
32
12
Completed
11
5
Ongoing
21
7
11
11

PA and AoI
Contributions
Thematic codes
Completed/Ongoing
PA4
61
70
71
81
8/17
3/3
0/5
0/4
5/5
9/8
4/3
19/42
AoI 4.1: Tackling crucial problems affecting metropolitan

areas and regional systems of settlements
AoI 4.2: Promoting a balanced pattern of attractive and
accessible growth areas
AoI 4.3: Promoting the use of cultural values for
development.
2/17
58
59
0/6
0/1
112
60
Number of themes
0/6
5/5
2/4
Annex 4: Indicators on communication
Table 0.1
Indicators formulated in the communication plan expanded with a monitoring column

Remarks at the 2nd report
Progress between 1st January 2012 and 30th

June 2013
In 2011. 289 participants took place at the

annual event, but the average of participants
is 355, thus in average the indicator is fulfilled.
Annual event:
In 2012: 290 participants
In 2013 344 participants
1203 participants in all the events in the
mentioned period
Nr of events
Kick off: 1
1
2011:
Annual conference: 1 / 1/year
2 Lead partner seminars -1st and 2ndCfPs
year.
2 /year in 2009, 2010 and Thematic events:
Lead Partner seminars: 2 / 2011
4 workshops in frame of Territorial
year.
1/year
Marketing Events for 3rdCfPs
European flag: 1 / year.
18
Joint
conference
on
Transnational
Thematic events: min 4.
Cooperation
Programmes
(SEE
Programme has participated as a coOthers, to be determined
organiser and managed the workshop and
according to demand
exhibition dedicated to Enlargement and
cooperation with the neighbours
10 national level events

11 transnational level events organized by
JTS/MA:
2 LP seminars
2 annual events
2 thematic seminars
1 European Cooperation Day event
1 communication seminar
3 other informative events (for foreign
delegations)
Project level events: no info available
3 MC and 1 SCP meeting
Number of publications printed

/ to be printed: flyers, posters,
brochures and programme
documents
Number
of
publications
distributed: newsletter (online),
flyers, posters, brochures and
5000 flyers (for the first

two years)
1500 posters (for the first
two years)
Brochures &progr. doc. to
be determined
Function of the e-mailing
800 copies of the 2nd call project catalogue

and 600 copies of the 3rd call project
catalogue were produced, and 500 500 of
them were distributed + 850 copies
distributed from the brochure produced in
2011.
2 newsletters were produced, and each of
Category
Indicator
Target
Events impact
Nr of participants in the events
Min. 300 at the annual 1.419 / 4 annual events

events, variable for other 7.326 in total/4 years
events (in function of the
event)
Publications
impact
End of 2011
10.000 flyers for 4 years Indicators concerning publications are fulfilled

2.600 posters
well.
1.000
Programme
Brochure and Project
books
1000-4400 persons /
newsletter
10 newsletters were distributed during 4
113
programme documents
Promotional
materials impact
list: at least 500 persons

per newsletter
Min. 2000 flyers / year
Min. 500 posters / year
Brochures and progr. doc.
to be determined
according to demand
2.500 flyers/year; 1.500 years.

posters in the 1st year,
500 posters per 2009,
2010, 2011
1.000
programme
brochure and project
books were distributed in
the4th year
Nr
of
materials Variable, in function of
printed/produced
materials
Nr of materials distributed
Promotional
distributed.
them were sent to 4.776 recipients
materials
were
produced,
Nr of materials (notebooks, Variable, to cover the Variable, to cover the

pens etc.)
number of participants in number of participants in
the events
the events
114
Website impact
Nr of visits
Variable
Nr of downloads of the online
materials
320.428 unique visitors in 108.781 unique visitors in 2011

period 2008-2011
Number of visitors of the website:

In 2012: 92.383
In 2013 (until the end of June): 64.922
There is no data available about the number of
downloads
Transparency
Nr of approved projects that 100%

fulfilled the information and
publicity requirements
100%
All projects have fulfilled so far the main

information and publicity requirements
122 projects (100 %)
Project
communication
impact
Nr of websites set-up
Nr
of
information
and
promotional
materials
produced
and
distributed
(brochures, flyers etc.)
Nr of events organised
Nr of projects advertised in the
media
All projects have websites and have produced

at least one additional comm. tool; except for
the projects from the 2nd call which signed the
subsidy contract with delay-finalisation of the
website by the end of February 2012.
It is completed.
Media impact
Nr of journalists participating in 5-10

journalists 5-10
SEE
events
(annual participating in the annual
SEE had between 5-10 journalists present at

the annual event in Sofia and 5 journalists
Approximately 3
Remark by evaluator: the journalists were not
At least 2 communication It is completed.

tools used per project,
according to project needs
and capabilities
conferences, kick off)
events
present at the Territorial Marketing Event in

Belgrade.
interested in the annual event in 2013 in

Bucharest.
Nr of journalists participating in 5-10

journalists
the training seminars
participating in the training
seminars
There is no information collected about it.
Nr of articles about the SEE Min. 2 articles / year per

programme / SEE projects country
published in the media
5 articles were published in international

media about the SEE programme in 4 years.
Apart from this the Programme has had huge
media coverage in 2011 in local media
(Partner States). JTS did not centralize yet all
articles that have appeared in the national
press JTS relies on the SCP reports to be
informed on such apparitions.
43 articles were published in the Hungarian

media and at EU-level magazines.
No data is available for the JTS about the media
appearances in the rest of the member states.
Remark of evaluator: It seems unrealistic that
the missing national level data could be
collected at this stage of the programme.
Source: Ecorys based on SEE sources and interviews
115
Annex 5: Questionnaire
The full questionnaire can be found in the separate file Annex of the final evaluation report:
Questionnaire.
117
P.O. Box 4175

3006 AD Rotterdam
The Netherlands
Watermanweg 44
3067 GG Rotterdam
The Netherlands
T +31 (0)10 453 88 00

F +31 (0)10 453 07 68
W www.ecorys.nl
Sound analysis, inspiring ideas
BELGIUM BULGARIA CROATIA - HUNGARY INDIA THE NETHERLANDS POLAND RUSSIAN FEDERATION SPAIN TURKEY UNITED KINGDOM
Ongoing evaluation of South East

Europe Programme 2007-2013
Annex of final interim evaluation report:
Questionnaire
Client: VTI Hungarian Public Non-profit Company on Regional Development and Town
Planning
Rotterdam, September 2013
Ongoing evaluation of South East

Europe Programme 2007-2013
Annex of final interim evaluation report: Questionnaire
Client: VTI Hungarian Public Non-profit Company on Regional

Development and Town Planning
Rotterdam, September 2013
About Ecorys
At Ecorys we aim to deliver real benefit to society through the work we do. We offer research,
consultancy and project management, specialising in economic, social and spatial development.
Focusing on complex market, policy and management issues we provide our clients in the public,
private and not-for-profit sectors worldwide with a unique perspective and high-value solutions.
Ecorys remarkable history spans more than 80 years. Our expertise covers economy and
competitiveness; regions, cities and real estate; energy and water; transport and mobility; social
policy, education, health and governance. We value our independence, integrity and partnerships.
Our staff comprises dedicated experts from academia and consultancy, who share best practices
both within our company and with our partners internationally.
Ecorys Netherlands has an active CSR policy and is ISO14001 certified (the international standard
for environmental management systems). Our sustainability goals translate into our company policy
and practical measures for people, planet and profit, such as using a 100% green electricity tariff,
purchasing carbon offsets for all our flights, incentivising staff to use public transport and printing on
FSC or PEFC certified paper. Our actions have reduced our carbon footprint by an estimated 80%
since 2007.
ECORYS Nederland BV
Watermanweg 44
3067 GG Rotterdam
P.O. Box 4175
3006 AD Rotterdam
The Netherlands
T +31 (0)10 453 88 00
F +31 (0)10 453 07 68
Registration no. 24316726
W www.ecorys.nl
Zon/MS II22696rapfin
Table of contents
Introduction
Questionnaire at programme management level
2.1
2.2
2.3
Answers of the JTS and MA

2.1.1
2.1.2
Results, added value and the future
Answers of the Monitoring Committee member

2.2.1
2.2.2
Answers of the SEE Contact points
11
11
13
15
2.3.1
15
2.3.2
Programme communication additional answers via e-mails
18
2.3.3
24
Questionnaire at project level (beneficiaries)
27
3.1
Project selection
27
3.2
30
3.3
39
Ongoing evaluation of South East Europe Programme 2007-2013
Introduction
In 2013 similarly to the previous two interim evaluation reports - Ecorys collected information
about the implementation of the SEE Programme trough an online questionnaire. The target
groups of the online questionnaire were following parties:
Joint Technical Secretariat / Managing Authority
Monitoring Committee Members
SEE Contact Points
Project beneficiaries
In the survey of 2013 the following topics were the focus of the survey:
programme communication
results, added value and the future
project selection (only beneficiaries who took part in the 4 call).
th
Methodologically it must be mentioned that in order the get a more comprehensive picture about
the national level programme communication, those NCPs who didnt fill the online survey until
the deadline were asked by the JTS via e-mails to answer to the questions related to programme
communication via e-mails. As a result of this action, 4 more answers arrived, and these were also
taken into consideration during the evaluation. However, in chapter 2.3 of this annex you can see
the results of the online survey and the e-mail answers in two separate sub-chapters (2.3.1 and
2.3.2).
In total 306 persons have been asked to fill out the questionnaire. 98 persons filled out the
questionnaire (see figure. The majority were project beneficiaries. 15 members of the Joint
Technical Secretariat and 2 of the Managing Authority have been invited. Furthermore all SEE
Contact Points (33) and Monitoring Committee Members (53) have been invited. In some cases the
same person is both SCP and MC member. The largest group of invitees were the Lead Partners
(210). As can be seen above only a limited number of SCPs and MC members have completed the
questionnaire, also after extra efforts from the JTS.
Figure 1.1
Respondents of the questionnaire
Response
Total
1 From JTS/MA
10
10 %
2 A National Contact Point
6%
3 A Monitoring Committee member
8%
4 A Project Beneficiary
74
76 %
Total respondents: 98
% of responses
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
In the figure below, you can see how many percent of the target groups responded in the last 3
years.
Figure 1.2
Status of participants
100%
Responded completely
90%
80%
Partially responded
70%
60%
Reminded
(seen invitation)
50%
40%
Reminded
(maybe seen invitation)
30%
20%
Bounced
10%
0%
May 2013
Jan 2012
Feb 2011
Declined
Questionnaire at programme management

level
2.1
Answers of the JTS and MA

2.1.1 Programme communication
This part of the questionnaire deals with the programme communication both at transnational and
at national level. The overall objective is to find out where improvements can be made in
communication.
2. Based on your experiences how would you rate the communication of the SEE
programme ..?
Question
% of answers
Open answers
to the general public?
Understaffed
und
poor
awareness of the importance of

proper communication
at EU level?
Understaffed
und
poor
awareness of the importance of

proper communication
Total
number
of
respondents: 9
Poor
Fair
Good Excellent
3. Based on your experience did the JTS provide timely and easy access to relevant
information and documents (e.g. requirements, administrative proceedings) to NCPs and
beneficiaries related to:
Question
% of answers
Open answers
.. publication of calls
.. project selection
.. contract awarding
.. financial management
.. reporting
.. project results
Project results cannot be properly

communicated since there is no
uniform and easy-understandable
way to collect them
Total
number
respondents: 9
of
Yes
Mostly More or less No
4. Based on your impressions how would you rate the following elements / characteristics of
the work of JTS:
Question
% of answers
Open answers
.. timely communication
to national contact points
.. usefulness and quality

of information provided
to NCPs by JTS
.. usefulness of events
(conferences, info days,
Question
% of answers
Open answers
workshops) organized by
JTS
..
usefulness
of
I didnt get an feedback on a
newsletters provided by
SEE newsletter in 3.5 years
JTS
...
..
the
level
of
involvement of NCPs to
the
communication
planning for the next

year
..
regular
update
of
programme website with

relevant information
Total
number
of
respondents: 9
Poor Fair
Good Excellent
5. Would you agree or disagree with the below statements?

Question
% of answers
The transnational dimension of the programme is highlighted

enough in programme communication.
The project results, success stories are well communicated to

the general public.
... The website of the programme is up-to-date and provides

useful information.
The target groups of the website are not only the project
beneficiaries, but the general public also.
... The JTS works closely with the media representatives and
supplies the media with high-quality news.
..
The
JTS
provides
enough
opportunities
for
project
stakeholders to exchange their good practices.
On the annual conference the stakeholders get detailed

information instead of general level information.
.. The JTS coordinates well enough the dissemination of joint

messages about the SEE programme in all SEE member states.
(They give sufficient information to NCPs)
the communication between different units of the JTS is

strong and effective.
The JTS keeps beneficiaries informed about communication

initiatives it takes part in with the aim to improve programme
visibility (e.g. via programme website, newsletter).
Total number of respondents: 9

Yes
6. Which of the following promotional activities do you consider best in attracting media
coverage:
Question
% of answers
Annual conferences
Info days
Workshops
National level information events

Yes Mostly More or less No No idea
Other please specify:
All other potential tools to attract media are basically not used (e.g. press releases, press
conferences, road-shows, ...)
2.1.2 Results, added value and the future

Results, added value and the future The objective of the questions in this part of the questionnaire
is to gather your opinion on the usefulness of the results achieved from the implementation of the
supported projects, the added value of the SEE Programme, its contribution to the European
policies, and its future.
7. How do SEE projects outcomes contribute to planning and delivery of national/
transnational policies?
Response
Total
% of responses
1 Establishing transnational networks and
100 %
89 %
67 %
67 %
5 Pilot actions
56 %
6 Harmonisation of institutional frameworks and
44 %
partnerships
2 Exchange of ideas, knowledge and good
practices
3 Awareness-raising actions at transnational
level;
4 Elaboration of joint studies, manuals, action
plans, services, etc.
coordination of national policies;

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
8. What is the added value of the SEE programme compared to other EU funded
programmes in the area?
The SEE Programme is basically a pioneer in the field of ETC in the area. It is very complex
(number of member countries, their recent history..., huge disparities between them), with a
range of rather inexperienced member countries and project partners. Taking in account this,
the results of the SEE programme in view of establishing transnational cooperation in this area
are outstanding! Yet, these characteristics make the SEE programme rather unique and
incomparable to other programmes.
Integration of non-EU countries
It combines varied actors and different financial instruments in a single programme, covering
countries with different status and level of policy implementation.
IPA and ENPI - and tackling an area in which transnational cooperation really makes the
difference.
9. How would you assess:
The level of involvement of policy makers in the SEE programme/projects
Response
Total
% of responses
1 Poor
0%
2 Fair
22 %
3 Good
67 %
4 Excellent
11 %
Average: 2,89 Median: 3

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Please, provide an example.
Good number of ministries/regions involved
10. How would you assess the contribution of the SEE programme to policies at the
following level:
Question
% of answers
Open answers
Local level (e.g. urban

development
in
Municipalities and capital cities
Regions
Ministries
the
participating countries)
Regional level (policies
in
regions
in
the
National
(policies
affecting
the
whole
of
the
territory
EU policies
Total
number
of
respondents: 9
Yes
11. What problems remain unsolved in this programming period?

Response
Total
% of responses
1 More actual involvement of the ENPI countries
67 %
2 More actual involvement of the IPA countries
33 %
3 Achieving truly transnational cooperation and
44 %
4 Integration of different funds
11 %
5 Cooperation/communication with other EU
78 %
56 %
results
programmes and initiatives

6 Cooperation between public
and private
stakeholders
10
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
12. For the next programming period, what would you suggest to address the above
mentioned problems and what programme features should remain the same?
The programme should only support actions of really transnational relevance - it should be more
"open" in view of exchanges with other programmes (no mutual learning was realized at all! why
not to peer reviews or things like that ...?) - internally the JTS should be much less fragmented
in units and (informal) blocks along nationalities ... the need for intensive and structured internal
communication should be MUCH more considered.
Strengthening the integration of funds from the beginning and allow the participation of private
bodies.
2.2
The above weak points shall be considered.
Thematic cooperation boards with different programme and key stakeholders present.
Answers of the Monitoring Committee member

communication.
13. Based on your impressions how would you rate the following elements / characteristics
of the work of JTS:
Question
% of answers
.. timely communication to the monitoring committe

members
.. usefulness and quality of information provided by JTS

to MC members and programme management bodies
.. organisation of monitoring committee meetings
.. usefulness of newsletters provided by JTS
.. regular update of programme website with relevant

information

Poor Fair
Good Excellent
Question
% of answers
.. reporting
.. project results

Yes
11

Question
% of answers
The
project
results,
Open answers
success
Results
are
mostly
known
among SEE network more than

to the general public.
stories are well

communicated to
the
general
public.
... The website of

the programme is
and
up-to-date
provides
useful
information.
The
group
target
of
website
the
is
not
only the project

beneficiaries, but
the general public
also.
... The JTS works

closely with the
media
representatives
and supplies the
media with highquality news.
..
The
JTS
The
recently
provides enough
capitalization process is a good
opportunities
opportunity, so far the project's
for
project
fairs were a little bit poor
stakeholders
to
exchange
their
good practises.
..
The
JTS
coordinates
well
enough
the
dissemination
of
joint
messages
about
the
SEE
programme in all
SEE
member
states. (They give

sufficient
information
to
NCPs.)
Total
number
respondents: 6
12
started
of
Yes

Results, added value and the future. The objective of the questions in this part of the questionnaire
Response
1
Establishing
Total
transnational
networks
% of responses
and
83 %
100 %
50 %
83 %
5 Pilot actions
17 %
50 %
partnerships
practices
level;

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
The added value of the SEE programme is establishing partnerships and transnational
networks.
It makes possible to project participants to tackle topics relevant for a wider geographical areas
in a more comprehensive / crosssectoral manner, involving also public, nongovernmental
organisations and other stakeholders where appropriate (not done in every project but it is
possible and promoted by the programme); it has important role in building and strengthening
partnership networks among EU MS and non EU MS organisations improving integration of the
area
Giving time and resources for cooperation
The presence of Member States, candidate Countries and potential candidate countries working
together; the shared management and shared financial budget from the 2nd call; the coverage
of the whole SEE area
To intervene direct at the level of elaboration of territorial development policies and

responsibility to implement such policies by the national and regional authorities
13
Response
Total
% of responses
1 Poor
0%
2 Fair
50 %
3 Good
33 %
4 Excellent
0%
- N/A
17 %

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
19.1. How would you assess the contribution of the SEE programme to policies at the
following level:
Question
% of answers
Local
level
(e.g.
urban
Average - Median
Open answers
Average: 2,17
Median: 2
The
of policy makers
developmen
within
in
involvement
the
the
framework
of
participating
each
is
countries)
very different from
project
country to country
Regional
Average: 2,67
level
Median: 3
(policies
in
regions
in
the
participating
countries)
National
Average: 2,50
(policies
Median: 2
affecting the
whole
territory
of
the
participating
countries)
Average: 2,50
EU policies
Median: 2
Most outputs and

results
are
relevant for the

PPs involved but
only in few cases
they
relevant
have
impact
on EU policies
Total number of
respondents: 6
14
Poor Fair Good Excellent

Response
Total
% of responses
67 %
67 %
67 %
17 %
33 %
33 %
17 %
results

and private
stakeholders
7 Other, please specify
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Future programme should improve active involvement of IPA and ENPI countries / partners
10% rule was a good solution but due to amount of funding it didnt allow more (pro)active
cooperation. Due to a general economic picture in the area a financial and administrative
procedures must be fastened allowing partners from this countries to take a bigger role.
2.3
Embedding programme activities better into policy contexts
Answers of the SEE Contact points

communication.
programme?
Question
% of answers
to the general public?
to the media?

of the work of JTS:
Question
% of answers
.. timely communication to the national contact points
.. usefulness and quality of information provided to

NCPs by JTS
.. usefulness of events (conferences, info days,

workshops) organized by JTS
.. usefulness of newsletters provided by JTS
..
the
level
of
involvement
of
NCPs
to
the
15
Question
% of answers
communication planning for the next year
.. regular update of programme website with relevant

information

Question
% of answers
.. reporting
.. project results

Yes

Question
% of answers
.. The JTS provides enough opportunities for project

stakeholders to exchange their good practices.
..
The
project
results,
success
stories
are
well
communicated to the general public.
.. The JTS coordinates well enough the dissemination of

joint messages about the SEE programme in all SEE
member states. (They give sufficient information to
NCPs.)
.. The website is regularly updated with relevant

information.

Yes
26. Have you produced any SEE materials in your own language?
Response
Total
1 yes
60 %
2 no
40 %
% of responses
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
27. In case your answer was "yes" to the previous question, please specify those
information materials of the SEE programme, which are available in your own language.
Creation of the website (www.sudestul-europei.ro) and continuous updating, calendars,

promotional materials
We produced a brochure of the projects under the 1st Call for Proposals and also leaflets about
the SEE programme for the potential applicants.
16
28. Do you, as a National Contact Point :

Question
% of answers
establish links with the national, regional and local

media?
organize media visits to project sites to show the

results of the projects?
contribute to the programme website and / or

newsletter?
have
the
necessary
capacity
and
expertise
concerning communication activities.
organize national level information events for

beneficiaries and other national stakeholders?

Yes
29. Are these national events mentioned above:

Question
% of answers
useful for stakeholders?
disseminate outputs and result in your country?
help JTS to identify information gaps in due time?

Yes
30. Could you please estimate the number of media appearances regarding both the SEE
programme and SEE projects in your country per year? (For each year separately between
2007 and 2013.)
Around 5
Unfortunately I do not have enough information to answer this question.
There was not many media appearances regarding the SEE programme.
coverage:
Question
% of answers
Annual conferences
Info days
Workshops
National level information events
Open answers

32. How could the JTS better organize the dissemination of information about programme
results?
Same as in the past period.
Innovative and creative interactive events
To prepare a brochure about the projects financed under all calls for proposals. To have a
communication with NCPs. To participate at the programme events organized by the NCPs in
each country.
17
33. How could the National Contact Point better organize the dissemination of information
about programme results?
Same as between 2007-2013, of course accordingly to the beneficiary and other involved
institutions need and requirements, in close relationship with the stages of the programme.
Increase the number of events
Through info days, informative meetings, to prepare promotional materials about the
programme results, to organize a final conference and present the programme results.
2.3.2 Programme communication additional answers via e-mails

programme?
Question
% of answers
Open answers
to the general
public?
The
communication
general
public
to
is
well
performed through public

social groups: facebook,
linkedIn, youtube.
Communication is mainly
focused
on
project
partners.
to the media?
In
the
future
communication
the
process
should involve press media

in order to reach general
public.
Communication
to
the
media is mainly conducted

by projects.
Total
number
of
respondents: 4
of the work of JTS:
Question
% of answers
..
timely
Open answers
Sufficient number of NCP meetings
NCPs are put in CC in most
communication to
the
national
and seminars
contact points
communications
or
communication
is
the
forwarded
to
NCPs. This is highly appreciated.

However,
the
JTS
could
have
informed earlier about some events

in order to allow enough time for
national promotion.
.. usefulness and
quality
of
provide
information
provided to NCPs
18
.. usefulness of
NCP
with
information,
explanations, etc.
by JTS
JTS has always been willing to
The information provided is mostly

of good quality.
We believe that more conferences
Question
% of answers
Open answers
events
involving experts and policy makers
(conferences,
should be organised in the future
info
days,
The info-days are very useful. The
workshops)
conferences, workshops, etc. could
organized by JTS
be more interactive and innovative.

However, the last annual event with
the creation of poles was a very
good improvement.
.. usefulness of
Newsletter is the easiest way of
newsletters
reaching potential project partners,
provided by JTS
policy makers and interested public.

Newsletter provided by JTS was
redistributed
to
subscribers
at
national level
The newsletter is not regularly sent,

however, it could be a very useful
tool.
..
the
level
involvement
NCPs
to
of
I cannot estimate, since I did not
of
attend the NCP meeting this year,
the
due to the National consultation day
communication
for CEN 2014+, organised at the
planning for the
same time.
next year
The JTS requests information about

national
events
(e.g.
at
NCP
meetings), but there is currently no

systematic involvement of NCPs.
.. regular update
of
Always up-to-date
programme
website
with
relevant
information
Total
number
of
respondents: 4
Question
% of answers
.. reporting
.. project results

Yes
19
Question
..
% of answers
The
Open answers
JTS
European cooperation day in Split,
provides enough
held in September, will offer another
opportunities
opportunity for the cross fertilisation
for
project
of project results and exchange of
stakeholders
to
exchange
good practices
their
good practices.
There could be more opportunities.

The
events
could
be
more
interactive or more like WS, but

these changes were just recently
introduced (e.g. Annual Event 2013,
thematic seminars).
..
The
results,
project
JTS and NCPs should organise
success
interactive mobile events in order to
stories are well
share success stories with general
communicated to
the
public
general
public.
Could be improved
->
currently
presenting some success stories at

SEE events only. Even for MC, it
could be interesting to present one
successful project at each meeting
or introduce success stories through
the SEE. newsletter.
..
The
JTS
coordinates
well
enough
the
dissemination
of
joint
messages
about
the
SEE
programme in all
SEE
member
states. (They give

sufficient
information
to
NCPs.)
.. The website is
regularly updated
with
relevant
information.
Total
number
respondents: 4
20
of
Yes
26. Have you produced any SEE materials in your own language?
Response
Total
1 yes
50 %
2 no
50 %
% of responses
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
27. In case your answer was "yes" to the previous question, please specify those
information materials of the SEE programme, which are available in your own language.
We have produced promotional materials such as folders and leaflets.
National newsletters
28. Do you, as a National Contact Point :

Question
% of answers
establish links
Open answers
Mainly through mail
This should be done in the future,
with the national,

regional and local
media?
organize
media
visits
to
because it would help promote the
project
sites
to
programme.
NCP
doesnt
have
show the results
enough power to attract press or
of the projects?
media
contribute to
the
programme
We have a special internet site in

Slovenian language, dedicated to
website and / or
the transnational programmes
newsletter?
have
the
necessary
trainings related to communication
capacity
and
activities in order to get certain
expertise
skills.
concerning
NCPs should more often attend
Time limitations! Expertise could be
communication
improved, -> no communication
activities.
experts.
organize
national
level
stakeholders and info days for
information
events
beneficiaries when calls for projects
for
are open, etc.
beneficiaries and
other
national
number
respondents: 4
Organisation of cross-programme
(not only for SEE) national info-
stakeholders?
Total
NCP organizes annual events for
days, thematic workshops, etc.

of
Yes
21

Question
% of answers
useful
Open answers
for
stakeholders?
disseminate
outputs and result

in your country?
help JTS to
identify
information gaps
in due time?
Total
number
respondents: 4
of
Yes
30. Could you please estimate the number of media appearances regarding both the SEE
programme and SEE projects in your country per year? (For each year separately between
2007 and 2013.)
We estimate the approximate number of media appearances at project level to 3-4 per year.
I do not have this information because I was appointed NCP only in March 2013. Since March
2013 there has not been any media appearance in my country.
No media monitoring conducted.
I should check these numbers with the Hungarian project partners. A detailed list by media
types (web, tv, radio, newsletter) will be prepared by 23th August.
coverage:
Question
% of answers
Open answers
Annual
conferences
Annual
conferences
media,
since
policy
should
and
attract
decision
makers, representatives of national/local

authorities are attending them or taking
the stand at these events (Ministers,
mayors).
High
number
of
participants;
local
politicians on the spot
Info days
Info days are more toward potential

project partners oriented therefore less
interesting to media.
Workshops
Potential PPs are target audience!
Media are mostly interested in these

events, since experts, policy makers and
decision makers are often invited to
these events
But focus is very limited; depends

probably on workshop outputs, etc.
National
level
Media are mostly interested in these
information
events, since experts, policy makers and
events
decision makers are often invited to

these events.
Potential PPs are target audience!
Total number of
22
Question
% of answers
respondents: 4
Open answers
32. How could the JTS better organize the dissemination of information about programme
results?
The dissemination of information and promotion of programme results should be done by

organizing mobile events (JTS+NCP promotion on tour), by giving feedback to NCPs about
project events, so NCPs could promote these results forward at national level.
I think that the JTS has done a good job in the way how has organized the dissemination of
information about programme results. A good idea would be to produce a booklet (where should
be described the Programme results and the necessary information) and distribute this booklet
in all the countries which are part of the SEE.
The SEE newsletter could be used to regularly (monthly?) share information about project
results (introductions of SEE project of the months, mentioning exceptional achievements of
projects, introduction of interesting SEE statistics such as how many pilot actions SEE is
supporting, how many investments are going to be prepared by SEE projects and the envisaged
value, etc.).
Social media could have been an interesting approach to disseminate programme and project
results (e.g. SEE facebook page). But since the programme is coming to an end very soon, it
might be too late to start a facebook page, etc. However, other tools could still be used, e.g.
SEE ppts could be uploaded at slideshare, etc.
Photo / video competitions are cheap tools to raise awareness and get great images for
dissemination purposes.
Earlier information to NCPs & MC members about dissemination activities could help to
increase national promotion/dissemination activities, identification of relevant stakeholders, to
get additional inputs/ideas, etc. and could strengthen the link to national activities.
Stronger cooperation with regional SEE networks (EUSDR, RCC, WBC-INCO.NET, etc.) and
thematic conferences in the SEE region could help to strengthen the public awareness and
profile of the SEE programme. Relevant SEE projects could be introduced or SEE PPs could be
supported to present their results/activities and inform simultaneously about SEE.
Facebook could be a good way to further disseminate project results.
Central
Europe
(https://www.facebook.com/CentralEuropeProgramme)
or
AlpineSpace
programme (https://www.facebook.com/pages/EU-Alpine-Space/360166670675577) also use

this way to reach people all over Europe. In my opinion it can be useful because if people like
the programmes facebook page they get information about the programme in an indirect way,
even if they do not visit the programme website.
33. How could the National Contact Point better organize the dissemination of information
about programme results?
Different target groups (policy makers, indirect users, project partners..) and communication
strategy for each target group should be defined.
Different target groups should be reached through events, photo exhibition, media, social
groups, advertisement.
The NCP should establish good links with the national media (newspapers and TV channels)
and promote all the activities performed under the SEE.
The biggest problem is the lack of information about success stories and the progress of
projects. Due to the high number of national PPs, the contact between NCPs and projects
varies. In most cases, the projects with problems are contacting the NCPs. In this respect, it
would be very helpful if the JTS could regularly share information with the NCPs about
successful projects, interesting project outputs, etc. since they are in direct contact with the
projects and administer the progress reports.
23
The exchange between NCPs and JTS on dissemination activities could be enhanced. So far,
NCPs exchange information about planned events, etc. only at annual NCP meetings. If the
exchange would be more frequent or more systematic (e.g. uploading dissemination material to
an internal share point, announcements of events to other NCPs, etc.), maybe this could help
NCPs to benefit from each other and/or get new ideas for their own dissemination work.
Dissemination / communication workshops dedicated to NCPs could also be helpful. None of us

are communication experts and we could probably still learn a lot how to better use our
resources. On the other hand, these seminars could also support a/the common approach of
SEE programme dissemination of NCPs & JTS.
A national (Hungarian) webpage should be established to reach more Hungarian partners and
potential stakeholders.

Results, added value and the future. The objective of the questions in this part of the questionnaire
Response
1
Establishing
Total
transnational
networks
% of responses
and
80 %
80 %
60 %
80 %
5 Pilot actions
60 %
60 %
partnerships
practices
level;

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
It was a good opportunity to create long term partnerships between institutions from different
countries, which will be kept and developed in the future.
Specific transnational area
Networking
24
Response
Total
% of responses
1 Poor
20 %
2 Fair
60 %
3 Good
20 %
4 Excellent
0%
Response
Total
- N/A
% of responses
%
0%
Average: 2 Median: 2
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
37. How would you assess the contribution of the SEE programme to policies at the
following level:
Question
% of answers
Average - Median
Local level (e.g. urban development
Average: 2,20
in the participating countries)
Median: 2
Regional level (policies in regions in
Average: 2
the participating countries)
Median: 2
National (policies affecting the whole
Average: 2
territory of the participating countries)
Median: 1,50
EU policies
Average: 2,20
Median: 2

Response
Total
% of responses
40 %
60 %
60 %
0%
60 %
40 %
20 %
results

and private
stakeholders
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Integration of different funds should be kept and cooperation between public and private
stakeholders should be improved
Not applicable, there will be 2 new programmes
The most problematic issue in the pre-financing. I strongly recommend to foresee pre-financing
in the next programme.
Good communication between NCPs and JTS should continue. NCPs should continue to
disseminate information about the programme to the potential partners. Communication
between NCPs and project partners should be developed.
25
Questionnaire at project level (beneficiaries)
Please answer the below questions for the project(s) for which you are Lead Partner or Project
Partner. NOTE: We have sent this questionnaire to the contact(s) that the Joint Technical
Secretariat has for the each project. In some cases there were two contact addresses. We only
need 1 answer per project. In case you would like to share some opinions on a project in which you
are a partner, you are very welcome to do so in the last question.
40. Did you participate in the 4th call?
Response
Total
1 Yes
47
64 %
2 No
26
36 %
3.1
% of responses
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Project selection
This part of the questionnaire is about project selection. The objective of this part is to evaluate the
performance of the systems of the SEE programme.
41. Was the assessment and selection procedure fair and transparent?
Response
Total
% of responses
1 yes
27
61 %
2 mostly
10
23 %
3 more or less
11 %
4 no
0%
5 no idea
5%

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
42. Please list the main obstacles that your project/s met in the selection process?
Collecting papers is a logistic challenge in a time, when you do not know, whether you will get
anything, you have to enter contracts, which demand a high level of commitment in advance, a
long time before the selection or start of project (leaderships may change in a year, staff may
change influencing the competence of the partner, etc.)
Did not collaborate in project applying process
There were no obstacles / I could not remember.
The timing: we submitted the application form in November and we only got the answer in the
middle of the summer
Although the project was approved, it was included in the project reserve list and finally did not
receive funding.
lack of information concerning other projects that were applied at fourth call
The late information on the approval of the project resulted in initial delay.
27
A very difficult negotiation phase in which we initially had to deal with the possibility of merging
two technically different projects into one single project.
Length of the time span
No significant obstacles were detected in the selection process
Budget redefinition. Expenditure forecast.
No obstacles.
We did not participate in the project selection process.
we didn't find specific obstacles
There wasn't any real obstacles. Everything was running smoothly.
The necessity to collect the hardcopies of the annexes signed and stamped by all partners (we
manage 16 partners and the considerable number of annexes create some criticises in
respecting deadlines
No obstacles, just revisions of our first draft
I am not sure what with selection process is meant: the whole preparation phase? In that case
the main obstacle was to get everything in time, especially the originals by the partners. One
main obstacle is that ASP have to sign as well the partnership agreement, which needed
enormous efforts.
Some issues regarding the budget allocation. All problems were solved
The only real obstacle has been the technical problem with IMIS program (pw, User Id).
We have no complaints, only the negotiation phase was rather long.
Our project met no special obstacles in the selection process.
Incomplete information submitted in description of activities.
ensure the highest transnational impact
The uncertainty in the IPA funding: during the selection procedure we have to change the status
no obstacles individuated
of IPA partners (from Project Partner to Observer)
Not the case
We were in the reserve list and encountered certain delays in final approval and identification of
available funds.
To collect the original documents, fill in the application form and the financial section in IMIS, is
time consuming
Overall length of the two steps procedure, which always cause problems in keeping the
consortium of partners actively involved, especially if there is a change in partner's
referents/contact persons
from my perspective, always (1st as well as 4th call), the clearing phase ("conditions") is in
transparent and not 100% clear for the applicant how to go on request: as far as I understood
this questionnaire contacts only successful projects - consequently, probably you will not get a
long list of obstacles
Collect the original documents, fill in all the detailed requests of IMIS
43. Which aspects of the project selection could be improved and how?
Instead of partnership agreements: letters of intent. Instead of concrete staff: staff profiles.
Did not collaborate in project applying process
Faster response time between submission of application form and actual start of the project.
The expert database should comprise experts out of the SEE region that would perform the
project selection purely based on the quality of the project. The role of the larger SEE countries
in the selection process that is currently quite significant should be limited.
28
Information of process of selection, more dynamic, active informing of SEE programme bodies.
The timing could be further developed.
It is considered to be inconvenient that the three funds supporting the SEE Programme (ERDF,
IPA and ENPI) to function in different frameworks and time-frames. That causes difficulties and
discontinuity issues in the selection process as well as in effective management of the project.
Shortening the time span of the evaluations keep, as much as possible, the weight of the
independent evaluations in the selection process keep, as much as possible the supporting role
of JTS (at info days)
Less formal aspects, more real content-related. Also allow good ideas outside pre-defined
micro-strategy.
The duration of the project selection should be shorter. The definition of expenditure forecast.
Reporting periods should be kept as they are set in the beginning.
Timeline (the selection could be done in shorter time) Evaluation sheets with comments could
be provided to each project (as in some other programmes) Transparency of selection (detailed
scoring should be published)
SEE programme has one of the fastest selections processes, so I would only encourage them
We participate in two call (the first one and the fourth one). We preferred the selection
to maintain this procedure.

procedure with two steps that permit to focus the attention (at the beginnings) in the partnership
and the project idea, and in the second step in preparing a good executive project, even if this
option required more time for definitive approval.
As we were selected, I do not see any relevant improvements.
the differences between observer and ASP: better definition of role resp. deleting the
differences and enabling to get fecundation of travel and accommodation without the signature
process (partnership agreement) behind it.
In the project selection it should be given priority to the contents of the project idea and in cases
of inadequate elaboration of concepts, the LP should be contacted and given the chance for
improvements, rather than rejecting it.
The selection of our project has been communicate by e-mail, but the official communication
and the signature of the subsidy contract has been possible only more than 2 months later. This
gap has generated a late start of the activities to manage with difficulties.
Updates on the completion of evaluation steps
Maybe the negotiation phase should be shorter with not so much requests on lowering the
budget, because in some parts it was not reasonable.
I do not have such a good overview of the selection process to be able to suggest the points of
improvement.
The clearing process was long and delayed start up of process with consequences in timely
implementation of several project activities which were linked to other ongoing European
initiatives.
The negotiation process
it is ok as it is
1. The application of the two-step procedure for all the calls. 2. To have uniform rules and some
basic shared indicators among the ERDF cooperation programmes
a greater level of transparency
We are fine with the procedure
Less documents needed.
To submit only copies of the supporting documents and improve the IMIS system
Proceed with just one step procedure directly.
no one obstacle
see above: condition/clearing phase should be made clearer, more transparent
Improve the possibility for the partners to meet before the submission, improve the IMIS system
and the presentation of scanned documents and not originals
29
The selection should be even more transparent and if it possible the results not to be focused
on one date. The results should be presented continuously during the timeframe of selection
process.
44. How do the following tools contribute to the generation of best quality transnational
projects? Please select their main characteristics
Question
% of answers
Support
by
programme
managers
Programme
manual
National info
days
Programme
conferences
Training
seminars
Application
packs
Applicants
guidelines
Document
on
"SEE
project
generation"
Direct
contact with
national
contact
points
Website
resources
Database
project ideas
Total number of
respondents: 44
Useful - User friendly - Easily accessible - Rich on high quality information Available on time - N/A
Other, please specify
3.2
Scientific board
Experience within the lead partner organisation
communication.
30
45. Based on your impressions how would you rate the following elements /
characteristics of the work of JTS:
Question
% of answers
..
timely
Open answers
Reply to Progress reports is not
communication to
timely, but Project Officer replies
the Beneficiaries
very fast, that is excellent.
Have been timely and accurately

briefed
on
all
ongoing
events,
changes, etc.
The JTS usually allows enough time

to the Beneficiaries to prepare the
required documents.
..
usefulness,
Sometimes
the
perspective
of
quality and clarity
projects is eventually difficult to
of
understand as we need to clarify
information
provided
to
Beneficiaries
by
spendings also with the FLCs.
JTS
Current overlapping questionnaire

work carried out on national and
transnational level.
Have
always
received
prompt
replies/solutions to all our questions.
We do not have any clarification

questions
.. usefulness of
I personally didn't participate there.
events
The Annual events are useful. The
(conferences,
30th October SMART SEE was a
info
complete
days,
workshops)
failure
in
almost
all
regards...
organized by JTS
Important
to
meet
JTS
and
stakeholders face-to-face.
Have attended all events organized

by JTS and found them all very
useful
Usually
the
events
are
useful.
However there are some events (i.e.

European Cooperation Day in 2012)
the target group of which was not
communicated successfully
.. usefulness of
I did not read newsletters.
newsletters
provided by JTS
cannot
remember
the
last
newsletter, am I subscribed?
Did not receive any yet.
Clear and timely News section on

the website. We do not receive
newsletters.
..
providing
personalised
Yes,
there
is
support
and
in
comparison to FP7 it is very good.
support
to
Beneficiaries
in
all SEE stakeholders are distributed.
their
communication
Today too many general emails to
Support, constructive criticism and

guidance were fully extended at all
31
Question
% of answers
Open answers
activities
times.
Did not yet have a chance to test
In case we needed support and
this.
independent evaluation regarding

our communication activities, the
JTS
provided
tailored,
useful,
quick
and
custom-
professional
support.
I wish to thank JTS staff for help

and support.
..regular
of
update
programme
website
weak, the programme news could
with
be more informative
relevant
information
Total
number
The projects news part is very
We appreciate the updates and the

related email-communication
of
respondents: 5
46. On the basis of your experiences did the JTS provide easy access to relevant documents
- as well as information about the programme requirements and administrative proceedings
- to you in the following periods / tasks of the SEE programe?
Question
% of answers
Open answers
Relevant information for financing

on national level could be a bit more
detailed, eventually the nationally
differing
process
unpleasant
is
the
most
challenge
for
coordinators. The pre-registration

for 3rd call was required to get
documents
for call,
that
is
to
restrictive and not understandable.

Unacceptable was the change of
rules from EoI to full proposal stage
in the 2nd call (OH percentage).
We never received an evaluation

summary report what is e.g in other
programmes
useful
tool
for
projects to see what is appreciated

and what should be improved (also
during work on project).
Only few information hereto.
For
ERDF
approx.
contract
months
came
with
delay.
This
hinders any good planning. The

separated
contracting
with
IPA
authorities is the most stupid I ever

experienced in a programme, IPA
partners had to reduce their budget
without
32
explanation by the EU
Question
% of answers
Open answers
delegation in Serbia.
..
financial
Only few information hereto.
Permanent updates indicate the
management
need to adopt permanently, not a

good
sign
for
maturity
of
the
programme, but useful in the end as

in each step better definitions (like
for exchange rate in the recent
update). The expected estimation of
spendings per activity in a WP (not
to be reported in Progress reports)
at the end of a WP will be senseless
as it cannot be traced back anyway.
We spent proportional fraction of

time for financial matters. System is
too complex
.. reporting
Double reporting first to FLC and

then to JTS seems a meaningless
process. The first periodic report
was 1 month !!!! This is a result of a
senseless predefinition of reporting
periods, even going over change of
year
what
requests
corrective
reports for real costs of staff. IPA

separated
reporting
is
also
senseless procedure. The JTS is

very
supportive
and
the
IMIS
system works in most parts good

(only IPA reporting section in 2nd
call projects does not work at all
New documents for reporting should

be made more visible.
.. project results
The definition of indicators came

after
2/3
of
project
already
implemented, that is completely

absurd. Still such documentation is
useful,
but
as
there
was
no
guidance when submission took

place, we need now to adjust the
values as definition (own) varies
from definition provided at beginning
of
2013.
The
distribution
of
aggregated target numbers for O/R

to partners is not required, but for
FLC PPR tools they are needed,
that is an arbitrary distribution in the
end. The Final report template in
details was delivered now, it is
complicated and nobody can ever
read all the text parts required.
33
Question
Total
% of answers
number
Open answers
of
respondents: 68
Yes

Question
% of answers
The JTS sends

its
comments
Open answers
The Response to check of Progress

reports is late for the first response,
on
during clarification of PR it is timely,
reports in time.
even very fast! The reason for late

first
reaction
is
for
sure
the
approach to check each spending

although already confirmed by the
FLCs, is there not any trust to
national FLCs???
The
JTS
Definition of indicators came after
provides
timely,
20 months of project work, Final
complete
and
reporting template came late. IF
definitive
information
there is a clear question to the

on
project officer information comes
programme
perfectly
procedures.
reaction!
in
time,
indeed
fast
Although all program documents are

available and JTS provides support,
the programme roles are not always
clear
with
regard
to
the
the
responsibilities, and the command

and control mechanisms in the
(legally
binding)
programme
documents and in the procedures.

When it comes to compatibility with
the
national
legislations
(and
customs) this ambiguity can cause

serious
problems
in
the
implementation.
Very
strict
and
short-time
schedules.
.. The website of the
Yes for the information regarding
programme is up-to-
management relevant documents,
date and provides
no for broad overview from ongoing
useful information.
activities and no for the "future" of

the SEE TCP
There is no information available on

the members and decision-making
procedures
of
the
Monitoring
Committee, therefore the highest

level of decision-making is not
completely transparent.
34
On the annual
I did not participated there.
conference
the
The Annual conference and the fair
stakeholders
get
gives a good opportunity, still it is
Question
% of answers
Open answers
detailed information
relevant
instead of general
stakeholders, not for all involved
level information.
only for local
national
countries.
The Annual conference provides

more
general
than
specific
information.
In the last Annual SEE Conference

in Bologna, almost all presentations
were in Italian, which we did not
appreciate despite of the available
translation service, as the language
of the Programme is English.
The
results,
stories
project
are
Through the Annual conference and

the upcoming film we were involved
success
well
we can say yes, but for the
to
communication the projects must
communicated
the general public.
gain outreach, not the SEE TCP

management
We have provided content to the

success stories developed by the
JTS, but we did not receive any
direct information about the final
result.
.. The JTS provides

enough
opportunities
The annual conference is useful for

dissemination, also the idea of
for
thematic capitalisation is useful (but
project stakeholders
late
to exchange their
stakeholders
in
the
end).
Project
good practices.
rather limited to LP and to PP in
communication
is
charge of Communication, others

are
rather
excluded,
unknown
events are rather difficult to attend

as budget planning is fixed and
unflexible for changes (still possible
for ERDF partners) for IPA partners
no participation on events can be
expected as budget changes take a
lot of time.
As Project Leader, I would have

appreciated
opportunities
to
exchange experience with other

Lead Partners.
Total
number
respondents: 68
of
Yes
35
48. Do you have information materials of the SEE programme in your own language?
Response
Total
1 Yes
29
43 %
2 No
39
57 %
% of responses
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
49. Does the National Contact Point :

Question
% of answers
have a close
relationship
Open answers
Yes but not proactive, but supports
as far as mandate is given
with
lead partners of the
It is still the beginning of the project

and we will strength our cooperation
projects
at next seminar.
We have no information on the

national contact point, we are in
direct contact with JTS (Hungary)
I learned that it is more effective to

get directly in contact with the JTS
instead of the NCP
Have enjoyed permanent closest

possible support both during Neli
and now in Hint
... provide support
There is no support and there is no
with regards First
support needed so far, We hope
Level
that FLC auditors are linked for
Control
procedures
information purposes in a way as

we are involved in 2 SEE TCP and
we see the difference of FLCs in
different ministries
Have
facilitated
access
to
information provided by FLC
organize national
level
all TCP Austria is involved. IT is
for
rather a give from projects than a
events
beneficiaries
other
There is an annual conference for
information
take for projects.
and
national
stakeholders
we have participated in 1 event

organised by FLC at the starting of
the project
We have participated only at one

event before the implementation
has started and it was useful.
Informational
event
could
be
organized a little bit faster.
Especially
useful
transnational.vernetzt
Workshops
organized
extremely useful
Total
number
respondents: 68
36
of
Yes
were

Question
% of answers
useful
Open answers
for
Beneficiaries?
disseminate
outputs and result

in your country?
Total
number
of
respondents: 68
Yes
51. How could the programme (JTS, NCPs) better organise the dissemination of information
about programme results in your country?
A project beneficiary:
NCP should be quicker.
Extra budget for capitalization if the projects.
Improve the web site or use national media. BUT... this would mean additional work for the
beneficiaries, which are even now pre-occupied by complicated reporting procedures.
hold info events in National language, press conference on programme results
Create a database of project results associating specific keywords with results. Currently project
results are hidden in the project individual web sites and are not easily accessible.
Annual faire of SEE projects, involving the media, other public beneficiaries, not only project
partners...
With excursions where best practices could be joined together
Capitalising existing platforms and project web-site promoting uniques communication

instruments on selected issues
Launching of national language sub- parts at SEE website, organisation of dissemination

events.
JTS and NCPs should organise events that will be innovative, interactive and attractive so as to
motivate stakeholders to participate. Most of the people are not aware of the SEE existence.
Furthermore, the stress should be on disseminating information to ERDF countries about
participation of IPA and ENPI funds in SEE since this is added value to other co-funded
programmes.
to a specific regional or district events in which they explain to the beneficiaries the benefit of
the territorial cooperation
Improving the website etc.
- clustering activities between some relevant projects - national events with presentations of
projects running in the same objective
The NCPs role in Austria is not dissemination, still they could send newsletters or send to
priority field members directed information. The JTS could also send information directed to AoI
project partners and not only to LPs.
The established framework is excellent
The dissemination is organized very well
Support/ advise the translation of the project results at the planning stage of the project Make
available the programme level documents (not only the finance related clauses) in national
language or to arrange for their translation with the national authorities
The JTS should take care on sending out 'mass emails' to all SEE stakeholders. Fewer emails,
but more specific ones would help to keep attention and interest in these emails newsletters.
By exploiting existing networks of local and regional authorities and organizing specific events
focusing on specific thematic poles
Facilitate exchange of experience/best practice in fairs
37
I believe direct e-mails (including links) to the beneficiaries about news and changes on the
Programme and NCP's website would be useful.
I think it is well organized.
Through a national website
Trying to reach other stakeholders than project beneficiaries (NCP) in their events
Periodic newsletter
There should be more events regarding dissemination activities. Projects should be made more
visible at the NCPs website.
By organising events in all the regions interested by the approved projects inviting all the lead
partners to cooperate tightly with their staff during the selection of the stakeholders to be invited.
The national contact point organized good events during the Programme period 2007 - 2013
and so I think that a good way to disseminate the results of the first call projects could be the
proposition of national meetings to let any single partner of SEE Programme country to take a
real understanding of the most important outcomes of the others projects and try to create a
new system to develop new proposals for the following period. Another important thing to do, for
me, could be the publication on the official website of the results of all projects funded and
completed, to download easily, to entice the partners of the various countries to seek in this
handbook ideas for improving the situation of their countries through new project proposals.
Being more present and closer to project participants
It would be useful to have a mailing list for the LPs and/or other beneficiaries within the country.
More information days in combination with visits of responsible persons from the European
Commission could give more media presence and therefore an enhanced impact.
Through the use of different media and social media, instead of classic distribution channels like
website and emails. Complementary to the Annual event the NCP shall organize structured infoevents for beneficiaries.
more events on cross-sectoral level
Better information towards Regional Administrations and co-operation for using regional funds
to valorise programme results.
Incentivising the NCPs in keeping closer relationships with relevant projects and stakeholders,
suggesting synergies, external events in which they could participate.
The programme could organise dissemination actions during important and relevant events for
the country, not only for experts and beneficiaries, but addressed to a wider and varied
audience that allows to get to all citizens.
National networking events
We have first project in SEE Programme and till now we have no complaints.
No special proposals at this level of knowledge.
The NCPs could become more visible and disseminate information on the projects results
through public meetings with various stakeholders, media (TV, radio on national level). This
would further increase synergies, public awareness, etc.
Do not have any suggestion, past events have met all our expectations.
By organising ad hoc road shows at national level with Ministries.
ad hoc events
That is a topic for the national responsible persons (MONITORING COMMITTEE etc.)
Organization of meetings/focus groups on specific priority
JTS jointly to the NCPs should organize more addressed events where partners of similar of
complementary projects can meet and share the state of the art of the project and plan common
actions within the projects. Moreover, newsletter or other kind of informations should circulate
on all the similar projects in order to maximize each single projects' outputs, by e.g. creating a
mailing lists of projects per each axis in order to share within each mailing list the related
outputs and results of the projects.
Probably the best way would be to organise the dissemination plan also on regional level, the
38
national event is good but it is not easy for the partners to attend due to the long distance.
Some of the local partners could be involved in disseminating the results as good practice
examples, with the support from the National SEE partner.
Better supporting the projects in capitalization and communication of their results.
organizing more events and posting more info on the website
It is ok as it is. I would not need more.
Disseminating project final outputs and results in different partner languages.
By organizing National Day/ Days of the Programme, workshops, news on media, etc.
They should support the collaboration within similar projects to enhance the impacts of the
projects results and avoid double activities on the same subject
Arranging workshops with stakeholders direct involvement (as speakers)
increased dissemination through the media, both print radio and television
Organizing an specific national event at the end of programme 2007-2013
More and custom-tailored information, success stories and interesting moments shared with
young people, university students highlighting the benefits for them. Holding presentations at
schools, etc.
From the JTS part, the level of dissemination of information is very satisfactory. From the side of
NCP, the communication established with the Project Partners should be more frequent and
substantial.
To foster the collaboration of projects in the same topics from the same national area (region,
provinces, etc.)
Dissemination is responsibility of project partners. NCP can assist ('standard' event locations,
help in invitation and advertising of participation)
Perhaps another good way may be organising some short seminars in national languages
where the programme goes directly in the beneficiaries premises to share info on the results.
to organize more capitalization events
There should be more events and meetings between different partners in SEE on national level.
So partners can exchange experiences and solve some questions.
3.3

Results, added value and the future The objective of the questions in this part of the questionnaire
52. Please, explain in brief, why you have chosen the SEE Programme to realize your project
ideas compared to other national and EU funding initiatives?
Project beneficiary:
In regional development, this programme suits best for the intension of the ReTINA project.
Especially the different profiles of the partners (municipalities and university and companies
(subcontractors) was useful for the implementation.
The topic (resource efficiency) was covered by SEE programme. FP7 wants state-of-the*art to
Transnational character of project Geographical coverage of SEE
be addressed, but at "our" topic it is hard to make something like that.
Due to the coverage of the SEE area i.e. primarily the Balkan area and South European
countries that has special characteristics combined with the rest of Europe.
SEE programme is one of the more "orderly" and clear programme areas in Europe (together
with Interreg 4C). Alpine, Mediterranean and other programme areas are much less organised,
selection criteria are dubious, project management is more difficult.
39
Because our project idea fits to programme priorities.
The geographic area of competence is of high value for my Institution.
As the countries gathered in the SEE mostly faces with similar problems and challenges.
Because it offered rare opportunity to realize project in road infrastructure and involved IPA and
ENPI countries which was target for the project.
Because the SEE gives you the opportunity to work and build in the last border of Europe and
the area in which the historical networks have been partially interrupted due the last the war and
post-war events. It is also an area that represents the treffenpunkt of the cultural ideas of
Europe and a potential coming soon single market.
Because of the priorities of the SEE programme which fit with the objectives of the project. The
Because the programme supports the SEE countries
No other funding possibility available, openness of call (2nd call), covered countries range,
geographic scope of the partnership also fits in teh SEE programme.
thematic field of call fits good to idea
Geographical coverage
The thematic of the programme was very attractive, comprehensive and flexible and relevant
regarding climate change and adaptation measures including disaster management. The extent
of the geographical coverage was another positive factor (although we find that the number of
the partners to be obligatory included in a consortium is too high).
Because of the circumstance that our initiatives and thematic themes are related to the Danube
river and corridor the SEE programmes provided excellent opportunities to collaborate with all
other Danube riparian countries and organisations. Other EU funding programmes than the
SEE programme do not offer the same geographical scope for enabling and fostering
partnerships along the Danube regions.
The focus on innovation in agriculture and agro-food business needs a wider area than a
region/country, to prepare European farms and food industry for global competition. This also
helps guarantee a good quality level of final products.
Cannot describe it exactly because I joined the project first in the start-up phase, but the high
reimbursement intensity and the opportunity to implement local pilot projects within the project
time frame were for sure among the top priorities of the actual company management who
decided to submit a proposal under this Programme.
As we had prior cooperation with the partners of SEE area and it was a perfect opportunity to
deepen the existing cooperation.
Priorities SEE Programme are fitting to our scope of work
Good experience in former projects, good cooperation of project partners, project idea in line
with requirements of SEE programme, possibility to implement on transnational level
For the interest in area and the positive framework of Programme
SEE programme is covering the region (Balkan area) which has lots of potential with regards to
our project outputs (Tackling the ''Digital Divide'') and also priorities of our project was the same
as the priority of the SEE programme (Improvement of the accessibility) as we want to increase
the accessibility of the services in the area by utilizing free capacity of Digital Terrestrial
Television (DTT) networks.
The SEE programme is the unique program that links two macro areas: the Danube area and
western Balkan area. The participation in the programme of countries coming from the two
areas create the possibility to reduce the differences of the two areas (the Danube regions,
during the last decades reveal a fast development, compared with the Balkan area).
Furthermore, our project is focused on the sustainable development of marine area so, the
programme create the possibility to cover two important marine area: black see and
Mediterranean see.
There are not so many EU funds in favour of biodiversity/nature conservation/Natura 2000,

besides LIFE+, which is not really suitable for international projects with a wide geographic
40
scope. SEE covers a relatively large geographical area, including EU and non-EU members as
well.
Our project is a multilateral cooperation project between countries of the SEE region, so the
selection was a logical decision.
1. Because the SEE Area needs to be further strengthen in regards to the regional policy
objectives through the implementation of quality projects. 2. Because the participating countries
(extremely varied centre, homogenized periphery, different political and social contents in recent
history) need to develop better relationships and forge a collective ID representing the SEE
area, and motive the new member states towards integration. 3. Because the priority 4.3 "Use
of cultural values for development" is a unique feature across the EU funded projects
Best way to cover the Danube region, rather high cofounding rate
SEE Programme allows the diffusion of knowledge and good practice in renewable energy
sector from experienced countries (Italy, Austria, ...) towards countries where renewable
sources are less common, with mutual advantages for both kinds of countries.
Because of our project was in line with the geographical area covered by the SEE Programme
as well as with its priorities. Further issue was the fact that the Programme provides 85% of the
project's budget and the remaining part is covered by national co-financing.
The project needs to establish a transnational network and the area of South East Europe
presents some characteristics that allow to test the action previewed and to raise the added
value and the expected results.
Availability of open call fitting the project aim
The aim of the project fits excellently to the thematic pools of the 4th call. Besides, most of the
partners have interest to collaborate with SEE countries. 2) Competitive SMEs- Business
support Services; 3) Knowledge transfer to SMEs
Because it is the most suitable for the topic of our project.
The SEE Programme was the only funding programme covering the target area and ensuring
the cohesion/support needed for the project results foreseen to be achieved by the project
partners.
We have selected SEE Programme due to its basic goal, transnational cooperation which we
feel could be the answer for the development of South East part of Europe. As representatives
of a new EU Member State located in South East we consider this programme answers best to
our national needs and requirements.
Because of the importance of the countries within the SEE area linked to the themes to be
developed.
Because the geographical area of cooperation was appropriate to the development of the
project idea
The project is straightforward in addressing territorial development challenges, and its main
theme (demo change and migration) is transnational in nature. So, transnational cooperation
was the most natural choice. The choice of the area was also easy as the SEE area is
interconnected by population movements that are unlikely to diminish over the next period,
posing specific challenges to territorial development.
Regional context - (along the Danube) high funding rate (very important for some countries)
In the area the issue of the Road Safety is relevant and crucial
ClusterPoliSEE project would enhance the capacity of regional policy makers to confront,
prevent and anticipate change, developing smart specialization strategies for cluster
improvement, accelerating structural change towards a knowledge-based economy in which
there is a place for all SEE regions to position themselves. In SEE area many cluster policies
and initiatives exist and considering that a prioritization and concentration of the different
actions towards creating world class clusters is a strategic challenge to fulfil the EU objectives
of growth and competitiveness, ClusterPoliSEE would face with this challenge. Regional
innovation policies in target regions often demonstrated a lack of efficiency in identifying
41
priorities for regions and forms of practical collaboration between regions, leading to a wasteful
use of public resources and hampering the realization of potential benefits. SEE regions may be
running a twofold risk: to dilute available resources on a non-sector-specific promotion of local
business, which ultimately prevent the formation/strengthening of clusters of European value; to
support the thematic specialization of nascent clusters that will never reach a worldwide
excellence, instead of promoting transnational collaborations for the co-invention of applications
in one or more domains that are also important for the regional economy. While there is no
room for too many distributed clusters of excellence on same thematic domains in Europe,
those regions that are targeting the same kind of specialization should cooperate and
coordinate their funding initiatives to allow for the emergence of cross-national agglomerations,
able to attract R&D and innovation capacities. Thus policy makers need to better assess impact
of clusters on competitiveness and innovation. This can ultimately lead SEE regions to become
innovation hubs: clusters can be powerful catalysts in this process and should function like
interconnected territorial hubs.
We were and are involved in other national and EU funding initiatives but the SE Programme
was covering perfectly our needs. The international partners and also the way SEE
programmes are implemented was a great chance to prepare the local team to understand how
to implement bigger projects and especially make a good and reliable database for future
partners.
The SEE program is more focused than other programme on improving integration and
This programme was more suitable for our project idea, giving the nature of the programme
competitiveness in the EU South East Area, where my bodies operate.

which is based on "cooperation in S-E Europe" and also the project it was suitable for the Axis
where the project was submitted.
Best chances for the project to get funds.
Because it provided good opportunities to achieve relevant results within the project area of
intervention at transnational level.
Our field activity (Inland Transport) require a better cooperation between countries in the
Since it covers an interesting area and the level of co-financing cover the 100% of project
Danube Region, that means Transnational Cooperation Programme is more appropriate.

expenditures.
Because of the opportunity to extend the network of relations to South East Europe area and
Because our Regione is very interested to the project area
Because the SEE area has the problems and issues to be faced in the field of our expertise. In
the Black Sea.
other words, we knew that major problems in the SEE area were related to hydropower
production improvement, implementation of friendly small hydro, improvement of water
resources management (for water supply, irrigation, river environment, power generation),
preservation of water bodies quality and ecological values. That's why we decided to grow a
project involving key partners in the different countries, that finally was approved and executed
with great profit to everybody.
The diverse religious-cultural heritage of the SEE Programme Area is an underexploited

development factor. There is a huge potential in this heritage, however the lack of awareness,
lack of knowledge and the lack of critical mass of the stakeholders restrains the regions from
benefiting from these capabilities, endowments. Until today, there were no such initiations in the
region, which could offer such a comprehensive solution for the inclusion of this heritage into
urban and regional development plans as this project proposes. Our project calls for a radically
different approach that faces up to the territories' present and potential opportunities and
attractions so as to create a permanent incentive for local tourist operators to set up and
enlarge their businesses and for external ones to come to the area. The Cultural Religious
Tourism in particular could represent a really driving force for economy in SEE territories, as
42
has already "proved" to be in some SEE territories (Bosnia - Medjugorje, Italy - San Giovanni
Rotondo).
The SEE Programme was considered the most relevant and organized programme for the
mapping and analysing of the situation of the transport sector in the South East Europe region,
where our programme focuses.
To collaborate with the countries of the SEE are and due to the level of financing very high
Because of the South East Europe focus and the existing partner network.
The framework of the SEE programme fitted best to our existing network (regional coverage
and outreach, involvement of public institutions in project work)
Mostly because of the countries with similar background joint in SEE program. Secondly
because of the possibility of production and financing detailed feasibility studies according to the
project main issue.
Response
1
Establishing
Total
transnational
networks
% of responses
and
61
90 %
59
87 %
41
60 %
51
75 %
5 Pilot actions
51
75 %
28
41 %
partnerships
practices
level;

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Other, Please specify:
Innovation and training within the project frame and across the project life
Strengthens existing networks and cooperations
54. In your opinion, what is the added value of the SEE programme compared to other EU
funded programmes in the area?
Project beneficiary
All EU programmes bring an added value, this question is hard to answer.
It bound together countries from SEE area. Especially in the Balkans, everybody are happy, that
we start cooperating instead of waging wars. Moreover, for the countries in that area, SEE
programme is perceived as more "familiar" or "domestic", like other EU programmes. We were
able to gather almost all representatives from the area (except Kosovo and Macedonia).
Transnational co-operation is a precondition of funding Relatively flexible implementation rules

Strengthens partnership attitude
The added value lies in the fact that for the first time the whole area of the Balkans and the
adjacent areas of Central and Southern Europe is included into an interregional programme.
This provides different opportunities to stakeholders in the area to face similar problems.
Project selection was clearer and in my opinion higher quality projects were selected in contrast
to other programme areas.
Integration of diverse countries, - new knowledge gains, new people contact established
43
Strong relationship between different experiences, historical & political backgrounds, social
situation, capacity building and strategies.
The involvement of IPA and ENPI Partners.
The covered areas of policy as well the participation of IPA and ENPI countries.
Showing standards - creation of a single framework in market that are too small to have enough
absorption capacity - showing the EU way of doing - promoting peace through the creation of
networks
It is a "Europe at the local level" programme involving local administrations and local
stakeholders (NGOs, citizens etc.) and at the same time it gives the opportunity to share
knowledge with colleagues from other countries with different intercultural and professional
background. In this view the SEE Programme enables a cross-sectoral and transnational
cooperation to develop joint solutions.
All of the above selected in the previous question
Regional coverage, NON-focus on excellency (as in FP7), not focused on particular regions but
on countries as the name of the programme suggests
Is is mainly addressed to SEE regions
Very good and comprehensive management system. Interesting priorities
EU partners and outside EU partner can work together; a very specific and relevant focus on
The SEE programme offered the possibility to collaborate with all Danube riparian countries
climate change adaptation and other innovative topics- one of the main problems in the region.
regardless their origin including both EU Member State countries, Candidate Countries and
even Third Countries such as HR, RS, MD and UA on certain thematic themes for being
transnationally developed and deployed. While the FP7 programme focuses primarily on
research and technical development, the SEE and other ETZ programmes focus on
regional/transnational needs for being realised.
Integrated regional approach at SEE level, including ENPI and IPA countries
It supports large partnerships and extends cooperation to countries that feature different
economic structures. Cross-border cooperation programmes do not give this opportunity.
Programme area involving both new and old member states , Support of the pilot
implementations not just the strategy development as most of the TCPs.
Maybe higher chance to implement no so much research but more developmental project.
Cooperation at SEE regional level
Project "soft" character in technical areas
Less administrative constraints than in other programmes; possibility of transnational
Make easier the relationship between different actors coming from countries involved
Added value is area of the programme which is covering region that has a lot of potential with
cooperation, inclusion of more stakeholders
regards to our project outputs. On a long term, our project will represent very important
contribution to solve issues of digital divide and social inclusion and thus will contribute to the
creation of the region of equal opportunities. Other added value is also the combination of ICT,
social and economical aspect with communication activities which suits perfect to our project
objectives.
As mentioned above, the added value is the strong link provided between Danube Macro-Area
and Adriatic-Ionian Area. The Adriatic Ionian Area still need the support of the Danube regions.
The last one, either for the geographic position (in direct contact with Central and Nord
European Countries), either for the policies applied in this country during the last years, has
demonstrate a faster development respect the Adriatic Ionian Area that for the same reasons
(geographic and politic) has registrated a lower development and therefore, need yet a strong
support in order to complete the development process.
44
I answered to this question in the previous space.
The transnational networks
Wide variety of stakeholders (NGO, academic and governmental institutions, etc.) Activities on
different levels (local, national, regional, transnational)
It is the scope of the programme and the combination of cultural, environmental, economic and
social aspects.
1. The development of a new collective identity of the participating countries within a European
integration framework. 2. The flexibility of the programme structure towards solutions during the
implementation phase of approved projects. 3. The matching of the priorities with the
developmental targets of the SEE Area
The added value of SEE is the programme area, if you are implementing a Danube project.
Greater focus on a limited area allowing the establishment of long tem partnerships; low
participation barriers allowing the participation in the projects of a wide variety of subjects, even
not very experienced; good involvement of local administrations. I my opinion, SEE programme
is particularly suitable for the diffusion of experiences and good practices instead of
implementation of research activities or completely new approaches.
The fact that the Programme is extremely flexible and open to finding the most finding solutions,
given the fact that the member countries are obstacled by their own national regulations and
policies.
The added value is the relevance of the programme in terms of visibility, networking,
No added value compared to other interregional cooperation projects.
The transnational level is here explicitly required. Thematic pools were in our case directly
capitalisation of the results, resources destined.
related with our ideas.
Transnational context, policy improvement / development, exchange of good practices, meeting

people and experts.
The SEE Programme is addressing to the South East European countries which display a
certain specificity in the region. The harmonisation of the national policies in conjunction with
the implementation of European directives, the regional networks established and joint activities
performed in a vast territory leads to SEE Programme added value as compared to other
initiatives.
The transnational character, encompassing a large part of Europe and countries with different, if
The possibility to cooperate with many South-Eastern Europe countries. The topics covered by
not antagonistic histories and cultures and setting up valid and long term partnerships.
the Programme are those of our institutional mission.
The added value is represented by the wide geographical coverage of the south east Europe
area where needs and tendency are similar
It offers the opportunity to involve public institutions in strategic thinking and cooperation on
territorial development - framing specific actions in a broader realm.
Framework for cooperation on transnational level framework for solving/analysing/discussing
The transnational approach; because the road safety is a common problem to be tackled at
problems on transnational level

transnational level
The SEE programme, within the Regional Policy's Territorial Cooperation Objective, differently
from the other EU projects, aims to improve integration and competitiveness in an area which is
as complex as it is diverse and of particular importance for Europe with many challenges,
including more and less advanced Countries and old and new members of the EU. So, SEE
programme provides a political dimension to transnational co-operation which is unique in
Europe, including also all the candidate and potential candidate countries for membership of the
European Union in the region, foreseeing strong need of co-operation forward, to build links
between authorities and organisations, and to create projects and results which will deliver real
benefits to all the people in the region. SEE programme represents therefore a bridge to the
Union, a link to the EU's Cohesion Policy and a tool for disseminating good practice to the
45
candidate countries. Moreover, these are 2 countries participating in the European

Neighbourhood Policy, which presents challenges such as ensuring good mechanisms to
contract partners who receive funding from different instruments: ERDF (European Regional
Development Fund), IPA (Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance) and potentially ENPI
(European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument). ClusterPoliSEE project, aiming at
defining, developing and implementing regional cluster policies as a corollary of the pooling of
resources and integration of activities along the global value chain, matching regional
competitive advantages with international synergies, chose SEE programme as ideal framework
to launch the strategy and the European Cluster Initiative.
It offers the chance to prepare for bigger projects, and also have at hand a good starting point
based on the pilot actions, the elaboration of joint studies, manuals, action plans, services, etc.
The fact that is based on cooperation on a certain part of Europe and that gives the possibility to
None, each programme has its advantages
The SEE programme added value is to allow the adoption of an effective transnational
have a partnership compose of many countries in the region
approach to common problems. Specifically, in case of our project the added value of
cooperation emerged in the donor/beneficiary relationship established between partners that
allowed the transmission of successful models of coordination among relevant stakeholders,
raising of the awareness for Solar Thermal policies and technologies from Austrian and Greek
donors to beneficiaries remaining partners that raised their Solar DHW Market learning and
testing successful experiences from "donors".
SEE contributes on establishing common policies, common strategies, harmonisation, etc.
The SEE programme has not a specific added value compared to other EU funded
programmes, also direct programme can cover the needs of the final beneficiaries.
Combined large participation of EU and non-EU countries.
The added value of the program is given by the enlargement to Eastern Europe and the
Considering that the SEE area is compounded by countries presenting quite different
Balkans in general area of programming tools not previously considered European.

environment, natural resources (water) availability, renewable energy development stage, social
structure, economics grow, technical-scientific knowledge, the possibility to share problems and
experiences, finding out solutions what can be applicable in different countries, was certainly a
very important added value of the SEE programme.
The SEE Programme provides the opportunity of greater trans nationality (however, managing
large partnerships is a great challenge), the different cultural background of the project partners
allows considering more different aspects in performing activities
We don't have experience from other EU funded programmes, so we could not provide a solid
answer to this question.
The financing level, while the burocratic burden of ERDF rules is too heavy
Geographical focus.
It brings together players in regions - public institutions that work "in the field". Some EU
Firstly the territorial dimension, secondly the possibility to cooperate with external countries,
It brings people from various cultures together
Providing concrete and detailed results of actions according to project ideas.
programmes are very elite in terms of scientific excellence (suitable for large universities)
thirdly the topics dealt with.
55. Please, list those project achievements delivered through your project(s) that could not
have been achieved with other programmes (either national or EU)
Project beneficiary
Closer connection between municipality and other stakeholders - discussion between

stakeholders - attempt to change the mind-set regarding old industrial areas - outcome
46
regarded interesting even for representatives of companies, DG Regio and representatives of

EU parliament.
Common recommendations, which includes almost all countries in the area. As I said before, I
personally think it would be impossible to mobilize so many different partners from so many
different countries by using other EU funded projects.
Common communication actions Survey of the ICT route.
A network of stakeholders in the SEE area comprising members from academia and enterprises
and building consensus in the SEE area at a national and transnational level.
Knowledge exchange not just among project beneficiaries but among local stakeholders aswell. We were able to organise and party finance study exchanges for locals in our pilot sites so
the approach was really bottom-up and participatory.
Establishment of permanent stakeholders network at SEE level, - common attractiveness
The involvement of IPA and ENPI Partners.
Transnational and Balkan cooperation in road inspection, trainings in Moldova, workshops with
indicators at SEE level, - common territorial monitoring system established at SEE level.
participants from the Balkan states and EU states.
Due to the ERDF funding local investment preparations / small scales investments have not
been implemented in mostly all project partners towns (financial crisis,...). Transnational
developed solutions (integrated urban development strategies, participation processes in urban
planning, etc.) have been implemented on the local ground. Without the SEE programme these
innovative salutation were not possible. A "European project" is a argument for the local
administration to implement new strategies, involve new stakeholders etc. against the local city
council and the politicians. It also improves the cross-sectoral approach within the
administration itself. Thus in our case the SEE programme facilitates innovative solutions on the
local/regional level.
Collection of SEE transnational accessible cultural values
Organisation of trainings events with trainees from the whole SEE region (4 times 40 trainees
from 16 countries) in the domain of evaluation of RTDI interventions.
Common Risk assessment methodology guidance for 9 countries (including IPA) countries; risk
matrices; risk scenarios; public awareness survey on disaster management preparedness in 6
pilot areas; SWOT analysis on disaster management preparedness in 6 pilots, Analysis on local
disaster management regulations and planning documents in 6 pilots; harmonised disaster
management exercises in 5 pilots...etc..
Transnational studies (e.g. concepts, feasibility studies) Transnational exchange (i.e.

partnership, know-how, events) Transnational pilots (i.e. exchange of pilot actions and lessons
learnt).
The project is still ongoing. No clear achievements have been delivered yet.
Local pilot projects.
Transnational platform - best practice of cooperation between science parks - pilot projects as
foreseen in our project - review of state of the art policy on particular aspects of innovation.
Elaboration on a common strategies in the field of management of energy.
The Project is addressing proposed solutions and proposing effective transnational partnership
which will work on a basic constituent of democracy and citizenship, i.e. improving information
and media, strategic matter for cohesion, stability and competitiveness.
Port networks Institutional Cooperation between IPA and EU countries.
Transnational activities (strategic documents, transnational action plans).
Exchange of best practice and experience in applications for UNESCO World Heritage Status
and regional sustainable development based on this cultural heritage.
1. Collective identity of the varied partnership 2. Participatory working styles. 3. Development of

innovation and adjustments to new environments incl. ICT and science 4. Impact on national
and regional policies 5. Inclusion and Involvement of local stakeholders and the youth.
47
As mentioned: covering the Danube region.
Identification of marginal territories in the SEE area suitable for the implementation of renewable
energy platforms; realization of feasibility studies for such implementations; assistance to local
administrations for planning concrete realizations in the fields.
European Networking of cities involved in the activities. It is not a simple exchange or

opportunity to meet . Thanks to the SEE programme the parts involved can concretely jointly
operate, testing a new model of work and of urban planning.
Our project was tailored for the SEE Programme from the very beginning.
The project coverage (9 European countries involved) and therefore the project outputs/results
which have a transnational/regional relevance by including also non EU countries like Serbia
and Ukraine.
The Transnational Action Plan for education and training in the field of IWT, the Master Studies
and Transnational Strategy for future development of Information and Training Centres, the
Common Education and Training Plan.
Comparison and attempts for harmonisation of statistical information across SEE at subnational level; Engagement of public admins in exchange of knowledge on territorial
development tools; Engagement of SEE public admins in concrete transnational initiatives for
the management of migration flows in cooperation between receiving and origin territories.
Transnational organised pilots partner network working with partners from EU and Non-EU
countries.
Transnational Methodology; Joint action plan; involvement of the stakeholders; analysis of

common surveys.
ClusterPoliSEE identifies and collects data and information enabling the analysis of framework
conditions by a learning process for reflective policy making (WP4), thus allowing the
development and testing of new policy learning mechanisms (WP5) in specific priority areas as
contribution to the setting up of evidence based cluster policies in the SEE regions. In terms of
long-term impact, the project will improve the framework conditions supporting cluster
development in the SEE area by providing a joint policy plan and Initiative (WP6) based on
mutual policy learning and evidence from pilot actions. This will define measures paving the way
for further development of a SEE cluster initiative, as organized efforts to improve growth and
competitiveness of clusters .The proposed ICT platform and collaborative learning mechanisms
(WP3) support result-oriented transnational good practice exchange among policy makers and
stakeholders engaged on regional cluster promotion and funding initiatives. Creating/reinforcing
strategic linkages between proximity SEE regions by: leveraging their complementary assets
and capabilities; enhancing business cooperation on selected technology roadmaps and
innovation pathways. Capitalizing and sharing knowledge in a open and freely accessible
environment foster the attraction and participation of non-partner organisations/countries and a
prompter, durable integration of the project into existing cluster support initiatives at broader EU
level. Content wise, the full acknowledgment of territorial needs and diversities is coupled with a
long-term perspective that is of growing relevance for EU cohesion, R&D and competitiveness
policies, and which will be pilot experimented in the SEE regions as a contribution to its wider
deployment.
I don't know if other projects could offer these achievements, but inside the SEE, we were
encouraged as a local government thus public body to lead a project and develop a relationship
with some partners we would have never get the chance otherwise.
Not yet the case.
Results for whole south east Europe.
Awareness-raising actions at transnational level; - Training actions at transnational level; Elaboration of joint studies derived from former experiences of each partner that have been
identified as Best Practices.
48
Trans National Action Plan for Training in the field of Inland Waterways Transport (Danube),
Harmonising the Training, Common Concept of Training Ship, Common Concept for simulators,
Cooperation Platform, etc.
Adb platform.
Six (6) pilot application case studies, related to hydropower production & river quality ecological
improvement, in Austria, Greece, Italy, Romania, Republic of Moldova and Slovenia. Eight (8)
Seminars with about 800 participants, in Austria, Greece, Italy, Romania, Republic of Moldova
and Slovenia. Preparation and testing of seven (7) tools, made available to end-users through
the web, helping Public administrations, environmental agencies, investors, etc., to improve
existing HP and implement new SHP, improve river quality, with already more than 200
requirements and downloads. Collaboration in the construction of an innovative fish farming
associated with small hydropower production in the Province of Belluno. Dissemination of
project outcomes & results, with more than 5,000 hits in the project website. Present projects
outcomes & results in the SEE Annual Events.
Inventory of points of interests.
International mapping and benchmarking, Transnational action plan.
Enhanced cooperations with neighbouring countries on a certain topic.
Preparation of GIS layers with participation of local institutions/players in the expert area.
Feasibility study of exploitation Geothermal energy in combination with any other renewable
source for electricity production underlined with experiences of other countries in the SEE
region.
The level of involvement of policy makers in your project(s)
Response
Total
% of responses
1 Poor
6%
2 Fair
23
34 %
3 Good
35
51 %
4 Excellent
9%
- N/A
0%

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Explanation:
In different partner countries, different levels of policy makers were reached from the level of the
national government to the level of local authorities.
Observers in the project are relevant ministries from different countries.
Trainees and interviews for fact finding, final addressees of all outputs.
Kick-off meeting was opened by Secretary General and Director General, MFAs MOIs are
observing the processes in several countries (trough regular information provided to them by
the Lead partner).
Involvement of policy makers in times of crisis management, it is a real challenge. Use of

centralised European Programmes are still not recognised in my city (Miskolc).
The project has just started so it is very hard to assess at this point.
Involvement of regulators which are included in the project as members, having the possibility to
leverage improving of legislation.
Even a good communication strategy, often is difficult to reach the full involvement of policy
makers in the ordinary project. Nevertheless, the strategic call gave more chance at this regard.
49
Nature conservation action plans are adopted in the participating countries
Municipal authorities, local tourism experts and national policy responsible for monument
protection are involved in this project and we organize a conference together with the Working
group of the Danube Countries in September 2013.
Through 16 organized events policy makes have been informed about project activities and
have been urged to assist the partnership with different measures. the project legacy will be
sustained at local level in each participating country.
meetings at regional and local level to spread information and awareness and to identify policy
Direct participation as partner or ASP.
Most project partners are public admins, committed to extend their internal and external network
improvements to foster renewable energy applications.
of policy makers
Project partnership is built around a representative sample of the key stakeholders that make up
a typical cluster environment: regional bodies, universities, R&D centers, business associations.
This aims to facilitate the enlistment of peers in other countries for the good practice exchange
and the learning communities constructed in the pilot projects and the results of which are
converging into the policy learning platform. Policy makers, as all the other stakeholders, are
involved all project work plan along: to raise awareness on project strategy, to collect feedback
through the consultation process; to gather relevant information on cluster policies impact and
facilitate participation of stakeholders in policy making process.
Involvement of Transport Ministries as Observers
Orientation/thematic workshops
Veneto Region (IT) has adopted and tested part of our project results in water management
policies. Styria Region (A) and The Province of Belluno (IT)
The national policy makers provided huge and timely support in bidding for being the
headquarters of the transnational agency
50
Direct participation as beneficiary
57. How would you assess the contribution of your project(s) to policies at the following level:
Question
Local
% of answers
level
development
(e.g.
urban
in
the
Open answers
Local consensus achieved
Inclusion of our findings and actions into local development plans, financial schemes, etc.
RTDI programmes are relevant on national level rather on local level.
To be assessed more precisely at the end of the project.
As explained above.
The project has just started so it is very hard to asses at this point.
New services for the consumers. Tackling the digital divide.
Pilot projects for habitat management.
Cooperation of urban planners with monument protection authorities and tourism experts.
The project focuses on assistance to local administrations; concrete co-operation with

Bologna administration of the setting up of PAES (Action Plan for Sustainable Energy).
Various transnational strategies in the field of education and training, if supported and
implemented by national policy makers, could contribute to development of the inland
navigation sector and implicitly of the subject urban areas.
The involvement in the projects is more from the side of the regional policy makers rather
than local one, due to the project focus on regional smart specialization strategies.
Regional
regions
level
in
the
(policies
in
participating
The involved municipalities consider the achievements in their urban planning processes.
Not relevant for project topic.
Regional policies enforced
In some regions and along with smart specialisation RTDI evaluation on interventions is high
on the agenda, so setting our standards of evaluation could be taken over by regions,
countries)
trainees also come from regional authorities
To be assessed more precisely at the end of the project
Regional level is not playing an important role in Hungary
Ensuring faster development of new possibilities and solutions
Regional regulations in favour of protected species
Cooperation with the Association of the Danube Countries
Involvement of regional policy makers in transnational Seminar to exchange experiences
The transnational action plan set up steps and indicating funding sources for a harmonized
education and training process at regional level
51
Question
% of answers
Open answers
ClusterPoliSEE focuses on the involvement of regional public bodies with cluster

responsibility as project key immediate beneficiaries, that will be involved: with targeted
communication actions; as associated members in platform with regional based cluster
policies improved by sharing policies; in learning process with a better knowledge of parallel
contexts and increased awareness on current situation and future challenges; in WGs on
shaping policy learning mechanism pattern, with enhanced ability and capacity due to a
reflective policy making; in SEE cluster Initiative with regional based cluster policies
improved by joint strategic policy plan and sustainability plan.
Regional policy makers will consider the pilot agencies and the religious products in their
planning processes
Involvement of regional water management agencies - improvement of their regional

drought response
National (policies affecting the

whole
territory
of
the
Consensus built between the partner countries achieved through national consensus
Our activities are focusing mainly on national level. The developed and printed RTDI
evaluation standards, the national stakeholders and evaluators participate as trainees, the
developed guidelines and manuals will be always useful for future conduction evaluations
To be assessed more precisely at the end of the project
Cities have minor role in affecting centralised actions in Hungary. Even if they do, usually
project outcomes are not taken into consideration
Tackling the digital divide.
National action plans
The transnational action plan set up steps and indicating funding sources for a harmonized
education and training process at regional level to be adopted by all project participating
countries
Need for more strength
The presence in the partnership of National Ministries guarantees the direct involvement of
national policies affecting the whole territory of the participating countries. Moreover, the
ASP1 has been involved in training and capacity building activities not only in Italy but also
in the enlarged EU and in candidate countries. Technical assistance projects have been
mainly focused on Structural Funds implementation and on the transfers of Italian regional
policy working methods and experiences.
52
Question
% of answers
Open answers
National meteorological offices in role of drought response authorities played important role
in our project
EU policies
Change of government prevented better impact
Contribution to EU policies through the influence and networking of EU initiatives
Reducing the economic, social and territorial disparities
Long-term impacts on EU policies cannot be seen within the project timeframe
see above and the extension of a multilateral UNESCO WHS
The implementation of project activities represent a concrete contribution for the

achievements of the EU 2020 policy
Support of European initiative for harmonization of education and training in the inland
navigation sector and development of common standards for training and certification
ClusterPoliSEE shares content and strategy with EU relevant stakeholders as PRO-INNO

Europe, EU Cluster Alliance, EU Cluster Observatory, S3 platform - IPTS as subscribing
parties of institutional Agreement with 3 level of commitment at EU , national and regional
level. Moreover the foresight exercise will be conducted for future development of policy
cluster in SEE area in order to take in consideration new programming plan 2013 - 2020. On
ClusterPoliSEE platform partnership and EU stakeholders (namely EU cluster associations
and network) will be involved in following phases: a diagnosis phase with policy-makers and
WGs to reflect on the situation of the current system (based on WP 4 main findings); a
phase of exploration to build scenarios of possible future evolutions of the cluster policies in
SEE area with a wider participation of EU stakeholders; strategic orientation for policymakers to discuss possible strategies on the basis of the exploration of the future carried out
earlier; public consultation on the platform with relevant stakeholders to obtain consensus as
large as possible. Coordination where the choices are transformed into recommendations
for cluster policies (EU, national and regional level). Goals activity are: to facilitate policy
implementation due to a better responsiveness of stakeholders of cluster eco-system and to
inform policy, improving the knowledge base for thinking about and designing policy. Joint
Strategic policy plan, built on SEE foresight exercise (6.2) and based on most relevant
results of WP5 and in particularly on recommendations of European Cluster Cooperation
Forum (5.4) spreading over five years (from 2015 to 2020) focused on six areas of project
investigation and improvement action for re- orienting EU, national and regional policy level
53
Question
% of answers
Open answers
in the short and mid-term, including the specification of the most suitable financial
instruments. Joint strategic policy plan candidates as contribution to cohesion policy 20132020
To be increased
Other, please specify:
54
Sector production chains
58. Are you planning future activities (projects) with the current project(s) partners?
Response
Total
1 Yes, with all of them
7%
2 Yes, with some of them
62
91 %
3 No
1%
% of responses
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
59. Based on the experience with your project(s), what problems remain unsolved in this
programming period?
Response
Total
% of responses
29
43 %
27
40 %
21
31 %
31
46 %
33
49 %
29
43 %
12 %
results

and private
stakeholders
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Programme should simplify reporting, which is a nightmare comparing to framework 7.
The integration of different funds is quite critical in view of the area split into two programmes, a
decision that actually negates the main element of success of the SEE programme. Information
tools and data fusion tools should be used in order to enhance cooperation / communication
between different programmes and other EU initiatives.
Intensification of participating private sector into project, - more transparent and effective
capitalization from other EU programmes, joined projects
The involvement of ENPI and IPA partners is over- administrated, the reduce of the level of
national obstacles would be welcome. More information and intensive involvement of projects in
the actual networking with other EU programmes.
The integration of funds should be considered with the unification of the procedure. Careful
planning in order to avoid last minute surprises (like running out of IPA funds), area of
interventions should be broaden, more project with focus on infrastructure should be approved.
Include implementation project as investments as shining example.
The first is an internal problem of the project partnership (changes of politicians at municipal
level hindered transnational implementations). More events and possibilities to exchange /
cooperate with other projects on similar topics within the "interreg family" (CE, NWE, BSR etc.)
would be very interesting (targeted calls for "umbrella projects" to develop synergies with other
projects (2 or more) to implement joint conferences, working groups, studies etc.).
The financial rules to involve in activities others than project partners are very unpractical, this
influences participation of IPA and ENPI countries not involved as partners. So we organise
trainings including such countries and it is not foreseen in the programme to cover costs for MD
55
participants (the income level is known for MD...)!!! - The BL proposed are impractical, why no
"event cost" budget line? The FLC dependence and reporting to it does allow partners to do
what they want with financial reporting, the LP has no real control on that. This would allow
spending without contribution to project if FLC certifies. This influences tremendously the project
spirit and joint work as it disaggregates the partnership also content wise.
1. suggestion: Introduction of a quality check system or peer-review of the outcomes of the

projects 2. suggestion: Clearing of the command and control mechanism in the programme
documents(Especially with regard to reporting: what is the responsibility of the lead partner,
what is the responsibility of JTS and FLC? When, who and in what form amendments or
corrections are to be asked in the Partner Reports? When and how should the LP check the
partner reports?). The reporting procedure should be more binding and linked to the Lead
Partner and not only to the FLC. JTS should also have more, explicitly pronounced control on
the performance.
1) More transparent and simplified rules for "eligibility of costs and reporting" (i.e. flat rates for
minor costs). 2) More workshops on both transnational and national level on "eligibility of costs
and reporting". 3) Harmonisation of different applicable legal frameworks and reporting needs
relevant on EU, programme and national level today.
The projects should be more results and outcomes oriented that procedures oriented
a more effective involvement of ENPI countries
There are organisations making a living from participating in loads of EU projects. I think
determining a limit of EU projects to be part of would make sense as sometimes less is more.
More specifically one of our partners is in this situation and I think although they are
professional and experienced, they are overloaded and this is the excuse for not participating in
the project implementation at the expected level. Other problem, that by most of the partners,
participating in EU project is just a minor part of their everyday tasks, so workers do not take it
seriously. Maybe this could be solved by checking more strictly reported working hours and the
related outcomes and results. Also essential problem in our project which derives from the
problem mentioned before, level of internal communication. Many of our partners do not take
seriously deadlines given by us and dont even bother to answer to our communications. In
order to avoid this, we believe that Lead Partners should get real tools to coordinate the project
meaning of opportunity for rewarding/penalize.
Above all the cooperation/communication with other EU programs and initiatives.
More involvement of private sector
IPA countries should be given bigger involvement. It is a potential to further develop IPA region
and ensure that the economic, social and territorial disparities will be reduced to minimal.
Strategic calls focused on themes and policies that the national governments need to implement
(top down approach), in order to reach their direct involvement, especially for what regard the
environmental issues (monitoring/control/penalty procedures)
Biodiversity and nature conservation should remain on the agenda, as there are very important
tasks in this area that must be addressed on a transnational level, through decision-makers and
policy-makers on different levels.
SEE should continue to support a cultural pole including the combination of cultural heritage
and sustainable regional development.
1. Simplification of the PRAG 2. Reinforcing priorities that connect innovation and culture
the integration of different funds got better but is still not solved by now.
The most crucial issue to be solved is the use of ENPI funds and a slim procedure for the use of
these funds. Additionally, all transnational programmes should apply the same procedures in
terms of financial reporting, cost eligibility and application systems and requirements.
The items and the aims of the SEE programme are excellent. A suggestion could be referring to
the different managing of the ERDF resources, I think that, due to the economic problems of the
56
countries, just a low % of the funds should be anticipated to achieve better performances by
beneficiaries.
Integration of different funds - organization of info and edu events about the topic.
The overall procedure of reporting to the SEE Programme could be simplified at national level
and/or reporting periods could be shorten in order to ensure a better cash flow for the projects
partners who usually lack the pre-funding for their activities and are unable to timely deliver the
project outputs.
Investments are quite a challenge under current Small scale investment rules with the
transnational character rather difficult to assess and/or justify. Integration of other/different funds
for investments highly needed in this part of Europe so as to implement various strategies
elaborated during projects developed in the first programming period would certainly be an
asset to the success of next period.
Simplifying the administrative procedures at project level.
the geographical coverage of the programme
it was good organised, maybe too much requirements - especially on national level regarding
administration (First Level Control etc) overburdening administration, better coordination of
requirements between EU-level and national level
The geographical area should be the same
One important issue to be faced with is the different First Level Control processes in each
country, the complicated contracting of IPA partners with their authorities, the delays in
contracting, starting the project and signing MoU and the complex management and reporting
procedures for many partners that occupy the most part and time in the project implementation
despite the content management. The communication of the programme should be improved
promoting national and transnational events organized by the JTS to give more opportunity for
the project stakeholders to exchange their experiences and good practises, to present the
results in programme communication to the general public and to the media favouring closer
link with (trans)national and local policies and programmes, strategic focus but also specific to
ensure involvement of stakeholders. A closer link to the transnational, national and local
programmes/policies could be done by integrating the objectives of the macro regions (such as
Danube, Adriatic, Black Sea, Alpine) into the next SEE programme, ensuring that the objectives
of the macro regions will be developed or implemented through the SEE Programme. Moreover
the next programming period should guarantee more focused and addressed activities (tangible
results, demonstration activities), stronger and stricter involvement of all stakeholders (also
economy: enterprises, direct or indirect), less Finance & administration burden (simplification of
procedures) and higher and support on the quality monitoring (on content) providing inputs and
relevant contacts with similar or related project to maximize efforts toward joint outputs.
I would not change a lot of the programme features, because it is a good one and by adding or
taking something out there is the risk of changing the way the programme is used. The partners
should be careful with the implementation manual and keep a close relationship with the JTS.
Organisation and administration of projects is very grinding. It takes a lot of efforts and funds. It
has to be done professionally. An external project- and financial management is almost
necessary. For the transnational activities all partners should contribute. Therefore common
costs are essential. Without sharing of costs we will not apply for project funding in the future.
Facilitate and speed up money transfer from different funds - Create communication channels
between the different EU managing authorities and JTS to facilitate the project implementation.
Organising of Common Events with other EU programmes and initiatives.
To improve the collaboration and the involvement of the private Actors, to allow the adoption of
concrete measures and activities with a direct impacts on the territories and beneficiaries ore
than at political level.
Integration of different funds and cooperation between public and private stakeholders.
57
I would suggest that in order to maintain and improve the cooperation in the SEE region, the
next programming period should guaranty the possibility of participation of all countries in both
programmes: Danube and SEE Gateway. Otherwise, the important step forward that has been
achieved by the on-going programme (2007-2013), in terms of cooperation among SEE
institutions that in the next programme (2014-2020) will be separated in two regions, will
certainly be lost.
We are not in favour for the split of the SEE Programme in two, Danube Region and South East
Gateway.
improve the collaboration with private Actors, to be more focused on concrete solutions and
activities and less on policies
1) Administrative burden is basically ok, BUT FLCs tend to be an element of instability and
uncertainty for the financial situation of project partners 2) Indicators as the main instrument to
measure the implementation quality is highly questionable 3) Pre-financing is an critical issue -> first reimbursement should be done within 6 months.
Involvement of ENPI and IPA countries has improved from first project call (parallel reporting to
EU delegation in IPA countries was somehow disturbing).
Easing the administrative burdens.
We are overall satisfied with programme features, as well with programme area.
61. Do you have any other recommendations or remarks?
There is a high need to launch a financial tool to solve cash-flow problems of project holders .
The solution has to be transnational, probably involving European financial institutions.
The JTS did a great job in managing the SEE programme. The reporting IMIS tool was excellent
in limiting bureaucracy and should be further enhanced and extended. The uptake of the project
results should be sought with follow up actions.
Less biocracy, change of partners status and budget change for some hundred euros needs too
many documents, - procedures of changes must be simplified in such cases!!
The SEE programme website is really poor and should be improved. The IMIS system is
excellent. The reporting is much more practical than in CE! In SEE it is reporting in CE it is a
burden for the project partners. Please keep this structure and proceeding. It enables the
partners to focus their resources on the project implementation instead of the reporting of the
implementation.
Please inform us about the results of your surveys. This is the second survey and we do not
know what happens with its result, this would be a sign of openness to keep evaluations about
own grant scheme and their results accessible... A question on provenience of project partner
and project acronym would be rather useful: Here ours: EVAL-INNO, LP is ZSI from Austria.
Best regards, Gajdusek. For further communication use: gajdusek@zsi.at
Early start of the first call of the new programming period 2014-2020.
The consensus-based decision-making processes are sometimes detrimental to efficiency, and

the competences and responsibilities of Lead Partners are not always proportionate. That
means that poor performing or not appropriately communicating partners can negatively
influence all other partners and the overall outcome of the project, while neither the LP nor the
other partners have sufficient instruments to have an impact on the performance of such
partners. This could include incentives for high-achievers or sanctions or some kind of pressure
on those who hinder others in implementing the common activities. However the "collaborative"
approach does not enable the partnership to make use of more effective management tools.
Integration of 20% partner might be useful due different reasons, I would not do it another time
as contracting and with that the tendering of some partners were delayed. This system should
be more flexible.
58
Good luck in the future, we are looking forward to cooperate with the SEE Programme.
Thanks to the JTS!
The JTS should always find the time to participate at the project meetings or at least at the ones
where all the partners are involved in decisions. Working closely together was the solution to all
the crisis situations inside our SEE programme example.
Not penalize current participating countries that, with the next programming period and the
consequent division of the previous SEE area, may not have the current same opportunities.
The reference is in particular to countries that could be covered by the new South East Gateway
programme.
The participation of private stakeholders, that together with the public institutions, are key endusers of the SEE project outcomes, should be in a way possible and incentive in the new
programme (2014-2020).
We believe that the programme's structure and function should remain in the current form.
to be more focused on concrete solutions and activities and less on policies
The reporting process should be less time-consuming and unified for involved partners.
59
P.O. Box 4175

3006 AD Rotterdam
The Netherlands
Watermanweg 44
3067 GG Rotterdam
The Netherlands
T +31 (0)10 453 88 00

F +31 (0)10 453 07 68
W www.ecorys.nl
Sound analysis, inspiring ideas
BELGIUM BULGARIA HUNGARY INDIA THE NETHERLANDS POLAND RUSSIAN FEDERATION SOUTH AFRICA SPAIN TURKEY UNITED KINGDOM

3rd Evaluation Report

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

3rd Evaluation Report

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Evaluation of South East Europe

Evaluation of South East Europe

Client: VTI Hungarian Public Nonprofit Company on Regional

Marie-Jose Zondag &Elvira Meurs [NL]

Rotterdam, Budapest, Sofia, Madrid, 25 November 2013

The evaluation and this third and final evaluation report

Project generation and selection

Scope of the evaluation of the project generation and selection

Assessment of project generation and selection process and instruments

Project generation and selection

Assessment of supporting tools

Conclusions and recommendations on project generation and selection

Monitoring and implementation

Scope of the evaluation of monitoring and implementation

Performance of the programme

Summary of previous findings

Assessment of the indicator system

Geographical & Thematic scope of projects

Thematic scope of the projects

Summary of previous findings

Programme management system

Conclusions and recommendations on monitoring and implementation

Results of the programme

Results of the programme

Summary of the findings of the 1st and 2nd evaluation reports

Analysis of results achieved per PA and AoI

PA 1. Facilitation of innovation and entrepreneurship

PA 2. Protection and improvement of the environment

PA 3. Improvement of the accessibility

PA 4. Development of transnational synergies for sustainable growth areas

Additional analysis with regard to achievement of results

Evaluation of the added value

Evaluation of South East Europe Programme 2007-2013

Transnational added value

Contribution to European Policies

Conclusions and recommendations on results of the programme and future

Scope of the evaluation for communication

Key results of the 1 and 2

evaluation report on communication

Progress in programme communication in 2012 and 2013

Progress in transnational level communication

Progress in national level communication

Conclusions and recommendations on communication

Annex 1: Treatment of recommendations

Annex 2: Performance of programme indicators

Annex 3: Results of the programme

Annex 4: Indicators on communication

Q2. Is the project selection procedure clear and transparent?

one, this has still resulted in a long process.

Evaluation of South East Europe Programme 2007-2013

Conclusions on performance of the programme

strategic projects resulted in much higher allocations per project.

call. For ENPI there are 6 projects which will be

monitored in a separate way.

Call project and

positive in the 4 Call.

Evaluation of South East Europe Programme 2007-2013

Please have a look at sub-chapter 5.3.1. for the concrete values

To continue providing transparent and detailed information (feedback) regarding eligibility

Recommendations on monitoring and implementation

Evaluation of South East Europe Programme 2007-2013

Recommendations on results of programme

Abbreviation and its full name