3.7 Conclusions

3.7.1 Strengths and weaknesses

Strengths

The project approach has

• helped VASAB
  • to demonstrate the practical benefits from transactional co-operation;
  • to maintain momentum after the adoption of the VASAB2010 report;
  • to gain an implementation oriented reputation, particularly at international level.
  • to overcome the problem of being a top-down initiative, by growing involvement of local and regional project partners
• inspired other actors, particularly from local and regional levels,
  • to propose own projects for EU funding, which underlines the relevance of issues initiated by VASAB

Weaknesses

• Though VASAB has strongly influenced contents of the InterregIIC/BSR programme, VASAB still needs to disseminate its ideas among other local and regional authorities, as well as among national-sector institutions.

  Differences exist among BSR countries. In general, VASAB concepts are better known and more discussed in smaller than in bigger countries, and more in transition countries than in other ones.

• The lack of own funds made VASAB dependent on resources from single countries (which are limited) or from EU programmes. Some of the intended actions could therefore not be realised, others were delayed, and funding from different geographical programme areas could not always be arranged as required.

• The initiation of projects directed by VASAB (CSD/ BSR members) required more staff input than was available. This has weakened in some cases the project steering.

3.7.2 Support of the project approach through EU programmes Interreg, Phare and Tacis programmes

As the previous sections have demonstrated, the InterregIIC programme has been very much in line with VASAB's project approach.

On the operational side, it is proposed to consider the following:

• Promote specific themes

  There are some important issues not well covered by Interreg projects. This seems not to reflect a lack of importance to local and regional actors, but is rather due to the problem for them to arrange proper applications. Therefore,

  • support in preparing proper applications and in getting co-operation organised would be useful;
  • continued VASAB action through projects is useful to open windows for relevant themes.

• Promote linkages between projects

  Projects covering similar issues for different regions with different partners would benefit from enhanced exchange of experience with approaches during project execution.

  Projects should be motivated to include budget lines for exchange meetings, mutual participation in workshops and preparation of small services from one project to another.

  But it is suggested not to limit this to the initiative of projects. Umbrella projects, with own budget, would in some cases be useful.

  Such umbrella projects and inter-project co-operation may require different co-financing rules (with higher - up to 100%- EU funding).

• Disseminate project results and experience

  The learning process in projects does not transpire to non-partners. Thus, much of the value added is lost. This is even more so as the reporting obligations on content matters and results are very limited.

  More dissemination should therefore be made compulsory. Again, this may justify higher EU funding shares for such activities.

• Transnationality is in some projects not very obvious. Partners from very distant locations are found sometimes by coincidence rather than by the obvious benefits for them to cooperate. More focus on projects seeking joint action (instead of parallel similar action) would mean changed requirements for partnerships.

• More clear project concepts

  Some projects (including VASAB projects) only developed their clear objectives and working programmes in the course of project execution. This was sometimes necessary as only the beginning co-operation process generated clear approaches. But it limits the time available for effective project work, and it may change conditions under which a project was approved.

A particular, and much discussed issue is the coordination between different EU programmes, particularly between Interreg and Phare resp. Tacis CBC.

While co-operation across EU borders is considered as at least likewise important as internal co-operation, the difficult programme coordination has hampered good functioning of the Interreg idea.

This problem is even more acute for Tacis than for Phare and thus weakens the integration of Russia and Belarus into BSR development. Though VASAB has supported actively joint Interreg/ Phare/ Tacis applications, the success was limited:

• Different decision bodies

  Interreg, Phare and Tacis are administrated by different bodies which take decisions rather independently from each other.

• Different Priorities:

  National Phare programmes set up their priorities independently from Interreg. Projects fitting well into Interreg often have little potential for Phare or Tacis approval.

  The proposed approach to set aside a portion of Phare budgets for co-operation projects with InterregIIIB (following Interreg priorities) would be highly beneficial.

• Different eligible areas

  Areas to receive priority funding are not adjusted.

• Different timing

  Application and approval dates between Interreg and Phare resp. Tacis are not harmonised. Even if parallel applications are approved, they can only with difficulty harmonise their work plans.

  This is aggravated by the fact that Phare/ Tacis projects have shorter duration than Interreg projects.

• Different reporting needs

  Progress reports of Interreg resp. Phare or Tacis partners have different reporting intervals and different requirements of reporting. Joint reporting on a joint project is almost impossible.

• Differences in execution flexibility

  Plan adaptations during project execution are often necessary. To achieve approval for such adaptation simultaneously from Interreg and from Phare/ Tacis is virtually impossible.