 |
||
Site search
Managing Authority
... Managing Authority ...
... The most significant
factors influencing efficiency and success of the transnational cooperation
seem to be, according to the evaluation, compliance, as the case
may be sharing the project objectives among partners, selection
of a partner and partially the innovation rate of a
particular project. Above all, thanks to this fact the preparatory
and the initial stages of the project, which consequently have the
principal impact on the whole implementation, seem to be as essential
for the success of the transnational partnership. In this respect, also
the cooperation with the managing authority and the quality of its support
is mentioned as the key factors, too. ...
... Some implementing entities
chose the solution, according to which the guarantor of the transnational
cooperation was one of the national partners, as a rule “specialised”
in such activity. Only a smaller part of the organisations had already
experience with a similar partnership with a foreign body. The managing
authority and the support structure did not provide sufficiently efficient
assistance at that time. ...
... Within the framework of the
normal duties of the grant recipients, regular monitoring took place,
which was used, however, above all as a formal tool for the individual
financing stages and the content value and utilisation of which are
minimal. Sometimes even considerable modifications discussed with the
managing authority did not occur in the monitoring reports. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
... Preparation of the transnational
partnership required from the part of methodological and information
support of the managing authority above all information on partners
and instructions, how to proceed at conclusion and a modification of
partnership agreements. While the information support for the project
preparation was sufficient, reliable records of modifications in the
projects and the information on their outputs were missing completely
in the databases kept at the central level. ...
... A question appears what role
the managing authority should play in takeover and further utilisation
of the outputs from the projects. It appears that the need of a central
national or European database of outputs from the projects would solve
not only the assistance when searching for suitable partners (on the
basis of common or similar products) and a strong need to mainstream
the outputs from the projects at a higher level than the project one
and outside the framework of the project itself, but it would also be
possible to eliminate creation of the same products and duplication
of granting public funds. ...
... From the part of the managing
authority a possibility should exist, after the introductory (get-acquainted)
stage of the transnational cooperation and its assessment, to carry
out modifications in the project in standard way – as a natural reaction
to the constellation created that could not have been the subject matter
of the plan and contractual provisions before the beginning of the project. ...
... One of the aspects of sustainability
is also the issue of maintaining and development of the know-how developed
by the organisations, the bearers of which are particular employees.
If the project termination means loss of these people, it is partially
also a loss of the created know-how. The activities aiming at further
development of the created know-how should thus take account also particular
people, who are its bearers: the organisations should be able to “secure”
against the loss of the know-how and the managing authority should be
able to include them in consequential programmes (lobbying at national
and European level, seminars, dissemination, mainstreaming). ...
... Within the framework
of a CIP EQUAL CZ separate priority, technical assistance was provided
to the managing authority and the development partnerships. ...
... Support to the development
partnerships for the whole period of their work programme implementation
belongs to the basic activities of the technical assistance. Another
task of the technical assistance is monitoring of the individual DPs,
namely including administration of the monitoring systems. Further the
technical assistance ensured effective communication with the managing
authority by means of timely providing of the information on the implementation
of the individual projects and of the whole programme to the managing
authority. ...
... Support to the development
partnerships for the whole period of their work programme implementation
belongs to the basic activities of the technical assistance. Another
task of the technical assistance is monitoring of the individual DPs,
namely including administration of the monitoring systems. Further the
technical assistance ensured effective communication with the managing
authority by means of timely providing of the information on the implementation
of the individual projects and of the whole programme to the managing
authority. ...
... Later the National
Support Structure
(NSS)
was charged with the technical assistance tasks to the managing authority
including the support to the development partnerships. The company PricewaterhouseCoopers
carried out the function of the National Support Structure for CIP EQUAL
CZ. ...
... CIP EQUAL Managing
Authority ...
... A list of the projects
is admittedly available on the cited EQUAL CZ web, but it is arranged
according to the programme priorities, within the framework of which
these projects are then hidden behind the name of the institution, which
is not a common aspect, according to which the users interested in the
projects search for the information. These will be most likely searching
according to the name of the project, according to what it is concerned
in particular or in which area of intervention it falls in; they needn’t
know the name of the institution necessarily in advance. The web is
thus structured regardless of the users’ needs, it comes out above
all from the point of view of the managing authority. Moreover, it is
not updated sufficiently, therefore it is not possible to rely completely
on the information mentioned on it. ...
... The focus groups were
always designed so that they might balance the findings from the questionnaire
investigation and from the evaluation visits and interviews. Above all
the visits and interviews were conducted, with some exceptions (interviews
with the representatives of the European Commission and CIP EQUAL agencies
in the Netherlands, France, Germany, Austria, Portugal, Spain and the
United Kingdom) with the representatives of the development partnerships
and the transnational cooperation coordinators. Thus the observations
mentioned in the previous chapter are based on this sample very clearly
and the very focus groups should bring another view of the matter. For
this reason two groups were suggested, one with the NSS representatives
and one with the MA representatives. A scenario was established for
each group, i.e. the questions that were asked during the discussion
and the sense of which was to observe how the transnational cooperation
management and implementation proceeded, how the monitoring and the evaluation
were used, what kind of support was provided to the implementing bodies.
A supplement to the focus groups was then the evaluation of processes,
in this case above all of the information and communication flows among
the mentioned bodies, i.e. the managing authority, PricewaterhouseCoopers
and representatives of the development partnerships. Moreover, this
picture of the flows becomes somewhat complicated by the fact that,
within the framework of the transnational cooperation, it is necessary
to negotiate also with the bodies outside the national field, thus with
the representatives of the foreign development partnerships and even
with the representatives of the foreign managing authorities (e.g. in
case of TCA modification) and ministries (e.g. in case of proposals
of international coordination of search for partners and gathering information
to the transnational cooperation). ...
... The focus groups monitored
mainly the issues of management and implementation of the transnational
cooperation priority axis that is based on the knowledge of the context,
in which the programme will be implemented, of the national and sectoral
strategies that define priorities for the orientation of projects and
activities and high-quality managing authority’s background. The managing
authority makes its decisions on the basis of the valid strategic documents
and follows the implementation itself by means of standard tools, to
which monitoring and evaluation belong. As regards the process of the
programme implementation itself, it may use systemic and national projects
or specialised agencies according to the possibilities given by the
setting of the given programme. Suitable and unsuitable management methods
do not exist obviously, what probably matters more are recommended aspects
of management, which are essential for successful implementation of
the programme; clearly defined objectives and rules, understandable
and willing communication with the given groups and system support (facilitation
of preparation and implementation of the partnership, central database
sources, methodical support) appear as most frequently mentioned. As
regards project preparation and implementation, the implementing entities’
requirements for the rules and calls say they should be above all understandable,
clear and unchanging till the process closure (except for the modifications
necessary for increasing the smoothness and quality of a programme).
The present monitoring system meets neither the needs of the programme
management nor those of the implementation of the projects. Monitoring
can serve, besides its own objectives, also for aggregation for certain
areas (the thematic or regional viewpoint suggests itself), programme
management (setting priorities) and it can also serve as a tool for
control, whether the same products do not come into existence in a parallel
manner or whether doubled financing of activities/outputs does not occur.
In the first stage, the setting of monitoring indicators is to be reviewed,
in the second phase it is then necessary to provide systemic support
to the above-mentioned services. Evaluation must be planned in such
a way that it could react to actual processes and events within the project,
thus it must be able to add the evaluation criteria and to relate to
the project currently. It is necessary to maintain the flexibility element
in the evaluation and at the same time it is necessary for the evaluation
to be detached from the monitoring system, if possible, it must not
be dependent on it in any case. At the transnational level, transnational
monitoring and evaluation activities may be considered, however, it
is necessary to clarify their meaning and objectives, mandate, responsibilities
and the system of their administration. ...
... The focus groups monitored
mainly the issues of management and implementation of the transnational
cooperation priority axis that is based on the knowledge of the context,
in which the programme will be implemented, of the national and sectoral
strategies that define priorities for the orientation of projects and
activities and high-quality managing authority’s background. The managing
authority makes its decisions on the basis of the valid strategic documents
and follows the implementation itself by means of standard tools, to
which monitoring and evaluation belong. As regards the process of the
programme implementation itself, it may use systemic and national projects
or specialised agencies according to the possibilities given by the
setting of the given programme. Suitable and unsuitable management methods
do not exist obviously, what probably matters more are recommended aspects
of management, which are essential for successful implementation of
the programme; clearly defined objectives and rules, understandable
and willing communication with the given groups and system support (facilitation
of preparation and implementation of the partnership, central database
sources, methodical support) appear as most frequently mentioned. As
regards project preparation and implementation, the implementing entities’
requirements for the rules and calls say they should be above all understandable,
clear and unchanging till the process closure (except for the modifications
necessary for increasing the smoothness and quality of a programme).
The present monitoring system meets neither the needs of the programme
management nor those of the implementation of the projects. Monitoring
can serve, besides its own objectives, also for aggregation for certain
areas (the thematic or regional viewpoint suggests itself), programme
management (setting priorities) and it can also serve as a tool for
control, whether the same products do not come into existence in a parallel
manner or whether doubled financing of activities/outputs does not occur.
In the first stage, the setting of monitoring indicators is to be reviewed,
in the second phase it is then necessary to provide systemic support
to the above-mentioned services. Evaluation must be planned in such
a way that it could react to actual processes and events within the project,
thus it must be able to add the evaluation criteria and to relate to
the project currently. It is necessary to maintain the flexibility element
in the evaluation and at the same time it is necessary for the evaluation
to be detached from the monitoring system, if possible, it must not
be dependent on it in any case. At the transnational level, transnational
monitoring and evaluation activities may be considered, however, it
is necessary to clarify their meaning and objectives, mandate, responsibilities
and the system of their administration. ...
... The other line being
followed by means of the focus groups and evaluation of processes was
the issue of projects’ sustainability, mainstreaming and further development
of the created products. The managing authority considers active participation
in dissemination and mainstreaming of the outputs and results of the
projects and expects benefits from the point of view of increased impact
of projects, ensuring of sustainability of their outputs, and generally
improved quality of the projects. For the time being, a strategy for
further disposal of the products, clarification of the roles, responsibilities
and mandate come into existence. The managing authority could make decisions
on the extent of utilisation of the individual outputs already on the
basis of the project applications, from which it must be obvious, which
outputs will arise, for whom these will be intended and how they will
be disposed of after the project closure. Thus the support of the outputs,
mainstreaming and dissemination will have a systemic basis, however,
within its orientation, it must work with the outputs individually.
When making use of the outputs and results of the projects, the managing
authority should be engaged mainly at two levels: the international
one, when the outputs that are common to several countries, will be
concerned, and the national one, within the sense that MA would be a
partner for mainstreaming. The extent, to which the role of the managing
authority will be active in the utilisation of the outputs of the projects,
relates not only to its strategy, but also to the fact what mandate,
mission and possibilities the managing authority has; thus the human,
organisational and financial capacities for proper functioning of such
system must exist. The capacities of MA may be strengthened either through
an external agency or by strengthening the managing authority's internal
capacities. ...
... The other line being
followed by means of the focus groups and evaluation of processes was
the issue of projects’ sustainability, mainstreaming and further development
of the created products. The managing authority considers active participation
in dissemination and mainstreaming of the outputs and results of the
projects and expects benefits from the point of view of increased impact
of projects, ensuring of sustainability of their outputs, and generally
improved quality of the projects. For the time being, a strategy for
further disposal of the products, clarification of the roles, responsibilities
and mandate come into existence. The managing authority could make decisions
on the extent of utilisation of the individual outputs already on the
basis of the project applications, from which it must be obvious, which
outputs will arise, for whom these will be intended and how they will
be disposed of after the project closure. Thus the support of the outputs,
mainstreaming and dissemination will have a systemic basis, however,
within its orientation, it must work with the outputs individually.
When making use of the outputs and results of the projects, the managing
authority should be engaged mainly at two levels: the international
one, when the outputs that are common to several countries, will be
concerned, and the national one, within the sense that MA would be a
partner for mainstreaming. The extent, to which the role of the managing
authority will be active in the utilisation of the outputs of the projects,
relates not only to its strategy, but also to the fact what mandate,
mission and possibilities the managing authority has; thus the human,
organisational and financial capacities for proper functioning of such
system must exist. The capacities of MA may be strengthened either through
an external agency or by strengthening the managing authority's internal
capacities. ...
... The other line being
followed by means of the focus groups and evaluation of processes was
the issue of projects’ sustainability, mainstreaming and further development
of the created products. The managing authority considers active participation
in dissemination and mainstreaming of the outputs and results of the
projects and expects benefits from the point of view of increased impact
of projects, ensuring of sustainability of their outputs, and generally
improved quality of the projects. For the time being, a strategy for
further disposal of the products, clarification of the roles, responsibilities
and mandate come into existence. The managing authority could make decisions
on the extent of utilisation of the individual outputs already on the
basis of the project applications, from which it must be obvious, which
outputs will arise, for whom these will be intended and how they will
be disposed of after the project closure. Thus the support of the outputs,
mainstreaming and dissemination will have a systemic basis, however,
within its orientation, it must work with the outputs individually.
When making use of the outputs and results of the projects, the managing
authority should be engaged mainly at two levels: the international
one, when the outputs that are common to several countries, will be
concerned, and the national one, within the sense that MA would be a
partner for mainstreaming. The extent, to which the role of the managing
authority will be active in the utilisation of the outputs of the projects,
relates not only to its strategy, but also to the fact what mandate,
mission and possibilities the managing authority has; thus the human,
organisational and financial capacities for proper functioning of such
system must exist. The capacities of MA may be strengthened either through
an external agency or by strengthening the managing authority's internal
capacities. ...
... The other line being
followed by means of the focus groups and evaluation of processes was
the issue of projects’ sustainability, mainstreaming and further development
of the created products. The managing authority considers active participation
in dissemination and mainstreaming of the outputs and results of the
projects and expects benefits from the point of view of increased impact
of projects, ensuring of sustainability of their outputs, and generally
improved quality of the projects. For the time being, a strategy for
further disposal of the products, clarification of the roles, responsibilities
and mandate come into existence. The managing authority could make decisions
on the extent of utilisation of the individual outputs already on the
basis of the project applications, from which it must be obvious, which
outputs will arise, for whom these will be intended and how they will
be disposed of after the project closure. Thus the support of the outputs,
mainstreaming and dissemination will have a systemic basis, however,
within its orientation, it must work with the outputs individually.
When making use of the outputs and results of the projects, the managing
authority should be engaged mainly at two levels: the international
one, when the outputs that are common to several countries, will be
concerned, and the national one, within the sense that MA would be a
partner for mainstreaming. The extent, to which the role of the managing
authority will be active in the utilisation of the outputs of the projects,
relates not only to its strategy, but also to the fact what mandate,
mission and possibilities the managing authority has; thus the human,
organisational and financial capacities for proper functioning of such
system must exist. The capacities of MA may be strengthened either through
an external agency or by strengthening the managing authority's internal
capacities. ...
... The other line being
followed by means of the focus groups and evaluation of processes was
the issue of projects’ sustainability, mainstreaming and further development
of the created products. The managing authority considers active participation
in dissemination and mainstreaming of the outputs and results of the
projects and expects benefits from the point of view of increased impact
of projects, ensuring of sustainability of their outputs, and generally
improved quality of the projects. For the time being, a strategy for
further disposal of the products, clarification of the roles, responsibilities
and mandate come into existence. The managing authority could make decisions
on the extent of utilisation of the individual outputs already on the
basis of the project applications, from which it must be obvious, which
outputs will arise, for whom these will be intended and how they will
be disposed of after the project closure. Thus the support of the outputs,
mainstreaming and dissemination will have a systemic basis, however,
within its orientation, it must work with the outputs individually.
When making use of the outputs and results of the projects, the managing
authority should be engaged mainly at two levels: the international
one, when the outputs that are common to several countries, will be
concerned, and the national one, within the sense that MA would be a
partner for mainstreaming. The extent, to which the role of the managing
authority will be active in the utilisation of the outputs of the projects,
relates not only to its strategy, but also to the fact what mandate,
mission and possibilities the managing authority has; thus the human,
organisational and financial capacities for proper functioning of such
system must exist. The capacities of MA may be strengthened either through
an external agency or by strengthening the managing authority's internal
capacities. ...
... The other line being
followed by means of the focus groups and evaluation of processes was
the issue of projects’ sustainability, mainstreaming and further development
of the created products. The managing authority considers active participation
in dissemination and mainstreaming of the outputs and results of the
projects and expects benefits from the point of view of increased impact
of projects, ensuring of sustainability of their outputs, and generally
improved quality of the projects. For the time being, a strategy for
further disposal of the products, clarification of the roles, responsibilities
and mandate come into existence. The managing authority could make decisions
on the extent of utilisation of the individual outputs already on the
basis of the project applications, from which it must be obvious, which
outputs will arise, for whom these will be intended and how they will
be disposed of after the project closure. Thus the support of the outputs,
mainstreaming and dissemination will have a systemic basis, however,
within its orientation, it must work with the outputs individually.
When making use of the outputs and results of the projects, the managing
authority should be engaged mainly at two levels: the international
one, when the outputs that are common to several countries, will be
concerned, and the national one, within the sense that MA would be a
partner for mainstreaming. The extent, to which the role of the managing
authority will be active in the utilisation of the outputs of the projects,
relates not only to its strategy, but also to the fact what mandate,
mission and possibilities the managing authority has; thus the human,
organisational and financial capacities for proper functioning of such
system must exist. The capacities of MA may be strengthened either through
an external agency or by strengthening the managing authority's internal
capacities. ...
... A whole number of mainstreaming
aspects, which overlap the frameworks of the individual projects evidently,
whether the creation of the overall climate suitable for putting the
outputs of the projects into practice, pressure upon the competent bodies
to engage in the mainstreaming process and the like; orientation of
the projects towards the outputs relating to the implementation of principal
objectives of the concrete policies or formation of the public policies,
etc.; or consideration of the outputs of the projects in the European
institutions structures or the institutions of the states are concerned.
In all the cases mentioned here, it is suitable and often inevitable
for the projects to have the support at the relevant level – e.g.
at the level of the respective resort ministry, interdepartmental commission,
the government. In this case the managing authority is a part of one
of the ministries, so it is possible to consider that it could, within
the framework of the given ministry create conditions for the implementation
and dissemination of the outputs of the projects to have sufficient support
at appropriate places and to enjoy adequate attention of the representatives
of the institutions and also of the elected bodies. ...
... However, it is necessary
keep in mind at the same time that the managing authority as such may
be identified neither directly with the given state administration body
on the one hand nor with the results of one project on the other hand
an that the managing authority can affect the political structure only
in a limited way, whether at the level of the government (the executive)
or of the parliament (legislation). Definitely, it is very difficult
to formalise such role. ...
... However, it is necessary
keep in mind at the same time that the managing authority as such may
be identified neither directly with the given state administration body
on the one hand nor with the results of one project on the other hand
an that the managing authority can affect the political structure only
in a limited way, whether at the level of the government (the executive)
or of the parliament (legislation). Definitely, it is very difficult
to formalise such role. ...
... Thus it may be assumed
that it will remain above all the matter of the projects themselves
(and the entities implementing them), to which extent they expect political
and structural (institutional) support in their final stage (it means
as a rule when holding conferences at the European level in Brussels
with participation of influential persons close to the European Commission
or the European Parliament or at the national level) and to which extent
they can generate this support by engaging the key players. If this
type of mainstreaming is assumed, it is necessary for its strategy to
be an integral part of the project, while it is necessary to begin to
map the necessary constellation of players and forces well in advance
already within the framework of the project activities themselves –
of course, in coordination with the managing authority. ...
... If further activities
from the part of the state bodies and institutions in the area of dissemination
and mainstreaming were not assumed in the project in advance, the ministry
may take over some mainstreaming activities on the basis of the managing
authority’s recommendation, but it should always be obvious that doing
so it concerns such project as unsuccessful – unable to ensure the
terms and conditions, under which the funds had been awarded to it. ...
... In these documented
and chosen cases it is suitable for the managing authority to keep or
to create the possibility to use the suitably selected support tools.
Above all the support to processes is concerned that could not have
been assumed within the framework of the projects and that result from
the current situation and the circumstances occurred. It is suitable
to search for the form of suitable covering of some mainstreaming activities,
which are in compliance with the national strategy and the selected
priorities. At the same time it is appropriate to search for a suitable
form and to select adequate transnational cooperation tools. In this
sense, two basic directions seem as possible, namely cooperation with
the respective commissions of the Council or with the groups of the
European Parliament members – according to the orientation on the
executive or the legislation, in the same way inside the individual
countries. ...
... Above all from the point
of view of the managing authority, complex work with the outputs of
the projects – including those arisen from the transnational cooperation
(grouping of the results across the topic, in ideal case also across
the resorts) – is then absolutely essential in the area of dissemination
and mainstreaming. In this sense the responsibility for sensitiveness
towards potential usability (and accessibility) of the project outputs
for fulfilment of the public policy priorities and for their formulation
is not transferable to another player. ...
... The managing authority
should also follow the overlap of the projects (above all of the project
outputs). It is obvious the managing authority is not the guarantor
of the quality of the outputs, in spite of that it could prevent conceptual
chaos in this respect by means by more intensive communication and timely
sharing (several projects create thematic or conceptual materials conceived
completely differently). ...
... The managing authority
should also follow the overlap of the projects (above all of the project
outputs). It is obvious the managing authority is not the guarantor
of the quality of the outputs, in spite of that it could prevent conceptual
chaos in this respect by means by more intensive communication and timely
sharing (several projects create thematic or conceptual materials conceived
completely differently). ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
6.1 Topic 1: Part of the study focused on the support in the preparation the first call of Priority axis Transnational Cooperation OP LZZ [go to this article ]
... c) Managing authority’s
role ...
6.5 Topic 5: Analysis of interesting approaches and specific areas of HRD in other EU countries [go to this article ]
... The most significant
factors influencing efficiency and success of the transnational cooperation
seem to be, according to the results of the evaluation, compliance /
sharing the project objectives among partners, selection of the partner
and the innovation rate of the concrete project. Above all, thanks to
this fact the preparatory and the initial stages of the project, which
consequently have the principal impact on the whole implementation,
seem essential for the success of the development partnership. In this
respect, also the cooperation with the managing authority and the quality
of its support is mentioned as the key factors, too. ...
... 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. ...
6.6 Topic 6: Part of the study focused on the synthesis of the findings from previous parts of the study (part 1) [go to this article ]
... We understand the question,
in which way it would be possible, from the part of the programme managing
authority, to prevent or at least to minimise the found negative factors,
at two levels: 1) the concrete steps related to the roles of the managing
and support structure, costs for the transnational cooperation, length
of the preparatory period, created information tools are concerned,
and 2) the point is, which new or innovated tools concerning both the
obligatory structure (terms and conditions) and the auxiliary structure
for the projects MA can create. ...
6.7 Topic 6: Part of the study focused on the synthesis of the findings from previous parts of the study (part 2) [go to this article ]
... This part of the study
focused on the recommendations directed into the area of systemic utilisation
of the selected outputs and results of the projects financed from the ESF,
when it was considered on the one hand when this support should start
(from preparation of the projects till the period of projects’ closure),
and on the other hand how to implement this support. Both the possibilities
of external solution (external agencies) and the means of systemic projects,
where both the support of preparation of strong transnational partnerships
and mainstreaming of outputs and results of their work may be concerned,
were considered. The sense of further utilisation of the projects’
outputs and results consists in it that their quality improves in this
way, the parallel development of similar or same products is eliminated
and mainstreaming is supported significantly. The role of the managing
authority can be seen for example as an administrator of a central platform,
which would present individual outputs of the projects classified –
besides other criteria – according to the target groups. Since the
target groups are given by the respective operational programmes and
further by the orientation of the individual projects actually implemented,
the question then does not consist in who the outputs should be mediated
to, but above all how. The evaluation team’s proposals mentioned for
example information campaigns (including TV spots, billboards and other
means of traditional advertising), Internet advertising and viral marketing
(in general, this is possible to be used for everything, a communication
method is concerned), support to thematic networks with bigger accent
on expert authority, national, as the case may be thematic competitions,
conferences and fairs and further the events specifically focused and
made to measure to concrete target groups. ...
7.2.1 Role within the framework of the programme and relations to other actors [go to this article ]
... The role of the managing
authority, as the case may be of other supporting bodies must be defined
clearly and presented to the aid recipients; it should be always obvious,
to whom, when and with what the entities interested in information may
turn in a certain stage of the project implementation (from the preparation
of the partnership as far as to the closure of the projects and further
utilisation of their outputs). ...
7.2.2 Formulation of expected outputs and results of the transnational cooperation [go to this article ]
... Support from the part of
the managing authority must be available for the applicant, especially
when searching for partners and finalising the partnership agreements.
However, besides that it is necessary not to forget about the possible
overlaps of the projects into other programmes thanks to the transnational
aspect of the projects, therefore it seems as convenient to prepare
common documentation to the application - this has already been introduced
in the Rural Development Operational Programme (the Leader axis and
pre-established local action groups – LAGs - as applicants), where
also the projects of the CIP EQUAL type may be. The calls should not
contradict the terms and conditions contained in the operational programmes
and Community initiatives. ...
... We propose to clarify contingent
role the managing authority may play in mainstreaming already in the
stage of preparation and implementation of the projects and to solve
all the elements of dissemination and mainstreaming in time within the
framework of the projects. ...
... One of the aspects of sustainability
is also the issue of maintaining and development of the know-how developed
by the organisations, the bearers of which are concrete employees. If
the project termination means loss of these people, it is partially
also the loss of the created know-how. The activities aiming at further
development of the created know-how should thus take account also of
the concrete people, who are its bearers: the managing authority should
be able to include them in consequential programmes (lobbying at national
and European level, seminars and the like). ...
... The managing authority should
have the possibility 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 implementation
and to monitor and to evaluate them purposefully in cooperation with
the Monitoring Committee. ...
... Conclusion to the recommendations for the managing authority ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...