Ex Post Evaluation of INTERREG 2000-2006...

Ex Post Evaluation of INTERREG 2000-2006

Initiative financed by the European Regional

Development Fund (ERDF)

TASK 5: IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OFPROGRAMMES

Programme : INTERREG III A FINLAND-ESTONIA EVALUATION REPORT

Panteia and Partners:

• EureConsult S.A. (Luxemburg)

• Policy Research and Consultancy (Frankfurt / Germany)

• GÉPHYRES EURL (Roubaix / France)

• The Radboud University (Nijmegen / The Netherlands)

Carried out by: CyclePlanDrive (Tallinn / Estonia)

January 2010

This study has been financed by European Commission

Directorate General for Regional Policy, Evaluation Unit.

Quoting of numbers and/or text is permitted only when the source is clearly mentioned.

INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG A

Finland-Estonia

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

MAIN REPORT 7

1 INTRODUCTION 7

2 RESEARCH INTEREST AND METHODOLOGY 10

3 IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND IMPACTS IN TERMS OF EFFECTIVENESS & SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS 11

3.1 The financial implementation of the programme 11 3.1.1 Financial analysis across the intervention codes 12 3.1.2 Dynamic financial analysis 15 3.1.3 Intermediate conclusions 16 3.2 The effectiveness of the programme 17 3.2.1 Planned results, achievement rates at measure level and

trend patterns 18 3.2.2 Reviewing the programming quality and the programme

relevance on the basis of the results achieved 28 3.2.3 The level of complexity and experimentation achieved by co-

operation 33 3.2.4 Intermediate conclusions 34 3.3 Project-level co-operation under the programme 35 3.3.1 Selection of the project sample 35 3.3.2 In-depth evaluation of projects implemented under the

priority topics of the Community Initiative 38 3.3.3 Good practice projects with particularly strong territorial

cooperation demonstrating the Community added value of

INTERREG programmes 48 3.4 Analysis of factors that determine the character of the

programme 53 3.4.1 Important contextual factors characterising cross-border /

transnational programme areas 53 3.4.2 Historic factors determining the character of cross-

border/transnational / inter-regional co-operation 56 3.4.3 Intermediate conclusions 58 3.5 Re-considering the “depth & intensity of territorial co-

operation” 60 3.6 Main factors fostering (or hampering) integration and the

means to promote positive factors or to overcome persisting

obstacles 61 3.7 Extrapolating results on effectiveness and impacts to all

INTERREG programmes 62

4 IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND IMPACTS IN TERMS OF UTILITY AND EFFICIENCY 63

R20090332.doc 2 January, 2010


Finland-Estonia

4.1 The external coherence of the programme 63 4.1.1 Regulatory compliance and interaction / co-ordination with

other Structural Funds programmes 63 4.1.2 Intermediate conclusions 65 4.2 The intrinsic performance of the programme 65 4.2.1 The overall governance and management system of the

programme 65 4.2.2 The Community added value and the sustainability / durability

of the programme 70 4.2.3 Intermediate conclusions 72

5 OVERALL FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 74

5.1 Overall final conclusions on the impact of the INTERREG III

programme 74 5.2 Short- and medium-term policy recommendations 74 5.3 Long-term policy recommendations 75

6 BIBLIOGRAPHY 76

7 LIST OF ACRONYMS 79

8 LIST OF INTERVIEWS REALISED 80

ANNEXES 81

ANNEX 1 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS (IM AND GM) BROKEN DOWN BY INTERVENTION CODE 81

ANNEX 2 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 82

R20090332.doc 3 January, 2010


Finland-Estonia

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Institutionalised cross-border co-operation between Finland and Estonia does not

yet have a very long history. The current Interreg 3a programme under

evaluation was the first EU supported cooperation programme between the two

countries. Moreover, the first part of that programme period was not a fully joint

exercise as the Finnish side was funded by Interreg and the Estonian side (until

May 2004 a Candidate Country) from Phare CBC. However, strong similarities in

terms of ethno-cultural background and relatively good transport connections

across the Finnish Gulf had already led to smooth cooperation and friendly

relations between the two countries ever since Estonia’s reinstatement of

independence in 1991. Therefore, as one of the aims of Interreg is to reinforce

cooperation, the impact of the Finland-Estonia programme should not be

exaggerated.

Nevertheless, the programme has been a very good opportunity to take

cooperation to the local level and widen it to various sections of society,

including local government and civil society. Business relations had been very

strong and with little barriers for a long time before the programme, which is

illustrated by the fact that the interest of the private sector to participate in

projects (especially with extra co-financing) has been rather limited, even

though a considerable number of private sector representatives have been

reported to have participated in programme-funded activities.

A 20 million Euro ERDF budget has been spent almost entirely over the 7 years

of implementation. Almost 40% was allocated (and absorbed) in the framework

of a rather traditional “Employment and Competitiveness” priority. A specific

aspect of this priority might be the relatively strong accent on human resource

development actions. At programme level, some 40% of the budget was

allocated to actions in 3 categories: “Educational and vocational training”, “Social

inclusion” and “Labour market policy”. In terms of absorption overall, the

Finland-Estonia programme has performed above average with a rate of 85% vs

79% for Interreg as a whole1. A dynamic analysis of absorption over time shows

a similar pattern for all measures, with the rate of implementation following a

more or less linear trend.

There have been several budget changes in the course of the programme, of

which 4 times between measures of the same priority (requiring approval of the

Monitoring Committee) and 2 times between priorities (for which approval from

1 According to the Annual Report 2008 which was accepted by COM on 25/08/09, the absorption rate is 91%. Still in this report the latter report has not been taken into account in two main reasons: first the report was accepted by EC in stage where most of the analysis was finalized and most importantly, if it would have been taken into account, then the financial analysis compared to other programmes would not have much sense- the data has to have one cut-off date for all programmes.

R20090332.doc 4 January, 2010


Finland-Estonia

the EC had to be and was obtained). It is noteworthy that most of these changes

occurred towards the end of the programme. This is partly also illustrated by the

fact that in 2007 the programme could not fulfil the n+2 rule for 200,000 € from

2005 commitment.

Effectiveness of the programme has been satisfactory overall, with output and

result level indicators often showing a more than 100% achievement, even

though some others show clear underachievement. The indicators of a higher

(impact) level, relating to jobs and new firms created, almost all show

underachievement, which is probably more related to unrealistic programming

than to real underperformance of the programme. Effectiveness at project-level

has been assessed as positive although this is mostly based on self-assessment

by project partners, which is possibly somewhat biased.

Evaluation of effectiveness has been further complicated by deficiencies in the

monitoring system. Both the formulation of indicators (often not specific enough

for the objectives formulated) and their measurement system have been

somewhat deficient. The monitoring system used by the programme (FIMOS)

was designed for mainstream Structural Fund programmes and has proven not to

suit the Interreg environment. This bottleneck has been addressed by the

programme authorities and a more specific system is now in place for the

Interreg IV programme(s).

The programming process has been sufficiently based on the partnership

principle, involving a rather wide circle of actors from both sides of the Finnish

Gulf, even if rather heavily dominated by civil servants. The programme

document itself shows sufficient logic although a clear drawback is the

incomplete link between analysis and strategy in terms of priorities and

measures. Overall, partnership in the programme is up to standards nominally

but is relatively not very broad, e.g. not involving the non-profit sector and

showing a rather narrow division of voting rights on Steering and Monitoring

Committees.

Sustainability of project results might be an issue as there seems to be a general

(over-)dependence on continued EU funding. The continuation of partnerships

and joint initiatives is often connected to a limited number of key actors, whose

involvement is often only secured in case a follow-up project application has

been drawn up successfully.

The management of the programme can be called pragmatic in terms of the

everyday hands-on work of the Managing Authority, Paying Authority and Joint

Technical Secretariat. Cooperation between the three, all physically concentrated

at one location in Turku, has been very operation. The same can be said about

cooperation between Finnish and Estonian key actors. Beneficiaries seem to be

R20090332.doc 5 January, 2010


Finland-Estonia

satisfied in general about the willingness to help on the side of the Programme

Secretariat but have less appreciation for the bureaucracy in the programme,

related to both selection of projects and payments. A complicated system of co-

decision making among various co-financing bodies has made both processes too

slow, risking loss of relevance and problems in implementation and, ultimately, a

risk of not meeting n+2 (which has also materialised in 2007).

All in all, the first joint programming period for Finland and Estonia has been a

very useful learning experience, based on a natural tendency and interest to

cooperate. A generally pragmatic approach, nicely illustrated by the fact that an

independent ex-post evaluation was initiated by the programme itself with the

aim of learning from past mistakes, will form the basis for improvements under

Interreg IV. The impact of Interreg on cooperation between the two countries

will probably never become the main driving force but could still play an

increasingly facilitating role, translating good relationships at national level into

more grass-root connections and mutual learning for mainly local actors, science

and education organisations as well as NGOs.

R20090332.doc 6 January, 2010


Finland-Estonia

MAIN REPORT

1 Introduction

The overall aim of the INTERREG Community Initiative is that national borders

should not be a barrier to the balanced development and integration of the

European territory. In the Interreg IIIA programme the strand A supports cross-

border co-operation between neighbouring regions with the aim of developing

cross-border economic and social centres through joint strategies for sustainable

territorial development. Co-operation is co-financed from the European Regional

Development Fund (ERDF). There were in total six such EU programmes in

Finland together with Estonia, Sweden, Norway and Russia. Estonia had two

cross-border co-operation programmes: the one together with Southern Finland,

and the other with Latvia and Russia.

In 2000-2003 the co-operation was carried out in Southern Finland Coastal Zone

(SFCZ) INTERREG IIIA programme which was pursued to implement jointly with

the Estonia Phare CBC programme. While Estonia joined the EU in 2004, the

INTERREG programme evolved to INTERREG IIIA Southern Finland and Estonia

programme. It continued the cross-border co-operation begun in the Joint Programme

Interreg IIIA Southern Finland Coastal Zone (SFCZ) / Phare CBC Estonia during 2001-

2003.

The programme area covered altoghether six regions in Southern Finland and whole

Estonia (inc. adjacent regions). The funding for joint projects between Southern

Finland and Estonia was co-ordinated by the Community Initiative Programme, and

the ERDF co-financing in the programme was managed by the Regional Council of

Southwest Finland. The aim of the joint programme was that cross-border regional co-

operation between Southern Finland and Estonia supported balanced regional

development through viable contacts across different levels and sectors of activities,

created prerequisites for employment and competitiveness, and protected and

improved the common environment. Accordingly, the joint programme was divided

into priorities and measures:

Priority 1. Interaction and Networks 1.1 Networks of Local and Regional Administration 1.2 Social Interaction and Contacts within Local and Regional Level Priority 2. Employment and Competitiveness 2.1 Expertise and Know-how 2.2 Operative Environment of Enterprises 2.3 Tourism 2.4 Transport, Communication and Development of Interlinked Services Priority 3. Common Environment 3.1 Co-operation in Environment Protection and Monitoring 3.2 Co-operation in Improving Environment Priority 4. Special Support for Regions Bordering Candidate Countries 4.1 EU Enlargement

R20090332.doc 7 January, 2010


Finland-Estonia

The programme duration was 2001-2006 for all priorites and measures except the

Priority 4, Special Support for Regions Bordering Candidate Countries that was open

for funding applications only in 2002 and was closed in the end of 2004.

In order to receive support from the programme, the project had to fit into the

objectives of one of the measures. Measures were described in detail in the

programme complement. The project had to be also coherent with other regional

development activities in the programme area. The programme encouraged

developing new forms of activities, testing new methods of operation and sharing the

best practices between regions in the cross-border co-operation. The project selection

based on assessment of the cross-border effect of the activities as well as a balanced

contribution of the Finnish and Estonian partners in the project planning and

implementation. Funding from the Interreg IIIA programme was available for the

Southern Finland and Estonia local and regional actors, e.g. municipalities and

associations of municipalities, training, research and development units, authorities,

and NGOs.

In total there was some 20 million euro ERDF funding available for the cross-border

co-operation in the Interreg IIIA Southern Finland and Estonia programme.The

maximum EU funding was 50% of total public funding in Interreg activities in Finland

and 75% in Estonia. State co-funding for Interreg projects was available in Finland

from the Regional Councils, State Provincial Offices, Employment and Economic

Development Centres, Regional Environment Centres, road districts, maritime districts

and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. In Estonia it was possible to apply for

support for the project from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Local public funding

(municipalities and public-equivalent bodies) was included in eligible national co-

funding.

In Interreg IIIA Southern Finland and Estonia programme the Steering Committee

which decided on projects' eligibility for Interreg programme and EU funding consisted

of representatives of the main national co-financing bodies and representatives of

regional and local administration in Finland and Estonia. Via the programme 161

projects have been financed, of which 55 have been co-financed joint projects

between Finland and Estonia. They have been implemented after Estonia joining

the EU.

There were four calls for proposals in the SFCZ Interreg IIIA programme in

2001-2003. A total of 218 project proposals were submitted and the total sum of

funds applied for in the programme in 2001-2003 amounted to appr. 42 million

euro. SFCZ Interreg IIIA Steering Committee approved a total of 94 projects for

funding in the Interreg programme. Three approved projects were cancelled

during implementation by the initiative of the project owner.

R20090332.doc 8 January, 2010


Finland-Estonia

The Estonia Phare CBC had two calls for proposals during 2002-2003. Estonian

Phare CBC 2001 SPF programme financed altogether 23 projects: eleven of them

had a parallel or at least a linked Interreg IIIA project financed in Southern

Finland, and other six projects were related to other activities with Finnish

partners. Phare CBC 2001 Investment Grant Scheme (medium-sized projects)

was contracted in November 2003: three projects out of 16 were linked with

SFCZ Interreg IIIA projects. Estonian Phare CBC 2002 SPF programme financed

altogether 27 projects: six of them had a parallel or at least a linked Interreg

IIIA project financed in Southern Finland. Phare CBC 2002 MSPF (medium-sized

projects) financed 15 projects; none of these had a related project on-going in

Southern Finland Interreg programme. Noteworthy was that five out of the six

financed project in SPF programme were granted Phare CBC funding also in the

previous funding round. Part of connected INTERREG projects in Finland had

already been concluded when the Phare CBC projects started in Estonia. Phare

CBC 2003 funds were opened for new project proposals in 2005.

In 2004 a so-called complementing call of proposals was opened for those

Estonian partners of already approved Finnish INTERREG projects that the cross-

border activities had received co-financing on the Finnish side for 2005-2006.

The aim was to support also Estonian activities parallel to INTERREG activities

from the "old" Southern Finland Coastal Zone programme. Over thirty projects

were eligible for the complementing call. By deadline in May 2004, altogether 14

applications were received - the Steering Committee of INTERREG IIIA Southern

Finland and Estonia approved twelve projects. ERDF co-financing for these

projects including only activities in Estonia and, thus, only national co-financing

from Estonia amounted to 1.06 M€ (total costs 1.4 M€).

There were altogether six deadlines for joint project proposals in 2004-2007. A

total of 124 project applications were received. These projects included activities

both in Finland and Estonia (so called Lead Partner Principle). Most of the

applications were handed in by a Finnish Lead Partner: 101 project proposals.

Total sum of applications was some 24 M€ ERDF (total project costs 43 M€). By

the end of last call in spring 2007 the Steering Committee had approved

altogether 55 projects for financing via the INTERREG programme: 47 projects

with a Lead Partner (but not necessarily the main part of the project activities

and expenditure) in Finland and eight projects with a Lead Partner in Estonia.

Total costs of the projects were roughly 17 million euro, and the ERDF co-

financing app. 10 million euro.

R20090332.doc 9 January, 2010


Finland-Estonia

2 Research Interest and Methodology

The scope of research is closely determined by the terms of reference for the Ex-

post Evaluation for INTERREG III and the method proposed in the Inception

Report. In this in-depth evaluation we follow strictly the terms of reference and

the corresponding methodology. The main fact finding activities carried out by

the evaluators consisted of interviews (face-to-face, by telephone and by e-mail)

with some of the key stakeholders in the programme: the Managing Authority,

the Paying Authority, the Joint Technical Secretariat, the coordinating official in

the Estonian Ministry of the Interior as well as the partners involved in 5 selected

projects. In addition, an analysis was made of the key documentation available

at programme level (Programme Document, Programme Complement, Annual

Reports and previously carried out evaluations) as well as applications and

reports produced by the 5 selected projects.

R20090332.doc 10 January, 2010

INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG A Finland-

Estonia

3 In-depth Analysis of Results and Impacts in Terms of Effectiveness & Socioeconomic Effects

3.1 The financial implementation of the programme

For analysing the financial implementation of the programme, basic financial information

was obtained centrally. The budget breakdown by priority and measure of the Finland-

Estonia programme is as follows:

Table 1 Budget breakdown in Finland-Estonia programme (EUR)

Priorities and measures ERDF budget Total budget

Priority 1. Interaction and Networks 10 311 587 5 165 986

5 958 497 1.1 Network of Local and Regional Administration 3 131 919

4 353 090 1.2 Social Interaction and Contacts within Local and Regional

Level

2 034 067

Priority 2. Employment and Competitiveness 15 026 490 7 505 287

5 404 852 2.1 Expertise and Know-how 2 801 048

2 931 140 2.2 Operative Environment of Enterprises 1 181 392

3 838 510 2.3 Tourism 1 981 455

2 851 988 2.4 Transport, Communication and Development of Interlinked

Services

1 541 392

Priority 3. Common Environment 10 824 874 5 394 874

4 512 838 3.1 Cooperation in Environmental Protection and Monitoring 2 417 437

6 312 036 3.2 Cooperation in Improving Environment 2 977 437

Priority 4. Special Support for Regions Bordering

Candidate Countries (2002)

355 238 888 898

888 898 4.1 EU Enlargement 355 238

Technical Assistance 3 082 786 1 541 393

2 236 786 Programme Management 1 118 393

846 000 Other Technical Assistance Activities 423 000

TOTAL 19 962 778 40 134 635

Source: Appendix to the Programme Complement

R20090332.doc 11 January, 2010


Estonia

3.1.1 Financial analysis across the intervention codes

The funding support from INTERREG III has been thematically rather broad. The most frequent

codes under INTERREG have been those of Technical assistance (e.g.

monitoring/implementation, evaluation, studies, information, all belonging to the code family

41), furthermore rural development (130) and non-physical investment in tourism (172),

education (230), human resources (220) and basic infrastructure (31-35).

When ranking the codes by frequency of use, then 19 codes out of 25 used in the Finland-

Estonia programme belong to the first third of ranked codes (codes used 30 and more

times), 5 belong to the middle and only one to the last third (the costs related to the 4th

priority implemented only in the year 2002, relating to special support for regions

bordering candidate countries). In the first third there are codes with high importance

(i.e. with high budget compared to the total programme) and also some codes with very

small importance in budgetary terms.

The table in Annex 1 gives a more comprehensive overview of the different codes of intervention

covered by the programme in terms of budget, certified expenditure, achievement rate, shares

of expenditure and comparison with the average expenditure shares and achievement rates of

Interreg (Intensity Measure and Gap Measure). The table below presents an overview of the

planned and actual expenditure for each code and its related area of intervention, as well as

their expenditure rate (i.e. absorption in %), their share of total expenditure, their Intensity

Measure (IM) and Gap Measure (GM) of Interreg.

R20090332.doc 12 January, 2010


Estonia

Table 2 Financial indicators in Finland-Estonia programme

Code Area of Intervention Plan Expenditure Expenditure

rateShare of overall

expenditure of the

programme

Intensity (IM)

Gap (GM)

163

Business advisory services (information, business planning, consultancy services, marketing, management, design, internationalisation, exporting, environmental management, purchase of technology) 295 348 306 553 103,79 1,81 0,86 1,37

164

Shared business services (business estates, incubator units, stimulation, promotional services, networking, conferences, trade fairs) 295 348 306 553 103,79 1,81 0,98 1,46

167 Vocational training 295 348 306 553 103,79 1,81 3,90 1,45

172

Non-physical investments (development and provision of tourist services, sporting, cultural and leisure activities, heritage) 660 419 524 424 79,41 3,09 1,19 1,05

173

Shared services for the tourism industry (including promotional activities, networking, conferences and trade fairs) 660 419 524 424 79,41 3,09 1,77 1,12

174 Vocational training 660 617 524 581 79,41 3,10 3,82 0,98210 Labour market policy 2 582 993 2 095 693 81,13 12,37 12,87 1,07220 Social inclusion 2 582 993 2 095 693 81,13 12,37 7,57 0,98

230Developing educational and vocational training (persons, firms) 2 801 048 2 385 926 85,18 14,08 8,84 1,16

240

Workforce flexibility, entrepreneurial activity, innovation, information and communication technologies (persons, firms) 295 348 306 553 103,79 1,81 0,96 1,29

315 Ports 385 348 309 108 80,22 1,82 1,48 0,95316 Waterways 385 348 309 108 80,22 1,82 2,09 0,98

323Services and applications for the citizen (health, administration, education) 385 348 309 108 80,22 1,82 0,78 1,00

324

Services and applications for SMEs (electronic commerce and transactions, education and training, networking) 385 348 309 108 80,22 1,82 1,12 1,05

341 Air 744 359 565 074 75,91 3,33 14,42 0,85

343Urban and industrial waste (including hospital and dangerous waste) 744 359 565 074 75,91 3,33 2,37 0,85

344Drinking water (collection, storage, treatment and distribution) 744 359 565 074 75,91 3,33 2,37 0,90

345 Sewerage and purification 744 359 565 074 75,91 3,33 3,17 0,92

353Protection, improvement and regeneration of the natural environment 1 208 719 1 153 746 95,45 6,81 3,08 1,07

354 Maintenance and restoration of the cultural heritage 1 208 719 1 153 746 95,45 6,81 4,99 1,37411 Preparation, implementation, monitoring, publicity 1 118 393 1 053 342 94,18 6,22 3,05 1,47412 Evaluation 140 986 118 925 84,35 0,70 2,19 1,33413 Studies 140 986 118 925 84,35 0,70 0,12 1,07415 Information to the public 141 028 118 960 84,35 0,70 0,36 1,19499 Data not available 355 238 355 238 100,00 2,10 1,87 1,17

The most important codes in budgetary terms are codes 230 (“Educational and vocational

training”), 220 (“Social inclusion”) and 210 (“Labour market policy”) which together

account for almost 40% of the total budget planned in the programme. Compared to

Interreg in general or to strand A, these codes are strongly above the average (e.g. code

230 has an average expenditure share of 1.59% of the total for Interreg and 1.83% in

strand A). Codes 353, 354 and 411 are also several times above average.

When looking at the most important codes in terms of budgetary means at policy

instrument level (Interreg), then it turns out that five out of the six most important codes

have not been used at all in the Finland-Estonia programme. In fact, the third most

R20090332.doc 13 January, 2010


Estonia

important code at Interreg-level (“Studies”) belongs to a group of least important codes in

the Finland-Estonia programme . 2

The relative weight of the codes can be calculated by comparing the budgetary share of a

code in the programme to that share the code has within Interreg in general. Values

larger than 1 show codes that have an above average significance for the Finland-Estonia

programme. As regards the Intensity Measure (IM) we find at the lower end: “Studies”,

“Information to the public”, “Services” and “Applications for the citizen”. At the upper end

there are “Air”, “Labour market policy” and “Maintenance and restoration of cultural

heritage”, the first two being the same as at Strand A-level.

When looking at the absorption level, then the Finland-Estonia programme has performed

above average (85% vs 79% for Interreg as a whole). At code level there have been even

higher absorption rates than 100% (being 103.8% for the following four codes: 163, 164,

167 and 240). The codes with highest budget have all absorbed above the Interreg

average, except for “Social inclusion” which has an absorption rate of about 1%-point

lower than Interreg on average.

In the cluster analysis the Finland-Estonia programme has been categorized as

programme with unfavourable cross-border framework conditions, where ERDF-support is

not very concentrated on the priority topics and where the depth & intensity of co-

operation is mostly medium. As it comes out from the evaluation in hand, it might not be

the best felicitous categorization for current programme when looking at the main

characteristics considered, but this paragraph will not analyze this topic again . 3

Into the cluster belong seven programmes, which are Austria-Czech Republic, Austria-

Hungary, Austria-Slovakia, Brandenburg-Lubuskie, Bavaria-Czech Republic, Mecklenburg-

Poland and Finland-Estonia. The cluster covers all together 66 codes and Finland-Estonia

with 25 codes is in the middle- first 3 very wide programmes are all the one’s where

Austria is involved (between 52-55 codes used) and the rest of the programmes in cluster

are using 22-25 codes. The financial trends in cluster are basically the same as on strand

level.

2 The least important codes in the programme are evaluation (412), studies (413) and information to the public (415).

3 For example it assumes that there is a “absence of common historic ties / of a shared culture / of a common language & partly existence of few common historic ties” which is clearly opposite.

R20090332.doc 14 January, 2010


Estonia

3.1.2 Dynamic financial analysis

By comparing the budget and expenditure data at code level on the one hand with the

respective data at measure level we note that sums differ slightly. This has possibly to do

with different points of time in reporting.

On the chart underneath the overall implementation of the programme and the

implementation on the measure level is depicted. The calculations have been made based

on the budget expenditure as presented in the Programme Complement and expenditure

data provided by the EU Commission (certified expenditure, cumulative).

Figure 1 Financial implementation of programme and measures (cumulative absorption %)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1.1 1.2 3.1 3.2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

999.1 999.2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

time Programme implementation

The graphs show a similar pattern for all measures, which share uniform dynamics with

the rate of implementation following a more or less linear trend. Compared to the average

performance of the measures, measure 2.2 (“Operative environment of enterprises”) has

performed a bit better than others and Technical Assistance measure 999.2 (“Other

Technical Assistance activities”) has absorbed only 30% of the budget. There was also a

measure called “Special Support for Regions Bordering Candidate Countries” (under

Priority 4), which was launched in 2002 only with a budget of 355 528 EUR and it was

absorbed 100% (in the beginning it was actually planned to have budget of 451 000 EUR

ERDF contribution, but it was changed later on).

R20090332.doc 15 January, 2010


Estonia

In general the financial performance of the Finland-Estonia programme follows the pattern

of the horizontal analysis presented in the Interim Report (pp. 56). In the initial budget a

certain private sector contribution was foreseen and included to programme, but since the

interest to finance such kind of projects by the private sector turned out to be very low,

the private sector contribution was deleted from the financial tables.

Despite the fact that the implementation rates of the different measures do not show any

large anomalies, the programme management (MA, PA, JTS) seems to have been

somewhat surprised at times in terms of which measures were taking up funds faster or

slower. For example in measure 1.1 there was first little interest for networking between

the municipalities. There have been several budget changes in the course of the

programme, of which 3-4 times between measures of the same priority (requiring

approval of the Monitoring Committee) and 2 times between priorities (for which approval

from the EC had to be and was obtained).

3.1.3 Intermediate conclusions

On the basis of the Code-level analysis, we can conclude that financially the most

important codes are (by far):

• 230 - “Developing educational and vocational training (persons, firms)” with 14% of

the total allocation;

• 220 - “Social inclusion” with 13% and

• 210 - “Labour market policy” with 13%

In terms of the relative intensity of the expenditure across the fields of intervention, it

turns out that categories 341 (Air) and 210 (Labour Market Policy) have a high Intensity

Measure (IM) and are over-represented. On the other hand, especially code 413 (Studies)

is clearly under-represented. In terms of the Gap Measure (GM), at the high-end we find

codes 164 (Shared Business Services), 167 (Vocational Training) and 411 (Preparation,

Implementation, Monitoring, Publicity).

When looking at the differences between budget and actual expenditure, the strongest

deviations can be found for codes 341 (Air), 343 (Urban and industrial waste), 344

(Drinking water) and 345 (Sewage and purification), all of which show a lower than

expected expenditure. However, expenditure for each of these codes did reach beyond

75% of the budget.

Comparing to the EU average in INTERREG programme types (clusters), the expenditure

deviation for codes within the cluster basically follows the same patterns as it for Interreg

in general. The codes with a large budget share (e.g. 230) are relatively over-represented

and the ones with a lower budget are also smaller compared to the cluster.

R20090332.doc 16 January, 2010


Estonia

In general terms there has been effective demand for the interventions programmed. Still

the budget has been adjusted between the priorities 2 times and also several times

between the measures. The financial contribution from Estonia (prior 2004 and also after

joining EU) has not been included in the programme. The Finnish contribution has been

higher but there have also been more projects with Lead partners from Finland.

All measures (except for TA) show a more or less linear trend during the implementation

of the programme. Priority 4 has been implemented in the year 2002 only; therefore it

does not follow the general trend. Also TA measure 2 has not performed as well as other

measures. If for some measures absorption shows a slight convex trend, this is mainly

due to administrative reasons. All budget shifts made were related to lower than expected

absorption rates.

3.2 The effectiveness of the programme

When asked about their perception about the effectiveness of the programme, the key

players involved in programme implementation mentioned that the programme results can

be called “good” in general, although not exactly what they had expected. In this respect,

the key persons responsible for the programme admit that, especially in the first 3-4

years of implementation, the programme has been of a strong “learning-by-doing”

character. An example of things going differently than expected is the very large interest

in training and education-related actions. One possible explanation is that the slowly

changing macro-economic situation (especially in Finland, where growth figures started

declining) might have shifted attention from applicants away from pure networking to

investing in the future by means of upgrading skills, thus hoping to facilitate a new

upward development in the business cycle.

In terms of comparing priorities, it seems that priority 2 has provided more “power” in

terms of demand, with especially tourism providing a lot of applications, presumably

because of a good match of needs and interests on both sides of the border (e.g.

archipelago-related). The emphasis on human resource development found and presented

earlier on in this chapter can also be observed here, as one of the most popular topics

under the tourism measure (2.3) has been training and networking of tourism services

providers. The first priority on the other hand was received in a rather lukewarm fashion

and the hoped for broad networking between municipalities did not materialise. Partly,

this might be related to the differences in character between the Finnish and Estonian

municipalities, mainly because the latter are on average clearly smaller, with less capacity

and often less freedom and possibilities to engage in development-related activities and

projects. Fortunately, this disadvantage was compensated for by a very large interest

from education-oriented organisations, especially on the Finnish side, where their set-up

and role leaves them a lot of freedom to develop and implement projects (even receiving

a certain amount of base-funding for this from the government). Another example of a

somewhat smaller interest than expected is the 3rd priority, possibly because awareness

on environmental issues is already at a very high level, especially in Finland and certainly

R20090332.doc 17 January, 2010


Estonia

so during the second half of the programme. Estonia has been lagging behind somewhat

in this respect although the upward trend in awareness is also clearly visible here.

3.2.1 Planned results, achievement rates at measure level and trend patterns

Underachievement at impact level, overachievement at output and result level

The static analysis of effectiveness shows a mix picture. In general, it seems that the

lower level (output and result) targets have been over-achieved, while the higher level

(impact) targets have not been met. The indicators related to the creation and

safeguarding of jobs and the indicators relating to the creating of new enterprises have

been among the lowest in terms of ex-post achievement (ranging from 40%-67% of the

programmed target values achieved). By October 2008 (which reflects the final standings

of the indicators), the target and achieved values of the indicator “number of new jobs”

for the different priorities4 5 were as follows :

Table 3 Higher level programme indicators – level of achievement

Indicator “number of new Target value Target Achieved % (of

jobs” – per priority programme value (31.12.2008) programme /

projects of projects) Priority 1 – “Interaction and Networks”

30 68 n.a. n.a.

Priority 2 – “Employment and Competitiveness”

150 264 66 44% / 25%

Priority 3 – “Common environment”

20 11 n.a. n.a.

Programme total 200 343 126 63% / 37%

Indicator “jobs Target value Target Achieved % (of

maintained” – per priority programme value (31.12.2008) programme /


80 29 n.a. n.a.


465 710 473 102% / 67%


155 7 n.a. n.a.

Programme total 700 746 588 84% / 79%

4 The fourth priority is not taken into account in this overview as it was aimed at „EU enlargement“ and did not contain similar indicators as the first 3 priorities. In addition, this priority was only implemented during the early years of the programme, by means of only 1 call for proposals.

5 The numbers at project and programme level differ in terms of targets only (i.e. not in terms of actual achievement): the Programme Complement set programme level targets while projects themselves also formulated their ambition in terms of the indicators mentioned.

R20090332.doc 18 January, 2010


Estonia

Indicator “new enterprises” Target value Target Achieved % (of

– per priority programme value (06.10.2008) programme /


2 9 n.a. n.a.


45 82 16 36% / 20%


3 2 n.a. n.a.

Programme total 50 93 22 44% / 24%

Source: FIMOS monitoring system 06.10.2008 (from Ex Post Evaluation 22.12.2008), JTS

2009

The lowest levels of achievement were recorded for the second priority (Employment and

Competitiveness), the priority where also the ambitions had been clearly the highest. This

goes especially for the number of new jobs created and the number of new enterprises

established. The Programme Complement specifies a whole range of other specific

indicators at output and result level, per priority and measure. However, target values

have generally not been set for these indicators. The projects themselves, on the other

hand, have set targets, which have been reported upon by the Ex Post Evaluation of 2008.

Therefore the table below shows two types of effectiveness: measured against PC targets

and measured against project targets.

Table 4 Achievement of indicators by priority and measure

Target Result / Target

values set in Achieved % of output Specific values % of

PC (31.12 project (measure / set by indicator PC

(Programme 2008) targets priority) projects

Complement) no. of projects with new cross- - - border contacts 77 43 56% (target for whole programme) no. of projects extending the scope of cooperation on the basis of already existing contacts (target for whole programme)

128 - 118 92% -

no. of actual cross-border structures (target for whole programme)

15

-

3 20%

-

Intensity of contact (total no. of projects) (target for whole programme)

220 - 164 75% -

Result (Priority 1) Extended and intensified cross-border contacts and involvement of different levels and sectors of activities in cross-border cooperation

Persons having 235 235 4325 1840% 1840% participated in

R20090332.doc 19 January, 2010


Estonia

training/ESF 6actions (target

for whole programme)

Output (measure 1.1) Co-operation linkages

- no. of

municipalities in cross-border projects

(no output targets set at measure level

in PC)

and cross-border

176 155 - 88%

networks of the local and regional administration Output (measure 1.2) Co-operation linkages

- no. of non-governmental organisations in cross-border projects


in PC)

and cross-border

65 69 - 106%

networks of the local and regional administration

Result / output (measure / priority)

Specific indicator

Target values set in PC (Programme Complement)

Target values set by projects

Achieved % of

% of (31.12 project

PC 2008) targets

Result (Priority 2)

Persons having Creating good participated in

pre-conditions 640 127 3789 592% 2983% training/ESF for employment actions and

7competitivenessOutput - (Priority 2)

no. of enterprises Creating good (no output participating in pre-conditions 656 2106 - 321% targets set at cross-border co-for employment operation priority level and in PC) competitiveness Result (measure 2.1) no. of new jobs 22 30 21 95% 37%

6 The number of participants in training has not been reported upon in Annual Reports or the 2008 Ex Post Evaluation (and data on it has apparently not been recorded in FIMOS either). Instead, the number of participants in ESF actions has been measured. As there is a large content-wise overlap between the two formulations, we compare the PC target for the former and the project level target and achievement levels of the latter.

7 The PC presents 3 indicators to measure the achievement of this result:

a) number (volume) of projects where firms participate in cross-border co-operation b) regional distribution of activities c) impact on employment and job creation, participants in training

However, the first two of these did not have quantified target levels, while the first one consists of two parts (one of an impact character and the second of an output character) – both of which have been reported upon above, the former in the job and firm creation tables per priority, the latter in the current table.

R20090332.doc 20 January, 2010


Estonia

no. of jobs maintained 48 153 46 142% 30%

increasing know-how and expertise in the programme area and reinforcing common strength areas and

no. of new enterprises 2 8 0 0% 0%

fields of expertise

43 no. of training and educational units in cross-border projects


in PC)

(Ex Post)

84 (AIR) 8

110 -

256% 131%

Output (measure 2.1) Co-operation in training, expertise, and research and development, as well as linking these activities to the needs of business

(no output targets set at priority level

in PC)

no. of enterprises participating in cross-border co-operation

97 329 - 339%

no. of new jobs 40 106 18 45% 17%


Result (measure 2.2) increasing co-operation between firms in the programme area and strengthening a positive climate for entrepreneurship


Target values Target

Result / output Achieved % of set in PC values % of Specific indicator (measure / (31.12 project

(Programme set by PC priority) 2008) targets

Complement) projects

Output (measure 2.2) Projects promoting entrepreneurship, and cross-border activities and contacts between firms


in PC)


472 1267 - 268%

no. of new jobs

75 126 19 25% 15%

Result (measure 2.3) An array of high-quality tourism services utilising the language diversity of the programme region, and the establishment of


8 The data from FIMOS presented in the Annual Implementation Report 2007 differ from those presented in the Ex Post Evaluation Report of 2008. However, in both cases, the definition of the indicator differs from the formulation in the Programme Complement („education, research and development units” and “Number of colleges/universities participating in Project” respectively”)

R20090332.doc 21 January, 2010


Estonia

new enterprises in the tourism sector, especially in the rural, coastal and


archipelago areas

no. of projects on quality and environmental issues 9


in PC)

25 5 - 12%

Output (measure 2.3) Joint activities in the tourism sector in e.g. marketing, environmental and quality management, (no output

targets set at priority level

in PC)

no. of enterprises as well as new tourism services and product packages and label marks

participating in cross-border co-operation

87 432 - 233%

no. of new jobs

13 2 8 61% 400%

Result (measure 2.4)

no. of jobs maintained

60 11 32 53% 291%

Cross-border (i.e. marine) traffic safety, functioning links and developing communications links and services support the emergence of the information society, creating new markets and potential e.g. for cross-border telecommuting

no. of new enterprises 10 0 0 - -

Result / output (measure /

Target values Target Achieved % of set in PC values % of Specific indicator project (31.12 (Programme set by PC

targets priority) 2008) Complement) projects


in PC)

no. of projects on marine safety no data 4 - -

no. of projects on the management of environmental risks


in PC)

no data 7 - -

Output (measure 2.4) development projects of cross-border transport and communication links, and related services


in PC)

no. of projects on the information society

no data 4 - -

Result no. of 10no datanot quantified 9 - -

9 No data are available from the 2007 Annual Implementation Report. The 2008 Ex Post evaluation uses a different, although somewhat related, indicator to measure the realisation at output level in measure 2.3: „Environmental and sustainable development programmes achieved”

10 Instead, the indicator “Environmental and sustainable development programmes achieved” has been measured – projects under priority 3 had set a target of in total 22, of which 6 was eventually achieved, which gives an achievement rate of 27%.

R20090332.doc 22 January, 2010


Estonia

environment and nature protection projects and projects supporting the realisation of the Natura network

(Priority 3) Protecting and improving the common environment Persons having

participated in 175 0 3820 2183% - training/ESF

actions

no. of projects on environmental protection and management


in PC)

no data 3 - -

no. of projects on monitoring the state of the environment


in PC)

no data 5 - -

Output (measure 3.1) Joint activities in the assessment, monitoring and management of the state of the environment, related databases, and activities for affecting the attitudes to environmental


in PC)

no. of projects on developing

no data 2 - - environmental technology

Issues

Result / output (measure /

Target values Target Achieved % of set in PC % of values

Specific indicator (31.12 project (Programme set by PC priority) 2008) targets Complement) projects


in PC)

no. of projects on environment protection and improvement

no data 12 - -

no. of projects on nature protection (including projects supporting the establishment of Natura sites)


in PC)

no data 6 - -

Output (measure 3.2) Joint activities in waste management, water supply, waste water treatment, air

no. of projects rehabilitating the water bodies in the programme area


in PC)

no data 5 - -

protection and soil protection, and involvement of private enterprises in environmental co-operation (including agricultural enterprises)


in PC)


42 479 - 1140%

Sources: Joint Technical Secretariat (aug.2009), Annual Implementation Report (AIR) 2007 dated 31.12.2007 and Ex Post Evaluation Report (2008), the latter two based on FIMOS data

Analysing the data given above, the main conclusion seems to be that effectiveness is

rather modest when measured by the impact-level indicators being used throughout the

whole programme . Only in terms of “number of jobs maintained”, a number of measures 11

11 It is possible that the method of data collection plays a role here. The programme´s Annual Reports state that data was „collected from project applications, funding decisions and project

R20090332.doc 23 January, 2010


Estonia

score quite well, notably 2.3 and 2.4 (and as a result, the whole 2nd priority reaches its

objective). Also in terms of “new enterprises”, measure 2.3 (tourism) is the only measure

scoring well. In terms of “new jobs created”, only the 1st priority scores reasonably well.

At lower level, the picture is more positive. What stands out are the numbers of projects

where Non-Governmental Organisations and enterprises participate (106% and 321% of

the target value). Even though the programme did not set quantified targets; the results

have been good compared to the project-level objectives. Several measures show positive

results in this respect: 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and even environmental measure 3.1 (where the

number of enterprises participating exceeded the target 11 times). Another positive result

is the number of “training and educational units” taking part in projects, being an

indicator for measure 2.1.

Scoring especially high is the number of people having participated in training (or “ESF

actions”), with a more than 11 times overachievement of the target at programme level.

Very good results were achieved for priorities 1, 2 and 3. Under priority 2 however, the

targets set by the projects themselves were much less ambitious than the programme

itself, setting a five times lower target for themselves. The question can be asked whether

this strong overachievement is only an indication of effectiveness of the programme.

Probably, the programme could have set somewhat more ambitious target levels,

especially when taking into account that participants of seminars and conferences were

also counted.

It must be said that the evaluation of the effectiveness at result and output level has been

hampered by deficiencies in the (programming and/or monitoring of the) indicators. Some

indicators seem to have not been measured at all during programme implementation: e.g.

from measures 1.1 and 1.2 “extent of participation in the Southern Finland and Estonia

(i.e. geographical coverage of projects)”, which is also not well defined (lacks specificity).

Also, the environment-specific result indicator for priority 3 and the output indicators for

measures 2.4, 3.1 and (partly) 3.2 do not seem to have been measured during

implementation. The same holds for the complete 4th priority. In addition, it is somewhat

confusing that the programme uses certain of indicators to measure several different

results or outputs at the same time. An example is the indicator “no. of projects where

firms participate in cross-border co-operation”, which is used to measure the result for

priority 2 (“Creating good pre-conditions for employment and competitiveness”) as well as

the outputs for measure 2.1 (“Co-operation in training, expertise, and research and

development, as well as linking these activities to the needs of business”) and measure

2.2 (“Projects promoting entrepreneurship, and cross-border activities and contacts

between firms”). This raises questions as to the adequacy of the monitoring system to

form a basis for the assessment of programme impact.

monitoring questionnaires”. No additional impact studies have been carried out, which might mean impacts are underestimated due to the fact that they might appear one or two years after the end of the project, while reporting and surveying might only take place up until the end of the project or immediately afterwards.

R20090332.doc 24 January, 2010


Estonia

Even if other indicators are being used to measure the outputs (as is the case for measure

2.1); this situation is confusing and makes the indicator less specific and less relevant.

The same problem goes for using impact-level indicators such as “new jobs created”, “jobs

maintained” and “new firms created” to measure different results at measure level, such

as “increasing know-how and expertise in the programme area and reinforcing common

strength areas and fields of expertise” (measure 2.1) and “increasing co-operation

between firms in the programme area and strengthening a positive climate for

entrepreneurship” (measure 2.2) at the same time. These indicators are not specific

enough and do not enable full and precise evaluation of the effectiveness of the

measures . Another example is the result and output indicators for the 3rd12 priority: the

environmental-specific indicators formulated in the Programme Complement have not

been measured, while the far less relevant general programme indicators such as “new

jobs created” are being used to measure achievement. This seems to be a classical

example of the measurable but little relevant taking precedence over the relevant but

difficult to measure.

Ex Post Evaluation Beneficiary Survey shows relatively positive (project-level)

effectiveness

In addition to the monitoring data relating to the indicators, an interesting source for the

assessment of the effectiveness of the programme is the survey among project

beneficiaries carried out by the 2008 Ex Post Evaluation. In general, more than half of the

respondents to the questionnaire indicated that their project had achieved the planned

results completely. It must be said that there was a significant difference in assessment

between Lead Partners and other Project Beneficiaries, the former being more

conservative in their assessment (46% saying the results were completely achieved,

whereas the proportion was 65% for the other beneficiaries). Almost all other

respondents, whether Lead Partner or other beneficiary, indicated the project had

achieved the results partly. There was some variation by priority, with priority 2 yielding

the most positive feedback (over 70% saying all results were achieved) and priority 3 the

least positive (40%).

When asked to specify the most useful results of the INTERREG projects, the most

affirmative reactions by project beneficiaries were given to the statement that the “project

managed to create and strengthen the co-operation contacts and networks” (2/3 of

respondents agreed to this). A large proportion (around 3/4) of project beneficiaries also

indicated that the project “enhanced know-how and expertise”. In addition to these data,

however, there do not seem to have been any external assessment of project

effectiveness, either from the JTS-side or from outside assessors.

12 Although one might raise doubts regarding double counting, this risk seems to be rather small as data are collected at project level and subsequently attributed to an individual measure.

R20090332.doc 25 January, 2010


Estonia

R20090332.doc 26 January, 2010

Dynamic analysis of effectiveness shows relatively stable performance over time

When looking at the development over time of the main quantified programme indicators,

the following picture emerges. The interpretation of these results is somewhat hampered

by the fact that the Programme Complement only contains intermediate target values for

selected indicators (at programme level and for the years 2001, 2003 and 2006), which

makes it impossible to compare the speed of achievement of different priorities and

measures with what was envisaged by the programmers. However, we can assess whether

the achievement of the indicators presented above follows a convex or concave

development graph. The data recorded in the monitoring system only allows for such an

analysis to be carried out at programme level and for priority 1.

From the analysis, it follows that the indicators presented follow a more or less stable

development over time. In fact, comparing with the dynamic financial analysis leads to the

conclusion that there are no major anomalies, both following a similar path. Somewhat

remarkable is the fact that the number of people participating in training shows a sharp

increase towards the end of the programme (between 2006 and 2008), in contrast with

the number of enterprises participating in projects and the higher level indicators at

programme level (such as new jobs created). This might imply that projects have left their

awareness raising and knowledge transfer activities towards the end of their

implementation period, possibly using training events for the dissemination of project

results.

NTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG A Finland-Estonia

090332.doc 27 anuary, 2010

Table 5 Dynamic analysis of programme indicators

Result / output (measure / priority) Specific indicator 2001

target

2001

real

2003

target

2003

real

2006

target

2006

real

2008

target

2008

real no. of projects with new cross-border contacts 9 32 28 77 41 77 43

no. of projects extending the scope of cooperation on the basis of already existing contacts

15 52 43 128 112 128 118

no. of actual cross-border structures 1 6 1 15 3 15 3

Intensity of contact (total no. of projects) 25 90 72 220 144 220 164

Result (Priority 1) Extended and intensified cross-border contacts and involvement of different levels and sectors of activities in cross-border cooperation

Persons having participated in training/ESF actions 235 4325

Result (Priority 2) Creating good pre-conditions for employment and Competitiveness

Monitor ing system does not a l low for dynamic analys is

Result (Priority 3) Protecting and improving the common environment Monitor ing system does not a l low for dynamic analys is

no. of new jobs

0 150 78 200 94 200 126

no. of jobs maintained

0 200 428 700 509 700 588

no. of new enterprises 0 15 15 50 19 50 22 Persons having participated in training/ESF actions 0 340 232 1050 1515 1050 11934

Programme total


0 38 420 100 1282 1287

I

R20J


Estonia

Figure2 Dynamic Analysis of Programme Indicators

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1 2 3

new jobsmaintainnew firms

2003 2006 2008

0%

200%

400%

600%

800%

1000%

1200%

1400%

1 2 3

people participatefirms participate

2003 2006 2008

3.2.2 Reviewing the programming quality and the programme relevance on the basis of the results achieved

Programming seems to have taken place in satisfactory partnership

The programming process seems to have been of fairly good quality, the different

stakeholders involved taking the time for analysis. The basis for the strategy chosen had

been developing over a longer period of time before the programming period started,

which reflects the fact that co-operation between Finland and Estonia has a longer history.

In addition, several Working Groups were set up focusing on various topics, discussing

priorities in a series of workshops initiated by the Ministries of Interior of both countries.

One of the beneficial factors during this process has been the early recruitment of the

“Secretary General” (in fact, the Head of the JTS) of the programme. The Secretary

General took charge of the programming process and was the main responsible author of

R20090332.doc 28 January, 2010


Estonia

the programme document, which was subsequently commented upon by various

stakeholders from both sides several times. At the same time, the most active

stakeholders were included in a number of programming task forces, focusing on either

content or management issues.

It seems the key stakeholders involved in the programming process have taken

discussions on reaching a common understanding on the baseline situation and the vision

seriously, taking considerable time for them, even though Estonia’s role at the time was

somewhat limited due to the fact it was not yet a Member State. One of the main

difficulties seems to have been the mismatch with Phare CBC, resulting in very few early

period (until 2004) Interreg projects with counterparts funded by Phare. The main barriers

are said to have been the difference in rules and the problems in synchronising calls for

proposals. The situation improved a lot when Estonia joined the EU and adopted their

Structural Fund Law, containing specific rules for the Interreg context as well. From that

time onward, the context has been much more beneficial, leading to many more really

joint projects in the pipeline. The programme priorities stayed the same after Estonia’s

accession, showing continued relevance of the strategy in the eyes of the main (Estonian)

programme counterparts, even in a post-accession context.

Mid-Term evaluation criticised vision but supported approach

The initial Mid-term evaluation of the programme (2003) indicates that up until that

moment, the programming context of the (then) joint programme INTERREG IIIa

Southern Finland Coastal Zone – PHARE CBC Estonia was seriously challenged by the fact

that it was based on two different institutional frameworks (Phare and the Structural

Funds). The evaluators claim this had made it impossible to translate wider aims into a

practical framework for implementation. However, they acknowledge the basis for the

programme’s strategy: the idea of a Baltic Sea economic area and the potential stemming

from being a future internal border as well as a generally balanced economic growth.

The issue of promising economic growth13 seems to have played a particular role during

programming: the key persons involved in this process were captured by certain optimism

as to the extent to which the upcoming INTERREG programme would be able to contribute

to economic development in the programme region. This is illustrated by the target values

for the impact indicators for the programme:

• Number of new jobs (200)

• Number of jobs maintained (700)

• Number of new enterprises (50)

These seem to have been over-ambitious targets, especially for a cross-border co-

operation programme with a budget of in total a little over 40 M€ and taking into account

13 In the period 1992-1997, the GDP per head of Southern-Finland had gone from 99.6% to 115.8% of the EU15 average.

R20090332.doc 29 January, 2010


Estonia

the fact that the first half of the programming period was to be implemented on the

Finnish side only (in terms of ERDF funding).

The Mid-term evaluation of 2003 criticise the notion of “balanced economic growth”,

another fundamental idea in the programme’s strategy, claiming the then prevailing

developments were taking the two sides of the border away from such a balance, hinting

at the accelerating growth of (future) new Member State Estonia and the more moderate

(and possibly even decelerating) rates in Finland. Also, they point out that the

programme’s objectives relating to the environment are inherently difficult to reconcile

with the predominantly economically oriented aims of the programme.

According to the Mid-term evaluation, the programme represented a balancing act as the

differences in development between the two sides were so large14, their future needs and

prospects were so different and the strategy designed to address these differences needed

to use two very different instruments (PHARE and the Structural Funds). The potential

impact of such a possible imbalance on the programme is that it is difficult to find joint

interests on both sides of the border to form genuinely cross-border projects. However, in

practice, this turned out to be a rather minimal risk, especially under the 2nd priority,

where e.g. tourism was a very clear area of common interest.

In addition the Mid-term evaluators also criticise the availed point of view taken by the

programme document that the border is a strength and a resource: the Mid-term

evaluators claim that a border is a weakness almost by definition, especially because the

aim of the programme is said to be to mitigate the differences on both sides of the border,

which might in fact allow for a certain synergy following division of labour and

specialisation. In this sense, the programme can almost be said to have partially cast

doubt over its own relevance, considering the INTERREG instrument is designed to

overcome negative border effects. However, it would be fair to say that the Finnish-

Estonian border region is not yet in such an advanced stage of integration as e.g. the

Dutch-German border, which might indeed constitute a strength rather than a weakness in

certain respects. Therefore, the relevance of the programme per se can be considered

guaranteed and it is rather the strategic point of view taken by the programme that the

border is a potential strength, the realisation of which needs to be supported, that is

premature in this phase of co-operation.

In terms of the relevance of the programme, including the quality of its structure and

design, the Mid-term evaluators concluded that “There is no major need to rewrite the

programmes strategy at its current stage. If one would try to apply it as a set of

directives for detailed activities, it could be taken as slightly unrealistic.” Indeed it is fair

to say that at the time there was no major need to reformulate priorities or measures. The

programme seemed to connect to expectations and needs of the target group in general

14 In 1997, the GDP per head of Estonia was only 37% of the EU15 average (based on purchasing power parity).

R20090332.doc 30 January, 2010


Estonia

(and continued to do so afterwards). However, it is clear that the moment of the Mid-Term

would have been suitable to re-assess the programme´s ambition in terms of indicators.

For example, it could have taken the pressure off “job creation” and provided clearer

focus (also in terms of indicators) on sustainable networks in various areas. Such a re-

focussing did not take place.

SWOT analysis did not provide very strong basis for intervention

A review of the socio-economic analysis of the programme document shows that evidence

(in terms of corresponding data or qualitative arguments) has been presented for 11

strengths, 28 weaknesses, 1 opportunity and 3 threats – or at least elements, that –

according to their formulation – can be considered as such. The programme document

also presents a separate SWOT analysis, consisting of a SWOT table with 4 the elements

and a number of more general conclusions drawn on the basis of it. The programme

document SWOT contains 9 strengths, 8 weaknesses, 9 opportunities and 8 threats.

Although a clear proportion (around half) of the elements mentioned in the SWOT are

indeed backed up by sufficient data and qualitative analysis in the chapter describing the

programme area, there are many others for which the justification in terms of evidence in

the form of data seems to be (partly) lacking. Other SWOT elements have been described

too generally to have any practical value in establishing a strategy for the programme

(e.g. “foreign investment” as an opportunity). In general, more weaknesses could have

been brought forward in the SWOT analysis in order to form the basis for specific

intervention under one of the measures.

Coherence of overall strategy suffers from insufficient analytical basis

On the basis of the programme document SWOT, the drafters conclude: “The analysis of

strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats reveals three themes: contacts, markets

and environment. These are the bases of cross-border co-operation. Cooperation across

sectors and administrative units should thus aim at economically, socially, culturally and

ecologically sustainable development in the programme area generating ample, mutual

benefits for each of the partners.” Although it seems generally possible to derive such a

conclusion from the analysis presented, the line of argument from the data to this overall

conclusion seems rather indirect. It would have been good to use the SWOT analysis as a

stronger basis for the identification a number of key strategic issues, e.g. by combining

different SWOT elements.

The vision statement introducing the programme strategy could have been more targeted

and focussed. In addition, it does not build further on the SWOT analysis and lacks clear

guidance in terms of the formulation of specific objectives. The latter, forming the basis

for the programme’s priorities, are somewhat better connected with the SWOT, while the

operational objectives (the basis for the measures) feed into these specific objectives

quite logically. However, their choice for these operational objectives does not seem to

have a strong basis in the SWOT.

R20090332.doc 31 January, 2010


Estonia

The Mid-Term evaluation as well as its update was not considered to provide sufficient

utility in terms of providing ideas for re-programming by the programme management.

One of the problems cited was that “some of the recommendations in mid-term evaluation

refer to the situation of implementing the INTERREG programme only on the Finnish side

of the border – thus, the situation has changed profoundly when implementing the

INTERREG programme on both sides of the border.” After the Mid-term evaluation, which

had suggested some relatively minor re-allocations of funds between the measures, the

Monitoring Committee reallocated programme funding between measures in 2005. This,

however, did not affect the allocation between the priorities.

The overall programme strategy can be called consistent only in terms of the set of

objectives as different levels (overall, specific and operational) being coherent among

each other. The set of the measures seems logical and straightforward. Especially the

Programme Complement contains a comprehensive and internally coherent view on the

vision for the programme area, the objectives at various levels and the concise description

of the measures, with sufficiently operational information on background of the measures,

their aims, the scope for eligible support in terms of types of activities, funding, national

co financing sources, examples of applicants, selection criteria and indicators. A major

problem, however, is the lack of consistency between various order objectives (as

expressed in the outputs and results defined in the Programme Complement) and their

indicators, which are often not specific.

Table.6 Intermediate conclusions quality of strategy

Criterion / scoring Excellent Sufficient Poor Data use and analysis x Focus x Clear conclusions x Quality and logic of the SWOT analysis

x

Consistency of the programme strategy

x

Determination of the programme measures

x

Programme-level impact indicator target values have been too ambitious

Comparing the most recent results achieved (see 3.2.1) against the quality level of initial

programming, the main conclusion relates to the indicators chosen at impact level and

especially their target values.

From the overview of impact indicators presented in 3.2.1, it can be concluded that in

almost all cases (i.e. for the priorities and for the three impact indicators mentioned)

there was clear underperformance as compared to the target values set, both by the

programme and by the projects themselves. The main question is whether this is due to a

too high level of ambition in the programme and the projects in terms of the target values

set (or indeed, in terms of setting such indicators at all for such a programme) or to a

systematic underperformance of the programme (in terms of generating the necessary

projects) or the projects funded under it.

R20090332.doc 32 January, 2010


Estonia

It seems however more likely that the former is the case. In other words: the

programming has been too ambitious. Partly this relates to the fact that, given the nature

of many INTERREG projects, it is quite hard to achieve new jobs, safeguard existing jobs

or establish new companies without a large deadweight effect (i.e. jobs and enterprises

that would otherwise not have been created and/or safeguarded). Secondly, this relates to

the overstatement of the target values of these indicators (creating 200 jobs with 40

million € of budget by means of cross-border cooperation projects seems to be very

ambitious, if not unrealistic). Thirdly, the programmers seem to have failed to take into

account sufficiently the possible effects of the business cycle. At the time of programming

(end of nineties), the Finnish economy had been booming for some time, which apparently

has led to expectations of continued similar growth throughout the programming period.

This, however, did clearly not materialise, which might have impacted on the mentioned

underperformance in terms of impact indicators.

Project-level impact indicator target values have been even more ambitious

Comparing the objectives set in terms of the three impact indicators mentioned within the

framework of the programme document with those set by the projects implemented, an

interesting conclusion arises: it seems the projects have even been more (over-)ambitious

than the programme, considering the fact that on average, the percentages of

achievement of these indicators are even lower at project level (between 23% and 63%)

than at programme level (between 40% and 67%). This might lead to the conclusion that

project targets are not fully commensurate with programme targets. Although attempts

have been made to adjust for developments in measure uptake, there do not seem to

have been any attempt to adjust objectives accordingly. One likely possibility is that the

ambitions in the programme document have formed the inspiration for a similarly high

ambition in the project applications. Project developers will have studied the indicator

formulated in the programme document as well as their target values. In their attempts to

compose attractive applications they might have experienced the incentive to be slightly

more ambitious than average . 15

3.2.3 The level of complexity and experimentation achieved by co-operation

The measures of the Finland-Estonia programme are not particularly experimental in

character. If anything, the relatively strong accent on human resource development

throughout the programme could be pointed out. This, however, should not a priori have a

specific negative or positive effect on effectiveness and is also not directly linked to a

15 Meaning aim for a slightly higher number of jobs to be created per € for instance In fact, the project-level impact indicators are between 7% and 86% higher (average of priorities) than their programme-level counterparts. The difference is the biggest for the new enterprises created. It is also interesting to note the stark differences between the priorities: for the third priority, the project presenters were systematically less ambitious than the programmers. This might lead to the conclusion that for this priority, the programme-level impact indicators have been the least realistic as even the project presenters did not consider it possible to aim somewhat higher.

R20090332.doc 33 January, 2010


Estonia

possible higher level of complexity or experimentation of the programme. There are,

however, certain measures containing one or a few non-traditional (possible) activities for

the Interreg context. For example, this is the case for measure 1.1, where a potential

activity is “strengthening of local democracy, participation and empowerment”, promoting

public participation as such, i.e. not in the framework of (another) thematic objective. It

would be too tentative however to assign the initial weaker absorption of this measure 1.1

with such a possibly higher level of complexity. It seems the imbalance in terms of

capacity among local governments on both sides of the Finnish Gulf has played a more

important role in this respect.

The whole 2nd priority follows a rather typical Interreg logic and in its approach can also

be called quite traditional. Uptake seems to have been accordingly, i.e. containing fewer

surprises than the first priority. The same goes for the 3rd priority.

Perhaps the 4th priority (with one measure) can be called the most complex of the

programme, at least in terms of being non-typical in its approach. However, only one call

for proposals was carried out in the framework of this priority and this was early in the

programme (in 2002), when Estonia was still participating under Phare CBC, which meant

less joint projects, even on a topic such as EU enlargement. What is more, less than 2%

of the Community contribution was allocated to this measure 4.1. In itself, the concept of

preparing Finnish organisations for Estonia’s future EU membership is a very interesting

(and non-standard) one. With hindsight, it would perhaps have been interesting to explore

in more depth the other experimental opportunities that such a measure enables. For

instance, the issue of transforming an external border into an internal border, the local

repercussions for a shifting Schengen border, the possible effect of enlargement on

relations with Russia (the programme area in Finland also has a – if only short – common

border with Russia) and related barriers to physically cross the (external) border. Looking

back on the programme period, both Estonia and Finland are facing long, and increasing,

waiting times at the Russian border with clearly negative social and economic effects. The

conclusion seems to be that the potentially experimental nature of this 4th priority has not

been (and could not have been, considering the very limited budget allocation) explored

to the full.


When looking at the patterns of effectiveness and performance of the single types of

measure in accordance with the hypotheses, we did not find major surprises. There were

only few deviations from what was expected, e.g. in terms of the lower interest

municipalities (especially on the Estonian side) took in networking.

The relevance of the results achieved is most significant in relation to low level direct

cross-border contacts (i.e. that of individuals), established by the sizeable number of

businesses from both sides participating in project activities as well as in the number of

people having been trained together. The relevance of e.g. the numbers of jobs or new

R20090332.doc 34 January, 2010


Estonia

firms created is less significant, if only because of the question of how to interpret related

monitoring data that have been collected using a system that was designed for

mainstream SF (see 3.3).

Almost all measures follow a rather stable, or perhaps slightly convex, implementation

pattern over time, both in terms of financial absorption and achievement of outputs and

results. Any delays incurred mainly related to assumptions and expectations, made during

programming, not materialising, the clearest example being the lack of interest and/or

capacity of local governments to participate in networking activities under priority 1.

The level of experimentation of the programme is not very high with many traditional

aspects, especially in priorities 2 and 3. Potentially more complex elements either did not

reach maturity (1st priority) or were not sufficiently put to the test (4th priority).

Considering that cooperation between the two countries was never experiencing

particularly large problems as ethnic-cultural ties make interaction relatively easy,

translation of the quite positive (qualitative) results of the programme into more effective

and sustainable cooperation would be a slight exaggeration. However, at project level,

there are certainly partnerships which have been made more substantial and therefore

more sustainable. Also, a considerable number of new partnerships have been created

which will be able to make use of the Interreg IV Central Baltic programme more easily.

3.3 Project-level co-operation under the programme

3.3.1 Selection of the project sample

In order to achieve an optimal and time-efficient selection of projects to be assessed in

the context of each programme in-depth analysis, a coherent methodology was foreseen

to be applied per each programme. The selection of projects was expected to be done in a

way that it optimally covers the “priority topics” that have been set out for the three

INTERREG III strands. The project-selection had to ensure that the most important

thematic programme priorities are covered. The selection was carried out such that it

optimally covered various levels of performance achieved by the projects. The selection

ensured that at least one project is a good practice example (i.e. having achieved a very

high intensity of co-operation and a high or very high level of sophistication and degree of

experimentation) while the others should reflect various other overall performance levels

(i.e. high, medium or low co-operation intensity and high, medium or low level of

sophistication / degree of experimentation).

According to the methodology for selection given the evaluation team was supposed to

forward a written request to the respective programme Joint Technical Secretariat (JTS)

with the aim of gathering a total of 10 projects reflecting in a more or less balanced way

the above-specified “Guideline Criteria”. Once the JTS-proposal would be received, the

R20090332.doc 35 January, 2010


Estonia

evaluators were expected to select 5 projects which would have subsequently been

assessed more in-depth.

The selection was supposed to reflect a number of project-related features and

characteristics. These were:

• the financial volume of the project (i.e. small budget – around average budget -

large budget);

• the size of the project partnership (i.e. few partners – around average size of the

partnership – large partnership);

• the approval time of the project (i.e. approval at an early stage of the

programme’s life cycle - approval at the middle of the programme’s life cycle -

approval at the end of the programme’s life cycle);

• different types of outputs / results achieved (i.e. mostly tangible/physical outputs

and results – mostly intangible outputs and results – mix between tangible and

intangible outputs and results).

Though the evaluators contacted the JTS with the request for the contribution regarding

the selection of sample projects immediately, it appeared that all relevant contact persons

were on holiday until August 3, 2009 leaving the evaluation team 17 calendar days to

identify projects, perform desk-studies, conduct interviews and questionnaires and carry

out analysis. In order to proceed with the selection and reduce the risk of delay in the

analysis of the project results, the methodology for selecting the projects for in-depth

analysis was slightly amended. Accordingly, the evaluation team identified 5 projects to

be analysed based on the following criteria:

a) Priority topics covered

b) Budget: small (up to EUR 150,000), average (between EUR 150,000 and

300,000) and large (more than EUR 300,000)

c) Duration: short (up to 1 year), average (up to 2 years), long (more than 2 years)

d) The approval/implementation time of the project: early implementation period

(period up to 2004), mid-implementation period (including period from 2004-

2005), late-implementation period (including period later than 2005)

e) No of partners: few (2), average (3), many (more than 3)

There were a number of aspects that could not be taken into account while compiling the

sample based on data available from several reports and information available on the

Internet as that would have required assistance from the JTS beforehand:

f) Level of performance achieved by the project – the info should be reflected in

the monitoring reports of the projects

g) Different types of outputs/results achieved

Before starting this assessment, the description of the amended methodology and choice

of the 5 projects was agreed with the Task 5 co-ordinator so as to ensure that a good

thematic balance of the “good practice cases” is achieved across all 16 programmes.

Accordingly the following project sample was identified:

1. “Traditsiooniline ja väärtuslik vana maja” (“Traditional and valuable old

Building”) - FIMOS 111950 - BEST PRACTICE

R20090332.doc 36 January, 2010


Estonia

• Duration: 15.02.06 - 31.12.07

• Total costs: 315 180 €

• Lead Partner: MTÜ Eesti Muinsuskaitse Selts (Estonian Heritage Society)

• Partner: Föreningen för befrämjande av byggnadsvård rf (Finland)

Justification for selection:

• Priority 1 (measure 1.1),

• Average contract period,

• Large budget

• Late phase of contract implementation

• Average partnership

• The project is outlined as best practice in the report „Bridging borders through

interaction, innovation and an integrated environment“. As the report was

compiled by the Programme Director in the JTS it is very likely that her

recommendation would have been to involve this project as a good practice

example.

2. BeL-HMI: Baltic eLearning in Health and Medical Informatics - FIMOS

114438

• Duration: 12.02.2007 – 31.12.2007

• Total budget: 90,000 €

• Lead Partner: Abo Akademi Institute for Advanced Management Systems

Research (Finland)

• Partners: MTÜ Eurohouse (Estonia), Regional Organisation for the Archipelago

of Southwest Finland (Finland)


• Priority 2 (measure 2.1)

• Short period of implementation

• Small budget

• Large partnership


3. Development of Geo-tourism in Estonia and Finland - FIMOS 111009

• Duration: 1.7.2005 – 31.12.2007


• Lead Partner: MTÜ GEOGuide Baltoscandia (Estonia)

• Partners: Turku University (Finland)



• Lead Partner from Estonia

• Large budget


• Few partners

4. Key persons in key positions – a training programme - FIMOS 105168

R20090332.doc 37 January, 2010


Estonia

• Duration: 1.11.2002 – 31.12.2003


• Project Coordinator: University of Turku (Finland)

• Lead Partner: EuroCollege, University of Tartu (Estonia)

• Partners: none



• Few partners

• Early phase of financing/implementation

• Average duration

• Average budget

5. Cross Border Small Business Environment - FIMOS 111377

• Duration: 1.8.2005 – 31.12.2007


• Lead Partner: Helsingin kauppakorkeakoulun Pienyrityskeskus (Helsinki School

of Economics Small Business Centre, Finland)

• Partners: Tallinna Tehnoloogiapargi Arendamise Sihtasutus (Tallinn

Technology Park Development Foundation, Estonia)



• Mid and late phase of implementation

• Long duration

• Large budget

• Few partners

According to the methodology for evaluation, a face-to-face interview with the Lead

partner of the best practice project was carried out. For the other 4 projects a combined

strategy of an electronic questionnaire and telephone interviews was applied.

3.3.2 In-depth evaluation of projects implemented under the priority topics of the Community Initiative

Name of the Project: BeL-HMI: Baltic eLearning in Health and Medical Informatics

(project 2)

Basic information

Programme: INTERREG IIIA Southern Finland-Estonia 2000-2006

Programme type: Strand A

Measure: 2.1

Priority topics: to support distance and on-line education

Type of project: Cross-border co-operation

Duration: 12.02.2007 – 31.12.2007

R20090332.doc 38 January, 2010


Estonia

Intended results: create a web based questionnaire to detect needs, development of a

platform to support ICT competence development (the so-called Marratech programme)

and training/education (the Health and Medical Informatics course on-line) and use the

platform also for team building to support decision making

Cost and co-funding: Total budget: 90,000 €; ERDF funding: 44,4% 40 000 €

Lead Partner: Åbo Akademi IAMSR (Institute for Advanced Management Systems

Research) (Finland)

Partners: NGO Eurohouse (Estonia), Region Åboland, Turku University of Applied Sciences

(Finland), Development Centre of Salo Region (Finland), Tallinn University (Estonia),

Estonian Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics (Estonia)

Selection process and indicators

The project was selected in the context of call for proposals and the reason for selection

was based on project`s strengths: utilisation of IT-technology in heath care, innovative

and up-to-date idea.

The numerical indicators listed in the project plan were mainly achieved, the number of

participants was achieved, but the number of organisations was lower than expected.

Partnership and sustainability

The Project leader on the Lead partner’s side stated that due to the extremely short

project time the project was intended from the beginning to be followed up later by a “full

time project” using the information acquired. There was only time from February 2007 to

December 2007 to plan, implement and close the project. It is more considered to have

been a pilot and a start-up project for coming long-term projects. The intention was only

to test new concepts of on-line learning using ICT systems in the field of medical health

care. Due to the short time available, the web-based questionnaire did not get the full

response expected. The nature of the project was to a large extent experimental and

complex. It was a rather new and thrilling experience for all participants and partners to

be involved in medical and health related training and be online together with students

from all over the world.

The network of project partners had partly functioned already before the project due to

earlier engagements in various projects in the Baltic States, especially in Estonia. But

surprisingly, still the expectations regarding the current project among the partners were

not homogenous.

The synergy between the BeL-HMI project and an ongoing project (eAgingWell) is drawn

from the focus on elderly and the need to include them in society. The synergy must

continue over the next years in order to obtain full effect in development and training. The

current project was considered only a pilot project to show users and decision makers the

various possibilities of ICT in this field. The project provided clear proof of the need and

benefits of combining clinical and nursing work with developments of ICT infrastructure

and support systems.

R20090332.doc 39 January, 2010


Estonia

The impact of the project has been greater for the Finnish partners, because the project

time was too short to fully involve the Estonian partners. Finland also probably had the

“home-field” advantage. On the Finnish side the on-line education performed perfectly –

students were interested in the topics and enthusiastic about the way the material was

presented. Fully satisfying online lectures were given. Already during this pilot project, a

similar on-line course has been given in Finland by the Lead partner with excellent results,

which the BeL-HMI made possible.

The situation in Estonia was different. Arranging full ICT courses in Tallinn Technical

University on such short notice did not succeed as well as in Finland. The on-line course in

Tallinn University was not easy to arrange. It would have needed more time to integrate it

into the annually scheduled study plans. But more importantly the IT-topic seemed to be

slightly outside the interest of the students of social disciplines.

The project would have needed more preparatory work, probably mostly on the Estonian

side. The time spent in this extremely short project did not allow for very in-depth

planning or analysis. The Lead partner considers the project not at all a common action.

The Estonian partner only partly participated in the project planning phase and the

partners did not carry out a joint diagnosis of shared problems. The Estonian partner’s

involvement was too limited due to the short project period (9 months). However, the

project encouraged inter-cultural understanding and the most valuable asset gained from

the partnership was mutual understanding of the necessity to teach in this subject for

target groups involved in social- and medical health care services.

The course should have been tailor-made, announced well in advance and the teacher

should have spoken the Estonian language. It was concluded that in teaching situations

with many cultures and languages involved, the language used can be a limiting factor.

For the Finnish (Lead) partner the conclusion was that it gave them valuable information

on how the Estonian education system is built up. The project increased the capacity for

better tackling major needs in the area and the Finnish partners have got a better

understanding of what should be considered when involving Estonian universities in a

future project. The cooperation was dubbed “interesting” by the Lead partner. Despite all,

the project is still considered to be a success. The lead partner will use the findings and

results as a background when in the future continuing their efforts in this field. Still, the

Lead partner does not seem to be entirely sure about the conclusions on the Estonian

side, as the final report states “we are sure also they gained in the cooperation”. Without

INTERREG funding, the project could have been undertaken only with a different level of

ambition in terms of cooperation and could have been sustainable only to a minor extent.

Lessons learned

The project has partly helped remove prejudice and contributed to improved policy and

administrative processes in the medical health field. Though, it did not have an effect on

national, regional or local-level political and administrative processes. The project

encouraged cross-border transfer of know-how and generated beneficial effects in terms

R20090332.doc 40 January, 2010


Estonia

of individual and organisational learning. Considering the overall area, the impacts of the

project are perceptible only to a minor extent, but it has triggered new regional activities

partly with the same partnership. Estonian contacts from the project are important to the

Finnish side and are likely to be involved in their coming activities.

On the whole the INTERREG contribution was sufficient and there was no additional

partner funding other than formally required. Lead partner satisfaction with JTS support

was not fully positive, as the advice on project implementation requirements received was

not considered to be sufficient nor timely.

Name of the Project: Development of Geo-tourism in Estonia and Finland (project 3)

Basic information



Measure: 3.1

Priority topics: understanding and proper dissemination of Southern Finland’s and

Estonia’s common geologic history and regional development peculiarities


Duration: 1.7.2005 – 31.12.2007

Intended results: to enable a better understanding and proper dissemination of Southern

Finland’s and Estonia’s common geologic history and regional development peculiarities.

To produce 16 thematic travel guidebooks, 12 educational documentaries on DVDs in

Estonian with Finnish subtitles, establish two interactive multimedia-kiosks, create a

project web-site, organise seminars and exhibitions

Cost and co-funding: Total budget: 592,600 €; ERDF co-financing: 64,71% 383 450 €

Lead Partner: NGO GEOGuide Baltoscandia (Estonia)

Partners: Turku University (Finland)



was that it was a new and innovative idea, clear benefits for both sides and supports

tourism sector with a totally new idea. Quite small partnership was considered as a

weakness.

The numerical indicators listed in the project plan were achieved and even exceeded

(number of participants, number of produced material).

The project was targeted as establishing a common network among nature-oriented

actors, particularly school teachers of nature sciences and similar university staff, nature

museum guides, environmentalists, and tourism entrepreneurs.

The quantitative and qualitative indicators set on the project level were mostly achieved.

However, the project did not largely contribute to the indicators set at programme level.

The only indicators set were related to the number of trainees and to the fact that the

project is of an information-society related and environmentally friendly nature. The

R20090332.doc 41 January, 2010


Estonia

project objectives were set in the direction of environmental protection and monitoring.

However, on the basis of the project activities planned and carried out one could say that

it is more related to tourism. Developing new products for the tourism sector is supporting

tourism enterprises and therefore the project contributed also to the (economic) indicators

related to this aspect. Although the indicators were achieved as set the evaluation team

considers the indicators set in the project to be very modest and the actual contribution to

fulfilling the programme indicators was bigger (e.g. in economic terms).


The project was genuinely common action and the partnership was applied to a large

extent. Although no particular SWOT-analysis or other similar diagnosis was carried out

the partners cooperated already during the project preparation phase during which the

roles and the tasks were agreed and after the financing decision a formal partnership

agreement was drawn up and signed. This kind of cooperation is remarkable as there was

no cooperation between the partners before this Interreg project. In addition to the joint

development of the project there was also joint staffing, financing and implementation of

the envisaged project activities.

Although the project partners consider the size and nature of the partnership sufficient

the evaluation team, having analysed the substance of the project (which is not only

related with the environment but also with the tourism sector and therefore also the local

government field), it could have been good to involve local government organisations as

well. Involving public sector organisations would also have brought along more

sustainability of the project after the end of its financial support from the Interreg

programme. Moreover, the environmental issues are also among local governments’

biggest concerns. The latter is especially important considering the fact that the project

partnership continued after the end of Interreg co-financing, but only to a minor extent in

project-specific or related fields.

One very good project result that could contribute to the sustainability of the project is

the web-site where all the guides produced are published. However, it is important to

mention that this web-site is public only until the end of the year 2009. The methodology

of the awareness-raising activity related with involving the teachers in seminars is highly

appreciated. This is also a very good strategy for ensuring the sustainability of the project

activities. Though it is mentioned that the indicator set on the number of trainees is

exceeded, it is not marked how many participants were going to share the knowledge to

the wider public. Based on the assessment of the current project the evaluation team

considers it necessary to assess the sustainability of projects more thoroughly when

selecting the projects.

Lessons learned

The evaluation team agrees with the Lead partner’s assessment that the nature of the

project and its activities are only slightly experimental and complex and its contribution to

the awareness of common challenges and perspectives across borders is very marginal.

R20090332.doc 42 January, 2010


Estonia

The most valuable asset from the project is the exchange of knowledge between partners.

But there is an obvious need to pay more attention when selecting projects on the basis of

effects at national, regional and local level political and administrative processes as the

current project had no effect on these aspects even though this was largely expected.

Based on the current project there is also a need to somehow regulate the role of the

partners to ensure a sufficient and adequate participation in the project of all parties. This

is also to encourage the intense partnership and accordingly it is more likely that the

partnership will continue after the specific project ends.

It is worth mentioning that according to the project’s Lead partner the project would have

been carried out also without Interreg financial support, although to a smaller extent. The

project stakeholders were pleased with the administrative support received from the

Interreg Programme staff (JTS) in Turku. The only recommendation regarding the

administrative processes of the programme is related with the financial auditing and

reimbursement of funds which should be limited to a 3 month period.

Name of the Project: Key persons in key positions – a training programme (project

4)

Basic information



Measure: 4.1

Priority topics: Network of key actors (journalists, teachers, trainers, civil servants, EU co-

ordinators), knowledge of EU processes and institutions


Duration: 1.11.2002 – 31.12.2003

Intended results: Increase the knowledge of EU processes and institutions, networking of

key actors, exchange best practices. It was intended to get 72 participants (48 Finnish

and 24 Estonians) in the training and to create a 2-seminar training programme for

groups of key actors (12 Finnish and 6 Estonians per group). Conduct 2 final seminars –

for Finnish and Estonian actors separately.

Cost and co-financing: Total budget: 125,210 €; ERDF co-financing: 36,6% 45 805 €

Project Coordinator: University of Turku (Finland)

Lead Partner: EuroCollege, University of Tartu (Estonia)

Partners: none



was that it fits well to the objectives of the special priority/measure. A weakness was

considered that the sustainability of project results was unsure.

The numerical indicators listed in the project plan were not fully achieved; the number of

Finnish participants was lower than planned (12).

R20090332.doc 43 January, 2010


Estonia


Different sources have given us different information on the question who was the Lead

partner in this project (Tartu or Turku). But as the contact person of the University of

Turku has left the University, we could only reach the Estonian partner: EuroCollege,

University of Tartu. Contact was made by e-mail and by telephone. The interviewee

commented that as the project ended a long time ago (in 2003) it is quite hard to answer

to the questions. The final report was composed mostly by the Jean Monnet Centre

(Finland) and luckily it is quite detailed.

The ambition was for Finnish and Estonian key actors to benefit equally from the project

and this was hoped to achieve with the fact that organisers and lecturers were from both

countries. In this case there was less interest in Finnish key actors and therefore the

Estonian partner benefited more, also because Estonia was not a member of the EU then

and participation in such projects was a great opportunity for the EuroCollege and its

target groups. By being able to facilitate this type of training, the EuroCollege directly

benefited institutionally by developing its networks and contacts. Also from the

organisational or management side it was a very useful experience for EuroCollege. The

final report stated that participants had told that the project had had a good effect on

them and the training had been interesting. In their opinion the networks should be

broadened and the trainings continued. The possibilities for on-line training courses

increased a lot for Tartu University’s EuroCollege. Both partners showed interest in

collaborating more in the future. The cooperation that followed has included mostly

academically oriented activities.

The nature of the project was exclusively experimental and quite sophisticated. The idea

of networking between certain Estonian and Finnish professionals through joint training

was definitely bright at that time and the programme was well designed.

The project had joint staffing and the tasks were divided. During the project, the

EuroCollege was responsible for the implementation of project activities; they guaranteed

the participation of target groups and organisation of the third training seminar. The

EuroCollege contact said that the University of Turku prepared the project concept and

framework and only minor issues were consulted during the visit by the Project leader and

his assistant to Tartu. The partners did not carry out any joint diagnosis prior to the

submission of the project-application. The partners, in this case, did not even have a

written agreement at that stage. The Project leader was one of the EU top experts on the

topic in Finland and he was aware of the problems even in the broader Baltic Sea region.

The Project leader had visited Estonia and the University of Tartu several times before and

had a good view on the common challenges. EuroCollege and University of Turku had not

had previous joint projects but at institutional level the two organisations share a long-

term partnership in various activities involving different faculties.

The nature and size of the partnership was adequate for this project. For EuroCollege it

was basically the first participation in a joint-training programme for non-academic target

R20090332.doc 44 January, 2010


Estonia

groups. In some project actions the organisational issues appeared to be difficult because

EuroCollege lacked experience in this field. However, the project definitely satisfied the

stakeholders. Estonian target group members participating in the above training

programmes valued this experience very highly from both the qualitative angle (new

knowledge, meeting colleagues, having interesting discussions) and having access to this

type of professional training, which was not very common in the years of 2000-2001.

Thematic discussions and presentations highlighted different perspectives but also

common challenges. Local public sector and government officials who participated in the

training could have made direct transfers to policies and administrative processes, but

there is no knowledge about whether the project has directly triggered new regional or

local activities or investments. The project definitely encouraged inter-cultural

understanding and cross-border transfer of know-how.

As EuroCollege was more oriented to developing academic training programmes and not

so much to professional training, it is likely that the project would have been carried out

only partly without INTERREG co-financing. Also, the project could not have been

undertaken with the same level of ambition in terms of cooperation. For EuroCollege the

financing would not have been possible at all.

Lessons learned

Among the problems stated was marketing for the project, which should have started

earlier, as a result of which the Estonian participants were not always committed to the

courses, causing quite a high degree of absence. The Estonian counterparts failed to get

funding for a seminar held in Estonia from Phare CBC or the Baltic University Community

Relations Programme. As a result, the Jean Monnet Centre in Finland paid for the seminar

and both counterparts had to do a lot of work free of charge (in kind).

The project had no effect on the environment or ICT. The groups of seminars were chosen

on the basis of gender equality.

INTERREG financial contribution was sufficient and the project has not triggered any

additional partner funding beyond the level of co-financing formally required.

Name of the Project: Cross Border Small Business Environment (project 5)

Basic information



Measure: 2.2

Priority topics: Networking of business incubators to provide quality training and support

services for enterprises. Networking and training of business incubators, technology parks

and territorial organisations. Networking of SMEs. Supporting and information services for

SMEs.


Duration: 1.8.2005 – 31.12.2007

R20090332.doc 45 January, 2010


Estonia

Intended results: Tightened network between incubators, technology parks and territorial

organisations, increased knowledge and high-quality services, higher competitiveness

among Estonian and Finnish SMEs. 30 participants in project operations (15 Estonian

enterprises, 15 Finnish enterprises); 180 enterprises have used project`s supporting

services (90/90), 90 enterprises networking (45/45).

Cost and co-funding: Total budget: 384,152 €; ERDF co-financing: 60,20% 231 253 €

Lead Partner: Helsinki School of Economics Small Business Centre (Finland)

Partners: Tallinn Technology Park Development Foundation (Estonia)



was: important theme, fits well to the objectives of priority/measure. The sustainability of

results was questionable though.

The numerical indicators listed in the project plan were achieved and even exceeded

(number of enterprises contacts/ participated in the project).


The project had been derived from the already working cooperation between the two cities

– Helsinki and Tallinn. With the current project the aim was to continue and broaden the

collaboration beyond the capitals. Without INTERREG funding the project would not have

been undertaken at all and the financial contribution was even more than necessary.

Interreg co-financing was very important for the co-operation development because

business incubators are often financed either by the government or from foreign

programmes and they usually do not have their own funds to carry out this kind of

projects. The project did not trigger any additional partner funding beyond the level of co-

financing formally required.

Both project partners participated in the planning phase and carried out a joint diagnosis

of shared development potentials by having lots of meetings. In that way the project was

a genuinely common action with joint development, joint staffing, financing and

implementation. Both partners were eager to participate and shared clear objectives,

which were in line with the strategic goals of their institutions.

The Helsinki School of Economics Small Business Centre (HSE SBC) and Tallinn Tehnopol

had already previously joined forces into a partnership through the development of the

joint Estonian-Finnish networks of mentors for start-ups and small knowledge-based

enterprises, a project which also aimed at networking between Finnish and Estonian SMEs.

This previous collaborative experience allowed the partners to gain a strong understanding

of their mutual aims and unique strengths (the so-called “CROSSBENT” project).

The nature and size of the partnership in CROSSBENT was very relevant for the current

project. Representatives of the local governments (although not involved as partners)

participated in some project events and supported project activities by mobilising their

own experience. The nature of the project and its activities were experimental and

R20090332.doc 46 January, 2010


Estonia

complex. A training programme for managers of business incubators and technology parks

was developed and piloted during the project. In addition, the project provided market

surveys, consulting and training services for Southern Finnish and Estonian SMEs.

The training session of the project attracted a lot of interest in Estonia but in Finland the

interest was low. Perhaps the reason is that in Finland sales trainings are offered widely.

Both partners have benefitted from the project but the effect was slightly greater for the

Estonian partner. The Estonians made use of Finnish experience and best practice for the

development of a business incubators network in Estonia and Estonian companies and

representatives of the business-supporting organisations have participated a little bit

more actively in the project activities and made more use of the project’s services (e.g.

so-called “DesignStart” consulting and market surveys).

The project enhanced awareness of common perspectives across borders to a large

extent. Participants of the project’s trainings, seminars, consulting services and

partnership events gained more than just expertise, benefitting from the opportunity to

forge new business contacts across the border and the chance to lay the foundation for

new co-operation, also further strengthening the spirit of enterprise between these two

business communities. The project partners have increased each other’s experience during

benchmarking and best practice exchanges.

The outcome of the project was a tightened network of Estonian and Finnish business

incubators and small businesses. The project stakeholders were very satisfied with the

project’s activities and services and the project had a great effect on regional and local-

level political and administrative processes. Inter-cultural understanding and cross-border

transfer of know-how was encouraged. The contacts made during the project are definitely

sustainable and extend beyond formality. The project has created a solid starting point for

continuing and enhancing the collaboration. It also created possibilities and brought out

needs to broaden the network to Latvian incubators and small businesses as well, the

opportunities for which would be provided nicely by the new Central Baltic programme

2007-2013, in which Latvia is also included.

The co-operation between HSE SBC and Tallinn Tehnopol continued after the end of the

project: first of all, a bilateral network agreement has been signed between HSE Start up

Center and Tallinn Tehnopol in January 2009 and secondly, the new “SMEDGE project”

(Central Baltic programme “Soft Landing” Zone for Small and Medium Size Companies),

which started in March 2009 and will end in October 2011. The project partners are from

Estonia (Lead partner), Finland, Latvia and Sweden.

Lessons learned

The interviewee was the project coordinator on the Lead partner’s side and the only

problem mentioned was that the processing of payment claims took a really long time

(over 6 months in many cases) and the bureaucracy in terms of the requirements for

R20090332.doc 47 January, 2010


Estonia

tendering of services and reporting were considered to be too much. On the whole the

project was said to have received sufficient and timely advice from the JTS.

3.3.3 Good practice projects with particularly strong territorial cooperation demonstrating the Community added value of INTERREG programmes

Good practice Project Illustration: PROJECT TITLE

Below we present the good practice project illustration. We chose the project

“Traditsiooniline ja väärtuslik vana maja” (“Traditional and valuable old building”). We

chose this project as it was also outlined as a successful project in the report

elaborated by the JTS about the different joint projects carried out within the

programme. It was also indicated that all the indicators set were achieved to a larger

extent than expected. In addition, having examined the project activities planned and

performed, it was obvious that the main emphasis is truly on exchanging knowledge

and developing partnership across borders.

A. General Information



Measure: 1.1

Priority topics: Improving co-operation and exchange of knowledge and best of

practices between preservation NGOs for improving the level of care for traditional

materials by bringing together a number of like-minded organisations and specialists in

Finland and Estonia.


Duration: 15.02.06 - 31.12.07

Intended results: Establishment of library at the centre of sustainable renovation of

the Estonian Heritage Society and in Billnäs, Finland, setting up an information room,

creation of a web-site, organising camps and seminars.

Total budget: 315 180 €; ERDF co-financing 55,59%, 175 201 €

Lead Partner: MTÜ Eesti Muinsuskaitse Selts (Estonian Heritage Society)

Partner: Föreningen för befrämjande av byggnadsvård rf

During the project selection an evaluation committee member pointed out some

strengths and weaknesses of the project. Having conducted an in-depth analysis of the

project the evaluation team agrees that the strengths mentioned in the evaluation

report are indeed two of the most important aspects of the project and keys of its’

success: important theme in cultural sector and joint problem for the partners to solve.

Even the weakness related with the sustainability pointed out during the selection

turned out to be strength because during the project implementation several local

government organisations were involved in the activities and accordingly the subject

has been dealt with more widely than before the project, even after the end of the

project. In addition, it is important to note that given the sustainability of the current

project another project on this subject is under preparation for Interreg IV Programme.

R20090332.doc 48 January, 2010


Estonia

It is highly appreciated by the Lead partner of the project that there was a preparatory

project financed in order to enable the partners to prepare the project jointly and agree

on roles and tasks. Accordingly the project turned out to be well analysed (including

SWOT) and realistic to implement. One recommendation from the project Lead partner

to the programme is that such preparatory actions should also involve the search of

partners in order to bring together the right organisations.

Another positive aspect in the project was that, even though there were altogether three

partners involved, it became evident that there are more organisations interested which

would be necessary to involve on the theme. Involving local government organisations

both in Finland and in Estonia gave the project more perspective for sustainability and

for political and strategic impact.

B. Project Aim

The project aimed at improving co-operation and exchange of knowledge and best

practices between heritage preservation NGOs. The project aimed to share experience

and learn from each other how to improve the level of care for traditional building and

the use of traditional materials by bringing together a number of like-minded

organisations and specialists in Finland and Estonia.

The project was genuinely common action and contributed to a greater density of

common actions.

C. Political and Strategic Context

The timing of the project was very good as it was exactly the time when people had

started to pay more attention to the environment and also to cultural values. One has to

note that considering the size of the partner countries (Estonia and Finland) the impact

on Estonia at country level was very wide also from the local political and strategic point

of view. For Finland this impact was slightly modest but still positive.

One major effect of the project was that it helped to remove prejudice on different

levels:

1) So far no co-operation in the field had been carried out by the two countries

despite the fact that it is evident from history and different occupations that the

countries have similar backgrounds. Before the project Estonia had partners in

other Scandinavian countries but there was no interest in each other country’s

experience and know-how as it was not known widely enough that there is such

a particular and specific niche and heritage the countries have in common.

R20090332.doc 49 January, 2010


Estonia

2) Renovation of buildings valuable for their architecture, history and location

atmosphere in a worthy manner is more expensive for a person/organisation to

undertake compared to an ordinary simple renovation with ordinary materials.

Therefore the Information Centre for Sustainable Renovation and other similar

organisations were not highly appreciated. As a result of the project, people’s

awareness was raised and accordingly the image of the organisations standing for

sustainable renovation is much better.

Based on the latter – people’s acknowledgement of the regulations and rules for

renovating old building – the renovation rate of old buildings and therefore investments

into old buildings increased significantly. The period until the end of 2008 one could refer

to as the peak of renovation of old houses. Though, it is not possible to measure what

was the reason for such tendency – whether it was the awareness raising campaign of

the project or just people’s capacities to invest more in such activities.

During the project period several workshops and conference were carried out aimed at

sharing experience and know-how on different specific fields. During these events

problematic aspects of the institutional and legal frameworks in the field were dealt with

and accordingly several recommendations for improvement were elaborated. Even though

the partner organisations are not directly involved in designing legislation the issues

were communicated to the relevant authorities and therefore it is most relevant to note

that the project had a major effect on local and regional political and administrative

processes. In Estonia there was also an effect on national political and administrative

processes. For Finland the national level remained out of reach largely depending on the

partners’ nature (which was more a local level entity).

The project created 2 job vacancies for the project period and one of them still

maintains.

D. Implementation

The preparatory project referred to above gave a very good basis for project

implementation. The necessary analyses were conducted, roles and tasks agreed and

partnership agreement concluded. The project idea and activities were of a very specific

nature and therefore the planned activities were easy to follow. As the organisations

involved in the project were of a non profit nature and had several years of experience in

the field the project was in competent hands. The project activities were implemented

timely and the project results achieved even to a larger extent than expected.

R20090332.doc 50 January, 2010


Estonia

There was a web-site created for the project: www.vanamaja.eu which is not operational

anymore as it was more reasonable to integrate this web-site into the web-site of the

Information Centre for Sustainable Renovation (www.renoveeri.net ). This way it is

ensured that the web-site carries up-to-date information and is easily to find by the

interested persons. This makes the project results more sustainable as also possessing a

web-site brings along financial expenses which are often hard to bear for a NGO.

The administrative support given by the Interreg Programme specialists (mainly JTS) is

highly appreciated by the Lead partner. The only concern regarding the administrative

implementation of the project was linked with the actual expenditure of the partners.

Namely the Lead partner was not aware that the proportion rate of the partners’

expenditure had to be the same otherwise an average rate will be applied and the

payments will be made applying the same rate to all partners. Considering that one of

the partners had managed to implement the activities with a lower cost the expenditure

rate was rather low. Accordingly the partners’ expenditures were not fully covered as the

average rate was applied. This issue was raised by the Lead partner to the local

secretariat in the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Estonia already when submitting the

interim reports and receiving interim payments and accordingly the project was advised

that the actual expenditures occurred will be compensated with the final payment.

Unfortunately the lead-partner did not receive full compensation of costs occurred within

the project due to the application of the average rate of partners’ costs. Such financial

loss is very difficult to bear for an NGO and puts it in a very difficult situation. Here the

recommendation to the Programme would be to more widely introduce the policy applied

to the compensation of costs of the project and partners.

E. Effectiveness

As for every project financed under the programme there were objectives set at project

level as well at programme level. The quantitative objectives of the project were

achieved to a large extent. Accordingly, info rooms for introducing Finland’s experience

were established in Tallinn and an info room for introducing Estonia’s experience in the

field was established in Finland. Also the knowledge was intensively shared through

seminars and trainings on awareness raising issues in the field, maintaining the buildings

of cultural heritage and training of specialists.

The only objective not fully reached was that there were supposed to be two issues of a

journal reflecting the common maintenance of old buildings. One journal was the Lead

Partner’s responsibility which was also issued, the second was of a partner’s

responsibility and it was not issued.

R20090332.doc 51 January, 2010


Estonia

The objectives on the programme level were fully met and accordingly the project

contributed to the creation of jobs (bearing in mind equal treatment of men and women),

maintaining jobs, number of trainees, info society and environmental-friendliness

indicator.

F. Sustainability

Sustainability was considered by the evaluation committee as one of the risky aspects of

the project. The evaluation team admits that if the project would had limited itself to the

number and substance of partners as formally and initially involved in the project, its

sustainability would have been questionable.

However, when starting to implement the project activities, it became clear that

involving local governments’ organisations and representatives was essential for the

successful project implementation. It is also important to mention that the activities of

the project would have been implemented also without Interreg financial support but

clearly to a minor extent only. This means that the activities would have been

implemented only in Estonia and no involvement from other countries would have been

ensured. But this also indicates that the Lead partner is a sustainable organisation.

The sustainability issue is extremely critical in the field in general (preserving cultural

heritage could be called a sustainable area by nature) and therefore given the local

government’ interest and increased interest of the public the basis for it is very good.

Also the partnership is well functioning even after the project end. The information and

know-how is shared very often. One of the best indicators for sustainable partnership

between Finland and Estonia is that a new project is under preparation for applying for

funding from Interreg IV. One aspect that the project taught the beneficiaries was that

the composition of the partnership has to be carefully considered in order to achieve the

maximum level of objectives and ensure the sustainability of project results. Therefore

educational organisations will be involved in the project – this is to bring along also the

scientific and educational aspect which is essential to take the theme to the next level.

R20090332.doc 52 January, 2010


Estonia

G. Conclusions

On the basis of the description of this good practice example, we can draw the following

conclusions:

• A proper preparatory work in terms of the identification of partners, activities,

agreeing roles and tasks is an essential basis for a successful project

implementation

• The Interreg programme indeed helps to overcome prejudices between different

countries, even among “ordinary” people

• Each activity designed should actively involve all partners to ensure that growth

of partnership relations and sharing of knowledge

• Involvement of educational institutions and local government organisations

contributes to the sustainability of a project

• Even a small NGO can make a difference and have impact on local, regional and

national policies.

• The project partnership should not be limited only to the partners involved in the

project but might further evolve involving other organisations touched by the

project

• Good administrative support by the Interreg Programme staff enables proper and

successful implementation of projects

• A good project and partnerships will lead to new projects and challenges

• In order to ensure successful implementation of a project all partners need to be

interested in the project activities equally

• Small organisations can become stronger through common actions

3.4 Analysis of factors that determine the character of the programme

3.4.1 Important contextual factors characterising cross-border / transnational programme areas

According to the typology of the strand A programmes, developed under task 4, the

average programme is characterised by the main contextual factors and scores in the

table below. The lower the score, the better the preconditions for cross-border co-

operation are. The Finland-Estonia programme 2000CB160PC011 has scored accordingly:

R20090332.doc 53 January, 2010


Estonia

Contextual factor Average score Fin-Est score

Geographic type of land

border

3,50 ≤5,00

The political administrative

nature of the common

border

2,05 ≤3,00

The density of border

crossing possibilities

46,61 ≥12,49

The level of economic

disparities

1,76 ≤2,75

1,60 ≤3,00 Common historic ties

Even though only one factor has scored lower than the average, the preconditions for co-

operation are still not considerably hampered by these factors. Estonia and Finland share

a common sea border, which changed from external to internal border. Border crossing

possibilities are very good and have been good for a long time. Whereas visa-

requirements (although easily obtainable at relatively low cost at the border) existed up

until the second half of the nineties, the border became rather easy to cross by the turn of

the century, a situation which improved even more when Estonia joined the Schengen

area late in the programming period.

In terms of accessibility, there are 5 enterprises (ferry companies) operating on the

seaway between Tallinn and Helsinki. In summertime a boat leaves for Helsinki from

Tallinn and the other way around on average every hour, from 8.00 till 22.00. The fastest

boat takes 1.5 hours to get there which in comparison is almost twice as short a time as

driving by car from Tallinn to the farthest point in Southern Estonia. Boat tickets are

reasonably priced and tickets do not have to be bought too far ahead. One can also travel

between the two capitals through the air, with a plane leaving on average 4-6 times a

day. The price is higher than by boat but a flight as short as 30-minutes compensates for

this.

The density of border crossing possibilities has had a positive effect on cooperation. Even

in wintertime one can travel between the two capitals a couple of times a day. A lot of

Estonians go to work in Finland (mainly construction workers). This is connected to the

fact that there are quite big economic disparities between Estonia and Finland although

their level is decreasing since Estonia became a member of the European Union. The

average wage earner in Finland made approximately 2,880 EUR in the first quarter of

2009. In Estonia the average wage at the same time was approximately a quarter of that

(780 EUR).

R20090332.doc 54 January, 2010


Estonia

Bearing in mind that Finland is one of the old members of the EU, Estonia (a member

since 2004) certainly has a lot to learn from its neighbour. Finland on the other side could

also be said to have a lot to learn from the efficient organisation of processes (often ICT-

related) in different fields of cooperation. Similar conclusions were made also in the

sample projects (see section 3.3).

The Euroregion

The cooperation area Helsinki-Tallinn has been involved in a network called “Euregio” with

a Charter Agreement between signed on 22.06.1999. It included the following parties:

• The City of Helsinki

• Uusimaa Regional Council (Finland)

• The City of Tallinn

• The Harju County Government (Tallinn), representing the Republic of Estonia

• The Union of Harju County Municipalities (Tallinn)

The Euregio is an established operation format created by the Council of Europe for cross-

border co-operation. It is also recognised by the European Union as an organisation for

regional co-operation taking place across internal and external borders. Common areas of

interest are: co-operation between political bodies, international co-operation, economy,

education, culture, environment, spatial planning and infrastructure, rescue service. The

funding of expenses incurred from the participation in the Euregio co-operation is decided

separately by each party. Decisions concerning financing are taken when the project in

question is being established.

In order to formalise co-operation an NGO Euregio was founded in 2003 by the five main

stakeholders of the Capital regions. The corresponding Memorandum of Association

between Tallinn and Helsinki was signed on 07.11.2003. The NGO has a Management

board, General meeting and a Secretariat. The Euregio supports and promotes inter-

regional development and competitiveness, aiming to strengthen the regional knowledge

based economic development. The mission of the Euregio is to enhance cross-border

integration between Helsinki-Uusimaa region and Harju County.

The function of Helsinki-Tallinn Euregio is to promote co-operation inside the region and

enhance regional integration by:

• being a cross-border, triple helix driven tool;

• aiming to strengthen the cross-border regional knowledge based economic and

political development; and

• developing a united multi-cluster innovation region of high competitiveness.

The Euregio is meant to play several different roles, being:

• a political discussion forum

• a partner for cross-border and inter-regional cooperation projects and networks

• a forum for experience sharing

R20090332.doc 55 January, 2010


Estonia

• a mediator in the dissemination of know-how and information

• an active partner in promoting of regional competencies

Through its activities the Euregio attempts to stimulate creating and sharing new

knowledge and “knowledge on knowledge”, to increase effectiveness in the triple helix

context and improve regional attractiveness. In its research and development related

activities the Euregio follows its three-year strategy and action plan, which is updated

every year.

The NGO is operating on a multi-thematic basis, including wellness and welfare, art,

design and media, urban research, universities and enterprises cooperation, innovation,

mobility and science. It acts as a partner in many projects (among which funded by

Interreg), e.g. “Helsinki-Tallinn Science Twin-City”, “Developing a common public

transport ticket system” etc. The partners in the Euregio have also conducted many

INTERREG projects making use of the NGO as a vehicle or springboard.

In conclusion, there is a far-reaching inter-state agreement and a public law-based

permanent structure promoting co-operation on a multi-thematic basis and project-level

ad-hoc co-operation between Southern Finland and Estonia.

3.4.2 Historic factors determining the character of cross-border/transnational / inter-regional co-operation

The historic ties between the two countries stem from way back and have their roots in

the similar ethnic background, both Estonians and Finns being of a Finno-Ugric context

speaking a quite closely related language. Both also share a long history of living next to

Russia, part of the time even having been incorporated into either tsarist Russia or (in the

case of Estonia) in the Soviet Union. Finnish support for Estonian independence, notably in

the 20th century, has also contributed to generally warm relations between the two

nations. During the Soviet era in Estonia (1945-1991), Finnish TV provided the only

channels that (North-) Estonians could receive (which also meant information presented

from a “different angle”) in addition to official Soviet broadcasting.

Tallinn and Helsinki (both capitals) have cooperated in many areas and since 1999 the

creation of a larger cross-border “twin-city” region has been progressing, with ever

intensifying cooperation taking shape in a Euroregion. People who originate from

Northern-Estonia usually understand the Finnish language (and often speak some), which

is mostly due to Finnish TV. In contrast, people from southern parts of Estonia did not

have the privilege of watching Finnish TV during the Soviet era (as it did not reach that

far) and thus do not automatically understand the language. The Finns by contrast,

usually, do not understand Estonian, even though the languages are very similar. Despite

this lingual advantage, however, language can be and has been a barrier as well, as can

be seen in the sample projects (e.g. BeL-HMI: Baltic eLearning in Health and Medical

Informatics project, see section 3.3).

R20090332.doc 56 January, 2010


Estonia

R20090332.doc 57 January, 2010

In conclusion, Estonia and Finland have strong common historic ties, a shared culture and

a rather similar language. They have shared holidays (due to their generally shared

Protestant religion 16) and similar characteristics in terms of how society is organised. But

as Finland has a noticeably longer history in the EU (and even more so in the context of

democratic Europe), their working processes are in many fields (e.g. education, medical

health, transportation etc) more developed than in Estonia. Both countries can gain a lot

from the transfer of knowledge and experience across the border and there are no

significant obstacles to this kind of cooperation between the neighbours, which is

generally reflected in the very positive ground attitude towards working together.

16 Except of course the Russian minority in Estonia, which predominantly is of the Orthodox faith.

INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG A Finland-Estonia


Table 7 Intermediate conclusions context and historic factors

Effects (*) Determining factor at programme-level at project-level Context factors characterising cross-border areas

Co-operation is not hampered by the sea border, although it is considered rather a disadvantage. It`s easy to reach both regions.

Co-operation is not hampered by the sea border, although it is considered rather a disadvantage. It`s easy to reach both regions.

Topographic / geographic nature of the common border

Co-operation works both on formal and informal basis.

Political / administrative nature of the The programme area is quite homogenous. It has EU internal border and is the Schengen region. The only disadvantage is that Estonia does not belong to the Euro zone whereas Finland does. Still, co-operation at programme-level is not hampered by this factor, as both are entitled to ERDF co-financing. Estonian kroon is bound to euro and hence the administrative processes are not hampered by different currencies.

common border

Density of border crossing possibilities High density of border crossing possibilities (by boat and plane) has a positive effect on fluent programming.

On project level the same positive effect is exteriorized.

Economic disparities With considerably high level of disparities, the co-operation of cross-border area promotes the cross-border transfer of knowledge. The disparities can have negative effects on the possibilities of (equal) co-financing for both regions.

Disparities have a positive effect on promoting the cross-border transfer of knowledge. But differences in working processes can have a negative effect on fluent project management.

Strong historic and cultural ties foster the fluent management of the programme. The only disadvantage is that the countries don`t share a common language and English is used at programme-level.

Strong historic ties have a positive effect on the fluent management of the project. Language can be a hindering factor in project activities (e.g. education).

Existence of historic ties & converging cultural / linguistic circumstances

Other context factors (specify)

R20090332.doc 58 January, 2010

INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG A Finland-Estonia

R20090332.doc 59 January, 2010

Effects (*) Determining factor at programme-level at project-level Historic factors characterising cross-border areas

Previous co-operation tradition The programme area has strong historic ties and continuity in the development of the area jointly.

Cross-border networks initiate sustainable projects and the recognition of each other`s specific working processes foster consistent management of joint projects.

Prior existence of specific legal instruments

The Memorandum of Association between Tallinn and Helsinki (2003) that created the Euregio promotes co-operation between the two areas.

At the project leve l the same advantage should be cons idered.

Prior existence of permanent co-operation structures

The ex istence of Euregio fosters partnership in jo int projects.

At the project leve l the same advantage should be cons idered.

Other factors (specify) (*) A distinction between effects at programme and at project level is necessary because in many cases projects do not intervene across the entire programme area. Hence, effects can be rather different


Estonia

3.5 Re-considering the “depth & intensity of territorial co-operation”

When comparing the programme’s initial synthetic indicator value to the initial values of

other programmes belonging to the same cluster17, the biggest differences occur in case

of criteria si01, si06, si10, si12 and si18, where Finland-Estonia scores below half the

average of the cluster (and for si10 even below one quarter). This means that, on

average, the number of years structured cross-border co-operation exists between Finland

and Estonia is rather low (only 5 years) as compared to an average in the cluster of 10

years and for strand A of even almost 15 years. Although the 5 years might be a slight

underestimation, this reflects the fact that the other programmes in the cluster have a

longer “Interreg-Phare CBC” history, since they all involve either Poland or the Czech

Republic, both among the pioneers in Phare CBC (and in one case Hungary, also with a

long Phare tradition).

In addition, the partnership at programme level (notably, the Monitoring Committee) is

relatively narrow, compared to cluster and strand. Indeed, no social partners or NGOs are

involved, let alone with voting rights. Also, as criterion si10 indicates, the geographical

dispersion of Lead Partners in the programme is rather narrow, with only one sixth of the

NUTS3 regions hosting Lead Partners (as opposed to two thirds in the cluster, which is in

itself very high). This firstly reflects the relative imbalances between Estonia and Finland

(two thirds in Finland) and the fact that the programme area contains two capital cities,

together accounting for around a million inhabitants, which is almost one third of the

population of the programme area (excluding adjoining areas, the participation of which is

naturally weaker). Furthermore, the NUTS3 regions in Estonia are geographically large

(due to the low population density), which gives North-Estonia (where Tallinn is located)

an ever larger edge. Moreover, another important factor will have been the fact that many

municipalities (and NGOs) in Estonia are on average very small, so resources are

scattered and participation in the programme may be very difficult for them (see also

section 4.2 on this).

There seems to be an anomaly in the data concerning criterion si12, which suggests the

share of joint projects in the programme is small compared to the cluster. However, data

from the 2008 Ex Post evaluation (citing the 2007 Annual Report) suggest the share of

funding taken up by joint projects is almost 80% (as compared to the suggested 37% of

the number of projects in the synthetic indicator analysis). The only indication we have of

the programme being less than joint comes from the fact that project planning usually

leans on the Lead Partner, which in a large share of cases comes from Finland.

The results for criterion si18 suggest the impact of the programme in terms of cultural

cooperation, integration on priority topics and socio-economic effects is clearly smaller

than for the cluster on average. This may partly be caused by the fact that cultural

17 Cluster 6 “Programmes with unfavourable cross-border framework conditions, where ERDF-support is not very concentrated on the priority topics and where the depth & intensity of co-operation is mostly medium.

R20090332.doc 60 January, 2010


Estonia

cooperation is already quite vivid (based on much stronger ethnic relations than in most

other programmes in the cluster). Also, while political cooperation might be quite good,

policy priorities might not always coincide due to the different stages of development of

both countries, even though this might also hold true for the other programmes in the

cluster. The findings in terms of socio-economic impact are confirmed by the achievement

in terms of impact indicators (see section 3.2).

There are no criteria where the programme scores more than 15% higher than the cluster

average, with the exception of si11, where the programme´s score is more than 5 times

the cluster average18. This can be confirmed in so far that indeed exchange of experience

on project topics has been cited a lot during our project assessments. In addition, the

proportion of pilot projects in the programme has been quite high, with 3a projects giving

rise to 4a projects.

3.6 Main factors fostering (or hampering) integration and the means to promote positive factors or to overcome persisting obstacles

Integration of the programme area has strongly progressed throughout the programme

period. The main factor that fostered the growing co-operation has clearly been the

creation of Euregio (NGO for Helsinki-Tallinn twin-city co-operation) in 2003, for the

function of this network is to promote co-operation inside the region and enhance regional

integration. On that basis joint cross-border development is deepened in certain areas

(health, environment, governance etc). As the NGO takes at times the form of a forum, a

partner and a mediator, the necessary ties are easily created for new projects in the

programme area. Historic ties, shared culture, good accessibility and social similarities

between Estonia and Finland on the whole suggest the disposition to enhance integration.

Even though language can be an obstacle in the realization of the project as mentioned in

p 3.4.2, it can’t be seen as a persisting obstacle. The language used in project

management in co-operation project is usually English as it doesn’t put one partner in

advantage before the other. But both Estonian and Finnish partners have already learned

a lesson concerning project implementation language that in order to achieve the best

results in project activities (e.g. online courses) the language used should correspond to

the home language of the target audience.

As already mentioned in p 2.4.2 – on one hand, Finland has more developed working

processes in certain co-operation fields, due to a noticeably longer history in the EU, and

on the other hand, due to its small size and open economy, Estonia is very innovative and

an attractive place to broaden business ties. Both countries gain a lot from the transfer of

knowledge and experience across the border. The positive factors are constantly promoted

and result in a very tight cooperation between the neighbours. As there is generally a very

positive ground attitude towards working together, there really aren`t any obstacles to

still overcome.

18 Possibly, this is related to the reduced credibility of the data provided for some of the other programmes in the cluster (which are also very low scores).

R20090332.doc 61 January, 2010


Estonia

3.7 Extrapolating results on effectiveness and impacts to all INTERREG programmes

The table below presents the main aspects of this in-depth study in terms of effectiveness

in terms of their relevance for conclusions at INTERREG policy instrument level. The most

relevant messages seem to be related to inadequacies in the programming process,

mostly relating to insufficiently clear links between analysis and strategy as well as to

inadequate monitoring indicators with (at impact level) unrealistic targets. Financial and

output-level performance has been satisfactory on the whole, while sustainability has

remained questionable and leaves room for improvement.

Table 8 Extrapolating results on effectiveness and impact

Results of the in-depth Already Strength of How did the results

analysis suggested by evidence for materialise in the

the results of INTERREG individual programme?

tasks 1 and 2 Relatively regular and constant financial performance (uptake)

yes Clear evidence

Good and timely absorption, except for measure 1.1 and some n+2 problems towards the end of the programme

Inadequate indicator system for Interreg

yes (partly) Clear evidence

Problems of data collection and interpretation, setting of unrealistic targets

Rather traditional strategic approach not very strongly embedded in analysis

no Clear evidence

Incomplete links between e.g. SWOT and priorities/measures

Achievement levels at result and output level robust

yes Clear evidence

Often more than 100% indicator achievement

no Some uncertainty

Partnerships depend on key persons involved, which in turn depends on external funding

Sustainability of project results often depends on continued EU (or even Interreg) funding

Projects and measures have not been particularly experimental

no Some uncertainty

Traditional type of projects under 2nd and 3rd priorities

R20090332.doc 62 January, 2010


Estonia

4 In-depth Analysis of Results and Impacts in Terms of Utility and Efficiency

4.1 The external coherence of the programme

4.1.1 Regulatory compliance and interaction / co-ordination with other Structural Funds programmes

General EU policy context taken into account on a rather formal basis

In general, all relevant official EU documents (other than the regulations concerning

Interreg) have been taken seriously into account when planning the programme. However,

the Lisbon strategy and other key EU strategic documents of similar character do not

seem to have played a significant role during the re-programming process. However, it

was the topic of certain discussion in the Monitoring Committee halfway the programme,

even though it did not directly lead to any changes in the programme priorities and

measures. The intervention codes drawn up by the EC did not play a key in programming

either and no detailed ex-ante budgetary calculations were applied.

On the other hand, the programme (and especially the JTS and its long-time Secretary-

General) seems to have taken especially keen interest in the topic of Equal Opportunities,

not only in terms of gender equality but also in relation to disadvantaged groups in

society such as minorities and the disabled. Another recurring topic which was

systematically promoted throughout programme implementation (e.g. during information

seminars for calls for proposals) was Life-Long Learning. The economically more

challenging objective of Employment Creation (in terms of new jobs) seems to have been

a target set too high. The programme has taken more of a “go with the flow” approach,

i.e. at best reacting at the specific business cycle developments at lower (individual) level.

Policy coherence with mainstream Structural Funds well taken care of

Coordination with other Structural Fund programmes has been very intensive. The fit

between 3a and 3b (Baltic Sea programme) was considered to be excellent, with the latter

supporting more large-scale initiatives and the Finland-Estonia programme addressing

smaller (and on average softer) issues. In that respect, coordination has been clearly

present and contacts between MAs and JTSs have been very positive and beneficial, even

if not very frequent. Examples of this cooperation include an exchange of Annual Reports

and contact in relation to their drafting and commenting, a following of each other’s

strategies and any changes in them. However, there has not been any concrete

coordination of calls for proposals in terms of content or timing.

There has also been a strong coordination with the mainstream Structural Funds

programmes, especially on the Finnish side, where a sophisticated coordination

mechanism has been developed through the years. The Head of the MA is currently also

responsible for the coordination of Finland’s Objective 2 programmes as a result of which

R20090332.doc 63 January, 2010


Estonia

these programmes strengthen each other and the Interreg programmes as well, giving

applicants a wide variety of support options and guiding them actively in finding the right

source of funding. There is an active synchronisation of assessments of applications (of

Interreg and mainstream programmes) which, on a regional basis, are being carried out

together, based on the regional development strategy. Every regional council is obliged to

have a coordination group looking through all EU-related funding applications. Meeting as

much as twice per month, all funding authorities (Structural Fund and national sources)

are represented, debating the appropriateness of the applications submitted to any of

these sources. In Estonia, the coordination mechanism is less frequent but in the

framework of allocating the national co-financing funds, there is a formal committee,

consisting of various ministries as well as bodies oriented at regional and local

development, such as associations of local governments.

Clear benefit from INTERACT, less from ESPON

The programme has clearly benefited from the physical vicinity to the Interact Point Turku

(located in the same building as the JTS, MA and PA), hosted by the Ministry of

Employment and Economy. Being one of the four Interact Points with its geographical

scope covering the North Eastern area of the EU, a lot of technically demanding topics

have been discussed between the programme bodies and Interact, e.g. indicators and the

programme closure package (winding-up). The programme has been actively participating

in Interact seminars. The only factor possibly reducing the added value of Interact for the

programme has been the (perceived) advanced stage of development in terms of

programme management as compared to other programmes. Interact mainly being a

facilitator of exchange of experiences between programmes, the perception is that more

has been contributed than received from Interact at times. Nevertheless, the role of

Interact has been assessed as very useful for the programme.

For ESPON, the assessment is less positive (although not negative). There has been only

very occasional contact between the programme and ESPON, mainly consisting of the

programme structures forwarding project applications received to ESPON, due to stronger

thematic connection with (research on) spatial planning issues.

Public reputation of the programme rather neutral

Even though the political level was clearly involved in the Monitoring Committee, the

programme does not seem to have been used for political purposes at all. Although this

might be a very positive finding in itself, it might also hint in the direction that the

publicity value of the programme was rather low. This is confirmed by the fact that most

media coverage on the programme depended on the initiative of the programme

structures (notably the JTS) and the project partners issuing press releases. Not seldom,

these press releases found it hard to get coverage in the media as journalists tended to

assess the news value of such messages medium to low. Most of the messages coming

across related to the start or end of projects with a certain regional exposure and even in

these cases, it was mostly the project activities and its partners receiving most attention

and not Interreg as a policy instrument, the programme itself or the EU as a funding

R20090332.doc 64 January, 2010


Estonia

source. This is not to say the visibility guidelines were not followed by the programme,

these have been in order, but the conclusion simply seems to be that Interreg as a policy

tool does not play a role in the minds of the general public. If any, the opinion on the

programme is heavily influenced by the general (in both countries at times rather

sceptical) attitude towards the EU as a whole.

Among applicants and project partners, the programme has a mixed image, partly positive

due to the ability to serve “customers” and the general willingness to help out at any time

and partly negative due to the perceived bureaucracy related to selection and payment

processes (see section 4.2).


The programme is well embedded in the overall regulatory framework. Its implementation

was done according to the EU regulations. Generally there was strong will to comply with

the European legislation, willingness and eagerness to discuss with DG REGIO task

managers. Somewhat less strong guidance was taken from general political debate at EU

level (e.g. Lisbon agenda), although no serious deviations could be identified. Horizontal

principles such as sustainability and equal opportunities were taken very seriously.

The programme was well coordinated within the “World of INTERREG”; this was facilitated

by the physical nearness of INTERACT Point in Turku. The programme participated actively

in INTERACT seminars, good contacts with other Interreg and Structural Funds

mainstream programmes. ESPON had less significance for the programme.

The programme was well coordinated with Structural Funds mainstream (and other

Community Initiatives) programmes through active and practical coordination of

representatives of different funding contexts. The meetings of national co-financing

organisations had a positive influence in this respect.

Generally sufficient division of tasks was assured, although combination of the JTS, MA

and PA in one organisation on paper created risks. However, cooperation among the three

bodies on the other hand clearly benefited from this closeness.

Image of INTERREG at local level is rather neutral, does not play a major role and media

coverage is rather modest.

4.2 The intrinsic performance of the programme

4.2.1 The overall governance and management system of the programme

Decentralised management structures

The management structures of the programme have been established in a decentralised

manner, all three key functions (Managing Authority, Paying Authority and Joint Technical

R20090332.doc 65 January, 2010


Estonia

Secretariat) are located at regional level in Varsinais-Suomen Liitto (the regional

governmental structure of Southwest Finland), in the regional capital Turku. Different

units of that organisation are acting as Managing Authority (MA, Regional Development

unit), Paying Authority (PA, Unit of Administration) and Joint Technical Secretariat (JTS,

Promotion of Regional Interests). The communication between these three bodies (MA, PA,

JTS) has been daily and very active, supported by the fact that they are physically located

very close to each other. This was found to be an important asset in supporting and

informing each other about the different tasks at hand. In addition, the communication

with the desk officer at DG REGIO was at times quite intensive, with sometimes questions

and answers going back and forth several times per week. In general, this was also found

to be very helpful.

Co-operation between Finnish regional and Estonian central level formalised

In January 2005 MoU was established between the Ministry of Interior in Estonia and the

Varsinais-Suomen Liitto as the MA. The MoU included the main rules concerning the

implementation of the programme, the division of responsibilities etc. In terms of

management and co-ordination, the programme was “redesigned” as it had become a fully

joint internal-border Interreg programme instead of an Interreg-Phare CBC programme.

If the implementation of the program was found to be rather complex in the pre-2004

situation (mainly because of the different rules and administrative burden for Interreg and

PHARE CBC), then post-2004 the management found that the “true” Interreg projects

came up. Still, the cooperation at administrative level was found to be good throughout

whole the programme, including the early years.

Decision making was pragmatic

The programme was governed by two main decision-making bodies: the Monitoring

Committee and the Steering Committee. In part, the members both committees were

political, but in majority still policy officials. Moreover, the politicians involved actually did

not try to gain in terms of political capital or exposure by exploiting their membership of

the committees. One of the reasons for that might have been that the EU as a whole

wasn’t very popular in Finland during the earlier years. This was reflected in the daily

work of the MA as - for the same reason - there was not a lot of interest in the

programme (or Interreg as an EU policy instrument) from the side of the press. Most of

the news related to the programme came up when the MA or JTS would take the initiative

to send such information pro-actively to their media contacts (e.g. in the form of a press

release). The only times when there was somewhat more substantial interest from the

media, this was related to the start or end of a bigger and “more interesting” project.

However, even then it was not always conceived by the public as news on the EU Interreg

programme but rather a self-standing event.

Next to the Monitoring and Steering Committees, a central position in programme decision

making was held by meetings with programme implementing (i.e. co-financing)

authorities. On average, one meeting with the co-financing authorities was held with the

R20090332.doc 66 January, 2010


Estonia

aim of discussing issues related to the calls for proposals and assessment of project

proposals. Meetings between the Managing and Paying Authority Regional Council of

Southwest Finland and the Estonian Ministry of the Interior were arranged ad-hoc.

Relatively efficient financial management suffered from slow co-decision making

The performance of the programme in terms of financial management was under close

monitoring scrutiny throughout the programming period; especially the n+2 rule was kept

in focus. Each year around August the PA calculated total project-related costs and tried

to estimate the potential cost level at the end of the year. In September letters and e-

mails were sent to the projects with the request to submit their payment claims to the JTS

as soon as possible and to include all relevant costs in it. Despite this in-itself diligent

approach, the n+2 target was not reached in 2007 and an amount of 200,409 Euro under

the 2005 commitment was decommitted. The main reasons behind this were delays in the

implementation and underspending of projects, possibly because of overestimated

budgets.

What concerns the financial management itself, the amounts transferred from the EC to

the PA were held on a separate bank account. Co-financing was provided by different

bodies, mainly public bodies related to the development strategies to which the projects

were linked in the framework of which they had special amounts reserved for such

contributions. This in turn made project (and programme financial) management rather

complex and bureaucratic. Two of the main challenging aspects resulting from this were:

first of all the grant decision about the project was delayed as it had to be approved by

the co financing authority first, where there were several co financers by all of them) and

secondly, when payment claims were submitted, they also had to be approved by each

authority co financing the project (which is a legal requirement for Finnish public bodies).

In both phases (i.e. selection and payments) the cofinancing bodies often had questions

about a particular project or its costs with the JTS (and PA) caught in middle. On the

Estonian side this issue was less problematic as the Ministry of the Interior made all the

decisions, even though co-financing came from different sources.

Commendable attitude to evaluation

The programme must be commended for its attitude towards evaluation. Even though

programmes are not required to organise their own ex-post evaluation, the MA in

agreement with the JTS and PA decided to commission such an evaluation anyway, the

reason being their assessment that the previously carried out Mid-Term evaluation and its

update were of insufficient value to them in improving the management and control

systems governing the programme.

Bureaucracy of selection and payment systems criticised by beneficiaries

One of the main conclusions by the 2008 Ex Post Evaluation in terms of programme

efficiency was related to the (perceived) complexity of the project selection and payment

systems. It mentions that “the reduction of the bureaucracy is very high on the

beneficiaries´ list of the most wanted improvements for the future activity”. The

R20090332.doc 67 January, 2010


Estonia

beneficiaries were said to consider these systems to be too rigid, posing high

administrative burdens on especially smaller organisations, which in turn led to difficulties

in involving them in projects (especially in relation to SMEs, who indeed have been seen

to contribute much less to projects than hoped for). This may have led to a certain

dominance over the programme by so-called “professional applicants”, bigger

organisations with strong track records in applying from EU programmes. The 2008 Ex

Post evaluation does not specify which problems exactly exist in terms of procedures.

However, below we present a number of issues that may have contributed to the

beneficiaries´ opinion in this respect.

Multi-step and multi-actor selection system could be simplified

As we can see from Table 4.2.1.1 the rate of successful projects was 54,5%, which can be

considered quite high. The difference between the number of project proposals submitted

and the number of project proposals prepared for Steering Committee decision-making or

still under preparation is due to cancellation of project proposals during negotiations for

national co-financing. The latter also shows that even dough the preparation process is

long and bureaucratic, it finally leads to high quality projects and the weak proposals have

been eliminated already during the preparations.

Table 9 Project approval statistics*

Proposals Approval Rejection Total SC

decisions

Projects TOTAL 356 163 136 299

Approved projects (%) 54,5%

Rejected projects (%) 45,5%

Approved projects from

project proposals (%) 45,8%

Project proposal

cancellations during

preparation

57

* Information from annual reports

A key feature in the selection system of the programme was the role of the national co-

financing authorities, without the support of which it was not possible to get selected. In

Finland these organisations were the Regional Councils / Ministry of the Interior, other

Ministries (Education, Environment, Labour, Trade and Industry, Agriculture and Forestry,

Transport and Communications, Finance, Social Affairs and Health), State Provincial

Offices and other regional-level bodies for specific policy areas (e.g. Regional Environment

Centres), etc.

In Estonia, only the Ministry of the Interior was national co-financing authority. However,

this ministry was responsible for coordinating the contributions of various sectoral

ministries and other bodies (e.g. ministry of Economy and Communications, ministry of

R20090332.doc 68 January, 2010


Estonia

Environment, ministry of Social Affairs, ministry of Education, Association of

municipalities, etc…).

The first step in the process consisted of the JTS checking the application documents and

that the corresponding co financing applications indicated in the INTERREG application had

been submitted to the national co-financing authorities. All projects were subsequently

assessed by a uniform set of project selection and assessment criteria. These criteria were

a part of the Programme Complement included in the application package. A contact

person at the JTS was responsible for preparing the project application for Steering

Committee decision. The JTS was also in contact with the national co-financing authorities

in Finland and Estonia indicated in the application, and responsible for dissemination of

information between co-financiers for the project preparation – as necessary project

negotiations can be arranged between the applicant and co-financing authorities. The

project applications were prepared for the Steering Committee decision according a

project proposal template, which was discussed with the national co-financing authorities

prior to Steering Committee meetings in so called project preparation meetings.

These meetings checked the applications in relation to other financing instruments and

examined possible overlapping financing and activities; evaluated the proposals in relation

to the other regional programmes and priorities and viewed the applications in cross-

sectoral assessment in relation to the objectives set for the programme As a result of this

meeting, the JTS prepared a proposal for Steering Committee decision. National co-

financing commitments (statements) were a prerequisite for proposing the application for

Steering Committee’s approval. The latter either approved or rejected the proposals,

without any possible suggestions for adaptation. After the Steering Committee’s approval,

the national co-financing bodies made their own decisions accordingly.

Apart from the fact that – as a rule - no external assessors were used and that

negotiations between applicants and co-financing authorities, which may call into question

the objectiveness and transparency of the selection system, the procedure seems be

rather lengthy, possibly accounting for part of the dissatisfaction of the beneficiaries with

the (length of the) procedure. A possible solution to both objections could be to remove

the step of the project preparation meetings and have external assessors evaluate

proposals on their content-related merits immediately after the administrative checks by

the JTS after which their recommendations would go straight to the Steering Committee

for decision. The condition of having (prior) commitment from national co financing could

be made non-binding, i.e. a positive but not a compulsory circumstance. This would

enable projects to be selected even without national co financing support (but by

providing all 25% or 50% co financing on their own).

Successful adjustment of selection system

Towards the end of the programming period (early 2007), a slight, but interesting, change

was made in the procedure of assessing and selecting projects for funding. Instead of a

preliminary ranking (i.e. priority list) of applications being sent for confirmation (or

R20090332.doc 69 January, 2010


Estonia

adaptation) to the Steering Committee, the results of the work of the (external) assessors

was brought directly the Steering Committee meeting. The result of this change was that

all decisions were now based on much more genuine discussion of their relevance and

potential impact. There was more debate about the co-financing decisions and the content

of each proposal, which may at the time have increased transparency of project selection,

raised the relevance of Steering Committee work and meetings and improved the quality

of discussions at programme level, due to a more in-depth understanding among Steering

Committee members of the situation “on the ground” (i.e. at project level).

4.2.2 The Community added value and the sustainability / durability of the programme

Programme sustainability depends heavily on continued EU support

The sustainability of the programme cannot be evaluated entirely positively, especially at

project level. Although there are clear exceptions (e.g. the Good Practice example

described in the previous chapter), the average sustainability of the results of the projects

in general appears to have been weaker. The impression exists that especially the

dissemination of project results has not been as successful as would be desirable. Next to

the fact that project results seem to be difficult to sustain if one or two key people

involved in the project (e.g. the Project leader) leave, in which case plans, studies and

new insights threaten to again become just paper. A stark illustration of the insufficient

spreading of project results towards and after the end of projects is given by the

observation that within a couple of years very similar applications – promising to develop

things that have already been developed - are being prepared and submitted by fellow-

organisations (e.g. neighbouring municipalities).

In terms of the stability of the programme as such, there were no major shifts in

orientation or focus. A number of medium-size (between priorities) and smaller (between

measures) budget shifts were mainly due to administrative and absorption-related

reasons. To the outside world (e.g. applicants and beneficiaries), the programme is very

likely to have appeared stable and sufficiently predictable.

The 2008 Ex Post evaluation mentions that “There have been many noteworthy efforts to

secure durability of the project achievements beyond project termination”. However, it

also confirms the point made above and outlines that the issue of sustainability has not

been tackled systemically (at programme level), in many cases depending on continued

funding from EU sources. Sustainability of partnerships, if not already existing before the

joint project, equally often seems to depend on either continued funding (Interreg IV

project) or on personal relations between very few key individuals. As the Ex Post

evaluation also suggests, a greater accent on sustainability in project application forms as

well as in terms of (higher weight of) project selection criteria would perhaps enable the

programme to go beyond sustained EU funding as the basis for sustainability of outcomes.

R20090332.doc 70 January, 2010


Estonia

Community Added Value mostly in terms of partnership

The Community Added Value of the programme has on average been assessed (by the

programme structures) as average. The programme has contributed mostly to

partnership, on the one hand within both participating countries (e.g. when discussing

applications to various programmes together in the light of regional – or national –

development strategies) and between the them, embodied in the project preparation

meetings, the Steering Committee meetings and the Monitoring Committee meetings.

Also, at project level, partnership has been generally positive, with a quarter of the

projects involving totally new partnerships and a further 60% extending the scope of

existing partnerships. Also, it turned out that the vast majority of projects had a real joint

character, with both planning and especially implementation being done in partnership.

A medium added value was considered to have been achieved in terms of awareness,

which was good among applicants, beneficiaries and partners but generally rather limited

among the general public. The latter was caused by the fact that the media generally did

not consider the news value of information about Interreg and the programme to be very

high and if any project did make it into the newspapers, it was usually not recognised

firstly as an Interreg project as the focus of the message was on the partners involved,

not on the funding mechanism.

A very interesting, and perhaps to some extent unanticipated, form of added value from

the programme seems to have been the contribution made to the identification of real

needs on both sides of the border. By having to discuss in-depth what possible common

needs (and solutions) could be, the partnerships provided new insights to each of the

partners on what they themselves really need. By acting as each other’s “mirror”, this

effect was bigger than in the case of mainstream SF. This way, INTERREG seems to have

enhanced strategic thinking among applicants which is clearly additional to mainstream SF

and other development initiatives.

In terms of socio-cultural understanding, the added value could also be considered to be

average, not because the results per se were not satisfactory in terms of project

participation, but more because socio-cultural differences are relatively small to begin

with (especially after the rapid changes in the 90s in Estonia) and so much had already

been achieved beforehand. The brief implementation of the programme´s 4th priority (on

EU enlargement) has had a certain positive impact in this respect, but its scope was

rather limited, both in monetary and thematic terms (i.e. focused on the enlargement

process as such, not on understanding in Finland of the broader changes taking place in

Estonia). It must be said that understanding of the Finnish context in Estonia is probably

generally better than vice versa, which has obvious historic reasons (see section 3.4).

Rather low added value should be attributed to the sustainability of institutional co-

operation, which often depends on the enthusiasm of a very limited number of project-

related people. When project funding ends, these key persons may find it difficult to keep

their motivation (see above in this section).

R20090332.doc 71 January, 2010


Estonia


The depth of formal co-operation across the Finnish-Estonian border can be assessed as

satisfactory. Co-operation has been active especially after 2004, when Estonia joined EU

and “true” INTERREG projects came up (as mentioned before PHARE CBC rules were not in

favour of such co-operation projects).

There were Monitoring Committee and Steering Committee representatives from both

countries were present. In the JTS, there was also a person from Estonia employed in

order to ensure high quality of information provided to applicants and to ensure effective

communication.

The monitoring and evaluation systems did meet the needs in general terms. Most of the

information was available in the FIMOS database, but since it wasn’t developed for cross-

border projects, it didn’t have the needed functionality to cover Interreg. The new

database, which was taken from the Baltic See programme for the purpose of monitoring

the Interreg IV Central Baltic programme, fills that gap. There were some shortcomings in

setting up the indicators. In addition, while monitoring the programme´s rate of

achievement, it was difficult to tell whether the indicators were taken from the

programme complement or from project-level reporting. On the positive side it has to be

brought out that the Managing Authority was aware of the problem and therefore

commissioned an ex-post evaluation of their own in order to learn from mistakes made.

The financial management of this program was rather complex. One problem concerned co

financing: it was provided by different administrative (public) bodies, which by law have

to approve every single project and related payment claims separately. This rendered the

decision making processes long and bureaucratic (for both funding and payment

decisions). In 2007, the programme did not meet the n+2 requirement and an amount of

slightly over 200 000 Euros had to be discounted. The main reasons behind this were

delays in the implementation of projects.

The selection of projects was in general sound and needs-oriented with sufficiently clear

criteria and a reasonable rate of selection. This was partly due to the fact that the pre-

selection process, carried out by the co financing authorities did a lot of good work to

filter out the least attractive projects. More problematic was the bureaucratic character

(and length) of the process, which resulted from this.

The programme has clearly been looking for the creation of Community added value. The

project selection process was coordinated by different counterparts, all contributing to the

financial resources for the projects. This meant that often the best financing alternative

was found for each project, even if this was not Interreg. The main guiding principle in

this was the relevance of the application for a range of strategies, more or less directly

related to the co-financing parties.

R20090332.doc 72 January, 2010


Estonia

Taking the responses from the project actors during the ex-post evaluation carried out,

only 14 percent of the lead beneficiaries thought that the project would have been

possible to implement to a certain degree without EU funding. The ‘added value’ of the

Interreg programme is therefore considerable.

Although there are clear exceptions, the average sustainability of the results of the

projects in general appears to have been weaker. A stark illustration of the insufficient

spreading of project results towards and after the end of projects is given by the

observation that within a couple of years very similar applications – promising to develop

things that have already been developed - are being prepared and submitted by fellow-

organisations. Durability and sustainability are not clearly demonstrated in the sample

projects. In one case the partnership with lead partner did not work at all but in most

cases it was concluded that both parties are willing to join forces again. One project has

stated with certainty that a follow-up project will be carried through. Most projects would

not have been sustainable without Interreg funds and one would still have been taken on

with a different level of ambition. None of the projects (respondents) had a very clear

view of the project’s impacts on administrative and political level.

The most sustainable co-operation activities are the ones that are mutually beneficial for

both sides in economic term. Estonia and Finland have been always very active in co-

operation on economic terms which was demonstrated in the context of this programme

as well.

R20090332.doc 73 January, 2010


Estonia

5 Overall Final Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

5.1 Overall final conclusions on the impact of the INTERREG III programme

• The programme has been a very good opportunity to take cooperation to the local

level and widen it to various sections of society, including local government and

civil society.

• Even if the programme did not have a particularly experimental approach, it does

display a more than average accent on human resource development

• The programming process has been sufficiently based on the partnership principle,

although it is not very broad in terms of voting rights on Steering and Monitoring

Committees

• In terms of absorption overall, the Finland-Estonia programme has performed

above average with a rate of 85% vs 79% for Interreg as a whole.

• A dynamic analysis of absorption over time shows a similar pattern for all

measures, with the rate of implementation following a more or less linear trend.

• Too much bureaucracy in the framework of selection, tendering and payment

processes, which has been the main cause of missing the n+2 target in 2007

• The management of the programme can be called pragmatic in terms of the

everyday hands-on work of the Managing Authority, Paying Authority and Joint

Technical Secretariat.

• Cooperation at all levels seems to have been at least satisfactory

• The projects on the whole satisfied the stakeholders involved, with the majority

reaching their objectives, even if this (self-)assessment might be slightly biased

• Effectiveness of the programme has been satisfactory overall, with output and

result level indicators often showing a more than 100% achievement, even though

some others show clear underachievement.

• The indicators of a higher (impact) level, relating to jobs and new firms created,

almost all show underachievement, which is probably more related to unrealistic

programming than to real underperformance of the programme.

• Monitoring indicators are often not specific enough for the objectives formulated

and their measurement system has been deficient, having been designed for

mainstream Structural Fund programmes and has proven not to suit the Interreg

environment

• Sustainability of project results might be an issue as there seems to be a general

(over-)dependence on continued EU funding

5.2 Short- and medium-term policy recommendations

• A uniform request for joint diagnosis of shared problems and development

potentials at project level should be established

R20090332.doc 74 January, 2010


Estonia

• Follow-up information should be requested from the project implementation team

on the effect of the project on political and administrative processes.

• The requirements for tendering, and especially selection and payments should be

simplified, e.g. by curtailing the involvement in decision making of the large

number of co-financing bodies

• The processes of the JTS should be updated and a uniform system of information

exchange should be established for all beneficiaries

• Remove the step of the project preparation meetings and have external assessors

evaluate proposals on their content-related merits immediately after the

administrative checks by the JTS after which their recommendations would go

straight to the Steering Committee for decision. The condition of having (prior)

commitment from national co financing could be made non-binding, enabling

projects to be selected even without national co financing support (but by

providing all 25% or 50% co financing on their own).

• A greater accent on sustainability in project application forms as well as in terms

of (higher weight of) project selection criteria would perhaps enable the

programme to go beyond sustained EU funding as the basis for sustainability of

outcomes

• For enhancing sustainability and encouraging follow-up projects, the

administrative processes of reporting and checking payment claims have to be

simplified so the process is clear and in a reasonable time-frame

5.3 Long-term policy recommendations

• Take partnership to the next level and secure broader involvement (including

voting rights) of social partners and other NGOs on at least the Monitoring

Committee

• In future (re-)programming processes, secure a stronger connection between

socio-economic analysis (strengthening the part specifically geared at the cross-

border aspect and its bottlenecks), SWOT analysis and strategic intervention in

terms of priority and measure level objectives

• Refrain from setting impact-level socio-economic targets which should be the main

target of mainstream Structural Funds

• Include more cross-border specific indicators, increasing the level of

experimentation of the interventions

• Follow-up projects and continuing partnership should well be encouraged

R20090332.doc 75 January, 2010


Estonia

6 Bibliography

A. EU Regulatory Sources

o CEC Commission of the European Communities (2000a) Communication from the

Commission to the Member States of 28 April 2000 laying down guidelines for a

Community initiative concerning trans-European cooperation intended to

encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory -

INTERREG III. Official Journal of the European Communities, 25 May 2000

(2000/C 143/08).

B. Publications by EU-institutions, specialised EU-agencies and informal

intergovernmental structures established among EU-Member States

o INTERREG IIIA Southern Finland – Estonia Programme, July 2004, modified in Dec 2006

(Programme Document). REF.: COM(2004) 4260 COMMISSION DECISION of

25.10.2004 amending Decision C(2001)2809 of 26 November 2001 on the approval of

the programme “INTERREG IIIA Southern Finland Coastal Zone-Phare CBC Estonia” in

the framework of the Community initiative INTERREG III programme between Finland

and Estonia

o INTERREG IIIA Southern Finland – Estonia (2000-2006), Programme Complement (MC

15.12.2006)

C. Publications by other authorities, structures and organisations

o Mid-term evaluation report INTERREG IIIA Southern Finland Coastal Zone – PHARE CBC

Estonia joint programme. UNIVERSITY OF TAMPERE, Department for Regional Studies

and Environmental Policy, HEIKKI RANTALA, ILARI KARPPI, OLLI KULTALAHTI.

19.8.2003 (incl. amendments after the MC meeting 9.-10.10.2003)

o EX-POST Evaluation of INTERREG IIIA Southern Finland – Estonia 2000-2006. TK-Eval

Evaluation Report 22.12.2008. Keimo Sillanpää & Tommi Ålander (TK-Eval), Petri Kahila

(NORDREGIO)

D. Publications by EU-funded programmes

o INTERREG IIIA Southern Finland – Estonia Implementation Report 2007 (approved by

the Monitoring Committee 25.5.2008). Ref.: 2000 CB 16 0 PC 011 Commission decision

C(2001)2809 / 26.11.2001 and C(2002)1703 / 26.7.2002 and C(2004)4260 /

25.10.2004 and C(2005)5791 / 19.12.2005

R20090332.doc 76 January, 2010


Estonia

o INTERREG IIIA Southern Finland – Estonia Implementation Report 2006. Ref.: 2000 CB

16 0 PC 011 Commission decision C(2001)2809 / 26.11.2001 and C(2002)1703 /

26.7.2002 and C(2004)4260 / 25.10.2004 and C(2005)5791 / 19.12.2005

o INTERREG IIIA Southern Finland – Estonia Implementation Report 2005. Ref.: 2000 CB

16 0 PC 011 Commission decision C(2001)2809 / 26.11.2001 and C(2002)1703 /

26.7.2002 and C(2004)4260 / 25.10.2004 and C(2005)5791 / 19.12.2005

o INTERREG IIIA Southern Finland Coastal Zone – PHARE CBC Estonia Programme 2000-

2004. INTERREG IIIA Southern Finland – Estonia 2004-2006 Implementation Report

2004 (with reflections to CBC during 2000-2004). Ref.: 2000 CB 16 0 PC 011

Commission decision C(2001)2809 / 26.11.2001 and C(2002)1703 / 26.7.2002 and

C(2004)4260 / 25.10.2004

o INTERREG IIIA Southern Finland Coastal Zone – PHARE CBC Estonia Programme

Implementation Report 2003. Ref.: 2000 CB 16 0 PC 011, Joint Programme Document

Interreg IIIA Southern Finland Coastal Zone / Phare CBC Estonia 2000-2006

Commission decision C(2001)2809 / 26.11.2001 and C(2002)1703 / 26.7.2002

o INTERREG IIIA Southern Finland Coastal Zone – PHARE CBC Estonia Programme

Implementation Report 2002 (Approved by the Monitoring Committee 23.5.2003). Ref.:

2000 CB 16 0 PC 011, Joint Programme Document Interreg IIIA Southern Finland

Coastal Zone / Phare CBC Estonia 2000-2006 Commission decision C(2001)2809 /

26.11.2001 and C(2002)1703 / 26.7.2002

o INTERREG IIIA Southern Finland Coastal Zone – PHARE CBC Estonia Programme Annual

Implementation Report 2001. Ref.: 2000 CB 16 0 PC 011, Joint Programme Document

Interreg IIIA Southern Finland Coastal Zone / Phare CBC Estonia 2000-2006

Commission decision C (2001)2809 / 26.11.2001

o INTERREG III A Southern Finland Coastal Zone – PHARE CBC Estonia Programme 2000-

2004 INTERREG IIIA Southern Finland – Estonia 2004-2006 Implementation report

2004 (with reflections to CBC during 2000-2004) with statistical up-date to 30.6.2005.

ANNEX 1 for the Update of the Mid-term Evaluation. Ref.: 2000 CB 16 0 PC 011

Commission decision C(2001)2809 / 26.11.2001 and C(2002)1703 / 26.7.2002 and

C(2004)4260 / 25.10.2004




ANNEX 2 Southern Finland Coastal Zone INTERREG IIIA – Estonia PHARE CBC

Programme: results and monitoring indicators, by Timo Sihvonen

R20090332.doc 77 January, 2010


Estonia




ANNEX 3 Sum-up of CBC seminars in the SFCZ INTERREG IIIA / INTERREG IIIA

Southern Finland – Estonia programme

o Update of the Mid-term Evaluation INTERREG IIIA Southern Finland – Estonia 2000-

2006. Ref.: 2000 CB 16 0 PC 011 Commission decision C(2001)2809 / 26.11.2001 and

C(2002)1703 / 26.7.2002 (INTERREG III A Southern Finland Coastal Zone – PHARE CBC

Estonia) and Commission decision C(2004)4260 / 25.10.2004 (INTERREG IIIA Southern

Finland – Estonia)

E. Electronic sources & other sources

o INTERREG IIIA Southern Finland – Estonia programme home site http://www.interreg-

finest.net/?id=1204, administered by Technical Secretariat in Turku

R20090332.doc 78 January, 2010


Estonia

7 List of Acronyms

ERDF European Regional Development Fund

SFCZ Southern Finland Coastal Zone

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

EU European Union

CBC Cross-Border Co-operation

SPF Strategic Programme Fund

MSPF Medium-sized Projects Fund

IM Intensity Measure

GM Gap Measure

MA Managing Authority

PA Paying Authority

JTS Joint Technical Secretariat

EC European Commission

TA Technical Assistance

AIR Annual Implementation Report

GDP Gross Domestic Product

MTÜ non-profit organisation in Estonian

ICT Information and Communication Technologies

IT Information Technology

DVD Digital Versatile Disc

HSE SBC The Helsinki School of Economics Small Business Centre

SME Small and Medium sized Enterprise

DG REGIO Directorate General for Regional Policy

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

R20090332.doc 79 January, 2010


Estonia

R20090332.doc 80 January, 2010

8 List of Interviews Realised

Date of the interview

Name of the interviewer

Name of the person(s) interviewed and name of the

organisation(s)

Nature of the interview

Duration of the

interview 06.08.2009 Klaas-Jan

Reincke, Harri Tallinn

Carola Gunell Special Planner Managing Authority Regional Council of Southwest Finland

Face-to-face 2 h

06.08.2009 Klaas-Jan Reincke

Tarja Nuotio Programme Manager, Joint Technical Secretariat Regional Council of Southwest Finland

Face-to-face 1 h

06.08.2009 Harri Tallinn Markku Roto, Administration Director Paying Authority Regional Council of Southwest Finland

Face-to-face 1,5 h

13.08.2009 Anari Hagel Natalia Narits, Helsinki School of Economics Small Business Center

Telephone interview by already filled in questionnaire

0,3 h

13.08.2009 Anari Hagel Ole Bergen, IAMSR Åbo Akademi Telephone conversation about the availability of relevant people; on account of lack of time a short overview of the main results was received and short answers with relevant information in a written questionnaire

0,25 h

11.08.2009 Kristel Haiba-Rillo

Varje Kuut, EuroCollege of Tartu University

Telephone conversation about the availability of information and relevant people (project ended already in 2003); a written questionnaire by e-mail was preferred

0,25 h


Heikki Bauert, NGO GEOGuide Baltoscandia

Telephone conversation about the availability of information, about partnership communication and preparation of follow-up projects; a written questionnaire by e-mail was preferred

0,25 h


Andre Elvisto, Estonian Heritage Society

Face-to-Face 1 h

04.09.2009 Klaas-Jan Reincke

Kaja Hinno, Estonian Ministry of the Interior

By e-mail -

I

R20J

NTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG A Finland-Estonia

090332.doc 81 anuary, 2010

Fields of interventer GM cluster

163. Business advi

tion Decided amount (Euro)

Certified expenditure by MS (Euro)

Absorption rate %

code expenditure/programme expenditure %

Interreg Ref.: absorption rate %

Interreg ref: code expenditure/programme expenditure %

IM interreg GM interregstrand ref: absorpttion rate %

strand ref.code expenditure/programme expenditure %

IM strand GM strandcluster ref: absorption rate

Cluster ref:code expenditure/programme expenditure %

IM clus

sory services (information, business planning, consultanc 295 348 306 553 103,79 1,81 75,94 2,09 0,86 1,37 75,76 2,61 0,69 1,00 80,11 1,31 1ss services (business estates, incubator units, stimulat

,38 0,95164. Shared busine i 295 348 306 553 103,79 1,81 72,01 1,85 0,98 1,44 71,33 2,20 0,82 1,01 74,67 4,55 0

ning 295 348 306 553 103,79 1,81 73,54 0,46 3,90 1,41 71,40 0,51 3,52 1,03 79,40 0,91 1nvestments (development and provision of tourist servic

,40 0,96167. Vocational trai ,99 0,93172. Non-physical i e 660 419 524 424 79,41 3,09 74,80 2,60 1,19 1,06 75,33 3,37 0,92 0,99 77,69 1,20 2

es for the tourism industry (including promotional activiti,59 0,96

173. Shared servic e 660 419 524 424 79,41 3,09 72,17 1,74 1,77 1,10 70,82 1,96 1,58 1,02 101,09 1,06 2ning 660 617 524 581 79,41 3,10 81,39 0,81 3,82 0,98 80,98 0,72 4,29 1,01 99,04 1,16 2 policy 2 582 993 2 095 693 81,13 12,37 77,00 0,96 12,87 1,05 76,03 1,25 9,87 1,01 81,32 1,15 10n 2 582 993 2 095 693 81,13 12,37 82,30 1,63 7,57 0,99 82,64 2,11 5,87 1,00 80,92 2,89 4

ational and vocational training (persons, firms) 2 801 048 2 385 926 85,18 14,08 75,01 1,59 8,84 1,14 73,65 1,83 7,70 1,02 84,83 2,68 5,ibility, entrepreneurial activity, innovation, information an 295 348 306 553 103,79 1,81 81,19 1,88 0,96 1,28 80,62 2,21 0,82 1,01 87,67 3,09 0,

385 348 309 108 80,22 1,82 84,00 1,23 1,48 0,95 84,01 1,68 1,08 1,00 91,61 2,23 0385 348 309 108 80,22 1,82 81,77 0,87 2,09 0,98 81,71 1,13 1,61 1,00 93,27 0,77 2

pplications for the citizen (health, administration, educa 385 348 309 108 80,22 1,82 78,55 2,34 0,78 1,02 79,95 2,89 0,63 0,98 86,73 2,53 0,pplications for SMEs (electronic commerce and transa

,92 0,71174. Vocational trai ,68 0,82210. Labour market ,75 0,95220. Social inclusio ,28 1,02230. Developing educ 26 0,88240. Workforce flex 59 0,93315. Ports ,82 0,92316. Waterways ,38 0,88323. Services and a 72 0,91324. Services and a c 385 348 309 108 80,22 1,82 76,14 1,63 1,12 1,05 76,56 2,07 0,88 0,99 85,30 2,65 0

744 359 565 074 75,91 3,33 85,79 0,23 14,42 0,88 89,38 0,24 13,72 0,96 81,61 0,23 14,trial waste (including hospital and dangerous waste) 744 359 565 074 75,91 3,33 89,27 1,41 2,37 0,85 89,78 1,93 1,73 0,99 77,94 0,17 19,

r (collection, storage, treatment and distribution) 744 359 565 074 75,91 3,33 83,47 1,41 2,37 0,91 84,25 1,72 1,94 0,99 73,25 0,16 20urification 744 359 565 074 75,91 3,33 82,77 1,05 3,17 0,92 82,70 1,42 2,35 1,00 79,26 0,19 17,

provement and regeneration of the natural environment 1 208 719 1 153 746 95,45 6,81 84,54 2,21 3,08 1,13 89,24 2,72 2,51 0,95 88,44 2,49 2nd restoration of the cultural heritage 1 208 719 1 153 746 95,45 6,81 69,04 1,36 4,99 1,38 69,79 1,84 3,70 0,99 87,04 0,49 13plementation, monitoring, publicity 1 118 393 1 053 342 94,18 6,22 65,15 2,04 3,05 1,45 64,24 1,82 3,41 1,01 77,85 1,29 4

140 986 118 925 84,35 0,70 60,61 0,32 2,19 1,39 63,26 0,28 2,52 0,96 75,47 0,09 7140 986 118 925 84,35 0,70 78,46 6,05 0,12 1,08 78,93 4,00 0,18 0,99 80,52 0,08 8

the public 141 028 118 960 84,35 0,70 70,94 1,93 0,36 1,19 70,83 1,31 0,54 1,00 73,06 0,11 6able 355 238 355 238 100,00 2,10 78,90 1,12 1,87 1,27 85,29 0,50 4,20 0,93 99,62 1,49 1

19 962 778 16 946 562 84,89%

,69 0,89341. Air 34 1,05343. Urban and indus 08 1,15344. Drinking wate ,24 1,14345. Sewerage and p 82 1,04353. Protection, im ,73 0,96354. Maintenance a ,85 0,79411. Preparation, im ,82 0,84412. Evaluation ,47 0,80413. Studies ,52 0,97415. Information to ,12 0,97499. Data not avail ,41 0,79Programme

Annex 1 Financial analysis (IM and GM) broken down by intervention code

ANNEXES


Estonia

Annex 2 List of tables and figures

Table 1 Budget breakdown in Finland-Estonia programme (EUR) 11 Table 2 Financial indicators in Finland-Estonia programme 13 Table 3 Higher level programme indicators – level of achievement 18 Table 4 Achievement of indicators by priority and measure 19 Table 5 Dynamic analysis of programme indicators 27

32 Table 6 Intermediate conclusions quality of strategy

Table 7 Intermediate conclusions context and historic factors 58 62 Table 8 Extrapolating results on effectiveness and impact

Table 9 Project approval statistics* 68

Figure 1. Financial implementation of programme and measures (cumulative

absorption %) 15 Figure 2. Dynamic Analysis of programme indicators 30

R20090332.doc 82 January, 2010

Ex Post Evaluation of INTERREG 2000-2006...

Documents

Transcript of Ex Post Evaluation of INTERREG 2000-2006...