 |
||
Site search
7. Recommendations for the individual stakeholders
7.2 Recommendations for MA and NSS
7.2.7 Conclusion to the recommendations for the managing authority
| 7.2.7 | Conclusion to the recommendations for the managing authority |
Within the framework
of the evaluation carried out and, in particular with regard to the
character of the evaluation questions two topics have been opened, which
rule out with its character that the recommendations of the evaluation
might result from the evaluation but it may provide a description and
structuring of these topics for contingent political decisions.
First of all, an overall
problem related to “project financing” of significant part of the
bodies that are the recipients of the programmes (among others CIP EQUAL)
is concerned. Nobody casts doubts that after the termination of the
projects oriented at transnational cooperation it is suitable to make
further use of such outputs or results that are in compliance with strategy
of the given body, which considers their utilisation. Formally, the
responsibility of the body is indisputably concerned that has created
these tools and that started the implementation and mainstreaming processes
within the framework of the project, but the question, what the roles
of the other interested bodies are, is legitimate.
The situation becomes
complicated by the actual state of considerable part of the organisations
being the project solving entities: if an announcement of another call
does not follow immediately after the projects’ termination, and thus
a possibility to ensure financing for the organisation, the capacity
of most of the recipient decreases significantly; this threatens dissemination,
dissemination of products, sustainability of the transnational partnership
in the very area of the mainstreaming processes, frequently directed
to the EU bodies.
An unclear expectation
follows up with it that it is the managing authority that should select,
which products and outputs from the projects, which processes will be
supported also after the termination of the projects; an obvious expectation
exists here that a body should exist supporting by means of an aid from
the ESF such outputs and processes that are in compliance with the respective
strategies. The present situation, when considerable vagueness in the
expectations exists and the role and the capacity of the managing authority
has not been clarified in this sense either, contributes to not very
favourable overall atmosphere. The fact, how defined and how active
the managing authority’s role in utilisation of the projects’ outputs
will be, relates not only to its strategy, but also to the fact what
mandate, what mission and possibilities the managing authority will
have.
The managing authority
should seek and try to define its role at two levels: at the transnational
level where the outputs common to several countries will be concerned
(here these activities could correlate with contingent pre-negotiating
of cooperation with the selected EU countries), and at the national
level in the sense that MA would be a partner (but not the only one)
for mainstreaming at such outputs that indisputably have a country-wide
or at least a supra-regional character. It is necessary to search for
tools on how to use effects and mechanisms that are inaccessible for
the solving entities for the solving entities without this managing
authority’s support.
However, it is necessary
to see to it that creation of any mainstreaming and dissemination tools
would not decrease the project implementing entities’ responsibility
for sustainability of the project outputs.
