THE ON-GOING EVALUATION OF THE NORTHERN PERIPHERY PROGRAMME, Final Evaluation Report

(1)

THE ON-GOING EVALUATION OF THE

NORTHERN PERIPHERY PROGRAMME,

2007-2013

Final Evaluation Report

Irene McMaster

European Policies Research Centre University of Strathclyde 40 George Street Glasgow G1 1QE United Kingdom Tel: +44-141-548-4905 Fax: +44-141-548-4898 e-mail: [email protected] January 2010

(2)

(3)

Final Evaluation Report

Executive Summary

Introduction

Evaluation of the Northern Periphery Programme (NPP) 2007-13 provides a valuable opportunity to take stock of progress to date and to draw and apply lessons for the next phases of programme implementation. This evaluation report is part of the on-going evaluation of the NPP and focuses on a number of key themes:

 strategic and thematic gaps in relation to Programme targets -the report considers why any gaps have emerged and how they could be addressed;

 the impact of the economic crisis on the Programme area and on the Programme;  the quality of cooperation in new and established Programme areas; and

 operational issues such as how to maximise the potential of strategic and preparatory projects.

The analysis draws on a range of sources, including: Programme data and analyses made available by the Programme Joint Technical Secretariat (JTS); surveys and interviews carried out by the research team; and relevant documentary sources, including comparative studies, evaluation reports and policy literature.

Programme Context: Continuity and Change

The 2007-13 INTERREG IVB Northern Periphery Programme (NPP) aims to “help peripheral and remote communities on the northern margins of Europe to develop their economic, social and environmental potential”.1_{The Programme covers a vast area and diverse}

regions. However, all the regions involved share common features and development concerns, linked to sparse populations, rurality, insularity, and peripherality.

The 2007-13 Programme builds on a strong basis of cooperation in past programming periods. The Programme aims to extend this tradition, but it also incorporates a number of key changes: a strong strategic focus; emphasis on innovative trans-boundary products and services; an expanded Programme area; and a changing economic environment, linked to the economic crisis. Taken together, these changes offer a range of new opportunities for the Programme, but also present challenges.

1_{NPP (2006) Operational Programme of the Northern Periphery Programme} 2007-13, CCI 2007 CB 163 OP 027, p. 29.

(4)

Progress and Performance

The INTERREG IVB Northern Periphery Programme was successfully launched at an early stage in the 2007-13 programming period. At the time of writing the Programme has already completed four rounds of applications and committed over half of its resources. On this basis, there are a number of key positives to note about the Programme’s progress to date. Most notable are:

 the Programme’s careful strategic focus and attention to its core themes;  the potential of the Programme to deliver some tangible impacts;

 good commitment rates;

 the range of partners involved; and

 the successful integration of new partner areas.

However, there remain challenges and issues for the Programme to address. Key areas where issues arise are:

 Addressing core themes - some of the Programme themes have not attracted sufficient project applications - most notably: exchange of best practice and establishment of cooperation networks between R&D institutions and SMEs to increase capacity for innovation, facilitate the design of innovation systems and strengthen competitiveness; maritime safety in relation to remote and rural areas; and urban-rural partnerships for new service solutions. Additionally, opinions have been expressed that the Programme could have more impact on strategic environmental issues and equal opportunities.

 Aspects of project quality - it is proving to be difficult to embed all of the Programme’s objectives into projects and project outputs. Experience from previous INTERREG programmes has shown that writing and preparing focussed, coherent project applications is difficult for the partners involved. However the NPP faces particular problems related to its focus on products and services and incorporating innovation. For instance, the tight definition of ‘products and services’ and the ‘newness’ of the concept in relation to INTERREG has posed challenges for project partners and the Programme authorities.

 Strategic and preparatory projects - the NPP programme has a relatively open and vague definition of a ‘strategic’ project. For preparatory projects, progress in developing project networks and cooperation is not necessarily mirrored by progress in terms of delivering tangible results.

 Encouraging wider participation in some areas and groups - some groups and geographic areas are better represented in the project portfolio than others,

(5)

leading to concerns that there may be barriers to the participation of particular groups and areas. In terms of participation, key issues for the Programme are: integrating and involving the new partners areas; ensuring broad, and effective, cooperation across the whole Programme area; and the participation in projects of private enterprise, specifically SMEs and micro enterprises.

 Specific issues for the new Programme areas - the new Programme areas have been well integrated into the Programme, despite a range of potential challenges. However, there are some issues which should be taken into account as the Programme develops, such as: the time it takes to become familiar with specific practices, systems and concepts; a perception of a lack of ‘fit’ between local development needs and some of the NPP’s themes and projects; the possible emergence of geographically-based clusters within the Programme; the familiarity and attractiveness of INTERREG CBC programmes, which could limit participation in the NPP; and the economic crisis, which is a major factor influencing the extent to which partners have had the capacity to become involved in the NPP.

 Bureaucracy and complexity - the bureaucracy and complexity involved in transnational cooperation programmes remains a problem, especially in relation to the amount of financial resources involved.

Economic Crisis

In addition to the challenges listed, the current NPP is operating in a quite different economic and political context to the one pertaining when it was developed and drafted in 2006. The economic crisis has triggered major economic change across the region and substantial changes in macroeconomic policy.

The exact implications for NPP partners vary across countries and regions. For instance, Iceland and Ireland have been particularly badly affected by the crisis, whereas Greenland was cushioned from the most immediate effects by the block grant that it receives from Denmark.

In many respects, economic development concerns and their impact on regional economies heighten the relevance of programmes like the 2007-13 NPP, which target economic growth and support new developments. However, the economic crisis potentially raises considerable operational and strategic challenges for programmes:

 a potential drop in applications and participation;  difficulty engaging with some partner groups;

 challenges in committing resources under particular themes and priorities; and  constraints on administration.

(6)

Building on Strengths and Addressing Performance Issues

The NPP is already aware of many of the issues linked to the development of the Programme and to the economic situation. In response, the Programme has implemented a range of actions and measures to address them. However, in the context of this evaluation it is possible to take a wider view and draw lessons from other INTERREG and mainstream Structural Funds Programmes. Key responses to the types of challenge faced by the NPP range from:

 making changes to procurement systems;

 targeting/modifying support to projects and potential projects; and  reviewing programme expectations and strategies.

Before, summarising the findings and recommendations of this analysis, i is important to highlight a number of caveats.

 This Evaluation report is part of a wider, on-going evaluation led by the EVA-Group. Consequently, this is not an exhaustive review off all aspects of the Programme.  While progress and positive elements in the Programme are highlighted, the

evaluation report has a strong emphasis on identifying problems and solutions, in order to maximise the relevance and impact of the evaluation report.

 There are some factors affecting Programme performance that cannot be resolved by the Programme, such as the complexity of EU regulations and the economic crisis.

 There are substantial trade-offs and challenges for the Programme in pursuing some of the recommendations outlined in the report. These are discussed in the report and have to be given due consideration by the relevant authorities.

 At this stage, the full impact of the economic crisis is still emerging and policy responses are evolving. This makes it difficult to develop concrete recommendations for the Programme on how to respond to these challenges.

The analysis highlights a number of positive measures that the NPP already has in place which will continue to promote the progress of the Programme. The report also sets out steps that will enhance the Programme’s flexibility and capacity to respond to challenges and take up and to develop new opportunities. Key questions for the Programme relate to how to manage thematic gaps - progressing the best projects through selection and appraisal processes, developing tangible products and services, encouraging strategic projects, incorporating a wide range of actors and responding effectively to the economic crisis.

(7)

Responses to these issues have been grouped under four main headings in the report: programme procurement; project support; strategic programme management; and programme administration.

Programme procurement

There is scope to use targeted and focussed calls for specific themes to address gaps in the Programme portfolio. Additionally new Programme areas could offer potential to pursue new types of project or help to address gaps, e.g. there may be scope to develop the theme urban-rural links.

The use of a two-stage application process is an option. It could reduce the risk of investing resources for preparatory projects that then do not go on to make main applications, and it also reduces the short-term burdens on project applicants.

In terms of developing more strategic projects, the most obvious option would be for the Programme Monitoring Committee (PMC) to adopt a top-down approach to identifying strategic projects. The Programme’s ‘best’ projects could be awarded additional resources to extend and expand their coverage, thus making them into strategic projects. Or, projects in related areas could be encouraged to work together, with additional resources. Preparatory project funding continues to be a very popular and well-supported part of the Programme. However, there are challenges and the Programme has experienced some problems. Therefore, the partnership involved should be considered, for example with a view to identifying a lead partner early on in the process. Partners still value and need support from the Joint Technical Secretariat (JTS) on refining their ideas. Expectations of what constitutes ‘successful’ preparatory project could be reviewed.

Project support

The Programme authorities are already doing a lot to support the development and implementation of projects and this is recognised and appreciated by national and regional authorities, and project partners.

Nevertheless, it is valuable to continue developing and refining the support and information available on key themes, especially projects and services, innovation, equal opportunities and sustainable development. Consistency with respect to definitions and expectations is important across all the Programme authorities. Crucially, a clear message on ‘products and services’ needs to be agreed and reinforced.

Programme authorities must also be sensitive to the resource pressures that project partners are facing, linked to the economic crisis, and to the knock-on impact that this may have on applications, in terms of their scale, scope and approach. A heightened awareness of the potential problems, and an early discussion of these with project partners, could help.

Much more active ‘hand-holding’ for projects does raise resource issues for Regional Contact Points (RCPs) and the JTS in the short-term, but can be cost effective if it leads to

(8)

better project applications, the commitment of resources and significant outputs and impacts. There may also be a way to adapt the support that is already provided (e.g. by highlighting common pitfalls to be avoided) as well as examples of best practice (which at least in the early stages may be daunting for a project applicant to emulate).

Identifying the ‘right’ partners is vital, especially when attempting to deliver tangible products and services. This suggests that targeted communication with key actors could help stimulate good quality projects that deliver tangible results and could help engage with formerly under-represented groups, such as SMEs.

Another way support the involvement of under-represented groups is by drawing them together and pooling resources and ideas. National authorities are also making greater use of joint publicity, marketing and information events for INTERREG programmes. Such activities have proved successful as a means of promoting cross-fertilisation of ideas across Programmes and to stimulate interest in territorial cooperation.

Complementing these efforts, there is scope to increase the flow of strategic programme information to RCPs and Regional Advisory Groups (RAGs), in order to allow them to support the Programme’s strategic objectives and targets more effectively. Related, RAGs and RCPs could usefully benefit from more opportunities to meet and exchange ideas.

Programme management issues

Continuing regular internal monitoring and evaluation of progress has already proved helpful in addressing strategic gaps. The dynamic nature of the economic situation means that up-to-date information is a key tool to identify and tackle issues as they emerge. Additionally, effective and regular communication between the Programme authorities about developments on the ground is essential. For instance, updates from RCPs on relevant domestic policy developments and progress could help inform Programme and project management decisions.

The economic crisis is likely to impact on the participation of partners from established Programme areas and, especially, from the new areas. In particular, it is going to be more difficult to secure match funding.

The threat of a potential drop in applications, linked to the economic crisis, makes it particularly important that the NPP continues to be aware of what makes it distinctive and emphasise this.

The Programme needs to remain flexible and adaptable. While it may be too soon to consider major funding changes now, it is worth having a ‘Plan B’, which could be mobilised and implemented.

It may not be possible for the Programme to do everything. For instance, some organisations such as SMEs and youth organisations struggle to have the capacity to be involved in an NPP project. Additionally, it is likely to become even more challenging to commit resources to themes that have already proved difficult, most notably exchange of

(9)

best practice and cooperation networks between R&D institutions and SMEs. However, it is also important to maintain the consistency and balance of the Programme. With this in mind, it may be possible to link with SMEs by engaging with SME support agencies

Another option would be to modify eligibility criteria to allow a wider range of projects to be funded. One of the more challenging aspects of the Programme is its very tight focus on the delivery of products and services. This concept has proved challenging for projects and the Programme authorities. In order to attract a wider range of projects and participants, a ‘looser’ definition of ‘products and services’ could be considered, especially as the NPP is at an advanced stage in applying the concept relative to other Programmes.

It is also important to continue to recognise that partners and the Programme place considerable emphasis on the value of the NPP for learning. Capturing and carrying forward such lessons remains an important element in improving the quality of cooperation.

Programme administration

Changed economic circumstances due to the crisis and related government responses have had a notable impact on the institutional capacity available to partners in the Programme. These constraints have particular impacts on staff time and the financial resources available to attend meetings. At least in the short- to medium-term, it is worth considering having more meetings in central locations, in order to help administrations cut costs. Additionally, having more follow-on meetings and combined events could be an option, e.g. around the annual conference. Greater use of video conferencing could also be considered. These options also have the scope to be developed as means of establishing the NPP as a sustainable and environmentally-friendly Programme.

Conclusion

Based on these findings, the evaluation team considers that the Programme continues to be in line with Community guidelines and priorities, to address the particular development needs in the NPP area, and that it remains in a position to offer ‘added-value’ and promote cohesion in the Programme area. The Programme has already done much to enhance its progress, performance, outputs, results and impacts. This report considers ways in which it can continue this progress. Through this evaluation report, the wider on-going evaluation and the Programme’s proactive responses to evaluation results, the Programme is in a position to continue to meet the Programme’s objectives.

(10)

(11)

Preface

This evaluation has been prepared as part of the On-Going Evaluation of the Northern Periphery Programme 2007-2013. The overall purpose of the evaluation of the NPP 2007-13 is to provide an external perspective on the Programme with a view to improving and strengthening its performance, optimising the allocation of Programme resources, and assisting the Programme authorities to prepare future operations.

The evaluation has been undertaken by a research team from the European Policies Research Centre at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow:

 Dr Irene McMaster  Prof. Douglas Yuill  Dr. Sara Davies

European Policies Research Centre Glasgow

(12)

(13)

ON-GOING EVALUATION OF THE NORTHERN PERIPHERY

PROGRAMME 2007-2013 – Final Report

1.

INTRODUCTION

Evaluation of the NPP 2007-13 provides a valuable opportunity to take stock of progress to date and to draw and apply lessons for the next phases of programme implementation. The overall purpose of this Evaluation Report is to provide an external perspective on the Programme, with a view to improving and strengthening its performance, optimising the allocation of Programme resources, and assisting the Programme authorities to prepare future operations.

This evaluation report is part of the on-going evaluation of the NPP programme. Based on the findings of internal evaluations and at the request of the Programme, this report focuses on a number of key themes:

 strategic and thematic gaps in relation to Programme targets - the report considers why any gaps have emerged and how they could be addressed;

 the impact of the economic crisis on both the Programme area and the Programme;  the quality of cooperation in new and established Programme areas; and

 operational issues, such as how to maximise the potential of strategic and preparatory projects.

The evaluation concludes with recommendations on how to maximise the opportunities in the Programme, address challenges, and develop the Programme in the future.

The analysis draws on a range of sources, including: Programme data and analyses made available by the Programme Joint Technical Secretariat (JTS); surveys and interviews carried out by the research team; and relevant documentary sources, including comparative studies, evaluation reports and policy literature.

The structure of the report is as follows. Following an introduction,

 Section 2 outlines the methodology and research approach used in the preparation of the paper.

 Section 3 sets out the context in which the Programme is being implemented and highlights issues in the external environment and within the Programme that could impact upon the progress and performance of the Programme.

 Section 4 examines the progress and performance of the programme, drawing on both quantitative monitoring data and qualitative insights gained from interviews. This section includes an assessment of the involvement of the new Programme areas and the ‘quality’ of cooperation.

(16)

 Section 5 looks at how the progress and the performance of the Programme could be improved. The actions already taken by the Programme authorities are discussed, and lessons are drawn from the experience of other INTERREG and mainstream Cohesion Policy programmes, especially in relation to project procurement, programme/project development and support systems and programme management.  Section 6 discusses the economic crisis and its impacts on the NPP area and the

operation of the Programme.

 Section 7 concludes by outlining options and recommendations for developing the Programme.

(17)

2.

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK AND APPROACH

2.1

Introduction

The broad aim of evaluating Cohesion policy is to “improve the quality, effectiveness and consistency of the assistance from the Funds and the strategy and implementation of operational programmes with respect to the specific structural problems affecting the Member States and regions concerned, while taking account of the objective of sustainable development and of the relevant Community legislation concerning environmental impact and strategic environmental assessment”.2_{More generally, evaluations are increasingly}

recognised as playing a key role in the life of a programme, helping to maintain relevance, consistency, effectiveness and efficiency.

Drawing on experience gained in the evaluation of past programming rounds, in 2007 the European Commission set out new guidelines for the evaluation of Cohesion policy programmes in the 2007-13 period.3_{Key aspects are: ongoing evaluation that follows on a}

continuous basis the implementation and delivery of a programme and change in its external environment; stronger links between monitoring and evaluation;4_{increased involvement of}

responsible authorities; and flexibility in the timing of, and approach taken to evaluation.5

Evaluations are expected to be proportional to the resources of the programme. However, the Commission’s guidelines also emphasise the scope for more rigorous and innovative methods and the use of evaluation as a tool for learning and the sharing of results.

The NPP has already initiated a number of activities that establish a basis and framework for on-going evaluation. First, the ex ante evaluation of the 2007-13 Programme raised a number of issues and highlighted potential challenges that are relevant to the on-going evaluation of the programme.6

Second, an Evaluation Steering Group has been established (EVA-Group) to facilitate and monitor the ongoing-evaluation process.7_{The EVA-group consists of representatives of the}

Programme Managing Authority (MA), the Joint Technical Secretariat (JTS), Regional Contact Points (RCPs), and national representatives.

2_{Council Regulation 1083/2006, Article 47.1,}

3_{DG Regio (2007) Working Document No 5: Indicative Guidelines on Evaluation Methods : Evaluation}

during the Programming Period, available at <http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/working/sf2000_en.htm>

4_{Commission Regulation 1083/2006 specifies two cases where evaluation is a formal requirement a)} where the monitoring of operational programmes reveals a significant departure from the goals initially set and; b) when operational programme revisions are proposed (Article 48.3).

5_{DG Regio (2007) op. cit.}

6 _{McMaster I, Vironen H. Michie R. (2006) Ex Ante Evaluation of the Northern Periphery Programme,} Final Report to the Managing Authority, November 2006

7_{DG Regio’s Guidelines on Evaluation Methods, Working Paper No. 5, recommends that Member States} establish an evaluation plan in order to ensure monitoring and evaluation activities are taking place in accordance with the needs of decision-makers implementing the operational programmes.

(18)

Third, an Evaluation Strategy has been agreed for the Programme, which sets out an overall framework for on-going evaluation and effective quality management, including linkages between monitoring and evaluation activities. Particular stress is also placed on the need for a “flexible and pragmatic evaluation model, taking into account the limited financial, time and human resources available to the Programme”.8

Fourth, the Programme has undertaken a series of internal evaluation exercises, including ‘touchstone’ surveys involving the project lead partners, Regional Advisory Groups (RAG), Regional Contact Points (RCP), and the JTS.

Finally, a strategic programme overview has been prepared by the JTS, which includes details on project implementation, programme status and an analysis of preparatory projects, identifies thematic gaps, highlights up-coming project development and support activities, and outlines work plans.

On this basis, activities aimed at the on-going, internal, operational evaluation of the 2007-13 Programme are already well advanced. However, this work needed to be complemented by a balanced, external perspective involving a more in depth, strategic evaluation of key issues.9_{In response, this Evaluation Report provides an external perspective on the}

Programme with a view to improving and strengthening its performance, optimising the allocation of Programme resources, and assisting the Programme authorities to prepare future operations. Specifically, the key objectives of this report are to respond to the need to:

a) highlight what could be done to close the gaps in Programme themes and objectives that have not yet been met;

b) assess how the Programme could respond to the current economic crisis affecting the regions in the programme area; and

c) clarify how the remaining funding should be used in the most efficient way.

8_{NPP, Evaluation Strategy Document, NPP, 7007-23 p. 4}

9_{A distinction is made between}_strategi_{c evaluations (evolution of a programme in relation to} Community and national priorities) and operational evaluations (which support the monitoring of an operational programme, e.g. measuring progress, reviewing the quality and relevance of the quantified objectives, analysing data on progress and providing recommendations to enhance performance).

(19)

2.2

Research approach

The preparation of this report involved a number of phases and processes.

1. An overall framework and approach for the paper was agreed at an evaluation inception meeting with the Programme’s Evaluation Steering Group (EVA-Group), on 18 August 2009. Figure 1 outlines the structure of the evaluation report’s tasks. Figure 1: Task Structure10

2. A key element of this part of the on-going evaluation is to use an iterative and interactive process in order to maximise the insights gained from the evaluation, and the utility of its findings. With this in mind, and as part of the work involved in preparing the Evaluation Report, three evaluation working papers were prepared and submitted to the EVA-Group for discussion.

 September 2009 - Evaluation Paper 1: Progress and Performance

10 _{It should be noted that many of the issues to be addressed are interrelated and interdependent.} Although they are distinct tasks, it is important to consider, for instance, the impact of the economic situation on project performance and partner engagement. Equally, in order to propose practical and operationally-effective recommendations, it is vital to consider the full programming context.

Task 2: Progress & performance

Task 4: Strategic programming & project development Task 3: Economic

crisis and future challenges

Task 5: Options & solutions

Task 6: Final reporting Task1: Inception

(20)

 October 2009 - Evaluation Paper 2: The Impact of the Economic Crisis  December 2009 - Evaluation Paper 3: Strategic Programming Issues

In addition, a First Draft Evaluation Report was prepared for the Programme Management Group Meeting (PMG) in November 2009, where it was presented and discussed. The PMG also discussed the findings of a draft Action Plan, which was prepared by the Programme Authorities in response the findings of the First Draft Evaluation Report.

3. This Evaluation Report has a strong quantitative element but also relies on qualitative insights. As the Commission’s evaluation guidelines recognise, information on certain strategic aspects cannot be provided by, or deduced from, monitoring data11_{and must be complemented in evaluations by qualitative}

techniques, such as interviews. Therefore, a range of Programme-specific data sources have been used.

a. Programme data, based on annual and strategic reports and data made available to the evaluation team by the Managing Authority and Joint Technical Secretariat were analysed.

b. Questionnaires carried out by the Programme secretariat in early-mid 2009 were assessed in detail by the evaluation team.

c. Additional survey material was gained through questionnaires and interviews conducted by the research team.

4. In order to draw on experience and lessons from other Programmes, a range of reports and studies were reviewed, including European Commission Reports, INTERACT studies and EPRC comparative reviews.12

11_{DG Regio (2007) op. cit. p. 6 and p. 8}

12_{See, for instance, Davies S. et al (2009) Regional Dimensions of the Financial and Economic Crisis,} EoRPA Paper 09/1, prepared for the 30th meeting of the EoRPA Regional Policy Research Consortium at Ross Priory, Loch Lomondside on 4-6 October 2009, EPRC, University of Strathclyde; Yuill D et al (2009) Regional Policy under Crisis Conditions: Recent Regional Policy Developments in the EU and Norway, EoRPA Paper 09/2, prepared for the 30th meeting of the EoRPA Regional Policy Research Consortium at Ross Priory, Loch Lomondside on 4-6 October 2009, EPRC, University of Strathclyde; Mendez, C. and Kah, S. (2009) Programme Implementation in Times of Economic Crisis: Review of Programme Implementation Winter 2008-Spring 2009, IQ-Net Review Paper No. 24(1), EPRC, University of Strathclyde.

(21)

3.

NPP CONTEXT

The 2007-13 INTERREG IVB Northern Periphery Programme (NPP) aims to “help peripheral and remote communities on the northern margins of Europe to develop their economic, social and environmental potential”.13_{The Programme covers a vast area and diverse}

regions in both the EU and Non-Member States. It includes partners with a wealth of experience of the Northern Periphery Programmes, and new partner regions in Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland. However, all the regions involved share common features and development concerns, linked to sparse populations, rurality, insularity, harsh climate and peripherality.

The Programme’s objectives are to be delivered through priorities, each reflecting a strand of the Programme’s goals, with horizontal objectives of equal opportunities and sustainable development cross-cutting through all the Programme activities. The 2007-13 NPP aims to allocate €45 million to projects in line with two key priorities:

 Promoting innovation and competitiveness in remote and peripheral areas o promoting competitiveness by increasing and developing capacity for

innovation and networking in rural and peripheral areas; and

o facilitating development by the use of advanced information and communication technologies and transport.

 Sustainable development of natural and community resources

o strengthening synergies between environmental protection and growth in remote and peripheral regions; and

o improving sustainable development in peripheral regions by strengthening urban-rural relations and enhancing regional heritage.14

The NPP also asserts its commitment to equal opportunities and sustainable development, as well as to EU and national development priorities and frameworks.

The 2007-13 Programme builds on a strong basis of cooperation in past programming periods. It aims to build on this tradition, but it also introduces a number of key changes.

 Strong strategic focus

The Programme’s concentration on just two main priorities represents a tighter focus for the 2007-13 NPP in comparison to the 2000-06 Programme. The Programme has a robust, ‘intervention’ logic. By limiting the number of priorities to two, it aims to avoid the risk of

13_{NPP (2006) Operational Programme of the Northern Periphery Programme 2007-13, CCI 2007 CB 163} OP 027, p. 29.

(22)

spreading resources too thinly across too wide a range of interventions. Having fewer priorities could also be viewed as a means of simplifying Programme management and implementation and reducing the risk of the decommitment of resources.

 Innovative transboundary products and services

The Programme places particular emphasis on projects which create innovative transboundary products and services.15_{This change reflects one of the findings of the}

Update of the Mid-Term Evaluation of the 2000-06 NPP, which highlighted the scope for the Programme to make a distinctive contribution and add value in a range of areas, including the development of transboundary products, through working together to produce new products that have a transnational or transregional character.16_{It also takes into account}

the European Commission’s emphasis on setting and meeting appropriate ‘measurable targets’17_{and demonstrating the added value of the Programme.}18_{The Programme’s}

approach to addressing products and services was developed and reflected in the Operational Programme in consultation with the Commission.

This is a notable shift in emphasis away from simply networking activities. Transboundary products and/or services are expected to be achieved through facilitating knowledge transfers of economic development solutions and their practical application, and working together to develop new or innovative economic development solutions that can be applied in practice. The Programme considers these products and services as key to the Programme ‘adding value’.

 Expanded programme area

The Programme covers an expanded area in comparison to the 2000-06 NPP. Programme areas in Scotland and Norway have been extended and Ireland and Northern Ireland have joined the Programme. This expansion offers a range of opportunities, e.g. new project partners, new ideas and approaches, new transnational links and new development issues. Expansion also means that the Programme authorities must be sensitive to the needs of new, potentially less-experienced, partners joining a well-established Programme and a shift in the geography of the Programme away from a strongly Nordic/Arctic focus.

 Changing economic environment

Since the Programme was drafted, the economic crisis has triggered a shift in fortunes across the area and led to major changes in macroeconomic policy. In many respects, economic

15_{NPP (2006) op. cit.}

16_{Bachtler J and Quiogue N C and Michie R (2005) INTERREG IIIB Northern Periphery Programme,} Update of the Mid-Term Evaluation, Final Report to the Managing Authority, 19 December 2005. 17_{With respect to measurability, the Commission stress is on concrete outputs, as opposed to} establishing networks etc.

18_{CEC (2006) Proposal for a Regulation on the European Regional Development Fund, 8751/06 CEC} Brussels 28 April 2006.

(23)

development concerns and their impact on regional economies heighten the relevance of programmes like the 2007-13 NPP, as they target economic growth and support new development. However, the economic crisis also raises considerable operational and strategic challenges for programmes, e.g. in meeting financial commitments and mobilising project partners.

Together, these changes offer a range of new opportunities for the Programme, the Programme area and project partners. However, it is challenging for both experienced and new partners to adapt. Although there are well-recognised benefits and added value in territorial cooperation, there are a number of equally well-recognised challenges.19_In

particular, territorial cooperation programmes remain highly complex and bureaucratic while, in certain contexts, the benefits of cooperation can be more symbolic than substantial.

19_{Ferry M and Gross F (2005) The Future of Territorial Cooperation in an Enlarged EU, Paper prepared} for the Benchmarking Regional Policy in Europe Conference, Riga, 24-26 April 2005

(24)

(25)

4.

PROGRESS AND PERFORMANCE

The INTERREG IVB Northern Periphery Programme was successfully launched at an early stage of the 2007-13 programming period. The Programme has already completed four rounds of applications and committed 65 percent of its resources. On this basis, there are a number of key positives to note about the Programme’s progress to date. Most notable are the Programme’s careful strategic focus and attention to its core themes, the potential of the Programme to deliver some tangible impacts, good commitment rates, the range of partners involved, and the successful integration of new partner areas.

4.1

Key areas of progress

4.1.1

Strategic focus and addressing core themes

As previously noted, the Programme aims to “help peripheral and remote communities on the northern margins of Europe to develop their economic, social and environmental potential”. In line with this objective are the Programme’s two main priorities and ‘core concepts’ - transnationality and added value - as well as the commitment to partnerships involving business, higher education institutions and the public sector (triple-helix partnerships).

Initial indications from quantitative and qualitative data are that the Programme’s core concepts are broadly addressed and that the projects that have been approved so far are relevant. For instance, based on a review of the proposed outputs of approved main projects, particular strengths include: sustainable development, learning and exchange of expertise, innovation, benchmarking and the development of new solutions (see Table 1). Table 1: Main Projects - Summary of Key Expected Results

Expected results Priority 1: innovation &

competitiveness in remote & peripheral areas

 Learning and exchange of experience  Benchmarking

 Tourism products and cooperation  Support for the establishment of SMEs  Development and piloting eHealth services  ICT and telecoms use in rural areas

 Information and training for SMEs on climate change

 Innovation in key sectors (fisheries, forestry and the creative sector)

Priority 2: sustainable development of natural & community resources

 Learning and exchange of experience  Benchmarking

 Tools to promote sustainable rural development  Service delivery for elderly

 Sustainable development of resources (e.g. forestry and fisheries)

Source: EPRC based on NPP JTS Strategic Programme Overview: Overview of the Operational Programme.

(26)

The type of projects funded by the Programme and their expected outputs are also in line with European Commission regulations and goals. The European Commission’s regulations for transnational cooperation for 2007-13 set out four main areas of intervention: innovation; environment; accessibility; and sustainable urban development. Additionally, all interventions are expected to contribute to the sustainable economic development of the transnational areas and have a clear transnational dimension and impact. These themes also sit within the wider context of the EU’s overall development objectives set out in the Lisbon Agenda. In this context, the Programme’s progress in promoting innovation and sustainable development fits particularly well.

Qualitative feedback suggests that the Programme is viewed positively by its current project partners, with ‘open’ access for a wide range of actors and well targeted, useful themes that address common development issues across the Programme area.20_Partners

also valued the ‘good history of cooperation’ and the support that has been made available to potential partners by the Programme authorities, citing both as factors in their involvement in the 2007-13 Programme. In terms of the positive aspects of NPP cooperation, the most widely referred to by partners are listed in Table 2.

Table 2: Partner Views: NPP Benefits

Benefits

 International and domestic profile – a number of partners highlight the fact that there is profile and prestige attached to working on an INTERREG programme.

 Access to and knowledge of new methodologies and processes and technologies.  Organisational learning and building organisational competence.

 Opportunity for partners to showcase their own strengths and capabilities.

 Scope to build long-term links with key partners that can de developed beyond the NPP project.

 For research-focused partners, the Programme has offered a means of applying research results.

Source: EPRC interviews with stakeholders

The benefits and quality of cooperation are also seen to be supported by the relevance of the Programme’s main priorities, the support available from RCPs, and the JTS, and feedback from RAGs. In response to the touchstone questionnaire survey, a number of RAGs stated that they were satisfied with the overall quality of the proposals that they received.

(27)

4.1.2

Tangible impacts

Targets have been set at Programme level for the number of main projects which are transboundary projects within each priority, with a proportion of these being strategic projects.21_{The targets set are based on the priority objectives and the division of financing}

between the priorities.

Given the early stage of implementation and data limitations, it is only possible to comment on progress towards the Programme’s main targets. In the longer term, it is anticipated that the Programme will have a range of identifiable results and impacts, e.g. with networking activities leading to the development of new products and services in key sectors for remote and peripheral regions.

The Programme authorities have been especially pro-active in promoting the concept of ‘products and services’. The emphasis and priority placed on this is clearly reflected in the Programme, the programme manual, application forms and supporting material. It is also a theme that has been highlighted at partner meetings and in publicity material.

Additionally, a project’s progress in product and service development is assessed in a review of the main project activity report. Projects are asked to provide a description of project outcomes so far, by describing the status of product and service development and its implementation. They are also asked to provide specific examples of ‘innovation’ and ‘transnationality’ in the product or service provided. Also of note, a thematic seminar was held in June 2009 in Laukaa, Finland, which focussed on product and service development and how to communicate/market products and services to target groups and the general public.

It is also important to note that the Programme is expected to have important beneficial impacts on social capital in the NPP area, e.g. through promoting networking activities, exchange of experience, learning and knowledge transfer. These positive impacts are commonly less tangible and more difficult to measure accurately, but they are no less valuable.

4.1.3

Good commitment rates

The Programme has good commitment rates, especially for Priority 2. Following a third call for projects, the Programme had commitment levels of €19,118,980, with 45.6 percent of the Programme’s resources committed.22_{At this stage, the highest commitment rates were}

for Priority 2 (sustainable development), with 52.6 percent committed. Priority 1 (innovation and competitiveness) lagged behind with 37.9 percent committed. More recently, following a fourth call, commitment rates increased to 62 percent of the Programme’s resources, which is below the planned 70 percent.23_{The 70 percent target also includes Priority 3,}

21_{NPP (2006) op cit p. 48}

22_{NPP (2009a) Strategic Programme Overview, Northern Periphery Programme 2007-13} 23_ibid

(28)

technical assistance, which has commitment level of 66 percent. It is also worth noting that the disparities between the commitment rates of the priorities have also increased. Table 3 shows that Priority 2 has a higher commitment rate (78 per cent) compared to Priority 1 (51 per cent).

Table 3: Programme Commitment Rates (August 2009)

Allocations € Committed % Committed

Member States: Priority 1 19 804 931 10 071 450 51

Member States: Priority 2 13 203 287 10 251 385 78

Greenland 492 800 290 005 59

Iceland 2 772 000 1 485 800 54

Faroe Islands 831 600 615 618 74

Norway 4 840 000 2 485 342 51

Total - - 62

Source: NPP (2009) Strategic Programme Overview, Northern Periphery Programme 2007-13

4.1.4

Range of partners involved

Based on a preliminary assessment of project applications and approved projects in the period up to August 2009,24_{it is apparent that participants have been drawn from across the}

Programme area. In terms of participation rates, it is positive to note that there is representation of Member States and non-Member States and a mix of partners in the approved projects (see Figure 2). This is a particularly favourable development within an expanded Programme area, and one that encompasses both Member States and non-Member States.

(29)

Figure 2: NPP 2007-13 distribution of partners by NPP country25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Faro es Finl and Gree nlan d Icel and Irela nd Nort hern Irel and Norw ay Scot land Swed en

Source: EPRC calculations based on NPP 2007-13 Project Booklet 18.11.2009

Linked to the Programme’s commitment to ‘triple helix’ partnership between higher education, private business and public authorities, it is worth highlighting the range of institutions that are involved in project applications and approved projects. A number of the approved projects are made up of partnerships between universities and government agencies. Some specifically incorporate ‘triple helix’ partnerships. For instance, the 'Competitive Health Services in Sparsely Populated Areas' project involves universities and public bodies and lists SMEs as a partner. The ‘Digital Age in Rural and Remote Areas' project is led by a university and involves local authorities and the federation of private enterprise. Triple helix projects are complex to establish and success in this field links well to the Programme’s core objectives. The JTS has expressed some concerns about the relative lack of participation by SMEs and some target groups, most notably youth involvement in the Programme.

4.1.5

New partner regions

The expansion of the Programme area in the 2007-13 programming period to include Ireland, Northern Ireland, additional regions on the west coast of Norway (Hordaland, Møre og Romsdal, Rogaland, Sør-Trøndelag, Sogn og Fjordane and Svalbard), and Dumfries and Galloway and North-East Moray in Scotland has added a new dimension to the Programme. The expansion strengthens and increases opportunities for transnational cooperation and exchange of knowledge across the Programme areas to address the shared challenges and contribute to common goals.26_{More specifically, extending the Programme area offers a}

number of opportunities:

 new Programme partners – which is especially important given the sparse populations and limited ‘pool’ of potential partners in the NPP area;

25_{A number of projects also involve partners from outside the Programme area, under the 10% and 20%} funding source, e.g. partners from Spain and Canada as well as a number of partners from outside the Programme area but within the Programme countries.

(30)

 new project ideas – incorporating new areas and new partners offers scope to develop new, innovative project ideas, as opposed to the Programme relying solely on well-established partnership groupings;

 new fields of intervention – the majority of the new Programme areas cover geographic areas that could bring new fields of cooperation between partners, such as coastal development.

Based on analysis of project data and interview feedback, it is clear that the Programme and the new Programme areas have done a great deal to maximise the opportunities that the expanded area offers. Support from project partners was extended, new structures and Programme publicity were put in place, key stakeholders have become closely involved with the NPP and, crucially, partners from the new Programme areas are involved in projects. In Scotland and Norway, existing arrangements for project support were extended to incorporate the new areas without particular difficulty, a process eased by the fact that new Programme areas were geographically and institutionally close to established Programme areas.

In Ireland and Northern Ireland the relevant systems and structures for NPP management and implementation were established without any problem. Institutions and personnel with considerable experience of Cohesion policy and INTERREG programmes took on key roles. RCPs are based at the Border, Midlands and Western (BMW) Regional Assembly in Ireland and the Special European Programmes Body (SEUPB) in Northern Ireland. Regional Advisory Groups (RAGs) were established and comprise a range of institutions with wide experience of both domestic and EU Programmes. Representation on the Programme Monitoring Committee and the Programme Management Group was taken up by representatives of the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Local Government Association, Irish Department of Finance and the BMW Regional Assembly. The experience of these organisations in managing and implementing EU funds has smoothed many of the potential ‘teething’ troubles that the Programme could have faced.

Domestic Programme authorities and the JTS have been very active in promoting the NPP and supporting project applications in the new Programme areas. For instance, joint information and marketing events were held in Ireland and Northern Ireland. Such activities, as well as publicising the NPP alongside other INTERREG programmes have proved to be a useful way to capitalise on the cross-fertilisation of ideas and the scope to pool financial resources. They also reinforce important principles of cross-border cooperation between Ireland and Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland efforts to introduce and promote the NPP have also coincided favourably with a more general push to boost participation in INTERREG programmes.27

27

Northern Ireland Executive, (2008-2009) Priorities for European Engagement, Northern Ireland Executive.

(31)

In terms of how the new structures are working in Ireland and Northern Ireland, partner feedback on support from the local RCPs is uniformly positive. Partners received a particularly high level of active support from RCPs and also had good contacts with the JTS. For instance, the hands-on approach taken by SEUPB has been popular and appreciated. For stakeholders in Ireland and Northern Ireland, the link with the rest of the Programme area has its attractions. The NPP perspective is something they can engage with and relate to, especially the themes of peripherality and rurality. The relevance of the NPP is particularly clear for some sectors, such as renewable energy, as the Nordic counties are seen as leaders in the field and as valued partners. Additionally for Northern Ireland, a particularly valuable element of the NPP (in comparison with other INTERREG programmes) is the fact that there is a strong, regionally-based representation of the Programme and a permanent ‘seat’ around the table on the Monitoring Committee.

Analysis of NPP project applications and approved projects demonstrates that project partners from the new Programme areas have been involved from an early stage.

 New area partners have participated in a wide range of projects. For instance, o Sogn og Fjordane County - Clim-ATIC – developing adaptation of community

sectors to climate change.

o Donegal County Council and Derry Country Council – CMC@NP - broadband mobile communications to promote competitiveness.

o National University of Ireland - Competitive Health - provision of health services in sparsely-populated areas.

Involvement covers new and established cooperation projects. The approved projects include a number of different types of organisation. Active partners have included universities, local government, research institutions, cross-border partnerships, and tourism and cultural heritage groups. Some partners in some regions, however, have not been as active as hoped for - for example, local authorities in Northern Ireland.

Fields of intervention where a number of new partners have become involved are: adaptations to climate change; communications and services in rural and remote areas; and business support and entrepreneurship. In projects based on primary resources, such as fisheries and forestry, there has been less involvement from Northern Ireland and Ireland. At this early stage, it is impressive that there are already a number of lead partners from Ireland, although not unsurprising that there have not been more. It will take time for partners to build up sufficient experience and expertise to take on this role. The need to build up experience also has implications for the scope of the Programme to develop ‘new’ types of projects under the existing priorities, such as coastal development, and improving links between medium–sized settlements and their more rural hinterlands.

(32)

4.2

Challenges

To date, there are notable strengths in the Programme’s performance and progress. However, there remain challenges and issues for the Programme to address. Key areas where issues arise are: addressing core themes; aspects of project quality; strategic and preparatory projects; encouraging wider participation in some areas and groups; specific issues for the new Programme areas; and bureaucracy and complexity.

(i) Addressing core themes

Some of the Programme themes have not attracted sufficient project applications. Most notably:

 exchange of best practice and establishment of cooperation networks between R&D institutions and SMEs to increase capacity for innovation, facilitate the design of innovation systems and strengthen competitiveness;

 maritime safety in relation to remote and rural areas; and  urban-rural partnerships for new service solutions.

Additionally, opinions have been expressed by Regional Advisory Groups (RAGs) that the Programme could have more impact on strategic environmental issues.28_{Similar concerns}

have been raised about how projects deal with concerns related to equal opportunities.29_A

common perception is that these aspects have not been addressed as fully as they could have been, with a ‘tick box’ approach being used, rather than a concrete description on how projects will actually address these themes at the implementation stage. This is a recurring issue and one that is faced by many Programmes.30

(ii) Project quality

It is proving to be difficult to embed all of the Programme’s objectives into projects and project outputs. This is mainly reflected in the perceived quality of projects. The quality of applications has been a concern to Programme authorities. For example, applications are commonly seen as weak in terms of strategic focus, innovation and identifying tangible results. In some cases, RAGs have raised concerns about the lack of ‘strategic focus’ in project applications and the weak link to the specific needs of the NPP area.31

Experience from previous INTERREG programmes has shown that writing and preparing focussed, coherent project applications, especially large project applications involving

28_{NPP Touchstone Survey of Regional Advisory Groups, NPP 2009} 29_ibid

30_{Taylor S et al (2004) A Study of the Mid-term Evaluations of INTERREG Programmes for the} Programming Period 2000-2006, Report to the INTERACT Secretariat by the European Policies Research Centre.

(33)

numerous partners, is difficult for the partners involved.32_{Lead partners have to balance a}

range of partner interests, as well as the Programme’s needs. The Programme has a number of complex core concepts and themes that need to be incorporated. Additionally, the style of writing required in an application is not necessarily familiar to all the partners.

Particular problems are related to the focus on products and services and the need to incorporate innovation.

 Products and services

The focus on ‘tangible’ products and services has been problematic in practice. The tight definition of ‘products and services’ and the ‘newness’ of the concept in relation to INTERREG has posed challenges for project partners and the Programme authorities.

In part, the problem is one of communication and understanding. There is confusion over what exactly constitutes a transnational product or service, with some Programme authorities taking quite a narrow definition, which may be in contrast to the understanding of project partners. Consistency between the Programme authorities in their own interpretations of products and services is a particular challenge, especially given the multi-layered project selection system that the Programme operates, involving the JTS, the RAGs and the Programme Monitoring Committee (PMC).

There are also practical concerns. First, the type of partners most commonly involved in NPP projects, e.g. local authorities and universities, are not well placed to deliver concrete ‘products’. Questionnaire responses indicate that the idea of a project delivering products and services is not unpopular,33_{but it is still unclear whether (and to what extent) tangible}

products and services will result from many project applications. For instance, many applications remain very research oriented.34

Second, the approach is new and unfamiliar in the context of INTERREG. The NPP approach is distinctive in that a there is a particularly tight focus on products and services and a relatively narrow understanding of what constitutes a ‘product or service’ Other Programmes, including the North Sea Programme and Atlantic Areas Programme, have allowed more scope to fund a wider range of activities.

 The North Sea Programme states “Projects with a clearly visible output are prioritised. Studies are possible under this programme, but action plans and implementation activities are particularly encouraged”. 35

 The Atlantic Area Programme highlights tangible operational results, but also stresses the importance of improving the techniques for monitoring the progress accomplished over a programming period and between two successive periods. It

32_{Taylor et al (2004) op cit.}

33_{NPP (2009) Touchstone survey of lead partners} 34_{NPP (2009) Touchstone survey of RCPs and RAGs}

(34)

also allows projects to consolidate the existing cooperation structures in order to reduce their dependence on subsidies and extend partnerships.36

Third, the European Commission regulations have caused difficulties. The fact that any profit on a product or service must be paid back until five years after the end of the project, is a limitation in developing a ‘marketable’ output. Also, intellectual property rights are a concern for partners, as all results of NPP funded projects are considered ‘open-source’. In order to take the products and services concept forward, Programme authorities need to be clearer on how projects express and convey the outputs, results and impacts of the Programme. At the same time, the project partners need to put effort into interpreting and explaining the relevance and utility of their project to the Programme area.

Despite these difficulties, it is recognised that, if projects successfully deliver their proposed ‘product or service’ through transnational cooperation, the Programme will not only have supported networking and institutional learning, it will have achieved concrete, measurable results. This would be a notable achievement.

 Incorporating innovation

The level of innovation in the projects is questionable, especially as some early applications are considered by the RAGs and RCPs to be strongly oriented to the objectives of the previous, 2000-06, Programme.37_{In part, this is a symptom of the success of past}

programming rounds. The fact that the Programme has attracted a high level of repeat applications from experienced partners means that partners are relying on the approaches that served them well in the past, without recognising that the 2007-13 Programme has moved on.

More generally, the lack of innovation could be linked to the fact that INTERREG projects can be extremely complex to ‘get up and running’. With so much effort going into the administration of the project, it could be perceived as ‘safer’ to rely on ‘tried and tested’ fields of intervention, teams etc. A further pressure is the expectation that projects will produce tangible results. Ideally, this will stimulate new and innovative products and services. However, the pressure to deliver could limit willingness to undertake a more innovative, but riskier, project. Also, it may be that too much is being asked of projects at what is still an early stage. In many cases, there needs to be scope for innovation and development over the life of the project.

36_{Atlantic Area, Operational Programme Transnational Cooperation 2007-13,}

<http://atlanticarea.inescporto.pt/documentation/operational-programme/atlantic-area-transnational-programme-2007-2013>

(35)

(iii) Strategic and preparatory projects

A more specific concern about the quality of applications and projects is the number and quality of strategic and preparatory projects.

 Strategic projects

The Programme recognises the need for strategic projects that “make a significant contribution towards achieving the vision and objectives of the Programme”.38_Project

generation and selection systems that focus on strategic projects have several advantages. Fewer, larger projects can simplify programme delivery and administration. Strategic projects offer greater capacity to address the programme’s objectives, and they generally have a clear, demonstrable impact. Specific measures for strategic projects can allow for the longer lead-in times that are regularly required. Larger-scale projects, involving a number of project partners across the programme area, can make an important contribution to building cross-border cooperation.

However, there are also difficulties associated with strategic projects. Encouraging a limited number of large projects may reduce the number of beneficiaries. A small number of large projects can overly dominate resource allocation, and restrict the flexibility of the programme. Strategic, potentially ‘top-down’ generated projects could detract from the generation of ‘bottom-up’, low budget but high impact projects. Strategic projects tend to have a long lead-in time. Related, there may be potential N+2 concerns if the project experiences delays or if there is a lack of projects.

Currently, the NPP programme has a relatively open and vague definition of a ‘strategic’ project. According to the Programme manual, a project is ‘strategic’ if it has the following features: it can demonstrate particularly beneficial impacts on the Programme area; its results and outputs are innovative and are of benefit and relevance to the whole Programme area and should focus on the remote peripheral, sparsely populated and rural regions; and when appropriate, it involves cooperation at the transnational, national, regional and local levels in order to inform policy development.39

The NPP has approved a number of strategic projects using a ‘bottom-up’ approach to generating projects. However, there may be value in developing a more detailed, proactive and ‘top-down’ process for identifying, developing and implementing strategic projects at an early stage in the life of the Programme.

 Preparatory projects

The Programme has a well-regarded system of preparatory project funding. Preparatory projects have: helped to develop larger, more strategic project bids involving more partners; projects to be developed by beneficiaries who otherwise may not have had the resources to develop good strategic project applications, e.g. SMEs to give project developers the

38_{NPP (2006) op. cit. p. 38} 39_{NPP (2006) op cit. p. 38}

(36)

opportunity to establish early links with potential project partners in neighbouring regions; and enabled programme authorities to provide valuable feedback and support to the project partners at a relatively early stage in the process. 40

However, there are difficulties associated with such projects. For instance, progress in developing project networks and cooperation is not necessarily mirrored by progress in terms of delivering tangible results. Looking to the experience of other Programmes, similar problems have been experienced, including the following:

 such approaches do not necessarily lead to a large number of main applications, possibly because project partners had achieved their desired results by developing the initial contacts.41

 the preparatory phase is still dominated by partners expanding and securing their networks, building understanding between those involved and considering challenges such as how to secure match-funding and complete the relevant application forms;  application procedures for these types of funds may be overly complex relative to

the funding available; and

 there is no guarantee that ‘seeded’ projects will be successful in their final applications.

The way in which the NPP has evolved poses particular challenges for preparatory projects, in comparison to previous programming periods. First, the Programme area has expanded, bringing in new and less experienced project partners. Second, Commission regulations and the Programme’s emphasis on products and services represent a shift away from networking and exchange of experience as an appropriate project outcome. Yet, projects still face practical challenges in building successful partnerships. Third, the types of partners that are commonly involved in NPP projects, e.g. universities, local authorities, government agencies, are not necessarily well positioned to deliver products and services without the involvement of the private sector. Finally, there has been an element of bad luck. The fact that some preparatory projects have not progressed has been due to unforeseeable circumstances, such as the economic crisis and its impact on the partners involved. Very specific issues have also caused projects not to progress, such as the lack of a willing lead partner.

Nevertheless, many preparatory projects have been successful and surveys of lead partners suggest that the ‘idea’ of preparatory project funding is still very attractive and is viewed as beneficial by partners. Additionally, interviews carried out with partners in projects that

40

McMaster I. Bachtler J. Vironen H. and Gross, F (2006b) Ireland, Northern Ireland and Western Scotland Cross-Border Territorial Cooperation Programme 2007–2013: Development of a Joint Strategic Approach on Behalf of Scottish Partners.

41_{For instance, in the 2000-06 NP Programme the micro-project scheme did not lead to a large number} of main applications, possibly because project partners had achieved their desired results by developing the initial contacts.

(37)

THE ON-GOING EVALUATION OF THE NORTHERN PERIPHERY PROGRAMME, Final Evaluation Report