EQUAL - Final report - eng - navreme

EVALUATION OF CIP EQUAL TRANSNATIONAL CO-OPERATION PRINCIPLE
the matter. For this reason two groups were suggested, one with the NSS representatives and one
with the MA representatives. A scenario was established for each group, i.e. the questions that were
asked during the discussion and the sense of which was to observe how the transnational cooperation
management and implementation proceeded, how the monitoring and the evaluation were used, what
kind of support was provided to the implementing bodies. A supplement to the focus groups was then
the evaluation of processes, in this case above all of the information and communication flows among
the mentioned bodies, i.e. the managing authority, PricewaterhouseCoopers and representatives of
the development partnerships. Moreover, this picture of the flows becomes somewhat complicated by
the fact that, within the framework of the transnational cooperation, it is necessary to negotiate also
with the bodies outside the national field, thus with the representatives of the foreign development
partnerships and even with the representatives of the foreign managing authorities (e.g. in case of
TCA modification) and ministries (e.g. in case of proposals of international coordination of search for
partners and gathering information to the transnational cooperation).
The focus groups monitored mainly the issues of management and implementation of the
transnational cooperation priority axis that is based on the knowledge of the context, in which the
programme will be implemented, of the national and sectoral strategies that define priorities for the
orientation of projects and activities and high-quality managing authority’s background. The managing
authority makes its decisions on the basis of the valid strategic documents and follows the
implementation itself by means of standard tools, to which monitoring and evaluation belong. As
regards the process of the programme implementation itself, it may use systemic and national
projects or specialised agencies according to the possibilities given by the setting of the given
programme. Suitable and unsuitable management methods do not exist obviously, what probably
matters more are recommended aspects of management, which are essential for successful
implementation of the programme; clearly defined objectives and rules, understandable and willing
communication with the given groups and system support (facilitation of preparation and
implementation of the partnership, central database sources, methodical support) appear as most
frequently mentioned. As regards project preparation and implementation, the implementing entities’
requirements for the rules and calls say they should be above all understandable, clear and
unchanging till the process closure (except for the modifications necessary for increasing the
smoothness and quality of a programme). The present monitoring system meets neither the needs of
the programme management nor those of the implementation of the projects. Monitoring can serve,
besides its own objectives, also for aggregation for certain areas (the thematic or regional viewpoint
suggests itself), programme management (setting priorities) and it can also serve as a tool for control,
whether the same products do not come into existence in a parallel manner or whether doubled
financing of activities/outputs does not occur. In the first stage, the setting of monitoring indicators is
to be reviewed, in the second phase it is then necessary to provide systemic support to the abovementioned
services. Evaluation must be planned in such a way that it could react to actual processes
and events within the project, thus it must be able to add the evaluation criteria and to relate to the
project currently. It is necessary to maintain the flexibility element in the evaluation and at the same
time it is necessary for the evaluation to be detached from the monitoring system, if possible, it must
not be dependent on it in any case. At the transnational level, transnational monitoring and evaluation
activities may be considered, however, it is necessary to clarify their meaning and objectives,
mandate, responsibilities and the system of their administration.
The other line being followed by means of the focus groups and evaluation of processes was the issue
of projects’ sustainability, mainstreaming and further development of the created products. The
managing authority considers active participation in dissemination and mainstreaming of the outputs
and results of the projects and expects benefits from the point of view of increased impact of projects,
ensuring of sustainability of their outputs, and generally improved quality of the projects. For the time
being, a strategy for further disposal of the products, clarification of the roles, responsibilities and
mandate come into existence. The managing authority could make decisions on the extent of
utilisation of the individual outputs already on the basis of the project applications, from which it must
be obvious, which outputs will arise, for whom these will be intended and how they will be disposed of
after the project closure. Thus the support of the outputs, mainstreaming and dissemination will have
a systemic basis, however, within its orientation, it must work with the outputs individually. When
making use of the outputs and results of the projects, the managing authority should be engaged
mainly at two levels: the international one, when the outputs that are common to several countries,
will be concerned, and the national one, within the sense that MA would be a partner for
mainstreaming. The extent, to which the role of the managing authority will be active in the utilisation
Navreme Boheme, s.r.o. 30