Strategies For Successful Management of INTERREG Projects

UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES
STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESSFUL

MANAGEMENT OF INTERREG
PROJECTS
Thesis report
Prepared by Izabela Kacprzak
European Funds Management

Bachelor Degree
Strategies for successful management of INTERREG projects
JUNE, 2010
Preface
This thesis is written for use as final report for the graduation at CAH
Dronten.
As from April 14, till June 30 2010, within the framework of my studies in
Dronten University of Applied Sciences study programme European Funds
Management I had my placement in Province of Flevoland in Lelystad.
Since my responsibilities were directly connected with INTERREG projects,
I soon discovered that creating a successful projects is very difficult.
Therefore the purpose of this report was to answering the question what
makes the INTERREG projects successful in aim to formulate the
‘Strategies for successful management of INTERREG projects’. To do this I
tried to combine general project management theory with the experiences
gained from the INTERREG project which were undertaken by the Province
of Flevoland.
As this report consists of current theories and experiences gained in

the practice, it can be useful tool for the managers of European
Programmes from the Province of Flevoland, managers from other regions
dealing with this European projects. But also very helpful for young people
like me who are just starting their careers in as INTERREG managers.
Acknowledgements
I have to acknowledge the Province of Flevoland that ensured me the

opportunity for spending my placement-period at the organization.
I would like thank to Karin Maatje and Bob Pels for being my company
coaches and for the enthusiastic support during the whole period of
placement. Thank you both for your time and sharing with me your
knowledge and experiences.
Special thanks to Cleopatra Pavlović for her support, advices and showing
me how to reach my dream future.
Thanks to all the employees of Program Management Europe department

for friendly atmosphere and for letting me use their desks and offices.
Special thanks to Taco Medema who was always kind to help and solve all
of my problems and being supportive in hard moments, I feel lucky with
him being my coach.
Table of Content
European Territorial Co-operation .........................................................................2

1.1.Cross-border co-operation ............................................................................2
1.2.Transnational co-operation............................................................................4
1.3. Interregional cooperation ...........................................................................6
Project Life Cycle....................................................................................................9
1.4.Project Preparation Activities......................................................................10
1.4.1.The project idea.......................................................................................11
1.4.2.Building the partnership...........................................................................12
Developing The Application..................................................................................21
1.5.Preparing the Budget..................................................................................23
1.6.Awareness of Partners’ Circumstances.......................................................29
1.7.Demonstrating Added Value in the Application...........................................30
1.8.Selection procedure....................................................................................30
Project Implemmentation ....................................................................................32
1.9.Establishing Ground Rules for Implementation...........................................34
1.10.Starting Implementation...........................................................................35
1.11.Support Mechanisms.................................................................................36
Dissemination & Legacy.......................................................................................38
1.12.Communication Plan.................................................................................38
Monitoring & Evaluation.......................................................................................41
1.13.Monitoring Tools........................................................................................41
1.14.Selecting Indicators...................................................................................42
1.15.The Evaluation Process.............................................................................44
Dealing With Cultural Differences.........................................................................45
1.16.Recognizing and managing culture: .........................................................45
1.17.The project preparation phase..................................................................46
1.18.Development of the project.......................................................................47
1.19.Implementation phase..............................................................................49
Interviews............................................................................................................. 52
Conclusion and Recommendations.......................................................................64
Bibliography:........................................................................................................ 69
Appendixes........................................................................................................... 70
Abstract
Prawie 29%, czyli prawie jedna trzecia wszystkich wniosków

INTERREG IIIC została zaakceptowana, z wszystkich 4 rund w ramach
programu INTERREG IIIC od początku 2003 do połowy 2005 roku. Wskaźnik
ten jest podobny do innych programów UE, gdzie regularnie od 60 do 80%
zgłoszonych projektów nie może zostać zaakceptowanych, ponieważ nie
spełniają podstawowych standardów jakości. Ale także niektóre projekty,
które zostały zaakceptowane, dobrze wyglądają tylko na papierze.
Działanie zgodnie ze wszystkimi instrukcjami zawartymi w dostępnych
podręcznikach wcale nie musi zapewnić sukcesu. Konfrontacji teorii z
rzeczywistością może doprowadzić do wielu niespodziewanych problemów
w dziedzinie zarządzania, wzajemnego zrozumienia, administracja,
finansów.
Celem niniejszego raportu była odpowiedź na pytanie, co zapewnia sukces
projektom INTERREG? jakie działania należy podjąć? jak zorganizować
pracę, aby upewnić się, że projekt w końcu okaże się sukcesem? Co może
być przyczyn tych trudności? Istnieje wiele publikacji na temat ogólnego
zarządzanie projektem. Ale jest też wiedza, która jest nie można znaleźć w
każdym podręczniku, zdobyć ją można jedynie w praktyce. Dlatego też
niniejsze sprawozdanie ma na celu połączyć ogólną teorię zarządzania
projektami z doświadczeń zdobytymi w ramach projektu INTERREG, które
zostały przeprowadzone przez prowincje Flevoland.
Metodologia pracy obejmuje analizę dostępnych z zakresie

zarządzania projektem informacji, analizę wniosków i sprawozdań
dotyczących projektów, dokumentacji, podręczników. Autor przeprowadził
również rozmowy z menadżerami projektów INTERREG z prowincji
Flevoland. Wśród rozmówców byli: Karin Maatje INTERREG Project
Manager, Bob Pels Europejska Współpraca Terytorialna Program Manager,
Jan Boerstra Program Manager i Eduard Lenoir Manager finansowy. Listę
pytań, które zostały zadane podczas rozmowy, można znaleźć w
załączniku. Rozmowy były oparte na rzeczywistych projektach, które
zostały przeprowadzone w przeszłości oraz które są wdrażane w tym
momencie. Wśród projektów były: SAWA, More4nrg, ELLABO, MiniEurope,
e-Citizen I i II. Opis tych projektów można znaleźć w załącznikach
Sprawozdanie nawiązuje do cyklu projektu, udzielając informacji na

temat każdego z etapów realizacji projektu od pomysłu, budowania
partnerstwa, stosowanie i rozwój budżetu, poprzez realizację, komunikacji
i rozpowszechniania, monitorowanie i ocena do zamknięcia. Sprawozdanie
zawiera także rozdział dotyczące radzenia sobie z różnicami kulturowymi
w ramach projektów INTERREG. Ostatni rozdział zawiera wnioski i
zalecenia w sprawie skutecznego zarządzania projektem.
INTRODUCTION
Nearly 29% or nearly one third of all INTERREG IIIC applications were
successful in the 4 application rounds run by the INTERREG IIIC
programme from early 2003 to mid 2005. This ratio is similar to other EU
programmes, where regularly 60 to 80% of projects submitted cannot be
recommended because they do not meet basic quality standards. But also
some projects which were accepted look good just on paper. Following all
the requirements form the manuals does not necessarily assure success.
Confrontation of the theory with the reality can cause many unexpected
problem, in field of management, understanding, administration, finances.
The purpose of this report was to answer the question What makes
the INTERREG projects successful? what kind of action should be taken?
how to organize the work to make sure the project in the end will be a
success? What could be the reasons of those difficulties? There are lots of
publications already available on general project management. But there
is also knowledge which is can’t be find in any manual, it is possible to
gain only in practice. Therefore, this report aims to combine general
project management theory with the experiences gained from the
INTERREG project which were undertaken by the Province of Flevoland.
The methodologies for the evaluation of the theories applied in

project management involve analysis of project applications and reports,
documentation, manuals. The researcher also interviewed the manager of
the INTERREG project from Province of Flevoland. Among the interviewed
persons there were: Karin Maatje the INTERREG Project Manager, Bob Pels
the European Territorial Cooperation Programme Manager, Mr. Jan
Boerstra the Programme Manager and Eduard Lenoir the Financial
Manager. The checklist for the interviews can be found in appendix.
The interview were based on real examples of the current and past
projects like SAWA, More4nrg, ELLABO, MiniEurope, e-Citizen I and II. The
description of those projects can be found in the appendixes
The report follows the project life cycle providing information on every
stage of the project from idea generation, partnership, application and
budget development, through implementation, communication and
dissemination, monitoring and evaluation to closure. The report contains
also a chapter about dealing with cultural differences in the INTERREG
projects. The next chapter contains very valuable information, the
summary and conclusions from the interviews with the project managers.
1
The final chapter consists of conclusions and recommendations on

successful project management.
European Territorial Co-operation
European Cohesion policy aims to encourage regions and cities from

different EU Member States to jointly work and learn from each other, by
creating common programmes, projects and networks. In the period 2007-
13 the European Territorial Co-operation objective (formerly under the
period 2000-2006 the INTERREG Community Initiative) covers three types
of programmes:
 INTERREG A - 52 cross-border co-operation programmes along internal

EU borders.
 INTERREG B 13 transnational co-operation programmes cover larger
areas of co-operation such as the Baltic Sea, Alpine and Mediterranean
regions.
 INTERREG C The interregional co-operation programme and 3
networking programmes (Urbact II, Interact II and ESPON) cover all 27
Member States of the EU. They provide a framework for exchanging
experience between regional and local bodies in different countries.1
1.1. Cross-border co-operation
It can be said that the Cross-border cooperation is mainly about "filling the
gaps". To make this happen each of the 52 cross-border programmes
agreed cross-border 'analysis and response' strategies. Programme covers
a wide range of topics, including:
1. Encouraging entrepreneurship, especially the development of

SMEs, tourism, culture and cross-border trade;
2. Improving joint management of natural resources;
3. Supporting links between urban and rural areas;
4. Improving access to transport and communication networks;
5. Developing joint use of infrastructure;
6. Administrative, employment and equal opportunities work.
The regional and local partners, on both sides of the border, have to
identify their common needs and define actions which are the best, the
most suitable for their local situation. All participating in programme
1
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/index_en.htm
2
countries jointly select local or national authorities to which they should

entrust the management of the programme.
To fully balanced partnership between the participating countries, regions

on both sides of the EU's border, share one single budget, common
management structures, a common legal framework and implementation
rules.
Illustration 1http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/atlas2007/eu/crossborder/index_en.htm
3
1.2. Transnational co-operation

The transnational programmes give an added value to regional
development. It creates a chance, for regions from several Member States,
for cooperation on common issues, such as communication corridors, flood
management, international business and research linkages, and the
development of more viable and sustainable markets. Programme covers:
- Innovation, especially networks of universities, research institutions,
SMEs;
- Environment, especially water resources, rivers, lakes, sea;
- Accessibility, including telecommunications, and in particular the
completion of networks;
- Sustainable urban development, especially polycentric development.
At this moment there are 13 transnational co-operation programmes.
Co-operation may take different forms:
Model 1: Exchange of information and experience

This model has often the characteristics of preliminary phase of
international co-operation. At this phase, partners don't have to define
specific targets of their co-operation; they exchange information on their
strategies and context of activity.
Model 2: Parallel development of innovative approach
In this model, partners define a specific common target, acting
independently. Exchange of experiences in this model is less general and
more related to reaching mutual target than the first model.
Model 3: Import, export and adaptation of new solutions to the situation
This model is usually a variant of the continuation of parallel development
(Model 2). It exists when two or more partners exchange the outcomes of
their work. Each of the partners use exchange of experience for the
improvement of its own situation.
Model 4: Common product or work system – distribution of tasks within
the implementation of a common target
In this model the partnerships are created for a specific period and
because of solving a given problem. Partnerships is based on identical
approach to the problem, and to solving it with a the best use of their
advantages. Such partnership is not open to achieving multilateral
benefits.
Model 5: Additional activity: exchange of teachers, students, main actors
and others
These activities, an exchange of trainers, trainees and employees are
quite often take place in parallel of the four former models. Those
4
activities are used as tools for checking the common product, checking the
created system, etc.
Illustration 2 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/transnational/index_en.htm
5
1.3. Interregional cooperation
The aim of interregional cooperation is to improve the effectiveness of

regional development policies and contribute to economic modernisation
and increased competitiveness of Europe, by:
1. Enabling local and regional actors across the EU to exchange their

experiences and knowledge;
2. Matching regions less experienced in a certain policy field with more
advanced regions;
3. Ensuring the transfer of good practices into Structural Funds mainstream

programmes. 2
The idea of the project is that the authorities of cooperating regions

exchange and transfer their experiences and jointly develop approaches
and instruments which can improve the effectiveness of regional
development policies and contribute to economic modernisation.
In the context of Community Strategic Guidelines for Cohesion Policy

2007-2013, the programme is designed to contribute to the Union's
strategy for growth and jobs. In this case the programme can be called
one of the most important instruments for the implementation of the EU
initiative Regions for Economic Change (RFEC).
RFEC aims to support regional and urban networking, discover good

practice in economic improvement and to spread this best practice to all
regions in order to help stimulate their sustainable growth and reduce
economic disparities.
Definition of the Good practice according to Programme Manual:

In the context of the INTERREG IVC programme, a good practice is
defined as an initiative (e.g. methodologies, projects, processes, and
techniques) undertaken in one of the programme’s thematic priorities
which has already proved successful and which has the potential to be
transferred to a different geographic area. Proved successful is where the
good practice has already provided tangible and measurable results in
achieving a specific objective.3
The Interregional Cooperation Programme makes possible
cooperation among regional and local authorities from different countries
in the EU27, Norway and Switzerland. Partners from other countries can
participate at their own costs.
2
http://www.interreg4c.net/programme.html#_111
3
INTERREG IV, Programme Manual Third Call, November 2009
6
Eligible Regions
Illustration 3http://www.regiosuisse.ch/docs/medien-medias-stampa/karte-interreg-
ivc3.jpg
The program consists of two thematic priorities, which are grouped in

action fields:
Priority 1 addresses innovation and the knowledge economy,
focusing mainly on the subthemes:
innovation, research and technology development,
entrepreneurship and SMEs,
the information society, employment, human capital and education.
Priority 2 targets environment and risk prevention, most notably the
subthemes:
natural and technological risks;
water management;
waste prevention and management;
biodiversity and preservation of natural heritage, air quality;
7
energy and sustainable transport;

cultural heritage and landscape;4
The INTERREG IVc programme supports following types of projects:
- Regional Initiative Projects (Type 1),
- Capitalisation Projects including Fast Track Projects (Type 2).
1. Regional Initiative Projects (Type 1)

Regional Initiative Projects allow INTERREG partners to work together on a
shared regional policy issue, in the area of two thematic priorities of the
programme.
The objective is to achieve an improvement in the effectiveness of the
regional policies.
Therefore a very important element of the partnership is the involvement
of policy and decision makers.
These projects are build on the experiences already gained by the
partners and on the enriching those experiences through interregional
cooperation.
Therefore all Regional Initiative Projects (including mini-programmes) are
obligated to have a strong focus on the exchange of experience and on
the identification, analysis and dissemination of good practices in the
policy area tackled by the project.
2. Capitalisation Projects including Fast Track Projects (Type 2).
These are projects which focused mainly on the transfer of regional

development good practices into mainstream EU Structural Funds
programmes of the regions participating in the project or represented in
the partnership.
If projects have been submitted to this second type it means that the
regions are already well aware of existing good practices in their field of
cooperation and are able to demonstrate that they have good results and
transferable tools and approaches, as well as good management skills and
knowledge of the theme in question.
Among the expected outcomes of the project is to create a concrete action
plan by each participating region, which has to present how the identified
practices will be implemented in the region.
This means that the implementation itself of the good practices has to be
financed by the Structural Funds programmes of the respective region
(e.g. after the project’s lifetime) and not by INTERREG IVC itself.
3. Fast Track Projects
Fast Track projects are Capitalisation Projects which benefit from
additional expertise from the European Commission in order to contribute
4
http://www.interreg4c.net/load/2007-07-26_INTERREG_IVC_OP_final.pdf
8
to the Regions for Economic Change initiative. The Commission will

provide this additional expertise at its own costs.5
Project Life Cycle

Undertaking any project is a complicated process involving such
matters as background context, planning, resources, schedules,
administration, implementation and follow-up. Among the key tasks which
need to be completed are: identifying a relevant and achievable project
idea, recruiting and directing suitable staff, fostering a sense of shared
understanding, visualising and planning the scope of the project’s
activities, accurately outlining the results that can be expected, and
allocating the appropriate financial resources.
Embarking on a transnational or interregional project is all the more
complex because cooperation across frontiers can bring additional factors
into play, such as:
1. cultural differences between regions:
2. different languages:
3. different levels of administrative competences and resources
between regions:
4. physical distance between players:
5. difficulties in defining the mutual objectives of the cooperation and
common working methods.
The setting up of a typical cooperation project is a process made up of the
following general stages (some of which run concurrently):
1. Preparation
2. Building the partnership
3. Developing the application and the budget
4. Implementation
5. Monitoring and evaluation
6. Dissemination and legacy
5
INTERREG IV Programme Manual Third Call, November 2009
9
Illustration 4Territorial Cooperation Project Management Handbook
1.4. Project Preparation Activities

In this moment the project exist just as an idea or a need in minds of
initiators. The idea comes from the feeling that there is a need to change
or improve current situation. What also has been done at this stage is look
for the right partners. Than meetings with partners to determinate
common the objectives and desired results of the project in aim to
complete the application form.
So the activities during the preparation phase could be as follow:
1. development of the project idea

2. partners search,
3. meetings with project partners,
4. completion of the application form.
Performing this sort of preparatory ground work can help projects to avoid
some of the key reasons for the failure of projects which are usually due to
reasons such as:
 the project irrelevance in a given context; i.e. cooperation at an
international level alone is not a suitable way of dealing with the issues
or solving the problem;
 a poor formulation of the issue to be addressed, inappropriate or poorly
defied objectives, or a mistaken identification of the opportunities to be
seized;
 Different level of commitment and stakes among the partners;
 A poor timeframe for the project’s activities;
10
 Lack of realism, overly ambitious expectations base on an unachievable

action plan;
 Inadequate funding;
 Employing a strictly utilitarian rather than a strategic vision in the
presentation and management of the project.
1.4.1. The project idea

Every project has to began somewhere – with an idea. At this stage, the
project exists only as a problem or an idea in the minds of those who have
thought it up.6 This can occur through the regional planning initiatives or
arise from community, legislative, or citizen input. But often this is inspire
by the ambition of one organization to address its own requirement (as
perhaps set out in a plan or policy document) by attempting to look at the
issues in a new and innovative way – through the benefits of international
cooperation. As problems, needs, opportunities or issue for improvements
arise this leads the organization to seek out partners who either share
their problem or can offer the expertise to help.
Sometimes the idea emerges from more organically mutual experiences.
The prior sharing of different perspectives – particularly through
membership of a network (either external and formally established or
naturally stemming from participation in previous collaborative projects) –
can be effective in stimulating an interest in exploring new approaches
and pooling resources and is liable to point informed participants toward
the funding solutions offered by cooperation programmes. This facilitated
‘meeting of mind’ can perhaps be seen as delivering a more balanced
partnership in that it is less likely to be dominated by one organization (it
will instead have a number of core partners who “elect” a Lead).
There are also cases of ‘consultant-led’ project ideas which are effectively
‘sold’ to a range of public organization better suited to deliver the results.
This creates a natural partnership of interests which may or may not retain
the consultants as project staff. The potential downside of this approach is
that the original idea may not take sufficient account of the realities of the
partner organizations’ particular circumstances and may not allow those
who will have to implement the project plan (and its outcomes) ‘on the
ground’ to have sufficient input into its development.
Every project should reflect the specific needs of the target groups. Every
project initiator, in the phase of idea, should ask himself whether the
proposal is what the region really needs.
In many cases project developers have a specific knowledge about the
needs of target groups (since it is their daily jobs). In some cases it is
6
Project management, practical approach,2008
11
necessary to carry out further research in order to define the specific

needs of the target groups and clarified the project proposal.
No matter how an initial project idea makes its way from the drawing
board to the development phase, the Lead Partner Principle as set out in
the ERDF regulation requires a single organization from within the
consortium to assume the overall coordination and management role, to
drive project development and to provide a bridge between all project
partners and the programme bodies.
In attempting to turn idea into a viable project, it is important to develop a
set of realizable actions within a relevant area of focus:
 Political-level support is useful and important for the credibility of
projects and to make proper use of their results. Make sure your chosen
theme addresses policy-makes’ priorities to ensure their backing.
 Approach the general theme under examination from an open-minded
viewpoint and with an willingness to embrace other perspective and
possible solutions. Do not presume that your own stance is entirely
appropriate or that your knowledge will be sufficient.
 Do your research to determinate how applicable the wider issues you
with to address actually is in other countries and other circumstances.
 Take account not only of how the issue may be viewed in your region
but also what are the possible issues as experienced in other regions
and the wider context (international trends, EU policy, etc.) Build
compatible synergies with other policies and objectives.
1.4.2. Building the partnership
The partnership composition should be well thought. Generally speaking

the partnership should facilitate efficient implementation and reflect the
objectives of the project.
The initiators shouldn't under-estimate the role of a wide partnership. Also
the amount of partners involved in the project should closely reflect the
intensity of cooperation. The higher the level of intensity is, the lower the
number of partners should be.
In determining whether partners are likely to be suitable, the Lead needs

to sketch potential linkages (potential areas of communality,
interdependence or beneficial transferability of experiences/ techniques)
which can exploited to copper-fasten the ‘cooperative’ aspects of the
theme – thereby providing added value.
To justify relevance of specific partner organizations involvement in
project, and to be accordingly realistic in your aims, the partnership should
12
be able to clearly illustrate (in the application form) not only each
member’s respective areas of defined expertise and experience but also
the areas for improvement and the projected practical impacts to be
derived (economic, social, scientific/technological and environmental) in
relation to the topic to be addressed. A relevant partnership of suitable
actors is the most important quality. To put in place a balanced
partnership it is advised to take in to consideration the benefits of
involving the right type and number of partners.
The idea defines the partnership or the partnership defines the idea?
In some cases the scope, content and partnership structure of the project
are clearly visible and directly develop out of the needs identified.
In other situations, the precise scope and content of cooperation are not
so clearly visible at baseline and need to be worked out during the
development phase. This is often happening with projects responding for
common needs where partner regions realize the challenges they have to
face but often they do not know what action should they take (and this is
what they hope to get to know form their partners). This kind of project
requires more preparation work.
Choosing partners with the right specialisation

One of the most essential issues in choosing the partners is the
specialization of the partner organization. Project partners should have the
adequate expertise and knowledge to be able to contribute to project
development and after that to contribute also to implementation of the
project. When the project reflects the strategic goal of partner
organization it keeps the partners motivated and encourages them to take
an active part in project's development and implementation.
What is also valuable for partnership is the similarities and
complementarity in expertise
When partners have similar expertise it can ensure that they have a
similar point of view of key issues and will aim to address similar problems
and therefore will be motivated to take an active part in the project. The
key motivation in case of large partnership, like in INTERREG B and C
projects, is the interest in the theme of the project and in common needs
of partners.
Complementarity just means that the skills which one partner has
exactly match the needs of the other partner. It is of course very hard to
find a perfect match. But trying to look for complementarity between
partner specialisations can ensure the successful exchange of experience
13
between partners (learning from each other) which is one of the key
INTERREG benefits.
Geographical match
For partners for broaden their experience and confront their practices
with other cultures it is significant that the partnership covers a wide EU
area. The partnership of which the geographical coverage will go much
beyond the normal cross-border and transnational programme areas will
be considered as added-value by the Monitoring Committee.
The balanced geographical coverage should also be reflected in
financial terms. The budget allocation should in principle be balanced
between countries, including between a group of geographically close
countries and the other represented countries. It is clear that the budget
of a partner has also to be in line with the level of costs in its specific
country.7
The project applicants, during building up the partnership, shouldn't
also forget about one of the main program objectives, which is to match
less experienced regions with more advanced regions.
The following map presents an overview of the present state of the EU’s
progress towards the Lisbon goals in the field of innovation and the
knowledge economy at the regional level.
Division presented on the map is based on 5 aggregated indicators:
– Productivity (GDP/person employed; 2002)
– Employment rate (Employed population /population aged 15-64; 2003)
– R&D Expenditure (% of total GDP; 2001)
– R&D Business Enterprise Sector (BES R&D personnel/1.000 active
persons; 2001)
– Highly educated population (% total population; 2002)
It gives an overview of less experienced and more advanced regions.
7
INTERREG IV Programme Manual Third Call, November 2009
14
Illustration 5 EuroGeographics Association for administrative bounderies, Epson Database
The benefits of a good partnership mix
15
A good partnership mix (geography, type - e.g. public/private/NGO - and

sector) can be seen as one of the main advantages of partnerships. In
many situations the partners are really similar to each other. This can
ensure that they will share common interests, an ability to perform similar
operations in each country and big chances for importing the results of
other partners. But also ‘unusual’ partners can, however, bring new
insights.
Regardless of the final structure of partnerships, responsebilities and tasks
should be assigned in a way that maximises the chances of successfully
implementing the project and brings benefits to all partners involved.8
The right partnership mix can also be helpful in preparing of the

project proposal. The right partners can can create an added value to the
project in many ways: financially (i.e. to the level of co-financing),
technically (contribution to content of the proposal, and project
implementation in the partner country) and with networks and links to key
agencies which can ensure that the support the project by important
stakeholders and decision-makers.
The partnership mix is often related to the terms ‘vertical’ and
‘horizontal’ coordination. The vertical coordination relates to the need to
consultancy and involvment of different levels of administration and
government. The aim of this coordination is avoiding of overlaps and
conflicts and ensure a high level of harmonisation of activities carried out
at different levels.
Horizontal coordination relates to the necessity of involvement of wide
range of stakeholders at all the levels – and especially at the level where
the action of the take place (i.e. if project activities have a strong
connexion to local issues, the best choice will be to involve local rather
than regional partners). This structure can help to reflect on the efficiency
of the existing partnership. And also answer a question if there is a need of
offering a partnership to another organization or need for consultation.
8
Territorial Cooperation Project Management Handbook, March 2007
16
Illustration 6 Territorial Cooperation Project Management Handbook
Involving key stakeholders

The project’s stakeholders (people and organisations implementing
the project) can be positively or negatively affected by the results of the
project. But they also may have an essential influence on shaping the
idea, gaining support for the project and successful implementation and
use of results.
It is recommended to sub-divided each of these groups (politicians for
example should be considered at national, regional and local levels) in
order to provide useful input to project and avoid generalisation. Effective
stakeholder involvement is relevant for project communication, publicity
and mainstreaming of results.
There are many possibilities of involving stakeholder but it should be
carefully considered and how to define the groups and how should they be
involve. It is possible to organise consultations in the framework of
seminars or conferences in line with the topic of the project. In other
situations the steering groups can be set up with the participation of
17
relevant stakeholders later on in the process of project. Views obtained

from the key stakeholders can contribute to development of the ideas,
project. Organisations may contribute in many ways: technical
contributions (specialized knowledge), links to target groups (through their
existing activities), or in-kind support (access to facilities).
Defining Partners’ roles
It is vital to achieve the correct mix within the partnership. Cooperation is
a two-way (or more) process of give-and-take with all partners contributing
towards joint project development by identifying overall objectives,
activities and outcomes, a system to fulfil them and a budget to
accomplish this.
In order to ensure a balance of activity there should be an appropriate
allocation of responsibilities across the overall work plan (i.e. different
coordinators for each component/ work package to ensure that interim
activities are carried out and targets are met). This should not just amount
to a theoretical exercise designed to get the project approved but a real
attempt to distribute the tasks appropriately in the interests of healthy
cooperation across frontiers and mutual benefits.
The process of role allocation may have more than 1 stage:
1. The original formation of core set of partners:
2. have a broad role for each potential partner in mind in advance – this
will allow those you will approach to fit into the wider jigsaw by
appreciating what they can bring to the table as well as what is in it for
them
3. be conscious that there are plusses (e.g. different perspective) to be
gained from combining organizations of different scale and function (i.e.
large, well-resourced ones along with smaller, more poorly-funded ones)
together under a single umbrella and that this relationship and the
project’s ambitions must be properly managed to reflect this.
4. As the partnership progresses, prior to application, develop a more
defined SWOT matrix based on what that partners collectively offer in
order to logically define precisely how the in which activities and to
which extent and the level of interaction between partners)
5. The involvement of possible additional partners:
6. Approach emerging partner in good time with a draft proposal. Bear in
mind they may not be immediately familiar with concept of Cooperation
Programmes, the requirements involved or the benefits to be drawn
7. Recognise gaps which remain in the evolving partnership’s abilities and
try to fill these by recruiting suitable new partners before the application
deadline (without causing unnecessary upheaval – granting observer or
sub-partners to latecomers can be a useful approach, if allowed by the
programme)
18
Negotiating the Partnership

Allow more than enough time to see the entire application process
through. A rushed application is liable to fall apart for lack of secure
foundations. Even if it reaches the submission phase its inherent
weaknesses are highly likely to be exposed.
Planning matters of management, coordination and exchange merit
adequate time and financial allocation in order to ensure the overall aims
of the project are adhered to by all concerned without any partners
engage in solo activities or duplication occurring.
Preparing all partners for the application process by setting deadlines
by which milestones must be reached right up to the submission date.
After a period of initial contact and consultation, and well in advance
of the deadline for submitting the project application, arrange to meet with
those organizations consider to be prospective partners in order to
develop personal understanding and to ensure commitment to the cause.
The costs are liable to be eligible for reimbursement as ‘preparation costs’.
Foster a sense of joint ownership among all partners whereby their
input is recognize and valued.
Prepare for cultural differences and complications – particularly due to
language barriers.
Be sympathetic to the various abilities and ambitions of potential
partners – the project must be right for them too if they are to proceed.
Allow time for internal discussion in partners’ organizations and
provide prompt replies to facilitate the understanding of more complex
documents and programme issues (such as eligible costs).
Use the services of useful agents such as nationally-based
Programme Contact Points to act as intermediaries in negotiating the
partnership and keep them informed of the idea and of its progress.
Once the shape of partnership is settled it need to be prepare to be
reasonably flexible and ready for changes if the original idea does not
correspond to the partners’ realities.
It is necessary to be realistic about the time it will take to accomplish
the various elements of the work plan (particularly where external factors
such as planning come into play during the implementation phase). Failure
to see the big picture could have ramifications for the budget if badly
handle. The ERDF regulations will henceforth make it easier for
organizations in adjacent areas and in some cases, areas beyond the EU to
be financed to take part in INTERREG projects within certain limits of
overall programme spending. The administrative complications (including
19
lack of potential lack of familiarity with funding and administrative

requirements) that accompany this move need to be factored into such
negotiations at a very early stage.
Payments are retrospective – based on prior costs incurred. Further
delays in repayment results from unavoidable administrative delays (claim
verification etc.) It is significant that partners understand the importance
of adequate human and financial resources being available to support the
project – particularly before and during its launch phase.
Many partners’ organizations nominate a single staff member to look
after their day-to-day involvement. However, it is vital to ensure that other
key staffs who are not expressly involved at such a level – particularly
decision makers such as Financial Managers and auditors – are kept
briefed from the beginning as to the bureaucratic commitments entailed
by the organisasions being grant-aided under INTERREG.
This is especially important where such administrative requirements
are evidently not the forte of a staff member whose main focus is on the
project theme and its implementation. Establishing an audit trail at an
early stage is vital.
For matters (either local or overall) where one or all partners
organisations are not entirely competent (e.g. technical work) it shouldn’t
be assume that the project will be able to deliver results without first
carefully verifying the existence, availability and willingness to get
involved of those better placed to assist – otherwise the project risks
hitting a head end at a crucial point.
20
Developing The Application

The idea of project needs to be developed into coherent application.
This need to be done with total respect for the directions as set out in the
Operational Programme and any official guidelines. Even a logical and well
put together application which fails to meet certain key requirement and
directions (e.g. eligibility and selection) will not succeed.
It almost goes without saying that establishing an appropriate
timeframe for the preparation phase is vital: do not wait for the
Programme’s calls for proposal before starting to define the project’s idea
and objectives: get acquainted with the Operational Programme to know in
advance what are the main priorities to be addressed.
Scheduling and programming Project Activities
Poor definition and scheduling of activities are two of the principle of

failure of INTERREG projects. The design phase is obviously crucial
because it provides the guidelines for the subsequent implementation
phase and for project monitoring. So it is vital to set out just ‘how’ and
‘when’ the project will be fulfilled.
This phase should identify the basic activities of the project and
analyse them from the point of view of their contents, the calendar and
the means of implementation by:
1. The identification and detailed description of the activities, their
respective contents, their duration and their conditions for
completion;
2. Logical programming of activities based Gantt Chart9 or the PERT
method10, so as to guarantee the best pathway for their
implementation;
3. Distribution of the responsibilities and tasks among partners
(including definition of each component’s co-coordinator’s role),
paying particular attention to the contributions that, from the
9
A Gantt chart is a horizontal bar chart developed as a production control tool in 1917 by
Henry L. Gantt, an American engineer and social scientist. Frequently used in project
management, a Gantt chart provides a graphical illustration of a schedule that helps to
plan, coordinate, and track specific tasks in a project.
10
In 1957 the Critical Path Method (CPM) was developed as a network model for project
management. CPM is a deterministic method that uses a fixed time estimate for each
activityhe PERT method is a technique that allows you to manage the scheduling of a
project. The PERT method consists of graphically representing a network of tasks, which,
when placed in a chain, can lead to the achievement of the objectives of a project.
21
partners’ point of view appear to be the most pertinent for the

successful implementation of the project
Questions that may help in evaluating the consistency (coherence

between the different internal elements of the project) and possibility of
implementing the plan:
 Is the proposed planning appropriate given the timescale allowed to
reach the objectives?
 Are completion dates properly defined for the key activities of the
project?
 Is the time allocated for the implementation of each activity sufficient
and realistic?
 Is it possible to complete certain activities simultaneously?
 Have the time chart with activities detailed been prepared in
chronological order?
 Have the diagram illustrating the distribution of the different tasks
between the partners been designed according to the calendar?
A good application can be use as a key reference document during the
process of project implementation. It should be also the main reference
against which the project and programme can measure the progress of
project. That is why the application have to contains a clear overview of
the project’s aims, objectives, activities and outcomes, the work schedule
which is highlighted by main project milestones as well as partner and
budget allocation for the work.
The programme application pack and any fact sheets available should be
carefully study, well in advance. This will allow discussing answers for all
questions with the rest of the partnership.
It is essential to find out the roles of all programme management bodies
and how they cooperate. For example, contact points can provide advice
on technical issues like eligibility. All the contacts should be established
before application submission.
One of the options is hiring a consultant to prepare the application.

But it does not guarantee a successful application.
The best experts can contribute specialist know-how and take on the
administrative burden for organisations that are uninterested in
developing Structural Funds management capacity.11
11
22
However, involving an external consultant should be careful consideration.

It has been found that external consultants could be costly but at the
same time did not take any responsibility for the project’s success. The
involvement of external consultants cannot replace the involvement of
partners in the process of project preparation. The consultant should have
a role of a moderator. The consultant should be like glue, by providing
support to the process and knowledge of INTERREG procedures and
requirements, should stick the partner and their ideas together.
Good project applications should be a result of teamwork between all
partners and detailed preparation. Although it is essential that one person
(mostly the Lead Partner) coordinates application preparation (also
contact with programme management). And the best would be if the same
person later would be later responsible for managing the project. But still
partner organisations have an important role to play. They should provide
specific technical and other inputs for the proposal and define
responsibilities, etc. Partners are regularly consulted by the Lead Partner
during the process of development of the application.
Completing the application is the last chance to make sure that the
partnership is well balanced with suitable allocation of responsibilities; that
there is an overall understanding of each partner’s role(s) and those
clashes of interests on regional and/ or interregional levels will be avoided.
Everyone has to be clear exactly about what they are committing to.
1.5. Preparing the Budget

The preparation of the budget is critical in the process of developing the
project. It is often the case that a badly calculated budget which does not
account for the realities of the situation is responsible for failure or
problems in the implementation phase.
Financial issues and the project budget should to consider from the
very beginning. Programme advice should be requested on the possible
budget available as a way of defining the scope of the project – there is no
point planning activities that you will not be able to afford to implement. 12
When planning phase move from outlining general objectives and top
specific objectives and defining of the activities needed to meet them,
each of the activity have to be budgeted.
12
23
Illustration 7 Territorial Cooperation Project Management Handbook, March 2007

All partners should be involved in process of creating budget in an
equal way. If Lead Partners develop projects in isolation it can generates
resentment in the partnership and results in unrealistic proposals. Each
partner need to take responsibility for its budget which should reflect the
figures and price levels in its own country. Of course this approach
requires a lot of preparatory work and planning meetings. But the time
invested here will result in strong partnerships with good allocation of
responsibilities and well-balanced budget.
While preparing the budget it is important to remember about how
different work packages fit together: The work of one partner often
depends on delivery of another partner’s work and the outcomes influence
the stepping stone of whole project. That is why possible delays should be
built into the time plan.
Identify the additional tasks needed for the efficient cooperation of
the partnership and give the partners, who will incur these costs, adequate
resources (one of the key success factor are regular face-to-face meetings
of the partnership).
It happens that less experienced partners underestimate the calculation of
time necessary for administration and coordination – most of the times
this is a full-time job for the Lead Partner (of course it's also depended on
the size of the project).
The budget estimates should be kept as accurate as possible. Defining a
realistic maximum of the prices for all the activities is the best possible
approach. Although it is advised to have a small surplus, just to be ready
for unexpected problems. This should be a part of the risk assessment for
the project. The project managers should add a safety margin to the
estimates to ensure a small surplus of funds.
24
Another important point is to think over is how the budget should be

spread over the project lifetime. In the first few months the project is
always quite slow. The first meetings are more focus on completing the
detailed planning. So the costs in this period are low and it should be
reflected in the budget. If the budget for the first year is too big and it will
not be used by the end of the year it can cause a reduction of the overall
budget by the programme.
The dangers of over-budgeting

Preparing the budget is very complicated and time-consuming. But to
this task it is necessary to invest a lot of time to avoid over-budgeting.
This is strongly connected to the ‘de-commitment’ rules. This rule, called
also n+2, was introduced in the programme, as a tool encouraging to
efficient financial management.
Illustration 8Territorial Cooperation Project Management Handbook, March 2007
This rule helps to prevent situation when large amounts of funds

become inactive in programme accounts for many years. The Commission
allocates or ‘commits’ funds to each programme at the beginning of each
year (year N). This money should be spent within three years (by the end
of n+2). If the funds haven't been spent they are ‘de-committed’ from the
programme or returned to the Commission.
Fine-tuning the budget
During the preparation of budget it is important to have in mind that some

types of costs in the programme are limited and/or have to meet special
requirements; it can happens that some of the costs the project has
planned will have to be reduced or even remove.
25
The rules can varied, because of influence of national rules, but these are
some main points:
1. Staff costs
The calculation of fulltime staff cost working on the project shouldn't be
hard. It should be done based on standard salaries for the types of
positions involved (mostly determined by partner organisations). Most
programmes treat also the ‘staff overheads’, such as pension contributions
and social security costs, as part of the staff costs. Of course if they are
really paid by the partner organisation.
But there are also many potentially complicating factors. Should the
project pay overtime rates and time off work for sickness and holidays? In
some programmes there are rules for that kind of cases. In others these
costs should be transparently and proportionally split between the project
and other employers.
That is why it is absolutely necessary to find out the right rules of the
programme for staff costs and make sure all partners keep documentation
of how staff rates are calculated.
2. External experts and consultants

It is often that projects require expertise which is not available in partner
organisations. But when any experts are hired, the projects need to be
aware of public procurement rules. Under these rules, in order to get the
best value offer, all the contracts for external services must be tendered.
Full public tender and limited tender, are the two basic types of tender.
The rules of tender, which have to be followed depend on the type and
value of contract offered and They are decided by national rules. But every
Member State has ‘threshold values’. The full public tender must be used
in cases when the value of the contract is larger than this amount. To
ensure value for money even smaller amounts generally require that three
offers are collected. So it is impossible to identify contractors and also
firmly set the amount for a contract before approving of the project.
Therefore the budgets should be estimated based on maximum contract
amounts.
That is why it is essential to find out the national procurement thresholds
in participating countries before project start (of course if the project
requires the external services). It shouldn't be assumed that these rules
will not apply: Some countries have extremely low threshold values, which
should be taken into account by the financial managers while preparing
the budget.
26
3. Travel and accommodation

Travel and accommodation costs have to be based on estimates due to
price changes. Many programmes and Member States have rules about
these costs. But there are things like first class air travel and five star
hotels, which are generally never allowed. Travel allowances for staff can
be more difficult. There are often limits set by national rules and they may
differ from those used in some partner organisations. Problems occur also
in cases of traveling outside the programme area. Almost always the
programme has to approve that kind of journey before it takes place or the
costs will not be accepted, and it will be approved only if it has a direct
benefit for the project’s objectives.
It is absolutely necessary to check rules for travel and accommodation
costs and particularly rules for calculating daily allowances for staff.
4. Meetings, conferences, seminars + promotion and

publications
These costs are of course strongly dependent on the number of
participants or number of copies printed etc. They are also estimated
using the same value for money procedures as other costs.
In the application should be included a detailed description of working
methods in the project and the number of needed meetings of the
partnership, professional working groups, steering groups, etc.
5. Investments in equipment and infrastructure

One of the issues that should be resolved is whether the programme
allows projects to include only depreciation over the project’s lifetime or
full purchase costs. And here the rules vary between programmes and
Member States. Secondly, only equipment which is essential to the
implementation of the project is allowed.
The questions that need to be answered in this topic are:
Whether the programme allows purchase cost or depreciation cost?
Does this vary depending on the type of equipment concerned?
Is it possible to claim depreciation for items bought before project start
while they are being used for the project?
6. Overheads / General costs

The most frequent causes for reductions to project payments are overhead
calculations. That is why it is important that all costs paid by the project
are well-documented and based on the real costs for the organisation of
hosting the project. The documentation of all the partners should be all the
time available.
27
Costs that are generally included if they are paid directly by the host
organisation include:
1. Office supplies and photocopies
2. Office furniture
3. Electricity
4. Heating
5. Other utilities (water etc)
6. Charges for phone, fax and internet services
7. Cleaning
8. IT support for computers / printers etc.
9. Rent if the building is not owned by the host organisation
10. Taxes on the building
11. Insurance for the building
12. Administrative support (maintenance of archives etc)
Costs that are most of the time rejected:
1. Costs for snacks, drinks, meals etc
2. Social events
3. Works of art
7. VAT
Eligible for payment is only irrecoverable VAT. The calculation should be
based on the amount of VAT that is expected to be reclaimed and this
amount should be deducted from the project budget.
8. In-kind contributions
The project budget consists not only of the ERDF funds but also of the co-
financing.
Part of the budget constitute of the ‘in-kind’ costs, like unpaid work or
materials provided to the project (paid staff hours in partner organisations
count as cash rather than in-kind contributions). The rule here is to use a
fair and transparent calculation of the value of these contributions. But
many programmes and Member States have their own rules on how to
calculate it and /or limits for the value of in-kind contributions.
It is important to find out if any of partners is planning to use in-kind
contributions and what kind of rules they follow in calculating the value of
these contributions.
9. Revenues
The outcomes of some projects are products or services which later, for a
charge, are offered to the public (although in some programmes it is
impossible, because they require free public access to all project outputs).
28
All the incomes form charges have to be counted as revenues regardless

to the fact whether they only cover costs or also generate a profit. The
revenues generated during the project’s lifetime and also estimation of the
revenues generated for 3 years after project closure have to be deducted
from the budget of the project.
So it is necessary to check if the programme has any rules regarding
generating revenue by the project. Are there any activities in the project
expected to generate revenues? Has the expected amount of revenues
been deducted from the budget?
In some programmes there are very strict rules in the topic of revenues
generating and not checking these rules properly may lead to serious
problems at a later stage.
10. Ineligible costs

Under the Territorial Cooperation programmes there are various costs
which are not funded and in this case cannot be included in the budget
(like: payment of interest on debts or fines). There are rules which are
defined by Europe but most of them are included in national rules. There
are programmes which require additional information before they allow
certain costs (like investment into infrastructure) or they put limits for
certain type of costs (like, maximum 50% of total budget for staff costs).
All the partners should be aware of all rules applicable in their country and
make sure that their budget does not include ineligible expenditure.
1.6. Awareness of Partners’ Circumstances

Bringing range of organizations from different countries under the
umbrella of single project means contend with many complications.
Not only does the Lead Partner need to familiarize itself at an early stage
with all partner organisations’ structures, working practices and internal
decision-making time-frames – it may take longer than expected for them
to give agreement on key decision of change in direction or to deliver a
singed ‘Letter of Intent’ – but it will also need to appreciate the various
national systems, rules and procedures.
Informed partners are prepared partners. Individual partners must
themselves be aware (or be made aware) of exactly what applies to them,
e.g. “Is co-financing available and if so, to what level?”; or “what
assurances are required for the involvement of privet partners?”
To aid efficiency both, Lead Partner and project partners, must ensure a
familiarity with the various national audit mechanisms and systems (the
process is sometimes undertaken by specific nominated privet bodies;
sometimes by national structures) and their complexities and timeframes
in order to avoid problems and delays in submitting financial claims.
Equally, so as not to delay payment, all concerned should be clear as to
29
the details of national financial flows as sometimes National Paying

Authorities are involved as intermediaries in dispersing the claim
reimbursement
1.7. Demonstrating Added Value in the Application

The application is the document which aims to convince the Programme
Steering Committee that the proposal is worthy of support. As well as
being properly and fully filled-in, factually correct, realistically budgeted in
as much detailed as possible and persuasive in its arguments, the
application should justify and make clear just what the project will offer by:
1. Detailing what the proposal’s objectives are by reference to the
current situation and potential for improvement and how this will
be achieved through action.
2. Making obvious what it is that is different/groundbreaking about
what the proposal is carrying out why is this worthy supporting?
3. Explaining clearly why working with a cross-border of transnational
partnership is particularly useful or essential to realize the project
idea (and why this will be much more than a series of local
actions/investments package together under the façade of
cooperation) and how necessary joint cooperative strategy will
function.
4. Demonstrating that your idea fits in which the programme’s
general and specific goals.
Underlining any previous EU/international cooperation experience
the partnership or its members have on similar/relevant themes and
explaining how this new proposal builds upon it.
5. Integrating the project with other relevant projects having an
impact on the same regions/territory while avoiding unnecessary
overlaps.
6. Demonstrating how the project is appropriate and will impact
positively on the various local, regional, national and European
policy circumstances and strategies.
Projects which are well-thought-out and able to portray the quality of clear
added value tend to reflect more strategic outcomes, reduce duplication
and do a great deal to promote the credibility of EU funding and to
overcome perceptions of ‘subsidy shopping’ by participants.
1.8. Selection procedure

After the application has been submitted, it will go through a two-step
selection procedure. To confirm that project fulfill the programme's
technical requirements it will be checked against the eligibility criteria.
30
The assessment eligibility criteria are performed by the Joint Technical

Secretariat. Projects which meet the eligibility criteria will be checked
against the quality criteria. The possibility of submitting corrected
documents after the deadline for submission does not exist.
The quality assessment is carried out based on a scoring system. The
results in a ranked list of all the applications submitted are also taken into
account. The assessment will be performed by the Joint Technical
Secretariat in collaboration with external experts.
Eligibility criteria
There is no flexibility allowed in the way the criteria are applied in the
eligibility assessment, that is why it is a ‘yes or no’ process.
Examples of eligibility criteria:
- is the Lead Beneficiary an organization from eligible area?
- is the Lead Beneficiary a public organisation?
- are all of the partners from eligible area?
- will the project activities be carried out in two or more of the
participating countries?
- completed application form (Is it signed, stamped, dated, fully
completed, in English?)
- evidence of matching funding
Selection criteria
The selection criteria will be checked out only if projects have fulfilled the
eligibility criteria. Example of selection criteria (can vary; depend on the
type of project):
1. Contribution to transnational regional development
2. contribution to joint transnational strategy
3. Relevant and viable partnership
4. Delivery towards Gothenburg and/or Lisbon agenda
5. Project will demonstrate added value and deliver tangible and
measurable results
6. Project will demonstrate value for money
7. Description of a problem to be tackled and the solution
8. Involvement of public privet partnership and/or SMEs and leverage of
extra investment
9. Promoting/ transnational approach
10. Transnational partnership
11. Publication and communication strategy and public ownership
12. Environmental information 13
13
Assessment Procedure and Project Selection
31
Illustration 9 Assessment Procedure and Project Selection
After the assessment the results and the applications are then sent to the
members of the Monitoring and Steering Committee (MSC). They are also
considered by national / regional sub-committees. The members of the
MSC take the final decision on whether the project will be approved or not.
After the MSC meeting projects are receiving a letter with the decision.
After the application is successful approved by the Monitoring Committee
the project can go through the next stages.
Project Implemmentation
This is the stage in t he project cycle when partners stop being just
partners and start to contribute actual content in terms of activities and
results according to approved terms, schedule and budget (including any
further conditions attached by the programming authorities).
32
Now, the role of the Lead Partner extend form beyond that of the
facilitator (communicating and building the application) into acting as the
control mechanism over a living, breathing project. Good project
management ensures that agreed procedures are adhered to, provides
realism to frame creativity within the project’s parameters (schedule,
budget, etc.) and emphasize the delivery of concrete outputs within
reasonable degrees of flexibility.
The day-to-day activity of the project is collectively ensured by the
partners (individually and through delivery-oriented Working/Technical
Groups on which all partners are represented) but the Lead Partner will
oversee the delivery of project activities, their financial aspects, the
organization of formal and informal meetings and compliance with the
reporting requirements to ensure technical and financial co-ordination.
In order to do this the project manager requires the joint support of all
project bodies including Steering Committee to evaluate the effectiveness
of the project activity according to the information provided by the project
(reports and requested information) and to monitor and revise strategic
priorities.
33
The document which is very helpful for the mangers to track the
progress is the original work plan. The work plan, the objectives and tasks
that were initially defined for the application should remain unchanged. All
together it should be used as a baseline, serving the project manager as a
tool allowing to check what have been actually done and achieved during
implementation process.
There will always be some deviation from the original plan during
implementation, no matter how good the original plan is. The project
management should aim to track this deviation, make sure that the
implementation will stay within the scope of the project and if necessary
redirect activities to get back on track.
It is also important to realize that many changes will actually be
improvements. Project management always will have this dynamic aspect
and the ability to adapt to change is likely to ensure ultimate success.
1.9. Establishing Ground Rules for Implementation
Administrative Structure
From an administrative point of view, each partner organization needs to
understand that it is responsible for the collection and storing of
documents relating to its own activities within the project. Each partner
has to collect the documentation in an oraganised way in order to provide
it, if requested, together with official documents that will be produced in
form of specific outputs or ongoing reports.
Financial Structure
From the financial point of view, each partner organization needs to
understand that it will be responsible for its own expenses – according to
34
its budget and related activities – and for its financial reporting by
providing the Lead Partner with necessary information for subsequent
verification and consolidated project financial reporting (progress and
final) to the Programme Authorities at agreed intervals.
Internal Project Manual

Producing a project’s own functional ‘bible’ at an early stage after
approval condenses all matters of programme requirements and set out a
roadmap for project implementation by the partners (structures,
procedures, action plans, responsibilities, deadlines, communication
norms, decision-making processes, etc.). This ensures ready and definitive
resources for partner consultation and a shared understanding across the
partnership.
Formal Partnership Agreement

The mandatory imposition of the Lead Partner Principle across all
programmes (ERDF regulation) places a burden of responsibilities on all
Leads to maintain very good two-way communication and relationship with
all the project partners. Partnership conventions, although not always
mandatory are strongly recommended to establish ‘ground rules’ for the
functioning of the partnership and the security of its members by setting
out prior agreement upon procedural matters and formalizing (and further
clarifying) the individual responsibility of each partner. The terms of the
convention are sometimes freely adaptable from a template offered by the
programme.
The convention should set out straightforward processes to deal with
budget modifications (as per the subsidy contract), disputes (e.g. penalties
for financial mismanagement); the process for the official removal of
errant partners from the partnership.
Another key element of this agreement is to ensure that the Lead is in a
position to satisfactorily monitor the quality of activities carried out (i.e.
that they are strictly and solely for the purpose of implementing the
agreed operation) and, where this is the Lead’s prerogative, their proper
auditing before including them as part of the overall claim process.
1.10. Starting Implementation

Kick-off Meeting. Start means to really go on! A well-organized kick-off
meeting to officially begin project activities is vital. As well as creating a
sense of cohesiveness it also serves to ‘refresh’ partners on:
 Expected outputs
 Programme and project indicators
 Activity timeframe
35
 How to carry out activities

 Human resource issues
 Financial flows
 Procedures and deadlines for reporting
Project Bodies
The formal appointment of membership of the Steering Committee and

other project bodies such as suitable Working/Technical Groups based on
activities listed in the application form should take place at the earliest
possible opportunity. Post-approval communication should make clear the
role of each body to be established, the limits of its functions and how it
will interact with other elements of the project.
Meetings and Events
Transnational and interregional meetings involve a lot of partners’ time,

effort and expense to organize and attend. As well as the more obvious
aspects of information provision and task completion, project meetings
and the opportunities provided by project events for external stakeholders
should be used for general discussion, exchange of experiences and to
look beyond the project at related external developments (e.g. inviting
observers to take part).
Arrange for public project events to be held in each participating region –
possibly allowing the host region to use the occasion as a promotional
instrument (e.g. of its involvement in EU programmes).
The number of representatives per partner at meetings should be
relatively standardised across the partnership (and accommodation in the
budget as ‘travel’ or ‘meetings’ costs) or at least justified in relation to the
workload.
1.11. Support Mechanisms
Advice & Assistance

Maximum use should be made of such information and support services
along the lines of nationally-based Programme Contact Points and
designated JTS project and finance officers as are made available to
individual project by each programme. These resources – often located
quite close to potential partners – can provide promoters with accessible
direction and interpretation of technical EU/programme-level regulations
and clarification where necessary. Their role is not restricted to initial
project development, sourcing suitable partners, or acting as
intermediaries in facilitating the partnership – they also perform a role,
36
where requested, in ensuring that the implementation stage runs

smoothly.
Information Point
Geographical Area
(IP)
Katowice (Poland) Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania
Lille (France) Belgium, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands,
United Kingdom, Switzerland
Rostock (Germany) Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia,
Lithuania, Sweden, Norway
Valencia (Spain) Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain
Training
Approved projects are typically able to avail of special programme-level
training on matters of project management from finances to
communication (organized and delivered by the JTS). For logistical reasons
this is usually only offered to the Lead Partner. In the absence of suitable
training being made available to a representative of each participating
oraganisation, the formalized passing on new knowledge acquired to all
other partners is important in ensuring that key messages reach the
appropriate targets at the all levels of project management. Adequate
budgeting and time should be set aside for this purpose.
37
Dissemination & Legacy
External communication and dissemination are key factors for a successful

project – in terms of gaining the participation of relevant target groups and
informing the general public about activities and the value of INTERREG
and EU funding.
On other level, a good project should ensure that it is establishes a
strategy to disseminate its achievements so as to maximize the advantage
of the momentum (‘snowball effect’) it generates. This will create a basis
whereby the results whish emerge and their impacts can be put to further
and wider use.
1.12. Communication Plan

Before beginning any kind of communication activities it is important to
develop a Communication Plan that will serve as the reference tool as to
how the project’s messages and activities can be disseminate. Suggested
contents of the Plan should include:
1. Clearly stated objectives of the project by reference to target
groups, expected results and massages to be communicated
2. Overall timeframe for communication activities
3. Overall and partner-level dissemination responsibilities
Activities:
1. Defining a project image (logo, editorial line)
2. Creating a web site
3. Publishing a set of promotional materials (leaflets, brochures)
4. Publishing a regular newsletter
5. Organizing a programme of workshops, seminars and events
6. Cultivating media relations (articles, press releases)
Human resources (internal or external experts, communication agencies)
1. Communication budget
2. Communication Plan evaluation criteria
Communication Activities Tips:

Communication should be considered as a core element of the project.
That is why sufficient time and funds should be allocated to cover these
requirements.
38
It is good to encourage the partners to contribute to drafting the

Communication Plan
The Plan should be submitted to Steering Committee for a formal
approval. This is a massage to the partners that Communication activities
are very important part of the project.
It is important to remember that the communication should be active as
well as informative.
Research out to the project’s target audience; do not wait for them to find
the project on the web.
Investigate all the Media suitable to reach the target group (partners’
internal media, local and national newspaper, magazines, specialist press,
TV, radio…). When dealing with the Media it is important:
1. to make ensure that the news is actually newsworthy;
2. to use simple sentences, short and clear messages, no jargon;
3. to provide people stories, they are more appealing;
4. to provide the necessary documentation (survey, data, press kits,
photos…) to any journalist who might write an article on the
project;
Websites: more innovative use should be made of websites as interactive
tools to involve external stakeholders and beneficiaries rather than as
static billboards or intra-partnership communication forums.
Factor in a bigger replicability (to other regions and circumstances) of
results and outcomes and hoe their dissemination can best be assisted
(networks, etc.).
For continuity sake websites should also remain available to the public for
a minimum period of at least 2 years after the project has formally
concluded.
Always take as reference the Commission’s Regulation for Communication
activities related to ERDF funds and possible Programmes’ specific
Manuals on the subject.
Human and financial resources: Partners, (especially Lead Partners) should
try to avail themselves of communication experts either by allowing
adequate funds to hire them (i.e. communication agencies, journalists,
etc.) or by working with existing internal structures (press offices). In
recent Seminar organized by DG Regio on Communication activities
related to Structural Funds, officers have suggested encouraging part-time
internship contracts with student journalists whenever possible: working in
a PR capacity for EU funding is to their benefit as well as to projects. Part
of the bigger picture is that this should also help a new generation of
journalists to become more sensitive and knowledgeable about European
issues.
Wider Impacts
39
Pre-planning to Influence Policy

Every project (depending on its duration and ambition) will deliver
something in the form of output, results and/or perhaps even impact.
These are, after all, the promised fruits of the objectives which made the
application sufficiently credible to get the go-ahead in the first place.
Results are not intended as more findings in a final report on a dusty shelf
– rather, they should be designed to be transferable so as to be put to
wider effect.
Innovative and genuinely useful outputs – e.g. pioneering new approaches
which have built-in efficiencies or uniquely integrate different perspectives
– owe it to themselves to be replicated in other settings. The best way to
achieve this is to see them ‘mainstreamed’ through policy instrument.
1. Do the groundwork in advance to design the project so that its
results and outcomes can be easily integrated into the economic
and territorial planning of each of the administrations involved.
Achieve this by either involving the policy-makers directly as
partners or as fully-briefed observers.
2. Establish who the appropriate stakeholders and target groups to be
engaged are.
3. Factor in the wider replicability of results and outcomes (other
areas of the EU and beyond) and how their dissemination can best
be assisted (networks, etc.)
Bear in mind that putting new learning (e.g. techniques) onto the policy
agenda or into practice can only reflects favorably on the foresight of the
organizations involved.
Further Development
No project is going to solve all of the problems associated with the given
issues. From the point of view of the partner organizations themselves,
any project upon its completion should lay the groundwork of potential for
subsequent follow-up activities where the participating actors (and/or
others) can continue their work by logically building upon what was
already funded.
This might entail leading to the undertaking of a brand new project
(possible a direct sequel) or the setting-up of a more permanent structure
to formalise whatever was pioneered by the existing initiative – allowing
the project to ‘stand on its own feet’ one EU financial support has ended.
If further investment from other (ideally private sector) non-EU sources
can be leveraged to achieve this, the self-sufficiency of the project’s
approaches will be ensured.
40
Public Ownership of Outputs

Public access to and ownership of the outputs and materials generated by
the project including Intellectual Property Rights – even through the
engagement of external third parties such as consultants – should be
assured by participants prior to application.
Synergetic Among Projects

Successful project should embody the benefits of the concept of
international cooperation. Creating more formalized networking and
clustering opportunities among ongoing projects in liked fields would also
assist in avoiding duplication and achieving useful synergies (particularly
across programmes and strands and geographical areas which are not
linked by programme spaces).
Monitoring & Evaluation
A project can be define as “a series of activities aimed at bringing about

clearly specified objectives within a defined time-period and with a defined
budget” or as a way of clearly defining and managing investments and
change processes
It should involve not only a hierarchy of objectives (input, activities results,
purpose and overall objectives) plus a set of defined assumptions but also
a framework for verifying and evaluating project achievements – namely a
monitoring system.
A well-design monitoring system for cooperation projects contributes to
helping the management process; validating and enhancing the credibility
of the project; motivating the stakeholders; and transferring and
reproducing the benefits of the project. To do so it must meet a number of
conditions:
 it must be designed at the beginning of the project;
 It must be structured around a group of indicators that can be
checked in an objective manner;
 It must be organized around critical moments of the roll-out phase of
the project in order to make its monitoring possible;
 It must guarantee the participation of the different project
stakeholders.
1.13. Monitoring Tools

Given the range of elements and the complexities involved, the
appropriate tools need to e identified in order to guarantee that all the
41
necessary conditions are met for the monitoring process to be established

in relation to the actions, the results expected and budget cost control.
1. Documenting Tools and Results/Outputs
File and record the content, relevance and location of all documentation
and correspondence serving the entire partnership using a single and
shared step-by-step document management system.
As a quality control, maximum transparency is necessary in reporting
terms to highlight and communicate the contribution of each partner
towards achieving tangible results. An inventory of each partner’s tools
and outputs should be kept, updated and made accessible.
2. Internal Monitoring System
Designing ongoing of highly regularized web-based internal
communication system serves to keep all the partners informed of
progress. This should operate along a shared responsibility basis rather
than as a ‘top down’ exercise reliant on the Lead.
3. Reporting
An efficient and well-maintained project communication system as outlines
above can easily system serves as the basis for a semi-formal internal
reporting structure. Such reports are not a programme requirement and
may be shares with the JTS or maintained as a purely internal tool to keep
a very close check on progress and spending schedule in particular.
However, with extra development, a system along these lines can be
employed to make the task of formal financial management and official
reporting (usually 6 monthly) much easier and less time-consuming.
The feedback provided by the JTS on previous activity reports should be
taken on board and shared among the partnership so that useful elements
can be integrated into future reporting requirements.
4. Changes
It is expected that the implementation phase will adhere to the terms of
the application as approved. Where deviations (including partner non-
compliance and understand) unavoidably occur it is prudent to be
responsive to the need to change and to alert the JTS so that some form of
solution can be found. Allowing a hidden problem to feaster until it is too
late to carry out remedial actions is likely to have far more seriously
negative impact in the long-term including automatic decommitment of
approved funds or exclusion from possible involvement in the future calls
(e.g. for extensions, etc.).
1.14. Selecting Indicators

Indicators are measurement tools that provide useful project management
data to allow for the monitoring of progress and efficiency – thereby
42
allowing for better decision-making, improved effectiveness and more

relevant results.
Indicators must be directly related to the project’s most important
objectives and give an accurate picture of what a project is setting out to
achieve. Yet because they can only provide a partial ‘snapshot’ of the
status of some of the work being done, the first decision in this regard is to
decide what to measure; i.e. what are the interesting and important parts
of the project?
The challenge in selecting indicators is to find measurables that can
meaningfully capture key changes, combining what is practically realistic
in terms of actually collecting and managing data.
A range of indicators is normally provided in the Operational Programme
and each partner needs to adapt this as appropriate and incorporate it into
its application as a means to assess and justify the benefits that will be
derived from the project.
From the beginning, the partnership must understand and agree upon the
kind of (unit-based) indicators by which the project will be assessed; take
a base-line from which to work; introduce the target to aim for; and set up
mechanisms and milestones to collect data in order to be able to measure
progress.
Some of the key problems with monitoring and evaluation can be
eradicted at sources by allocating a suitable and ample range of indicators
which clearly capture the purpose of the project’s objectives and activities:
 output indicators measure what is produced by the activities;
 results indicators measure the immediate effects on the targeted
beneficiaries;
 impact indicators measure the long-term contribution to the overall
objective.
There is a need for logical connections between these 3 categories. For

example: An analysis/report (output indicator) on particular theme of
relevance to the shared territory of the partner organizations should
contribute to increase awareness (result indicator) among target groups
including the general public on the issues of the report which should in
turn lead to improved policies (impact indicator) based on this new
knowledge.
A key feature of indicators is the ability to describe and verify the project’s
objective in operationally measurable terms such as quality, quantity and
time in order to answer the questions:
- how would we know whether what was planned is actually happening?
- how do we verify success?
So that each element of actual project performance (results, budgetary
efficiency etc.) can be assessed it is strongly recommended to define
43
specific and relevant indicators which are actually achievable and can be
measured according to the project’s information needs and schedule
(various milestones when targets will be achieved). For example, the
project might be founded on the understanding that it is realistic for each
partner to design and deliver 10km of dedicated cycle track within 3 years
and 10% of local commuters using this facility within 5 years and design
indicators to tally rather than unrealistically purporting to provide a
solution to urban traffic congestion and vehicle pollution throughout
Europe.
It is important to remember that indicators are only the fuel of
monitoring/evaluation; they do not encompass the entire process.
1.15. The Evaluation Process

Evaluation is the comprehensive, critical and detached examination of the
appropriateness of the objectives and the quality of the interventions
employed according to the results, impacts and needs they aim to satisfy.
Evaluation is a process - not just a technique – and its various stages
needs to be phased over the project lifecycle with differing areas of focus:
- ex-ante – planning rationale (design and resources allocation
including cost benefits analysis)
- interim/ongoing – implementation relevance and effectiveness
(programme management; objectives being reached; control of
external factors)
- ex-post – outcomes efficiency and impact (achievements; added
value)
It should combine both summative (accountability; achievements; value)
and formative (development or learning focus; improving performance and
delivery) approaches.
Evaluation Tasks
Evaluation requires a careful balancing of time and resources; research
and analysis; team management; relationship building (stakeholder
involvement etc.). To see the process through in an efficient manner:
 establish and understand the project content (actors and
beneficiaries; activites; evaluation type required);
 prepare and agree clear Evaluation Terms of Reference;
 design an Evaluation Work Plan proposal (overall approach; logical
analytical framework; methodology/techniques; work programme of
which information and how to collect it);
 plan and budget resources for Evaluation (no. of people/person
days; type of people; necessary expertise);
44
 perform the Evaluation (implement method/work programme;

cultivate relations; manage team; deal with unexpected issues);
 design an Output Schedule (plan meeting frequency; plan
milestones);
 define the nature and style of report.
Practical Evaluation Tips:

 Ensure project planning includes monitoring and evaluation from
outset.
 Early understanding and agreement on importance of evaluation is
necessary – as is an appreciation of different partners’ national
attitudes towards the process.
 In trying to establish if intervention will make a difference include
such aspects as “expert” opinion and views of stakeholders.
 In assessing the eventual effects a contrast ‘before and after’ (time-
series) or ‘with and without’ (location and contexts) may be
worthwhile.
 ‘soft’ interventions have less obvious effects and are harder to
evaluate.
 International evaluation teams are needed to accurately reflect the
partnership’s activities.
Dealing With Cultural Differences

Rising the awareness of the cultural differences among the participants of
INTERREG projects is very important.
The conscious cultural management can facilitate every phase of the
project management. To deal with culture effectively, it is necessary to
take a bigger picture into account. To do that culture should be seen as a
resource instead of an obstacle and the cultural differences as productive.
1.16. Recognizing and managing culture:

In view of the fact that cultural differences are inevitable, it is necessary to
encourage people to recognize these differences and to learn how deal
45
with them. These differences can bring opportunities for innovation and
can broaden the scope of the implementation of initiatives.
Of course it is difficult to formulate concrete instructions regard to the
successful management of projects, mainly because every project is
different. The suggestions which are introduced are grouped according to
the three most essential phases of every project: project preparation,
development of the project and the implementation phase.
1.17. The project preparation phase

This phase is focusing on generation of the project idea and involvement
of the project partners. Most of the times finding partners is limited to use
old networks, for example colleagues from earlier cooperation or other
personal contacts. But, one should pay attention to minimizing the cultural
imbalance in processing the project idea and in the composition of the
partnership.
 It is advised to involve all the partners, especially ‘new’ partners in an

open and substantial way. It is good to seek for developing a culturally
balanced partnership which involves each of the partners in a
substantial way. It is happening that only familiar partners are involved
effectively and adding new partners is only to increase the chances of
funding. In these cases new partners are not playing considerable role,
sometimes because of financial constraints but also due to the fact that
the newcomers are representing other cultural perspectives. Depending
on the topic of the project, it might be very advantageous to develop a
strategy of involving different cultures. Cultural differences can spill in
different perspectives on the central idea of the project; this can enable
to take full advantage of the variety of knowledge and experiences. An
example of alternative approach of building partnership can be founding
partners through a kind of contest. Although in this way a strong
hierarchy in the partner network (leaders/ pioneers vs. followers) might
be established, that is why it is necessary to balanced with good
involvement and a partnership approach.
 The richness of INTERREG lies in the variety of viewpoints and usage of

advantages of otherness. For not to ‘stewing in our own juice’, it is
essential to seek partners with different professional backgrounds and
from different geographical zones.
 The richness of INTERREG lies in the variety of viewpoints and usage of
advantages of otherness. For not to ‘stewing in our own juice’, it is
essential to seek partners with different professional backgrounds and
from different geographical zones.
46
 These differences among the partners should be seen as offering new

potential to the project, as a possibility to consider different aspects as
important, and different political and administrative ways of handling
problems.
 Regardless to how project partners are found and how the partnership is
build, there are certain things which should be clarified between
participants. One of those things, which might have influence on the
future smoother project cooperation, is to involve partners to reflect on
the project application explicitly from their own cultural perspective.
This approach may help to avoid misunderstandings in the project
application by providing clues about framing differences and the
relevant cultural dispositions with respect to practices.
 Connections between project and local context partners should be

investigated. It is good to be aware of how the ideas of the project
interfere with the regional, political and institutional cultures of the
partners. It may be beneficial to organize a workshop about project
application to investigate this aspect, although it might be not eligible
for refunding.
 The individual actions and joint actions should be connected in an

integrated methodology. The idea of the INTERREG is also to stress the
added value of the process itself, meaning: Learning from working
together is a valuable by-product. That is why it is important to connect
interactivity (joint actions) and the cognitive approach (individual
actions) into one integrated methodology. It should be avoid
organization of the work in closed working groups and only exchange
ideas and results at the end of a project. Instead, it is recommended to
design work in an integrated processes. This interactive approach
should be also visible in the workload and work packages.
 The project partners should be aware that differences are valuable by-
products in the process. In INTERREG projects, the internal cross-cultural
process should be treated as important as the content orientation. Also
in the interests of innovation, these two orientations should be more
connected.
1.18. Development of the project

This phase starts after project is approved of the project. The key issue at
this stage, is that partners have to be awareness of the fact that cultural
differences affects: frames, perceptions, expectations of the project and
47
also political-administrative traditions. It is wise to be aware of stereotypes

among the partners, right from the beginning of the project. This enables
to avoid the manifestation of negative stereotypes. Knowledge of different
organizational styles can influence interaction. For good cooperation it is
also important to know different institutional mandates and discretionary
competences of partners.
 Partners should be aware of different mandates. This knowledge can

help in assigning of the range of competences and responsibilities for
the partners. It also can give a view of how partners want to deal with
project issues at their own discretion - especially funding and
commitment. It also emphasized that to reach a profound level of
understanding one start-up event is not enough. Absolutely crucial
parts of team building are meetings. During the process of
development of the project, issues like: working cultures, system
cultures and societal cultures should be discussed.
 In this phase the number of face-to-face interactions should be

intensify. It is also advised to exchange ideas via telephone and video
conferences, intensive e-mail exchange etc. But it must be emphasized
that the best results are achieved by face-to-face interactions. Partners
should get to know each other, as well as the project objectives; this is
why an interactive dialogue should be established right from the
beginning.
 It is advised to invite partners to exchange their opinions on ‘good

partnership’ from the point of view of their local cooperation traditions
and their perceptions of international settings. To follow the interactive
approach, it is good to discuss potential dissonances between these
culturally rooted perspectives.
 It is advice to exchange partners’ expectations and the cultural

background of them in the start-up meeting. These questions can be
helpful in doing this:
- What do you aim to achieve with this project?
- For whom is this important?
- Why is it important in your (cultural) context?
 A good idea can be organizing an informal event where partners may

exchange information about institutions, systems and societies in their
regions. Also observing local practice during a study visit may provide
48
information about partners. Partners can be encouraged to bring some

sources of information about their regions (these can give some clues
about how problems are formulated in their cultural context).
1.19. Implementation phase

During the implementation of the project, all the partners should be
careful and sensitive to the culture and its role in the process.
 Keep in mind trust while dealing with differences in language skills.

Serious lack of language skills can cause complications in every
interaction. If that kind of problem occur in the process of the project,
it is better to not to solve it by sending a third party to attending all
meetings. It would be prefer, to look for a person within the project
team to solve the language barrier, in order not to disturb the building
of trust. It is also better to try to enable face-to-face contact.
 Conflicts may be treated in a different way by different cultures.

Gathering adequate information about specific culture can provide
clues about how the conflicts are perceived and might bring idea how
to solve it.
 If conflicts are solved in sincere interactions, they can be very
productive in projects. But the practice shows that, conflicts can be
very problematic. Trying to solve the problems just by sending e-mails
and official letters will not bring success. It is advised to meet face to
face and discuss points of view. One of the possibilities can be
involving a third party; this can prevent ‘loss of face’.
 That commitment of partners to the project declines when decisions
are taken by project managers or steering groups. Managers may think
the problem lies within the partnership, and does not take into account
cultural differences. One should look beyond the ordinary staff involved
in the partnership and try to see a bigger picture. Maybe the
importance of the project has changed for some institution or region,
and it requires making some improvements in the project.
 All the partners should be aware of cultural dynamics during the

process of project.
 It means that projects management style might need a different
approach in different phases of the project. For example balance
between: result-oriented and exchange-oriented working sessions,
decision-making sessions or exchange sessions, etc.
49
 The lead partner not only should be aware of this dynamic but also
should try to anticipate these needs.
 When signs of a loss of enthusiasm start to be visible, one should of

course ask if there are any problems in the relationship between
project partner and the project leader. But one should also think about
if maybe there is something wrong in the relation between the actor,
his institute(s) and the project.
 Always try to look for deeper reasons of dissonance. If there is a

discussion on 'who is right and who is wrong' do not allow get it out of
hand. One should not forget to look for the deeper reasons of
appearing dissonance. In that kind of cases not only fundamental
knowledge about cultural aspects is necessary but also openness and
willingness of people to realize and accept cultural differences. Only
that kind of approach can contribute to the international collaboration.
 If there are misunderstandings appearing, one should analysis the

practical consequences of dissonance, in order to determine whether
the misunderstanding came out from language and communication
problems or from different cultural frames. Talking about real, practical
situations helps to clear up misunderstandings.
 Most of the project starts with a body of formal academic knowledge. It

means that different knowledge conceptions can meet in projects. One
should try to give a fair hearing to different kinds of knowledge
because it should be adopted by all the partners. Allowing different,
practical knowledge to enter the project is giving a chance of using it
as valuable ingredient in creating an interactive project.
 If any administrative mistakes have been done, a project manager

should make all partners aware of it and keep them informed, and also
clarify his administration culture and his plan of retrieval.
 It is advise to exchange concepts, practices and strategies of local

implementation as well as discuss the cultural embedding in the course
of the project. The local context is influencing whole project and vice
versa. It is wise to involve most important, local stakeholders in the
project to improve implementation locally but also of the project as a
50
whole. The Lead Partner should be aware of the political changes in the
regions of the partners during the project and also possible
repercussions of those changes for the results of project
implementation.
 The approaches to external communication can be different in different
regions and countries. Communication and relations which are typical
in one region can be completely unsuccessful or can even hamper the
dissemination of the project in another region. The best solution is joint
discussion, where each of the partners can make others aware of
different ‘rules of the game’ in their regions, e.g. in dealing with
politicians.
In most of the cases partners are very enthusiastic about study visits,
excursions, twinnings, practical labs, etc. This shows that these kinds
of events are necessity.
The possibilities for informal exchange motivates people and lead to
building social relationship within the team, increasing of trust and
helps to free from the stereotypes. This enable to create stabile
project and strong partnership.
For constructive dealing with project the adequate recognition of

cultural variety is necessary from the very first phases of a project. The
relevance of culture and the benefits of the recognition the cultural
differences is very important. Managing cultural differences requires
intelligence and an open mind, rather than instructions.14
Of course any suggestions about raising cultural awareness in

INTERREG cooperation can only be seen as some inspiration not strict
instructions.
The most important suggestions is to become aware of the cultural
varieties among the partners. It is essential that all the participants will be
aware of their own culture and its peculiarities, that they are willing to
recognize cultural differences between the other and that they are open to
dealing with those differences during the project.
The recognition of culture is not restricted to the project objectives, but is
also applied to the way project management. The project management is
a joint effort, and it should be about sense making instead of decision
making when it deals with differences between cultures. One should
remember that cultural differences can produce positive benefits, if the
14
Cultural Differences In European Cooperation, Learning from INTERREG Programme,
2007
51
partners are able to have critical detachment and to see differences as

resources not obstacles.
Interviews
The researcher interviewed managers of the INTERREG projects. The aim

of the interview was to gain the knowledge about their experiences with
managing projects, to gain information which is not described in project
manuals. What kind of problems the manager had to tackle during the
managing projects. How does the project life cycle look like in the real life.
What contributes to the success of the project and what can cause
troubles or even failure. On what particularly pay the attention? What to
not to overlook? What makes a successful INTERREG project?
The checklist of the questions used during the interviews can found in the
Appendix nr 1.
1. The first interview was done on 21 May 2010, with Mr. Bob Pels
the European Territorial Cooperation Programme Manager.
Interview focused on two projects SAWA and MORE4NRG.
The checklist used during the interview can be found in the Appendix nr 1.
SAWA, an INTERREG IVB project, makes a sustainable contribution to the

recently adopted Flood Directive (FD). This directive strongly focuses on
integrated flood risk management on a river basin level in a close link to
the Water Framework Directive. Both of these directives demand an
integrated water management approach.
Within the partnership of 5 riparian North Sea Regions SAWA is working on
meeting these challenges. The aim of the project is to develop a common
adaptive implementation strategy which would meet FD and WFD
52
requirements. SAWA creates innovative flood risk management solutions

and flood protection measures which are adaptive and transferable tools
also for other regions and next generations.
More detailed description of the project can be found in the Appendix nr2.
MORE4NRG
Europe is responsible for reducing the effects of climate change and
preparing regions for decline of the oil-age. To help solve the energy
issues European regions have to promote, develop and implement energy
efficiency strategies and renewable energy sources (RES).
The MORE4NRG aims to bring these issues to interregional level. The
partnership includes 12 partners from all over the Europe: 11 regions and
the Assembly of European Regions (AER). The regions involve in the
project represent different level of advanced strategies, action plans and
variety of approach. The exchange of good practices in frame of the
project enables all the regions to improve their strategies on sustainable
energy. The project also allow to speed up the development in the less
advanced regions.
More detailed description of the project can be found in the Appendix nr 5.
Conclusion from the interview:
What makes the project successful?
Best way to develop the project is to start with an overall idea, what you
want to solve, what you want to do.
SAWA from the beginning was is difficult and complicated project. In

strand B of INTERREG you are allowed to experience with small pilots, and
these pilots are part of the project. So everybody were preparing pilots,
but the problem with it is that if you don't have an overall idea it is very
hard to put it all together. It takes 6 months maybe a year before you it is
possible to finalize the pilots and just then you can disseminated the
gained information. That is why this project needs more time. Waiting for
results takes more time but they can be very impressive
SAWA bring together 22 partners, so it is a lot, and it is hard to manage.

So partners decided there should be an International Steering Group but
not with 22 members. So we had an International Advisory Board and
every country have one person who coordinates the things within the
Member State. So the national problems are discussed on the level of
53
Member State. It means that to manage the project successfully the

structure has to be well organized.
It is very important that organizations involved in the project would be

able to well cooperate together, that they understand each other, they are
able to work together, that they speak to each other.
The Lead Partner can organize common meeting couple of times a year,
stimulate them to work together but it is them who have to do it, and they
have to communicate with each other.
In More4nrg the idea came from group of politicians on the level of

regional ministries. They are all the Member of AER. They all saw a need of
taking care of the environment and energy efficiency strategies and
renewable energy sources. So they sign a declaration and decided they
need and international project, like INTERREG. They used a network and
the experts of AER and also partners from other projects and they create a
group of regions interested in the project.
The communication was perfect in this project. All the partner were very
enthusiastic and very active they done an excellent job. For example: the
expected number of copies of brochures 1000, disseminated number of
copies 3000, expected hits on the projects website 250, during the project
it was 18000
The fact that the AER was the partner in the project, and it has 270
members, the dissemination was very wide. So if there was a newsletter
send it reached 270 regions via email and hard copies few times a year.
So having as a partner organization like AER, with so strong network was
one of the elements of such a big success of the More4nrg. But also very
active project manager who will pull and push the project partners. The
right person on the right place and with adequate skills.
Though out the project the financial issues are always a big thing, one of
the hardest elements that needs a lot of energy and time. And because of
that sometimes it can hard to balance focus on finances and the really
intention of the project. There is always a risk that the attention for the
financial issues is that big that partners can forget about the importance of
the content of the project. People always afraid about the money. The
advice from Mr. Pels was to forehead if there are any financial issues and
think about it earlier to come out with some propositions for solutions to
the Monitoring Board. This allows to solve all the problem during the
meeting.
First organize your network with stakeholders, organisations in your

region, that you will need with the performance of the project. Do that
54
from the start. For example, if it is an economic project involve Chamber

of Commerce, Development Agency, etc, what you have in your region.
See who and how can be really involved, so that if you want move on you
can easily ask them. Because otherwise you will lose time if you want to
organize it after the project is already approved So don't do it within 2 or 3
months after kick-off, than you will lose time you will be lacking behind.
That is important that the regional authorities took part in the project.
They are also a strong network in all region should they know about what
you're doing.
And the policy makers, it is very important to involve them. Because if you
talk about important issues like energy issues or economic issues it is
absolutely necessary to involve your politicians. Because in the end they
will decide about the money, they will decide if you can change policies.
So in the time when you apply involve them. It is maybe not for every
INTERREG project, it is not always the major importance. But for example
MORE4NRG wouldn't be so successful if the politicians wouldn't be
involved in it. Especially that the idea came from the political wheel, from
the politicians within the AER.
With In More4nrg apart from exchange the good practices which enable
exchange very concrete project or initiatives from one region to another.
But the exerts were also developing the strategies, especially for the less
developed countries in the renewable energy. The good practices
implementation creates a kind of immediate effect and by influencing the
strategic and political level there is a long term effect.
2. The second interview was done on 25 May 2010, with Mr. Jan
Boerstra the Programme Manager. Interview focused on
projects e-citizen I and II.
e-Citizen is a INTERREG IVC project. e-Citizen is designed to support

European cities and regions in their joint efforts to accelerate
eGovernment through exploiting established networks, gained
experiences and good practices. 15
This project was created to improve the relations of citizens of European

cities and regions and public authorities and also improve the involvement
of citizens in decisions-making process.
15
eCitizen II project overview
55
The added-value which the project brings to interregional eGovernment

cooperation is transferring, between the more and less advanced regions
of Europe, the gained knowledge, experiences, best practices. e-Citizen
project aims to stimulate new approaches, bigger understanding and
engaging citizens in city and regional administrations and creating citizen-
centred eServices.
The project will involve decision- and policy-makers, demonstrate benefits
of the eGovernment and the best eParticipation practices in different
public sectors and identify future prospects to ensure support to further
acceleration of eGovernment.16
Too much Baltic countries in the project, 2 of finish partner were of the
project
In e-citizen II wants to make a link to social media, social portals, like

Facebook, Hyves, to use social media for the governmental activities. The
aim is to keep the society closer to the government by using powerful and
common media like internet.
From 12 partner one, the Finish partner, is the Lead partner, mainly taking
care of the project management, 3 other partners: English, Estonian and
Dutch are mainly responsible for the content of the component 3 and it is
because of their knowledge and experience in the topic. JTS was very
satisfy with the goal and the programme of the project and asked to
involve the region were internet and digital world are not so advanced. It
was a reason to invite countries like: Hungary, Greece, Ireland…
The Finish partner as an inventor of the idea become a Lead Partner. In Mr.
Jan Boerstra opinion the problem for them can be that they don’t have the
right knowledge about the topic of the project. If one don’t know the
subject, one also don’t know the organization in Europe which are working
on social media and internet. They can be very good project manager in
timekeeping, in making schedules, in making reports but the fact that they
don’t have any substantial knowledge of the topic of the project makes
them very dependent on other partners, and also forces a lot of trust
between the partners. In this case the Finish partner is very dependent on
English partner. It can be said that the English partner is a lead partner for
component 3 .
16
eCitizen II project overview
56
The Lead Partner ask the English partner also for help in building the
partnership because of they have a lot of experience in the topic and in
international projects, but also because of their network.
The possible problem which occur in partnership can be ineligibility of
some partner and that they will not deliver to the project. Sometimes from
the beginning it is visible that there are partner from who one cannot
expecting too much. It can be caused by lack of knowledge and
experience. But it also happens that there are partner which are in the
project for the wrong reasons like money and exchanging meetings not
only because of the content of the project. Hopefully those partner can
learn from others but the expectation from them are not the highest.
It is very usual that when the project team is formed there are always 2-3
partners who take the lead, there is a group that follows, and there is a
group in the end that walks with you.
But it is not only about people, their mentality, knowledge or involvement.
Sometimes the external circumstances, like economic crisis, can cause
that the partners even have to leave the project.
At this moment the e-Ctizen II is in the stage of define the real project
targets that the project wants to realize. The project partners are exploring
and discussing what specific targets they want to realize, what exactly
they want to do.
Starting an INTERREG project is like make a promise to Europe that
partner will deliver some results, make some improvements. And if the
partner have to realize that if they will not keep that promise they will not
be eligible, reliable for the JTS in next projects and their proposal will not
be accepted.
Flevoland has whole department working on European projects, there are

around 20 people involve. This allows to financial managers to have time
to control the budget not only from behind the desk but also by doing
control visits. And this was a bit unusual for all the other partners. The
Lead Partner involve two people to manage the project. Budget
management of the project is based just on trust. With such a small team
the Lead Partner is not in the circumstances to do control visits and check
if they can trust their partners. And that is a very big risk. Because one
can never know if you can trust to all the partners in the same level. But
on the other hand partners have to trust each other to work together.
Even if there is a possibility of control visits, the cooperation is between
countries which are often very far away from each other, and it takes time
and money. That is why partners have to give each other a credit of trust.
Dissemination and communication
57
The communication and dissemination plan of the e-Citizen II to is just

being done, but the results from the e-Citizen I can be already evaluated.
Among those were: brochure, website, DVD and a manual But Mr. Jan
Boerstra had some doubts about what was the real impact of those
materials. He think the brochure are not the best way to get people
attention, the website was not often visited, mainly because people didn’t
know about existence of the project or the website. The same with the
manual. It was posted on websites of EU but in the end it disappear
between thousands of other available in the internet information.
This is an important issue for the European projects. Some of the solution
can be that the Lead partner should put a really big emphasis on strong
regional dissemination and communication of the results.
For example Mr. Jan Boerstra planned a Regional Conference about the e-
participation and social media. He planned to invite councils from 6
municipalities, members from Regional Council from the province. He is
also planning to invite Lady who was involve in Barack Obama team in
election, where he used internet and Facebook for his campaign
Summarizing the substantial and indispensable elements of successful
project are:
 Knowledge of the subject because otherwise you cannot keep up
with the progress of the project
 Trust, it is important because for the project management and also
for the realizing the goals, partners have to trust that they
cooperate with people and organizations who will do the best of the
project
 Building the regional network for successful dissemination. It is
about how you see the world. When you see it to narrow and you
don’t spread the network it will not bring big results.
 Experience of the project partners in doing international projects.
Helps to build the right structure, solve the unexpected problems
 the right people with adequate skills on the right place
3. The third interview was done on 26 May 2010, Mrs. Karin Maatje
the INTEREG Project Manager. Interview focused on projects:
ELLABO and MiniEurope. In both of the project Province of
Flevoland was the Lead Partner.
58
ELLABO was an INTERREG IIIC project under the Hanse Passage

programme. Project aimed to improve the participation of elderly people
in the labour market. The main reason of inventing this programme was
creating international networks for exchanging experiences.
Regions which were participating in ELLABO were: Groningen (NL), Fryslân
(NL),
Drenthe (NL), Overijssel (NL), Bremen (D), Niedersachsen (D), Dolnoslaskie
(Pl), Haute Normandie (F), Yorkshire and the Humber (UK), and Flevoland
(NL). The Lead Partner who was running the project management was the
Provincial Platform Labour Market Flevoland.
The objective of the project was to improve the participation of the
elderly on the labour market (the Lisbon goals anticipated that half of the
55+ people must be working in 2010). Partners planned to exchange
knowledge, supporting systems and measures which could enable the
elderly people again enter the work market, working as an employee or
self employed.
The aim of project MINI EUROPE is exchanging and improving the

regional policies in developing SME's. Project mainly focus is to provide
infrastructure for innovation to SMEs and to promote entrepreneurship. It
is especially directed to increase involvement of under-represented groups
in entrepreneurship, like minorities, disabled people, women.
Most of the activities in this project are carried out through networking:
bringing together and capitalising their methods and experiences, all
partners can strongly improve their performance in this field.17
Mini Europe planned collect existing good practice in field of SME support.
The good practices come from the partner regions but also from other
Interreg projects with the relevant topics.
The MINI EUROPE partnership combines the experience of 9 organisations
in 8 regions:
Province of Flevoland (Netherlands)
Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (North West of England - UK)
Észak-Alföld Regional Development Agency (Hungary)
Maramureş County Council (Romania)
Almi Företagspartner Mitt AB (Sweden)
Institute for SME Industrial Firms of the Valencian Govt. (Spain)
Patras Science Park S.A (Western Greece)
Veneto Region and Veneto Innovazione (Italy)
17
MiniEurope Broschure
59
The province of Flevoland had already a project for involving the elderly
people on the labour market. They notice that even though older people
had a good education and bug experience it was hard for them to find job
again. Later Province heard about Hanse Pssage project and they
introduce them the problem which occur to be an issue in many European
countries. The management of Hanse Passage agreed that it is very
interesting project and asked Flevoland to write an application
The management of Hanse Passage helped Flevoland to find partners for

the project. The idea was to collect the good practices from partners and
exchange them.
The necessity of exchange was not so high, because there was no

restrictions about implementing the good practices, the region did not
necessary had toimplement them. And this was a kind of weakness of the
project in Mrs. Maatje opinion, she thinks it would be better to makes it
more practical. If you exchange the information and the knowledge and
you will not do anything more with it then it will disappear, without
bringing any results. But it was maybe also because of the fact that the
INTERREG III project was much less demanding and more result-oriented,
it was more about exchanging information and knowledge. INTERREG IV is
much more demanding and it is its advantage because it makes the
projects closer to people’s lives. That is why Mrs. Maatje is in favour of
more practical projects.
Building the partnership was something that Mrs. Maatje would do

differently now. The beginning of this project was also the beginning of her
work with INTERREG projects. So the German management of Hanssa
Passage more or less find the partners for the project and she accepted
them. All of them seems to be good and eligible partner, but it was only on
paper. There were many very good and active partners in the project but
also some who were almost absent. So what Mrs. Maatje would do
differently now is that she would check all of the partners credibility, by for
example by calling them, talk with them about how did they get to know
about the project, what are the reason that they want to be involve in this,
how are they going to arrange the work, do they have time for it, are they
familiar with the topic or have the right experts and so on. Working on
INTERREG project takes a lot of time. It is not only time for exchange
60
meetings but there is a lot of work to in between as well. Some of the

partners were not aware of it. The lack of time for work on the project can
be easily recognize by the level of involvement of the partner into the
project. Sometimes when the organization is new in that kind of project
they do not realize how much time and energy it takes to do it.
In Flevoland there is a separate department for European projects. And

also when they are working on specific project related with for example
youth or environment, the experts form that department are working on
the content of the project together with INTERREG mangers.
Being the manager of such a project means it is necessary to find the

balance between being patient and being strict. Manager can’t remind the
partners 5 times to do their job, one just have to trust and accepted that
they will do. It is hard, because all the partners work in different
organizations and the manger is not in the position to tell them what to do,
the manager is not a boss. The Lead partner have to find the way to reach
the project goals. But it is not easy because so many cultural differences,
which makes the project very interesting, by the way, but it makes it also
a bit difficult. For example some practices which are innovative for one
country were already been doing for long time in another. On one hand
the idea of INTERREG project is connecting less advanced regions with
more experienced region so they could speed up. But on the other hand
the more developed countries should nave a possibility to learn. Because
also for example the Eastern countries have their precious values although
sometimes it can be hard to see them for Western countries. But apart
from the results, INTERREG by bringing countries together creates one
Europe and the ‘European feeling’. By working together partners have a
possibility to meet each other, get to know different cultures, be more
aware of each other.
Apart from all the difficulties the ELLABO was one of the best project
within the Hanse Passage. It was the most concrete and it reaches all the
planned goals. The goal was the final report with collection of good
practices and recommendations. But Mrs. Maatje thinks it would more
successful if it would be even more concrete, beyond the level of
exchanging good practices, knowledge and information.
In MiniEurope it is done differently. There is an exchange of the good

practices but there is also the implementation of them in the regions. The
good practices implementation creates a kind of immediate effect and by
influencing the strategic and political level there is a long term effect.
Communication in the projects should really focus on the target group

and which type of communication tools or materials would be the most
61
suitable for this group. In the progress report to JTS it is necessary to show
the number of participant in conferences or events during the project. But
is the use of these number. It looks a bit like it would be only about 'the
more the better', but what is the real outcome of it.
The philosophy of INTERREG is really wide dissemination of the results of

the project. There is a separate component of the project only about
communication and dissemination, so there is a very big emphasis put on
this part. Which is of course good, but the question is if producing those
big amount of material is the right thing to do it. Who is really reading
those brochures. Maybe it is better to go with the flow of the modern
society and for example produce a shot movie and put on YouTube. At this
moment world is changing so fast and the time is the most precious value.
Also while producing promotion materials, project managers have think
about it. So maybe it is better to do a short 10 minutes movie and put on
YouTube than make a 1 hour DVD which will be too long to keep the
audience interested.
The people make the project. The project can be perfect on paper but
when there aren't right people involve in the project, who will be dedicated
and committed than the project won’t work. And also the management of
the project have work really hard to get people where they want them to
go. So also managers have to be very dedicated.
4. The last interview was done on 2 June 2010, with Eduard Lenoir
the Financial Manager. Interview focused on perpetrating the
budget of the INTERREG projects. At this moment he Mr. Lenoir is
involved in projects: e-citizen, More4nrg and MiniEurope. In last
two projects the Province of Flevoland was the Lead Partner.

Budget should be design according to activities not the opposite way.
A lot of project start with the increasing the budget as much as possible
and then they start to think about activities that they want to do. But
that’s not the right order. First, one should look at the activities and then
calculate how much money need to be involve to undertake those
activities.
To prepare the budget one have to calculate how much time is needed per
budget line, the time is needed to undertake the project activities, also
calculate hourly rate per employee. Each country can have different cost
62
of managing the project, for example staff costs. Financial managers have
take that into account from the beginning. It is important to be aware of
expenditure level of each partner because the differences are very big.
That is why it is good to have some experience in preparing the budget
because it takes a lot of time to start from the beginning without the
knowledge about how to calculate and estimate all the expenditures.
The partners have to discussed the division of activities and budget

related with those activities. Then estimate how much money every
partner needs for all his activities and then the budget is created. But it
can happened that some partners are not allowed to pay some cost
because of their national regulations. It can cause some troubles and
might needed changes in the budget. So the knowledge about rules and
regulations in each of the partners countries is absolutely necessary.
Other problem that can be met is when some partners are not doing
as much activities as they should according to the plan and others are
very enthusiastic and are undertaking more activities, than it was planned.
So these partners who are very active are having over spending and the
others under spending. At this point it is necessary to try to reallocate the
budget from one partner to another. There is a possibility of shifting the
10 % of budget, from one partner to another, without asking for
permission from JTS. It is possible to shift even up to 20% of the budget
but then you have to get approval by JTS and it can be done only once
during the project. But getting the approval of JTS is not the easiest. The
financial officer is asking a lot of questions very detailed. In opinion of Mr.
Lenoir JTS should see a bigger picture, JTS should focus more on a total
level because at this moment it is too bureaucratic.
In creating the budget it is really necessary to be flexible, to not to

make it too tight. When the budget is to low there is no place for
flexibility. That is why it is better to have a little bit higher budget,
because later on it is very difficult to increase it.
In situation of unplanned expenditures the solution is to look over the

budget of all the partners and asked the partners, who are spending less
than they planned, if they agree to reduce their budget in favour of
partner who is spending more than it is the budget.
But it can also happened that all the partners have overspending then the
only solution is to ask the JTS to increase the project budget. But to
increase the budget is very difficult because the JTS is very strict.
It is also very important that during the project each partner reports
its expenditures in time. And it often happens that the partners are late
63
with it. So the project financial managers have to be sometimes very strict
in asking for reports. The delay of each partner cause the delay of the full
financial report of the project that the Lead Partner have to send to JTS.
I those cases cultural differences should be taken into account. Different

cultural background can also mean different managing style and it can
also influence whole process of the project.
Another problem, that can be met, is when partner is reporting costs

which haven’t been paid yet. This is the wrong way, because to claim any
costs they have to be paid first, not after they receive the ERDF money.
Managing style especially in financial issues is a bit different in

Flevoland comparing to other regions. The financial managers are going
for the control visits to project partners, which allows them to keep
everything another bigger control. But this way of managing the financial
part of the project bring very good results and makes the projects more
successful.
Conclusion and Recommendations
64
According to the aim of this final thesis is answering the main

question contained in the title. For finalizing the project a long, deep
research have been done, by analyzing theory and making several
interviews with project managers.
The researcher have worked step by step, by first collect theories and
information about the general project management and then confronting it
with the information collected during the interviews about experiences
gained in the practice by the project manager from Province of Flevoland.
It has been identify that Province of Flevoland is very successful in

creating the INTERREG projects. In last round runs by INTERREG IV there
was all together 500 application, only 41 were submitted, in this 19 came
from Netherlands. The Province of Flevoland requested for 2 projects and
both of the application were submitted.
In Flevoland there is a separate department called Program Management

Europe were around 20 employees are dealing with European projects.
The manager are cooperating with other department. When they are
working on specific project related with for example youth or environment,
the experts form that department are supporting the work on the content
of the project together with INTERREG mangers. This specific structure
has a big influence on the success of the projects.
To answer the questions of the thesis the researcher have collected

all the findings, investigated during the analyzing of the problem, in the
recommendation which can be found below.
Recommendations
1. Be definite as to where you are coming from and where are you going
 Ensure that the general idea meets the main programme objectives.
Critically assess the suitability and if the fit is not appropriate (the
main focus on activities are outside the programme’s scope), find
other outlet. Clearly configure the idea of the project to address a
real need and analyse its viability in advance.
 Follow the based requirement to make sure you meet all the basic
quality standards, so your projects will be submitted.
65
2. Know your partners
 Check all of the partners credibility, by for example by calling them,

talk with them about how did they get to know about the project,
what are the reason that they want to be involve in this, how are
they going to arrange the work, do they have time for it, are they
familiar with the topic or have the right experts and so on. The lack
of time for work on the project can be easily recognize by the level
of involvement of the partner into the project.
 Trust to your partners it is important because for the project

management and also for the realizing the goals, partners have to
trust that they cooperate with people and organizations who will do
the best of the project.
 The real partnership needs time to become strong. It is the strongest

just at the end of the project. So when the same group of partners is
applying for new project or a continuation of one, JTS should
consider this as a big advantage and big value for next project and
farther cooperation
3. Involving the right parties
 Be efficient and tactical in focusing the project towards identifiable

stakeholders and direct beneficiaries and plan from the beginning for
external dissemination activities to reach them in particular.
 First organize your network with stakeholders, organisations in your

region, that you will need with the performance of the project. Do
that from the start. That is important that the regional authorities
took part in the project. They are also a strong network in all region
should they know about what you're doing. Involving partners with
big network, for example like AER can assure a wide dissemination
and big experience.
 Involve the policy makers, politicians. When a project raises

important issues like energy issues or economic issues it is
absolutely necessary to involve your politicians. Because in the end
they will decide about the money, they will decide if you can change
policies, and make sure of the long term effect of the project.
4. Think and act as one organisation
 So that all partner understand exactly what is required of them and

when, as well as their means of working together, clearly define
66
partner roles during implementation and provide for balanced

involvement in terms of activities and input.
 It is very important that organizations involved in the project would

be able to well cooperate together, that they understand each other,
they are able to work together, that they speak to each other.
5. The right person on the right place and with adequate skills.
The people make the project. The project can be perfect on paper but
when there aren't right people involve in the project, who will be
dedicated and committed than the project won’t work. And also the
management of the project have work really hard to get people where
they want them to go. So also managers have to be very dedicated.
Partners should have adequate knowledge of the subject because
otherwise won’t be able to keep up with the progress of the project.
6. Budget should be design according to activities not the opposite

way. A lot of project start with the increasing the budget as much as
possible and then they start to think about activities that they want to do.
But that’s not the right order. First, one should look at the activities and
then calculate how much money need to be involve to undertake those
activities.
 Base your budget on activities by distributing resources according to

planned schedule. This will put an emphasis on planning the costing
of the budget items in a transparent and value for money manner.
Pre-planning accurately will help to avoid frequent and significant
budget changes.
 In creating the budget it is really necessary to be flexible, to not to

make it too tight. When the budget is to low there is no place for
flexibility. That is why it is better to have a little bit higher budget,
because later on it is very difficult to increase it.
 Though out the project the financial issues are always a big thing,
one of the hardest elements that needs a lot of energy and time.
And because of that sometimes it can hard to balance focus on
finances and the really intention of the project. There is always a risk
that the attention for the financial issues is that big that partners
can forget about the importance of the content of the project. Try to
think about possible solution earlier so all the occurred problems
would be solve on the meeting
 Keep the control under the budget. Use the control visits as tool to
do so.
Flevoland has whole department working on European projects,
there are around 20 people involve. This allows to financial
managers to have time to control the budget not only from behind
67
the desk but also by doing control visits. This brings very good
results.
7. Build it step-by-step
Construct the project according to a logical format and a sequential

schedule focused on a precise and clearly defined objectives (or series of
sub-objectives). Break down your detailed activities and outputs into both
work packages and six-monthly periods. In Implementing the programme
stick to developed the structure. Do not invent the wheel again
8. Try to make the project concrete and practical. Don’t limit yourself
just to knowledge and information exchange. The exchange of the good
practices should be followed by the implementation of them in the regions.
The good practices implementation creates a kind of immediate effect and
by influencing the strategic and political level there is a long term effect.
9. Know your target audience
Communication in the projects should really focus on the target group and
which type of communication tools or materials would be the most
suitable for this group. The JTS should be more focus on the quality of the
communication and dissemination rather than on the quantity.
It is advise to go with the flow of the modern society which is using social
media like internet every day. At this moment world is changing so fast
and the time is the most precious value. The communicates to reach the
target groups should attractive, short and concise. But the most essential
is to use modern communication channels, for example Youtube,
Facebook, Hyves…
It is advised to the Lead Partner to put a really big emphasis on strong

regional dissemination and communication of the results.
10. Think long-term
Place adequate emphasis on the sustainability of the results: the project’s

impact has to go on after the project ends. The results you are planning
should not only be coherent with the problem description and the
partnership organizations but should also link into relevant policy
development at the region, national and European level.
If the partnership itself is unable to properly use and/or implement what

the project delivers, make sure that the appropriate delivery agencies are
involved as observers or will at least have access to the results which
emerge.
11. Dealing with Culture
The most important suggestions is to become aware of the cultural

varieties among the partners. It is essential that all the participants will be
68
aware of their own culture and its peculiarities, that they are willing to
recognize cultural differences between the other and that they are open to
dealing with those differences during the project.
The recognition of culture is not restricted to the project objectives, but is
also applied to the way project management. The project management is
a joint effort, and it should be about sense making instead of decision
making when it deals with differences between cultures. One should
remember that cultural differences can produce positive benefits, if the
partners are able to have critical detachment and to see differences as
resources not obstacles.
Bibliography:
INTERREG IV Programme Manual, November 2009
Regions as partners, The European Territorial Cooperation Objective,

December2007
Examples of regional innovation Project, March 2007
Interregional Cooperation Programme INTERREG IVC, Contributing to the

European Commission Initiative “Regions for Economic Change”,
September 2008
Cultural Differences In European Cooperation, Learning from INTERREG

Programme,2007
Treaty of Lisbon
Project management, practical approach,2008
Assessment Procedure and Project Selection
The application and reports of the projects: SAWA, More4nrg, ELLABO,

MiniEurope, e-Citizen
69
Promotional materials of the projects: brochures, CDs
Materials form Conference “From Community Initiative INTERREG to

European Territorial
Cooperation”, Warsaw, Poland - 09-10 November 2006
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/index_en.htm
http://www.interreg4c.net/programme.html#_111
http://www.interreg4c.net/load/2007-07-26_INTERREG_IVC_OP_final.pdf
Appendixes
Appendix 1
Check list
All the interviewed managers were asked about whole process of developing the
project. The based for the structure of the interview were the following stages of
the project development. The managers were answering the following questions:
70
Project preparation
1. How did the project preparation activities look like?
2. From where the idea for the project came?
3. What was the biggest problem at this stage?
Building the partnership
4. How did searching for the partners look like?
5. What is important in choosing partners?
6. What is important in building the partnership?
7. How to choose the Lead partner?
8. What was the hardest at this stages, what can be a problem here?
Developing the application
9. How to develop a successful application?
10. Why planning and scheduling is so important?
11. What should be emphasis in the application?
12. Where most mistakes are made in developing the application?
Preparing the budget
13. What is the most important in creating the budget?
14. What about unexpected expenditures?
Project implementation
15. From what to start the implementation?
16. What is important at this stage?
17. How to manage the project? Management style?
18. What kind of problems can you meet during the project implementation?
Monitoring and Evaluation
19. How to monitor the project which is going on in the same time in so many
countries?
20. When to design the monitoring system?
21. What should be monitored? Where to put the emphasis?
22. What kind of tool are used for monitoring?

71
23. Why the evaluation is called a process not an activity?
24. What does the Evaluation Plan should contain?
25. What is the evaluation for?
Dissemination and Legacy
26. Why is the aim of dissemination and communication? Why is it so

important?
27. What does the Communication Plan should contain?
28. Who should be the target group?
29. What kind of communication techniques should be used?
30. What makes a successful project, can you give some golden advices,
rules?
The interview with the financial manager Eduard Lenoir was focus on the budget
preparation. These where the question which were asked:
1. What is the most important in creating the budget?
2. What about unexpected expenditures?
3. What happened when some partners are lacking behind and the others
have overspendings?
4. What about different rates in different countries
5. What kind of mistakes can be done in budget creating?
Appendix nr 2
72
What is MORE4NRG?
European regions play a key role in

promoting, developing and
implementing renewable energy
sources (RES) combined with energy
efficiency strategies to reduce the
effects of climate change and prepare
for the decline of the oil-age.
In the wake of the Declaration “European Regions for Energy efficiency and
Renewable Energy Sources”, initiated by the Association of European
Regions (AER) in 2006 and signed by more than 80 European regions, 11 EU
partners joined forces with the AER in this project: Flevoland (NL, lead),
Abruzzo (IT), EPF/Gabrovo (BG), Lazio (IT), Maramures(RO), Norrbotten (SE),
Noord-Brabant (NL), Prahova (RO), Västernorrland (SE), Valencia (ES) and
Western Greece.
The objective of MORE4NRG is to strengthen the delivery of regional

strategies for renewable energy sources and energy efficiency by
exchanging good practices on sustainable energy policies. In addition, the
partners will jointly develop an integrated monitoring tool for measuring
the effect of regional sustainable energy strategies.
MORE4NRG addresses the interrelated challenges facing regions

developing sustainable energy policies at an interregional level, combining
the identification, analysis and processing of best practices in RES and
energy efficiency for the benefit of all partners. Specific support is
provided to the partner regions with less developed sustainable energy
strategies.
73
The project places strong emphasis on the dissemination of results to

other regions and raising awareness on the sustainable energy issue. All
project results will feed into a toolkit for regional sustainable energy
strategies including monitoring tools for measuring the effect of regional
sustainable energy strategies. This toolkit will be available for all EU
regions.
Good practices
Declaration of European Regions
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy Sources (AER-FEDARENE)
This Declaration provides regional policies and initiatives designed to

improve energy efficiency and to promote renewable energy sources
(RES).
The Declaration is a political tool that aims to:
1. Increase visibility of the commitment of several European regions
to improve energy efficiency in public areas and to increase the use of
renewable energy resources in the global energy portfolio.
2. Advocate at European and national level to ensure that Europeans
and state authorities pay greater attention to regional policies in the field
of energy and climate change.
3. Encourage other regions to establish measurable targets and
quantitative development of RES and the improvement of energy
efficiency.
The first eight signatories of said Declaration endorsed it in March 2006

during the World Sustainable Energy Days, an event that brought together
more than 930 energy experts from different organizations, and today
there are 96 European regions which are also committed after the
signature of the Declaration (Full list of signers of the Declaration available
at http://www.fedarene.org/).
The Declaration AER-FEDARENE is a strategic tool for the translation of the

most generic and long-range European energy goals into more specific
ones. The signers of the Declaration have decided to increase the quota of
renewables in their local energy combination and to improve the energy
efficiency in public buildings and transport systems. The Declaration can
be considered as the most visible evidence of political commitment.
Although the Declaration is not a legally binding document, its signature

exerts more pressure on regional authorities, while requiring a lot of effort
74
to implement new environmental technologies and to establish effective

laws to face the challenges of the future. Given the importance of this
commitment, peer reviews of the AER have been designed to help regions
to carry out their commitments into concrete actions.
Some regions go further, not only by announcing their readiness to adopt

a friendly energy attitude but also by presenting some of the quantifiable
energy objectives. This applies to some of the partners that make up the
MORE4NRG project, who have stated qualitative and quantitative
objectives.
Appendix 3
MINI EUROPE aims to exchange and improve regional policies in SME

development, focusing on the main themes of providing infrastructure for
innovation to SMEs and promoting entrepreneurship. In particular, it addresses
the issues of increasing involvement of under-represented groups (like minorities,
disabled people, women) in entrepreneurship.
Most of the activities in this project are carried out through networking:
bringing together and capitalising their methods and experiences, all
partners can strongly improve their performance in this field. Mini Europe
will collect existing good practice in SME support in the partner regions
and from relevant Interreg projects in two catalogues of good practices.
PARTNERSHIP
The MINI EUROPE partnership combines the experience of 9 organisations in 8
regions:
75
 Province of Flevoland
(Netherlands)
 Tameside Metropolitan Borough

Council (North West of England -
UK)
 Észak-Alföld Regional
Development Agency (Hungary)
 Maramureş County Council

(Romania)
 Almi Företagspartner Mitt AB

(Sweden)
 Institute for SME Industrial Firms

of the Valencian Govt. (Spain)
 Patras Science Park S.A (Western

Greece)
 Veneto Region and Veneto

Innovazione (Italy)
All partners of Mini Europe are public authorities or Regional bodies

responsible for supporting SMEs development in their Region. Each of
them brings relevant experiences and practices in this field of action to be
shared with the other partners. All partners have the competence and
authority to implement the good practices identified and developed
throughout the project, and they are in the position to involve the relevant
network of actors in their region in this field.
GOOD PRACTICES
The overall objective of MINI EUROPE is to elaborate through its international
partnership a set of regional political instruments and strategies to sustain the
development of Small and Medium Enterprises, increase their capacity for
innovation and technological transfer with universities and knowledge institutes,
and to initiate its implementation in the partner regions.
The first stage of the project has been devoted to mapping and then compiling
two Catalogues of good practices documenting existing good practices in the
partner regions and results from relevant projects.
CLUSTERS
Good practices that focus on clusters consist of economic development
programs, cluster development schemes, models that consider the physical
infrastructure requirements of a cluster, specific programmes to foster and
support the development of productive clusters and SMEs networks. These
Policies seek to create the proper framework to boost the development of
productive clusters and identify the necessary infrastructure for effective SME
development within them, creating the appropriate milieu favourable to
innovation.
76
EXTENDING ENTREPRENEURSHIP
The objective of this group of good practices is exchanging and developing
methods to attract more people to entrepreneurship, especially from
underrepresented groups. The partners offer integrated support to socially less
favoured groups, foster entrepreneurial attitudes and skills for young people,
encourage local people and residents in deprived areas to create their own
business or help different types of business starters to start up their own
businesses or to expand their already existing companies.
FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
The primary purpose of several of the partners is to support micro and small
sized enterprises in innovative initiatives. This is the reason why some partners’
purpose is supporting micro and small sized enterprises in innovative initiatives
and motivating supply and demand in the field of innovation services, decreasing
the cost of innovative investments, enhancing the access to the credit system for
SMEs and launching a venture capital fund for start-ups and companies at an
early stage.
INTERNATIONALISATION
It is important to exploit economic relations between different countries at
national and local level, in order to encourage and promote the inclusion of SMEs
in the trade relations between different countries. For instance initiatives have
been developed to support networking, within the cross-border regions bringing
together chambers of commerce (representing the business environment), public
regional authorities (representing the public environment) and universities
(representing the academic environment) to boost international relationship.
KNOWLEDGETRANSFER
Consistent relationships between SMEs and knowledge institutes are fundamental
to boosting innovation. To this goal, some partners implemented schemes to
facilitate the commercialisation of academic research results. Others focus on
practices aiming to foster the cooperation among SMEs, research and innovation
centers and technology providers.
SUPPORT FOR INNOVATION

Innovation is at the heart of the project. From facilitating the access of SMEs to
added value services, to the introduction of design into traditional companies, or
the incorporation of online training systems which allow them to better access
finance, innovation can be seen throughout the project as a tool for stimulating
SME development.
LEARNING CYCLE
The partners are strongly engaged in bilateral experience transfers,
matching a partner ‘exporting’ a specific good practice with a partner
‘importing’ it. Visits, training, video conferences will allow the partner
regions to deepen the practices and mainstreaming innovative
instruments for SME development.
77
Appendix 4
78
e-Citizen is an INTEREG IVC project. The cooperation is designed to support

European cities and regions in their joint efforts to accelerate e-Government
through exploiting established networks, gained experiences and good practices
to improve interaction between citizens and public authorities, better involving
citizens in local decision-making and contributing to change in operational culture
and attitudes within public administrations.
e-Citizen II Partnership
Partner 1: The Baltic Institute of Finland
Partner 2: City of Tampere, Finland
Partner 3: Tartu City Government, Estonia
Partner 4: Odense Municipality, Denmark
Partner 5: Province of Flevoland, Netherlands
Partner 6: Sheffield City Council, UK
Partner 7: South West Regional Authority, SWRA, Ireland
Partner 8: Municipality of Bologna, Italy
Partner 9:Patras Municipal Enterprise for Planning and Development
S.A.,Greece
Partner 10: Vysogina Region, Czech Republic
Partner 11: Municipality of Miskolc, Hungary
Partner 12: The Association of Basque Municipalities (EUDEL), Sp
e-Citizen II supports European cities and regions to ensure

1. accelerate uptake of e-Government and e-Participation policies,
strategies and actions
2. overcome limited access to comprehensive knowledge and
practical experiences in deploying e-Participation in public
administrations
3. ensure better understanding of efficient utilization of e-Participation
tools in modernizing administrations
1. more transparent, effective and cost efficient administration
2. more inclusive, high quality citizen centred public services,
3. improving interaction between citizens and public authorities
4. clear change in the operational culture and attitudes in public
administrations
Goals for the e-Citizen Cooperation:

1. To enhance the transparency, effectiveness and efficiency of local
administrations and the provision of high-quality citizen-inclusive public
services through the dissemination of best practices in the use of cost-
effective e-Government solutions that meet citizens’ needs.
2. To strengthen the capacities of local and regional administrators,

decision-makers
and experts through the sharing and adoption of gained experiences and
lessons learnt in the implementation and development of e-Government
and e-Participation in different contexts.
79
3. To provide up-to-date information on accumulated experiences and

good practices on
e-Government and e-Participation and ensure high-impact Pan-European
dissemination through the creation and promotion of a comprehensive
best practice
multimedia manual.
4. To ensure sustainable success of regional e-Government initiatives

through the creation of a European interregional network for cooperation
and sharing of experiences on
e-Government and e-Participation.
5. To encourage and facilitate interregional cooperation between European

cities and regions on disseminating and transferring good practices on e-
Government to ensure success off the project results, flow of information
and acceleration of new joint project initiatives.
Key activities
Component 1: Management and coordination
Responsible partner: The Baltic Institute of Finland.
Expected results: Efficient project implementation and finance
management, project progress and finance reporting
Component2: Communication and dissemination

Responsible partner: The Baltic Institute of Finland
Expected results: Enhancing awareness about the project, key results and
outputs
Component 3: Exchange of experiences dedicated to the identification

and analysis of good practices
Responsible partner: Sheffield City Council
Participants: all
Expected results: Enhancing accumulated knowledge, skills, experiences
and good
practices on developing e-Government and e-Participation tools and future
prospects between project partners and Europe wide
Expected outputs: joint study visits and seminars: Tampere, Billbao, Cork,
Patras, Sheffield, Tartu, Flevoland, Bologna, Brussels
28 local workshops, 88 local reports, a Pan-European Best Practice
multimedia Manual
Component 4:Pilot transfers of good practice on e-Participation benefiting

all
Responsible partner: Tampere
Participants: Vysogina Region, Province of Flevoland, SWRA
Expected results: UtIization of the gained experiences and good practices
on e-Participation is enhanced through transfers between partners and
disseminated throughout Europe
80
Expected outputs:
1. three transfers of e-Government and e-Participation practice
2. four staff exchanges
3. five local workshops
4. local e-Government and e-Participation strategies and policies
improved
The Baltic Institute of Finland leads the Interreg IVC financed project - eCitizen II –
Towards citizen-centered eGovernment in European cities and regions -
launched from the beginning of January 2010.
Appendix 5
81
What is it?
Adaptive strategies in a changing climate region
SAWA is an acronym for Strategic Alliance for Integrated Water Management

Actions. SAWA strives to strengthen the member states for their current
implementation of the EU Flood Directive (FD) by developing a transnational
implementation strategy. The aim is to adapt existing water management
systems to the effects of extreme flood events due to climate change, focusing
on sustainable development of society and regional economies.
Based on case studies and pilot implementations, SAWA will test the new and
innovative strategies in Flood Risk Management around the North Sea. The
project integrates local, regional and national stakeholders, university and
vocational training students.
Aims
The project aims to adapt existing water management systems to the
effects of extreme flood events due to climate change, focusing on
sustainable development of society and regional economies.
SAWA builds onto the following aims:
1. Improve, facilitate and accelerate the implementation of the new

Flood Directive (FD) by developing a common planning and
implementation strategy based on experience from a number of
cases in the NSR,
2. Work out a decision strategy on how to use and prioritise new
adaptive measures in Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs)
closely coordinated with the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD)
implementation process to show synergetic potentials,
82
3. Develop and compile new adaptive structural and non-structural

flood mitigation measures and schemes to improve water
management systems in the NSR,
4. Prepare institutional, expert and public structures for an optimal
implementation and operational capability of the FD in coordination
with WFD, focusing on education, communication, capacity building
and adaptive measures.
Background
The application for the SAWA-project was approved by the steering

committee of the North Sea Region (Interreg IVB) in May 2008. Parts of the
Partnership was already established in the Interreg IIIB FLOWS project
which was approved in November 2002 and completed by June 2006.
FLOWS is an acronym for Floodplain Land Use Optimising Workable

Sustainability. This means communities adapting to climate change and
coming to terms in living with water. It was a transnational project with
participants from Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the
United Kingdom. Its challenge was to influence decision-makers across the
member states.
The FLOWS programme was designed to look at the issues and deliver
practical projects to identify how people need to adapt to live with water.
FLOWS took in several projects, all with the ultimate aim of providing
decision-makers with more and better information on flood risk in order to
help them:
 Make better decisions about where to site new housing

 Design family houses with a culture of living in and around water
 Provide practical solutions about how to make existing flood-risk
housing more resistant
 Provide better warning systems when floods are forecasted
Facts and Figures:
Within the upcoming SAWA-project we will again have a transnational

project where some results of FLOWS and other EU-Projects will be the
starting point. A team of sub-partners of all administrative levels,
universities and scientific research institutes will co-operate on this project
until 2011.
83
We have an approved budget of € 8,16 Mio. half of which is co-financed by

the EU.
Partners
Within the SAWA-project there is a team of about 22 partners of all

administrative levels, universities and scientific research institutes from:
The Netherlands, Unitited Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, Germany.
All SAWA pilot projects and activities contribute towards sustainable

solutions in the North Sea Region addressing the following key aspects in
sustainable river basin management issues:
1. EU-Flood Directive
2. Governance
3. Climate Change
4. Hybrid Adaptive Measures
5. Education
6. Decision Support Systems
7. Stakeholder Involvement
Expected Outcomes
1. Centers for education towards sustainable flood risk management

around the North Sea,
2. Adaptive strategy for implementation of Flood Risk Management Plans
in the NSR,
3. Decision support database for flood protection measures in the NSR,
4. MSc/postgraduate course on flood risk management,
5. Cost-benefit analyses of measures in relation to adaptive planning
strategies to optimize the implementation of Flood Risk Management
Plans and River Basin Management Plans.
84
Appendix 6
ELLABO
Project ELLABO has been established within the Hanse Passage Program
Cluster C: Human Resources and innovation
Project leader: Province of Flevoland, Netherlands
Partners:
• Province of Friesland / Netherlands

• Province of Overijssel / Netherlands
• Province of Groningen / Netherlands
• Province of Drenthe / Netherlands
• OPCAREG / Haute Normandie / France
• University of Lower Silesia AAE Wroclaw / Lower Silesia / Poland
• Centre for Full Employment, Sheffield / Yorkshire & Humber / Great
Britain
• LaBIB mbH, Hanover / Lower Saxony / Germany
• Bremerhavener Arbeit Gmbh / Bremen / Germany
Running time: The ELLABO project started in October 2005 and ends in
June 2007.
The goal of the project
The EU has to deal with an ageing population. In March 2000 in Lisbon, the
EU has set ambitious goals on the labour participation of elderly. By 2010
half of the 55+ people must be at labour and the average age of
retirement has to raise with about 5 years. To reach these goals, we have
to employ each year 900.000 elderly extra on the EU labour market (in
85
comparison: between 1997 and 2002 250.000 extra elderly were

employed per year). But the reality is tough. In for example the Hanse
Passage region Flevoland, the unemployment rate among elderly rises
worryingly fast. Already people of 45+ are considered too old by many
employers. Reason enough to find out if the Hanse Passage regions all
cope with these problems and how they deal with them. Together we have
to find ways to prevent that a rapidly growing group of European citizens
will be condemned to long term unemployment.
The overall objective is to contribute to the participation of elderly on the

labour market (according to the Lisbon goals, half of the 55+ people must
be at labour in 2010) by exchanging knowledge on support systems or
measures that improve the possibilities for elderly unemployed to re-enter
the labour market (as employee or in self employment).
The main activities
1) Four international meetings
1. Decide on the management structure in function, define the roles and

responsibilities of all the partners and to make a detailed planning of
the activities.
2. information of the labour participation and unemployment situation of

elderly in the Hanse passage regions
3. focus on elderly unemployment. Best practices on how to support

elderly to re-enter the labour market are identified. The possibilities to
adopt those practices in other Hanse Passage regions are studied.
4. focuses on developing recommendations for improved regional

policies, joint strategies, innovative actions and continuous co-
operation of the regions involved.
2) Produce a report with recommendations and best practices.
3) Publish the project information on a project-web-platform on the Hanse

Passage website and linked to other relevant websites.
4)Build a network of experts in each participating region and between the
regions involved.
The results of the project were disseminated and – where possible -

incorporated into regional policies and working methods to ensure a
sustainable effect. Therefore, the support and involvement of the regional
key players has been sought from the onset of the project. In addition to
this, the aim was to establish a lasting co-operation between the networks
86
that have been built during the ELLABO project. The possibilities to
continue this cooperation were discussed.
During the first phase of the project, the 10 ELLABO partners collected
various data with the purpose of understanding and comparing the labour
market situation of the elderly in each
participating region.
In preparation of the best practice research, one of the partners - Fryslân -
defined the criteria for successful projects aimed at promoting the labour
participation of elderly people. It appeared to be rather difficult to
determine the unambiguous criteria for different kinds of
projects or measures. One can look at tangible facts such as the cost
efficiency in relation to the results. But a project directed at awareness is
completely different from a training project for elderly unemployed. So
how does one compare their costs? The partners create a report dedicated
to this question.
During the second phase of the ELLABO project, all of the partners
searched in their region for inspiring examples of projects or measures for
seniors. The original goal was to collect the best practices for unemployed
elderly. However, they decided to broaden the scope, because they also
found interesting projects focused on retaining older employees. They
thought they were worthwhile for diffusion to a broader public. The best
practices can more or less be divided into three categories:
1. Supportive policy projects: these are the projects or measures that are
mainly aimed at raising consciousness among different target groups
(employers, policy makers, seniors). Most of these projects are carried
out by an intermediary organisation and might contain different
elements, such as research and training activities.
2. The second category of projects is focused on the activities to retain
elderly employees.
3. Thirdly, there is the type of project that is aimed at elderly unemployed
for re-entering the labour market. This might include training, matching
activities, self-help groups of encouraging self-employment among older
job seekers.
87

Strategies For Successful Management of INTERREG Projects

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

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

Strategies For Successful Management of INTERREG Projects

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES

STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESSFUL

European Funds Management

As this report consists of current theories and experiences gained in

I have to acknowledge the Province of Flevoland that ensured me the

Thanks to all the employees of Program Management Europe department

European Territorial Co-operation .........................................................................2

Prawie 29%, czyli prawie jedna trzecia wszystkich wniosków

Metodologia pracy obejmuje analizę dostępnych z zakresie

Sprawozdanie nawiązuje do cyklu projektu, udzielając informacji na

The methodologies for the evaluation of the theories applied in

The final chapter consists of conclusions and recommendations on

European Territorial Co-operation

European Cohesion policy aims to encourage regions and cities from

 INTERREG A - 52 cross-border co-operation programmes along internal

1.1. Cross-border co-operation

1. Encouraging entrepreneurship, especially the development of

countries jointly select local or national authorities to which they should

To fully balanced partnership between the participating countries, regions

1.2. Transnational co-operation

Co-operation may take different forms:

Model 1: Exchange of information and experience

1.3. Interregional cooperation

The aim of interregional cooperation is to improve the effectiveness of

1. Enabling local and regional actors across the EU to exchange their

3. Ensuring the transfer of good practices into Structural Funds mainstream

The idea of the project is that the authorities of cooperating regions

In the context of Community Strategic Guidelines for Cohesion Policy

RFEC aims to support regional and urban networking, discover good

Definition of the Good practice according to Programme Manual:

The program consists of two thematic priorities, which are grouped in

energy and sustainable transport;

1. Regional Initiative Projects (Type 1)

These are projects which focused mainly on the transfer of regional

to the Regions for Economic Change initiative. The Commission will

Project Life Cycle

Illustration 4Territorial Cooperation Project Management Handbook

1.4. Project Preparation Activities

So the activities during the preparation phase could be as follow:

1. development of the project idea

 Lack of realism, overly ambitious expectations base on an unachievable

1.4.1. The project idea

necessary to carry out further research in order to define the specific

1.4.2. Building the partnership

The partnership composition should be well thought. Generally speaking

In determining whether partners are likely to be suitable, the Lead needs

Choosing partners with the right specialisation

Illustration 5 EuroGeographics Association for administrative bounderies, Epson Database

The benefits of a good partnership mix

A good partnership mix (geography, type - e.g. public/private/NGO - and

The right partnership mix can also be helpful in preparing of the

Illustration 6 Territorial Cooperation Project Management Handbook

Involving key stakeholders

relevant stakeholders later on in the process of project. Views obtained

Negotiating the Partnership

lack of potential lack of familiarity with funding and administrative

Developing The Application

Scheduling and programming Project Activities

Poor definition and scheduling of activities are two of the principle of

partners’ point of view appear to be the most pertinent for the

Questions that may help in evaluating the consistency (coherence

One of the options is hiring a consultant to prepare the application.