DG Regio Evaluation Network Meeting Albert Borschette Brussels

DG Regio Evaluation Network Meeting Albert Borschette, Brussels, 14 October 2010 Ex post evaluation of Interreg III - Presentation of Final Results Pasi Rantahalvari Evaluation Unit DG for Regional Policy European Commission 1

Objectives of the Ex Post Evaluation Overall • to establish the impact of INTERREG • to provide evidence on whether the Initiative succeeded in fostering the development of the Community through co-operation Ongoing period • to influence the implementation of the current Territorial Co-operation Objective Future policy • to influence the debate on cohesion policy after 2013 2

Challenges Variety of programme contexts • EU 15 and EU 12 as well as external borders • Between different Strands Literature findings • Unspecific and unrealistic expectations of what Interreg could achieve and what the impact could be • Fuzzy objectives not conducive to evaluate impact and whether Interreg met its policy expectations • Interreg largely about mutual learning But • Interreg budget too small to have a measurable impact on regional statistics but too large not to evaluate! 3

Conclusions on Strands A and B (I) • Diversity – budget, coverage, context, maturity • Physical investments generate impact when real cross-border/transnational relevance • Soft co-operation outcomes equally important when a joint and durable problem solving capacity • Significant institutional/networking and socioeconomic outcomes achieved by the programmes • Joint preparation of programmes and implementation of main factors that fostered the integration 4

Conclusions on Strands A and B (II) • Policy objectives not specific • Programme strategies tended not to be focused • Weaknesses in monitoring (inappropriate indicators & target setting) • Limited interaction with other EU-programmes • Modest financial leverage effects (mobilising private sector funding) 5

Conclusions on Strand C • Stimulated exchange of experience and knowledge between regions on a broad range of issues among a large number of regional and local authorities • However, transfer of knowledge and good practices towards other EU programmes below expectations • Therefore limited impact on EU Cohesion policy as a whole 6

Quantified activity reported by Interreg programmes (I) • Creation or maintenance of 115, 200 jobs and 5, 800 start-ups and new businesses • More than 3, 900 businesses enhanced or diversified • 544, 000 attended different events to increase their knowledge and expertise • More than 1 million were mobilised in the development of border regions • 12, 000 networks and co-operation structures created to further promote and intensify co-operation 7

Quantified activity reported by Interreg programmes (II) • 1, 285 plans or concepts dealing with cross-border or transnational problems elaborated • 63, 000 agreements or conventions to facilitate cooperation along the borders • 123, 000 pieces of information material produced to raise awareness of the challenges of integration • 1, 030 transport infrastructures built or supported • 18, 000 km of roads, railways, routes and paths built or upgraded 8

Quantified activity reported by Interreg programmes (III) • Infrastructure investments in environment (170) and communication (270) • 113, 700 different services developed • 25, 000 measures on natural, cultural, urban and rural development to promote initiatives on the ground → OVERALL, INTERREG MUCH MORE THAN JUST LEARNING! → BUT, THESE ARE NOT IMPACTS! 9

Overall impact of INTERREG III • Interreg was much more than mutual learning, although this too was important • Financially larger programmes generated significant investments and achieved lasting tangible impacts • Smaller programmes achieved mostly intangible impacts on territorial development • Interreg generated important soft leverage effects – actor mobilisation, an increased inter-cultural understanding and development of social capital 10

Recommendations for 2007 – 2013 (I) • To ensure that programme logic is consistent: what do programmes aim to achieve and how will they know when they have been successful? • To promote projects with strategic importance: how can programmes be sure that projects will contribute to achieving the objectives of the programme? 11

Recommendations for 2007 – 2013 (II) • To improve monitoring and evaluation of the programmes with support from Interact and DG REGIO • To establish pro-active and ongoing interaction with other ETC and mainstream programmes • To experiment the EGTC to set up fully integrated co -operation structures • To start preparing joint territorial development strategies in the programme areas for the future 12

Overall Conclusion of the DG for Regional Policy • We could not quantify the impact of Interreg, although we could provide evidence that it did have an impact • How sure are we that future evaluators will be able to provide stronger evidence on the performance of current programmes? • Time to review the design & implementation of our ETC programmes! 13

Thank you for your attention 14