ArtCo’s objectives were first realized at the conference organised by the Széchenyi Programme Office on 17-18 October 2023 in Budapest, with the participation of more than 600 invited participants from 13 countries. The event focused on the most pressing challenges facing Interreg programmes in Central and Eastern Europe. The first day of the conference was attended by over 220 delegates, and the second day by over 400 invited delegates.
Workshop summaries
First Level Control in the new programming period panel discussion summary
Assessment and Selection Procedures panel discussion summary
Interreg programmes have been constantly developing during the last 30+ years, and new innovative solutions are needed not only on project implementation level but also concerning project selection processes. The panel aimed at identifying some of the best practice examples that certain programmes have to offer and which can act as a basis for eventual improvements in the future.
When it comes to setting up project assessment procedures, the presented Interreg programmes (Hungary-Slovakia CBC Programme, Austria-Hungary CBC Programme and Hungary-Croatia CBC Programme) agreed that the aim is always ‘the simpler, the better’, meaning optimally a one-step open call for proposals. Nevertheless, all of them use other, specialised methods as well, such as targeted, noncompetitive calls for Small Project Fund management (Hungary-Slovakia CBC Programme), a continuous, ongoing call (Austria-Hungary CBC Programme) or an SME development scheme that acts as an umbrella project (Hungary-Croatia CBC Programme). There can be room for two-step project selection as well, if the complexity of the future projects makes it necessary, e.g. in case of large infrastructure projects, or as regulated by the Hungary-Slovakia CBC Programme in connection to their system of Territorial Action Plans. A novel approach is to open a given programme priority only once during a programming period, giving both potential applicants and JS/MA proper time to prepare, assess and later implement in parallel projects which are similar. In any case, the speakers concluded that the chosen setup of calls has to mirror the length of the border, the number of potential applicants and the expected number of project proposals in the given border region.
Circumstances are different for the three programmes, but they do involve external assessors at some point and to a certain degree. The ‘classic’ approach of two external experts assessing a given project proposal on a 100 point scale has been replaced by managing quality assessment entirely with internal staff and contacting experts via the system of the regional coordinators or via the line ministries represented in the MC, if necessary (Austria-Hungary CBC Programme), or by having each project proposal checked for quality by one internal assessor (JS) and one external expert (Hungary-Croatia CBC Programme). In both cases the JS gains detailed knowledge about the project already well before the contracting phase.
Interreg is special as compared to the sectoral (national level) programmes meaning that the diversity between project proposals is much bigger – it can happen that e.g. biosphere reserves are in the same programme priority as bicycle roads. Therefore the professional background of external experts assessing the same set of projects should be as similar as possible, in order to allow for a harmonised level of scoring. It is a useful recommendation to subdivide larger priorities into smaller components and measures, ones which only receive an amount of project proposals that can be assessed by the same pair of assessors. The Hungary-Slovakia CBC Programme is even involving the selected external experts in the preparation of the sectoral assessment part of the future assessment grid, and the entire call for proposals in general; this way the external assessors are not just presented later on with a scoring system which they do not support from a professional point of view.
For solutions to involve the MC and its members into the quality assessment the speakers again presented slightly different approaches. The Hungary-Croatia CBC Programme has seen a somewhat ‘conservative’ role of the MC, receiving the proposed ranking list and following it, down along the score in each priority until the available funding, while the Hungary-Slovakia Programme has started to place more responsibility on the MC members, involving them to nominate territorial experts and providing them with their own part of the quality assessment grid where they can score the alignment of the project proposals with the development strategies of the border area’s counties.
A new and strong tool in the hands of the Austria-Hungary Programme is the ‘postponed decision’ option of the MC for the cases when it is not possible to set conditions to project proposals which could simply be answered ‘fulfilled’ or ‘not fulfilled’; here the MC can send the back the project proposals for revision and the LB-s can re-submit them in a next round, helping the creation of good quality projects from previously not well prepared ones. Last but not least a new innovation by the Hungary-Slovakia Programme is the socalled group assessment where all quality assessors of the same programme priority sit together and discuss the project proposals, listen to each other’s arguments, eventually even fine-tune their own scores, and thus jointly place the project proposals onto the ranking list.
The last topic touched upon by the panellists was the use of thresholds in the quality assessment and on the ranking lists.They agreed that e.g. receiving only 59 points instead of the minimum 60 is never the actual reason for a project proposal not to be selected, since most likely it has several problems which resulted in lower scores along the different criteria in the first place. Due to the fact that many project proposals will be submitted within a next call, LB-s have to be explained in detail how to improve and have to see the bigger picture, not just the weak overall score.
Nevertheless, thresholds are useful if applied reasonably, as they are a tool to filter out irrelevant applications, while at the same time providing a chance to establish a line under which the quality of the project proposals should not fall. To give an example, the Hungary-Slovakia Programme presented the approach of setting a threshold connected to the overall score coming from the strategic assessment and the territorial assessment – the reason being that if a project proposal is not in line with the call and at the same time is not of importance to the border region then the cross-border programme should not finance it.
The panel discussion ended with the speakers agreeing that the line of development in assessment and selection procedures has been straight and continuous, but there is always room for trying new approaches, especially if they have been successfully applied by other Interreg programmes of the Centraland Eastern European region, where possibilities and challenges are often very similar, also in the area of project assessment.
Moderator: Marton SZŰCS, dr. – Head of JS (Interreg V-A Hungary-Croatia Programme)
Panellists: Csaba HORVÁTH, dr. – Head of JS (Interreg VI-A Austria-Hungary Programme)
Csilla VERES – Head of JS (Interreg VI-A Hungary-Slovakia Programme)
János RAKONCZAI – Programme Manager, JS (Interreg V-A Hungary-Croatia Programme)
Practical aspects of IPA in the cross-border cooperation context panel discussion summary
The panel focused on programming processes in Interreg CBC Programmes, exploring the ways in which Interreg and IPA regulation translate into reality and facilitate cooperation of EU member and candidate countries and regions. Implemented outside or along the external EU border, Interreg-IPA and IPA-IPA CBC cooperation contributes also to the goals of IPA to assist and accelerate the EU accession of candidate countries.
The panellists and audience gained closer insight into how things have been done (experiences), how they can be done (possibilities) and what we can do next (opportunities). Overall conclusion of the panel is that effective regulation is a fine balancing act between flexibility and stability. Flexibility of the regulation facilitates cooperation among many programme bodies and structures from different countries, while stability is achieved by clearly and unambiguously defining the contours of cooperation.
Flexibility can be found in the way the programming process unravels. They emphasized that there is no universally optimal approach; instead, each Programme tailors its methodology based on its available resources, internal capacity and workload. This customization takes varied forms: in-house – with mostly MA and JS members; externalized – with specialized service providers; or combined – using both in-house and external expertise. Thus, for each Programme a different combination of methods, techniques and tools used during programming ensures time and resource efficiency, thorough knowledge of the region as well as wide consultative process, integration of multiple perspectives into the Interreg Programme and diversity of stakeholders.
Diversity of applicants and potential beneficiaries was emphasized as crucial for generating good-quality project proposals and ensuring wider impact of the programme interventions. Increasing the number and diversifying the type and profile of applicant organizations and avoiding recycled partnerships poses a challenge for many programmes, and in candidate countries it is especially pronounced. To solve this, the programme bodies have considered and used a variety of measures, methods and tools during programming and set-up of the programmes. Some tackle the diversification of applicants directly through selection of priorities and specific objectives, definition of indicative actions, indicators and types of potential beneficiaries, or opening the Programme for directly financing SMEs or establishing Small Project Fund. Other measures are less obvious, but equally important, such as the use of language and wording in naming the priorities so as to encourage rather than deter different types of organizations from applying. Flexibility of regulation allows for different territorial and administrative arrangements of the management structure of Interreg programmes balancing centralized and regional representation for most efficient use of resources and seamless integration into the existing administrative structures of a country. The panelists described and compared management structures and institutional set-up of Interreg (-IPA) CBC Programmes and highlighted the benefits of sharing, grouping/clustering MAs, JSs/JTSs, NAs and/or FLCs while ensuring regional representation through JS Antennae, JS/JTS branch offices or regional FLC offices. The set-up of the management bodies and structuring the system is important, yet not sufficient for
smooth implementation of Interreg-IPA and IPA-IPA programmes. Establishing and maintaining working relationships and cooperation is implicated in every aspect of their implementation. And that is achieved through timely, frequent and honest communication and multidirectional information flows among the management bodies within one or among more Programmes. The Art of Cooperation is a timely initiative and excellent platform to intensify such communication and promote active involvement in drafting the 2027+ regulation.
Moderator: Senka GAVRANOV – Project Director (Optimeast Europe)
Panellists: Viktor TUNIĆ – Head of JS (Interreg IPA Hungary-Serbia Programme)
Ruxandra ȚUȚUIANU – Counselor, MA (Interreg IPA Romania-Serbia Programme)
Kristina Ašković – senior advisor, NA (Ministry of European Integration of the Republic of Serbia)
Marko Perić – Head of MA (Interreg IPA Croatia-Bosnia and Herzegovina-Montenegro Programme)
Challenges of the Interreg Next Programmes panel discussion summary
Under the moderation of TESIM, the workshop involved representatives of the four Eastern Interreg NEXT programmes in which Ukraine participates. The structure of the session foresaw a first block devoted to the adaptation of the programmes 2014-2020 to the crisis situation stemming from the Russian aggression on Ukraine and a second block devoted to looking ahead to what Interreg NEXT programmes 2021-2027 will deliver in the eligible territories.
During the first part, participants shared what they were confronted to when the invasion started, both at programme and at partner level. The response actions included an increased programme presence in the cooperation area, including increased monitoring efforts, the need to provide for extensions of the grant contract, with the necessary contract addenda – which in some cases implied an enhanced provision of EU funds to projects, in particular those with an infrastructure component – as well as an enhanced communication and collaboration between the programme structures and with the European Commission to address these challenges, leading in some cases to the revision of the legislation in Ukraine. They furthermore explained how implementation changed from the ordinary world, highlighting those factors that proved more challenging to the actors in the field. This refers in particular to the dissolution of project teams following the displacement of experienced project staff or their involvement in military or humanitarian actions, the diminished financial capacity to sustain project activities and cash flow, the depreciation of the national currency, the increase of prices for equipment, construction materials and works and the lack of labour force, which affected the proper execution of contracts related to infrastructure works. They likewise presented how the closure of ENI CBC projects is proceeding, pointing out at the lessons which should be taken into account by those stakeholders who intend to participate in the NEXT programmes.
In terms of future, TESIM presented the strategic orientations of the concerned Interreg NEXT programmes, highlighting the novelties that the allocation of additional funds has brought. Participants then presented the simplification measures that have been put at disposal of project promoters. They also explained how the awareness raising and capacity building needs are being approached in the current circumstances and what is done to facilitate the involvement of newcomers and the creation of partnerships. All these aspects were analysed having in mind the particular conditions of potential Ukrainian applicants. In terms of the calls for proposals, those programmes more advanced reflected on the outcome of their first calls, whereas those with calls open shared their expectations in terms of outcomes. Despite of the difficulties, programmes have experienced a great interest from the Ukrainian applicants. The EU support proves to be attractive, even for newcomers. The experienced beneficiaries have ready-to-implement plans in the context of Interreg NEXT, expecting simplifications on the bureaucratic processes compared to the ENI CBC period. Partners from Member States also trust in lessened administrative obligations, which the programmes plan to provide in several fields: reporting and payment schemes, measures to address currency fluctuations and the use of simplified cost options. Hopefully, all the planned simplification measures will help in keeping the attention of the potential applicants towards the programmes. Participants concluded hoping that the situation in Ukraine will be normalized very soon so that, following the planning and application phase, the active project implementation may start in less than one year.
Moderator: Carlos BOLANOS – Team leader (TESIM)
Panellists: Ingrid BUCȘA – Head of JTS (Interreg NEXT Romania-Ukraine Programme)
Ana GHEORGHE – Counselor, MA (Interreg NEXT Black Sea Basin Programme)
Edit BENYÓ– Programme Manager, JS (Interreg NEXT HUSKROUA Programme)
Tomasz JEDRZEJEWSKI – Deputy Head of JTS (Interreg NEXT Poland-Ukraine Programme)
Integrated territorial development tools panel discussion summary
The workshop was designed to present integrated tools going beyond the traditional logic of individual cross-border projects as well as identifying and developing functionally interlinked cross-border areas. As an introduction, the moderator, Gyula Ocskay, secretary general of CESCI gave a brief summary on the integrated tools implemented by the CBC Programmes so far, namely the PIT (integrated cross-border plan), PITEM (integrated thematic plan) and PITER (integrated territorial plan) introduced by the FrenchItalian ALCOTRA, the CLLD (community-led local development) applied by the Italy-Austria and the ITI (integrated territorial investment) used by the Italy-Slovenia CBC Programmes. One further instrument, the territorial action plan for employment (TAPE) launched by the Slovakia-Hungary CBC Programme was presented by one of the panellists, Mr Silvester Holop, deputy head of the joint secretariat. The TAPE has been developed based on the PIT model, including 2 to 7 projects facilitating employment (investments in production infrastructure by SMEs and in industrial areas by municipalities, development of training, jobseeking, retailing, R+D+I services, brand building, etc.) and one further project for coordinating the management and communication at TAPE level. The projects have been selected through a two-round selection procedure, involving also the regional authorities. The programme provided the applicants with an ERDF funding of EUR 35 million.
Ms Marcela Grodeanu, head of unit of the Managing Authority of the Romania-Bulgaria CBC Programme and Ms Andrea Mayrhofer, representing the Joint Secretariat of the Bavaria-Austria CBC Programme presented the development of territorial strategies enabling the implementation of the Europe closer to citizens policy objective (PO5) during the current budgetary period. The applied methodologies differ in the two Programmes. In the case of the Bavarian-Austrian PO5 planning process 6 euroregions have been assigned to develop their own, narrower territorial strategies focusing on 3 main objectives (from among which one was tourism), and implement the strategy through calls managed, monitored and administered by the euroregions themselves (with a total ERDF budget of EUR 12.8 million). The Romania-Bulgaria CBC Programme opted for another solution: with the involvement of a multisectoral set of stakeholders from the whole programming area (within the so-called Strategy Board), the experts identified a flagship topic, i.e. the development of the EuroVelo 6 cycle highway around which a joint strategy and different tourism, heritage protecting, local product developing, etc. projects have been built up (with a total budget of EUR 65 million).
The speakers’ opinions differed regarding the maturity of the beneficiaries for such complex and complicated interventions which bear serious risks (e.g. the stakeholders involved in the planning do not understand why they need to develop a new strategy; the SMEs have a fundamentally different way of thinking compared to the logic of the CBC programmes; the lack of experiences with management of territorial interventions at local level, etc.). At the same time, the tools bring along obvious advantages.
From a pedagogical point of view, the beneficiaries are forced to look beyond the frames of their individual investment purposes and define a spatial strategy which clearly stretches over the border and has a longer timely perspective. From the programme management point of view, the projects create longer, strategic partnerships as well as more durable outcomes and results than the traditional ones. All speakers agreed that appropriate governance and coaching (on behalf of the programme bodies) are the major guarantees for these advantages
Moderator: Ocskay Gyula – Secretary General (CESCI)
Panellists: Marcela GLODEANU – Head Of Unit, MA (Interreg V-A Romania-Bulgaria Programme)
Silvester HOLOP – Deputy head of JS (Interreg VI-A Hungary-Slovakia Programme)
Andrea MAYRHOFER – Head of JS (Interreg Bavaria-Austria Programme)
Small Project Fund panel discussion summary
The workshop was about to discover how Small Project Fund (SPF) has been and will be used in some Central and Eastern European Interreg programmes.
Slovakia has been using SPF in several Interreg programmes for 4 consecutive programming periods. Thus the management body – represented by Peter Balun – had a lot to share about their experiences with it. Csilla Veres as head of Joint Secretariat of the Hungary-Slovakia CBC Programme (Interreg SKHU) and Julianna Orbán, the director Via Carpatia European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC), managing the SPF in the Eastern programming area of the Slovak-Hungarian border region, provided insights into the operation of SPF within the Interreg SKHU programme. Marko Perić, deputy head of the Managing Authority of the Interreg IPA Cross-border Cooperation Programme between Croatia – Bosnia and Herzegovina – Montenegro (Interreg HR-BA-ME), contributed to the discussion with their initiative how to use SPF to support micro, Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SME).
In most programmes SPF is used to support people to people actions, where the Beneficiaries have limited financial sources. The HR-BA-ME IPA CBC Programme decided to use SPF so they involve SMEs and micro enterprises into the Programme. This is especially important in IPA countries, which do not have access to other funds designed for enterprises. In both cases it is crucial to operate SPF in a way that the administration of the implementation is easy, while the reimbursement is quick.
The SPFs operated in Slovakia as well as in the HR-BA-ME IPA CBC Programme are run through designated management organizations. In this programming period they have already been selected. One single Beneficiary (in case of Hungary-Slovakia CBC Programme 1-1 EGTC, in HR-BA-ME IPA CBC Programme a Croatian Agency for SMEs, Innovation and Investments established by the Government of the Republic of Croatia) will be responsible for the distribution of the allocated amounts. Peter Balun mentioned though, that he would prefer having the management structure as it was set up in the previous programming period. In 2014-2020 programming period it was set up by the Lead Partner principle, and at least two partners had to be in the partnership that was responsible for the operation of the SPF. This would represent a true Interreg programme, which always has at least two cooperating countries.
All mentioned programmes will use simplified cost options like unit costs, lump sums or flat rate financing as well as the draft budget method, which are set out in the regulation. This shall ensure that the planning of the project, the reporting and the reimbursement runs as smoothly and fast as possible. Via Carpatia and Rába-Duna-Vág EGTCs have just launched their first Call for Small Projects within the Hungary-Slovakia CBC Programme. They are looking forward to the experiences and feedbacks about the new methods. Marko Perić mentioned that if the SPF proves to be successful with the SMEs, it may open the opportunity for using this tool in other sectors too.
The panellists all agreed that there is a real need for cooperation and SPF is just the right tool for that. In case of SPF for people to people actions it can have a huge impact in the Programme areas, while generating an incredibly large visibility. SPF, if done right, is an exceptionally efficient tool in promoting and supporting cross-border cooperation.
Moderator: Arianna BIRIKI – Programme Manager, JS (Interreg VI-A Hungary-Slovakia Programme)
Panellists: Csilla VERES – Head of JS (Interreg VI-A Hungary-Slovakia Programme)
Peter BALUN – Head of Unit, Management of CBC Programmes (NA Slovakia)
Marko Perić – Head of MA (Interreg IPA Croatia-Bosnia and Herzegovina-Montenegro Programme)
Ing. Julianna Máté, PhD. – Director of EGTC Via Carpatia
Governance of the electronic management systems used in Interreg panel discussion summary
This workshop offered insight to key aspects of monitoring system models used by cooperation programmes in different areas of Europe. We focused on the background and the history of monitoring systems including main factors that influenced the choice of system model and development, the organisational set-up including stakeholder involvement, as well as strengths and lessons learnt. Demonstration and discussion of functionalities were beyond the scope of the session, however. Our panellists introduced their monitoring systems in detail.
All four systems represent a different evolutionary path, but the predecessor systems and the national legal framework always play a decisive role. The team dealing with the IT system development is also a key element to succeed.
Decision-makers should ideally look into different monitoring systems/models now – not only their functionalities but also their background, organisational setting, project management setup, budgetary limits, strengths and lessons learnt – before kicking off the monitoring system project for their post-2027 programmes. We know very well that such projects cannot be launched early enough.
Moderator: Szabolcs CSAHÓK – Programme and Financial Manager, INTERACT Programme
Panellists: Adrienn FUTÓ, dr. – Director (representing INTERREG+ IT system of Hungary-Slovakia, Hungary-Serbia IPA, Hungary-Slovakia-Romania-Ukraine ENI/NEXT and Hungary-Croatia Interreg Programmes)
Robert SCHULZ – Senior Expert Digitalisation and IT, Interreg Baltic Sea Region (representing BAMOS+ IT system)
Genia Ortis – Programme Manager, INTERACT Programme (representing JEMS IT system)
Jaroslav PAZDERA – Officer, Interreg Czechia-Poland Programme (representing MS2021+ IT system)
