EQUAL - Final report - eng - navreme

EVALUATION OF CIP EQUAL TRANSNATIONAL CO-OPERATION PRINCIPLE
e.g. of the project or TCA). Reflection of these tools and the ability to use them for
management and implementation of the transnational cooperation in the project were
negligible.
• Great part of the transnational partnership was implemented in “blocks”, the apex of which
was always a joint meeting of a working group or only of an organisational team.
Considerable part of the work in these blocks was carried out through e-mail exchange of
documents in process. It was easy to classify the projects according to the groups
participating in the international meetings – from managerial, research and creative groups
(creating particular products, tools) to the projects focused of the “middle staff”, and in some
cases also the target groups. The way of work and other related characteristics of the
transnational cooperation differed thus a lot. Mutual compatibility of the individual national
programmes was not a subject-matter of criticism; problems appeared from time to time due
to unequal language knowledge.
• Within the framework of the normal duties of the grant recipients, regular monitoring took
place, which was used, however, above all as a formal tool for the individual financing stages
and the content value and utilisation of which are minimal. Sometimes even considerable
modifications discussed with the managing authority did not occur in the monitoring reports.
• The project’s closure is a highly administratively demanding operation, which is, de facto, a
separate phase requiring considerable drive – as a rule after factual termination of the
transnational cooperation. Sometimes a problem is caused by the fact that not all partners
close their projects at the same time and thus at the close of the project weakening of the
transnational activities of those partners occurs, who have already finished their projects. The
conditions for the project’s closure and detailed instructions were not, as a rule, handed over
to the organisations sufficiently in advance.
• The dissemination and mainstreaming stages shall be ensured within the framework of the
final project activities, but due to all circumstances these activities sometimes fail to be
completed till the project’s conclusion. After the project’s termination the organisations often
do not have funds to maintain the employees, who were the specialists for implementation of
the activities started within the framework of the EQUAL project; these often leave the
organisation as of the date of the project’s closure.
• As regards sustainability of the transnational cooperation, the organisations as a rule do not
have own capacities and background that would enable to maintain and develop the created
products and contacts.
• As regards joint use of outputs from the projects, at the close of the project a part of the
organisations turns to the managing authority with a request for political support in
dissemination, e.g. at the meetings at the EU level. A part of the organisations turns to the
managing authority after the project’s termination and they search for the funds to continue
in distribution of the programme’s products, education of the target groups, product
innovations and the like.
• The information and communication background of the programme management and
implementation was, within the framework of the Czech Republic, criticised by all the
participating parties: the monitoring system was perceived rather as repression than as
assistance, the databases of projects and partners were not updated regularly and an outline
of the created products was missing completely. But at the same time both parties were
learning during the programme implementation and they were improving these tools together.
1.2 SELECTED FINDINGS
• Preparation of the transnational partnership required from the part of methodological and
information support of the managing authority above all information on partners and
instructions, how to proceed at conclusion and a modification of partnership agreements.
While the information support for the project preparation was sufficient, reliable records of
modifications in the projects and the information on their outputs were missing completely in
the databases kept at the central level.
Navreme Boheme, s.r.o. 11