Use of HIT in programmes

Best available estimates show that around 57 programmes, i.e. 66 percent of CBC, TNC, IRC and IPA CBC programmes, are using the Harmonised Implementation Tools to at least some extent. This figure is based on the replies to the HIT surveys carried out in 2015 and 2018 as well as the statistics on the use of electronic monitoring system (eMS).

The 2018 HIT survey largely confirms the forecast given by programmes in a survey in 2015 on their intended use of HIT.14 _{Out of the programmes that responded to both surveys, only one programme}

had changed its mind and has decided to use HIT (likely because of the adoption of eMS) despite having stated in 2015 that they would use HIT only as inspiration. Thus in spite of the lack of very

14 _{All comparison between the 2015 and 2018 survey has to be treated with caution as the 2015 survey is based}

robust data, the comparison identifies that the number of programmes using HIT has probably not changed much between the 2015 forecast and 2018 and it is likely that it has gone up slightly.

As regards differences between strands, 35 out of 60 (58 percent) cross-border programmes, 12 out of 15 (80 percent) transnational programmes, 2 out of 4 (50 percent)15 _{interregional programmes,}

and 8 out of 10 (80 percent) IPA CBC programmes are using HIT, at least to some extent.

A robust positive trend can be observed in terms of the extent to which HIT is used. The share of programmes using 80 percent or more of the tools has increased for all three groups of tools (see ). This is also confirmed by directly comparing the responses of programmes to both surveys.

Figure 12: Forecasted adoption of HIT in 2015 (N=73) and actual use of HIT in 2018 (N=28).

Source: HIT survey, 2015 & 2018. Data labels show the absolute numbers.

Figures on participation in the HIT development and adoption of HIT in programmes also show that the commitment to using the tools has increased over time. Out of the 46 programmes that did not participate in the HIT development, 26 (9 of which have signed the eMS licence) are using HIT. Another nine programmes have declared that HIT has served them as inspiration. HIT, therefore, has a reach beyond the programmes which actively participated in its development.

15 _{The two interregional programmes using HIT (at least to some extent) are Interreg Europe and the ESPON}

Programme. 22 13 15 12 27 8 3 6 5 2 3 17 1 2 4 2 4 4 5 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Programmes intending to use HIT to a certain

extent. 2015

Use of Harmonised tools for project selection (i.e. Application Form, Quality Assessment Criteria, Administrative Eligibility

Checklist). 2018

Use of Harmonised tools for project implementation (i.e. Project Progress Report

templates, Progress Report Monitoring

Checklist). 2018

Use of Harmonised tools for financial control and audit (FLC Certificate, FLC Control Report, FLC Checklist). 2018 80% or more 40-80% 40% or less For inspiration Not used at all

Figure 13: Degree to which HIT is used in programmes using/not using eMS

Source: HIT survey, 2018. A= >80 percent, B= 80 percent-40 percent, C= <40 percent, D= only for inspiration, E= does not use HIT at all, N=28.

There is also a clear correlation between the use of eMS and the extent to which the harmonised tools have been adopted by programmes (see ). Programmes which have adopted eMS use the harmonised tools to a larger extent.

Reasons for not using HIT. According to the 2018 HIT survey respondents, the most important

reasons for programmes deciding not to use HIT are (in the order of importance):  Good experience with programme-specific tools from last period;

 Requirement to use a specific (national) monitoring system which couldn't be adapted to the HIT; and

 More flexibility needed to adapt tools to programme needs. Conversely, reasons that did not play an important role are:

 Tools are too complex for our programme; and

 Use of tools is not supported by our Monitoring Committee.

When weighing the freedom to design programme tools on the basis of what has worked well in the programme context in the past against the benefits of harmonising with other programmes for the sake of applicants/beneficiaries, some programmes legitimately opt for the former. Driving forces behind such decisions seem to be the programme MAs/JSs and not the Monitoring Committee Members. However, national authorities can strongly shape the degree of harmonisation that can be achieved by introducing specific national rules or by giving priority to harmonisation on the national level. In particular the requirement for programme MAs to use a (national) monitoring system, which cannot be adapted to the HIT, is one of the biggest impediments to harmonisation within the Interreg community of programmes. The alleged complexity of the tools, an occasionally expressed criticism, was not a reason for not adopting them and programmes understood that they could change the tools as they liked. 10 6 1 1 12 2 2 1 1 11 5 1 1 3 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E

Use of Harmonised tools for project selection (i.e. Application Form, Quality

Assessment Criteria, Administrative Eligibility Checklist). 2018

Use of Harmonised tools for project implementation (i.e. Project Progress

Report templates, Progress Report Monitoring Checklist). 2018

Use of Harmonised tools for financial control and audit (FLC Certificate, FLC Control Report, FLC Checklist). 2018

yes no

Common modifications to HIT. The survey to programmes on the use of HIT revealed that

programmes did indeed customise the tools to quite some extent by:  Making substantial changes to compulsory questions or tables;  Omitting (compulsory) questions or tables; and

 Additional questions or tables (other than the optional ones).

It is difficult to draw general conclusions on what modifications were made and why as they are specific to each tool and can only be understood when analysed in the context of each programme. However, the following points identify some main findings per group of tools:

 Harmonised tools for project selection: modifications were made to the Application Form by: o simplifying the target group section (e.g. cutting out questions or not asking applicants

to specify target group involvement per WP);

o simplifying section C.2.1 asking projects to link their objectives, expected results and main outputs to the programme's intervention logic (e.g. no compulsory link between a WP main output and a programme output indicator).

o simplifying budget tables; and

o Adaptations were made by adding programme-specific questions regarding specific types of projects (e.g. tourism, SME), or specific tables (e.g. regarding the purchase of land).

 Harmonised tools for project implementation: modifications made to Project Progress Report templates were mainly minor changes such as:

o presenting progress made on target groups or indicators only in the final progress report;

o eliminating the reporting per WP or adding the reporting per activity;

o adding fields/tables on progress on communication or results indicators; and

o collecting additional information needed for the annual implementation reports (e.g. on partnership, spending forecast, actions on social innovation, etc.).

Regarding the Progress Report Monitoring Checklist, a number of programmes decided not to use it or have reworked it completely.

 Harmonised tools for financial control and audit: modifications made to the FLC Certificate, FLC Control Report, FLC Checklist Project Progress Report templates were mainly minor changes such as:

o Changes to wording;

o FLC Report and Certificate were merged (note that this is an optional feature); and o Additional checks added (e.g. on state aid, national contribution follow up, public