 |
||
Site search
EU
... The evaluation project
“Evaluation of CIP EQUAL Transnational Cooperation Principle” commissioned
by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of the Czech Republic (MoLSA)
took place in the period from April to October 2008 in the territory
of the Czech Republic and ten European Union (EU) countries, to be specific,
in Austria, in Germany, in Poland, in Slovakia, in the Netherlands,
in the United Kingdom, in Portugal, in Spain, in Italy and in France.
The individual evaluation steps, i.e. analysis of documents, questionnaire
survey, evaluation visits and interviews, case studies, focus groups,
SWOT and process analysis took place in accordance with the stipulated
time schedule. The evaluation output was in total six reports (including
this Final Report), which, in accordance with the stipulated time schedule
and the contract, answered the individual evaluation tasks and questions. ...
... EU ...
... Wider experience from implementation
of similar programmes was missing on all parts – managing and support
structures, recipients (organisations; partnerships), clients; the programme
brings not only new methods of work, but it also sets a different climate
as a whole thanks to the volume of means that are disposed of. Above
all, the suite of the “euro-professionals” - people, who have an
idea, in a better case even direct experience in work within the EU
context, who have the necessary personality and knowledge qualifications,
who have adequate language knowledge, etc. - is only coming into existence.
This is valid more noticeably on the part of the managing structure. ...
... The comparison among
the Czech Republic and the other EU countries included in the evaluation
is interesting, above all because it has not been possible to trace
any considerable difference in the respondents’ reactions to the same
questions and themes; however, it is possible to trace the differences
in comparable extent of cases, namely the substantial ones. The individual
partial differences may be followed best in the results of the questionnaire
investigation; however, it may be stated in general that the differences
resulting from “maturity” and “immaturity” are concerned –
namely both in good and bad meaning. Maturity and self-confidence of
the senior EU Member States bring, on the one hand, well-established
procedures, beaten tracks, proved methods, rich experience with partnership,
well-established work culture that is not based on personal relations,
open communication with partners, namely including authorities and institutions,
etc. However, it may bring at the same time certain routinism, lack
of interest in the gist of the matter and endeavour to maintain the
status quo, excessively established character and commonplace conterminous
to becoming stale. Compared to that, the “immaturity” of the newer
Member States carries round immaturity and instability of the environment,
which almost is not ready to absorb the aid of similar extent, clientelism
or servility towards authorities and at the same time unprofessionality
of officials, unproven procedures, incomparable conditions, lack of
data, unreflected own tradition, etc. on the one hand, but on the other
hand it may be a source of unexpected innovation, unusual interest in
the matter and resolve to do something for it, great drive, willingness
to learn and absorb new things, endeavour to show oneself in front of
the others, innovative approaches and the like. ...
... The comparison among
the Czech Republic and the other EU countries included in the evaluation
is interesting, above all because it has not been possible to trace
any considerable difference in the respondents’ reactions to the same
questions and themes; however, it is possible to trace the differences
in comparable extent of cases, namely the substantial ones. The individual
partial differences may be followed best in the results of the questionnaire
investigation; however, it may be stated in general that the differences
resulting from “maturity” and “immaturity” are concerned –
namely both in good and bad meaning. Maturity and self-confidence of
the senior EU Member States bring, on the one hand, well-established
procedures, beaten tracks, proved methods, rich experience with partnership,
well-established work culture that is not based on personal relations,
open communication with partners, namely including authorities and institutions,
etc. However, it may bring at the same time certain routinism, lack
of interest in the gist of the matter and endeavour to maintain the
status quo, excessively established character and commonplace conterminous
to becoming stale. Compared to that, the “immaturity” of the newer
Member States carries round immaturity and instability of the environment,
which almost is not ready to absorb the aid of similar extent, clientelism
or servility towards authorities and at the same time unprofessionality
of officials, unproven procedures, incomparable conditions, lack of
data, unreflected own tradition, etc. on the one hand, but on the other
hand it may be a source of unexpected innovation, unusual interest in
the matter and resolve to do something for it, great drive, willingness
to learn and absorb new things, endeavour to show oneself in front of
the others, innovative approaches and the like. ...
... The transnational cooperation
creates a new dimension of the programme contributions; it exceeds the
individual level of learning and search for innovations where not only
an individual learns but the whole organisation and when the innovations
are not searched for in a geographically limited area. In addition to
that, the European dimension has brought the projects the knowledge
that the problems are not, as a rule, limited to particular institutions
or geographical territories, that they are common under certain conditions
and mainly that they are jointly understood and solved at the European
level. Through this practical level, the cognition of the appurtenance
to the EU and understanding of the essence of the European convergence
occur then. ...
... As regards joint use of outputs
from the projects, at the close of the project a part of the organisations
turns to the managing authority with a request for political support
in dissemination, e.g. at the meetings at the EU level. A part of the
organisations turns to the managing authority after the project’s
termination and they search for the funds to continue in distribution
of the programme’s products, education of the target groups, product
innovations and the like. ...
... Another problem is that at
the close of the project the organisation gets into the stage of lobbying
both at the level of national and EU political elites, but after the
project termination it does not have any “initial platform” if it
does has not created it during the project by formation of some independent
structure or network. However, even in such case, financing of this
activity is a big problem as a rule. ...
... CIP EQUAL supports the
transnational cooperation in development and promotion of new tools
of fight against all forms of discriminations and inequalities in the
labour market in the whole EU territory. The objective of the Initiative
is thus to develop and promote the tools to support the members of disadvantaged
groups (long-term unemployed, low-qualified, school graduates, older
citizens, disabled persons, ethnical minorities, women, asylum seekers
and the like), who encounter discrimination or unequal treatment either
directly at work or when searching for it. One of the thematic areas
of the Community Initiative EQUAL is focused on the issues of social
inclusion and career opportunities of the asylum seekers. ...
... EU and ESF aid to the Czech Republic in the 2000–2006 period ...
... In the 2000-2006 EU
programming period two rounds of calls to submit CIP EQUAL grant applications
took place in the EU-15 Member Countries. The Czech Republic, as one
of two candidate countries, took part also in the first round announced
in 2001 in the Phare Programme. ...
... In the 2000-2006 EU
programming period two rounds of calls to submit CIP EQUAL grant applications
took place in the EU-15 Member Countries. The Czech Republic, as one
of two candidate countries, took part also in the first round announced
in 2001 in the Phare Programme. ...
... Since the accession
of the Czech Republic to the EU, the ESF it has been a tool of direct
EU aid to the Czech Republic in the area of human resources development,
labour and employability; the aid was implemented by means of the operational
programmes of the 2004-2006 programming period and by means of CIP EQUAL.
Drawing of the ESF funds in the Czech Republic and in the Capital City
of Prague was enabled by the following operational programmes: ...
... Since the accession
of the Czech Republic to the EU, the ESF it has been a tool of direct
EU aid to the Czech Republic in the area of human resources development,
labour and employability; the aid was implemented by means of the operational
programmes of the 2004-2006 programming period and by means of CIP EQUAL.
Drawing of the ESF funds in the Czech Republic and in the Capital City
of Prague was enabled by the following operational programmes: ...
... The Czech Republic participated
in the second round of the CIP EQUAL calls, financed by the ESF, on
the basis of the Community Initiative Programme EQUAL CZ (CIP EQUAL
CZ) after the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU in May 2004,
together with partners from other Member Countries. ...
... EU and ESF aid to the Czech Republic in the 2007–2013 period ...
... Operational Programme
Prague – Adaptability (OPPA), the Capital City of Prague – Prague
City Hall, EU Funds Department is its MA. ...
... The CIP EQUAL Programme
had three implementation stages both in the Czech Republic and in the
partner countries – these were Actions 1, 2 and 3. The foreign partners
were both from the existing and new member countries. Besides their
national regulations and rules of the programmes, the common regulations
of the EU for the ESF and CIP EQUAL were valid for them. ...
... The framework strategic
document for the area of support from the EU Structural Funds is the
National Development Plan of the Czech Republic for the years 2004–2006. ...
... The starting point of
the transnational cooperation was the announcement of common thematic
areas for all EU states. Each thematic area had specific target groups
and conditions for formation of development partnerships. The CIP EQUAL
thematic areas come out from the original four pillars of the EES. The
following thematic priorities are concerned: ...
... The theme of support
of the asylum seekers, which is within the CIP EQUAL framework designated
as a thematic priority, was announced separately in the EU. ...
... CIP EQUAL was implemented
in the whole EU territory, namely both in the developed and undeveloped
areas; also in the Czech Republic CIP EQUAL was implemented in the whole
territory. The transnational cooperation has showed up as possible and
beneficial. ...
... CIP EQUAL is an independent
form of aid from the structural funds that supports development and
promotion of new approaches to solving of inequalities and discrimination
at work and access to employment. Its sense is to supplement other programmes
contributing to achieving the objectives of EES and to serve as an innovative
laboratory for development and promotion of new tools, while those that
will prove useful will be supported further within the framework of
the main forms of aid from the ESF during the following programming
period. CIP EQUAL differed from the main forms of aid from the ESF in
the past periods among others by the principle of transnational cooperation.
Thus in the course of the 2007–2013 programming period also selected
CIP EQUAL principles will be supported within the framework of the
ESF programmes on cross-sectoral basis for the very first time.
To be specific, the principles of innovativeness and transnational
cooperation are concerned besides the partnership principle. It
was decided on cross-sectoral
support of these principles together with the EU Member States and the
European Commission representatives on the basis of the experience with
the CIP EQUAL implementation in individual EU Member States, therefore
among others the documents, on which this decision was based, were used
for preparation of the evaluation strategy. ...
... CIP EQUAL is an independent
form of aid from the structural funds that supports development and
promotion of new approaches to solving of inequalities and discrimination
at work and access to employment. Its sense is to supplement other programmes
contributing to achieving the objectives of EES and to serve as an innovative
laboratory for development and promotion of new tools, while those that
will prove useful will be supported further within the framework of
the main forms of aid from the ESF during the following programming
period. CIP EQUAL differed from the main forms of aid from the ESF in
the past periods among others by the principle of transnational cooperation.
Thus in the course of the 2007–2013 programming period also selected
CIP EQUAL principles will be supported within the framework of the
ESF programmes on cross-sectoral basis for the very first time.
To be specific, the principles of innovativeness and transnational
cooperation are concerned besides the partnership principle. It
was decided on cross-sectoral
support of these principles together with the EU Member States and the
European Commission representatives on the basis of the experience with
the CIP EQUAL implementation in individual EU Member States, therefore
among others the documents, on which this decision was based, were used
for preparation of the evaluation strategy. ...
... To facilitate comparability
of the CIP EQUAL evaluation results at the level of the whole EU; ...
... To ensure information sources
for ex-post evaluation at the EU level that will be carried out by the
European Commission. ...
... ten selected EU countries ...
... We have subjected the
findings based on exploration of the national sample to comparison with
the other EU countries and above all, we have carried out the whole
evaluation in European discourse. We have in mind by this discourse
the knowledge of the starting points of the relevant policies the phenomena
being explored come out from, the knowledge of the European environment,
actors and decision-making and communication principles, the knowledge
of the requirements for quality and evaluation methods in the European
environment (comprehension of the evaluation within the EU policies
context) and the knowledge of the principle of partnership and transnational
cooperation from the European programmes and their practical implementation
in the European projects (in which we have also participated or we have
evaluated them). Therefore Czech experts with international experience,
who cooperated with six foreign experts, were the core of the evaluation
team. ...
... We have subjected the
findings based on exploration of the national sample to comparison with
the other EU countries and above all, we have carried out the whole
evaluation in European discourse. We have in mind by this discourse
the knowledge of the starting points of the relevant policies the phenomena
being explored come out from, the knowledge of the European environment,
actors and decision-making and communication principles, the knowledge
of the requirements for quality and evaluation methods in the European
environment (comprehension of the evaluation within the EU policies
context) and the knowledge of the principle of partnership and transnational
cooperation from the European programmes and their practical implementation
in the European projects (in which we have also participated or we have
evaluated them). Therefore Czech experts with international experience,
who cooperated with six foreign experts, were the core of the evaluation
team. ...
... 2. EU membership ...
... We have balanced the
countries of South and North and the countries of West and East. Both
countries, which have similar experience as CZ, and the old Member Countries,
the countries of moderate development and countries, which that have
grown suddenly quickly due to the EU membership, are represented. In
the sample there are two countries with approximately the same number
of inhabitants as CZ has, two countries with twice smaller and bigger
population and six countries belonging to the most densely populated
(and at the same time the most powerful) EU members. ...
... We have balanced the
countries of South and North and the countries of West and East. Both
countries, which have similar experience as CZ, and the old Member Countries,
the countries of moderate development and countries, which that have
grown suddenly quickly due to the EU membership, are represented. In
the sample there are two countries with approximately the same number
of inhabitants as CZ has, two countries with twice smaller and bigger
population and six countries belonging to the most densely populated
(and at the same time the most powerful) EU members. ...
... Final recipients (representatives
of development partnerships) in selected EU countries ...
... DP EU ...
... NSS EU ...
... National Thematic
Networks in selected EU countries ...
... NTN EU ...
... MA EU ...
... SWOT analysis was applied
in the evaluation at two levels: 1) as a supporting analytical method
in evaluation of results of the particular activities and 2) as a general
matrix of evaluation of potential, results and threats of the actually
implemented transnational cooperation within the framework of individual
DP from CZ and the selected EU countries. The SWOT analysis was also
used successfully for assessment of functioning of the transnational
partnership in different cultural environments, which are given by different
tradition, experience, social economical and political background. More
detailed information on this utilisation of the SWOT analysis is mentioned
in the chapter on concrete realization of the evaluation. ...
... As far as further dissemination,
education and dissemination of the outputs are concerned, it is necessary
for the entities concerned to make use of the available systems of support
being intended for it, whether from the sources of the EU, the state
or of the self-governments, from the private or own sources. ...
... Individual countries
create also monitoring and evaluation plans, e.g. “Northern Ireland
European Social Fund Programme 2007 – 2013” mentions in Chapter
4 Evaluation in paragraph 4.24 the evaluation strategy in the first
half of the programme: having carried out the substantial part of the
project activities to evaluate the contribution (added value) of the
programme to the strategic intentions of the EU, the Member State and
the region and, in particular the innovative, supranational and interregional
activities and horizontal themes. The evaluation strategy of the North
Irish ESF programme will be updated for the second half of the programme’s
duration in order to take account of the regional socio-economical and
political development. In the United Kingdom, the West Wales and the
Valleys Convergence Programme - Operational Programme for the ESF mentions
in Chapter 3 – Strategy, paragraph 3.131 that the managing authority
shall establish an independent Transnational Cooperation Unit to support
the programme activities. Then in Chapter 6 in paragraphs 6.40 – 6.42
the planning tool of the managing authority “Strategic Frameworks”
is described as an implementation strategy to achieve the strategic
objective by means of strategically interconnected project interventions.
These frameworks will serve in selection of the projects, they will
enable their comparison. Thus the managing authority will be able to
identify projects proposing transnational or interregional cooperation
already in the stage of submission and selection and to direct them
towards achieving of the programme objectives. It will be able to provide
them specific assistance also during the implementation and monitor
and evaluate them purposefully in cooperation with the Monitoring Committee.
The East Wales Regional Competitiveness & Employment Programme for
the ESF 2007–2013 is drawn up accordingly. Both these programmes will
thus be implemented, monitored and evaluated with the managing authority’s
active participation, without prejudice to the Monitoring Committee’s
power and responsibility. ...
6.3 Topic 3: Part of the study focused on the assessment of the work of DP supported in other EU Member States [go to this article ]
... Topic 3: Part of the study focused on the assessment of the work of DP supported in other EU Member States ...
6.5 Topic 5: Analysis of interesting approaches and specific areas of HRD in other EU countries [go to this article ]
... In many respects it
was not been possible to trace any considerable difference among the
Czech Republic and the other EU countries, the respondents’ reactions
to the same questions and themes are similar in many aspects. ...
... Analysis of the specific
aspects and of the added value of the ESF projects based on the support
of transnational cooperation was elaborated in more details in the First
Interim Report and the account of its outputs were taken in this Final
Report in particular in concrete recommendations relating to implementation
of the projects with transnational aspect. The analysis has arrived
at the conclusion that 1) the projects containing the transnational
cooperation require longer time at the preparation, which must be planned
carefully at the same time whereas this plan should eliminate later
modifications of the transnational agreement, however, at the same time
it shall be possible to modify the original plan according to the needs
that will occur only from the implementation of the project itself;
2) the added value of the transnational cooperation is in particular
the possibility to take over, as the case may be explore various approaches
to solution of the given problem, which however requires the knowledge
of the context in the given countries (whether the transferability of
these solutions is possible at all), as the case may be accentuation
of the needs of the Czech party, thus an active role of the Czech partners
when searching for a solution and its verification in practice (raising
agendas, not their takeover), further the added value consists above
all in increased knowledge capacities of the project implementing entities,
strengthening of the negotiating position in mainstreaming and dissemination
of the results and enlarging the partnership networks by European level;
and 3) the project implementing entities and the support to implementation
of the projects must take account of the differences among the individual
EU Member States occurring in the are of eligibility of expenses, language
knowledge, terminology and timing of the projects (if the transnational
partnership is to be based on concrete projects, then it is very
breakable at the moment when these projects do not terminate at the
same time). The recommendations mentioned in Chapter 7 come out from
these findings, while the issue of sustainability is a specific area:
if the transnational cooperation has a project basis, then already at
the beginning of planning the aid the account must be taken on how the
transnational outputs, as the case may be the transnational overlaps
of the projects will be maintained after their termination for most
of the organisations as a rule do not have capacities to develop further
the transnational cooperation and its results without the project support.
For this reason also one of the recommendations aims at considering
of a systemic support to transnational mainstreaming from the position
of the managing authority. ...
... A specific part of the
study answered also the question of relevant HRD areas, on which it
would be desirable to focus the projects implemented in the form of
transnational cooperation in the following programming period. In the
time of processing this part of the evaluation only a call from France
for projects in transnational cooperation, strategic documents of HRD
and related areas from ten EU countries included in this evaluation
(see the list of sources in the annex hereto) and evaluation reports
concerning this topic from Poland and Austria were available. The evaluation
team was coming out from the findings from the evaluation visits, study
of documents and expert recommendations. While some countries have the
orientation of the transnational cooperation in HDR defined according
to the appropriate strategic documents thematically (if ever), other
countries prefer regional orientation (less frequent case). For this
reason the expert team combined both approaches and to do so it used
the SWOT method, thus it divided the analysis according to individual
countries and specified further the topics, which are recommended for
cooperation with the given country. However, the SWOT analysis defined
also a wider context, in which these topics come into question for Czech
organisations and identified risks connected with it. In any case it
is necessary to point out that these topics are secondary ones; really
primary is what was broken down in the First Interim Report in more
details, thus success in negotiating and planning of the partnership,
equilibrium of the partners, understanding and sharing joint objectives
and values. The topics we have singled out for the orientation of the
HRD projects implemented in the form of transnational cooperation are
the following ones: social economy and entrepreneurship (IT, PT), employment
services and advanced vocational training (UK, AT, FR), community development,
local partnership and wider partnership networks (UK, NL), social area,
inclusion and inclusion strategies (NL, DE, FR, UK, ES), research (HU,
PL, DE), Public Private Partnership and intersectoral cooperation (DE),
industry restructuring (ES), tourist industry (ES), cultural heritage
(ES, FR and the like). ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...