EQUAL - Final report - eng - navreme

EVALUATION OF CIP EQUAL TRANSNATIONAL CO-OPERATION PRINCIPLE
to compare in advance the documents in various countries dealing with defining of the
individual material priority axes of the ESF programmes and to create the assignment on this
basis.
• The managing authority should have the possibility to identify projects proposing
transnational or interregional cooperation already in the stage of submission and selection and
to direct them towards achieving of the programme objectives. It will be able to provide them
specific assistance also during implementation and to monitor and to evaluate them
purposefully in cooperation with the Monitoring Committee.
7.2.7 Conclusion to the recommendations for the managing authority
Within the framework of the evaluation carried out and, in particular with regard to the character of
the evaluation questions two topics have been opened, which rule out with its character that the
recommendations of the evaluation might result from the evaluation but it may provide a description
and structuring of these topics for contingent political decisions.
First of all, an overall problem related to “project financing” of significant part of the bodies that are
the recipients of the programmes (among others CIP EQUAL) is concerned. Nobody casts doubts that
after the termination of the projects oriented at transnational cooperation it is suitable to make further
use of such outputs or results that are in compliance with strategy of the given body, which considers
their utilisation. Formally, the responsibility of the body is indisputably concerned that has created
these tools and that started the implementation and mainstreaming processes within the framework
of the project, but the question, what the roles of the other interested bodies are, is legitimate.
The situation becomes complicated by the actual state of considerable part of the organisations being
the project solving entities: if an announcement of another call does not follow immediately after the
projects’ termination, and thus a possibility to ensure financing for the organisation, the capacity of
most of the recipient decreases significantly; this threatens dissemination, dissemination of products,
sustainability of the transnational partnership in the very area of the mainstreaming processes,
frequently directed to the EU bodies.
An unclear expectation follows up with it that it is the managing authority that should select, which
products and outputs from the projects, which processes will be supported also after the termination
of the projects; an obvious expectation exists here that a body should exist supporting by means of an
aid from the ESF such outputs and processes that are in compliance with the respective strategies.
The present situation, when considerable vagueness in the expectations exists and the role and the
capacity of the managing authority has not been clarified in this sense either, contributes to not very
favourable overall atmosphere. The fact, how defined and how active the managing authority’s role in
utilisation of the projects’ outputs will be, relates not only to its strategy, but also to the fact what
mandate, what mission and possibilities the managing authority will have.
The managing authority should seek and try to define its role at two levels: at the transnational level
where the outputs common to several countries will be concerned (here these activities could
correlate with contingent pre-negotiating of cooperation with the selected EU countries), and at the
national level in the sense that MA would be a partner (but not the only one) for mainstreaming at
such outputs that indisputably have a country-wide or at least a supra-regional character. It is
necessary to search for tools on how to use effects and mechanisms that are inaccessible for the
solving entities for the solving entities without this managing authority’s support.
However, it is necessary to see to it that creation of any mainstreaming and dissemination tools would
not decrease the project implementing entities’ responsibility for sustainability of the project outputs.
7.3 Recommendations for the mainstreaming partners
• We recommend to follow the outputs and recommendations of the evaluations focused on the
given area already in the course of the projects;
• it is necessary to single out the outputs from the projects suitable for significant mainstreaming
processes already in the course of preparation and implementation;
Navreme Boheme, s.r.o. 52