EQUAL - Final report - eng - navreme

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
EVALUATION OF CIP EQUAL TRANSNATIONAL CO-OPERATION PRINCIPLE • it is necessary to make use of the functioning platforms for mainstreaming that are inaccessible for the organisations themselves; • however, in doing so it is not possible to lift the responsibility for sustainability of the outputs from the project solving entities. Navreme Boheme, s.r.o. 53
Page 1 and 2: Version: 6 (final) In Prague, 19th
Page 3 and 4: EVALUATION OF CIP EQUAL TRANSNATION
Page 5 and 6: 0. INTRODUCTION 0.1 Foreword EVALUA
Page 9 and 10: 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EVALUATION OF
Page 17 and 18: 2.3.2 Supporting infrastructure EVA
Page 19 and 20: 2.4.4 What has EQUAL brought EVALUA
Page 25 and 26: 3.4.7 Case studies EVALUATION OF CI
Page 43 and 44: Short summary of partial outputs (b
Page 49 and 50: 7.1.5 Monitoring and evaluation EVA
Page 51: EVALUATION OF CIP EQUAL TRANSNATION
Page 57 and 58: Obsah zadávací dokumentace 1. Zá
Page 59 and 60: 1.7. Harmonogram zakázky • Odesl
Page 61 and 62: Konkrétními oblastmi podpory (neb
Page 63 and 64: Mezi tyto výhody, které princip m
Page 65 and 66: Dále se předpokládá velmi inten
Page 67 and 68: 2. Část studie zaměřená na hod
Page 69 and 70: 3. Část studie zaměřená na hod
Page 71 and 72: 4. Analýza specifických aspektů
Page 73 and 74: 5. Analýza zajímavých přístup
Page 75 and 76: určení minimální výše adminis
Page 77 and 78: 6. 5. Zpracování návrhu zajišt
Page 79 and 80: 4. Požadované výstupy a jejich u
Page 81 and 82: Pozn. U anglických překladů jedn
Page 83 and 84: 5.2. Členění nabídky Nabídka m
Page 85 and 86: 6. Hodnocení nabídek Základním
Page 87 and 88: 6.3. Ekonomicky nejvýhodnější n
Page 89 and 90: onal Cooperation OP LZZ. al Coopera
Page 91 and 92: terms of applying transnation al co
Page 93 and 94: specific aspects of ESF projects fo
Page 95 and 96: operation. 6.2. Identification of f
Page 97 and 98: 8.3 Questionnaire Survey EVALUATION
Page 103 and 104:
EVALUATION OF CIP EQUAL TRANSNATION
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Results of the questionnaire survey
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
8.5 Evaluation Visits Scenario I. P
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
8.7 List of Case Studies Czech Repu
Page 153 and 154:
Visit[N] Interview[R] Name of Organ
Page 155 and 156:
Visi t [N] Poland Inte rvie w[R ] R
Page 157 and 158:
Vi siz s[ N] Inte rvie ws[ R] Name
Page 159 and 160:
Vis its[ N] Int erv iew s[R ] Name
Page 161 and 162:
Vis it[ N] Italy Int erv iew [R] Na
Page 163 and 164:
Section IV: Processes EVALUATION OF
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Italy: EVALUATION OF CIP EQUAL TRAN
Page 173 and 174:
Austria: EVALUATION OF CIP EQUAL TR
Page 175 and 176:
8.9.9 Contacts EVALUATION OF CIP EQ
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Navreme Boheme, s.r.o. 147 EVALUATI
Page 181 and 182:
Dortane, Kristine Navreme Boheme, s
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Development partnership ID E-mail I
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Development partnership ID E-mail D
Page 201 and 202:
Development partnership ID E-mail D
Page 203 and 204:
Development partnership ID E-mail U
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Development partnership ID E-mail P
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Development partnership ID E-mail F
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Development partnership ID E-mail S
Page 223 and 224:
Development partnership ID E-mail S
Page 225 and 226:
Development partnership ID E-mail A
Page 227 and 228:
Development partnership ID E-mail E
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Development partnership ID E-mail N
Page 239 and 240:
Development partnership ID E-mail N
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Organization Development partnershi
Page 247 and 248:
Organization Development partnershi
Page 249 and 250:
Organization pracujících s uprchl
Page 251 and 252:
14 Ing. Ivan Matulík Tel: 577 043
Page 253 and 254:
Pozorovatelé Evropská komise - G
Page 255 and 256:
B - Establishment of entrepreneursh
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
MŠMT odbor koncepce vzdělávací
Page 261 and 262:
E - Equal opportunities for men and
Page 263 and 264:
8.11 Settlement of Comments EVALUAT
Page 265:
show all

EQUAL - Final report - eng - navreme

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?