Ex-Post Evaluation of the INTERREG III Community Initiative (funded by the ERDF)

Transcription

1 Ex-Post Evaluation of the INTERREG III Community Initiative (funded by the ERDF) TASK 5: IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF PROGRAMMES PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIA Spain-Portugal Evaluation report elaborated by: Sergio BAROSSO, CEDRU (Portugal) Panteia and Partners: EureConsult S.A. (Luxemburg) Policy Research and Consultancy (Frankfurt / Germany) GÉPHYRES EURL (Roubaix / France) The Radboud University (Nijmegen / The Netherlands) This study has been financed by European Commission Directorate General for Regional Policy, Evaluation Unit Reference R / /LTR/EGR Quoting of numbers and/or text is permitted only when the source is clearly mentioned.

2 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 1 INTRODUCTION 5 2 RESEARCH INTEREST AND METHODOLOGY 8 3 IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS AND IMPACTS IN TERMS OF EFFECTIVENESS AND THE SOCIO- ECONOMIC EFFECTS The financial implementation of the programme Financial analysis across the intervention codes Dynamic financial analysis Intermediate conclusions The Effectiveness of the Programme Planned results, achievement rates at measure level and trend patterns Reviewing the programming quality and the programme relevance on the basis of the results achieved The level of complexity and experimentation achieved by cooperation Intermediate conclusions Project-level cooperation under the programme Analysis of factors that determine the character of the programme Important contextual factors characterising cross-border / transnational programme areas Re-considering the depth and intensity of territorial cooperation Main factors fostering (or hampering) integration and the means to promote positive factors or to overcome persisting obstacles Extrapolating results on effectiveness and impacts on all INTERREG programmes 51 4 IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND IMPACTS IN TERMS OF UTILITY AND EFFICIENCY The external coherence of the programme Regulatory compliance and interaction / coordination with other Structural Funds programmes The institutional coherence within the Hispanic-Portuguese cooperation Public Opinion of the Cooperation between Spain and Portugal Intermediate conclusions on the programme external consistency The intrinsic performance of the programme The overall governance and management system of the programme The Community added value and the sustainability/durability of the Programme Intermediate conclusions on how the programme intrinsically operates 81 5 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 83 R doc 2

3 Executive Summary This report covers the in-depth analysis of the programme INTERREG IIIA Spain Portugal (CIP ES-PT). It is one of 16 programme case studies carried out under the Ex-post evaluation of INTERREG III. It covers the assessment of the programme financial and physical achievements, of the programme contextual factors, the issues of coherence and administrative implementation as well as five project studies. By looking at the three-digit codes of intervention, the financial implementation of the programme is more or less commensurate with the expenditure patterns of INTERREG Community Initiative Programmes. The few differences in absorption capacity between the Spain-Portugal programme and INTERREG are not significant in most of the intervention fields. However, some differences with respect to fixed investment and clean technology or public information are noticable. The codes that represent the largest share of expenditure (roads, rural development and studies) are in line with the general strategy of INTERREG III A Spain - Portugal, although their relative weight in the programme is more significant than for the Community Initiative INTERREG on average. In relative terms, investment in innovative actions is less important, although the status of innovative had been a selection criterion in the calls for proposals. Given the difficulties related to the indicators and monitoring system, it is challenging to analyse the performance of individual measures in relation to the initial assumptions. Nevertheless, despite initial delays in implementing the programme, the results appear satisfactory and in line with the objectives and priorities established. Project-level cooperation under the programme is analysed through five case studies, on a selection of projects identified with the assistance and agreement of the programme managing authorities. The analysed project sample confirms the importance of the development of genuine common actions in the context of the PIC INTERREG IIIA Spain-Portugal Programme, although financial constraints on the part of Portugues partners to some extent hampered durability of cooperation. The majority of the partners involved in the projects confirmed achievements in organizational learning mostly through intensive contacts with the counterpart institutions. The Portuguese-Spanish border is one of the oldest in Europe and the contextual factors that characterize the border regions here provide favourable preconditions for cross-bordercooperation. The subdivision of the programme into regional sub-programmes further strengthened the close historical, cultural and linguistic ties at the local level. In fact, there are no determining obstacles in topographical or spatial terms that significantly constrain cooperation. The existence of a large and growing number of border-crossing opportunities is a significant advantage for cooperation between the two countries. Recent projects such as the International Bridge over the Minho River, improved the permeability of the border. R doc 3

4 However, there are also a number of factors that have been identified as limitations to cooperation in the context of the INTERREG programmes between the two countries. Although there is no significant constraint resulting from the political nature of the border, crossborder cooperation is hampered by a number of legal, administrative and socio-economic differences, which has significantly impeded the generation of truly joint projects. The programme is a clear and consistent continuation of the INTERREG I and II forerunners. The projects are characterised by their consistency with the CIP strategy. Currently, the programme is widely known and popular along the border, which is revealed by the growth of CBC networks. However, there is still a need to strengthen trust building on both sides of the border. The delays identified in the programme implementation were implied by some financial constraints of counterparts, especially among the Portuguese partners. This issue was aggravated by the compulsory nature of a jointness of project activities, which limited the potential activities of the Spanish partners. But the absorption of funds was also constrained by the delayed approval of the programme and de-commitments due to n+2. However, the breach of the n+2 rule was due to a payment suspension of 8 months decided unilaterally by the Commission. The Commission itself acknowledged that this suspension was not legal; hence, the retained amounts were finally paid to the programme at a later stage. The community added value can be identified in four key areas: The contribution to economic and social cohesion The broad participation of public institutions of different territorial levels. The continuation of cross-border co-operation under INTERREG. Learning the management of Structural Fund interventionss. R doc 4

5 1 Introduction This report coveres the in-depth analysis of the programme INTERREG IIIA Spain Portugal (CIP ES-PT), under the Ex-Post evaluation of the Community Initiative INTERREG III, Task 5: In- Depth Analysis of a Representative Sample of Programmes. Being a cross-border cooperation programme, the CIP ES-PT is a part of the INTERREG III Strand A. It covers Spanish NUTS III of Pontevedra, Orense, Zamora, Salamanca, Cáceres, Badajoz and Huelva and Portuguese NUTS III of Algarve, Baixo Alentejo, Alentejo Central, Alto Alentejo, Beira Interior Sul, Beira Interior Norte, Douro, Alto Trás-os -Montes, Cávado and Minho-Lima. Figure 1 NUTS III covered by the CIP ES-PT Source: INTERACT The programme mainly aimed to develope the economy of the cross-border area and to strengthen the cooperation relations between the border regions. The programme priorities are: creation of infrastructures; rural planning and development in cross-border areas; enhancement, promotion and conservation of the environmental heritage and natural resources; socioeconomic development and the promotion of employability; promotion of cooperation and social and institutional integration. Approved on 19 December 2001 by EC decision No: C (2001) 4127, the programme has a total funding of 1,075,88 million, to which corresponds an ERDF amount of 823,91 million. According to INTERACT Point Tool Box, this programme is the most important in financial size, with almost 600 projects approved. R doc 5

6 Due to the administrative disparities between Portugal and Spain, this programme has a rather complex architecture and management structure. It is organised into six sub-programmes, five of which have a territorial character, which incorporate the objectives and strategies for cross-border cooperation in the sub-regions. The sub-programmes and respective intervention areas are the following: Sub-programme 1: Galicia/North of Portugal; Sub-programme 2: Castile-Leon/North of Portugal; Sub-programme 3: Castile-Leon/Central Portugal; Sub-programme 4: Extremadura/Central Portugal/ Alentejo; Sub-programme 5: Andalucía/Alentejo/Algarve; Sub-programme 6: the territory of Spain and Portugal involved in projects that affect more than one of the above mentioned cooperation areas. The Sub-programmes of territorial nature absorb the largest part of the resources of the CIP ES- PT (82.6%). Of these, those consisting of the sub-region Galicia-Northern Portugal, on the one hand, and Extremadura Central-Alentejo, on the other, have the highest budget of 311,513,451 and 255,264,858, respectively. Table 1 Financial Distribution of the Support by Fields of Action (At A 3-Digit Level) Sub-Programme Total Cost Total Public Cost SF Public National Resources EFDR Total Central Regional Local Others Private Expenditure Galicia-North 311,513, ,010, ,257,754 73,752,301 36,020,426 24,482,256 7,920,651 5,328,968 16,503,398 Castilla y León-North 132,999, ,681,023 92,763,193 30,917,830 13,265,307 11,201,317 3,863,770 2,587,436 9,318,242 Castilla y León-Central 81,709,693 75,142,014 56,356,668 18,785,346 11,098,119 3,807,015 2,339,317 1,540,895 6,567,679 Extremadura-Central-Alentejo 255,264, ,196, ,397,295 60,798,750 30,013,930 21,925,152 5,083,064 3,776,604 12,068,809 Andalucía-Alentejo-Algarve 153,485, ,810, ,357,696 35,452,330 17,435,089 9,580,261 4,925,570 3,511,410 11,675,872 National 197,044, ,044, ,782,594 49,261,443 40,015,129-6,312,628 2,933,686 - TOTAL 1,132,017,200 1,075,883, ,915, ,968, ,848,000 70,996,000 30,445,000 19,679,000 56,134,000 Source: Interim Evaluation of the Programme of Community Initiative INTERREG III A Spain-Portugal, The main programme management structures are the following: Managing Authority (MA): DG European Funds, Ministry of Economy and Finance (ES); Paying Authority (PA): Financial Institute for Regional Development (PT). There is one Joint Technical Secretariat (JTS) that cooperates closely with the nine regional antennas and provides technical assistance to the National Steering Committee, Sub-committees and to the Managing Authority. The IIIA CIP ES-PT follows the INTERREG I and II CIP ES-PT, implemented since The Single Programming Document records the history of border cooperation and integration between the two countries: the development of systematic and consistent cross-border cooperation between the two countries encountered significant obstacles, arising from a prolonged period of isolation, where the border set up a barrier hardly transposable. These obstacles were: The absence of a culture of cross-border cooperation between the political-administrative authorities; The differences between the political and administrative statutes of the regions in both countries; The existence of quite different legal frameworks. R doc 6

7 Since the first INTERREG initiative, this tradition of isolation began to be replaced by a culture of cross-border cooperation, which enhanced the development of these regions and their integration, particularly through the following types of actions: Strengthening the infrastructures for accessibility; Formalising relations of institutional cooperation; Creating communities of work, offices for initiatives and sectoral commissions; Seminars, exhibitions, meetings and fairs; Projects for cultural, environmental, sports and tourism development. With the second INTERREG CIP ( ), the previous positive cooperation experience opened new possibilities for the gradual integration of the border areas, being given special importance to the development of intangible projects. Its four major objectives were: Promoting economic and social development in a balanced way on both sides of the border; Contributing to population settlement; Planning the border area; Encouraging cross-border cooperation mechanisms. However, despite some progress in cooperation and integration at border areas, these CIP have always been structured in two national parts, with separate management mechanisms and other decision making bodies, which hindered the institutional consolidation of bilateral relations and the promotion of projects completely targeted at these areas. R doc 7

8 2 Research Interest and Methodology The scope of the analysis is closely determined by the terms of reference for the Ex-post Evaluation for INTERREG III and the method proposed in the Inception Report. The study was based on the analysis of a wide range of information about the conception, implementation, management and performance of the CIP ES-PT, collected from various sources. From literature sources, it included the following: The Single Programming Document; Decisions of the Commission, of 2004 and 2006, amending Decision C (2001) 4127 of 19 December 2001, approving the CIP ES-PT; The Mid-Term Evaluation of the CIP ES-PT and its update; The June 2006 study on the CIP ES-PT, carried out by INTERACT Point Tool Box; Annual Reports of the CIP ES-PT implementation, conducted between 2000 and The study was also based on a series of personal and phone interviews, with various MA officials (both in Spain and Portugal) as well as with the lead partners of the subject of case study projects. In this sense, interviews were conducted with representatives of the following entities: Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda (Spain); Instituto Financeiro para o Desenvolvimento Regional, IP (Portugal); Estradas de Portugal, SA (Portugal); Consejería de Cultura y Turismo de la Junta de Castilla y León (Spain); Diputación de Salamanca (Spain); IPROCOR - Instituto del Corcho, la Madera y el Carbón Vegetal (Spain); Instituto Português do Desporto Direcção Regional do Algarve (Portugal). R doc 8

9 3 In-depth Analysis of the Results and Impacts in Terms of Effectiveness and the Socio-Economic Effects 3.1 The financial implementation of the programme Financial analysis across the intervention codes The objectives outlined in the CIP ES-PT are fully consistent with the priorities established by the Community Initiative INTERREG III: Promotion of urban, rural and coastal development; Stimulate entrepreneurship and SME development; Development of local employment initiatives; Support for labour market integration and social inclusion Promote the sharing of human resources and research and development centres, education, culture, communication, health and civil protection; Aid for environmental protection, increased energy efficiency and renewable energy; Improving transport networks and information and communication services and water systems and energy; Increase legal and administrative cooperation; Increase human and institutional potential on cross-border cooperation. This results in a similar (with only slight differences) operating strategy, as shown by the comparison between the codes budgetary weight of the INTERREG III and CIP ES-PT for this programming period (Figure 2). Figure 2 Fields of intervention budgetary weight in INTERREG III and CIP ES-PT INTERREG III CIP ES-PT 20% 20% 18% 18% 16% 16% 14% 14% 12% 12% 10% 10% 8% 8% 6% 6% 4% 4% 2% 2% 0% 0% Agriculture 13. Promoting the adaptation and the development of rural areas 14. Fisheries 16. Assisting SME and the craft sector 17. Tourism 18. Research, technological development and innovation (RTDI) 21. Labour market policy 22. Social inclusion 23. Developing educational and vocational training (persons, firms) 25. Positive labour market actions for woman 31. Transport infrastructure 32. Telecommunications infrastructure and information society 33. Energy infrastructures (production, delivery) 34. Environmental infrastructure (including water) 35. Planning and rehabilitation 41. Technical assistance and innovative actions (ERDF, ESF, EAGGF, FIFG) The analysis of expenditure certified by codes (three digits level) confirms this consistency. The CIP ES-PT includes, among the codes for which expenditure was planned, those that represent 66,17% of the total planned expenditure in the INTERREG III Initiative and 65,16% of the certified R doc 9

10 total expenditure. From a narrower perspective, of the 25 codes which gather a greater percentage of planned and certificated expenditure in the whole initiative, and are present in a larger number of programmes, 20 are included in the CIP ES-PT. Figure 3 Budget distribution by CIP ES-PT, disaggregated at a 3-digit level Rural development 163. Business advisory services 131. Tourism activities 162. Environment-friendly techn., clean and economical energy techn Non-physical investments 182. Innovation and techn. transfers, establishment of networks and partnerships between businesses and/or research institutes 173. Shared services for the tourism industry 111. Investments in agricultural holdings 114. Improving processing and marketing of agricultural products 165. Financial engineering 143. Processing, marketing and promoting of fisheries products 161. Investment in physical capital 171. Physical investment 167. Vocational training 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% ,0% 0,9% 0,8% 0,7% 0,6% 0,5% 0,4% 0,3% 0,2% 0,1% 0,0% 12% 10% 9% 8% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Positive labour market actions for woman 210. Labour market policy 220. Social inclusion 230. Developing educational and vocational training (persons, firms) 312. Roads 321. Basic infrastructure 344. Drinking water 323. Services and applications for the citizen 324. Services and applications for SME 353. Protection, improvement and regeneration of the natural environment 332. Renewable sources of energy 345. Sewerage and purification 352. Rehabilitation of urban areas 316. Waterways 354. Maintenance and restoration of the cultural heritage 333. Energy efficiency, cogeneration, energy control 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Studies 411. Preparation, implementation, monitoring, publicity 415. Information to the public 414. Innovative actions 412. Evaluation Going into more depth in this analysis, we note that the three items that represent the largest share of expenditure ( Roads (312), Rural Development (130) and Studies (413)) match the general strategy and the strategy outlined in CIP ES-PT. All these data demonstrate the consistency of the designed strategy with the overall objectives of INTERREG III. However, the programme presents some specificity that adapts those strategies to the reality of the regions involved therein: R doc 10

11 The importance of agriculture in the area is evidenced by the presence of two CIP codes: Investments in agricultural holdings (111), in this case it is the only programme for which expenditure has been certified in the period , and; Improving processing and marketing of agricultural products (114). Together, the spending on these areas has accounted for more than 2% of the total. Also, Energy efficiency, cogeneration, energy control (333) and Business advisory services (information, business planning, consultancy services, marketing, management, design, internationalisation, exporting, environmental management, purchase of technology) (163) and Financial engineering (165), that are not among the codes with a most pervasive presence, have some relevance in the CIP, although this is relatively small. But its importance should be emphasised by two factors: a. The programme investment in sustainable growth namely the environment and the need to find new ways to manage natural resources has been one of the issues raised with higher levels of participation; b. The support to business networks through financial instruments and business services, consistent with the policies of support (particularly to SME) implemented both in Spain and Portugal. Moreover, although the areas to which greater importance is given match exactly with those that determine the overall strategy of the INTERREG III strategy, the relative importance of roads, rural development and studies are considerably higher in CIP ES-PT (28,24% versus 16,75%). On the one hand, investment in infrastructure during the period continues to be very representative and, in particular, the investment related to roads, aiming at reducing the accessibility problems that are a major weakness of cross-border communications. In this field, the financial size of the projects (although they were few) really stands out, due to its large size. In addition, because the execution time of these projects tends to be above average, the majority of them were concentrated in the first calls for proposals. The distinctive nature of rural populations at the border area, resulted in numerous related projects in the current CIP. These projects have contributed to the reduction of problems of various kinds, such as depopulation and destruction of jobs or reduction in services. Planned expenditure for studies is indeed above average. The programme has allowed the development of studies of great interest to the people of the Spain-Portugal border, both sectoral (linked to commercial activities, cultural, etc.) and with an operational nature directly related to actions carried out under the CIP (such as the Analysis of the projects included in the INTERREG III-A Spain-Portugal Cross-border Cooperation and preparation of a disclosure document ). The programming for the expenditure items related to operational development of the programme, which could be qualified as techniques (411, 412, 413, 414 and 415) in general have a planned spending considerably below the initiative average. However, the approach is different between the different codes, as outlined by the emphasis on the studies highlighted previously. This explains, for a large part, the reduced spending on public information in general, partially offset by the publication of studies with a more popular character such as A Bridge for Territorial Cooperation: The Spain-Portugal INTERREG III-A Programme R doc 11

12 On the other end, i.e. with a level of planned and certified spending much below average, are the innovative activities. This is justified because the innovative nature is implicit in the vast majority of projects being implemented. Proof of this is the existence of criteria for selecting projects in the different calls requiring or favouring innovative activities. The following table includes the codes that had planned and spent expenditure under CIP ES-PT. It includes information on planned expenditure, certified expenditure and financial efficiency rate or absorption capacity, and the percentage of each code in relation to total expenditure incurred. Moreover, the last column indicates the percentage of certified expenditure in relation to the total amount of the programme. Table 2 Financial distribution of the support by fields of action (at 3-digit level) Fields of intervention Decided amount (Euro) Certified expenditure by MS (Euro) Absorption rate % Code expenditure /programme expenditure % 111. Investments in agricultural holdings 11,048,222 8,261,528 74,78 1, Improving processing and marketing of agricultural products 5,696,133 4,291,377 75,34 0, Rural development 69,552,221 55,111,684 79,24 8, Tourism activities 46,840,631 31,664,701 67,60 5, Processing, marketing and promoting of fisheries products 4,734,952 3,540,655 74,78 0, Investment in physical capital (plant and equipment, co financing of state aids) 3,156,635 2,360,436 74,78 0, Environment-friendly technologies, clean and economical energy technologies 23,651,923 18,915,335 79,97 3, Business advisory services 58,237,970 40,613,233 69,74 6, Financial engineering 5,696,133 4,291,377 75,34 0, Vocational training 2,361,131 1,433,284 60,70 0, Physical investment 3,156,635 2,360,436 74,78 0, Non-physical investments 26,813,950 18,305,230 68,27 2, Shared services for the tourism industry 12,477,405 8,617,193 69,06 1, Innovation and technology transfers, establishment of networks and partnerships between businesses and/or research institutes 21,950,902 16,312,368 74,31 2, Labour market policy 8,645,071 5,385,549 62,30 0, Social inclusion 5,027,151 3,161,812 62,89 0, Developing educational and vocational training 2,951,414 1,791,605 60,70 0, Positive labour market actions for woman 9,235,354 5,743,870 62,19 0, Roads 81,060,979 64,477,408 79,54 10, Waterways 20,265,245 16,119,352 79,54 2, Basic infrastructure 60,795,734 48,358,056 79,54 7, Services and applications for the citizen 43,198,038 31,646,207 73,26 5, Services and applications for SME 43,768,631 31,408,766 71,76 5, Renewable sources of energy 22,312,929 17,077,212 76,54 2, Energy efficiency, cogeneration, energy control 2,866,758 1,341,004 46,78 0, Drinking water 43,208,478 35,914,951 83,12 5, Sewerage and purification 19,546,474 16,969,417 86,82 2, Rehabilitation of urban areas 19,546,474 16,969,417 86,82 2, Protection, improvement and regeneration of the natural environment 33,557,951 27,053,755 80,62 4, Maintenance and restoration of the cultural heritage 22,344,958 15,254,358 68,27 2, Preparation, implementation, monitoring, publicity 11,496,548 4,716,208 41,02 0, Evaluation 1,395, ,996 44,57 0, Studies 72,991,584 54,920,796 75,24 8, Innovative actions 1,370, ,580 64,90 0, Information to the public 2,949,163 2,150,411 72,92 0,35 Consequently, this table provides interesting information on two aspects: the structure of expenditure of CIP ES-PT in comparison to the overall structure of the initiative disintegrated in three-digit codes, and the absorption capability of each code. R doc 12

13 However, this information is clearly absolute, while terms of comparison are not established to facilitate the positioning of the programme in the framework of the INTERREG initiative. Table 2 enables this initial weakness to be overcome, comparing the financial characteristics of the CIP INTERREG III, in general, the INTERREG III-A (Strand A) and the cluster in which the programme falls in line with the analysis in the present study (see ANNEX DG Regio (2003), Categorisation of Borders in Terms of Isolation and Cooperation at the Start of the Period) 1. The variable INTENSITY MEASURE (IM) measures the relative weight of the code and is calculated by comparing the percentage of the budget that it represents in the programme with the relative weight it has in the budget for the referent (either INTERREG, Strand A or the cluster). According to this definition, when the value of IM is greater than 1, we will be facing a code which concentrates a greater percentage of spending than in the reference, i.e., which could be described as relevant or intensive in the programme. By contrast, when it takes less than one, its relative importance will be below average and, thus, can be understood as less relevant, the closer it is to zero. Meanwhile, the GAP MEASURE (GM) measures the absorption capacity of the planned expenditure in each of the codes related to the same reference code. Like IM, when the variable GM takes values higher than 1 this would be a code in which the absorption capacity is above average (i.e., in which the difference between the amounts expended and planned, favourable to the first, is higher than in the referent). However, in cases where this value is between zero and 0,99 the absorption capacity as defined above appears below the referent. Observing the results, it allows us to reach several interesting conclusions: in relative terms, the financial implementation rate (measured as the ratio of the amount spent or certificated and the one planned) shows that only 73,1% of the originally planned has been certified. This rate is lower than that observed for all the INTERREG programmes (adding up to 76,6%), which makes the GM lower than one. However, we cannot conclude that the absorption capacity in absolute terms is small if we consider the history of cooperation in border areas between Spain and Portugal as well as the total volume of certified expenditure in amounted to a total of 618,050,569, which significantly exceeds the spent budget in the rest of the programmes considered. Ultimately, it appears that despite the large volume of executed expenditure, actions undertaken were not sufficient to meet initial expectations of the programme and, in fact, has stood in percentage below the average of the three areas taken as reference. However, this figure does not include the latest certifications that were made, according to the MA itself, so that the financial implementation rate is undervalued considering the final one to be presented by the CIP, which is projected to rise above 90%. 1 In this cluster are framed, besides Spain-Portugal, the areas of cooperation Sonderjylland-North Schleswig, Espagne-France, FIN-N-RUS, Nord; francobritannique space; Estoneia-Latvia-Russia and Latvia-Lithuania- Belarus R doc 13

14 This pattern is repeated in most of the codes observed, with some exceptions, in a larger number, the area that we take as a reference is more restricted. Overall, the absorption capacity depends on the ability of the partners involved in project management, being able to differentiate the local factors, where there are the major difficulties, when compared to others of a larger dimension. In this regard, the involvement of local authorities has been much more in tune with the needs closest to the territories. Hence, its presence depends largely on the importance granted to financing projects related to culture, heritage, tourism and spatial planning. The codes in which the relative absorption capacity has been increased both in comparison with INTERREG in general, as well as with cross-border cooperation programmes and the cluster, are Environmentally Friendly Technologies, Clean and Economical Energy Technologies (162), Sewerage and Purification (345), Investment in Physical Capital (161) and Information to the Public (415). In the first two cases, moreover, the amount spent is above the reference (in the three cases analyzed) which shows the importance of the absorption relative capacity of the programme and its bet, in relative terms, on clean technologies and sewage and water treatment water. The case of public information is not so significant if we consider that the share of spending on programme assistance is very small when compared to INTERREG III and specifically with Strand A. However, as mentioned previously, this interpretation can be wrong if we consider that some of the studies were aimed at informing the public of the actions undertaken under the programme. Table 3 The intensity measure (IME) and the gap measure (GM) of the CIP ES-PT INTERREG Fields of intervention III Strand A Cluster IM GM IM GM IM GM 111. Investments in agricultural holdings 7,29 1,00 42,8 0,91 1,33 1, Improving processing and marketing of agricultural products 2,96 0,94 2,55 0,96 0,82 0, Rural development 2,35 0,97 1,74 0,97 1,15 1, Tourism activities 1,48 0,86 1,37 0,86 1,25 0, Processing, marketing and promoting of fisheries products 3,43 0,91 2,64 0,92 1,33 1, Investment in physical capital 0,69 1,06 0,63 1,11 0,59 0, Environment-friendly technologies, clean and economical 2,50 1,05 2,30 1,06 1,14 1,01 energy technologies 163. Business advisory services 3,14 0,92 2,51 0,92 1,15 0, Financial engineering 2,18 0,93 1,50 0,93 0,78 0, Vocational training 0,50 0,83 0,45 0,85 0,43 0, Physical investment 0,21 0,88 0,15 0,88 0,62 0, Non-physical investments 1,14 0,91 0,88 0,91 0,77 0, Shared services for the tourism industry 0,80 0,96 0,71 0,98 1,01 0, Innovation and technology transfers, establishment of 1,32 0,96 1,34 0,96 1,30 1,00 networks and partnerships between businesses and/or research institutes 210. Labour market policy 0,91 0,81 0,70 0,82 1,17 0, Social inclusion 0,31 0,76 0,24 0,76 0,65 0, Developing educational and vocational training 0,18 0,81 0,16 0,82 0,30 0, Positive labour market actions for woman 1,43 0,86 1,18 0,88 0,85 0, Roads 1,88 0,94 1,36 0,94 1,31 1, Waterways 2,98 0,97 2,30 0,97 1,33 1, Basic infrastructure 5,25 0,99 3,91 0,99 1,33 1, Services and applications for the citizen 2,19 0,93 1,77 0,92 1,20 1, Services and applications for SME 3,12 0,94 2,46 0,94 1,20 1, Renewable sources of energy 3,23 0,99 3,04 1,00 1,19 0, Energy efficiency, cogeneration, energy control 1,27 0,71 1,28 0,76 1,33 1, Drinking water 4,12 1,00 3,39 0,99 1,27 1, Sewerage and purification 2,61 1,05 1,94 1,05 1,21 1,01 R doc 14

15 INTERREG Fields of intervention III Strand A Cluster IM GM IM GM IM GM 352. Rehabilitation of urban areas 1,83 0,99 1,55 0,97 1,14 1, Protection, improvement and regeneration of the natural environment 1,98 0,95 1,61 0,90 1,31 1, Maintenance and restoration of the cultural heritage 1,81 0,99 1,34 0,98 1,32 1, Preparation, implementation, monitoring, publicity 0,37 0,63 0,42 0,64 0,56 0, Evaluation 0,31 0,74 0,36 0,70 1,30 0, Studies 1,47 0,96 2,22 0,95 1,32 1, Innovative actions 0,02 0,87 0,13 0,81 1,33 1, Information to the public 0,18 1,03 0,27 1,03 1,32 1,00 The lower performance in relative terms, corresponds to the code of Preparation, implementation, monitoring, publicity (411), with a GM situated below 65%. However, the observed differences are qualified when we take as reference the cluster to which CIP ES-PT belongs. The other programmes are, from this point of view, more homogeneous, which makes the values of variable GM to be equal, in all cases, very close to the unity. Considering that a concentration of funding is intended to ensure a significant impact of the Structural and Cohesion Funds in the period, the valuation of such concentration in the CIP determines whether there has been the best use of limited resources by restricting the actions to specific priorities. However, the valuation of this concentration has to take into account two essential factors: (a) The important financial dimension of the programme. This is the INTERREG III Programme with a greater allocation of community support, accounting for 14.38% of the planned expenditure and 13.63% of certified expenditure. (b) The area of cooperation embraces the widest border area of the European Union, composed of regions with specific particularities and with low levels of development in relation to the main engines of the economy of the Union. This fact makes it necessary to address a range of broader weaknesses more than in other programmes of the Initiative INTERREG III A. Both factors have conditioned the thematic concentration: the financial dimension allows affording a greater number of fields of operation with minimum levels of assistance that ensure the achievement of objectives. In fact, the programme has certified a spending in a total of 35 fields or codes, representing 38% of all codes in which expenditure was planned in the Initiative INTERREG III, i.e., well above the average programmes of the INTERREG Community Initiative which stands at 25. Still, the planned support under the CIP framework allows devoting significant amount of resources (above average, in any case) to each of these categories reaching critical mass that facilitates positive outcomes. From the perspective of the projects, its large size should also be considered; the average is nearly 2 million. Moreover, there have been some positive aspects related to the concentration of spending that, in many cases, points to external factors that have been definitively established in the period The ten items with greater relative importance account for 68,14% of expenditure certified in the CIP. The importance of this fact is evident when we consider that the selection of the ten most representative items for the whole of the INTERREG III Initiative represent only 37,74%. In particular, the three main areas of intervention, which agree on the overall initiative and in the CIP, are telecommunications infrastructure and informing society, promoting the adaptation and R doc 15

16 development of rural areas and environmental infrastructure and concentrate 16,75% and 28,24%, respectively. The percentage of executed spending in areas related to the objectives defined in the Lisbon Strategy 2 with regard to the total budget is above average, with values that reach 17,1% and 14,8%, respectively. This shows preferential attention to the actions of greater contribution to promote competitiveness and job creation. However, in this context there is a weakness to take into account in the immediate future: the lowest absorption capacity shown on the INTERREG III Initiative as a whole. In fact, although the differences shown are small, the financial efficiency in the CIP reaches 73,10%, below that observed for the whole programme (75,01%) and for these fields in the general area (77,61%). From another perspective, there is a clear congruence of the action lines, or codes with regional priorities, ensuring a focus on areas where the needs from areas of cooperation are greater. Additionally, a more territorial analysis took place, as those who have been developed under the CIP reveals the existence of a concentration of spending in those areas where needs are greater, in order to achieve greater social and territorial cohesion throughout the area of cooperation Dynamic financial analysis The programming of the CIP shows a remarkable fit to the actual demand of resources from economic and social actors involved in the development of the various projects. Proof of this is the temporal consistency displayed by it. In fact, the Programme Complement has been revised two times to re-allocate funds to territorial competitiveness and sustainability. Moreover, the submission of projects as a response to the various calls has been increasing in all areas trying to tackle the weaknesses and targets specified in the CIP. The data on requests for assistance supports the conclusion that the magnitude of the claim for resources was remarkable. Table 4 Volume of Assistance Requested in Each Call of the CIP ES-PT Calls for proposals Applications EFDR support Total cost requested Submitted requested 1st call for proposals , ,00 2nd call for proposals , ,00 3rd call for proposals , ,48 Extraordinary call for proposals , ,00 TOTAL , ,48 Source: Analysis of the Projects Included in the INTERREG III-A Spain-Portugal of Border Cooperation As reflected in the Analysis of the Projects included in the INTERREG III-A Spain-Portugal of Border Cooperation , conducted by the Managing Authority, the useful demand ratio, defined as the ratio between the number of projects approved in each of the calls launched and the 2 These effects have been considered as codes linked to the achievement of the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy, following the criteria already established in the previous case analysis as follows: "Environmentfriendly technologies, clean and economical energy technologies" (162 ), "Innovation and technology transfers, establishment of networks and partnerships between businesses and / or research institutes (182)," Developing educational and vocational training (persons, firms) "(230)," Positive actions for woman labour market "( 250), "Services and applications for the citizen (health, administration, education)" (323 and "Services and applications for SMEs (electronic commerce and transactions, education and training, networking)" 8324 ". R doc 16

17 number of projects submitted, tends to remain constant around the average for the whole programme (which amounts to 42%). Thus affecting the important response the call for projects has obtained as well as the coherence between the fields of action identified in the programme and the real needs of different regions of cooperation. The decrease of resources during the programming period has, in this context, placed a constraint on matching resources to actual needs of the border and has prompted a greater concentration of spending. From another perspective, the dynamic analysis of the implementation of annual expense reflects relatively cyclical behaviour of the amount expended, determined by the various calls for projects held during the lifetime of the CIP. Figure 4 shows how the largest share of spending is concentrated in the years 2004 and 2005, when the three calls are active. Figure 4 Spending implemented in the CIP ES-PT, by year Source: Authors' calculations based on data from Implementation Annual Reports. Figure 5 Cumulative expenditure executed in the CIP ES-PT, by year GASTO EJECUTADO ACUMULADO GASTO PROGRAMADO EJECUTADO Source: Authors' calculations based on data from Implementation Annual Reports R doc 17

18 Figure 6 Cumulative expenditure executed in the CIP ES-PT, by year (with trend line) y = 2E+08x - 3E+11 R 2 = 0, Intermediate conclusions. The relative valuation of the intensity of the programmed expenditure implemented in the CIP ES- PT shows the coincidence of the areas where effort is concentrated, resulting in a relatively high correlation index. The three items that represent the largest share of expenditure ( Roads, Rural development and Studies ) agree on the general strategy and the strategy outlined in the CIP ES-PT, although their relative weight in the programme is more significant than in the whole of INTERREG. However, some significant differences appear, as the largest concentration of investment spending in the primary sector and support to the business development, and particularly to SMEs through financial instruments and business services. On the other hand, it shows less importance, in relative terms, for explicit investment in innovative activities, although virtually all projects have the status of innovative, responding to the selection criteria of different calls. In addition, the technical categories related to operational development of the programme show a lower importance to those granted in Strand A. It can be established that the programme budget well coped with the final demand for funding: only two budget reallocations were made while a significant number of applications were received for the different calls in all areas covered in the programme. From an operational point of view, the level of implementation of the programme is very similar to all the other INTERREG programmes. Furthermore, this trend is repeated in the various issues under discussion, though the observed differences in absorption capacity between the CIP ES-PT and general reference are not significant in any of the fields. However, they are highlighted for being above the average of the items related to investment in fixed capital and clean technology, as well as public information. Meanwhile, technical items show a lower relative implementation when compared to the average. In general, the amount spent shows a linear trend for almost all projects, but tends to increase when the projects reach full speed, after an early start. However, the joint development of the programme is largely determined by launching three calls for proposals that have significantly intensified spending in the months during which expenditure corresponding to the projects of the three calls had been running, while implementation decreased as the projects from the first calls were closed, softening the slope of the path of execution over the last years of life of the programme. R doc 18

19 Moreover, the rhythm of implementation of spending seen during the years 2002 and 2003 is determined by the delay in starting the programme and the effort made by the management bodies to implement the n+2 rule, but mainly by the concentration in the first call for proposals of structural projects that bind the highest percentage of expenditure and between those who represent a significant proportion of both the expenditure and the number of projects, related to the construction and improvement of infrastructures (whose implementation is an important financial dimension and requires a period of implementation above the average of the projects considered). The absorption capacity of the programme is very high if we consider that the forecast performance of the programmed expenditure after recent certification is above 90% and planned spending is very high in relative terms in the framework of the INTERREG III A Initiative. 3.2 The Effectiveness of the Programme Planned results, achievement rates at measure level and trend patterns As identified in the Mid-term Evaluation Study, the Programming Complement established a set of indicators for each one of the 5 Priority Axes, from which the outcome and impact goals were set. The architecture of this matrix of key indicators was considered by the evaluators as very appropriate and particularly suitable for the communication operations of the programme. However, despite the availability of indicators of achievement, outcome and impact and the balanced way it covered the various axes and measures that were in general, considered positive, the evaluators felt that many indicators were not measurable or were difficult to understand. Regarding the quality of indicators, the evaluators also felt that there were some assurances to the possibility of quantification of indicators, but also many doubts about its utility (available time) and reliability (quality control). Among the constraints identified by the evaluators, sometimes different indicators of achievement were used to quantify the same type of action, and indicators of achievement were used to quantify results. Even with the quality of indicators, it was considered that the adopted outcome indicators would face the inability of response of both countries statistical systems, and that could compromise its use in time. All these difficulties also contributed to that the fact, that when preparing the Programming Complement, the quantified information available would not allow an accurate and complete characterisation of the starting situation, which hindered the establishment of quantified targets for all indicators. Consequently, in many measures, the Programming Complement only had one or two indicators with quantified targets. The evaluators also conclude that there was a big problem related to the adequacy of the monitoring indicators for projects, which of course is related to the wide typology of eligible projects. Indeed, beneficiaries faced many difficulties in defining indicators and quantifying their actions. R doc 19

20 For all these reasons, the interim evaluation presented recommendations in the sense that it should undertake a restructuring of the original system of indicators, with the amendment and creation of new indicators, particularly of new outcome indicators. These problems have been corroborated by a report from the European Court of Auditors (23 January 2004), which noted that indicators used in applications of the projects did not correspond to those identified in the Programming Complement. In order to identify and assess the problems and its solutions, during 2004 an exhaustive study took place. It was a study on indicators for monitoring proposed in the various projects approved in the first and second calls, followed by an analysis of which, among these, would be the most relevant to conduct proper monitoring. Based on its results, in May 2005 a modification was proposed on all the indicators of the Programming Complement measures. That was done to improve the physical monitoring of the programme and evaluation of its outcomes and impacts, while seeking a homogenisation of the names of the indicators in the Programming Complement with existing ones in the application Fondos 2000, already used in other community interventions. However, as a result of the vicissitudes of this process, indicators of physical implementation only began to appear after the Implementation Report of 2004 and do not correspond to the indicators that were presented in the Programming Complement. Therefore, this situation is a key constraint to the use of the recommended methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of the programme, based on the comparison of the values of the performance of the indicators throughout the implementation period, with the goals that were initially proposed in the Programming Complement. Additionally the expected value presented in the 2004, 2005 and 2006 Implementation Reports result from the sum of the predicted value in each project that is being monitored. This has the consequence that the predicted values are modified every year, with the approval of new projects. Therefore, these indicators do in fact reflect the rate of achievement on the values adopted, rather than the rate of achievement on the values planned. In short, and in the face of these questions, it is particularly difficult to present an analysis of the dynamics of effectiveness at measure level during the programme cycle in this report, mainly because: most of the monitoring indicators in the initial Programming Document were not quantified; the framework of monitoring indicators has changed considerably during the programming period, mostly as a result of the Mid-term Evaluation recommendations; the quantified goals presented in the annual reports correspond to the total projected values of all projects approved in each measure, meaning that the goals are different every year; up until 2004, the Annual Reports did not present the monitoring indicators values, so there is only data for 2004, 2005 and Thus, the evaluation of the effectiveness of the programme will be developed primarily based on critical reading and analysis of the most recent indicators for monitoring, published in the Executive Report of In general, analysing the type of indicators selected for monitoring the programme, it appears that more emphasis is given to achieving tangible results, rather than obtaining results in terms of learning or experimentation resulting from the cooperation projects. One can also generalise the truth of this conclusion for the three types of indicators used in R doc 20

21 monitoring the programme (indicators of implementation result and impact) and also for all areas of the programme. Indeed, even at the level of the results and impacts, the concern about the tangibility of the effects of the projects is obvious, which is illustrated by result indicators such as Recreational areas, Participants, Inhabitants connected to water treatment stations or Visitors, the same occurs with the indicators of impact, for example jobs created, Expenditure made by visitors to natural areas or Companies that are investing in another region. However, the framework of indicators of the programme also includes several examples of indicators of implementation and outcomes that focus on learning and experimentation. Here are some examples: Indicators of Implementation: Conducted cross-border fair business; Cross-border territorial information systems; Implemented Networks; Transnational organised meetings, seminars and symposia; Sectoral meetings undertaken; Joint research projects; Projects of institutional cooperation. Indicators of Result: Actions on publicizing the heritage; Marketing joint actions on tourism; Commercialisation of tourism products; Institutions with transnational formal structures; Employment common services; Protocols and agreements for cooperation between services; Common tools developed for quality and availability management. Looking at the rate of achievement of objectives, measured by the monitoring indicators of the programme, one can note that only 17% of the targets were achieved in 2006, i.e. only part of the indicators had a completion rate equal to or greater than 100%. In turn, only about 37% of the objectives had a completion rate equal to or greater than 50%. For the measures, it appears that where the objectives were closer to being fully achieved was in Measure Infrastructures for transport and communications of cross-border importance, which on average had a completion rate of around 90%. Followed by Measure 3.3 Local Socioeconomical development, agrarian and of services, with 81% of achieved objectives and Measures 1.2 Urban and Territorial planning and transnational coastal areas Joint development of local services and facilities, both with 73% of objectives achieved. However, the measure with the worst performance in terms of achieving the objectives measured by indicators of monitoring is Measure Energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, which on average reached only 6% of the proposed objectives. R doc 21

22 Other measures with low levels of reaching their objectives are Measure 2.4 Heritage touristy valuation, with an average of 28%, Measures 3.2 Development of technology, research and promotion of information society and 3.1 Promotion and business development and production base, with 34% and 35% respectively, or the Measure 4.3 Institutional structures for cooperation, with 38% (see ANNEX 1). The comparison between the mean achievement rate and the mean financial absorption rate of the measures shows the relationship between the objectives achieved and the financial resources that were needed for its realisation. Figure 7 Comparison: Mean achievement rate and financial absorption Mean Achievement Financial Absortion M easures Recalling that, according to the way the monitoring of the achievements of the CIP ES-PT was structured, the mean achievement rate results from the relation between the values provided in the approved projects and the figures actually achieved (without taking into account the objectives quantified ex-ante), it appears that none of the measures exceeds 100%, in terms of the objectives achieved. On most measures, the mean achievement rate is equal to or less than the financial absorption, except for the Measures 1.1, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1 and 4.2. The biggest discrepancies are found in Measures Energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, Technology development, research and promotion of information society and Institutional structures for cooperation, in which the financial absorption rate is much higher than the mean achievement rate of the indicators Reviewing the programming quality and the programme relevance on the basis of the results achieved The design of CIP ES-PT was based on a detailed assessment of the socioeconomic situation in its area of intervention. Consistent with the architecture of the intervention, it then proceeded to appraise the situation of reference in the various perspectives of particular relevance, with emphasis on the characteristics of each sub-area of cross-border cooperation: Configuration and reconfiguration of the cross-border area; R doc 22

23 Characterisation of the cross-border area (by sub-regions); Environmental situation in the cross-border territory; Situation of cross-border territory in terms of equal opportunities; Situation of cross-border territory in terms of information society; Balance of cooperation and cross-border integration. According to the 2004 Mid-term Evaluation, the programme deals with what concerns the general diagnosis of the socioeconomic cooperation area with sufficient amplitude, is well supported by data and is based on a detailed framework of indicators that cover the main areas of activities of the programme. Furthermore, the evaluation found that the socioeconomic analysis and the exante evaluation result consist of a solid information base, which allowed a correct diagnosis and, in certain fields such as demography or the labour market, it was a detailed analysis and very well prepared. However, as mentioned previously, the Mid-term Evaluation also found that there could be some problems related to the availability of uniform statistics that would provide information on a regional basis to territorial units of different countries, as well as problems arising from the present time of these indicators. Limits to the possibility of regionalisation of context indicators also do not allow an assessment, in its full extent, of the intra-regional disparities in the area of cooperation in some fields. Considering the programme relevance, and given the initial results, the mid-term evaluation presented a positive analysis of the validity of prior assessment from the updated diagnosis and SWOT review. It was considered that the indicators of the context presented an appropriate coverage, which means that the main determinant aspects of regional socioeconomic development, as well as the SWOT analysis, reflect the importance that structural factors have for the development of these regions. Regarding the strategy relevance and coherence, the evaluation also concludes, based on the analysis of the tree objectives and lines of intervention, that the programme constitutes a perfectly valid strategy. According to the evaluation, the fundamentals of CIP ES-PT are related to the increment of the economic and social integration level and public cross-border cooperation, as well as the promotion of the harmonious and balanced development of these transnational territories. Taking into account the diagnosis, these objectives are considered relevant and have the potential to boost economic cooperation, social and institutional development throughout the intervention area, to develop a solid and productive network, to encourage job creation and to improve territorial accessibility. In turn, the architecture of the programme, operated through its priorities and measures, was also considered consistent with the development strategy that was formulated: its objectives are a logical consequence of measures and priorities, all measures are imposed on some goal, and no purpose covered by the lines of intervention was put aside. Internal consistency is also enhanced by the synergistic relationships that occur between objectives and measures, and is important to stress the attention spent on the integration of the horizontal priorities inside the programme architecture. R doc 23

24 However, according to some of the people in charge of the regional antennas interviewed for the update on the Mid-term evaluation, the architecture of the programme was too complex, be it concerning the structure in sub-programmes, the number of priorities and measures, or even the demand and the ambition of the initial objectives. Table 5 Overview: The quality of the intervention logic Criterion / scoring Excellent sufficient Poor Data use and analysis The analysis presented in the programme and the ex-ante evaluation as a result of a sound information base, which allowed a correct diagnosis, particularly in areas such as demography or the labour market. Focus The general socioeconomic diagnosis of the cooperation area is well supported by data and is based on a detailed battery of indicators that cover the main areas of the programme activity. Quality and logic of the SWOT analysis The SWOT analysis reflects the importance that structural factors have for the development of these cross-border regions. Consistency of the programme strategy Determination of programme measures Cross-borderagreement on the strategy The strategy has been fully supported by all partner regions. The objectives of the programme are a logical consequence of the measures and priorities. All measures are imposed on some goal, and no purpose covered by the lines of the intervention programme was put aside. The determination of measures is clear and consistent. For the projection of results and evaluation of the achievement of the programme objectives, the update on the mid-term evaluation presented the following conclusions: Activities for Contribution of Infrastructure, planning and rural development of cross-border area - Axis 1 are a priority within the CIP. Thus, the good results obtained in terms of roads built, and especially in the time saved to users in cross-border routes was shown by analyzing the physical effectiveness of the programme. However, according to the results of these tables, it is recommended that a bigger effort be placed on the improvement of road network, fair trade and cross-border business and in conducting training. Preserving the Environment - Axis 2 - showed positive results, despite observing a disparate behaviour between the different Measures. On the one hand, the results of actions to improve energy efficiency and harness renewable energy sources (Measure 2.3) and the tourism enhancement of heritage (Measure 2.4) show the importance given to it by the CIP, although it can also boost, from the latter Measure, the fairs cross-border business fairs. Moreover, Measures 2.1 and 2.2, especially the former, showed greater difficulties in reaching their objectives. Consequently, it is recommended - taking into account their specific main objectives - the strengthening of activities to protect water resources and joint actions to promote the heritage (Measure 2.1) and the construction and rehabilitation of buildings for the promotion of tourism (Measure 2.2). R doc 24

25 It is also important to highlight the high degree of compliance with the targets set in relation to the Socioeconomic development and promotion of employability (Axis 3). However, from a lesser degree of estimated compliance of the objectives regarding the promotion and technological development, research and extension on the Information Society (Measure 3.2) we can infer the need to strengthen this type of action. This, in order to achieve the objectives set for 2006, mainly aiming at reaching higher investments abroad by more companies as well as a greater number of networks deployed and joint research projects, especially when considering the criteria set by the Lisbon agenda in this area for Finally, it is not expected that problematic situations in the compliance will arise, within the CIP, of the targets set within Axis 4 Promotion of cooperation and social and institutional integration. Nevertheless, it is necessary to increase the amount of dissemination for cooperation and social and employment integration, as well as for fostering transnational cooperation - through workshops and seminars - given the benefits that result from these campaigns, along with increasing the provision of common tools for maintaining the quality and availability of institutional structures for cooperation The level of complexity and experimentation achieved by cooperation This analysis is based on a classification of the monitoring indicators associated with each of the measures of the programme compared to its level of experimentation. This analysis also takes into account the achievement rate of each indicator. As mentioned previously, the majority of the indicators emphasize tangible results, instead of getting results in terms of learning or experimentation through cooperation projects. Indeed, this is the case in the three types of indicators used to monitor the programme (performance indicators, outcome and impact) as well as in every aspect of the programme. As it one can see from the analysis of the previous indicators are associated with a higher level of experimentation, these have, in general, an implementation rate very low or of zero. That does not mean that there are no exceptions which are worth mentioning with a positive meaning: the implementation of networks in the field of heritage, the creation/equipping of healthcare services, or the development of common services in the area of employment, corresponds to actions with a strong experimental component and have a level of performance that is higher than was expected. (see ANNEX 2) Intermediate conclusions Despite initial delays in implementing the programme, the analysis of monitoring indicators suggests that the results achieved are satisfactory and are in line with the framework of objectives and priorities established by the programme. In general, there are no significant differences between the patterns of physical implementation and financial performance standards of the various measures. However, a reason for a (possible) delayed implementation may be that the partners (especially the Portuguese partners) had some difficulties in ensuring their projects financial counterparts. This handicap was compounded by the mandatory nature of bilateralism associated to projects, which limited the activities of the Spanish partners. R doc 25

26 Alongside this, to interpret the results on experimentational character and complexity of projects, one must consider the features of the programme. In general, they are poorly targeted at experimentation or to the implementation of very complex cooperation projects. This is reflected in the conception and in the results measured by monitoring indicators that show a relevance of the projects of a more conventional nature (roads, environmental regeneration) rather than projects of a more experimental nature. 3.3 Project-level cooperation under the programme The concept of best practices within the framework of INTERREG III A can be interpreted as those actions designed to increase the visibility of the European Union s contribution toward solving a problem or achieving an objective within the framework of cooperation between regions, in this case between the border of Spain and Portugal. The requirements for projects for inclusion in the group of good practice are many and include both the quality of design and implementation as well as the results of their development, highlighting their innovative nature. In this context, the assessment team, in collaboration with the CIP ES-PT MA, has carried out a selection of projects as examples of good practice in terms of the following specific criteria: The innovative interpretation of an instrument with a positive impact on the target population in the medium and long term (influencing sustainability of collaboration and the consequences of actions). The extent of that target population or group of recipients. The promotion of an institutional cooperation but also social, understood as the active participation of project partners, but also the direct beneficiaries and the social actors. The use of New Information Technologies and Communication and the contribution to the development of Information Society. The complementarities of activities with other policies developed. A possible reproduction of the project, i.e. that it can be replicated and adapted in other areas, thus generating a multiplier effect. Table 6 Selection criteria of best practices in the selected projects PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Axis Subprogra mme Call for propo sals Scope (of the target group ) Innov ation Use of ICTS Partne rship Compleme ntarities with other communita rian policies Obser vation of horizo ntal princip les Results sustain ability Possibl e reprod uction of results PICERGOY 1 6 1ª TERIBE II) 2 2 3ª SUBERNOVA 2 4 2ª BIN SAL PREVENCION 2 3 2ª DESCOBERTAS 4 5 3ª Significant Medium Low R doc 26

27 Project Study 1 PICERGOY - International bridge over the Minho river, between Vila Nova de Cerveira and Goyán I. General project information The PICEROY project included the construction of an International Bridge over the Minho River, between the villages of Vila Nova de Cerveira (Portugal) and Goyán (Spain) The objectives of the Project were the following: Improve the permeability of the border areas in order to increase efficiency among the major urban centres; Facilitate economic integration and border areas market, Iberian and European; Increase the flow of economic relations and visitors between the two countries; Increase traffic between both countries; Increase initiatives related to tourism. II. Selection process This project was selected during the first Call for Proposals of the programme. The building project of this bridge began in 1989, but only in 1994, did the governments of the two countries decided to continue. In 1997, both countries signed the commitment of building the bridge. With a final cost of around 7.5 million Euros, the realisation of this project took about 15 years. Besides the traditional ebb and flow of work, this delay is justified because its landscape insertion and architecture has been affected by the discovery of archaeological remains. On the Portuguese side, the constraints were due mainly to the proximity to Lovelhe Fort, while in Goya, on the Spanish side, they were related to the location of a castle, which has led to archaeological excavations and detailed technical monitoring. The EP (Portuguese Roads) always had an archaeologist on site to monitor the contract. In order to safeguard and protect heritage, it was necessary to make some modifications to the original project. It should be noted that at some point in the process, there was also a joint effort by the municipalities on both sides of the border to push and accelerate the start of the project, including helping to support some of the burdens of the project. The selection of this project was based on a set of strengths that characterize it. On the one hand, the construction of this infrastructure should contribute effectively toward promoting economic integration and market of the region comprising the border region of Northern Portugal and Galicia. Similarly, the project was also intended to increase investment flows, economic relations and visitors between the two countries. It also had the advantage of seeking to plan and qualify the cross-border areas, to improve its competitiveness. R doc 27

28 In short, the project brought together a number of conditions that identified it as able to promote regional integration, development of rural border and its expertise activities. III. Partnership and sustainability The partnership set up for the management and implementation of this project was established between the Roads of Portugal, SA (Lead Partner), the Board of Galicia and the Ministry for Progress (Spain). This approach has enabled the development of an integrated partnership embodied in the creation of a joint implementation project and the achievement, in partnership, of the road infrastructure. This partnership is governed by an agreement between the parties and also by Decree No. 4 / 98, February 13 - Portuguese-Spanish Convention (which set the financial contribution of each state), as well as the agreement signed on the 9th of December 1996 between the Ministry of Development, the Council of Galicia and the Municipality of Tomiño for the construction of the International Bridge. Under this Convention, the Portuguese government (through Roads of Portugal) had the responsibility of preparing the design of the bridge and the adjudication, execution and supervision of works in accordance with the Spanish government, and expenditure incurred in equal parts. Each government retained the power to design and build, at its own expense, access to the bridge located in its territory. In this Convention, it was also stipulated that the financial support to be requested to the European Union (in this case, through the INTERREG) would be distributed equally between the two governments. The synergies created allowed to leverage the technical knowledge of institutions involved, a fact that is proven by the creation of a Portuguese-Spanish technical commission. Indeed, coordination and project planning and the execution of the works, as a permanent joint venture between the two sides were guaranteed by a Portuguese-Spanish technical commission foreseen in the convention established by the two countries. Among the tasks of this committee, composed of an equal number of representatives from both Portugal and Spain, are included the evaluation of the technical project and reports to the governments, the proposal of adjudication of the contract and the monitoring of its implementation. In general, it is considered that the construction of this road infrastructure fully meets the underlying objectives of INTERREG III, particularly at the level of infrastructure facilities, land use and development of border area. The project also contributes in some way, toward improving market transparency at a crossborder or transnational level, once all the procedures of public procurement were completed. The work was conducted under the international public competition with publication in the JOUE on 28/18/1999 (1999/S ). R doc 28

29 Did the project meet the partners expectations? According to the lead partner, definitely yes. The infrastructure was built within the time limits and parameters set out in the project application. IV. Learning and indirect effects In terms of organisational learning, this was evident the positive achieved results. This happened in the first place, through sharing knowledge, especially in terms of implementing the project's technical infrastructure. Secondly, through regarding the creation of a mechanism for sharing information and adjustment between the partners entities. Largely, it also appears that the project has triggered new initiatives for cooperation, or even the institutionalisation of cooperation, particularly at the CTAD 2, joint project that includes the works of road EN-221 Improvement of Freixo and Freixo station and Transnational Route IC27 - Odeleite Alcoutim. According to the lead partner, the project has also contributed largely toward strengthening the awareness of the prospects for cross-border challenges. Similarly, the project has contributed significantly toward improving the procedures and administrative policies, particularly in terms of mechanisms that enhance administrative harmonisation between Portugal and Spain. Project Study 2. Iberian Territories II TERIBE II I. General project information The Iberian Territories II have primarily been a joint approach between the border areas of Castilla y Leon and North of Portugal with which it has sought to address the general problem of depopulation and social and cultural development of these two areas that are geographically contiguous, so that territorial issues and the devaluation of cultural support have been the foundation that this project has relied on. The fundamental objective of the project both in its initial phase as in the one started in 2006 that has run until June 2008 has been to strengthen social cohesion and contribute to the integration of European territory into a more egalitarian, more balanced and more harmonious way through culture. The project aimed to create and disseminate all suitable means to allow access to the largest possible number of citizens on both border areas (especially from isolated zones) to the cultural life of the region, and to create conditions for young people to participate more and better in the creation, enjoyment and promotion of the culture of the border area. Thus, the strengths that underpinned the project were: Strengthen relationships and create links between populations on either side of the border through the Performing Arts (Theatre, Music and Dance) and Visual Arts. Increased knowledge and cooperation of both regions and strengthening cross-border cultural dynamics. To promote performing arts companies of Castilla y Leon and Portugal beyond their borders. Conduct outreach programmes to achieve greater and better knowledge of both areas. R doc 29

30 From a territorial standpoint, the project covered the provinces of Zamora, Valladolid and Leon and the municipalities of Northern Portugal (municipalities of Alto Trás-Os-Montes and the adjacent area of Cávado). Historically the Autonomous Community of Castilla y Leon and the Portuguese Northern Territories have been excluded from the main axes of economic and social decision-making, which has contributed to widening the gap with the rest of Spain and Portugal and causing evident regional inequality. Moreover, its geographical position in one of the ridges of south of Atlantic Europe and in the extreme northwest of the peninsula had also influenced to this fact and made it a disadvantaged region within Europe. Parallel to and linked to the above, there has been a progressive loss of cultural identity over time leading to the disappearance of the great traditions associated with these areas that were bearers of culture in the past. In this context, the activities developed respond to a number of weaknesses identified in the area of performance that are real instruments of regional cohesion since it is based on joint and reciprocal cultural programming within network and cultural circuits. The CIP ES-PT marked the origin of active cooperation between two neighbouring regions (Castilla y Leon-Northern Portugal) which have traditionally maintained a distant relationship, where cooperation was minimal in many ways. II. Selection process The Project selection begins with the referral of the project in question to the appropriate antenna of the common secretariat, according to the different administrative procedures, legal and financial arrangements in each of the two States. TERIBE II was presented as a continuation of the project TERIBE I ( ) at the third call for proposals for support, by the CIP and through an open competition, aiming to consolidate the activities initiated by improving the points where they had failed in the previous draft,. The issues with the highest incidence in the selection phase of the projects were related to the priority objective of the project to consolidate the actions undertaken by the project TERIBE during the period to the extent that it was to provide permanence and durability to the activities. Previous experience guaranteed that the partners knew each other already and good governance was already observed in the development during the previous period. Added to this is the creative and innovative nature of the project and, in particular, the activity that has constituted its main axis, Art Canvas. III. Partnership and sustainability Characteristics of the association There are two partners in the project TERIBE II: the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Parish Council of Castilla y Leon and the Regional Office for Culture North. Both are government organisms that are responsible for the promotion, dissemination and development of culture in their respective territories and therefore constitute a guarantee in terms of know-how and human capital and project management in all areas of culture. R doc 30

31 The partnership is led by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Parish Council of Castilla y Leon that, as the lead partner, is responsible among other things, for the planning and management of actions for the promotion and dissemination of the Arts and Culture in the Community of Castilla y Leon. As required by the rules of the call for proposals, the Lead - Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Parish Council of Castilla y Leon - was directly responsible for the project with regard to management and payment, responsible for technical and administrative coordination between the parties and, in this case, jointly responsible, along with its partner - Regional Office for Culture Northern Portugal for the physical implementation, monitoring and financial performance of each of the project activities, i.e. art, drama, music and literature. In turn, the Regional Directorate of Northern Culture, called Regional Delegation of Culture of the North, as a partner assumed the responsibilities and competencies identified in the cultural area of the NUTS II territorial district north of Portugal in the project. The member representing the Northern Region of Portugal was partly responsible for the practical implementation and development of actions that were carried out, programming and implementation of the work. At the same time, he participated in issuing regular reports for monitoring and control of actions, programmes and meetings in the project. At the time, it was started from a cooperation project of between the two regions in which the participation of both partners proved to be very active, and developing joint activities. The main difficulties that the partners had faced in designing and implementing the project at earlier stages (TERIBE) have been solved in TERIBE II. One example is in communication difficulties arising from the use of different languages. However, other problems remain related to the field of financial management: late payments to the Portuguese partner have led to a delay in implementing Project activities. In any case, the favourable conclusions show how the different actions have been effective in deepening personal relations between partners (in line with what happened across the board with the affected population), achieving very positive results that have exceeded initial expectations. Project management and cooperation, present and future The target group of the activities under the Project TERIBE II has been the general population. Overall, the favourable results obtained are clearly shown, if we consider the audience at each of these activities in different areas, i.e. in the artistic field, as well as in music, literature, art exhibitions and the performing arts. In the latter case, it also highlights the attendance at fairs and festivals of programmers and technical specialists in the field that has contributed to the participating groups that have been recruited outside the project, increasing the leverage of the project. The partners have stressed the special importance given toward highlighting the participation of the European Union in all activities. To this effect, the beneficiaries of the actions were informed about their participation in a project funded by the ERDF, ensuring transparency of the R doc 31

32 performance. The positive effects are also evident in the continuity that is expected in the proceedings and in other projects developed beyond the framework established by the ERDF. Given the growing closeness, the parties involved in the development of TERIBE II have highlighted the need to continue these relations, taking one more step to emphasise that cooperation must be made even more relevant, to consolidate what was started and to begin with a New Iberian Image. In this context, the Border Cooperation Operational Programme , started, based on the experience of the CIP INTERREG IIIA, but with a new touch of innovation, identification and cooperation. Additionally, the impact of each of the activities has been remarkable, exceeding all initial expectations: Art / Art Field: The workshops and participation in exhibitions, fairs and festivals have helped to create a major consolidation that acted as an innovative reference point for social communication for the activity. It has helped the public to experience the large volume of actions that have been undertaken and outputs that have been achieved and to open opportunities to direct beneficiaries on standalone business. Performing Arts: The participation of selected target groups in prestigious Festivals opened new perspectives, encouraging the spread of the current cultural heritage and bringing performing arts to the locations of both sides of the border. Furthermore, initiatives have been widely accepted, as is reflected in the results of the final evaluation of the project and in recruiting the groups that are included in activities beyond the programme. Music: This activity had been very positive in allowing groups that make folk music from Castilla and León and the north of Portugal to get into contact directly with the organizers of Traditional Music Festivals in both regions, thus allowing future contact on their own initiative. The participation of these groups at festivals on both sides of the border had allowed the interpretation of the musical culture of the regions as a single one which was marked by great success among the public. Literature: The literary activities have finally been targeted as a priority for children. Its development has facilitated that the joint work of writers and illustrators on both sides of the border have released their work through exhibitions and debates in which a large number of attendees have actively participated. IV. Learning and indirect effects The joint work of the project partners has facilitated spreading the knowledge that people on both sides of the border have on the culture of their neighbours, using the experience and human capital of the teams involved in the development of this same work and fostering cooperation based on respect and the teaching function of these cultural events. The wide acceptance observed in the actions that were taken had further opened opportunities for the participating groups. This applies, for example, to the activity of the theatre, where large groups from Castile y Leon have achieved greatly expanding the number of activities engaged on Portuguese territory also beyond the project period. Additionally, activities have created a significant amount of jobs (35%) exceeding the initial forecast of 17%. R doc 32

33 Gender equality has been established as a fundamental principle in the actions of cooperation between the French and Spanish partners. In this particular case, gender equality is evident from the opening of equal opportunities to men and women. Like this, the selection is based on the skills of participants and not so much in their gender, both concerning the theatre as the artistic workshops (a predominantly female population). In any case, the possibilities offered under the project represent an opportunity for rural women, who are particularly disadvantaged in this area, to become employed. Women in rural areas are the most disadvantaged in the workplace and this activity is an opportunity to start a career. Project Study 3. Fire safety and environmental protection in Salamanca and Beira Interior Norte BIN SAL PREVENTION I. General project information The cross-border cooperation proposal through the Project Fire prevention and protection of the environment in Salamanca and Beira Interior Norte (BIN OUT PREVENTION) has been developed within the institutional framework established by a total of 11 partners, all Public Administration, with the Spanish partner, the Deputation of Salamanca acting as Lead Partner, with 68.3% of the budget. The improvement of fire protection systems on the border-beira Interior Norte Salamanca through the execution of an integrated cross-border study of fire prevention and the establishment of a modern system of communication between emergency and fire suppression teams that allow communication between Spanish and Portuguese services in the area bordering Salamanca is the priority in this project. For this purpose, the project hired and trained people on either side of the border whose mission is to manage an alarm centre. A Fire Provincial Park in Salamanca was also built and the necessary machinery for making a firewall was set up. In this context, the project developed a series of joint actions between the partners from both sides of the border. They are characterised by their high degree of similarities in the period between 2005 and 2008, and they focused on the implementation of a sophisticated communication system. The devices that are used vary, depending on the signal quality in the area of location of the repeaters. The project involves the following sub-actions: Centralised system; GIS location system; GPS mobile equipment; Transmission fixed bases; Mobile bases of transmission to the command post; Personal portable units; Training; Public Works: turrets, booths, etc.; Mapping base; Working seminars. R doc 33

34 II. Project selection The project was presented at the second call for proposals of the CIP ES-PT, and selected according to the procedures established therein. The procedure started on 27 November 2003 with the publication in the State Official Bulletin of the second call for support under the CIP ES-PT co-financed by ERDF funds. In May 2004 the formal instruction of nominations and the deadline for correction of errors ended, a shortlist of projects that met the formal eligibility requirements was the result. Once formally closed, the JTS of each of the Sub-programmes, represented by the Autonomous Communities, the Portuguese regions and the Ministry of Finance, met in order to assess projects according to the valuation methodology approved by the Joint Management Committee. Subsequently, within the Management Subcommittee, the body entitled to decision-making regarding the approval or refusal of aid to projects; the approval of the project list was started. However, the projects of which the subject was fires, ERDF aid of 0 was included. In the corresponding Management Committee where the final list of projects was unanimously approved it was noted that they would be approved later by a written consultation procedure in each of the Subcommittees of Management, once they were reformulated according to the criteria approved in the Monitoring Committee, as reflected in the Annual Report on Implementation This extraordinary procedure for projects whose main themes were forest fires was due to the large number of fires that had devastated the border territory carrying the destruction of a very important area of forest and agriculture in the months before the conclusion of the Programme Monitoring Committee held in Alter do Chão on 25 September In this context, the Monitoring Committee approved a document on the possible support for activities related to the consequences of fires, adapting the type of actions chosen and the general acceptance criteria relating to the partnership. Later, in the Monitoring Committee held in El Rompido (Huelva) on the 5th July 2004 the criteria for selecting fire-themed projects was approved, so that they would fall within the eligibility criteria and be selected and carried out in a coordinated manner throughout the border area. Among the projects approved in this context is the SALT BIN PREVENTION, with an ERDF aid of 800,000. III. Partnership and sustainability Characteristics of the association The association consists of 11 partners: The Spanish partner, the Deputation of Salamanca is the Project Leader, responsible for coordinating the functions and processing the records of the project as stipulated in the agreement between both partners, and in the Agreement for Management Authority and Project Lead. The other partners are the nine municipalities of Beira Interior Norte: Sabugal, Manteigas, Celorico da Beira, Meda, Pinhel, Almeida, Trancoso, Guarda, Figueira de Castelo Rodrigo and the District Center for Help Operations in Guarda (National Fire Service). R doc 34

35 Additionally, the Ministry of Environment of the Council of Castilla y Leon were involved as a partner project coordinator with the mission to ensure that actions were confined to the regional policy on the subject. The formula for the project has allowed continued contact supported by formal activities performed by each of the partners, but also by informal contacts via mail and telephone contact. This has been further enhanced by most of the participating partners being active in a number of other projects, most of them active in the Working Community of Beira Interior Norte Salamanca Province established by Cross-Border Cooperation Agreement, signed on 18 July 2006 (Official Bulletin of 7 October 2006). In this context, only very few difficulties had arisen in the field of the social contacts: neither distance nor the differences in the administrative rules to implement or language have led to any problems, over the years creating a relationship that goes beyond the mere work area to ensure cordiality between colleagues, which undoubtedly helps the resolution of any small difficulties they may come across. Project management and cooperation, present and future The operational development of the project represented a clearly positive effect on the entire population of Salamanca, the bordering area of Portugal in an indirect manner, by improving the provision of emergency services and, of course, affected the services of the protection of the province of Salamanca. The qualitative and quantitative improvement of the Corporate Network Emergency radio communication in the province of Salamanca, and the commissioning of the AVL system for the fleet of emergency are extremely important. However there were problems in the technical definition of the telecommunications project as a result of the digital system not being yet implemented, so that a digital connection was defined according the forecast of the teams from the administrations that were affected. Additionally, it is noteworthy to mention other additional aspects, such as the implementation of New Technologies in Information and Communication, which played a role during the project. That is, the TRUNNKING system had been implemented in the digital gateway PORTUGAL - JCYL as well as the commissioning of the Automated System for Vehicle Tracking of fleet of emergency by GPS in Salamanca. Moreover, interaction with the emergency teams of Portugal has promoted personal knowledge about the media and personal relationships. The experience, which could not have been carried out without the explicit support of the INTERREG initiative, has strengthened the ties of cooperation between partners in the project. While protection and emergency services on both sides of the border were already cooperating before the implementation of the project, it was after the development of this project that the relationships enabled greater collaboration in joint actions. It has also facilitated the presence of several partners in jointly financed projects. R doc 35

36 IV. Learning and indirect effects The indirect creation of temporary employment was evident with regard to necessity for workers in telecommunications in the implementation phase of the project but also to provides the creation of highly qualified jobs in the after phase of the project for the maintenance of facilities and equipment. Project Study 4. Renewal of cork tree plantations in Extremadura and Alentejo SUBERNOVA I. General project information The cork trees and cork sector is of crucial importance from an socio-economic standpoint for the regions of Alentejo and Extremadura, once it represented about 5% of GNP in the Alentejo and 1.1% of GNP in Extremadura. Moreover, the sector's problems concerning cork trees are virtually identical in both regions. Therefore, the project SUBERNOVA has been a synergy crucial to overcome these problems. As it directly influences this sector, it greatly contributes toward strengthening both the forestry sub-sector as well as the industrial sub-sector and it contributes to regional development. In this context, the ultimate aim of the project Renewal of cork tree plantations in Extremadura and Alentejo (SUBERNOVA) is the sustainable management of forests, the use of new technologies to improve the quality of cork and corkage, reforestation and restoration of burnt cork trees. This purpose is embodied in the following five objectives: Drafting and dissemination of the International Code of cork related Practices; The use of new technologies on the quality of cork and corkage; Study on cork reforestation in Alentejo and Extremadura; Update on renovation techniques of burnt cork trees; Training and dissemination of the above tasks. II. Project selection The project selection began with the referral of the project in question to the appropriate antenna, according to the different administrative procedures, legal and financial arrangements in each of the two States. The SUBERNOVA project was presented during the second call for proposals of the programme, through an open competition. The procedure started on 27 November 2003 with the publication in the Official Bulletin of the second call for proposals for support under the CIP ES-PT. The formal instruction of nominations and the deadline for correction of errors ended in May 2004 the, a shortlist of projects remained that met the formal eligibility requirements. Once the formal proceedings closed, the JTS of each of the Sub-programmes, represented by the Autonomous Communities, the Portuguese regions and the Ministry of Finance, met in order to assess projects according to the valuation methodology that was approved by the Joint Management Committee. Subsequently, within the Management Subcommittee, the body entitled to decision making regarding the approval or denial of aid to projects; it then proceeded to approve the project list. R doc 36

37 III. Partnership and sustainability Characteristics of the association The association consists of two partners: IPROCOR (Institute of Cork, Wood and Charcoal) at Badajoz serving as project leader and the Directorate General of the Forests (DGF) of Portugal. Both organisations belong to the Public Administration and have worked jointly and actively. Positive results have been widely disseminated with the intention to increase the visibility of the cooperation between both partners. Thus, the project is described on the website of the lead partner ( where it published brochures and other materials to disseminate on the project, in compliance with EU requirements concerning information and publicity. In addition, the Code of Cork related Practices, the main objective of the project, has not only been translated into Portuguese, but also into various other languages to expand the scope of the project. Project management and cooperation, present and future. The target group or direct project beneficiaries of the Project SUBERNOVA were mainly the owners of cork tree plantations and the cork industry, but also forest enterprises, services and suppliers from Alentejo and Extremadura. But the positive impact of this project has transcended both territorial and sectoral boundaries, embracing a broader group of indirect beneficiaries. From a territorial perspective, it can be considered that the beneficiaries in the sectors of cork and the cork tree plantations located in the rest of the western Mediterranean have been favoured by the developing of the International Code of Cork related Practices (in their mother languages) as well as by the new project contributions in the field of reforestation, restoration of burnt cork trees and new technologies applied to the cork sector. In addition the wine sector has also benefited from the project (being the main consumer of the products in the cork industry) as well as the industry of forestry machinery and tools (due to the spill-over effect that will lead to applying new technologies). The actions undertaken and their impacts can be categorised into several areas: (1) Economic Dynamism: The implementation of the CIP can be a real revolution in the cork tree plantations: the drafting and implementation of a management plan will require an Intensive Cork Culture much more dynamic and productive than the current Extended Cork Culture. On the other hand, the commitment to the regeneration of cork tree plantations will mean a big increase in economic activity of the cork tree forests, where today there is hardly any work on regeneration. The application of new technologies in the cork culture sector will also lead to a revitalisation of a sector where traditional cork harvesting dominates and is done almost exclusively with a hatchet. In that sense, popping machines will achieve higher productivity and higher yields in both the operation of corkage and in the cork obtained, so it will benefit both the forest and the industrial sub-sector. The repopulation study has shed some light on which techniques are most suitable for the reforestation with cork trees, which will allow optimisation of economic resources R doc 37

38 The reforestation of burnt cork trees has led to the best methods to recover the productive potential of the cork trees in the shortest time possible. The task of disseminating and training has enabled the conveyance of all cork knowledge pertaining to the above tasks (and others) among the key stakeholders: owners, managers, technicians of the administration, forest officials, schoolchildren and forestry training and forest workers. This will facilitate the application of all the developments made, and will thus contribute to economic revitalisation. (2)Social Progress: The implementation of CIP, and the new Cork Intensive Culture will mean an increase in the work to be done in the cork tree plantations, practically all year, which will also contribute to the forestry workers becoming more professional. New technologies provide various social benefits: - The possibility of dividing the corkage process into smaller processes can provide specific corkage jobs for 8 months a year instead of three, which is currently the maximum. That is very important because this profession requires specialisation skills that are too high to be exercised only 3 months a year. - Learning this job can be largely helped by machinery, once the corkage tasks can be started without risking damaging the tree. The work of the puncher is less physically demanding, so that women can be fully integrated into this occupation, which to date has been almost exclusively performed by men. - The machine is a specific tool for corkage and should be used by a punch to achieve productivity and optimal performance. It does not mean a reduction of the workforce in corkage, but quite the opposite, because on one hand, the productivity of the machine is only slightly higher than the hatchet, and on the other hand, general improvements to the technology for corkage are made contributing also to encourage barking cork trees that are currently not in operation. - The reforestation with new cork trees and restoration of burnt cork tree plantations require the participation of specialised local labour, trained in some cases during courses and seminars organised by SUBERNOVA, which will keep the population near the cork trees. (3) Cultural Identity: The drafting of the CIP has, among others, the task of recording the customs of the cork tree plantations, which have been mentioned in the pages of this publication. It has also been conducted in Castilian, Portuguese, Arabic, French and Italian, besides collecting cork culture related vocabulary, so that much of the linguistic wealth of this sector has been recorded. Furthermore, implementing this Code shall result in an effective maintenance of these customs and practices that constitute a cultural treasure, not to mention an example of sustainable management. (4) Environmental Conservation: The cork tree plantations are among the most interesting Mediterranean forests from an ecological point of view: - They have very rich flora and fauna and are forests with the highest biodiversity in the Mediterranean environment. - They contribute greatly to soil conservation and to improving the water cycle. - They are a barrier against desertification. R doc 38

39 - In Extremadura over three quarters of the cork tree plantations are included in a protected natural area due to their considerable ecological interest. Among its basic principles of sustainable forest management the CIP includes: Use the cork tree plantations in a manner and at a rate that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to meet the ecological, economic and social relevance, now and in the future, without causing damage to other ecosystems (IUCN), and more specifically the (5) Ecological Integrity: Avoid the loss of ecological key features of cork tree plantations that allow them to work as ecosystems of life support and to adapt to environmental changes, assessing and minimizing environmental impacts of operations carried out in this ecosystem so that their implementation will lead to effective conservation of the enormous ecological values it holds. The study of reforestation and restoration of burnt cork tree plantations, will allow us to increase the area of cork tree plantations in an optimal way, so that this task will also contribute to the conservation of our environment. The application of new technologies to cork culture, contrary to what one might think, will contribute to the conservation of these forests because economic interest will greatly encourage its owners to management them well. The project was launched in 2004 and was set to take place until 2005, but it has been extended twice. The first of these extensions was until 2007 and during that period activities were carried out that were directly related to the initial objectives of the project and different informative actions. Beyond these initial guidelines, collaboration between partners has continued, and a second extension of the project that runs until 2010 has been established. During this last phase of cooperation, it is the intention to extend the common work area to the oak. For the second extension period the goal is to establish a common working area aimed at developments in the cork industry. This would namely concern introducing techniques to the cork industry that are already implemented in the oak industry (such as quality cork assessment, landing, means management models and related plant health treatment). In addition, there will be a renewal of obsolete technologies, as the lead partner has described on the website. IV. Learning and indirect effects The experience of cooperation, permanently driven by community support through the INTERREG IIIA initiative, marked the start of a path with the following steps. Thus, in the coming years the following actions are expected to take place: Develop a new certification system specifically for cork tree forests (SUBERCODE). Continue the work started in the field of technological innovations with corkage machines. Continue the development of the forest freighter L3 of IPROCOR. Publish the study on cork trees reforestation for its optimised future work. Publish the book that will record the current state of techniques to restore burnt cork tree plantations. Developing cork culture courses at the School of Public Administration of the Council of Extremadura, to continue the training of public workers to become skilled in this area. R doc 39

40 Project Study 5. DISCOVERIES Sports meetings between Algarve and Andalusia) I. General project information The main objectives of this project are related to the promotion of cooperation and social integration of the regions of Algarve and Andalusia, through carrying out various sports activities with the participation of both regions, while maintaining equal opportunities in terms of sports, classes, age and gender, while allowing, in terms of organisation of some events, a character of alternation and reciprocity of the region where they take place. II. Selection process This Project was selected in the context of the third call for proposals of the programme. About the nature of the project, it appears that this is exclusively a cross-border action, genuinely common, which contributes effectively to a higher density of joint actions between the partners of both countries. This results, on the one hand, in the distinctly cross-border initiative, but also in the sharing of organisational experience, which is highly valued by the promoters and which comes from the regional alternation the events occur. Although the duration of the project supported by CIP ES-PT was to be over the period , this project has in fact strongly contributed toward streamlining and consolidating a cooperative effort between authorities in both regions, which has accounted for more than 10 editions over the previous years. Indeed, the organisation of these events is the result of an agreement between the borders between Portugal and Spain, signed on December 4, 1996 and concluded by the Sports Institute of Portugal and the Ministry for Tourism, Trade and Sports of the Council of Andalusia. In this sense, the achievement of a shared diagnosis and a preliminary needs assessment by the project partners had the advantage of being based on an ongoing experience of cross-border cooperation. We can thus consider that the activities that draw upon the project, although in terms of organisation can be a bit complex for their size and technical, logistical and financial needs, are not experimental at all, because they are a continuity of an existing project. Nevertheless, the project embodies a model for innovative events of this nature and contains a number of added values that are rather interesting and that would certainly have been decisive in its selection. Indeed, the events held under the project are a social and sporting manifest that brings together young people of both genders, aged between 7 and 18, competing in a range of different sports such as handball, athletics, badminton, boccia, football, golf, gymnastics, karate, swimming, tennis and sailing. There is still room for skating, or pigeon fancying. These events also allow the boost of several sports facilities, involving hundreds of participants from both border regions. In addition, also activities of historical and cultural nature are developed in order to strengthen the friendly relations between the participants and to provide broader knowledge on the theme R doc 40

41 underlying the meetings. These activities fit perfectly with the objectives outlined with regard to strengthening the integration of young people so the relationships that are made last for life. Moreover, this project is also characterised by contributing to the eradication of prejudices of various kinds, promoting mutual understanding between young people of both nationalities, promoting gender equality and through a greater inclusion of young people with disabilities. III. Partnership and sustainability The lead partner of the project was the Sports Institute of Portugal, through the Regional Directorate of Sports in the Algarve, and the main project partners were the Provincial Deputation of Huelva (ES) and the Municipality of Vila Real de Santo António (PT). The project also involved a relevant set of partners in the sports association movement in Portugal, such as the Club de Vela de Lagos, the Association of Tennis in the Algarve, the Gym Club Naval de Olhão, Grupo Naval de Olhão, the Shooting Association of Tavira and the Golf Club in Vilamoura. The cross-border partnership approach with the lead partner has largely been applied. In the case of partners 1 and 2 (Provincial Deputation of Huelva and the Municipal Council of Vila Real de Santo António), some of the approaches took place directly with the antenna of the Algarve's JTS, the Coordination Committee and Regional Development of the Algarve. Other local partners were also mobilised to organize events supported by the project, which should be stressed, in Portugal were Portimão Municipal Council, Lagos Municipal Council and in Spain the Municipality of Punta Umbria. According the project manager, the expectations of the partners in the project have been completely homogeneous, which seems natural as it is a project that could be considered already well consolidated. The level of satisfaction amongst the stakeholders, so far as the information that was gathered from the questionnaires used to assess the project states, is very high. According again to the project manager, the financial contribution of INTERREG is considered sufficient to support the partnership. In large, the project (together with cooperation) has the strategic potential to be sustainable, even without the co-financing of INTERREG. That is particularly true in the case of some of the activities, where the financial component is totally supported by the organisations themselves and / or with ad hoc support. However, considering the difficulties encountered during the current period, it is possible that other activities will not have a continuity in the same way as they have been developed. Concerning the institutionalisation of cooperation, it is noted that, besides the activities of the project, the INTERREG IIIA also triggered a series of initiatives among some partners of the regions of Algarve and Andalusia such as sports tournaments and sports management meetings. A good example of these initiatives was an Interprovincial Meeting of Sport Managers and Technicians Algarve Huelva, which took place in Ayamonte, on the 29th of January This event was sponsored by the Association of Managers, Technicians, Monitors and Sports R doc 41

42 Professionals of Huelva, in partnership with the Regional Directorate of the Sports Institute of Portugal. Benefiting from the proximity of the two regions, the event - which aspires to become a regular activity in the future - had as its main objective the exchange of experiences and knowledge in the field of sports management. The aim is to establish a communication channel between the two border communities, extending the knowledge about the existing resources in those peninsular territories, thus promoting the awareness and motivation of technical strategy for a new qualitatively high standing management. IV: Learning and indirect effects It appears that the majority of project activities has its legacy, both of participants and spectators, as well as well as a strong dissemination of its development, in the cross-border cooperation INTERREG IIIA, a fact that allows us to understand that the impacts of the project are visible and identifiable in the intervention area of the Sub-Programme 5, particularly in regions of the Algarve and Andalusia. In terms of organisational learning, there are clear signs of gains arising from the cooperation financed by INTERREG. The organisational contact and interaction, sports and social considerations whether they be among individual entities (clubs and associations) or among the populations of both border regions, contributes greatly to the exchange of experiences and models of development essential to the sport. However, according to the management of the project, its contribution toward improving the administrative processes and policies has been effective but not very significant. Nevertheless, the project has contributed in a very important way toward raising awareness on cross-border perspectives and common challenges, a reason why it was an example to the triggering of similar projects in the current framework. According to the lead partner, the project also contributed greatly toward diminishing or eradicating prejudices, especially in relation to the neighbouring country. Another important result learnt through the project is related to the dramatic increase of mutual understanding between the partners. Indeed, the level of understanding increased dramatically, both with regard to the sport systems of both countries as well as regarding the training of technicians and administrators in sport. In fact, in the opinion of the lead, knowledge and analysis, in particular of the reality of the associations of Andalusia and Algarve, allowed a solid approach to these two regions in the sports field. R doc 42

43 3.4 Analysis of factors that determine the character of the programme Important contextual factors characterising cross-border / transnational programme areas Responding to the Terms of Reference of this study, a typology of the cross-border regions in Europe was designed. In order to categorise each programme in this typology first, a set of criteria called contextual factors were taken into account. These criteria are: Geographical type of land border; Political-administrative nature of the common border; Density of possibilities to cross the border; Level of economic disparities across borders; Existence of common historical ties. The figure below shows the positioning of CIP ES-PT, in terms of contextual factors, with the average Strand A (which corresponds to 100%), where a lower score corresponds to better conditions for the development of the cross-border cooperation. Figure 8 120,00 The taxonomic position of the Spain-Portugal Programme 100,00 80,00 % 60,00 % deviation from the mean 40,00 20,00 0,00 A Geographic type of land border A The political administrative nature of the common border A 1.4- The level of crossborder economic disparities A The existence of common historic ties Criteria It is clear that CIP ES-PT is characterised by contextual factors that are much more favourable for for cooperation than the average INTERREG IIIA Programme. Regarding the geographical land border type, the ratings (3) corresponds to a mixed type, which includes mountains, rivers and green areas, reflecting the diversity of situations in the extensive Portuguese-Spanish border. As this score is more positive than the average of Strand A programmes (3,5), one can conclude that, in terms of border accessibility, the factors associated with CIP ES-PT are more favourable. However, it should be noted that the river network defines more than half of the Portuguese- Spanish border, while the border in mountainous areas is almost exclusively between the North of Portugal, Castilla y Leon and Galicia in Spain. R doc 43

44 These features combine, from the start, an even more advantageous situation for cross-border cooperation between the two countries. This is also reflected in another factor: the density of possibilities for crossing the border. In fact, this is really one of the two contextual factors in which the situation of cross-border cooperation between Spain and Portugal, with a score of 14,56, is significantly more than the average (46,61), as shown in the table below. In terms of political and administrative characteristics of the border, this is also one of the more favourable situations in the context of cross-border cooperation, as it includes only two Member States of the European Union. Furthermore, these are two States that both joined the European Economic Community and therefore have a common history of adaptation of policies and administrative practices with European standards. The low level of economic disparities between the covered NUTS III is the contextual factor in which CIP ES-PT has a more positive score, of 0,47, which puts it (according to the methodology used) among those in the covered areas that do not have significant differences. It should be noted that the average value among the areas covered by the programs of The Strand A is 1,76 and score 2 is assigned to areas considered having a low level of disparities. However, it should be noted that, although there are no significant economic disparities between the two sides of the border, the economical wealth of the regions of the border between Portugal and Spain is among the lowest in the European Union and is almost entirely composed of regions included in the Convergence Objective (except the Algarve and Castilla y Leon). Indeed, those are the regions where the average European standards are characterised by relatively low levels of social and economic development and are closely linked to the limited resources of the territory and consequently the growing scarcity of human resources. In turn, these characteristics have negative effects on the practices of cooperation, as is often translated into limitations on the empowerment of local and regional actors. In any case, it is noted that the differences usually result in a higher level of wealth and development in the Spanish regions than in the Portuguese regions. Regarding common historical ties and cultural and linguistic convergence, CIP ES-PT also has the most favourable score (1) it was assigned to the border regions with strong historical common ties, a shared culture and a common language. Although, in fact, there are two official languages and significantly different cultures between the two countries, in the border regions the level of mutual understanding is much higher. That can be seen from the existence of other languages and dialects with regional expressions (such as Galician, Mirandês and the dialect from Barrancos) in which Portuguese and Castillian languages merge, reflecting centuries of encounters, relationships and sharing among border communities. The following table shows the values of the scores obtained by the programme in each of the criteria, the average of Strand A and the difference between the values of the programme and the average (the scales are different for the various criteria). R doc 44

45 Table 7 Contextual Criteria A geographic type of land: A The political administrative nature of the common border A 1.3- The density of border crossing possibilities A 1.4- The level of cross-border economic disparities existing in a given programme area A 1.5 The existence of common historic ties and converging cultural / linguistic settings in a given programme area ES-PT 3,00 1,00 14,56 0,47 1,00 Mean Strand A 3,50 2,05 46,61 1,76 1,60 % - Deviation from the mean 85,71 48,85 31,24 26,81 62,37 It can be concluded that, given the nature of the programme, CIP ES-PT has some of the most favourable contextual conditions within the EU for cooperation development of cross-border policies. With regard to how the programme responds to the initial priority topics and principles of concentration of the Communication INTERREG III, it was firstly evaluated how the CIP ES-PT measures cover the various priority topics and secondly, how far the programme's financial resources were effectively concentrated on these topics. The following table shows the quantified results of this evaluation, which are based on the information described earlier in this chapter (the rating scales of the two criteria are different). Table 8 Priority topics and concentration A Extent to which the programme addressed the priority topics as listed in the INTERREG III Communication A 2.2 -Extent to which the programme has actually concentrated its financial resources on a limited number of priority topics as listed in the INTERREG III Communication, ES-PT 5,00 0,93 Mean Strand A 4,77 0,87 % - Deviation from the mean 125,90 91,61 Considering how the programme addresses the initial priority topics of the INTERREG III Communication, it was found that the programme successfully incorporates five of these topics. The obtained score positions CIP ES-PT slightly above average (4,77) and illustrates the relatively diverse range of policy areas addressed by this programme. About the level of concentration of financial resources, it is observed that about 93% of ERDF financing was allocated to the measures with the largest budget, a proportion that is considerably above average (87%). That shows a greater concentration of resources in measures targeted at the priority topics. Thus, regarding these two criteria, it is concluded that CIP ES-PT ranks among the interventions that best address the priority topics of Communication INTERREG and the principle of concentration of financial resources. Finally, the performance of the programme in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability is evaluated, based on the scores obtained by the programme on four criteria, shown below. Again, the scales differ, and in financial performance, the degree of implementation and robustness of the project, the values of deviation from the average of over 100% suggests an R doc 45

46 above average performance, while with regard to the degree of stability of the programme, the values less than 100% are those that suggest an above-average performance. Table 9 Effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability A The overall financial performance of the programme A The overall degree of programme stability A The overall degree of achievement for all quantifiable outputs and results at programme level A4.5 The overall degree of robustness / durability of projects ES-PT 0,77 3,00 0,82 95,00 Mean Strand A 0,82 2,33 1,51 50,78 % - Deviation from the mean 94,73 128,57 54,04 187,08 Concerning the financial performance of the programme, this is positioned slightly below the average strand A of INTERREG. Indeed, CIP ES-PT has a cost equivalent to 77% of its budget, and the average of the Strand A is approximately 82%. However, according to the opinion of programme managers, the rhythm of the programme s financial implementation has accelerated and evolved very favourably during the implementation period, being expected to reach a performance of above 90%. The overall level of stability is another area in which CIP ES-PT has a below average performance: it has a score of 3, which means that the activities of financial rescheduling or activities related to the content had a significant effect on the initial intervention strategy. The Strand A average is closer to level 2, which shows no significant effect on the initial strategy of the programmes. The average level of achievement in terms of outputs and outcomes at CIP ES-PT level, with a score of 0,82 is positioned well below the average of Strand A, equivalent to about 54% of average score. However, during the evaluation of this criterion it must be taken into consideration that it is based on the comparison between the initial quantified objective values of the programme, and indicators of achievement and the latest result. In fact, the analysis of the programme s performance indicators system presented above should be taken into account, where the problems associated with its implementation are highlighted. On the contrary, with regard to the overall level of robustness / durability of projects determined by the percentage of projects that are ongoing for two or more years after the end of ERDF support, CIP ES-PT is positioned well above the average. In fact, about 95% of the projects meet this criterion, while the average value amounts to only 50,8% of the projects. Following an overall assessment of performance according to these criteria, one can conclude that the programme has obtained very positive results in terms of strength and durability of projects, but performs below average considering all the other parameters. R doc 46

47 Table 10 Overall assessment of the programme performance Determining Factor Effects (*) at programme level Context factors characterising the cross-border area Topographic / geographic nature of the common border Political / administrative nature of the common border Density of border crossing possibilities Economic disparities Existence of historic ties and converging cultural / linguistic circumstances There are no determining obstacles in topographical or spatial terms that significantly constrain cross-border cooperation at the level of the programme. Although the long Portuguese-Spanish border has a great diversity of topographic features, it is broadly defined by the river system, or purely administrative boundaries. The geographical situations less conducive to cooperation are concentrated mainly in more mountainous border regions between the northern Portugal, Galicia and Castilla y Leon. Because they are only two Member States of the European Union, there is no significant constraint to cross-border cooperation resulting from the political nature of the border. However, according to the current rules the practice of cooperation is hampered by the existence of different models of administrative organisation, in particular the fact that Spain has a model of decentralised regional administration, while Portugal has a de-concentrated model. The existence of a large and growing number of opportunities for crossing the Portuguese- Spanish border is a feature that is a growing advantage for cooperation between the two countries. Recent projects such as the International Bridge over the Minho River and Tui between Valencia and Caminha and Goián, stressed the permeability of the border in areas where its crossing has always been more complicated because of the topography. In addition, during the next decade, particularly with the implementation of the Iberian highspeed rail, the integration of border areas will tend to be even greater. According to the methodology used and taking into account the values that characterize the border regions in the European Union, there are no significant economic disparities between the border regions of the two countries. However, it should be noted that two NUTS III (Castilla y Leon and Algarve) are no longer considered Convergence Objective regions, which shows that there is still some relevant sub-regional asymmetry, more evident at the project level. The Portuguese-Spanish border is one of the oldest in Europe. The official languages of both countries, although with significant differences, share the same Latin roots and Arab influences, merging their different languages and dialects with some regional expressions (of which the Galician stands out). at project level At the project level, there are also no significant constraints with such a nature with effects on cross-border cooperation. As already mentioned, in most mountainous regions of northern Portugal and Spain, the topographical conditions are not, a priori, the most favourable. However, it should be noted that in practice, geographic barriers are of little significance (attenuated by the increasing number of opportunities for crossing the border), being in these same regions where one of the most intense sense of cross-border cooperation was developed. The same applies to cross-border cooperation on projects. In terms of administrative partner, note that the fact that the competencies of the local Portuguese autarchy is far superior to those of Spanish Ayuntamentos, has significantly impeded the generation of joint projects. At the project level, the high density of possibilities for crossing has an effect similar to those in the programme. Although, as mentioned above, there are significant economic disparities between regions on both sides of the border, at the project level, it is clear that there is a higher capacity and availability of investment by Spanish rather than by Portuguese partners. Indeed, at this level the economic disparities between the two countries are very important and affect the processes of cross-border cooperation. The investment capacity of partners from Spain is generally much higher than the Portuguese, which, due to the lack of parity, hampers the generation of joint projects. The organisation of the programme in sub-programmes, though that is privileged cooperation between adjoining NUTS III, further strengthens the close historical, cultural and linguistic ties. This effect arises mainly from the socioeconomic and cultural similarities to neighbouring sub-regions, such as between the northern Portugal and Galicia, the Alentejo and Extremadura, between the Central Region of Portugal and Castilla y Leon, or between certain areas the Algarve and Andalusia. Previous cooperation tradition Historic factors determining cross-border cooperation Until 1991, the development of cross-border The successful experiences of cooperation systematic actions and consistent cooperation between projects are more between the two countries faced hard intensive since the first INTERREG. obstacles, namely: a) the absence of a culture of cross-border cooperation between the political and administrative authorities, b) the differences between the political- R doc 47

48 Determining Factor Prior existence of specific legal instruments Prior existence of permanent cooperation structures Effects (*) at programme level at project level administrative statutes in the regions in two countries and c) the existence of very different legal frameworks. Since the first INTERREG, this tradition of isolation has begun to be replaced by a culture of cross-border cooperation, which enhanced the viability and the integration of these regions. There are several agreements of cooperation Although some difficulties remain at the between Portugal and Spain, like the ones project level, the progressive integration relating to the management of the Iberian of the legal framework of the two river system or of road and rail networks. The countries with the EU directives and the relationship between the two countries has progress on the wider range of been expanding its field beyond the assistance from bilateral agreements, management of environmental resources and has facilitated cross-border cooperation infrastructure, assisting in strengthening the between the project partners. instruments which regulate cooperation in areas such as health or education. The permanent cooperation structures have developed largely in parallel with interventions of INTERREG. Of these, one should highlight the Peninsular Northwest Atlantic Axis, structure of primary importance to the statement of the Euro-region Galicia-Northern Portugal. It should be noted, however, that the working communities have no legal personality, which is a limitation to the process of cooperation. The same applies to cross-border cooperation on projects. 3.5 Re-considering the depth and intensity of territorial cooperation According to the methodology used in the Ex-post Evaluation, a Synthetic indicator (real rate) was also calculated through which one can evaluate the depth and intensity of cooperation, which consists of the following variables (a detailed description can be found in the Inception Report) Intensity of shared diagnosis; Partnership and decision-making; Management structures; Nature and localisation of joint projects; Project s impact. Through the arithmetic methodology obtained from these sub-variables, the synthetic indicator of the performance of the INTERREG was calculated. In addition, it was also considered a historical criterion to estimate, through a regression analysis, how the historical relations have had an impact on the performance of the programme. Table 11 The performance of CIP ES-PT measured by the synthetic indicator si Historical criteria si02 70 si03 50 (not included on the real rate ) Σ Criterion si04 70 si05 70 Joint identification of needs Σ Criterion si06 70 si07 50 Governance and partnership si08 70 Σ Criterion si09 75 si The description of the sub-indicators can be found in Annex 4.1 of the Inception Report. R doc 48

49 Nature and location of joint projects 5. Criterion Density of common actions 6. Criterion si Σ 275 si si si si si si Σ 600 si18 90 Impact of projects Σ 90 Gross Score si Real Rate (RR) 86,3 Featuring a score of 86,3 concerning the synthetic indicator, CIP ES-PT clearly stands above the average of the INTERREG IIIA programmes, which is 72,03. As shown in the table below, this translates into a positive deviation to the average strand A at around 119,86%. Table 12 The synthetic indicator of CIP ES-PT compared to the Strand A The depth / intensity of cooperation (=real rate) ES-PT 86,30 Mean Strand A 72,03 % - Deviation from the mean 119,86 To obtain a reading of the distribution of the synthetic indicator through Strand A and the position of CIP ES-PT in the context of the cluster in which it was ranked, results of the programmes that belong to the same cluster are also taken into account (see following table). Table 13 The cluster compared Programme Real Rate D-DK - Sonderjylland-North Schleswig 90,02 E-P - Spain-Portugal 86,33 E-F - Spain-France 76,62 S-FIN-N-RUS Nord 86,40 UK-F Space francobritannique 72,80 Estonia-Latvia-Russia 72,40 Latvia-Lithuania-Belarus 75,11 The main characteristics of this cluster are: No significant levels of cross-border economic disparities in all programme areas; Limited degree of permeability of the borders, related to the considerable and even extremely below-average density of rail and road border crossing possibilities per 100 km of border, sometimes further reinforced by substantial border control formalities existing along the external EU-borders covered. Existence of strong common historical ties and often also of a shared culture, No common language spoken in the concerned programme areas. Below average concentration of ERDF-support on a limited number of priority topics listed in the INTERREG III Communication. Medium or high / very high depth and intensity level of cooperation achieved. From the analysis of synthetic indicators, we conclude that CIP ES-PT is among those which received a higher score in the context of the cluster, only surpassed by the Programme R doc 49

50 Sonderjylland-North Schleswig (Germany-Denmark) and roughly equivalent to the Programme Nord (Sweden-Finland-Norway-Russia). Comparing the two tables above, we can also conclude that all the programmes included in this cluster are positioned above the average of Strand A of INTERREG. Comparing the score in the synthetic indicator to the ranking of all programmes of INTERREG, it appears that CIP ES-PT is positioned in the 90th percentile of the distribution, which places it prominently among the Programmes INTERREG with a better performance. In turn, a comparative analysis between the expected rate and real rate through a regression analysis resulted in marginal residuals values, reflecting in part the effects of a common experience of cross-border cooperation, which has been consolidated over the past 20 years of INTERREG. 3.6 Main factors fostering (or hampering) integration and the means to promote positive factors or to overcome persisting obstacles From the results of the analysis carried out under the previous sub-chapters, supplemented by the reviews of programme managers and project leaders, as well as the results of mid-term evaluation and its updating, it is possible to proceed to a highly empirical and qualitative identification of the factors that have fostered or hampered the integration and cooperation between the Portuguese- Spanish border regions. As demonstrated above, CIP ES-PT is characterised by the existence of contextual factors much more favourable to the existence of mechanisms for cooperation than the average INTERREG IIIA programme. Indeed, those regions have the following factors in their favour: The favourable conditions for border accessibility, which have been further strengthened in the CIP INTERREG I, II and III; The relatively high density of possibilities to cross the border; In terms of political and administrative characteristics of the border, there is also one of the most favourable situations in the context of European cross-border cooperation (although there remain some difficulties, for example, related to the different powers and responsibilities of regional and local administrations in both countries) The low level of economic disparities between NUTS III covered by the programme (at the programme level and compared with the European average, because at the level of projects such differences clearly exist, as described below); The programme focuses on border regions with strong common historical ties where languages and cultures share important relations of affinity; The high degree of robustness / durability of the projects, which shows some maturity of the processes of cross-border cooperation. These factors have clearly contributed to an effective enhancement of the Portuguese-Spanish cooperation, which in the case of many partnerships and projects, it is clear that it will remain sustainable beyond the length of the INTERREG IIIA. In the programme manager s point of view, the three generations of cross-border initiatives, INTERREG IIIA is one that could reach higher levels of cooperation, due largely to the stronger focus given to the intangible nature of the projects, which require a more intensive cooperation between partners. However, despite the positive results arising from these factors that favour cross-border cooperation, other factors have been obstacles for further integration and cooperation between R doc 50

51 the two countries. First, as has also been previously identified, the economic disparities between the two sides of the border are most evident at the project level, resulting in difficulties experienced by the Spanish partners in finding partners in Portugal with investment capacity for the implementation of joint projects. Indeed, given the investment capacity of partners from Spain to which extent investment bilateralism has a binding nature, there was obvious difficulties in ensuring the participation of Portuguese partners. Those difficulties were also found in the ability of the Portuguese partners to implement the projects that were approved once they were dependent on applications for payment and reimbursement. Some of those situations were aggravated by disagreements between the partners on the progress of requests for earlier reimbursement, as well as the joint responsibility of partners for any irregularities or failures that occurred in the projects. It also appears that, despite the toughening of the processes of cross-border cooperation, in actual fact some of the projects supported by INTERREG (mainly infrastructural) were not conceived for that purpose. There are projects that actually were designed to be supported by the regional or national operational programmes and because they were not admitted, were later converted into cross-border projects. This shows that many partners in both countries still have no project culture of cross-border cooperation and, in that sense; INTERREG often turns out to be just another instrument to support public spending. Moreover, the lack of a project culture is also reflected in the excessive role of consulting companies, which often lack essential knowledge related to the processes of cross-border cooperation. Finally, the nature of the programme design was identified as a factor that limited its action: the relatively complex structure of sub-programmes, priorities and measures, the mandatory bilateralism of the projects, the adaptation of the objectives to the territorial specificities, or the lack of common interests between partners in some regions were some of the programming characteristics identified as impediments to integration and cross-border cooperation. 3.7 Extrapolating results on effectiveness and impacts on all INTERREG programmes The purpose of this sub-chapter is to identify what the representative and important results of CIP ES-PT are in terms of patterns that characterise the entire INTERREG Initiative. This chapter is based on a comparative analysis of the nature of the programme presented in the previous subchapters, with the results of the starting assumptions, i.e., the analysis of relevant literature (Task 1) and the horizontal analysis of the programme (Task 2). The main results related to the performance of programmes are defined primarily by: The level of concentration of budgets; The performance in terms of financial implementation; The performance in terms of physical implementation; The stability of programming; The robustness and the degree of sustainability of projects. The following table shows the proportion of projects throughout the INTERREG initiative and particularly strand A which are characterised by a high performance in all these parameters. R doc 51

52 Table 14 Share Strand A Share INTERREG in in Results from the typology analysis compared Budgets are rather concentrated High performance rate in financial implementation There were no major shifts of budgets during High achievement rate at programme level (>100%) Projects are robust and sustainable 0,56 0,60 0,54 0,65 0,62 0,53 0,57 0,53 0,68 0,53 This means that more than half of the programmes in Strand A and all INTERREG initiatives achieved these results. Comparing the results with the characteristics of the CIP ES-PT, significant differences are evident, particularly with regards to the level of physical and financial performance, in which the programme is positioned below the average. Instead, the programme stands out in terms of robustness and level of sustainability of projects. The following table presents a summary of the analysis. Results of the in-depth analysis Performance of financial implementation below average There were several significant shifts of programming Low achievement rate at programme level Projects are very robust and sustainable There was an effort to apply a good framework of indicators, but does not allow evaluating the performance of the initial objectives of the programme. The level of experimentation and complexity of projects is relatively low. Already suggested Strength of evidence for INTERREG by the results of tasks 1 and 2 Yes Clear evidence of high performance implementation from the typology analysis Yes Clear evidence, from the typology analysis, that in most programmes there were only minor shifts of programming Yes Clear evidence of high achievement rate from the typology analysis Yes Clear evidence from the typology analysis Yes Clear evidence, since most INTERREG III programmes were found to suffer from a lack of clarity in the definition of common indicators and a lack of baseline data against which to measure progress. No With uncertainty, because there are various programmes that emphasise complex and experimental projects. R doc 52

53 4 In-depth analysis of results and impacts in terms of utility and efficiency 4.1 The external coherence of the programme The review of the adequacy and consistency of the strategy of the Programme of CIP ES-PT is of special interest as it allows us to appreciate the interrelations that occur between its strategic formulation regarding: The rules and communitarian directives and guidance designed for the programming of Structural Funds in The basis and purposes of each programme of the Community Initiative conceived for , as well as other interventions of territorial cooperation in the context of the mechanisms of the ESPON and INTERACT action. The general content of the communitarian policies and, most importantly, the objectives of social cohesion, equal opportunities and sustainable development that guide all EU policy interventions. The implementation mechanisms and coordination systems for monitoring, the publicity and the dissemination of the programme, to the extent that the management capacity of participating organisms, both at the stage of planning and execution, constitute an additional element that affects the smooth functioning of the CIP. Therefore, the exercise of the ex-post evaluation must not only answer specific evaluative questions of the CIP itself, but also to other issues of particular Community interest Regulatory compliance and interaction / coordination with other Structural Funds programmes Evaluation of the accomplishment of rules and community guidelines and guidance for the programming The programming and implementation process of CIP ES-PT has been governed in accordance with the principles established by the European Commission in its Communication laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning trans-european cooperation to promote a harmonious and balanced development in the European territory: INTERREG III. These principles are the following: Strategy and programme for joint cross-border or trans-national development; Cooperation and ascendant approach; Complementarities with the main programmes of the Structural Funds; More integrated approach to the implementation of community initiatives; Effective coordination between INTERREG III and external policy instruments of the Community, especially taking into account the enlargement. The programme's contribution to the first two principles is addressed in this section, while the last three are discussed in the following sections of this subchapter. R doc 53

54 Considering the first of the principles outlined in the joint draft of a strategy and cross-border programme, it should be noted that during the preparation of programming CIP documents, the Spanish and Portuguese governments held a large concentration of initiatives and actions for the formulation of the programme until it was submitted to the Commission on the 22nd November This intense work of joint programming has also been produced for the preparation of interregional sub-programmes. Undoubtedly, this work has benefited from the strengthening of interregional cooperation over recent years, thanks to the various protocols of cooperation that already existed between the Spanish and Portuguese border regions, which allowed the integration of the critical approach of past cooperation experiences. In addition, this phase was reinforced by the work of both organisms of the Central Administration of Portugal (Directorate General of Regional Development) and Spain (Directorate General for Community Funds and Territorial Financing). It can therefore be argued that the planning process of territorial cooperation of Spain and Portugal was characterised by a large institutional collaboration that has produced the strategy agreed on and consistent with the priorities assigned to the cross-border section, including the following: 1. Promoting urban, rural and coastal development. 2. Encouraging entrepreneurship and small business development (including tourism) and local employment initiatives. 3. Promoting the integration of labour market and social inclusion. 4. Sharing human resources and research centres, technological development, education, culture, communications and health to increase productivity and contribute to the creation of stable employment. 5. Encouraging the protection of the environment (local, global), increase energy efficiency and promote renewable energy sources. 6. Improving networks and transport services (particularly measures to implement means of transport more compatible with the environment), information and telecommunications, as well as water and energy systems. 7. Developing the legal and administrative cooperation in order to promote economic development and social cohesion. 8. Increasing human and institutional potential so that cross-border cooperation can promote economic development and social cohesion. As shown in the following diagram, the apparent relationship between these priority areas and the CIP Axes and measures indicate that the actions which are included in the programme really seem appropriate toward moving in the direction of the priority themes of the Commission. In fact, all the main priority issues highlighted by the Commission in the already mentioned Communication of 2 September 2004 are driven by more than one measure of the programme, which shows its capacity to generate synergies for achieving these priorities. Not surprisingly, the envisaged programme achievements were focused on priority actions that have a direct impact on the socioeconomic progress, as well as on progress in the levels of competitiveness, developing the knowledge of the society and human resources or improvements to infrastructures and social facilities. Therefore, the strategic approach of CIP ES-PT supports, in general, the correct R doc 54

55 orientation of the intervention on the challenges set by the European Commission to Chapter A of INTERREG III Initiatives. Table 15 Axes and measures of the programme Interrelations between the priority themes and the CIP axes and measures Priority themes (PT) of the European Union X X X 1.2 X X X 1.3 X X 2.1 X X 2.2 X 2.3 X X 2.4 X 3.1 X 3.2 X X 3.3 X X 3.4 X X X 4.1 X X 4.2 X X 4.3 X X Note: Axes and Intervention Measures: 1. Infrastructure provision, spatial planning and rural development 1.1 Cross-border transport infrastructures and communications of importance 1.2 Urban, territorial and cross-border coastal areas planning 1.3 Cross-border rural development 2. Valuation, promotion and environmental, natural and heritage resources conservation 2.1 Environmental sustainability, natural areas, water resources and forest management 2.2 Cultural, historical, ethnographic and local identity sustainability 2.3 Energy efficiency and energy renewable sources 2.4 Heritage tourism improvements 3. Socioeconomic development and promoting employability 3.1 Promotion, business and production base development 3.2 Development of technology, research and extension of the information society 3.3 Local socio-economic, agricultural and services dynamism 3.4 Education, training and job creation 4. Promoting cooperation and social integration and institutional 4.1 Cooperation and social integration, occupational and institutional 4.2 Joint development of services and local facilities 4.3 Institutional structures for cooperation 5. Technical Assistance 5.1 Expenditure management, implementation, monitoring and control 5.2 Expenditure on studies, seminars, information actions and external evaluations However, the formulation of a global cross-border programming is not a sufficient condition to ensure the tackling of all problems facing these areas, for three reasons: Because the problems are not only related to the integration / border cooperation, nor will their addressing ensure that they are also tackled. Ultimately, it is found that the relative lower development level of these regions compared to their national averages remains, even if the areas are extremely cooperative. Because the Portuguese-Spanish border area is not suited to hosting joint projects at urban level, nor is it suited to the management of infrastucture due to the distance between major urban centres. Because legal and administrative specificities the joint construction and operation of public projects has been hampered. Additionally, one can point out other deviations, both from a financial perspective, as well as from the eligibility of projects: From a financial standpoint, the programme has undergone few revisions to improve the financial absorption, by concentrating resources on those measures that had a greater R doc 55

56 efficiency. It should also be noted as an additional factor, the late approval of the programme, which has constrained the its start up. From the standpoint of the co-financed projects, it was noted that the approval of operations whose purpose was local and regional development took precedence over those operations that focused on cooperation. This has led to sub-parallel projects to both sides of the border, whose trans-european value is relatively limited. This situation has led to the fact that during the selection procedure more attention is paid to those projects which best responded to a logic of cross-border cooperation than those whose purpose was more focused on exclusive regional or local developmental objectives. This could be explained because, although the guidelines of the Commission offered an indicative list of measures enabling Member States to define a wide-ranging programme. In contrast, specific performance conditions to strengthen border cooperation that should follow the economic, social, cultural and environmental issues have been derogated, sometimes, to second place. The above considerations make us realise that the development of a specific Legislative Regulation for the CIP INTERREG, which had considered all the particularities of such programmes, could have significantly improved the programming process and the tasks of management. This would have provided useful tools to encourage implementation by managers and avoid the excessive presence of heterogeneous measures, which generate a great dispersion of projects. Regarding the second principle mentioned above, concerning cooperation and ascendant approach, its implementation has proven adequate, thanks to the preparation of partnerships and involvement of socio-economic actors in the initiative. This has ensured that the programming exercise of CIP ES-PT was made based on the principle of partnership, as recognised by the Regulations. It should be noted, firstly, that lessons learned from previous cooperation, and the existence of previous collaborative structures (Working Communities) have also enabled the understanding between different sectoral organisms on both sides of the border. Secondly, the involvement of these actors was organised at the level of each of the regions involved in different sub-programmes. In fact, the territorial sub-programmes management, of which CIP ES-PT was part, was based on the formation of an interregional partnership of territorial authorities and decentralised organisms, led by Work Communities. Furthermore, within each of the sub-programmes, actions were carried out to mobilize public and private agents in connection with the preparation of the programme with the aim to: Broadcast cooperation priorities. Promote and disseminate the Initiative. Stimulate and promote the participation of institutions and economic and social actors in the Initiative. Gather ideas and proposals for cooperative actions to include in the programme. R doc 56

57 In this sense, Groups and Working Communities on both sides of the border have carried out these animation functions and promoted the participation of other actors in the programme throughout the duration of the programme. Thus, the planning and implementation has been a territorial response to community established priorities, ensuring a complementary top-down and bottom-up approach that has ensured a relevant formulation on the issue of the border area and at the same time is consistent with policy guidelines. An example that displays this is the launch of and training for the calls, through which the initiative has been implemented. In this regard, one should note the significant efforts by the responsible units of the programme to streamline the presentation of the projects quality. Since the first round of operations, a Guide to Project Promoters was prepared, in order to set out the characteristics of the programme and specify the data to be provided by the promoters of candidate projects for funding. Various actions were also carried out, such as promotional and informational meetings and technical assistance to participants, to facilitate both the preparation and training for the calls. In fact, different forms and support characteristics seem to be enough from the promoters themselves, who have been consulted during the previous financial evaluation of the programme. Nevertheless, private participation in the programme has been very low, although this was one of the main innovations of INTERREG III in relation to INTERREG II. Although the Commission had created expectations to encourage such involvement, it was not explicitly promoted and no private entities attended any calls for proposals. However, the definition of the CIP was set on two main pillars: Community Guidelines (Communication to the Member States of 28 April 2000) and Guide- Structure of the Programme, prepared by the two national governments. The socioeconomic diagnoses made in the various sub-programmes of the various areas of cooperation (and included in the programming document) provided the support for that definition. It should be stressed, therefore, that the programme has been consistent with the determinations contained in the already mentioned Communication of the Commission. Yet, as the most critical elements, it should be noted that, though the planning of the intervention has had a great participation, its implementation has faced certain difficulties in enlarging the types of beneficiaries and attracting new actors. The complexity of the CIP, along with the lack of communication among the structures of the programme, has caused the traditional public actors (local, regional and central) to be taken as the main sponsors, to the detriment, as noted above, of private actors and other potential beneficiaries. This undeniably brings elements of a less optimistic assessment of the degree of relevance of these first two principles governing the initiative INTERREG, as determined by the Communication Commission to the Member States of 28 th April In this, the development of a joint programming seems to ensure its usefulness and success, unlike a joint implementation at the operational level that in the case of Portugal and Spain ran into the difficulties already pointed out. Therefore, although CIP ES-PT assumed perfectly the definition of a cross-border project and the selection of operations has been taken into careful consideration, some projects have developed some shortcomings, such as: A rather limited ability to solve problems linked to the existence of the border. R doc 57

58 An orientation towards the solving of problems associated with obstacles to the development the origin of which is not due to the existence of borders. Study of the Programme Coordination with other Community Initiatives for Territorial Cooperation in the Portuguese-Spanish Border A key element in the strategic design and operation of the programme was its coordination with other community initiatives for territorial cooperation where the States involved in CIP ES-PT also participated. In this sense, we must highlight the presence in the border region of these two countries, with positive dynamics of cooperation, which have responded with experience from participating in other transnational programmes, such as the Southwest (SW) or Atlantic Area. The other Programme of Cooperation where these countries were involved is the Madeira-Azores- Canarias, although these regions are not part of the eligible area for the cross-border programme, assuring operations in these regions would not be duplicated. Without a doubt, the SW (Southwest) Programmes and the Atlantic Area, with transnational identity, are the most important in which Spain and Portugal have collaborated. Due to the nature of Chapter B of the INTERREG Initiative, the composition of countries in these interventions is more extensive, and the possibilities of cooperation are extended to other Member States. Figure 9 Other INTERREG Programmes in the Portuguese-Spanish border To avoid the overlap with these other areas of cooperation and to promote synergies while avoiding duplication of projects, the Monitoring Committee was responsible for establishing the necessary coordination mechanisms with other funding instruments of the European Union. In particular, the degree of complementarities of the intervention can be seen in the light of the following: The structure of strategic priorities, objectives and types of projects in each programme have degrees of specificity and detail that are somewhat different, as illustrated by their respective areas of intervention, as reflected in the table below. Not surprisingly, the transnational chapter has focused more closely on trans-european networks and recommendations for territorial development made in the context of the R doc 58

59 European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). This has led to the actions of transnational programmes being much more specific. Table 16 Axes of intervention of the different border and transnational cooperation programmes to which Spain and Portugal participate in cooperation INTERREG III B SPAIN- PORTUGAL INTERREG III A EUROPEAN SOUTHWEST INTERREG III A ATLANTIC AREA Polycentric structuring of space 1. Infrastructure provision, rural 1. Polycentric structuring of space and development of centres of management and space and strengthening of competitive competence development clusters 2. Enhancement, promotion and environmental and natural heritage resources conservation 3. Socioeconomic development and promoting employability 4. Promoting cooperation and social and institutional integration 2. Management of cultural and natural heritage and promote the environment 3. Developing effective communication systems and durable, and improved access to the information society 4. Promotion of methods, structures and common territorial instruments for development of the Southwest identity in a global context Development of systems for effective and sustainable transport and improved access to information society Promoting the environment, sustainable management of economic activities and natural resources Strengthening and promoting the Atlantic identity against globalisation 5. Technical assistance 5. Technical assistance 5. Technical assistance However, it can be identified in the programme cross-sectoral areas, which are geographically transverse to the operations promoted by the Transnational Cooperation Programmes. These action fields relate to R & D, information society, environmental protection or rural development. This can be explained by the wide range of CIP ES-PT, which has included several measures, with broad objectives whose achievement could exceed the real capacity of the programme of producing significant structuring effects. This fact could justify the higher concentration of actions in the current period , which will facilitate firstly, the generation of a more visible impact and secondly, an easier management of the programme complementarities with other interventions.however, to encourage the maximisation of the impact of funds, a technical device of strategic coordination was created ( Observation Panel ) charged with reporting the coordination and synergies between actions financed by CIP ES-PT and those included in other cooperation interventions. The following table shows the interrelations between the different priorities of each of the cooperation programmes considered. Table 17 Interrelationships between the axes of cross-border intervention programme and transnational programmes participating Spain and Portugal in conjunction INTERREG III A Southwest INTERREG IIIA Atlantic Area Axes of Intervention X X X X INTERREG III B 2 X X SPAIN 3 X X X PORTUGAL 4 X X Also a the operational level, the coordination with other interventions with an impact in the same geographical area has been assured through the following mechanisms: Obligatory declaration by the promoters in their applications for possible complementarities or synergies among the projects submitted to other interventions. R doc 59

60 Arranging information exchanges, at the stage of applications selection, between the secretariats of the programme and of other interventions with an impact in the border region. Provide all relevant information about each project to all decision-makers of structural interventions through management information systems. Finally, regarding the interaction between the interventions of the programme with the Initiative INTERACT, it is noted that the authorities responsible for the programme made an effort to pay special attention to the services provided by this programme. The promotion on the usefulness of the services it gives, and the documentation it provides, has allowed the improvement of good governance of territorial cooperation within the framework of the intervention. At the same time, the contributions made by transnational research groups, articulated through the ESPON Programme, have been taken into consideration in policy development related to the objective of territorial cohesion and the harmonious development of the Hispano-Portuguese border territory. In fact, the programme has brought about, improvement of the quality of the information systems of territorial borders under its Technical Assistance Axis, especially designing and feeding devices for the joint production of statistical information for its monitoring and evaluating actions. This information has been very useful input of information for operational planning in the context of the other priorities of the CIP. Appreciation of the general objectives of the Cohesion Policy : Complementarities with the interventions of Objective 1, 2 and 3 with other Community Initiatives CIP ES-PT shows arguments in its programming document that are intended to prove that they complement the traditional intervention programmes. However and as already mentioned before, this follows largely the big dimension of the intervention, which includes many measures associated with the programmes of Objectives 1 and 3, which differ in some cases in their way of implementation. Thus, the regional sub-programmes present strategic objectives related to the improvement of infrastructures provision, management and rural development of cross-border area, enhancement, promotion and environmental conservation and heritage and natural resources, economic development and promoting employability and promote cooperation and social and institutional integration. Accordingly, it includes a very wide variety of actions: In the field of infrastructure provision, management and rural development in the border area, actions are included such as investments in infrastructure for the connection and integration of joint space, which contribute to an increased capillarity of the border space; joint urban and territorial management for agglomerations near the border; the articulation with cultural facilities; improvements in agricultural structures and promotion of cross-border rural development through the marketing of handicrafts and tourism and marketing of quality products. In the field of environment, sustainable development and heritage maintenance, including actions for recovery of nature, event-organisation to promote culture and heritage, and valuation actions and recovery of heritage. In relation to socioeconomic development and promoting employability, the actions are directed at subsidising projects that improve cross-border economy, joint business missions, development of cross-border financial instruments, organisation of business fairs, promotion R doc 60

61 of forms of cooperation between teachers and students in the field of research, increase information systems, organisation of joint product fairs and also job generation programmes and training. The area of promoting cooperation and social and institutional integration includes actions to exchange experiences and the social integration of disadvantaged groups, initiatives for cooperation between youth, creation and adaptation of common use facilities, as well as projects aimed at promoting institutional cooperation, such as the introduction of social observatories, studies and research on the development of Work Communities and institutional measures in the framework of cross-border cooperation. Undoubtedly, these type of actions have contributed to the purposes of promoting the development and structural adjustment of the less developed regions under Objective 1, and to support the adaptation and modernisation of education policies, training and employment, for human resources under Objective 3. In particular, Axis 3 of the programme seems to be the one whose actions result in a greater impact on regional developmental goals contained in the programmes of the Spanish and Portuguese regions within Objectives 1 and 3. The projects following a more integrated approach and financing rural development measures (by taking into account the EAGGF-O regulations and specific projects) development of human resources (also eligible under the ESF), improvement and promotion of the competitiveness of the production (supported by the ERDF) were a good experience. In this sense, no-double spending was assured by the coordination mechanisms that are in place since the beginning of the implementation of the programme, and that have been further facilitated by the fact that some of the technical structures and decision-making of various programmes are located in the offices of regional or central governments that have responsibilities in the management or coordination of all interventions financed by structural funds. Table 18 Interrelationship between the intervention axes of the cross-border programme and the goals of the Objectives 1 and 3 of the Community Regional Policy INTERREG Spain-Portugal Productive environment X X 2 Research and technological development X 3 Development of the information society X X 4 Tourism development and investment on culture X 5 Environment improvement and protection X X 6 Equal opportunities between men and women in employment OBJECTIVE 1 OBJECTIVE 3 1 Education and training X 2 Employment support and support for self-employment X 3 Postgraduate university education and training of managers and technicians X 4 Development of new sources of employment, including the social economy sector X It is therefore concluded that the strategy of cross-border cooperation between Spain and Portugal was conceived also as a tool to enhance regional development plans on either side of the border, in terms of increased possibilities for reaching goals and objectives outlined in these documents. This has made it possible to consolidate a larger functional space of economic dimension, more competitive and with more outreach, in order to enhance the economic development in this area over the gains to be made in the absence of cooperation. R doc 61

62 Of course, this achievement is explained by the impulse of the complementarity of the actions taken within the various communitarian policies and it highlights the necessity of synergy between the various instruments set up by communitarian policies. Thus, through cooperation and exploitation of complementarities, there has been progress in integrating a space in a specific geographical environment, whose territorial reality implied additional efforts to reduce the incidence of the border effect. Such phenomenon has emerged, ultimately, as a result of: The larger dimension of the economic space, weighing more and with more ability to be understood in the European scene. Improvement of competitiveness in this area through the enhancement and integration of resources and capabilities of both regions. One factor that has encouraged these complementary relationships has been the territorial approach, which has led to the emergence of integrated policies of economic and social development in border regions, mainly in the field of structural funds. On the other hand, the analysis of consistency should also refer to the horizontal principles of equality of opportunity and sustainable development which guide all interventions of the EU policy. CIP ES-PT explicitly states that actions must be consistent with the objectives of sustainable development and protecting and improving the environment. In this regard the CIP states: The projects approved under the CIP respect the Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. With regard to assessing the effects on Natura 2000 places, the definition of projects should take into account the impact on habitats (Habitats Directive EEC 92/43) and existing species (Species EEC Directive 79/409). Projects must also be consistent with the principles of the community framework for action in the field of water policy (Directive 2000/06/EC) and water protection towards nitrate pollution from agriculture (Directive 91/676/EEC). On the other hand, actions specifically related to the environment are covered by several programme measures. The following table shows specific targets related to the preservation and enhancement of the environment in various areas of the sub-programmes. Table 19 Measures related to the horizontal principle of sustainable development and environment Intervention Measures of Specific objectives related to the maintenance and valuation of the Programme the environment 1.2. Urban and territorial Reinforce territorial integration with planning mechanisms. Promote spatial planning of economical activities according to the planning of cross-border existing urban spaces. costal areas Value urban spaces and coastal areas, at an urban-environmental and landscape level. Develop the cooperation among urban and rural areas, in order to promote sustainable development Cross-border rural Promote the specific potentials of rural territories of both sides of the border development 2.1. Environmental Improve environmental quality, namely in the correction of unbalances associated with overuse of tourism-properties of coastal sustainability, natural urban centres areas, water resources Promote a national articulation between forestall interventions that and forest management encourage environmental protection, including prevention and fire fighting and assure forest economical development appropriate to the sustainability of rural population incomes. Support the interventions directed at planning and coordinated R doc 62

63 Intervention Measures of the Programme 2.2. Cultural sustainability, historical, ethnographical and local identity heritage 2.3. Energy efficiency and renewable energy sources 2.4. Heritage tourism enhancement 3.3. Local socioeconomic stimulation 4.3. Institutional structures for cooperation Specific objectives related to the maintenance and valuation of the environment management of water resources, especially of the most common watersheds. Promote the protection and conservation actions of the environment, including the management and rehabilitation of common natural areas. Develop cooperation towards synergetic planning, hunting, piscicultural and fishing resources. Associate strategies on valuating cultural and historical heritage to urban renewable interventions, both in medium cities as in small agglomerations. Promote the deep knowledge of potentials of diversifying energy supply sources, in both inner regions and in coastal areas. Stimulate rational and efficient use of energy resources by companies, public and private bodies. Identify common tourism products that lay on patrimonial and environmental principles of the border areas, promoting their use in a sustainable way. Stimulate a better use of agro-forestry systems considering services offer (technical advisement and management, etc.) in favourable conditions. Promote the establishment of inter-municipal cooperation networks, especially in the fields of management and territorial planning, business development and social integration. Develop cooperation in the action field, awareness and information for prevention of hazards and natural disasters and civil protection. The integration of environment in the area has also took place in the following areas: The institutional articulation with its presence in the Monitoring Committee of two national representatives (one from each country) in the sector of Environment and Spatial Planning. The calls for proposals and training projects, with the inclusion of environmental criteria in the selection mechanisms. Monitoring, where indicators for observing the effects of operations on environment were defined. The following table summarises the assessment of the degree of accomplishment achieved in this regard in the various covered fields. Table 20 Degree of accomplishment of horizontal priority of sustainable development Field Consistency of horizontal principle of sustainable development Programming +++ Institutional Articulation ++ Call for proposals and projects instruction +++ Monitoring ++ Note: no coherence (-), appropriate coherence (+), high coherence (++) and great coherence (+++) Regarding the principle of Equal Opportunities, considering the general objectives of INTERREG III A and the type of actions funded under this programme, it may be considered that most of the projects submitted under the programme were neutral in relation to this priority. Though having a dimension of integration, the projects have not had a direct influence on market access opportunities for working men and women, nor on improving services and infrastructures for reconciling work and family life. This has resulted, at institutional level, in the fact that no mechanism for participation or supervision of national or regional authorities regarding Equal Opportunities has been established R doc 63

64 in the CIP. However, concerning the call for proposals, the programme specifies the project managers will be informed of the necessary guidelines to enable them to integrate the Equal Opportunities dimension in the development of projects and define the goals and indicators. The final assessment is presented below. Table 21 Degree of accomplishment of horizontal priority of sustainable development Consistency of horizontal principle of Equal Field Opportunities Programming + Institutional Articulation - Call for proposals and projects instruction + Monitoring + Note: no coherence (-), appropriate coherence (+), high coherence (++) and great coherence (+++) Finally, cooperation in the border area of Spain-Portugal is not an exclusive competence of INTERREG. During this period, there were other initiatives also aimed at strengthening cooperation, including: EQUAL: aims at transnational cooperation to promote new ways of fighting discrimination and inequality in access to the labour market. LEADER: aims at rural development through integrated development programmes and cooperation among local action groups. URBAN: aims the regeneration of neighbourhoods in decline, through integrated local development strategies. In the case of EQUAL, the best chances of emergence of synergies have been produced in Axis 3 of the CIP. Its actions in the border area have been used to develop and disseminate new ways of implementing employment policies. Moreover, this initiative covers a topic that INTERREG III A does not directly address, such as the fight against all forms of discrimination and inequality experienced by those seeking access to the labour market and those already within it. In relation to rural development, the actions supported under the programme have not received support for the purposes of the expected operations under the Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, of the LEADER+ Initiative or other instruments of the Common Agricultural Policy. In the case of measures 1.3, 2.1 and 3.3 support has always avoided any duplication with other supports trying to be consistent to the specifications of the EU guidelines on State Support in agriculture. Finally, the urban initiatives that were developed have implemented the policies and actions proposed in the Commission's guidelines and have taken into account the institutional arrangements of each Member State. Its development has also helped one of the objectives of the cross-border programme, as well as the encouragement of development in urban and rural areas. Thus, both initiatives have fostered prosperity and employment in urban areas, promoted social integration and fostered synergies between urban and rural areas. R doc 64

65 Table 22 INTERREG III B SPAIN PORTUGAL Interrelationships between intervention axes of the cross-border programme and other community initiatives 1. Infrastructure provision, planning and rural areas development 2. Enhancement, promotion and environmental conservation and natural and heritage resources 3. Socioeconomic development and employability promotion 4. Promote cooperation and institutional and social integration LEADER EQUAL URBAN X X X X X X X X The institutional coherence within the Hispanic-Portuguese cooperation The need for cooperation on territorial development between the border regions of Spain and Portugal began to manifest itself mainly during the 90s of the past century. The cooperation aimed at improving relations between the social and economic actors on both sides of the border. A basic tool for technical assistance and development of joint projects in border regions, such as the Transnational Initiatives Office (TIO) should be mentioned. For the Hispanic-Luso case, three TIOs are identified as providing the necessary coverage to the various initiatives: Castilla y León - North - Central (1998), Extremadura - Alentejo - Central (1993) and that of Andalusia - Algarve - Alentejo (2003). These instruments have had a major impact on all the initiatives undertaken within the framework of cross-border cooperation and especially those developed under the INTERREG Initiative. At the same time, the formal instruments of regional cooperation that were launched have been a few, with different levels of intensity per case. Thus, almost all border areas between 1990 and 1995 signed protocols of cooperation or collaboration between them, which largely formed the basis for deepening territorial cooperation mechanisms (Table 23). Table 23 Instruments of institutional cooperation between Hispanic-Luso regions Regions Legal Instrument Scale Galicia-North 1991 Euroregion Galicia North of Portugal Regional 1992 Atlantic Axis of the Iberian Northwest Local Castilla y León-North 1990 Joint Declaration (Declaration of Oporto) Regional 1995 Protocol of Collaboration Regional 1990 Joint Declaration (Declaration of Coimbra) Regional Castilla y León-Centre 1995 Protocol of Collaboration * Regional 1995 Working Community Castilla y León-Centre Regional Extremadura-Centre 1994 Protocol of Collaboration Regional Extremadura-Alentejo 1992 Protocol of Collaboration * Regional 1992 Working Community Extremadura-Alentejo Regional Andalucía-Alentejo Regional Andalucía Algarve Regional *The Protocols of Cooperation between Castile y Leon and Centre and between Extremadura and Alentejo, included the basis for the creation of the respective Working Communities. In other cases the willingness to cooperate went further and gave rise to Working Communities or emerging Euroregions. This is the case of Galicia and North of Portugal, which in 1991 created the Euroregion Galicia - North of Portugal, subsequently joined by the Territorial Communities of Cooperation (supra-municipalities) of Vale de Lima, Vale do Cóvado, Val and Vale de Tâmega and Vale do Minho. This applies to the 1990 agreements between the North Region of Portugal and Castilla y Leon, known as the Declaration of Oporto. Five years later, in 1995, they signed a cooperation protocol R doc 65

66 that established the specific areas of cooperation: infrastructure, environment, business cooperation, culture and tourism and universities. Similarly, in 1990 Castilla y Leon and the Central Region of Portugal ratified the Declaration of Coimbra, also signing a Protocol of Cooperation in Meanwhile, in 1994 the regions of Extremadura and Centre signed their own protocol of cooperation. in Alcantara In 1995 Castilla y Leon and the Central Region of Portugal signed a new Protocol of Cooperation laying down the basis for the creation of the Working Community of Castilla y Leon - Central Region of Portugal, which led to cooperation between these regions in different areas. These areas were transport, communications, water resources, economic and social development, environment, land planning, natural resources, cultural heritage, tourism, trade, industry, agriculture, livestock, training, education, culture and research. In 1992 Extremadura and Alentejo signed a Protocol of Cooperation in Puente Ajuda which laid the basis for the creation of the Working Community of Extremadura - Alentejo. However, the top of the hierarchy in terms of territorial cooperation between the Hispanic-Portuguese border regions is occupied by the Atlantic Axis of the Iberian Northwest. Established in 1992, it involved the eighteen main cities of the Euroregion Galicia - North of Portugal, and is part of the strategy outlined in the Regional Development Plans of these regions. Therefore, it can be concluded that an invaluable institutional capital in the evolution of the cooperation process since 1994: a set of institutions that represent the soul and the willing for cooperation of transboundary populations has been created and developed. However, the intensity of institutional cooperation decreases as we head southwards. Territorial cooperation between Galicia and North of Portugal is well established and the coherence in the activities of the various administrative bodies is quite high. This fact has had its impact on the territory, it is clearly distinguishable through communication, the flows of people and goods and the polycentric urban network. The other extreme are Andalusia and the Algarve, which have not developed any protocol. However, the marked influence of tourism, especially in the Algarve, has led the provision of road infrastructures to become the most important along the entire border. In short, during an initial period that could be extended from 1991 to 1996, efforts focused on building the institutional framework that has guided and canalised cross-border cooperation (Working Communities, TIO, etc.). From then until now, the interest has focused more on operationalisation once the main emphasis had been directed to the implementation of projects and programmes, thanks mainly to INTERREG Public Opinion of the Cooperation between Spain and Portugal CIP ES-PT is a tool that has not gone unnoticed by the citizens of the borderlands. As already mentioned, earlier generations of INTERREG and the existence of consolidated cooperation structures have drawn the population s attention the actions carried out under the Initiative. In fact, the last Opinion Barometer Hispano-Luso (OBHL), aimed at collecting the opinion that exists in Spain and Portugal in relation to issues and topics that affect both countries, shows that the majority of Spaniards and Portuguese consider that relations between the two countries are good or very good, higher than those who think they are regular in Portugal (28,9%) or those in Spain who do not seem to have a clear idea (16,5%). R doc 66

67 Figure 10 Assessment of the current status of the relations between Spain and Portugal 70% 60,8% 60% 55,1% 50% 40% 30% 28,9% 20% 11,8 % 15, 2 % 16,5% 10% 5,6% 1, 0 % 0,3% 0,9% 0,2% 3,7% 0% Very good Good Normal Bad Very bad D.K. Spain Portugal Source: Hispano-Luso Opinion Barometer 2009 Regarding the influence of the programme on improving relations between both countries, it can be stated to be positive, to the extent that more than half of the Spanish people (51%) believe that relations between Spain and Portugal have maintained a similar level to that achieved in recent years. In the case of the Portuguese people, its assessment is even more positive, because most of them (53,9%), believe that bilateral relations have improved. Figure 11 Current perception of the relations between Spain and Portugal 60% 53,9 % 51,0% 50% 40% 32,1% 30% 27,3% 20% 16, 8 % 10% 4,9% 7,0 % 7,1% 0% Have improved Have remained Have w orsened D.K. Spain Portugal Source: Hispano-Luso Opinion Barometer 2009 Furthermore, the population of both countries also very well receives the objective of INTERREG to foster a harmonious and balanced development of the territory. Specifically, the demarcation of R doc 67

68 borders is not an issue that generates conflict. Both the Spanish and Portuguese consider it a minor issue. Thus, almost 70% of Portuguese think, in fact, that the demarcation of borders is not problematic. Although the percentage of Spanish who consider it somewhat problematic is higher (34%), among them the large majority feels that the impact is minimal. Figure 12 70% Opinion on the borders demarcation 68,9% 60% 50% 47,6% 40% 30% 25,5% 20% 16,5% 18, 4 % 10% 0,9% 3,6% 7,6% 4,4% 6,6% 0% Very problematic Quite problematic Litlle problematic Unproblematic D.K. Spain Portugal Source: Hispano-Luso Opinion Barometer 2009 Finally, it can be considered that the perceptions that exist on the situation in some of the priority areas for the programme; the conclusion to be drawn is that the investments that have been made have been perceived by the public as very positive. Evidence of this is, for example, that business investment from one country to another is not particularly complicated or difficult. In both countries this is thought to be little or not problematic at all. It is in Portugal, where business investment (in this case Spanish) is somewhat more problematic (17,1% had declared so). Likewise, 55,3% of the Portuguese do not believe the road and rail communications are a problem. Only 10,5% described it as very or fairly problematic. The Spanish have a worse opinion, because among these the number of people perceiving this as very or fairly problematic (20,7%) has doubled. Figure 13 Opinion on business investment R doc 68

69 70% 60% 50% 40% 37,6% 37,0% 30% 27,0% 25,6% 24,0% 20% 11, 0 % 13,1% 17, 6 % 10% 1, 3 % 6,0% 0% Very problematic Quite problematic Litlle problematic Unproblematic D.K. Spain Portugal Source: Hispano-Luso Opinion Barometer 2009 Figure 14 Opinion on transport communications 70% 60% 55,3% 50% 40% 30% 25,9% 25,2% 28,7% 24,7% 20% 16, 4 % 9,1% 10% 4,3% 2,5% 8,0% 0% Very problematic Quite problematic Litlle problematic Unproblematic D.K. Spain Portugal Source: Hispano-Luso Opinion Barometer 2009 In order to analyze the reputation of the programme amongst the public, interviews were carried out through local politicians from the municipalities eligible under INTERREG and representatives of the local media (newspapers and local broadcasting) in all NUTS II regions that the programme covers. From the interviews conducted, there are three main ideas worth underlining. In the first place, all respondents were aware of CIP ES-PT, mainly for reasons associated to their professional activities. For the media, in some cases, the interviews happened with direct participants in the programme. There was also participation in some activities undertaken by the Portuguese and Spanish authorities to promote the programme. The distribution of information by public bodies and associations was another form of contact with CIP ES-PT. With regard to the council authorities, the awareness of the programme was because they were in eligible territory and, therefore, there was a very close contact with the implementation of the programme, so to analyze the possibilities of the respective authorities benefited from that. R doc 69

70 In the second place, respondents also revealed a very clear perception of the important aspects associated to the programme, particularly its objectives and its territorial coverage. The importance of the initiative for the development of cross-border projects in several areas was a major statement, notably in the fields of culture, where truly vigorous projects were undertaken. However, when asked about projects undertaken in their own regions, the respondents show some difficulty in being able to spell out concrete situations. Finally, the overall positive assessment that the respondents make about CIP ES-PT should be noted. The programme paved the way for funding to carry out a number of projects of considerable scale and importance to regional development, which otherwise would never have been possible. Other added value arising from the programme is that it has stimulated the creation and development of partnerships between entities in Portugal and Spain, as they would probably never have unfolded if not for the programme. Furthermore, channels to make new contacts were established that can more easily be boosted, now and in the future, for undertaking new projects in the Region, which could lead to the generation of new areas for regional development. To summarize, the set of the conducted interviews showed a clear perception of the programme and its objectives, even though a difficulty was observed when it came to mentioning or identifying projects that had been supported by it Intermediate conclusions on the programme external consistency The evaluation of the degree of coherence of CIP ES-PT suggests that there is a high consistency of the intervention in terms of policy and regulatory structure on which the running of the programme was based. This has resulted, among other aspects, in the drawing up of a strategy and a joint border development programme, as well as in the application of instruments of cooperation and the adoption of an approach based on the principle of partnership. Also, the intervention strategy has been developed in accordance with the guidelines established by the Commission for trans-european cooperation in order to foster a harmonious and balanced development across the European territory through INTERREG III. However, certain limitations must be outlined, including the eligibility of operations in which the purpose of local and regional development has taken precedence over cooperation. This has led to projects with a low capacity resolving problems linked to the existence of the border, or with a reduced orientation toward solving problems associated with obstacles to development, whose origin is not due to the existence of borders. Coordination with other Community Initiatives has been acceptable, especially with major transnational programmes that participated in the border regions (SUDOE and Atlantic Area). However, potential margins have been identified for improvement in this regard. Among the positive points, one should outline: A structure of strategic priorities, specific objectives and types of projects in each programme with degrees of achievement and detail all somewhat different; R doc 70

71 Creation of the Observer Panel, charged with reporting on the articulation and synergies between CIP ES-PT and other cooperation interventions; The establishment of operational control mechanisms, such as the obligatory declaration by the promoters in their applications for possible complementarity or synergies among the projects submitted to other interventions, the exchange of information, at the stage of the selection of candidatures, among the technical secretariats the CIP and other interventions that have an impact on the cross-border area or the application of integrated management systems. In contrast, the negative points relate to the wide range of CIP ES-PT, which has covered many areas of intervention. This has hampered the display of more visible impacts as well as the management of complementarities with other interventions through the programme. Complementarities with the other structural interventions, both within the framework of Objectives 1 and 3, and other community Initiatives such as URBAN, LEADER and EQUAL, can be considered adequate. The strategy of cross-border cooperation between Spain and Portugal is also seen as a tool to enhance regional development plans drawn up on either side of the border, increasing the potential for achieving the goals outlined in those documents. Though already mentioned previously, a few comments should be made. For example, the large scale of the intervention, which includes many measures associated with the programmes of Objectives 1 and 3, meaning that, in some cases, the differences only adhere to their own rules for the implementation of the measures. As for institutional coordination, it has been facilitated by the experience of cooperation developed along the border since the 90s of the twentieth century. The creation of the Office for Transboundary Initiatives has facilitated and promoted the development of joint projects in border regions and the improvement of relations between social and economic actors on both sides of the border. At the same time, the existence of previous formal instruments for regional cooperation has deepened in the mechanisms for territorial cooperation that the INTERREG promotes. Indeed, local and regional cross-border structures have also played a significant role in the development of the concepts and formulated cross-border strategies. However, the institutional articulation of the programme is confusing. Although there has been a clear division of responsibilities by the community institutions, national and regional, with a high degree of decentralisation, the administrative organisation has been relatively complex, although it has been improving its functioning. On the negative side, the main needs for development of institutional capacities are due to the lack of legal recognition that the Hispano-Portuguese structures for cooperation had and the different legal and administrative rules of both countries. Finally, it should be noted that the intervention is popular along the border. The programme is widely known, mainly due to earlier generations of INTERREG. This is evidenced by the growth of networks of cooperation that have taken place. However, there is a need to strengthen trust and mutual understanding among the inhabitants of border areas as the main way to achieve involvement and support for all cooperation activities. R doc 71

72 4.2 The intrinsic performance of the programme The overall governance and management system of the programme Management System The management system of the programme, as reflected in the CIP and mid-term evaluations has been characterised by combining three complementary management models. This has helped the development of an effective system of cooperation that ensures institutional cooperation throughout the programme and the project and the effective management of the CIP, although it was characterised by its complexity. The principles that support this system are three: 1. Guarantee transnational cooperation at the project level and common structures of the programme, and that the initiative of the Commission is supported by the Management Transnational Model, which requires the existence of transnational partnerships in both areas. 2. Decentralisation in the distribution of responsibilities between the Commission and Member States representing a first indicator of a territorial reality approach of the CIP and determines the responsibilities of the Managing and Payment Authorities. This decentralisation has been realised in the Decentralised Model of Management at a Community Level. 3. However, the experience has demanded that greater attention be paid to the regional diversity of the Spain-Portugal border that has led to the creation of five Regional Sub- Programmes. These have benefited from technical structures and specific follow-up (as reflected in the Mid-term Evaluation Report of CIP ES-PT) through the implementation of a Regional Decentralised Management Model. To this, we must add a basic premise, namely the institutional disparities, found in various legal and administrative frameworks in the two countries, which limit partnerships in the creation of joint projects. This has prompted deep restrictions on cooperation activities, since the legislation of both countries does not allow joint management of services of a public nature. Also, remember that this CIP is divided into six sub-programmes: five of territorial nature, for the five geographical sub-regions that encompass the border space, and one of a national character, which reflects the goals and strategies of cross-border cooperation linked to the General Administration State and are not included in the territorial sub-programmes. This has led to a major difference in CIP ES-PT, compared to other CIP s, as it has demonstrated the presence of six sub-committees on management, one for each sub-programme that the Initiative comprises. Thus, each sub-programme looked for its own Regional Joint Technical Secretariat. Each JTS had been constituted by the antenna in the respective Regional Administrations. Moreover, the subcommittee on National Management has the responsibility of managing the National Programme, and looked for support in its own JTS. The latter, in turn, also acts as secretariat to the MA. This administrative structure designed to manage the CIP was complemented by a Joint Management Committee, which had the important task of establishing the mechanisms of the entire programme. R doc 72

73 Figure 15 Institutional articulation for managing and monitoring the CIP The experiences developed and analysis carried out allow to discern the type of division of duties, responsibilities and competences (see Scheme ) derived from the above principles and supported by a high level of coordination between the Spanish and Portuguese authorities with mutual trust. It has been consolidated over the course of the programme and guarantees a remarkable level of efficiency, despite the difficulties observed. In this sense, the creation of sub-programmes was an option that has increased the degree of complexity, introducing, at certain times, some confusion. In fact, the intricate institutional articulation designed in the programme has had a series of consequences that can be grouped into three blocks: (1) A first consequence related to the projects presented, rates of execution, project partners, etc. (e.g. the complications created by the fact that the same antenna had to fit projects into different sub-programmes). (2) A second one related to information structures and coordination between the antennae, MA and PA: an asymmetric information problem was identified between antennae because each antenna only had project information available through their respective superiors. Consequently, partners working with different antennas did not always receive the same information on time (either with regard to spending, or in the case of reformulation of existing projects). The consolidation of the software application Fondos 2000 offset the adverse effects of this. Communication between the antennas of the Portuguese authorities and the MA took place through the National Coordinating Unit, which caused some inefficiency in the flow of information. One aspect that would have allowed facilitating this question could have been direct communication between the regional Portuguese and MA antennas. (3) One last consequence is associated with the impact of the programme on private agents and other entities: R doc 73

74 The context was comparatively less attractive to private developers, given the administrative demands that these support instruments require. The communication gap which existed for non-governmental actors who were less identified by the programme. Figure 16 Distribution of competencies in the CIP ES-PT Such incidents led to a recommendation made by the Mid-term Evaluation regarding the adoption of a Procedures Manual, setting out performance standards and information flows between the antennae, the MA and PA. From another perspective, the management of the programme has represented a cost equivalent to 6 full time employees (three internal staff and three contracted staff). The co-financing and cooperation in the financial management of approved projects In accordance with EU requirements listed in Article 29 of the Regulation 1260/99 and with the provisions for implementing the CIP, the rates of co-financing projects have not exceeded in any case the maximum permissible limits. Thus, the co-financing rate has been at 75% (subject where appropriate to the exceptions provided in the numbers 3 and 4 of the Article mentioned above). In this strictly financial context, some difficulties have been highlighted in the implementation of projects, which ensure compliance with the n+2 rule. Delays in approving the programme have, in practice, hampered the performance of the n+2 rule, resulting in the annual report 2007 in a breach of the same, with a lack of support of 63,133, The breach of the n+2 rule was due to a payment suspension of 8 months decided unilaterally by the Commission. The Commission itself acknowledged that this suspension was not legal; hence, the retained amounts were finally paid to the programme at a later stage. R doc 74