Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) : European territorial cooperation (Work Package 11) : final report, main report.
Date: 2016-09-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, EU regional policy, European Regional Development Fund, economic and social cohesion, regional cooperation, regional development, regional integration, report

European Territorial 
Cooperation 

Work Package 11 

Ex-post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes  
2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional 
Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund 
(CF) 

Contract: 2014CE16BAT047 

Written by a team of ADE experts 
July 2016 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 
Directorate B - Policy 
Unit B.2 Evaluation and European Semester 

Contact: David Alba 

E-mail:  David.ALBA@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Ex-post evaluation of 
Cohesion Policy programmes 
2007-2013, financed by the 
European Regional 
Development Fund (ERDF) 
and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Final report 

Main report 

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 

2016 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 

ISBN 978-92-79-61800-0 
doi: 10.2776/216114 

© European Union, 2016 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Disclaimer 

The  information  and  views  set  out  in this  report  are  those  of  the  authors  and  do  not 
necessarily  reflect  the  official  opinion  of  the  Commission.  The  Commission  does  not 
guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor 
any  person  acting  on  the  Commission’s  behalf  may  be  held  responsible  for  the  use 
which may be made of the information contained therein. 

July 2016 - 5 

 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Table of Contents 

DISCLAIMER .......................................................................................................... 4 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ 7 

LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................ 11 

FOREWORD .......................................................................................................... 13 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 15 

RESUME .............................................................................................................. 23 

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG .............................................................................................. 31 

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 39 

2. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION .................................................................................. 41 

3. METHODOLOGY OF THE EVALUATION ...................................................................... 43 

3.1 OVERVIEW OF 67 INTERREG PROGRAMMES .............................................................. 43 

3.2 CASE STUDIES ON 12 INTERREG PROGRAMMES ......................................................... 44 

3.3 FINAL STAKEHOLDER EVENT ................................................................................ 47 

4. BRIEF OVERVIEW AND CONTEXT ............................................................................ 49 

4.1 ETC OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITIES UNDER THE 2007-2013 PROGRAMMING PERIOD ............... 49 

4.2 SPECIFIC FEATURES FOR THE 2007-2013 PROGRAMMING PERIOD ................................... 54 

4.2.1 More autonomous strategic approach ...................................................... 54 

4.2.2 Territorial specificities, integrated approach and differentiation .................. 54 

4.3 GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING INTERREG PROGRAMMES ........................ 55 

4.4 EU BUDGET DEDICATED TO INTERREG PROGRAMMES 2007-2013 ................................... 57 

5. FINDINGS ........................................................................................................ 59 

5.1 RELEVANCE OF INTERREG PROGRAMMES .................................................................. 59 

5.1.1 The design of CBC Programmes .............................................................. 59 

5.1.2 Objectives pursued by the CBC programmes ............................................ 65 

5.1.3 Demand driven approach and focus on cooperation .................................. 67 

5.1.4 CBC budget ......................................................................................... 73 

5.1.5 TNC programmes ................................................................................. 80 

5.2. RESULTS: CONTRIBUTION TO EU OBJECTIVES, BARRIERS REMOVED ................................ 86 

5.2.1 Main outputs of CBC programmes ........................................................... 87 

5.2.2 Overall results achieved through the CBC programmes ........................... 102 

5.2.3 Main outputs and results of TNC programmes ........................................ 104 

July 2016 - 7 

 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

5.2.4 Interreg IV C ..................................................................................... 111 

5.2.5 Wider effects of Interreg ..................................................................... 112 

5.3 MAIN LIMITS OF INTERREG PROGRAMMES UNDER THE 2007-2013 PROGRAMMING PERIOD .... 118 

5.4 POLICY RESPONSE UNDER THE 2014-2020 PROGRAMMING PERIOD ............................... 126 

6. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................ 127 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 5. 1   Strand A Operational Programmes: distribution by domain of the decided 

(2008) and of the allocated (2014) budgets .......................................76 

Figure 5. 2   Key priorities of the TNC programmes ...............................................81 

Figure 5. 3   Number of CBC projects by themes ...................................................87 

Figure 5. 4   Number of CBC projects in R&DT, Innovation and entrepreneurship ......88 

Figure 5. 5   Number of CBC projects in environment ............................................88 

Figure 5. 6   Number of project in capacity building ...............................................88 

Figure 5. 7   Experts’ assessment of the types of outputs (CBC programmes) ...........90 

Figure 5. 8   Transversal results of CBC programmes (by types of OP) ................... 103 

Figure 5. 9   Number of projects in TNC programmes .......................................... 104 

Figure 5. 10 Experts’ assessment of outputs of TNC programmes ......................... 107 

Figure 5. 11 Experts’ assessment of general results for Transnational programmes . 109 

Figure 5. 12 Barriers to European Territorial Cooperation ..................................... 116 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 3. 1   Top 10 Programmes that allocate the highest amount or share of budget 
on Research and Technological development, Innovation and 
Entrepreneurship ............................................................................45 

Table 3. 2   Top 10 Programmes that allocate the highest amount or share of budget 

on Environment protection and enhancement .....................................45 

Table 3. 3   Top 10 programmes that allocate the highest amount and share of budget 
on Capacity building ........................................................................46 

Table 3. 4   Strand A programmes selected as case studies ...................................46 

Table 5. 1   Barriers for cooperation and challenges in R&D and Innovation .............62 

Table 5.2   Barriers for cooperation and challenges in the field of Environment .......64 

Table 5. 3   Output indicators for the three OPs analysed through case studies on 

RDTI .............................................................................................72 

July 2016 - 8 

 
 
 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Table 5. 4    Output indicators for the three OPs analysed through case studies on 

Environment ..................................................................................73 

Table 5. 5   Strand A Operational Programmes: distribution by sectors/theme, 

according to budget decided (2008) and allocated (2014) ....................74 

Table 5. 6   Sectoral allocations – Average distribution and standard deviation. .......74 

Table 5. 7   Share in Budget for R&D, Innovation and Entrepreneurship ..................78 

Table 5. 8   share in Budget for Environment.......................................................79 

Table 5. 9   How programmes have approached transnationality ............................82 

Table 5. 10  Strand B Operational Programmes: distribution of 2013 allocated ERDF 

funds by domain .............................................................................85 

July 2016 - 9 

 
 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

List of acronyms 

AA  

AIR  

ASDP  

BSR  

CB 

CBC  

CF  

CT  

EC  

EGTC  

ENI 

ERDF  

ESDP 

ESF  

ESIF  

Atlantic Area  

Annual Implementation Report  

Atlantic Spatial Development Perspective  

Baltic Sea Region  

Cross-Border 

Cross-Border Co-operation (strand “A”)  

Cohesion Fund  

Core Team  

European Commission  

European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation  

European Neighbourhood Instrument 

European Regional Development Fund  

European Spatial Development Perspective 

European Social Fund  

European Structural and Investment funds  

ESPON  

European Spatial Planning Observation Network  

ETC  

EU  

European Territorial Co-operation  

European Union  

EUSBSR 

EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 

GDP 

ICT  

Gross Domestic Product 

Information and Communication Technology  

INTERACT  

Interreg Animation, Communication and Transfer  

IPA 

JTS  

M&E  

MA  

MS  

MSP 

OECD  

OP(s)  

QC  

REG 

Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance 

Joint Technical Secretariat  

Monitoring and Evaluation  

Managing Authorities  

Member States  

Maritime Spatial Planning 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development  

Operational Programme(s)  

Quality Control  

Regulation 

RTD(I)  

Research and Technology Development (and Innovation)  

SF  

SMART  

SMEs  

Structural Funds  

Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-related  

Small and Medium size Enterprises  

July 2016 - 11 

European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

SWOT  

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats  

TA 

TNC  

ToRs  

Technical assistance 

Transnational cooperation (strand “B”)  

Terms of References  

URBACT  

European Programme for urban sustainable development  

USA 

VASAB 

WP  

United States of America 

Vision and strategies around the Baltic sea 

Work Package  

July 2016 - 12 

European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Foreword  

The evaluation team wishes to thank all  the Managing Authorities and Joint Technical 
Secretariats  of  the  Interreg  programmes  as  well  as  all  actors  from  the  case  study 
regions  who  devoted  time  for  the  interviews  and  fieldwork  undertaken  during  the 
evaluation.  We  also  thank  the  participants  in  the  final  stakeholder  seminar  held  in 
December 2015 for their useful contributions. 

July 2016 - 13 

 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Executive summary 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

This  document  is  the  final  report  of  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  programmes  aiming  at 
promoting  European  Territorial  Cooperation  (ETC),  widely  known  as  Interreg,  during 
the period 2007-2013.  

This evaluation was commissioned by the Directorate-General for Regional and Urban 
Policy,  and  is  part  of  a  set  of  14  thematic  evaluations  contributing  to  an  overall  ex 
post evaluation of the Cohesion Policy Programmes for 2007-2013.  

The  overall  aim  of  the  evaluation  is  to  assess  the  results  of  Interreg  programmes.  It 
has  a  specific  focus  on  co-operation  in  the  fields  of  research,  technology  and 
innovation; environmental protection and enhancement; and capacity-building. It also 
aims at assessing the results of knowledge transfer across regions from Interreg IV C, 
and at assessing the contributions of the programmes to the Jobs and Growth agenda.  

The evaluation covers Interreg Programmes implemented over the period 2007-2013, 
in all geographical zones.  

The evaluation subject 

Interreg  has  a  long  history  prior  to  the  evaluation  period.  The  first  cross-border 
programme was set up in the years 1987 and 1988. Up to 2006 three generations of 
Interreg  programmes  had  been 
launched,  each  with  specific  priorities  and 
implementation modalities.  

The  2007-2013  period  covers  the  fourth  generation  of  Interreg  programmes.  It 
encompasses  programmes1  dedicated  to  cross-border  (56),  transnational  (13)  or 
interregional  (1)  cooperation,  networking  activities  (3:  URBACT,  ESPON,  and 
INTERACT),  the  pre-accession  assistance  (IPA,  8)  and  the  European  Neighbourhood 
and Partnership (ENPI). 

The programmes covered by this evaluation are2: 

  53  cross-border  cooperation  (CBC)  programmes,  which  aim  at  “strengthening 
the  competitiveness  of  the  border  regions”  and  at  contributing  to  “economic 
and social integration” (Strand A); 

  13 transnational cooperation (TNC) programmes, which have been conceived in 
parallel to CBC as a means of fostering cooperation between Member States at 
macro-regional  level  in  order  to  address  matters  of  strategic  importance  that 
cannot be effectively addressed at Member State level (Strand B); 

  One  inter-regional  cooperation  programme  (Interreg  IVC),  which  aims  at 
promoting  learning  from  inter-regional  exchanges  and  transfer  of  experience 
(Strand C).  

1   EC,  Regional  and  Urban  Policy,  Territorial  Cooperation  in  Europe.  A  Historical  Perspective, 

2015. 

2   As defined by the Term of Reference, section 3.4. 

July 2016 - 15 

                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Regulations on structural funds and on the ERDF specifically, adopted in 20063, state 
that these programmes should explicitly focus on the priorities of the renewed Lisbon 
Strategy  (2005),  including  on  its  “third  pillar”  (the  environment)  added  by  the 
agreement of the Gothenburg European Council (2001). 

The total “decided4” EU budget for these programmes was €7.67bn, of which €5.53bn 
(72%) concerned the CBC Strand, €1.82bn (24%) was dedicated to TNC and €0.32bn 
(4%) to Interreg IVC. 

The methodology 

The  team  carried  out  the  evaluation  between  January  2015  and  March  2016 in three 
steps, as requested by the Terms of Reference: 

 

 

 

It started with an overview of the 67 Interreg programmes; for each programme, 
the  team  assessed  the  quality  of  objective-setting  and  the  programme 
achievements,  based  on  documentary  analyses  and  interviews  with  Managing 
Authorities  (MAs),  then  summarising  these  assessments  in  one-page  documents, 
following a common structure for each of the 67 Interreg programmes; 
It  then  conducted  case  studies  on  12  Interreg  programmes  (9  CBC,  2  TNC  and 
Interreg  IVC);  this  encompassed  field  work,  including  105  individual  or  grouped 
interviews  with  representatives  of  Managing  Authorities,  Joint  Technical 
Secretariats,  project  managers,  and  stakeholders  from  local,  regional,  and 
national public or private bodies, five focus groups, and surveys for Strands B and 
C. The team summarized the findings in 12 case study reports; 
In December 2015 the team organized a final stakeholder seminar to discuss the 
findings  of  the  evaluation  and  confront  them  with  the  views  of  experts  and 
practitioners. 

The objectives of Interreg programmes 

Interreg is a cornerstone of cohesion policy and European integration and is the only 
overarching  instrument  addressing  sharing,  integration  and  quality  of  life  cross 
borders and on transnational level. 

EU Regulation 1083 of 2006 defined European Territorial Cooperation as a separate 
objective of Cohesion Policy. The main goals of Interreg programmes funded under the 
2007-2013 period were to:  

  Strengthen cross-border cooperation through joint local and regional initiatives;  

  Strengthen transnational cooperation by means of actions conducive to integrated 

territorial development linked to the Community priorities, and;  

3   Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions of the 
ERDF,  ESF  and  the  Cohesion  fund.  REGULATION  (EC)  No  1080/2006  OF  THE  EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 5 July 2006 on the ERDF. 

4   The “decided” budget corresponds to the financial decision for each programme. We used 

data for 2014, the last available year according to the data source : 
SFC07_01(g)_Decided_PriorityThemes_Form_Territory_2008-2014 by op by year. The 
financial decision is recorded in the financial model of each operational programme. This is 
the planned budget available for allocation to projects.  

July 2016 - 16 

 
 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

  Strengthen interregional cooperation and exchange of experience at the 

appropriate territorial level. 

In addition, Interreg programmes have been perceived and used as a complementary 
tool  aimed  at  pursuing  the  three  main  priorities  of  the  renewed  Lisbon  Strategy  for 
Growth and Jobs: 

Improving the attractiveness of Member States, regions and cities;  

 
  Encouraging  innovation,  entrepreneurship  and  the  growth  of  the  knowledge 

economy; and  

  Creating more and better jobs.  

CBC  and  TNC  were  conceived  to  pursue  specific  objectives  to  contribute  to  the 
overarching goals, namely:  

  CBC was intended to support economic and social integration in areas divided by 
national  borders  that  face  common  problems  requiring  common  solutions.  It  was 
designed  to  focus  on  “strengthening  the  competitiveness  of  the  border  regions” 
and  contribute  to  “economic  and  social  integration,  especially  where  there  are 
wide economic disparities on either side”.  

  Transnational  cooperation  was  designed  to  increase  cooperation  at  a  macro-
regional  level  where  there  is  a  need  to  increase  economic  and  social  integration 
and cohesion on matters of strategic importance.  

Main achievements of Interreg programmes 

Outputs and results  

CBC  programmes  (€5.574bn  “allocated”  budget)  funded  over  6,800  projects  in  the 
sectors targeted by the EU Regulation of 20065, with a particular focus on innovation 
and entrepreneurship, environment, transport, tourism and culture. More than half of 
these  related  to  “quality  of  life”  themes  (tourism,  culture,  sport,  health,  safety). 
Around  1,600  supported  economic  development,  and  focused  for  instance  on 
clustering,  on  establishing  cooperation  networks,  and  on  knowledge  and  technology 
transfers.  The  1,292  environmental  projects  addressed  among  other  things  issues 
related to the management of natural resources, natural threats, climate change, and 
biodiversity.  

These  projects  have  yielded  outputs  and  results  that  were  in  line  with  the  specific 
objectives of CBC and  oriented towards the main priorities of the  Lisbon Strategy for 
Growth and Jobs. More specifically, they have contributed to enlarging the knowledge-
based  economy  in  border  regions  (mainly  in  programmes  in  the  EU  12  MS),  for 
instance  by  increasing  R&D  capacities  and  transfers  across  border,  as  well  as  by 
stimulating  innovation  capacities  in  SMEs  in  border  regions.  They  also  contributed  to 
stimulating  the  diversification  of  local  economies  through  tourism  and  culture.  In 
terms of environment, CBC projects were more geared towards “soft” knowledge and 
policy improvement through analysis, research, and the sharing of best practices. This 
led to a more integrated management and protection of the environment, even if legal 
and  administrative  barriers  remained.  A  number  of  programmes  supported  hard 

5   Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. 

July 2016 - 17 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

infrastructures  and  systems  to  increase  accessibility  across  border,  leading  to  travel 
time reduction, better accessibility of peripheral territories and improved security. CBC 
projects  also  contributed  to  improved  access  to  healthcare  and  better  education 
facilities. They contributed less to objectives such as increasing access to cross-border 
markets and developing cross-border trade, or integrating labour markets.  

TNC  programmes  (€1.766bn  “allocated”  budget)  were  also  in  line  with  the  Lisbon 
Strategy.  They  were  used  in  a  wide  range  of  sectors  to  support  joint  activities  at  a 
transnational  scale.  TNC  programmes  funded  1,134  projects,  mainly  in  the  field  of 
environment  and  climate  change.  They  also  addressed  economic  development  and 
accessibility, even if for the latter, which was one of the main priorities, the number of 
transnational  initiatives  was  smaller  (140  projects  under  the  13  TNC  programmes). 
TNC projects were mainly geared to implementing joint or articulated management of 
natural  resources  and  environmental  protection  and  to  reinforcing  networks  or 
partnerships linking SMEs and research or technological centres at transnational level.   

Overall, the specificity of TNC programmes was less clear. The nature of the projects 
was  comparable  to  those  implemented  under  CBC  programmes  but  with  a  wider 
territorial  aim.  The  evaluation  did  not  find  many  examples  of  projects  addressing 
matters of strategic importance for cohesion at transnational level. 

Overall,  the  interregional  programme  Interreg  IV  C  (€0.306bn)  has  made  possible 
large  exchanges  of  experiences  and  of  practices.  These  exchanges  have  generated 
learning  effects  and  led  to  transfer  of  knowledge  between  the  partners  involved, 
especially  within  capitalisation  projects.  The  Thematic  Capitalisation  Initiative  has 
allowed  to  reach  a  new  audience,  to  broaden  external  diffusion,  and  to  improve 
visibility of useful knowledge. The extent to which it has resulted in an effective use of 
knowledge transfer is difficult to assess.   

Many  of  the  cross  border  and  transnational  projects  would  not  have  been  possible 
without the existence of Interreg, which remains a unique instrument to support joint 
initiatives  across  borders.  In  this  regard,  financial  resources  provided  by  Interreg 
represent  the  most  prominent  example  of  EU  added-value  from  Cohesion  policy, 
however  requiring  in  the  meantime  a  long  term  commitment  for  ensuring  the 
sustainability of results.    

Wider effects 

Beyond the above described outputs and results at project level, the programmes also 
contributed  to  wider  effects,  notably  in  terms  of  alleviating  specific  barriers  to 
cooperation  (mainly  cultural  and  distance  barriers),  and  of  better  social 
integration.  

One  of  the  key  results  of  the  Interreg  programmes  was  indeed  their  contribution  to 
enhanced cooperation among a wide range of stakeholders (such as research centres 
and  universities,  SMEs,  public  authorities 
in  charge  of  environment).  This 
encompassed  formal  and  informal  networks,  institutionalised  links  and  more  ad  hoc 
connections (such as partnerships for joint research, and sharing of practices). 

Such  enhanced  cooperation  in  turn  led  to  the  creation  or  consolidation  of  a  regional 
identity  in  the  sense  of  the  increased  acknowledgment  by  stakeholders  in  a  certain 
area  of  the  value  of  cooperating  across  borders  and  an  improved  social  capital 
(including  knowledge  of  the  partners  on  the  other  side  of  the  border  and  a  better 

July 2016 - 18 

European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

understanding  of  the  potential  for  cooperation).  It  contributed  also,  but  to  a  lesser 
extent, to a better visibility of the area as a coherent entity.  

Interreg  programmes  also  contributed  to  lifting  specific  barriers,  especially  physical 
distance,  cultural  and  mental  barriers  or  language  barriers.  Whilst  some  barriers 
(mainly  administrative  and  legal  barriers)  continue  to  hamper  further  territorial 
cooperation and integration, the evaluation found that existing borders were less and 
less  seen  as  a  barrier.  This  concerned  mainly  cultural  and  distance  barriers  and  was 
less the case for legal, administrative and economic barriers. 

Finally,  the  programmes  also  contributed  to  developing  the  institutional  organisation 
across borders in CBC areas.  

The  EU  Regulation6  also  ambitioned  a  contribution  of  Interreg  programmes  to 
economic  integration  and  strengthened  competitiveness  of  border  regions.  In 
this respect, the evaluation found that CBC projects have contributed to strengthening 
innovation capacities, to improving protection of natural resources and more effective 
risk prevention as well as to easing transport accessibility or access to public services. 
But  these  contributions  remained  at  a  rather  local  level  without  generating  clear 
effects on the territory as a whole. 

Similarly,  whilst  the  evaluation  did  find  that,  to  a  small  extent,  technological  barriers 
were  reduced,  it  did  not  find  evidence  that  economic  or  legal/institutional  barriers 
were  reduced.  This  being  said,  it  is  reasonable  to  consider  that  legal  barriers 
(especially  those  related  to  health  services,  labour  regulation,  taxes,  business 
development), and barriers linked to differences in administrative culture and national 
legal frameworks, were difficult to address for the programmes (as they also required 
decisions at national or regional level).  

The  situation  is  comparable  in  terms  of  the  effects  of  TNC  programmes.  There  are 
examples  of  better  integration  in  terms  of  environmental  protection  strategies  and 
policies, especially related to shared environmental assets (typically shared sea basins 
and  mountainous  spaces).  The  evaluation  also  found  a  few  results  in  terms  of  better 
connections  of  transport  and  ITC  networks.  But  those  results  remained  limited 
compared to the challenges and ambitious goals of the renewed Lisbon Strategy.   

Factors influencing the effect of Interreg programmes 

The above mentioned results should be seen in the light of the factors that influenced 
the Interreg programmes’ capacity to generate effects.  

First, the objectives formulated at the start by the EU regulation were very ambitious 
especially  when  taking  into  account  the  financial  weight  of  the  programmes.  As 
described  in  the  main  report,  the  amounts  per  capita  allocated  to  Interreg 
programmes,  especially  in  new  Members  States,  were  marginal  to  the  amounts  per 
capita for other ESIF programmes. Expectations in terms of impact beyond the specific 
project level should take this factor into account.  

6   Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 

July 2016 - 19 

                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

It is also important to note that the EU regulations and guidelines7 did not specify 
in  detail  how  European  Territorial  Cooperation  was  expected  to  contribute  to  the 
Lisbon Strategy. They left room for both pursuing cooperation as an end in itself and 
as a means to economic and social integration.  

CBC  programmes  have  in  that  perspective  often  been  used  as  an  instrument  aiming 
primarily  at  developing  cooperation  and  linkages,  without  necessarily  envisaging  a 
strong leverage of this cooperation to a wider economic integration. This is clear from 
both  the  objectives  and  the  output  indicators  they  defined,  and  from  what  Managing 
Authorities considered to be the main results of their programmes (often expressed in 
terms  of  enhanced  cooperation).  Often,  stakeholders  themselves  also  quite  explicitly 
mentioned better cooperation as the main objective of the programmes. This approach 
did  not  contradict  what  EU  texts  prescribe.  Indeed,  as  said  above,  many  of  these 
official  texts  highlight  cooperation  as  an  objective,  without  necessarily  making  it  a 
means to an end.  

The  fact  that  the  programmes  yielded  little  results  in  terms  of  enhanced 
competitiveness and integration at the level of the territory can furthermore be linked 
to specific policy choices. Indeed, regions and actors could identify themselves the 
priority obstacles and opportunities to be addressed by Interreg programmes.  Such a 
demand-driven  approach  was  useful  in  terms  of  fostering  tailored  programmes  that 
addressed  specific  well  identified  cross-border  challenges  and  the  main  barriers  and 
opportunities  in  this  regard.  But  this  approach  also  had  some  drawbacks.  First  the 
Regulations8 were not so clear on the types of challenges that CBC and TNC needed to 
address.  Within  the  concept  of  “common  challenges”,  CBC  programmes  have  indeed 
grouped specific challenges relating to border areas with more generic challenges that 
equally  apply  outside  border  areas  and  do  not  form  barriers  to  integration  (such  as 
drug  prevention,  diabetes  treatment,  energy  efficiency,  renewable  resources, 
recycling,  etc.).  Similarly  the  notion  of  “matters  of  strategic  importance”  in  TNC 
programmes  was  not  always  well  understood.  More  broadly  there  was  little  common 
understanding  between  Managing  Authorities  on  the  exact  meaning  and  value  of 
working  at  transnational  level,  especially  in  territories  faced  with  wide  diversity  and 
weak  institutional  governance.  This  led  to  programmes  that  were  driven  rather  by 
common concerns. Second the bottom up approach did not favour the prioritization of 
objectives. The programmes were rarely embedded in a global strategy geared to the 
strengthening  of  the  competitiveness  of  the  border  region  and  to  economic 
integration. Again, this did not contradict the Regulation, but it meant that individual 
projects, whilst successful in their own right, remained isolated from other activities  – 
thereby  diminishing  their  leverage  and  potential  for  generating  a  critical  mass  for 
change. 

Intervening at the level of the “most functional region” was also a complex issue for 
Interreg  programmes.  First,  because  administrative  areas  at  NUTS3  level  (“small 
regions for specific diagnoses” in the nomenclature of territorial units for statistics) are 
not all relevant for dealing with cross border challenges. Moreover, programmes often 
lacked an analysis of what would be the most “functional” region for cooperation in a 

7   COM(2005)  299,  Cohesion  Policy  in  Support  of  Growth  and  Jobs:  Community  Strategic 

Guidelines, 2007-2013  

8   Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 

July 2016 - 20 

                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

certain  sectors.  This  was  compounded  by  the  fact  that  programmes  intervened  in  a 
wide range of sectors: a geographical area may indeed be relevant for one sector and 
not  for  another  one.  Similarly,  defining  the  most  appropriate  level  is  even  more 
complex for TNC programmes, as the rationale for operating at this intermediary level 
(between EU, national, and regional level) was not always clear.  

There  was  furthermore  little  coordination  between  Interreg  and  other  ESIF 
programmes,  nor  was  there  much  sharing  of  project  results  between  regional 
stakeholders and central/regional authorities, the latter showing little interest in being 
involved. The potential leverage effect of Interreg programmes that such coordination 
could have favoured was therefore not fully realised. 

in 

levels  (mainly 

Even  though  within  each  Interreg  programme,  learning  has  taken  place  across 
various 
individual  cooperation  and  programme 
management)  and  Interreg  IV  C  introduced  the  thematic  capitalisation  initiative 
(aiming to disseminate and transfer knowledge beyond the main actors involved), little 
knowledge  sharing  or  transfer  of  practices,  policy  tools  or  learning  has  taken  place, 
beyond the first circle of actors directly involved in projects. Most projects have in this 
sense been implemented in isolation. 

terms  of 

Finally, it is important to note that in the new programming period 2014-2020 the 
result  orientation  embedded  in  the  regulations  and  programming  ensured  higher 
concentration  of  funds,  stronger  emphasis  on  defining  a  well-articulated  intervention 
logic at the outset and on strengthening the results orientation of the programmes. 

July 2016 - 21 

 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Résumé 

Objectif et portée de l’évaluation 

Ce document constitue le rapport final de l’évaluation ex-post des programmes visant 
à promouvoir la coopération territoriale européenne (CTE), aussi appelée Interreg, au 
cours de la période 2007-2013. 

Cette  évaluation a été  commandée par la  Direction générale de la politique régionale 
et urbaine et fait partie d’un ensemble de 14 évaluations thématiques constitutives de 
l’évaluation  globale  ex-post  des  Programmes  de  politique  de  cohésion  pour  2007-
2013. 

L’objectif  global  de  l’évaluation  est  d’évaluer  les  résultats  des  programmes  Interreg. 
Elle se focalise particulièrement sur la coopération dans les domaines de la recherche, 
de la technologie et de l’innovation, la protection et l’amélioration de l’environnement 
et  le  renforcement  des  capacités.  Elle  vise  également  à  évaluer  les  résultats  du 
transfert  des  connaissances  effectué  par  Interreg  IV  C  dans  toutes  les  régions  et  les 
contributions des programmes à l’agenda pour l’emploi et la croissance. 

L’évaluation porte sur les programmes Interreg de la période 2007-2013, dans toutes 
les zones géographiques. 

Objet de l’évaluation 

Interreg  a  une  longue  histoire  avant  la  période  d’évaluation.  Le  premier  programme 
transfrontalier  a  été  mis  en  place  dans  les  années  1987-1988.  Jusqu’en  2006,  trois 
générations  de  programmes  Interreg  ont  été  lancées,  chacune  avec  des  priorités  et 
des modalités de mise en œuvre spécifiques. 

La  période  2007-2013  porte  sur  la  quatrième  génération  des  programmes  Interreg. 
Elle  englobe  les  programmes9  dédiés  à  la  coopération  transfrontalière  (56), 
transnationale  (13)  ou  interrégionale  (1),  les  activités  de  réseautage  (3 :  URBACT, 
ESPON  et  INTERACT),  l’aide  de  préadhésion  (8)  et  la  politique  européenne  de 
voisinage (PEV). 

Les programmes inclus dans cette évaluation se présentent comme suit10 : 

  53 programmes de coopération transfrontalière (CT), qui visent à « renforcer la 
compétitivité  des  régions  frontalières »  et  à  contribuer  à  « l’intégration 
économique et sociale » (volet A) ; 

  13  programmes  de  coopération  transnationale  (CTN),  conçus  en  parallèle  à  la 
CT  comme  moyen  de  favoriser  la  coopération  entre  les  États  membres  au 
niveau macro-régional afin de traiter les questions d’importance stratégique qui 
ne  peuvent  pas  être  traitées  efficacement  au  niveau  des  États  membres 
(volet B) ; 

9  CE,  Politique  régionale  et  urbaine,  La  coopération  territoriale  en  Europe.  Une  perspective 

historique, 2015. 

10  Selon la définition du terme de référence, article 3.4. 

July 2016 - 23 

                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

   Un  programme  de  coopération  interrégionale  (Interreg IVC),  qui  vise  à 
promouvoir  l’apprentissage  sur  base  des  échanges  interrégionaux  et  le 
transfert d’expérience (volet C). 

Les règlements sur les fonds structurels et sur le FEDER, adoptés en 200611, précisent 
que  ces  programmes  doivent  être  explicitement  axés  sur  les  priorités  de  la  stratégie 
de Lisbonne renouvelée (2005), y compris sur le « troisième pilier » (l’environnement) 
ajouté par l’accord du Conseil européen de Göteborg (2001). 

Le  budget  total  ‘décidé’12  de  l’UE  pour  ces  programmes  s’élève  à  7,67 milliards 
d’euros, dont 5,53 (72 %) pour la CT, 1,82 (24 %) pour la coopération transnationale 
et 0,32 (4 %) pour Interreg IVC. 

Méthodologie 

L’équipe  a  effectué  l’évaluation  entre  janvier  2015  et  mars  2016,  en  trois  étapes, 
comme l’exigeaient les termes de référence : 

  Tout d’abord, un aperçu des 67 programmes Interreg : pour chaque programme, 
l’équipe a évalué la qualité des objectifs et les réalisations du programme, sur la 
base  d’une  analyse  documentaire  et  d’entretiens  avec  les  autorités  de  gestion 
(AG),  puis  en  résumant  ces  évaluations  dans  des  documents  d’une  page,  selon 
une structure commune pour chacun des 67 programmes Interreg ; 

  Ensuite,  des  études  de  cas  de  12  programmes  Interreg  (9  CT,  2  CTN  et 
1 Interreg IV C),  avec  un  travail  de  terrain,  y  compris  105  entretiens  individuels 
ou  de  groupe  avec  les  représentants  des  autorités  de  gestion,  les  secrétariats 
techniques conjoints,  les chefs de projet et  les parties prenantes des  organismes 
publics  ou  privés  locaux,  régionaux  ou  nationaux,  cinq  groupes  de  discussion  et 
des  enquêtes  pour  les  volets  B  et  C.  L’équipe  a  résumé  les  conclusions  dans  12 
rapports d’étude de cas ; 

  En  décembre  2015,  l’équipe  a  organisé  un  séminaire  final  avec  les  parties 
prenantes pour discuter des conclusions de l’évaluation et  les confronter aux avis 
d’experts et de praticiens. 

Objectifs des programmes Interreg 

Interreg  est  une  pierre  angulaire  de  la  politique  de  cohésion  et  d’intégration 
européenne  et  constitue  le  seul  instrument  global  traitant  la  mise  en  commun, 
l’intégration et la qualité de vie au niveau transfrontalier et transnational. 

11  Règlement  (CE)  n°  1083/2006  du  Conseil  du  11  juillet  2006  portant  dispositions  générales 
sur le Fonds européen de développement  régional, le  Fonds social européen et le Fonds de 
cohésion, et abrogeant le règlement (CE)  n°  1260/1999.  Règlement  (CE)  n°  1080/2006  du 
Parlement européen et du Conseil du 5 juillet 2006 sur le FEDER. 

12  Le  budget  « décidé »  correspond  à  la  décision  financière  pour  chaque  programme.  Nous 
avons  utilisé  les  données  pour  2014,  la  dernière  année  disponible,  selon  la  source  de 
données : SFC07_01 (g) _Decided_PriorityThemes_Form_Territory_2008-2014 par opération 
par  année.  La  décision  financière  est  comptabilisée  dans  le  modèle  financier  de  chaque 
programme opérationnel. C’est le budget prévu disponible pour l’affectation aux projets. 

July 2016 - 24 

                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Le Règlement 1083 de 2006 a défini la coopération territoriale européenne comme un 
objectif  distinct  de  la  politique  de  cohésion.  Les  principaux  objectifs  des  programmes 
Interreg financés dans le cadre de la période 2007-2013 se présentent comme suit : 

  Renforcer  la  coopération  transfrontalière  grâce  à  des  initiatives  locales  et 

régionales conjointes ; 

  Renforcer  la  coopération  transnationale  au  moyen  d’actions  visant  à  intégrer  le 

développement territorial en lien avec les priorités de la Communauté ; 

  Renforcer  la  coopération  interrégionale  et  l’échange  d’expérience  à  un  niveau 

territorial approprié. 

En  outre,  les  programmes  Interreg  ont  été  perçus  et  utilisés  comme  un  outil 
complémentaire  visant  à  poursuivre  les  trois  principales  priorités  de  la  stratégie  de 
Lisbonne pour la croissance et l’emploi : 

  Améliorer l’attractivité des États membres, des régions et des villes ; 

  Encourager  l’innovation,  l’entrepreneuriat  et  la  croissance  de  l’économie  de  la 

connaissance ; 

  Créer des emplois plus nombreux et de meilleure qualité. 

La CT et CTN sont conçues pour atteindre des objectifs spécifiques visant à contribuer 
aux objectifs généraux, à savoir : 

 

 

la  CT  vise  à  appuyer  l’intégration  économique  et  sociale  dans  les  zones  divisées 
par  les  frontières  nationales  qui  font  face  à  des  problèmes  communs  nécessitant 
des  solutions  communes.  Elle  a  été  conçue  pour  mettre  l’accent  sur  le 
« renforcement  de  la  compétitivité  des  régions  frontalières »  et  contribuer  à 
« l’intégration  économique  et  sociale,  surtout  en  présence  de  disparités 
économiques des deux côtés de la frontière » ; 

la  coopération  transnationale  vise  à  accroître  la  coopération  au  niveau  macro-
régional quand il est nécessaire de renforcer l’intégration économique et sociale et 
la cohésion sur les questions d’importance stratégique. 

Principaux résultats des programmes Interreg 

Réalisations et résultats 

Les programmes de CT (5,574 milliards d’euros, budget « alloué ») ont financé plus de 
6 800  projets  dans  les  secteurs  visés  par  le  règlement  européen  de  200613,  en 
mettant  l’accent  sur  l’innovation  et  l’entrepreneuriat,  l’environnement,  les  transports, 
le tourisme et la culture. Plus de la moitié de ces projets ont porté sur des thèmes liés 
à la « qualité de vie » (tourisme, culture, sport, santé, sécurité). Environ 1 600 projets 
ont  porté  sur  le  développement  économique,  par  exemple  sur  la  mise  en  place  de 
clusters,  l’établissement  de  réseaux  de  coopération  et  sur  les  transferts  de 
connaissances  et  de  technologie.  Les  1 292  projets  liés  à  l’environnement  ont 
notamment  porté  sur  la  gestion  des  ressources  naturelles,  les  menaces  naturelles,  le 
changement climatique et la biodiversité. 

13  Règlement (CE) n° 1083/2006 du Conseil. 

July 2016 - 25 

 
 
 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Ces projets ont fourni des produits et des résultats conformes aux objectifs spécifiques 
de  la  CT  et  axés  sur  les  principales  priorités  de  la  stratégie  de  Lisbonne  pour  la 
croissance  et  l’emploi.  Plus  précisément,  ils  ont  contribué  à  l’élargissement  de 
l’économie  de  la  connaissance  dans  les  régions  frontalières  (surtout  les  programmes 
dans les États membres de l’UE des 12), par exemple en augmentant les capacités de 
recherche  et  de  développement  et  les  transferts  transfrontaliers,  et  en  stimulant  les 
capacités  d’innovation  dans  les  PME  dans  les  régions  frontalières.  Ils  ont  également 
contribué  à  stimuler  la  diversification  de  l’économie  locale  grâce  au  tourisme  et  à  la 
culture. En matière d’environnement, les projets de la  CT ont été  davantage orientés 
sur  les  améliorations  des  connaissances  et  des  politiques  par  le  biais  de  l’analyse,  la 
recherche  et  la  mise  en  commun  des  meilleures  pratiques.  Cela  a  conduit  à  une 
meilleure  intégration  de  la  gestion  et  de  la  protection  de  l’environnement,  même  s’il 
demeure des obstacles juridiques et administratifs. Un certain nombre de programmes 
ont  porté  sur  les  infrastructures  et  systèmes  visant  à  accroître  l’accessibilité 
transfrontalière,  avec  pour  résultat  des  gains  de  temps,  une  amélioration  de 
l’accessibilité  des  territoires  périphériques  et  le  renforcement  de  la  sécurité.  Les 
projets  de  CT  ont  également  contribué  à  améliorer  l’accès  aux  soins  de  santé  et  à 
améliorer  les  infrastructures  d’enseignement.  Ils  ont  moins  contribué  à  des  objectifs 
tels  que  l’amélioration  de  l’accès  aux  marchés  et  le  développement  du  commerce 
transfrontalier ou l’intégration des marchés de l’emploi transfrontaliers. 

Les  programmes  de  CTN  (1,766 milliards  d’euros,  budget  « alloué »)  étaient 
également  conformes  à  la  stratégie  de  Lisbonne.  Ils  ont  été  utilisés  dans  un  large 
éventail  de  secteurs  pour  soutenir  les  activités  communes  à  l’échelle  transnationale. 
Les programmes de CTN ont financé 1 134 projets, principalement dans le domaine de 
l’environnement  et  du  changement  climatique.  Ils  ont  également  abordé  le 
développement  économique  et  l’accessibilité,  même  si,  dans  ce  dernier  cas,  qui 
constituait l’une des principales priorités, le nombre d’initiatives transnationales  a été 
moindre  (140  projets  dans  13  programmes  de  CTN).  Les  projets  de  CTN  étaient 
principalement  destinés  à  la  mise  en  œuvre  d’une  gestion  commune  ou  coordonnée 
des  ressources  naturelles  et  de  la  protection  de  l’environnement  et  au  renforcement 
des  réseaux  ou  des  partenariats  entre  les  PME  et  les  centres  technologiques  ou  de 
recherche au niveau transnational. 

Dans  l’ensemble,  la  spécificité  des  programmes  de  CTN  était  moins  claire.  La  nature 
des  projets  était  comparable  à  ceux  mis  en  œuvre  au  titre  des  programmes  de  CT, 
mais  avec  une  visée  territoriale  plus  vaste.  L’évaluation  n’a  pas  trouvé  beaucoup 
d’exemples  de  projets  visant  à  traiter  les  questions  d’importance  stratégique  pour  la 
cohésion au niveau transnational. 

Dans  l’ensemble,  le  programme  interrégional  Interreg  IV C  (0,306 milliard  d’euros)  a 
permis d’importants échanges d’expériences et de pratiques. Ces échanges ont généré 
des  effets  d’apprentissage  et  ont  conduit  au  transfert  de  connaissances  entre  les 
partenaires  concernés,  en  particulier  dans  le  cadre  de  projets  de  capitalisation. 
L’initiative  de  capitalisation  thématique  a  permis  d’atteindre  un  nouveau  public, 
d’élargir la diffusion externe et d’améliorer la visibilité des connaissances utiles.  Il est 
difficile  d’évaluer  dans  quelle  mesure  cela  a  donné  lieu  à  une  utilisation  efficace  du 
transfert des connaissances. 

Bon  nombre  de  projets  transnationaux  et  transfrontaliers  n’auraient  pas  vu  le  jour 
sans  l’existence  d’Interreg,  qui  demeure  un  instrument  unique  pour  appuyer  les 
initiatives  conjointes  au-delà  des  frontières.  À  cet  égard,  les  ressources  financières 
fournies  par  Interreg  constituent  l’exemple  le  plus  marquant  de  valeur  ajoutée  de  la 

July 2016 - 26 

European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

politique de cohésion à l’échelle européenne, mais il faut un engagement à long terme 
pour assurer la pérennité des résultats. 

Effets plus généraux 

Au-delà de ce qui précède, les programmes ont également contribués à des effets plus 
larges,  notamment  concernant  l’atténuation  des  obstacles  spécifiques  à  la 
coopération 
la  distance)  et 
l’amélioration de l’intégration sociale. 

les  barrières  culturelles  et 

(essentiellement 

Un  des  résultats  essentiels  des  programmes  Interreg  a  été  leur  contribution  au 
renforcement  de  la  coopération  parmi  un  large  éventail  de  parties  prenantes  (par 
exemple  les  centres  de  recherche  et  les  universités,  les  PME,  les  administrations  en 
charge  de  l’environnement).  Cela  englobe  les  réseaux  formels  et  informels,  des  liens 
institutionnalisés  et  des  relations  ad  hoc  (par  exemple  des  partenariats  de  recherche 
conjointe et la mise en commun des pratiques). 

Ce  renforcement  de  la  coopération  a  entraîné  la  création  ou  la  consolidation  d’une 
identité  régionale,  avec  une  meilleure  reconnaissance  par  les  parties  prenantes  dans 
une zone donnée de la valeur de la coopération transfrontalière et une amélioration du 
capital social (y compris la connaissance des partenaires de l’autre côté de la frontière 
et une meilleure compréhension des possibilités de coopération). Il a aussi contribué, 
mais dans une moindre mesure, à l’amélioration de la visibilité de la zone comme une 
entité cohérente. 

la  distance  physique  et 

Les  programmes  Interreg  ont  également  contribué  à  lever  certains  obstacles,  en 
linguistiques,  culturelles  et 
particulier 
les  barrières 
psychologiques.  Même 
administratives  et  juridiques)  continuent  d’entraver  l’intégration  et  la  coopération 
territoriale, l’évaluation a révélé que les frontières existantes  sont de moins en moins 
considérées  comme  un  obstacle.  Cela  concerne  essentiellement  la  distance  et  les 
barrières culturelles, et c’est moins le cas pour les barrières juridiques, administratives 
et économiques. 

certains  obstacles 

(principalement 

les  barrières 

si 

Enfin,  les  programmes  ont  également  contribué  au  développement  de  l’organisation 
institutionnelle au-delà des frontières dans les zones de la CT. 

Le règlement de l’UE14 ambitionne aussi une contribution des programmes  Interreg  à 
l’intégration  économique  et  au  renforcement  de  la  compétitivité  des  régions 
frontalières. À cet égard, l’évaluation a constaté que les projets de CT ont contribué à 
renforcer  les  capacités  d’innovation,  à  améliorer  l’efficacité  de  la  protection  des 
ressources naturelles et de la prévention des  risques  et à renforcer l’accessibilité des 
transports ou l’accès aux services publics. Mais ces contributions sont restées locales, 
sans générer d’effet précis sur l’ensemble du territoire. 

De  même,  l’évaluation  a  aussi  constaté,  dans  une  moindre  mesure,  une  certaine 
réduction  des  barrières  technologiques,  mais  sans  trouver  d’élément  probant  de 
réduction  des  barrières  économiques  ou  juridiques/institutionnelles.  Ceci  étant  dit,  il 
est raisonnable de considérer que les barrières juridiques (en particulier celles liés à la 
réglementation  du  travail,  à  la  fiscalité,  aux  services  de  santé,  au  développement  de 
l’activité économique) et les obstacles liés aux différences de cultures administratives 

14  Règlement (CE) n° 1083/2006 du Conseil. 

July 2016 - 27 

                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

et  de  cadres  juridiques  nationaux  ont  été  difficiles  à  aborder  par  les  programmes 
(parce  que  ces  obstacles  nécessitent  aussi  des  décisions  au  niveau  national  ou 
régional). 

La situation est comparable en ce qui concerne les effets des programmes  de CTN. Il 
existe  des  exemples  d’amélioration  de  l’intégration  en  termes  de  stratégies  et  de 
politiques  de  protection  de  l’environnement,  en  lien  notamment  avec  des  milieux 
environnementaux 
zones  montagneuses). 
L’évaluation a aussi constaté des résultats en termes d’amélioration des transports et 
des réseaux. Mais ces résultats sont restés limités par rapport aux ambitieux défis et 
aux objectifs de la stratégie de Lisbonne renouvelée. 

(bassins  maritimes  et 

communs 

Facteurs influençant l’effet des programmes Interreg 

Les  résultats  mentionnés  ci-dessus  doivent  être  considérés  à  la  lumière  des  facteurs 
qui ont influencé la capacité des programmes Interreg à produire des effets. 

Tout d’abord, les objectifs initiaux du règlement de l’UE étaient très ambitieux, surtout 
si  l'on  tient  compte  du  poids  financier  des  programmes.  Comme  indiqué  dans  le 
rapport  principal,  les  dotations  par  habitant  des  programmes  Interreg,  surtout  dans 
les nouveaux États membres, étaient minimes par rapport aux montants par habitant 
d’autres  programmes  FESI.  Les  attentes  en  termes  d’impact  au-delà  du  niveau  du 
projet spécifique doivent tenir compte de ce facteur. 

Il  est  également  important  de  noter  que  les  règlements  et  directives de  l’UE15  ne 
spécifient pas en détail comment la coopération territoriale européenne doit contribuer 
à la stratégie de Lisbonne. Ils laissent une marge pour poursuivre la coopération à la 
fois comme une fin en soi et comme un moyen d’intégration économique et sociale. 

Dans  cette  perspective,  les  programmes  de  CT  ont  souvent  été  utilisés  comme  un 
instrument  visant  essentiellement  à  développer  la  coopération  et  les  liens,  sans 
nécessairement  envisager  un  fort  effet  de  levier  de  cette  coopération  dans  le  cadre 
d’une intégration économique plus large. Cela apparaît clairement dans les objectifs et 
les indicateurs définis, et dans ce que les autorités de gestion considèrent comme les 
principaux  résultats  de  leurs  programmes  (fréquemment  exprimés  en  termes  de 
renforcement  de  la  coopération).  Souvent,  les  parties  prenantes  elles-mêmes 
mentionnent  également  l’amélioration  de  la  coopération  comme  objectif  principal  des 
programmes.  Cette  approche  n’est  pas  en  contradiction  avec  les  textes  de  l’UE.  En 
effet,  comme  indiqué  ci-dessus,  beaucoup  de  textes  officiels  mentionnent  la 
coopération  comme  objectif,  sans  nécessairement  spécifier  s’il  s’agit  d’un  moyen  ou 
d’une fin en soi. 

Le fait que les programmes ont produit peu de résultats en termes d’amélioration de la 
compétitivité  et  de  l’intégration  au  niveau  du  territoire  peut  en  outre  être  lié  à  des 
choix spécifiques de  politiques publiques. En effet, les régions et les acteurs ont 
pu  identifier  eux-mêmes  les  principaux  obstacles  et  les  opportunités  à  traiter  par  le 
biais  des  programmes  Interreg.  Une  telle  approche  par  la  demande  a  été  utile  en  ce 
qui  concerne  la  promotion  des  programmes  sur  mesure,  qui  ont  abordé  des  défis 
transfrontaliers  spécifiques  bien  identifiés  et  les  principales  barrières  et  possibilités  à 

15  Com  (2005)  299,  la  politique  de  cohésion  pour  soutenir  la  croissance  et  l’emploi : 

orientations stratégiques communautaires 2007-2013. 

July 2016 - 28 

                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

cet  égard.  Mais  cette  approche  a  aussi  eu  des  inconvénients.  Tout  d’abord,  le 
règlement16 n’est pas très clair quant aux types de défis à traiter par la CT et la CTN. 
Dans le concept de « défis communs », les programmes de CT ont regroupé des défis 
spécifiques  relatifs  aux  zones  frontalières  et  des  défis  plus  génériques  qui  sont 
également présents hors des zones frontalières  et ne constituent pas des obstacles à 
l’intégration  (tels  que  la  prévention  de  la  toxicomanie,  le  traitement  du  diabète, 
l’efficacité énergétique,  les ressources renouvelables,  le recyclage, etc.) De même, la 
notion de « questions d’importance stratégique » dans les programmes de CTN n’a pas 
toujours  été  bien  comprise.  Plus  largement,  il  y  a  eu  une  faible  compréhension 
commune entre les autorités de gestion sur le sens exact et la valeur de l’intervention 
au  niveau  transnational,  en  particulier  dans  les  territoires  confrontés  à  une  grande 
diversité  et  à  une  faible  gouvernance  institutionnelle.  Cela  a  conduit  à  des 
programmes  axés  sur  des  préoccupations  communes.  Deuxièmement,  l’approche 
ascendante  n’est  pas  propice  à  la  priorisation  des  objectifs.  Les  programmes  ont 
rarement été intégrés dans une stratégie globale visant à renforcer la compétitivité de 
la  région  frontalière  et  l’intégration  économique.  Encore  une  fois,  ce  n’est  pas  en 
contradiction  avec  le  règlement,  mais  cela  signifie  que  les  projets  individuels,  même 
réussis  en  tant  que  tels,  sont  restés  isolés  des  autres  activités,  ce  qui  a  ainsi  réduit 
leur effet de levier et le potentiel de production d’une masse critique de changement. 

L’intervention au niveau de la « région la plus fonctionnelle » a également été une 
question  complexe  pour  les  programmes  Interreg.  Tout  d’abord,  parce  que  les  zones 
administratives au niveau NUTS 3 (« petites régions pour des diagnostics spécifiques » 
dans  la  nomenclature  des  unités  territoriales  à  des  fins  statistiques)  ne  sont  pas 
pertinentes  pour  traiter  les  défis  des  zones  frontalières.  En  outre,  les  programmes 
manquaient souvent d’une analyse de ce que serait la région la plus « fonctionnelle » 
pour  la  coopération  dans  un  certain  secteur.  Ceci  a  été  aggravé  par  le  fait  que  les 
programmes  sont  intervenus  dans  un  large  éventail  de  secteurs :  une  zone 
géographique  peut  être  pertinente  pour  un  secteur  et  pas  pour  un  autre.  De  même, 
définir le  niveau le  plus  approprié  est  encore  plus  complexe  pour  les  programmes  de 
CTN,  car  la  raison  d’être  d’une  opération  à  ce  niveau  intermédiaire  (entre  le  niveau 
européen, national et régional) n’était pas toujours évidente. 

En  outre,  il  y  a  eu  peu  de  coordination  entre  les  programmes  Interreg  et  ceux  des 
autres  FESI,  et  peu  de  mise  en  commun  des  résultats  des  projets  entre  les  acteurs 
régionaux et les autorités centrales et régionales, les secondes montrant peu d’intérêt 
à  y  participer.  En  conséquence,  l’effet  de  levier  potentiel  des  programmes  Interreg, 
qu’une telle coordination aurait pu favoriser, n’a pas été pleinement réalisé. 

Même si, au sein de chaque programme Interreg,  l’apprentissage a eu lieu à divers 
niveaux  (principalement  en  termes  de  gestion  de  programme  et  de  coopération 
individuelle)  et  même  si  Interreg  IV  C  a  introduit  l’initiative  de  capitalisation 
thématique  (visant  à  diffuser  et  transférer  des  connaissances  au-delà  des  principaux 
acteurs  impliqués),  il  y  a  eu  peu  de  mise  en  commun  des  connaissances  ou  de 
transfert des pratiques, des outils de politique ou des enseignements, outre le premier 
cercle  des  acteurs  directement  impliqués  dans  les  projets.  En  ce  sens,  la  plupart  des 
projets ont été mis en œuvre de manière isolée. 

16  Règlement (CE) n° 1083/2006 et Règlement (CE) n° 1080/2006. 

July 2016 - 29 

                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Enfin,  il  importe  de  signaler  que  dans  la  nouvelle  période  de  programmation 
2014-2020,  l’orientation  sur  les  résultats  est  intégrée  dans  le  règlement  et  la 
programmation  assure  une  concentration  plus  élevée  des  fonds,  met  davantage 
l’accent sur la définition d’une logique d’intervention bien articulée dès le départ et sur 
le renforcement de l’orientation des programmes sur les résultats. 

July 2016 - 30 

European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Zusammenfassung 

Ziel und Zweck der Evaluierung 

Bei  diesem  Dokument  handelt  es  sich  um  den  Abschlussbericht  der  ex-post-
Evaluierung  von  Programmen  zur  Förderung  der  Europäischen  Territorialen 
Zusammenarbeit  (European  Territorial  Cooperation,  ETC),  allgemein  bekannt  als 
Interreg, im Zeitraum 2007 bis 2013.  

Diese  Evaluierung  wurde 
der  Generaldirektion  Regionalpolitik  und 
Stadtentwicklung  in  Auftrag  gegeben  und  ist  Bestandteil  eines  Paketes  von  14 
thematischen  Evaluierungen,  die  zu  einer  übergreifenden  ex-post-Evaluierung  der 
kohäsionspolitischen Programme 2007 bis 2013 beitragen.  

von 

Das  Gesamtziel  der  Evaluierung  ist  es,  die  Ergebnisse  der  Interreg-Programme  zu 
bewerten.  Sie  konzentriert  sich  insbesondere  auf  Kooperationen  in  den  Bereichen 
Forschung,  Technologie  und  Innovation;  Schutz  und  Verbesserung  der  Umwelt  sowie 
Kapazitätsaufbau.  Sie  zielt  auch  darauf  ab,  die  Ergebnisse  des  interregionalen 
Wissenstransfers  in  Interreg  IV  C  zu  bewerten  und  den  Beitrag  der  Programme  zur 
Beschäftigungs- und Wachstumsstrategie zu beurteilen.  

Die  Evaluierung  deckt  Interreg-Programme  ab,  die  während  des  Zeitraums  von  2007 
bis 2013 in allen geographischen Kooperationsräumen umgesetzt wurden.  

Gegenstand der Evaluierung 

Interreg verfügt über eine lange Geschichte vor dem Evaluierungszeitraum. Das erste 
grenzüberschreitende  Programm  wurde  in  den  Jahren  1987  und  1988  aufgestellt.  Bis 
2006  sind  drei  Generationen  von  Interreg-Programmen  lanciert  worden,  von  denen 
jedes spezifische Prioritäten und Implementierungsmodalitäten aufwies.  

Die  Förderperiode  2007-2013  deckt  die  vierte  Generation  von  Interreg-Programmen 
ab. Sie umfasst Programme17 für grenzüberschreitende (56), transnationale (13) oder 
interregionale  (1)  Zusammenarbeit,  Netzwerkaktivitäten  (3:  URBACT,  ESPON  und 
INTERACT), die Heranführungshilfe (IPA, 8) sowie  die Europäische Nachbarschaft und 
Partnerschaft (ENPI). 

Die folgenden Programme werden von dieser Evaluierung abgedeckt18: 

  53  Programme  zur  grenzüberschreitenden  Zusammenarbeit  (Cross-border 
Cooperation,  CBC),  die  darauf  abzielen,  „die  Wettbewerbsfähigkeit  der 
Grenzregionen  zu  stärken“  und  zur  „wirtschaftlichen  und  sozialen  Integration“ 
beizutragen (Ausrichtung A); 

  13  transnationale  Kooperationsprogramme  (transnational  cooperation,  TNC), 
die parallel zur grenzüberschreitenden Zusammenarbeit konzipiert wurden, um 

17  EC,  Regional  and  Urban  Policy,  Territorial  Cooperation  in  Europe.  A  Historical  Perspective, 
2015  (Europäische  Kommission,  Regionalpolitik  und  Stadtentwicklung,  Die  territoriale 
Zusammenarbeit in Europa - Eine historische Perspektive, 2015). 

18  Wie in den Vergabebedingungen, Abschnitt 3.4 festgelegt. 

July 2016 - 31 

                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

die  Kooperation  zwischen  den  Mitgliedsstaaten  auf  makroregionaler  Ebene  zu 
fördern  und  so  Fragen  von  strategischer  Bedeutung  zu  behandeln,  die  nicht 
wirksam auf Ebene der Mitgliedsstaaten adressiert werden können (Ausrichtung 
B); 

  Ein interregionales Kooperationsprogramm (Interreg  IVC), welches Lernen aus 

interregionalem Austausch und Wissenstransfer fördert (Strang C).  

Die 2006 verabschiedeten Verordnungen zu Strukturfonds und insbesondere zu EFRE 19 
legen fest, dass diese Programme sich ausdrücklich auf die Prioritäten der erneuerten 
Lissabon-Strategie (2005), einschließlich ihrer durch das Abkommen des Europäischen 
Rates  in  Göteburg  (2001)  ergänzten  „dritten  Säule“  (der  Umwelt)  konzentrieren 
sollen. 

Das „beschlossene20“ Gesamt- Budget der EU für diese Programme betrug 7,67 Mrd. €, 
davon 5,53 Mrd. € (72 %) für die Ausrichtung grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit, 
1,82 Mrd. € (24 %) für die transnationale Zusammenarbeit und 0,32 Mrd. € (4 %) für 
Interreg IVC. 

Die Methodik 

Das  Team  hat  die  Evaluierung  zwischen  Januar  2015  und  März  2016  in  drei  Stufen 
durchgeführt, wie in den Vergabebedingungen gefordert: 

  Es  begann  mit  einer  Übersicht  über  die  67  Interreg-Programme.  Für  jedes 
Programm  hat  das  Team  die  Qualität  der  Zielsetzungen  und  die 
Programmergebnisse auf der Basis von Dokumentenanalysen sowie Interviews mit 
Verwaltungsbehörden (VB) bewertet und diese Bewertungen anschließend anhand 
einer  gemeinsamen  Struktur  für  alle  67  Interreg-Programme  auf  jeweils  einer 
Seite zusammengefasst. 

  Anschließend 

führte  es 

in  12  Interreg-Programmen  (9  Programme  zur 
grenzüberschreitenden  Zusammenarbeit,  2  Programme  zur  transnationalen 
Zusammenarbeit und Interreg IVC) Fallstudien durch; diese umfassten Feldarbeit, 
einschließlich  105  Einzel-  oder  Gruppen-Interviews  mit  Vertretern  von 
Verwaltungsbehörden, 
Sekretariaten, 
Projektmanagern  und  Akteuren  aus 
regionalen  und  nationalen 
öffentlichen  oder  privaten  Einrichtungen,  fünf  Fokusgruppen  sowie  Umfragen  zu 
den  Ausrichtungen  B  und  C.  Das  Team  hat  die  Ergebnisse 
in  12 
Fallstudienberichten zusammengefasst. 
Im  Dezember  2015  veranstaltete  das  Team  ein  abschließendes  Stakeholder-
Seminar, um die Ergebnisse der Evaluierung zu erörtern und die Akteure mit den 
Sichtweisen von Fachleuten und Praktikern zu konfrontieren. 

Gemeinsamen 

Technischen 

lokalen, 

 

19  Ratsverordnung  (EG)  Nr.  1083/2006  vom  11.  Juli  2006  zur  Festlegung  der  allgemeinen 
Bestimmungen  von  EFRE,  ESF  und  Kohäsionsfond.  VERORDNUNG  (EG)  Nr.  1080/2006  DES 
EUROPÄISCHEN PARLAMENTS UND DES RATES vom 5. Juli über den EFRE. 

20  Das „beschlossene“ Budget entspricht der Finanzentscheidung für das jeweilige Programm. 
Wir haben Daten für 2014 verwendet, dem laut folgender Datenquelle letzten verfügbaren 
Jahr: SFC07_01(g)_Decided_PriorityThemes_Form_Territory_2008-2014 nach Betreiber pro 
Jahr. Die Finanzentscheidung wird im Finanzmodell des jeweiligen Operationellen Programms 
verzeichnet. Hierbei handelt es sich um das für die Zuweisung an Projekte vorgesehene 
verfügbare Budget.  

July 2016 - 32 

                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Die Ziele der Interreg-Programme 

Bei  Interreg  handelt  es  sich  um  einen  Eckstein  der  Kohäsionspolitik  und  der 
europäischen  Integration  sowie  um  das  einzige  umfassende  Instrument,  das  die 
gemeinsame Gestaltung, Integration und Qualität grenzüberschreitenden Lebens auch 
auf transnationaler Ebene behandelt. 

Die EU-Verordnung 1083 aus dem Jahr 2006 definierte die Europäische Territoriale 
Zusammenarbeit als gesondertes Ziel der Kohäsionspolitik. Die Hauptziele der im 
Zeitraum 2007-2013 geförderten Interreg-Programme waren:  

  Stärkung der grenzüberschreitenden Zusammenarbeit über gemeinsame lokale 

und regionale Initiativen,  

  Stärkung der transnationalen Zusammenarbeit durch Maßnahmen zur Förderung 
der integrierten territorialen Entwicklung in Verbindung mit denPrioritäten der 
Gemeinschaft und  

  Stärkung der interregionalen Zusammenarbeit und des Erfahrungsaustauschs auf 

geeigneter territorialer Ebene. 

Zusätzlich wurden die Interreg-Programme als ergänzendes Hilfsmittel zur Verfolgung 
der  drei  Hauptprioritäten  der  erneuerten  Lissabon-Strategie  für  Wachstum  und 
Beschäftigung aufgefasst und verwendet: 

  Verbesserung der Attraktivität von Mitgliedsstaaten, Regionen und Städten;  
  Unterstützung  von 

Innovationen,  Unternehmertum  und  Wachstum  der 

Wissensökonomie und  

  Schaffung von mehr und besseren Arbeitsplätzen.  

Grenzüberschreitende  und  transnationale  Zusammenarbeit  wurden  zur  Verfolgung 
spezifischer Ziele konzipiert, die zu den übergeordneten Zielen beitragen, nämlich:  

  die  grenzüberschreitende  Zusammenarbeit  sollte  die  wirtschaftliche  und  soziale 
Integration  in  durch  nationale  Grenzen  geteilten  Gebieten  unterstützen,  die  sich 
gemeinsamen  Problemen  gegenübersehen  und gemeinsame  Lösungen  benötigen. 
Die  Konzeption  dieser  Ausrichtung  konzentrierte  sich  auf  die  „Stärkung  der 
Wettbewerbsfähigkeit  der  Grenzregionen“  und  zum  Beitrag  zur  „wirtschaftlichen 
und  sozialen  Integration,  insbesondere  in  Bereichen  großer  wirtschaftlicher 
Disparitäten auf beiden Seiten“.  

  Die  transnationale  Zusammenarbeit  sollte  die  Zusammenarbeit  auf  makro-
regionaler  Ebene  in  Bereichen  steigern,  in  denen  die  Notwendigkeit  besteht,  die 
ökonomische  und  soziale  Integration  und  Kohäsion  in  Fragen  von  strategischer 
Bedeutung zu erhöhen. 

Wesentliche Erfolge der Interreg-Programme 

Leistungen und Ergebnisse  

Die  Programme  zur  Förderung  der  grenzüberschreitenden  Zusammenarbeit 
(5,574 Mrd.  €  „bewilligte“  mittel)  haben  über  6.800  Projekte  in  den  von  der  EU-
Verordnung von 200621 adressierten Sektoren finanziert  – mit besonderem Fokus auf 

21  Ratsverordnung (EG) Nr. 1083/2006. 

July 2016 - 33 

 
 
 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Innovation und Unternehmertum, Umwelt, Transport, Tourismus und Kultur. Über die 
Hälfte  davon  bezog  sich  auf  Themen  der  „Lebensqualität“  (Tourismus,  Kultur,  Sport, 
Gesundheit,  Sicherheit).  Etwa  1.600  unterstützten  wirtschaftliche  Entwicklungen  und 
konzentrierten  sich  beispielsweise  auf  Clusterbildung,  auf  den  Aufbau  von 
Kooperationsnetzwerken  und  auf  Wissens-  und  Technologietransfer.  Die  1.292 
Umweltprojekte  behandelten  u.a.  Aspekte  in  Bezug  auf  die  Nutzung  natürlicher 
Ressourcen, natürliche Bedrohungen, Klimawandel und Biodiversität.  

Diese Projekte haben zu Outputs und Ergebnissen geführt, die den spezifischen Zielen 
der grenzübergreifenden Kooperation entsprachen und auf die wesentlichen Prioritäten 
für  Wachstum  und  Beschäftigung  ausgerichtet  waren. 
der  Lissabon-Strategie 
Insbesondere  haben  sie  dazu  beigetragen,  die  wissensbasierte  Wirtschaft 
in 
Grenzregionen zu erweitern (vor allem in Programmen in den EU-12 Mitgliedsstaaten), 
so  beispielsweise  durch  Steigerung  von  Forschungs-  und  Entwicklungskapazitäten 
sowie  Transfers  über  Grenzen  hinweg  wie  auch  durch  Stimulierung  der 
Innovationsfähigkeit  in  KMU  in  Grenzregionen.  Sie  trugen  auch  dazu  bei,  die 
Diversifizierung  der  lokalen  Wirtschaft  durch  Tourismus  und  Kultur  zu  fördern. 
Hinsichtlich  der  Umwelt  waren  die  grenzübergreifenden  Projekte  eher  auf  „weiches“ 
Faktoren und Politikverbesserung durch Analyse, Forschung und Weitergabe von „best 
practice“  (vorbildliche  Verfahren)  ausgerichtet.  Dies  führte  zu  stärker  integriertem 
Umweltmanagement  und  -schutz,  selbst  wenn  die  gesetzlichen  und  administrativen 
Hindernisse  bestehen  blieben.  Zahlreiche  Programme  unterstützten  harte 
Infrastrukturen und Verfahren zur Erhöhung der Erreichbarkeit über Grenzen hinweg, 
was zu einer Verkürzung der Fahrzeiten, besserer Erreichbarkeit entlegenerer Gebiete 
und  mehr  Sicherheit  führt.  Die  grenzübergreifenden  Projekte  haben  auch  zu  einem 
besseren  Zugang  zum  Gesundheitswesen  und  besseren  Ausbildungseinrichtungen 
beigetragen.  Weniger  trugen  sie  zu  Zielen  wie  Verbesserung  des  Zugangs  zu 
grenzüberschreitenden  Märkten  und  der  Entwicklung  des  grenzüberschreitenden 
Handels oder einer Integration der Arbeitsmärkte bei.  

transnationaler  Ebene 

Die  transnationalen  Programme  (1,766  Mrd.  €  „bewilligte“  mittel)  entsprachen 
ebenfalls  der  Lissabon-Strategie.  Sie  wurden  in  zahlreichen  Sektoren  verwendet,  um 
gemeinsame  Aktivitäten  auf 
zu  unterstützen.  Die 
transnationalen  Programme  finanzierten  1.134  Projekte,  im  Wesentlichen  im  Bereich 
Umwelt  und  Klimawandel.  Sie  adressierten  auch  die  wirtschaftliche  Entwicklung  und 
Erreichbarkeit,  selbst  wenn  bei  letzterer    -eine  der  Hauptprioritäten  -  die  Anzahl  der 
transnationalen  Initiativen  geringer  war  (140  Projekte  in  den  13  transnationalen 
Programmen).  Transnationale  Projekte  waren  hauptsächlich  auf  die  Implementierung 
eines  gemeinsamen  oder  gegliederten  Managements  natürlicher  Ressourcen  und  des 
Umweltschutzes  gerichtet  sowie  auf  die  Verstärkung  von  Netzwerken  oder 
Partnerschaften,  die  KMU  und  Forschungs-  oder  Technologiezentren  auf 
transnationaler Ebene verbinden.   

Insgesamt war die Spezifität der transnationalen Programme weniger klar. Die Art der 
Projekte  war  mit  denjenigen  vergleichbar,  die  im  Rahmen  der  grenzübergreifenden 
Programme  implementiert  wurden,  jedoch  mit  breiterer  räumlicher  Zielsetzung.  Die 
Evaluierung hat nicht viele Beispiele für Projekte mit Fokus auf Aspekten strategischer 
Bedeutung für Kohäsion auf transnationaler Ebene vorgefunden. 

Insgesamt  hat  das  interregionale  Programm  Interreg  IV  C  (0,306  Mrd.  €)  einen 
umfangreichen  Austausch  von  Erfahrungen  und  Praktiken  ermöglicht.  Dieser 
Austausch  hat  Lerneffekte  geschaffen  und  zu  einem  Wissenstransfer  zwischen  den 

July 2016 - 34 

European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

beteiligten  Partnern  geführt,  insbesondere  innerhalb  der  Kapitalisierungsprojekte.  Die 
thematische  Kapitalisierungsinitiative  ermöglichte  das  Erreichen  einer  neuen 
Zielgruppe, die Verstärkung der externen Verbreitung und die verbesserte Sichtbarkeit 
nützlichen  Wissens.  Das  Ausmaß,  in  dem  dies  zu  einer  wirksamen  Nutzung  des 
Wissenstransfers geführt hat, ist nur schwer zu bewerten.   

Viele  der  grenzüberschreitenden  und  transnationalen  Projekte  wären  ohne  Interreg 
nicht möglich gewesen; Interreg bleibt ein einzigartiges Instrument zur Unterstützung 
gemeinsamer grenzüberschreitender Initiativen. Diesbezüglich stellen die von Interreg 
bereitgestellten  Ressourcen  das  herausragendste  Beispiel  für  einen  EU-Mehrwert  aus 
der  Kohäsionspolitik  dar,  allerdings  benötigen  sie  unterdessen  eine  langfristige 
Verpflichtung zur Sicherstellung der Nachhaltigkeit von Ergebnissen. 

Breitere Wirkungen 

Jenseits  der  oben  beschriebenen  Leistungen  und  Ergebnisse  auf  Projektebene  haben 
die  Programme  auch  zu  breiteren  Wirkungen  beigetragen,  insbesondere  hinsichtlich 
einer  besseren  sozialen 
Integration  sowie  der  Beseitigung  spezifischer 
Kooperationshindernisse  aufgrund  kultureller  Gegebenheiten  oder  großer 
räumlicher Distanzen. 

Eines  der  wesentlichen  Ergebnisse  der  Interreg-Programme  war  ihr  Beitrag  zu  einer 
besseren  Kooperation  zwischen  verschiedenen  Akteuren  (z.B.  Hochschulen  und 
außeruniversitäre  Forschungseinrichtungen,  kleine  und  mittlere  Unternehmen, 
Umweltbehörden,  etc.).  Dies  beinhaltete 
informelle  Netzwerke, 
institutionalisierte Kollaborationen und ad-hoc-Verbindungen (z.B. Partnerschaften für 
Forschungskooperationen sowie Austausch von Methoden). 

formelle  und 

Eine  solche  verbesserte  Zusammenarbeit 
führte  zudem  zur  Schaffung  und 
Konsolidierung  einer  regionalen  Identität.  Dies  liegt insbesondere  an  der  gestiegenen 
Anerkennung  und  Wertschätzung  der  grenzüberschreitenden  Zusammenarbeit  durch 
Akteure  in  einem  bestimmten  Bereich  sowie  einem  erhöhten  Sozialkapital  (einschl. 
vertiefte  gegenseitige  Kenntnis  von  den  Partnern  jenseits  der  Grenze  und  einem 
besseren  Verständnisses  des  Potentials  von  Zusammenarbeit).  Dies  trug  auch  – 
jedoch in geringerem Maße – zu einer besseren Sichtbarkeit und Außendarstellung der 
Region als kohärente Einheit bei.  

Die  Interreg-Programme  trugen  auch  zur  Überwindung  spezieller  Hindernisse  bei, 
insbesondere der räumlichen Distanzen. Aber auch kulturelle, mentale und sprachliche 
Hindernisse  wurden  beseitigt.  Während  einige  Hindernisse 
(hauptsächlich 
administrativer und gesetzlicher Natur) weiterhin die territoriale Zusammenarbeit und 
Integration  erschweren,  hat  die  Evaluierung  festgestellt,  dass  bestehende  Grenzen 
immer  weniger  als  Hindernisse  empfunden  werden.  Dies  betraf  vor  allem  die 
kulturellen  und  entfernungsbedingte  Hindernisse,  jedoch  weniger  die  gesetzlichen, 
administrativen und wirtschaftlichen Hindernisse. 

Schließlich  haben  die  Programme  auch  zur  grenzüberschreitenden  Entwicklung  der 
institutionellen Organisation in CBC-Gebieten beigetragen. 

July 2016 - 35 

European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Die  EU-Verordnung22  strebte  auch  einen  Beitrag  der  Interreg-Programme  zur 
wirtschaftlichen  Integration  und  Stärkung  der  Wettbewerbsfähigkeit  der 
Grenzregionen  an.  Diesbezüglich  hat  die  Evaluierung  festgestellt,  dass  CBC-Projekte 
zur  Stärkung  der  Innovationsfähigkeit,  zu  besserem  Schutz  der  natürlichen 
Ressourcen  und  einer  wirksameren  Gefahrenprävention  wie  auch  zur  leichteren 
Erreichbarkeit  der  Verkehrsanbindungen  oder  der  öffentlichen  Dienstleistungen 
beigetragen haben. Diese Befunde wurden vor allem auf lokaler Ebene identifiziert und 
hatten keine deutlichen Auswirkungen auf das Gebiet als Ganzes. 

Die Evaluierung stellte zudem fest, dass die technologischen Hindernisse in geringem 
Maße  reduziert,  die  wirtschaftlichen  oder  gesetzlichen/institutionellen  Hindernisse 
jedoch  nicht  verringert  wurden.  Vor  diesem  Hintergrund  ist  davon  auszugehen,  dass 
gesetzliche  Hindernisse  (insbesondere  in  Gesundheitsdiensten,  im  Arbeitsrecht,  bei 
Steuern  oder  Geschäftsentwicklung)  und  Hindernisse,  die 
in  Verbindung  mit 
gesetzlichen 
administrativer 
Unterschieden 
Rahmenbedingungen  stehen,  durch    die  Programme  nur  schwer  adressiert  werden 
konnten  (da  sie  auch  Entscheidungen  auf  nationaler  oder  regionaler  Ebene 
erforderten). 

nationalen 

Kultur 

und 

in 

Die  Situation  ist  hinsichtlich  der  Auswirkungen  der  TNC-Programme  vergleichbar.  Es 
bestehen  Beispiele  für  eine  bessere  Integration  von  Umweltschutzstrategien  und  -
politiken,  insbesondere  hinsichtlich  gemeinsamer  ökologischer  Werte  (üblicherweise 
gemeinsam  genutzter  Meeresbecken  und  Bergregionen).  Die  Evaluierung  hat  auch 
einige Ergebnisse bezüglich besserer Verbindungen von Transport- und ITC-Netzwerke 
identifiziert.  Diese  jedoch  blieben  im  Vergleich  zu  den  Herausforderungen  und 
ambitionierten Zielen der überarbeiteten Lissabon-Strategie recht beschränkt. 

Faktoren, welche Einfluss auf die Wirkung der Interreg-Programme haben 

Die oben angeführten Ergebnisse sollten im Lichte der Faktoren betrachtet werden, die 
die Fähigkeit der Interreg-Programme beeinflusst haben, Auswirkungen zu generieren.  

Zunächst  waren  die  zu  Beginn  von  der  EU-Verordnung  formulierten  Ziele  sehr 
ambitioniert,  insbesondere,  wenn  man  das  finanzielle  Gewicht  der  Programme 
berücksichtigt. Wie im Hauptbericht beschrieben, waren die Pro-Kopf-Beträge, die den 
Interreg-Programmen  ausgestattet  wurden,  marginal  im  Vergleich  zu  den  Pro-Kopf-
Beträgen  in  anderen  ESIF-Programmen,  insbesondere  in  den  neuen  Mitgliedsstaaten. 
Die  Erwartungen  hinsichtlich  der  Auswirkungen  jenseits  der  speziellen  Projekt-Ebene 
sollten dies berücksichtigen. 

Es  ist  zudem  zu  beachten,  dass  die  EU-Verordnungen  und  -Richtlinien23  nicht  im 
Einzelnen  dargelegt  haben,  wie  die  europäische  territoriale  Zusammenarbeit  zur 
Lissabon-Strategie  beitragen  sollte.  Sie  haben  Raum  gelassen,  sowohl  um  die 
Zusammenarbeit als Selbstzweck zu verfolgen, aber auch als Mittel zu wirtschaftlichen 
und sozialen Integration. 

22  Ratsverordnung (EG) Nr. 1083/2006 

23  COM(2005)  299,  Cohesion  Policy  in  Support  of  Growth  and  Jobs:  Community  Strategic 

Guidelines, 2007-2013  

July 2016 - 36 

                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

insofern  häufig  als 

CBC-Programme  sind 
Instrument  genutzt  worden,  um 
Zusammenarbeit  und  Verbindungen  zu  stärken,  ohne  jedoch  eine  starke  Förderung 
dieser  Zusammenarbeit  hinsichtlich  einer  breiteren  wirtschaftlichen  Integration 
unbedingt  in  Betracht  zu  ziehen.  Dies  ergibt  sich  deutlich  sowohl  aus  den  von  ihnen 
definierten  Zielen 
die 
Verwaltungsbehörden  als  die  Hauptergebnisse  ihrer  Programme  betrachtet  haben 
(häufig  ausgedrückt  im  Sinne  einer  verbesserten  Zusammenarbeit).  Oft  haben  die 
Akteure  selbst  ebenfalls  die  bessere  Zusammenarbeit  als  das  wesentliche  Ziel  der 
Programme  definiert.  Diese  Herangehensweise  widersprach  nicht  dem,  was  die  EU-
Texte  vorschreiben.  Tatsächlich  heben  viele  dieser  offiziellen  Texte,  wie  bereits 
erwähnt,  die  Zusammenarbeit  als  Ziel  hervor,  ohne  sie  unbedingt  als Selbstzweck  zu 
betrachten. 

Leistungsindikatoren 

dem,  was 

und 

und 

aus 

in 

für 

nützlich 

enthalten 

und  Gelegenheiten 

Herangehensweise  war 

Die Tatsache, dass die Programme hinsichtlich verbesserter Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und 
Integration  auf  regionaler  Ebene  wenig  Ergebnisse  zeigten,  kann  auch  mit 
spezifischen  Politikentscheidungen  in  Verbindung  gebracht  werden.  Tatsächlich 
konnten  Regionen  und  Akteure  selbst  die  prioritären  Hindernisse  und  Gelegenheiten 
feststellen, die von den Interreg-Programmen  adressiert werden müssen.  Eine solche 
Förderung 
bedarfsorientierte 
die 
maßgeschneiderter  Programme,  die  sich  auf  bestimmte,  gut 
identifizierte 
fokussieren  sowie  die  wesentlichen 
grenzüberschreitende  Herausforderungen 
behandelten.  Diese 
Hindernisse 
dieser  Hinsicht 
Herangehensweise 
jedoch  hatte  auch  einige  Nachteile.  Erstens  waren  die 
Verordnungen24  nicht  deutlich  genug  hinsichtlich  der  Arten  von  Herausforderungen, 
die  CBC  und  TNC  adressieren  müssen.  Innerhalb  des  Konzeptes  „gemeinsamer 
gruppenspezifische 
Herausforderungen“ 
Herausforderungen  in  Bezug  auf  Grenzgebiete  mit  eher  eigenen  Herausforderungen, 
die auch außerhalb der Grenzgebiete gelten und keine Hindernisse für die Integration 
darstellen 
Energieeffizienz, 
nachwachsende  Rohstoffe,  Recycling  usw.).  Auch  war  die  Bedeutung  von 
„Angelegenheiten von strategischer Bedeutung“ in TNC-Programmen nicht immer klar 
verstanden  worden.  Darüber  hinaus  kein  gemeinsames  Verständnis  unter  den 
Verwaltungsbehörden  der  genauen  Bedeutung  und  dem  Wert  von  Arbeiten  auf 
transnationaler  Ebene,  besonders  in  Gebieten,  die  durch  eine  breite  Diversität  und 
einer schwachen institutionellen Steuerung geprägt sind. Dies führte zu Programmen, 
die  eher  von  gemeinsamen  Anliegen  gesteuert  wurden.  Zweitens  hat  die  bottum-up-
Herangehensweise die Priorisierung der Ziele nicht begünstigt. Die Programme wurden 
nur  selten  in  eine  globale  Strategie  eingebunden,  die  auf  die  Stärkung  der 
Wettbewerbsfähigkeit  der  Grenzregion  und  auf  die  wirtschaftliche  Integration 
ausgerichtet ist. Auch dies widersprach nicht der Verordnung, bedeutete jedoch, dass 
einzelne  Projekte,  obwohl  sie  für  sich  erfolgreich  waren,  von  anderen  Aktivitäten 
isoliert blieben – somit wurden ihre Unterstützung und ihr Potential für die Schaffung 
einer kritischen Masse zur Veränderung verringert. 

Diabetesbehandlung, 

Drogenprävention, 

CBC-Programme 

(z.B. 

die 

Die  Intervention  auf  Ebene  der  „Region  mit  höchster  Funktionalität“  war  für  die 
sind  die 
Interreg-Programme  ebenfalls  ein  komplexes  Thema.  Zunächst 
Verwaltungsbereiche auf NUTS3-Ebene („Kleine Regionen für besondere Diagnosen“ in 
der Nomenklatur territorialer Einheiten für Statistiken) nicht gänzlich für den Umgang 

24  Ratsverordnung (EG) Nr. 1083/2006 und Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1080/2006 

July 2016 - 37 

                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

mit grenzüberschreitenden Herausforderungen relevant. Darüber hinaus fehlte es den 
Programmen  häufig  an  einer  Analyse  dessen,  was  die  „funktionalste“  Region  für 
Zusammenarbeit  in  einem  bestimmten  Sektor  wäre.  Dies  wurde  durch  die  Tatsache 
ergänzt,  dass  die  Programme  in  einer  Vielzahl  von  Sektoren  ansetzten.  Ein 
geographischer  Bereich  kann  tatsächlich  für  einen  bestimmten  Sektor  relevant  sein, 
jedoch  nicht  für  einen  anderen.  Die  Festlegung  der  geeigneten  Ebene  ist  noch 
komplexer,  wenn  es  um  TNC-Programme  geht,  da  die  Überlegungen  für  den  Betrieb 
auf dieser Zwischenebene (zwischen EU, nationaler und regionaler Ebene) nicht immer 
klar war.  

Darüber  hinaus  bestand  nur  eine  geringe  Koordination  zwischen  Interreg  und 
anderen  ESIF-Programmen.  Zudem  kam  es  auch  nur  in  geringem  Maße  zu  einer 
Weitergabe  von  Projektergebnissen  zwischen  den  regionalen  Akteuren  und  den 
zentralen/regionalen  Behörden,  wobei  letztere  auch  nur  wenig  Interesse  zeigten, 
überhaupt  einbezogen  zu  werden.  Die  potentielle  Hebelwirkung  der  Interreg-
Programme, die eine solche Koordination begünstigt haben könnte, wurde somit nicht 
erreicht. 

Wenngleich innerhalb der  einzelnen Interreg-Programme  ein Lerneffekt über mehrere 
Ebenen  hinweg  stattgefunden  hat  (vor  allem  hinsichtlich  der 
individuellen 
Zusammenarbeit  und  dem  Programmmanagement)  und  auch  wenn  Interreg  IV  C  die 
thematische  Kapitalisierungsinitiative  (mit  dem  Ziel,  Wissen  über  die  involvierten 
Hauptakteure  hinweg  zu  verbreiten  und  zu  transferieren)  eingeführt  hat,  hat  letztlich 
nur  ein  geringfügiger  Wissenstransfer  bzw.  ein  schwacher  Transfer  von  Praktiken, 
Politik-instrumenten oder Lerneffekten über den ersten Kreis der direkt in die Projekte 
involvierten  Akteure  hinweg  stattgefunden.  Die  meisten  Projekte  wurden  in  dieser 
Hinsicht isoliert umgesetzt. 

Schließlich  muss  darauf  hingewiesen  werden,  dass  während  des  neuen  Programm-
Zeitraums 2014-2020 die in die Verordnungen  und Programmgestaltung eingebettete 
Ergebnisorientierung  eine  höhere  Konzentration  der  Geldmittel,  ein  stärkerer  Fokus 
auf die Definition einer gut artikulierten Interventionslogik zu Programmbegin und eine 
Stärkung der Ergebnisorientierung der Programme sicherstellt. 

July 2016 - 38 

European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

1. Introduction  

This document is the final report from the ex-post evaluation of programmes aimed at 
promoting  European  Territorial  Cooperation  (ETC),  widely  known  as  Interreg,  during 
the period 2007-2013. The evaluation is Work Package 11 of the ex-post evaluation of 
Cohesion  Policy  programmes  2007-2013,  focusing  on  the  European  Regional 
Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF). 

The work extended over the period  January 2015 – March 2016, and was carried out 
by an international team of experts led by ADE, Belgium.  

In addition to this introduction, the report is structured in five more chapters:  

  Chapter 2 presents the scope of the evaluation ; 
  Chapter 3 presents the methodology used, starting with the key evaluation topics;  
  Chapter 4 presents the brief overview and context;   
  Chapter  5  is  devoted  to  the  findings  from  the  analyses  of  programmes,  covering 

all Evaluation Questions;  

  Chapter  6  draws  the  general  Conclusions  from  the  evaluation,  pointing  to  the 

possible implications for the future of Interreg programmes. 

The report also has the following annexes:  

  Annex 1 provides the list of programmes covered by the evaluation;  
  Annex  2  includes  the  details  on  the  stakeholder  event  organised  in  Brussels  in 

December 2015;  

  Annex  3  presents  67  one-page  structured  summaries  assessing  the  quality  of 
objective setting and the achievements of ETC programmes, organized by Strand 
and by Type of programme.  

Case studies are available as separate reports. 

July 2016 - 39 

 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

2. Scope of the evaluation 

Work Package 11 of the ex-post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programme 2007-2013 
covers 67 programmes supporting the European territorial cooperation objective. This 
objective  includes  three  priorities25  which  correspond  to  three  strands  of  the  fourth-
generation Interreg Operational Programmes:  

1.  Cross-border  cooperation  (CBC),  Strand  A.  Under  this  priority,  56 
Operational Programmes were supported by the ERDF 2007-2013, of which 
53 are covered by this evaluation26. 

2.  Transnational  cooperation  (TNC),  Strand  B.  All  13  transnational 
cooperation  programmes  co-funded  by  the  ERDF  are  included  in  the scope 
of the study.  

3.  Inter-regional cooperation, Strand C. Four programmes were supported 
under  this  priority  of  which  only  the inter-regional  cooperation  programme 
Interreg IVC is analysed under Strand C27. 

The scope of the study thus includes 67 of the 73 Interreg programmes. The full list of 
programmes within the scope of the evaluation is presented in Annex 1. 

25  REG 1080/2006, Article 6. 

26  The ToRs do not include four programmes within the scope as they address specific issues or 
involve Croatia which has recently joined the EU. This concerns: OP 2008CB163PO001: Spain 
-  external  borders  2008-2013;  OP  2013CB163PO002:  Hungary-Croatia  and  OP 
2013CB163PO001: Slovenia - Croatia 2007-2013.  

27  URBACT, INTERACT and ESPON 2013 are outside the study’s scope. 

July 2016 - 41 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

3. Methodology of the evaluation 

The  aim  of  this  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  Interreg  programmes  2007-2014  is, 
according to the Terms of Reference:  

  To establish what results have been achieved via cooperation programmes across 
Europe,  with  particular  focus  on  cooperation  in  the  field  of  research,  technology 
and  innovation,  environmental  protection  and  enhancement,  and  capacity 
building. 

  To assess the results of knowledge transfer across regions from the Interreg IV C 
Programme:  investigate  the  capacity  and  structures  established  to  make 
knowledge  and  concepts  gained  in  their  projects  available  to  other  regions 
(“capitalising on knowledge”) and look for evidence  on the use of this knowledge 
by other regions. 

  To  analyse  to  what  extent  ETC  programmes  contributed  to  the  Jobs  and  Growth 

agenda. 

To fulfil this task, the evaluation work was carried out in three steps, further detailed 
below: 

1.  Overview  of  67  Interreg  programmes:  for  each  programme,  the  quality  of 
objective  setting  and  the  extent  of  the  programme’s  achievements  were 
assessed by the evaluation team. 

2.  Case  studies  on  12  Interreg  programmes,  covering  the  three  Strands  and 

deepening the initial analysis carried out during the first step. 

3.  Final  stakeholder  event:  to  discuss  the  findings  of  the  previous  two  steps  and 

confront them with the views of experts and practitioners. 

3.1 Overview of 67 Interreg programmes 

An  overview  of  all  programmes  was  performed  to  assess  the  quality  of  objective-
setting  and  the  extent  to  which  the  objectives  have  been  achieved  by  the 
programmes.  

the 

During  the  months  of  March  and  April  2015,  experts  with  appropriate  country 
in  key  programme  documents 
expertise  analysed 
(Operational  Programme,  Annual  Implementation  Reports,  evaluation  reports,  etc.) 
and interviewed representatives of the 67 of the Managing Authorities (MAs) ) and/or 
Joint  Technical  Secretariats  (JTS),  either  face-to-face  or  by  phone,  in  order  to 
complement this information (67 interviews). 

information  reported 

On  the  above  basis,  one-page  structured  summaries  have  been  prepared  for  each  of 
the 67 Interreg programmes (see Annex 3). 

Interviews  with  MAs  proved  necessary  –  but  insufficient  -  to  complement  the 
documented  information  base:  the  information  provided  in  programme  documents  is 
not adequate for assessing whether objectives have been achieved, due to the lack of 
focus  both  of  the  objectives  and  of  the  record  of  achievements.  While  conversations 
with MAs were often informative, they did not mitigate the above problems: they can 
only partially replace missing robust information on the main Evaluation Question, i.e. 
whether the objectives set for programmes have been achieved in practice. This is an 
important limitation on the present evaluation. 

July 2016 - 43 

 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

The evaluation team used an on-line tool with which programmes experts contributed 
to  the  consolidation  of  emerging  transverse  findings  from  the  analysis  of  Interreg 
programmes.   

3.2 Case studies on 12 Interreg programmes 

Case  studies  were  conducted  by  the  core  evaluation  team  between  June  and 
September  2015  on  a  sample  of  9  CBC  programmes,  2  TNC  programmes  (defined  in 
the terms of reference: Baltic Sea and Atlantic Area) and Interreg IVC. The purpose of 
the  case  studies  was  to  deepen  the  analysis  of  the  contribution  of  Interreg 
programmes to cooperation and to economic and social integration between European 
regions.  This  work  was  performed  through  a  field  analysis  of  one  week,  involving 
interviews  and  focus  groups  with  Managing  Authorities,  stakeholders  and  people  and 
organisations  involved  in  projects  in  each  programme  area.  For  the  transnational 
cases,  two  online  surveys  addressed  to  project  stakeholders  were  carried  out  in 
addition  to  face-to-face  interviews.  The  reports  for  each  of  these  case  studies  are 
available as separate reports. 

In total, 105 individual or grouped interviews were conducted with representatives of 
Managing Authorities, Joint Technical Secretariats, Project Managers and stakeholders 
from  local,  regional  and  national  public  or  private  bodies.  Five  Focus  Groups  were 
organised during the implementation of case studies. 

For  Strand  B,  the  fieldwork  looked  for  evidence  of  programme  achievements  and 
assessed whether the programmes contribute to strengthened territorial development 
linked  to  EU  priorities.  For  the  Baltic  Sea  region,  the  field  work  investigated  to  what 
extent objectives and achievements are in line with the strategic objectives defined in 
the relevant macro-regional strategy, while for the Atlantic Area the aim was to assess 
to what extent the programme has contributed to supporting the concept and design 
of a possible new territorial-sea-basin strategy. 

For  Strand  A,  the  case  studies  cover  9  CBC  programmes  within  three  themes: 
research,  technological  development,  innovation  and  entrepreneurship  (RDTI); 
environment  protection  (ENV)  and  capacity-building  (CAP).  The  field  work  looked  at 
resources  spent,  types  of  activities,  results  and  impacts  achieved  under  the  three 
themes;  the  extent  to  which  the  cooperation  saw  enhanced,  barriers  to  cooperation 
removed  and  learning  generated;  and  evidence  for  the  contribution  of  the 
programmes.  The  field  work  also  assessed  the  future  for  learning  mechanisms  and 
cooperation  and  the  sustainability  of  achievements;  the  quality  of  the  monitoring 
systems  and  the  added  value  of  the  INTERACT  programme.  Finally,  the  case  studies 
looked  at  the  coordination  and  synergies  between  Interreg  programmes  and  national 
and regional programmes. 

The case studies were chosen to reflect the diversity of programmes and according to 
the budgetary priority placed on the three themes in their OP. The selection according 
to the three themes was carried out as follows: the programmes chosen belong to the 
“top  10”  programmes  which  give  priority  to  these  themes,  in  either  absolute  or 
relative  terms  (or  both)  (Tables  3.1  to  3.3).  The  choice  amongst  these  programmes 
has also taken into consideration other parameters: a good balance between areas in 
North, South, East and West of Europe, and the results from the analyses undertaken 
in the previous step. 

July 2016 - 44 

 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Table 3. 1 Top 10 Programmes that allocate the highest amount or share of 
budget on Research and Technological development, Innovation and 
Entrepreneurship 

Source: DG Regio database (SFC), allocated amounts 2013; data processing ADE 

Table 3. 2 Top 10 Programmes that allocate the highest amount or share of 
budget on Environment protection and enhancement 

Source: DG Regio database (SFC), allocated amounts 2013; data processing ADE 

July 2016 - 45 

TOP10Programme titleEURO millionProgramme title% in total allocated budget1España-Portugal86,9Nord53,2%2Deutschland-Niederlande64,0Ireland Wales52,9%3Hungary-Romania59,5Deutschland-Niederlande46,9%4Öresund-Kattegatt-Skagerrak50,9Öresund-Kattegatt-Skagerrak44,5%5Northern Ireland, the Border Region of Ireland and the West Coast of Scotland49,8Euregio Maas Rijn43,4%6France (Manche) – Angleterre46,7"Fehmarnbeltregion" (Sjælland-Ostholstein-Lübeck-Plön)40,4%7España-Francia40,7Syddanmark-Schleswig-K.E.R.N34,0%8Hungary-Slovakia35,9Botnia-Atlantica32,8%9France-Wallonie-Vlaanderen34,7Rhin supérieur32,6%10Italia-Francia Alpi 32,6España-Portugal31,8%19Average share in budget 53 OP Strand A18,7%Average budget 53 OP Strand ATOP10Programme titleEURO millionProgramme title% in total allocated budget1España-Portugal86,9Nord53,2%2Deutschland-Niederlande64,0Ireland Wales52,9%3Hungary-Romania59,5Deutschland-Niederlande46,9%4Öresund-Kattegatt-Skagerrak50,9Öresund-Kattegatt-Skagerrak44,5%5Northern Ireland, the Border Region of Ireland and the West Coast of Scotland49,8Euregio Maas Rijn43,4%6France (Manche) – Angleterre46,7"Fehmarnbeltregion" (Sjælland-Ostholstein-Lübeck-Plön)40,4%7España-Francia40,7Syddanmark-Schleswig-K.E.R.N34,0%8Hungary-Slovakia35,9Botnia-Atlantica32,8%9France-Wallonie-Vlaanderen34,7Rhin supérieur32,6%10Italia-Francia Alpi 32,6España-Portugal31,8%19Average share in budget 53 OP Strand A18,7%Average budget 53 OP Strand ATOP10Programme titleEURO millionProgramme title% in total allocated budget1France (Manche) – Angleterre58,0Italia-Malta58,4%2Italia-Francia Alpi (ALCOTRA)53,3Italia-Francia Alpi (ALCOTRA)37,0%3Programme des 2 mers43,5France (Manche) – Angleterre34,1%4España-Portugal38,4Austria – Hungary32,0%5Hungary-Romania34,6Central Baltic30,3%6Sachsen – Tschechien33,4Romania–Bulgaria30,2%7Northern Ireland, the Border Region of Ireland and the West Coast of Scotland33,0Grensregio Vlaanderen - Nederland28,9%8Česká republika – Polsko32,7Italia-Slovenia28,2%9Italia-Slovenia32,6Slovenia-Hungary28,2%10Central Baltic31,4South Baltic26,6%18,8Average share in budget 53 OP Strand A18,6%Average budget 53 OP Strand ATOP10Programme titleEURO millionProgramme title% in total allocated budget1France (Manche) – Angleterre58,0Italia-Malta58,4%2Italia-Francia Alpi (ALCOTRA)53,3Italia-Francia Alpi (ALCOTRA)37,0%3Programme des 2 mers43,5France (Manche) – Angleterre34,1%4España-Portugal38,4Austria – Hungary32,0%5Hungary-Romania34,6Central Baltic30,3%6Sachsen – Tschechien33,4Romania–Bulgaria30,2%7Northern Ireland, the Border Region of Ireland and the West Coast of Scotland33,0Grensregio Vlaanderen - Nederland28,9%8Česká republika – Polsko32,7Italia-Slovenia28,2%9Italia-Slovenia32,6Slovenia-Hungary28,2%10Central Baltic31,4South Baltic26,6%18,8Average share in budget 53 OP Strand A18,6%Average budget 53 OP Strand A 
 
  
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Table 3. 3 Top 10 programmes that allocate the highest amount and share of 
budget on Capacity building 

Source: DG Regio database (SFC), allocated amounts 2013; data processing ADE 

With  these  considerations  in  mind,  Table  3.4  presents  the  choice  of  case  studies  in 
Strand A.  

Table 3. 4 Strand A programmes selected as case studies 

Types 

RDTI 

Environment 

Capacity building 

Germany-
Netherlands 

Northern Ireland, 
the Border Region of 
Ireland and the 
West Coast of 
Scotland 

North 

Old borders 

New borders 

France (Channel) - 
England 

Spain- 
Portugal 

Romania– 
Bulgaria 

Saxony- 
Czech Republic 

South Baltic  

Hungary-Slovakia 

July 2016 - 46 

TOP10Programme titleEURO millionProgramme title% in total allocated budget1Sachsen - Tschechien18,9Deutschland/Bayern – Österreich12,6%2España-Portugal17,6Sachsen - Tschechien9,5%3Northern Ireland, the Border Region of Ireland and the West Coast of Scotland12,9Sachsen - Polen8,5%4Sachsen - Polen8,6Grande Région7,6%5Grande Région8,1Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein7,1%6Deutschland/Bayern – Österreich6,1Northern Ireland, the Border Region of Ireland and the West Coast of Scotland7,1%7Rhin supérieur4,8Rhin supérieur6,8%8France-Wallonie-Vlaanderen3,8España-Portugal6,4%9Italia-Francia frontiera marittima3,5Syddanmark-Schleswig-K.E.R.N4,5%10Hungary-Slovakia3,3Slovakia-Austria4,5%3,9Average share in budget 53 OP Strand A2,2%Average budget 53 OP Strand ATOP10Programme titleEURO millionProgramme title% in total allocated budget1Sachsen - Tschechien18,9Deutschland/Bayern – Österreich12,6%2España-Portugal17,6Sachsen - Tschechien9,5%3Northern Ireland, the Border Region of Ireland and the West Coast of Scotland12,9Sachsen - Polen8,5%4Sachsen - Polen8,6Grande Région7,6%5Grande Région8,1Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein7,1%6Deutschland/Bayern – Österreich6,1Northern Ireland, the Border Region of Ireland and the West Coast of Scotland7,1%7Rhin supérieur4,8Rhin supérieur6,8%8France-Wallonie-Vlaanderen3,8España-Portugal6,4%9Italia-Francia frontiera marittima3,5Syddanmark-Schleswig-K.E.R.N4,5%10Hungary-Slovakia3,3Slovakia-Austria4,5%3,9Average share in budget 53 OP Strand A2,2%Average budget 53 OP Strand A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

3.3 Final stakeholder event 

The final phase of the evaluation included a stakeholder event which was organized on 
11  December  2015  in Brussels,  with  54  participants.  The  findings  emerging  from  the 
above two steps of the evaluation were diffused in the form of a synthesis paper and 
formed the basis for the seminar. The seminar was interactive, providing ample space 
for  discussion.  It  was  structured  in  two  types  of  session:  1)  one  plenary  session 
devoted to discussion of general findings; 2) three parallel sessions on specific findings 
by  type  of  cooperation  (cross-border,  trans-national  and  inter-regional).  Open 
discussions  and  feedback  by  a  multidisciplinary  audience  took  place  and  enabled  the 
evaluation team to:  

  Complement  preliminary  conclusions  with  insights,  taking  into  account  additional 

information or perspectives   

  Test  findings  against  relevant  experience  by  practitioners  and  knowledge  of 
experts  in  the  area  of  territorial  cooperation  and/or  in  relation  with  thematic 
dimensions  such  as  R&D,  innovation  and  entrepreneurship,  Environment  and 
Capacity building  

  Deepen  the  analysis  of  the  main  issues  as  well  as  the  policy  implications  for 

territorial cooperation 

The  agenda,  list  of  participants,  minutes  and  results  of  the  satisfaction  enquiry  are 
appended in Annex 2. 

July 2016 - 47 

 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

4. Brief overview and context 

4.1  ETC  objectives  and  priorities  under  the  2007-2013  programming 
period 

The  history  of  Interreg  is  already  lengthy.  The  2007-2013  Interreg  programmes  are 
the fourth generation of cross-border interventions. The first cross-border programme 
with  financial  support  from  European  authorities  was  set  up  in  1987  and  1988  as  a 
pilot  programme.  Interreg  ran  from  1991  to  2006,  covering  three  generations  of 
Interreg programmes (Interreg  I 1991-1993,  Interreg  II 1994-1999,  and Interreg  III 
2000-2006).  They  were  designed  and  implemented  as  a  Community  initiative,  and 
characterised by specific features within the EU policy framework, e.g.:    

  Focusing on innovative approach; 
  Oriented  to  common  responses  to  common  problems  encountered  by  border 

regions;  

  Promoting  local  involvement  of  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders  previously  not 

participating directly in EC interventions.  

cooperation 

complemented 

For  the  2007-2013  programming  period,  the  former  Community  initiative  was 
mainstreamed  into  the  Cohesion  Policy  which  explicitly  introduced  the  “territorial” 
dimension  of  cohesion.  Interreg  became  one  of  the  three  main  funding  objectives. 
“regional 
Territorial 
competitiveness  and  employment”  objectives.  Interreg  became  part  of  the  revised 
policy  framework  for  Cohesion  policy  and  therefore  subject  to  the  new  orientations, 
mainly  strengthening  the  linkages  between  ERDF,  the  Lisbon  Agenda  and  the 
achievement  of  its  objectives  targeted  on  the  knowledge-based  economy;  on 
sustainable  economic  growth  with  more  and  better  jobs;  and  on  promotion  of  more 
strategic  operational  programmes  “focused  more  strongly  than  in  the  past  at  the 
priority level”28. 

“convergence” 

and 

the 

EU Regulation 1083 of 2006 defined the following goals for European Territorial 
Cooperation programmes funded in 2007-2013 programming period:  

  Strengthen cross-border cooperation through joint local and regional initiatives;  

  Strengthen transnational cooperation by means of actions conducive to integrated 

territorial development linked to the Community priorities, and;  

  Strengthen interregional cooperation and exchange of experience at the 

appropriate territorial level. 

The  Commission’s  Communication  of  July  200529  has  highlighted  the  main  goals  and 
reasons for undertaking and supporting territorial cooperation during the programming 
period 2007-2013:  “The aim of the new cooperation objective is to promote stronger 

28  EC, The New programming period 2007-2013, Indicative guidelines on Evaluation methods : 

Ex ante evaluation. 

29  Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007-2013 

, Brussels, 5.7.2005 COM(2005) 299 final 

July 2016 - 49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

integration  of  the  territory  of  the  Union  in  all  its  dimensions.  In  so  doing,  cohesion 
policy supports the balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the Union 
at the level of its macro-regions and reduces the “barrier effects” through cross-border 
cooperation  and  the  exchange  of  best  practices.  These  actions  are  based  on  shared 
development  strategies  of  the  territories  concerned  (national,  regional,  local)  and  on 
the networking of the key stakeholders. As such, they have an obvious European value 
added which increases even more in the enlarged and more diversified Union”30.  

The  overall  vision  that supported  the  interventions  of  the  EC  and  the  decision  to  use 
part of the EU budget to promote territorial cooperation was the following: 

1.  Cross  border,  transnational  and  interregional  cooperation  is  a  complementary 
tool  under  the  Cohesion  policy  with  the  aim  of  pursuing  the  three  main 
priorities  of  the  EU  agenda  established  under  the  renewed  Lisbon  strategy  for 
growth and jobs, namely :  

a.  “Improving  the  attractiveness  of  Member  States,  regions  and 
cities by improving accessibility, ensuring adequate quality and level of 
services, and preserving their environmental potential; 

b.  Encouraging  innovation,  entrepreneurship  and  the  growth  of  the 
knowledge  economy  by  research  and  innovation  capacities,  including 
new information and communication technologies; and  

c.  Creating  more  and  better  jobs  by  attracting  more  people  into 
employment  or  entrepreneurial  activity,  improving  adaptability  of 
workers and enterprises and increasing investment in human capital”31. 
2.  Territorial  cooperation  is  mainly  seen  as  a  means  of  relieving  constraints  and 
obstacles  due  to  national  boundaries  (the  “barrier  effects”)  which  were 
perceived  as  restricting  the  potential  of  the  European  Territory  as  a  whole  for 
full competitiveness. 

3.  According  to  the  guidelines,  the  sharing  of  experience,  best  practice  and 
development  strategies  along  with  the  networking  of  key  stakeholders  are  all 
considered as added value per se, thereby implying that it may be pursued as 
an end in itself. 

4.  Within  that  framework  cross-border  cooperation  aims  at  integrating  areas 
divided  by  national  borders  that  face  common  problems  requiring  common 
solutions.  The  communication  specifies  that  “cross-border  cooperation  should 
focus  on strengthening the competitiveness of  the border regions. In addition, 
it should contribute to  economic and social integration, especially where there 
are wide economic disparities on either side.” 

5.  Transnational  cooperation  has  been  conceived  in  parallel  as  a  means  of 
increasing cooperation between Member States at a macro-regional level where 
there  is  a  need  to  increase  economic  and  social  integration  and  cohesion  on 
matters of strategic importance (as physical interconnection of territories {e.g. 
investments  in  sustainable  transport}  and  intangible  connections  {networks, 
exchanges between regions and between the parties involved}). 

6.  Interregional  cooperation  completes  the  picture  in  terms  of  promoting 
exchange of experiences and best practice between regions with a focus on the 
Growth 
and 
entrepreneurship, the environment and risk prevention. 

innovation,  SMEs 

Jobs  Agenda: 

strengthening 

and 

30  Com (2005) 299 final p10  

31  COM (2005) 299 final, p12 

July 2016 - 50 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

More  specifically,  the  priorities  to  be  followed  by  the  ERDF  under  the  ETC  objective32 
for  the  2007-2013  programming  period  have  been  specified  for  both  CBC  and  TNC 
programs.  They  were  clearly  stated  and  focused  on  the  priorities  of  the  renewed 
Lisbon agenda (including the Göteborg agreement) for both CBC and TNC, promoting 
cooperation as a means of contributing to the overall results of the Lisbon strategy. 

In addition, Interreg programmes have been perceived and used as a complementary 
tool  aimed  at  pursuing  the  three  main  priorities  of  the  renewed  Lisbon  Strategy  for 
Growth and Jobs: 

Improving the attractiveness of Member States, regions and cities;  

 
  Encouraging  innovation,  entrepreneurship  and  the  growth  of  the  knowledge 

economy; and  

  Creating more and better jobs.  

CBC specificities 

Since  the  first  Interreg  programme,  the  role  of  cross-border  cooperation  has  been 
reinforced within the Cohesion policy. The principle of geographical proximity has been 
linkages  with  Community  priorities  were  progressively 
consolidated,  stronger 
established, and the broadening of the Union has led to a considerable extension of its 
territorial coverage and of the variety of situations to be addressed: 
 
 

Interreg I introduced the decentralised territorial policy framework in Europe.  
Interreg II included for the first time all regions along the internal and external EU 
borders, putting specific emphasis on maritime areas and taking into account the 
entry of Finland, Sweden and Austria into the Community (EU 15). 

  Like  the  other  Community  Initiatives,  Interreg  III  was  marked  by  the  major 
enlargement  of  the  EU  from  15  to  25  Member  states  in  2004.  During this  period 
Interreg  III  A  was  enshrined  in  the  Lisbon  strategy  in  respect  of  economic 
development as well as in the Goteborg strategy on sustainable development. 
  The fourth generation of Interreg 2007-2013, including Interreg  IVA,  was geared 

to the priorities of the Growth and Jobs agenda.  

Under  the  2007-2013  programming  period  the  CBC  policy  was  oriented  towards  the 
priorities  of  the  Growth  and  Jobs  agenda  and  to  a  strengthening  of  the 
competitiveness  of  border  regions.  The  following  priorities  were  set  for  CBC  and 
expressed as follows in the Regulation of July 200633.  

1.  “Encouraging  entrepreneurship,  in  particular  the  development  of  SMEs, 

tourism, culture, and cross-border trade; 

2.  Encouraging  and  improving  the  joint  protection  and  management  of  natural 
and  cultural  resources,  as  well  as  the  prevention  of  natural  and  technological 
risks; 

3.  Supporting links between urban and rural areas; 
4.  Reducing  isolation  through  improved  access  to  transport,  information  and 
communication  networks  and  services,  and  cross-border  water,  waste  and 
energy systems and facilities; 

5.  Developing collaboration, capacity and joint use of infrastructures, in particular 

in sectors such as health, culture, tourism and education”. 

32  Specified  in  the  Regulation  of  July  2006  (Regulation  (EC)  n°1080/2006  of  the  European 

Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the ERDF  

33  Regulation n°1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the 

European Regional Development Fund  

July 2016 - 51 

 
 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Other  additional  areas  have  been  included,  such  as  legal  and  administrative 
cooperation,  cross-border  labour  market  integration,  local  employment  initiatives, 
gender  equality  and  equal  opportunities,  training  and  social  inclusion,  and  sharing  of 
human resources and facilities for R&TD34. 

The strategic guidelines on cohesion35, put a particular emphasis on the  priority “that 
an  effort  be  made  to  concentrate  the  assistance  on  the  main  priorities  in  support  of 
growth  and  jobs”  even  if  they  recognise  that  “cooperation  programmes  should  be 
tailored according the particular situation faced by each border region”.  

TNC specificities 

Transnational cooperation is more recent than CBC (strand A) and has been set up to 
address specific challenges different from those targeted by CBC, notably with a view 
to addressing issues with greater strategic relevance.  

One  can  distinguish  between  three  periods  in  terms  of  development  of  transnational 
cooperation programmes:  

  The  Community  Initiative  Interreg  IIC  was  launched  in  1997  with  the  aim  of 
complementing  the  existing  Interreg  initiative  on  cross-border  cooperation  by 
introducing EU funding for transnational cooperation across large contiguous areas. 
The  idea  was  to  address  transnational issues  defined  as  “issues  that  have  effects 
across  national  and  regional  borders  that  cannot  be  addressed  adequately  at  the 
local,  regional  or  national  level  alone  and  need  cooperation  across  administrative 
borders for effective responses”36 (rescaling).  

  During  the  Interreg  IIIB  (2000-2006)  programming  period,  the  TNC  has  pursued 
the  same  objectives  and  encouraged  the  development  of  “transnational  spatial 
visions”  within  the  framework  of  the  “European  Spatial  Development  Perspective” 
(ESDP)  finalised  in  1999.  More  concretely,  as  described  in  a  recent  study,  it 
considered that “truly transnational issues may arise from tasks that by definition 
cross  national  borders  such  as  water  management  of  transnational  river  basins. 
They  may  also  be  related  to  issues  where  sources  and  effect  are  physically 
separated,  such  as  in  the  case  of  air  pollution,  or  where  public  policies  of  one 
country  will  have  externality  effects  in  other  countries,  such  as  changes  in  the 
capacity of seaports”37. Several EU policies also require cooperation across national 
borders 
implementation  and  “supranational”  management  and 
transnational  cooperation,  such  as  the  EU  water  policy  (EU  Water  framework 
Directive),  the  EU  transport  infrastructures  policy  (EU  Trans-European  Transport 
Network), the EU energy infrastructure policy, and the EU ICT infrastructure policy.   

their 

for 

34  Specific  provision  for  PEACE  programme  are  also  presented,  PEACE  Programme  between 
Northern Ireland and the border counties of Ireland aimed at contributing to promote social 
and economic stability in the regions concerned. 

35  COM (2005) 299 final, p31 

36  Baltic Sea, Danube and Macro-Regional Strategies : A model for Transnational Cooperation in 

the EU ?, Dr Stéphanie Dürh, 2011 

37  Are There arguments for a Central Europe Macro regional strategy ? Dr Stephanie Dürh, Final 

Report, November 2014 

July 2016 - 52 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

  With Interreg IV B (2007-2013), rather than being guided by the spatial planning 
perspectives  of  the  ESDP  as  were  the  previous  programmes,  it    was  oriented 
towards  achieving  the  EU’s  jobs  and  growth  objectives  as  set  out  in  the  Lisbon-
Goteborg strategies. Matters of strategic relevance are still considered as priorities 
but issues of common concern were also implicitly integrated.  Issues of common 
concern  may  be  defined  as  “experienced  in  different  places  in  the  transnational 
region…  and  be  suitably  addressed  within  nation-states,  but  transnational 
cooperation  might  bring  more  innovative  an  effective  solutions  by  combining 
experiences from different places”38. They are more related to shared problems or 
potential,  i.e.  demographic  changes,  migration  flows,  education,  innovation  in 
regions  and  transnational  research  clusters,  shortage  of  skilled  labour,  and  in 
terms  of  priority  should  be  tackled  through  CBC  cooperation  and  strand  A 
programmes. 

In  contrast  with  CBC,  the  2006  regulation  did  not  specifically  require  joint  strategies 
for TNC programme. The development of transnational cooperation should be achieved 
«through  the  financing  of  networks  and  of  actions  conducive  to  integrated  territorial 
development »39, 
impact  and 
concentrating primarily on the following priority areas: 

transnational  dimension  or 

requiring  a  clear 

1.  “Innovation:  the  creation  and  development  of  scientific  and  technological 
networks,  and  the  enhancement  of  regional  R&TD  and  innovation  capacities, 
where these make a direct contribution to the balanced economic development 
of transnational areas”; 

2.  “Environment:  water  management,  energy  efficiency,  risk  prevention  and 

environmental protection activities with a clear transnational dimension”; 

3.  “Accessibility:  activities  to  improve  access  to  and  quality  of  transport  and 
transnational 

these  have  a  clear 

telecommunications  services  where 
dimension”; 

4.  “Sustainable  urban  development:  strengthening  polycentric  development  at 
transnational, national and regional level, with a clear transnational impact”40. 

The  guidelines  highlighted  the  need  to  re-examine  the  map  of  the  existing  zone  for 
transnational  cooperation  in  order  to  ensure  conditions  for  “implementing  basic 
structural  actions”41.  It  insisted  for  drawing  up  the  future  macro-regions  to  take 
account of “territorial coherence and functional criteria of geographical nature”42. 

38  Idem. 

39  Regulation n°1080/2006 

40  Regulation n°1080/2006 

41  COM (2005) 299 final, p32 

42  Idem 

July 2016 - 53 

 
 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

4.2 Specific features for the 2007-2013 programming period 

4.2.1 More autonomous strategic approach 

From  the  programming  period  2007-2013  cooperation  became  a  separate  structural 
fund  objective43  –  the  European  territorial  objective  –  which  also  means  that  it 
requires a more autonomous strategic approach. The integration of cooperation as an 
objective  resulted  in:  (i)  a  focus  on  obtaining  specific  results;  (ii)  recognition  of  the 
territorial dimension of cohesion and the particular needs and characteristics of border 
areas;  (iii)  better  visibility  of  INTERREG  in  relation  to  mainstreaming  programmes  at 
regional and national levels; (iv) establishment of clearer links with sector  specific or 
thematic strategies.   

4.2.2 Territorial specificities, integrated approach and differentiation 

The approach followed by the EU under the Cohesion policy stresses the need to adapt 
each  programme  or  set  of  territorial  objectives  to  the  specific  characteristics  of 
territories.  The  Communication44    states:  “Naturally,  not  all  of  these  more  detailed 
guidelines  will  be  relevant  to  all  regions.  The  most  appropriate  mix  of  investments 
ultimately depends  on the analysis of the strengths and weaknesses  of each Member 
State and region”.  

Taking  account  of  the  specific  characteristics  of  territories  under  the  ETC  objective  is 
also crucial as expressed by the Communication:  “One of the determining features of 
cohesion  policy  -  by  contrast  with  sectoral  policies  -  is  its  capacity  to  adapt  to  the 
particular  needs  and  characteristics  of  specific  geographical  challenges  and 
opportunities…  the  Improving  territorial  cohesion  is  a  matter  both  of  method  –  i.e. 
determining  whether  a  multi-disciplinary  or  integrated  approach  is  needed  –  and  of 
recognising 
the  particular  problems  presented  by  different  geographical 
circumstances.  Success  in  the  area  of  territorial  cohesion  therefore  depends  on  a 
comprehensive strategy which sets the framework within which specific objectives and 
actions are pursued”. 

The  official  documents  are not  very explicit on how to handle specific characteristics, 
strategies  and  differentiation.  The  regulation45  did  not  highlight  the  need  for  more 
strategic  interventions  for  Interreg.  Neither  the  guidelines46  nor  the  regulations47 
mentioned the need to elaborate macro-regional strategies for TNC regions.  

43  Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of 5 July 2006 on the ERDF and Council Regulation (EC); No 
1083/2006  of  11  July  2006  laying  down  general  provisions  of  the  ERDF,  ESF  and  the 
Cohesion fund. 

44  COM(2005)  299,  Cohesion  Policy  in  Support  of  Growth  and  Jobs:  Community  Strategic 

Guidelines, 2007-2013. 

45  Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006. 

46  COM(2005) 299. 

47  Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 and Council Regulation (EC); No 1083/2006. 

July 2016 - 54 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

For  CBC  programmes,  the  guidelines48  provided  some  guidance  to  help  introduce  a 
sequencing  according  to  the  level  of  cooperation  development,  but  it  still  remains 
vague:  

  Generally applicable recommendations for future cross-border cooperation are not 
always relevant owing to the wide diversity of situations. At the same time, given 
the  obstacles  created  by  borders,  a  useful  starting  point  is  the  improvement  of 
existing transport and communication infrastructure and the development, where 
necessary,  of  new  links.  These  are  pre-conditions  for  establishing  or  developing 
cross-border contacts. 

  Where  the  basic  conditions  for  cross-border  cooperation  are  already  in  place, 
cohesion  policy  should  focus  assistance  on  actions  that  bring  added  value  to 
cross-border  activities,  for  example  increasing  cross-border  competitiveness 
through  innovation  and  research  and  development;  connecting  intangible 
networks  (services)  or  physical  networks  (transport)  to  strengthen  cross-border 
identity  as  a  feature  of  European  citizenship;  promotion  of  cross-border  labour 
market integration; and cross-border water management and flood control. 

But the policy framework of CBC has provided neither a specific typology of territories 
nor detailed and clear criteria as to whether a territory could be considered as having 
met all the basic conditions. 

Some  other  specificities  are  addressed  in  the  official  framework  (Council  decision, 
regulation and guidelines) such as: 

  Particular  attention  needs  to  be  paid  to  the  challenges  and  opportunities 
presented  by  the  changing  external  borders  of  the  Union  following  enlargement. 
Here  there  is  a  need  to  promote  coherent  cross-border  actions  that  encourage 
economic activity on both sides” (Council Decision of 6 October 2006). 

  Bilateral  cooperation  between  maritime  regions  may  address  priorities  of  TNC 

programmes as well as priorities given to CBC.  

4.3 Governance arrangements for implementing Interreg programmes 

Chapter  III  of  the  regulation  (EC)  n°  1080/2006  on  the  ERDF  contains  specific 
provisions,  including  those  on  management,  on  the  “European  territorial  objective”, 
and on Interreg.   

According to this regulation, the  Managing Authorities responsible for the preparation 
of  each  Interreg  programme  are  designated  by  the  Member  States  involved  in  the 
cooperation.  The  designated  single  Managing  Authority49  (MA)  in  charge  of  the 
management  and  implementation  of  the  Operational  programme,  can  be  a  national, 
regional  or  local  public  authority  (or  public  or  private  body)  located  in  one  of  the 
involved  Member  states.  Thus,  each  programme  is  negotiated  by  all  participating 
Member States and the Commission.   

48  COM(2005) 299. 

49  Member  states  also  designate  a  certifying  authority  in  charge  of  the  expenditure  and 
applications  for  payment  and  an  independent  audit  authority  responsible  for  verifying  the 
effective functioning of the management and control systems.  

July 2016 - 55 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Member  States  in  the  cooperation  area,  in  agreement  with  the  Managing  Authority 
they  have  designated,  set  up  the  Monitoring  Committee  (MC)  of  the  Interreg 
programme.  Its  role  is  to  ensure  the  effectiveness  and  quality  of  the  OP’s 
implementation.  

This  Monitoring  committee  and  the  Managing  Authority  are  assisted  by  a  Joint 
Technical  Secretariat  (JTS),  established  by  the  Managing  Authority  after  consultation 
with Member States represented in the cooperation area. 

The  respective  roles  and  tasks  associated  with  the  above-mentioned  structures  are 
presented in the figure below.  

July 2016 - 56 

1. designate2. set up, in agreement with MA MANAGING AUTHORITY (MA) of the operational programmeMONITORING COMMITTEE (MC)Role : Responsible for managing and implementing the OPRole : Ensure the effectiveness and quality of the implemenation of the OPTasks:Tasks :* select operations for funding in accordance with criteria in OP and rules* consider and approve the criteria (and their revision) for selecting operations* verify the deliverance of co-financed products and services* review progress made towards achieving the speciic targets of the OP* record and store accounting records and collection of data on implementation * examine results of implementation (achievement of targets for each axis; evaluations)* ensure the maintanance of separate accounting system by beneficiairies and other bodies involved in the implementation* consider and approve the annual and final reports on implementation* implement evaluation of the OP* be informed on annual control report and comments of the EC* set up of procedures ensuring that expenditure and audit documents are trailed* possibility to propose revision / examination of the OP* ensure the communication of information to ceritifying authority* consider and approve proposal to amend the contribution of Funds* guide the work of the monitoring commiitee providing to it necessary documentation* draw up final and annual reports* ensure compliance with the information and publicity requirement* provide the EC with information on major projectsMANAGING AUTHORITY (MA) of the operational programmeMONITORING COMMETEE (MC)3. Set up, after consultation with MS MEMBER STATES in the cooperation areaJOINT TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT (JTS)Role : Assist the Managing authorities and the Monitoring committee in carrying out their respective tasks 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

The  establishment  of  the  institutional  set-up  determining  the  decision-making 
structure  of  a  common  Interreg  programme  is  under  the  responsibility  of  the 
cooperating  MS.  In  consequence  the  design  of  joint  management  structures  is  often 
influenced  by  the  heterogeneity  of  existing legal  and  administrative  conditions  at  the 
common border. Key factors identified are:  

  Assets of and experience from pre-existing partnerships 
  The scale of the partnership in the constitution of decision-making structures (e.g. 
the  Monitoring  committee),  taking  into  account  the  existence  of  formalised  and 
institutionalised cooperation structures; 

  The level of the involved partners’ influence in the decision-making process. 

For example the Ireland-Northern Ireland programme has a long history and is based 
on  a  strong  participative  approach  mobilizing  public  authorities,  cross-border 
structures, and socio-economic and sector-specific bodies. These are directly involved 
in  the  decision-making  process  and  have  been  given  voting  rights  in  the  Monitoring 
committee. On the other hand there are examples (especially among the EU-15 MS) of 
stakeholders  having  been  recently  involved  in  European  cooperation  on  internal 
borders.  According  to  the  level  of  their  administrative  and  legal  capacities,  these  MS 
have  more  centralized  management  of  EU  funds,  including  ERDF.  In  consequence, 
partnership  within  decision-making  structures  is  more  limited,  respecting  the  basic 
conditions of the partnership principle of the regulations.  

4.4 EU Budget dedicated to Interreg programmes 2007-2013 

The Regulation 1083/2006 has foreseen EUR 7 750 million for the ETC objective. This 
represents  2.52%  of  the  global  resources  available  for  commitment  (EUR  308  041 
millions) from the Funds50 during the programming period 2007-2013. 

Up to 2013/2014, the budget allocated to the 67 Operational programmes covered by 
this study, was distributed as follows:  

  The 53 CBC programmes account for EUR 5 574 million, the average programme 

size being of EUR 105 million51; 

  The  13  TNC  programmes  account  for  EUR  1  766  million,  with  an  average 

programme size of EUR 136 million;   

  The Interreg IVC has allocated to projects EUR 306 million52
. 

50  ERDF, ESF and the Cohesion fund. 

51  The  information  is  based  on  the  database  from  WP13,  which  is  available  only  for  CBC 
programmes. The information on the allocation to projects comes from the AIR 2014. For the 
TNC allocations the information is based on AIR 2013. 

52  According to AIR 2014. 

July 2016 - 57 

 
 
 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

5. Findings  

5.1 Relevance of Interreg programmes 

The first set of findings addresses the extent to which the Interreg programmes have 
correctly  comprehended  the  EU  strategic  framework  for  cooperation  and  have 
reflected it in the programmes they have put in place.  

It approaches this question in four steps, which examine:  

  The extent to which the programmes have clearly identified the cross-border and 

transnational challenges their regions were facing;  

  The manner in which the programmes have mirrored those needs in the objectives 

to be pursued; 

  The  extent  to  which  the  programmes  were  demand-driven  and  focused  on 

cooperation; 

  The implications of the above in terms of coverage of the programmes. 

These  different  steps  are  applied  first  to  the  cross-border  programmes,  and  then  to 
the transnational cooperation programmes.  

5.1.1 The design of CBC Programmes  

The  design  of  CBC  Programmes  rests  generally  on  a  sound  identification  of  cross-
border challenges, obstacles and opportunities. 

When  designing  programmes,  the  Managing  Authorities  have  used  different 
types  of  information  source,  with  a  specific  emphasis  on  the  SWOT  analyses, 
systematically undertaken for all programmes. Other sources were:  

  Ex-ante evaluations, which existed for all the programmes and which in a number 

of cases were used in one way or another to inform programme design;  

  Good mobilisation of stakeholders; 
  Lessons learned from previous cooperation experience;  and 
  Other studies and data.  

These  tools  have  generally  helped  in  a  sound  manner  to  identify  the  needs, 
challenges,  and  opportunities  presented  by  the  cross-border  regions 
concerned; more specifically:  

  With respect to the SWOT analyses:  

- 

- 

In  about  two-thirds  of  the  programmes  the  evaluation  team  explicitly 
underlined the good quality of these SWOTs53 which were comprehensive, well 
informed and detailed, integrating sector specific and/or thematic dimensions;  

In nearly 90% of cases the SWOTs quite explicitly concerned issues related to 
cross-border/common needs or potential; 

53  The  experts  were  asked  to  identify  whether  there  was  a  SWOT,  not  to  assess  its  quality. 
Nevertheless  in  36  of  the  53  SWOTs  the  experts  explicitly  provided  a  quality  judgement, 
underlining the quality in 34 cases, and highlighting poor quality in two cases.  

July 2016 - 59 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

- 

According to the team, in about four-fifths of cases it was quite clear that they 
helped identify specific types of cross-border or trans-national value-added. 

  The  team  deemed  ex-ante  evaluations to  be  of  uneven  quality.  The  Managing 
Authorities  explained  that  they  accompanied  the  OP  design  processes,  notably  by 
providing  recommendations  on  the  diagnoses  and  the  design  of  the  programmes. 
Even  if  there  was  no  obligation  on  the  Managing  Authorities  in  that  regard,  and 
even if the Programmes did not demonstrate systematically the integration of any 
such  recommendations,  in  several  cases  it  was  clear  that  the  ex-ante  evaluation 
had influenced the quality of the programming. 

  From  interviews  with  MAs  it  appeared  that  most  (90%)  considered  that  they  had 
drawn  lessons  from  previous  programmes.  Lessons  used  were  more  at  the 
operational level than with a strategic character. They did not however receive any 
external support for doing so. They also drew on other studies and data. 

Overall  the  programmes  relied  on  an  extended  analysis  of  cross-border 
obstacles, opportunities and matters of common concern.  

In  about  three-quarters  of  the  programmes,  cross-border  institutions  have  facilitated 
the  identification  of  cross-border  value-added,  and  have  helped  develop  cross-border 
projects.  This  was  reported  in  discussions  with  MAs  during  programme  analyses  or 
case studies. This relates, for instance, to:  

  Cross-border  working  groups  in  the  Northern  Ireland-border  region  of  Ireland-

Western Scotland (3);  

 

 

Institutions of the tri-national state in Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein (12); 

In  the  Baltic  Sea  region,  the  VASAB  is  an  intergovernmental,  multilateral 
institution aiming at fostering co-operation between the 11 countries  of the Baltic 
Sea Region in spatial planning and development. It has prepared policy options for 
the territorial development of the Baltic Sea Region and has provided a forum for 
exchange of know-how on these issues.  

However  there  was  no  automatic  link  between  the  presence  of  cross-border 
institutions or platforms and the quality of identification of objectives for cross-border 
cooperation as there are examples of programmes which benefitted from this presence 
but  in  which  the  objectives  have  been  found  too  broad  by  the  evaluation  (e.g.  the 
Grande Région (19) institutions have not played such a role, Type 2). Also the various 
structures  in  the  Atlantic  Area  space  (59)  did  not  seem  to  have  overcome  the  high 
diversity  and  complexity  of  the  area  definition  which impeded  the  establishment  of  a 
shared vision and the adoption of targeted objectives for cooperation. 

It  was  not  fully  clear  first  what  constitutes  a  real  cross-border  challenge  or 
an  obstacle  rather  than  an  issue  of  common  concern,  and  second,  how  the 
most  functional  zone  for  addressing  each  main  CB  challenge  needed  to  be 
defined.  

A  question  remained  as  to  the  nature  of  border  challenges  addressed  by  CBC 
programmes.  The  definition  of  what  constitute  border  or  common  challenges  is 
unclear.  Issues  addressed  through  CBC  were  not  always  real  cross-border  challenges 
but problems that were not specific to the area, even if they occurred in the two zones 
concerned (such as drug prevention, diabetes treatment, energy efficiency, renewable 

July 2016 - 60 

 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

resources,  recycling,  etc.).  In  those  cases  it  was  unclear  whether  cooperation  across 
borders  at  local  level  was  the  most  efficient  way  of  intervening.  Proximity  may  have 
mattered in some areas (such as innovation and pollution management) but was not 
specifically  requested  or  justified  in  a  range  of  sectors  where  CBC  programmes 
operated. 

This is analysed in more detail below for the three main sectors.  

R&D and innovation 

The  three  case  studies  carried  out  in  the  field  of  innovation  and  R&D  show  that  the 
programme  rationales  were  based  on  a  good  understanding  of  the  rationale 
for  collaborating  across  borders  as  well  as  on  an  analysis  of  the  economic 
and  geographical  context,  notably  in  terms  of  barriers  to  cooperation  and 
challenges  to  innovation.  Table  5.1  below  summarizes  the  barriers  and  challenges 
identified. 

Programmes  have  well  understood  the  rationale  for  developing  CBC  in  R&D  and 
innovation and the key features of collaborating across borders as well summarized by 
a recent OECD study on Regions and Innovation54, viz.:  

 

Innovation  is  an  interactive  process  that  does  not  stop  at  borders;  it  involves 
collaboration  and  partnerships  between  firms,  and  between  firms  and  educational 
and research organisations or technical centres; 

  This interaction  needs  to  take  place  both  at  a  distance  and  close  at  hand,  that  is 

also across borders; 

 

It is essential to increase visibility and competitiveness to overcome the peripheral 
nature  of  the  area  and  be  “part  of  the  game”,  which  means  that  interaction  and 
cooperation should variously seek to attain critical mass; to extend local markets; 
to  promote  complementarities  in  sectors  where  the  zone  has  comparative 
advantages  or  specific  assets;  and 
to  specialised 
infrastructures. 

facilitate  access 

to 

54  OECD Reviews of Regional Innovation, Regions and Innovation, Collaborating across borders, 

2013 

July 2016 - 61 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Table 5. 1 Barriers for cooperation and challenges in R&D and Innovation 

Region 

Barriers for cooperation 

Northern Ireland – Ireland 
– Western Scotland (3) 

Lack of knowledge  

Lack of trust 

Reluctance towards 
cooperation 

Challenges for 
innovation 

Problems linked to the 
peripheral nature of the 
area exacerbated by 
conflict 

Isolation  

Different working practices 

Sparse economic network 

Lack of resources and 
reluctance to cooperate by 
SMEs 

Sparse economic 
structures  

Lack of critical mass  

Programme North (14) 

Difficulty to find relevant 
partners 

Too small domestic 
markets  

Germany-The Netherlands 
(2) 

Language barriers 

Physical distance barriers 

Share need to re-invent 
the traditional base 
industry 

Different legal or 
governance related 
aspects, rules and norms 
such as laws and 
regulations, mentalities, 
cultural aspects or tradition 

Technological barriers 

Cooperation potential in 
various sectors 

Limited innovative 
capacities of SMEs 

Insufficient presence of 
knowledge-providing and 
technology-transfer 
institutions  

Suboptimal research - 
industry cooperation, SME 
network and cross-border 
exchange 

But  the  programmes  experienced  problems  in  terms  of  targeting  of  the  optimal 
“functional” region for CBC in the field of innovation: 

  The  programmes  did  not  provide  a  comprehensive  analysis  of  the  main  actors 
involved in the innovation systems in the regions covered and their surroundings, 
nor of their interactions, although this could have enabled a better targeting of the 
“functional” region for CBC in the field of innovation 

 

In  two  of  the  three  regions  reviewed  this  was  confirmed  by  interviewees  who 
explicitly raised the issue of the relevance of the zone covered:  

- 

In  Northern  Ireland-Ireland-Western  Scotland  (3),  the  case  study 
concluded  that  the  area  chosen  was  not  the  most  relevant  for 
cooperation  for  several reasons:  the  limited  eligible  number  of  SMEs  in 
Western  Scotland;  the  marginality  of  Scotland  in the  partnerships;  and 
the lack of geographical proximity between the zones;  

July 2016 - 62 

 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

- 

In the Germany-The Netherlands (2) programme, stakeholders often 
explained  that  “they  experienced  the  geographical  definition  of  the  CB 
area  as  a  limitation  as  suitable  partners  were  to  be  found  outside  the 
eligible area”55. 

Environment 

In  general  programmes  captured  well  the  need  for  an  integrated  environmental 
approach and management, notably:  

 

 

 

In geographical terms, when regions share a common natural resource which could 
be  considered  from  a  conservationist  point  of  view  or  from  the  perspective  of 
ensuring resilience against common risks. 

In  terms  of  specific  components  of  the  environment  to  be  considered  within  a 
holistic approach (mutual influence, e.g. in the field of water quality). 

In taking into account the potential for mainstreaming of the environment in other 
sectors  as  an  opportunity  for  development  of  new  products  or  services  (e.g. 
innovation, tourism and in some extent health). 

55  See case study Germany-The Netherlands 

July 2016 - 63 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Table 5.2 Barriers for cooperation and challenges in the field of Environment 

Region 

Barriers for cooperation 

France-
Channel-
England 

South 
Baltic 

Romania - 
Bulgaria 

 Lack of incentives for 

cooperation due to lack of 
funding opportunities  

 Language barriers 
 Communication barriers in 

terms of how complex ideas are 
conveyed between different 
professional stakeholder groups  

 Language 
 Institutional capacities 
 Staff competencies 
 Accessibility/proximity 
 Differences in socio-economic 

development level 

 Differences in degrees of 

experience of similar actions 

 Difficult partner identification 
(absence of previous cross-
border co-operation) 

 Financial constraints of project 
development and dominance of 
centre over periphery in terms 
of geographical targeting of 
regional development support 

 Cultural and language 

differences 

 Legislative and administrative 

differences 

Challenges in the field of 
Environment 

 Integration of maritime and 

coastal sustainable 
management 

 Improvement of water 

management and quality and 
watershed management  
 Regulations and procedures 

interpretation and/or 
implementation 

 Lack of common tools and 

process for applied responses  

 Limited awareness of the 

general public on key 
environmental issues in the area 

 Extension of the collaboration to 

inland areas  

 Integration of prevention and 

control of pollution  

 Protection of rich biodiversity 
 Mitigating climate-change-

related challenges - renewable 
energy, energy efficiency 

 Integrated water management 

(Danube) 

 Joint risk protection and 

monitoring during emergencies 
in the border area  

 Reinforcement of preparedness 
for earthquakes in line with the 
specific characteristics of the 
area 

Environmental  specific  features  and  challenges  in  the  area  were  identified  through 
SWOT  analyses  and  specific  SEA  (strategic  environmental  assessments)  for  each 
programme  (as  an  obligation).  Barriers  to  cooperation  have  been  clearly  identified in 
several  programmes  (e.g.  Romania-Bulgaria  (41);  South  Baltic  (50)).  The  main 
barriers  included  disincentives  to  cooperate  owing  to  lack  of  funding,  proximity  and 
communication  barriers,  cultural  and  language  differences,  institutional  capacities, 
differences  in  socio-economic  development  level,  the  degree  of  experience  of  similar 
activities,  and  the  lack  of  identifiable  partners  on  the  other  side  of  the  border.  The 
influence  of  administrative-political  structures  for  the  success  of  projects  was  not 

July 2016 - 64 

 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

sufficiently  taken  into  account  (e.g.  France-Channel-England  (18)).  This  is  a 
hampering factor for the implementation and success of projects.  

Capacity Building 

The  identification  of  cross  border  challenges  was  less  explicit  and  precise  in  terms  of 
capacity building. Important barriers to cross-border cooperation have been identified 
such as the lack of interest and knowledge of the neighbour as well as in some cases, 
the language barriers on which capacity building may have a positive effect. The link 
between  barriers  to  be  removed  and  capacity  building  activities  has  not  been  clearly 
established in the OPs. 

One  of  the  main  challenges  highlighted  for  capacity  building  was  the  need  for 
reinforcing  and  building  up  the  capacities  of  local  stakeholders  (public,  non-
governmental,  private)  to  initiate  cross-border  activities  and  more  directly  to  involve 
themselves in the CBC programmes. This included the need to improve the quality of 
projects  submitted  for  funding.  This  was  specifically  the  case  in  new  border 
programmes.  An  example is  the  Hungary-Slovakia  programme,  which  has  fixed  clear 
objectives for capacity building in the OP : “1) institution development aiming to build 
up  integrated  organizational  structures  and  joint  sustainable  thematic  cooperation 
networks  for  joint  regional  development  activities;  2)  development  of  joint  project 
planning and management capacities, project preparation”.  

Related to that challenge, a capacity building strategy has been also identified by the 
Saxony-Czech  Republic  programme  with  the  funding  to  the  Small  Projects  Funds  of 
the  Euroregions  in  order  to  create  this  capacity  to  build  cooperation  projects,  on  a 
small scale and focusing on citizens and local bodies.  

Some  more  specific  issues  related  to  capacity  building  and  the  elaboration  of  joint 
development plan and joint strategies were identified in the OPs especially in the field 
of  nature  protection  and  biodiversity  and  for  further  develop  joint  municipal  planning 
and services which were still limited.   

5.1.2 Objectives pursued by the CBC programmes  

Objectives pursued by the CBC programmes were in line with EU objectives and more 
specifically  with  the  Lisbon  Strategy.  As  2007-2013  programmes  were  meant  to 
operate in these wide ranging priority area (see chapter 4), they covered a variety of 
sectors  and  remained  broad,  without  clear  prioritization  and  without  being  results-
oriented. 

The  priorities  defined  under  each  OP  covered  mostly  the  whole  range  of  actions  and 
priorities  defined  in  the  EU  regulations  (see  chapter  4).  Most  of  the  programmes 
intended to contribute to the five main priority areas: 

 

 

 

Innovation/RDTI/entrepreneurship; 

Joint protection and management of natural resources; 

Links between urban and rural areas; 

  Reducing isolation; 

  Developing collaboration, capacity and joint use of infrastructures. 

July 2016 - 65 

 
 
 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

The  strategies  remained  wide  with  little  prioritization  between  objectives.  The 
“priorities”  of  the  programme  were  often  the  aggregation  of  a  large  number  of 
interventions under broad multi-faceted headings.  

The objectives were for at least 40% of the programmes specified in a generic way. 
The  following  are  examples  of  such  objectives,  allowing  for  a  wide  range  of 
interventions:  “improving  the  quality  of  life  of  the  population”56,  “mutual  initiatives 
linking territories, populations and cultures”57, “build an attractive region for living and 
visiting”58,  “better  exploit  the  main  common  assets  of  the  region”59,  “integration  of 
resources and services”60. 

The  programmes  did  not  establish  a  clear  hierarchy  of  priorities.  Budget 
allocations  were  most  often  spread  among  priorities  without  a  clear  strategic 
framework.  

Some  of  the  case  studies  underlined in  this  respect  that  there  was  a  will to maintain 
an  open  strategy  to  ensure  absorption  of  funds  and  given  the  uncertainty  as  to 
whether  there  would  be  enough  demand  or  projects  if  priorities  would  be  too  strictly 
defined. 

Programmes  did  generally  not  provide  a  clear  indication  of  expected  results  to 
be achieved at the  end of the programming period.  In addition, indicators used were 
mainly  measuring  outputs  which  meant  that  during  implementation,  a  monitoring 
based on results was not possible.  

This  finding  also  applies  to  specific  thematic  components,  such  as  R&D  and 
innovation. 

The CBC strategies in the field of innovation and R&D followed the Lisbon Strategy 
and recommended priority themes. They targeted objectives similar to those pursued 
by the mainstream programmes, while however adding the cross-border dimension: 

  The  programmes  have  indeed  sought  to  promote  innovation  in  a  traditional 
manner, by encouraging networking, joint applied research, advisory services and 
technology  platforms,  but  in  all  cases  across  borders.  In  this  sense  they  were 
similar  to  the  mainstream  programmes  (and  indeed  also  to  regional  or  national 
policies),  but  again  with  a  particular  focus  on  the  benefits  of  cross-border 
cooperation; 

  This  is  highlighted  for  instance  in  the  Northern  Ireland  –  Ireland  –  Western 
Scotland (3) case study as well as in the Germany-The Netherlands OP (2), where 
it  is  stated  that  “the  programme  led  to  the  broadening  of  the  horizons  of  all 
partners with a specific focus on cross-border aspects and opportunities, while the 

56  Spain-France (16) 

57  2 Seas (17) 

58  France - (Channel)-England (18) 

59  Grande Région (19) 

60  Italy-France Maritime (21) 

July 2016 - 66 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

thematic  priorities  as  such  do  not  show  significant  variations  from  mainstream 
programmes”61.  

That  said,  the  programmes  generally  formulated  objectives  in  a  generic  way  and  did 
not  always  refer  to  the  cross-border  dimension,  as  illustrated  by  the  objectives 
mentioned in the two programmes below:  

 

Improve the capacity for innovation; foster economic cooperation and networking; 
improve the qualifications of employees (Germany-The Netherlands OP (2)); 

  Diversify and develop the economy by encouraging innovation and competitiveness 
in enterprises and business development, and promoting tourism (Northern Ireland 
- Ireland - Western Scotland (2)).  

Generally  the  programmes  were  not  clear  on  their  expected  contributions  to  the 
Lisbon Agenda.  

5.1.3 Demand driven approach and focus on cooperation  

Besides  being  wide  and  open,  the  CBC  Programmes  during  the  2007-2013 
programming period were characterised by two main additional features:  

1.  A demand-driven and bottom-up approach 
2.  A strong focus on cooperation as an end 

Those combined characteristics have led to the development of programmes without a 
clear strategic62 dimension. As a result, a majority of programmes (86% according to 
the  survey  of  experts  having  analysed  the  53  programmes)  have  followed  a  project-
led approach. 

Many  stakeholders  (from  MA  to  the  local  actors  participating  in  projects)  explained 
that  they  followed  a  demand-driven  approach.  Many  stakeholders  considered  such 
a bottom-up approach  as a strength of ETC programmes.  It allowed indeed that new 
players,  often  at  a  more  local  level,  participated  to  the  programmes,  and  that  fewer 
institutional  stakeholders  were  involved.    This  allowed  for  more  innovative  projects 
and  for  non-anticipated  needs  to  be  taken  into  consideration.  It  had  also  drawbacks, 
notably in terms of a greater dispersion of projects, and limited results and influence 
on regional dynamics.  

At  a  more  sectoral  level,  the  evaluation  notes  a  lack  of  an  integrated  and  more 
focused approach.   

With  respect  to  innovation/R&D/entrepreneurship,  the  programmes  were  generally 
very  open,  allowing  interventions  across  a  wide  range  of  fields.  The  Managing 
Authorities  explained  that  such  an  open  framework  was  adopted  to  facilitate 
involvement  of  different  types  of  projects  and  flexible  implementation  as  regards 
content, as well as to allow a demand-driven approach and innovative pilot activities.  

61  Case Study Germany – The Netherlands  

62  Strategic  dimension  meaning  a  clear  framework  with  well  identified  results  in  line 
with  the  objectives  fixed,  and  a  clear  cut  intervention  logic  linking inputs/outputs/ 
Results and impact. 

July 2016 - 67 

 
 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

A more strategic dimension was introduced under Interreg IV A,  notably by targeting 
specific  sectors  or  stakeholders  and  by  increasing  the  size  of  projects.  Case  studies 
have  shown  that  introducing  a  more  top-down  approach  and  searching  for  a  greater 
critical  mass  at  project  level  did  not  lead  automatically  to  satisfactory  results,  first 
because  of  the  risk  of  losing  the  “proximity”  dimension  which  has  clear  added  value, 
and  second  because  of  the  costs  of  managing  projects  covering  thousands  of  actors, 
as compared with the actual benefits.  

There  are  examples  of  both  more  strategically-driven  and  more  demand-driven 
projects with mixed results:  

  The  Northern  Ireland-Ireland-Western  Scotland  OP  (3)  has  given  more  priority  to 
projects with critical mass and high spill-over effects in order to ensure impacts on 
a  wider  scale,  creating  economies  of  scale.  But  the  expected  trend  has  not  fully 
materialised.  As  fostering  cross-border  cooperation  practices  was  the  “ultimate 
goal”  of  the  programme,  projects  “far  from  the  border”,  which  were  most  often 
larger  and  region-wide,  demonstrated  less  clear  added  value.  The  case  study 
report  points  out  that  “for  projects  that  do  not  have  such  a  focus  on  the  border 
area and the border problems, the proximity element is missing to justify the value 
added of cross-border cooperation: enhancement of cooperation is not achieved so 
clearly in such cases”. 

  The  Germany-The  Netherlands  (2)  programme  is  a  good  example  of  a  mix  of 

demand-driven and more top-down approaches, viz.:  

-  The project selection process was based on regional demand rather than 
the  initial  planning,  and  therefore  projects  funded  largely  reflected  the 
specific demand of regional actors; 

- 

In  the  2007-2013  period  “major  structuring  projects”  were  introduced 
and  conceived  as  projects  with  strongly  anticipated  effects  across  the 
whole programme area. 11 major structuring projects were carried out, 
six  of  which  were  in  the  field  of  R&D/innovation/entrepreneurship.  The 
largest (Mechatronics for SMEs with a total budget of €18.4 million with 
an  EU  contribution  of  €7.3  million)  encompassed  a  total  of  257 
companies  and  funded  106  development  and  innovation  projects.  The 
programme  achieved  most  of  its  objectives  in  terms  of  developing 
cooperation  and  conducting  joint  projects.  But  those  projects  were 
considered  over-ambitious,  especially  as  regards  the  considerable 
efforts  on  initiation  and  preparation  as  well  as  the  large  scale  of  the 
programme area. This concept is not further pursued in Interreg V but is 
replaced by “strategic initiatives” within priority axes.  

There are intermediate situations between a full open strategy and “major structuring 
projects”, notably by focusing innovation and RDTI interventions on specific sectors in 
which  the  zone  has  clear  comparative  advantages.  Some  programmes  have  defined 

July 2016 - 68 

 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

priority  development  areas  but  often  this  selection  remained  indicative  and  did  not 
lead to concentration of resources or more articulated action in the sectors chosen.63  

63  In programme North (14) for instance seven strategic development areas have been defined 
(base  industry,  ICT  industry,  creative  industry  and  tourism,  renewable  energy  and  clean 
tech, car test industry, sustainable energy systems, service sector).  

July 2016 - 69 

 
 
 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Cooperation was often seen as the main goal 

Fostering  cooperation  was  at  the  heart  of  the  ETC  programmes.  Programmes  often 
aimed at an increased degree of cooperation as a (or even  the) key output or result. 
Most  of  the  programmes  remained  rather  unclear  on  the  extent  to  which  they  saw 
cooperation  as  a  means  to  an  end  and/or  as  a  final  objective  in  its  own  right. 
Examination of key programme documents and discussions with Managing Authorities 
by  evaluation  experts  revealed  that  close  to  90%  of  programmes  pursued  cross-
border cooperation as a goal in itself.  

This  should  be  seen  in  the  light  of  the  policy  framework  for  the  programming  period 
2007-2013 (see Chapter 4), which left room for both pursuing cooperation as an end 
in itself and as a means to economic and social integration. Regulation No 1083/2006, 
with  general  provisions  on  ERDF,  ESF  and  the  Cohesion  Fund,  indeed  defined  the 
Interreg  objective  as  “aimed  at  strengthening  cross-border  cooperation  through  joint 
local  and  regional  initiatives64”  (Strand  A  programmes).  Regulation  No 1080/2006  on 
the ERDF on the other hand stated that assistance should focus on “the development 
of  cross-border  economic,  social  and  environmental  activities  through  joint  strategies 
for  sustainable  territorial  development65”  for  CBC  programmes.  On  the  other  hand, 
guidelines  on  cohesion  established  the  aim  of  CBC  as  to  “integrate  areas  divided  by 
national border that face common problems requiring common solutions […] as result 
of the fragmentation” of markets, networks and institutions. 

In  this  context  CBC  programmes  have  often  been  used  as  an  instrument  aiming 
primarily  at  developing  cooperation  and  linkages,  without  necessarily  envisaging  a 
strong leverage of this cooperation to a wider economic integration.  

Qualitative  analysis  confirms  that  programmes  consider  enhanced  cross-
border cooperation as their ultimate goal and main result to achieve, whether 
this  concerns  cooperation  among  universities,  research  centres,  businesses, 
technology transfer institutions, public agencies, or local authorities:  

  As outlined in the case study report on Northern Ireland-Ireland-Western Scotland 
(3),  “fostering  cross-border  cooperation  practices  and  removing  barriers  to 
cooperation is the ultimate goal of the programme”.  

  The  MA  of  the  Germany  –  The  Netherlands  (2)  programme  mentioned  that 
“cooperation  is  perceived  both  as  the  basis  and  pre-condition  for  all  projects 
conducted in the Interreg IVA programme framework, and its enhancement also as 
a  result  of  the  cross-border  projects.  The  CBC  is  perceived  as  providing  unique 
possibilities of cooperation”. 

As  cooperation  constitutes  a  specificity  offered  by  Interreg  programmes  within  the 
Cohesion  policy,  programmes  were  designed  to  focus  more  on  joint  process  criteria 
than on results-oriented strategies. This is confirmed by an overall analysis of the 53 
OPs: for 86% of them (46) there was a strong emphasis on joint process indicators. 66  

64  Art. 3 (c) 

65  Art 6.1 (a) to (e), including detailed priority areas.  

66  This is also in line with the criteria for the selection of operations as mentioned in Regulation 
(EC)  N°  1080/2006,  which  specifies  that  « Operations  selected  for  operational  programmes 
aimed at developing cross-border activities (…) and developing transnational cooperation (…) 

July 2016 - 70 

 
                                           
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

More  generally,  many  programmes  not  only  used  indicators  related  to  cooperation 
development  to  measure  output  but  also  in  some  cases  to  assess  results  and  even 
impacts of the programme.  

For  example,  indicators  used  to  assess  outputs  by  the  programmes  in  the  field  of 
innovation, RDTI and entrepreneurship were mainly related to the development of 
networks,  joint  programmes,  exchanges  of  experience  or  the  number  of  actors 
involved  (as  shown  in  the  table  below).  In  parallel,  results  indicators  used  by  the 
North  programme  also  include  “number  of  new  cross-border  business  relations”, 
“implementation  of  joint  education  programme”  and  projects  that  stimulate  “cross-
border  contact  of  youths  through  education  cooperation”.  In  the  Germany-The 
Netherlands  OP  (2),  the  number  of  newly  created/extended  networks  and  clusters  is 
considered as a result.  

shall  include  beneficiaries  from  at  least  two  countries  (…)  which  shall  cooperate  in  at  least 
two  of  the  following  ways  (…):  joint  development,  joint  implementation,  joint  staffing  and 
joint financing.”  

July 2016 - 71 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Table 5. 3 Output indicators for the three OPs analysed through case studies 
on RDTI 

Indicators 

Target 

Value 2014 

58 

10 

500 

500 

300 

4502 

7951 

3168 

6 
21 

10 
30 

entrepreneurship 

for  service  and  product 

Programme North (14) 
Priority 1: Business development 
Business  directed  actions  to  enhance  competence 
development 
Cross-border  networks 
development  
Cross-border  exchanges  of  experience  and  knowledge 
connected to regional business development 
Priority 2: Research and development and education 
Development of joint education programmes  
Development  of  joint  research  environments  within 
applied research 
Exchange  of  experience  and  knowledge  connected  to 
innovation 
and/or 
activities, 
innovation environments 
Programme Germany-The Netherlands (2)67 
Action field 1: Supporting technology and knowledge transfer between research and 
business 
cooperation  between  R&D 
No  of 
organisations  (higher  education  and  other  research 
organisation),  associations,  Chambers  of  Trade  and 
Commerce, enterprises 
Number of participating SMEs 
No  of  advisory  services  and  development  projects 
between R&D organisations and enterprises 
Action field 2: Supporting economic networks and CB business cooperation 
632  
No of supported cross-border networks and clusters 
12747 
Number of participating SMEs 
Number of activities in SMEs 
2904 
Action field 3: Supporting qualification in enterprises to improve innovation potential 
41 
No of training operations in companies 
No of participating companies 
967 
No of participants in the enterprise training operations 
1042 
Programme Northern Ireland-Ireland-Western Scotland (3) 
Number of business assisted 
Number of incubation units developed 
Number of networking projects supported 

1879 
2 
21 

66 
2230 
490 

200 
3 
15 

33 
180 
610 

cross-border 

1203  

3510 

1100 

785  

620 

615 

Sources: AIR OPs 2014 

This  also  applies  to  environment  as  illustrated  in  the  flowing  table  (even  if  there 
monitoring  system  did  not  focus  exclusively  on  the  number  of  joint  projects)  and  to 
capacity building.  

67  Reliability  of  data  is  not  guaranteed  as  the  definition  of  indicators  was  not  precise,  leaving 
considerable  room  for  the  interpretation  of  stakeholders  while  targets  value  have  clearly 
been underestimated.   

July 2016 - 72 

 
 
 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Table 5. 4  Output indicators for the three OPs analysed through case studies 
on Environment 

Output Indicators 

Target 

Value 2014 

of 

on 

30 

50 

10 

raising 

awareness 

Romania – Bulgaria (41) 
Priority 2: Environment 
Number  of  projects  developing  joint  management 
systems for environmental protection 
Number 
projects 
environmental protection and management 
Number  of  projects  contributing  to  risk  prevention  in 
the cross-border area 
Number  of  projects  contributing  to  joint  early warning 
and emergency response to risk 
France –Channel – England (18) 
Priority 4: Ensure a sustainable environmental development of the common space 
Number of projects encouraging and improving shared 
protection and management of the environment  
Cooperation activities for the promotion of sustainable 
energies 
Cooperation  activities  for  the  promotion  of  energy 
efficiency  
between 
Cooperation 
agencies regarding crisis management 
Number  of  cooperation  tools  jointly  developed  for  a 
balanced  management  of 
the  environment  and 
biodiversity 
Number  of  cooperation  tools  jointly  developed  as  part 
of the programme 

environment 

agreements 

10 

20 

15 

10 

3 

5 

5 

18 

44 

24 

22 

23 

6 

0 

0 

27 

8 

5.1.4 CBC budget  

The  analysis  of  budget  allocations  and  decisions  confirms  that  CBC  activities  were 
implemented  in  many  different  sectors,  reflecting  the  wide  and  demand-driven 
approach. More precisely:  

  As  shown  in  table  5.2  below,  budget  allocations  were  spread  across  11 
sectors, reflecting a willingness to encourage  CBC in all sectors where it may be 
relevant, without pushing for prioritising one sector over another one.  

  Three quarters of the ERDF budget in 2014 was nevertheless allocated to 
five sectors, with a relative financial weight that was rather similar for the 
different  types  of  programme,  that  is  RDTI,  Environment,  Transport,  Tourism 
and Culture (listed here in decreasing order of financial weight) as shown in figure 
5.1  below.  Most  often  these  sectors  represented  between  10%  and  23%  of  the 
funding,  environment,  RDTI  and  transport  being  the  larger  sectors  and  tourism 
and culture the smaller (around 10%).    

July 2016 - 73 

 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Table 5. 5 Strand A Operational Programmes: distribution by sectors/theme, 
according to budget decided (2008) and allocated (2014) 

Source: DG Regio database (SFC and WP13); data processing ADE 

Differences  between  agreed  and  allocated  budgets  were  not  as  significant  at  an 
aggregate  level  (they  are  more  visible  when  considering  individual  OPs).  It  is 
worthwhile  mentioning  that  tourism  and  to  a  lesser  extend  culture  have  overall 
received  more  funding  than  expected  while  employment  issues  and  information 
society did not benefit of the amounts expected. Information society and employment 
received  around  one-half  of  their  initially-envisaged  budget  while  culture,  and  to  a 
lesser extent tourism and social infrastructures, significantly increased their shares in 
all types of zone. 

Table 5. 6 Sectoral allocations – Average distribution and standard deviation.  

Source: ADE own calculations 

July 2016 - 74 

Old bordersNew bordersTotal EUR millionOld bordersNew bordersTotal EUR millionRDTI26%13%19%27%11%19%Environment19%18%18%19%19%19%Capacity building3%2%3%3%1%2%Information society8%6%7%5%3%4%Transport9%19%14%6%22%15%Tourism9%10%10%10%12%11%Culture6%8%7%10%10%10%Urban regeneration3%1%2%2%0%1%Employment7%5%6%3%3%3%Social infrastructure4%4%4%5%7%6%Mobilisation for reforms1%6%4%1%7%4%TA6%6%6%4%4%4%Other1%0%0%3%0%1%Total2553,52755,25308,72626,52740,95367,4Priority themesDecided budget 2008Allocated budget 2014RDTIEnvironmentCapacity buildingInformation societyTransportTourismCultureUrban regenerationEmploymentSocial infrastructureMobilisation for reformsAll programmes Average19%19%2%4%15%11%10%1%3%6%4% Standard deviation14%10%3%6%11%7%7%3%3%14%6%Old programmes Average27%19%3%5%6%10%10%2%3%5%1% Standard deviation14%9%3%7%5%9%8%3%3%17%5%New programs Average11%19%1%3%22%12%10%0%3%7%7% Standard deviation8%10%3%5%11%5%6%1%3%7%6% 
 
 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

The analysis of budget  allocation shows that programmes were rather specific: inter-
sectoral  allocations  reveal  a  wide  variety  of  situations  even  if  some  similarities  are 
observed between all programmes or by the main types of programme, viz.: 

  There is no “one-size-fits-all” programme structure: when measuring the standard 
deviation68  of  inter-sectoral  allocations,  significant  dispersion  is  observed  among 
programmes, especially for RDTI, transport and smaller sectors; 

  Overall “old” borders and “new” borders OPs show rather similar patterns in terms 
of sectoral financial distribution, except that transport was by far the main field of 
CBC  in  “new”  OPs  while  RDTI  was  the  main  CBC  field  in  “old”  OPs;  again,  within 
the two groups inter-sectoral distribution varies widely;   

  Tourism and culture received similar attention and absorbed together a significant 
part  of  the  funds  (20%);  there  are  differences  between  OPs  but,  based  on  the 
analysis of standard deviation compared to the average weight of those sectors in 
budget  allocations,  a  wide  range  of  OPs  -  especially  the  new  ones  -  have 
stimulated CBC in those sectors to a similar extent; 

  Environment  is  clearly  a  sector  where  demand  for  CBC  was  high  in  all  regions 
while,  in  contrast,  employment  and  social  infrastructures  receive  less,  and  more 
irregular, attention. 

68  Standard deviation is a measure of how widely values are dispersed from the average value 

(the mean). 

July 2016 - 75 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Figure 5. 1 Strand A Operational Programmes: distribution by domain of the 
decided (2008) and of the allocated (2014) budgets 

July 2016 - 76 

 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Source: DG Regio database (SFC and WP13); data processing ADE 

July 2016 - 77 

 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

At  sector  level,  budget  allocations  were  also  spread  across  several  types  of 
intervention covering many different projects. Table 5.7 below shows that some 
programmes focused resources to a certain extent on specific themes. But then again, 
when  looking  more  closely  at  the  topics,  the  activities  funded  were  diversified,  as 
noted in the Germany-The Netherlands case study: “The economic development topic 
comprises a variety of activities, both in different technologies and subjects – such as 
for  instance  energy,  materials,  micro  and  nano  technologies,  food,  maritime 
technologies, creative industries, mechatronics, medical technologies, health and care, 
mechanical  engineering,  agri-and  horticulture,  sensorics/robotics,  horse  sector  –  but 
also  transversal  aspects  like  networking  or  internationalisation  of  the  cross-border 
labour market.”69 

Table 5. 7 Share in Budget for R&D, Innovation and Entrepreneurship 

Intervention codes 

North 

Germany-
The 
Netherlands 

01: R&TD activities in research centres 
03: Technology transfer and improvement of 
cooperation networks 
04: Assistance to R&TD, particularly in SMEs 
(including access to R&TD services in 
research centres) 
05: Advanced support services for firms and 
groups of firms 
06: Assistance to SMEs for the promotion of 
environmentally-friendly products and 
production processes 
09: Other measures to stimulate research 
and innovation and entrepreneurship in SMEs 
62: Development of life long learning 
systems and strategies in firms 
72: Design, introduction and implementation 
of reforms in education and training systems 

Nothern 
Ireland – 
Ireland -
W.Scotland 
0.0% 

21.8% 

3.3% 

13.6% 

60.8% 

38.9% 

20.3% 

6.4% 

0.0% 

27.8% 

0.0% 

13.7% 

0.1% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

13.6% 

28.0% 

47.4% 

0.0% 

1.0% 

0.0% 

2.8% 

0.4% 

0.0% 

% R&DT, innovation & entrepreneurship in OP 
Sources: WP13 based on OPs Annual Implementation Reports, 2014 

53.2% 

48.3% 

25.1% 

In  the  sector  of  environment,  activities  were  also  widespread.  The  environment  was 
treated  from  a  conservationist  perspective  (natural  heritage)  and  from  a  resilience-
building  perspective  (risk  prevention,  climate  change  mitigation  or  adaptation).  The 
following  table  5.4  shows  that  programmes  articulated  both  perspectives,  including 
several intervention themes. An eco-systemic approach is often required to protect the 
environment  and  ensure  the  connectivity  between  protected  areas  and  resources 
which  “do  not  stop  at  the  border”.  But  when  we  deepen  the  analysis  on  activities 
funded,  we  discover  a  large  diversity  of  themes,  some  of  them  being  not  specifically 
targeted  to  common  natural  assets.  As  reported  by  the  case  study  France-Channel-
England  “(…)  projects  covered  (i)  “a  more  sustainable  management  of  the  Channel 

69  Case Study : Interreg IVA Deutschland-Netherlands, ADE February 2016 

July 2016 - 78 

 
 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

area’s  natural  heritage”;  (ii)  “eco-friendly  construction,  energy  efficiency  in  buildings 
and  sustainable  transport”;  (iii)  “innovative  solutions  and  services  leading  to  a  more 
environmentally sustainable economy”; (iv) “transversal awareness-raising component 
targeted  at  specific  stakeholders  (including  the  public)  to  incorporate  sustainable 
development in behaviours and decision-making”.  

Table 5. 8 share in Budget for Environment 

France 
(Channel) 
– England 
(18) 

Romania – 
Bulgaria 
(41) 

South 
Baltic  
(50) 

Intervention codes  

l

e
b
a
w
e
n
e
R

y
g
r
e
n
e

k
s
i
r

d
n
a

n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
p

l

a
t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
p

39: Renewable energy: wind 

41: Renewable energy: biomass 

42: Renewable energy: hydroelectric, 
geothermal and other 
43: Energy efficiency, co-generation, 
energy management 
44: Management of household and 
industrial waste 
45: Management and distribution of 
water (drinking water) 

46: Water treatment (waste water) 

47: Air quality 
48: Integrated prevention and pollution 
control 
49: Mitigation and adaptation to 
climate change 
51: Promotion of biodiversity and 
nature protection (including Natura 
2000) 
53: Risk prevention (including 
prevention plans) 
54: Other measures to preserve the 
environment and prevent risks 

Renewable energy  

Environmental & risk protection 

33% 
Sources: WP13 based on OPs Annual Implementation Reports, 2014 

% Environment in OP 

4% 

4% 

4% 

16% 

3% 

1% 

0% 

0% 

5% 

10% 

37% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

36% 

0% 

7% 

2% 

33% 

15% 

27% 

73% 

23% 

0% 

100% 

30% 

22% 

0% 

0% 

15% 

9% 

0% 

15% 

14% 

0% 

0% 

5% 

0% 

19% 

37% 

63% 

21% 

July 2016 - 79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

5.1.5 TNC programmes  

The strategies and priorities of the 2007-2013 transnational OPs were in line 
with  the  EU  orientations  for  the  period  and  were  driven  mainly  by  common 
concerns.  The  meaning  of  the  concept  of  “transnationality”  and  what  was 
relevant and significant under this umbrella was unclear. 

Figure 5.2 overleaf summarizes the key priorities and related objectives of the 13 TNC 
programmes.  They  can  be  grouped  under  the  four  main  objectives  identified  by  the 
EU:  

  Facilitating innovation, research, entrepreneurship, and increasing competitiveness 

and SMEs capacities 

  Promoting sustainable development and protection of natural resources 

 

Improving accessibility and connectivity 

  Promoting  balanced  and  integrated  economic  development  rooted  in  stronger 

communities, cities and regional centres. 

8  of  the  13  TNC  programmes  focused  on  the  four  main  thematic  priorities 
fixed  by  the  European  Commission  and  12  of  the  13  on  three  of  the  four: 
innovation,  RTD,  enterprises;  environment;  accessibility,  transport,  ITC  networks, 
sustainable development. These are all clearly in line with the objectives of the Lisbon 
and  Goteborg  strategies.  The  only  exception  is  the  Northern  Periphery  (58) 
programme  which  focuses  on  two  main  objectives,  namely  demographic  challenges 
and better use of natural resources.  

July 2016 - 80 

 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Figure 5. 2 Key priorities of the TNC programmes 

The  related  objectives were mainly  focused  on  issues  of  “common  concern”, 
defined as challenges experienced in different locations in the transnational region to 
which  TNC  may  bring  effective  solutions  by  combining  experiences  from  different 
locations  (see  chapter  4).  This  may  concern  for  instance  fostering  of  cooperation  to 
promote innovation and research; development of synergies in rural and urban areas 
and strengthening of urban-rural partnerships; improvements to coastal management; 
and  so  forth.  As  such  there  are  no  truly  transnational  issues  requiring  cooperation 
across  national  borders  for  a  policy  response  (for  instance  air  pollution,  water  policy, 
energy, ITC or transport infrastructures). 

Potential  transnational  issues  of  more  strategic  relevance  to  transnational 
regions were not always clearly identified in the key documents (mainly OPs) and 
were  often  included  in  a  list  of  numerous  issues  of  common  concern.  There  are, 
however,  exceptions.  Several  TNC  programmes,  notably  those  with  a  common 
geographical  feature  (maritime  OPs),  and  the  South  East  Europe  Programme,  have 
included in their scope transnational issues in the field of water and flood management 
and  common  public  good  management  as  well  as  in  the  field  of  transport  networks 
(corridor development).  

indications  that  there 

There  are 
is  no  common  understanding  among 
programmes  on  the  exact  meaning  and  value  of  working  on  a  transnational 
level. Indeed, as illustrated in table 5.9 below the rationale and value of transnational 
working  is  mentioned  in  all  programmes.  Although  in  many  different  ways.  Some 

July 2016 - 81 

 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

partners see transnational cooperation as “jointly defining and implementing projects”, 
others  as  “addressing  challenges  common  to  all  regions”,  having  “a  potential  to 
complement national and regional policies”, and so on.  

Table 5. 9 How programmes have approached transnationality 

North West Europe (62) 

Baltic Sea Programme (57) 

Northern periphery (58) 

South West Europe (55) 

Alpine Space (56) 

Atlantic Area (59) 

Mediterranean programme 
(63) 

North Sea (64) 

Indian Ocean (60) 

Caribbean programme (61) 

Macaronesia programme 
(54) 

for  strengthening 

Transnationality  achieved  when  partners  jointly  define  and 
jointly implement projects 
Transnationality achieved by projects which demonstrate an 
innovative  approach  to  solving  transnational  problems  and 
avoid duplication of work and/or methodology 
Addressing  challenges  that  are  common  to  all  the  regions 
within  the  programme  area:  accessibility,  outmigration, 
ageing, low population density 
Cooperation  on  economic,  social  and  environmental 
measures 
Cooperation 
innovation,  enhancing 
connectivity,  stimulating  SMEs  development,  environmental 
protection  
Potential to contribute to complement national and regional 
policies 
Joint efforts, joint initiatives and projects approved need to 
have a transnational character 
Cooperation  for  promoting  sustainable  management  of 
environment and improving accessibility in the Region   
Construct  a  Reunion  model 
contribute to the integration of the island 
To get a leverage effects on specific sectors where there are 
interactions 
Added value in terms of better management of resources in 
the ICT and in the environmental sectors, tackling common 
challenges in the cooperation zone 

for  competitiveness  and 

Strategies  formulated  by  TNC  programmes  are  broad,  embracing  a  large 
number of issues, allowing interventions in many different areas, and are not 
clearly  results-oriented.  Programmes  gathering  regions  facing  economic  and 
geographical  similarities  are  those  with  the  most  well-defined  objectives  in 
the  various  sectors  covered.  This  can  be  expected  in  a  context  where 
programmes aim primarily to address common challenges and concerns.  

As shown in the previous section, nearly all the 13 programmes pursue the four main 
key  objectives  identified,  with  no  clear  priorities.  Formulation  is  generally  vague, 
allowing a very broad range of interventions relating to each objective.  

As already mentioned, the main issues driving the programmes are related to common 
concerns  or  common  challenges  and  not  to  true  transnational  issues  (except  for  a 
few).  In  that  context  the  quality  of  objective-setting  looks  better  in  programmes  in 
which geographical areas face similarities in terms of economic and social situations as 
well as in terms of geographical constraints. 

Programmes with economic and geographical coherence have rather clearly-
defined objectives: they aim at tackling transnational territorial issues specific to the 
context of the territory, as illustrated by the examples below:  

July 2016 - 82 

 
 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

  The Baltic Sea programme (57) showed the value of transnational working and its 
potential  in  terms  of  overcoming  territorial  and  socio-economic  challenges.  It 
focused  on  the  development  of  transnational  physical  or  functional  links  and  on 
transferable practical solutions (“blueprints”) around the management of the Baltic 
Sea,  fostering  innovation  and  accessibility  and  design  of  regional  and  local 
development  strategies.  A  detailed  intervention  logic  was  outlined  that  links  the 
SWOT, objectives, results and impacts.   

  Similarly,  the  Alpine  Space  programme  (56)  had  well-defined  objectives  around 
the 
issues  of  environment  and  risk  prevention,  along  with  accessibility, 
connectivity  and  strengthening  of  competitiveness.  These  were  based  on  a  sound 
approach,  and  also  on  former  experience,  a  detailed  SWOT  analysis  and  strong 
mobilisation  of  stakeholders.  The  programme  had  a  convincing  “logical  structure” 
which ensured overall coherence.   

  The  North-West  Europe  programme  (62)  focused  on  issues  not  tackled  efficiently 
in  domestic  contexts;  this  was  well  demonstrated  for  priorities  linked  to  shared 
natural resources and risk management and to sustainable transport solutions and 
ICT;  it  was  less  clear  for  priorities  linked  to  knowledge-based  economy  and 
innovation, support to communities for economic and social performance, or issues 
of demographic changes and migration. 

  The  Madeira-Azores-Canary  programme  (54)  was  another  example  of  a  maritime 
programme  built  on  an  already  territorially  and  historically  integrated  region  in 
which the nature of the cooperation area and the similarity of the territories have 
certainly helped identify common priorities or needs. 

On  the  other  hand  the  objectives  of  the  programmes  that  brought  together 
regions  with  less  economic  or  geographical  coherence  were  rather  generic, 
and not as specific to the territory, as shown below: 

  The  South  East  Europe  programme  (66)  included  a  range  of  16  countries 
(including  non-EU  Member  States),  with  a  total  population  of  200  million.  Not 
surprisingly  in  such  a  large  and  diverse  area,  the  OP  identified  transnational 
innovation, 
challenges  that  encompassed 
protection and improvement of the environment, accessibility, and more balanced 
territorial structures in a very broad way. The priorities echoed those listed in the 
Regulations, but left their content very open. MAs deemed this unavoidable given 
the huge differences in level of development and in administrative structures and 
needs.  

integration,  competitiveness  and 

  The Atlantic Area programme (59) acknowledged the difficulty of defining specific 
objectives  in  an  area  that  is  extremely  diverse,  with  considerable  economic 
disparities  and  including  a  wide  range  of  types  of  territory  (large  urban 
conurbations  as  well  as  peripheral  and  rural  regions),  which  face  very  different 
development  challenges.  In  this  context  the  four  priorities  were  close  to  the  four 
priorities  listed  for  TNC  programmes  in  the  regulations  but  left  the  precise 
objectives for each of them relatively open, so as to cater for the diversity of the 
area.    

Programmes  where  a  macro  vision  has  been  developed  did  not  automatically 
demonstrate  a  more  accurate  spatial  vision.  Four  programmes  (Atlantic  Area  (59), 
North-West  Europe  (62),  North  Sea  Region  (64)  and  South  East  Europe  (66)  had  a 
macro-regional  vision  mainly  developed  in  the  first  decade  of  the  21st  century  while 

July 2016 - 83 

 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

one  (Baltic  Sea  programme  (57))  was  a  precursor  of  the  formulation  of  a  macro-
regional  strategy  approved  in  2009  (but  already  existing  when  the  TNC  OP  was 
formulated). 

The  Baltic  Sea  programme  (57)  clearly  identified  the  main  challenges  faced  by 
individual  countries  with  a  transboundary  character:  the  need  to  protect  the 
ecosystem,  transport,  accessibility,  energy  supply  and  issues  relating  to  climate 
change.    It  also  identified  the  common  challenges  faced  by  the  Baltic  countries,  for 
instance,  demographic  development,  economic  growth,  unemployment  and  rural 
development. Thus the programme addressed a mix of transboundary challenges and 
common  challenges  through  four  key  priorities:  1)  fostering  innovations  across  the 
Baltic Sea regions; 2) improving internal and external accessibility; 3) management of 
the  Baltic  Sea  as  a  common  resource;  and  4)  promoting  attractive  and  competitive 
cities  and  regions.  Those  priorities  were  in  line  with  the  four  pillars  of  the  EUSBSR, 
namely  1)  making  the  Baltic  Sea  environmentally  sustainable;  2)  making  the  Baltic 
Sea  Region  prosperous;  3)  making  the  BSR  accessible  and  attractive;  4)  making  the 
BSR safe and secure).  But the EUSBSR has itself been criticised as being “too broad, 
complex  and  not  sufficiently  focused”70  and  listing  “numerous  issues  that  are  of 
common  concern,  besides  those  that  will  clearly  require  transnational  cooperation  as 
individual countries alone will not be able to address the challenges successfully”71. 

Regarding  the  four  other  programmes,  the  role  of  the  spatial  visions  in  providing  a 
coherent  framework  for  cooperation  has  been  limited,  the  Lisbon  Agenda  becoming 
the priority, viz.: 

  The  driving  force  of  the  North-West-Europe  (62)  has  evolved  from  “integrated 
territorial planning” towards the “economic development” goal. The wide range  of 
objectives  was  the  product  of  a  compromise  between  the  views  of  eight  MS.  The 
transnational  dimension  was  clearer  for  priorities  2  (sustainable  management  of 
natural  resources  and  risk  management)  and  3  (improving  connectivity  by 
promoting  sustainable  transport  and  ICT  solutions)  than  for  1  (knowledge-based 
economy  and 
innovation)  or  4  (strong  and  prosperous  communities  at 
transnational  level).  For  the  latter  two,  value  added  relates  to  exchange  of 
experience rather than joint solutions. 

  The Atlantic Area programme (59) has presented a clear rationale for the value of 
transnational  working  and  the  potential  for  contributing  to  complementarity  of 
national  and  regional  policies  in  the  Atlantic  Area.  Good  links  were  made  to 
strategic  EU  priorities,  particularly  Lisbon  targets  and  the  need  to  enhance  the 
knowledge economy in the area. 

70  Schymik and Krumrey, cited by Dr Dürh, 2011 

71  Baltic Sea, Danube and Macro-Regional strategies : A Model for Transnational Cooperation in 

the EU ? ,Dr Dürh, 2011. 

July 2016 - 84 

 
 
 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Budget  allocations  reflect  the  breadth  of  the strategy  and  show  a  dispersion 
of activities in many different (sub-) sectors 

Budget was spread across a wide range of objectives in various sectors, even 
if some sectors such as environment and RDTI have received the bulk of the available 
funds, viz.: 

  All  programmes  have  allocated 

four  main  priorities  with 
predominance  for  the  environment,  which  is  ranked  first  (35%  across  all 
programmes), followed by RDTI (23%), Transport (13%) and Information Society 
(8%); 

funds  to  the 

  All  programmes  have  also  spent  part  of  their  budget  on  tourism  (except  for  the 

Indian Ocean (60)) and on culture (except for the Alpine Space (56)); 

  Some  programmes  have  also  included  capacity-building  activities  (up  to  23%  of 
the budget in the South-East Europe programme (66)) as well as interventions in 
urban development (12% in the Central Europe programme (65)). 

Table 5. 10 Strand B Operational Programmes: distribution of 2013 allocated 
ERDF funds by domain  

Source: DG Regio database (SFC); data processing ADE 

The degree of prioritization is rather low, viz.: 

  Priorities echo those listed in the regulations, but leave their content very open so 

as to cater for different stakeholders and a diversity of situations  

  The  programme  budget  was  in  several  cases  initially  distributed  evenly,  or  nearly 
so,  between  the  priorities  (Baltic  Sea  Region  (57),  Madeira-Azores-Canary  (54), 
South Western Europe (55), Alpine Space (56)) and with the allocation between the 
axes modified in the process (Caribbean programme (61)) 

Despite  some  specificities  (notably  an  emphasis  in  TNC  programmes  on  the 
environment sector and the information society), the field of intervention of Strands A 
and B were quite similar, viz.: 

  The three main sectors were the same: RDTI, Environment, Transport 

  On average the same proportion of the budget was allocated to transport and RDTI 

July 2016 - 85 

 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

  Tourism  and  culture  have  received  more  attention  in  CBC  (20%  of  the  budget), 

whereas TNC programmes allocated 6% of the funds to those sectors 

5.2. Results: Contribution to EU objectives, barriers removed  

This  section  analyses  the  main  results  achieved  by  the  Interreg  programmes  during 
the  2007-2013  programming  period.  These  results  are  examined  against  the 
objectives set out at the EU level at the beginning of the period. It is subdivided in the 
following parts: the outputs and results of the CBC programmes (respectively sections 
5.2.1 and 5.2.2), of the TNC programmes (section 5.2.3); and of Interreg IVC (section 
5.2.4);  an  overview  of  overall  results  (section  5.2.5);  and  a  description  of  the  main 
barriers alleviated (section 5.2.6).  

The  main  outputs  and  results  achieved  are  presented  in  a  schematic  way  for  CBC 
programmes,  on  one  hand,  and  TNC  programmes,  on  the  other.  As  expected,  the 
programmes have produced a wide range of outputs in various sectors, with a specific 
focus  on 
innovation/RTDI/entrepreneurship,  environmental  protection  and  risk 
prevention,  accessibility  (mainly  in  transport  and  ICT),  territorial  integration  (less 
clear) and capacity building.  

These  outputs  and  the  related  activities  have  contributed  to  progressively  removing 
and alleviating existing barriers, even if many barriers remain. Removing barriers is in 
itself  already  a  significant  result  that  contributed  to  EU  integration  and  to  the 
improvement of the quality of CBC outputs. 

As far as  EU priorities  are  concerned, ETC programmes have contributed to a  certain 
extent  to  improving  the  factors  of  growth,  environmental  protection,  risk  prevention 
and accessibility in the different areas. They have also achieved a more implicit goal, 
namely increased regional identity, political power and institutional governance in the 
area,  often  based  on  local  actors.  If  the  picture  seems  promising  at  first  sight, 
however, some limits should nevertheless be underlined; as further detailed in section 
5.3: 

  The scale of results was often small and the leverage effects on the economy or on 
the social well-being of the population as a whole were rather limited. This should 
however been seen in the light of the budgets allocated 

  The sustainability of results was not ensured (see also section 5.3) 

  The  absence  of  horizontal  and  vertical  mainstreaming  of  the  practices  developed 

and results gained hampered the leverage effects  

  The  lack  of  commitment  from  central  authorities  (and  even  regional  authorities) 

also limited the effectiveness of the programmes 

July 2016 - 86 

 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

5.2.1  Main outputs of CBC programmes 

The  next  figure  presents  a  reconstruction  of  the  ex-post  intervention  logic  of  CBC 
programmes,  starting  from  objectives,  outputs  implemented  and  main  results 
achieved. Expected impacts are also mentioned. 

Outputs  and  results  achieved  are  presented  by  main  priority  fields  and  discussed  in 
the following sections. A specific column addressing barriers removed has been added 
in order to capture more intangible results that are at the heart of CBC programmes. 

More  than  6800  CBC  projects  have  been  implemented  through  Interreg  2007-2013 
programmes.  More  than  half  of  them  were  related  to  the  theme  “Quality  of  life”72 
encompassing  CBC  in  tourism,  culture,  sport,  health,  safety  addressing  the  fifth 
priority  of  the  2006  regulation  “developing  collaboration,  capacity  and  joint  use  of 
infrastructures, in particular in sectors such as health, culture, tourism and education”.  

Figure 5. 3 Number of CBC projects by themes 

Source: KEEP database 

Around 1500 projects were funded in the field of economic development. This included 
innovation,  RDT,  entrepreneurship  of  which  250  aimed  to  develop  clustering  and 
economic  cooperation  and  another  250  focused  on  SME  and  entrepreneurship. 
Knowledge and technology transfer and scientific cooperation were also carried out at 
cross border level but less frequently. 

72  Projects were classified according to four themes:  

 

 

Economic development: projects focusing on business and policy support, innovation 
and technological development, clustering, innovation capacity, new products/services, 
etc. 
Environment and climate change: projects focusing on environmental issues, such as 
energy, water management, waste and pollution, soil and air quality, risk management, 
sustainable management of natural resources, climate change, etc. 
  Accessibility: projects focusing on transport and mobility, logistics, etc. 
  Quality of life: projects focusing on tourism, culture, sport, safety, health etc. 

July 2016 - 87 

 
 
 
                                           
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Figure 5. 4 Number of CBC projects in R&DT, Innovation and 
entrepreneurship 

Environmental  projects  focused  on  issues  related  to  the  management  of  natural 
resources, of natural threats, and on issues related to climate change and biodiversity. 
They  addressed  also  other  dimensions  of  environment  protection  such  as  water  and 
sea management.  

Figure 5. 5 Number of CBC projects in environment 

CBC  was  also  undertaken  for  building  cross  border  capacity  and  cooperation.  More 
than  250  projects  were  oriented  on  institutional  cooperation  and  cooperation 
networks. 

Figure 5. 6 Number of project in capacity building  

July 2016 - 88 

 
 
 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

July 2016 - 89 

Outputs CBCResultsCBCImpactsInnovation, RDTI, entrepreneurship•New knowledge/technologies on topics of shared relevance •Establishment of international university, CB research centre, CB training institute•Stronger links between research institutes and companies in strategic sector across the border •Technology/innovation strategies transfers towards SMEs mainly •More structured interactions between research institutions, companies through CB clusters and networks•CB incubators and advisory servicesEnvironment•Promotion of biodiversity and nature protection (joint knowledge, operational tools, specialised equipment, awareness raising)•Water management (Treatment of waste water, Integrated basin management )•Risk preventionAccessibility•Hard infrastructures (Missing links in transportation infrastructure, bridges, bicycle paths with a CB dimension)•Tools and systems developed to facilitate transport and mobilityCapacity building•Building capacities to enter into CBC•Developing joint tools•Developing joint planningContribution to factors of growth•Critical mass and coherence within the R&D capacities/infrastructures•More advanced innovation capacities in SMEs (development of new products/ processes)•Regional visibility and attractiveness•Diversification of the economy based on similar comparative advantages (tourism, culture)•Increased cross border trade ?Betterprotection of naturalresourcesand more effective riskprevention•Promotion of integratedprevention•Shared governanceof naturalresources•Betterenvironmentprotection•Improved prevention and readiness to respond to risksBetter access to markets and to social public services•Reduced travel time and increased flows across borders•Better access to information•Limited improvement of labourmarket access and job mobility•Few examples of facilitated access to health •Enlarged access to higher education Territorial integration•Development of joint health centres•Cooperation between entities providing public servicesRegional identity, Political power, reinforced institutional organization at local level, improved quality of policiesBetter integration of rural/ urban areas ?Economic and social cohesionEU integrationBarriersremoved:•More resources and willingness to cooperate across borders•Better knowledge and easy access to relevant partners across borders•Reduction of language barriers•reduction of physical distance barriers•Better understanding of the economic and social base, context and functioning of the neighbouring regions•Reduced legal barriers and governance related aspects•Strengthening and institutionalisation of existing structures 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

5.2.1.1 Outputs addressing common challenges  

Figure 5.7, below, summarizes the team’s assessment of the types of output achieved 
by all those CBC projects (the details can be found in the 53 fiches of Annex 3).  

 

It  shows  that  most  of  the  outputs  have  addressed  border  challenges  (with 
respect  to  environment,  people  flow  and  transportation),  the  reinforcement  of 
joint services and the sharing of more specialised infrastructures. 

  Both the general review of all programmes and the case studies show that nearly 
all programmes have delivered specific outputs related to the management of the 
environment and more specifically to the protection of common natural assets 
such  as  seas,  rivers  and  natural  areas  as  well  as  the  risk  management  and  the 
promotion of sustainable energy. 

  More  than  half  of  the  CBC  programmes  have  produced  outputs  addressing 

challenges related to people flows and transportation. 

  The  development  of  joint  specialised  services  was  one  of  the  main  outputs 
produced: this reflected the prevalence of projects addressing discontinuities in 
public services due to the existence of borders. Concretely, it concerned the 
delivery of services to support SMEs and cross-border innovation; the development 
of cross-border  specialised health services  or  easy  access to  existing centres; the 
creation  of  joint  rescue  teams  or  emergency  services  across  the  border;  joint 
education  programmes  and  even  a  bilingual  cross-border  crèche  (Upper  Rhine 
(15)). 

  The  development  of  a  joint  specialised  infrastructure  was  less  frequent 
and mainly observed in the field of R&D and innovation (for example, incubators) 
and  in  that  of  environment,  where  high  qualifications  and  critical  mass  may  be 
required.  

Figure 5. 7 Experts’ assessment of the types of outputs (CBC programmes) 

Source:  ADE;  Task  1  analysis.  Share  of  the  programme  where  the  output  is  present  to  a 
significant degree.  

July 2016 - 90 

 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

The  CBC  programmes  were  primarily  focused  on  addressing  common 
challenges  and  less  on  creating  new  opportunities  linked  to  the  exploitation 
of complementary73 assets over the borders.  

5.2.1.2 Outputs in the field of innovation, R&D and entrepreneurship  

Our  analysis  of  the  CBC  programmes  shows  that  in  the  field  of  innovation/R&D, 
outputs  were  in  line  with  the  Lisbon  Agenda,  with  a  clear  cross-border  dimension. 
Outputs  had  a  strong  business  orientation  as  they  concentrated  on  fostering 
innovativeness  in  SMEs,  as  well  as  on  developing  new  technologies  in  domains  of 
relevance to the cross-border area. The main outputs were:  

  The  establishment  of  contacts  across  the  border  and  stronger  links 
between  research  institutes  and  companies  in  priority  sectors,  as  well  as  the 
transfer of technologies and innovation, mainly towards SMEs (for instance, Ireland 
3-creation  of  a  “virtual  centre  of  excellence”    for  the  key  engineering  and 
manufacturing  sectors  within  the  area,  or  the  establishment  of  a  Tri-Regional 
Innovation  Network).  Firms  and  knowledge  actors  got  to  know  each  other  and 
regional stakeholders gained knowledge about available competences on the other 
side of the border. 

  More  structured  interactions  between  research  institutions  and  companies 
through  the  creation  or  reinforcement  of  cross-border  clusters  and  company 
networks (examples: Germany-The Netherlands OP (2); Northern Ireland-Ireland-
Western Scotland (3)). 

  New  or  improved  products  or  processes  in  companies  (in  the  Germany-The 
Netherlands OP (2), for instance, 551 new or improved products or processes have 
been recorded while the number of companies with improved processes amounted 
to 1186, exceeding the initial target). 

  Improved access to local markets 

  Cross-border incubators and advisory services 

Outputs related to public research and higher education were mainly: 

  New  and  more  advanced  knowledge/technologies  related  to  topics  of 
shared  relevance  for  the  area  (for  example,  in  Grande  Région  (19)  R&D 
networks were created in electro-chemicals, biotechnology and natural product) 

  The  establishment  of  higher  education  centres:  an 

international 
university,  a  cross-border  research  centre,  a  cross-border  training  institute 
and joint education programmes by universities on both sides of the border  

Overall,  CBC  programmes  have  contributed  to  better  linkages  between  regional 
innovation  systems.  Externalities  linked  to  R&D  and  innovation  capacities  have  been 
progressively  better  addressed.  Innovation  capacities  have  been  enhanced  within 
some  sectors  while  in  a  few  cases  the  opportunity  to  better  exploit  comparative 

73  In  the  on-line  tool  for  findings’  consolidation  “Complementarities”  mean  that  a  programme 
has  established  supply  chain  linkages  among  regions  and  complementarities  in  business 
functions among regions.   

July 2016 - 91 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

advantages  existing  in  the  area  has  been  explored,  leading  to  a  progressive 
diversification  of  the  economy.  Some  factors  enhanced  the  effectiveness.  The  areas 
where  regional  innovation  systems  were  already  well  structured  with  a  high 
concentration  of  SMEs  were  more  successful.  The  degree  of  openness  of  universities 
and  research  organisations  to  businesses  and  their  responsiveness  to  businesses’ 
needs also favoured the programmes’ effectiveness.  

R&D externalities across borders are better taken into account, enlarging the 
knowledge-based economy. This has been realised by:  

  Developing  critical  mass  and  coherence  within  the  R&D  capacities  and 
infrastructures:  more  than  50%  of  the  OPs  mentioned  a  positive  effect  of  the 
CBC programmes on reaching critical mass. This was particularly true in the field 
of R&D capacities and innovation. Several concrete examples illustrate this: 

-  One  of  the  major  results  of  the  North  Programme  (14)  is  the  creation  of 
knowledge  thanks  to  the  exploitation  of  complementarities  in  knowledge 
bases  and  skills.  The  new  partnerships  built  through  Interreg-funded 
projects also helped the institutions make steps towards wider international 
cooperation.  
In  the  Upper  Rhine  (15),  a  tri-national  research  space  (in  the  field  of 
neuro-science,  nutrition,  nanomedicine,  synthetic  biology,  and  organic 
photovoltaics)  has  been  developed  which  has  fostered  research  capacities, 
the area’s international visibility and its attractiveness.  

- 

-  The  Iberian  International  Nanotechnology  Laboratory  (INL),  established  in 
Braga, Portugal under the Spain-Portugal OP (1) is the first, and so far the 
only,  fully  international  research  organisation  in  Europe  in  the  field  of 
nanoscience and nanotechnology. 

  Developing research on (new) topics of shared relevance: 

-  PHYTOBIO  (France-Wallonia-Flanders  (7)),  concerning  the  environment  and 

sustainable agricultural development. 

-  Botnia Atlantica (13): A competence centre for elderly care between Sweden 

and Finland. 

  Broadening the coverage of higher education programmes:  

-  Enhanced cooperation and integration of higher education institutions in the 
Grande  Région  (19),  have  shown  increased  value  added  in  terms  of 
generating a broader choice of domains of study, and probably higher levels 
of specialisation, a stronger international dimension and greater visibility. 

More  advanced  innovation  capacities  in  SMEs  and  capacities  to  develop  new 
products/ processes have been fostered. 

As described above, the development of innovation networks and cooperation between 
research  centres, technology transfer organisations and companies has been a major 
output  of  the  CBC  programmes.  It  remains  very  hard  to  assess  the  consequences  in 
terms of the longer term impact on the innovation capacities on the economy, 
but two of the three case studies carried out in this field display good results.  

  The case study on the Germany-The Netherlands OP (2) finds that:  

-  More  than  1000  companies  (mainly  SMEs)  have  developed  improved 

production processes thanks to CBC projects 

-  More  than  500  new  or  improved  products  or  processes  were  developed  in 

companies 

July 2016 - 92 

 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

-  This  in  turn  has  led  to  more  than  3500  jobs  being  created  or  sustained,  far 

higher than what was expected (1780)74 

-  The  network  GMA  (“Machinery  and  plant  engineering  without  borders: 
Towards flexible manufacturing”) is one of the projects that has contributed to 
enhancing  the  innovative  capacities  and  innovation  processes  of  about  500 
businesses  

  The benefits for companies involved in North programme (14) were, for more than 
80%, new contact networks, followed by new collaborative partners and, for 70%, 
new  knowledge/skills.  The  programme  and  the  cross-border  cooperation  activities 
that  it  has  instigated  have  permitted  the  creation  of  new  products  and  new 
services as well as nearly 100 new enterprises.  

The  results  in  terms  of  enhanced  innovation  capacities  were  nevertheless  limited  as 
shown  in  some  case  studies.  The  reasons  found  were  inadequate  programme  design 
or delimitation of intervention zones.  

  The  analysis  of  the  Northern  Ireland-Ireland-Western  Scotland  OP  (3)  underlines 
that “more businesses than expected have taken part in projects, but the results in 
terms  of  innovation  (share  of  companies  developing  new  products  –  4%  against 
40%  expected  –  and  new  processes  11%  against  40%  expected)  are  lower  than 
anticipated.  This  is  linked  to  the  nature  of  the  projects,  which  were  not  directly 
targeted  at  promoting  innovation  but  rather  at  raising  awareness  on  more  basic 
issues  for  business  development,  amongst  which  innovation  came  only  as  one 
element”. 

  Another  limitation  mentioned  was  related  to  the  marginality  of  Scotland  in  the 
partnerships,  both  within  joint  research  projects  with  no  clear  cross-border 
dimension  and  mutual  interest  and  those  dealing  with  innovation  and  awareness 
raising  (such  as  the  Innovation  for  Competitive  Enterprises  (ICE)),  where  “the 
small eligible population of SMEs in Western Scotland limited the benefits reached 
in this region”.  

Regional visibility and attractiveness have been improved. 

45% of Programmes have developed or consolidated some form of “regional branding” 
(see figure 5.4). Joint activities in the tourism sector and related to cultural resources 
have been one of the main sources of increased visibility and attractiveness. In more 
than  16  Programmes  the  role  of  tourism  has  been  mentioned  as  fostering  regional 
visibility  and  attractiveness.  The  case  study  on  the  Deutschland/Netherlands  OP 
mentions for instance that “further qualitative impacts in the programme area refer to 
branding and regional attractiveness. Examples are “Das andere Holland” in tourism or 
the label of “green shipping” in maritime industries”.  

Improved quality of infrastructures appeared also as a factor of better attractiveness, 
as  mentioned  for  example  in  the  Northern  Ireland-Ireland-Western  Scotland  OP  (3) 
with fast telecoms connection for the whole area with connection to USA). 

74  According  to  the  case  study,  comparison  between  targets  and  achievements  must  be  done 
carefully  as  targets  have  been  recognised  as  underestimated  and  achievements  could  have 
been overestimated to a certain extent. 

July 2016 - 93 

 
 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

The programmes  have stimulated the diversification of the  economy  and  the 
exploitation  of  similar  comparative  advantages  in  some  specific  sectors 
(tourism, rural economies). 

The CBC programmes have devoted a lot of attention to the tourism sector through a 
number  of  very  diverse  interventions,  including  increased  transport  facilities,  new 
cycle  paths,  the  valorisation  of  natural  and  cultural  heritage,  the  establishment  of  a 
green ecotourism route, etc. 

Few  programmes  have  included  indicators  linked  to  this  sector.  But  in  some  cases 
there  are  indications  that  the  activity  related  to  tourism  is  intensifying  and  may 
contribute  to  the  attractiveness  of  the  areas  (even  if  it  is  difficult  to  attribute  such 
effects to the CBC), for example: 

  The Italy-France Alps OP (6) has contributed to enhancing the area’s 

attractiveness through the diversification of tourism and improvements in service 
provision in the alpine and rural areas. 

  Tourism has been one of the main focuses of the Germany/Bayern-Austria (9) OP 
with visible effects on the local economy and employment (overnight visitors 
increased by 6% in 2012 and 11% in 2013). 

 

In the Spain-France OP (16), a green ecotourism route between Navarra and the 
Atlantic Pyrenees has been established, along with other tourism routes. 

Cross-border  cooperation  related  to  tourism  has  been  nevertheless  limited  by  the 
competition existing between regions to attract more people.   

The  programmes’  success  in  increasing  access  to  cross-border  markets  and 
developing cross-border trade has remained limited 

A  few  programmes  have  mentioned  increased  cross  border  trade  and  access  to 
markets as a significant achievement of their programme. The result of CBC in terms 
of market integration was rather limited. 

“Enlarging  the  home  market  of  companies,  i.e.  the  opening  of  new  markets  in  one 
country  to  companies  in  the  other  countries  in  the  programme  area  thanks  to  the 
delivery  innovative  products”  was  singled  out  by  most  of  the  interviewees  as  a  main 
benefit of the North CBC programme (14).  

5.2.1.3 Outputs in the field of environment  

The  CBC  Programmes  have  produced  a  wide  range  of  outputs  in  the  field  of 
environment and climate change, as reflected both by the number of projects75 and by 
the budget. 80% of the ERDF budget allocated to the Environment (EUR 1023 million; 
19% of the overall ERDF budget dedicated to the 67 programmes within the scope of 
the study was distributed across 10 environmental sub-themes. 

The five most important themes- accounting together for 54% of the budget- were: (i) 
Sustainable  management  of  natural  resources  (15%);  Water  management  (10%); 

75  According to Keep.eu database, there are 1278 projects in Environment and Climate change 

for all 53 CBC programmes (data from March 2016).  

July 2016 - 94 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Risk  management  (10%);  Climate  change  and  biodiversity  (10%)  and  Renewable 
energy (9%).76 

One can distinguish between “hard” and “soft” outputs: (i) “hard” outputs included, for 
example,  the  use  of  joint  equipment  for  the  management  of  shared  natural  areas, 
while (ii) “soft” outputs included “lightweight actions” such as exchanges of experience 
and transfer of policy knowledge and approaches.  

Typical  outputs  related  to  the  sustainable  management  of  natural  resources 
(including Natura 2000) were of a “soft” character:  

 

Joint knowledge (analysis, research and best practice sharing), protocols, 
operational tools, procedures and strategies: 

-  The  2  Seas  programme  (17)  for  instance  provided  the  CBC  area  with 

functional tools for integrated management of coastal zones; 

-  Most  environment  related  projects  in  the  France-Channel-England  (18) 
programme  focused  on  research  activities  implemented  by  Universities  and 
specialised institutes that collaborated in the programme;  

  Specialised  equipment  for  data  collection  &  monitoring,  such  as  in  the  France-
Channel-England (18) programme that purchased equipment for the observation of 
the  seabed  (cameras,  sonars),  with  a  view  to  monitor  the  evolution  of  invasive 
species.  

In the field of water management, typical outputs were both “hard” (infrastructure) 
and “soft”:  

  Treatment  of  waste  water,  largely  through  the  upgrading  and  modernisation  of 
infrastructure with the aim of contributing to better water quality and meeting the 
requirements  of  the  Water  Quality  Directive  (e.g.    Italy  –  Austria  (22);  Saxony  – 
Czech Republic (40)). 

 

Integrated  basin  management  (in  sea  or  river  basins),  articulated  by  a  holistic  / 
eco-systemic  approach  (e.g.  Germany-The  Netherlands  (2);  Upper  Rhine  (15); 
Grande  Région  (19);  2  Seas  (17),  France-Channel-England  (18),  Greece-Cyprus 
(53)).  

Risk  prevention  and  management,  aimed  at  increasing  resilience,  focused  on 
preparedness,  early  prevention  and  management  of  risks.  Outputs  were  typically  the 
establishment of common management and monitoring structures and the building of 
capacity for the involved personnel (notably in the following programmes:  Romania-
Bulgaria (41), 2 Seas (17), Latvia-Lithuania (38) and Spain-Portugal (1)).   

Projects  dealing  with  climate  change  and  energy  efficiency  questions  were  of 
smaller  budgetary  size,  with  more  of  a  pilot  character  and  concentrated  on  research 
activities or on raising awareness among institutional and professional stakeholders or 
citizens.     

Overall,  conditions  for  more  integrated  management  and  protection  of  the 
environment  were  improved  in  several  CBC  areas.  There  are  indications  of 

76  Source: Keep.eu 

July 2016 - 95 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

improved  status  of  environmental  components,  e.g.  in  the  specific  field  of  water 
quality  and,  in  some  extent,  for  biodiversity.  On  the  contrary,  cross-border  added 
value of some intervention themes (such as waste management and energy efficiency) 
was  not  clear.  Many  initiatives  have  been  targeted  towards  the  improvement  of  the 
necessary  conditions  for  the  environmental  enhancement  and  protection  at  cross-
border  level.  But  their  contribution  in  improving  the  shared  governance  of  the 
environment  has  faced  important  legal  and  administrative  barriers,  as  well  as  a  low 
level of regional/national commitment and ownership.  

Programmes contributed to improving the integrated environmental management, 
prevention and pollution control, through several means: 

related 

issues.  Several  programmes  made  sure 

  By  producing  shared  academic  and  policy  oriented  knowledge  on  common 
environmental 
that 
environmental  issues  that  were  addressed  separately  by  different  national 
authorities  were  now  tackled  jointly.  The  France-Channel-England  (18)  case  study 
describes  how  the  programme  facilitated  a  better  understanding  of  the  complexity 
of  specific  environmental  problems  (through  research  studies,  mutualisation  of 
data, etc.). Furthermore, comparative analysis of legal and administrative national 
or regional frameworks (e.g. dragging, natural area protection, etc.), including the 
state  of  play  in  the  field  of  environmental  protection,  have  clarified  the  policy 
context  which  was  of  particular  importance  for  the  success  of  the  shared 
management. 

  By  establishing  shared  facilities  for  joint  pollution  prevention  and  control.  
Common  tools  concerned  water  resources  and  areas  management,  improving  the 
monitoring  of  sea  basins  (Botnia  Atlantica  (13),  France-Channel-England  (18),  2 
Seas (17), Italy-France Maritime (21)) or river basins (Romania-Bulgaria, Hungary-
Slovakia),  as  well  as  of  their  protected  marine  areas  (Italy-Malta  (35),  France-
Channel-England (18)) or specific infrastructures (e.g. ports in Greece-Italy (25)).  

The programmes also took initiatives to prevent the pollution of water resources. This 
concerned  several  cooperation  areas  involving  both  MS12  and  MS15  and  contributed 
to  the  improvement  of  water  supply  and  wastewater  treatment  networks.  Such 
improvements  were  mentioned  for  several  programmes,  such  as  in  Poland-Slovakia, 
were  an  extended  water  supply  network  and  wastewater  treatment  was  installed 
(Poland-Slovakia (39)) or in the South-Baltic (50) programme, were a river basin was 
managed through the involvement of local stakeholders.  

Other specific contributions were made in the field of air quality (e.g. management of 
CO2 neutral solutions with pilot character Flanders-The Netherlands (20)) and soil and 
land management (e.g. through elimination of pollution sources and objects, Lithuania 
– Poland (51)). 

There  are  examples  of  programmes  having  enhanced  the  capacity  of  local 
stakeholders to cope with environmental challenges:  

  Bayern-Czech Republic (33) launched the cooperation between administrations in 

charge of the national parks along the border; 

  Municipalities were involved in a coordinated joint protection and management of 
the  environment  assets,  e.g.  in  Slovakia-Austria  (34),  Italia-Slovenia  (47),  and 
Slovenia-Hungary (52) programmes.   

July 2016 - 96 

 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Several programmes contributed to the shared governance of natural resources. 
They did this by: 

  Designing  common  methodologies  and  guidance,  so  as  to  favour  converging 

approaches to deal with water resources issues, such as the:  
-  Adoption  of  common  methodologies  and  guidance  for  port  monitoring 

(Greece-Italy (25)). 

-  Establishment of shared protocols and equipment for seabed monitoring in the 

Channel area (France-Channel-England (18)). 

-  Design  of  common  territorial  and  water  management  models  (Italy-

Switzerland (26)). 

  Creating joint frameworks and approaches, giving rise to joint guiding documents 
(plans, strategies, frameworks) targeted to specific environmental resources:   
-  Especially in the field of joint water management, fostering the harmonisation 
of  policies  and  activities  for  achieving  better  quality  of  the  water  (Grande 
Région  (19),  Upper  Rhine  (15),  Italy-Austria  (22),  Latvia  -  Lithuania  (38); 
North (14). 

-  Also  in  the  field  of  biodiversity  or  towards  the  protection  of  specific  species 
(Northern  Ireland-Ireland-Western  Scotland  (3)  ;  Germany-The  Netherlands 
(2), France-Channel-England (18); Ireland-Wales (24).    

CBC  interventions  have  also  led  to  the  definition  of  general  approaches  and 
frameworks  for  the  environmental  management,  in  mountainous  areas  (e.g.  Italy-
France  Alps  (6))  as  well  as  in  coastal  zones  (e.g.  strategic  planning  for  coastal 
integrated management, 2 Seas (17)).  

Renewable energy and energy efficiency were promoted, but mainly through 
pilot initiatives with limited cross-border added value.   

Initiatives  in  the  field  of  sustainable  energy  and  energy  efficiency  had  more  a  pilot 
character  with  awareness  raising  dimensions  (users  oriented  approach  in  Germany-
Netherlands; regional resilience perspective for Syddanmark-Schleswig-K.E.R.N. (10); 
municipalities equipped with solar panels in Italy-Switzerland (26); biofuel production 
in Sweden-Norway (11); Botnia Atlantica (13) and Hungary-Slovakia (44)).  

The prevention and readiness to respond to environment related or technological risks 
were improved by: 

  Developing capacity in terms of infrastructure, equipment and training. There are 
several examples of  CBC contributing to the improvement of specialised civil and 
environment protection services preventing or  preparing for dealing with natural, 
technological  and  social  caused  emergencies.  These  services  with  general  scope 
(Öresund-Kattegatt-Skagerrak (5), Bayern-Czech Republic (33), Latvia - Lithuania 
(38)  and  Lithuania  -  Poland  (51)),  linked  specifically  to  the  flood  prevention 
(Germany-The Netherlands (2), Italy-Switzerland (26); Hungary-Romania (43) or 
to the forest protection (Italy-France Alps (6)) were upgraded and modernised.  
  Establishing joint procedures or funding mechanisms. CBC cooperation contributed 
to the harmonisation of activities in the field of flood prevention and protection at 
river  basin  level  (Hungary-Slovakia  (44),  Austria  –Czech  Republic  (30).  On  the 
other hand, an important contribution to maritime incidence and risk management 
was  made  in  a  context  of  important  transport  traffic  (e.g.  marine  brigades’ 
integration  2  Seas  (17);  Italy-Malta  (35).  Civil  protection  services  were 

July 2016 - 97 

 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

mutualised through common Civil protection  plans (Italy-Switzerland (26), Latvia 
-  Lithuania  (38))  or  joint  funding  mechanisms  for  risk  prevention  (Italy-France 
Alps (6)).  

July 2016 - 98 

 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Awareness of environmental related issues was raised as a specific or 
crosscutting aspect of several Interreg interventions. 

Several CBC activities contributed to raise awareness for environmental protection and 
nature-friendly  behaviours  through  conferences,  workshops,  education  campaigns 
(e.g.  Spain-Portugal  (1);  Italy-France  Maritime  (21);  Saxony-Czech  Republic  (40), 
Lithuania – Poland (51), France-Channel-England (18), Romania-Bulgaria (41)), which 
were taken as an objective of funded projects or as transversal dimension of research 
related  activities.  This  awareness  raising  has  a  positive  effect  whether  the 
environment  as  a  whole  or  one  of  its  components  became  a  support  for  common 
identification (regional identity, e.g. France-Channel-England (18)).    

5.2.1.4 Outputs in the field of capacity building 

Most  of  the  CBC  projects  dedicated  to  capacity  building  were  carried  out  under  code 
81  « Strengthening  institutional  capacity  at  national,  regional  and  local  levels : 
mechanisms  for  improving  good  policy  and  programme  design,  monitoring  and 
evaluation  at  national,  regional  and  local  levels,  capacity-building  in  the  delivery  of 
policies and programmes ».  

Three main types of outputs have been produced: 

  enhanced  capacities  to  undertake  cross  border  cooperation  activities  and  to 

participate in CBC programmes. 
tools to strengthen policy/programme management on both sides of the border; 

 
  The  development  of 

joint  planning, 

joint  strategies,  and  effective 

joint 

management in various sectors. 

The  capacity  building  for  CBC  has  been  mainly  developed  through  the  creation  or 
extension of partnerships across borders, by providing information and methodological 
tools on CBC programmes, and by reinforcing cross-border structures such as Euregios 
and  EGTC  with  a  mission  to  stimulate  projects.  The  main  activities  carried  out  were 
the  exchange  of  information  on  cross  border  opportunities  and  obstacles,  awareness 
raising on CBC challenges, development of networks and platforms, and a number of 
other  outputs,  such  as  databases,  trainings/e-learning  on  project  preparation, 
methodological guides, etc.   

The  second  type  of  outputs  (joint  tools)  has  been  mainly  developed  in  relation  to 
policy/programme management in sectors where cooperation was under development 
and  justified  by  common  interests.  This  has  been  notably  the  case  in  the  field  of 
nature  and  biodiversity  protection.  An  examples  is  the  Slovakia-Hungary  CBC 
programme, where a number of cooperation projects have been initiated in the field of 
river and groundwater protection as well as in flood prevention. 

joint  development  plans,  and 

The next step in terms of capacity building is the development of joint planning, joint 
strategies, 
joint  services.  Joint  planning  and 
management  capacities  have  been  enhanced  at  local  levels,  notably  at  municipal 
levels,  which  has  permitted  to  municipalities  to  deliver  joint  services  such  as  fire 
rescue or public security services.  

July 2016 - 99 

 
 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

5.2.1.4  Outputs  related  to  infrastructure  and  the  facilitation  of  access  to 
public services 

Outputs were a mix of hard infrastructures (mainly roads, bridges and cycle paths 
with a cross-border dimension)  and of tools and systems developed to facilitate 
transport and mobility across the borders.  

Among the hard infrastructures, the following are worthy of mention: 

  Missing  links  in  transportation  infrastructure,  e.g.  cross-border  railway  networks 
interrupted at the border (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern-Brandenburg-Poland (29),); 

  New road connections across borders (many new borders programmes) 
  Navigation and port infrastructures (Spain-Portugal (1), 2 Seas (17), Italy-France 

Maritime (21), South Baltic (50)), investment in harbours (Botnia Atlantica (13)). 

  New cycle or pedestrian paths across borders (many programmes) 
  The  Peace  Bridge  (PEACE  III  (4),  symbolic  bridges  between  separated 
communities  (Czech  Republic-Slovakia  (32),);  several  bridges  over  border  rivers 
(Hungary-Slovakia) 

Several initiatives have led to the development of systems or services in order to 
facilitate  accessibility,  such  as  joint  systems  and  common  tickets  for  cross-border 
public  transport  (Saxony-Poland  (46));  Cross-border  car  sharing  systems  (France-
Switzerland  (27));  Services  for  cross-border  workers  (South  Denmark-Schleswig-
KERN  (10),);Cross-border  student  placements  (Netherlands-Germany  (2),  Upper 
Rhine (15), South Baltic (50),  Poland-Lithuania (51));etc.  

Travel time reduction, augmentation of peripheral territories accessibility and 
improvement  of  the  security,  have  been  observed.  But  there  are  little 
indications of any influence on trade (goods and services markets).     

There are few indications that interventions on port and harbours infrastructure have 
led to the increase of trade relations. Isolated examples are Italy France Maritime (21) 
and  South  Baltic  (50),  the  latter  contributed  to  improve  oversize  freight  across  the 
cooperation zone. 

5.2.1.5 Outputs in healthcare and education 

CBC  programmes  produced  significant  outputs  in  healthcare  and  education;  projects 
on  employment  and  job  mobility  were  more  difficult  to  implement  than  initially 
expected in the programmes. 

contributed 

Interreg 
related 
organisations, but there are few examples of programmes that facilitated direct access 
to health services for citizens.  

cooperation  between  healthcare 

fostering 

in 

Outputs in the field of  health  concerned mainly  organisational issues and knowledge 
production  such  as  the  exchange  of  data  and  the  creation  of  joint  medical  records 
(MV/BB -Poland (29); Italy-Slovenia (47); the transfer of good practice (2 Seas (17), 
Slovenia-Hungary  (52)),  elaboration  of  integrated  guiding  policies  on    public  health 
related issues (e.g. diabetes, drug prevention, Grande Région (19)); capacity building 
(Lithuania-Poland  (51),  shared  facilities  for  joint  management  of  emergencies 
(ambulance  services  KERN  (10),  Austria-Czech  Republic  (30),  Estonia-  Latvia  (37). 
This  also  concerned  common  research  activities,  notably  through  the  collaboration 

July 2016 - 100 

 
 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

between  hospitals  and  specialized  institutes  (Öresund-Kattegatt-Skagerrak  (5);  on 
cancer  related  questions  (Fehmarnbeltregion  (23))  or  through  the  establishment  of  a 
joint  research  centre  (Italy-Austria  (22)). Some  outputs  were  very  tangible.  As 
interventions  in  the  health  sector  mainly  had  an  organisational  character  or  a 
knowledge production perspective, they did not contribute much in terms of the direct 
access to health services (few examples of achievements in this field are for instance 
Botnia-Atlantica (13), Nord (14), Spain-France (16), Hungary-Romania (43)). 

Interventions in the field of higher education cooperation contributed to enlarge the 
access  of  students  to  higher  education  in  territories  which  are  distant  from  the  main 
academic and economic centres. There were clear examples in terms of the creation of 
joint  institutes  or  specialised  schools,  such  as  the  Euro-institute  for  transboundary 
studies  of  Catalonia  (Spain-France  (16));  a  film  production  school  and  network 
(Fehmarnbeltregion  (23);  and  the  Multidisciplinary  school  of  Management  and 
commerce (Amazonia (28)). Also the establishment of common study courses was an 
output  in  several  cases  (e.g.  in  high-tech  domains  for  the  programme  France, 
Wallonia, Flanders (F7); or in the automotive field, in Slovakia-Austria (34)). 

Programmes  that  targeted  the  improvement  of  the  labour  market  and  job  mobility 
have generally not yielded the expected results:  

Netherlands 

  Many  of  them  did  not  reach  their  targets  in  terms  of  number  of  projects  (e.g. 
(5); 
(2); 
Germany-The 
Deutschland/Bayern 
(19); 
(9);  KERN 
Fehmarnbeltregion (23); Estonia- Latvia (37); Lithuania  - Poland (51). There are 
some  exceptions  such  as  in  Flanders-Netherlands  (20);  and  Italy  –  Switzerland 
(26)) 

Öresund-Kattegatt-Skagerrak 

(10);  Grande  Région 

-  Austria 

  Several  projects  organised  one-off  activities  with  little  impact  in  terms  of 
development  of  joint  services  (notably  seminars,  workshops  and  information 
campaigns) 

Overall,  programmes  did  not  mobilise  the  financial  resources  they  had 
allocated for employment and related sub-themes: the ERDF budget allocated to 
employment  in  2014  was  only  the  half  of  what  had  been  agreed  in  the  2008  ERDF 
budget. The main reasons are: 

  The existence  of important legal and administrative barriers impeding integration 

of the employment markets 

  The  political  sensitivity  of  the  topic  at  regional  and  national  levels,  limiting 

effective cooperation 

5.2.1.6 Contribution to the institutional organisation of the region  

As  already  mentioned,  a  striking  result  is  that  80%  of  the  programmes  have 
significantly  contributed  to  the  creation  or  the  rise  of  a  regional  identity.  Regional 
identity77  may  be  explained  and  developed  through  various  dimensions  (cultural, 
historical, institutional, and political).  

77  As  explained  below,  this  should  be  understood  as  understood  as  the  increased 
acknowledgment by stakeholders in a certain area of the value of cooperating across borders 
and of an improved social capital. 

July 2016 - 101 

 
 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

One  of  these  has  been  more  directly  addressed  by  the  CBC  programmes:  the 
enhancement  of 
linkages  and  the  development  of  joint 
management  approaches  to  tackle  common  challenges.  This  was  partly  the 
result of the capacity building component of the programmes. 

institutional 

During  the  2007-2013  programming  period,  the  consolidation  and  extension  of 
institutional linkages has contributed to:  

  A  much  greater  understanding  and  knowledge  of  the  governance 

structures on either side of the border 

  An 

increased  administrative  capacity  and  collaboration  amongst 
stakeholders  from  either  side  of  the  border,  particularly  in  dealing  with 
common  issues  such  as  those  related  to  managing  the  environment  or  to 
delivering public services on either side of the border. Planning and management 
capacities  were  also  enhanced  at  local  levels  (notably  in  small  or  medium  size 
municipalities such as in the Hungary/Slovakia OP) 
In  several  cases,  the  institutional  organisation  at  cross-border  level  has  been 
consolidated through the establishment  of or by supporting cross-border 
institutions 

 

There  are  examples  of  an  emerging  and/or  consolidating  process  of  CBC 
institutionalisation, through:  

  The  enlargement  of  the  multi-level  governance  by 

involving 

local 

stakeholders in the management of the CBC area:  

-  Fehmarnbelt  committee  of  24  municipalities  representing  their  common 
interests  (Fehmarnbelt-region,  (23));  involvement  of  126  municipalities 
towards better governance resulting in common management of wide CBC 
areas (Slovakia-Austria, (34)); increased funding for municipalities (Slovak 
Republic-Czech Republic, (32)).  

  The enhancement of  the “social capital” (more working contacts  in Estonia  – 
Latvia  (37))  and  capacity  of  local  stakeholders  to  compete  for  financing  from 
mainstream programmes (Latvia – Lithuania (38)). 

  The  establishment  of  pilot  initiatives  for  direct    institutional  cooperation 

through “Interreg Councils” (Italy-Austria, (22)). 

  The  reinforcement  of  the  CBC  sector  specific  or  integrated  governance 
systems  (tourism,  mobility,  economic  and  academic  (Austria  –  Hungary  (31), 
Germany-The  Netherlands,  (2))  and  maritime  governance  system  (Channel  Arc 
Manche Integrated strategy (France-Channel-UK (18)). 

  The  greater  involvement  of  local  stakeholders  in  the  management  of  the 
Interreg programme as members of its monitoring committee (Ireland – Wales, 
(24)). 

5.2.2 Overall results achieved through the CBC programmes 

Overall, the results achieved through the CBC programmes were: 

 

(i) Very diverse, contributing to the enhancement of factors of growth, which may 
have improved enterprises competitiveness, improved tools for better protection of 
the environment and prevention of risk, as well as to facilitating access to markets 
and public services; but  

July 2016 - 102 

 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

 

(ii) Fragmented within the area covered as well as at overall EU level, with no clear 
contribution to significantly higher economic and social integration of the areas.  

Results  were  not  measurable  on  an  aggregate  basis  as  indicators  did  not  permit  a 
quantitative  assessment  of  the  main  effects  of  the  CBC  outputs.  The  analysis  is 
therefore  based  primarily  on  a  qualitative  approach  and  findings  of  task  1  (an 
overview  of  the  53  Programmes)  and  task  2  (9  case  studies  covering  the  fields  of 
innovation, environment and capacity building) (see chapter 3).   

The  main  result  achieved  is  the  creation  or  consolidation  of  a  regional 
increased  acknowledgment  by 
identity.  This  should  be  understood  as  the 
stakeholders  in  a  certain  area  of  the  value  of  cooperating  across  borders  and  of  an 
improved  social  capital (including  knowledge  of  the  partners  on  the  other  side  of  the 
border and a better understanding of the potential for cooperation): 

  This finding stems from our team’s analysis of the results across the 53 CBC 

programmes, which shows that this is the main result in 83% of cases (see figure 
5.4 below);  

 

It is also confirmed by the case studies: most MAs and stakeholders met during 
interviews emphasized this as the primary goal of the programme, beyond 
achievements of a more concrete nature (such as an increased rate of SME 
innovation or a decrease in water pollution).  

Figure 5. 8 Transversal results of CBC programmes (by types of OP) 

Source:  Task  1  expert  analyses.  The  figure  shows  the  share  of  programmes  where  a  specific  result  is 
present to a significant degree  

As shown by the same figure, other key results were the gathering of critical mass78, 
regional branding79 and to a lesser extent political power. The critical mass effect 

78  ”Critical  mass”  should  be  understood  here  by  the  capacity  of  the  programme  to  generate 
sufficient  activity  to  trigger  effects  that  were  not  only  punctual  or  local.  The  critical  mass 
effect has in this sense been examined by asking the following question to the experts: “Has 

July 2016 - 103 

 
 
                                           
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

seems  stronger  in  the  EU  12  MS  (old  borders)  which  have  a  longer  history  of 
cooperation  and  have  already  put  in  place  ,  from  previous  cooperation  periods,  pre-
infrastructure  and 
conditions  of  a  tangible  and 
communication links, mutual trust and knowledge).  

intangible  nature  (such  as 

New borders programmes achieved more in terms of regional  branding, as they have 
put a particular emphasis on tangible/visible outputs, promoting the attractiveness of 
the cooperation area.  

5.2.3 Main outputs and results of TNC programmes 

transnational  co-operation 

(TNC)  programmes  aimed  at  strengthening 
The 
transnational  cooperation 
territorial 
to 
through  actions  conducive 
development linked to EU priorities. A core element in relation to the results of all TNC 
programmes  was  therefore  the  contribution  to  capacity-building,  sharing  of  best 
practices, knowledge transfer and creation of networks in key sectors. 

integrated 

Assessment of the outputs and results of the TNC programmes has often been difficult 
owing to the lack of well-defined priority interventions and to the lack of robustness of 
indicators and monitoring systems. 

Compared to CBC programmes, the TNC programmes were much smaller in terms of 
budget allocated and in terms of number of projects implemented. 1134 projects were 
funded  through  TNC  programmes  of  which  the  main  part  in  the  field  of  environment 
and  climate  change.  Economic  development  and  accessibility  were  also  addressed 
through  many  different  projects  even  if  for  the  latest  which  was  one  of  the  main 
priorities,  the  number  of  transnational  initiatives  was  much  smaller  (140  projects 
under the 13 TNC programmes).    

Figure 5. 9 Number of projects in TNC programmes 

Source: KEEP database 

the  programme  been  able  to  generate  critical  mass  to  activities  to  create  larger  labour 
market or access to wider business and knowledge networks?”  

79 “Regional identity”: the programme has increased internal recognition of the area for greater 
integration  and  social  capital  (including  knowledge  of  the  partners  on  the  other  side  of  the 
border);  “Regional  branding”:  programme  has  increased  the  attractiveness  and  recognition 
of the area to firms and skilled labour both within the cross-border area and beyond. 

July 2016 - 104 

 
                                                                                                                                
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Renewable energy, coastal management and water management were the three most 
frequent issues addressed through TNC projects in the environmental field. In the area 
of  economic  development,  transnational  cooperation  projects  were  primarily  oriented 
to  CBC  projects.  
towards  clustering  and  economic  cooperation,  similarly 

July 2016 - 105 

 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

5.2.3.1 Outputs of TNC programmes  

Outputs  were  produced  in  many  different  sectors  and  sub-sectors  with  a  clear  cross-
border or transnational dimension mainly addressing common concerns.  

Outputs  were  numerous  and  quite  difficult  to  present  in  an  aggregate  manner.  As 
shown in the previous figure, they were of different types and covered the main four 
areas where transnationality was promoted, with a strong focus on innovation and 
R&D, and on environmental protection and management.  

TNC  programmes  have  generally  produced  specific  outputs  aiming  at  increasing 
dialogue,  improving  access  to  markets  and  to  scientific  knowledge  and  technology 
transfer.  

Outputs  delivered  had  a  clear  transnational  dimension  and  provided  tools,  services 
and infrastructures in order to: 

  Reinforce the management of common assets/resources; 
  Facilitate people and goods mobility and access to markets; 
  Better exploit externalities and economies of scale and scope (especially in the field 

of R&D/innovation). 

Figure 5. 10 Experts’ assessment of outputs of TNC programmes 

Source:  ADE;  Task  1  analysis.  Share  of  the  programme  where  the  output  is  present  to  a 
significant degree.  

An analysis of the main outputs by main types and fields of intervention shows that: 

  Outputs  produced  were  not  so  different  from  those  produced  by  CBC 

programmes except that they were implemented on a larger scale. 

  Most  of  the  outputs  related  to  common  concerns  and  addressed  border 
challenges  through  soft  cooperation  (developing  partnerships,  collaborative 
projects, joint research, exchanges of experience). 

  Several  tackled  the  theme  of  accessibility,  providing  more  grounds  for  real 
transnational  outputs  related  to  spatial  development  planning,  an  example  being 
the corridor development around major transport infrastructures axes (see Central 
Europe (65)). 

In  the  different  sectors,  it  appeared  that  the  most  popular  outputs  of  TNC 
programmes  were  (i)  the  setting-up  or  reinforcement  of  networks  or  partnerships 
linking  SMEs  and  research  or  technological  centres  at  transnational  level  in  a  wide 

July 2016 - 107 

 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

range  of  sectors;  and  (ii)  the  implementation  of  joint  or  articulated  management  of 
natural resources and environmental protection. 

Main outputs in innovation, RDTI, entrepreneurship 

  New knowledge/technologies on topics of shared relevance (i.e. ICT applications 

for SMEs) 

  Establishment of international networks of universities (pan Baltic network), TN 
research centre, TN training institutes (technical and vocational education) 
  Stronger links between research institutes and companies in strategic sectors 

across borders  

  Technology/innovation strategies transfers  
  Knowledge and innovation clusters on aerospace, agribusiness, automotive, 

biotechnologies, energy and heath  

  Newly developed market products and services  
  TN incubators and advisory services  specifically dedicated to SMEs and facilitating 

international cooperation and cluster development 

Innovation has been an increasingly important aspect of the TNC cooperation. One of 
the  most  significant  outputs  having  enhanced  competitiveness  was  the  creation  of 
clusters.  They  have  interconnected  companies  and  institutions  such  as  research 
institutes,  business  associations  as  well  as  local  authorities,  and  allowed  the 
development of common strategies, and the sharing of technologies and skills. Cluster 
projects have been developed to respond to a very wide range of regional challenges 
and opportunities. 

Outputs  in  RDTI  and  entrepreneurship  had  a  strong  business  orientation,  as  they 
concentrated  on  fostering  innovativeness  of  SMEs,  and  on  the  development  of  new 
technologies in domains relevant for the cross-border area. 

Main outputs in environment 

  Promotion of biodiversity and nature protection (joint knowledge networks, 

operational tools, specialised equipment, awareness raising) 
Integrated water management and flood prevention (South East Europe – Med) 

 
  Environmental risk prevention and management shared systems  

Implementing 
resources  and 
joint  or  articulated  management  of  natural 
environmental  protection  has  been  one  of  the  main  fields  of  intervention  leading  to 
the development of new management tools; specialised infrastructure (in the field of 
risk  prevention);  sharing  of  knowledge  and  practices;  and  research  programmes 
exploring  common  challenges  related  to  air,  soil  and  water.  Few  outputs  have  been 
produced  to  develop  and  manage  environmental  solutions  and  policies,  whether  for 
the  zone  as  a  whole,  at  an  intermediate  level  between  the  regional  and  national 
levels, or at EU level. Outputs in terms of environmental protection have covered both 
intangible  dimensions  such  as  new  approaches  and  tools  contributing  to  improved 
capacity,  and  more  tangible  ones  in  the  form  of  joint  investments  for  environment 
protection. 

July 2016 - 108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Main outputs related to transport and accessibility 

  Hard infrastructures and new multimodal transport connections  (sustainable, 

multimodal and green transports) 

  Tools and systems to facilitate transport and mobility (integrated traffic, mobility 
planning, multimodal transport and innovative port management systems)  

  Transnational transport corridors 
  Low carbon transport soft actions 

Main outputs in capacity building 

The  majority  of  the  TNC  programs  have  developed  common  approaches  and 
mechanisms  supporting  an  EU-wide  governance  such  as:  joint  transnational,  macro-
regional and sea-basin strategies, knowledge exchange networks supporting decision-
makers and practitioners etc.  

5.2.3.2 Main results of TNC 

As illustrated in Figure 5.6, the analysis of all TNC programmes and case studies has 
revealed  that  reaching  critical  mass  was  one  of  the  most  important  results  achieved 
(85%).  The  transnational  programmes  focused  mainly  on  encouraging  transnational 
cooperation  amongst  local,  regional  and  national  partners  via  the  creation,  among 
other  things,  of  networks,  platforms,  joint  studies,  and  joint  management  systems 
that tackled common challenges in the cooperation zone and fostered integration.  

Figure 5. 11 Experts’ assessment of general results for Transnational 
programmes 

The  priority  area  in  which  critical  mass  was  developed  was  broadly  in  line  with  that 
fixed at the beginning of the period (see section 4).  

The economies of scale and scope were particularly clear in the field of R&D. Results in 
RDTI and entrepreneurship had a strong business orientation, as they concentrated on 
fostering innovativeness of SMEs as well as developing new technologies in domains of 
relevance to the transnational areas. The main results related to building critical mass 
in  knowledge-based  resources  of  various  types:  joint  applied  research,  business 
advisory  services  capitalizing  the  resources  of  research,  trainings,  and  new 
partnerships  over  the  cooperation  areas.  More  sustainable  results  consisted  in  the 
partnership established and pooling of resources through TNC projects. 

July 2016 - 109 

 
 
 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

In  the  field  of  environment,  improved  risk  prevention  (flood  risks  for  example)  and 
better  protection  and  exploitation  of  maritime  resources  have  been  clearly  observed 
(examples in the Baltic Sea Region or North Sea Programme). They were mainly due 
to  the  reinforcement  of  institutional  capacities  at  transnational  level.  The  multi-level 
governance  in  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  in  the  Baltic  Sea  programme  is  a  good 
example of how a TNC project has contributed to the creation of a common potential 
in  the  cooperation  area,  enhancing  a  participative  transnational  model  of  governance 
in the field of maritime spatial planning. 

Transnational  programmes  (like  many  cross-border  programmes)  have  generated 
significant  outputs  in  relation  to  the  development  of  joint  strategies  and  solutions 
towards shared environmental problems, typically related to shared sea basins (Baltic 
Sea,  Mediterranean  sea,  Atlantic  sea)  but  also  around  the  production  of  renewable 
energy  or  the  management  of  natural  areas  such  as  mountainous  spaces  (i.e.  Alpine 
Space).  Joint  strategies  refer  to  the  adoption  of  aligned  approaches  or  policies 
deployed in the field of environment protection; joint solutions relate to concrete tools, 
such  as  common  databases  or  monitoring  systems,  shared  intervention  devices  such 
as sea vessels, and others.  

Reduced  travel  time  and  increased  flows  across  borders  (new  transport  systems  and 
connections),  as  well  as  better  access  to  information,  have  also  been  achieved 
(example of the North West Region). As regards transport and inter-modality, the 
TNC  programmes  have  certainly improved  internal  and  external  accessibility  focusing 
on handling imbalances in transport to reduce barriers to the transportation of goods 
and passengers. Results related to the topic of inter-modality consisted in: 

 
 

 
 

Improvement of the interoperability between different transport and ICT networks; 
Integration  of  peripheral  territories  with  difficult  or  low  accessibility  (Northern 
Periphery, Madeira-Azores-Canary); 
Influencing policies and regulation through a transnational participative approach; 
Increasing green and sustainable transport modes. 

For  TNC,  institutional  capacities  and  the  structure  of  transnational  governance  were 
critical  for  ensuring  that  issues  identified  in  programmes  had  a  clear  transnational 
component  and  were  capable  of  achieving  the  expected  results  in  terms  of  improved 
quality of policies regarding the identified challenges.  

In that context the diversity of the cooperation zone can be an impediment to creating 
a  macro-regional  strategy  and  related  structures.  This  was  the  case  in  the  Atlantic 
Area which is territorially, politically, socio-economically and culturally diverse. Whilst 
cooperation in this area has a long-standing history, the development of a new basin 
strategy is an emerging issue presenting a certain political complexity. Conversely, the 
Baltic  Sea  Region  OP  has  delivered  interesting  results  in  terms  of  institutional 
cooperation through contributing to implementation of the  EUSBSR as a result of the 
engagement of stakeholders in the region, creation of a platform for long-term actions 
and  provision  of  analysis  and  evidence  for  use  in  policy-making.  The  cooperation 
implemented between the BSR programme and the EUSBSR coordinators has furtherly 
enhanced the added value of the programme for the overall region. 

July 2016 - 110 

 
 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

5.2.4 Interreg IV C 

The goal of Interreg IVC was to improve the effectiveness of regional policies through 
interregional cooperation and learning. Thanks to the funding of “soft” projects with an 
interregional character, Interreg IVC provided a framework in which local and regional 
institutions  from  different  Member  States  could  exchange  experience  and  good 
practice in relation to the challenges they faced. The programme funded two types of 
project:  “Regional  Initiative  Projects”  (Type  1)  and  “Capitalisation  Projects”  including 
“Fast Track” (Type 2) projects, the latter aiming at the transfer  of policy lessons and 
practices into Structural Funds Operational Programmes.  

The assessment of the effectiveness of those two initiatives shows that dissemination 
and  learning  have  taken  place,  notably  for  “Capitalisation  projects”.  Learning  in  the 
case of “Regional Initiative projects” has mainly occurred at an individual level, while 
group learning, which is of particular importance for the exchange of practices and for 
leading to policy action, has been impeded by strong differences among the respective 
administrative cultures and by the involvement of partners with different competences 
and responsibilities in any given policy field.  

Capitalisation projects have shown better results in terms of learning and transfers. As 
good  practices  had  already  been  identified  in  the  regions,  the  focus  of  Capitalisation 
project  activities  was  on  preparing  their  transfer 
into  regional  operational 
programmes. According to the mid-term evaluation undertaken in 2013, around 75% 
of the action plans developed by six of the 11 fast-track projects were completely or 
partly implemented. The  evaluation also highlighted some difficulties in leading on to 
concrete policy action, including: 

  Changes in objectives and priorities from one programming period to another  
  Adaptation  and  transformation  of  good  practice  to  fit  not  only  local  or  regional 

needs, but also to ensure national or international application 

  Absence  of  thematic  capitalisation  at  programme  level  in  the  initial  operational 
programme at the start of the programme; no mechanism was planned to ensure 
coherent exploitation and consolidation of project results by theme 

  Lack of funding 

implemented  a  Thematic 
To  address  those  difficulties,  the  programme  has 
Capitalisation  Initiative  at  programme  level  that  covered  twelve  topics  and  consisted 
of  collection,  analysis,  and  sifting-out  of  those  good  practices  with  the  highest  value 
for further dissemination, as well as dissemination of knowledge gained from projects. 

The main value of the programme was to create inter-project linkages, notably during 
the  thematic  workshops  organised  with  a  view  to  producing  the  reports  and  helping 
overcome  the  problem  created  by  lack  of  connection  between  the  projects.  The 
Thematic  Capitalisation  Initiative  has  permitted  to  reach  out  to  a  new  audience, 
enlarge  external  diffusion,  and  improve  visibility  of  useful  knowledge.  The  extent  to 
which it has resulted in an effective use of knowledge transfer is difficult to assess.  

The transfer of knowledge appeared most useful when it addressed policy practice that 
had  first  been  shared  within  the  project  partnership.  The  latter  in  turn  depended  of 
many factors that were only rarely found to exist, such as the involvement of relevant 
regional  policy-makers;  the  existence  of  a  strategic  policy  framework  in  the  recipient 
region;  the  presence  in  projects  of  partners  with  the  right  profile;  a  screening  and 
validation  process  ensuring  the  quality  of  the  pool  of  knowledge  generated;  the 
reproducibility  of  good  practices  identified;  the  timing  of  policy-learning  to  fit  in  with 

July 2016 - 111 

 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

political and funding cycles; and the effectiveness of the learning process not only at 
individual level but also at organisational and regional stakeholder levels. 

Policy-makers  and  regional  associations interviewed  during  the  evaluation  shared  the 
opinion  that  knowledge  capitalization  exercises  are  valuable  if  they  help  defragment 
the  many  sources  of  information,  and  organize  them  around  clear  topics  rather  than 
around  sources.  This  means  that  opportunities  exist  for  such  capitalisation  exercises 
encompassing  more  sources  of  knowledge  beyond  Interreg  IVC,  joining  forces  with 
other EU programmes delivering relevant policy knowledge in the same areas. 

5.2.5 Wider effects of Interreg  

Cooperation  is  a  major  product  of  the  CBC  and  the  TNC  programmes 
implemented during the 2007-2013 programming period. There is limited evidence on 
the  depth  of  cross-border  cooperation  actually  achieved  through  programme 
implementation  but  case  studies  point  towards  improvements  in  the  culture  and 
quality of cooperation. For many programmes, a striking fact was the surprisingly high 
degree  of  cooperation  reached  as  measured  via  the  four  cooperation  criteria:  joint 
development,  joint  implementation,  joint  staffing  and  joint  financing.  In  at  least  ten 
programmes80  more  than  75%  of  the  projects  met  all  four  criteria,  which  was  more 
than the expectations.  

Indicators  computed  by  the  programmes  have  revealed  a  high  number  of  initiatives 
undertaken  to  set  up  networks,  joint  programmes,  joint  research,  joint  management 
systems, and cooperation activities (see tables 5.3 and 5.4). Case  study reports  also 
highlight significant achievements regarding cooperation enhancement: 

 

 

 

An enquiry into project beneficiaries carried out for the mid-term evaluation of the 
Northern  Ireland-Ireland-Western  Scotland  (3)  states  that  “the  cross-border 
element  of  the  programme  was  described  as  being  a  key  benefit  of  the 
programme  as  it  developed  networking  opportunities  for  organisations  north  and 
south of the border”. 

Interviews  carried  out  during  the  2012  external  evaluation  of  the  North 
Programme  (Kontigo  2012),  revealed  that  “an  (intangible)  result  of  the 
programme  has  continued  to  bring  together  the  northern  regions,  and  further 
accentuates  cross-border  cooperation.  The  programme  helps 
to  create 
connections  between  actors  working  in  isolation  but  sharing  similar  needs  and 
possessing complementary expertise to develop joint solutions”81.  

The  Germany-The  Netherlands  (2)  programme  case  study  emphasised  the 
importance  given  to  more  cooperation:  “the  programme  philosophy  of  joint 
activities  across  the  border  was  clearly  communicated  by  the  programme 
management and perceived as a core aspect of the conducted projects”.  

80  Italy  –  Malta  (35),  Ireland  –Wales  (24),  Austria-Hungary  (31),  Slovakia-Austria  (34), 
Hungary-Slovakia  (44),  Italy-Slovenia  (47),  Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein  (12),  Italy-
Austria (22), Romania-Bulgaria (41) and Lithuania-Poland (51).  

81  Case study report, North Programme 

July 2016 - 112 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

In  new  OPs,  the  statement  was  also  positive  and  focused  on  the  conclusion  that 
enhancing  cooperation  was  a  first  step  towards  developing  joint  solutions  or  joint 
management: 

 

 

The  Romania-Bulgaria  Case  Study  report  points  out  that  “in  a  number  of 
instances,  project  participants  indicated  that  there  was  either  very  little  or  no 
history  of  co-operation  between  stakeholders  in  their  regions  and  that  the 
programme  acted  as  a  catalyst  to  facilitate  co-operation  through  project  activity 
(…).  Although  difficult  to  precisely  calibrate  the  extent  to  which  cooperation  has 
been enhanced in all project cases, it seems clear that, for a great many of these 
projects,  that  has  happened  to  a  significant  degree  as  indicated  by  joint  project 
outputs and associated processes”82. 

According  to  the  Managing  Authority  of  the  Saxony-Czech  Republic  OP,  the  most 
important achievements of the programme are of a cultural or even psychological 
nature. Indeed the programme contributed strongly to bringing people from both 
sides  of  the  border  some  steps  closer:  “The  border  is  simply  much  more  open 
than before”. 

But  it  remains  difficult  to  assess  if  the  cooperation  developed  was  satisfactory  as 
expectations were not clearly formulated at the start in the Programmes: Which types 
of cooperation should be looked for? Which kind of actors should be targeted first? At 
what level? In a more informal or formal way? 

Capacity  building  has  played  an  important  role  in  the  development  of  current  but 
also future cooperation. CBC programmes have invested strongly in capacity building. 
The  expectation  was  that  capacities  would  develop  over  time  in  the  context  of  CBC 
from  getting  to  know  one  another,  to  developing  joint  projects,  building  long  term 
networks  and,  at  a  higher  level  of  cooperation,  managing  common  resources  and 
challenges together. 

In  “new”  borders  Programmes,  the  programmes  focused  on  building  “early  stage” 
capacities:  

  Of  cross-border  structures  to  initiate  and  manage  projects  at  regional  or  cross-

border levels (e.g. EUREGIOS or EGTC) 

  Of public and private institutions to initiate cross-border projects, to participate in 

cross-border EU programmes and implement CBC projects  

  To create new partnerships and to extend the range of participants in projects 

The case of the Hungary-Slovakia OP (44) provided a good illustration of the impacts 
on cooperation of capacity building undertaken under the CBC programme:  

  The  quality  of  the  projects  submitted  in  the  CBC  programme  has  significantly 
improved  during  the  implementation  period,  especially  in  the  second  half  of  the 
programme: projects are more strategic and more relevant, addressing better the 
cross border challenges and cooperation opportunities. 

  The  CBC  projects  partners  are  better  organized;  the  budget  planning  is  more 

adequate and more structured. 

82  Case study report Romania-Bulgaria OP  

July 2016 - 113 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

  Stronger  strategic  approach  for  cross  border  cooperation  has  been  developed 

mainly at local levels. 

  New  partnerships  have  come  to  existence,  which  have  generated  projects  during 
the 2007-2013 period and will generate several cross border projects in the future. 

  Durable  formal  and informal  networks  have  been  set  up  at  local level,  some  with 
thematic  grounds,  offering  opportunities  for  cooperation  outside  the  CBC 
programme. 

  Planning  and  management  capacities  have  been  enhanced  at local levels,  notably 

at municipal levels. 

As recalled in section 4, territorial cooperation was mainly seen  as a  mean to relieve 
constraints/  obstacles  due  to  national  boundaries  (the  “barrier  effects”)  which  were 
perceived  as  restricting  the  potential  of  the  European  Territory  as  a  whole,  for  full 
competitiveness.  CBC  aimed  to  integrate  areas  divided  by  national  borders  that  face 
common  problems  requiring  common  solutions  while  TNC  was  more  oriented  on 
integration of regions at a more macro level and on matters of high importance.  

In  the  next  sections,  the  contribution  of  CBC  and  TNC  to  the  initial  objectives  of  the 
ETC policy is assessed. 

Cross-border  and  transnational  cooperation  are  hampered  by  a  number  of  barriers 
that can be summarized as follows:  

  Geographical barriers83: mainly rivers, seas and mountains 
  The lack of infrastructure (transport, ICT), which makes it difficult to reach across 

borders and to access markets 

  Cultural, linguistic and political barriers 
  Administrative/legal  barriers  in  certain  sectors,  such  as  education,  healthcare 
integration  and  public 

labour  market 

systems,  business  development, 
procurement  

  Technological/  barriers  which  may  arise  when  neighbouring  regions  are  at 

different level of economic development 
  Lack of technical and financial resources 

The following chart presents the main factors of isolation. They are grouped into four 
types: distance, cultural, legal/political, and economic. Some of them are interrelated, 
worsening the situation of isolation.  

83  However,  it  should  be  also  noted  that  in  some  cases  these  particular  features  may  also 

constitute a specific competitive advantage of an area.  

July 2016 - 114 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

July 2016 - 115 

 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Figure 5. 12 Barriers to European Territorial Cooperation84 

Source: ADE 

84 The green boxes represent factors on which the ETC programmes implemented during the 2007-2013 period have had a positive effect. The light green 

corresponds to a small benefit 

July 2016 - 116 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Overall,  there  is  a  widespread  perception  that  existing  borders  are  less  and 
less seen as a barrier. For example, in the Spain-Portugal OP (1), the “border” is no 
longer  viewed  as  a  “barrier”,  as  it  was  once  was,  but  rather  as  a  way  in  which 
common issues and challenges can be tackled. A similar statement has been made by 
the  MA  of  the  Saxony  Czech  Republic  OP  (40):  “the  most  important  achievements  of 
the programme are of a cultural or even psychological nature. In fact, the programme 
contributed  strongly  to  bringing  people  from  both  sides  of  the  border  some  steps 
closer: the border is simply much more open than before.” 

The green boxes in figure 5.7 represent those  factors  on which the ETC programmes 
implemented  during  the  2007-2013  period  have  had  a  positive  effect,  and  hence 
contributed to alleviating barriers to cooperation.  

Case  study  analysis  allows  highlighting  those  barriers  that  have  benefited  from  the 
effects of the programmes (the light green corresponds to a small benefit):  

  A  reduction  of  physical  distance  through  new  or  renovated  infrastructures, 
connections  and  systems  offering  inter-connected  transport  and  communication 
services; 

  The  lifting  of  some  cultural  barriers:  this  is  where  the  ETC  programmes  have 
done the most, but mainly at a local level. The ETC programmes have contributed 
to increasing willingness to  cooperate,  reducing “mental barriers” and developing 
mutual  trust,  notably  by  fostering  a  better  understanding  of  the  economic  and 
social base, context, people and functioning of the neighbouring regions; 
In  parallel,  reducing  language  barriers  has  been  also  a  common  feature  of 
many CBC programmes. But the effect has not been measured as such; 

 

 

  A  reduction  of  technological  barriers  which  may  have  existed  between 
disparate  regions  but  also  between  similar  regions  (for  example  Germany-The 
Netherlands (2)); 
In  cases where  the  unbalanced  economic  development  on  the  two  sides  of 
the  border  acts  as  an  important  barrier  to  cross-border  cooperation,  the  gap 
remained  a  constraint.  This  may  be  illustrated  by  the  case  of  Saxony-Czech 
Republic  (40),  where  “Expectations  from  the  two  sides  of  the  border  differ: 
generally  speaking,  the  Czech  partners  focus  more  on  infrastructure  while  the 
German  actors  focus  more  on  “soft”,  immaterial  aspects  of  cooperation.  An 
economic  problem  that  is  particularly  stringent  on  the  Czech  side  is  the 
increasingly  severe  skills  shortage,  further  worsened  by  outmigration  of  skilled 
youth  and  the  persistent  low  skills  level  of  the  population.  The  focus  of  the 
programme  was  not  placed  on  such  issues,  which  consequently  remain  as 
important barriers to cooperation.”85 

  The  availability  of  financial  resources:  the  CBC  programmes  were  the  only 
possibility  to  fund  cross-border  cooperation.  As  pointed  out  in  the  case  of  the 
Spain-Portugal OP (1), two countries severely hit by the financial crisis, “the CBC 
programmes  were  the  only  possibility  to  fund  cross-border  cooperation.  The 
economic crisis, which started in 2008, was cited by a number of stakeholders as 
creating  a  real  set  of  barriers  for  the  implementation  of  the  Spain-Portugal 
programme.  Importantly,  the  CBC  funding  was  mentioned  as  being  crucial  to 

85  Case study Saxony/Czech Republic 

July 2016 - 117 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

ensuring  the  continuation  of  funding,  in  the  face  of  domestic  cuts,  which  for 
several organisations and institutes meant survival rather than closure”86.  

On  the  other  hand  some  cooperation  barriers  proved  difficult  to  address,  such  as 
distinct  administrative  cultures  and  legal  barriers  (especially  in  the  area  of  health 
services,  labour  regulation,  taxes,  business  development)  and  such  barriers  may 
persist despite a long history of cooperation or the number of successful projects in an 
area  (Northern  Ireland-Ireland-Western  Scotland  (3)).  Legal  and  administrative 
barriers  that  are  in  some  cases  (Germany-The  Netherlands  OP  (2))  considered  the 
most  important  cannot  be  solely  addressed  through  cross-border  programmes 
“becoming  aware  of  barriers,  making  them  explicit  and  exploiting  them  can  be 
considered  as  a  significant  result  of  the  programme.  Of  course,  some  barriers  to 
cooperation still exist, mainly in the legal domains, but these barriers cannot solely be 
addressed  by  cross-border  programmes  (mainly  administrative  procedures).” 
(Germany-Netherlands case study). 

5.3  Main  limits  of  Interreg  programmes  under  the  2007-2013 
programming period  

As  shown  in  section  5.2,  Interreg  programmes  have  generated  a  large  number  of 
projects  under  the  five  thematic  priorities:  1)  innovation,  R&D,  entrepreneurship;  2) 
environment;  3)  accessibility;  4)  territorial  integration  covering  integration  of  urban 
and rural areas and 5) integration of public infrastructures and services. Overall, those 
projects have delivered outputs in line with the Lisbon Strategy and with a clear cross-
border dimension. Case studies provide evidence of a wide range of relevant projects, 
which  have  contributed  to  improving  growth  conditions,  better  protecting  the 
environment and easing accessibility across borders.  

Results gained at programme level are less clear. Evidence gathered did not allow the 
evaluation  to  conclude  that  programmes  have  triggered,  beyond  the  contributions  at 
project  level,  a  clear  strengthening  of  the  competitiveness  of  border  regions  and  of 
economic integration and cohesion. This is linked to a number of intrinsic limits of the 
programmes  and  of  the  context  in  which  they  operate.  Apart  from  the  monitoring 
systems, five main limits need to be taken into account:  

1.  The budget size 
2.  The limited coordination with other ESIF programmes 
3.  The dispersion of activities  
4.  The lack of knowledge transfers;  
5.  The difficulty to guarantee sustainable effects. 

86  Case Study Spain/Portugal  

July 2016 - 118 

 
 
 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Monitoring  systems  were  generally  not  designed  to  capture  results  at 
regional level 

As a preliminary remark, it is important to note that it is difficult to gather evidence, 
as monitoring systems were not adequately designed to capture programme results. A 
good  monitoring  system  should  include  output,  results,  and  impact  indicators,  and 
translate a causal relation between different levels of objectives. The evaluation found 
in this respect that:  

 

The  indicators  of  most  of  the  programmes  did  not  allow  good  results 
measurement.  Indeed,  several  programme  monitoring  systems  were  de  facto 
limited to output indicators, and sometimes only to indicators related to inputs or 
activities. When monitoring systems referred to result indicators, this concerned in 
fact  indicators  at  input  or  activity  level  such  as  the  “number  of  projects”,  the 
“number of partners”, etc.; 

  When  they  were  included,  result  and  impact  indicators  were  not  suited  to 
adequately capture results / impacts, as the causal chain from output, to results, 
and impact was not clear.   

  As programmes were covering a wide range of sectors and areas, the performance 
assessment framework  was not well suited to cover the full range of  sectors and 
areas included in the programme. 

  Monitoring  systems  typically  defined  indicators  at  project  level  rather  than 

programme-level.  

  The  evaluation  noted  inconsistencies  between  outputs  reported  on  project  level 

and programme level. 

  Targets  were  rarely  realistic:  they  often  under-estimated  good  performance 
standards or lacked good baseline data. As a result, target values were sometimes 
exceeded  by  hundreds  or  thousands  of  times,  which  was  then  taken  as  false 
evidence of success.  

On the other hand, the evaluation also found programmes with monitoring systems of 
above  average  quality.  These  included  for  instance  result  indicators  on  business 
innovation or good linkages between project-level and programme-level indicators and 
explicit definitions of each indicator. 

ETC programmes remained small in terms of relative budget size.  

The  first  factor  that  should  be  taken  into  account  is  the  relatively  small  size  of  the 
budget of ETC programmes.  

The graphs below provide an overview of the 2014 per capita allocations for ERDF/CF 
programmes and Interreg programmes, respectively.  

July 2016 - 119 

 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

July 2016 - 120 

 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

As appears  clearly from the figures, notably in the new Member States, the amounts 
per  capital  devoted  to  Interreg  were  marginal  compared  to  those  allocated  through 
other European funds. This is less the case in the older Member States, where Interreg 
funds are complementary to ERDF funds, as there are no cohesion funds at this level. 
But here also, the amounts per capita remained of limited size.  

The impact of the programmes should be seen in the light of these budgets. Reaching 
an  enhanced  competitiveness  of  border  regions  might  be  too  ambitious  an  objective 
given the budgets devoted to the programmes.  

July 2016 - 121 

 
 
 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Coordination with other ESIF programmes remained limited. 

Moreover  the  coordination  between  ETC  programmes  and  mainstream  programmes 
remained limited.  

Such  coordination  regularly  existed  at  design  stage  through  the  involvement  of 
Managing  Authorities  of  the  mainstream  ERDF  programmes  in  the  preparation  of  the 
Interreg  programmes  or  by  involving  members  of  Steering  Committees  to  screen  for 
complementarities in mainstream programmes in their field of specialization. 

However,  at  implementation  stage  national  or  regional  programmes  and  Interreg 
programmes  often  ran  in  parallel,  with  little  involvement  from  national  or  regional 
agencies. This finding was consistent across most of the case studies.  

Moreover  cross-programme collaboration within the  Interreg family remained limited, 
despite  the  overlap  between  many  geographical  areas  covered  by  Interreg 
programmes.  The  evaluation  has  identified  very  few  cases  of  cross-programme 
collaboration  within  Strand  A.  It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  respect  that  55%  of 
for 
programme  managers  stated  that  such  overlap  presented  opportunities 
complementarities  and  that  care  should  be  taken  to  avoid  double-funding  or 
unnecessary 
transnational 
replication  of  activities.  Complementarities  with 
programmes were also not well developed, despite being more advanced in the Baltic 
area,  in  particular  for  the  South  Baltic  (50)  and  Central  Baltic  (48)  cross-border 
programmes  in  connection  with  the  Baltic  Sea  transnational  programme  (56).  The 
North  programme  (14)  case  study  also  indicated  connections  with  the  Northern 
Periphery programme (58).  

For  these  reasons,  ETC  programmes  remained  rather  isolated  without  fully  exploiting 
the  potential  complementarity  between  ETC  projects  and  activities  supported  by 
regional/ national budget and by other structural funds programmes.  

Dispersion of interventions did not favour some of the wider effects 

Programmes  opted  in  most  cases  for  wide  and  open  strategies,  associated  with  a 
demand-driven  approach.  As  a  result,  they  funded  often  a  wide  range  of  projects, 
each with a rather limited scope. In this sense, programmes were not often embedded 
in broader strategies, aiming directly at large-scale effects.  

Some programmes have achieved visible results at area level, for example the South 
Baltic  (50),  where  complementarities  with  the  Baltic  Sea  Region,  with  the  existing 
macro-regional  strategy  and  with  other  implemented  programmes  have  been  well 
integrated. But in most cases such results at area level were not really aimed for, and 
hence also not observed.  

Knowledge sharing within individual Interreg programmes remained limited 

The  evaluation  has  shown  that  transfer  of  learning  and  knowledge  within  individual 
programmes,  especially  within  a  specific  thematic  priority,  remained  limited.  In  this 
sense,  programmes  have  missed  an  opportunity  to  use  capitalisation  to  enhance 
effects at a more macro level.  

Within  each  ETC  programme,  learning  has  occurred  across  several  levels,  but  mainly 
at  the  levels  of  individual  cooperation  and  programme  management.  At  project  level 

July 2016 - 122 

 
 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

for  instance,  knowledge  of  specific  cooperation  themes  or  technologies,  including 
methods  of  environmental  protection  and  tools,  was  generated  and  shared  between 
the  partners.  But  beyond  the  first  circle  of  actors  directly  involved  in  a  project,  very 
little knowledge sharing or transfer of practices, policy tools or learning took place.  

All the case  studies highlight the rather  weak  dissemination at horizontal level within 
the  programme  and  the  absence  of  mechanisms  to  ensure  sharing  of  learning  (in  a 
sector  or  on  a  common  topic).  Most  projects  have  been  implemented  in  isolation. 
When  sharing  of  learning  occurred,  knowledge  exchange  has  been  mostly  realised  at 
inter-personal  level  through  mechanisms  such  as  events,  workshops  and  public 
relations.  Links  between  project  and  programme  levels  exist  at  the  level  of  project 
progress reports and individual exchanges, as illustrated below: 

 

 

 

 

In  the  case  of  France-Channel-England  OP  (18),  transfers  have  been  organised. 
But  “knowledge  and  capacity  has  mainly  been  transferred  between  researchers 
and the scientific community in the programme area. There was also a discernible 
path  of  knowledge  transfer  between  researchers  and  operational  partners  in 
projects  that  were  interested  in  helping  public  and  private  bodies  to  deal  with 
particular  environmental  challenges.  A  further  transfer  of  knowledge  has  taken 
place  between  projects’  operational  partners  and  the  public  and  other  target 
audiences.  In  a  number  of  instances  it  is  difficult  to  see  where  knowledge  to 
address specific issues and build capacity has been transferred beyond a relatively 
tightly coupled pool of stakeholders”. 
The  case  of  Saxony-Czech  Republic  (40)  also  highlights  the  focus  on  individual 
learning  rather  than  organisational  learning,  with  learning  benefits  tending  to  be 
restricted to project partners without spill-overs to wider constituencies. For many 
projects  visited  during  this  evaluation,  cooperation  had  been  enhanced  between, 
but also limited to, the individuals involved in the project over its duration.  
The  same  has  been  observed  in  the  Hungary-Slovakia  CBC  OP  (44):  despite  the 
fact  that  a  great  number  of  projects  were  pursuing  similar  objectives  and 
developing  similar  approaches87,  no  real  connections  were  established  between 
them.  
In  the  Northern  Ireland  OP  the  evaluation  team  found  that  the  exploitation  of 
opportunities 
the  programme  had  been 
underdeveloped. In particular “the large number of projects addressing innovation 
support for SMEs calls for capitalisation and exchanges of methods across projects 
in  order  to  avoid  reinventing  the  wheel,  drawing  lessons  from  experience,  and 
sharing actions on a wider scale when relevant (e.g. between the territories of the 
cross-border groups of local authorities)”. 

inter-project 

learning 

for 

in 

There are however some interesting exceptions, albeit mainly implemented at project 
level.  In  the  Romania/Bulgaria  CBC  OP,  the  scope  for  inter-project  learning  through 
the  capitalisation  of  knowledge  transfer  and  capacity-building  initiatives  and  results 
appears  to  be  relatively  unexplored.  One  notable  exception  is  the  Danube  WATER 
project which includes capitalisation of results as one of its objectives. The project had 
a  focus  on  integrating  water  management  and  environmental  technologies  into 
policymaking  and  building  consensus  across  stakeholder  and  sectoral  perspectives, 
with  particular  emphasis  on  disaster  prevention.  There  are  other  examples  of 
environmental  solutions  developed  in  a  cross-border  area  that  have  been  transferred 

87   This was particularly striking in terms of the range of projects building up local capacities to 

participate in CBC programmes or for the nine projects relating to flood modelling. 

July 2016 - 123 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

to  other  areas  with  similar  environmental  conditions  (e.g.  in  other  Mediterranean 
areas, from Italy-Malta (35), or broadened to include more academic partners, such as 
the Nordic Mining School established between  Finnish and Swedish universities under 
the North programme (14) which will be extended to other Nordic countries). 

The  existence  of  specific  parallel  programmes,  namely  Interact  and  Interreg  IVC, 
aiming  to  foster  exchanges  of  learning  between  ETC  programmes  and  in  the  case  of 
Interreg  IV  C  with  ERDF  programmes,  did  not  allow  overcoming  the  problem  of 
capitalisation  within  each  Interreg  programme.  The  contribution  of  the  Interact 
programme  has  been  positively  appreciated  by  most  of  the  programmes  but  mostly 
for  enhancing  the  quality  of  programme  implementation.  Managing  Authorities 
explained  that  Interact  was  very  useful  for  supporting  programme  management, 
notably at:  

  Programme  definition  stage,  where  it  gave  useful  support  to  defining  a  logical 

frame for action and to developing a monitoring system;  

  Programme implementation stage, where it provided guidance on many issues such 
as first level control, eligibility of expenditure, project cycle management, synergies 
within ETC programmes, involvement of SMEs, and communication and promotion. 

Managing Authorities also stated that Interact generated value-added mainly through 
two types of activities:  

  Knowledge  exchanges  and  sharing  of  best  practices  (between  project  managers, 
Managing  Authorities,  Joint  Technical  Secretariats,  communication  officers)  during 
seminars  and  workshops;  and  benchmarking  and  networking  (ex:  “Basecamp” 
activities) with other programmes; 
Information  and  tools  produced  and  delivered  through  training  activities  (e.g. 
Interreg-Quality-Training),  “users’  manuals”,  the  KEEP  Database,  the  Interact 
website and also visits from Interact representatives. 

 

Sustainable effects cannot be guaranteed    

One  of  the  limits  of  the  ETC  programme  implemented  during  the  2007-2013 
programming period is the limited attention devoted to sustainability.  

Not many programmes included for instance potential for sustainability as part of their 
selection  criteria,  even  if  there  are  exceptions  such  as  the  “sustainability  check” 
mechanism in Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein (12).  

It  is  difficult  to  assess  the  extent  to  which  actual  results  will  be  sustained  and 
constitute  a  foundation  on  which  cross-border  cooperation  and  integration  can  be 
further built.  Both the issues of financial and institutional sustainability are at stake in 
this respect raised.   

Factors  that  are  key  to  ensuring  financial  and  institutional  sustainability  were  not 
explicitly addressed:  

 

In  some  cases,  sustainability  requires  a  continuation  of  projects  and  depends  on 
the  access  to  funds  to  ensure  such  continuation  of  common  services/use  of 
infrastructures.  This  includes  joint  specialised  services,  shared  management 
processes,  and  maintenance  of  infrastructures  built.  In  this  respect,  MAs  and 
project  stakeholders  interviewed  in  all  of  the  case  studies  have  consistently 
expressed  doubts  as  to  whether  domestic  public  funding  sources  could  take  over 
from  Interreg.    The  main  reason  they  invoked  for  this  is  that  using  different 
funding streams in parallel is very difficult, owing to national differences in funding 

July 2016 - 124 

 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

conditions,  timing,  eligibility  of  actions,  and  so  forth.  In  addition  several 
interviewees stated that money from the national budget or from mainstream EU 
programs  was  not  easy  to  mobilize  for  peripheral  border  areas.  In  this  regard, 
financial resources provided by Interreg represent a key value added but requiring 
in  the  meantime  a  long  term  commitment  for  ensuring  the  sustainability  of 
results.    

  The conditions to promote a sustained use of outputs produced were not ensured, 
notably in  the  sense  that  Central  Authorities  were  not  systematically informed  of 
what  had  been  achieved  by  projects  directly  related  to  their  own  area  of 
competences (for example in the field of management of natural resources).  

the  part  of 

a.  For  instance,  in  France-Channel-England  (18)  CBC  OP  the  MA/JTS 
explained that the key to ensuring sustainability is political involvement 
and  will  on 
institutional  stakeholders. 
Sustainability  also  depends  on  integration  of  knowledge,  practices  and 
approaches  into  public  policies  in  each  territory  with  the  aim  of 
obtaining  common  governance  arrangements 
in  relation  to  key 
environmental (and other) issues. Clusters of projects in the 2007-2013 
programme  have 
facilitated  cross-fertilization  between  projects, 
identifying knowledge and practices of high potential for integration into 
governance models for the CBC area. 

influential 

b.  In the South Baltic region the technical secretariat (JTS) has supported 
all projects in establishing local regional stakeholder groups with a view 
to facilitating the grounding of results in the regions and to ensuring the 
impact  of  project  outcomes.  Although  this  was  not  mandatory,  it  was 
the  case  in  many  projects.  It  seems  that  most  projects  in  the  South 
Baltic  CBC  Programme  have  managed  to  include,  and  sometimes  also 
engage, local authorities and other stakeholders both as participants in 
the projects and as recipients of results.  

  The  sustainability  of  cooperation  and  of  the  links  set  up  during  the  2007-2013 
Programmes cannot be ensured, with or without new funding. A risk of dilution of 
cooperation  and  of  capacities  to  work  together  is  evident,  first  because  the 
cooperation  developed  has  been  largely  based  on  individuals  with  a  strong 
informal  dimension  and  the  consequent  risk  that  staff  turnover  may  lead  to  the 
loss of part of the capacities gained; and second, because of the still unstable and 
fragile  institutional  framework  within  which  cooperation  processes  takes  place. 
Furthermore,  open  borders  within  the  EU  cannot  be  taken  as  granted,  as  seen 
recently with the closure of certain internal EU borders.  

However,  the  evaluation  has  shown  that  good  cases  of  sustainability  of  Interreg 
projects  results  exist,  mainly  when  tangible  results  from  the  projects  are  adopted  in 
practice  and  when  public  authorities  take  ownership  of  them;  and  also  when  the 
private  sector  shows  a  clear  interest.  Examples  of  lasting  results  have  been  found 
during  the  evaluation  through  anecdotal  evidence.  This  takes  place  in  the  following 
forms: 

  Mainstreaming activities initially funded by Interreg into domestic programmes or 
into  the  activities  of  cross-border  organisations  is  the  most  effective  way  of 
ensuring  sustainability  of  CBC  after  the  conclusion  of  the  Interreg  IV  funding 
period.  A  phenomenon  of  repeated  applications  to  successive  generations  of  the 
same  programme  (also  typically  found  in  other  Interreg  programmes)  was 
evident:  this  is  an  indication  of  the  difficulty  for  organizations  and  project 
partnerships of securing funding through other sources. The ICE project developed 
several  options  for  ensuring  sustainability,  including  that  of  mainstreaming  its 
action into the regular work of regional development agencies. 

July 2016 - 125 

 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

  Adoption  of  results  by  project  partners,  for  example  municipalities  implementing 
solutions for instance in terms of rescue services across borders developed by the 
Öresund–Kattegat-Skagerrak  (5)  programme,  or  joint  management  strategies  on 
avalanche prevention and crisis management situations adopted after  the project 
for joint risk prevention in the Alps (France-Italy-Alps (6)). 
Investments  funded  by  domestic  public  sources:  national  authorities  engaging  in 
investments  defined  by  a  cross-border  analysis  of  railroad  connections  (Austria-
Slovakia  (34));  funding  of  the  International  University  Constance  by  mainstream 
funds (Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein (12)). 

 

5.4 Policy response under the 2014-2020 programming period 

The  new  regulation  framework  for  the  2014-2020  programming  period  has  brought 
significant changes to the way to ETC is conducted. Those changes partly reflect some 
of  the  limits  that  were  underlined  above.  In  particular,  the  following  improvements 
had already been incorporated: 

  A  clarification  of  the  aim  of  CBC.  The  choice  was  made  to  maintain  a  broad 
view of cross-border issues: the new regulation88 states that CBC “aims to tackle 
common  challenges  identified  jointly  in  the  border  regions”;  several  typical 
challenges  are  then  listed  which  include  poor  accessibility,  declining  local 
industries,  and  a  lack  of  networks  among  local  and  regional  administrations;  but 
this  list  is  not  exhaustive,  and  the  door  has  been  kept  open  for  a  wide  range  of 
interventions. 

  Better integration of ETC into the general framework of the strategy 2020 
and  into  national  and  regional  strategies.  MS  are  expected  to  draw  up  a 
single  document  -  a  Partnership  Agreement  –  presenting  a  comprehensive 
coherent  strategy  regarding  all  five  ESI  funds89  and  ensuring  complementarity 
between  the  ETC  programmes  and  the  country-specific  programmes  within  the 
investment for growth and jobs goal. 

  A  higher  concentration  of  funds.  At least  80%  of  the  ERDF  allocation  to  each 
cross-border  cooperation  and  transnational  programme  will  be  focused  on  a 
maximum of four of the eleven thematic objectives fixed in in the CPR.  
  A focus on improving the institutional cooperation across borders.  
  A  reinforced  programme  for  interregional  cooperation.  The  objective  is  to 
facilitate  an  exchange  of  experiences  between  regions  on  thematic  objectives 
including  experience  concerning  the  identification,  transfer  and  dissemination  of 
good practices in relation to the use of EGTCs. 

Moreover  the  stronger  accent  put  on  defining  a  well-articulated  intervention  logic  at 
the  start  and  on  strengthening  the  results  orientation  of  the  programme  also  reflect 
concerns that were raised through this evaluation.  

88  Regulation (EU) n° 1299/2013  

89  The five ESI funds are : ERDF, ESF, Cohesion funds, EMFF, EAFRD 

July 2016 - 126 

 
 
 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

6. Conclusions 

This  section  presents  the  conclusions  of  the  evaluation,  based  on  the  findings  of 
Section 5.  

EU  Regulation90  defined  Interreg  programmes 
funded  under  the  2007-2013 
programming  period  as  a  complementary  tool  aimed  at  pursuing  the  three  main 
priorities of the renewed Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs: 

Improving the attractiveness of Member States, regions and cities;  

 
  Encouraging  innovation,  entrepreneurship  and  the  growth  of  the  knowledge 

economy; and  

  Creating more and better jobs.  

CBC  and  TNC  were  conceived  to  pursue  specific  objectives  to  contribute  to  the 
overarching goals, namely:  

  CBC was intended to support economic and social integration in areas divided by 
national  borders  that  face  common  problems  requiring  common  solutions.  It  was 
designed  to  focus  on  “strengthening  the  competitiveness  of  the  border  regions”, 
and  contribute  to  “economic  and  social  integration,  especially  where  there  are 
wide economic disparities on either side”.  

  Transnational  cooperation  was  designed  to  increase  cooperation  at  a  macro-
regional  level  where  there  is  a  need  to  increase  economic  and  social  integration 
and  cohesion  on  matters  of  strategic  importance  (such  as  the  physical 
interconnection of territories and intangible connections).  

The  Interreg  programmes  were  the  only  funding  instrument  for  addressing  CBC 
issues.  

Outputs and results  

CBC  programmes  (€5.574bn  “allocated”  budget)  funded  over  6,800  projects  in  the 
sectors targeted by the EU Regulation of 200691, with a particular focus on innovation 
and entrepreneurship, environment, transport, tourism and culture. More than half of 
these  related  to  “quality  of  life”  themes  (tourism,  culture,  sport,  health,  safety). 
Around  1,600  supported  economic  development,  and  focused  for  instance  on 
clustering,  on  establishing  cooperation  networks,  and  on  knowledge  and  technology 
transfers.  The  1,292  environmental  projects  addressed  among  other  things  issues 
related to the management of natural resources, natural threats, climate change, and 
biodiversity.  

These  projects  have  yielded  outputs  and  results  that  were  in  line  with  the  specific 
objectives of CBC and  oriented towards the main priorities  of the  Lisbon Strategy for 
Growth and Jobs. More specifically, they have contributed to enlarging the knowledge-
based  economy  in  border  regions  (mainly  in  programmes  in  the  EU  12  MS),  for 
instance  by  increasing  R&D  capacities  and  transfers  across  border,  as  well  as  by 
stimulating  innovation  capacities  in  SMEs  in  border  regions.  They  also  contributed  to 
stimulating  the  diversification  of  local  economies  through  tourism  and  culture.  In 
terms of environment, CBC projects were more geared towards “soft” knowledge and 

90  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 

91  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 

July 2016 - 127 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

policy improvement through analysis, research, and the sharing of best practices. This 
led to a more integrated management and protection of the environment, even if legal 
and  administrative  barriers  remained.  A  number  of  programmes  supported  hard 
infrastructures  and  systems  to  increase  accessibility  across  border,  leading  to  travel 
time reduction, better accessibility of peripheral territories and improved security. CBC 
projects  also  contributed  to  improved  access  to  healthcare  and  better  education 
facilities. They contributed less to objectives such as increasing access to cross-border 
markets and developing cross-border trade, or integrating labour markets.  

TNC  programmes  (€1.766bn  “allocated”  budget)  were  also  in  line  with  the  Lisbon 
Strategy.  They  were  used  in  a  wide  range  of  sectors  to  support  joint  activities  at  a 
transnational  scale.  TNC  programmes  funded  1,134  projects,  mainly  in  the  field  of 
environment  and  climate  change.  They  also  addressed  economic  development  and 
accessibility, even if for the latter, which was one of the main priorities, the number of 
transnational  initiatives  was  smaller  (140  projects  under  the  13  TNC  programmes). 
TNC projects were mainly geared to implementing joint or articulated management of 
natural  resources  and  environmental  protection  and  to  reinforcing  networks  or 
partnerships linking SMEs and research or technological centres at transnational level.   

Overall, the specificity of TNC programmes was less clear. The nature of the projects 
was  comparable  to  those  implemented  under  CBC  programmes  but  with  a  wider 
territorial  aim.  The  evaluation  did  not  find  many  examples  of  projects  addressing 
matters of strategic importance for cohesion at transnational level. 

Overall,  the  interregional  programme  Interreg  IV  C  (€0.306bn)  has  made  possible 
large  exchanges  of  experiences  and  of  practices.  These  exchanges  have  generated 
learning  effects  and  led  to  transfer  of  knowledge  between  the  partners  involved, 
especially  within  capitalisation  projects.  The  Thematic  Capitalisation  Initiative  has 
allowed  to  reach  a  new  audience,  to  broaden  external  diffusion,  and  to  improve 
visibility of useful knowledge. The extent to which it has resulted in an effective use of 
knowledge transfer is difficult to assess.   

Many  of  the  cross  border  and  transnational  projects  would  not  have  been  possible 
without the existence of Interreg, which remains a unique instrument to support joint 
initiatives  across  borders.  In  this  regard,  financial  resources  provided  by  Interreg 
represent  the  most  prominent  example  of  EU  added-value  from  Cohesion  policy, 
however  requiring  in  the  meantime  a  long  term  commitment  for  ensuring  the 
sustainability of results.    

Wider effects 

Beyond the above described outputs and results at project level, the programmes also 
contributed  to  wider  effects,  notably  in  terms  of  alleviating  specific  barriers  to 
cooperation  (mainly  cultural  and  distance  barriers),  and  of  better  social 
integration.  

One  of  the  key  results  of  the  Interreg  programmes  was  indeed  their  contribution  to 
enhanced cooperation among a wide range of stakeholders (such as research centres 
and  universities,  SMEs,  public  authorities 
in  charge  of  environment).  This 
encompassed  formal  and  informal  networks,  institutionalised  links  and  more  ad  hoc 
connections (such as partnerships for joint research, and sharing of practices). 

Such  enhanced  cooperation  in  turn  led  to  the  creation  or  consolidation  of  a  regional 
identity  in  the  sense  of  the  increased  acknowledgment  by  stakeholders  in  a  certain 
area  of  the  value  of  cooperating  across  borders  and  an  improved  social  capital 

July 2016 - 128 

 
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

(including  knowledge  of  the  partners  on  the  other  side  of  the  border  and  a  better 
understanding  of  the  potential  for  cooperation).  It  contributed  also,  but  to  a  lesser 
extent, to a better visibility of the area as a coherent entity.  

Interreg  programmes  also  contributed  to  lifting  specific  barriers,  especially  physical 
distance,  cultural  and  mental  barriers  or  language  barriers.  Whilst  some  barriers 
(mainly  administrative  and  legal  barriers)  continue  to  hamper  further  territorial 
cooperation and integration, the evaluation found that existing borders were less and 
less  seen  as  a  barrier.  This  concerned  mainly  cultural  and  distance  barriers  and  was 
less the case for legal, administrative and economic barriers. 

Finally,  the  programmes  also  contributed  to  developing  the  institutional  organisation 
across borders in CBC areas.  

The  EU  Regulation92  also  ambitioned  a  contribution  of  Interreg  programmes  to 
economic  integration  and  strengthened  competitiveness  of  border  regions.  In 
this respect, the evaluation found that CBC projects have contributed to strengthening 
innovation capacities, to improving protection of natural resources and more effective 
risk prevention as well as to easing transport accessibility or access to public services. 
But  these  contributions  remained  at  a  rather  local  level  without  generating  clear 
effects on the territory as a whole. 

Similarly,  whilst  the  evaluation  did  find  that,  to  a  small  extent,  technological  barriers 
were  reduced,  it  did  not  find  evidence  that  economic  or  legal/institutional  barriers 
were  reduced.  This  being  said,  it  is  reasonable  to  consider  that  legal  barriers 
(especially  those  related  to  health  services,  labour  regulation,  taxes,  business 
development), and barriers linked to differences in administrative culture and national 
legal frameworks, were difficult to address for the programmes (as they also required 
decisions at national or regional level).  

The  situation  is  comparable  in  terms  of  the  effects  of  TNC  programmes.  There  are 
examples  of  better  integration  in  terms  of  environmental  protection  strategies  and 
policies, especially related to shared environmental assets (typically shared sea basins 
and  mountainous  spaces).  The  evaluation  also  found  a  few  results  in  terms  of  better 
connections  of  transport  and  ITC  networks.  But  those  results  remained  limited 
compared to the challenges and ambitious goals of the renewed Lisbon Strategy.   

Factors influencing the effect of Interreg programmes 

The above mentioned results should be seen in the light of the factors that influenced 
the Interreg programmes’ capacity to generate effects.  

First, the objectives formulated at the start by the EU regulation were very  ambitious 
especially  when  taking  into  account  the  financial  weight  of  the  programmes.  As 
described  in  the  main  report,  the  amounts  per  capita  allocated  to  Interreg 
programmes,  especially  in  new  Members  States,  were  marginal  to  the  amounts  per 
capita for other ESIF programmes. Expectations in terms of impact beyond the specific 
project level should take this factor into account.  

92  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 

July 2016 - 129 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

It is also important to note that the EU regulations and guidelines93 did not specify 
in  detail  how  European  Territorial  Cooperation  was  expected  to  contribute  to  the 
Lisbon Strategy. They left room for both pursuing cooperation as an end in itself and 
as a means to economic and social integration.  

CBC  programmes  have  in  that  perspective  often  been  used  as  an  instrument  aiming 
primarily  at  developing  cooperation  and  linkages,  without  necessarily  envisaging  a 
strong leverage of this cooperation to a wider economic integration. This is clear from 
both  the  objectives  and  the  output  indicators  they  defined,  and  from  what  Managing 
Authorities considered to be the main results of their programmes (often expressed in 
terms  of  enhanced  cooperation).  Often,  stakeholders  themselves  also  quite  explicitly 
mentioned better cooperation as the main objective of the programmes. This approach 
did  not  contradict  what  EU  texts  prescribe.  Indeed,  as  said  above,  many  of  these 
official  texts  highlight  cooperation  as  an  objective,  without  necessarily  making  it  a 
means to an end.  

The  fact  that  the  programmes  yielded  little  results  in  terms  of  enhanced 
competitiveness and integration at the level of the territory can furthermore be linked 
to specific policy choices. Indeed, regions and actors could identify themselves the 
priority obstacles and opportunities to be addressed by Interreg programmes.  Such a 
demand-driven  approach  was  useful  in  terms  of  fostering  tailored  programmes  that 
addressed  specific  well  identified  cross-border  challenges  and  the  main  barriers  and 
opportunities  in  this  regard.  But  this  approach  also  had  some  drawbacks.  First  the 
Regulations94 were not so clear on the types of  challenges that CBC and TNC needed 
to address. Within the concept of “common challenges”, CBC programmes have indeed 
grouped specific challenges relating to border areas with more generic challenges that 
equally  apply  outside  border  areas  and  do  not  form  barriers  to  integration  (such  as 
drug  prevention,  diabetes  treatment,  energy  efficiency,  renewable  resources, 
recycling,  etc.).  Similarly  the  notion  of  “matters  of  strategic  importance”  in  TNC 
programmes  was  not  always  well  understood.  More  broadly  there  was  little  common 
understanding  between  Managing  Authorities  on  the  exact  meaning  and  value  of 
working  at  transnational  level,  especially  in  territories  faced  with  wide  diversity  and 
weak  institutional  governance.  This  led  to  programmes  that  were  driven  rather  by 
common concerns. Second the bottom up approach did not favour the prioritization of 
objectives. The programmes were rarely embedded in a global strategy geared to the 
strengthening  of  the  competitiveness  of  the  border  region  and  to  economic 
integration. Again, this did not contradict the Regulation, but it meant that individual 
projects, whilst successful in their own right, remained isolated from other activities  – 
thereby  diminishing  their  leverage  and  potential  for  generating  a  critical  mass  for 
change. 

Intervening at the level of the “most functional region” was also a complex issue for 
Interreg  programmes.  First,  because  administrative  areas  at  NUTS3  level  (“small 
regions for specific diagnoses” in the nomenclature of territorial units for statistics) are 
not all relevant for dealing with cross border challenges. Moreover, programmes often 
lacked an analysis of what would be the most “functional” region for cooperation in a 
certain  sectors.  This  was  compounded  by  the  fact  that  programmes  intervened  in  a 

93  COM(2005)  299,  Cohesion  Policy  in  Support  of  Growth  and  Jobs:  Community  Strategic 

Guidelines, 2007-2013  

94  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 

July 2016 - 130 

 
                                           
European Commission-Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, 
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) 

wide range of sectors: a geographical area may indeed be relevant for one sector and 
not  for  another  one.  Similarly,  defining  the  most  appropriate  level  is  even  more 
complex for TNC programmes, as the rationale for operating at this intermediary level 
(between EU, national, and regional level) was not always clear.  

There  was  furthermore  little  coordination  between  Interreg  and  other  ESIF 
programmes,  nor  was  there  much  sharing  of  project  results  between  regional 
stakeholders and central/regional authorities, the latter showing little interest in being 
involved. The potential leverage effect of Interreg programmes that such coordination 
could have favoured was therefore not fully realised. 

in 

levels  (mainly 

Even  though  within  each  Interreg  programme,  learning  has  taken  place  across 
various 
individual  cooperation  and  programme 
management)  and  Interreg  IV  C  introduced  the  thematic  capitalisation  initiative 
(aiming  to  disseminate  and  transfer  knowledge  beyond  the  main  actors  involved)  , 
little  knowledge  sharing  or  transfer  of  practices,  policy  tools  or  learning  has  taken 
place, beyond the first circle of actors directly involved in projects. Most projects have 
in this sense been implemented in isolation. 

terms  of 

Finally, it is important to note that in the new programming period 2014-2020 the 
result  orientation  embedded  in  the  regulations  and  programming  ensured  higher 
concentration  of  funds,  stronger  emphasis  on  defining  a  well-articulated  intervention 
logic at the outset and on strengthening the results orientation of the programmes. 

July 2016 - 131 

 
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
N
-
0
4
-
1
6
-
7
6
8
-
3
A
-
N

[

C

a

t

a

l

o

g

u

e

n

u

m

b

e

r

]

  doi: 10.2776/216114