1 / 11

Emerging Findings from the Interreg Ex-Post Evaluation: Policy Analysis, Data Analysis, and Next Steps

This presentation provides an overview of the emerging findings from the Interreg ex-post evaluation, including policy and literature analysis, data gathering and analysis, analysis of Espon and Interact, and the development of a typology. It also discusses the next steps in the evaluation process.

jesust
Download Presentation

Emerging Findings from the Interreg Ex-Post Evaluation: Policy Analysis, Data Analysis, and Next Steps

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. INTERREG III 2000-2006 EX POST Emerging findings from the 1st Interim report Berlaymont, Brussels, 21 September 2009 Pasi Rantahalvari Evaluation Unit DG for Regional Policy European Commission

  2. Content of Presentation • Policy and literature analysis (task 1 in the ex post evaluation) • Data gathering and analysis (task 2) • Analysis of Espon and Interact (task 3) • Developing the typology (task 4) • Emerging questions & next steps in the evaluation

  3. Task 1: Policy and literature analysis • Little systematic evidence on the impacts of Interreg at a EU level • In recent years recent years, an argument that the « added value » of cooperation should be understood as a series of mutual learning processes → but not clear how these lead to policy changes or innovations • « Calls » for more qualitative approach to evaluation

  4. Task 2: Data gathering and analysis (I) • Good financial progress: By mid 2008, 82% of total budget spent for strand A, 80% for strand B and 79 % for strand C • In terms of outputs and results, much has been achieved. However, the quality and relevance of some programme indicators is in question • Few impact indicators used in the programmes

  5. Task 2: Data gathering and analysis (II) • Significant expenditure on wide-ranging measures (by FoI): transport (€794 m), telecommunications and information society (€523 m), SMEs & crafts (€496 m), adaptation & development of rural areas (€456 m), planning & rehabilitation (€442 m), research & innovation (€292 m) and environmental infrastructure (€249 m) → tangible results and impacts will be explored further in the indepth analyses

  6. Outputs: 18.057 projects implemented 201.000 measures or actions 632.000 training events 11.000 exchanges of knowledge and best practice 1.285 plans and concepts 11.971 networks and cooperation structures created or supported 25 reduced border obstacles 113.000 new or improved services Results: 115.220 jobs created or secured 5.796 new businesses created 3.911 businesses enhanced, diversified or using new strategies or technology 14.445.651 visitors of visits to tourist sites supported by the Initiative 71.701 individuals making use of programme related products or services Aggregate outputs & results of Interreg III

  7. Task 3: Analysis of Espon and Interact • Generally, interim conclusions on achievements of both programmes are positive • Some critical voices about the objectives and outcomes have been raised too within the Interreg community • Interim conclusions to be finalised for the 2nd interim report based on consultations with selected Interreg stakeholders

  8. Task 4: Developing the typology (I); • Objective: To create a communicable picture of « Interreg world »; mapping « programme families » representing typical features of Interreg • For strand A, based on the following factors: (1) The level of economic disparities, (2) the political and administrative nature of the border, (3) the success of addressing the priority topics & concentration principle, (4) the depth & intensity of cooperation and (5) the existence of common historic ties → 6 categories • For strand B, based on the following factors: (1) The degree of overall accessibility, (2) the level of urban-rural relations, (3) the durability of projects and (4) the success of addressing the priority topics → 3 categories • For strand C, no sensible categories could be created (as only 4 programmes)

  9. Task 4: Selection of 16 OPs for in-depth analyses: • Strand A: NL-BE (Vlaanderen Nederland), D-A-CH-LI (Alpen-Bodensee), D-F (PAMINA), IRE-UK, DK-S-Oresund, Spain-Portugal, Latvia-Lithuania-Belarus, Austria-Slovakia, Finland-Estonia, Italia-Sloven, FIN-RUS Karelia, Czech Republic-Poland); • Strand B: North West Europe, Baltic Sea, Western Mediterranean; • Strand C: West Zone • In-depth analyses are be finalised in October

  10. Emerging questions • To capture the impact of Interreg, including learning effects on the ground (through in-depth analyses) • To examine how cooperation has evolved over successive programme periods in different programme areas • To revisit the objectives of Interreg – by strand: co-operation, delivery of concrete outputs & results, experimentation, etc..

  11. Next Steps • 1st interim report published in Inforegio Website (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index_en.htm) • 2nd interim report to be submitted (in-depth analyses) in October • Draft final report in November • Final report by the end of December 2009 Thank you for your attention!

More Related