1

DG Regio Evaluation Network Meeting

Albert Borschette, Brussels, 14 October 2010

Ex post evaluation of Interreg III- Presentation of Final Results

Pasi RantahalvariEvaluation Unit

DG for Regional PolicyEuropean Commission

2

Objectives of the Ex Post Evaluation

Overall• to establish the impact of INTERREG• to provide evidence on whether the Initiative

succeeded in fostering the development of the Community through co-operation

Ongoing period• to influence the implementation of the

current Territorial Co-operation ObjectiveFuture policy• to influence the debate on cohesion policy

after 2013

3

ChallengesVariety of programme contexts• EU15 and EU12 as well as external borders • Between different StrandsLiterature findings• Unspecific and unrealistic expectations of what

Interreg could achieve and what the impact could be

• Fuzzy objectives not conducive to evaluate impact and whether Interreg met its policy expectations

• Interreg largely about mutual learningBut• Interreg budget too small to have a measurable

impact on regional statistics but too large not to evaluate!

4

Conclusions on Strands A and B (I)

• Diversity – budget, coverage, context, maturity • Physical investments generate impact when real

cross-border/transnational relevance• Soft co-operation outcomes equally important

when a joint and durable problem solving capacity• Significant institutional/networking and socio-

economic outcomes achieved by the programmes• Joint preparation of programmes and

implementation of main factors that fostered the integration

5

Conclusions on Strands A and B (II)

• Policy objectives not specific• Programme strategies tended not to be

focused• Weaknesses in monitoring (inappropriate

indicators & target setting)• Limited interaction with other EU-

programmes• Modest financial leverage effects (mobilising

private sector funding)

6

Conclusions on Strand C

• Stimulated exchange of experience and knowledge between regions on a broad range of issues among a large number of regional and local authorities

• However, transfer of knowledge and good practices towards other EU programmes below expectations

• Therefore limited impact on EU Cohesion policy as a whole

7

Quantified activity reported by Interreg programmes (I)

• Creation or maintenance of 115,200 jobs and 5,800 start-ups and new businesses

• More than 3,900 businesses enhanced or diversified

• 544,000 attended different events to increase their knowledge and expertise

• More than 1 million were mobilised in the development of border regions

• 12,000 networks and co-operation structures created to further promote and intensify co-operation

8

Quantified activity reported by Interreg programmes (II)

• 1,285 plans or concepts dealing with cross-border or transnational problems elaborated

• 63,000 agreements or conventions to facilitate co-operation along the borders

• 123,000 pieces of information material produced to raise awareness of the challenges of integration

• 1,030 transport infrastructures built or supported• 18,000 km of roads, railways, routes and paths

built or upgraded

9

Quantified activity reported by Interreg programmes (III)

• Infrastructure investments in environment (170) and communication (270)

• 113,700 different services developed• 25,000 measures on natural, cultural, urban

and rural development to promote initiatives on the ground

→ OVERALL, INTERREG MUCH MORE THAN JUST

LEARNING! → BUT, THESE ARE NOT IMPACTS!

10

Overall impact of INTERREG III

• Interreg was much more than mutual learning, although this too was important

• Financially larger programmes generated significant investments and achieved lasting tangible impacts

• Smaller programmes achieved mostly intangible impacts on territorial development

• Interreg generated important soft leverage effects – actor mobilisation, an increased inter-cultural understanding and development of social capital

11

Recommendations for 2007 – 2013 (I)

• To ensure that programme logic is consistent: what do programmes aim to achieve and how will they know when they have been successful?

• To promote projects with strategic importance: how can programmes be sure that projects will contribute to achieving the objectives of the programme?

12

Recommendations for 2007 – 2013 (II)

• To improve monitoring and evaluation of the programmes with support from Interact and DG REGIO

• To establish pro-active and ongoing interaction with other ETC and mainstream programmes

• To experiment the EGTC to set up fully integrated co-operation structures

• To start preparing joint territorial development strategies in the programme areas for the future

13

Overall Conclusion of the DG for Regional Policy

• We could not quantify the impact of Interreg, although we could provide evidence that it did have an impact

• How sure are we that future evaluators will be able to provide stronger evidence on the performance of current programmes?

• Time to review the design & implementation of our ETC programmes!

14

Thank you for your attention