regional operational programme nuts ii northwest for period 2007

regional operational programme nuts ii northwest for period 2007

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region7.3 PRIORITY AXIS 3 − ACCESSIBILITY AND TRANSPORT SERVICEABILITY ..........1747.4 PRIORITY AXIS 4 − SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM ......................1847.5 PRIORITY AXIS 5 – TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ............................. ...........................1918 FINANCING PLAN ............................................................................................... ...........1979 PROGRAMME MONITORING AND EVALUATION ............................... .........................2019.1 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF FUNCTIONING OF THE INDICATOR SYSTEM .......2019.2 DATA SOURCE AND PERIODICITY OF INDICATOR COLLECTION ........................ 2039.3 CONTEXT INDICATORS ................................................................ ............................2049.4 INDICATORS GLOBAL AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMME ......2059.5 INDICATORS FOR THE EVALUATIONS OF THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THEPROGRAMME´S PRIORITY AXES ............................................................ ......................20710 IMPLEMENTING MEASURES ......................................................................... .............21310.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS ............................................... ..........................................21310.2 MANAGING AUTHORITY AND BASIC MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES ...............21410.3 BENEFICIARIES, PROJECT SELECTION SYSTEM ............................ ..................22310.4 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OF THE PROGRAMME ..................................... .......22710.5 CONTROL AND AUDIT SYSTEM ................................................ ...........................23010.6 PROGRAMME MONITORING .............................................. ..................................23810.7 PROGRAMME EVALUATION ................................................. ................................24510.8 COORDINATION OF NORTHWEST ROP WITH NSRF AND OTHEROPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES ........................................................................ .............24910.9 STATE AID WITHIN NORTHWEST ROP .............................................................. ..25610.10 PUBLIC CONTRACTS ................................................... ........................................25810.11 PROMOTION AND PUBLICITY ......................................................... ....................25911 SEA RESULTS ............................................................................................... ...............26011.1 METHOD OF ELABORATION OF THE SEA ................................................... ............................26312 EX-ANTE EVALUATION RESULTS ................................................................... ...........26513 PROGRAMME ANNEXES ................................................................. ...........................275Page 3 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionList of Tables, charts and cartogramsTABLE 1 – NORTHWEST COHESION REGION BASIC CHARACTERISTICS ................22TABLE 2 – DEVELOPMENT POLES............................................................................... ....25TABLE 3 – SELECTED CR REGIONAL POPULATION INDICATORS COMPARISON(2005)........................................................................................................................ ...........25TABLE 4 - RESIDENTIAL UNITS POPULATION STRUCTURE (AS OF 1 JANUARY 2006).......................................................................................................................... ...................26TABLE 5 – ROAD AND MOTORWAY NETWORK DENSITY..............................................30TABLE 6 – NORTHWEST COHESION REGION ROAD AND MOTORWAY NETWORKLENGTH (AS OF 31 DECEMBER 2005)...................................................... .......................31TABLE 7 – CR ROAD AND MOTORWAY NETWORK LENGTH (AS OF 31 DECEMBER2005) .................................................................................................................. .................31TABLE 8 – TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS FREQUENCY.......................................................... .....34TABLE 9 – TRAIN VS. BUS TRIP LENGTH COMPARISON (2006)............................... .....34TABLE 10 – COMPARISON OF CYCLE PATHS’ KILOMETRE LENGTHS IN SINGLECOHESION REGIONS (AS OF 31 DECEMBER 2006) ..................................................... ..37TABLE 11 – NUMBER OF PASSENGERS MHD-SERVICED IN LARGEST TOWNS........39TABLE 12 – 2004 REZZO 1 AND REZZO 1-4 PRIMARY POLLUTANTS EMISSIONS INTHE CZECH REPUBLIC BY REGIONS............................................................................... 41TABLE 13 – 2006 ELECTRIC ENERGY PRODUCTION........................... ..........................46TABLE 14 – 2006 ELECTRIC ENERGY CONSUMPTION................................................. ..46TABLE 15 – CR INTERREGIONAL PER CAPITA GDP DEVELOPMENT COMPARISON(CR=100%)............................................................................................ ..............................51TABLE 16 – 2005 CR REGIONAL EXPORT PERFORMANCE .................................... ......51TABLE 17 – 2001-2005 DIRECT PER CAPITA FOREIGN INVESTMENTS STANDING(CZK) .................................................................................................... ..............................52TABLE 18 – ECONOMIC SUBJECTS BY REGIONS AS OF 31 DECEMBER 2005...........53TABLE 19 - REGISTERED VAT-PAYER INDIVIDUALS (PER 1000) ..................................54TABLE 20 – NORTHWEST COHESION REGION PER LEGAL STATUS REGISTEREDSUBJECTS ................................................................................................... ......................55TABLE 21 – ECONOMIC SUBJECTS PER STAFF SIZE CATEGORY PER REGIONS (ASOF 31 DECEMBER 2006) ...................................................................................... .............55TABLE 22 – R&D STAFF AND COST PER REGIONS.............................................. ..........56TABLE 23 – 2006 OVERALL AND SEASONAL REGION VISIT RATE ............................. .61TABLE 24 – 2001-2005 DEMOGRAPHIC INCREMENT................................................. .....67TABLE 25 – POPULATION AGE STRUCTURE.......................................... ........................68Page 4 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTABLE 26 – 2001-2006 CR POPULATION OVER 15 SCHOLARSHIP STRUCTUREINTERREGIONAL COMPARISON ................................................................................ .....69TABLE 27 – EMPLOYMENT STRUCTURE PER NATIONAL ECONOMY SECTORS (%)..71TABLE 28 – SELECTED UNEMPLOYMENT INDICATORS DEVELOPMENT PERREGIONS (2001=100)......................................................................................................... .72TABLE 29 – EMPLOYEES’ SALARIES AND ITS DEVELOPMENT PER REGIONS(2001=100 %)................................................................................................................ .......74TABLE 30 – 2005 CR, REGION AND ITS PARTS SELECTED SETTLEMENT INDICATORSCOMPARISON ...................................................................................................... ..............81TABLE 31 – CR, REGION AND ITS PARTS POPULATION DEVELOPMENT (1930=100).81TABLE 32 – 2005 KARLOVY VARY & ÚSTÍ REGIONS & CR TRANSPORTATIONINDICATORS COMPARISON ....................................................................... ......................82TABLE 33 – 2006 ÚSTÍ NAD LABEM/KARLOVY VARY-PRAGUE TRAIN/BUS TRIPLENGTH COMPARISON .................................................................... .............................82TABLE 34 – 2006 NORTHWEST REGION URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT.......................83TABLE 35 – 2005 KARLOVY VARY/ÚSTÍ REGION EMISSION BALANCE COMPARISON.......................................................................................................................... ...................84TABLE 36 – 2005 NORTHWEST COHESION REGION BROWNFIELDS COUNT ANDAREA ............................................................................................................ ......................84TABLE 37 – 2005 PER CAPITA COMMUNAL WASTE PRODUCTION PER REGIONS (KG).......................................................................................................................... ...................85TABLE 38 – PER CAPITA CZK GDP DEVELOPMENT CR-REGIONS COMPARISON(CR=100).......................................................................................................................... ....85TABLE 39 – PER CAPITA CZK DIRECT FOREIGN INVESTMENTS LEVEL CR-REGIONSCOMPARISON ...................................................................................................... ..............86TABLE 40 – 2005 SCIENCE & RESEARCH STAFF AND SPENDING CR-NORTHWESTREGION COMPARISON........................................................................................ ..............86TABLE 41 – 2005 PERFORMANCES OF TOURISTS’ ACCOMMODATION FACILITIES...87TABLE 42 – 2005 TOURISTS’ ACCOMMODATION FACILITIES................................. .......87TABLE 43 – TOURISM POTENTIAL INDICATORS – NATURAL SUB-SYSTEM................87TABLE 44 – TOURISM POTENTIAL – CULTURAL SUB-SYSTEM....................................88TABLE 45 – 2006 POPULATION AGED 15+ SCHOLARSHIP PERCENT DISTRIBUTIONCR-REGIONS COMPARISON ................................................................... .........................88TABLE 46 – 2006 POPULATION AGED 15+ SCHOLARSHIP ABSOLUTE DISTRIBUTIONCR-REGIONS COMPARISON ................................................................... .........................88TABLE 47 – NORTHWEST COHESION REGION STAFF SALARY DEVELOPMENT PERREGIONS (2001=100)..................................................................................................... ..89TABLE 48 – 2001-2005 POPULATION INCREMENT..................................................... .....89Page 5 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTABLE 49 – SELECTED UNEMPLOYMENT INDICATORS DEVELOPMENT PERREGIONS (2001=100)......................................................................................................... .90TABLE 50 – INDICATOR OF REGIONAL DISPARITIES IN CR..........................................91TABLE 51 – LINKS OF THE PRIORITY AXES AND AREAS OF SUPPORT OF THE ROPNORTHWEST TO THE PRIORITIES OF THE COMMUNITY STRATEGIC GUIDELINES.126TABLE 52 – LINKS OF THE PRIORITY AXES AND AREAS OF SUPPORT OF THE ROPNORTHWEST TO THE PRIORITIES OF THE LISBON STRATEGY OR THE NATIONALPROGRAMME OF REFORMS OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC............................................128TABLE 53 - CONNECTIONS OF THE PRIORITY AXES AND AREAS OF INTERVENTIONSTO THE SELECTED AREAS OF NATIONAL REFORM PROGRAMME OF THE CR......129TABLE 54 - CODES OF CATEGIORIES OF EXPENDITURES WITHIN THE FRAME OFEARMARKING............................................................................................................ .......130TABLE 55 – LINKS OF THE PRIORITY AXES AND AREAS OF SUPPORT OF THE ROPNORTHWEST TO THE PRIORITIES OF THE ECONOMIC GROWTH STRATEGY OF THECZECH REPUBLIC.................................................................................................. ..........132TABLE 56- LINKS OF THE PRIORITY AXES AND AREAS OF SUPPORT OF THE ROPNORTHWEST TO THE PRIORITIES OF THE NSRF OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC 2007-2013........................................................................................................... ........................134TABLE 57 – LINKAGE OF SELECTED INDICATORS AND CRITERIA FOR SELECTINGPROJECTS FROM THE NORTHWEST ROP SEA ANALYSIS TO THE “SIZE OFCOMMUNES IN AREAS WITH DETERIORATED AIR QUALITY (ADAQ) IN NUTS 2-REGION TERRITORY” INDICATOR........................................................................... .......140TABLE 58 - LINKAGE OF SELECTED INDICATORS AND CRITERIA FOR SELECTINGPROJECTS FROM THE NORTHWEST ROP SEA ANALYSIS TO THE “EXPOSURE OFPOPULATION TO ABOVE-LIMIT PM 10 CONCENTRATIONS” INDICATOR...................141TABLE 59 – DEVELOPMENT POLES OF THE NORTHWEST COHESION REGION......149TABLE 60 EXAMPLES OF IMPLEMENTED ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS, STATING THEACTUAL COSTS.................................................................................. .............................175TABLE 61 – OVERVIEW OF ESTIMATED PROGRESSION OF ANNUAL ALLOCATIONSFOR THE NUTS 2 NORTHWEST.................................................................. ....................199TABLE 62 – OVERVIEW OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES TO THE INDIVIDUALPRIORITY AXES WITHIN THE ROP NORTHWEST................................................ ..........200TABLE 63 – LEGISLATIVE DEFINITION OF BENEFICIARIES OF AID UNDER ROPNORTHWEST........................................................................................... .........................223TABLE 64 – STATE AID WITHIN THE NORTHWEST ROP..............................................258GRAPH 1 – NORTHWEST REGION EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT IN MAJORNATIONAL ECONOMY SECTORS (%) ..................................................... .........................71Page 6 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionCARTOGRAM 1 − CR NORTHWEST COHESION REGION.................................... ...........23CARTOGRAM 2 − REGION POPULATION DENSITY (AS OF 31 DECEMBER 2005).......24CARTOGRAM 3 − POPULATION DISTRIBUTION (AS OF 1 JANUARY 2006)..................27CARTOGRAM 4 – NORTHWEST COHESION REGION MAJOR ROADS AND RAILWAYSMAP ........................................................................................................... .........................32CARTOGRAM 5 – KARLOVY VARY REGION TOURISM POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTION ...58CARTOGRAM 6 – ÚSTÍ NAD LABEM REGION TOURISM POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTION. 58CARTOGRAM 7 – BASIC TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE – CR ACCOMMODATIONCAPACITIES .......................................................................................................... .............62CARTOGRAM 8 – UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN REGION’S COMMUNES AS OF 31DECEMBER 2005.................................................................................................. ..............73CARTOGRAM 9 – REGIONS WITH CONCENTRATED STATE SUPPORT FOR 2007-2013.......................................................................................................................... ...................92PICTURE 1 – ROP NORTHWEST ELABORATION ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURECHART..................................................................................................................... ............11PICTURE 2 - BINDINGS BETWEEN THE OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITY AXES OF THEROP NORTHWEST...................................................................................................... ......125PICTURE 3 - ORGANISATION CHART OF THE ÚRR.................................... ..................220List of appendicesANNEX 1 – LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.................................................... ........................275ANNEX 2 – CATEGORIZATION (REFERENCE STRUCTURE)........................................279ANNEX 3 – REVIEW OF SELECTED CITIES IN THE REGION WITH POPULATIONABOVE 10,000 RESIDENTS................................................................. ............................281ANNEX 4 - STATEMENT OF THE MŽP TO THE DRAFT OF THE CONCEPT OF ROPNUTS 2 NORTHWEST (TRANSLATION FROM CZECH)................................................. .282Page 7 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region1 INTRODUCTION1.1 THE CONTEXT FOR ROP NUTS II NORTHWESTThe Regional Operational Programme NUTS II Northwest (hereinafter referred to as ROPNorthwest) presents the main programming document determining the priorities of the regionfor drawing the structural funds in the programming period of 2007 − 2013 for the abovementioned Northwest cohesion region, formed by the Karlovy Vary region and the region ofÚstí nad Labem. The elaborated programme ensues from the valid strategic andprogramming materials of both the regions, such as the Development Programme for theRegion of Ústí nad Labem, and the Development Programme for the Region of Karlovy Vary,and other sectional or cross-sectional strategic or conceptual materials, whether from thesphere of traffic, or the development of tourism, together with the documentation of theterritorial planning.The mining areas in the regions and the related documents (Territorial Prognosis of theMining Areas of the Karlovy Vary Region, and the State Programme of the North-westernRegion’s Development) form a specific aspect taken into account within the framework of theelaborated document. This problem could not be left out during the elaboration of ROPNorthwest, due to serious impact on the region’s development, although the programme assuch, due to its framework delimited by other operational titles, only contributes to therevitalisation of mining areas complementarily. The revitalisation of the mining areas ismostly dealt with via national subsidy titles, or eventually by topical operational programmes.Apart from the above mentioned background materials on the regional level, ROP Northwestalso takes into account the main strategic and programming documents, determining thegeneral priorities of the Czech Republic’s development, as well as of the European Union asa whole. The background materials used in this way primarily included the CommunityStrategic Guidelines (CSG), The National Development Plan of the Czech Republic (NDP),and the subsequent National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF), which apart fromdefining the main priorities of the Czech Republic and the EU for the following programmingperiod also specify the "division" of the priority areas among the individual thematic(sectional) and regional operational programmes, and other methodology or workingbackground materials.The above mentioned documents form the basic framework for the preparation andrealization of ROP Northwest and as such, they also are the main background materialswhich the elaborated programme concurs to.The NDP elaboration was initiated in 2005, on the basis of the Government’s DecreeNo. 245/2005 on elaborating the NDP update. The new NDP fully reflects the changesensuing from a different approach towards the European policy of economic and socialcohesion 2007 − 2013, and contains the exact definition of complementarity among theindividual operational programmes, fully respected in the ROP Northwest.Page 8 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionThe National Strategic Reference Framework (hereinafter referred to as NSRF) is adocument directly linked to and related to the elaborated NDP, specifying the requirementsand the prerequisites for drawing the finances from the structural funds and the cohesionfund in the period of 2007 − 2013. NSRF is subject to the European Commission’s approval,and it forms a certain link between European priorities, stated in the CSG and nationalpriorities of the cohesion policy, elaborated in the operational programmes.ROP Northwest, linked to the above-mentioned documents, elaborates the main regionaland sectional topics into the level of the selected priority axes, and proposes the maininterventions within their framework, suitable and recommended for financing via theEuropean Regional Development Fund.The main aspect reflected by ROP Northwest with regard to the above mentionedbackground materials is primarily a greater emphasis placed on the strategic approach to therealization of the policy of economic and social cohesion, which is reflected upon ROPNorthwest in its narrower, strategic focus on solving the region’s main problems, howeveronly in the sphere of competencies appertaining to ROP Northwest, with regard to the focusof other operational programmes, and eventually the national subsidy titles.1.2 METHODOLOGY GUIDELINES FOR THE ELABORATION OFAND RESPECT FOR THE PARTNERSHIP PRINCIPLEOn the basis of the Czech Government’s Decree No. 198 of 22 February 2006, thepreparation of NDP ČR 2007 – 2013, and NSRF, including the related preparation of thecoordination mechanism on the national level, is guaranteed by the Czech Ministry forRegional Development (MMR), which has an expert section serving this purpose. On thebasis of Law No. 138/2006 Coll., amending Law No. 248/2000 Coll. on support for regionaldevelopment, the Management and Coordination Committee (ŘKV) was established on anational level in the spring of 2006. Its task is to coordinate support provided by theEuropean Communities on the level of the state. ŘKV created a Horizontal ProgrammingWork Group 2007 - 2013, which focuses on the coordination of the operational programmes´preparation, removing the overlays and gaps, and guaranteeing consistency between theoperational and the national levels of the programming documents. At the same time, itrepresents an important back-up environment for guaranteeing the negotiation process,namely with the individual departments.Within the Northwest Cohesion Region, the partnership principle was fulfilled during theelaboration of the operational programme mostly due to an extensive – horizontally andvertically structured – organizational structure (see Fig. 1). This structure allowed for activeparticipation of all the relevant regional partners from the very beginning of the operationalprogramme’s elaboration.The ROP Northwest Work Group is at the core of this structure, comprising topically focusedwork sub-groups:• Work Subgroup "Tourism, Spa resorts, Culture, and Heritage Care"Page 9 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region• Work Subgroup "Human Resources Development, and University Education"• Work Subgroup "Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Knowledge Economy“• Work Subgroup for processing the chapter of "Specific Development Areas"• Work Subgroup "Accessibility and Infrastructure“The task of the work group is to actively participate in the programme’s elaboration, makesuggestions concerning its individual stages, and provide the processors with expertopinions and information necessary for the progress of work. The existence of worksubgroups ensured a sufficient transparency of the entire preparation process of ROPNorthwest. The individual expert chapters were thus prepared and processed with all the keyaffected subjects in the cohesion region. After the resolution concerning the ROP Northwestpriority axes, the work subgroups transformed into four work subgroups, which subsequentlyelaborated the programme’s individual priority axes, together with an external processingteam.The following public administration, non-profit sector, as well as private sector subjects wererepresented in the work subgroups:• ROP Northwest Managing Authority (Office of the Regional Council)• Karlovy Vary Regional Authority• Ústí nad Labem Regional Authority• Towns and cities of the Karlovy Vary Region• Towns and cities of the Ústí nad Labem Region• Association of North Bohemian Towns• Project and Subsidy Management Agency• Entrepreneurial Subjects• Fire Rescue Brigade• Sokolov – East Micro-Region• Chebsko Micro-Region• Environmental experts• IT experts• Czech Forestry experts• Ohře river-basin experts• Central Administration Bodies• Czech Switzerland, GUS (Generally Useful Society)• Poohří Regional Economic Chamber• Czech Statistical Office• Karlovy Vary Employment Office• Most Employment OfficeThe entire elaboration process was managed by the ROP Northwest processor, using ateam of ten Czech experts, completed by one foreign expert with experience in the problemsof programming in the area of EU structural funds. The processor’s task was to manage theentire process of the programme elaboration methodically and organisationally, to provide allthe bodies and subjects in the organisational structure with the necessary backgroundPage 10 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionmaterials required for their participation in the programme, to process the outputs from theindividual work negotiations, and to use them as inputs in the following negotiations. Theprocessor cooperated in his activities very closely with the departments of regionaldevelopment of both the regions, which until the full functionality of the ROP NorthwestManaging Authority also filled the position of the main coordinator for discussing thedocument with all the subjects concerned.This "executive" part of the organisational structure is fully supervised by shielding andwarranty position of the ROP Northwest Managing Authority, or eventually the Committee ofthe Northwest Cohesion Region, which ensures the programmes are led in the correctdirections, with regard to the priorities of the Northwest cohesion region. The programmewas also discussed and approved by the elected bodies in both regions.Picture 1 – ROP Northwest Elaboration Organisational Structure ChartRegionální rada regionu NUTS II SeverozápadZastupitelstvoKarlovarského krajeZastupitelstvo ÚsteckéhokrajeRada KarlovarskéhokrajeRada ÚsteckéhokrajeVýbor regionálního rozvojeKarlovarského krajeKomise pro regionálnírozvoj a cestovní ruchPracovní skupina ROPPracovnípodskupinaprioritní osy 1Pracovnípodskupinaprioritní osy 2Pracovnípodskupinaprioritní osy 3Pracovnípodskupinaprioritní osy 4Zpracovatelský tým SPF Group v.o.s.To ensure adequate directions of the programme for the needs of the region and thesubjects operating therein, several specific complementary activities, surveys, inquiries,individual negotiations and events were realized outside the ROP Northwest structuredescribed above, aiming primarily at a maximum possible extension of the partnershipPage 11 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionprinciple, plus at involving other subjects in the elaboration of the programme, and takinginto account their experience, needs, or opinions.Among the most significant support programmes realized by the processor is mapping theadministration capacity and the main problems ensuing from the realization of theprogrammes in the current programming period. This inquiry took place in November 2005,and the results have been summarized in the chapter on the past programming periodexperience.Closely tied to this mapping, an additional inquiry concerning the absorption capacity withinthe framework of the proposed priority axes of the programme was carried out in February2006. Its purpose was to find out and assess the project preparedness of the potential aidrecipients, and during its realization, new partnership structures were effectively used,created within the framework of the projects realized in accordance with provision 3.3 of theJoint Regional Operational Programme (JROP) in the programming period of 2004 − 2006.During the inquiry, over 80 representatives of cities, towns, the non-profit sector, and othersubjects were interviewed, who are involved in the programme’s implementation orrealization, or could be involved in the future programming period. The findings of the surveyhave also been summarized in the chapter on the past programming period experience.In addition to the inclusion of outputs into a part of the analysis evaluating experience of theexisting period, the main outputs of the mentioned survey were also used for setting singlepriority areas, primarily in supporting towns, rural space, and for development in tourism.The process of assessing the influence of the Northwest ROP concept on the environment(SEA) was an important part of the programme elaboration. Two public hearings (in July2006 in Karlovy Vary and Ústí nad Labem) and, further, a public discussion on the NorthwestROP concept and the assessment of its impact on the environment (SEA) on 27 October2006 in Chomutov were organized. The public hearings and the public discussion wereintended for the engaged professional and general public, non-government and specialinterest organisations, entrepreneurs, academic and research organisations andrepresentatives of state and local administrations. The manner in which suggestions andobjections were handled and the resulting outcome is presented in “Assessment of theNorthwest ROP (SEA) concept regarding impacts on the environment” in Chapter XIV.“Summary of handling suggestions and opinions received to the concept regarding impactson the environment and public health”.Throughout the whole assessment process, single versions of the concept and SEA stageswere published on an ongoing basis. Relevant documents and outcomes of the SEAassessment process were published on the websites of the Karlovy Vary and Ústí nadLabem regions and, further, on the websites of the Northwest ROP SEA assessmentprocessor - The Ministry of the Environment, as perrequirements of Act No. 100/2001 Coll. on assessing impacts on the environment, asamended, published single documents during the SEA process in the SEA InformationSystem on The Northwest ROP concept is identified under the codeMZP033K.Page 12 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionThe elaboration of the ROP Northwest was completed in full accordance with partnershipprinciples. Within the partnership process, non-government organisations (NGO) participatedin elaborating the ROP Northwest. All the NGOs in the Northwest Cohesion Region wereasked to participate.Non-government environmental organisations were invited to full participation in the processof the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Above-standard steps were taken forpublishing information and proceedings with the general public (2 public presentations -Karlovy Vary, Ústí nad Labem, and a public discussion in Chomutov). In the course of theentire assessment, single conceptual and SEA versions were being published. No writtenobjections or commentaries reached the announcer and the reviewers from any nongovernmentorganisation. Also, none of the non-government environmental organisationstook part in any public discussions and proceedings. No additional expert evaluations wereobtained from the parties involved during the SEA process except those the reviewer directlyasked for and included and cited in the SEA evaluation.In total, 287 NGOs from within the Northwest Cohesion Region were invited to makesuggestions related to the ROP Northwest, of which 46 devote themselves to theenvironment.Selected addressed NGOs of the Northwest Cohesion Region- STUŽ − Society for sustainable life, Karlovy Vary regional branch- Meluzína ecological centre- TYTO – Citizens’ association for nature and landscape protection- Our region- Nature and landscape protection association- Ametyst citizens’ association of Karlovy Vary- Club for beautiful Karlovy Vary region- Czech association of nature conservationists- Klubíčko citizens’ association of Cheb- Czech fishing association- JUNÁK - Association of boy and girl scouts- Lípa centre – Kynšperk n./O.- Rosnatka Citizens’ Association of the Brontosaurus Movement- Association of non-profit organisations of the Ústí Region- Litvínov Schola Humanitas ecological education centre- Czech campers union, North Bohemian region- Ústí nad Labem DUHA movement- STUŽ - Society for sustainable life, Chomutov branch- North Bohemian research library- Pioneer association, Ústí regional organisation- SEVER – Ecological education and ethics centre- Tilia association of children and youth- Krušné Hory foothills’ information centre- Czech red cross regional association of Litoměřice- Spektrum citizens’ associationPage 13 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region- Leisure time centre children’s clubJust 3 NGOs of the total of 287 delivered suggestions related to the ROP Northwest asfollows:- Association of non-profit organizations in Ústí nad Labem region- Association for spiritual music Ústí nad Labem- Civic organization for nature and landscape protectionSelected suggestionsInstitution Suggestion SettlementPage 14 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionAssociationof non-profitorganizations in Ústí nadLabemregion(ANOUK)To consider financial resources increasefor priority axis 5 Technical Assistancewith regards to the increase of fundsintended for the absorption capacitysupportDuring the projects’ approval procedurethe following general criteria are binding:- coherence with NSRR priorities;We suggest a modification to coherencewith ROP Northwest prioritiesNO – The ratio of TechnicalAssistance resources in totalROP Northwest funds (2.7 %)is in line with the MFCRrecommendation. The totalamount corresponds to theamounts allocated to TA forother ROPs.NO – The project has to complywith the NSRR priorities thatare superior to ROP Northwestdocumentation, as well as withROP Northwest prioritiesConcerning transport, in Ústí nad Labemregion it would be appropriate toimplement an integrated transportationsystem.YES – ROP Northwestsupports in priority axis 3 theimplementation of an integratedtransportation system.Complementary solar energy andthermal energy – boreholes are missingNO – This is not under theresponsibility of ROPNorthwest.The technological state of the waterpipeline is not appropriate (e.g. lowpressure areas, water leakage from thedamaged distribution system, no conceptfor wells and springs support, use of localdrinking water sources as acomplementary resourceLocal sewage treatment plant for smallermunicipalities or a group of buildings –support as well as relevant regulationsmissing, sewer system construction istoo expensive in these localities.ROP Northwest does not focussufficiently on research and innovationsRegarding tourism, travel accessibility,infrastructure and mainly informationservices including information campaignsto make the region more attractive, arelacking.NO – This is not under theresponsibility of ROP NorthwestNO- These issues are solved inthe Rural developmentprogramme with stress onmunicipalities up to 500 citizensNO– this is primarily addressedin OP VaVpIYES – these activities aretaken into account in priorityaxis 3 and 4.Page 15 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionAssociationfor spiritualmusic Ústínad LabemTYTO (Civicorganizationfor natureandlandscapeprotection)Specification of culture in the region islackingWe can say that in Chomutov, Louny andLitoměřice districts there is a stablepopulation of barn owl (highlyendangered species) within the Ústí nadLabem and Karlovy Vary regionsProtection of the environment as one ofthe priority axes is missing, as well asspecially protected areas or animalprotection (e.g. the barn owl, little owl –also highly endangered, in the abovementioned districts an importantpopulation can be found within the CzechRepublic)NOCulture in the region isdescribed in the chapter 2.6.1Conditions for the tourismdevelopmentYES – integrated into thesocioeconomic analysis ROPNorthwest.Partially YES – integrated intothe socioeconomic analysisROP Northwest. Theenvironment protection is just acomplementary responsibility ofROP Northwest (e.g.information activities NATURA2000 etc.)Non-government organisations were also addressed in full within the environmental impactsassessment process (SEA). However, no written suggestions and commentary wereaddressed to the presenter or reviewer address from any non-government organisation.Also, no non-government environmental organisation took part in any public hearing anddiscussion. Within the SEA process, no expertises above the scope of those directlyrequested by the reviewer and included and cited in the SEA evaluation were received fromthe parties concerned.The requirement for specific support for horizontal themes within single priority axes was asignificant requirement also taken into account during the elaboration of the Northwest ROP.Criteria focused on ecological aspects or aspects dealing with equal opportunities, forinstance in the form of environmental improvements in towns for mobility of thehandicapped, were added to the level of assessment criteria in single priority axes so thatthe projects dealing with the above-mentioned issues were given preference within theprogramme.The extensively developed partnership structure itself does not still guarantee the necessaryinteraction between programme elaborators and regional players. That is why the rules formutual information exchange and submitting suggestions to the document were establishedbefore programming commencement. The entire team of elaborators considered effectiveexchange of information, opinions and points of view among all the relevant partners andelaborators as the key condition for the programme elaboration to be a true “discussionprocess” that itself is equally important as the resulting document.Page 16 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionThe draft of the programme document was consulted continually with many involvedsubjects in the region. The objective of all consultations and suggestion proceedings was toharmonise the requirements of all subjects involved related to financing specific activitiesfrom the structural funds with priorities of the EU, the European Council and the EuropeanParliament.Single consultations and submitting suggestions to the programme were in progress for theentire period of its elaboration and carried out by the ROP Northwest Managing Authorityand single bodies of both regions (working group, working sub-groups, single departmentsand governing political bodies), as well as by the EU representatives, MMR, and otherdepartments within inter-departmental suggestion proceedings, and, finally, by citizens withinpublic discussions. Interim outputs from the programme document elaboration werepublished on websites of both regions thus allowing access of the general public to the ROPNorthwest draft within the entire period of its elaboration.The cohesion of the programme document with the objectives and measures of the nationalstrategic documents, including specific strategies and concepts in the area of theenvironment and equal opportunities, was the major important factor in the document’selaboration. For this purpose, the programme was continually consulted with singleministries in order to ensure the mutual synergy of all the programmes that should contributeto the Northwest region’s progressive transformation within the 2007 − 2013 period.The partnership process was and still is led in the full accordance with respective legal andfinancial regulations in force for each category of above-presented partners. Theimplementation of partnership principles directly in the process of elaborating theprogramming documents is the important prerequisite for the successful realisation of theROP as directed to both the governing bodies and their programming documents (NSRF andTOP) and the lower levels of implementation or support recipients, respectively.Also, close cooperation with the involved partners on the programme implementation level isan equally important level of partnership. The ROP Northwest is planned so that it makes thepartnership principle more profound even on the programme implementation level. It drafts aspecific support of close cooperation of the Managing Authority and potential applicantswithin single priority axes. It further resumes existing good experience with partnershipcooperation within projects of the Ústí and Karlovy Vary regions in the JROP measure 3.3(BROÚK, Partnership for the future) that established structures for maintaining close contactwith single partner groups even in the future. This will allow constant reviewing andcontingent amendments to the ROP Northwest so that it meets needs of the target groups asmuch as possible.1.3 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORKEU LegislationNorthwest Regional Operational Programme has been prepared in accordance with thefollowing EU legislative documents:Page 17 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region• Council Decree of 6 October 2006 on Community Strategic Guidelines onCohesion, 2006/702/ES• Council Regulation (ES) No. 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 establishing generalprovisions on the European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund,and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (ES) No. 1260/1999, (GeneralRegulation)• Regulation (ES) No. 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and repealingRegulation (ES) No. 1783/1999• Regulation (ES) No. 1081/2006 of 5 July 2006 on the European Social Fund andrepealing Regulation (ES) No. 1784/1999• Council Regulation (ES) No. 1084/2006 of 11 July 2006 on the Cohesion Fundand repealing Regulation (ES) No. 1164/1994• Regulation (ES) No. 1082/2006 of 5 July 2006 on a European Grouping ofTerritorial Cooperation (ESÚS)• Commission Regulation (ES) No. 1828/2006 of 8 December 2006 establishingdetailed laws for the implementation of Council Regulation (ES) No. 1083/2006 ongeneral provisions on European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund,and for European Parliament and Council Regulation (ES) No. 1080/2006 onEuropean Regional Development Fund, (Implementation Regulation)• Commission Regulation (ES) No. 448/2004 of 10 March 2004 amendingRegulation (ES) No. 1685/2000 establishing specific laws for the implementationof Council Regulation (ES) No. 1260/1999 as regards the eligibility of expenditureof operations co-financed by the structural funds and repealing Regulation (ES)No. 1145/2003• Regulation (ES) No. 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of26 May 2003 on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units forstatistics (NUTS)• Directive No. 42/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on theenvironment• Communication No. 24/2005 to the Spring European Council – Working Togetherfor Growth and Jobs – A new start for the Lisbon strategy – Communication of Mr.Chairman Barroso, upon an agreement with Mr. Vice-Chairman Verheugen• Council Decision (ES) No. 144/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the Community’sstrategic directions for the development of rural areas (programming period of2007–2013)Page 18 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region• Communication No. 141/2005 Integrated main trends for growth and jobs (2005–2008)Legislation of the Czech RepublicThe ROP Northwest has been elaborated in accordance with the following legislativedocuments of the Czech Republic:Law on the Support for Regional Development No. 248/2000 Coll.Law No. 129/2000 Coll., on the regionsLaw No. 114/1992 Coll., on the protection of nature and the environment, asamendedLaw No. 218/2000 Coll., on budget regulations, as amendedLaw No. 215/2004 Coll., on adjusting certain relationships in the area of state aid,and on the change of the law on the research and development support, asamendedLaw No. 250/2000 Coll., on the budget regulations of the territorial budget, asamendedLaw No. 320/2001 Coll., on financial control in the public service, as amendedLaw No. 420/2004 Coll., on revising the economy of the municipal authorities, asamendedLaw No. 250/2000 Coll., on the budget regulations of the territorial budget, asamendedAct of the Czech Government No. 235/1998 on the Principles of the Government'sRegional Policy (in the current version)Act of the Czech Government No. 245/2005 on the progress of Czech Republic'spreparedness to draw financial resources from structural funds and from theEuropean Union Cohesion Fund in the period of 2007 − 2013Act of the Czech Government No. 1242/2004 on the draft of the Strategy of theSustainable Development for the Czech RepublicAct of the Czech Government No. 984/2005 on the draft of the Strategy of theEconomic Growth for the Czech RepublicAct of the Czech Government No. 730/1998 on the Rural Renewal ProgrammeAct of the Czech Government No. 178/2007 on approving the official presentationof the Czech Republic's National Strategic Reference Framework for drawing thefinancial resources from the structural funds and from the European UnionPage 19 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionCohesion Fund in the period of 2007 – 2013, and the operational programmes tothe European CommissionPage 20 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE REGIONThe socio-economic analysis of the region is a basic input document that brieflycharacterises and describes the main development trends in the region, their expectedfuture development and possible impact on the development and competitiveness of theregion.The approach to the elaboration of the analysis of economic and social situations in theNorthwest Cohesion Region ensues from the fact that both regions of the Cohesion Regionhave elaborated basic development documents for the needs of their own regionaldevelopment that are based on extensive and detailed analyses covering all the spheres ofthe socio-economic life in the regions (Karlovy Vary and Ústí Regional DevelopmentProgrammes, Karlovy Vary Region Competitiveness Development, Ústí Region SustainableDevelopment Strategy). The analysis of the economic and social situations in the ROPNorthwest is based on these detailed analyses and uses their data and information toformulate analytical conclusions for the purposes of the ROP Northwest itself.The socio-economic analysis is divided into several chapters specifying the region’s standingboth within the CR and the EU as a whole. Also identified and specified are the major interregionaldisparities for single areas analysed in the chapters that impact today’s and thefuture’s overall competitiveness of the region within the global environment.The analytical conclusions then constitute the starting point for formulating the SWOTanalysis and, consequently, the ROP Northwest strategy as well.The ROP Northwest Managing Authority prefers a wider concept of the analytical part thatwill provide a complex and comprehensive view at the socio-economic situation in theNorthwest Cohesion Region. Thus, the analytical part comprehensively identifies problemsof the Northwest region of which only some can be resolved within the ROP Northwest. Theother identified problems may be resolved in other operational programmes and/or nationalgrant resources.2.1 BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGIONThe Northwest region is situated in Central Europe, on the border of the Czech Republic andthe Federal Republic of Germany. In the Czech Republic, it is adjacent to the Southwest,Central Bohemia and Northeast regions, in the north and west it verges on the border regionof the Free State of Saxony and the Free State of Bavaria (FRG).The following summary Table presents the basic characteristics of the Northwest region,Czech Republic and a comparison of indicators with the EU (25) countries. The comparisondrew primarily on key macroeconomic indicators evidencing the current situation in theNorthwest region.Page 21 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTable 1 – Northwest Cohesion Region Basic CharacteristicsIndicator/Territory EU (25) Czech Republic Northwest RegionPopulation as of 31 December 2005 (in thousands) 463,636.0 10,251.1 1,127.4Population density per sq. km (2005) 115.7 130.0 130.4Per capita GDP in current prices in PPS (2005) 21,745.0 17,309.0 13,872.3Per capita GDP in current prices in PPS (% of EU25) (2005)100.0 79.6 59.1Per capita GDP in current prices in EUR (2005) 23,541.4 9,745.0 7,809.9Per capita GDP in current prices in EUR (% z EU25) (2005)100.0 41.4 33.2Year-to-year GDP growth (%) (2005) 3.7 6.1 4.3Employment rate (%) (2005) 63.8 54.7 52.8Unemployment rate (%) (2005) 8.7 7.9 13.5Employment structure by sectors (2005):- Agriculture 5.0 4.0 2.7- Industry 24.9 39.5 41.2- Services 70.1 56.5 56.1Source: Eurostat, CSO, own calculationsThe above-presented Table shows that the Northwest region as a whole is well below the EUaverage level and also significantly below the CR level in terms of overall performance andeconomy structure. The Northwest Cohesion Region’s year-to-year GDP growth shows thegrowing level of economy (but with lower dynamics than the CR average), however, theadverse industry structure, characterized by a high share of industrial branches as opposedto a very low share of the tertiary sphere with a low share of sophisticated services, remainsa major barrier.2.2 LOCATION AND POPULATION OF THE REGIONRegarding administration, the territory of the Northwest Cohesion Region is divided into tworegions (NUTS 3): Karlovy Vary and Ústí nad Labem Regions. The Cohesion Region isfurther divided into 10 districts (NUTS 4) and 486 municipalities (NUTS 5).Page 22 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionCartogram 1 − CR Northwest Cohesion RegionLibereckýKarlovarskýSeverozápadÚsteckýKrálovehradeckýHl.m. PrahaStředočeskýPlzeňskýPardubickýOlomouckýMoravskoslezskýVysočinaJihočeskýJihomoravskýZlínskýSource: Cassia Development & Consulting cartogramIn the context of Central Europe, the location of the region may be regarded asadvantageous. The northeast part of the region lies on the connecting line of a major trans-European development axis linking Berlin, Prague and Vienna. However, the advantagesresulting from the position of the region are significantly limited by adverse trafficaccessibility both from inland and from abroad due to low border permeability. Only a smallpart of the Cohesion Region along the Labe river development axis is connected with thecapital of Prague and inland territory in an appropriate way by D8 motorway and the 1 stnational transit railway corridor.2.2.1 POPULATION STRUCTUREApproximately 1.13 million inhabitants – roughly a tenth of the population of the CzechRepublic – live in the Northwest region. In terms of population, the Northwest is the smallestregion in the Czech Republic.The average population density of 130 inhabitants per sq. km is in line with the nationalaverage; the population density is much higher especially in the northeast part of theCohesion Region, as illustrated by the following cartogram.Page 23 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionCartogram 2 − Region Population Density (As of 31 December 2005)SOURCE: CASSIA DEVELOPMENT & CONSULTING CARTOGRAMThe region’s territory can be characterised by significant inner differences in populationdensity with the population density in the northeast industrial area almost twofold ascompared to the south-west spa area of the region. Regarding districts, the Ústí nad Labemdistrict with the population density of 293 per sq. km is the most populated area ascompared to the Karlovy Vary district with the population density just 74 per sq. km as theleast populated area. The population density of the southwest area of the region issignificantly reduced by the uninhabited and economically unused military ground of Hradištěin Doupov Mountains taking up approximately the third of the Karlovy Vary region.The Krušné hory foothill brown coal basin with the conurbation of Děčín – Ústí nad Labem –Teplice – Most – Chomutov is the area with the highest population density of 250 to 300 persq. km. The area of the Sokolov basin (opencast coal and kaolin mining) with theconurbation of Ostrov – Karlovy Vary – Chodov – Sokolov has the same population density.In addition to the Hradiště military ground and large-area protected territories (ČeskéŠvýcarsko National Park, Slavkovský les, České středohoří, Labské pískovce conservationareas), the Smrčiny and Krušné hory border mountain ranges belong to areas with a lowurbanisation rate and a very low population density. Also, the area demarked by MariánskéLázně, Bochov, and Podbořany, being part of the largest Czech inland periphery, is scarcelypopulated.Page 24 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionWithin the region, the urbanised sub-regions located on two major development axes – the“basin” with a high concentration of population, and the “Labe River”, which is part of thetrans-European transit corridor, are the most exposed locations.The Northwest is a region with a high rate of urbanisation. Approximately 80% of the totalpopulation live in cities and towns (as compared to 70 % of the Czech Republic rate). TheKarlovy Vary region is the second in terms of the urban population total after Prague. Thepopulation structure is polycentric, i.e. unlike other regions the Northwest has no dominantcentre. Thus, six large cities with a population of 50 – 100 thousand fulfil the function ofdevelopment poles.Table 2 – Development PolesCity/TownÚstí nad Labem 94,298Most 67,805Děčín 51,875Teplice 51,010Karlovy Vary 50,893Chomutov 50,027Source: CSOPopulation(as of 1 January 2006)The Northwest comprises of 486 municipalities; the average population per municipality issignificantly above average − 2,320 inhabitants (the average for the Czech Republic is1,641). Majority of population in the southern part of the region live in municipalities of10,000 to 50,000 inhabitants while in the north in municipalities above 50,000 inhabitants.Table 3 – Selected CR Regional Population Indicators Comparison (2005)Area/Indicator A B C D E F GCzech Republic 6 248 2.4 12.6 1,641 130 529 70.1Northwest 486 3.4 17.8 2,320 130 74 79.5Southeast 1,376 1.7 10.2 1,193 117 81 61.6Southwest 1,124 3.1 15.7 1,049 67 92 65.4Moravia-Silesia 299 2.1 18.2 4,183 231 39 76.6Prague 1 147.0 496.1 1,181,610 2,382 1 100.0Northeast 1,115 2.5 11.2 1,330 119 111 68.4Central Bohemia 1,146 2.4 9.6 1,011 105 74 54.4Central Moravia 701 1.7 13.2 1,754 133 57 59.2Legend:A: Number of Residential Units B: Average Number of Subdivision Units/Residential UnitC: Average Area/Residential Unit (sq. km) D: Average Population/Residential UnitE: Population Density/sq. km F: Number of TownsG: Urban Population Share (%)Source: CSO, Malý lexikon obcí ČR 2006 (2006 Small Lexicon of CR Communities), own calculationsPage 25 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionIn addition to the high share of urban population, the cohesion region is also characterisedby the high rate of integration of residential units (subdivision units) into larger administrationunits (communities) typical primarily for border districts. This phenomenon primarilyoriginated in post-war degradation and complete destruction of a number of residential unitsas the direct consequence of transferring the majority of the German population followed bypurposeful devastation of the countryside (military grounds, surface mining of mineralresources, border zone) and by centrally controlled industrialisation concentrated in thebasin areas of the region.Table 4 - Residential Units Population Structure (As of 1 January 2006)Indicator/AreaNorthwestCzech RepublicA B A BAbs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %Up to 199 78 16.0 10,362 0.9 1,614 25.8 197,865 1.9200 – 499 168 34.6 56,013 5.0 2,016 32.3 655,165 6.4500 – 999 108 22.2 73,594 6.5 1,302 20.8 910,087 8.91 000 − 1 999 54 11.1 76,743 6.8 671 10.7 929,167 9.12 000 − 4 999 39 8.0 114,801 10.2 376 6.0 1,139,318 11.15 000 - 9 999 15 3.1 100,087 8.9 138 2.2 939,382 9.210 000 – 19 999 13 2.7 199,621 17.7 68 1.1 954,239 9.320 000 – 49 999 5 1.0 130,318 11.6 41 0.7 1,197,676 11.750 000 – 99 999 6 1.2 365,908 32.5 17 0.3 1,206,595 11.8Over 100 000 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 0.1 2,121,585 20.7Total 486 100 1,127,447 100 6,248 100 10,251,079 100Of it towns 74 15.2 896,327 79.5 529 8.5 7,189,109 70Legend:A: Number of Residential Units (Absolute Table/%)B: Population (Absolute Table/%)Source: CSO, Malý lexikon obcí ČR 2006 (2006 Small Lexicon of CR Communities), own calculationsPage 26 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionCartogram 3 − Population Distribution (As of 1 January 2006)Source: CSO, Cassia Development & Consulting cartogram2.3 REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE2.3.1 TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICEABILITYThe transport infrastructure is one of the main factors influencing the possibility ofdevelopment throughout the region, not only in terms of how the area is served by thisinfrastructure, but also from the aspect of opening up access to development zones, areaswith potential for business in tourism, and also as the cornerstone of business infrastructurerequired to ensure adequate conditions for the influx of investments into the area.The quality of road infrastructure and the related transport services provided in the region bypublic transport significantly affects the mobility of the work force in the given region. In thecase of the Northwest Cohesion Region, the mobility of the workforce may be assessed asinsufficient and it may be defined as one of the main obstacles in the growth of the CohesionRegion’s competitiveness as a whole. Low workforce mobility has further negative impact onthe efficiency of the already realised investments.The transport from the diffused remaining small settlements to large and medium-sizedtowns, i.e. towns with more than 50 000 inhabitants or with 10 000 to 30 000 inhabitantsrespectively, has key significance for the whole Northwest Cohesion Region. The polycentriccharacter of settlement then emphasises the significance of transport between individualtowns. The fact that apart from Ústí nad Labem (94 298 inhabitants), the other developmentpoles are rather small (50 027 – 67 805 inhabitants) leads to the conclusion that thePage 27 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionsignificance of urban transport compared to the vital role of intercity transport is relativelysmall.Public regional transport, i.e. public transport from rural settlements to towns and betweentowns substantially lacks quality and speed. In case that these basic deficiencies are notremoved the following consequences may affect the Cohesion Region:• The existence of especially small and medium businesses depending on commuterswill be endangered.• Poor quality of public transport will intensify the migration of remaining inhabitantsfrom small settlements to towns. Depopulation of the countryside will continue.• Without the possibility of reliable transport to work, the unemployment rate in smallsettlements will remain high.Transport and communication are a highly significant sector in the region because, on theone hand, the main TEN-T European corridor, i.e. Berlin - Dresden - Prague - Vienna,passes through the area with a high concentration of transport (especially in the districts ofDěčín, Ústí nad Labem and Litoměřice), and on the other hand the region’s specialization inheavy industry, which uses rail transport. Therefore, the scope of the railway network andassociated infrastructure (repair shops, etc.) is above average.After 1990, there was a significant rise in the transport of goods by road, which nowsuccessfully competes against railways, even though the technical condition and, in part, thedensity of the road network is unsatisfactory. In terms of the local economy, the connectionfrom the central and southern part of the region (from Chebsko to Mostecko) to other areasinland and to Prague is inadequate.The region is of national significance in terms of water transportation. The rivers of Ohře andLabe flow through the region; both are included in the concept of the Czech Republic’stransport networks as usable traffic routes. The Ohře River is monitored solely as apotentially viable watercourse, but the Labe River is an active waterway whose importanceextends beyond regional borders; however, the navigation conditions downstream need tobe improved.In the current situation, the basic transport infrastructure is complemented by theinternational airport in Karlovy Vary. In a general context, the transport infrastructure is alsocomplemented by transport terminals and a network of footpaths and cycle paths usedpredominantly for the development of tourism and local transport serviceability.Road infrastructureSeveral communications of the international or supra-regional importance constitute the coreof the Northwest region road infrastructure. The D8 motorway, running from Prague via Ústínad Labem to the national border with Germany, is part of the trans-European TEN-Tnetwork and the Fourth multi-modal pan-European transport corridor, and is therefore of keysignificance for the development, specifically of the northern part of the region. This roadPage 28 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionprovides a link from the northern part of the region to the Prague agglomeration, as well asto the neighbouring region of Saxony, where it joins with the German A17 motorway, offeringa connection to Dresden. The motorway has not yet been completed, although aninternational agreement has been drawn up for the connection of the D8 and the A17,including the construction of a border bridge.Completion of this connection is essential not only to complete the regional backbone butalso to provide essential relief to the E55 international road (Helsingborg – Berlin – Prague −Salzburg – Venezia − Brinidisi – Patra – Kalamata), which today leads along the I/8 roadthrough Teplice and is entirely unsuited to the needs of contemporary traffic levels.The connecting roads, comprising or planned as part of the regional backbone network, arethe R7/ I/7 covering the route from Prague to Chomutov (it has not been built yet) and the R6I/6 Prague – Karlovy Vary - Cheb (the 11.5 km long section from turning to FrantiškovyLázně – Kamenný Dvůr and part of the throughway of Karlovy Vary are in operation). Alongwith other first- and second - class roads and the D8 motorway, these roads create the basisof the region’s road network, which should provide a connection offering sufficient capacitywith the surrounding area, among others. The R6 road is moreover a part of the TEN-TEuropean corridor.Motorways, expressways and class I roads in the Cohesion Region territory with the lengthof 745 km are owned by the state. Class II and III roads 5,547 km long, which constitute 85%of the road network interconnecting individual settlements, are owned by both regionsmaking up the Cohesion Region. 1,329 bridges belong to the regional road network in theNorthwest region. The technical condition of local roads is taken care of by respectivecommunities. The road network was subject to historical development and, regarding itsdensity (in km/sq. km of territory) correspond with the average of the CR.Regions overtook the network of class II and III roads just after their formation in 2000 andthese roads were heavily indebted with regards to their condition and quality. All costsrelated to their operation, maintenance, restoration and new investments are covered byregional authorities from their budgets, i.e. income consisting of a share of tax collected inthe whole country. This share depends to a great extent (in case of the Northwest CohesionRegion it is 88%) on the number of regional inhabitants. As the Northwest region belongs tothe least populated, its share in state collected tax is relatively small. Approximately CZK 850to 900 million is annually devoted to repairs and regular maintenance of the region’s roadnetwork. The concept of the regional road network development nevertheless shows thatreconstructing all the regional roads to the condition corresponding to their transportationsignificance would require financial resources amounting to several billions of CZK. Thisfactor causes bad deterioration of road network condition compared to the average in otherregions of CR. Basic interventions into the modernisation and increasing safety of the classII and III roads network are unthinkable without intervention from public resources.Even though it is not part of the international trans-European TEN-T network, the road I/13has a fundamental importance in the internal mobility of inhabitants in the Cohesion Region.It connects all towns with a population greater than 50,000 from Děčín to Karlovy Vary.Despite the fact that the road I/13 is essential for life in the Cohesion Region, the owner (thestate) pays only little attention to its quality and condition. Regarding state ownership andPage 29 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regiondespite its essential importance for the region, the modernisation of the road I/13 and otherclass I roads cannot be subject of support on the part of the Northwest ROP.The total length of class II and III roads in the Northwest Cohesion Region comes to5,472 km, which is just under 11 % of the total length of this category of roads throughout theCzech Republic. Compared to other regions (NUTS 2), the percentage reached by theNorthwest region in the total number (length) of the road network is rather below average. Acomparison of road network density reveals that the Northwest region is roughly at thenational average for the entire Czech Republic.Table 5 – Road and Motorway Network DensityAreaA B C1 2 1 2 1 2EU 15 0.017 0.140 * * * *Czech Republic 0.007 0.053 0.186 1.435 0.433 3.339Northwest 0.003 0.026 0.169 1.300 0.464 3.558Karlovy Vary Region - - 0.170 1.848 0.380 4.133Ústí nad Labem Region 0.006 0.036 0.169 1.097 0.516 3.345Capital City of Prague 0.021 0.009 0.060 0.026 - -Central Bohemia Region 0.016 0.152 0.215 2.071 0.568 5.464South Bohemia Region 0.001 0.014 0.163 2.619 0.380 6.103Plzeň Region 0.14 0.194 0.200 2.747 0.409 5.631Liberec Region - - 0.154 1.139 0.512 3.791Hradec Králové Region - - 0.189 1.646 0.509 4.425Pardubice Region - - 0.202 1.807 0.492 4.398Vysočina Region 0.013 0.180 0.236 3.163 0.425 5.693South Moravia Region 0.018 0.111 0.209 1.317 0.345 2.173Olomouc Region - - 0.178 1.450 0.428 3.476Zlín Region - - 0.145 0.972 0.305 2.048Moravia-Silesia Region - - 0.134 0.592 0.341 1.500Legend:A: Motorway Network Density B: Class II Road Network Density C: Class III Road Network Density1: Kilometres/Sq. km 2: Kilometres/Thousand InhabitantsNote: * No Table available – There are no motorways in the region (district).Source: EHK/OSN, Eurostat, CSO – Regional year-books, own calculationsPage 30 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTable 6 – Northwest Cohesion Region Road and Motorway Network Length (As of 31December 2005)Road Communication CategoryClass II Roads 1,465Class III Roads 4,007Class II and III Roads Total 5,472Length (km)Class I Roads 716Of it speedways 19Motorways 29Class I Roads and Motorways Total 745Roads and Motorways Total 6,217Source: CSO – Regional year-books, own calculationsTable 7 – CR Road and Motorway Network Length (As of 31 December 2005)Area/IndicatorHighways(km)Class I Roads(km)Class II Roads(km)Class III Roads(km)EU (25) * * * *Czech Republic 564 6,154 14,668 34,124Northwest 29 716 1,465 4,007Southeast 228 870 3,112 5,391Jihozápad 115 1,073 3,149 6,912Moravia-Silesia - 713 744 1,887Prague 11 31 30 -Northeast - 1,205 2,302 6,265Central Bohemis 174 780 2,369 6,251Central Moravia 8 764 1,497 3,411Note: * No Table available – There are no motorways in the region (district).Source: Eurostat, CSO, Karlovy Vary Region Statistical Year-book 2006, Ústí nad Labem RegionStatistical Year-book 2006, own calculationsPage 31 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionCartogram 4 – Northwest Cohesion Region Major Roads and Railways MapPPage 32 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionThe technical condition of roads is unsatisfactory primarily from the technical aspect (i.e. withregard to width parameters, directional and height routing, static parameters do notcorrespond to today’s traffic load, surfaces, especially due to static disruptions, show anumber of point or area defects). Moreover, the incomplete backbone routes lead tooverloading, not only as the result of transit transport, but also due to growing intra-regionaltransport among single residential centres. This restriction is significant primarily in relationto potential investors, where both restricted permeability and the number of bordercrossings, and the capacity and quality of the main road routes are limiting factors.Class II and III roads, managed by the regions, are of a very poor quality; the historical debtcaused by the limited infrastructure development in border areas from the middle of 1930shas still not been cleared. Limiting investments in infrastructure in border regions had ahistorical association with the rise of Adolf Hitler to power in the neighbouring Germany and,consequently, its impact on the border areas of the Czech state. The shift of the Germanpopulation to Hitler and the defence policy of the Czech state logically resulted in thelimitation of investments into road network to the minimal level. The debt formed this waycontinued to grow even after the end of the World War II until the fall of the Iron Curtain inconnection with the depopulation and the peripheral position of Czech borderland.The permeability of the state border is also inadequate; this is caused by the low number ofborder crossings with sufficient capacity. Regarding the fact that these are border areas, ithas a negative impact on the development of economic and social cooperation not only withneighbouring Germany, but also on the general possibility of incorporating the region into thesingle European space, which, consequently, suppresses the region’s competitiveness.Former regional road connection of Bohemia and neighbouring Saxony and Bavaria, whichcreated more or less common economic space of Bohemia-Saxony-Bavarian border areasas early at the time of Austro-Hungarian Empire, was interrupted shortly after World War II ina material way as well. The majority of border crossings have not been restored up to thisday, even though there is an agreement on the regional authority level on both sides of theborder specifying in detail the connection and time when these crossings are to bereopened.The traffic load is another factor impacting the quality of the regional road network. After1989, the number of road motor vehicles in operation dramatically increased and,consequently, the traffic load went significantly up as well. The structural and technicalcondition of roads rapidly deteriorated. No sufficient financial resources were allotted forimproving the deteriorated road network that continued in getting even worse. The trafficload increased again after admission of the Czech Republic to the EU and also the regionalroads in the borderland became more significant. It can be obviously anticipated that thesimilar situation will repeat after the admission of the Czech Republic to the SchengenTreaty.Besides the above-mentioned impediments in the road network, the negative effects oftransport on the population (traffic accidents, emissions, noise, etc.) have not yet beenminimized, in particular due to the missing bypasses around settlements and residentialagglomerations.Page 33 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTable 8 – Traffic Accidents FrequencyArea/Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Czech Republic 185,664 190,718 195,851 196,484 199,262Northwest 19,595 19,395 20,346 21,143 21,036Southeast 23,962 25,152 26,177 27,822 26,845Southwest 24,348 24,839 25,568 26,015 24,827Moravia-Silesia 17,837 18,186 19,420 19,972 20,398Prague 34,195 35,888 35,589 29,598 33,349Northeast 25,065 25,621 25,998 27,500 27,345Central Bohemia 24,031 24,680 25,189 26,161 27,047Central Moravia 16,631 16,957 17, 564 18,273 18,415Source: PP ČR, CSO, own calculationsRailway networkThe region’s basic transport network is complemented by a rail network which links theregion to surrounding territories, in particular, via Track No. 090 Břeclav – Brno – Prague –Ústí nad Labem – Děčín, then continuing on to Dresden, forming the first national transitrailway corridor, and Track No. 170 Ostrava – Prague – Plzeň – Mariánské Lázně – Cheb,forming the third national transit railway corridor.In terms of the region’s internal connections, the general backbone network iscomplemented by Track No. 130 Ústí nad Labem – Chomutov, with linking Track No. 140Chomutov – Cheb and Tracks No. 081 Děčín – Rumburk and No. 170 Cheb – Plzeň.With the odd exceptions, the region’s railway network does not meet the parameters forinternational traffic, especially in the first transit corridor. The third national corridor even hasjust one track between Plzeň and Cheb. The key problems here are the neglected structuraland technical condition of the facilities, the outdated communication and security equipment,and the quality of the vehicles used, especially passenger ones. The individual railway hubsare also in a very bad technical condition, which – due to the complicated passenger andfreight handling – increases time losses in rail transport and places rail transport at a severedisadvantage compared to other modes of transport (see the following Table).Table 9 – Train vs. Bus Trip Length Comparison (2006)FromToAvg. Trip Length (hours) Shortest Distance (km)Train Bus Railway RoadÚstí nad Labem Karlovy Vary 2h 03 min. x 129 119Ústí nad Labem Prague 1 h 24 min. 1 h 05 min. 103 85Ústí nad Labem Dresden 1 h 08 min. 1 h 15 min. 85 65Karlovy Vary Prague 3 h 22 min. 2 h 10 min. 236 132Karlovy Vary Plzeň 2 h 48 min. 1 h 40 min. 129 84Karlovy Vary Nürnberg 3 h 21 min. x 189 190Source: www.mapy.czPage 34 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionEven this short overview makes it clear that in terms of connection of the region to externalregions the only competitive line is the railway line Prague – Ústí nad Labem – Dresden andthe interstate railway line Ústí nad Labem – Karlovy Vary - (Cheb). With the aboveexception, the regional railway transport may only be used locally within the region.For further development at the level of the Northwest Cohesion Region, it is necessary toensure the modernization of individual tracks, including their technical and technologicalfacilities, provide the rolling stock for passenger transport with new trains offering comfort atleast comparable to buses, build modern handling terminals allowing fast changing train-buspassengercar, or possibly a bicycle, in one place, and introduce a system of integratedtickets to speed up handling of passengers and introduce the possibility of fare payment bymeans of chip cards.Water transportThe international Labe River waterway flows through the region; there are two very importantports here, as well as the only port of entry for ship transport in the Czech Republic(Hřensko). The waterway’s general facilities are complemented by approximately 40 portsand transfer points on the lower Labe River, of which the largest ones are Děčín Loubí,Děčín Rozbělesy, Ústí nad Labem Krásné Březno, Ústí nad Labem Vaňov, Lovosice andŠtětí.The Labe waterway is of strategic importance for the Czech Republic since it is the onlywaterway connecting the Czech Republic with the seaports of north-western Europe.Moreover, the waterway is not taxed and is the most environmentally friendly traffic way.However, the navigable conditions of the Labe are not satisfactory particularly in summermonths. During low summer flow, the secured draughts of vessels not only drop under 1.2 mbut commonly even under 0.8 m when the navigation is stopped for technical reasons. Sincethe end of the century before last, the sailing depths have been improved only by deepeningof a part of the river bed and narrowing of the river by means of side concentration dikes onthe regulated section of the Labe, which is not an optimal solution in terms of navigation,environment and water management. Since no large river flows to Bohemia, during mediumand low flows sailing depths in this Labe section are dependent on precipitation in the Labebasin. For this reason boats utilize only 50 % of their carrying capacity as an annualaverage. During low flows, water transport cannot compete with camions or wagons thatalways utilize 100 % of their capacity.Waterways play an indispensable role in the region, thanks to the continuing importance ofwaterways for the transfer of cheap and mass substrates and thanks to the growing potentialfor passenger transport, especially in relation to the development of tourism in the region.In this context, water reservoirs (Jesenice, Skalka) and the hitherto under-exploited OhřeRiver also appear to be suitable for shipping.In terms of further possible development and tapping the potential of shipping, it isnecessary to ensure the completion of the related infrastructure in the form of piers andPage 35 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionroads facilitating the smooth integration of water transport into the region’s entire transportsystem.Air transportLike water transport, air transport is also gradually becoming more important. In terms ofinternational air traffic, the region’s north is relatively easy to access via Prague-RuzyněAirport. In terms of low-volume traffic, especially in relation to the development of tourism,the international airport in Karlovy Vary offers major potential. Shortly after its transfer fromstate ownership into the ownership of Karlovy Vary region, a decision was made in 2004 ofits substantial modernisation for the following reasons:• Rather insufficient railway connection of the southwest part of the region with inlandbut also with Germany (no substantial change may be expected within next 20years);• Non-existence of fast and high volume road connection in the direction from Chebvia Karlovy Vary to Prague (due to lacking financial provisions the completiondeadline can not be defined), non-existence of a fast and high volume roadconnection in the direction from Cheb to German motorway network (necessaryinvestments in German territory);• 1.4 million people live in the Karlovy Vary airport sub-region within the 90 minutesrange;• Spa guests definitely prefer air travel.Hitherto, the following investments have been realised at the airport:• Improving runway load bearing capacity, including restoration of the surface.Investor: Karlovy Vary region with co-financing from the SOP Transport.Completed: 6/2006. Investment substantiation: Significantly increased frequencyand number of landing and taking off planes;• Runway lighting update. Investor: Karlovy Vary region with co-financing fromInterreg IIIA. Completed: 6/2006. Investment substantiation: Allowing landing andtake-off under harsh weather conditions;• New homing radio beacon construction. Investor: Czech Republic, Air navigationservices of the CR. Completed/commissioned: 6/2006. Investment substantiation:Allow landings and take-off under harsh weather conditions;• Reconstruction of the existing check-in terminal to comply with the SchengenTreaty. Investor: Karlovy Vary region with co-financing from EEA through Norwayfunds. Completion: Under construction, completion deadline in 12/2007.The global objective of the first three investments – to increase substantially the numberof transported passengers – has been fulfilled. Not even one year after their completion,the airport shows a year-to-year growth of almost 100 % from 31,000 to 60,000Page 36 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionpassengers per year and there is a tendency of further dynamic growth. The fourthinvestment is necessary to keep the dynamics of the growth also after the admission ofthe CR to the Schengen space.The completion of the terminal building, which, together with the investment under way (referto item 4 above) , consists in adding another module so that it really would correspond to theplanned increase in the number of passengers, including the car parking space, is the lastinvestment already planned. The airport is connected to the I/6 class I road I/6; thisconnection will also be updated in the synchronization with the conversion of the I/6 to theR6 (included in the TEN-T network).Bicycle transportBicycle transport is another frequently used type of transport for everyday use. Recently, thebicycle transport development has been quoted primarily in the vicinity of the Ohře river.Development activities in building cycling infrastructure and enhancing cyclists’ safety oncommunications with heavy automotive traffic can, of course, be directed into all areas of theregion. It has been shown that bicycle transportation is significantly developing even in hillyterrains. The respective increase has been primarily quoted while developing networks ofcycle-routes and, although less, those of cycle paths. In all cases, the bicycle transportationparallels the motor vehicle transportation on the communications of lower categories.In comparison with other regions, there are large reserves in the Karlovy Vary and Ústíregions in terms of completed paths. At the same time, the supporting infrastructure andmeasures that would, at least partially, segregate the bicycle transportation from the motorvehicle transportation and enhance its safety is missing. Due to insufficient segregation,there were 372 traffic accidents in 2006 with the involvement of cyclists with 8 casualties and49 severe bodily injuries. Even children are not spared from accidents. In the same year, 51of them were involved in accidents. Developing systems of communications for cyclists thatwould contribute to the overall transportation safety is the solution.Developing cycle paths in the region markedly lags behind the other CR regions due to itshigh investment-consuming nature. So far, cycle paths with the total length of several tens ofkilometres were put into the use in the region. Comparison with the Netherlands (17,000 km)and Hungary (7,000 km) is even bleaker.In many cases, an insufficiently developed basic infrastructure prevents quality tourismproducts from being prepared and offered.Table 10 – Comparison of Cycle paths’ Kilometre Lengths in Single Cohesion Regions(As of 31 December 2006)AreaA(km)B(%)Central Moravia 181 19.59Northeast 164 17.75Central Bohemia 116 12.55Southeast 113 12.23Moravia-Silesia 110 11.90Prague 92 9.96Southwest 89 9.63Page 37 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionNorthwest 59 6.39CR Total 924 100%Legend:A: Cycle paths’ Kilometre LengthB: Share of Cycle paths’ Kilometre Lengths in Single NUTS II to CR Total Cycle paths’ Kilometre LengthSource: Ministry of Transport2.3.2 TRANSPORT SERVICEABILITYThe accessibility of settlements in the Northwest Cohesion Region is substantiallyconditioned by the municipal bus service and the railway transport included in the so calledbasic transport serviceability, i.e. the transport operated by carriers based on contractsconcluded with employers. These employers are the Czech Republic regions. The regionsare then bound to settle up from their budgets with individual carriers contingent lossesincurred by this transport operation.In 2005, the basic transport serviceability of the Ústí region included 3,914 routes with thetotal length of 60,904 km. Dopravní podnik Ústeckého kraje, a. s., the largest carrier,operates 98 % of all lines within the basic transport service based on a contract with the Ústíregion. This basic transport serviceability also includes urban public transport (MHD) routesextending beyond town borders and operated by transport companies of big cities.In 2007, the basic transport serviceability of the Karlovy Vary region includes the operation of115 bus routes (approx. 6,500,000 km/year), one trolley-bus line and 12 railway lines, i.e.2,575,676 railway km/year (ČD – 75.37 % subsidised). Autobusy Karlovy Vary, a. s., thelargest bus carrier, operates 53 % of subsidized lines; Czech Railways, a. s. is the largestrailway carrier.The Ústí region is preparing an integrated transport system and, with this in mind, it hasfounded a company called IDS Ústeckého kraje, a.s. However, following the cancellation ofthe public competition procedure, the status quo is still being maintained and works on thedevelopment of the integrated transport system has been suspended.On 1 July 2004, the Karlovy Vary region started operating it’s the IDOK system – KarlovyVary Regional Integrated Transport. Its service has gradually been implemented in the entireregion (the IDOK structure was completed on 1 st January 2007) and it facilitates the use ofprepaid tickets with all carriers on regional lines and routes, in Sokolov MHD, Cheb MHD, AšMHD, and Ostrov MHD. Karlovy Vary MHD and Mariánské Lázně MHD have not yet beenincorporated into the IDOK system. Karlovy Vary Region Integrated Transport SystemCoordinator (Koordinátor integrovaného dopravního systému Karlovarského kraje), anallowance organisation, coordinates the IDOK system and proposes ways of its furtherdevelopment.The introduction of a completely new electronic dispatch system in the Karlovy Vary regionusing contact-free chip cards (including the considered link to the IDOK ElectronicInformation System IDOK and IDOK Central Dispatching Centre) will be the integral part ofthe IDOK which will allow application of flexible tariff systems, smoother dispatching andreducing the number of fare dodgers, application of discount and bonus programmes, cardPage 38 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionreplacement in case of chip card loss, stealing or damaging, including its balance. Thecontact-free chip card will further offer special services, i.e. it will be possible to use it forsports events and in cultural facilities (cinemas, theatres, libraries, museums, galleries),further in the education system (e.g. in school canteens) and also as an ID card withadditional potential use, e.g. in the spa industry and tourism. The introduction of the uniformcontact-free chip card in the dispatch system and the system of data processing will allowdistributing revenues exactly to the involved carriers, finding out the actual transportdemand, i.e. mapping the transport routes, obtaining necessary real time information forregional bodies and carriers.In addition to the railway, the passenger rail transport also includes trolley-bus, and tramlines.The international system of suburban transport EgroNet (covering a part of territory of theCR, Saxony, and Bavaria) is then a shell transport system in the Karlovy Vary region. TheEgroNet region has the population of 3 million; region’s transportation is provided by 57carriers operating 649 lines (of which 41 are railway lines) with 6,000 stops (of which 287 arerailway stops) and with 50 million km travelled on these lines annually. 45,000 (in 2006)EgroNet tickets are sold annually and 182 EgroNet contractual partners provide benefitslinked to these tickets. The EgroNet cooperation association has 18 members: federal statedistricts, towns, regions, and transport associations (the Karlovy Vary region and the town ofCheb are its Czech members). This system is promoted by the involved carriers, theEgroNet magazine with the circulation of 118,000 also available in the Czech version and onthe website, which also provides information in the Czech language.2.3.3 URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTUrban public transport (MHD) is, with regard to the size of towns in the Cohesion Region,provided to a larger extent especially in towns with population above 50,000. In the region’slargest town – Ústí nad Labem – the MHD currently operates 77 lines with 67 trolleybusesand 67 buses all of them equipped with ecological drive units. In Most, the MHD operates 24bus and 5 tram lines with 89 buses (all of them with ecological drive units) and 69 trams. Thetown shares its MHD structure with neighbouring Litvínov and eight other communes. InTeplice, 41 MHD lines are operated with 66 buses and 46 trolleybuses. The Teplice MHDalso serves the surrounding communes. The MHD in Děčín has 36 lines with 86 buses, theKarlovy Vary MHD operates 20 lines with 57 buses. In Chomutov, the MHD operates 23 lineswith 27 buses and 30 trolleybuses and in addition to Chomutov itself also serves theneighbouring town of Jirkov, and eight other communes.Table 11 – Number of Passengers MHD-Serviced in Largest TownsTown 2005 2006 DifferenceDěčín 12,355,000 11,695,000 - 660,000Most(+ 9 other communes)Chomutov(+ other communes)35,444,000 29,948,000 - 5,496,00015,774,000 15,945,000 171,000Page 39 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTeplice(+ other communes)13,716,000 13,495,000 - 221,000Karlovy Vary 15,363,000 15,684,000 321,000Ústí nad Labem 64,209,000 66,720,000 2,511,000Source: Single transportation companiesThe small number of stops suitable for the handicapped constitutes a problem. In sixsurveyed towns, only 75 stops may be qualified as suitable for the handicapped out of thetotal number of 2,196 stops. The lack of handicapped stops disadvantages some groups ofcitizens and contradicts the principle of equal opportunities. The problem especiallyconcerns disabled citizens and families with small children. Removing barriers is necessaryfor the fulfilment of horizontal criteria.Urban public transport operates in heavily urbanized areas, such as the part of the region atthe foothill of the Krušné hory mountains, where 50% of the population lives in towns withtheir own urban public transport, essentially in the same territory as the regular publicservice providers. Thus, in some cases, routes and services become subject to mutualcompetition.The integration of urban public transport with regular public transport and passenger railtransport is an opportunity to achieve higher overall quality in towns and their surroundingareas along with better use of subsidy resources.2.4 ENVIRONMENTThe concentration of heavy industry in central areas of the region caused seriousdeterioration in the environment in the past; in particular, the air quality was very bad for along time. Although the situation has improved dramatically since 1990 in the wake ofinvestments in gasification, desulphurisation, and dust filters in industrial plants (especially inthe northeast part of the region), the region still has a negative image as a damaged area,which is a limiting factor in attracting foreign investors and for the development of tourism.Negative effects manifest themselves adversely in the health, social and demographiccharacteristics of the local population. Although much more positive trends emerged in thedevelopment of environmental quality in previous years, the ecological hazards from the pastcan be considered a key problem, especially in the basin parts of the region. In areasdevastated by mineral extraction, the land is being reclaimed and revitalized; areas affectedby emissions of harmful substances (forests) are being restored. Also intensively farmedland (primarily in the districts of Louny and Litoměřice) awaits its return to ecological stability.2.4.1 AIR QUALITYThe air quality in the Northwest Cohesion Region, assessed on the basis of long-termmonitoring of the emission balance and emission load the region is exposed to, significantlyimproved however, it varies in recent years. Emissions were gradually reduced, especiallySO 2 from major sources, in the Northwest Cohesion Region by 2003 as a result of thereconstruction of a significant share of stationary sources of air pollution, especially in thePage 40 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionenergy sector. However, an unfavourable emission balance of NOx, VOC and PM10 makesitself felt again as the result of overloading existing roads combined with rising use ofpassenger cars.The region, mainly its northeast part (mining and industrial area), is one of the mostemission-affected regions in the Czech Republic. The inter-district comparison shows thatthe district of Chomutov is the largest generator of emissions, both solid emissionsubstances and nitrogen and sulphur oxides. The locally measured values exceed evenseveral times the values reported in other districts in both the total volume of substancesproduced and the conversion to per square kilometre or per capita values.Despite the above mentioned improvement in air quality, the Cohesion Region (especially itsnortheast part) still shows above average values of substances causing air pollution in thelong term. In particular, high concentrations of SO 2 , N0 x and PM10. A more detailed analysiscarried out on the basis of classifying pollution sources in the REZZO 1 – 4 range shows thehighest share of the REZZO 1 sources, i.e. large polluting sources such as power plants,heating plants, etc.Table 12 – 2004 REZZO 1 and REZZO 1-4 Primary Pollutants Emissions in the CzechRepublic by RegionsČR, RegionsSulphur dioxide Nitrogen oxides Carbon monoxideSolid emissions(SO 2)(NO X)(CO)Total (t) % Total (t) % Total (t) % Total (t) %REZZO 1Czech Republic 13,304.1 100.0 183,990.5 100.0 146,409.3 100.0 168,366.3 100.0Northwest 3,121.3 23.5 84,912.2 46.2 71,710.3 49.0 9,420.8 5.6Southeast 971.2 7.3 3,610.2 2.0 4,805.9 3.3 2,627.0 1.6Southwest 1,048.0 7.9 16,423.2 8.9 7,730.7 5.3 2,832.3 1.7Moravia-Silesia 4,776.3 35.9 26,413.6 14.4 22,449.6 15.3 141,603.9 84.1NUTS 2 Prague 196.7 1.5 1,799.9 1.0 2,788.7 1.9 747.8 0.4Northeast 1,172.0 8.8 21,256.6 11.6 14,834.9 10.1 3,843.6 2.3Central Bohemia 1,463.5 11.0 16,778.8 9.1 16 ,60.5 11.2 4,040.6 2.4Central Moravia 555.1 4.2 12,796.0 7.0 5,728.7 3.9 3,250.3 1.9REZZO 1-4Czech Republic 75,494.9 100.0 227,922.7 100.0 326,128.4 100.0 570,569.2 100.0Northwest 8,595.2 11.4 89,285.4 39,2 89,584.5 27.5 48,770.0 8.5Southeast 10,955.3 14.5 8,861.0 3.9 34,252.7 10.5 63,237.1 11.1Southwest 12,520.6 16.6 24,191.8 10.6 35,002.7 10.7 65,662.7 11.5Moravia-Silesia 9,156.0 12.1 29,144.7 12.8 38,399.8 11.8 176,437.8 30.9NUTS 2 Prague 3,714.8 4.9 3,038.8 1.3 19,346.3 5.9 33,702.9 5.9Northeast 11,291.9 15.0 30,638.8 13.4 42,228.2 12.9 71,783.1 12.6Central Bohemia 11,517.1 15.3 26,154.2 11.5 40,091.8 12.3 65,029.5 11.4Central Moravia 7,744.0 10.3 16,608.0 7.3 2, 222.4 8.3 45,946.1 8.1Source: ČHMÚ, CSO, own calculationsApproximately 10 operators of extra large energy and technology facilities making businessin the Northwest region substantially participate in generating most of pollutant emissions, asindicated by the above-presented Tables. The emissions of sulphur and nitrogen oxidesgenerated by these large subjects present almost 50% of the national production of thesepollutants.Page 41 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionWith regard to the achieved decrease of pollutant emissions from large stationary resourcesin the recent years and at least partial realisation of some measures to stop the negativedevelopment of emission balance, the air quality in the urban and commune areas of theregions is nowadays primarily affected by transport and local residential heating facilitiesfitted with solid-fuel incinerators. The municipalities and towns of Chomutov, Most, Teplice,Ústí nad Labem, Louny, Děčín, Sokolov, Tisová, Aš, Karlovy Vary, Horní Slavkov, Cheb,Chodov, Ostrov, Toužim and Vřesová are the most significant sources of air pollution.The general emission situation in the Northwest region only looks positive for the southwestpart of the area where the emission limit for ozone and, to a lesser extent, for suspendedparticulates of PM10 fraction is sometimes exceeded.Compared to the past, there has been a moderate increase in emission-based air pollution,in particular as a result of the intensification of road transport, caused by the construction ofnew production plants in the developing industrial zones of Chomutov, Kadaň, Klášterec nadOhří, Žatec and other locations. Changes in the retail prices of fuel and electricity haveresulted in mass disconnection from CZT and the installation of household boilers as smalland medium-sized sources of air pollution.Both these factors could have a negative impact on the future development of the NorthwestCohesion Region, thus, a targeted drive to prevent adverse effects must take place in theform of the timely completion of the backbone roads and systematic support to the use ofecological sources of energy, not only in industrial operations, but also among individualinhabitants. Another negative factor is represented by the return of small stationary sourcesof pollution to the use of fossil fuels due to ever increasing prices of the natural gas andelectricity.Regions have elaborated Programmes for reducing emissions and volume of pollutants andProgrammes for air quality improvement. These plans define obligations for the operators offacilities producing air pollution substances to take measures for reducing such emittedpollutants. Plans for reduction in emissions were also elaborated for selected sources.These measures cannot be financed from the ROP, however, required resources may beobtained from the Environment Operational Programmes.The intervention potential of the ROP Northwest in the area of improvement of environmentis limited by the fact that it is not possible to deal within the programme with emissions oflarge stationary sources of pollution. Besides that, direct interventions of the priority axis 2OP Environment are aimed at large sources of pollution (especially in the area of NOx) andat small stationary sources of pollution.Therefore, the attention of the ROP Northwest in the area of the environment will be paid tocomplementing the interventions of the OP Environment and will be focused especially onthe REZZO 4 sources of pollution – i.e. mobile sources of pollution with the stress put onPM 10 (pollution directly linked to transport).Page 42 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region2.4.2 WATERIn 2005, water supply for public use of water mains was on an excellent level. 96.4 % of thepopulation in the Northwest Cohesion Region is supplied from the public water mains, whichranks it second in interregional comparison, after Prague (99.5 %). The CR average is 91.6%.Group water mains with efficient treatment plants and the abstraction of raw water fromunderground sources, reservoirs or watercourses are the main sources of water.All group water mains have capacity reserves in their sources. This is due to the fact that,following the removal of government subsidies, the price of drinking water escalated and asa result consumption dropped by 30 – 40%. This fall will evidently not continue.In addition to group water mains, there are also a large number of local water mains forsingle municipalities in the region. These depend on local underground or surface sources,the yield and quality of which fluctuate.The technical condition of some pipe networks, especially in historical town centres, arenearing the end of their operational life or have progressed to a stage beyond theiroperational life (these pipes are from 1890 – 1900). With small municipal or special-purposewater pipes (originally owned by estates or cooperatives), the poor technical condition of thewhole water conduit is usually caused by neglected maintenance or inappropriately usedmaterials.Overall, the southwest part of the region has better infrastructure in terms of water supplyand waste water services. More than 95.8% of the population in the northeast part of theregion is connected to public water mains. This share in the southwest part of the CohesionRegion even reaches 98.1% (2005).The state of the drainage system and waste water treatment has improved significantly inthe past ten years. Most municipalities of more than 500 inhabitants have a coherentsewage system and a central ČOV (waste water treatment plant). In smaller municipalitieswhere the population is below 500, there are usually non-coherent sewers originallydesigned as storm sewers but used now as combined sewerage systems. In certainmunicipalities in the last few years, coherent sanitary sewage systems have been completedwith a shared ČOV.In the Northwest region, 83.8% of the population lives in buildings connected to a seweragesystem (the average for the entire Czech Republic is 79.1 %). Overall, 99.5 % of wastewater in the Northwest Cohesion Region is treated which is the second highest percentageafter Prague (100%). The average in the CR in 2005 was 94.6 %. The southwest part of theregion has a better position (by 0.6%), which is manifested most obviously in the share ofthe population living in buildings connected to a sewerage system with a ČOV (99.0% of theoverall number of persons connected to the public sewer in the southwest, 94.0% in thenortheast part of the region).The technical condition, effectiveness or capacity of some large ČOVs is not in conformancewith current needs and will have to be reconstructed or intensified. The main problems herePage 43 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regioninclude the need to reconstruct sewage systems in the central areas of towns, where thesewage system tends to be the oldest and the most worn.The overall water quality in the Northwest region fluctuates considerably. The southwest partof the region is a rare area in Europe in terms of its high number of mineral water and gassprings and the diversity of their chemical composition. There are several hundreds ofsprings. In contrast, Class IV or V watercourse pollution has been set in some profiles in thenortheast part of the region for chemical, physical and microbiological indicators, mainly as aresult of the local intensive industrial activity.In 2005, a part of the Programme for water supply network and sewage systemsdevelopment was adopted in the region, which analyzes the supply of water to thepopulation, developing sewage systems in municipalities and communes, and treatingcommunal waters.2.4.3 NATURE CONSERVATION AND COUNTRYSIDE PROTECTIONThe overall stress on the environment is very high in some parts of the region. Extensiveareas have been devastated by mining or emissions (forest growth). There is a higherenvironmental burden primarily in and around the following cities: Děčín, Chomutov,Litoměřice, Most, Teplice and Ústí nad Labem, Sokolov, and other areas near opencastmines, thermal power plants, industrial plants and in the vicinity of main roads.Besides the ongoing pollution, industry has significantly affected the nature and the currentcondition of the landscape in the region. The opencast mining of brown coal and the relatedhighly concentrated operation of thermal power plants and chemical plants have the mainnegative effect. Open land, as well as entire towns and municipalities, have fallen victim tocoal mining. Extensive environmental hazards are the result of the long-term impact on theappearance and quality of nature and the landscape and constitute a key problemthroughout the Northwest region, forming a negative impression of the region in the eyes ofvisitors and potential investors or entrepreneurs.Despite the considerable investments in the renewal and revitalization of devastated areas,the return to ecological equilibrium in damaged areas is a slow process.Although the region is one of the most devastated areas in the entire Czech Republic,primarily in the basin locations, it also possesses, mostly in its northern and western parts,very unique domains with preserved nature and landscape constituted as large areaprotected territories. Rare animal species also live in other locations of the region. Forinstance, a more stable population of barn owl and little owl, both highly endangered animalspecies, can be found in the Chomutov, Louny, and Litoměřice districts.In geological, geomorphologic, hydrological and biological terms, this is a highly diversearea, even though many significant localities have already been destroyed as far as theirconservation is concerned.The Protected Landscape Area of Slavkovský les, which is a unique piece of landscape,sparsely populated, with a number of valuable natural localities (forests, meadows, mires,Page 44 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionrock formations, springs of mineral water and gases, etc.) is the largest area enjoying specialprotection. Other significant sites include the protected areas of Labské pískovce, Českéstředohoří (a part of it), Kokořínsko (a part of it), Lužické hory (a part of it) and ČeskéŠvýcarsko National Park (NP).The region also contains, completely or partially, 202 small-area locations enjoying specialprotection, of which 137 are situated in the northeast and 65 in the southwest sub-regions.Small special protection areas are in the northeast and 65 in the southwest area.The existence of areas classified in the Natura 2000 system is a new but very importantelement confirming the uniqueness of certain parts of the region. This system represents aset of internationally protected areas of European importance where endangered species ofplants, animals and valuable biotopes can be found. The aim is to preserve biodiversity andensure permanent care for the most valuable natural sites throughout the European Union.Two directives (EC legislative regulations) apply to the Natura 2000 system: CouncilDirective 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (the Birds Directive) and CouncilDirective 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (theHabitats Directive).In the Northwest region, the following wild bird areas were notified in 2004 in virtue ofDirective 79/409/EEC:• Doupovské hory mountains• Nechranice Reservoir• East Krušné hory mountains• Labské pískovce (Labe River Sandstone)• Novodomské peat-bog - Kovářská.The area of Doupovské hory mountains is a military zone and the majority of it is closed tothe general public and any of its activities.The overall quality of the environment in less urbanized parts of the region creates the mainpotential for rural development, especially with focusing on the sector of responsible andsustainable tourism. The ongoing and/or planned revitalization of former mining areas whoseuse for tourism purposes is also under consideration could also have significant potential.2.5 REGION’S POWER INDUSTRYThe power industry played and will continue to play a key role in both the economic andenvironmental spheres of the Northwest region, therefore, the production of electricityprimarily in classic thermal coal power stations, or by using fluid or steam-gas technologiesis anticipated.Central heat supply (CZT) is of crucial importance to the entire region, primarily in relation tothe air quality control in towns and communes, however, heat-ducts used must bereconstructed so that the economy of this technology is so beneficial for the heat consumersthat any efforts to switch to individual heat sources using natural gas, coal, or wood beeconomically disadvantageous.Page 45 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionElectric energyTušimice II, Prunéřov I and II, Počerady I and II, and Ledvice power plants and Komořany,Ústí nad Labem and Chemopetrol heat plants are the major sources of electric energy in theÚstí nad Labem region. All the existing sources are ecological. Palivový kombinát (EnergyComplex) Vřesová and Tisová power plant are two important energy sources in the KarlovyVary region. In addition to the above-named important energy sources, other low-outputsources producing electricity through the use of water potential and co-generationtechnology are situated in the region’s territory.Comparison between total balances of electricity consumption and production shows thatthe bulk of electric energy produced in both regions is “exported” outside this territory; also,there is a significant energy reserve with capacity that goes beyond the Northwest region’sborder.Table 13 – 2006 Electric Energy ProductionGross production -Power plants steam steam-jet hydro gas nuclear wind solar biomass TotalREGION - 2006[GWh] [GWh] [GWh] [GWh] [GWh] [GWh] [GWh] [GWh] [GWh]NORTHWEST 29301,9 1844,9 236,2 65,6 0 22,4 0 13,4 31484,3Karlovarský kraj 3268,7 1821,4 22,9 26,2 0 0,9 0 2,3 5142,4Ústecký kraj 26033,2 23,5 213,3 39,4 0 21,4 0 11,1 26341,9PRAGUE 206,2 0 31,9 49,9 0 0 0 28,8 316,8CENTRAL BOHEMIA 6948,1 0 1469,9 49,4 0 0 0 15,6 8483SOUTHWEST 1627 0 354,5 21,5 12021,1 0 0 9,1 14033,3NORTHEAST 5809,4 46,2 212,9 34,5 0 7,2 0,1 23,1 6133,5SOUTHEAST 506,7 267,8 509,4 41,8 14025,4 8,4 0 12,6 15372,1CENTRAL MORAVIA 823,1 0 397,2 28,4 0 11,4 0 5,8 1265,9MORAVIA SILESIA 7173,1 0 45,2 30 0 0 0 23,6 7272Czech republic – productionSource: Karlovy Vary region52395,4 2158,8 3257,3 321,2 26046,5 49,4 0,2 132,1 84360,9Table 14 – 2006 Electric Energy ConsumptionGross consum ption 2006 Industry Energetics Transport Building Agricult. Household Services Other TotalREGION[GWh] [GWh] [GWh] [GWh] [GWh] [GWh] [GWh] [GWh] [GWh]NORTHWEST 5536,4 1642 187,9 18,4 58,2 1280,2 356 1252,5 10331,6Karlovarský kraj 1699 506,8 10,3 0,6 9,2 266,4 55,7 313,2 2861,2Ústecký kraj 3837,4 1135,2 177,6 17,8 49 1013,8 300,3 939,3 7470,4PRAGUE 575,2 523,1 979,2 124 9,3 1493,1 2014,2 499,2 6217,3CENTRAL BOHEMIA 3869,5 1314,5 261,5 29,6 144,3 2386,8 680,4 1625,2 10311,8SOUTHWEST 2914,9 1073,6 271,5 34,7 189,7 2253 691 704,4 8132,8NORTHEAST 2945,6 889,2 254,8 30,6 160,3 2565,8 648,5 2040,6 9535,4SOUTHEAST 3387,4 2684 460,1 118,1 461,6 2166,9 919,7 116,8 10314,5CENTRAL MORAVIA 2278,3 1017,9 72,8 22,8 265,4 1762,9 590,4 731,1 6741,7MORAVIA SILESIA 4480,3 2155,2 338,2 20,3 52,9 1335,4 704 1058 10144,3Czech republic – consumptionSource: Karlovy Vary region25987 11299,5 2826,1 398,6 1341,7 15244,1 6604,2 8027,8 71729,5Page 46 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionNatural gasThe Ústí region belongs to the areas with high availability of natural gas. Almost all big townsin this territory have already been equipped with medium- and low-pressure gas distributionsystems to provide gas everywhere; natural gas is also available in many smaller communesand municipalities. In 2005, 62 % of communities in the Ústí region were connected to thegas mains.In the Karlovy Vary region, 79 communities in total, i.e. approx. 60 % of the total number of132 communities in the region stated in the regional identification register, were connectedto the gas mains, In addition to these communities, 13 town districts or communes were alsoprovided with access to natural gas network here. Thus, the Northwest region is on theaverage level of CR in terms of natural gas availability.Heat energy from CHD systemsRegarding the process of concentration of a high share of population into large towns in theÚstí-Chomutov agglomeration, central heat distribution plays an important role and its sharein supplying heat is above-average (over 45% of households in the region primarily inapartment houses and in housing estates). In towns and larger municipalities in the region, ahigh number of smaller steam plants and boiler plants of medium and lower output areinstalled functioning as sources for centralized heat supply to less extensive areas. Thesefacilities primarily burn natural gas, sometimes fuel oil. However, there are also a number ofsources out of reach of gas network burning brown coal.38 subjects were identified in the Karlovy Vary region as holders of state authorisation forproduction and distribution of heat. Tisová power plant dominates this sphere with the totalgenerating capacity of 783 MW t and the annual heat supply to CHD consumers of approx.1,500 TJ followed by the Vřesová Palivový kombinát (Energy complex) with the totalgenerating capacity of 1,540 MW t and the annual heat supply of 12,300 TJ.2.5.1 EXPLOITATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCESWater powerIn newly developed water power plants, the construction investment cost exceeds the costfor the generating technology. For these reasons, it is appropriate to construct this type ofpower plants in locations where a hydro-engineering structure already was in the past andwith the possibility to use ground shaping of the previous facility.In the Northwest region territory, there is no suitable area for exploiting hydro-energy to alarger extent. Only low-output sources are used generating electricity by exploiting waterpotential; development of hydro power plants is planned in some locations, however, onlylow-output facilities are concerned again.BiomassEnergy produced from biomass belongs to the most important ways of exploiting renewableenergy resources in the region. The highest concentration of arable land in the Ústí regionPage 47 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region(and, consequently, the highest potential of agricultural land) is situated in the Litoměřice andLouny districts. The best situation for exploiting forest timber for producing energy is in theDěčín, Teplice and Chomutov districts. It is proposed to plant energetic plants (according tothe soil type and the conditions for planting this crop), primarily biennials and perennials, insuitable agriculture land areas (not used for agriculture purposes); of these, sorrel appearsthe most perspective energetic crop. As compared to other types of biomass, the exploitationof biogas is more difficult due to high investments in building biogas stations and,consequently, a high price of the exploitable energy. Larger biogas stations are moreprofitable than small ones. However, the problem of inexpensive exploitation of largequantities of off-heat (especially in summer) still persists.There are 43 large- and medium-size sources in the Karlovy Vary region that exploit energyfrom renewable sources (approx. 6 % of the total number of energy sources). The total shareof the energy consumption from these sources than comes to 0.12 %. Regarding fuels used,mostly wood (wood chips, firewood etc. – approx. 87.5 %) and biogas obtained primarilyfrom the ČOV (approx. 12.5 %) is used. Secondary sources used here are represented byco-generation heat and electric energy production.Wind powerIn the CR conditions, the wind energy use is cost-effective at the average wind speed of5 mps and higher at the wind power plant impeller. Relatively favourable economic indicatorsare then achieved at the average wind speed over 6 mps.Plateaus in the Krušné hory mountains were selected as ones of the most suitable locationsin terms of exploiting wind energy in the Ústí region. In these locations, the average windspeed measured is 8.5 mps, the highest value in our country. The conditions for exploitingwind energy in the Ústí region are good. Proposed and under construction are wind powerplants in cadastral areas of Hora Sv. Šebestiána, Nová Ves, Křímov, Kovářská andMěděnec, Loučná, Vrch Tří pánů and Větrov.In the Karlovy Vary region territory, the exploitation of wind energy (regarding the averagewind speed) will only be concentrated in the Karlovy Vary district, i.e. in the high altituderidge locations in the Krušné hory and Doupovské hory mountains in locations of VysokáHora, Javorná, Císařský vrch, Podkova, Plešivec - Vysoká pláň, in the vicinity of the BožíDar commune and in the Hradiště military exercise ground.Geothermal and solar energyGeothermal energy can be used throughout the Northwest region without any limitation withonly regards to cooling of the upper layer of the earth crust. Potential application of solarenergy is appropriate for heating HUW (hot utility water) for individual purposes in family andmulti-family houses.2.6 REGION’S ECONOMYEconomy transformation and production restructuring after 1989 led, among others, toextensive changes in the structure of industrial branches and also to changes in thePage 48 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regiondistribution of business activities of the economic basis of the region. In the same period, theemployment rate dropped significantly in the primary and partially in the secondary sphere;the employment rate in the tertiary sphere (services) increased.Economic weight of the Northwest region in the past was distinctively above average. Theregion belonged to highly industrialised regions accentuating primarily exploitation of mineralresources, energy industry and other branches of heavy industry (machine-building andchemical industry) and the agricultural production. These activities caused a number ofnegative impacts on the quality of the environment and social environs, residential culture,and education pattern of the population in the large part of the region.Large-scale type of production in industry, agriculture and energy led to the gradualdeterioration of the environment and the landscape. Moreover, the transition from the deepmining of coal and kaolin to the open-pit mining led to devastation of large areas stillcontinuing even today. Although the areas left after mining activities ceased were revitalisedand restored, significantly extensive mining land is still in the central parts of the NorthwestCohesion Region.A predominant part of the territory is presently classified as the so-called “regions withconcentrated governmental support”; these regions are further sub-divided into three typesaccording to the nature of affliction (structurally afflicted, economically poor, above-averageunemployment stricken). For the period of 2007-2013, these regions were delimitated on thebasis of CR Government Decree No. 560 of 17 May 2006.The following factors crucially influenced the region’s economic development in the last 16years:• Distinctive decrease in the share of agriculture and increase in the share ofservices as the result of the collapse of the centrally controlled economy and ofthe gradual establishment of market forces;• Cessation of many large enterprises and decrease in their number and the growthof small and medium businesses and the number of self-employed citizensdespite uncoordinated support from the state;• Reconstructing economy with the result of suspending some traditional branchesand industries, such as textile and clothing industries, mineral raw materialsmining, some lines of machine-building, construction industry, and chemicalindustry;• Change of ownership relations due to privatisation, foreign capital entry intocompanies and joint ventures; large share of these companies are based on hiredlabour, the growth and especially research and development are very backward;• Competitiveness of business is based on exploiting opportunities consisting in lowcosts of labour force. Firms very often rely upon this phenomenon and do notinvest sufficiently into new technologies. The condition of production facilities hasreached the very threshold of operability. Firms frequently do not have their owndistribution basis and access to foreign markets;Page 49 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region• Insufficient qualification level and inappropriate structure of labour force that is stillone of the most significant negative consequences of the economic orientation inthe past and, to an extent, even in the present. Local businesses lack sufficientquantity of qualified labour force which, among others, limits their growth.In addition to the above-presented factors, a large number of other factors impact theeconomical basis of the region, such as low cohesion of the school system with the needs ofthe labour market, lack of capital, but also low infrastructure facilities (primarily intransportation), and an overall unattractive environment that, along with other factors, is thereason for a low rate of foreign investments in the region.Also continual, not yet completed, transformation processes will significantly impact theexisting and future situation in the region’s economy. However, regional subjects have nopower to influence these processes that, more or less, depend on conditions set up from thegovernmental concepts level.Based on this economic development, the region should, in this respect, focus primarily onremoving imperfections and, thus, helping enhance attractiveness for entrepreneurship andthe flow of investments, such as improving the offer of space and areas for making business,supporting innovations, research and development. The mentioned issues are subject ofseparate resolve in OP Enterprise and innovation (OP PI), OP Research and developmentfor innovations (OP VaVpI), and OP Human resources and Employment (OP LZZ). The ROPNorthwest may contribute to resolving these issues by improving transportationserviceability.2.6.1 REGIONAL ECONOMY MAJOR INDICATORS DEVELOPMENTGross domestic product (GDP) is the basic indicator for comparing regional competitivenessand socio-economic level. GDP (as the economic performance per capita) is also the basicindicator used for monitoring regional disparities because the resulting economicperformance reflects the combination of many primary (human resources, infrastructure) andsecondary (foreign investments) factors and also, to an extent, the region’s competitiveness.Present differences among economic performances of single CR regions are still largelycaused by the fact that the regions preferred until 1989 (with a strong presence of heavy andmining industries, and others) achieve significantly worse results, in terms of the economicgrowth dynamics reflecting also their current lower economic level, due to subsequentstructural changes in the economy.Prague, and the South Moravia and Plzeň regions are the leading regions in the CzechRepublic in terms of the economic performance. On the contrary, the Northwest regionbelongs, in the long term, to the regions with the lowest dynamics of the economicperformance per capita among the NUTS 2 regions. Great differences are also apparent insingle areas within the region. The entire Northwest region and both its regions separatelydo not reach the CR GDP share they should according to their populations. The Karlovy Varyregion’s share in the all-CR GDP is 2.3 % (CZK 68,657 million in 2005), the Ústí region’sshare in the all-CR GDP is 6.5 % (CZK 193,614 million in 2005) although their portions in thetotal CR population is 3.0 % and 8.0 %, respectively. Unlike the Karlovy Vary region, thePage 50 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionshare of the Ústí region in the CR GDP is slowly increasing (the 2002 - 2004 growth is 0.2 ofpercentage point). Regarding the very low level of the economic performance dynamics, itcan be assumed that the region in its entirety will continue to worsen its position not onlywithin the CR, but also within Europe unless an essential turnover occurs.Insufficient economic growth in the Northwest region or in some of its sub-regions alsoreflects in the employment sphere (refer to “Labour market” section).Not only the presently low GDP share, but also its very low dynamic growth is alarming interms of the economic basis. The share of the generated GDP per capita decreasedsignificantly in the Northwest region in 1993 - 2005 as compared to the all-CR average (fromapprox. 95 % to 80 %); this can be pointed out as a very unfavourable situation.Table 15 – CR Interregional Per Capita GDP Development Comparison (CR=100%)Area/Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 20052001-2005 IndexAverageCzech Republic 100.0 100.0 10.,0 100.0 10.,0 100.0Northwest 79.4 79.9 81.8 80.7 80.2 80.4Southeast 91.3 90.4 90.7 89.5 89.7 90.3Southwest 92.1 9.,9 91.2 92.5 92.3 91.8Moravia-Silesia 78.1 77.0 77.5 81.5 81.7 79.2Prague 206.8 209.5 209.9 209.2 209.1 208.9Northeast 88.2 87.4 85.6 84.6 84.3 86.0Central Bohemia 92.9 95.4 94.3 93.0 92.9 93.7Central Moravia 80.2 79.7 79.2 79.2 79.1 79.5Source: CSO, 2005 Regional Accounts, own calculationsThe export performance is another indicator by means of which it is possible to evaluate thecompetitiveness of single regions. Regarding this, the Northwest region is also below the CRaverage according to both its share in the overall export and export performance related tothe region’s population.Table 16 – 2005 CR Regional Export PerformanceArea/IndicatorExport(CZK millions)CR ExportSharePer Capita Export Share(CZK thousandsCzech Republic 1,868,586 100.0 182.3Northwest 180,744 9.67 160.3Southeast 217,330 11.63 132.4Southwest 235,093 12.58 199.4Moravia-Silesia 201,970 10.81 161.5Prague 107,220 5.74 90.7Northeast 328 557 17,58 221,5Central Bohemia 377 143 20,18 325,6Central Moravia 172 102 9,21 140,0Source: CSO, own calculationsPage 51 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionA very low share of direct foreign investments within the entire CR also represent the overallnegative situation in the region. In considering the anticipated development, it isnevertheless necessary to call attention to the fact that more investments with higher addedvalue, i.e. investments in more sophisticated technologies with allocations that will besignificantly influenced by the overall maturity and attractiveness of the region which woulddisadvantage the Northwest region even more.Nevertheless, the evaluations performed so far show that the ability of the Northwest regionto attract foreign investments is very low and below the CR average. Moreover, this situationis even more augmented by interregional differences when the flow of hitherto investmentsinto the northeast part of the cohesion region showed higher values primarily due to theprogramme of investment incentives directed mainly to the most afflicted areas justrepresented by the districts in the northeast sub-region. Regarding the distinctly highernumber of “incentive” investors located in the northeast part of the region, this sub-region islogically at the distinctly better standing even in terms of the allocated volume of directforeign investments per capita. However, slightly more than 1 % of all the direct foreigninvestments flowing into the CR was allocated in the southeast sub-region in 1998 - 2005.Table 17 – 2001-2005 Direct Per Capita Foreign Investments Standing (CZK)Area/Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Czech Republic 96,247 114,231 113,773 125,296 145, 503Northwest 71,565 81,013 72,571 81,015 69,146Southeast 50,462 4, 268 62,390 75,838 57,416Southwest 63,303 75,325 70,392 75,505 89,446Moravia-Silesia 30,874 40,548 56,194 65,198 71,020Prague 41, 772 527,609 461,083 511,392 67, 973Northeast 44,016 48,550 62,714 70,363 71,889Central Bohemia 93,332 101,788 118,677 112,440 137,895Central Moravia 41 192 46 686 48 156 51 116 46 876Source: ČNB, own calculations2.6.2 ECONOMIC BASIS STRUCTURERegarding the structure of economic subjects per prevailing activity, the Northwest regionsubjects operating in the sphere of trade, accommodation, and catering take, like in all otherCR regions, the greatest share of the overall structure, i.e. 37.1 % of all the economicsubjects which is the highest share even in the interregional comparison.Industrial production, as one of the significant branches in the region, then paradoxicallyrepresents, in terms of the share in the overall structure of economic subjects, a relativelylow percentage (11.6 % of the number of registered subjects in the Northwest region ascompared to the 13 % CR average) in the interregional scale which is caused also by thepresence of a number of large industrial establishments, e.g. in the mining or chemicalindustries.Page 52 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTable 18 – Economic Subjects By Regions As Of 31 December 2005ACR, RegionsMoravia-CR Northwest Southeast SouthwestSilesiaPragueNortheastCentralBohemiaCentralMoraviaB 2,388,490 241,981 354,006 271,601 229,242 426,165 337,518 269,429 258,548C 138,215 12,098 27,931 22,570 11,542 2,879 24,374 16,176 20,645D 310,776 28,143 51,241 36,225 29,449 34,905 51,703 3, 211 41,899E 269,625 29 ,91 40,238 32,031 21,976 39,077 41,994 35,015 29,903F 781,257 89,761 105,136 91,357 81,522 132,952 108,632 87,989 83,908G 82,677 8,845 10,385 8,328 7,495 18,264 9,987 10,963 8,410H 71,039 8,528 11,113 8,426 8,678 9,000 10,587 6,938 7,769I 457,911 39 ,77 66,923 40,825 41,501 139,588 50,008 42,897 36,992J 15,434 1,059 3,099 3,040 800 296 2,864 2,535 1,741K 35,208 2,911 5,160 3,615 3,834 7,039 5,120 3,814 3,715L 34,026 3,393 5,163 3,811 3,577 6,005 4,882 3,360 3,835M 192,129 18,673 27,611 21,373 18,864 35,995 27,358 22,526 19,729Legend:A: Prevailing Activity per BCEA (Branch Classification of Economic Activities – Selected activities)B: Total Number of Registered UnitsC: Agriculture, Hunting, Forestry and FisheryD: Industry TotalE: ConstructionF: Trade (Incl. repairs), Accommodation, and CateringG: Transportation, Storage, and CommunicationsH: Financial BrokerageI: Real-Estate and Rental Business; Entrepreneurial ActivitiesJ: Public Service and Defence; Mandatory Social InsuranceK: EducationL: Health and Social Care; Veterinary ActivitiesM: Other Public, Social and Personal ServicesSource: CSO, 2006 Regional Year-BooksDistinctive differences in the economic structure are between industrial centres andbackward countryside. Whereas the sector of services already significantly dominates in theareas with large industrial establishments, the secondary sector is still considerablyimportant in other parts of the region.In terms of the basic industrial production indicators related to businesses with 100 and moreemployees with the registered domicile in the region, there are distinct differences betweenthe southwest spa (tourism and related services) sub-region and the northeast sub-regionsof the region. These differences are apparent in the average number of entrepreneurialsubjects in industrial production (Southwest – 93; Northeast – 167) and, primarily, inrevenues for selling products and services of industrial nature (Southwest CZK 35,958million; Northeast CZK 211,840 million) or in the amount of average monthly salaries(Southwest – CZK 16,749; Northeast CZK 19,280). The values of these indicators are mostlydue to the presence of a distinctly higher number of large and technologically moreadvanced establishments in the northeast part of the region.Page 53 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionNevertheless, the continuing importance of industry for the region also confirms its growingshare in the gross added value (GAV) especially in the manufacturing industry branch (thegrowth of 0.3 % in 2001 - 2004). The drop approved itself only in the mineral raw materialsmining (influenced by the coal mining slowdown in the northeast part of the region and in theSokolov sub-region).More detailed insight reveals that in terms of revenues (CZK 27,624 million) the pivotalbranches of the manufacturing industry in the southwest part of the region are primarilyrepresented by the production of basic metals, metallurgical and processed metallicproducts (29.1 % of the revenues in the manufacturing industry in the southwest part of theregion in 2005), production of food articles and beverages, tobacco products (17.6 %) andproduction of other non-metal products (12.2 %). In terms of revenues, the production ofelectrical optical appliances and equipment (approx. 7% of the total manufacturing industryrevenues; the 2005/2004 year-to-year growth was almost 80%) shows growth.The main share in manufacturing industry revenues (CZK 187,638 million in total) in thenortheast part of the region corresponds to the well developing branch of production ofchemical substances, products, pharmaceuticals and chemical fibres (CZK 92,885 million,i.e. 49.5 % of manufacturing industry revenues); other important components ofmanufacturing industry include production of other non-metal mineral products (9.3 %) andproduction of transport devices and installations (8.8 %). Mineral raw materials miningparticipates with approximately 6.5 % in the sale of products and services of industrialnature.2.6.3 SME AND BUSINESS ACTIVITYIn addition to the economic basis, business activity is another important characteristic of theregion’s economy, which representing a partially explanatory function in relation to theeconomic performance and unemployment in regions and provides the picture of the overallviability of the local economy,As was already said in part in previous findings of the analysis, business activity in theNorthwest region is, due to the historical development and the transformation under process,significantly lower as compared to the national level, as evidenced by the Table below.Table 19 - Registered VAT-Payer Individuals (Per 1000)Region 1993 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Czech Republic 10.6 25.5 26.2 26.9 27.4 27.8 27.8Northwest 9.8 14.3 17.0 18.9 20.3 21.0 21.2Source: MF, CSO, own calculationsAccording to this characteristic, distinct differences also exist among single districts in theregion due to the existing economic structure and also due to different approaches tobusiness activities in advanced and backward areas (districts with the highest per 1000number of business subjects – individuals – are represented by Karlovy Vary (25.9) andLitoměřice (25.0); districts with the lowest per 1000 number are those located in the mostafflicted areas, such as Sokolov (17.7) and Chomutov (19.0).Page 54 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region238,454 economic subjects were registered as of 31 December 2004 in the territory of theNorthwest Cohesion Region, primarily represented by individual entrepreneurs. Regardingthe territorial point of view, the highest numbers of firms are registered in Děčín, Litoměřiceand Ústí nad Labem districts (nearly 1/3 of economic subjects, i.e. approx. 54,000 subjectsin total), in the northeast and southwest parts of the region and then in the Karlovy Varydistrict (approx. 32,600 firms).Table 20 – Northwest Cohesion Region Per Legal Status Registered SubjectsRegistered SubjectsTotal2000 2001 2002 2003 2004Change (%)2004/2000Structure (%)2000 2004201,269 203,674 226,776 237,049 238,454 18.5 100.0 100.0Of it: 0,0Individuals 166,861 172,211 188,422 194,969 193,592 16.0 82.9 81.2Trade Companies 15,691 16,462 16,939 17,795 18,791 19.8 7.8 7.9Co-Operatives 477 491 508 534 546 14.5 0.2 0.2Foreign persons 7,977 7,569 7,954 8,797 9,705 21.7 4.0 4.1Associations 4,897 5,146 5,329 5,482 5,738 17.2 2.4 2.4Source: CSO, own calculationsRegarding development of the number of economic subjects, a more significant growth since2002 was felt in the southwest part of the region (in comparison to the CR average);generally, the increase in the number of economic subjects can be rated as average.Regarding the number of employees, economic establishments with more than 25employees have, logically, a dominant position in the entire region because the majority ofemployed people in the past were concentrated in several industrial giants. Today, thissituation is slowly changing, however, the employment structure will remain the same forsome time, although small and medium businesses are developing.Table 21 – Economic Subjects per Staff Size Category Per Regions (As of 31December 2006)Area/Indicator Total Micro-firms Small Firms Medium FirmsLargeFirmsNot Stated *Czech Republic 2,430,446 958,958 48,438 12,017 2,109 1,408,924Northwest 245,861 85,865 4,448 1,121 191 154,236Southeast 360,226 148,590 7,912 1,944 328 201,452Southwest 275,964 111,403 5,315 1,369 229 157,648Moravia/Silesia 231,786 85,420 4,693 1,108 209 140,356Prague 437,882 172,602 9,022 2,259 518 253,481Northeast 342,036 137,432 6,638 1,677 253 196,036Central Bohemia 275,787 115,430 4,874 1,134 177 154,172Central Moravia 260,904 102,216 5,536 1,405 204 151,543Legend:Micro-Firms: Staff 0 – 9Small Firms: Staff 10 – 49,Medium Firms: Staff 50 – 249* - Firms with not stated staff size are not included.Page 55 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionThe trend in the development of small and medium-sized enterprises is now very positiveand needs to be further supported, particularly through the preparation of new or therevitalization of old and unused areas and premises for business development. Theseproblems are dealt with separately in Business and Innovation OP.2.6.4 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, INNOVATIONSScience and research (S&R), representing, along with the quality of human resources, thefundament of the region’s innovative potential, are a significant factor influencing the overallcompetitiveness of the region’s economic foundation.Also in this sphere, the Northwest shows major deficiencies. As compared to the nationallevel, money spent for research and development (R&D) is distinctly under-average and,according to the S&R cost in relation to its economic performance, the region ranks the lastamong the NUTS II regions. The situation is similar with regards to its share in the total CRR&D expenditures that have only reached an average of 1.86 % in the last five years.The share of the Northwest Cohesion Region in the CR R&D cost is just marginal.Table 22 – R&D Staff and Cost Per RegionsRegionR&D Staff (2005) R&D Cost (2005)Staff CountCR Share(%)Cost Amount(CZK million)CR Share(%)Region’s GDPShare(%)Czech Republic 43,370 100.0 42,198 100.0 1.42Northwest 767 1.8 665 1.6 0.25Southeast 6,735 15.5 5,361 12.7 1.26Southwest 3,076 7.1 2,740 6.5 0.87Moravia-Silesia 2,376 5.5 2,182 5.2 0.73Prague 17,584 40.5 15,835 37.5 2.22Northeast 4,596 10.6 3,911 9.3 1.08Central Bohemia 4,513 10.4 8,561 20.3 2.76Central Moravia 3,723 8.5 2,943 7.0 1.04Source: CSO, own calculationsThe CR science and research current concentration (including R&D in businesses) primarilyin the largest centres and areas with a high human resources potential is the major reasonfor the current situation that is, considering the existing quality of human resources in theNorthwest region, definitely unfavourable for the region. Also, the scarce and under-averagenetwork of academic and university sites in the Northwest region in terms of their count andquality plays a significant role. Regarding the number of experts working in the R&D sphere,the Northwest region is also the weakest region in the CR. Share of the number of its R&Dexperts in the CR total reached just 1.69 % in 2005.R&D issues are separately dealt with in Business and Innovation OP, Research andDevelopment for Innovations OP, Human Resources and Employment OP, and Education forCompetitiveness OP.Page 56 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region2.7 TOURISM AND SPA INDUSTRYTourism is one of the most dynamically developing sectors of the economy with anincreasing share in the generation of foreign currency revenues, GDP and employment. Thegrowth trend is sweeping, however, the development in the CR sped dramatically up after1990.In the 2004 statistics, the Czech Tourist Authority (CTA) states that tourism in the CzechRepublic contributed 3.7 % to the total employment and 3.9 % to GDP. Despite theindisputable importance of tourism for the development of municipalities and regions, theeconomic benefits are often and in general overrated and, on the contrary, the negativeimpacts on the physical and social environment are ignored.2.7.1 TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONSIn general, the region’s potential to develop tourism is primarily determined by naturalconditions and by the degree to which cultural and/or social values that can be offered tothose participating in tourism are concentrated.In terms of both these factors, the Northwest Region has territorially highly disparateconditions for the development of tourism, which is evident from the following cartogramsillustrating the region’s potential for tourism development, as assessed by the Ministry forRegional Development in 2002.Page 57 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionCartogram 5 – Karlovy Vary Region Tourism Potential DistributionKartogram 13Karlovarský krajCelkový potenciál cestovního ruchuPo tůč kyBož í Da rBu bl avaPř e buzN ové H am ryHo rn í B la tn áStř íbrnáAb e rta m yHra n ic eŠind e lo v áVy so k á Pe cPe r ninkJá c hym o vKr a slic eMer kl ínKr ásn ý Le sStr á ž n a d Ohř íRo tav aN ejd ekKr ásn áPod hrad íOs trovLub yOlo víJi nd řich o v ic eČe rn a vaTatro v ic eSm ol né Pec eDě po lto v ic eHro zn ětínVoj kov ic ePl esn áBo ž ič an yAšVř e so v áNo vá Ro leDo lní NivyCh od ovVe lký L uhVin tířo vNový Ko s telKra jk o váMír ováJo s efovLo m n iceJe nišo vKr á lov sk é P oř íčíNo vé S ed loSk a ln áHa zlo vKř iž o vatk aHo rySv atavaVo jtan o vHa bar tovTě šo v ic ePou s tkaMi lho s tovSta r é S ed loCh lu m S va té M a říCiticeLo k e tLib áKa c eřovBu k o va ny Do ln í Ry chn ovFra n tišk ovy L ázn ěSo k olovDa sn iceTřeb e ňNe ban ic eHá je kVe lic h o vOto v ic eSad o vKy se lkaDa lo v ic eŠem n iceKar lo v y V a ryAnd ě lsk á H oraKo lo váStr u žnáHra diš těBodová hodnota a intenzitní zóny:0 bez potenciálu1 - 1516 - 20 základní potenciál21 - 2526 - 3031 - 35 zvýšený potenciál36 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 80 vysoký potenciál81 - 100Pom e zí na d O hříCh ebLip ováŠa bi naLib a vs k é Úd olíOd ra v aKy nšp e rk na d Oh ř íTuřa n yBř e zo v áOk rou h láMi líko vD olní Žan d ovLá z n ě Ky n žv a rtVa lyStar á V od aTe pličk aHo rn í S la v ko vSta no v ic eR ovn áKr ásn oBe č o v n ad Te plo uNo vá V e sKr á sn é Úd o líPr amen yMni ch o vOtro č ínÚ tvin aTou žimBoc h ovŠtě dráVa lečVe r uš i čk yVr b ic eČic h a lo vŽlu ti c eCh yš ePš o v101 - 150151 - 200velmi vysoký potenciálMar ián s ké L á z něVel ká Hle ďs e beZá du b -Zá v iš ínOv esn é K lad r ubyTe p lá201 a vícevýjimečný potenciálTři S ek e ryDrm ou lVlko v iceTrs tě nic eZpracoval: Ústav územního rozvojeCartogram 6 – Ústí nad Labem Region Tourism Potential DistributionIt is clear from this evaluation that the region, despite developed tourism in certain areas, stillhas plenty of potential for the further development of this sector.On the one hand, the region boasts recreational areas of supra-regional importance (ČeskéŠvýcarsko National Park, the Slavkovský les protected forest area, the West Bohemian SpaPage 58 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTriangle – Západočeský lázeňský trojúhelník) while, on the other hand, there are also areasof limited value for tourism (in particular the urbanized basin areas). Mining and industrialproduction (especially the energy sector) have resulted in widespread devastation of naturaland, in part, cultural values in the basin areas and the Krušné hory mountain range; this hasreduced the recreational potential of the basin districts.The Northwest Region can be divided in more detail into the areas with tourism developmentpotential as follows:1. České Švýcarsko (“Czech Switzerland”)2. The Krušné hory mountains (Krušnohoří) and their foothills (Podkrušnohoří)3. The České středohoří mountains and the Žatec region (Žatecko)4. The West Bohemian Spa Triangle (Západočeský lázeňský trojúhelník)5. The Slavkovský les forest areaMoreover, two significant landscape areas verge on the region – the eastern part of theLužické hory mountains protected area (in the Děčín district) and the eastern edge of theKokořínsko protected area (in the Litoměřice district).The potential for tourism in the Northwest Region therefore encompasses natural andcultural/historical attractions. The natural and cultural/historical potential of the area isdetermined to a certain degree by the suitability of specific areas for individual forms oftourism.The Northwest Region has a large number of cultural/historical sights of all forms, includingchateaux, chateau parks, castles and castle ruins, sacral sights (monasteries, churches, andchapels), open-air museums, observation towers and zoos.To a certain extent, the region is unique due to its sights of technical interest, especiallythose of the region’s rich and famous mining history. The most popular localities include thecultural sight of the Důl Jeroným mine at Čistá (tin mine from the mid-16 th century, a uniquemonument of mining culture), the mining museum at Krásno, the Barbora mine open-airmuseum at Jáchymov and others. The region abounds in localities known through Europe ashistorical centres of the extraction of minerals, where foundations were laid of modern worldmining, metallurgy, geology and mineralogy. These localities have a potential for a tourist,education and publicity product that would interconnect the most important natural localitiesand technical sights of left over mining operations.The spa sector (balneology) has a very specific and significant position in the region.Particularly the southwest part of the region is a rare area in Europe in terms of its highnumber of mineral water and gas springs and the diversity of their chemical composition.There are several hundreds springs. The most significant localities with protection zones areKarlovy Vary, with thermal carbonated water, Jáchymov, with thermal radioactive water,Mariánské Lázně, Františkovy Lázně, Lázně Kynžvart, Kyselka, Korunní, Nová Ves, withcold carbonated water, and Teplice spa.A considerable tourist potential is represented by the Ohře River which flows through thewhole region. It is widely used there for water sports. There is a good railway and roadaccess to the Ohře River all along its watercourse. The river flows through tourist centresPage 59 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region(Loket, Svatošské skály, Karlovy Vary, Terezín). Thanks to its good navigability, it is alsopopular among beginning water sportsmen and families with children. A factor negativelyinfluencing the use of the potential of the Ohře River is a lack of suitable accommodationand boarding facilities close to the river. Along the river’s watercourse there are only severalsites where water sportsmen can sleep overnight. However, they are facilities that do notcomply with routine standards. They frequently lack not only boarding, but also hygienicfacilities. Neither are there adequate services (boat rentals, etc.).The Northwest Region offers tourists not only historical sights and natural beauties, but alsoworld famous cultural events. The annual International Film Festival held in Karlovy Vary isone of the specialities of the region. This festival takes place regularly since 1945. And since1997, it is classified in the A category (e.g. together with the film festival in Cannes, France).In the region, it constitutes a cultural event of key importance not only for the region’scultural life, but also for the business sphere. Other significant cultural events include e.g.Dvořák’s Autumn in Karlovy Vary (Dvořákův karlovarský podzim), Fresh Film Fest, and theInternational Jazz&Blues Festival. The above cultural events attract thousands of visitorsfrom all over the world to the region annually.On the basis of surveys made for the CzechTourism agency (GfK - Monitoring visitors totourist regions of the Czech Republic, summer 2005 and 2006, winter 2005/2006), especiallyhiking (above all in the northeast area) and sports (water sports and cycling in summertime,winter sports), cognitive tourism, also healthcare in summertime (southwest spa area) andrelaxation (northeast) were identified as the main reasons for visiting the Northwest Region.2.7.2 REGION’S TOURIST VISIT RATEIn 2004, the total number of visitors to the Northwest region amounted to approx. 920,000whereas about 61 % were visitors to the Karlovy Vary region, as the interregionalcomparison shows.There are distinct differences in the region related not only to the number but also to thenature of visits. According to the CTA data, the number of foreign visitors (i.e. foreign touristswho spent at least one night in the region) to the Karlovy Vary region reached 386,971 in2004, 479,742 in 2005, whereas the number of foreign visitors to the Ústí nad Labem regionreached just 148,441 in 2004 and 167,380 in 2005.The statistics on the visitors’ average stopping time and the total number of overnights isslightly more favourable for the Northwest Cohesion Region. The average stopping time ofdomestic visitors was 7.2 days and 7.6 days for foreign visitors to the Karlovy Vary region in2006. These values in the Ústí nad Labem region were 4.4 (domestic) and 4.0 (foreign). Interms of overnights, the Karlovy Vary region ranks second in the overall CR interregionalcomparison. The higher values in the Karlovy Vary region are given by the presence of spavisitors who generally stay for longer time than other visitors.Page 60 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTable 23 – 2006 Overall and Seasonal Region Visit RateArea/IndicatorNumber of ArrivalsTotal Quarterly Rate of Arrivals(%)SeasonalityIndexTotalOf itForeignersI II III IVCzech Republic 12,724,926 6,435,474 18.9 26.4 36.7 18.0 2.72Northwest 1,062,293 647,122 18.1 28.8 35.2 17.9 2.70Southeast 1,476,978 456,638 16.1 27.1 38.3 18.5 2.80Southwest 1,589,143 488,230 14.7 23.9 50.1 11.3 3.43Moravia-Silesia 609,436 112,668 25.0 24.6 33.2 17.2 2.63Prague 4,142,538 3,702,116 17.2 27.8 31.1 23.9 2.61Northeast 2,137,665 634,592 26.0 24.1 37.2 12.8 2.80Central Bohemia 767,477 224,215 14.6 27.1 43.1 15.2 3.04Central Moravia 939,396 169,893 22.0 26.5 34.2 17.3 2.66Source: CSO, own calculationsNote: The Seasonality Index is calculated as the sum of squares of quarterly rate of arrivals divided by 1,000 (thehigher the index, the higher the seasonality).The share of foreign visitors that reaches relatively higher values in the Northwest CohesionRegion as compared to other regions (except the capital of Prague) also proves, amongothers, the overall potential for tourism development. This share in the Karlovy Vary region isover 71 % and nearly 43 % in the Ústí nad Labem region whereas the share of foreignvisitors in the overall number of guests represents approximately 50 %.Considering the structure of foreign visitors to the Karlovy Vary Region, Germanspredominate (their share was 60.3 % in 2006), followed by Russians (11.3 %) and the Dutch(3.5 %). In the Ústí nad Labem Region, most visitors were, again, from Germany (61.3 %),followed by the Dutch (6.1 %), Danes (4.7 %) and Slovaks (4.1 %). In both cases, the regionevidently benefits from its closeness to neighbouring Germany, which could serve as a basisfor the further development of tourism and also in the future progression of developmentactivities.2.7.3 TOURISM INFRASTRUCTUREDespite considerable investments channelled into the expansion of both the basic andcomplementary infrastructure, it can be stated that in many respects the situation in theNorthwest Region does not reach even the basic standard of the developed tourist regions.Generally, major persisting deficiencies, such as hotels and restaurants or networks of cyclepaths and footpaths, characteristic in particular for rural and peripheral parts of the region,can still be felt in the Northwest region’s basic tourism infrastructure. The tourism potential ofsuch areas is not sufficiently exploited so far (refer to the above-presented analysis oftourism potential). The main problem in these areas rests in the quality of hotels andPage 61 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionrestaurants, as well as other complementary infrastructure, such as services in the form ofvisitor centres, sports and cultural facilities. This whole situation is even worse due to thelack of the so-called “bad weather” or “off-season” facilities.Cartogram 7 – Basic Tourism Infrastructure – CR Accommodation CapacitiesSource: Proposal for new CR tourism regionalisation. Analytical outputs of the MMR researchproject No. WB 8200452. ESF MU in Brno, 2005The cohesion region has a smaller number of visitors’ accommodation facilities compared toother regions, whereas major disparities within the two administrative regions, especially ahigh concentration of accommodation facilities in selected localities (e.g. spa centres) andthe complete absence of these facilities in localities where the potential has not yet beenexploited, ensue from the interregional comparison. The bed capacity of visitors’accommodation facilities is below the national average. Larger accommodation facilities arelocated primarily in urban centres.The Northwest Region has a relatively large capacity share in accommodation facilitiesclassified as hotels or guesthouses in the total number of visitors’ accommodation facilities,whereas the Karlovy Vary spa region is the clear leader (the districts of Karlovy Vary andCheb) in the inter-district comparison. The share of hotels and guesthouses in the totalnumber of visitors’ accommodation facilities is much higher in the Karlovy Vary Region(68.6 %) than the overall average in the Czech Republic (56.2 %). However, accommodationfacilities of above-standard quality are concentrated almost exclusively in selected spacentres, while the rest of the cohesion region has accommodation facilities of lowercategories, however, even their offer is not sufficient enough.The utilisation efficiency of bed and room capacity in hotels and similar facilities (e.g.guesthouses) is a very important indicator in relation to accommodation facilities. The netPage 62 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionannual utilisation of bed capacity 1 in the Karlovy Vary Region was 45.3 % in 2006, which isapproximately 9.5 % higher than the national average. However, long stays in spas to alarge extent influence these values. On the other hand, this indicator is entirelyunsatisfactory in the Ústí nad Labem Region where the Table, just 21.8 %, is absolutely thelowest in the interregional comparison.Overall, the offer of accommodation facilities can be rated as sufficient in terms of quantity,except facilities of lower categories. The quality in this infrastructure is unsatisfactory, asfacilities outside the spa town do not comply with the required standards. The “distribution” ofthese capacities within the region is also problematic. Individual facilities are concentratedprimarily in areas with developed tourist potential, whereas areas with unused potentialsuffer from lacking facilities of all levels whose absence prevents the potential from beingexploited. Moreover, the disshare between the quality of service and the price with regard tothe standards and compared to other regions is the frequent deficiency in existingaccommodation facilities which can reduce the number of visitors and generally deterioratethe region’s image, as seen from the long-term perspective.As far as the supporting infrastructure is concerned, the situation is very similar. The regionhas a relatively good offer in supporting infrastructure, especially in spa centres and areaswith developed tourism however, in the areas with identified potential, especially in rural andborder parts of the region, the offer is by contrast highly insufficient.Another problem is insufficient exploitation of the existing infrastructure that often does notoffer, due to its isolation, a sufficiently attractive spectrum of services to attract the necessarynumber of visitors. The network of golf courses in the southeast part of the region which, onone hand traditionally complements the offer of spa towns and, on the other hand does notattract enough visitors (especially spa clients) coming for golfing, can serve the example inthis respect.Significant possibilities can be primarily seen in more intense exploitation of the potential forsports and recreational tourism particularly in the Krušné hory mountains where numerousrather regionally important winter resorts are located (with the exception of Klínovec – BožíDar) with a number of chalets. However, the Krušné hory area has a significant potential fordeveloping summer tourism but lacks quality tourist infrastructure because it had a poorreputation for air pollution and environmental damage in the past and, thus, it wasconsidered suitable just for short-time recreation, which left its tourist infrastructure ratherundeveloped. Even today, the area has the image of mountains with a disturbedenvironment, which does not quite add anything to its attractiveness.The spa infrastructure is a specific but also very important element of the basic infrastructureavailable for tourism where mostly the primary spa facilities represent a competitiveadvantage compared to today’s “modern” wellness type spas. However, this infrastructure’squality, due to the historic development, corresponds rather to a “therapeutic facility” than tothe tourism type and the revenues generated by services provided do not allow moresignificant reconstruction. If the spa sector in the region is to remain competitive, conditionsmust be created for a gradual transformation of the mentioned basic but supporting1The net utilisation of the bed capacity is the indicator expressing how much of the bed capacity is reallyavailable for guests in the respective period.Page 63 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regioninfrastructures to a level that would be attractive enough for the so-called “self-payers”, i.e.the target group that will be becoming more important henceforward.2.7.4 TOURISM SERVICESApart from the quality and structure of the infrastructure, the development of tourism is alsofundamentally affected by the quality and structure of services provided.A comparison of the level of services provided in the cohesion region to the average level ofservices provided at visitors’ accommodation facilities throughout the Czech Republic that isexpressed as the percentage share of services in question once again reveals majordisparities in many cases.The share of services providing therapeutic or body care procedures is above average in thespa areas; also financial and currency exchange services are provided here in a highershare due to the large number of foreign visitors to the region. Like in the infrastructure, theconcentration of such services in the spa or similarly developed centres of tourism and theirabsolute absence in other parts of the region is also an issue.So far undeveloped infrastructure of services supporting the so-called “material base oftourism” (accommodation and catering), i.e. services provided to sports, recreation, culturalevents, tourism, entertainment etc. that are supportive just marginally, is the region’s majorhandicap, however, development of these services is just the factor that could significantlyincrease the level of interest in the region as a tourist destination.The non-existence of a system stipulated by law allowing certification of single facilitiesproviding tourist services somehow complicates the issues related to the quality of services.The certification in question could constitute an instrument of motivation for single operators(e.g. they could get, if certified, some advantages in obtaining subsidy support, access toinformation systems and marketing materials). In this respect, the quality of humanresources, generally on an under-average level and also having an impact on the sphere oftourism, is also a major limiting factor.2.7.5 MARKETING, PUBLICITY AND COORDINATIONIn terms of tourist services, the region has no uniform marketing or so-called “destinationmanagement” whatsoever. Creating comprehensive products that would offer not only spatowns and centres as traditional destinations, but also other attractive places within theregion, is still on a very low level.2.7.6 TOURISM DEVELOPMENT MAJOR RESTRICTIONSStrategic documents of both regions indicate insufficient transportation accessibility toattractive areas and badly neglected state of the transportation infrastructure, the lack ofaccommodation facilities in some presently less utilised parts of the region, the overall lackof lower category accommodation facilities, the low quality of medium and higher categoryaccommodation facilities and restaurants, and the low quality of basic and supportingtourism services as worst issues or restrictions limiting the development of tourism potential.Page 64 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionInsufficient care of cultural heritage and availability of information on the region leading to aminimum level of marketing of the potentials of both regions and, consequently, to the lowuse of these potentials is also a frequently mentioned issue of this kind.Strategic documents of both regions most frequently present as the base for tourismdevelopment in the region the following priority domains:• Developing the quantity and quality of basic and supporting infrastructure fortourism, i.e. improving transportation accessibility, tourism services, andaccommodation facilities;• Supporting infrastructure in general related primarily to augment opportunities forentertainment and sports;• Targeted marketing and its coordination;• Generating new products and product packages utilising the region’s potential.Surveys performed for the CzechTourism agency (GfK - Monitoring visitors in CR tourismregions, Summer 2005 and 2006, Winter 2005/2006), identified similar problems andconclude that the major problem domains related to tourism are as follows:- Local tourist marking (region’s southwest);- Poor quality transportation infrastructure (region’s southwest), bad accessibilityby public transportation systems (region’s northeast);- Insufficient culture and social events offer (region’s southwest);- Insufficient shopping opportunities (region’s northeast);- Expensive services (region’s southwest);- Small number of shops and their low standard (region’s southeast);- Poor accessibility to attractive places by public service buses (regions’southwest);- Poor, insufficient or inadequate information on the region;- Poor condition of historical monuments (region’s northeast);- Lack of restaurants (region’s northeast).Regarding the Northwest ROP, the above-listed domains should, thus, represent majorissues and “bottlenecks” the region should focus on in the future.2.8 HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT2.8.1 DEMOGRAPHIC DEVELOPMENTIn the post-war period, the population together with the habitation of the Northwest Regionexperienced complicated development; its key moments have permanently influenced livingconditions, i.e. social and economic climate. Even in today’s perspective considerations, wePage 65 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regioncannot by far underestimate the fact that a significant part of population diversified in theregion in the post-war years (in addition to the fact that its total number decreasedconsiderably) with heterogeneous ethnical and cultural groups, which led to a strongsettlement and cultural discontinuity. Moreover, the drop of the “Iron Curtain” alsosignificantly changed the macro-geographic location of the whole area from an exposeddomain with at least the same strong economic and social relations to Germany as to theCzech inland to a periphery within the Czech Republic.In past, the region went through a very heterogeneous development that did not contributevery well to the demographic structure stabilization within the area. In consequence of theabove-stated facts, the Northwest Cohesion Region as well as other border areas aretraditionally characterized by an above average population turnover. The main reasons forthat can be found above all in an insufficient offer of job opportunities and overall lowersuitability of the region for living purposes especially due to historical industrial damagewhose after-effects have been influencing the region up to the present day.According to the Czech Statistical Office (CSO) data, the population of the NorthwestCohesion Region amounted to approximately 1.127 million in 2005. The populationdistribution in single region’s districts is mostly rather even (approximately 115 – 120thousand inhabitants). The Děčín district is the most populous (133,705 inhabitants); thesmallest number of inhabitants lives in the Louny district (85,716 inhabitants). In nation-widecontext, the population in the southwest part of the Cohesion Region is below average.The Northwest Cohesion Region’s population went up slightly from 2001 to 2005. From thepoint of view of demographic development, however, significant intra-regional differencesexist within the region.In the period of 2001 – 2005, the most significant negative development of the populationoccurred in the districts of Most, Louny, Teplice and Ústí nad Labem, and, within thosedistricts, especially in the urbanized areas of Most, Ústí nad Labem or Teplice, whichcontributed to the greatest degree to the absolute decrease in population. Also the town ofKarlovy Vary suffered negative growth although the population of the whole Karlovy Varyregion increased.Despite the negative development in the region, there are areas in the region with positivepopulation development, such as the Cheb and Litoměřice districts and in the towns ofCheb, Aš, and Ostrov.Page 66 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTable 24 – 2001-2005 Demographic incrementArea/Year 2001 20052001-2005Total Population Development(%)Czech Republic 10,206,436 10,251,0790.44Northwest 1,123,164 1,12, 447 0.38Southeast 1,642,808 1,641,125 -0.10Southwest 1,174,168 1,179,294 0.44Moravia-Silesia 1,265,912 1,250,769 -1.20Prague 1,160,118 1,181,610 1.85Northeast 1,483,901 1,483,423 -0.03Central Bohemia 1,123,931 1,158,108 3.04Central Moravia 1,232,434 1,229,303 -0.25Source: CSO, 2002 and 2006 Statistical Year-Books, own calculationsIn the surveyed period (2001 – 2005), approximately half of towns quoted a decrease in thenumber of inhabitants. Regarding municipalities with the town statute the most significantrelative decline (decrease) within the above stated period was quoted in Bečov nad Teplou(10.4 %), Louny (8.6 %), and Mariánské Lázně (8.4 %). A delayed process of suburbanisationtook place in the cohesion region’s largest towns whose spontaneousdevelopment had been deliberately suspended until 1989. It corresponds with a significantincrease in the population in small towns (up to 5,000 inhabitants) situated in the vicinity oflarge towns. All main regional centres (i.e. towns with more than 50,000 inhabitants) quoteda decrease in the population – the most significant relative decrease was quoted in KarlovyVary (8.1 %), Chomutov (5.5 %), Ústí nad Labem (4.4 %), and Most (4.0 %). All towns with15,000 to 20,000 inhabitants also quoted similar decrease. Regarding towns with 10,000 –15,000 and with 5,000 – 10,000 inhabitants, some quoted a significant increase and some asignificant decrease.2.8.2 AGE STRUCTUREDistinct ageing of the population is the current trend in the Czech Republic. In 2005, thevalue of the ageing index (i.e. the number of persons aged over 65 per 100 persons aged 0to 14 years) reached the level of 92.8 and the average age shifted to the age limit of 40years.As compared to the all-republic average, the Northwest region’s population structure isdistinctly younger, as proved primarily by the ageing index with values varying in the range of80 to 84 approximately (Ústí region – 80.2, Karlovy Vary region – 84.9). Nevertheless, thecomparison to previous years shows that the population age structure development,primarily in the Karlovy Vary region, is also negative.Distinct differences are also apparent in comparison of the population age structure pergender where the share of younger age categories significantly prevails in men (the ageingindex varies around 60) whereas the ratio between the children’s population and the postproductiveone in women is virtually equivalent.Page 67 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTable 25 – Population Age StructureArea/IndicatorPopulationAs Of 31 December 2005Age CategorySituationInAgeing IndexDevelopment Index(2003=100)PopulationAverageAge0 – 14 15 – 64 65 + 2005 2005/2003 2005Czech Republic 14.6 71.1 14.2 97.0 105.9 40.0Northwest 15.6 71.8 12.7 81.5 107.0 39.0Southeast 14.7 70.6 14.7 99.7 106.2 40.1Southwest 14.6 71.0 14.4 98.4 106.3 40.1Moravia-Silesia 15.0 71.6 13.3 88.6 110.8 39.4Prague 12.3 72.1 15.6 126.9 101.5 41.7Northeast 15.1 70.6 14.2 94.3 106.0 39.9Central Bohemia 14.9 70.9 14.1 94.5 101.8 39.9Central Moravia 14.7 70.9 14.4 97.9 107.8 39.8Source: CSO, Population Age Structure Indices Per Regions and Districts as of 31 December 2005 and 31December 2003, 2006 Statistical Year-Book, own calculationsIt is apparent at first sight that the Northwest region’s population age structure is significantlyyounger as compared to the all-republic average and proved primarily by the ageing index.However, the region ages faster than the Czech Republic as a whole due to the fact that theageing speed of the Karlovy Vary population is much higher.2.8.3 SCHOLARSHIP STRUCTUREThe historical development in the region also significantly impacted its scholarship structurethat is, as compared to the all-republic average values, under average, whereas the regionmost distinctively lags behind in the number of university/college-educated persons andpersons with completed secondary education concluded with a leaving examination.Regional capitals have the most progressive scholarship structure followed, with a gap, byother large centres. Per contra, the scholarship structure mostly in rural areas is on anunder-average education level. The towns of Aš, Bílina, Kadaň, Kraslice, Podbořany,Rumburk and Varnsdorf, i.e. primarily the periphery border areas, also belong to thiscategory.The whole issue of the scholarship structure is highly augmented primarily by the migrationof university/college-educated population seeking jobs outside of the region mostly due tothe low level of offer for qualified work opportunities in the region.Page 68 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTable 26 – 2001-2006 CR Population Over 15 Scholarship Structure InterregionalComparisonArea/Indicator2001 2006A B A BCzech Republic 2,597,700 797,100 2,855,800 954,600 119.8Northwest 253,200 50,700 291,200 62,300 122.9Southeast 417,600 132,000 452,900 159,600 120.9Southwest 295,900 77,800 333,800 94,700 121.7Moravia-Silesia 294,200 87,900 320,400 96,600 109.9Prague 413,700 212,500 437,300 239,900 112.9Northeast 359,900 91,600 384,200 116,200 126.9Central Bohemia 272,900 65,200 331,500 83,700 128.4Central Moravia 290,200 79,400 304,500 101,600 128.0Legend:A: Completed Secondary + Leaving ExaminationB: University/CollageC: 2006/2001 University/Collage Progress IndexSource: CSO, Employment/unemployment in CR per results of work force selective survey – Annual 2001 and2006 average values, own calculationsIn terms of the population scholarship level, the region is distinctly under the all-republicaverage. Compared to other CR regions, the share of the university/college-educatedpopulation is the lowest and the share of the population with the basic education as itseducation maximum is the highest. Also, language knowledge and skills of the localpopulation are very low causing problems not only generally in relation to the region’scompetitiveness, but also in relation to its close-border location when this handicap ofhuman resources prevents more significant economic and social cooperation withneighbouring Germany from occurring.All the available analyses consider this situation as the fundamental reason for the highunemployment rate and, consequently, for related accompanying social and economicphenomena.Inadequate adjustment of the education system to the labour market requirements alsotakes significant share in this situation. At the end of 2005 and in the beginning of 2006, theKarlovy Vary region cooperated with the Regional Economic Chamber of the Ohře RiverSub-Region, public service bodies and social partners on the pilot survey entitled “Survey ofneeds of new employees in the future 2006-2015 period”. The survey showed that thesouthwest part of the region struggles with the lack of graduates with technical expertise.In the whole region, there are only a few specialised schools corresponding to economicactivities of the region. In the framework of the region’s socio-economic development, it isnecessary to support education process primarily in those schools whose graduates are inhigh demand in the labour market and whose specialty corresponds to the economicactivities in the region. At the same, it is necessary to improve the technical condition ofCPage 69 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionschool buildings and provide them with the equipment and education facilities needed forquality training.The quality of language education on one side, and an increasing share of citizens withforeign nationality in the region’s population on the other, is a crucial weak point of schoolsand school facilities (interregional comparison showed that the Karlovy Vary region’s shareof foreigners ranks second after Prague’s in this matter).Support for university/college education is the objective of one priority axis – Education forCompetitiveness OP, Research and Development for Innovations OP. Human Resourcesand Employment OP aims to interventions beneficial to the labour market. The NorthwestROP will contribute to this domain complementarily, primarily on the secondary schoolsystem level. Contingent supporting activities for the Northwest ROP focused on enhancingthe quality of the initial education, equal opportunities, and further training are of the noninvestmentnature and will be subject to the support from Education for Competitiveness OP.Sources from Human Resources and Employment OP of the Adaptability priority axis will beavailable for establishing the system of cooperation between schools and employers and forsetting monitoring systems.2.8.4 LABOUR MARKET AND EMPLOYMENTThe economy of the Northwest region as a whole can be characterised as having ratheraverage progressiveness of economic structure as compared to other regions in the CzechRepublic.The current statistical data shows that there is still a slightly above-average share of thesecondary sector (industry) in employment in the cohesion region; per contra, theemployment in agriculture is relatively low in comparison with the all-republic level. Theimportance of agriculture in the coal basin districts is just marginal, per contra, intensiveagriculture is characteristic for the southeast part of the region with favourable conditions foragricultural production (growing fruits, vegetables, and hops).Regarding the current trends in development when the sector of services is primarily gainingimportance, the drop in the share of the services sector in overall employment in the KarlovyVary region is relatively surprising in respect to a strong concentration of the spa industry(2002 – 56 %; 2006 – 53.4 %). Distinctly faster development towards a more progressiveeconomic structure is quoted in the Ústí region.Regarding the education level reached, it can be noted that the unemployment rate in theNorthwest Cohesion Region is proportional to the attained education. The highestunemployment rate was in the population with basic education as the highest reachededucation level, the lowest one then in the population group of tertiary educated people. Withregards to the unemployment of graduates and their education level reached, in can benoted that the university/college and secondary schools graduates are the best employable.Provided the entire tertiary sphere is included under the notion of “services“, this sectorprovides more than 56 % of all the job opportunities today.Page 70 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTable 27 – Employment Structure per National Economy Sectors (%)Area/Year2001 2006Change Index2001 = 100I II III I II III I II IIICzech Republic 4.7 40.0 55.2 3.8 40.0 56.3 80.9 100.0 102.0Northwest 3.5 42.4 54.2 2.6 41.9 55.4 74.3 98.8 102.2Southeast 6.9 40.7 52.4 5.3 41.8 52.9 76.8 102.7 101.0Southwest 7.4 41.5 51.1 6.0 42.1 51.9 81.1 101.4 101.6Moravia-Silesia 2.6 43.6 53.8 2.7 44.0 53.3 103.8 100.9 99.1Prague 0.7 22.2 77.1 0.5 20.2 79.3 71.4 91.0 102.9Northeast 5.3 45.9 48.8 3.7 46.4 49.9 69.8 101.1 102.3Central Bohemia 5.6 39.0 55.5 4.1 38.1 57.8 73.2 97.7 104.1Central Moravia 5.4 45.4 49.2 4.7 45.7 49.7 87.0 100.7 101.0Legend:I: Primary Sector II: Secondary Sector III: Tertiary SectorSource: CSO, own calculationsServices mostly of the public nature, primarily the public service, school system, health care,social security, and social services, have a higher share in employment in the sphere ofservices. Trade, transportation, and communications are other services of more significantimportance. The importance of so-called “progressive services” is rising slightly in the longterm. Although the majority of businesses in the sphere of services rather fall into thecategory of small and medium ones, there are also a number of large businesses in thesphere of transportation and communications. The following graph representationdocuments the development trend and major changes that occurred in the economicstructure of the Northwest region.Graph 1 – Northwest Region Employment Development In MajorNational Economy Sectors (%)Agriculture andForestry2004 1998 1993IndustryConstruction IndustryMarket ServicesPublic Services0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Page 71 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionSource: CSORestructuring of the economic basis was connected with a distinct rise of unemployment thatbecame a serious social and economic problem of the region. Regarding this, the NorthwestCohesion Region belongs to one of the most problem-stricken regions in the whole CR. Thefollowing Table illustrates the negative development of indicators in the unemploymentsphere.Table 28 – Selected Unemployment Indicators Development per Regions (2001=100)Area/IndicatorRegisteredUnemployment Rate2001 2005Devel.IndexNo. of CandidatesPer Vacancy2001 2005Devel.IndexShare of Long TimeUnemployed2001 2005Devel.IndexDevel.IndicesAverageCzech Republic 8.1 7.9 97.5 8.9 9.8 110.1 37.1 41.7 112.4 106.7Northwest 11.7 13.5 115.4 17.4 22.6 129.9 44.5 49.6 111.5 118.9Southeast 7.8 7.7 98.7 11.3 19.6 173.5 34.0 41.0 120.6 130.9Southwest 5.7 5.1 89.5 5.8 6.7 115.5 28.4 31.1 109.5 104.8Moravia-Silesia 14.3 13.9 97.2 36.7 29.2 79.6 46.2 51.,8 112.1 96.3Prague 3.9 3.5 89.7 6.7 2.2 32.8 24.0 25.6 106.7 76.4Northeast 6.2 5.6 90.3 5.7 8.5 149.1 28.6 35.3 123.4 120.9Central Bohemia 6.7 5.2 77.6 2.2 5.8 263.6 32.6 34.9 107.1 149.4Central Moravia 9.5 9.7 102.1 11.4 13.4 117.5 36.9 40.8 110.6 110.1Source: CSO, Statistical Year-Books of Single Regions 2002, 2003, 2006; Regional Accounts 2005;own calculationsCompared to the all-republic level, the unemployment rate in the Northwest region is aboveaverage and belongs to one of the highest among CR regions. Just as on the national level,it mainly escalated after 1997 in connection with the start of the major phase of economyrestructuring accompanied with a drop in employment in certain backward and nonperspectivebranches.The unemployment rise is connected with the downslide of large establishments anddistinctively slower MSP dynamics. The number of candidates per vacancy worsened morethan five times in the last five years and now reaches double of the CR average, illustratesthe deteriorating situation in the labour market.Five region’s districts are quoted in the list of 10 CR districts with the highest unemploymentrate. The worst situation is in the Most district not only on the region’s level, but also in theentire CR where roughly 1/5 of the employable population has been continually unemployedin the last two years. The situation is also serious in the labour market in the basin districts ofChomutov, Teplice and Sokolov and in the Louny district. The fact that the unemploymentrate has been above the all-republic average in the entire monitored period almost in all thecohesion region’s districts illustrates the overall unfavourable situation in the labour market.Structural characteristics definitely evidence two major reasons for unemployment:Page 72 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regiona) Structural imbalance between the offer of and the demand for jobs;b) Insufficient generation of new job opportunities (and continuing loss of existing ones).Cartogram 8 – Unemployment Rate In Region’s Communes as of 31 December 2005Source: Cassia Development & Consulting cartogramThe Northwest region’s regions quote the weak position also per the indicator of the numberof non-allocated candidates per a vacancy whose number, as compared to the nationallevel, is double.Long time unemployed are apparently the most problematic group 2 (staying in theemployment office register for more than 1 year). As per some surveys, chances of thisgroup of unemployed to take a position in the labour market go down rapidly and asignificantly large number of these people will virtually never join the work process.Unfortunately, even the share of this group of candidates in the Northwest region is higherand reaches the 50 % level.A high share of long-term unemployment means that the group of candidates that cannot be“placed” in the labour market is getting larger and they are gradually losing work habits andunemployment becomes a normal part of their lives and, consequently, the list of their socialvalues is changing as well.To conclude, it is necessary to accentuate the fact that the labour market mobility, bothspatial and professional, is very low in the region. It is caused for instance by the rigidity of2A significantly higher potential for social pathological phenomena (primarily the crime, drugs abuse etc.) iscreated in the regions with the high long-term unemployment and the unemployment of young people under 25as compared to other regions. It is necessary to accentuate that all these phenomena directly contribute tofurther backwardness of the given region.Page 73 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionthe housing market and the uncommonness to commute for work, but also by theinsufficiency of the region’s transportation, both quantitative and qualitative. Results ofsurveys show that beside the housing situation the economic growth of the region must beresolved otherwise it could cause a drop in labour force and a continuing negativedemographic development primarily in the southeast part of the region (in favour ofneighbouring regional centres and Prague and also in favour of abroad in the future).Table 29 – Employees’ salaries and Its Development per Regions (2001=100 %)CZK Avg. Monthly SalaryArea/Indicator(Individuals)Dev. Index2001 2006 2006/2001Czech Republic 14,642 20,211 138.0Northwest 13,192 17,786 134.8Southeast 12,924 18,140 140.4Southwest 13,516 18,229 134.9Moravia-Silesia 13,772 18,680 135.6Prague 18,416 25,282 137.3Northeast 12,893 17,536 136.1Central Bohemia 14,689 18,856 128.4Central Moravia 12,719 17,242 135.6Source: CSO, Documented number of employees and their payroll in CR for 2001, Documented number ofemployees and their payroll in CR for Q1 to Q4 2006, own calculationsWhile the Karlovy Vary and Ústí regions were approximately in the middle among all the CRregions as per the share of the region’s average salary in the CR average salary, they werealready under the average in 2006 (whereas the Karlovy Vary district has absolutely thelowest salary level of all the regions); all the regions are roughly on the same level as per theaverage salary development dynamics between 2001 and 2006 and the Northwest region islast but one.Thus, the cohesion region is generally decreasing slowly as seen from the all-republicperspective. What is also important is the fact that the Karlovy Vary region is the last amongthe regions as per the monthly salary average whereas the Ústí region ranks seventh.Moreover, this data shows very low dynamics of salaries in the whole region.Human Resources and Employment OP is primarily focused on interventions in the sphereof the labour market and employment. The Northwest ROP will complementarily contributefor instance with the support in favour of increasing the work force mobility.2.8.5 EDUCATION SYSTEMIn the last ten years, the region’s education system has gone through the process ofextensive optimization; as a result, there has been a significant decrease in the number ofnursery schools and a partial decrease in the number of primary schools in the recent years.With respect to demographic development, it might be expected that it will be necessary tobring the offer of such institutions into line with actual demand in the future because theprogress in the number of born children and children in pre-school age has shown anincreasing trend recently.A great number of schools are situated in the basin coalfield regions where the population ismore concentrated in large towns. Therefore, the tendency to preserve even small-scalePage 74 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionschools with fewer pupils and higher unit costs predominates in smaller municipalities inrural areas.The region’s offer of secondary education is rather diversified. However, readjustment of theoffer of the secondary schools’ fields of study and training to labour market requirements andthe need to react to changes that are also connected with potential employers’ requirementsmight be necessary.Primarily the University of Jan Evangelista Purkyně in Ústí nad Labem with 7 faculties and 2departments, represents the region’s university education. In 2000, the private University ofKarlovy Vary, v.o.s. (fields of study: administration, social administration and publicadministration) was established in Karlovy Vary. Furthermore, “branches” of other highschools and universities (e.g. the Faculty of Economics of the University of West Bohemia inCheb, two faculties of ČVUT in Děčín, one faculty of VŠB (Technical University) of Ostrava inMost, UP Olomouc, the Faculty of Economics and Management of ČZU, the private Instituteof Finance and Administration with its seat in Prague) are situated in the largest towns(Cheb, Karlovy Vary, Most, Mariánské Lázně etc.). On top of that, the University ofEconomics and Management, s.r.o. is located in Ústí nad Labem. Nevertheless, the region’soffer of university education cannot be assessed as satisfactory. Generally, it can be statedthat the presence of a high school and mainly a university has positive impact on thedevelopment of the town and its surroundings in many respects. With the exception of theUniversity of Jan Evangelista Purkyně in Ústí nad Labem, all academic institutions operatingin other towns are either relatively small or only focus on distance and combined forms ofeducation. Therefore, positive impact connected among others with the presence of a greatnumber of regular students and employees of academic institutions is not significant in theNorthwest Cohesion Region’s towns.Apart from insufficient offer of academic education, there has been an increasing need forthe modernization of the secondary schools’ infrastructure, which often does not fulfil evenbasic parameters for modern education and thus limits the competitiveness of graduates inthe labour market. Not only unsatisfactory parameters of school buildings but also missingequipment for vocational training represent a serious problem. A great number of schoolbuildings were built 80 – 100 years ago, often for other than educational purposes. Otherschool buildings were built in the period of heavy panel construction approximately 30 yearsago and suffer all its ailments – especially unsatisfactory power supply parameters andunsuitable architectural design. Operation in such buildings is uneconomical. Schools lackcorresponding equipment for modern education – apart from IT equipment, missingequipment for vocational training especially in engineering schools represents a problem.In accordance with Act No. 561/2004 Coll. on pre-school, primary, secondary, highervocational and other types of education, as amended, long-term programmes of educationand development of training and education systems in both regions are being elaborated.These documents are the instrument for managing the region’s education system. Theobjective of these documents is to establish modern and effective education systems withstructure and size that will be in line with the overall development and needs of the region.Regarding the fact that the university/college education is dealt with within thematicoperational programmes, the support from the Northwest ROP will primarily focus onPage 75 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionsecondary and higher vocational schools. Schools providing education in fields demanded inthe labour market and with the potential in the framework of the all-life education will besubject to the support.The support for university education development is the theme of one priority axis to supportEducation for Competitiveness OP and Research and Development for Innovations OP;Human Resources and Employment OP is focused on interventions in favour of the labourmarket. In this area, the Northwest ROP will make contribution complementarily above all onthe level of secondary schools. Possible activities supporting the Northwest ROP andfocused on enhancing initial education quality, equal opportunities, and further education areof non-investment nature and will be subject to support from Education for CompetitivenessOP.2.8.6 SOCIAL SERVICES AND HEALTH CAREHospitals, outpatient facilities, after-care facilities, pharmacies and other facilities are parts ofthe network of health care facilities in the Northwest region. The extent and structure of thisnetwork corresponds to the needs of the territory. An overwhelming majority of facilities arelocated in larger towns. A stabilised network of 25 hospitals ensures emergency, after-careand rehab care. For instance Masaryk Hospital in Ústí nad Labem, Most Hospital withPolyclinic and Chomutov Hospital with Polyclinic are hospitals with a supra-regional sphereof action. Specialised health care fields are operated also outside the region primarily inPrague, Plzeň, Liberec and Hradec Králové. The southwest part of the region shows a betteroverall availability of health care facilities.The technical condition of some regional health care facilities is unsatisfactory. Thesefacilities are often several decades old infrastructure that should be updated. Also outdatedinstrument equipment presents a problem in bed capacities providing health care in theregion and should also be enhanced so that it corresponds to the requirements stipulated bythe law.Structural condition of hospitals requiring high cost for maintenance, updating, and overallreconstruction is a significant problem. Structural and technical dispositions of key healthcare facilities unfavourably influence the very organisation of health care, includingineffective use of human resources, which, finally, leads to unreasonable stress on humanresources to make sure all single health care provision processes work properly.Modern advanced health care facilities are a prerequisite for improving the health conditionof the population. Quality health care means lower sickness absence, higher participation inthe labour market, longer life, higher productivity, and lower cost for providing health andsocial care.Social infrastructure provides public services that immediately affect the quality of life.Current trends in population ageing and the dynamic development of economic branchesintensify strains on the adaptability of the social structure to new conditions. In this respect,the stress put on prevention and flexibility of generated structures and aiming on socialPage 76 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regioninvolvement is important. Generating an environment preferring these conditionssubsequently mirrors itself in the effectiveness of public social services and, thus, also in thesphere of economic development.The Northwest Cohesion Region’s social infrastructure of supra-local importance is aimedprimarily at towns that, through their facilities, ensure servicing of respective sub-regions.However, there are long-term stay (residential) all-year facilities of social services set upprimarily by public service subjects and located outside towns and communes in remotelocations. There is no possibility to use local institutions providing services to the public, andnatural relationship networks. They do not allow users to stay part of the natural localcommunity, to lead a normal life, and to keep their personal autonomy.The offer of social services in the Northwest Cohesion Region includes social services andservices provided in social services facilities established by the subject of the public servicethat, however, do not provide social services, because of the lack of financial means for theirupdating, that would completely correspond to current requirements, thus, the humanisationprinciple, individual approach, and services in the natural environment. The network offacilities providing social services and set up by the public service subjects is graduallysupplemented with services provided by non-governmental non-profit organisations (NGO),special-purpose church facilities, and charity organisations, however, this kind of networkcomes into being rather randomly and the balance of territorial offer within the region is notsystem-resolved. Also these social services do not completely correspond to the currentrequirements.Differences in social services provision coverage among single areas of the region andsingle communes are great and, in some cases, these facilities and social services aremissing completely in the given sub-region. Alternative ways of providing services, i.e.extending the offer of field and outpatient social care services allowing their users (primarilyold or health-impaired citizens) to stay in their home natural environment while preserving allsocial links, e.g. day care, personal assistance services, protected living, social welfareinstitutions, should be comprehensively included into the system of services not just only dueto the older population growth.2.9 TOWN AND RURAL SPACE PROBLEMSThe issues and problems of larger towns and the rural space in the Northwest CohesionRegion are to a great extent identical to common issues concerning the majority of townsand rural sub-regions in the entire Czech Republic. Towns 3 offer the overall higher standardof living and represent administration, cultural, economic and social centres of the region.Due to the concentration of urban functions, the town population shows a higher level ofemployment in the tertiary and quaternary sector, reach higher education level, however, arecent population drop has occurred caused by moving to satellite residential complexes inthe base of large towns.3A number of definitions of the urban (town) and rural spaces exists. For purpose of this document, it isconsidered that the agglomerations of regional and former district towns and towns with population over 5,000comprise the urban space.Page 77 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTowns also provide higher quality of housing evaluated by the number of supporting facilitiesand the age of homes; however, the average living space per capita is lower as comparedwith out-of-town housing.As far as the quality of life evaluation is concerned, towns are primarily attributed withenvironment quality problems. In some urban regions, there are higher levels of pollution ofenvironmental components, an increased emission load (recently, NOx production is risingdue to the growing intensity of individual transportation), higher level of noise and dustpollution, higher production of the communal waste. Towns struggle with problems related tointensive transportation (insufficiently resolved transportation infrastructure, overloadedexisting road networks, missing town bypasses, absence of parking space, etc.).The further development potential and the overall value of towns are sometimes afflicted bythe existence of inefficiently used and neglected zones and objects (the so-called“brownfields”), mostly of industrial nature. This problem is especially distinct in the Northwestregion due to the existence of a significant number of unused objects and zones, as theconsequence of the historical development, whose negative impact on the overall image ofthe region and its residential areas is highly significant.Although there are a number of towns in the territory having similar sizes but completelydifferent socio-economic nature (on one side, there are towns in the basin or agriculturalareas afflicted by structural and economic problems and, on the other, the spa triangle), theyare solving the same or very similar problems (unused and deteriorating buildings, neglectedtransportation, business and housing infrastructure etc.).The most serious problems in urbanised spaces can be defined as follows:• Overloaded transportation infrastructure negatively impacting the environment(noise, dust, emissions, vibrations);• Lack of greenery and sites for daily recreation (relaxing) and leisure-time activitiesof inhabitants;• Higher share of social pathological phenomena due to higher anonymity, highershare of socially weak and inadaptable population and its concentration in certainlocations (the Northwest region registers the highest number of identified criminalacts after Prague – approx. 12.5 % of the total number of identified criminal acts inthe CR);• Existence of a high number of inefficiently used, neglected or contaminated zonesand objects (brownfields), mostly industrial in nature, due to the transformationand restructuring of the economy having a significant negative impact on theregion’s image.The above-listed problems are consequently caused by the post-war transformation of theresidence system. After 1945, all the settlements in the cohesion region almostunexceptionally suffered by the vast turnover of population due to the transfer of the Germanpopulation (by the end of the WW II, the share of the German population in the majority ofPage 78 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regiontowns and communes was over 90 %). Although newcomers repopulated the region’sterritory, a significant demographic drop occurred when the population in the region wentdown to half of the previous values, some estimates say.New coming people preferred towns as their new home, whereas vast areas were totallydeserted in the rural space. A high number of communes ceased to exist, populationdramatically dropped in others, which just contributed to the process of integrating smallercommunes into higher administrative units. Population restoration has been unsuccessful tillthe present day. As not all the newcomers adopted the region as their new home, thepopulation turnover continued, and it is still continuing to an extent, with all (and manynegative) accompanying phenomena even several decades after the WW II end.Rural areas of the Northwest Cohesion Region are characteristic with a disintegratedsettlement structure 4 with relatively above-average population per commune. Like in theentire CR, the gradual depopulation is also occurring here primarily due to migration losses.However, this problem does not concern the base of large towns where, per contra, thepopulation grows as part of the process of the so-called “sub-urbanisation”, i.e. smallerneighbouring (satellite) residential areas grow both physically and in terms of their populationthanks to the existence of available development land and its relatively low prices. Thesesatellite settlements, thanks to their spatial proximity, good transportation and timeaccessibility and with its predominantly urban function, are generally characterised with no orlow unemployment rate as compared to that of larger towns. However, some of thesesettlements suffer from physical and social isolation between natives and newcomers, whichmarks the inner integration and life inside settlements.Overall, the rural areas in the region are characteristic with their high unemployment ratecaused by both the decline of local industrial establishments and a problematic mobility oflabour force due to bad transportation serviceability and high relative cost for commuting towork as compared to the average income in the region. In some (mostly near-border) ruralareas, the absence or lack of stabilised business subjects makes itself felt; these areas arenot attractive for new investors and the local potential (e.g. for tourism development) is stillnot yet sufficiently mobilised and utilised.Persistent selective migration from the peripheral rural areas is a big problem. This migrationconcerns more educated and qualified part of the population as well as the component ofeconomically active persons in general, whereby the human resources deteriorating qualityand other negative synergistic phenomena occur – e.g. decreasing flexibility and adaptabilityof the local labour force, drop in scholarship and revenues of inhabitants, and also toincrease of the unemployment.Technical infrastructure does not always reach the needed level; primarily, unresolvedmedium and small sources of air pollution, the existence of old ecological burdens,ineffectively used zones and objects (brownfields) mostly of the agricultural nature areproblem-causing domains in the Northwest region. All the mentioned factors influence theinvestment activity and development of entrepreneurship; therefore, the majority of the4Disintegration of the settlement structure has negative impact not only on a difficult sustainability of the civilservices and facilities, but also on the overall very low ability of lower territorial units realise, due to a very loweconomic power, larger investment actions that could have a more significant development effect.Page 79 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regioneconomically active population are reliant on commuting to work in larger towns. However,commuting is determined by the quality of the transportation infrastructure and also by thetransportation serviceability that shows serious deficiencies.The countryside generally offers higher quality of the natural environment that is, however,imbalanced with less accessibility to “services” (in the broadest sense) for dwellers in termsof quantity and quality.The worst situation is in the near-border rural areas populated by Germans in the pre-warperiod where the absence of job opportunities, due to the impacts of restructuring theagricultural and traditional manufacturing industry, combines with insufficient transportationserviceability, low education level, higher rate of the social exclusion of dwellers, and arelatively low level of identification with the local environment. These areas are often used asso-called “second housing” areas (i.e. private recreational cottages and farm-houses) by thepopulation of large towns also outside of the Northwest region for seasonal and short-termstays. For this purpose, a large share of preserved or reconstructed original housing is used.This way, utilised buildings are often in much better technical condition than the housing ofthe local permanent populations.The most serious problems of rural spaces can be defined as follows:• Higher level of unemployment caused by damping the agriculture, lowerqualification and insufficient mobility of dwellers for work, and lower level ofbusiness activities;• Bad level of transport serviceability;• Insufficient and bad quality of the transportation and technical infrastructure, lowlevel of civil services and facilities, higher age, and lower quality of the dwellingstock;• Permanent reflux of young generation and qualified work force to towns, whichleads to higher speed of rural population ageing and the drop of its ability to adaptto changing economic and social conditions.2.10 REGIONAL DISPARITIES SUMMARY2.10.1 INNER REGIONAL DISPARITIESIn summary evaluation of the conclusions of the socio-economic analysis performed, it ispossible to identify several key problems in the region that can be considered as the majorbarriers to improving the overall competitiveness of the region and must be resolved througha targeted approach that would lead to achieving the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy.These problems primarily represent deepening negative disparities of the rural spacetowards the urban environment, industrial areas towards agricultural ones with origins thatcan be found in several factors:Page 80 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region1. Region’s location and settlementMajor location and settlement disparities within the region are as follows:• High level of urbanisation in the basin areas and along the Labe River, thanks towhich approx. 80 % of the region’s population lives in towns (after Prague themost urbanised region). Therefore, the region’s territory can be characterised bysignificant inner disparities in the population concentration between the basin andrural areas and between the Ústí and Karlovy Vary regions;Table 30 – 2005 CR, Region and Its Parts Selected Settlement IndicatorsComparisonArea/IndicatorCommunesCountAvg.CommuneAcreage(km 2 )Avg.Number ofDwellersPerCommunePopulationDensityPer Sq. KmTownsCountTowns Over50ThousandCountUrbanPopulationShare (%)Czech Republic 6,248 12.6 1,641 130 529 22 70.1Karlovy VaryRegion132 25.1 2,305 92 28 1 80.5Ústí Region 354 15.1 2,325 154 46 5 79.1Source: CSO, Small Lexicon of CR Communes 2006, own calculations• Population and economic weakness of the countryside heavily depopulated due tothe historical development after 1945 (the transfer of the majority of Germanpopulation; extensive devastation for the purposes of military grounds and mineralraw materials surface mining; border zone; centrally controlled industrialisation;Table 31 – CR, Region and Its Parts Population Development (1930=100)Area/IndicatorPopulation1930Population1950Population2005PopulationDevelopmentIndex1930-2005Czech Republic 10,674,240 8,896,086 10,251,079 96.0Karlovy VaryRegion502,176 244,112 304,274 60.6Ústí Region 1,115,286 734,827 823,173 73.8Source: CSO, Historical Lexicon of CR Communes 1869-2005, own calculations• Presence of the area that is part of the largest Czech inner periphery (region’sterritory approx. between Teplá, Bochov and Podbořany) and other depopulatedrural areas with continuing population turnover and many negative accompanyingphenomena (higher crime rate, lower education, degraded dwelling stock,absence of cultural traditions and a positive attitude to the territory).Page 81 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region2. Regional infrastructureRegional infrastructure can be characterised by the following inner regional disparities:• Neglected transportation infrastructure primarily the accessibility to larger centresof the region (the lowest density of transportation infrastructure is in the Mostdistrict – 0.59 km/sq. km; the highest one in the Litoměřice and Ústí nad Labemdistricts – 0.93 km/sq. km; to be more specific, the region lags behind the allrepublicaverage in terms of the density of all levels of the transportationinfrastructure, i.e. both motorways and Class I, II and III roads;Table 32 – 2005 Karlovy Vary & Ústí Regions & CR Transportation IndicatorsComparisonArea/IndicatorCzechRepublicKarlovy VaryRegionAOf ItClass II RoadsDensityClass III RoadsDensityB C D E F G H G H9,614 564 6,154 322 14,668 34,124 0.186 1.435 0.433 3.339493 - 226 12 563 1,255 0.170 1.848 0.380 4.133Ústí Region 1,020 29 490 7 902 2,752 0.169 1.097 0.516 3.345Legend:A: Operational Length of Railway Lines (km)B: MotorwaysC: Class ID: Of It SpeedwaysE: Class IIF: Class IIIG: Km/Sq. kmH: Km/1000 InhabitantsSource: CSO• Accessibility from the south and central parts of the region (Cheb to Most sub-region)is insufficient because of absence of a fast and quality road and railway connection toinland and Prague;Table 33 – 2006 Ústí nad Labem/Karlovy Vary-Prague Train/Bus Trip LengthComparisonFromToShortest DistanceAvg. Trip Length(km)Train Bus Railways RoadÚstí nad Labem Prague 1 h 24 min. 1 h 05 min. 103 85Karlovy Vary Prague 3 h 22 min. 2 h 10 min. 236 132Source:, www.mapy.czPage 82 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region• Labe River water transportation potential (in the Ústí region only) exceeding withits importance the region’s borders; water reservoirs are the only potential in theKarlovy Vary region (Jesenice, Skalka);• Distinctly worse accessibility to the Praha Ruzyně international airport from theKarlovy Vary region and ensuing need for developing the Karlovy Varyinternational airport;• Insufficient and ineffective transportation serviceability of the rural areas, primarilyin the near-border sub-regions and sub-regions with a low population density, ascompared to the urban sub-regions;• Insufficient handicapped facilities in the urban public transportation systems’ stopsin major regional centres: only 75 handicapped stops are available from a total of2,196. The following Table shows that the centres in the Ústí region have morehandicapped stops than centres in the Karlovy Vary region.Table 34 – 2006 Northwest Region Urban Public TransportUMT Commune Population *)Handicapped Stops CountActualPlannedDěčín 52,000 0 -Teplice 110,000 22 62Chomutov and Vicinity 74,151 12 0Most and Vicinity 67,691 21 36Ústí nad Labem 106,893 20 100Karlovy Vary 50,691 0 90Note: *) Population in the territory serviced by UMTSource: Transit Authorities• Absence of an integrated and international near-town transportation system in theÚstí region (the EgroNet system, or IDOK, fulfils this function in the Karlovy Varyregion).3. EnvironmentRegion’s Major disparities in the environment are as follows:• Diverse quality of the environment in single parts of the region (concentration extralarge burning processes in the region’s territory that produce gas and solidemissions and solid products of burning (region’s production of SO 2 and NOxemissions from large REZZO 1 category stationary sources of the air pollutionreaches almost 50 % of the all-republic production; micro-regional comparisonidentifies the major t/sq. km emission producers as follows: Chomutov and Mostdistricts – solid emissions 1.1 t/sq. km and 0.8 t/sq. km; SO 2 26.4 t/sq. km and38.5 t/sq. km; and NOx 27.0 t/sq. km and 22.9 t/sq. km, respectively; in per capitatranslation, also the Louny district in solid emissions and NOx; Litoměřice districtid the largest producer of CO with 3.0 t/sq. km; Sokolov district is the absolutelylargest producer of emissions in the Karlovy Vary region). The following Tableshows the interregional comparison of the in emissions balance:Page 83 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTable 35 – 2005 Karlovy Vary/Ústí Region Emission Balance ComparisonČR, RegionsCzechRepublicKarlovy VaryRegionSolid EmissionsTotal(t)Specific 1)Sulphur Dioxide Nitrogen Oxides(SO 2)(NO X)TotalTotalSpecific 1)Specific 1)(t)(t)REZZO 1Carbon Monoxide (CO)Total(t)Specific 1)13,304.1 0,2 183,990.5 2.3 146,409.3 1.9 168,366.3 2.1494.1 0.1 16,177.0 4.9 7,831.0 2.4 878.7 0.3Ústí Region 2,627.2 0.5 68,735.2 12.9 63,879.3 12.0 8,542.1 1.6CzechRepublicKarlovy VaryRegionREZZO 1-346,810.1 0.6 222,583.1 2.8 163,667.4 2.1 276,644.1 3.51,487.4 0.4 17,164.2 5.2 8,366.8 2.5 4,334.5 1.3Ústí Region 4,426.2 0.8 71,602.9 13.4 65,084.8 12.2 16,180.0 3.0CzechRepublicKarlovy VaryRegionREZZO 1-475,494.9 1.0 227,922.7 2.9 326,128.4 4.1 570,569.2 7.22,283.2 0.7 17,322.1 5.2 12,795.9 3.9 11,618.7 3.5Ústí Region 6,312.0 1.2 71,963.3 13.5 76,788.6 14.4 37,151.3 7.0Note: 1) In t/sq. kmSource: CSO• Disadvantaging territories in some districts (Most, Chomutov and Sokolov) due totime-consuming and demanding revitalisation after mineral raw materials mining,primarily brown coal;• Urban and industrial zones in the region stricken by a large number of risky oldecological burdens and unused areas and objects (brownfields) with a significantimpact on the quality of the physical environment;Table 36 – 2005 Northwest Cohesion Region Brownfields Count and AreaArea/IndicatorBrownfields CountArea(ha)Share of Brownfields inTotal Region’s Area Per1000 haKarlovy Vary Region 200 798.1 2.407Ústí Region 191 1,003.8 1.881Source: CzechInvest Websites, own calculations• Regarding the growing volume of waste and the inadequate rate of its utilisation(regarding the waste production, the Ústí region ranks 6 in the interregionalcomparison of waste production; the Karlovy Vary region produces significantlyless; in term of utilizing waste, the region is above-average in utilising waste asfuel or for producing energy – approx. 4.2 % of the total waste production; the CRaverage is approx. 12.7 %; the Karlovy Vary region has a serious problem withstoring waste – 56 % of the total waste volume, the CR average is 19 %). Thefollowing Table shows that the Karlovy Vary region produces per capita morePage 84 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regioncommon waste than the Ústí region. Also, the Karlovy Vary lags behind the Ústíregion in recycling.Table 37 – 2005 Per Capita Communal Waste Production Per Regions (kg)Area/IndicatorCommon WasteCollectionVoluminousWasteCollectionfrom thatSeparatelyCollectedComponentsCommunalServices WastePer CapitaCommunalWasteTotal (kg)Czech Republic 220 27 29 10 288Karlovy VaryRegion233 31 17 8 269Ústí Region 224 42 32 17 316Source: CSO, own calculations4. Region’s economyDisparities in the economic sphere are as follows:• Large share and continuing downfall of some traditional branches (mining,machine building, ceramic production, glass production, clothing and textileindustries) using less qualified labour force and concentrated primarily in the basinareas (structurally stricken districts of Most, Teplice, Chomutov and Sokolov);• Predominant part of the territory classed as the so-called “regions withconcentrated state support”; all 3 types of afflicted regions (structurally stricken,economically weak, highly above-average unemployment afflicted);• Less intensive business activity in the structurally stricken (primarily Sokolov andChomutov districts) and rural areas as the manifestation of insufficient mobilisationof inner resources and region’s potential);• Continuing lag of the Karlovy Vary region in economic performance behind the allstateaverage and also behind the Ústí region economic performance (the KarlovyVary region shows the lowest per capita GDP in the entire CR);Table 38 – Per Capita CZK GDP Development CR-Regions Comparison (CR=100)Area/Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005DevelopmentIndex2001-2005(2001=100)Czech Republic 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 126.2Karlovy Vary Region 79.6 81.2 80.1 78.2 77.7 123.2Ústí Region 79,4 79,4 82,4 81,7 81,1 128,9Source: CSO, Regional Accounts 2005, own calculations• Significant downfall in agricultural production in the countryside due to the collapseof socialist agriculture and its low economic profitability caused by low outcomesPage 85 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionfrom growing crop due to unfavourable climate conditions (primarily in the KarlovyVary region);• Low allocation of direct foreign investments in the Karlovy Vary region and therural part of the region due to non-attractive physical environment, insufficienttransportation and business infrastructure (industrial zones), insufficient numberand an unsuitable labour force structure.Table 39 – Per Capita CZK Direct Foreign Investments Level CR-Regions ComparisonArea/Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005AveragePer2001-2005Czech Republic 96,247 114,231 113,773 125,296 145,503 119,010Karlovy Vary Region 36,548 48,581 45,433 50,700 52,717 46,796Ústí Region 84,543 93,050 82,629 92,246 75,218 85,537Source: CNB, own calculations• Distinct lagging of the region as a whole, primarily of the Karlovy Vary region, inthe presence of scientific and research institutions and scientific and researchpotential.Table 40 – 2005 Science & Research Staff and Spending CR-Northwest RegionComparisonScience & Research StaffScience & Research SpendingArea/IndicatorStaffCountCR Share (%)CZKmillionCR Share(%)S&R/GDPRatio(%)CzechRepublic43,370 100.0 42,198 100.0 1.42Karlovy VaryRegion70 0.2 76 0.2 0.11Ústí Region 697 1.6 589 1.4 0.30Source: CSO, own calculations5. Tourism and spa industryPrerequisites for tourism are different in the region:• Very specific and important position of some districts aimed at tourism and the spaindustry (Cheb, Karlovy Vary, Teplice);• Disparities in the accommodation infrastructure and services and their unsuitablequality and level (spa areas are the only exceptions); presence of spa locations inthe Karlovy Vary region positively influences visitors’ stay length;Page 86 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTable 41 – 2005 Performances of Tourists’ Accommodation FacilitiesArea/IndicatorGuests TotalOf It Foreigners(%)OvernightsOvernightsAverage Per 1GuestBed CapacityNet Utilisation(%)Czech Republic 12,361,793 51.26 40,320,477 3.3 35.8Karlovy VaryRegion589,838 68.83 3,792,155 6.4 43.5Ústí Region 385,056 43.28 1,265,912 3.3 21.6Source: CSOTable 42 – 2005 Tourists’ Accommodation FacilitiesArea/IndicatorAccommodationFacilitiesBed CapacityAvg.RegistrationNumber of StaffHotels ****/*****Other Hotelsand PensionsCzech Republic 7,605 433,211 48,482 286 3,992Karlovy VaryRegion423 28,607 7,080 57 233Ústí Region 399 19,405 2,056 11 227Source: CSO• Quality natural and physical environment (except the territory of the mining basinand industrial zone) with a unique preserved nature and landscape (large/smallprotected landscape areas). Attractiveness of several towns with preservedhistorical centre (spa towns and towns along the Ohře River).Table 43 – Tourism Potential Indicators – Natural Sub-SystemArea/Indicator1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14Ústí Region 205 1,655 4,170 579 346 240 769 1,321 70 54 210 486 408 8KarlovyVaryRegionLegend:195 1,240 1,640 400 342 380 694 720 161 16 22 244 206 111: Natural Sights, 2: Hiking, 3: Bike Tourism, 4: Downhill Winter Skiing, 5: Skiing Tourism,6: Water Resort Recreation, 7: Mountains/Woods Recreation, 8: Countryside Tourism, 9: Water Tourism,10: Mountaineering, 11: Hang Gliding, 12: Hunting, 13: Fishery, 14: Water Birds WatchingSource: CSOPage 87 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTable 44 – Tourism Potential – Cultural Sub-SystemArea/Indicator1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Ústí Region 30 1,610 265 96 950 149 42 180 105 412KarlovyVaryRegion140 585 75 92 390 115 12 100 140 305Legend:1: Spa Function, 2: Cultural and Historic Monuments, 3: Open-Air Museums and Museums, 4: Congresses andConferences, 5: Cultural Events, 6: Sports Events, 7: Church Events, 8: Fairs and Topical Markets, 9: LocalProducts, 10: Near-Border SpecificsSource: CSO6. Human Resources DevelopmentThis is another significant disparity in the region significantly preventing some areas fromdeveloping. Major reasons are as follows:• Low scholarship level of the population (the lowest share of university/collegeeducatedand the highest share of the population with just basic education amongthe regions).Table 45 – 2006 Population Aged 15+ Scholarship Percent Distribution CR-RegionsComparisonArea/IndicatorNoneBasicSecondary w/oLeaving ExamSecondarywith LeavingExamUniversity/CollegeCzech Republic 0.1 19.2 37.2 32.6 10.9Karlovy VaryRegion0.2 24.7 39.4 28.9 6.7Ústí Region 0.2 23.6 38.7 31.1 6.5Source: CSO, Employment and Unemployment in CR Per 2006 Labour Force Selective SurveyTable 46 – 2006 Population Aged 15+ Scholarship Absolute Distribution CR-RegionsComparisonArea/IndicatorPopulation15+NoneBasicSecondaryw/o LeavingExamSecondarywithLeavingExamUniversity/CollegeCzech Republic 8,773,400 12,200 1,685,900 3,264,100 2,885,800 954,600Karlovy VaryRegion258,700 600 63,800 102,000 74,800 17,400Ústí Region 695,700 1,100 163,900 269,300 216,400 44,900Source: CSO, Employment and Unemployment in CR Per 2006 Labour Force Selective SurveyPage 88 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region• Imbalanced supply/demand of educational institutions vs. supply/demand of thelabour market;• Long-term development of the average gross salary per employee with significantdifferences in both single regions in the whole CR and within the region (the KarlovyVary region has absolutely lowest level of payroll, whereas the Ústí region’s positionis approx. in the middle).Table 47 – Northwest Cohesion Region Staff Salary Development Per Regions(2001=100)Area/IndicatorAvg. Monthly CZK SalaryDevelopment Index(Individuals)2001 2006 2006/2001Czech Republic 14,642 20,211 138.0Karlovy Vary Region 12,617 17,006 134.8Ústí Region 13,425 18,094 134.8Source: CSO, Registered Number of Employees and Their 2001 Payroll; Registered Number of Employeesand Their Payroll Per 2006Q1 to 2006Q2, own calculations• Population and its demographic development (The Karlovy Vary region can becharacterised by the reflux of young and mid-age population into the CR centralareas, whereas the Ústí Region quotes a positive growth in newcomers).Table 48 – 2001-2005 Population IncrementArea/IndicatorNatural Change Migration Change Total Change2001 2005 2001 2005 2001 2005Czech Republic - 17,040 - 5,727 - 8,551 36,229 - 25,591 30,502Karlovy Vary Region - 207 31 - 512 - 345 - 719 - 314Ústí Region - 947 - 226 17 1,266 - 930 1,040Source: CSO, Statistical Year-Book 2006 and 2002, own calculations• Unemployment affecting not only the Ústí region (Most, Chomutov, Teplice, Lounydistricts), but also the Karlovy Vary region (Sokolov district); the disparity causedby targeting the economy of these districts (heavy industry and mineral rawmaterials mining), so-called “structural unemployment”.Page 89 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTable 49 – Selected Unemployment Indicators Development per Regions (2001=100)Area/IndicatorRegisteredUnemployment Rate2001 2005Devel.IndexNumber ofCandidates PerVacancy2001 2005Devel.IndexShare of Long-TimeUnemployed2001 2005Devel.IndexAvg. ofDevel.IndicesCzech Republic 8.1 7.9 97.5 8.9 9.8 110.1 37.1 41.7 112.4 106.7Karlovy Vary Region 7.4 10.9 147.3 10.0 14.9 149.0 32.3 43.1 133.4 143.2Ústí Region 13.3 14.5 109.0 20.6 26.0 126.2 47.0 51.2 108.9 114.7Source: CSO, Statistical Year-Books of Single Regions 2002, 2003, 2006; Regional Accounts 2005,own calculations2.10.2 REGIONAL DISPARITIES WITHIN THE CZECH REPUBLICCR Regional Development Strategy adopted by CR Government Decree No. 682 of 12 July2000, CR Government Decree No. 722 of 16 July 2003 and then CR Regional DevelopmentStrategy for 2007-2013 adopted by CR Government Decree No. 560 of 17 May 2006, delimitso-called “regions with concentrated state support” within the CR. These are furthersubdivided into the structurally stricken regions, economically weak regions, and regionswith high above-average unemployment. All these regions are administratively delimited bydistrict borders, or by borders of territorial boroughs of communes with extended powers.The following indicators were used for delimiting these types of regions (with 2002-2004value or with more recent ones):• Summary evaluation of the situation in the labour market (unemployment)including the unemployment rate, long-time unemployment, and the number ofcandidates per vacancy (the weight of this indicator is stipulated to 0.4);• Per capita tax revenues (the weight of this indicator is stipulated to 0.15);• Number of entrepreneurs per 1000 inhabitants (the weight of this indicator isstipulated to 0.15);• Purchasing power of population (the weight of this indicator is stipulated to 0.3).Districts with higher share of mining and heavy industries were delimited as structurallystricken regions by Par. 4 of Act No. 248/2000 Coll. other districts were classified aseconomically weak or with high above-average unemployment according to their problemrates.19 territories of 23 ORPs belong to the regions with concentrated state support (whereas theproblem regions were mostly delimited on the level of districts) in the Northwest CohesionRegion. The majority of territories of this NUTS II regions are stricken by structural problems,show low economic performance (weakness) or suffer from significantly higherunemployment than that on the national level.Page 90 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionThus, there are four structurally stricken regions for the 2007-2013 period in the NorthwestCohesion Region territory delimited by the areas of the Most, Chomutov, Teplice andSokolov district. The territories classified by the Government as structurally stricken regionsare characterised primarily by deep structural changes, a significant growth ofunemployment, unsuitable qualification structure of the labour force and inadequatetechnical, transportation and entrepreneurial infrastructure.The Louny district belonging to the region was classified as an economically weak region.Territories classed as economically weak are characterised by low economic performanceconnected with low salaries, weak economic activity, high unemployment, unfavourablegeographic location, and undeveloped technical infrastructure.Also four regions with high above-average unemployment belong to the Northwest CohesionRegion. They are delimited by the border of the Děčín, Ústí nad Labem and Litoměřicedistricts and the ORP Ostrov borough. Territories classed as having high above-averageunemployment generally suffer from the combination of deficiencies of the above-mentionedtypes and, consequently, their unemployment rate is much higher than that on the nationallevel.For the aforementioned and other reasons, all these regions are on the “edge” of interest forinvestors, entrepreneurial activities, educated and highly qualified labour force, whereas allthe infrastructure systems are not sufficiently developing and generally are in poor condition.These territories struggle with inner problems of such an extent they cannot overcomethemselves and get on the road to faster development. Thus, these territories continue todemand increased attention and need concentrated (e.g. structural) support of the society.The values of the above-mentioned indicators shown in the following Table 48 prove this factfor the NUTS II Northwest Cohesion Region.Table 50 – Indicator of Regional Disparities in CRIndicator EU (25)CzechRepublicNUTS IINorthwestRegionUnemployment Rate (%) – 2005 8.7 7.9 13.5GDP in Common Per Capita Prices in PPS 100.0 79.6 59.1(EU 25=100 %) − 2005GDP in Common Per Capita Prices in €100.0 41.4 33.2(EU 25=100 %) − 2005Number of Subjects – Individuals Registeredas VAT-payers Per 1000 inhabitants – 2003- 27.8 21.2Avg. Monthly CZK Salary (Individuals) –2006- 20,211 17,786Source: CSO, Eurostat, MF, own calculationsPage 91 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionCartogram 9 – Regions with Concentrated State Support For 2007-2013Source: Czech Republic Regional Development Strategy, MMR CR 2006, modifiedPage 92 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region3 EVALUATION OF REGION´S EXPERIENCE WITHDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS REALISATIONIn the field of drawing resources from Structural Funds, the Czech Republic only disposes ofexperience from pre-entry aid and from the current, though shortened programme period. Onthe regional level, no independent Operational Programmes have been realized with theexception of the Cross-border Cooperation Programmes. Therefore, it is necessary tothoroughly analyse findings from all Operational Programmes, including the sector JROP.As the current programme period is drawing to its close and preparations for the followingperiod are proceeding at full speed, the evaluation of these programmes actual success isimpossible because the majority of projects will only be gradually completed and evaluatedin the coming months or years.For that reason, it is possible to carry out the evaluation process purely on the basis ofavailable operating evaluation statements of particular Operational Programmes, eventuallyusing various specific surveys and evaluations carried out within the ROP Northwestpreparations 5 .According to the results of the effected evaluations of particular programmes, the generalimplementation conditions are basically operational, although there are certain inadequaciesthat impede full usage of the EU resources. The fundamental problems are: insufficientinterconnection of programmes supported in the Structural Funds with the Czech system ofpublic interventions and a certain lack of interest from applicants for subventions especiallycaused by a complicated access to financing and strict rules of applying for financial support.The lack of interest can be seen especially within measures where “competition” in the formof supranational support exists, eventually in the fields that require sophisticated andconceptual approach, e.g. in the form of non-investment or educational projects withrealization of which the applicants do not have any experience.3.1 CONFIGURATION OF CURRENT PROGRAMMESIn the evaluation of the relevance of the currently set programmes, a problem issue could bethe configuration of indicators and the related system of projects evaluation, which in thecase of tourism, for example, channelled investments solely into accommodation facilities(the principal evaluation indicator was the sleeping capacity created). The same restrictioncould be found with the general indicator of ‘jobs created’, especially with regard to the needfor the modernization of the economic base in the Czech Republic, with a view to increasingits competitiveness; paradoxically, in many cases this reduces the number of jobs required.Thus the established system of indicators, which subsequently determine priorities in theselection of projects, entirely removed e.g. the development of the supplementaryinfrastructure in the Czech Republic even though this is a component essential forenhancing competitiveness (an expansion in sports facilities, cycle paths, informationsystems, etc.), including making improvements in the quality of the existing infrastructure,because this investment rarely helps create supplementary jobs or extra sleeping capacity.5See Evaluation of Absorption Capacity in the Northwest Region, by SPF Group 12/ 2005Page 93 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionThis central configuration of indicators has been ineffective in certain areas, including theNorthwest Region, because in most of the region there is not a lack of sleeping capacity buta problem with the quality of this capacity and its structure in individual types ofaccommodation facilities.The general configuration of the priority axes in existing programmes is usually accepted ascorrect, although the expectations tend to concentrate on larger investments in the basicinfrastructure, e.g. with a focus on greater permeability of borders or the replacement ofbasic technical infrastructure in smaller municipalities, etc.Local entities consider allocations to human resources to be overrated; in the region there iscurrently no demand corresponding to the allocation. This can be considered serious, inparticular with regard to the greater need for a change in the structure of the local workforceand support for skills development within the local population. If this goal is not achieved,any investment in the infrastructure will be inefficient. Therefore, in future periods, wherefeasible, as part of projects, interventions should focus on the greater involvement ofinhabitants in projects, awareness and the general mobilization of local inhabitants so thatthey are aware of the need for change and become actively involved in increasing theabsorption capacity in problem areas.A considerable share of current interventions in the Northwest Region has beenimplemented via grant schemes. The competent implementing body (i.e. regions within thescope of the JROP) at regional level did not opt for specific restrictions or to tightenconditions for drawing support and left the definition of priority axes in the text of the originalcentral draft of measures, in particular with a view to preventing the preliminary elimination ofany suitable project in a situation where the potential absorption capacity under individualmeasures was not known.This approach was justified in the first few years of the operational programmesimplementation, when the entire system and the ability to prepare projects was being tested;in the future, with consideration to the experience gained, it would be advisable to narrow thepriority axes to specific problems in the region and use a longer programming period for theinitiation and support of appropriate projects in the first few years of the period.Besides this problem with the configuration of indicators, evaluations have referred to theneed to support the emergence of suitable projects and to the problems of configuringappropriate applicants. An example of the possible impacts of inadequately establishedapplicants and beneficiaries of aid under individual interventions is the decision of the Officefor the Protection of Competition that prevented associations of legal persons from applyingfor assistance in the present programming period. This means that no local authorityassociations or other associations that are founded not in accordance with the MunicipalitiesAct, but the relevant provisions of the Civil Code as ‘associations of legal persons’ do nothave the chance to draw on current resources available under the JROP. On the other hand,e.g. LAGs (Local Action Groups) under the LEADER programme must also includeenterprises, and here the Municipalities Act does not permit any method other thanapplication of the Civil Code. These entities are established as associations of legal persons(the same situation is often caused, for example, by the fact that, apart from municipalities,the founder of an association is an economic chamber or euro-region, etc.). Therefore, manyPage 94 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionmicro-regions, in an effort to be able to submit an application to the LEADER programme,have transformed into LAGs, thus automatically losing the opportunity to obtain assistanceunder the JROP. This unevaluated possible impact of the configuration of programmeconditions then places a major burden on potential applicants, who are often forced to set upspecific organizations or abandon their project.The originally frequently notified problem of the complexity of preparing applications did notprove to be the principal or even on of the main limiting factors within the scope of theevaluations. In the previous programming period, applicants initially considered thepreparation of applications to be a complicated process, but over time, as theimplementation of the programme progressed, their ability to cope with the preparation ofprojects gradually improved thanks to the experience they had gained, and the problem of alack of knowledge in relation to the application and its appendices – especially among thosewho passed through the whole process – was reduced. This experience was also evidentlyreflected in the findings that with the majority of absorption of programmes and measuresimprove, as the period of implementation advances. These findings again document theneed to ensure sufficient support for applicants in the first few years of programmeimplementation with a view to securing a sufficient number of projects appropriate forimplementation.Besides the above-stated problems, processing the programme it would be advisable to takeinto account certain other factors, which complicate absorption in the region, in particulardue to its demographic and territorial nature. The following factors are primarily at issue:The region of Karlovy Vary is a small region with low population; in the region, there is a lownumber of large non-profit organizations – smaller organizations generally operate here, butalthough there is a relatively large number of such organizations, they do not have sufficientpersonnel or financial capacity. Personnel capacities limit absorption despite the fact that anumber of training courses and other projects have been held for NGOs with the purpose toreinforce their capacity, in particular from the aspect of knowledge and awareness. Anotherreason for this is the fact that the inadequate personnel situation of NGOs prevents theseorganizations from deploying the necessary number of persons for training. As a result, thereis a risk that further planned training will not be used and the impact of this training onincreasing absorption will be minimal. With most measures, absorption is currently at a goodlevel; the region's main problems require major investment in the infrastructure in particular –here absorption is almost unlimited.Another area is tourism in the Karlovy Vary part in particular and in the Česko-saskéŠvýcarsko [Czech-Saxon Switzerland] area of the region of Ústí nad Labem, there are goodconditions for development that are not currently used. In the region, there are severalprominent spa towns that prepare larger-scale integrated projects 6 , thus predetermining therelatively high absorption capacity in the given area.6 In this context, an integrated project is perceived as a project including a solution for multiple aspects ofdevelopment in a given sector or area (e. g. a combination of an investment in infrastructure development withinvestment in marketing and human resources development), or as a project which does not address an isolatedinvestment plan, e. g. only the repair of a road in a municipality, but also related investment such as theconstruction of a car park or information centre, the related transport terminal, etc., and therefore tackles theproblem as a whole, thus ensuring the suitable effect of the investment.Page 95 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionMany applicants are restricted by the minimum project size, which is restrictive to smallerprojects, although on the other hand it should be noted that small projects have a minimumimpact on the territory and in this respect it is more advisable to support larger integratedprojects (for a micro-region or at least several municipalities etc.). However, the need tosupport the emergence of integrated projects among smaller applicants and the merging ofsmaller projects into larger integrated units should also be considered.Large integrated projects focusing on the revitalization of towns and mining areas are beingprepared in the region. Within the scope of preparing plans for the reclamation of formeropencast mines, negotiations are held with the entities concerned, municipalities and theregion of Karlovy Vary so that the plans are modified at this early stage in readiness for theterritory to be used for the implementation of projects in tourism in the future. If thisprocedure is good, it can result in an optimal large integrated project complying with allcriteria, including a focus on addressing the region’s competitiveness.Absorption is very low with measures concentrating on the information society and humanresources – in the case of the first measure this is mainly due to the fact that for localmunicipalities and inhabitants it is a superstructure, which is feasible only after basicproblems have been resolved. These projects are currently of marginal interest in terms ofintensive preparation. Projects presented in this area are mainly projects arising in responseto the existence of available funding, i.e. they are not projects responding to a defined needbut to the supply of financial resources. In the region, the issue of ‘networks’ tends to beaddressed on the basis of the competitive environment; there is a problem concerning theaccessibility of these and related services for the population, in particular in marginal andborder areas.In the field of human resources, the problem can be attributed to demographic developmentsand structure in the border area; very few people are interested in direct participation incourses and the problem with the capacity of NGOs is discussed above. Especially indistricts in the region of Ústí nad Labem affected by high unemployment, support for thedevelopment of human resources automatically merges, in the eyes of inhabitants and thecompetent authorities, with the payment of unemployment benefit; there is little willingnessamong public administration representatives or other potential project promoters to becomeinvolved in this field as they consider it to be ineffective.3.2 IDENTIFIED FACTORS INFLUENCING PREPARATION OF ROPAs a general rule, current activities focused on the preparation of projects in the region willprobably result in relatively satisfactory demand for projects from the outset of theprogramme, provided that these activities continue and the main focus of the programme ispublicized in good time, i.e. by the end of 2006, in order to provide advance notice for thosewishing to prepare projects.Strong demand can be expected especially in transport, where projects are presented by theadministrative regions or organizations set up and promoted by these regions. There willalso be higher demand in priorities regarding the recovery of towns and tourist infrastructure.Page 96 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionA problem in this context could be the unused absorption capacity of smaller projects in lessurbanized areas.Besides transport, most projects are in the initial stage of preparation, i.e. they are at thestage where the concept and draft are being formulated. Because these are ofteninfrastructure projects, their completion will be more demanding on time; in many cases theywill take at least a year, and the projects will therefore be prepared in the second half of2007. A timely and precise comprehension of the possibilities offered by the ROP couldspeed up preparation or could also be a factor jeopardizing the feasible absorption in theterritory.With regard to the n+3 rule (n+2 as of 2010), the basis should be that expenditure will riseduring the programming period and in 2007–2008 will be relatively low, only a little higherthan at present. In this period, however, generous support should be available to launch thedevelopment process, facilitating the start of absorption in the period after 2008 andensuring it in a more effective manner. The one area which, according to the evaluations, willpermit more intensive support from the start of programme implementation is the buildingand development of transport infrastructure; in the first few years of the programme, a largeamount of resources can be channelled into support of this area without disturbing theallocations set for the whole programme and other priority axes.Compared to transport projects, however, the quality of certain projects not belonging to thisfield is a matter for concern. In the field of regenerating towns, many of the projects currentlybeing prepared focus on simple repair and maintenance. This approach is evidently of atechnical nature; it fails to respect the need to safeguard the economic impact of the projecton the region’s competitiveness, and support for such investments would hardly contribute tothe fulfilment of the programme’s objectives.Projects in the field of urban regeneration, local development and even tourism are thereforeup against the risk that they will not be sustainable or will have little impact on thedevelopment of the territory. In many cases, these are isolated efforts to resolve currentproblems (the repair of part of the surface of a carriageway with no connection to the generaltransport policy, the repair of roofs on facilities, lighting in towns, etc.) at the expense of thegenuine development needs of towns, areas and the region. In this respect, there is a anexcessively technical approach to project preparation, concentrating in particular onprovision of services; in many cases this appears to be very fragmented, poorly coordinatedand resulting in the implementation of an excessive number of smaller operations with littleimpact, of which many may simply be an effort to find a replacement solution to largerproblems.Although demand in this field can be considered adequate, there is no guarantee that thisdemand will be appropriate for the fulfilment of the strategic objectives of the Priority Axisand the programme, especially as regards the clear economic and social benefits.With no change of the dynamics and process of preparing projects safeguarding, especiallyamong entities governed by public law, more strategic projects with a high impact andoperations that to a certain degree will promote fundamental change, the ROP could be aPage 97 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionsource of financing supporting projects that do not address strategic and genuine needs, andprojects without the desirable impact.Efforts to safeguard pragmatic joint investment planning must be provided outside theprogramme. In the absence of a drive for joint investment planning, the limited ROPresources cannot ensure a large long-term impact.3.3 DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED IN CURRENT PROGRAMMESIn addition to the insufficiencies mentioned above, the current system has several others,which have been identified primarily by the current administrators.The main such identified problem is the system used to evaluate projects. The currentsystem, especially in the technical approach, is defined above; it does not take into accountthe impact of a project in the region, focusing in particular on assessing the technicalparameters of the project and presented documentation. Within the scope of such a system,projects which are “well” prepared technically but which have a minimum effect and impacton regional development are often prioritised.In the case of feasibility studies and other annexes, the programme methodology andconditions set the outline with which the annex must comply. If applicants respect thisoutline, regardless of the validity of project content they can receive practically the highestrating. The result is then a routine system for the processing of a project “tailored“ to theevaluation criteria.Within the scope of the evaluation system, it is difficult to differentiate projects with a realimpact from those with only an imaginary impact on a particular area. This is a problemconnected with the above-mentioned configuration of indicators and the system of projectevaluation.In this field, it is also necessary to mention the system of expert project evaluation. Thecurrent system uses either evaluations applying a database of experts, or projects areassessed directly by members of staff of implementation agencies and structures (regions).This system does not offer quality project assessment as a stable, controllable service.A potentially good example is the system used for the evaluation of tourism-relatedinvestment projects of supra-regional significance, where the general economic andtechnical evaluation was carried out by an expert company with the necessary professionalhuman resources and technical facilities.This system is ideal for the greater professionalism of project assessment, but in itsapplication it would be advisable to ensure the elimination of conflicts of interest among theindividual evaluators, to allow for 100 % feedback on the evaluation by applicants so that theprocess is transparent and its purpose is not to eliminate projects, but to ensure theirconstant improvement with a view to their subsequent support.Page 98 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionLack of feedback to evaluations is a palpable problem and in the current programmingperiod has two main effects. This fact gives an advantage to project authors who draw updocumentation insufficiently or in accordance with the requirements of the outline butwith minimum informative value, and disadvantages applicants who rely on externalassistance in the preparation of the project. This problem is not directly connected toabsorption limits, but has significant impact on the efficiency of the resources channelled intoproject preparation and ultimately on the interest of applicants in project preparation.Furthermore, in cases where a project is drawn up to a comprehensive and high qualityextent, it is relatively simple to “adapt“ it to the conditions of other measures or declaredinvitations of a project with other criteria. If the document is drawn up with a specific goal inmind, then new material usually has to be prepared.A factor endangering the absorption capacity of the region is also the low capacity of manysuccessful applicants to implement the project in line with the conditions laid down in thesigned contracts. Here, it is starting to become clear that some projects have been drawn upby consulting entities without a necessary close link to the actual project promoter. Thisnegative factor is compounded by the fact that successful applicants have no experience ofrelatively complicated administrative requirements connected with the implementation ofprojects supported from the SF, and small applicants in particular do not have the staffingcapacity to meet these requirements.3.4 EVALUATION OF EXPERIENCE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OFSUPPORT PROGRAMMESFor evaluation of experience in the implementation of support instruments, to a limiteddegree it is possible to use existing evaluation reports under individual sector programmesand JROP, or evaluation reports on State programmes focusing on economically weak andstructurally backward regions, which includes the Northwest. On this basis, the followingconclusions and recommendations can be derived for the future programming period:• The implementation of JROP and other programmes in the Northwest region todate, compared to other regions of the CR, reports good results in the generalcomments on the allocation of financial resources, presented by the abovementioned facts. In the interregional comparison, the Ústecký region is in the thirdplace in drawing funds allocated under the JROP. At regional level, this situation isless satisfactory compared to other regions (the absolute absorption of theKarlovarský region).• Relatively good results are also reported by the implementation of the sectoroperational programmes. Within the scope of the intra-regional evaluation, betterresults are again reported by the Ústecký region, which can be analysed as aconsequence of programmes implemented in the past, which focused on this verybackward territory; to a certain degree, this increases the experience gained bylocal entities in the preparation and implementation of projects in general.• A very positive experience can be considered the successful implementation ofthe INTERREG IIIA initiative, in the framework of which individual euro-regionsPage 99 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionimplemented small project funds, following up on the small project funds under thePhare CBC, which have a clear effect on applicants’ experience, in particular withregard to the above-mentioned problematic non-capital projects and projectsfocusing in integrated local development. In the future, it would be advisable tounify and harmonize the priority axes in individual programmes implemented in theNorthwest territory so that these programmes complement and support eachother.• To acquire sufficient absorption capacity in the form of quality projects, it isnecessary to ensure intensive support for applicants, the possibility of ongoingconsultations and the provision of information on the path pursued by theprepared programmes, and support for applicants in the preparation of thenecessary documentation, not only financial, but also methodological, preferablyin the form of specialized teams prepared to assist with larger integrated projectsin particular 7 .• Grants awarded to the region have not been negligible; they have been used inpart to launch the work of various administrative structures for theirimplementation and have helped gain experience required to obtain resourcesfrom the EU. Nevertheless, they have not given rise to the much needed changes,nor offered a fundamental solution to the region’s key problems.• There are many grant titles (as at 20 May 2005 more than 400); they rarely usethe same forms, and the grant rules are not transparent (there are often manychanges in rules over a very short period); proper care is not paid to thepresentation and publicity of programmes. Presentations and publicity tend to betoo general.• The rules of notifying entity change during the notice of programmes, the periodfor the preparation and submission of applications, including their evaluation, canbe longer than the implementation period (construction work is not possible inmountain areas in the winter) with regards to the accounting period of the nationalbudget.• Practically every grant title is notified on the basis of a processed and approveddevelopment document, which, bases on an analysis, establishes the priority axesand measures for their fulfilment, in the actual evaluation of applications anddecisions on the allocation of resources, these criteria are not taken intoconsideration in certain cases.7 In this context, an integrated project is perceived as a project including a solution for multipleaspects of development in a given sector or area (e.g. a combination of an investment in infrastructuredevelopment with investment in marketing and human resources development), or as a project whichdoes not address an isolated investment plan, e.g. only the repair of a road in a municipality, but alsorelated investment such as the construction of a car park or information centre, the related transportterminal, etc., and therefore tackles the problem as a whole, thus ensuring the suitable effect of theinvestment.Page 100 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region• Easy accessibility of grants for project implementation is preferred by the grantors,but under such accessible programmes the applicants tend to present projectsfocusing on solutions for operative problems (bus stops, public sanitary facilities,etc.) and not systemic development projects with long-term benefits. Therefore, inthe programming period 2007 – 2013, emphasis will be placed on integratedprojects, including IPRM and projects following-up each other.• In addition to thorough checks of the observance of administrative requirements,greater attention should be paid to the quality of a plan in evaluations ofapplications. Administrative deficiencies can be remedied, and unsupportedopportunities cannot be remedied in most cases.• More emphasis is placed on professional qualifications of employees of theManaging Authority. The Managing Authority of the ROP Northwest organizes inadvance the employees’ training programme, which is set individually for eachemployee in consideration to their job descriptions, and it includes both generalmodules (e.g. project management course, computer technique course; languageinstruction is being prepared) and defined modules considering specificemployees’ job descriptions (accounting courses, courses focusing on issues ofstate aid, public orders, eligible costs, financial management, control, etc.)• Courses of psychology and management are being prepared for executives,considering their responsibilities and the significance of managing skills forsuccessful implementation of the programme.• Big problems of the last programming period were also unreasonable terms forpayment realizations to the final payees, which resulted from a rather complicatedsystem configuration of cash flow methodology. For instance, applicants were paidonly shares of the grants from the regional budget and had to wait for grantfunding from the Structural Funds for six months or more. In the currentprogramming period, the cash flow methodology is set in such a way that a payeereceives the whole grant from the budget of the Regional Council. The payeepresents, on the basis of laid out expenditures, an application for a payment fromthe budget resources of the Regional Council (corresponding to the European andthe national share of co-financing) to the Managing Authority of the NorthwestROP, the Office of the Regional Council (ÚRR). After the control, the eligibleexpenditures of the project are remitted to a payee’s account from the budget ofthe Regional Council. The Regional Council receives the resources for funding theshare financed from the EU budget (SF), from the budget of the MMR chapter.The Regional Council receives the funds corresponding to the national cofinancingfrom the budget of the MMR chapter and from the budgets of theÚstecko and Karlovarsko Regions. The Paying and Certifying Authority (PCO)subsequently pay the funds from the EU budget (SF) back into the account of theMMR chapter’s administrator. (The advantage is that applicants receive singlecomponentgrants and the whole process of payments is significantly reduced).• Another significant problem of the last programming period was insufficientreadiness of informational systems that provided even very insufficient outputPage 101 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regioninformation for programme management. For example, in individual projects of theJROP programme, applicants waited too long for conclusions ofcontracts/decisions on grants because satisfactory interconnection betweenindividual levels of the informational system was not established. Furthermore, bypresenting the first applications for payments, the appropriate forms in theinformational system were found insufficiently processed, and financial moduleswere not interconnected between the informational systems MONIT and MSSFCENTRAL.• Therefore at present, the Northwest MA ROP pays maximum attention tomodifications of the informational systems to avoid such situations; both at thelevel of an electronic web application (in which applicants prepare projects), and atthe MONIT7+ level, which is the informational system of the Northwest ROP. Thisrelates especially to the monitoring work group, which includes representatives ofall the Regional Operational Programmes (an application of a partnershipprinciple), who work together on the modifications of the informational systemsand try to co-operate with the MMR as much as possible. The department ofmonitoring and analyses in co-operation with other departments of the Office ofthe Northwest Regional Council are intensively testing the current condition of theinformational systems for the purpose of gaining sufficient information for futureappropriate modifications.• A certain problem of the last programming period was also the poor knowledge ofpotential applicants of the basic rules of the programmes co-financed from theStructural Funds. Therefore the Northwest MA ROP pays utmost attention to theabsorption capacity ahead of time – project surveys that are being prepared in theregion in co-operation with the Ústecko and Karlovarsko Regions, as well as in cooperationwith other partners in the region, and already in this phase, provideadvice to the potential applicants. At the same time, it works intensively onpreparing the Communication plan to ensure reasonable publicity of theprogramme.Page 102 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region4 SWOT ANALYSISThe main observations and findings from the socio-economic analysis were sorted via theSWOT analysis, identifying the main strengths and weaknesses of the region, as well as theopportunities and threats stemming from the current regional situation which couldjeopardize or influence the future development of the Northwest region.The interpretation prepared in the form of a SWOT analysis is drawn up to identify andspecifically assess those areas that correspond to the main aspects fully or mainly in thecompetence of ROP actors under the programme, thus forming the basis for a definition ofthe programme strategy.With regard to the nature of the region and the structure of the socio-economic analysis ofthe region, the strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats are divided into sixmain groups of factors influencing the development and competitiveness of the region,broken down into settlement structure and related infrastructure, regional serviceability,environment and renewable energy sources, economy, tourism and labour market andhuman resources.Settlement Structure and Related InfrastructureStrengthsWeaknessesExistence of the conurbation belt oftowns, unique in the CR, andensuing agglomeration advantages(e.g. in labour division, sharinglabour force and information, etc.).Neglected physical environment and publicspaces primarily in urbanised territories;insufficient civic facilities and services andquality of services in smaller communes in theregion.Existence of other regional centreswith economic potential, workopportunities and civic facilities andservices.Sufficient capacity in secondary,higher vocational schools and inuniversities/colleges.Sufficient capacity of facilities doingin the sphere of health care,satisfactory situation in accessibilityto health care on the district level.Large number of unused industrial, military andother zones and objects (brownfields) inurbanised and rural territories.Imbalanced settlement structure in the region.Obsolete infrastructure and equipment ofsecondary and higher vocational schools;absence of handicapped access to schools.Obsolete infrastructure of health care and socialcare facilities, including their technicalequipment.Stabilised regional system of thepublic service – state, region andcommunes.Absence of some type of supra-regionalspecialised health and social care, insufficientcohesion of health and social care and services.Page 103 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionUnsatisfactory technical infrastructure (sewagesystems, ČOV, public water mains) primarily insmall communes.Low identification of the population with theregion, poor activity of inhabitants, isolation ofcivic activities due to the after-war transformationof the settlement system.OpportunitiesThreatsStrengthening the role of largetowns as region’s developmentpoles.Utilisation of “brownfields” and otherunused objects (primarily inurbanised areas).Improvement of the physical andsocial environments in towns.Development and otherimprovement of the educationsystem as the whole, enhancementof openness and throughput, qualityand effectiveness of education,including language education,introduction of all-life learning.Support to non-profit organisations,primarily those helping thepopulation social cohesion.Development of cooperation amongsmall towns and communes.Deteriorating physical and social environmentin certain urban sections, reflux of inhabitants,socially weak and non-cohesive certain sectionof towns.Growth of pathological social phenomena(crime, vandalism, etc.) in certain urbanlocations.Deteriorating technical condition of the school,health and social care infrastructure.Inadequate development of the region inrelation to betted developed regions in the CRand abroad.Continuing reflux of young people fromperipheral areas due to insufficient offer ofwork opportunities, services, and reducedtransportation serviceability in smallsettlements.Distinct preference to health and social carefacilities located outside the Northwest regionin connection with their quality.Support to founding and developinguniversities and colleges in theregion.Depopulation of towns, reflux of inhabitants forcheaper living and higher quality environmentin “satellite settlement”.Introduction of modern ICT in thepublic service.Inadequate implementation of legislativechanges and reforms in the sphere ofeducation, health and social care.Page 104 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTransport ServiceabilityStrengthsWeaknessesDense network of transportationinfrastructure in vicinity of regionalcentres, their good interconnection.Unsatisfactory condition and technicalbackwardness of the existing transportationinfrastructure. Karlovy Vary international airport -potential for development of tourismand personal transportation.Labe – the most important waterwayin the CR with a high significance forthe region and the whole CR usablefor both freight and personaltransportation.Advantageous geographical locationregarding neighbouring regions(Prague, other parts of the CR andnear-border regions of Bavaria andSaxony).Existing base for development ofintegrated public transportation.Deteriorated accessibility of the region’s centresfrom peripheral rural areas.Insufficient transport connection of the regionthrough motorways and speedways, overloadingof major routes and their deteriorated quality.Insufficient transport serviceability andinsufficient cohesion of the public transportsystem, persisting drop in attractiveness of thistype of transport and its replacing with personalindividual transport.Insufficient equipment in the Karlovy Varyinternational airport, limited capacity oftransported passengers.Insufficient utilisation of the Labe River waterwaypotential, insufficient or neglected supportinginfrastructure.Absence of laps and bypasses in towns.Bad transport accessibility of the region and alow throughput of the CR-Germany border.Unsatisfactory technical condition of the railwaynetwork and railway vehicles for urban and interregionaltransportation.Lack of handicapped stops and terminals in thepublic transport.Missing interconnection of the region’s centres tothe trunk cycle paths, missing network of cyclepaths separated from the traffic.Low integrity of single types of personaltransport.Lack of parking spaces in large towns.Page 105 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionLow quality of cycle paths in the region (as thealternative to personal car transportation andleisure time activity of the population).Uneven development of integrated transportationsystems in the region.OpportunitiesCompletion of R6 and R7speedways and D8 motorway.ThreatsDelaying completion and updating Class I roads.Improvement of the quality andcapacity of the Class I and II roadnetwork, optimising their connectionto TEN-T.Development of air and watertransport.Enhancement of competitiveness ofthe public transport in the region,interconnection among varioustransport types through commonterminals or Park & Ride parkingspaces, and others.Renewal of obsolete railwayvehicles of the public personaltransportation.Continuing transportation isolation of the regiontowards inland and FRG.Continuing deterioration and growing historicaldebt in the railway and road infrastructuresconnected with growing costs for theirmaintenance and lower operational safety onthese communications.Growing long-term preference for individualtransportation and cost for automobile transport.Bad strategy for developing cycle paths, highlevel of their permeability and insufficientinterconnection to trunk cycle paths and cycleroutes.Support for the development ofcycle-transportation, separation ofcycle paths from the traffic toguarantee safety and boost interestin this type of individualtransportation.Support for modern integratedtransportation systems.Removal of obstacles forpassengers with children and thehandicapped (e.g. step-freeterminals, information facilities forpassenger with vision impairment,and others).CR accession to the SchengenPage 106 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionspace.Environment and Renewable Energy SourcesStrengthsWeaknessesQuality natural and physicalenvironment in certain parts of theregion with unique preserved natureand landscape.Connection to public water mainsand sewage system exceeds the allrepublicaverage.Negative image of the natural environment in theregion influencing the number of visitors anddirect investments in the region.Existence of vast devastated areas due tomining and vast ecological burdens mostly in thebasin parts.High concentrations of NOx and PM 10 causedamong others by the growth of automobiletransport in urbanised areas.Insufficient development of and support forrenewable energy sources and energeticeffectiveness.OpportunitiesThreatsIncreasing public awareness onthe necessity to protect theenvironment, develop ecotourismand environment-friendlytransport.Removal of old ecologicalburdens.Deterioration of the environment, primarily the airquality, mostly due to the growth of automobiletransport and industrial activity.Imperilment of protected areas by developmentplans.Uneconomical treatment of natural resources.Increase of the share of recycledand recyclable waste.Growth of communal waste production.Higher share in utilising alternativeenergy sources.Decreasing volume of emissionsof pollution sources.Page 107 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionEconomyStrengthsWeaknessesStrong tradition in industrial activityof the region, primarily in chemical,machine building, glass and ceramicindustries and energy production.Low GDP as compared to the EU and CRaverage, structurally stricken region (the majorityof the territory classed as areas with targetedsupport within the state regional policy.Historical tradition and greatpotential in spa industry with aninternational reputation; itrepresents the centre of thisindustry in the whole CR. Deposits of mineral resources –coal, ore, kaolin, mineral waters.Downslide of the region’s economy – themajority of traditional industrial structures areweakened and in the process of restructuring orthey require restructuring.Low share of research and development andinnovations in the region’s production.Negative branch structure characterised by ahigh share of industrial branches.OpportunitiesThreatsImproving the image of the region inthe CR and abroad, its presentationas a good place to live, work andbusiness, relax, and spend leisuretime.Support for other business branchesthan industry, emphasis oneducation and tourism.Development of small and mediumbusinesses.Inadequate development of the region in relationto the better developed CR regions and toabroad.Change of the spa industry nature – limitation ofhealing spa treatment paid from the publicinsurance may lead to the loss ofcompetitiveness of a segment of spa facilities.Transfer of cost-oriented investments to“cheaper” countries.Influx of direct foreign investments.Support for investments in research,development and high-tech,cooperation of research andeducational institutions andbusinessmen.Page 108 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTourismStrengthsWeaknessesExistence of attractive places andmonuments of supra-regional andsupra-national importance.Spa traditions based on theexistence of natural healingresources.Insufficient offer and quality of a number ofcentres belonging to basic and supportinginfrastructure of tourism (not always meetingrequirements of target groups).Bad technical condition of a number of culturalheritage sites.Potential for development of tourism– historic, technical and sacralmonuments, cultural traditions.Existence of regional specifics witha potential for development oftopical products and various formsof tourism.Stage of many significant culturaland sports events.Great potential for golfing.Potential of new utilisation ofrestored in brown coal basins inconnection to tourism (new productsof tourism).Distinct interregional differences in the level offacilities and services and visitors’ rate(insufficient involvement of rural areas intourism).Insufficient offer of specialised and originalprogrammes.Marketing activities are organised with lowexpertness, they are fragmented and poorlycoordinated, often too local and they do notpenetrate to foreign markets.Insufficient statistical data on tourism and spaindustry.OpportunitiesThreatsUtilising the unique potential oftourism and the spa industry for thedevelopment of related branches,generating new products and formsof tourism (e.g. Congress tourism,new forms of spa treatment –wellness, and others.).Increase of visitors’ rate by meansof preferring domestic tourism byforeigners and CR citizens (activeway of using holidays, increasingtemperatures in seaside areas,health risks connected withPoor competitiveness of tourism services relatedto insufficient modernisation or missing tourisminfrastructure and insufficient growth of servicesquality.Underestimation of the significance to ensuretransportation serviceability in tourist areas(parking issue, access roads, integrated publictransportation with sufficient interconnectioneven to less populated areas.Decreasing the visitors’ rate in the region due toglobal drop of interest in Europe or due tounpredictable events (terrorism, naturalPage 109 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionexcessive exposure of organism tosolar radiation,…).disasters, crude oil crisis, etc.).Human Resources and Labour MarketStrengthsWeaknessesFavourable age structure of theregion’s population, high percentageinhabitants in productive age.High share of people with basic education.High rate of long-time unemployment.Willingness of people in all the agegroups to everyday learning,demand of young people for higherand higher quality educations.Growth of the number of newlyaccepted students to the secondaryeducation.Poor quality of education system infrastructureas the prerequisite for ensuring sufficientaccessibility to modern ways of educationensuring good competitiveness of graduates inthe labour market.Poor inner mobility of labour force.Insufficient generation of new jobs.Structural imbalance between supply anddemand in the labour market.Reflux of educated young people outside theregion.Missing cooperative system for all-life learningfor adults, language education is not mucheffective.OpportunitiesThreatsImprovement in the competitivenessof the region due to the increase ofthe quality of human resources.Region’s inability to attract direct investmentsdemanding in knowledge and skill of the labourforce.Population growth due to arrival ofeducated and qualified people.Growing structural and long-term unemployment.Ageing population and their unfavourable healthstate, continuing drop in population.Page 110 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionNote: Grey-shaded text denotes identified problems and issues that, due to limitedpossibilities, are not resolved in the Northwest ROP or are just complementary. They may besolved by interventions from thematic operational programmes or from national grant titles.Page 111 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region5 ROP NORTHWEST STRATEGY, OBJECTIVES, AND PRIORITYAXES5.1 BASELINE FOR STRATEGY ELABORATIONThe elaborated strategy follows several principal and authoritative policies, strategies, andprogrammes on both the national and European Community levels that specify generalobjectives of the CR or the EU for the period of 2007 to 2013. These are primarily thefollowing programme and strategic documents representing the basic scope for defining theNorthwest ROP strategy: Community strategic guidelines on cohesion (CSG) – adoptedby the Council Resolution of October 6, 2006 (2006/702/EC)The major objective of this document is to define strategic priorities of the Communitycohesion policy and set up synergy for the Lisbon Strategy implementation. This documentapplies only to those national and regional investment activities and programmes that areco-financed from structural funds and the Cohesion Fund. The CSG identifies areas feasiblefor support, and acceptable activities important for implementing Community priorities. Forthis reason, these are the main strategic directions, on which ROP Northwest strategies arebased. Programmes co-financed through the Cohesion Policy should strive to focusresources on the three following priorities:• Enhancing attractiveness of member states, regions, and cities by improvingtheir accessibility, ensuring an adequate quality and level of services, andsaving their environmental potential;• Supporting innovations, entrepreneurial spirit, and knowledge-based economicgrowth through R&D and innovation capacities, including new informationand communication technologies;• Generating more and better jobs through involving more people inemployment or business, improving the adaptability of people and businesses,and increasing investments into human resources.The CSG does not require a direct acceptance of proposed objectives but, rather, aresponse from national states and their efforts for achieving these objectives that shouldcomply with national policies and activities to be financed from the funds. The CSG is just aframework and directions for elaborating the National Strategic Reference Framework andoperational programmes as documents reflecting the efforts for achieving both nationalobjectives and objectives of the Community respecting the existing socio-economic situationin the region.In direct relation to the CSG, the Northwest ROP strategy takes into account the principles ofthe so-called Lisbon Agenda / Gothenburg Sustainable Development Strategy.Five most important Lisbon measures include opening the service market; reducingadministrative restraints; supporting human capital development; ensuring thegrowth of Science & Research cost state budget chapter; and ensuring the growth ofPage 112 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionemployment up to the 3 % level. It is assumed that all these steps could energizeEuropean economics and Europe’s labour market.At its session in Gothenburg in June 2001, the Council supplemented Lisbon Measures withan environmental dimension leading to forming the Sustainable Development Strategyconcerning four major chapters: climate changes, transportation, public health, and naturalresources.There are many ways how the sustainable development policy may henceforth contributesignificantly to Lisbon priorities. For instance, seeking areas with a high growth potential,areas of employment growth, areas supporting implementation of related strategies and theimproved management, and support for integrated approach to territorial cohesion(creating sustainable communities by ensuring that economic, social, and environmentaldomains are resolved by integrated redefinition, regeneration, and development strategies inboth urbanized and rural areas) belong to these ways.Logical link of the Northwest ROP to the above-characterised programming and strategicdocuments of the European Community is, in addition to focusing on basic definedprinciples, also determined by the link to conceptual and strategic documents on the nationallevel:• 2005 - 2008 National Lisbon Programme (National Reform Programme),Regional Development Strategy, National Development Plan for 2007 - 2013and from these documents the ensuing National Strategy ReferenceFramework primarily belong to major documents in this respect. The CzechNational Reform Programme was elaborated on the basis of methodologiescombining Broad Economic Policy Guidelines and Employment Guidelines in asingle document. The Objective of the programme is to strengthen politicalresponsibility for completing the contents of the Lisbon strategy and to allowthe evaluation of fulfilling reform steps on the Czech Republic’s level.• Macro-economic policy (macro-economic stability and sustainable growth),micro-economic policies (entrepreneurial environment, research anddevelopment, innovations, sustainable utilisation of resources andmodernisation and development of transportation and ICT networks) andemployment policy (flexibility of the labour market, inclusion in the labourmarket and employment) are the major priority areas and the connecting subareas.Czech Republic Sustainable Development Strategy and EconomicGrowth Strategy were used for elaborating this document. Linking the ROPNorthwest to this national document also ensures linking to the mentionedbackground/accessory component concepts.In addition to the mentioned basic conceptual and strategic materials forming the basicstarting framework for defining the Northwest ROP strategy, the following supplementarymaterials were used:• Czech Republic Sustainable Development Strategy (SUR CR) – CR2005 - 2013 Economic Growth Strategy (SHR CR) - Programme, strategicPage 113 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionand conceptual documents of regions - various programme and conceptualdocuments specifying priorities of single regions generally and specifically forsingle component sectors. Beside stated national or all-European conceptualmaterials, these partial regional strategies (Karlovy Vary and Ústí nad LabemTerritorial Development Programmes, Karlovy Vary Transport ServiceabilityConcept, Karlovy Vary Tourism Development Concept, or Ústí nad LabemRegional Innovation Strategy) were the basic starting point for forming theNorthwest ROP strategy. Then, documents focused on the environmentalsector and population’s health, namely the following conceptual materials:Health for 21 st Century; European Environment and Children’s Health ActionPlan; 2004 - 2010 European Union Health Action Plan; Czech Republic Healthand Environment Action Plan (NEHAP), and CR Waste Management Plan(POH ČR), were used as pivotal background documents for elaboratingprimarily horizontal themes within the Northwest ROP.While forming the Northwest ROP strategy (hereinafter “strategy”), the region used and tookinto account priorities and principles specified within the framework of European SpatialDevelopment Perspective (ESDP) and recommendations of the European Commission formember states defines within Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs (2005 – 2008)representing basic guiding recommendations taking into account revised objectives of theLisbon strategy.Also, the evaluation of experience the region gained in realising Joint Regional OperationalProgramme 2004 – 2006 should be mentioned as the underlying background documenttaken into consideration when stipulating principles for elaborating the ROP Northweststrategy.Current methods and models applied in the area of regional policies, primarily emphasisingthe necessity to strengthen factors ensuring competitiveness of the region as a wholenot only in relation to other CR regions, but also in relation to the regions within all ofEurope, were utilised for elaborating the strategy.In current trends, the role of the public sector focuses primarily on stimulation forhigher exploitation of the development potential of regions while removing barriersthat prevent it from being used.In defining proposed interventions, the Northwest ROP strategy starts from generalprinciples of focusing on better use of innovation processes, support for progressivetechnologies, and strengthening inner cohesion of the region along with its cohesion inrelation to other CR regions and neighbouring regions in Germany – all this while respectingprinciples of sustainable development.As already said in the programme’s introduction, the Northwest ROP strategy was developedin discussions of all the engaged regional and national players and is, thus, the commonconsensual output.The strategy directly comes out of a elaborated socio-economic analysis and reflectsidentified problems and needs of the region that ensue from both the historicPage 114 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regiondevelopment in the given territory and current economic trends in the global economy theregion exposes to more intensive competition manifesting itself by a negative impact on boththe region’s economy or single sector branches and its competitiveness in the sphere ofattractiveness for population, entrepreneurs, and visitors.The strategy is not proposed as isolated material but as a complementary instrument comingout of priorities and the strategy of the National Strategic Reference Framework and usesand complements priorities and interventions proposed within single sector (thematic) andterritorial programmes.All this with the objective to utilise the combination of all the available instruments for timelyidentifying weak and problem points and exploit knowledge of actual and anticipated trendsto prevent potential negative impacts of identified problems on the region’s standing in theglobal economy from occurring, primarily by timely directing support into progressive fieldswhile supporting fast transformation and removing present barriers.In this regard, the strategy fully respects and links to the principles and objectives definedwithin the Lisbon strategy and comes out of general principles defined in the NSRF, namely:• Reflecting the openness of the Czech economy and its integration into the EUcommon market;• Directing interventions into the areas with a high growth potential definedfactually and territorially;• Directing support to identified potentials with possible multiplication effect inboth the area of supporting material investments (building infrastructure) andinvestments into the human resources development, supporting improvementof the conditions for R&D development and conditions for higher rate ofinnovations of local entrepreneurs;• Improving management of public affairs, modernisation and enhancedeffectiveness of public services in the CR on all levels;• Supporting the comprehensive concept of territorial cohesion and strategicapproach to the development of local potential, optimising interventions in theterritory and support to sustainability of economic and social structures insingle types of territories (functional regions, micro-regions, urban and ruralareas);• Sustainability of the economic growth tightly connected to improving the levelof the environment;• Complementary consistency with other policies of the Community realised inthe CR as well as with own CR policies.While forming the strategy, the following principles, identified within the NSRF as thefundamental value aspects for the sustainable development in all its dimensions, i.e.economic, social and environmental, were taken into account:Page 115 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region• Economic cohesion, i.e. reducing distinct disparities in the economicperformance among member states and regions as the long-term strategicobjective of the cohesion policy;• Social cohesion as another long-term strategic objective of the cohesion policyfocused on the quality of life for inhabitants;• Territorial cohesion striving for a comprehensive approach to the developmentof the territory;• Equal opportunities for everybody; equality of opportunities for men andwomen mirrors in all the areas where the risk of discrimination of gender, age,race, health condition or religion is potentially present;• Competitiveness connected with modernisation efforts of the EU (Lisbonprocess) apprehended as the instrument of economic and socialtransformation (knowledge economy and knowledge society);• Improving the condition of the environment as the fundamental prerequisite forthe sustainable economic growth and the quality of life for inhabitants.5.2 NORTHWEST ROP STRATEGY OBJECTIVES (NSRF CONTEXT)National Reference Strategy Framework for 2007 - 2013 period stipulates as the globalobjective the transformation of the CR socio-economic environment in accordancewith the principles of sustainable development so that the CR is an attractive placefor realising investments, work and population’s life. Through permanentstrengthening competitiveness, the sustainable development will be achieved withthe objective to reach the EU-25 economic level. The CR will be striving for the growthof employment and for balanced and harmonic development of regions that will leadto increasing the level of the population’s quality of life.To achieve the stipulated objective, the NSRF assumes focusing of interventions primarilyon:• Enhancing the attractiveness of the state and its regions throughdeveloping and improving the infrastructure;• Supporting entrepreneurship, innovations and knowledge economy,strengthening research capacities, technological development, educationactivities, infrastructure for entrepreneurship and innovation network, includingutilising new information technologies;• Generating jobs and enhancing their quality through investments in the birth ofnew activities and development of human resources;• Long-term sustainable development of all three dimensions, i.e.environmental, economic, and social;• Enhancing economic performance of tourism by utilising and furtherdeveloping the available potential.Page 116 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionIn the context of the above-said and in connection with the performed situation analysis ofthe region, it is obvious that there are many serious problems in the Northwest regionthat correspond to the defined objectives, primarily in the labour market, in the process ofadaptation of economy towards higher competitiveness, and in the field of theenvironment quality.The majority of key problems in the region are concentrated in the industrial and heavilyindustrialised territorial belt (“corridor”), created by large towns, urban agglomerationsand the space between them that stretches across the whole region from Cheb to Děčín.Although economically unstable, some of its parts are deeply suppressed and a number ofsocial indicators show extremely negative values here, which leads to significantly difficultliving and working conditions, this highly urbanised territory represents the principaldevelopment axis of the region.Problems of rural (non-urbanised) areas of the region forming primarily the upcountry formany leisure time and recreational activities of the urban population, add to problems ofurbanised centres. Like the urbanised centres of the region, also these areas struggleprimarily with the continuing suppression of production activities accompanied with the lackof work opportunities and a gradual “deterioration” of the local physical, but also thesocial environment, which add to the region’s negative image as a whole.Poor infrastructure facilities, mostly due to historical development, moreoveraugmented by persisting insufficient accessibility of the region and its inner permeability,including connection to the surrounding space not only in the CR, but also in relation to theneighbouring regions in Germany, is then a common problem of all areas in the region.Overall, this situation also affects slower economic activity, higher occurrence of socialproblems and above-average high unemployment, deepening structural problems, anddeterioration of the overall competitiveness of the region.The region’s specifics also prove its identification as the so-called “structurallystricken and economically weak region” recommended for so-called “concentratedstate support”.Taking into account identified problems and basic outputs from the performed situationanalysis and the SWOT analysis, it can be noted that several major factors limit the processof restructuring and further development of the entire region. These factors are as follows:• Negative image of the region’s urbanised town centres that, in its final effect,adversely impacts the reputation and image of the whole region; in the globalperspective, this fact represents one of the most serious barriers to furtherdevelopment of the region, causes migration of population, prevents moresignificant influx of investments from coming into the region, and, last but notleast, discourages visitors to the region;• Poor infrastructure facilities in the territory, primarily in the field of ensuring aneffective and full-valued transportation accessibility and serviceability of thearea, in relation to surrounding regions and in the region’s very inside;Page 117 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region• Insufficient facilities, readiness and ability of the region to use local and supraregionaldevelopment potential, i.e. the potential for e.g. development oftourism and potential ensuing from the region’s location on the Prague –Dresden international axis.5.3 REGION TRANSFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENTFRAMEWORK STRATEGYIn the context of the presented summary of strategic problems, the Northwest regionpointed out the following priorities for its further development:1. Development of human resources, social care, health care and the labourmarketAll analyses and studies performed show that the quality and development of humanresources is the primary problem of the region. Although conditional investments,such as the environment mentioned below, the infrastructure or quality of the urbanenvironment, are needed for the solution of the overall problem, human resourcesrepresent the region’s basic development basis in all their aspects. The basicpriorities of the basis primarily are as follows:- Enhancing adaptability of employers and employees to changes in economic andtechnical conditions;- Supporting the development of education (introduction of modern methods andapproaches, adaptation of the system to the needs of the labour market) andgenerating new jobs;- Developing social and health care infrastructure and related transformation andrestructuring in the field of social and health care;- Integration of persons endangered by the social exclusion;- In the NSRF context, it is evident that the ROP Northwest can play mostly thecoordination and complementary role in the field of human resources. To realisethe activity, resources from the OP LZZ within the Adaptability axis, in the field ofnon-investment support to education then resources from the Education forCompetitiveness OP, should be used. In the social field, the support to thetransformation of staying social services will cohere with the IOP. Then, theNorthwest ROP will primarily play the supporting role in building the infrastructurein the field of human resources development and focused on “investments”consisting in renewal of the physical infrastructure.2. Industry, entrepreneurship and economic developmentThe field of the support for entrepreneurship, industry and economic development isthe related field representing the environment for activation of the contingent humanpotential. Major activities in this field should be primarily focused on the following:Page 118 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region• Development of small and medium-sized entrepreneurship (SME);• Revitalisation of industrial facilities and new investments from scratch;• Interconnection of the R&D with the production sphere and the support tocreating and developing new technological centres.Like in the previous field, the ROP Northwest may even here and in the NSRF contextprimarily play the supporting role and help create a favourable environment forentrepreneurship mostly by enhancing the physical environment in towns as well as in thecountryside and by supporting the development of the conditional infrastructure, e.g. in thefield of transportation in towns and interconnection of the region to surrounding areas. In thecontext of the mentioned activities, the support in the field of entrepreneurship should berealised primarily within the OP Enterprise and Innovation representing the primaryinstrument for the given domain, for which the support to revitalisation of unused industrialzones and the support to creating conditions for the investments influx into the region isprimarily assumed.3. Environment, renewable energy sources (RES)The support for transformation and improvement of the region’s environment is thekey success factor for all priorities. It includes the following:• Removing old burdens;• Revitalisation and reclamation of territories afflicted by mining;• Protection and renewal of natural areas and elements in the landscape;• Reducing emissions in air pollution sources and improvement of wasteutilisation (or generally renewable energy sources);• Introducing more effective methods in waste liquidation.In the broader context, the OP Environment resolves problems of the environment within the“Improvement of the air quality and reduction of emission” priority 2. Removal of oldecological burdens is also resolved within the OP Environment; revitalisation of brownfieldsthen falls under the OP Enterprise and Innovation (further use primarily forentrepreneurship), or under the Programme for Rural Development (hereinafter as PRV)(agricultural use), whereas the ROP Northwest will support regeneration of brownfields forpublic use and utilisation. The support for the utilisation of renewable energy sources (RES)is, in the NSRF context, resolved within more programmes. These are primarily the OPEnvironment (“Sustainable utilisation of energy sources” – exploiting the RES andsecondary energy sources, maximising energetic and electro-magnetic efficiency andpromoting energy savings), then the PRV extending the intervention also to rural areas withpopulation up to 500 or 2000 (development of decentralised facilities for processing andutilising renewable fuel and energy sources – biomass or biogas), and the OP Enterpriseand Innovation (priority axis 3 – Effective energy, the support field 3.3.1 Energy savings andPage 119 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionRES; the support to entrepreneurial activities in the field of energy savings and renewable orsecondary energy sources).Also national programmes of the support for revitalising the surface mining aftermath in theregion, focusing on reclaiming the region’s unused surface mines and preparing the futuredevelopment land for both potential localities for the influx of foreign investments – link tothe OP Enterprise and Innovation, and development of tourism financed within both the IOPand the ROP Northwest, which should play the key role in supporting the tourisminfrastructure, are the specific source of resources whose outputs and results the ROP areconnected to the Northwest.4. Transport, technical infrastructureThe results of the analysis show that the historic development in the region not only broughtsignificant problems to it in the field of the structure and quality of human resources, but alsofully neglected infrastructures in the territory where any investments were limited to anabsolute minimum due to the near-border defensive strategy. The transportationinfrastructure along with additional needed technical infrastructure then represent the basiccondition for further development of all the related fields, starting with human resources andcontinuing with entrepreneurship to the environment field where a more effectivetransportation system may bring reduction in local emissions caused by the excessiveoverloading the selected road routes.The major priorities in this field thus focus on the support to the development of thetransportation infrastructure of the regional and supra-regional importance in the frame ofwhich the reconstruction and modernisation of Class I to III roads (improving interconnectionof the region’s centres and their accessibility from peripheral areas) should be primarilysupported, and then the problem-solving efforts in transport should focus on themodernisation of railway network and significant railway junctions, the modernisation ofairports and expanding the air transport, improving navigation conditions in the Labe River,and the throughput of the border towards the FRG.Activities related to the development of the integrated transportation system (region’s IDS,the modernisation of the information and passenger check-out systems) focus primarily onhigher quality of the overall mobility of the population and ensuring the development of thetransportation serviceability. The development of the cyclist infrastructure as the equivalentmeans of the territory’s transportation service is then a part of the area of enhancing thequality of transportation.In relation to the development of technical infrastructure, the support should then focusprimarily on building, reconstructing and expanding sewage systems and ČOVs, improvingwater supplying, and developing energetic systems.The OP Transport, to which the ROP Northwest connects with ensuring the interconnectionof the region and its centres to supra-national transportation networks under construction,whereas the interface between the ROP Northwest and the OP Transport is given primarilyby the importance of projects from the national point of view (when the OP Transportresolves building and modernising the infrastructure of the all-state significance – Class Iroads, motorways and speedways), primarily resolves the problem issues in the region. InPage 120 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionthe framework of the infrastructure development, the ROP Northwest is complementary tothe PRV (civic facilities in communes with population up to 500/2,000) and to the OPEnvironment (greenery in residential and rural areas of communes, local communications,sewage systems). In connection to analyses performed, it is evident that the ROP Northwestshould primarily focus on the field of technical infrastructure with the primary objective toenhance quality, extend, and modernise the local infrastructure assuming that theseactivities are part of the comprehensive solution of the transformation of the physicalenvironment in towns or integrated territorial complexes (micro-regions or conurbations).5. Tourism, spa industry, culture and historical monuments careIn connection to the field of support to entrepreneurship and economic development, thesupport to tourism, where the major priorities focus on the field of modernising and buildingbasic and supporting infrastructures of tourism, creating and supporting regional productsand strengthening their unified marketing), plays the significant role in the region. Thesupport to the development of the spa industry is primarily directed to the southwest part,per contra, the support in the northwest part is directed to utilising natural wealth (or,eventually, to reusing the revitalised area in the brown coal basins in relation to tourism) andthe NATURA 2000 localities. In the sphere of culture and historical monuments care, theproblems of renewing historical monuments and their using, or including into in the tourisminfrastructure, are solved as well as the corresponding support to cooperation amongcultural institutions and subjects in tourism.In the context of the NSRF and the hitherto development of support to proposed priorities, itis evident that, in addition of the support from the ROP Northwest, the IOP interventions(systems projects of the supra-regional and supra-national importance) or the PRVinterventions (recreational infrastructure for low-capacity accommodation, services forspecific branches of tourism – such as hiking, cycling, water tourism etc.) could be used incase of specific projects. Regarding the region’s localisation towards neighbouring EUmember states (FRG), it is also possible to consider the potential for supporting thedevelopment of tourism in the programmes of European territorial cooperation, specificallythen, in the CR-Bavaria Cross-border Cooperation OP and the CR-Saxony Cross-BorderCooperation OP, in which the region primarily assumes the focus on common use of thepotential in areas where the cross-border products could be created.6. Countryside and agriculture developmentThe problem issues of the countryside represent an equally important area influencing theregion’s development and representing the key background for the development of majorregion’s centres in both the form of settlement and the form of recreational function.Activities in this area focus primarily on improving living, social and cultural conditions of thecountryside population, stabilising and developing small settlement under 5,000, enhancingthe competitiveness of agriculture (introduction of new production technologies, utilisation ofland also for non-agricultural activities, support to the agro-tourism and maintenance of thelandscape etc.), or the permanent care of the landscape and revitalisation of mountainareas.Page 121 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionIn the NSRF context, the PRV will primarily focus on supporting activities. Regarding theaforementioned, the ROP Northwest should primarily resolve the development of settlementstructures sized 500/2,000-5,000 in focusing on support for even coverage of the region witha quality infrastructure for developing human resources or the support to integrateddevelopment aimed to the revitalisation of the physical environment of rural communes.5.4 NORTHWEST ROP STRATEGY GLOBAL AND SPECIFICOBJECTIVESIn virtue of these findings, considering the above-stated starting points and principles of theROP Northwest possibilities in the context of the set NSRF strategy, the strategy sets forththe following global objective for the ROP Northwest:Northwest ROP global objectiveEnhancing the quality of the physical environment and transformation of theeconomic and social structure of the region as the prerequisite for enhancing theattractiveness of the region for investments, entrepreneurship and life of thepopulation. Through the region’s attractiveness quality enhancement, the region willconverge to the average level of the CR/EU socio-economic development.Generating the environment for entrepreneurship and investment in the region and, thus,contributing the region’s convergence to the EU/CR development standards (average level)is the major purpose of the ROP Northwest global objective.The overall convergence (region’s transformation and approximation to the EU average) willsurely be influenced by a number of other factors, such as the support to entrepreneurship,influx of investments etc., the other programmes and policies focus on.In this context, the ROP Northwest stands as a complementary programme to the thematicOPs and the PRV it connects to, purposefully complements them, and so helps increase theefficiency of outputs and impacts of these programmes.Regarding the nature of the territory and specifics of single identified problems of the region,the significant territorial differentiation is assumed in their solving with the focus on:• Enhancing the attractiveness of the region through the development andenhancement of the quality of infrastructure;• Ensuring conditions for the long-term sustainable development of all threedimensions, i.e. environmental, economic, and social (the integrated localdevelopment);• Enhancing the economic performance of tourism.In the context of the above-stated principles and policies and considering the principle ofcomplementarity of the ROP Northwest to interventions of other thematic programmes (thesupport to entrepreneurship, development of human resources, infrastructure and theenvironment, science, research, and innovations), and the PRV, the strategy proposes toPage 122 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionachieve the global objective the realisation of targeted investments that will help startup the process of gradual adaptation and modernisation primarily of urban centres ofthe region as the basic areas with the development potential the entire region will benefitfrom.This approach will ensure a tangible change that will impact positively also the enhancementof the overall image and the enhancement of the region’s competitiveness.Along with the regeneration of the physical and social environments, the interventionswill focus on enhancing the inner and outer accessibility of the region and itstransportation service ability so that all inhabitants of and visitors to the region couldbenefit from. The ROP Northwest support focused on the enhancement of the accessibilityand serviceability will create, in connection to the assumed development of supra-regionaltransportation networks within the OP Transport, conditions for higher mobility of thepopulation (including the labour force) also for the development of entrepreneurialactivities in the region and, consequently, it will bring benefits in improving the living andworking conditions of people.To ensure adequate condition for the development of urbanised centres of the region, it isnecessary to focus the interventions, in addition to ensuring the sufficient accessibility andinterconnectivity and the regeneration of the physical environment, also on restructuringand modernising their rear background formed primarily by non-urbanised ruralareas. Therefore, the strategy proposes to focus a part of interventions on the developmentof non-urbanised parts of the region with the primary objective to create conditions for thedevelopment of public facilities and services of these areas along with support for thedevelopment of local communities and public initiatives. All this with the objective to createthe environment allowing a higher use of the local potentials or the potentials of theeconomic centres of the region for the development of these rural areas.For exploiting the local and regional potentials for the development primarily of nonurbanisedareas of the region, but also for the development of its selected economic centres,the strategy also focuses on targeted interventions aiming at the creation of conditions forthe development of tourism and the spa industry. The development of tourism should,nevertheless, contribute to both creating jobs in the rural areas of the region and the higherdiversification of the economic base and, thus, also to the enhancement of the overallcompetitiveness of the region. At the same time, the support for tourism will contribute toachieving a better image of the region.In this context, the specific objectives of the programme were defined as follows:Specific Objective I – Modern and attractive towns representing the principal drivingforce of the region’s developmentSpecific Objective II – Rural areas utilising the local and regional potentials forensuring full-fledged life of the populationSpecific Objective III – Accessible region allowing the effective mobility of itspopulationPage 123 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region6 PRIORITY AXES OF THE ROP NORTHWESTFor the completion of the stipulated global objective and individual specific objectives withrespect to identified problems and major principles of the regional development support, theROP Northwest strategy defines the following 5 priority axes:• P1 Urban Regeneration and Development• P2 Integrated Support of Local Development• P3 Accessibility and Transport Serviceability• P4 Sustainable Development of Tourism• P5 Technical AssistanceThe single priority axes are not separated; they form a mutually interconnected systemwhose implementation as a whole will contribute to the required changes in the region.Therefore, the application of the concentrated principle is the most important aspect of theROP Northwest. In addition to geographic concentration, however, it will also be necessaryto concentrate work efforts (i.e. assure a certain level of integration) so that the resources tobe spent are always aimed at the comprehensive solution of identified problems in a specificpart of the region.Thus, financial resources should be focused as much as possible on strategic investmentsbringing significant benefits, particularly in urban areas, or they should form the base forcreating conditions of further continuation of the transformation and development process.This applies first of all to activities of the local development where single investments,usually having a smaller extent, will be directed to starting up the local initiatives aimed atthe gradual development of these areas.The integrated approach will have to be initiated and introduced gradually. Activities withinthe Priority Axes 1 and 2 are therefore designed and ordered in the manner securing thatindividual participants in the development process will have to cooperate after some time onactivities with a larger impact. Financial resources are not sufficient to cover the wholeterritory and the support to a large number of small projects would lead to fragmentation ofresources, which would not bring real benefit. Therefore, it is necessary, particularly in urbanareas, to observe a systemic and concentrated approach to resolving several priorityprojects whose implementation will bring the required result.This process will not be easy; it will put significant demand on behaviour of individuals andinstitutions. However, it is crucial and requires active management and also application ofnew skills and approaches. These are important aspects of the regional development andcompetitiveness on which this programme is focused.To support this process, the programme stipulates the Priority Axis 5 - Technical Assistancehaving the objective not only to assist the overall programme management, but also helpchange the approach of individual regional players to the overall region development,Page 124 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionstarting up strategic regional and local partnerships and supporting their furtherdevelopment.The following graphical presentation shows the mutual interconnection and the innerstructure of the programme:Picture 2 - Bindings between the objectives and priority axes of the ROP NorthwestEnhancing the quality of the physical environment and transformation of the economic and social structureof the region as the prerequisite for enhancing the attractiveness of the region for investments,entrepreneurship and life of the population. Through the region’s attractiveness quality enhancement, theregion will converge to the average level of the CR/EU socio-economic developmentSpecific Objective I – Modern andattractive towns representing theprincipal driving force of theregion’s developmentSpecific Objective II – Ruralareas utilising the local andregional potentials for ensuringfull-fledged life of the populationSpecific Objective III –Accessible region allowing theeffective mobility of itspopulationPriority P1Priority P2Priority P3Priority P4Urban regeneration anddevelopmentIntegrated support of localdevelopmentAccessibility and transportserviceabilitySustainable developmentof tourismMain objective of thepriority:Increasing the quality of thephysical environment ofurbanized parts of the regionMain objective of thepriority:Stimulation and balanceddevelopment of rural areasand their communities byimplementing targetedintegrated projectsMain objective of thepriority:Improving the connection of theregion to surrounding areas,securing efficient internalinterconnection and its efficienttransport accessibilityMain objective of thepriority:Utilizing the natural andcultural potential forsustainable development oftourism in the regionPriority P5Technical assistancePage 125 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region6.1 RELATION OF THE ROP PRIORITY AXES TO HIGHER LEVELDOCUMENTS6.1.1 RELATION OF THE ROP NORTHWEST TO THE BASIC ORSOURCE DOCUMENTSIn its basic principle, the ROP Northwest strategy comes out of general principles andguidelines stipulated in the National Strategic Reference Framework, the CommunityStrategic Guidelines (CSG) and other directive documents on both the European Communitylevel and the national level.In this context, the ROP Northwest relates primarily to the CSG where all the priority axesfulfil especially the CSG priority of increasing attractiveness of member states, regions, andtowns in relation to modernisation and development of transport infrastructure andimplementation of measures whose objective is to build up a modern, attractive andeconomically developed region.In order to obtain a more detailed overview, the following part of the ROP Northwestprovides a brief description of the programme links to individual key strategic or conceptualmaterials on which the ROP strategy is based or whose strategy it helps fulfil.The link of the ROP to the CSGThe main basis for defining the strategy of utilization of financial means from the EUStructural Funds in the 2007 – 2013 programme period are the Community StrategicGuidelines 2007 – 2013 (CSG). In accordance with the General Regulation, this documentspecifies strategic priorities of the European Community for the cohesion policy for thepurpose of reinforcement of the Lisbon Strategy implementation.For the 2007 – 2013 period, the EU cohesion policy will focus on the following priorities:1. Increasing of attractiveness of member states, regions and towns throughimprovement of their accessibility, provision of the appropriate quality andstandard of services, and environment protection.2. Support of innovation, entrepreneurial spirit and knowledge-based economicgrowth through capacities for research and innovations, including new informationand communication technologies.3. Generation of more and better jobs through involvement of a larger number ofpeople in employment or enterprising, improvement of adaptability of workers andcompanies, and increasing of investments in the human capital.Table 51 – Links of the priority axes and areas of support of the ROP Northwest to thepriorities of the Community Strategic GuidelinesArea of support 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 2.1. 2.2. 3.1. 3.2. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 5.1. 5.2.1. Europe and European regions more attractive to investors and workersExtension and improve- x x x x xx xx x xPage 126 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionArea of support 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 2.1. 2.2. 3.1. 3.2. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 5.1. 5.2.ment of transport infrastructuresStrengthening of synergybetween environment x x x x x xx xxprotection and growthSolution of intensive utilizationof traditionalpower resources inxx xxEurope2. Knowledge improvement and innovations for growthTo increase and improvetargeting of investmentsin research and technologicaldevelopmentTo facilitate innovationsand to support entrepreneurialspiritTo support the informationsociety for everyonexxTo improve access to fin-xx xx xx x xance3. Generation of more and better jobsTo employ more people,to secure their continuancein employment a tomodernize social protectionsystemsTo enhance adaptabilityof workers and companies,and flexibility of labourmarketsTo increase investmentsin the human capitalthrough better educationand improvement ofskillsx x x x x x x xx xx xxAdministration capacity x xx xTo help retain healthy labourx xxforceNote: x – weak link, xx – strong link1. There is a direct relation between the first guideline of the CSG “Europe andEuropean regions more attractive to investors and workers“ and particularly the thirdspecific objective (Priority Axis 3) of the ROP Northwest consisting in securing of theregion accessibility in terms of effective development of the transport infrastructureand mobility of inhabitants of the region, which is an essential prerequisite ofeconomic development and enhancement of productivity through facilitation ofmovement of persons and goods. The first guideline also reflects the first specificobjective of the ROP Northwest represented by the Priority Axis 1 (UrbanRegeneration and Development) and partially also by Priority Axes 2 (IntegratedSupport of Local Development) and 4 (Sustainable Development of Tourism).2. In the context of the ROP Northwest, the second guideline of the CSG “KnowledgeImprovement and Innovations for Growth” is mostly represented through the supportPage 127 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionof the regeneration of the physical environment of towns that will indirectly contributeto improvement of the overall business environment in the region.3. In relation to the specific objectives of the ROP Northwest, the third guideline of theCSG is manifested particularly by interconnection with the first or the second specificobjective. Within the scope of individual areas of support of Priority Axes 1 and 2, theemphasis will be laid also on support of activities whose indirect final result shouldprimarily be the generation of new (“more and better”) jobs (support of tourism),enhancement of the labour force adaptability to changes of economic conditions, orquality improvement of education of the population (support of the infrastructure inthe area of human resources).4. Within the scope of the CSG, priority Technical Assistance is reflected in theguideline “Creation of more and better jobs”, specifically in axis “AdministrativeCapacity“ with indirect impact that should not be only support of a larger number ofprojects but also more strategic thinking of the town in the region, larger utilization ofan integrated approach to problem solving and application of the concentrationprinciple during their funding.Link of the ROP to the Lisbon Strategy or the National Programme of Reformsof the Czech RepublicIn addition to the link to the CSG, the ROP Northwest is connected also with the abovestated “Lisbon objectives“. The revision of the Lisbon Agenda, which came out from its ongoingevaluation is oriented form the achievement of higher growth of economy and higherrate of employment following the principles of sustainable development.The National Programme of Reforms of CR was elaborated on the basis of the new LisbonStrategy which is projected in the Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs (2005 - 2008)which was adopted by European Council in June 2005. ROP Northwest is connected withthe National Reform Programme of the CR realizing the Lisbon Strategy as follows:Table 52 – Links of the priority axes and areas of support of the ROP Northwest to the prioritiesof the Lisbon Strategy or the National Programme of Reforms of the Czech RepublicArea of support 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 2.1. 2.2. 3.1. 3.2. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 5.1. 5.2.Macroeconomic stabilityand sustainablegrowthEntrepreneurial environmentx xResearch and development,and innovationsx xSustainable utilizationof resourcesx x xx xxxModernization and developmentof transport xx xx xx x xxx xxxand ICT networksFlexibility of the labourmarketx xIntegration in the labour x x x x x x xPage 128 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionArea of support 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 2.1. 2.2. 3.1. 3.2. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 5.1. 5.2.marketEducation xxx x xxNote: x – weak link, xx – medium link, xxx – strong linkROP Northwest supports the objectives of the new Lisbon Strategy in areas of increasing theattractiveness of the Northwest cohesion region territory for the enterprise, especiallyimprovement of the regional transport infrastructure and accessibility of the particular areasof the region and regeneration of the environment in cities. Further it contribute to improvethe conditions in education, including the lifelong learning and improvement of thehealthcare and social care by building the infrastructure of such services.Priority axis P1 – Urban regeneration and development directly participate in support ofdevelopment of the ICT, expansion of the access to the secondary and university education.Priority axis P2 – Integrated support of local development will assist the realization of NPR,especially the support of development of the ICT and a rational use of sources.Priority axis P3 – Accessibility and Transport serviceability is connected with the NPR areaModernization and development of transport and ICT networks, establishing of the intelligenttraffic control and street traffic systems, increasing the share of the railway on the transportmarket and increasing of the territorial mobility.Priority axis 4 – Sustainable development of tourism is secondarily aimed at the area ofeconomic activation, sustainable development in rural areas.The indirect connection is between the priority axes ROP P1 – Urban regeneration anddevelopment and P2 – Integrated support of local development and the priority areas intenton enterprises of National Lisbon Programme.Table 53 - Connections of the priority axes and areas of interventions to the selected areas ofNational Reform Programme of the CRPRIORITY AXES OF ROP NORTHWESTArea of NationalProgramme of ReformsPriority axis P1 –Urbanregeneration anddevelopmentPriority axis P2 –Integrated supportof localdevelopmentPriority axis P3 –Accessibility andTransportserviceabilityPriority axis 4 –Sustainabledevelopment oftourismEARMARKINGMaximise energetic andmaterial effectiveness andrational use of resourcesModernise and developtransport networksIntroduce intelligent systemsfor transport and trafficcontrolIncrease the share of railwayx x x xxxxxxxxCode 52(P1)Code 29(P3)Code 28(P3)Page 129 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regiontransport on the transportmarket and developcombined transportPromote effectivedevelopment and use of ICTIncrease geographicalmobilityPromote equal opportunitiesfor women and men on thelabour marketImprove the access to postsecondarytechnical andtertiary educationPromote cooperationbetween employers,employees and educationaland professional institutionsPromote continuingeducation in firmsxxxxx x xxxx x xx x xIncrease information literacy x x xxxCode 11(P1, P2)Note: x – medium to weak link, xx – strong linkIn the ROP Northwest were defined the categories of expenditure (Priority themes) 11, 28,29 and 52 for earmarking of EUR 42 982 601 in total, which represents 5,76 % of the totalERDF allocation of the ROP of EUR 745 911 021. The information on the total indicative splitfor earmarking by the categories of expenditure of the ERDF contribution on the ROPNorthwest according to Art. 37, Paragraph 1 (d) of the General Provision, are defined in thefollowing table:Table 54 - Codes of categiories of expenditures within the frame of earmarkingCode Priority themes11 Information and communication technologies (access, security,interoperability, risk-prevention, research, innovation, e-content, etc.)Amount13 628 78828 Intelligent transport systems 3 903 23029 Airports 5 209 34952 Promotion of clean urban transport 20 241 234In total for all priority axes – earmarking 42 982 601Total ERDF contribution on ROP Northwest 745 911 021Earmarking: per cent out of the total amount of all Priority axes 5,76The Northwest coherence region is eligible for financing within the Convergence Objective.According to Article 9 of the General Provision should those member states which joined theEU before the 1 st May 2004 ensure 60 % of expenditures within the Convergence Objectivewere determined for the EU priorities supporting competitiveness and jobs creation,including fulfilment of the Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs. This obligation is notmandatory for the Czech Republic, because it joined to the EU after the 1 st May 2004.Page 130 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionNevertheless the Czech Republic undertook to the earmarking by the official letter deliveredto the EK on the 4 th July 2007.Reasons why the earmarking interventions share on the total allocation of the EU is only5,76 % are: Interventions in the Research and Technological Development area are out of thescope of the Regional Operational Programmes. For reasons of effectiveness it is above all the OP PI, which supports innovation andentrepreneurship in regions. Fro reasons of effectiveness are the information and communication technologies inthe regions co-financed mainly from IOP. TEN-T are co-financed from the OP D. From the reason of effectiveness are the interventions connected with renewableenergy resources and energetic efficiency co-financed from the OP ŽP. Measures connected with the improve access to employment and sustainableparticipation, increasing the human capital and improving the social integration ofdisadvantaged persons are primarily co-financed prom the OP VK and OP LZZ.During the implementation of the ROP Northwest the MA should prefer those projects, whichfall into the interventions within earmarking.Link of the ROP to the Regional Development Strategy of the Czech RepublicVery tight connections can also be found between the ROP and the CR RegionalDevelopment Strategy. The ROP P1 priority axis – Urban Regeneration and Developmentand P2 - Integrated Support of Local Development directly link to the following priority areasof the Regional Development Strategy (SRR): Regional Economy supporting creation ofconditions for a dynamic economic growth of the territory, and the priority area People andSettlement focused on the support to the settlement structure and living. In connection withthe P1 of the ROP, there is also an interconnection with the support of urban regenerationand development. Priority Axis P3 – Accessibility and Transport Serviceability of the ROPdirectly links to the SRR priority Infrastructure that supports securing of transportaccessibility in the area. Another priority axis, the ROP P4 Sustainable Development ofTourism directly comes out of the SRR priority area aimed at development and support oftourism.As it is obvious from the described links, the ROP Northwest strategy is particularly aimed atcomplementary measures increasing efficiency and effectiveness of implemented or plannedsector interventions proposed within individual sector (thematic) OPs.Link of the ROP to the CR Economic Growth StrategyThe objective of the Economic Growth Strategy is to approximate the Czech Republicconsiderably to the economic standard of the European Union countries that are moredeveloped in economic terms. Measured using the GDP per capita indicator, the country isable to reach the EU average in 2013.Page 131 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionIn order to achieve this objective, the CR should focus public funds on support of productsand services with a high added value and making its environment more attractive tosecure retaining of domestic companies and influx of new ones from abroad. In thefinal consequence, the jobs generated this way will have a positive effect on the increasingthe standard of living of all inhabitants.The Economic Growth Strategy (hereinafter referred to also as SHR) is a strategy ofpriorities. Therefore it neither solves nor addresses all the problems or defects.Within the scope of its five priority areas, and in addition to branch approaches, the strategyendeavours after balanced regional economic development focused on activation ofinsufficiently utilized potential and support of economic development of the regions, aswell as on reduction of inter-regional disparities and on help to economically weaker areasthat would not be able to manage the changes in the economic and social structure on theirown. The objective is to overcome the trend of emphasising regional disparities and toprevent the generation of new imbalances in the branch and regional structure of theeconomy that would otherwise require further massive reallocation of funds in the followingperiod. Balanced regional development is one of horizontal principles and is reflected in allfive priority areas defined in the Strategy.Within the scope of its strategy, the ROP Northwest intentionally focuses on selected areasof the Economic Growth Strategy of the Czech Republic in the following structure:Table 55 – Links of the priority axes and areas of support of the ROP Northwest to thepriorities of the Economic Growth Strategy of the Czech RepublicArea of support 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 2.1. 2.2. 3.1. 3.2. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 5.1. 5.2.Institutional environmentfor entrepreneurshipX xx xFinancing resources xInfrastructure X x x x x xx xxHuman resources developmentX x xx xxScience, research andinnovationsX x x x x xNote: x – weak link, xx – strong linkLink of the ROP Northwest to the National Strategic Reference Framework CR2007 - 2013In the overall context, the ROP Northwest is the major programme differentiated in territorialterms, being focused on the creation of conditions for elimination of intra-regional disparitiesin the region through using mutual complementarity with the interventions of sector OPs.Thus, the ROP directly fulfils priorities defined within the NSRF scope for the area ofterritorial development and balanced development of regions.Achievement of the IV. Strategic objective Balanced Territorial Development is conditionedby the key links to the other strategic objectives through the regional dimension of therespective thematic programmes:Page 132 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region• to the I. Strategic objective Competitive Czech Economy through creation ofopportunities for enterprising in the regions with less developed entrepreneurialexposure and outside of regional centres, and through intensification of links amongentrepreneurs and regions and municipalities,• to the II. Strategic objective Open, Flexible and Cohesive Society throughdevelopment of local communities, stabilisation of settlements outside the majorgrowth centres, emphasising of improvement of the population education andemployability in the disadvantaged regions,• to the III. Strategic objective Attractive Environment through improvement of livingconditions and accessibility in the disadvantaged regions.The key links of strategic objectives must include the link to the strategic objective Revival ofRural Areas (financed from the EAFRD), whereas the clear interface of interventions issecured.With its focus, the ROP Northwest directly links to the following NSRF priorities:• Sustainable development of tourism (Strategic objective I)• Improvement of accessibility via transportation (Strategic objective III)• Development of urban areas (Strategic objective IV)• Development of rural areas (Strategic objective IV)Page 133 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTable 56- Links of the priority axes and areas of support of the ROP Northwest to the prioritiesof the NSRF of the Czech Republic 2007-2013Area of support 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 2.1. 2.2. 3.1. 3.2. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 5.1. 5.2.Strategic objective I Competitive Czech EconomyCompetitive entrepreneurialsectorx xSupport of research anddevelopment capacitiesfor innovationsSustainable developmentof tourism and utilizationof the cultural assetsxx xx xxpotentialStrategic objective II Open, Flexible and Cohesive SocietyEducation xx xxEnhancement of employmentand employabilityx x x xStrengthening of socialcohesionx xxInformation society de-xx xvelopmentSmart administrationStrategic objective III Attractive EnvironmentProtection and qualityimprovement of environmentx x x x x xx xxImprovement of accessibilityvia transportx xx xxStrategic objective IV Balanced Territorial DevelopmentBalanced developmentof regionsx x x x x x x x x xBalanced developmentof urban areasxx xx xx xx xx x x xDevelopment of ruralareasxx xx x x x x xNote: x – weak link, xx – strong linkThe ROP Northwest directly links to the priority Sustainable Development of Tourism (NSRFStrategic objective 1) through Priority Axis P4 – Sustainable Development of Tourism; thereis also a secondary link through Priority Axes P1 – Urban Regeneration and Developmentand Priority Axis P2 – Integrated Support of Local Development. The link is related to thepriority axis focus on support of sustainable development of the existing tourist attractions,creation and offer of products, programmes and activities of regional and supra-regionalimportance that will be attractive for domestic and foreign tourists, etc.Through its Priority Axis P3 – Accessibility and Transportation Serviceability, the ROPNorthwest directly links to the third NSRF strategic objective, or to the Improvement ofAccessibility via Transportation priority aimed at development and modernisation of transportinfrastructure. Secondary links exist between this NSRF priority area and the ROP PriorityAxes P1 – Urban Regeneration and Development, P2 – Integrated Support of LocalDevelopment, and P4 – Sustainable Development of Tourism.There is the direct link between the Development of Urban Areas priority of the fourth NSRFstrategic objective and the Priority Axis P1 – Urban Regeneration and Development of thePage 134 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionROP, specifically in the area aimed at strengthening the role of towns as accelerators ofgrowth and development of the region.Another direct link exists between the Development of Rural Areas priority of the fourthNSRF strategic objective which supports sustainable development of rural areas, and theROP priority axis P2 – Integrated Support of Local Development.With its priority axes P1 – Urban Regeneration and Development and P2 – IntegratedSupport of Local Development, the ROP Northwest indirectly also links to the first NSRFstrategic objective Competitive Entrepreneurial Sector priority. The harmony lies in the focuson increasing the motivation for enterprising by creating an offer of advantaged financingand services for starting and operating business activities; within its framework, support willbe also provided to the process of establishing, operating, and further developingentrepreneurial infrastructure.The ROP Priority Axes P1 – Urban Regeneration and Development and P2 – IntegratedSupport of Local Development have, within the framework of revitalisation of the physicalinfrastructure renewal for HRE, a direct link to the Education priority that is a part of thesecond NSRF - Open, Flexible and Cohesive Society strategic objective.Another secondary link runs between the ROP priority axes and the second NSRF strategicobjective through Priority Axes P1 – Urban Regeneration and Development and P2 –Integrated Support of Local Development and the Enhancement of Employment andEmployability priority focused primarily on improving the attitude towards employment andprevention of unemployment through effectively aimed and modernised instruments of thelabour market active policy, and on support of the intervention aimed at the improving thequality of information, consulting, educating, mediating and other services provided by thelabour market institutions, particularly in connection with modernisation, completion, andadjustment of the necessary infrastructure.There is a secondary link between Priority Axis P2 – Integrated Support of LocalDevelopment and the Strengthening of Social Cohesion priority, primarily in connection withthe area of strengthening social cohesion, and in the area of equal access to the demandand supply of information and communication technology.A secondary link between Priority Axis P1 – Urban Regeneration and Development and theBalanced Regional Development priority of the fourth strategic objective is created throughthe support of balanced development of regions, decreasing disparities on the socioeconomiclevel among and within the cohesion regions while respecting and utilising theirsocial, economic and cultural specifics.There is a direct link between the Balanced Regional Development Priority and priority axisP3 Accessibility and Transport Serviceability.Links of the ROP Northwest to other operational programmesThe ROP Northwest links to thematic operational programmes implemented in the CzechRepublic in the 2007 - 2013 programme period are shown in the following table.Page 135 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionThe description of the ROP Northwest coordination with the other operational programmesand with the NSRF is provided in Chapter 10 Implementing Measures.OPFocus of the priority axesOP Transport - General – AccessibilityOP Environment - General improvement of theenvironmentOP Education for Competitiveness - Initial education- Tertiary education, research &development- Further educationOP Human Resources and Employment - Adaptability- Labour market active policies- Social integration and equalopportunities- Public administration and publicservicesIntegrated Operational Programme - National support of tourism- Improving quality and accessibility ofpublic services- Public administration modernization- National support of territorialdevelopmentOP Enterprise and Innovations - Environment for enterprising andinnovations- Business development servicesOP Research & Development for Innovations - Research & development capacitiesdevelopment6.2 CROSS-SECTIONAL OBJECTIVES OF THE ROP NORTHWESTSTRATEGYThe issue of horizontal themes permeating all the European Union programmes andpolicies, as well as the Structural Funds assisted programmes, including the ROPNorthwest, will focus on two horizontal priorities given by Council Regulation (EC) No.1083/2006 and by the Community Strategic Guidelines. These are equal opportunitiespursuant to Article 16 of the General Regulation (“Equality between men and women andnon-discrimination“) and sustainable development pursuant to Article 17 of the GeneralRegulation (“Sustainable development“). The priority axes defined in the ROP Northwestcontribute within the scope of their specific possibilities to the achievement of thesehorizontal objectives.Page 136 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionHorizontal priorities are included into the ROP Northwest and the documents arising fromthis ROP, such as the Implementing Document, Operation Manual etc. These priorities willbe taken into account in selection of projects so that the applicants are motivated to submitprojects having a neutral, but rather a positive effect on them.Equal Opportunities horizontal themeEqual opportunities principle means combating discrimination on the basis of gender, race,ethnic origin, religious beliefs, faith, handicap, age or sexual orientation. Special emphasis islaid on equal opportunities for men and women.In the ROP Northwest, equal opportunities have been considered in the aim of individualpriority axes and included in individual specific objectives of priority axes and major areas ofsupport. The ROP Northwest does not envisage utilization of the European Social Fund so itis not possible to set out priorities that are unambiguously beneficial to equal opportunities;however, many activities of the programme may take into account and support equalopportunities.When establishing tools for programme implementation, equal opportunities wereconsidered primarily in connection with defining the areas to be supported, and monitoringand evaluating the programme particularly using the evaluation criteria. Individual projectsassessed within the ROP Northwest will be evaluated with regard to their major objectivesand to the link between the support which is to be used by the project and equalopportunities. Evaluators will favour the benefits supporting equal opportunities by assigningpoints in the manner stated in the Evaluator’s Instruction Manual.Applicants will be able to describe this theme directly in their projects and classify theirprojects as follows:a) The project focuses on equal opportunities;b) The project has a positive impact on equal opportunities;c) The project is neutral as far as equal opportunities are concerned.The Managing Authority will also take equal opportunities into account when selectingmembers of the Monitoring Committee e.g. by involving partners from non-profitorganizations acting in the area of promoting equal opportunities for women and men, or byinvolving handicapped people, and through the participation of women as members of theMonitoring Committee.Sustainable Development horizontal themeProjects utilizing financial means from the Structural Funds must not have a negative impacton the environment, which also follows from the law system of the Czech Republicestablishing the requirements that must be fulfilled with regard to the environment.Within the Sustainable Development horizontal theme, individual dimensions have beendefined that must be considered in relation to the Structural Funds; these primarily includePage 137 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionpollution of any kind (water, air, soil and noise), usage of resources (water, energy, rawmaterials, land, and perhaps also alternative sources exploitation) as well as waste(generation, or reduction of hazardous and other waste).In the ROP Northwest, the horizontal theme of the environment concerns all the definedpriority axes except the Priority Axis No. 5 - Technical Assistance, to which it is neutral.It is obvious that within the framework of priority axes, new construction/renovation ofbuildings, plants, roads, etc. will be carried out; although this may bring about an increase innegative impacts on the environment, such activities will, however, help improve otherenvironmental areas (e.g. the traffic intensity reduction, “brownfields” utilization, etc). In thisconnection, the programme includes the conditions that will have a positive influence on theenvironment, and any possible negative impacts will be reduced as much as possible to becompensated with positive impacts in other environmental areas.Among others within this cross-sectional theme, the Czech Republic regional developmentstrategy for the 2007 - 2013 period defines the existence of structurally handicapped regionswith negative symptoms of industrial reconstruction as the most significant issue in theCzech Republic, where it is very difficult to introduce the needed structural changessufficiently fast and effectively. Consequently, these regions still suffer from impairedenvironment and a high level of unemployment exceeding the Czech Republic average rate.The high level of unemployment has an unfavourable structure with a large share of longtermunemployment, particularly in the Northwest and Moravia-Silesia Cohesion Regions.Thus, the implementation of the Balanced Territorial Development horizontal objectiverepresents one of the crucial themes for the overall improvement of the economycompetitiveness in the Northwest region’s whole territory. From the long-time perspective,the objective of these efforts is to make sure that the steady development brings benefits toall sub-regions within the region, that steady development of the regions is supported andthat regional disparities are reduced. This approach is one of the major prerequisites for theregion’s inner cohesion.The principle of the Balanced Territorial Development horizontal objective has been, in thiscontext, taken into account within the entire proposed programme primarily through thedifferentiation and advantageous focus of selected priority axes on the most stricken subregionsin the territory.In order to ensure a sufficiently effective and objective monitoring of the Northwest ROPimplementation impacts on the environment, the following steps were taken as per the SEAelaborator's recommendations (Chapter IX. - Stipulation of monitoring indicators of concept'simpacts on the environment):Processing the proposed environmental indicators into the entire system ofmonitoring impacts of the Northwest ROP implementation (as indicators and criteriafor evaluation and selection of projects),Linking the monitoring system to the system of evaluation and selection of projectsusing environmental criteria,Page 138 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionPublishing monitoring results on a regular basis (to be realised during theprogramming period),Ensuring sufficient personnel and expert capacity for the environment sector withinmonitoring impacts of the Northwest ROP implementation,Ensuring sufficient information provision for all the groups engaged in implementingthe Northwest ROP (primarily the applicants) on environmental issues and possiblelinks of projects to the environment (to be realised during the programming period).The Northwest ROP will be monitored via a selection of environmental indicators the SEANRP/NSRR processor proposed, or their influence on the development of comprehensivekey indicators will be evaluated. These comprehensive key indicators were designed incooperation with experts from the environment sector; they are directly included into theNorthwest ROP system of indicators and they will be continuously monitored on theprogramme level. The 65/31/05 Size of communes in areas with deteriorated air quality(ADAQ) in NUTS 2-region territory (sq. km; Source – CHMI) and the 65/31/02 Exposureof the population to above-limit PM10 concentrations (population %, Source –CHMI)and the indicators concerned.The said indicators focus on the air pollution area as this area was identified as a seriousenvironmental problem of the Northwest Cohesion Region. Selected indicators are of acomprehensive nature and a number of partial environmental indicators introduced in theNorthwest ROP SEA participate in their specific development.The figures below summarise detailed linkage among criteria for selecting projects (selectionfrom the Northwest ROP SEA), environmental indicators (selection from the Northwest ROPSEA), and indicators of the Northwest ROP indicator system focused on the environmentsector. These figures also introduce indicators in accordance with requirements of EuropeanParliament and Council Directive No. 2001/42/EC of June 27, 2001 on the assessment ofthe effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.Page 139 of 288

Table 57 – Linkage of selected indicators and criteria for selecting projects from the Northwest ROP SEA analysis to the “Size ofcommunes in areas with deteriorated air quality (ADAQ) in NUTS 2-region territory” indicatorNW ROP ProgrammeIndicatorUnit Definition Data Sources Reference Objective(NW ROP SEA)NW ROP Projects’Selection CriterionUnitData SourcesSize of communes in areas withdeteriorated air quality (ADAQ) inthe NUTS 2 region’s territory –Level: Indicator on theprogramme levelDATA SOURCE – Evaluationstudy, which will assess howmuch single specific SEAindicators stated in this figurecontributed to the change of thisindicator, and how much realisedprojects directly influenced thedevelopment of these indicators;for this purpose, specificenvironmental criteria stated inthis figure will be analysed on theproject level.1 Total emissions ofgreenhouse gases as perCO2 equivalentaccording to Kyotoprotocol (refer toCodebook 210300 to210400)2 Specific emissions forall categories of sources- Solidparticles;- SO2- C/NOX- CO (refer toCodebook210600 to210900- VOC3 Emissions of the mostmonitored dangeroussubstances4 Acreage of areas withnatural characterTons1,000 tons peryear per sq. kmEmissions of greenhousegases as per CO2 equivalentEmissions of pollutingsubstances in certain timeperiod per territory area unitin thousands of tons per sq.kmTons per year Emissions of prioritydangerous substances intosoil, water, air (Note: Prioritydangerous substances as perStockholm Convention andFramework Directive onWaters)Sq. mAcreage of new areas withnatural character (trees,lawns, flower beds, bushes,woods, extra-protectedterritories, greenery alongstreams andcommunications, NATURA2000 localities, parks,gardens, tree alleys, andothers) generated byProject documentation Reducing CO2 emissions Will the project realisationinfluence the reduction of CO2emissions?CHMIREZZO, National HealthAuthority, Ministry ofEnvironment (Data fromsingle projects supported bythe programme)Data from single projectssupported within theprogrammeReach national emissionceilings for SO2, NOX,volatile organicsubstances and ammoniaby 2010 and reach targetobjective values foracidification for humanhealth and vegetation by2020Reducing emissions anddischarging priority andstopping or gradualelimination of dischargingand emissions of prioritydangerous substancesProtect natural elements indeveloped territoriesYES/NOWill project’s completioncontribute to reducing singlesubstances related to the givenactivity?YES/NOWill the project’s completioncontribute to reducingemissions of priority dangeroussubstances related to the givenactivity?YES/NOWill the project contribute to theprotection of natural elements indeveloped territories?YES/NOTons per yearTons per yearTons per yearProject documentation,power supply audit,projects’ monitoringreportsProject documentation,projects’ monitoringreportsProject documentation,projects’ monitoringreports0 Project documentation,projects’ monitoringreportsPage 140 of 288

project’s completion5 Number of projectsfocused onenvironmentally friendlyforms of transportationNumber ofinhabitantsNumber of projects focusedon environmentally friendlyforms of transportationData from single projectssupported within theprogrammeIs the project focused onenvironmentally friendly formsof transportation?0 Project documentationEVALUATION6 EVALUATIONYES/NOMONITORING REPORTSTable 58 - Linkage of selected indicators and criteria for selecting projects from the Northwest ROP SEA analysis to the “Exposure ofpopulation to above-limit PM 10 concentrations” indicatorNW ROP ProgrammeIndicatorPopulation’s exposure to abovelimitPM 10 concentrations –Results indicator – Priority axis 3DATA SOURCE – Evaluation studyassessing how much singlespecific SEA indicators stated inthis figure contributed to thechange of this comprehensiveindicator, and how muchcompleted projects influenced thedevelopment of these indicators –for this purpose, specificenvironmental criteria on theprojects’ level stated in this figurewill be analysedEVALUATION7 NW ROP SEAIndicator8 Specific emissions forall categories of sources- Solidparticles;- SO2- C/NOX- CO (refer toCodebook210600 to210900- VOC9 Acreage of areas withnatural character10 Number of projectsfocused onenvironmentally friendlyforms of transportation11 EVALUATIONUnit Definition Data Sources Reference Objective Projects’ SelectionCriterion1,000 tons peryear per sq. kmSq. mNumber ofinhabitantsEmissions of pollutingsubstances in certain timeperiod per territory area unitin thousands of tons per sq.kmAcreage of new areas withnatural character (trees,lawns, flower beds, bushes,woods, extra-protectedterritories, greenery alongstreams andcommunications, NATURA2000 localities, parks,gardens, tree alleys, andothers) generated byproject’s completionNumber of projects focusedon environmentally friendlyforms of transportationCHMIData from single projectssupported within theprogrammeData from single projectssupported within theprogrammeReach national emissionceilings for SO2, NOX,volatile organicsubstances and ammoniaby 2010 and reach targetobjective values foracidification for humanhealth and vegetation by2020Protect natural elements indeveloped territoriesSupport environmentallyfriendly forms oftransportationEVALUATIONWill the project’s completioncontribute to reducing singlesubstances related to the givenactivity?YES/NOWill the project contribute to theprotection of natural elements indeveloped territories?YES/NOIs the project focused onenvironmentally friendly formsof transportation?YES/NOMONITORING REPORTSUnitTons per yearData SourcesProject documentation,projects’ monitoringreports0 Project documentation,projects’ monitoringreports0 Project documentation,projects’ monitoringreportsPage 141 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionOther indicators and criteria recommended in the SEA assessment will be monitoredcomplementarily within the evaluation study.In the Northwest ROP evaluation plan, an evaluation study is scheduled whose objective willbe to state how the two above-mentioned key environmental indicators developed during theprogramme’s realization, and how much the Northwest ROP programme realisationcontributed to their contingent change. This assessment will also be based on:a) Evaluating the development of environmental criteria for selecting projects (Table 57 and58, column “Projects’ Selection Criterion”) the applicant obliged himself to in the projectapplication and which they will include in monitoring reports (i.e. on the assessment of theinfluence of attained values of environmental criteria for selecting projects on the NorthwestROP SEA indicators (Table 57 and 58, column “NW ROP SEA Indicator”).b) Evaluating the influence of attained values of the ROP Northwest SEA indicators (Figure 1and 2, column “ROP Northwest SEA Indicator”) on the ROP Northwest programme SEAindicators focused on the environment (Table 57 and 58, column “NW ROP SEA Indicator”).In order to ensure a comprehensive cohesion of the environmental issues within the ROPNorthwest programme, establishment and cohesion of the above-presented system ofmonitoring and the evaluation assessment of the environmental criteria are also emphasisedwith the fact that the project’s influence on the environment (measured by a number ofcriteria for selecting projects recommended within the ROP Northwest SEA) is taken intoaccount in evaluating and selecting projects. Projects with positive influence on thesustainable development of a specific territory will be preferred. In order to obtain a pointadvantage, the applicant must bind himself in his project application to meet requirements ofa specific criterion. Meeting the criterion will then be observed through monitoring reportsthat will also become one of the information sources for the above-described evaluationstudies.6.3 CROSS FINANCINGIn selected support areas of the ROP Northwest, financing of measures for accomplishingobjectives of interventions and the programme characteristically classified in the EuropeanSocial Fund (ESF) support, as long as these measures are indispensable for satisfactoryexecution of the operation and are directly connected with it, will be allowed. The principle ofcross financing allows, as per the general regulation, complementary financing, within the10 % limit per each priority axis of the operational programme, of activities falling in thesphere of support from another fund. For the Northwest ROP, 9 % limit was stipulated, inaccordance with Guidelines for cross financing in 2007 to 2013 period, for financingmeasures falling in the European Social Fund (ESF). This limit was established based uponthe recommendation of the MF and fully within Northwest ROP competence.Cross financing will be allowed in priority axes 1 – Urban areas regeneration anddevelopment, 2 – Local development integrated support, and 4 – Tourism sustainabledevelopment. This will deal with projects focused on building up the public serviceinfrastructure (social and educational infrastructure) because the material backgroundshould inevitably be completed with employees’ training required by the changing nature ofPage 142 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionservices provided and by supporting the operation of new services. For investments ineducation, cross financing will also cover creating educational programmes related to newequipment in schools and school facilities and to supporting equal opportunities for childrenand pupils.The activities falling under the ESF will also be admitted for projects focused on thedevelopment and enhancement of the standards of accommodation facilities and touristinformation centres since the analysis confirms that the workers involved in tourism do notposses sufficient knowledge for rendering quality services that are necessary for thecomplete utilization of the potential of the established background.In the event of cross financing, for each individual case, the MA of the ROP Northwest willexamine the necessity of the utilization of this tool and the cross financing amount withregard to the total number of projects (the MA will observe uniform limits of support per oneproject that are based on the Guidelines for cross-financing for the period 2007 - 2013).Management of cross financing of individual projects within the scope of financialmanagement (e.g. inspection of requests for payment) will efficiently help observe all theconditions set by the EK (particularly in Article 34 of Council Regulation (EC) No.1083/2006).With the application of cross-financing, progress will be made in accordance with theGuidelines for cross-financing for the period 2007 - 2013 issued on the national level, so thatthe relevant provisions of the EC regulation are followed.Cross financing will already be monitored on the project level. In the application for grantsupport, the applicant will select the option of cross financing, or activities to beaccomplished within cross financing. The applicant will state expenses falling in crossfinancing already within the planned itemised budget in the project application. Theusefulness and relevance of these activities will be evaluated in reviewing the project and ifapproved and the project is selected for financing the financial allocation for these activitieswill be stated in the grant provision agreement. The IS will review whether the level of crossfinancing does not exceed the maximum level stipulated for the project and priority axis. Theapplicant will state the progress of drawing cross financing in each monitoring reportrequesting payment where it will be checked whether the stipulated limit for the totalqualified project’s expenses is exceeded.6.4 RELATION TO THE OTHER FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTSSustainable development of towns will be supported within the “urban” area of support – 1.1Support of the regional development poles - using integrated approaches. In this respect,planning and decision-making on urban investments based on Integrated UrbanDevelopment Plan (IUDP) is of principle significance. For sustainable development of towns,the possibility of utilising JESSICA financial tool is assumed. The new initiative of JESSICAis focused on Public Private Partnership projects and on other revenues generating urbanprojects included in IUDP with the perspective of attaining leverage and re-using resourcesof the operational programme invested in such projects.The Managing Authority of the Northwest ROP assumes that JESSICA operations will beorganised preferably through a holding fund. Depending on a more detailed specification ofPage 143 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionthe JESSICA initiative, however, the Northwest ROP does not exclude using other utilisationvariants for this initiative, either.In the framework of “Regions for Economic Change“ initiative the MA of the ROP Northwestwill strive to:• Establish essential measures in order to involve innovative operations in theprogramming process that are related to the results of the associations in which theregion participates;• Allow the presence of a representative (as an observer) of the associations in theMonitoring Committee in which the region is involved, to report on the progress ofthe association’s activities;• Include a report on activities of the association in the agenda of the MonitoringCommittee and to discuss relevant suggestions relating to the programme at leastonce a year;• Inform in the Annual Report on the Programme Implementation of the regionalactions included in the Regions for Economic Change initiative.6.5 Realization of PPPThe partnership of public and private sector might, under some conditions, be of greatinterest for the public sector, especially for preparation and implementation of infrastructureprojects.Principal advantages of PPP for public sector are following: saving of public resources possibility of increased volume of investment ( leverage effect) better "value for money" due to private sector' s experience reduced length of the construction periods high technical quality of projects lower level of risk for public sector since some risks are transferred to private sectorPPP projects are not necessarily profitable for public sector. Therefore, to ensure successfuluse of PPP and to reduce economic risks, public authorities have to focus on severalaspects: to use right PPP model to encourage competition among prospective private partners to protect public interest to guarantee viability of project without any undue profit resulting from publicsubsidiesThe experience in PPP for the realisation of infrastructure projects is limited in the CzechRepublic. Moreover some doubts exist whether the related legal framework is sufficientlydeveloped. Therefore the Ministry for Regional Development shall lead activities concerningPage 144 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regioncreation of appropriate legal base for PPP projects. This base shall be introduced by the endof 2008 at the latest.The Ministry for regional development elaborated (pursuant to the Government Decree No536/2007) the detailed Methodological interpretation of the “Concession Contracts andConcession Procedures Act No 139/2006 (Concession Act)”, as an important aid for thewhole process of the PPP projects preparation and implementation; it can be applied namelyby regions, cities and municipalities. According to the above Decree, the CR Ministry ofFinance prepares partial methodologies for the areas of taxation and finance. In the year2008 the Czech Republic will thus have a complete legislative and methodologicalframework for the preparation and implementation of the PPP projects. In 2008, the Ministryfor regional development will prepare studies identifying types of projects within individualOperational Programmes that would be eligible for the application of the PPP method. Suchstudies and activities will be supported from the OP Technical Assistance.The first task of Managing Authorities of ROPs, to promote PPP projects, will be indissemination of the above mentioned information and reports to prospective finalbeneficiaries in the form of workshops, seminars, conferences, publications, etc.Managing Authorities of ROPs will as well, by December 2008 at the latest, launch call forproposals to support of PPP projects preparation. Technical assistance will be at disposal tobeneficiaries who will plan to introduce PPP projects proposals. Prepared PPP projectproposals will be submitted in the course of calls for proposal launched within priority axis orareas of intervention appropriate to the project.The fundamental target of all ROP' s will be to carry out as many PPP projects as possible inthe programming period 2007 - 2013. These projects will create positive experience and it isexpected that this will create positive dynamics for other partnerships of this type.When considering implementation of a particular project through partnership of public andprivate sector it will be inevitable to prevent undue profit and to preserve equal andtransparent approach while respecting national and Community law. This applies especiallyto the area of state aid.Page 145 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region7 DESCRIPTION OF PRIORITY AXES7.1 PRIORITY AXIS 1 – URBAN REGENERATION ANDDEVELOPMENT7.1.1 BASELINE SITUATIONCities are generally the driving force of economic growth, innovations and employment in theregion thanks to their economic force arising from concentration of social, economic andcultural functions. The importance of cities in the Northwest region is also emphasized by thefact that in the entire the Czech Republic the region belongs to the most urbanized ones –more than 80 % of the population live in cities. Within the framework of the region, the mostexposed areas are urbanized areas situated along the two major development axes – the“basin” area with a high concentration of population and industry, and the “Labe” area, whichis a part of the trans-European transport corridor.A characteristic feature of the urbanized area of the Northwest region is a considerableneglect of its cities, distinguished by an outdated or even completely lacking technical,transport and social infrastructure, occurrence of brownfields (i.e. real estates that areenvironmentally or otherwise affected by their past utilization and whose renovation requiresfunds), lacking services, growing socio-pathological phenomena and other problems, whichconsiderably decrease the quality of life of the city residents.The current situation can be accounted for by several factors affecting the development ofcities in the region. These factors are above all as follows:1. The greater part of the region has been one of the most important industrial bases at theterritory of the Czech Republic for two centuries. The result is large industrial areas thathave gradually stopped serving their purposes. Their parameters do not meet thepresent requirements and spoil the urban environment greatly. This is emphasized bythe fact that in the course of time, as a result of urban growth these historical areasturned out to be in the immediate vicinity of city centres;2. Large areas of the Northwest region are devastated by the opencast mining of browncoal and other mineral resources;3. All the towns in the region have also suffered from a large-scale change in thepopulation due to post-war displacement of German nationals after 1945. Besides, thefact that the newcomers did not usually feel themselves connected with their new abodeor did not feel a great deal of responsibility for it also began to manifest itself in the stateof towns. Having acquired a certain property, a number of residents went back inlandand were replaced with other newcomers. This fast change of population with all thephenomena accompanying it continued for several decades after the end of WW II.4. The state regime of the years 1948 – 1989 benefited from the industrial and mineralresources of the Northwest region in an unprecedented way. However, it invested in thePage 146 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regiondevelopment of its infrastructure and needs of its residents insufficiently and above allpurposefully – in the interests of maintaining industrial and mining effectiveness;5. After 1989, the cities in the Northwest region were severely affected by the necessaryprocess of economic and social restructuring and its results - large unemployment andan increased occurrence of social problems, existence of ecological burdens after theprevious production and the unused and uncared-for production plants defacing theappearance of the city centres and their outskirts.Most key problems of the region are concentrated in the urbanized, densely populated areaswith much industry. These facts considerably limit the abilities of the cities to fulfil theireconomic, social and cultural functions and thus to become the driving force of growth anddevelopment of the whole region. Above all, the ability of the cities to ensure an attractiveenvironment for living, work and leisure time activities is limited, which is reflected in theirlow ability to attract a sufficient number of highly qualified workforce to the region or to retainthem in it. This has resulted in the low interest of investors in the region and lowcompetitiveness of the Northwest region as a whole.Unattractiveness of the urban environment of the Northwest cohesion region is alsointensified by the fact that most schools, hospitals and social facilities in the cities can becharacterized as outdated, and their quality and equipment fail to meet the presentrequirements.In this situation, the cities lack sufficient resources to implement large-scale regenerationand revitalization of their city centres and other areas affected by previous activities in orderto significantly increase the quality of the physical environment as well as the level of social,medical and educational infrastructure. Therefore, the current contribution of the region’scentres to its overall competitiveness and thus meeting the objectives of the Lisbon Strategyis rather limited.The problems facing the cities of the region Northwest are so extensive that they can besolved only by long-term, targeted support of all sources available.The importance and need for targeted support becomes evident especially when taking intoaccount the fact that due to worsened conditions of the physical environment and negativeeffects of the aforementioned restructuring in progress, the region has been earmarked as a“region requiring concentrated government support” for a number of years. Therefore, thefunds invested in the region on a long-term basis within the framework of the nationalprojects targeted above all at revitalizing the former mining areas could - in synergy withROP funds and the other operational programmes – constitute the required momentum foroverall socio-economic change of the region.Within the framework limited by other operational programmes, in which the support ofrevitalization of industrial brownfield sites is subject to above all OP Business andInnovations, on the one hand, and by its limited funds, on the other hand, the RegionalOperational Programme of the Northwest region will focus above all on support aimed atincreasing the attractiveness of cities, i.e. modernising the physical environment of theirneglected parts including educational, medical and social infrastructure.Page 147 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionThe ROP funds can help attain the required effect, as a significant part thereof will bedirected to the largest cities fulfilling the function of the development poles. The effect of thissupport will be intensified by its integrated character and targeting on complex solution of theselected zones or topics in large cities.The aforementioned specific conditions of the Northwest region lead to the fact that it isimpossible to attain the positive changes required without current support of the other citiesin the whole urbanized territory of the region and without special attention paid to social,medical and educational infrastructure. In parallel with the aforementioned support renderedto the economic and residential centres of the region, support will be focused onrevitalization of the environment of the other cities in the region as well as modernization ofsocial, medical and educational infrastructure in all cities.7.1.2 MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE PRIORITY AXISIncreasing the quality of the physical environment of urbanized parts of the region.7.1.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THE PRIORITY AXISSC 1.1. Revitalization and regeneration of neighbourhoods and unused objects 8 aimed atincreasing their attractiveness and reuse.SC 1.2. Increasing the offer and quality of infrastructure for human resources development.7.1.4 INDICATORSThe specification and quantification of assumed indicators for the evaluation of the specificobjectives of the Priority Axis are a part of Chapter 9 “Monitoring and Evaluation of theProgramme”.7.1.5 STRATEGY TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVESThe solution of the aforementioned problems and their reasons, interpreted in simplified formby the specific objectives of the programme cannot be achieved without complex integratedapproaches focused on support of large-scale, targeted investments, the realization of whichwill accelerate the regeneration and revitalization process in the urbanized parts of theregion.It is absolutely clear that it is impossible to solve the above problems by isolated, single-timeinvestments, nor is it possible to realize them without ensuring an extensive partnership ofall interested subjects.To make it possible to achieve the above specific objectives of the Priority Axis, theprogramme proposes the following three areas of support:1. Support of the regional development poles8The term “object” can mean both an individual object and site.Page 148 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionSupport is this area will be targeted on the six major cities of the Northwest cohesion region– the development poles:Table 59 – Development poles of the Northwest cohesion regionCityÚstí nad Labem 94 298Most 67 805Děčín 51 875Teplice 51 010Karlovy Vary 50 893Chomutov 50 027Number of residents (as ofJanuary 1, 2006)Within the framework of this area of support, large-scale (from the point of view of urbandevelopment), significant and strategically targeted investments, or groups of investmentsthat will make a major contribution to the improvement of the quality of the physicalenvironment and the overall image of a city, will be supported. Support will be focused onsuch investments that will provably contribute to the improvement of the physicalenvironment of the selected neighbourhood, or help eliminate the barriers to furtherdevelopment of the relevant neighbourhood or of the city as a whole.Support to the region’s development poles (1.1 “urban” area of support) will be focused onthe physical revitalisation of towns and the regeneration and modernisation of the publicservices infrastructure, including the leisure time activities infrastructure. Within the 1.1 areaof support, measures aimed at urban mass transportation (the reconstruction ofunsatisfactory stops and building new stops in urban mass transportation, includinghandicapped modifications and facilities, restoration of the urban mass transportation fleetwith respect to ecological operation and persons with impaired mobility and orientation) willalso be supported.With consideration to the above need for integration of individual investments into a broader,long-term revitalization plan and considering the underlined need for a broader partnershipwhile implementing the selected measures, support will be based on so-called IntegratedUrban Development Plans (IUDP).The Integrated Urban Development Plan means a complex of measures, whose contentsand timeframes are mutually interconnected, which are aimed at revitalization of theselected neighbourhood or at elimination of a specific thematic problem in urbandevelopment.Detailed information on the IUDP is contained in the sub-chapter “ImplementingMechanism”.Within the framework of the area of support 1.1 - Support of the regional development poles,only the activities included in the IUDP will be supported. All activities carried out within theframework of the IUDP must contribute to the fulfilment of the objectives of this Priority Axis.Page 149 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region2. Support of revitalization and regeneration of medium-sized and small townsConsidering the high urbanization level in the region it is obvious that all problems of theregion cannot be solved only by concentrating interventions in the economic centres of theregion, which constitute the major driving force of the whole region, but still fail to fulfil theservice functions for the whole region.Therefore, in order to achieve balanced development of the region, an additional area ofsupport focused on the revitalization and regeneration of the neighbourhoods of the othercities in the region, i. e. cities with 5,000 to 49,999 inhabitants, has been proposed within theframework of the programme.Although this support will not be based on the IUDP, it will also give preference to theintegrated approach. It will consist above all in emphasizing appropriate combinations ofinvestments, able in their mutual synergy to bring about the required effect, which cannot beachieved by isolated investment.Therefore, this support will be aimed particularly at renewing basic functions of the cities inthe region, i.e. renovation of city centres, regeneration or extension of green areas in thecities as well as at renewing or modernising service functions of the cities by means ofmodernising public buildings serving as a base for the development of public and privateservices.Regeneration of brownfieldsWithin the framework of areas of support 1.1 – Support of the regional development polesand 1.2 – Support of revitalization and regeneration of medium-sized and small towns, largeattention will be paid to regeneration of brownfields, i.e. real estates (lands, buildings,objects or premises) that are vacant or insufficiently utilized, neglected and perhaps alsocontaminated. They are remains of industrial, mining, agricultural, military, residential,transport or other activities or civic amenities.Support will be provided for re-conversion of brownfields to allow new utilization having apublic character or economic utilization other than stated in the branch classification ofeconomic activities (OKEČ): Agriculture, game keeping and hunting, and forestry (i.e. OKEČsection A), Fishing and fish farming (i.e. OKEČ section B), Mining of mineral materials (i.e.OKEČ section C), Processing industry (i.e. OKEČ section D), Electricity, gas and watergeneration and distribution (i.e. OKEČ section E) and Building industry (i.e. OKEČ sectionF).The upper limit of their area is not fixed and economic activities are permitted up to 50 % ofthe flooring area of the real estate at the most; as far as plots of land are concerned, up to50 % of the plot area at the most. The support will be given only to the brownfields in publicownership.The support of brownfields regeneration will comprise the following regeneration stages:Page 150 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region- Support of settlement of proprietary relations in the locations, including provision oftraffic accessibility of the locations for local road, bike and foot transport- Project preparation of regeneration including necessary surveys- Demolition of unusable objects and vacation of plots- Area decontamination- Building of traffic and technical infrastructures necessary for future utilization of thearea- Renovation and construction of objects- Update and development of the brownfields database- Education focused on the topic of regeneration and revitalization of brownfields foraffected entities – municipalities, public administration institutions and specializedpublic- Partnership for harmonization of interests of public and private entities that are in theprocess3. Infrastructure in the area of human resources developmentThe third area of support is focused on advancement of the life quality of the population inthe Northwest cohesion region through the investment in public services of the regionalimportance in the area of human resources development. The support will be aimed atfacilities providing these services to people in the whole region or at least in part of it.The support will be targeted particularly on modernization, quality improvement and possiblyextension of educational, medical and social infrastructure of the regional importance.In the area of social services interventions will be targeted at the construction of newfacilities, renovation or extension of the current facilities in public ownership, intended aboveall for low-income population groups. The support will focus on the modernization andtransformation of accommodation (residential) facilities into other types of social servicesprovided in the natural community of the user and supporting social integration of the user inthe community. The support will include the purchase of state-of-the-art equipment for thesefacilities. The objective is to secure available quality social services in the region on thebasis of a medium-term plan of social services provision. The social services network mustinclude all the necessary elements allowing disabled people to remain or to return in thecommon environment. The tool will be transformation and modernization of the facilitiesproviding social services.In the area of health care interventions will be targeted on the creation of a complexinfrastructure of emergency care, small primary health care centres, building of trainingcentres and their equipment, reduction of ecological burdens, medical appliances, medicallaboratories, information centres and their equipment, and support of optimisation of logisticand service processes.The objective is to create modern and well functioning hospitals (health care institutions) onnew building and functional foundations. Interventions in health care infrastructure will allowa new structure of hospital care to be established with respect to the needs of the tributaryarea of health care institutions and the principle of centralization of specialized and highlyspecialized care into individual logistic centres. The need of fast and efficient solutionsPage 151 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionrequires technological innovations and investments in human resources. Another objective inthe area of health care is the introduction of a uniform managerial superstructure of thehospital information system allowing continual monitoring of effectiveness and quality ofhealth care.The strategy in the area of education and training is based on long-term plans of educationand development of the educational system. The main objectives are: quality improvementand modernization of education, accordance between the offer of study branches and thedemands of the labour market, equal educational opportunities, quality, monitoring andevaluation of educational results, development of life-time learning and development of anintegrated consultancy system in education. The support will be provided to modernization ofsecondary schools and colleges and the further educational infrastructure with the potentialof utilization for life-long education, including quality improvement of furnishing of thesefacilities with the aids necessary for class-work and for advancement of the educationalstandard.As follows from the above selected strategies, the overall orientation of the priority axis isaimed above all at improving the physical environment for the life of local residents, possiblevisitors and entrepreneurs and thus the region’s overall attractiveness for new, moderninvestments that could ensure higher competitiveness of the region in the future, contributeto its convergence and thus contribute indirectly to meeting the objectives of the Lisbonstrategy.The programme does not endeavour to solve all the problems faced by the region, but totarget the support on such areas that have been neglected up to the present, that are notsolved by other OP, but still present a problem of vital importance for future development ofthe region.The persisting negative image of the region caused by the poor physical environment ofregional centres and limited availability of services in the other towns of the region, whichlimits the influx of inhabitants, repels above all qualified workforce and, as the result, limitsthe region’s ability to attract foreign investors and thus deal with the consequences ofeconomic transformation of the region, presents one of the major problems, whoseelimination can help accelerate the transformation of the whole region.7.1.6 MAIN AREAS OF SUPPORTArea of support 1.1. Support of the regional development poles• Revitalising and increasing the attractiveness of neighbourhoods, i.e.constructional renovation or completion of buildings including the related transportand technical infrastructure, public lighting, green areas and facilities for leisuretime activities.• Regeneration of brownfields – premises previously used for industrial, transport,military, administrative and other purposes in cities – for their further public useincluding decontamination of affected areas and related transport and technicalinfrastructure as a part of a broader concept of regeneration of a certain area.Page 152 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region• Programmes focused on regeneration and revitalization of urbanized areas,individual cities or their parts including the process of their development byemploying suitable participative methods.• Modernization of the infrastructure for human resources development(construction and modernization of libraries, modernization and adjustments of theeducational infrastructure to meet the requirements of further education – e.g.poly-functional equipment of schoolrooms with regard to their combined use forthe purposes of the current types of schools and for further education within theframework of community schools, modernization and renovation of theinfrastructure for provision of social care – e.g. day-care centres, day and weekhospitals, sheltered housing, homes for persons suffering from health problems,and the modernization and renovation of health care institutions).Modernisation of urban public transport (purchasing trams and trolleybuses,including accompanying infrastructure such as converter stations for trolleybuses,and more, enhancing the accessibility of public transport to specific groups ofpopulation – seniors and handicapped people, enhancing the attractiveness andsafety of public transport – e.g. stops).Related project preliminary, project documentation, architectonic competition,project cooperation between the public and the private sector (PPP).• Increasing the know-how in the area of regeneration and revitalization of citiesincluding sharing “good practice” in the other EU member-states.Area of support 1.2. Support of revitalization and regeneration of medium-sized andsmall towns• Modernization, renovation and development of city centres, squares, open accessareas and green areas including additional infrastructure.• Revitalizing and increasing the attractiveness of neighbourhoods, i.e. buildingrenovation or completion of buildings including related transport and technicalinfrastructure, public lighting, green areas and facilities for leisure time activities.• Regeneration of brownfields – premises previously used for industrial, transport,military, administrative and other purposes in cities – for their further public useincluding decontamination of affected areas and related transport and technicalinfrastructure as a part of a broader concept of regeneration of a certain area.• Modernization of the infrastructure for human resources development(construction and modernization of libraries, modernization and adjustments of theeducational infrastructure to meet the requirements of further education – e.g.poly-functional equipment of schoolrooms with regard to their combined use forthe purposes of the current types of schools and for further education within thePage 153 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionframework of community schools, modernization and renovation of theinfrastructure for provision of social care – e.g. day-care centres, day and weekhospitals, sheltered housing, homes for persons suffering from health problems,and modernization and renovation of health care institutions).• Building, reconstruction and equipment of public facilities, cultural venues andfacilities intended for leisure time activities, communal life and public sector.• Marking and adjusting open access areas and public facilities for thehandicapped.• Related preparation of projects, project documentation and architectural tenders,project cooperation between the public and the private sector (PPP).Area of support 1.3. Infrastructure in the area of human resourcesdevelopment• Modernization and physical renovation of secondary schools• Modernization of equipment of secondary schools and colleges (e.g. workshops,laboratories and computer classroom equipment).• Adjustment of the educational infrastructure of the regional importance to meet therequirements of further education (e.g. poly-functional equipment of schoolroomswith regard to their combined use for purposes of current types of schools and forfurther education within the framework of community schools.• Modernization and reconstruction of the infrastructure for the provision of socialcare services with regard to humanization and social integration of the user in thecommunity, i.e. transformation of in-patient social services facilities into othertypes of social services with emphasis on field and ambulatory social services(e.g. day-care centres, day and week hospitals, sheltered housing, care serviceand personal assistance).• Modernization and reconstruction of regional healthcare facilities (building ofcomplex infrastructure in the area of emergency and acute care, small centres ofprimary health care, medical equipment, medical laboratories, information centresand their facilities, and support for the optimization of logistics and serviceprocesses).7.1.7 PRIORITY THEMESDivision of financial allocations into particular areas of interventions and priority themes isonly for guidance and according to a development of absorption capacity can be changed.Page 154 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionPriority Axis 1CodePriority themes11 Information and communication technologies(access, security, interoperability,risk-prevention,research, innovation, e-content, etc.)% ofallocationOrientation amount ofallocation4,09 % 12 165 31152 Promotion of clean urban transport 6,81% 20 241 23459 Development of cultural infrastructure 2,86 % 8 506 62861 Integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration 42,71% 126 973 40175 Education infrastructure 17,10% 50 835 20076 Health infrastructure 17,10 % 50 835 20079 Other social infrastructure 9,34 % 27 763 160Total 100 % 297 320 134Area of support 1.1CodePriority themes11 Information and communication technologies(access, security, interoperability,risk-prevention, research, innovation, e-content,etc.)% ofallocationOrientation amount ofallocation2,89 % 3 684 25352 Promotion of clean urban transport 15,85% 20 241 23461 Integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration 81,26% 103 773 510Total 100 % 127 698 997Area of support 1.2CodePriority themes11 Information and communication technologies(access, security, interoperability,risk-prevention, research, innovation, e-content,etc.)% ofallocationOrientation amount ofallocation5,00 % 3 866 64959 Development of cultural infrastructure 11,00 % 8 506 62861 Integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration 30,00 % 23 199 89175 Education infrastructure 18,00 % 13 919 93376 Health infrastructure 18,00 % 13 919 93379 Other social infrastructure 18,00 % 13 919 933Area of support 1.3CodePriority themesTotal 100 % 77 332 96711 Information and communication technologies(access, security, interoperability,risk-prevention, research, innovation, e-content,etc.)% ofallocationOrientation amount ofallocation5,00 % 4 614 40975 Education infrastructure 40,00 % 36 915 267Page 155 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region76 Health infrastructure 40,00 % 36 915 26779 Other social infrastructure 15,00 % 13 843 227Total 100 % 92 288 170FORM AND AMOUNT OF SUPPORTIn the area of support 1.1 – Support of the regional development poles, support will beprovided exclusively within the framework of IUDP which will be implemented by means ofindividual projects. The individual projects not be included in the IUDP will not be supportedwithin the framework of the area of support 1.1 – Support of the regional development poles.The minimum amount of the total eligible IUDP expenditures financed from the ROP is EUR15 million; EUR 10 million for IUDPs focused on the modernisation of urban public transport.In the areas of support 1.2 and 1.3, it is assumed that support will be provided to individualand perhaps also to integrated projects. The projects will solve the problems identified by thestrategic development documents of the town or by the strategic documents of the region.Within the framework of one intervention area, an integrated project will interconnect severalinterdependent or related investments with a different focus (e.g. modernization of a building,renovation of the adjoining open access area and public lighting as a single projectconsisting of three partial investments). The integrated projects submitted this way will beassessed as individual actions by using a points system of assessment focused above all onthe assessment of the level of integration of individual activities.Within the framework of the complete priority axis, the support will be provided in the form ofa direct non-returnable subsidy.As far as projects that do not involve state aid are concerned, the support provided from EUfunds can amount to as much as 85 % of public legitimate expenses.As far as the projects falling under the regime of state aid are concerned, the amount of thesupport for the ROP Northwest is determined on the basis of the national regional state aidmap for the period 2007 – 2013. It stipulates that subsidies amount to 40 % of the totalrecognizable costs for NUTS 2 Northwest at the most. If state aid recipients are small andmedium enterprises, it is possible to utilize a larger amount presumed by the EC regulationsapplicable to the area of state aid.As far as the projects falling under the category of state aid are concerned, the support willbe provided on the basis of a block exemption or the “de minimis” rule or based on anotification of the European Commission.The provided support must be in accordance with both the national and the Community legalregulations (including rules of state aid and economic competition and rules in the area ofpublic procurement – particularly the Public Procurement Act No. 137/2006 Sb., asamended). The support will satisfy the criteria of effective utilization of the SF, observe thepublic interest and will not contribute to unreasonable profit of the beneficiaries. ThePage 156 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionemphasis on observance of these rules will be laid particularly in the area of transport,regeneration of brownfields, health care, education and the social sector.7.1.8 TARGET GROUPSInhabitants of towns and cities, people working or doing business in towns and cities,tourists, people living in non-urbanized areas.7.1.9 BENEFICIARIESMore detailed legislative specification of individual categories of beneficiaries is provided inchapter 10.3.1 Specification of beneficiaries.1.1 Area of supportMunicipalities (cities) with population from 50,000 9RegionsBeneficiariesBeneficiaries – Sub-projects within IUDPOrganisations established or founded by municipalities with a population from 50,000 or by regionsVoluntary unions of municipalities with at least one municipality with a population from 50,000 as the memberNon-profit NGOsSchools and educational facilities with the status of legal entities, listed in the Schools RegisterThe following municipalities will be major beneficiaries (IUDP holders) of 1.1 Area of support– Support of the regional development poles: Ústí nad Labem, Most, Děčín, Teplice, KarlovyVary and Chomutov. Other named subjects in the 1.1 Area of support – Support of theregional development poles – may only be recipients in sub-projects that are a part of theIUDP.1.2 Area of supportBeneficiariesRegions in case of projects implemented in towns with a population from 5,000 to 49,999Municipalities with a population from 5,000 to 49,999Organisations established or founded by municipalities with a population from 5,000 to 49,999 or by regionsVoluntary unions of municipalities with at least one municipality with a population from 5,000 to 49,999 as themember and in case of a project whose implementation will have a significant impact on the affectedmunicipality(-ies) with a population from 5,000 to 49,999Non-profit NGOs in case of a project whose implementation will have a significant impact on the affectedmunicipalities with a population from 5,000 to 49,999Schools and educational facilities with the status of legal entities, listed in the Schools Register in case ofprojects whose implementation will have a significant impact on the affected municipality(-ies) with a populationfrom 5,000 to 49,9999As per CSO data of January 1, 2006Page 157 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region1.3 Area of supportBeneficiariesRegions in case of projects implemented in territories of municipalities with population from 5,000Organisations established or founded by a regions in case of projects implemented in territories of towns withpopulation from 5,000Non-profit NGOs in case of projects implemented in territories of municipalities and communes with populationfrom 5,0007.1.10 CROSS FINANCINGCross financing will be utilized for:• Initiation of operation in new facilities providing social services and the services foryouth risk groups;• Training the staff of the supported educational and social institutions relating to thechange of character of provided services;• Activities accompanying the public services infrastructure;• Training the staff of educational institutions;• Training the staff of institutions providing services to groups endangered by socialexpulsion;• Training of staff of supported health-care institutions in connection with supportedinvestments, supplementary training focused on motivation and activation of thehealth-care institutions’ staff;• Development of activities for the support of health protection at work.7.1.11 COORDINATION WITH OTHER PROGRAMMESAs follows from the description stated in the justification for the Priority Axis, the Priority Axisis focused on improving the physical environment of urbanized areas above all by means ofintegrated revitalization projects, aimed particularly at removing old, unused sites orstructures, so that they could be used for future development of the relevant city or area. Inthis context the Priority Axis will above all focus on non-industrial brownfields and thuscomplete the assumed interventions in the OP “Enterprise and Innovations” (OP PI). In thisarea the procedures will be coordinated with the OP PI, the OP Environment (OP ŽP) andthe Rural Development Programme (PRV):1) The OP PI supports the regeneration of brownfields, which will be mostly used forbusiness purposes in the future. The future use of these brownfields will come underOKEČ: 15-37, or they will be used for the purposes of strategic services or astechnological centres;2) The PRV focuses on brownfields to be used for agricultural purposes in the future;3) Regeneration of all other brownfields will be supported through the ROP Northwest.Page 158 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionThe Ministry of the Environment will be informed in advance of the brownfields regenerationprojects submitted to the ROP Northwest and the OP PI. The Ministry of the Environment willinform the MA of the ROP Northwest or the OP PI of whether the submitted project includesa hazardous old ecological burden that will be solved by the OP ŽP, or can be solved by theROP Northwest (OP PI).Coordination with IOP concerns the following areas:1) Public healthWhen equipping healthcare facilities with medical devices, IOP will target its support on theselected national networks of acute care centres (these centres will be specified by theMinistry of Health of the CR according to the branches and by localization in selectedhospitals). The ROP Northwest will support complementary investments related to thedevelopment of these centres as well as provision of medical devices to other healthcarefacilities, or parts of healthcare facilities that do not belong to these networks.2) Social integrationIn case of transformation of residential social facilities, the IOP will solve pilot transformationprojects in specified residential facilities selected in cooperation of the Ministry of Labour andSocial Affairs and the regions. The ROP Northwest solves the infrastructure of socialservices embodied in Act No. 108/2006 Coll. on social services on a complementary basis.The return of the members of the most disadvantaged, socially excluded Romany localitiesback onto the labour market and to society will be solved in the IOP by means of systemicproject/projects, targeted on the most endangered localities selected on the basis ofspecialist studies. These are localities, in which there was identified failure of tool applicationon a local and regional level. The ROP Northwest will intervene through the infrastructure ofsocial services or by means of combined interventions within the framework of integratedurban development plans in other localities, not specified in the IOP. When promoting andimplementing the tools of social economy, the IOP will create innovative procedures of socialeconomy development, whereas the ROP Northwest supports open procedures based oncurrent legislation, such as protected workshops.In the field of education, the boundary between the ROP and the OP “Education forCompetitiveness” is delimited above all according to the types of interventions. The supportprovided within the framework of the ROP financed from the ERDF focuses on “hard”investments, i.e. support of renovation of the physical infrastructure, whereas the OP“Education for Competitiveness” financed from the ESF focuses on “soft” projects, targetedon the extension of qualification and education of the population.Details concerning coordination with the thematic operational programmes are stated inChapter 10 “Implementing Measures”.7.1.12 IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMWithin the framework of implementation, the programme assumes particularly support of theIntegrated Urban Development Plans (IUDP) and the activities included therein(subprojects); in the areas of support 1.2 and 1.3 it also assumes support of individual orPage 159 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionintegrated projects which will be further specified in the Implementing Document of the ROPNorthwest. Within the ROP Northwest it is possible to realize the projects via the PPP.Integrated Urban Development Plan (IUDP)The definition of the IUDP: an IUDP includes a set of time related actions (projects) whichare implemented:A) In a selected zone of a municipality (zone based approach). The IUDP in principle coversfor example the following types of interventions:• Regeneration and revitalisation of brownfields• Revitalisation of specific municipal zones• Modernisation of public space• Development of infrastructure in the area of schools and education• Development of health care infrastructure• Strengthening of social cohesion, quality of life, health of urban populationThe purpose of the zone based integrated urban development approach is to concentratefinancial resources on a limited selected zone of a municipality and to tackle all the existingproblems (deprived area) or to support growth potential (growth pole) in a complex way inthis zone.B) Through a thematic integrated approach (e.g. urban public transport, greenery) in thewhole municipality.Consequently, the integrated approach should achieve a defined target of a selected urbanzone or of a thematic area of a given municipality.Minimum size of the IUDP budget is set as 15 MEUR (10 MEUR in the case of IUDPconcerned to modernization of urban transport) in order to reach sufficient concentration offinancial resources and to avoid their scattering. The Managing authority of the ROPNorthwest commits itself further make effort to reach 15 MEUR as average value of theIUDPs.The IUDP contains activities co-financed by the ROP Northwest. It can also mention,separately for information, important projects in the selected zone of the municipality or inthe selected thematic area of a given municipality which are co-financed from otheroperational programmes. However, these important projects to be co-financed from other(thematic) operational programmes are operationally not part of the IUDP. Those projects cofundedfrom other (thematic) operational programmes will get during the evaluation by therelevant MA of the corresponding OP 10 % bonification in line with the governmentresolution No. 883 of 13 August 2007.Area of application of the IUDP approachThe MA ROP Northwest allocated from the ERDF means an amount of 127 698 997 EURinto the „urban“ area of support 1.1 - Support of the regional development poles. Thesemeans (priority themes 11 – Information and communication technologies, 52 – Clean urbanPage 160 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regiontransport, 61 – Integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration) can be spent only viaIUDP presented by municipalities with more than 50 000 inhabitants.The following table indicates an amount for IUDP in the municipalities with more than 50,000inhabitants:CodePriority themes11 Information and communication technologies(access, security, interoperability,risk-prevention, research, innovation, e-content,etc.)% ofallocationOrientation amount ofallocation2,89 % 3 684 25352 Promotion of clean urban transport 15,85% 20 241 23461 Integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration 81,26% 103 773 510Total 100 % 127 698 997Within the ROP Northwest framework, this concerns these municipalities:No. of inhabitants inRegionNUTS 2 Municipalitymunicipality as of January 1,2006NW Ústí nad Labem 94 298NW Most 67 805NW Děčín 51 875NW Teplice 51 010NW Karlovy Vary 50 893NW Chomutov 50 027The MA of the ROP may also publish call for proposal for IUDP for municipalities with lessthan 50 000 inhabitants. These IUDPs will not be financed from the above mentioned IUDPfunding under the urban priority axis / urban area of support dedicated only to towns withmore than 50 000 inhabitants and Mladá Boleslav. Doing that, the MA of the ROP may adjustthe IUDP provisions (modify the IUDP minimal budget) for municipalities with less than50 000 inhabitants taking into account geographic, demographic and economic potential ofsuch municipalities in the region.Areas of intervention of the IUDP approachThe IUDP is designed to tackle: Deprived areas (zones) with a concentration of negative phenomena, such as highunemployment, criminality, social exclusion, etc.Growth areas; there, the leverage effect of structural funds may be used to enhancethe competitiveness of the zone.Thematic area of a municipalityA geographically limited zone for the realization of the IUDP is a continuous area in theterritory of the municipality which should be selected on the basis of the following criteria:Page 161 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionA) Deprived area – in a regional context shows unfavourable values of at least 2 indicatorsbased on article no.47 Implementing Commission Regulation 1828/2006:• a high level of poverty and exclusion;• a high level of long-term unemployment;• precarious demographic trends;• a low level of education, significant skills deficiencies and high dropout rates fromschool;• a high level of criminality and delinquency;• a particularly rundown environment;• a low level of economic activity;• a high number of immigrants, ethnic and minority groups, or refugees;• a comparatively low level of housing value;• a low level of energy performance in buildings.B) Area with high growth potential is characterized by some of the following indicators:●●●●●●●High concentration of economic activitiesHigh potential for stimulation of business and development of servicesSignificant employment in administration and service sectorHigh concentration of educational activitiesHigh importance of the transport system providing the citizens with the mobility andcontributing to the development of the municipalityHigh importance for assurance of health, social, culture and educational needs ofcitizens, the improvement of life quality in the municipalityHigh innovation potential, especially in relation to the development of the businesssector and educational institutions, aimed at reaching synergiesIUDP preparationIn the initial phase the Managing authority of the ROP Northwest launches a call forproposals inviting municipalities to prepare and submit IUDP proposals. The Managingauthority specifies in this invitation the type and characteristics of an IUDP, its content, theselection criteria, etc.. Consequently the municipality prepares an IUDP (selects thezone/theme on the basis of the above indicated criteria, determines the strategy andquantifies goals, consults with partners, etc.). The municipality can prepare and submitseveral IUDPs, whose justification and prioritization is based upon the vision of themunicipality's of the needs of selected zones/theme.The integrated urban development plan should contain among others the followinginformation: Socio economic analysis and SWOT analysis of the municipality Justification for selection of the given zone/theme in the municipality on the basis ofabove mentioned criteria Zone / theme area description Quantification of targets; definition of indicators Description of expected resultsPage 162 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionDescription of partners, their involvement in both the preparation and implementationof the IUDP (application of partnership principle)Budget and time schedule (description of the means of financing)Description of administrative capacity and management of the IUDP.Impact of the IUDP on horizontal themes etc.Important projects co-financed from other operational programmes can be mentionedin the IUDP but they do not represent operationally the part of the IUDP).Their listshall be annexed to the IUDPDescription of activities to achieve defined IUDP target (including indicative list ofprincipal projects)The municipality submits an IUDP to the ROP Northwest Managing Authority whichevaluates and approves/refuses it. While evaluating the IUDP, the ROP Northwest ManagingAuthority pays special attention to:- Criteria set by the call for proposal- Justification of selected zone / thematic area, analysis of initial situation for the IUDPimplementation strategy- defined target, selected strategy, indicative list of actions / projects to achieve thechosen target, budget and time schedule, foreseen results, respect of partnershipprinciple, impact on horizontal themes, administrative capacity, management of theIUDP, indicators etc.- technical quality and maturity of the proposed IUDP.Once the IUDP is approved by the Managing authority the municipality pre-selects mostsuitable projects to reach the defined objective of the IUDP. The pre-selection of individualprojects is in the competence of the municipality, which in line with principles oftransparency, equal opportunities and respect of partnership principle establishesprocedures for the assessment and selection of projects.The projects pre-selected by the municipality are then submitted directly to the MA ROPNorthwest which assesses them. The MA of the ROP Northwest can reject these preselectedprojects only on the basis of the formal / technical (e.g. ineligibility, insufficientbudget).IUDP implementationDuring the implementation phase of the IUDP the municipality follows closely progress of allprojects and reports to the Managing authority. Individual projects are implemented by theproject holder (the municipality or its partners). Managing authority monitors projects as inthe case of all other projects within the OP.The interventions implemented via the IUDP will be carried out while respecting thelegislative framework of the Czech Republic and the European Communities (especially inrelation to the public procurement, rules for state aid, principles of free competition, eligibilityetc.) to ensure the effective use of EU Structural Funds, as well as to ensure public interestand to prevent undue profits.Page 163 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region7.2 PRIORITY AXIS 2 – INTEGRATED SUPPORT OF LOCALDEVELOPMENT7.2.1 BASELINE SITUATIONAlthough cities are the main driving force of economic development in the NorthwestCohesion Region, rural areas present a natural component of the region and play asignificant role in the development of the cohesion region primarily in the borderlands. Ruraland peripheral areas enclose urban centres and the central urbanized corridor stretchingacross the whole region. The high urbanization level in the region is also reflected in the lowdensity of population in peripheral rural areas, where approximately one fifth of thepopulation of the Northwest Cohesion Region live.A significant factor interfering in the development of rural areas, with adverse consequencesthat have been borne by the urban areas of the Northwest Cohesion Region up to thepresent, is the almost complete change in the population after 1945 resulting from thetransfer of the German population. Not only were the ownership bonds and cultural traditionsbroken, but there was also a complete depopulation of extensive areas and liquidation ormarginalization of a great number of villages.The region’s economic structure, generally significantly affected by the negativeconsequences of the restructuring and transformation process, impacts the low economiceffectiveness and entrepreneurial activities in rural arrears, resulting in the decline of tradeand loss of traditions. A considerable decline in agricultural functions has a negative impacton the economic stability of rural areas, as well. This process, which started as a result ofdepopulation of extensive rural arrears after 1945, became more intensive especially after1989. Agriculture based on the system of state farms and unified farmers’ cooperativesbroke up in the whole CR. However, in the Czech interior it was possible to returnagricultural property confiscated by the former regime to the original owners, and thus torenew agricultural production in rural areas, at least partially, fairly soon. As for theNorthwest region, which lost its original structure of owners of agricultural property due to thechange in the population after 1945, this process could not be carried out in most cases.With the exception of the lowlands along the eastern border of the region, agriculture hasstarted to play the role of an economic factor in rural areas, although to a limited extent, onlyin recent times.The main problems of rural areas in the Northwest region also include lack of jobopportunities close by; two thirds of the residents regularly commute to work and to school totowns and cities.The availability and transport serviceability in rural areas is insufficient and hinders theresidents’ mobility. The state of the local technical and transport infrastructure, theappearance of the villages and the abandoned and neglected production plants is also poor.The quality of air in the villages is negatively affected by home furnaces, often burning lowqualitysolid fuels.Page 164 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionLimited availability of educational, social, healthcare and cultural facilities and services isanother typical problem of these areas.This generally results in continuing depopulation of rural areas, as mostly young andqualified people leave for cities, whereas people at the post-productive age and those lessqualified remain in the country. This aggravates the social and economic problems of ruralareas.Although rural areas of the Northwest region have mainly lost their function in agriculturalproduction, it is necessary to support their development together with cities. The residentialfunction performed by rural areas becomes more important especially in the vicinity of majorcities, where living in the country becomes an acceptable alternative as a result of the lowerattractiveness of cities and thus helps retain qualified workforce in the region. Strengtheningthe role of rural areas as a place for recreation and regeneration of the workforce also gainsimportance, as it also helps retain them in the region.Regarding the economic weak points of rural areas in the Northwest region described aboveit is obvious that the required effect cannot be achieved without targeted support of the ruralareas’ absorption capacity. As follows from the results of mapping the demand in the region’sless urbanized areas and their subsequent analysis, the nature of many projects testifies to acertain lack of local financial and institutional/organizational capacities – the degree ofresidents actively participating in solving problems is low; local communities are oftenrelatively weak, small and isolated and very often there are no sufficient funds for cofinancing.In spite of a great interest in the implementation of projects, there exists only verylittle understanding of the need to start the development process, i.e. to focus on projectshaving good prospects and helping create the necessary capacities for the preparation andimplementation of large-scale development projects, which would stimulate localcommunities and bring permanent stability and prosperity.All these factors present major obstacles hindering the successful and permanentdevelopment of these localities, resulting in the balance of disparities between rural areasand urban centres, as these disparities present a major barrier in increasing thecompetitiveness of the region as a whole.7.2.2 MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE PRIORITY AXISStimulation and balanced development of rural areas and their communities by implementingtargeted integrated projects 10 based on local demand.7.2.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THE PRIORITY AXISSC 2.1. Strengthening the local development capacity for the preparation andimplementation of integrated projects.10 In this context, an integrated project means a project that does not solve an isolated investment action, i.e., forexample, only repairing roads in the municipality, but also involves related investments, such as building of a carpark or an information centre, public lighting etc. and, therefore, solves the problems as a whole, thus bringingabout sufficient effect of the investment. Such a project is submitted and assessed as an individual project byusing adjusted points criteria, making it possible to assess the degree of integration.Page 165 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionSC 2.2. Development and improvement of the infrastructure and physical and culturalenvironment.7.2.4 INDICATORSThe specification and quantification of assumed indicators for evaluating the specificobjectives of the Priority Axis are stated in Chapter 9. “Monitoring and Evaluation of theProgramme.”7.2.5 STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVESThe general strategic principles of the Community refer to the necessity of creating asufficient capacity of the project holders for effective absorption of the structural funds. Theprinciples emphasize the need for innovative projects based on partnership, strengtheningthe citizens’ involvement in the implementation of public programmes and policies and in thisrespect emphasising the importance of local development above all for less urbanized areas.Since the reform in 1988, local development as a form of solution for development needshas always been a legitimate part of the politics of economic and social cohesion, which iscurrently aimed at achieving the Lisbon strategy, and it has been a part of most SFprogrammes for backward regions and particularly for their problematic areas.Local development should not be substituted with economic development at the local level.Whereas the latter involves implementation of the policies laid down in the national orregional programmes, i.e. the approach “down from above,” which does not always takeaccount of the actual local dimensions, local development (as understood by this PriorityAxis) involves application of the approach “up from below,” in other words it takes account oflocal needs to the greatest possible extent and enables the local public to get largelyinvolved not only in the identification of these needs, but also in implementation of theactions leading to their fulfilment.The Priority Axis must eliminate this handicap of low financial and organizational capacityand − like in the other successful EU regions − must focus on strategic investments andinitiatives triggering or accelerating local development processes, since no isolated projectwill probably lead to real changes, unless a process exists, which would be connected to theresult and lead to further development activities.Investments realized within the framework of this Priority Axis must be targeted and mustserve to satisfy the needs that have been clearly proven. For that reason it is necessary toavoid financing too minor or isolated projects without any prospects from the point of view ofcreating capacities for major integrated projects and strengthening the motivation of localcitizens and from the aspect of tangible social or economic contributions.The creation of capacities understood as activation of as many local subjects as possibleand their involvement in the process of identification of needs and the process of localdevelopment planning are the major prerequisites for firmly establishing all developmentinitiatives. It is necessary to emphasize the fact that this neither concerns the creation ofadministrative capacities, which is solved with ESF support within the framework of anotherprogramme, nor does it concern duplicity of the activities supported by means of a relativelyPage 166 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionsmall amount of funds allocated to Priority Axes 2 and 3, Axis III. and Axis IV. within theframework of the Rural Development Programme, to which the ROP Northwest iscomplementary. The Priority Axis is not specifically oriented to rural areas, but it involvestypical local development activities carried out outside of the major urbanized centres, whichhave been commonly supported by the European Regional Development Fund up to thepresent.In order to achieve stabilized and balanced development of the region’s less urbanizedareas, the Priority Axis will focus on targeted support of local development capacities for thepreparation and implementation of integrated projects and improvement and thedevelopment of local infrastructure and the physical and cultural environment, as well.The achievement of the above objectives will be supported within the framework of thePriority Axis by setting basic conditions for the commencement and implementation of therenovation of villages in less urbanized areas. This process is based on a partnershipapproach and is the main prerequisite for support of projects which can bring about anytangible economic or social effect in the area. When creating the necessary developmentcapacities, support will also be targeted on relatively small, low-cost campaigns initiating andensuring permanent interest and the feeling of unity with the development process in thelocal community, stimulating their support and the feeling of responsibility for the proposedand realized investments and enabling to shift local development to a more organized andintegrated stage.Provided that sufficient capacities are achieved, support will be subsequently given totargeted strategic investments meeting local development needs and leading to stabilizationand development of the area.Both parts of the Priority Axis are interconnected very closely; the first part is an essentialprecondition of success for the second part. For that reason, when implementing the PriorityAxis it is also necessary to respect the time aspect consistently and to enable individualpotential applicants to prepare themselves sufficiently using the first part of the support priorto the commencement of the tender for support of the realization of own developmentinvestments.Therefore, particularly the first declared invitation will be targeted in accordance with theeffort to create a sufficient absorption capacity especially for the area of support 2.1. Itconcerns the activities leading to the mobilization of the local public and their developmentplanning, i.e. creation of local capacity and focus on key processes and methods of strategicplanning at a local level, as well as financially undemanding activities stimulating the feelingof unity with the development process in the local community.At the same time as supporting the creation of absorption capacities, within the framework ofthe challenge it will be possible to support well-prepared integrated projects classified in thearea of support 2.2. However, beneficiaries must prove that the proposed investment projectreacts to local demand and needs and is a part of a broader concept of municipaldevelopment.Page 167 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionThe subsequent calls will support standard individual or integrated projects, which will be apart of the local concept of municipal development (it does not matter whether they wereelaborated with support provided within the framework of the area 2.1 or independently).7.2.6 MAIN AREAS OF SUPPORTArea of support 2.1. Creating capacities for local development, informing andeducating the public• Activation of local subjects by the local authority (common meetings, controlleddiscussions, sharing experience and examples of good practice) leading to theestablishment of an informal local partnership, assessment of the local needs andcreation of a simple local action plan, setting targets in a medium-range horizonand containing the strategic projects and intentions agreed upon including theidentification of necessary sources and subjects required for the implementation ofthis plan.• Creation of informational and communication material and media intended for thelocal citizens and the outer world and related both to the local developmentinitiative itself, as well as to local services, the area, its history, culture, nature andpeople (magazines, websites, information Tables including electronic ones,publications etc.) – all activities of this type will be processed with the goal toincrease the involvement of citizens in the prepared integrated project and,therefore, will be targeted on its presentation and promotion.• Educational measures aimed at increasing public involvement (round tables,citizens’ forums, consultations with the public on proposed investments andprepared projects, on the vision of the local area), creation of local studies,surveys, questionnaires and other activities necessary in the preparation of aproject and of the documentation necessary for its implementation.• Local small-scale development initiatives (marking and public maps, campaignsagainst throwing rubbish, competitions for the cleanest village etc.) aimed atimplementing additional activities related to the prepared integrated project.• Preparation of projects and necessary supporting documents for theimplementation of the created plans, cooperation on projects of the public andprivate sector (PPP).Area of support 2.2. Investments for improving physical infrastructure●Revitalization, regeneration and development of municipalities and their parts bymeans of:- Building renovations and completions of public spaces (including “ruralnon-agricultural brownfields“), squares and architectural elements;- Construction, renovation and equipment of civic facilities, facilitiesintended for cultural and communal life, and public sector (includingmarking and adjustments for the physically handicapped);Page 168 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region- Including (if it is a part of the complex solution)1) Renovation and building of pavements, pedestrian zones,underground passages, cyclists’ trails including marking andadjustments for the physically handicapped;2) Renovation and construction of public lighting;3) Renovation and foundation of public green areas, parks, recreationalzones etc. (without a connection to tourism);4) Renovation and renewal of historical and cultural monuments(without a connection to tourism);5) Renovation and building of children’s playgrounds, public sportsfacilities and areas for leisure time activities;6) Investments in improvement of availability and safety of publictransport (bus stops);7) Renovation and construction of local roads including parking areas;8) Renovation and construction of the local technical infrastructure;9) Investments in support of increased usage of renewable energysources (RES) in rural municipalities.●●Infrastructure for human resources development:• Construction, renovation, modernization and equipment of educationalinstitutions including ICT equipment (secondary schools and colleges, lifelonglearning, active employment policy and libraries);• Construction, renovation, modernization and equipment of the institutionsserving for the groups endangered by social expulsion and supporting socialintegration of the user in the society;• Construction, renovation, modernization and equipment of healthcarefacilities;• Construction, renovation, modernization and equipment of the facilities forpre-school and extracurricular care for children;• Construction, renovation, modernization and equipment of the facilitiesproviding care for senior citizens.Infrastructure for economic development:• Renovation and regeneration of dilapidated structures and productionpremises of brownfields to be used for non-manufacturing economic activitiesand for civic amenities, including their extension with new neighbouring plots;• Renovation and construction or the related technical infrastructure (sewerage,water piping, lighting and marking);• Renovation and construction of access roads.7.2.7 PRIORITY THEMESDivision of financial allocations into particular areas of interventions and priority themes isonly for guidance and according to a development of absorption capacity can be changed.Page 169 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionPriority Axis 2Code Priority themes11 Information and communication technologies(access, security, interoperability,risk-prevention, research, innovation, e-content,etc.)% ofallocationOrientation amount ofallocation4,50 % 1 463 47759 Development of cultural infrastructure 11,70 % 3 805 04161 Integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration 27,00 % 8 780 86875 Education infrastructure 11,70 % 3 805 04176 Health infrastructure 11,70 % 3 805 04177 Childcare infrastructure 11,70 % 3 805 04179 Other social infrastructure 11,70 % 3 805 04181 Mechanisms for improving good policy andprogramme, design, monitoring and evaluation10,00 % 3 252 171Total 100 % 32 521 721Area of support 2.1Code Priority themes81 Mechanisms for improving good policy andprogramme, design, monitoring and evaluation% ofallocationOrientation amount ofallocation100,00 % 3 252 171Total 100 % 3 252 171Area of support 2.2Code Priority themes11 Information and communication technologies(access, security, interoperability,risk-prevention, research, innovation, e-content, etc.)% ofallocationOrientation amount ofallocation5,00 % 1 463 47759 Development of cultural infrastructure 13,00 % 3 805 04161 Integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration 30,00 % 8 780 86875 Education infrastructure 13,00 % 3 805 04176 Health infrastructure 13,00 % 3 805 04177 Childcare infrastructure 13,00 % 3 805 04179 Other social infrastructure 13,00 % 3 805 041Total 100 % 29 269 5507.2.8 FORM AND AMOUNT OF SUPPORTWithin the priority framework, it is assumed that support will be provided to individual orintegrated projects.In this sense, an integrated project is understood as a project targeting severalinterdependent or related investments (e.g. modernization of local roads, public lighting andPage 170 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionrenovation of adjoining public spaces). The integrated projects submitted this way will beassessed as individual actions by using a specifically adjusted points system of assessmentfocused above all on the assessment of the level of integration of individual activities.The support will be provided in the form of a direct non-returnable subsidy.As far as the projects that do not involve state aid are concerned, the support provided fromthe EU funds can amount to as much as 85 % of public eligible costs.As far as the projects falling under the regime of state aid are concerned, the amount of thesupport for the ROP Northwest is determined on the basis of the national regional state aidmap for the period 2007 – 2013. It stipulates that subsidies amount to 40 % of the totaleligible costs for NUTS 2 Northwest at the most. If state aid recipients are small and mediumenterprises, it is possible to utilize a larger amount presumed by the EC regulationsapplicable to the area of state aid.As far as projects classified as state aid are concerned, the support will be provided on thebasis of a block exemption or the “de minimis” rule or based on a notification of theEuropean Commission.The provided support must be in accordance with both the national and Community legalregulations (including the rules of state aid and economic competition and the rules in thearea of public procurement – particularly Public Procurement Act No. 137/2006 Coll., asamended). The support will satisfy the criteria of effective utilization of the SF, observe thepublic interest and will not contribute to unreasonable profit of the beneficiaries. Theemphasis on observance of these rules will be placed particularly on the area of transport,brownfield regeneration, health care, education and the social sector.7.2.9 TARGET GROUPSLocal inhabitants, visitors to the locations, and local entrepreneurs engaged in renderingservices.7.2.10 BENEFICIARIESMore detailed legislative specification of individual categories of beneficiaries is provided inchapter 10.3.1 Specification of Beneficiaries.BeneficiariesRegions in case the projects are implemented in municipalities with a population from 500 to 4,999 inhabitantsMunicipalities with a population from 500 to 4,999 inhabitantsOrganizations established or founded by municipalities with a population from 500 to 4999 inhabitants or by theregion in case of implementation of a project with the prevailing impact on a municipality with the populationfrom 500 to 4,999 inhabitantsVoluntary unions of municipalities whose member is at least one municipality with a population from 500 to4,999 inhabitants in case of implementation of a project with the prevailing impact on the municipality with apopulation from 500 – 4,999 inhabitantsNon-profit NGOs in case of implementation of a project with the prevailing impact on a municipality with apopulation from 500 to 4,999Page 171 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionSchools and educational facilities with the status of legal entities, listed in the Schools Register7.2.11 CROSS FINANCINGCross financing will be utilized for:• Initiation of operation in new facilities providing social services and services foryouth risk groups;• Training the staff of the supported educational and social institutions;• Activities accompanying the public services infrastructure;• Training the staff of educational institutions;• Training the staff in the institutions providing services to the groups endangered bysocial expulsion.7.2.12 COORDINATION WITH OTHER PROGRAMMESThe activities supported within the processed Priority Axis framework are complementaryabove all in relation to the activities and projects supported within the framework of the RuralDevelopment Programme (PRV). Priority Axis 2 of the ROP Northwest is directly connectedwith the group of measures III.2 of the PRV addressing the quality of life and civic facilities insmall municipalities with less than 500 inhabitants. As opposed to the PRV in this area ofsupport, the ROP is focused on municipalities and towns with more than 500 inhabitants. Inmunicipalities with a population of less than 2,000 inhabitants, only basic infrastructure ofwater supply and distribution, i.e. water treatment plants, water mains and sewage can befinanced from the EAFRD within the framework of this measure, whereas the ROP does notprovide for it.Besides the Rural Development Programme, the ROP Northwest is also complementary tothe OP Enterprise and Innovations (brownfields) and the OP Environment (green areasin built-up and vacant areas inside and outside municipalities, local roads and sewage).One of the points of contact for all four programmes is the issue of brownfields. In this areathe proceedings will be coordinated with the OP PI, the OP ŽP and the Rural DevelopmentProgramme (PRV) in the following manner:• The OP PI supports regeneration of brownfields intended prevailingly forentrepreneurial use in the future. Future use of these brownfields will come underOKEČ: 15-37, or they will be intended for strategic services or technologicalcentres;• The PRV focuses on brownfields intended for agricultural usage in the future;• The ROP Northwest will support regeneration of all other brownfields.The Ministry of the Environment of the CR will be informed in advance of brownfieldsregeneration projects submitted to the ROP Northwest and the OP PI. The Ministry ofEnvironment will inform the MA of the ROP Northwest or the OP PI whether the submittedproject includes serious old ecological burden that will be solved by the OP ŽP, or whether itcan be solved by the ROP Northwest (the OP PI).Page 172 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionCoordination with IOP concerns the following areas:1) Public healthWhen equipping healthcare facilities with medical devices, IOP will target its support on theselected national networks of acute care centres (these centres will be specified by theMinistry of Health of the CR according to branches and by localization in selected hospitals).The ROP Northwest will support complementary investments related to the development ofthese centres as well as the provision of medical devices to other healthcare facilities, orparts of healthcare facilities that will not belong to these networks.2) Social integrationIn case of transformation of residential social facilities, the IOP will solve pilot transformationprojects in specified residential facilities which have been selected in cooperation of theMinistry of Labour and Social Affairs and the regions. The ROP Northwest solves theinfrastructure of social services embodied in Act No. 108/2006 Coll. on social services on acomplementary basis. The return of the members of the most disadvantaged, sociallyexcluded Romany locations back onto the labour market and to the society will be solved inthe IOP by means of systemic project/projects, targeted on the most endangered locationsselected on the basis of specialist studies. These are locations, in which there was identifiedthe failure of the application of tools on a local and regional level. The ROP Northwest willintervene through the infrastructure of social services or by means of combined interventionswithin the framework of integrated urban development plans in other localities, not specifiedin the IOP. When promoting and implementing the tools of social economy, the IOP willcreate innovative procedures of social economy development, whereas the ROP Northwestsupports verified procedures based on the current legislation, such as protected workshops.As far as modernization of local roads owned by municipalities is concerned, the ROPNorthwest in this Priority Axis is complementary to Priority Axis 3 – Accessibility andTransport Serviceability, aimed at the construction and modernization of class II and III roads(owned by the regions), and at the OP Transport (construction and modernization of theinfrastructure of national importance).In the field of education, the boundary between the ROP and the OP Education forCompetitiveness is primarily defined according to the types of interventions. The supportprovided within the framework of the ROP financed from the ERDF focuses on “hard”investments, i.e. support of renovation of the physical infrastructure, whereas the OPEducation for Competitiveness financed from the ESF focuses on “soft” projects, targeted onthe expansion of qualification and education of the population.Details concerning coordination with the thematic operational programmes are stated inChapter 10 “Implementing Measures”.7.2.13 IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMWithin the framework of priority axis implementation, a specific approach is assumed, whichtakes account of the aforementioned strategy accepted in order to achieve the objectives ofthe Priority Axis. Within the framework of the approach determined this way, implementationwill be commenced based on a call aimed at support of the absorption capacity.Page 173 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionThe subsequent call will be focused on the support of investment actions. Within the scopeof the Priority Axis, individual and integrated projects will be supported that will addressseveral aspects impacting the situation in a given municipality within the framework of asingle project. Within the ROP Northwest it is possible to realize the projects via the PPP.7.3 PRIORITY AXIS 3 − ACCESSIBILITY AND TRANSPORTSERVICEABILITY7.3.1 BASELINE SITUATIONEconomic and social problems of the Northwest Cohesion Region are largely due to pooraccessibility of the region. The cohesion region is struggling not only with insufficienttransport connection to neighbouring regions but also with low quality transportinterconnection within the region, making transport among the regional centres and theirsub-regions and peripheral areas difficult.Moreover, transport infrastructure and the related transport serviceability fundamentallyaffect the mobility of the labour force in the area in question. In the Northwest cohesionregion, the mobility may be assessed as insufficient and identified as one of the mainobstacles to the growth of competitiveness of the Northwest region as a whole, in addition tothe overgenerous system of social security benefits. Low labour force mobility alsonegatively affects the effectiveness of already implemented investments – while the labourforce is missing in the given time and place, somewhere else, relatively close, the work forceis in excess.In the Northwest cohesion region, the current state of communications, i.e. the road andrailway networks, is not satisfactory in relation to the current transport needs and to therequirements for environment creation and protection, and it does not comply with commonEuropean standards. Development of the transport system lags behind the overalldevelopment of the area with its insufficient offer in terms of speed and safety, which isdirectly connected with the quality of the road and railway networks as well as the technicalquality and comfort, which particularly applies to rail vehicles. The environment condition isconsiderably negatively affected by freight transport. Being relatively the mostenvironmentally friendly, railway transport is, as compared to road transport, rather inflexible,as far as the offered services are concerned, slow, equipped with obsolete vehicles andinsufficiently utilized.In the region, the density of class II and III roads is sufficient, providing fairly trouble-freeinterconnection of towns and municipalities as well as their connection with regional centres.However, the technical condition of the roads is very unsatisfactory due to insufficientbearing capacity of road foundations, insufficient width, small diameters of turns andunsuitable parts of roads, particularly bridges. Lack of by-pass roads around towns andvillages exposes their inhabitants to the effects of excessive traffic intensity in the immediatevicinity of residential zones – particularly to the increased noise level and worsened airquality.Page 174 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionAs far as class II and III roads are concerned, the historical debt has still not been eliminatedsuccessfully. A large number of these roads has not been modernized or at least renovatedfrom the 1930's. This is the cause of the current traffic defects or limitations that consistmainly of insufficient width, directional and height parameters connected with the demandingterrain configuration, and the drainage system which has not been maintained for decades.Moreover, the roads’ structures show a number of static defects since they were designedfor an absolutely different traffic load in the past. Static defects are the main cause of thedisastrous condition of the roads surfaces which has been not only an object of justifiedcriticism by all drivers but, most importantly, the cause of a number of traffic accidents.This unsuitable condition of roads has also been negatively reflected in increased demandsof repairs of public transport vehicles and road vehicles in general. The annual budget of theregion allocated for maintenance and repairs of class II and III roads amounts toapproximately 32 million EUR, but according to the regions’ conception, at least 250 millionEUR are needed in estimate to cover radical renovations and quality improvement.The amount of the costs of renovation of the current and construction of new class II and IIIroads is based on the scope of the undertaken renovations and constructions. The treatedsegments very often include bridges, and it is necessary to increase the bearing capacity ofthe road by means of rebuilding the sub-base and modifying the drainage. Owing to the factthat a large number of roads are situated at the foot of mountains or in mountainous terrain,construction often includes the renovation of retaining and breast walls. A common part ofperformed renovations is the adjustment of road width to the width required by the norm,removal of spot defects, and modification of routing (width and diameters of turning arcs).Table 60 Examples of implemented road constructions, stating the actual costsConstruction nameYear ofimplementationSegment length inkmTotal costs(million EUR)Average costsper 1 km of theroad (millionEUR)II/222 Renovation of the road Karlovy Vary –DubinaII/209 Renovation of the road Údolí – HorníSlavkovII/209 Renovation of the through road Nové Sedlo– stage I2005 - 2006 4 3.25 0.812005 - 2007 6.1 5 0.822006 - 2007 0.6 0.62 1.03II/181 By-pass road Sokolov – Královské Poříčí –new construction2007 3.9 5 1.28Source: Regional Road Administration and Maintenance of Karlovy Vary RegionAlso insufficient is the persistent low permeability of the state border with the FederalRepublic of Germany, which has a negative effect on the development of economic andsocial cooperation not only with neighbouring Germany but also on the overall opportunity ofthe region to integrate in the united European space. The former regional road connectionfrom Bohemia to neighbouring Saxony and Bavaria was interrupted also in physical termsshortly after the WW2. Most of the border crossings have not been renewed yet despite thefact that on the level of regional bodies on both the sides of the border, there is anagreement which exactly specifies the connections and the time when the crossings are tobe renewed. Apart from the present non-inclusion of the Czech Republic in the SchengenPage 175 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionarea, the problem is financing. The funds allocated to the Czech Republic in theprogrammes of cross-border cooperation within the scope of Objective 3 are absolutelyinsufficient and if it is not possible to also utilize funds of the ROP Northwest for the renewalof permeability of the state border to a limited extent, Europe will remain virtually split from aregional aspect.The problem of the region’s transport serviceability is closely related to traffic infrastructuredevelopment. The transport infrastructure development and above all the increased standardof living experienced in recent years have resulted in a massive increase in personalautomobile transport. In the Czech Republic, the share of individual motor-vehicle transportin overall transport has changed from originally 80:20 to 50:50 within the past ten years, thuslargely contributing to the deterioration of the environment especially in highly urbanizedareas.Moreover, especially in rural and border areas, quality transport serviceability is one of thebasic prerequisites for preventing negative demographic trends, presented primarily by theefflux of inhabitants to larger cities. One of the ways for improving public transportattractiveness is to improve the quality of public transport vehicles. With regard to theenvironment, we need to mainly support railway transport including trains, trams and trolleybuses.Railway fleet used in mass passenger transportation is out-of-date (the average ageof selected groups of railway carriages is as many as 28.5 years) and its conditioncorresponds to its age. Most of the carriages used in passenger transportation are beyondtheir economic and technical service life; this fact is also reflected in the amount of operatingand maintenance costs, quality of services provided to passengers and, last but not least, inthe failure rate of the carriages.As follows from the assessment of baseline situation, transport constitutes a cross-sectionpriority impacting all other development areas addressed within the framework of thisprogramme. With regard to this fact, the priority of ensuring the region's accessibility and itsefficient inner interconnection, including securing the conditions for public transportdevelopment, may well be considered the pivotal area creating initial conditions for overallfurther development.7.3.2 MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE PRIORITY AXISImproving the connection of the region to surrounding areas, securing efficient internalinterconnection and its efficient transport accessibility particularly by public transport meanswith the objective to attain a considerable increase in internal mobility of the region’sinhabitants and the resulting decrease in local unemployment.7.3.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVESSC 3.1. Modernization and development of traffic infrastructure resulting in improvedaccessibility of the cohesion region including improved access to its individual sub-regions.SC 3.2. Development and modernization of transport serviceability of the cohesion region.Page 176 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region7.3.4 INDICATORSSpecification and quantification of assumed indicators for evaluating the special objectives ofthe Priority Axis are contained in Chapter 9. Programme Monitoring and Evaluation.7.3.5 STRATEGY TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVESSecurity of the region's accessibility from the outside and its internal interconnection is oneof the potentials that will contribute to the improvement of the preconditions for the overalleconomic development of the region and thus also for advancement of its competitiveness.In this respect, the main potential can be seen particularly in ensuring the NorthwestCohesion Region connection with passing transit corridors of the TEN-T network, presentedby the D8 motorway in the direction Prague − Dresden in the northern part of the region, theR7 expressway in the direction Prague – Chomutov in the central part of the region and theR6 expressway in the direction Prague − Karlovy Vary − Cheb in the south-western part ofthe region. Even though it is not part of the international trans-European TEN-T network, theI/13 road has absolutely fundamental importance for internal mobility of the inhabitants. Itinterconnects all the development poles of the Northwest Cohesion Region, i.e. the townswith a population above 50,000 inhabitants, from Děčín to Karlovy Vary. In Karlovy Vary, theI/13 road is connected to the R6 road, which secures smooth interconnection of the wholecohesion region from Děčín to Cheb. Despite the fact that the I/13 road is essential to life inthe cohesion region, the owner – the state – pays only little attention to its quality andcondition. With regard to state ownership and despite its essential importance for the region,the modernisation of the I/13 road and other class I roads may not be a subject of supportfrom the ROP Northwest. However, with the ROP Northwest support, the quality of the roadnetwork connected with the aforementioned roads of the TEN-T network and with the I/13road can be improved.From the aspect of the region’s accessibility, efficient capacity and quality connection of thecohesion region and its centres to these backbone routes can be considered as the priorityobjective, the achievement of which will secure basic prerequisites for further economicdevelopment of the region and thus also improved competitiveness not only within theframework of the currently extended European area. A self-evident component of securingthe external accessibility of the Northwest Cohesion Region is its internal interconnection,implemented primarily with the objective to connect the marginal parts or the territory to theabove mentioned backbone routes, or also to remove local barriers or limits by constructingby-pass roads or through-roads in towns and villages, particularly with emphasis on relievingtheir centres of heavy traffic and increasing the overall safety.It is also necessary to utilize the development potential of the international airport in KarlovyVary since it is virtually the only method how to connect the south-western part of theNorthwest Cohesion Region with the European area via a relatively fast and safe transportmode, considering the quality of the road and railway networks. The Northwest ROP willcontribute to the increase in the Labe waterway potential on a supplementary basis bymeans of building of access roads. The main activities relating to the Labe waterway andimprovement of its navigable conditions will be financed from the OP Transport whoseobjective is, among others, to improve the infrastructure condition and further functionalPage 177 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionparameters of the water transport, and to solve the problem of navigability and safety oftraffic on inland waterways that are of importance for transport. In the concrete, constructionof floodgates and concentration dikes, cleaning of the riverbed and other measures areconsidered to be undertaken on the Labe waterway.Based on the above description and justification of the need for accessibility and transportserviceability of the region, two main priority areas of activities may be defined, and attentionshould be given to their implementation in the following period.The subject of the first of the proposed areas of support (3.1 – Development of trafficinfrastructure of regional and supra-regional importance) is provision of full-fledgedconnection of the region to the supra-regional traffic axes of the TEN-T network and to theI/13 road, which is the traffic backbone of the region, through class II and III roads, includingthe elimination of bottlenecks restraining effective connection of the region to this network(by-pass roads and through roads in cities and villages, etc.). Also improvement of thepermeability of the state border with the Federal Republic of Germany through the renewal(i.e. capacity improvement and modernization) of formerly existing and functioningintraregional road connections at the level of class II and III roads will be supported. Fromthe ROP Northwest, the support will be provided only for the construction of new orrenovation of existing class II and III roads; the funds will not be used for commonmaintenance and repairs of the aforementioned roads. Maintenance or repairs meaninvestment nature works performed to remove defects and imperfections by renewing theoriginal condition. Reconstruction means construction and assembly works changingparameters or purpose of an existing communication. Detailed specification of maintenance,repairs and reconstruction is given in the Implementing Document.Development and modernization of the intraregional road network, including development ofthe potential of the Karlovy Vary airport and the infrastructure conditioning the utilization ofthe Labe waterway, provide capacitive and modern interconnection of major developmentaxes and the region’s centres, including their interconnection with the surrounding areas,and are the major prerequisite of further development of the region and its increasedattractiveness both for local inhabitants and any potential entrepreneurs and investors.Directly related to the first area of support, the programme determines the second area ofsupport (3.2 – Development of transport serviceability of the region) whose objective issupport for the development of infrastructure and services that secure basic prerequisites foreffective accessibility of all the parts of the region while utilizing public transport. Withrespect to environmental impacts, priority will be given to quality improvement of railwaypassenger transport (renewal of the fleet of trains for suburban and regional publictransport). The support will also be intended for the integration of all sorts of public transportand possible connection of individual transport (by car and bicycle) to public transport (e.g.through change terminals and car parks of “park and ride” type).Building of the changing terminals for public transport is an important contribution to theintegration of all public transport (including urban public transport systems supported withinthe area of support 1.1 Support of the regional development poles) as the inevitable prerequisitefor enhancing attractiveness of public transport for the population of the wholeregion. Regarding the fact, changing terminals should serve not only the towns they arePage 178 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionlocated in but they should also interconnect transport in significant sub-regions within theregion, of which the regions (krajs) will be the holders of these projects. The importance theNorthwest Cohesion Region and both participating regions attribute to this plan forenhancing the attractiveness of public transport is also expressed with the indicativeallocation for this type of intervention (Refer to Priority themes 25 – Urban transport). Butthese means represent only a part of support of the urban trasport within the ROPNorthwest. A significant part of the means for the modernization of urban transport isallocated in the urban area of support 1.1 – Support of the region's development poles (seePriority themes 52 – Promotion of clean urban transport). The indicative allocation within theROP Northwest for the support of the urban transport displays the following table:Area of support Priority themes Estimated amount ofallocation1.1 – Support of the regionaldevelopment poles3.2 – Development oftransport serviceability of theregion52 – Promotion of cleanurban transport20 241 23425 – Urban transport 12 897 367Total 33 138 601Integration of urban public transport with public line transport and railway passengertransport, implemented by quality improvement of integrated transport systems (e.g. byintroduction of an electronic checking system) or by building change-over terminals, is anopportunity for increasing the attractiveness of public transport in towns and suburban areasas well as in the whole Northwest Cohesion Region.Ensuring accessibility of public transportation to disadvantaged or handicapped groups ofcitizens (e.g. mothers with prams, wheelchair bound persons, persons with vision andhearing impairment, and others) through disabled facilities, such as barrier-free access totransportation terminals and facilities in means of transportation of the urban and sub-urbantransportation systems, will also be supported. Also, integration of single types of regionalpassenger mass transportation into one system of pre-paid fare will be subject to support.The intervention within the scope of the area of support 3.2 will also take account of thegrowing attractiveness of bicycle transport in the Northwest Cohesion Region and therelated large number of accidents suffered by cyclists. Considering the small number of safecycle paths separated from the roads used by motor vehicles, the support will be given tothe development of a network of cycle paths. The support will be focused on distance routes(backbone routes) passing through the region, the routes connecting the backbone networkto a similar network out of the cohesion region, and on compact significant local routesdirectly connected to the backbone network.The proposed interventions are aimed in the manner ensuring their implementation createsbasic preconditions for efficient mobility of the population within the region, with theobjective:a) to support accessibility of the existing civic amenities and thus to improve livingconditions particularly in border areas of the region;Page 179 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionb) to improve accessibility of the economic centres of the region as the resource of jobopportunities;c) to reduce local unemployment in the region;d) to reduce negative impacts of traffic on the environment.The Priority Axis thus creates the basic pillar of the entire programme as well as the mainprerequisite for ensuring the sufficient effect of the programme in relation to fulfilling priorityobjectives of the Lisbon Strategy.7.3.6 MAIN AREAS OF SUPPORTArea of support 3.1. Development of traffic infrastructure of regional andsupra-regional importance• Preparation of projects and related project documents for projects securing theconnection of the region to the TEN-T network and to the backbone regionalcommunication I/13, and projects solving internal interconnection of the regionincluding regional cross-border connections with the Federal Republic ofGermany.• Renovation, modernization and building of class II and III roads that secure theconnection of the region’s centres to supra-regional axes of the TEN-T networkand to regional axis I/13, including the elimination of local “weak points” on roadsconnecting the region to the TEN-T network and to the I/13 road, especially bypassroads in residential areas and agglomerations.• Renovation, modernization and construction of class II and III roads that secureeffective interconnection within the region and higher permeability of the stateborder, and create basic prerequisites for effective mobility of the population in theentire region.• Modernization and development of the international airport in Karlovy Vary and therelated traffic infrastructure.• Development of traffic infrastructure conditioning efficient utilization of the Labewaterway potential.Area of support 3.2. Development of transport serviceability of the region• Preparation of concepts, programmes and projects focused on solving thedevelopment of transport serviceability in the region and its parts, including thepreparation of necessary related documents.• Implementation of integrated projects of transport serviceability developmentfocused both on development, modernization and renovation of the neededinfrastructure (renovation and construction of integrated traffic terminals andbuilding of related car parks), and on the development of related services (buildinginformation and chip dispatching systems, publicity and media promotion of publictransport…).Page 180 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region• Improving the accessibility of public transport for specific population groups (oldand handicapped citizens).• Purchase of railway vehicles used in public transport.• Development and construction of backbone regional cycle paths including theirconnection to the backbone network of cycle paths in neighbouring regions andcompact segments of local cycle paths connected to the backbone network thatare important for securing the region’s full-scope transport serviceability.7.3.7 PRIORITY THEMESDivision of financial allocations into particular areas of interventions and priority themes isonly for guidance and according to a development of absorption capacity can be changed.Priority Axis 3Code Priority themes% ofallocationOrientation amount ofallocation18 Mobile rail assets 10,06 % 25 493 25823 Regional/local roads 66,49 % 168 435 60329 Airports 2,06 % 5 209 34924 Cycle tracks 14,75 % 37 372 57525 Urban transport 5,09 % 12 897 36728 Intelligent transport systems 1,54 % 3 903 230Total 100 % 253 311 382Area of support 3.1Code Priority themes% ofallocationOrientation amount ofallocation23 Regional/local roads 97,00 % 168 435 60329 Airports 3,00 % 5 209 349Total 100 % 173 644 952Area of support 3.2Code Priority themes% ofallocationOrientation amount ofallocation18 Mobile rail assets 32,00 % 25 493 25824 Cycle tracks 46,91 % 37 372 57525 Urban transport 16,19 % 12 897 36728 Intelligent transport systems 4,90 % 3 903 230Total 100 % 79 666 430Page 181 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region7.3.8 FORM AND AMOUNT OF SUPPORTWithin priority framework, it is assumed that support will be provided to individual orintegrated projects.Support will be provided in the form of a direct non-returnable subsidy.As far as the projects that do not involve state aid are concerned, the support provided fromthe EU funds can amount to as much as 85 % of public legitimate expenses.As far as the projects falling under the regime of state aid are concerned, the amount of thesupport for the ROP Northwest is determined on the basis of the national regional state aidmap for the period 2007 – 2013. It stipulates that subsidies amount to 40 % of the totalrecognizable costs for NUTS 2 Northwest at the most. If the state aid recipients are smalland medium enterprises, it is possible to utilize a larger amount presumed by the ECregulations as applicable to the area of state aid.As far as the projects falling under the regime of state aid are concerned, the support will beprovided on the basis of a block exemption or the “de minimis” rule or based on a notificationof the European Commission.The provided support must be in accordance with both the national and the Community legalregulations (including rules of state aid and economic competition and the rules in the areaof public procurement – particularly the Public Procurement Act No. 137/2006 Coll., asamended). The support will satisfy the criteria of effective utilization of the SF, observe thepublic interest and will not contribute to unreasonable profit of beneficiaries. The emphasison observance of these rules will particularly be placed on the area of transport,regeneration of brownfields, health care, education and the social sector.7.3.9 TARGET GROUPSInhabitants and visitors to the region, its towns and villages, people working in towns andvillages, tourists, entrepreneurial entities and investors.7.3.10 BENEFICIARIESMore detailed legislative specification of individual categories of beneficiaries is provided inchapter 10.3.1 Specification of Beneficiaries.RegionsMunicipalitiesBeneficiariesOrganizations established or founded by municipalities or by a regionVoluntary unions of municipalitiesNon-profit NGOsBusiness entities (legal and personal entities)Page 182 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region7.3.11 CROSS FINANCINGWithin the Priority Axis, application of “flexibility” meaning the possibility of co-funding ofprojects falling under different funds and being indispensable for the implementation ofmeasures (see art. 34 sec. 2 of the General Regulations on SF) up to the amount of 10 % ofthe total funds allocated for the Priority Axis is not assumed.7.3.12 COORDINATION WITH OTHER PROGRAMMESThe interface between the OP Transport and the ROP Northwest in the area of transport isdefined above all on the basis of the importance of the projects from regional or nationalaspects. The ROP Northwest is focused on traffic infrastructure which is not owned by thestate, such as class II and III roads. The content of the OP Transport is development andmodernization of the infrastructure being of importance for the whole nation.As far as the field of road infrastructure is concerned, within the scope of the OP Transport,construction of further segments of the TEN-T network will be supported, i.e. constructionand modernization of motorways, expressways and class I roads. Within the scope of theOP Transport, telematic systems will be implemented in the motorway network and on classI roads. In the field of railway infrastructure, the OP Transport is focused on modernization oftransit corridors and pivotal rail junctions in the TEN-T network, on electrification of railwaylines etc. In the field of water transport, the OP Transport supports the development andmodernization of inland waterways of the TEN-T network and also out of the TEN-T.In respect to the OP Transport, the ROP Northwest is a complementary programme linkingtogether with the above interventions. The ROP Northwest aims to connect the region to theTEN-T network and other major traffic routes, and to renovate, modernize and perhaps alsoto construct class II and III roads. In the field of railway transport, the ROP Northwest willsupport renewal of the rolling-stock used in public transport. The ROP Northwest will supportthe connected infrastructure enabling fully-fledged utilization of the Labe waterway potential.The ROP Northwest directly links up with the OP Czech Republic – Independent State ofBavaria 2007 – 2013 providing aid for the “construction and improvement of cross bordertransport structure, and development and improvement of cross-border traffic systems”within the scope of the Priority Axis 2 Territorial and Environmental Development. In thesame context, the ROP Northwest also links up with OP Independent State of Saxony –Czech Republic 2007 – 2013 and its Priority Axis 1 – Development of Social FrameworkConditions in the Area of Subsidy. The transport infrastructure focused on increasing thepermeability of the border regions and on the connection of the region to important crossbordertransport axes. The interventions of the ROP and the aforementioned OPs mutuallycomplement and jointly contribute to improved connection of the region to the surroundingareas, as well as to improved internal interconnection.Details of coordination with thematic operational programmes are provided in Chapter 10Implementing Measures.7.3.13 IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMThe priority will be implemented through support of individual projects or integrated projects.Within the ROP Northwest it is possible to realize the projects via the PPP.Page 183 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region7.4 PRIORITY AXIS 4 − SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OFTOURISM7.4.1 BASELINE SITUATIONThe Northwest region has a significant potential for tourism development at its disposal.Situated in the region are important areas with high a level of natural values, representedabove all by the České Švýcarsko National Park and by protected landscape areas (CHKO)Slavkovský les and Lužické hory.The region also offers a number of historic sights and attractions of national and regionalimportance. In addition to natural and cultural sights, the region also offers its visitorstechnical and industrial places of interest that form a part of the region’s industrial heritage.The position of the spa industry in the region is rather unique. The territory of the region,especially in the south-western part, is known for its abundance of mineral water springs andgases with diverse chemical composition quite unique on a European scale. The mostsignificant spa cities are Karlovy Vary, Jáchymov, Mariánské Lázně, Františkovy Lázně,Lázně Kynžvart, Kyselka, Korunní, Nová Ves as well as Teplice in the Ústí Region.Best conditions for hiking can be found in the area of Krušné hory with a number of winterresorts; however, with the exception of the ski centre Klínovec-Boží Dar, these are rather ofregional importance. Limited opportunities for winter sports are offered in other parts of theregion, such as Lužické hory or Mariánské Lázně subregion. Krušné hory have a significantpotential for development of active forms of tourism in summer. A considerable potential fortouring by water is offered by the Ohře River.A full-scale utilization of the potential of tourism, constituting one of the major potentials forfurther economic development especially in the marginal and border parts of the region, ishowever obstructed largely due to insufficient and very often low-quality tourist infrastructureincluding an insufficient offer of accommodation and hospitability services.North Bohemia’s negative image that has arisen in the course of history and of which both itsinhabitants and visitors are well aware is partly to be blamed for the above defects. Due topolluted air and impaired environment, this area has been considered hardly suitable forrecreation and tourism (except maybe for short-term forms of recreation). Although thequality of the environment in the region has substantially improved, the territory still suffersdue to its former bad image that still impairs its attractiveness in the eyes of potential visitors.In order to eliminate such an opinion, investments into infrastructure and quality services aswell as effective information and marketing activity will be required.One of the persistent consequences of this situation is also insufficient facilities in the area oftourist infrastructure, even in attractive parts of the region (e.g. in natural locations suitablefor pursuing active forms of tourism). In this respect, the only exception is the spa centres inthe western part of the region. Even these centres, however, lack sufficient offer ofcomplementary services, as well as services and products for bad weather.Page 184 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionCited in regional concepts as the most significant obstacles impeding the utilization of theregion’s potential for the development of tourism are poor traffic access and rather neglectedstate of traffic infrastructure, insufficient offer of facilities for active sports and social life andleisure, lacking or low-quality accommodation and restaurants of a medium or highercategory, and low quality of basic and complementary tourism services. An often citedproblem is also insufficient care of cultural sights, as well as availability of information on theregion.7.4.2 MAIN OBJECTIVES OF THE PRIORITY AXISUtilizing the natural and cultural potential for sustainable development of tourism in theregion.7.4.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THE PRIORITY AXISSC 4.1. Development and modernisation of infrastructure for tourismSC 4.2. Development of services and collaboration resulting in better utilization of localpotential of tourism7.4.4 INDICATORSSpecification and quantification of assumed indicators for the evaluation of specificobjectives of the Priority Axis are contained in Chapter 9 Programme Monitoring andEvaluation.7.4.5 STRATEGY TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVESIn order to increase the competitiveness of the region and to improve its overall image, theprogramme will be focused on targeted support of investments into development andmodernization of the tourism infrastructure utilizing its potential for the support ofcollaboration in the area of tourism and development of services.In order to achieve the above objectives, the programme will support extension and qualityimprovement of the offer of basic and complementary infrastructure enabling adequatedevelopment and utilization of nature areas and sights for nature-oriented tourism, culturaland technical sights and attractions for cultural and familiarization tourism, infrastructure forthe development of traditional and new forms of spa care, as well as infrastructure for activeand experience forms of tourism.In order to secure the required development benefit of interventions, aid must be grantedonly on condition that a new offer is created or the current offer is extended and its qualityimproved, and perhaps also to determine the area to which the interventions are to belocalized (i.e. to target the interventions only at a specific area, not nation-wide).Within the framework of infrastructure development and quality improvement, theprogramme also attempts to improve the standard of accommodation within a selectedgroup of accommodation facilities, as well as to extend the offer of accommodationPage 185 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regioncapacities of selected types of accommodation facilities through an aid granted toentrepreneurial entities when modernizing and developing the infrastructure in the locationsand recreational parts of the region selected in advance.Accommodation facilities receiving the aid must be oriented at the development of one offour supported basic forms of tourism in the region, namely tourism oriented at getting toknow natural places of interest, cultural and familiarization tourism, spa tourism and activeforms of tourism, and perhaps also congress tourism.In order to achieve higher economic appreciation of the region’s potential for tourism, theprogramme will support more efficient coordination and management of tourism, improvedquality and extension of suitable products and programme offers. More attention will be paidto efficient monitoring of the number of visitors, as well as to target-oriented marketing.The programme’s objectives will also be met with help of the development of regionaltourism information systems and a network of tourism information centres, and with the helpof focussing on the promotion of significant cultural and traditional events with a regionalimpact.Yet another important criterion for securing the required development benefit of interventionsin this type of activities is enforcing the requirement of regional impact of the above activities.On the whole, the Priority Axis fully links-up with all the other addressed areas; therefore asignificant synergy effect may well be expected not only in relation to Priority Axis 1 providingfor improved physical environment in the region’s urban centres, but also in relation toPriority Axis 2 in the collaboration with which development of tourism creates majorpreconditions for the overall competitiveness of rural areas of the region.7.4.6 MAIN AREAS OF SUPPORTArea of support 4.1. Building and developing of tourism attraction andinfrastructure of tourism• Construction, renewal, development, reconstruction and alterations of basic andassociated tourism infrastructure (e.g. hiking trails, nature trails, hippo trails, skitrails and ski centres including shelters, stopping places, marking systems,facilities for grooming trails, wharfs and piers for water tourism, further activities forecotourism etc.).• Revitalisation of cultural, technical and industrial sites and cultural heritage andother important tourism objects for their utilization in tourism (e.g. look out towers,museums, expositions, galleries and information centres).• Modernisation and adaptations of spa infrastructure to improve the standard andthe quality of services for both traditional and modern forms of spa treatment(“wellness“), construction of wheelchair accesses to facilities and otheradaptations for handicapped visitors.Page 186 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region• Construction and renovation of necessary traffic infrastructure to provideavailability and quality access to attractive places of interest (roads, parkingplaces, pavements, hiking trails, marking systems, etc.).Area of support 4.2. Improving the quality and offer of accommodation andcatering facilities• Renovation and modernisation of current hotel type facilities offeringaccommodation (including any possible restaurant parts) to at least the mediumstandard level (***).• Construction or modernization of light seasonal accommodation facilities,including related supplementary infrastructure (e.g. public camps, auto camps andcabana villages).• Construction, reconstruction and modernization of suitable structures to offeryearlong accommodation, including associated infrastructure and necessaryequipment.Construction, reconstruction and modernisation of hotel type accommodationfacilities (including catering parts) at least to the middle class (***), includingassociated infrastructure and necessary facilities.• Providing adequate connection of accommodation facilities to traffic and technicalinfrastructure.Area of support 4.3. Support of marketing, creation and development oftourism products• Support of establishment and activities of regional partnerships in the area oftourism (e.g. establishment and support of the activity of a regional tourism forumproviding the co-ordination of marketing strategies implementation in theNorthwest region, and support of regional or local destination managements).• Development of information and reservation systems and establishment of aregional network of information centres.• Support of realization of marketing events to facilitate tourism and spa industrydevelopment - survey, elaboration of analytic studies and strategic documents inarea of tourism and materials providing for more efficient management,elaboration of marketing studies, general development plans and tourismdevelopment conceptions, support of visit rate monitoring, development ofproducts, marketing, introduction of facilities and tourism services certificationsystem etc.• Preparation of new products, and quality improvement and extension of the offerof the existing tourism products with regional impact (e.g. “wellness“ for the areaof spa industry or ecotourism in the NP territory).• Support of tourism marketing and promotion (e.g. in the field of spa industry andwellness, NATURA 2000 areas etc.).Page 187 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region• Support of marketing and promotion of events of regional importance (e.g.promotion and presentation of important film, music or theatre festivals etc., andpromotion of the region at tourism fairs and media campaigns).• Holding conferences, seminars and workshops focused on supporting tourism andspa industry development• Creation of systems informing tourists about natural and cultural places of interestin the Northwest region (marking tourist trails, marking floatable river sections andmarking information centres, towns maps etc.).7.4.7 PRIORITY THEMESDivision of financial allocations into particular areas of interventions and priority themes isonly for guidance and according to a development of absorption capacity can be changed.Priority Axis 4Code Priority themes% ofallocationOrientation amount ofallocation55 Promotion of natural assets 2,10 % 2 994 98156 Protection and development of natural heritage 15,63 % 22 287 65857 Other assistance to improve tourist services 48,57 % 69 266 08958 Protection and preservation of the cultural heritage 15,63 % 22 287 65759 Development of cultural infrastructure 15,63 % 22 287 65760 Other assistance to improve cultural services 2,45 % 3 494 146Total 100 % 142 618 188Area of support 4.1Code Priority themes% ofallocationOrientation amount ofallocation56 Protection and development of natural heritage 25,00 % 22 287 65857 Other assistance to improve tourist services 25,00 % 22 287 65758 Protection and preservation of the cultural heritage 25,00 % 22 287 65759 Development of cultural infrastructure 25,00 % 22 287 657Total 100 % 89 150 629Area of support 4.2Code Priority themes% ofallocationOrientation amount ofallocation57 Other assistance to improve tourist services 100,00 % 43 484 286Total 100 % 43 484 286Page 188 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionArea of support 4.3Code Priority themes% ofallocationOrientation amount ofallocation55 Promotion of natural assets 30,00 % 2 994 98157 Other assistance to improve tourist services 35,00 % 3 494 14660 Other assistance to improve cultural services 35,00 % 3 494 146Total 100 % 9 983 2737.4.8 FORM AND AMOUNT OF SUPPORTWithin the priority framework, it is assumed that support will be provided to individualprojects.Support will be provided in the form of a direct non-returnable subsidy.As far as the projects that do not involve state aid are concerned, the support provided fromthe EU funds can amount to as much as 85 % of public eligible costs.As far as projects classified as state aid are concerned, the amount of support for the ROPNorthwest is determined on the basis of the national regional state aid map for the period2007 – 2013. It stipulates that subsidies amount to 40 % of the total eligible costs for NUTS2 Northwest at the most. If the state aid recipients are small and medium enterprises, it ispossible to utilize a larger amount presumed by the EC regulations as applicable to the areaof state aid.As far as projects classified as state aid are concerned, support will be provided on the basisof a block exemption or the “de minimis” rule or based on a notification of the EuropeanCommission.The provided support must be in accordance with both the national and the Community legalregulations (including rules of state aid and economic competition and the rules in the areaof public procurement – particularly the Public Procurement Act No. 137/2006 Coll., asamended). The support will satisfy the criteria of effective utilization of the SF, observe thepublic interest and will not contribute to unreasonable profit of the beneficiaries.7.4.9 TARGET GROUPSDomestic and foreign visitors and tourists, local citizens, entrepreneurs involved in theservices of the Czech Republic and in accompanying services, professional associations,municipalities and alliances of municipalities.7.4.10 BENEFICIARIESMore detailed legislative specification of individual categories of beneficiaries is provided inchapter 10.3.1 Specification of Beneficiaries.Page 189 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionRegionsMunicipalitiesBeneficiariesOrganizations established or founded by a municipality or by a regionVoluntary unions of municipalitiesNon-profit NGOs (only for the projects having an impact on a municipality with the population above2,000 inhabitants)State organisational unitsThe Chamber of Commerce and its componentsLegal entities' interest associationsBusiness entities with the accounting history longer than two years (legal and personal entities)7.4.11 CROSS FINANCINGCross financing will be utilized for:• the support focused on human resources (e.g. training and extension ofqualification of the workers involved in tourism) that is directly connected withproject.7.4.12 COORDINATION WITH OTHER PROGRAMMESIn the area of tourism, the ROP is interconnected above all with the IOP interventionstargeted at system projects in the area of marketing and services of supra-regional andnational importance. With its orientation, the ROP attempts to support investments ofregional and local importance, thus complementing interventions at a national level.From the viewpoint of coordination with the PRV, the ROP is a related programme theinterventions of which complement the areas of support of this programme within theframework of the measure Tourism Support oriented at supporting the construction ofrecreational infrastructure for small capacity accommodation facilities, including catering andrecreational facilities, as well as the provision of services for specific types of tourism (hiking,cycling, aquatic tourism, skiing, hippo tourism, etc.). The development programme of thecountry supports tourism with farming entrepreneurs and beginning entrepreneurs inmunicipalities with up to 2,000 inhabitants.Beside the above-mentioned programmes, the ROP interventions are complemented byinterventions within the framework of the OP Czech Republic – Independent State of Bavaria2007 - 2013 − Priority Axis 1 “Economic Development, Human Resources and Networks”, aswell as the OP Independent State of Saxony – Czech Republic 2007 - 2013 − Priority Axis 2“Economic and Tourism Development”. The interventions of these programmes are primarilytargeted at the activities in the area of tourism, leisure time and recreation, contributing tothe development of cross border collaboration (e.g. construction of reservation andinformation systems in the area of tourism, cooperation among spa facilities), constructionand quality improvement of cross border infrastructure (facilities, routes, trails), includingcontrol and navigation systems, development of offers and products, and promotion of theregion. Jointly with the ROP interventions, these activities will not only support thePage 190 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regiondevelopment of tourism in general, but also higher-level collaboration in the given area withthe neighbouring regions in Germany and development of joint products and offers, thusgenerating significant synergy effect for ROP interventions.Details of coordination with thematic operational programmes are provided in Chapter 10Implementing Measures.7.4.13 IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMWithin the framework of implementation, it is assumed that the support will be given only toindividual projects. Within the ROP Northwest it is possible to realize the projects via thePPP.7.5 PRIORITY AXIS 5 – TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE7.5.1 BASELINE SITUATIONProper management and implementation of the ROP Northwest requires technicalassistance measures with specific contents, in order to meet the main requirements of theprogramme coordination support and to increase the capacity of administrative structuresinvolved in its implementation.Priority Axis 5 Technical Assistance provides for ongoing management, coordination,monitoring and evaluation of the programme as required by the structural funds regulations,including publicity and information. It primarily provides diverse types of services andactivities, the objective of which is to ensure the efficiency of planning and management ofimplementation processes within the framework of co-funded projects by means ofinnovative or traditional tools and methodologies.Technical assistance will be implemented through two fields of intervention ensuring smoothand efficient management and implementation of all activities supported by this programme.These areas of support primarily include the following activity focuses:• The area focused on internal needs of the Northwest Regional Council involvesparticularly support of the main control and implementation tasks attended to bythe Northwest Regional Council (Managing Authority of the ROP Northwest), andtechnical administration of the ROP Northwest;• The area focused on external needs of the Northwest Regional Councilparticularly involves support for development, absorption capacity and informationavailability, publicity, and support in the form of funds for the elaboration andimplementation of projects.Priority Axis 5 relates to the strategic need to strengthen the tools used to increase theefficiency and effectiveness of programmes co-funded from the SF. Experience also showsthat proper management requires a shift from the traditional approach “down from above”towards more open methods enabling the involvement of relevant interested parties in thePage 191 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionentire region, in large urban centres, as well in less urbanized areas. Increasing capacity istime consuming and often requires not only training and resources, but also external supportand management.7.5.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE PRIORITY AXISTo secure continuous, effective and efficient management, implementation, monitoring,inspection and evaluation of the programme, so that it supports carefully targeted, integratedand staged methods of regional development that supports activities of decentralized andcooperating participants in development.7.5.3 INDICATORSSpecification and quantification of assumed indicators for the evaluation of specificobjectives of the Priority Axis are contained in Chapter 9 Programme Monitoring andEvaluation.7.5.4 MAIN AREAS OF SUPPORTArea of support 5.1. Support of implementation of the ROP NorthwestThe aid will be targeted above all at supporting activities of the Northwest Regional Council(Managing Authority of the ROP Northwest) when implementing joint activities resulting fromthe provisions and instructions of the EC regulations for the SF.Types of suitable activities:• Activities related to the operation of other units participating in the implementationof the programme. These are Monitoring Committee, Committee of the RegionalCouncil, work groups within the ROP, evaluation committees etc.• Purchase of or payment for services related to materially-technical support of theManaging Authority of the ROP Northwest. These are particularly the costsconnected with the usage of the headquarters of the Office of the RegionalCouncil, purchase of furnishings, necessary maintenance, security of operationetc.• Activity costs of Authorized Audit Entity (PAS) except of personal costs.• Activities supporting programme implementation, particularly methodical support,programme management, monitoring and evaluation, implementation, inspection,audit and the Financial Section.• Activities related to the evaluation process and selection of projects (expertopinions etc.)Page 192 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region• Purchase or payment of services and costs related to the implementation ofactivities in the area of human resources development. These are particularlyeducation, development of knowledge and skills, exchange of experience, bestpractices etc.• Activities supporting technical administration, increasing of effectiveness andefficiency of public administration, personal costs and stimulation systems,company management systems etc.• Purchase or payment of services and costs related to implementation of surveys,specialized studies, consultations etc.• Preparation of the future programme period after 2013.Area of support 5.2. Support of development of absorption capacity andpublicityA subject of this area of support will be provision of assistance to potential applicants orgroups of applicants (communities) for which this programme is intended and from whomactive approach to the preparation of suitable projects and related underlying studies andanalyses is expected. The applicants with a quality project plan will be provided with supportthrough training, education and increasing of skills necessary for the preparation andmanagement of quality projects plans. Last but not least, the area of support also impliessupport for the preparation of quality projects through support in the form of minor grantsallocating funds for the preparation of projects so that potentially qualified and feasibleproject plans are grasped which will contribute to the overall successful implementation ofthe programme.In addition to standard support of potential applicants, the area of support will include aspecific area focused on urbanized areas processing IUDPs, to which continual assistancefrom the Managing authority will be provided within the scope of this area of support both inpreparation and in subsequent implementation of complex project plans required by theIUDP.This measure will also support implementation of the Communication Plan of the ROPNorthwest, which will provide information and increase public awareness of operationsselected for the support from the programme. In accordance with requirements of the ECregulations, the Northwest Regional Council (Managing Authority of the ROP Northwest) andother entities involved in the ROP implementation will provide as detailed information onopportunities to obtain financial support from the programme as possible. Therefore theymust ensure that the ROP is published as widely as possible, providing detailed informationon financial contributions from the ERDF, and that it provides potential users (i.e.municipalities, non-government organizations, entrepreneurial entities etc.) with detailedinformation on administrative procedures governing the financing within the scope of theROP, including a description of procedures for assessment of applications for aid, evaluationcriteria and selection of operations to be financed.Page 193 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTypes of suitable activities:• Consultations, direct assistance and support of local or regional communities inpreparation of integrated projects and strategies for individual areas of support ofpriority axes; including controlled integrated support of towns in the process ofpreparation and subsequent implementation of the IUDP, consisting in security ofcontinual technical assistance for suitable candidates in implementation of thisintegrated approach.• Support of preparation and elaboration of individual quality projects intended forimplementation within a scope of any of the area of the ROP intervention,including support of elaboration of required studies and project documents,support of PPP projects preparation.• Support of assistance and consultancy for applicants in connection with theexperience obtained from the current activities focused on the support ofabsorption capacity that are implemented by individual regions. Establishment ofinformation systems, databases and networks of certified advisers trained in thearea of SF issues, ROP strategy and approach, and preparation andimplementation of projects.• Educational activities for applicants and the public, particularly the organization ofcourses, workshops, seminars and conferences, exchange of experience anddevelopment of partnership.• Activities resulting from the Communication Plan and comprising various sorts ofevents informing the public (multimedia, video, advertising campaign), particularly:- implementation of the Communication Plan of the ROP Northwest;- web presentation;- distribution of documentation;- information campaigns;- media presentation, spots and advertisements;- publication activity;- advertising.7.5.5 TARGET GROUPS:• Managing Authority of the ROP Northwest and other entities participating in directarrangement of the technical background of preparation and implementation of theROP Northwest.• All the groups of potential applicants and beneficiaries within the scope of theprogramme that will attend individual trainings, seminars and activities focused onthe improvement of their ability to prepare and implement quality projects and thuson increasing the overall absorption capacity of the region.7.5.6 BENEFICIARIES:More detailed legislative specification of individual categories of beneficiaries is provided inchapter 10.3.1 Specification of Beneficiaries.Page 194 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionBeneficiariesROP Northwest Regional Council (ROP Northwest Managing Authority)RegionsOrganizations established or founded by regions7.5.7 IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMSupport of individual projects of technical assistance prepared by the MA of the ROPNorthwest on the basis of the elaborated TA plans. Support of individual projects of technicalassistance focused on building absorption capacity of the region.7.5.8 FORM AND AMOUNT OF SUPPORTAs far as the projects that do not involve state aid are concerned, the support provided fromthe EU funds can amount to as much as 85 % of public eligible costs. The TA can becovered directly from the budget of the Regional Council ROP Northwest.7.5.9 PRIORITY THEMESDivision of financial allocations into particular areas of interventions and priority themes isonly for guidance and according to a development of absorption capacity can be changed.Priority Axis 5Code Priority themes85 Preparation, implementation, monitoring andinspection86 Evaluation and studies; information andcommunication% ofallocationOrientation amount ofallocation75,00 % 15 104 69725,00 % 5 034 899Total 100 % 20 139 596Area of support 5.1Code Priority themes85 Preparation, implementation, monitoring andinspection86 Evaluation and studies; information andcommunication% ofallocationOrientation amount ofallocation75,00 % 11 781 66425,00 % 3 927 220Total 100 % 15 708 884Page 195 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionArea of support 5.2Code Priority themes85 Preparation, implementation, monitoring andinspection86 Evaluation and studies; information andcommunication% ofallocationOrientation amount ofallocation75,00 % 3 323 03325,00 % 1 107 678Total 100 % 4 430 7127.5.10 COORDINATION WITH OTHER PROGRAMMESIndividual activities implemented and prepared within the scope of Priority Axis 5 TechnicalAssistance will be coordinated particularly with the OP TP, which will secure support ofactivities falling into the field of TA across individual OPs. This coordination will take placewithin the planned work group for coordination of TA activities at the level of the NSRF.Within the region, coordination will also take place among individual OPs that will implementTA activities focused on specific target groups of the respective OP in the region. Thiscoordination will take place particularly through elaboration and subsequent consulting of aTA plan that will be presented for information and consultation to individual affected entitiesincluding other Managing authorities of individual OPs.Page 196 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region8 FINANCING PLANThe financing plan of the ROP Northwest has been drafted on the basis of negotiationsconducted between the regions, the MMR and the Ministry of Finance of the CzechRepublic. According to the current output of these negotiations, the share of NUTS 2 regionsin the overall allocation for the Convergence objective amounts to 18 %.Taking into account the approved allocation of funds to individual objectives of the policy ofeconomic and social cohesion performed by the MF, according to which a total of 25 883.5million will be allocated to the Convergence objective from the European RegionalDevelopment Fund (ERDF), European Social Fund (ESF) and Cohesion Fund (FS) for theentire period, ROPs will receive a total of 4 659 million EUR with regard to the above share.From this amount, the ROP Northwest will receive 745.9 million EUR, that is 16.01 % of thetotal allocation for all regional operational programmes within the framework of the CzechRepublic.In addition to the above stated facts, the elaborated variant takes into account the mutualagreement of the Managing Authority of the ROP Northwest and bodies of both the regionsthat agreed in past negotiations on the following share division of available funds amongindividual priority axes of the programme ROP Northwest:1. P1 – Urban regeneration and development 39,86 %2. P2 – Integrated support of local development 4.36 %3. P3 – Accessibility and transport serviceability 33,96 %4. P4 – Sustainable development of tourism 19.12 %5. P5 – Technical assistance 2.70 %The funds division fully reflects both the strategy of the programme itself and the programmeposition in relation to the other operational programmes including the Rural DevelopmentProgramme.The main and pivotal priority axis of the whole strategy of the ROP Northwest is “UrbanRegeneration and Development”. This fact has been reflected also in the draft financial planwhich allocates a considerable part of the program funds for this area. The proposed amountof funds reflects not only the importance of the priority axis but also the presumed amount offunds required for the implementation of the determined number of projects in the givenarea.From the prelusory informations provided by 6 cities – growth poles, which can be thebeneficiaries within the Area of interventions 1.1 – Support of the regional developmentpoles – ensues, that each of these cities is able to prepare at least one IUDP. Neverthelessthe strategic planning is in many cases on such level, that they intend to prepare otherIUDPs. The plans are aimed for example at the regeneration of deprived centres of citiesand historical zones, revitalization of panel housing estates, eventually other activities for thePage 197 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regiongeneral attractiveness of the city. Most of the cities are interested to include in their IUDPsalso other activities concerning another OP (most often IOP, OP ŽP, OP VK), eventuallyanother ROP priority axis (P4 – Sustainable development of tourism). Out of 21 plans toelaborate the IUDP was about 7 – 8 of them calculate with full or prevailing subsidy from theROP 1.1 Area of interventions. Other intentions are oriented at the area of tourism, IOP, OPVK, OP ŽP. The limiting element is the minimum size of IUDP 15 MEUR; some plans do notreach to this size. The setting of the allocation for the Area of interventions 1.1 – Support ofthe regional development poles takes into account partly the actual demand of the cities foractivities supported from the ROP Northwest and partly the fact that the cities intend to applyfor the subsidy from other OPs.A related activity of same importance is “Accessibility and Transport Serviceability”. Thispriority axis considerably supplements the national OP Transport and enables the region toadequately utilize the activities implemented within the scope of this OP in favour of theregion’s development. It is also a significant element of the ROP Northwest strategy, withinwhose scope it provides improvement in the region’s connection to the backbonenetwork TEN-T and thus also the connection to neighbouring regions, and not onlycontributes to the improvement of internal interconnection within the region, which will helpenhance the attractiveness of towns due to their better accessibility through the TEN-Tnetwork, but also to support less developed smaller towns and rural areas that will, due tothe implemented activities, have improved access to the labour market, services and, lastbut not least, cultural and other activities that, despite being held in larger regional centres,can contribute to the overall improvement of life in the surroundings of these cities owing toimproved accessibility.In terms of importance, further priority axes follow: Priority Axis 4 – “SustainableDevelopment of Tourism”, focused particularly on the support of the tourism infrastructuredevelopment, and Priority Axis 2 – “Integrated Support of Local Development” focused, notonly with respect to the existence and focus of the Rural Development Programme 2007 –2013, rather on small-scale investments focused on integrated projects of regeneration ofsmaller towns and villages. With respect to the already mentioned supplementary characterparticularly to the PRV, the last mentioned priority axis received the smallest allocation offunds within the elaboration process due to the fact that it is a priority axis that should enablerural areas to initiate restructuring, modernization or improvement of services for localcitizens, and perhaps to secure accessibility of regional centres in collaboration with PriorityAxis 3.A specific area is Priority Axis 5 focused on activities in the field of supporting theimplementation of technical assistance activities in programme management andimplementation; these are both activities of a technical nature relating to programmeimplementation and to the activities performed by the Office of the Regional Council, and theactivities of a horizontal character, such as support of the absorption capacity in the region.All the allocations were proposed with reference to the current unit costs of implementationof individual activities or the expected costs of implementation of individual activitiesdetermined by means of an external estimation, being estimated with respect to thepresumed need resulting from the proposed strategy and also from the presumed absorptioncapacity in individual areas.Page 198 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionGiven the above prerequisites, the ROP Northwest financing plan is as follows:Table 61 – Overview of estimated progression of annual allocations for the NUTS 2NorthwestEUR, Structural funds Cohesioncurrent (ERDF)fundTotalprices1 2 3=1+22007 92 547 536 92 547 5362008 97 099 824 97 099 8242009 101 672 012 101 672 0122010 106 458 000 106 458 0002011 111 246 172 111 246 1722012 116 016 940 116 016 9402013 120 870 537 120 870 537Total2007 - 2013745 911 021 0 745 911 021Within the programme network, the financing plan determined as stated above presents thefollowing allocation of funds to individual priority axes of the programme:Page 199 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTable 62 – Overview of the distribution of resources to the individual priority axes within the ROP NorthwestPriority axisNo.Priority axisnameFund /amount of cofundingrelatedtoCommunitycontributionIndicative breakdown of nationalresourcesFor informationNational resourcesCo-fundingrateTotal resourcesNational public National privateOther resourcesEIBresources resourcesa b=c+d c d e=a+b f=a/eUrban regenerationand ERDF/ public1 development expedniture 297 320 134 52 468 260 52 468 260 0 349 788 394 85,00% 0 0Integratedsupport of localdevelopmentERDF/ public2expenditure 32 521 721 5 739 128 5 739 128 0 38 260 849 85,00% 0 0Accessibilityand transport ERDF/ public3 serviceability expenditure 253 311 382 44 702 009 44 702 009 0 298 013 391 85,00% 0 44 988 102Sustainabledevelopment ERDF/ public4 of tourism expenditure 142 618 188 25 167 916 25 167 916 0 167 786 104 85,00% 0 230 497 834Technical assistanceERDF/ public5expenditure 20 139 596 3 554 047 3 554 047 0 23 693 643 85,00% 0 0Total 745 911 021 131 631 360 131 631 360 0 877 542 381 85,00% 0 275 485 936The above shares are in EUR –current pricesPage 200 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region9 PROGRAMME MONITORING AND EVALUATIONThe ROP Northwest strategy is based on 3 specific objectives by means of which the programme’sglobal target should be achieved; individual proposed priority axes help to meet these objectives.In order to enable adequate control of the course of the programme’s implementation and possiblyto funnel the proposed interventions in due time to ensure the achievement of these objectives, asystem of monitoring and measurable indicators has been proposed within the programme, bymeans of which the process of implementation of the programme and its success will be evaluatedin the course of implementation.For this reason, an indicator system has been designed for the overall management andevaluation of the programme, containing several categories of indicators.9.1 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF FUNCTIONING OF THE INDICATORSYSTEMThe indicator system of ROP Northwest has been created with the view of an efficient distributionmanagement of the operational programme financial resources. Its main users are programmemanagers and monitoring and evaluation professionals, members of the Monitoring Committee, theNSRF national coordinator, the European Commission and other social and economic partners.The indicator system of the ROP Northwest was created on the basis of the National code list ofindicators for the programming period 2007 - 2013, which is common for all operationalprogrammes of the Czech republic. The ROP Northwest indicators were chosen from the Nationalcode list of indicators pursuant to the principle of accurateness, with a view to the ROP Northwestobjectives, lucidity and, above all, linkage to the EU objectives (so-called „core“ indicators), linkageto the NSRF (particularly indicators of context) and the Lisbon Strategy, together. The indicatorsystem also includes indicators aimed at the monitoring of the aspects of the horizontal objectiveswithin the ROP Northwest.Basic structure of the indicator system is based on three levels of its use:• social economic environment characteristics,• monitoring,• evaluation.The subject frame of the measurement and classification system for programme objectives isdetermined by the character of the anticipated results of implemented activities and, in compliancewith the EK methodology, it encompasses the following levels:Page 201 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region• Context indicators – their purpose is to map the current level of the region in broadersocio-economic connections, so also in the fields on which direct interventions of ROPNorthwest will not be focused.• Programme indicators – are focused on direct interventions of ROP Northwest,particularly on indicators at the level of priority axes of the programme.Programme indicators are divided into:• inherent indicators at the level of the whole programme (result, output and impactindicators);• indicators at the level of priority axes (output and result indicators).The indicators are conceived to provide key aggregated data for individual priority axes. Possiblemore detailed level of indicators, mapping activities of the concerned priority axis / area ofintervention in more detail, will be elaborated in the Implementing Document.Data on development of indicator values will be obtained from monitoring reports of ultimatebeneficiaries and from statistical data. As far as impact indicators are concerned, the data will besupplemented by an evaluation study.Initial values in the indicator tables represent the starting values in 2005, while target valuesrepresent the anticipated values in 2013.When selecting the indicators, the following facts were taken into account:• Indicators at the level of the programme impact attempt to react on the most sensitiveareas specified by a socio-economic analysis;• Environment (attention is paid to environment also in the evaluation study) – within thescope of environment monitoring, the indicator “Population exposure to above-limitPM10 concentrations” and the indicator “Area of municipalities in the regions withimpaired air quality” (OZKO) in the cohesion region were selected from the nationalcode-book of indicators;• Low level of GDP per capita relativised in relation to the EU 25 average – as abenchmark of the overall region prosperity. Here, an indicator which offers optimumcomparison of the GDP level within the region and within the EU 25 was selected. Thisbroader indicator was selected on purpose since, although ROP Northwest does notdirectly support enterprising, through a combination of set targets and programmemeasures a transformation of social and economic structures as well as an increase inthe region attractiveness for investments and business should be achieved. As theresult, this should come out in the GDP growth. However, it is very difficult to quantify, towhat extent the GDP growth in the region will result from ROP Northwest and to whatextent it will be a result of further factors. Therefore it is necessary to use an evaluationstudy in this context.Page 202 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region9.2 DATA SOURCE AND PERIODICITY OF INDICATOR COLLECTIONData is obtained in the manner adequate to the character of the indicators. Input, output and resultindicators are produced using the data obtained from forms on initiation and completion of projectsand from regular reports of implementation agencies. Impact indicators require deeperinvestigation. Global impact indicators at the level of the programme are established on the basisof common statistical evidence data.The periodicity of indicator collection will respect both monitoring needs and the possibilities ofobtaining relevant data. The collection of input indicators (financial data) and output indicators willbe conducted every six months to enable the fastest possible data modification. Result indicatorswill be collected on an annual basis (unless a different periodicity is assigned for the indicator).Impact indicators are mostly dependent on data obtained on the basis of monitored studies.Indicator analysisThe ROP Northwest Managing Authority – the Northwest Regional Council, i.e. Department ofMonitoring and Analyses specialists – are responsible for indicator analysis implementation.Indicators are observed with divergent intensity based on statistics issued by particular relevantdata suppliers (resources).The measurement of result indicators is conducted with 6-12 months periodicity on the basis ofdata resources and operations within ROP Northwest. The first evaluation of these indicators isderived from the time frame of the implementation of primary projects of the programme and frommonitoring reports of these projects.The measurement of result indicators will be conducted on an annual basis. The first measurementof results will not be implemented before the completion of the primary projects, probably after 2years from initiating the implementation of ROP Northwest.Basic data and fundamental indicator information are supplied by project submitters. Whensubmitting the application, the applicant commits himself to supply underlying information forindicators relevant to his project. In case of project implementation, the beneficiary provides therequired information within monitoring reports.At the level of MA the data is completed within the information system IS MONIT7+ and togetherwith the data from statistical resources it is evaluated and serves as material for monitoring reportsat the programme level, annual reports and final report, programme management, processing ofevaluation studies, etc. It is also presented to the following relevant authorities: the programmeMonitoring Committee, NOK and the European Commission. More detailed description of indicatormonitoring and its use is subject to the Operation Manual of ROP Northwest.The following indicators were designed after programme evaluation, management and monitoring:Page 203 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region9.3 CONTEXT INDICATORSThe overall implementation and subsequent evaluation of the programme ROP Northwest will beconducted in the context of the below characteristics of socio-economic situation in the region:Indicator nameUnit ofmeasureNorthwestValue 2005Gross fixed capital formation per 1 inhabitant CZK 57 587,00 72 395,00Share of sophisticated jobs in total employment % 75,21 78,65Scholarship index 1) % 24,96 19,17Emission from mobile polluters (REZZO 4) t/km 2 3,50 5,20GDP per 1 inhabitant in PPS CZK 13 872,00 17 309,00GDP share (CR = 100) % 8,80 100,00Number of registered applicants per 1 vacancy (free job positionregistered by the Employment Office)PersonCR20,48 9,78Survival hope at birth - men Year 71,32 72,90Survival hope at birth - women Year 77,67 79,10Household disposable income per 1 inhabitant CZK 125 759,64 141 350,89Length of the 2 nd category roads km 1 465,00 14 668,00Length of the 3 rd category roads km 4 007,00 34 124,00Collective tourist accommodation facilities – beds Piece 48 012,00 433 211,00Average registered number of employees in collective touristaccommodation facilities (actual persons)Number of overnight staysPerson4 568,00 48 482,00Overnightstays 5 058 067,00 40 320 000,00Number of inhabitants per 1 physician Person 293,99 272,55Number of students (secondary comprehensive schools, secondaryvocation schools, secondary training schools, colleges, universities)Person71 096,00 908 454,00Number of places in selected social care facilities Place 16 120,00 78 931, 00 2)Number of retirement pension recipients Person 277 268,00 2 645 100,00Number of towns and municipalities Piece 486,00 6 248,00Share of urban population % 79,50 70,10Notices: 1) Pre-primary and without education/Population 15+2)all facilitiesSource: Regional Yearbooks Usti region, Karlovy Vary Region, Czech republic 2006Special analysis (Employment and unemployment in CR – 4.Q 2006)Statistical computing of Labour office from UstiOwn calculationsPage 204 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region9.4 INDICATORS GLOBAL AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THEPROGRAMMEIndicators at the programme levelCodelistIndicator nameOutput indicatorsNumber of supportedprojects focused51/11/00Core on the developmentConnection of transportto NSRF Relevance of priorityaxes: 3Number of supportedprojects focused51/12/00Core on the developmentConnection of tourismto NSRF Relevance of priorityaxes: 451/15/00 Number of supportedprojects focusedCoreConnection on sustainable developmentand in-to NSRFcreasing the attractivenessof townsand metropolitan citiesin totalRelevance of priorityaxes: 151/21/00 Number of supportedprojects focusedCoreConnection on the developmentto NSRF of rural areas (municipalities)Relevance of priorityaxes: 2Result indicatorsUnit ofmeasureInformationsourceValue2005QuantificationIndicative value2013Change index (%)Number Region 0 30 -NumberNumberRegionRegion0600 140 -Number Region 0 70 --61/02/05CoreConnectiontoNSRF63/05/02Total increase in thenumber of personstransported by publictransportRelevance of priorityaxes: 1, 3Visitors to the region –number of overnightstaysIncrease inshare ofpassengers (in %)Number inthousandsof peopleRegion 100 % 105 % 1,05CSO5 058 5200 1,03Page 205 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionRelevance of priorityaxes: 463/15/0265/51/00Foreign visitors to theregion – number ofovernight staysRelevance of priorityaxes: 4Increase in attractivenessof supportedtowns andmunicipalitiesRelevance of priorityaxes: 1,2Impact indicatorsRegional differentiationof the unemployment31/15/00 rateRelevance of priorityaxes: 1,2,3,451/11/1153/13/0155/20/02ConnectiontoNSRF65/31/05CoreConnection toLisbonstrategyIncrease/decrease of inhabitantsin supportedtowns and villages –due to migrationNumber of inhabitantswith university educationRelevance of priorityaxes 1,2,3,4Regional GDP per capitain PPS,EU 25 = 100Relevance of priorityaxes:1,2,3,4Area of municipalities inregions with impairedair quality (RIAQ) in theNUTS 2 regionRelevance of areas ofintervention: 3.1,3.2 ,1.1Number inthousandsof peopleEvaluationstudyCSO 3 136 3250 1,04RegionEvaluation study% CSO 2,82 2,75 -‰(averageper 1000inhabitants)Number ofcitizensPPS(EU25 =100)Region,CSO0,48 1,2CSO 52 230 57 450CSO 59,1 % 62 % -1,1km 2 Region 3556 3000 -1,16Page 206 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region9.5 INDICATORS FOR THE EVALUATIONS OF THE SPECIFICOBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMME´S PRIORITY AXESThe below indicators have been designed for the evaluation of the specific objectives of individualPriority Axes.INDICATORS FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES OF PRIORITY AXIS 1Priority Axis 1 Regeneration and revitalization of urban areasCode listIndicator nameUnit ofmeasureInformationsourceValue2005QuantificationIndicativevalue2013Change index(%)Output indicatorsPopulation increase/decrease51/11/11in supported towns andcommunes – migration – townsand communes with apopulation up to 50,000‰(averageper 1000Region,CSO-1,86 0,2 -inhabitan51/11/11Population increase/decreasein supported towns andcommunes – migration – townsand communes with apopulation up to 5,000 – 50,000ts)‰(averageper 1000Region,CSO-1,45 0,8 -inhabitan51/15/0051/15/3151/15/41CoreRelationto NSRFNumber of supported projectsfocused on sustainable developmentand enhancing the attractivenessof municipalitiesand metropolitan cities in general• Number of projects enhancingthe attractivenessof the selected municipalities(Ústí nad Labem )• Number of projects enhancingthe attractivenessof other municipalities withup to 50 000 inhabitantsts)NumberRegion000501040---51/15/41CoreRelevance of areas of intervention:1.1 Number of projects enhancingthe attractive-Number Region 0 40 -Page 207 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionRelationto NSRFness of the other municipalities(5000 –50,000 inhabitants)Relevance of areas of intervention:1.265/41/10 Number of enterprises / serviceorganisations established ormaintained in the revitalisedpart of the municipalityResult indicators07/42/70 Number of partners engagedRelevance of areas ofinterventions: 1.1,1.2,1.365/01/01CoreRelationto NSRF65/11/00CoreRelationto NSRF65/11/01CoreRelationto NSRF65/11/03CoreRelationto NSRF61/02/47Surface of the regenerated andrevitalised area in municipalitiesRelevance of areas of intervention:1.1, 1.2Total surface of regeneratedand revitalised structures in municipalitiesRelevance of areas of intervention:1.1, 1.2Surface of the regenerated andrevitalised structures intendedfor education purposesRelevance of areas of intervention:1.3Surface of regenerated and revitalisedstructures intended forsocial services and health careArea of intervention: 1.3Number of newly acquired lowfloorvehicles in public masstransportationRelevance of areas ofintervention: 1.1Number Region 0 10 -Number Region 0 50 -Area inm²Area inm²Area inm²Area inm²Region 0 250 000 -Region 0 25 000 -Region 0 1 000 -Region 0 1 000 -Number Region 0 30 -INDICATORS FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES OF PRIORITY AXIS 2Priority axis 2 Integrated support of local developmentCode listIndicator nameUnit ofmeasureInformationsourceValue 2005QuantificationIndicativevalue2013Change index(%)Output indicators51/11/11 Population increase/decrease insupported towns and communes– migration – towns andcommunes with a population upto 5,000‰(averageper 1000Region,CSO6,83 7,5 -Page 208 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionRelevance of areas ofinterventions: 2.1,2.251/21/00 Number of supported projects focusedon rural areas (municipalities)developmentRelevance of areas of intervention:2.1, 2.2Result indicators07/42/70 Number of partners engagedRelevance of areas ofinterventions: 2.1,2.265/05/05 Surface of regenerated and revitalisedarea – in rural areas(municipalities)Relevance of areas of intervention:2.265/15/01 Surface of regenerated and reconstructedstructures intendedfor educational purposes – ruralareasArea of intervention: 2.265/15/03 Surface of regenerated and reconstructedstructures intendedfor social services and healthcare – rural areasArea of intervention: 2.2inhabitants)Number Region 0 70 -NumberArea inm²Area inm²Area inm²Region0 35 -Region 0 45 000 -Region 0 400 -Region 0 400 -INDICATORS FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES OF PRIORITYAXIS 3Priority axis 3: Accessibility and transport serviceabilityCode listIndicator nameUnit ofmeasureInformationsourceValue2005QuantificationIndicativevalue 2013Change index(%)Output indicators51/11/00CoreNumber of supported projects focusedon traffic infrastructure developmentRelevance of areas of intervention:3.1,3.2NumberRegion0 30-61/01/0061/01/0161/01/02CoreRelationto NSRFTotal length of newly constructedand reconstructed roads of 2 nd and3 rd category• Length of new roads of 2 ndand 3 rd category• Length of reconstructedroads of 2 nd and 3 rd categoryRelevance of areas of intervention:3.1kmRegion00015020130---Page 209 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region61/01/09 Length of newly constructed orreconstructed relief roads of themunicipalitiesRelevance of areas of intervention:3.161/01/10 Total length of the newly constructedcycle pathsRelevance of areas of intervention:3.261 /03/01 Number of reconstructed regionalairportsRelevance of areas of intervention:3.1Result indicators07/42/70 Number of partners engagedRelevance of areas of interventions:3.1,3.2Share of newly reconstructed and61/01/08constructed roads in total regionalroad infrastructureRelevance of areas of intervention:1.161/02/11 Number of municipalities engaged inIDSNumber of newly acquired low-floor61/02/47vehicles in public masstransportationRelevance of areas of intervention:3.261/02/48 Ratio of public transport vehiclesequipped with ecologically friendlydriving mechanismRelevance of areas of intervention:3.265/31/02 Exposure of inhabitants to excesslimit concentration of PM10Relevance of priority axis: 3km Region 0 2,7 -km Region 0 35 -Number ofprojectsRegion 0 1 -Number Region 0 15 -% Region 0 2 % 1,02Number ofmunicipalitiesRegion 9 60 -Number Region 0 12 -% Region 2 % 1,02% inhabitantsMinistryof theEnvironment65% 50% -1,15Impact indicators61/03/00 Number of checked-in passengersat regional airportsRelevance of areas of intervention:3.137/31/13 Number of accidents cyclists/regionRelevance of areas of intervention:3.2* Year 2006Number ofpassengersNumber ofaccidentsRegion 35 853 80 000 -Region 372* 290 -Page 210 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionINDICATORS FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES OF PRIORITYAXIS 4Priority axis 4: Sustainable development of tourismCode listIndicator nameOutput indicators51/12/00 Number of supported projects focusedon the development ofCoreRelation to tourism infrastructureNSRF Relevance of areas of intervention:4.1,4.2, 4.363/22/00 Number of reconstructed culturalmonumentsRelevance of areas of intervention:4.1, 4.263/25/10 Total number of new and reconstructedfacilities for sport and recreationRelevance of areas of intervention:4.1Result indicators07/42/70 Number of partners engagedRelevance of areas ofinterventions: 4.1,4.2,4.352/02/12CoreRelation toNSRFNumber of jobs created withinthe projects focused on the tourisminfrastructureRelevance of areas of intervention:4.1,4.263/00/02 Number of new or reconstructedbedsRelevance of areas of intervention:4.1, 4.2Intensity of use of accommodationfacility capacity – use of63/11/03rooms63/31/01 Number of new promotional ormarketing products for tourismSpecific objectiveRelevance of areas of intervention:4.3Unit ofmeasureInformationsourceValue2005QuantificationIndicativevalue 2013Change index(%)Number Region 0 65 -Number Region 0 10 -Number Region 0 15 -Number Region 0 30 -Number Region 0 22 -Number Region 0 130 -%Region,CSO40,87% 45% 1,04Number Region 0 30 -Note: At PD level visitors of Ústecký region and Karlovarský region will be monitored and indicators will be structured indetail with regard to specific orientation of the supported activities within tourism.The new beds indicator is not intentionally the only indicator within the category of result indicators because according tothe available statistical data the capacity of accommodation facilities does not represent such a problem as their lowerquality and inefficient use. For this reason it is necessary to concentrate mainly on the modernisation and enhancing thePage 211 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionattractiveness of the accommodation facilities rather than to build new facilities. That is why the indicator – Intensity ofuse of the accommodation facilities capacity – use of rooms – is included as well.INDICATORS FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES OF PRIORITY AXIS 5Priority axis 5: Technical assistanceCode listIndicator nameOutput indicatorsNumber of supported projects focusedon technical assistance51/41/00 Relevance of areas of intervention:5.1,5.2Implementation of evaluation studiesand reports71/05/00 Relevance of areas of intervention:5.1,5.271/08/00Number of elaborated methodicaland technical information documentsRelevance of areas of intervention:5.1,5.2Result indicatorsNumber of partners engaged07/42/70 Relevance of areas of interventions:5.1,5.248/02/0071/19/00Impact indicators48/26/01Total expenses for implementingtechnical assistance projectsRelevance of areas of interventions:5.1,5.2Number of trained personsRelevance of areas of intervention:5.1,5.2Effectiveness of drawing financialresourcesRelevance of areas of interventions:5.1,5.2Unit ofmeasureInformationsourceValue 2005QuantificationIndicativevalue 2013Number Region 0 60Number Region 0 20Number Region 0 30Number Region 0 30Mill. CZK Region 0 604,487Number Region 0 200Evaluation StudyRegionEvaluation study focused on thesuccess rate in drawingfinancial resources and thecorresponding cost levelPage 212 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region10 IMPLEMENTING MEASURES10.1 GENERAL PROVISIONSDraft institutional controlling framework – implementation structure of ROP Northwest has beenbased on the amendment of Act no. 248/2006 Coll. on regional development support, as amendedby later regulations, while at the same time respecting the principles set down especially in Article57 – 67 of General regulation.Entities involved in the implementation of ROP Northwest:Managing Authority of ROP Northwest – Northwest Regional Council – is responsible for themanagement and execution of the operational programme in compliance with the principle ofproper financial management;Financial unit - Office of the Regional Council’s Financial Section – is responsible for transferringfunds to the beneficiaries to be used for funding projects co-financed by the EU budget from RRbudgetary resources;Paying and Certifying Authority (PCO) – Ministry of Finance, department of National Fund –performs the role of a certifying authority as stipulated in Article 59 of the Council’s regulation No.1083/2006 – above all drafts and submits to the European Commission certified expense reportsand applications for payments, requirements that the Managing Authority provides information onprocedures and certifications related to the expenses reported in the expense reports;Audit Authority (AO) – Ministry of Finance, department of Central Harmonisation Unit forFinancial Control – performs the role of an audit authority as stipulated in Article 62 of the Council’sregulation No. 1083/2006 and is responsible above all for ensuring the execution of audits for thepurpose of verification of efficient functioning of the operational programme’s control and managingsystem;Authorized Audit Entity (PAS) - Office of the Regional Council, Audit Department – is responsiblefor ensuring the execution of audits for the purpose of verification of efficient functioning of theoperational programme’s control and checking system and the execution of audits of operationswithin an appropriate sample of informants for the purpose of verification of reported expenses;Monitoring Committee (MV) – ensures the quality of operational programme’s execution,especially by approving the criteria for the selection of the programmes, by evaluating the progressin achieving programme’s and priority axes´ objectives and by proposing reviews to ensure theachievement of the objectives or improvement of the programme’s management;National Coordination Authority (NOK) – specialised department within the Ministry for RegionalDevelopment – is mainly responsible for the overall coordination and methodical support ofoperational programmes´ implementation, financed from European Structural and Cohesion Funds.No intermediate body is established by the Managing Authority ROP Northwest within theimplementation structure of the programme.The general configuration of management structures of the programme’s implementation havebeen set with the objective to develop a simple and easy-to-survey implementation structure, bestPage 213 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionmeeting the requirements of the beneficiaries of the aid. For this purpose detached centres of theManaging Authority ROP Northwest will be established in individual region’s districts.The below chapters give a more detailed specification of functions and roles of individual entitiesinvolved in the implementation of the programme.10.2 MANAGING AUTHORITY AND BASIC MANAGEMENT STRUCTURESPursuant to paragraph 16 Article 3 Act No. 248/2000 Coll. on regional development support, asamended by later regulations, Northwest Regional Council (hereinafter Regional Council) is theManaging Authority ROP Northwest. The Managing Authority ROP Northwest is responsible for themanagement and execution of ROP Northwest in compliance with the principle of proper financialmanagement and with regulations or operational programs` implementation as defined by thecentral Coordination Authority. The bodies of the Northwest Regional Council are as follows:• Committee of the Regional Council /hereinafter the Committee/;• Chairman of the Regional Council /hereinafter the Chairman/;• Office of the Regional Council /hereinafter the Office/.Pursuant to the Act No. 248/2000 Coll. on regional development support, as amended by laterregulations, Northwest Regional Council has its registered office in Ústí nad Labem.The Managing Authority is responsible for setting of the systems in the below indicatedareas:Management and control system sets up the management and control systems in accordance with applicable legislationof the CR and EU and is responsible for effective and correct functioning of thesesystems; elaborates management and control systems’ specifications according to Article No. 71Council’s regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006 and presents it to the AO so that it is possibleto send them to the EK within 12 months following the programme’s approval; prevents and detects irregularities and proposes corrections of funding in thecase of identified breach of duties arising under applicable law; verifies that the co-financed products and services are delivered and that theexpenditure declared by the beneficiaries for operations has actually been incurred andcomplies with Community and national regulations; ensures compliance of the supported actions with the Community policies; ensures compliance with the information and publicity requirements defined in Article 69of the General Regulation; ensures sustainability of operations for five years by the managing authorities of theOPs and informs the EU of any substantial modification of these operations;Page 214 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionsets up procedures to ensure that all documents regarding expenditure and auditsrequired to ensure an adequate audit trail are held in accordance with the requirementsof Article 90 of the General Regulation.Implementation• processes project selection and evaluation criteria and submits them to the MonitoringCommittee for approval;• ensures that operations are selected for funding in accordance with the criteriaapproved by the operational programme’s Monitoring Committee and that they complywith the applicable Community and national legislation over the course of theirimplementation period.Financial flows• ensures that the beneficiaries and other bodies involved in the implementation ofoperations maintain either a separate accounting system or an adequate accountingcode for all transactions relating to the operation without affecting national accountingregulations.Monitoring• establishes Monitoring Committee in line with Articles 63-66 of the Council’s Regulation(EC) No. 1083/2006;• collects reliable financial and statistical data allowing the provision of the assistance tobe monitored and transfers this data to MMR - NOK, or EK, usually in electronic form;• ensures recording and storing of accounting records for each operation under theoperational programme in electronic form and collection of the data on implementationnecessary for financial management, monitoring, verifications, audits and evaluations;• processes annual and final reports on the provision of aid and submits them to the EKonce they have been approved by the Monitoring Committee. AO receives a copy of theannual and final report;• manages the work of the Monitoring Committee and provides it with the documentsrequired to enable the quality of the implementation of the operational programme to bemonitored with regard to its specific goals.Evaluation• ensures that the evaluation of operational programmes is executed in compliance withEC legislation (Articles 47 and 48 of the Council’s Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006).Certification• submits all necessary information on the procedures and verifications carried out inrelation to PCO expenditure for the purpose of certification.Page 215 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionPerformance of audits• is responsible for the provision of conditions for the performance of audits at all levels ofimplementation.BODIES OF REGIONAL COUNCILCommittee of the Regional CouncilPursuant to paragraph 16 Article 4 Act No. 248/2006 Coll. on regional development support, asamended by later regulations, the Committee of the Regional Council is one of the RegionalCouncil’s bodies. Members of the Committee of Northwest cohesion region are elected fromamong the members of the Karlovarsko and Ústecko regions´ regional authority. There are 16members of the Committee in total (each region is represented by 8 members).The Committee has a quorum in case more than 50 % of members of the Committee elected inindividual regions forming the cohesion region are present. The Committee decides in the form ofresolution.The Committee acts and makes decisions pursuant to section 16e Act No. 248/2006 Coll. onregional development, as amended by later regulations, on matters relating to the implementationof ROP, it approves above all:• Implementing and management documents of ROP;• Measures pertaining to publicity and information on ROP;• Selection of projects for which subsidy or non-refundable financial aid is provided by theRegional Council;• Annual and final report on the implementation of ROP, or other reports and documentsrelated to ROP implementation;• Budget and final account.Furthermore the Committee should, according to Act No. 248/2006 Coll. on regional developmentsupport, as amended by later regulations:• Appoint and recall the chairman of the Office at the motion of the president of RR;• Appoint and recall the director of the Office at its chairman’s motion;• Set the organisation structure and number of employees of RR;• Approve other issues defined by the rules of procedure of the Committee.Apart from the above functions stipulated in Act No. 248/2006 Coll. on regional development, asamended by later regulations, the Committee is responsible for:• Drafting, discussing and submitting the ROP Northwest to the European Commission;Page 216 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region• Introducing a system for the collection of reliable financial and statistical information on OPexecution, introduction of monitoring and evaluation indicators, handing over this data in theagreed to electronic format to the MV, PCO and EK;• Ensuring the annual and final report on ROP Northwest are processed and (after approvalby the Monitoring Committee) it submitted to the EK;• Establishment and activity of the Monitoring Committee ROP Northwest;• Ensuring that the PCO obtain all the necessary information on procedures and auditsperformed in relation to expenses for the purposes of obtaining a certificate on the eligibilityof the expenses;• Ensuring that the AO obtain all documents and basic data required for the purposes ofanalytical and reporting activity;• Ensuring the evaluation of ROP Northwest;• Ensuring that all entities involved in the management and execution of ROP Northwest,including beneficiaries of aid and other entities involved in the implementation, maintain aseparate accounting system, or use suitable code identification of accounts for alltransactions pertaining to aid;• Ensuring proceedings on the examination of irregularities and sending reports onirregularities;• Ensuring corrective actions in case of defects;• Ensuring accordance with national policies as well as with the policies of the Community,especially with regard to commissioning public procurement contracts, state aid rules,environmental protection and equal opportunities;• Ensuring national co-funding resources;• Meeting obligations pertaining to information on and promotion of OP;• Selection of projects for which subsidy or non-refundable financial aid will be granted by theRegional Council.ChairmanThe chairman is the Regional Council’s statutory body, representing the Council outside. It isaccountable for its activity to the Regional Council’s Committee. It convenes and chairs theCommittee’s meetings and proposes Director of the Office to the Council.Page 217 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionThe chairman and vice-chairman are appointed and recalled by the Committee so that each regionis represented either by the chairman or vice-chairmen of the Regional Council. In case of absencethe chairman is represented by the vice- chairman.Office of the Regional CouncilPursuant to paragraph 17 Act No. 248/2006 Coll. on regional development, as amended by laterregulations, the Office of the Northwest Regional Council is the Northwest Regional Council’sexecutive body. The Office ensures all tasks related to the function of ROP Northwest ManagingAuthority, with the exception of matters with which the Committee is entrusted according to the Act.The Office also attends to tasks related to ensuring expert, organizational and technical aspects ofthe Northwest Regional Council’s activity.The Office is headed by the Director who is appointed and recalled by the Committee at itsChairman’s motion. Once appointed, the Director is employed by the Regional Council andsubordinated to its Chairman. Both the Director and other employees are obliged to comply withAct No. 312/2002 Coll. on local government officials.The Office attends above all to the following tasks:• Accepts applications for aid and organises calls for submission of projects;• Providing information on ROP Northwest;• Considering formal requirements and acceptability of submitted projects;• Ensuring high quality evaluation of projects;• Drafting agreements on the funding of the project;• Monitoring compliance with the rules governing the commissioning of public procurementcontracts in case of the implementation of successful projects;• Checking the progress of work on individual projects;• Ensuring the functioning of the monitoring system – electronic evidence of data formonitoring and evaluating the programme’s implementation;• Processing data on expenses as basic data for certification;• Drafting basic documents for annual and final report on ROP Northwest;• Conducting and ensuring financial checks of the implementation of projects with theobjective to verify whether co-funded products and services are delivered and whetherrequired costs are spent in compliance with the agreement on both the funding of theproject as well as Czech and EU laws and regulations;• Reviewing submitted requests for reimbursement of realised expenses to the beneficiaryof aid (above all checking compliance with determined performance objectives andPage 218 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionfinancial plan of the project, compliance with Czech and EU policies and laws, checkingthe eligibility of expenses, etc.);• Ensuring publicity;• Drafting RR’s budget and final account.Office's territorial departmentsThe Office’s territorial departments in individual regions (krajs) within NUTS II Northwest play animportant role in the implementation structure. They ensure efficient and user-friendlyimplementation of ROP Northwest. Territorial departments fulfil the role of providing information,accepting requests, ensuring their evaluation and drafting agreements with beneficiaries andchecking the projects.SEPARATION OF MANAGING, PAYMENT AND CONTROLLING FUNCTIONSThe organisational structure of ROP Northwest Managing Authority is designed so that managing,payment and controlling functions are strictly separated and competences and responsibilities forprocesses and activities are clearly segregated in such a way that the decision-making processand competences are without duplicities and ambiguities and are not impugnable.Page 219 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionPicture 3 - Organisation chart of the ÚRRPage 220 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionManaging, payment and control functions are described in detail in the ROP Northwest'sImplementing Document and in the Operation Manual.Separation of managing, payment and controlling functions is ensured by personnel constitution.Each function is conducted through a functionally separated department or section. Eachdepartment (section) has its own executive manager who is responsible for the execution ofentrusted activities.• The programme’s management is ensured by the Department of Methodology in cooperationwith the Department of Monitoring and Analyses and Department of TechnicalAssistance.• Controlling functions are ensured by the Territorial Departments of the ProgrammeImplementation (ÚORP) in Karlovy Vary and Ústí nad Labem.- Administration and evaluation of particular projects is ensured by the Sectionsof Project Administration of the ÚORP.- Project supervision is ensured by the Sections of Project Implementation andControlling of the ÚORP.The method of four eyes is applied as concerns the activities described above.• Payment function is ensured by the Financial Section of the Office's EconomicDepartment.An information system that strictly respects the division of individual processes in terms of theimplementation of managing, payment and controlling functions has been used for establishingmanaging, payment and controlling functions.More detailed description of activities of the Sections of Project Administration and Sections ofProject Implementation and Controlling may be found in the ROP Northwest's ImplementingDocument and in the Operation Manual.Administrative capacity assuranceThe necessity of valid administrative structures to guarantee efficient use of the Structural Fundsresources has been acknowledged and stipulated in the text of the National Strategic ReferenceFramework of the Czech Republic.Sufficient administrative capacity is necessary in order to ensure not only the absorption capacityand application of formal procedures but also to spend financial resources in line with soundfinancial management principles.According to the NSRF, the basis of this approach to guarantee sufficient administrative capacity isthe following:●●●●Analysis of the MA's needs for operational programmes implementationDefinition of functions and proceduresFormulation of employees' profiles, jobs descriptionQuality of the selection and recruitment of new employees.Page 221 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionFurther, in line with the NSRF: "the quality output of all functions within the implementation systemof EU resources is closely related to the profile and stabilization of employees, who participate onpreparation and functioning of this system. Employees of public administration have to besystematically prepared several years for correct and quality execution of these activities, includinglearning of languages. Quality of the selection and recruitment of new employees that takes intoaccount the best practice is an essential condition for quality human resources management. Thissystem will be used at all implementation levels. The main objective of the improvement of thehuman resources management is to minimize the undesirable outflow of these well-educated andskilled employees into the private sector. This can be achieved primarily through the setting ofsuch conditions that create the work in public administration competitive to the private sector".These NSRF provisions are more specified in the letter sent by Czech authorities in view ofapproval of the NSRF decision to the European Commission on 29 June 2007 (reference number24 449/2007-62) in the following way:- "Attention will be paid to systemic strengthening of the absorption capacity, including also theanalysis of needs, definition of requirements, description of work posts, independentrecruitment procedures, motivation system, training of the staff and the stabilisation of thestaff.- A document called "Procedures to solve the administrative capacity to use the StructuralFunds and Cohesion Fund resources during 2007-2013" was submitted to the Czechgovernment".Governmental resolution No 818 of 18 July 2007 approving the above mentioned document is tobe applied to the whole public administration and its implementation will be monitored by the Primeminister of the Czech Republic.Subsequently, the above mentioned commitments have to be implemented at the level of eachoperational programme. A more detailed report should specify how these commitments are to beaddressed (e.g. analysis of the MA's needs, definition of functions and procedures, formulation ofemployees' profile, jobs description, quality of the selection and recruitment of new employees).Further, it should describe the way in which the Operational Programme Technical Assistance andthe priority axis of the technical assistance of the Regional Operational Programme will be used forthis objective. Other very important issue is the support of absorption capacity of the beneficiariesand helpful approach of relevant authorities to the beneficiaries.This implementing report has to be finalised and presented during the first monitoring committeeafter the adoption of the Regional Operational Programme.Page 222 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region10.3 BENEFICIARIES, PROJECT SELECTION SYSTEM10.3.1 TERMS DEFINITIONA beneficiary of aid shall only be a person with legal entity. Beneficiaries competent to drawsupport from each applicable priority axis, or eventually an area of support are defined withinindividual priority axes of ROP Northwest.The legislative definitions of beneficiaries of aid under ROP Northwest are contained in thefollowing table:Table 63 – Legislative definition of beneficiaries of aid under ROP NorthwestMunicipalities, citiesRegionsMain beneficiaryOrganizations established or founded by amunicipality/city of regionsVoluntary unions of municipalitiesNon-profit non-government organizations(non-profit NGOs)Schools and educational facilities with thestatus of legal entities, listed in the SchoolsRegisterBusiness entities(legal and personal entities)Legal entities’ interest associationsThe Chamber of Commerce and itscomponentsState’s organisational unitsROP Northwest Regional Council (ROPLinkage to legislationAct No.128/2000 Coll. on municipalities (municipal authorities), asamended by later regulations.Act No.129/2000 Coll. on regions (regional authorities), asamended by later regulations.Section 23 et seq. of Act No. 250/2000 Coll. on budget rules ofterritorial budgets, as amended by later regulations.Section 46 et seq. of Act No.128/2000 Coll. on municipalities.Act No. 83/1990 Coll. on association of citizens, as amended bylater regulations;Act No. 248/1995 Coll. on non-profit organizations and onchanges and amendments to some acts, as mended by laterregulations;Act No. 3/2002 Coll. on freedom of faith and status of churchesand religious societies and on changes of some acts (Act onchurches and religious societies), as amended by laterregulations.Act No. 561/2004 Coll. on pre-school, basic, secondary, advancedvocational and other education (Act on education), as amended bylater regulations.Act No. 513/1991 Coll. (Commercial Code), as amended by laterregulations (section 2, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph a) to c) of theAct;Act No. 455/1991 Coll. on trade, as amended by later regulations.Sections 20f to 20i of the Civil Code, as amended by laterregulations.Section 3 of Act No. 301/1992 Coll. on the Chamber of Commerceof the Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the CzechRepublic, as amended by later regulations (powers of theChamber of Commerce of the Czech Republic and its componentsdefined in section 4 of the above Act enables tourism support).Section 3 paragraph 1 of Act No. 219/2000 Coll. on assets of theCzech Republic and its performance in legislative relations.Act No. 248/2000 Coll. on regional development support, asPage 223 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionNorthwest Managing Authority)amended by later regulations.10.3.2 COMMITMENTS OF BENEFICIARIESBeneficiaries will obtain aid on the basis of an Agreement on the provision of a subsidy signedbetween the beneficiary and the ROP Northwest Managing Authority pursuant to Act 250/2000Coll. on regional budgets’ budgetary rules.Beneficiary of aid shall be responsible for:• Drafting the application for aid, containing identification, evaluation and preparation ofthe project, including financial plan;• Drafting the project’s contractual documentation;• Commissioning of public procurement contracts in close collaboration with the ManagingAuthority, as well as signing the contractual documents with contractors;• Proper implementation of the project according to agreements signed with selectedcontractors;• Verifying and settling verified contractors´ invoices;• Functioning separate accounting system of the project pursuant to Act No. 563/1991Coll., on accounting, as amended by later regulations;• Internal financial control;• Submitting regular reports to the ROP Northwest Managing Authority on the progress ofthe project and possibly occasional reports in the course of preparation;• Drafting and handing over documents to the ROP Northwest Managing Authority formonitoring;• Regional and local publicity and information boards on building sites pursuant to relevantEU rules;• Archiving documents – records.Beneficiaries shall be responsible for the compliance of the project’s expenses for which paymentis requested under ROP Northwest with the rules of expense eligibility laid down by the ROPNorthwest Managing Authority. These rules are determined by the ROP Northwest ManagingAuthority in compliance with ES legal regulations in the context of Czech legal regulations and withRules of Eligible Expenses for the Programmes Co-financed from Social Fund and Cohesion Fundin the Programme Period of 2007 – 2013. Beneficiaries are also responsible for observing theterms of the Agreement on the provision of a subsidy and applicable Czech and EU rules andregulations in the course of the project’s implementation.When submitting requests for payments, beneficiaries shall explain the submitted expenses anddocument that they comply with the terms of the projects´ implementation contained in theAgreement on the provision of a subsidy. Any claims for payment must be accompanied bydocuments proving that the funds in question have been spent efficiently, economically, effectivelyand transparently.Page 224 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionBeneficiaries shall maintain documentation on projects to be used as an aid when conductingaudits oriented at financial flows. Beneficiaries shall at any time make the project documentsavailable to authorised persons or entities conducting checks and audits. Such documents shall bearchived in compliance with current EU and Czech rules and regulations.10.3.3 PROJECT SELECTION SYSTEMThe Managing Authority is responsible for establishing a transparent project selection system incompliance with applicable Czech and EU rules and regulations and with the conditions andobjectives of ROP Northwest. The project selection system under ROP Northwest is described indetail in the Operation Manual.Based on the declared call for proposals the beneficiary shall submit the project together with therequest for subsidies to the ROP Northwest Managing Authority, or eventually to its entrusted entity– the Office of the Regional Council. In terms of the territorial definition concerning itsimplementation the project shall be submitted to the Office’s Territorial Department of ProgrammeImplementation (department of Project Administration) in Ústí nad Labem or Karlovy Vary.In compliance with the determined criteria the Office shall assess formal appropriateness andacceptability of the submitted project and shall ensure its high quality evaluation according todetermined evaluation criteria.There are three stages of the evaluation process including:a) formal appropriateness control,b) acceptability verification,c) proper project evaluation in compliance with the evaluation criteria.The formal appropriateness control assures completeness of the project, attachments included, interms of requirements contained in the documentation elaborated by the ROP Northwest ManagingAuthority and designed for beneficiaries.Acceptability of a project is primarily assessed according to:• compliance with the conditions, objectives and rules of ROP Northwest (project’scompliance with the applicable area of intervention, beneficiary’s competence in terms ofthe definition OF beneficiaries within the applicable area of intervention, sufficient size ofthe project);• compliance with applicable Czech and EU rules and regulations (protection of economiccompetition, impacts on the environment, state aid, etc.);• impact on horizontal priorities (sustainable development, equal opportunities);• impact on the Northwest cohesion region as a whole (the only acceptable projects arethose with positive or prevailing impact on the Northwest cohesion region).Page 225 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionProjects that successfully passed through the acceptability verification and the formalappropriateness control are further evaluated according to evaluation criteria determined inadvance for each ROP Northwest area of intervention. Approval of the evaluation criteria lies withinthe ROP Northwest Monitoring Committee’s competence. After their approval by the Committeethe criteria are published.Projects are evaluated above all from the aspect of fulfilling objectives of applicable priority axes.The evaluation criteria draw particular attention to fulfilment of the fourth strategic objective –Balanced territorial development in the National Strategic Reference Framework.According to the evaluation criteria there are three stages of the evaluation process including:• Evaluation of the beneficiary’s competence (beneficiary’s experience, readiness of theproject team, applicant’s financial well-being) and the project’s impact on horizontalcriteria (projects must have positive or neutral impact on the environment and equalopportunities).• Evaluation of the technical-economic quality of the project (project’s economic andfinancial evaluation, technical and time feasibility, quality and adequacy of its budget,cohesion of the project and its activities, sustainability, contribution to the level ofsatisfying the indicators, etc.).• Evaluation of the project’s necessity and relevance and its contribution to the region’sdevelopment (compliance with the region’s development strategies, necessity of theproject for regional development, innovative project capabilities).Apart from the Office employees, two independent experts executing the assessmentsimultaneously and independently on each other shall also participate in the project evaluationprocess. Experts are selected from the Office’s List of experts so that cross interests areeliminated. Experts are included in the Office’s List of experts based on a selection procedure. Theevaluation of the project’s necessity and contribution to the Northwest region’s development isensured by the Expert Commission appointed by the ROP Northwest Managing Authority. Projectsare evaluated by means of points allocated according to the level of satisfying individual criteria.Results from individual evaluation phases are summed up. The total results – each project’sevaluation in points – of both simultaneously executed evaluation processes are then averaged.Selection of projects for funding shall be conducted transparently, in the form of equal competitionamong projects with consideration to their contribution to the whole Northwest region’sdevelopment. Competition among projects shall be applied consistently within the whole Northwestcohesion region and therefore the district of particular project’s implementation does not representa critical element for the project selection process.Approval of projects receiving financial aid from ROP Northwest funds lies within the Committee’scompetence and is based on a list of recommended projects arranged in order of their evaluationin points. Projects, which did not receive the determined minimum number of points, shall not besupported. As concerns projects that received enough points and were recommended by experts,the Committee may approve a subsidy from ROP Northwest up to the value not exceeding the totalsum of financial allocation declared in the invitation. The Committee shall not change the order ofevaluated projects or the amount of approved subsidy.Page 226 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionThe Office notifies the beneficiary of the results of the Committee’s meetings as well as of itsdecision.10.4 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OF THE PROGRAMMEThe following authorities take part in the financial management of ROP Northwest:a) certifying authorityb) financial unit10.4.1 CERTIFYING AUTHORITYPursuant to Article 59 Council Regulation (EC) 1083/2006 solely one Certifying Authority has beenestablished for the purpose of implementation of the aid provided by SF and FS. The Paying andCertifying Authority (PCO) was entrusted with the execution of CO functions within the CzechRepublic. In compliance with the Finance Minister’s resolution based on Czech GovernmentResolution No. 198 approved on 22 February 2006 the National Fund of Ministry of Finance wasentrusted with the execution of PCO functions related to SF and FS.There are no intermediate bodies established by PCO. Within ROP Northwest no intermediatebodies will be established acting on behalf of PCO.To implement aid provided by SF and FS according to Article 61 Council Regulation (EC)1083/2006, the PCO shall primarily ensure the below listed activities:• manages and coordinates financial flows from EU budget and ensures the smooth flowof financial funds from the PCO to beneficiaries;• sets and updates methodical instructions for the certification of SF and FS expenditure;• ensures that beneficiaries receive EU contributions without undue delay;• processes and submits certified statements of expenditure and applications forpayment (interim and final) to the EK, for all programmes on the basis of statements ofexpenditures submitted by the Managing authorities;• verifies the accuracy of statement of expenditure, that it results from a reliable accountingsystem and is based on verifiable supporting documents, certifies this statement andapproves the applications for payments from the EU;• monitors procedure manuals used by the bodies involved in the implementation of SF andFS and verifies the compliance with these procedures;• continuously monitors and verifies the compliance of activities and procedures of theManaging authorities and intermediate bodies with applicable Czech and EU acts;• verifies the application of the management processes and control systems used bythe Managing authorities and intermediate bodies (including the on the spot checks);• evaluates drawing performance of allocations;• receives payments from EU budget and ensures transfers of funds to the budget chapters;Page 227 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region• provides methodical guidance to the preparation of forecasts of applications forpayment from the EU budget and submits these forecasts to the EK;• provides for the concept, methodology, establishment, development and operation ofthe accounting system used for the administration of SF and FS;• provides methodical management in the field of accounting for SF and FS;• cooperates with the EK in the mid-term and ex-post verification of the additionality;• ensures the recoveries of amounts unduly paid in the case the principles of operation termsare violated;• submits to the AO procedure manuals of Paying and Certifying Authority.PCO is responsible for obtaining an affirmation of that funds are spent correctly under individualprogrammes (expense certification). The certification is duly conducted before submitting eachrequest for an intermediate payment or a final payment of a particular programme to the EuropeanCommission.Expense certification includes the verification of the amount of eligible expenses spent bybeneficiaries in the course of the programme’s implementation period and verification that theestablished implementation system provides proper affirmation of fund spending comprised in theexpense statement in compliance with Czech and ES rules and regulations and therefore createsreasonable conditions for proper certification of such expenses.Procedures and conditions of conducting expense certification are contained in the Methodology ofExpense Certification in the Programme Period of 2007 – 2013.10.4.2 FINANCIAL UNITThe financial unit transfers funds to the beneficiaries from the Northwest Regional Council budgetcorresponding to national funds ratio and Structural Funds (SF) ratio. As concerns ROP Northwest,the Financial Section of the Office’s Economic Department is entrusted with the execution offinancial unit's functions.The Financial Section is primarily responsible for:• transferring funds to beneficiaries to be used for funding projects co-financed by the EU(SF) budget and RR budget;• maintaining precise and complete records of all funds transferred to beneficiaries fromRR budget;• providing any information to the Managing Authority concerning funds transferred tobeneficiaries according to kept records (especially information on the beneficiary,amount of funds transferred, day of payment to the beneficiary);• proceeds in compliance with internal written methods of operation (manuals) whenperforming individual activities in connection with the transfer of funds to beneficiaries;Page 228 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region• sends the Summary request for payment (generated from MSC2007 and approved bythe director of MA) to MMR according to schedule. The Summary request for payment ishanded over to the MMR chapter administrator to be filed. Consequently it is forwardedto PCO to process the payment;• providing any information to the MMR concerning drawing allocations from the statebudget funds and ERDF funds;• conducting checks on the drawing performance of allocations in relation to funds of thestate budget chapter and ERDF funds.10.4.3 FINANCIAL FLOW SYSTEMFunds from the EU budget (SF) shall be transferred by the European Commission into the accountof PCO. Within the framework of PCO, funds from the EU budget (SF) are methodologicallycontrolled by the Czech Ministry of Finance's department of Financial Management Methodologyand Payments, which shall also be responsible for transferring funds from EU budget (SF) into therevenue accounts of the administrators responsible for particular chapters of the state budget.The system of financial flows of EU (SF) budgetary funds for ROP Northwest shall be based on theprinciple of financing requirements for payment. The ROP Northwest Regional Council will executethe payments. The Regional Council obtained the funds for financing the part of funds coming fromthe EU (SF) budget from the MMR budget chapter and for financing the part of fundscorresponding to the national co-financing from the MMR budget chapter and from the regionalbudgets of Ústí nad Labem and Karlovy Vary. Financial resources corresponding to the part offunds coming to the account of PCO from the EU (SF) budget are subsequently repaid by PCOinto the MMR chapter administrator’s account.The subsidies from the state budget for preliminary financing of expenses that shall be reimbursedfrom the funds coming from the EU (SF) budget and funds for national financing are providedbased on the Resolution on subsidy provision in accordance with the valid provisions of Act No.218/2000 Coll. on budgetary rules.At the beginning of the programme period the Regional Council will receive a decision from theMinistry for Regional Development the Framework on subsidy provision under ROP Northwest inthe programme period of 2007 – 2013. Within the context of this Decision and till 15 working daysfrom the date of receipt of a clean Application for subsidy provision from the MA ROP Northwest ,the MMR shall issue the Decision on subsidy provision for the corresponding calendar year. Such aDecision shall contain the terms and instruments for transferring funds. The Applications forsubsidy provision are issued by the Financial Section and signed by the Director of the Office andthe Chairman of the Regional Council. A subsidy granted to fund the MA ROP Northwest projects(respectively its 1 st part payment) is transferred by the MMR to a special account of the MA ROPNorthwest within 15 days of the day of accepting a Decision on providing a subsidy by theRegional Council. Terms and transfers of other funds are set by the MMR in a Decision on grantingPage 229 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regiona subsidy. The subsidies shall be liberated from the MMR account above all based onbeneficiaries’ expense estimates for the relevant period.Funds from the EU budget and the budget of the Regional Council Northwest are included in theprocess of co-financing. With regards to ROP Northwest, private financing is anticipated withreference to the following areas of intervention: 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.The basic framework for financial management is defined in the Methodology of financial flows andcontrols of programmes co-financed from structural funds, Cohesion Fund and European FisheriesFund for the programme period of 2007 - 2013, as amended. Detailed description of financialmanagement processes can be found in the Operation Manual.Payments to beneficiaries shall be made in the form of ex-post payments (refunding of eligiblepayments already made by the beneficiary) as follows:• Based on realised expenditure, request for payment from the Regional Council’sbudget is submitted by the beneficiary (in accordance with the European andnational share of co-funding) to the ROP Northwest Managing Authority.• The MA ROP Northwest approves the request and gives instructions to the FinancialSection to transfer the relevant payment to the beneficiary’s account.• The Office’s Financial Section transfers funds from the Regional Council’s budget tothe beneficiary’s account.• Based on the confirmation of payments made from the Regional Council’s budget theFinancial unit shall issue in MSC2007 a Summary request for payment from the EU(SF) budget to be transferred from the account of the PCO to the relevant chapter ofthe state account. The Financial Section sends the Summary request for payment(generated from MSC2007 and approved by the director of MA) to the MMRaccording to schedule. The Summary request for payment is handed over to theMMR chapter administrator to be filed.• The MMR chapter administrator passes the Summary request to the PCO to settlethe payments.• The PCO conducts formal checks of submitted Summary request, its booking (thedetermined date to establish the rate of exchange for conversion of funds from CZKto EUR is the date of booking by the PCO) and subsequently transfers funds fromthe EU (SF) budget to the account of the MMR chapter.• After conducting certification the PCO applies to the European Commission forreplenishing funds in its account.• The European Commission approves the request and transfers the funds to the PCOaccount.10.5 CONTROL AND AUDIT SYSTEMThe Ministry of Finance as a Central Administrative Authority for Financial Control in accordancewith applicable legislative provisions of Act No. 2/1969 Coll., on the foundation of ministries andPage 230 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionother central public administration authorities of the Czech Republic, as amended by laterregulations, provides methodical guidance and coordination, and assures control and auditexecution under the operational programme. Applicable legal regulations of the Czech Republicand the EU represent a fundamental starting point for the publication of particular methodicalguidelines consulted with the competent European Commission authorities.Financial control is governed by Act No. 320/2001 Coll., on financial control in public administrationand on amendment of some acts; article 62 of the implementing regulation governs activities of theAO.Within the scope of the control system, the system of control in public administration andmanagement control is clearly separated from the system of internal audit and operation sampleaudit.10.5.1 INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEMFor all bodies participating in the operational programme implementation, an appropriatemanagement and control system in conformance with national laws and regulations will beestablished, capable of identifying any administrative, system or deliberate errors in due time andcreating prerequisites for the prevention of errors.Management control- this control is ensured by the responsible managers and forms a part of the internal managementof all entities participating in operational programme implementation, in the preparation ofoperations prior to their approval, in continuous monitoring of realized operations up to their finalclearance and settlement and subsequent check of selected operations within the scope of theevaluation of the achieved results and the correctness of the management.With respect to effective and efficient management and control system principles in the course ofprogramme implementation, the following shall be ensured:a) All entities involved in controlling and checking the programme shall be allocated distinctlydefined functions, both within the framework of the entire implementation system and withinthe framework of each individual entity;b) the principle of dividing payment, control and checking functions among individual entitiesinvolved in the programme’s implementation and within the framework of entitiesthemselves must be complied with;c) procedures ensuring the correctness and eligibility of expenses reported under theprogramme are clearly defined;d) introduction of reliable accounting systems, monitoring systems and financial reportingsystems;e) introduction of a system of reports on programmes and projects implementation andmonitoring;Page 231 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionf) adoption of measures related to the audits of the functioning of control and checkingsystem;g) introduction of systems and determination of procedures ensuring basic data for the audit(audit trail);h) setting down reporting and monitoring procedures for irregularities, as well as enforcementof amounts paid without due authorization.For each level of management and programme implementation, an internal control system manualin the form of controlled documentation containing a detailed description of operating proceduresrelated to performed activities shall be provided.Internal auditInternal audit activities are performed by the Audit Department which is functionally independentand organizationally separate from managing and executive structures and functionallysubordinated to the Chairman of the Regional Council who makes sure that the Audit Departmentis not charged with the tasks that are in conflict with independent fulfilment of its assignments. Inorganizational terms, the Audit Department is subordinated to the Director of the Office of theRegional Council.The Audit Department performs internal audit within the scope of the established internal controlsystem of the Managing Authority of the ROP Northwest in accordance with Act No. 320/2001 Coll.on financial control, as amended by later regulations.Under Act No. 320/2001 Coll. on financial control and in accordance with the internationallyrecognized audit standards, internal audit examines and assesses adequacy and efficiency of theinternal control system, including examination of correctness of financial, service and propertyoperations, existence and observance of internal regulations, maintenance of correct, complete,confirmatory and clear accounting in accordance with valid legal regulations, and undertakesindependent and objective examination and systematic assessment of the risk managementeffectiveness.Further, internal audit submits recommendations aimed at quality improvement of the internalcontrol system, at prevention or mitigation of risks and at adoption of measures leading to remedyof ascertained defects, and provides consultancy.Internal audits are performed according to the approved plan of audits determined for the givenyear. The internal audit plans are based on the audit strategy and are elaborated by the AuditDepartment on the basis of evaluation of audit needs and risk assessment. The plan of auditingactivities is drawn up both on a medium-term and annual basis.Internal audit reports are presented to the Chairman of the Regional Council and the Director ofthe Office of the Regional Council who adopts and implements appropriate measures based on therecommendations of the Audit Department. Audit findings form one of the bases for the update ofthe risk analysis and management of the Office of the Regional Council management.Page 232 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionThe internal audit results are summarized in the annual report presented to the bodies of theRegional Council and form the basis for elaboration of the annual summary report for the Ministryof Finance of the Czech Republic pursuant to section 22 of the Act on financial control, whichincludes the data and the information on the results of the internal audit and all financial controlsundertaken at the Regional Council.Control under responsibility of the Managing Authority (primary system)In accordance with Article 60 of Council Regulation No. 1083/2006 the Managing Authority will beresponsible for the management and execution of the operating system in compliance with theprinciple of proper financial management; therefore it shall above all:ensure that the operations for funding be selected according to the criteria established forthe operating system, and that they at all times comply with the relevant rules andregulations of the European Community and national law over the course of theimplementation period;verify that the co-financed products and services are delivered and that the expendituredeclared by the beneficiaries for operations has actually been incurred;ensure recording and storing of accounting records for each operation under theoperational programme in electronic form and collection of the data on implementationnecessary for financial management, monitoring, verifications, audits and evaluations;ensure the evaluation of operational programmes is executed in compliance with EClegislation (Articles 47 and 48 of the Council’s Regulation (EC) No. 1828/2006);set up procedures to ensure that all documents regarding expenditure and audits requiredto ensure an adequate audit record with consideration to ensuring financial flows are held inaccordance with the requirement of Article No. 90 of the Council’s Regulation (EC) No.1823/2006;ensure that the Certifying Authority obtains all necessary information on procedures andverifications carried out in relation to expenditures;provide information to EK so that it can evaluate substantial projects.AUDIT UNDER RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUDIT AUTHORITY (CENTRAL AND SECONDARYSYSTEM)The Audit Authority was established in accordance with article 59 of the General Regulation. Byvirtue of Decree No. 198 adopted by the government of the Czech Republic on 22 February 2006,the Ministry of Finance is charged with the function of the AO for the SF. Under the decision of theMinister of Finance, the function of the AO has been delegated to the Central Harmonization Unitfor Financial Control of the MF. Responsibility for audit performance in accordance with article 62of the General Regulation at all the levels of implementation of the funds from the operationalprogramme is born by the AO. In compliance with the EK legislative requirements the AO isfunctionally independent from the Managing Authority and the Certifying Authority. Within thePage 233 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionframework of shared responsibilities of the Czech Republic and the European Commission forcorrect administration, management and control of the OP, the AO shall primarily:ensure an audit of readiness of management and control systems of programmes,based on which it provides the European Commission with a report pursuant to Article71 (2) of the General Regulation, which evaluates setting of managing and controlsystems of the OP and which is to be submitted within 12 months;• ensure audit performance to verify efficient functioning of the OP managing and controlsystem (hereinafter “system audit”),• ensure the execution of audits on a sample basis to verify expenditure declared withinthe OP (hereinafter “operations audit“),• within nine months after the approval of the OP, submit the following to the EK:- an audit strategy, including the subjects, which will perform the system audit andoperations audit, the strategy shall be updated on a regular basis,- sample selection method for operations audit,- estimate plan of system and operations audits to ensure audit performance atthe major entities and their smooth distribution over the programming period,• by 31 st December each year starting from 2008 till 2015:- submit an annual control report to the EK presenting system and operationsaudit result for audits carried out during the twelve month period ending on 30 thJune, in compliance with the OP audit strategy, as well as discrepanciesrevealed in management and control OP systems. The first report will besubmitted by 31 st December 2008, including the period from 1 st January 2007 till30 th June 2008. Information on audits executed after 1 st June 2015 will beincluded in the final control report that forms a basis for OP closure declaration,- issue a statement based on audits and controls, on whether or not themanagement and control systems function efficiently and thus provide adequateaffirmation that expenditure declared to the EK is correct and that the underlyingtransactions are legal and regular,- provided Article No. 88 Council’s Regulation No. 1083/2006 is applicable, the AOwill submit a declaration on partial closure where it evaluates whether theindicated expenditure is legal and accurate,- submit a declaration to the EK by 31 st March 2017 on closure in which it shallassess the validity of the final payment application and whether the underlyingtransactions included in the final statement of expenditure supported by the finalcontrol report has been performed in a legal and regular way,It bears responsibility for ensuring the above specified activities whereas, whilemaintaining the responsibility, it delegates selected activities on the authorized auditentity (PAS) based on a contract governed by public law (only one level of delegation toperform the above activities is permissible), whereas it shallPage 234 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region- Ensure corresponding functional independence of this entity,- Ensure that internationally recognized audit standards are complied with duringthe execution of audits,- Obtain system and operations’ audit reports performed by PAS and ensure aunique approach to these reports at relevant implementation levels; auditfindings of AO and PAS form a basis for risk management at management andcertification authority level,In case of need and based on the residual risk assessment, the AO is authorized toperform additional audits of the management and control system of the OP and of anoperations sample. Based on bilateral negotiations, the AO sends the EuropeanCommission a consolidated audit plan of the funds from the EU budget on behalf of theCzech Republic, and system audits reports. Further it elaborates annual control reportspursuant to article 62 (1) (d) of the General Regulation and sends them on schedule tothe European Commission.The Audit authority cooperates with the EK pursuant to article 73 (1) of the GeneralRegulation for the purpose of coordination of audit plans, audit methods and exchange ofresults from the performed management and control systems audits.Authorized audit entity (PAS) – secondary systemIn accordance with article 62 (3) of the General Regulation and in accordance with Decree No. 760adopted by the Government of the Czech Republic on 11 July 2007 on ensuring of discharge offunctions of the Audit Authority and the delegated bodies of the Audit Authority, the Audit Authoritycharged the Northwest Regional Council with activities of the audit body. The contract governed bythe public law was made between the AO - the Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic and theNorthwest Regional Council on 25 September 2007, after having been negotiated and approved bythe Committee of the Regional Council. Based on the above stated contract, the Audit Departmenthas been charged with ensuring the audit to be performed by the PAS within the NorthwestRegional Council. This Department is functionally independent and organizationally and personallyseparate from the managing and the executive structures of the Regional Council. Independenceof the PAS is secured by the links to the AO, the evaluation method of results of the auditors'activities and exclusion of the auditors from any activities of executive and operating nature of theMA, PCO and further public administration bodies and juridical and natural persons participating inmanagement, control and usage of the funds within the scope of the ROP Northwest.Under the Principles of Government Decree No. 760, the PAS is responsible for audit activities tothe Audit Authority in accordance with internationally recognized audit standards. With regard toarticle 62 (3) of the General Regulation the functional independence of the PAS is secured by theabove stated contract governed by public law.The PAS ensures audit execution in accordance with article 62 (1) (a) and (b) of the GeneralRegulation.Page 235 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionThe audit, the responsibility for which is born by the PAS, verifies efficiency of functioning of themanagement and control systems of the operational programme, particularly setting and efficiencyof control mechanisms within the scope of the primary control system, i.e. controls of administrativeand financial processes of the MA that are described in the Operation Manual of the ROPNorthwest.While performing the audit, the Audit Department acts in compliance with internationally recognizedaudit standards, rules of the applicable legal acts of the EC and legal norms of the Czech Republic.The uniform approach of all the PASes to system and operations audits execution is ensured bythe AO by means of issuance of a single methodology, particularly the Manual for the managementand control systems audit of the operational programmes and the Methodology for selection ofoperations audit samples.The PAS submits the following documents to the Audit Authority:background material for the report assessing the setting of the management and controlsystem of the OP prior to the submission of the first application for payment; however,within 10 months from the OP approval at the latest;background material for the audit strategy including the method to be used and the methodof sample selection for the operations audit within the scope determined by the AuditAuthority within the time limit determined by the EK (within seven months from the approvalof the ROP of Northwest Cohesion Region at the latest);background material for the consolidated annual audit plan within the time limit determinedby the EK;background material for the annual audit report containing the findings of audits performedduring the previous twelve-month period ending on 30 June of the reference year and theascertained defects in the management and control systems of the OP by 30 th Septemberof the reference year at the latest. The first reports will cover the period from the signatureof the contract between the AO and the PAS to 30 th June 2008;background material for the statement whether the functioning of the management andcontrol system of the OP provides a sufficient guarantee that the expenditure reportssubmitted to the EK are correct and that the related transactions are legal and regular; thematerial is to be submitted each year by 30 th September of the reference year at the latest,first time in 2008;background material for the final audit report after the OP closure by 31 st December 2016 atthe latest.Audits performance is thoroughly separated from the other controls ensured within the scope ofadministration of the operational programme funds by the Managing Authority. The audit based ona risk analysis consists particularly in verification of functioning efficiency of the management andcontrol system of the operational programme, particularly its primary controls and verification of thereported expenditure on a suitable sample of operations. The execution of PAS audits is includedin the responsibility of the Audit Department.Page 236 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionIn addition, AO and PAS will also be responsible for submitting recommendations concerningmanagement and control system improvement, prevention or mitigation of risks, adoption ofmeasures to remedy established defects and consulting activity.More details and recommendations on how to ensure the proper functioning of OP managementand control system under the responsibility of the MA, CO, AO and PAS are indicated in: Council regulation (EC) No. 1828/2006; Recommendations included in EK guidelines; Methodology of financial flows and the control of programmes co-financed by StructuralFunds, the Cohesion Fund and the European Fisheries Fund for the programming period2007 - 2013, issued by the Ministry of Finance; Manual for the management and control systems audit of the operational programmes cofinancedin the programming period 2007 – 2013 by the European Regional DevelopmentFund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Fisheries Fund inaccordance with Regulation No. 1080/2006 and No. 1081/2006 of the European Parliamentand of the Council, Regulation No. 1084 and 1198/2006 of the Council and CommissionRegulation No. 1828/2006 and 498/2007, issued by the Ministry of Finance.10.5.2 EXTERNAL AUDIT – INDEPENDENT VERIFICATIONAuditing by the Supreme audit officeThe Supreme Audit Office shall be authorized to perform independent control operations incompliance with the relevant provisions of Act No. 166/1993 Coll. on the Supreme Audit Office, aslater amended.Auditing by authorities of the European Commission and the European Court of AuditorsThe European Commission shall ensure that efficient management and control systems areintroduced within the framework of the given operational programme in compliance with Article 72paragraph 1 of the General Regulation. This audit is performed by the European Commission onthe basis of annual control reports, as well as AO´s statement on these reports and its own audits.The European Court of Auditors performs individual independent checks ensuing from its scope ofactivity.10.5.3 IRREGULARITIESAll bodies participating in the implementation of the operational programme shall be obliged tonotify the Managing Authority of any detected suspected irregularities. For detecting andexamination of irregularities is responsible the MA ROP Northwest, which registers any suspicionof irregularity (respectively confirmed irregularity) and examine any such suspicions and furtherPage 237 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionmonitoring and solve the matter in line with the actual legislation. Every report issued by the controlauthority, AO and PAS shall be deemed as well-founded. The Managing Authority will report theseproved suspicions to entities involved in the external reporting stage by the 15 th of the followingmonth.10.6 PROGRAMME MONITORINGPursuant to Council Regulation (ES) No. 1083/2006, the Managing Authority has generalresponsibility for monitoring the programme. The Managing Authority is responsible for correct,effective, systematic and timely monitoring in the course of implementation of the programme, fordata input in the monitoring system, and for informing the European Commission on the courseand overall results of the programme.Pursuant to Articles 63 and 64 of the Council Regulation (ES) No. 1083/2006, the ManagingAuthority sets up a Monitoring Committee within three months as of date of the EK approval of theoperational programme. The Monitoring Committee is based on the principle of partnership.10.6.1 MONITORING COMMITTEEThe objective of the Monitoring Committee of the Northwest ROP (the MV Northwest ROP) is toensure the effectiveness and quality of provided support. The members of the MV Northwest ROPare appointed by the chairman of the Regional Council of the Northwest Cohesion Region, whotakes account of the necessity to implement the principle of partnership and, if possible, equalrepresentation of men and women. The members of the Committee are representatives of:The Managing Authority of the ROP Northwest;Ústecký and Karlovarský Regions;Social and economic partners;Professional associations and the academic community;Non-government organizations;The European Commission;The Ministry of Finance CR - PCO and CHJ;The Ministry for Regional Development CR;Managing authorities of IOP, OP D, OP ŽP and PRV.The present composition of the MV Northwest ROP fully respects the principle of partnership, forthe composition of the Monitoring Committee is conceived in such a manner, that its membersrepresent significant partners in the region, for example the Ústecký Region, Karlovarský Region,the Association of Non-profit Organizations, the Union of Towns and Villages, significant cities andtowns of the region, the Society for Renewal of the Countryside, the North-Bohemian AssociationPage 238 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionof Towns and Villages, the most important university in the Cohesion Region, the Association ofHotels and Restaurants, the Chamber of Industry CR, Euroregion Egrensis and others. Last butnot least, the ministries that are managing authorities of thematic operational programmes, whichwill bring a synergistic effect together with the Northwest ROP (MMR – IOP, MZe – the Programmefor Renewal of the Countryside, MD – cooperation in the sphere of railway vehicles, MŽP – OP ŽP)are represented in the MV Northwest ROP. The MF is represented, as well.While conceiving the composition of the MV Northwest ROP, emphasis was laid on the fact, that asignificant partner should be represented in the Monitoring Committee of the Northwest ROP foreach priority axis/area of support.While addressing the relevant organizations with a request that they nominate their representativein the Monitoring Committee of the Northwest ROP, a claim was raised that when nominating theirrepresentatives the organizations should respect the principle of equal opportunities.The Monitoring Committee is processing its rules of procedure and will accept them subject to anagreement with the Managing Authority for the purpose of carrying out its obligations in compliancewith Council Regulation (ES) No. 1083/2006.The MV of the ROP Northwest is obliged to ensure supervision of the fulfilment of the NorthwestROP, above all to ensure its compliance with ES regulations and CR legislation, by attaining theprogramme objectives provided that public funds are used effectively, etc. The Managing Authoritywill perform the function of the secretariat of the MV Northwest ROP.The Monitoring Committee will primarily ensure the following tasks in accordance with Article 65 ofthe Council Regulation (ES) No. 1083/2006:• monitoring the preparation, fulfilment and evaluation of the Northwest ROP, itseffectiveness;• assessment and approval of criteria for the selection of projects, including allrevisions of these criteria;• evaluation of the procedure while attaining specific objectives of the Northwest ROP,and while attaining the objectives of each priority axis of the programme;• analysis of the results of the fulfilment of the Northwest ROP;• assessment and approval of the annual and final report on the Northwest ROP priorto sending it to the European Commission;• proposals to the Managing Authority that the Northwest ROP be revised or reviewedfor the purposes of attaining the Northwest ROP objectives, including financialmanagement;• assessment and approval of all proposals for the adjustment of the contents of adecision made by the Commission on a contribution to ERDF.Page 239 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionMonitoring systemInformation system for programmes monitoring for the period 2007 - 2013(hereinafter referred to as ms2007)The creation of the Monitoring System for structural funds is based on the requirements of the EKregarding the existence of a monitoring system (see general regulation), electronic data exchangerequirement (regulatory statute – articles 39 to 42) and is in conformity with Government DecreeNo. 198/2006 to create a single monitoring system.The Managing Authority is responsible for the management and execution of the operationalprogramme in conformity with the principle of proper financial management and primarily securesthe existence of a system for recording and keeping accounting records in electronic form for eachoperation within the operational programme and the collection of performance data necessary forfinancial management, monitoring, verification, auditing and evaluation.Therefore the monitoring system must be compatible with ROP Northwest accounting systems.Ms2007 is an information system used for monitoring the implementation of programmes andprojects co-financed by structural funds. It must ensure actual information in an adequate form andscope, data integrity and contain complete data for the programme. The monitoring system ofstructural funds is designed for effective management of ROP Northwest and for ensuring reportsfor the respective Directorate General of the EK, Government, Parliament and last but not least forthe regions.The MMR has a coordination and guidance role within the monitoring process. The Ministry forRegional Development issues instructions and procedures in the areas of management,performance of evaluation, data collection and their electronic exchange, establishment andactivities of monitoring committees, checks and supervises all activities which belong to the tasksof governing bodies of operational programmes. The Ministry for Regional Development furtherestablishes and ensures the functioning of an integrated monitoring information system which willbe used by control bodies of all OP, the Paying and Certifying Authority and the auditor, andensures electronic exchange of data and documents.The basic means for securing the uniformity of the monitoring system is the establishment of ascope of binding data and binding procedures for their acquisition and handover.Provision of comparable, factually correct and actual data for support of management, monitoringand evaluation is secured by binding Monitoring Methodology SF and FS 2007 - 2013. Thismethodology defines centrally binding data content, binding procedures and terms for monitoringoperational programmes and projects at all implementation levels. Together with the determinationof individual and binding procedures for handing over data it also ensures a fully integrated unifiedmonitoring system at all implementation levels, which secures data necessary for managingmonitoring and evaluating programmes and projects including regular data collection from supportPage 240 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionrecipients for the purposes of monitoring the progress of project realisation by means of therecipient’s web account.Data communication between the accounting system PCO IS VIOLA as the basic tool for thesupport of the function PCO and MSC2007 as a tool of central monitoring of EU funds is securedfrom the MMR level.For monitoring the programming period 2007 – 2013, full functionality of the monitoring systemms2007 is secured from 1 st January 2007 and the system secures monitoring at all implementationlevels (central, executive, applicant/recipient). The system ensures full support for managing,monitoring, evaluating and administering projects. It respects the requirements of the EU andensures the required function of data collection and handover of this data to the EK and PCO.The monitoring system ensures monitoring of the following activities:• utilisation of resources from structural funds and national co-financing;• monitoring, evaluating and inspecting activities;• communication with the EK;• provision of data for standard EK monitoring table;• monitoring of data at recipient’s level;• link to relevant systems of state administration;• fulfilment of monitoring indicators (meeting set objectives).Ms2007 is further solved in three levels: central/governing (MSC2007), executive – informationsystem of the operational programme (MONIT7+) and recipient level – web application(BENEFIT7).The MMR establishes the information system primarily for the purpose of monitoring financialsupport, which is one of the preconditions of acceptance of support from SF and FS. According toGovernment Decree No. 198/2006, the MMR secures a unified central information system formanaging, monitoring and evaluating programmes and projects at all administration levels ofprogrammes financed by SF and FS. The system is binding to all subjects of implementation in theprogramme period 2007-2013.The MMR manages the setting of the information system in the area of management, datacollection, monitoring and communication with the EK. The governing bodies are bound to supplydata within the required amount, structure and within required deadlines from the recipient’s levelby means of procedures defined in operation manuals.Information system MSC2007The central database MSC2007 is the basic tool for the collection and preservation of informationon the process of provision of EU support to the CR. The level secures development planning,programming and evaluation of operational programmes in terms of factual and financialmonitoring. It provides complex information on the preparation and state of realisation of aPage 241 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionprogramme and the overall EU support in the CR. MSC2007 is used as a basic SW tool of theManaging Authority of the ROP Northwest, PCO and NOK. The MMR is the administrator ofMSC2007 and it is responsible for the management of user accesses, transfers, definition ofinterfaces, emergency plans, and system development.The basis for the electronic data exchange with the EK is the MSC2007 from which the data for allprogrammes in the CR are transmitted to the EK monitoring database - System for FundManagement in the European Community 2007 - 2013 (hereinafter referred to as SFC2007). Themodule “Data for SFC2007” has been created within MSC2007, which is used to authoriserequired MA group output – by bodies responsible for management and coordination of theprogramme. This module ensures the formation of export files (with obligatory data) sent toSFC2007. Each user of MSC2007 has viewer’s access to the module “Data for SFC2007” inMSC2007. Editing access defined by a list of roles is allowed to nominated representatives ofbodies involved in the process of managing, monitoring and inspecting on the basis of role andpowers assigned by the MMR.MSC2007 is also linked to the information system of the Paying and Certifying Authority(IS VIOLA), this system is used for financial management and accounting of sources from the EUbudget. Summary requests for payment are transferred from MSC2007 to IS VIOLA. Summaryfacts are transferred back from IS VIOLA to MSC2007.Deficiencies of the monitoring system at MSC2007 level are removed by the MMR. Requirementsand suggestions regarding the adjustment of the monitoring system at the IS MONIT7+and BENEFIT7 level are initiated by the Monitoring Working Group ROP consisting ofrepresentatives of the governing bodies of all regional operational programmes or MA ROPNorthwest on the basis of own specific requirements.Information system MONIT7+IS MONIT7+ is an information system for administration and management of projects. It securesexecutive activities of preparation and realisation of projects themselves i.e., collection andevaluation of applications, operational recording of projects, factual and financial monitoring at aproject level, reporting or provision of data to superior bodies. IS MONIT7+ is used as a basic SWtool for the implementation of ROP Northwest. CRR is the IS MONIT7+ administrator and it isresponsible for managing user accesses, safety, backup, transfers, definition of interfaces, andensuring system development. The IS MONIT7+ is accessed via a web interface.Web application BENEFIT7The web application BENEFIT7 is a user’s software tool. It is an electronic application in which theapplicant fills in the data of the planned project and its new or adjusted version is created for eachinvitation to submit the project. The unified application is used for mutual cooperation between MAROP Northwest and applicants/beneficiaries. All users will access the system of the webPage 242 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionapplication via the Internet network. The central storage site of web applications will be on theMMR server.Information system EK SFC2007The Czech Republic has chosen the variant of handing over data to the system EK SFC2007 bymeans of technical interface and Internet services. Electronic data exchange includes transfer ofdata from the Czech database MSC2007 into the database EK SFC2007. It means preparation ofthe required data and subsequent transfer of requisite data from the Czech database MSC2007. Inthis database, a special module has been formed which is used for authorising data by governingbodies responsible for management and coordination of EU fund programmes. This modulesecures the formation and export of validated data of governing bodies, PCO and via Internetservices into the database EK SFC2007. The module complies with the EK requirement regardingeGovernment.The System for Fund Management in the European Community 2007 - 2013 (hereinafter referredto as SFC2007) is the EK information system which helps to observe the rules of EU funds.SFC2007 consists of – Information System and the Financial Management System (used only bythe EK). Member states and the EK use the Information System, which is used for thecommunication and exchange of documents between EU member states and the EK, where allinstitutions working with EU funds compulsorily submit all data necessary for directiveimplementation.The European Commission Information System is linked to the monitoring system Central 2007(hereinafter also MSC2007) thanks to Web Services via the Internet network which is enabled bydirect interface. Access to the SFC2007 database is only possible by entering a user name and apassword which is assigned by the coordinator of SFC2007 who has the role of MS Liaison for theCR. Each member country including the CR nominates one person who is assigned the role of aMS Liaison and who is a contact person for all activities connected with access applications. Incase of the CR, this role is held by the MMR representative. Only the bodies involved in theimplementation of the programmes on behalf of the CR are entitled to be assigned the password –primarily for view mode only. Active access to SFC2007 is provided only exceptionally.Access to monitoring and the evaluation of horizontal topics• Equal opportunitiesMonitoring the horizontal topic of equal opportunities is an integral part of the central monitoringsystem which takes equal opportunities into account in the form of gender (age and type ofsocial handicap) divided indicators of outputs, results and impacts from the strategic levelNSRR up to monitoring relevant priorities of individual operational programmes. They areprogrammed so that they contribute in terms of quality to the successful implementation ofrelevant national politics and further politics coordinated on a European level (in the CRspecified in detail in the National Report of the Strategy of Social Protection and SocialIntegration for the years 2006 - 2008 and the National Reform Programme for the years 2005 -2008). Monitoring and evaluating the efficiency of the programme implementation in terms ofPage 243 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionset objectives and the effect on equal opportunities of target groups is secured by MA ROPNorthwest.●Sustainable developmentMonitoring environmental impacts is a part of IS monitoring, following the indicators designedby the processor of Assessment of Concept Impact on the Environment (hereinafter also SEA)ROP Northwest. Expert assessment of impacts will be performed by MA ROP Northwest withinprogramme evaluation.10.6.2 ANNUAL AND FINAL REPORTS ON IMPLEMENTATIONThe Managing Authority of the Northwest ROP will ensure processing, negotiation and approval ofthe MV reports and their subsequent submission to the EK.Annual reports will be submitted to the EK within 6 months since the end of each whole calendaryear of the fulfilment. The final report on implementation will be submitted to the EuropeanCommission until March 31, 2017. The Audit Authority will receive a copy of the annual report.All annual and final reports on implementation should contain the following information:• Significant socio-economic trends related to support, including national, regional and sectorpolicies;• Procedure while implementing priorities and measures related to their specific objectives,with quantification of their physical indicators and indicators of results and impacts;• Financial implementation of support, summarizing overall expenses paid by the Paying andCertifying Authority for each measure, records on total payments effected by the EuropeanCommission, as well as quantification of financial indicators;• All steps taken by the Managing Authority and the Monitoring Committee of the NorthwestROP, aimed at ensuring quality and effectiveness of implementation, above all:- Monitoring, financial control and evaluation of measures, including organizing datacollection;- Review of all significant problems occurring while managing support, and a reviewof measures taken;- Measures aimed at ensuring publicity;• Steps aimed at ensuring compatibility with the Community policy;• Measures taken to ensure awareness and publicity of the Northwest ROP;• Information on significant problems related to the observance of compliance with theCommunity policies, which were ascertained while implementing the Northwest ROP, aswell as measures aimed at their rectification;Page 244 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region• Use of support returned to the Managing Authority or another public authority within theperiod of implementation of the Northwest ROP in compliance with Article 99 (2) of CouncilRegulation (ES) No. 1083/2006.Every year, after the annual report has been submitted to the European Commission, the EK andthe Managing Authority of the ROP Northwest will assess the main outputs of the previous year.After this assessment the EK can make comments, and the Managing Authority will subsequentlyinform the Commission on the measures taken on the basis of these comments. Should theEuropean Commission reach a conclusion that the measures taken are insufficient, it canrecommend changes to the Managing Authority, leading to higher effectiveness of monitoringsupport management. The Managing Authority should react on such a recommendation byimplementing the recommended changes, or by explaining why the proposed recommendationswere not accepted.Elimination of drawbacks in the monitoring and managing system – based on Commissionrecommendations – is one of the conditions for effecting continuous payments.10.7 PROGRAMME EVALUATIONThe provisions of Articles 47 and 48 of the Council Regulation (ES) No. 1083/2006 stipulateobligations connected with carrying out evaluation. Executing evaluations leads to improvingquality, effectiveness and consistency of support provided from the funds, as well theimplementation of operational programmes. The obligations related thereto primarily include:• Processing, fulfilling, updating and assessing the evaluation plan;• Ensuring main evaluations, i.e. ex-ante and during the programme period;• Providing sources to carry out evaluation and use of data and information from themonitoring system;• Publicizing evaluation results.According to Council Regulation (ES) No. 1083/2006, evaluation is aimed at:• Increasing quality and effectiveness of support provided from the EU funds and itsconsistency with the EU objectives;• Improving the strategy and higher effectiveness of implementation of operationalprogrammes with an emphasis on specific structural problems and sustainabledevelopment.Support provided to the EU member states from the EU funds is subject to obligatory evaluation,both at the level of the National Strategic Reference Framework and at the level of operationalprogrammes. Carrying out evaluations leads to improving quality, effectiveness and consistency ofsupport provided from the funds, as well as implementation of the operational programmes.Page 245 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionThe ROP Northwest will be evaluated in accordance with Articles 47, 48 (and partially 49) ofCouncil Regulation (ES) No. 1083/2006. While preparing the ROP Northwest, ex-ante evaluationwas carried out with a view to ensuring effectiveness of the EU support provided from the structuralfunds. In order to assess the programme development in relation to the priority axes, continuousevaluation and ex-post evaluation of the programme will be ensured. Responsibility for theevaluation is borne by the Managing Authority. Evaluation methods will be set in accordance withthe European Commission reference instructions under Article 103, Paragraph 2.Activities related to evaluation of the operational programme will be financed within the frameworkof Priority Axis 5 Technical Assistance.An important source of information for evaluation of the programme will be continuous monitoringof the programme and the system of indicators of the Regional Operational ProgrammeNorthwest, which is conceived in such as a manner, so as to present relevant information on thecourse of the programme. Continuous monitoring of the programme will be also ensured by regularannual evaluation of the programme, which will primarily work with the indicator values achievedand compared with the relevant financial allocation. It will also focus on the evaluation of thedevelopment or progress achieved while solving the problems identified previously, as well as onthe scope and manner of use of recommendations concerning evaluation. On the basis of thisanalysis conclusions for further procedures in the area of evaluation will be formulated includingproposals for ad hoc evaluation and possible adjustments of the evaluation plan for the followingyears.Thus the system of indicators of the Northwest ROP will be one of the most significant sources ofevaluation activities carried out.10.7.1 EVALUATION PLANThe evaluation plan of the Northwest ROP will include evaluation activities aimed at improving thestrategy and management of carrying out support, above all collective evaluation intended forstrategic reports submitted in compliance with Article 29, Paragraph 2 of Council Resolution (ES)No. 1083/2006, evaluation ex-ante and evaluation of the ongoing type. The plan will generallyinclude ad hoc evaluation, as well. The plan will also give consideration to the cooperation with theEuropean Commission while preparing ex-post evaluation. Furthermore, the evaluation plan willalso include activities aimed at improving the evaluation capacities. The main items on theevaluation plan will be proposed in cooperation with the evaluation unit NOK.The evaluation plan will be drawn up for the whole programme period, always updated after a yearand drawn up in detail for the following calendar year. The fulfilment of the evaluation plan will beassessed within a year interval.Page 246 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region10.7.2 EVALUATION WORKPLACE - INTERNAL EVALUATION CAPACITYArticle 48, Paragraph 1 of Council Regulation (ES) No. 1083/2006 requires that conditions forcarrying out evaluation be created. At the level of the Northwest ROP evaluation tasks areperformed by an authorized evaluation workplace with appropriate knowledge of the programmecycle, evaluation procedures, able to ensure the preparatory phase of evaluation (plans andpreparation of the task including budget), as well as carrying out the organizational activity in therealization phases of evaluation including use of the opponent function of specialist groups andpublicizing evaluation results.The evaluation workplace is ensured within the framework of an independent department ÚRR –the Department of Monitoring and Analyses.The evaluation workplace prepares / carries out / ensures:• Draft of the evaluation plan and its annual update;• Fulfilment of the evaluation plan;- Processing tasks for selection of an external processor;- Ordering selection procedures for the fulfilment of evaluation projects;- Creating optimal conditions for the fulfilment of evaluation projects, theircoordination by using specialist groups;• Assessment of the fulfilment of the evaluation plan;• Submitting results of the fulfilment of the evaluation plan to the Monitoring Committeeof the Northwest ROP and to the Monitoring Committee NSRF (through theevaluation unit NSRF);• Developing evaluation capacity for the operational programme;• The widest possible presentation of results of evaluation activities to the subjects incharge;• Wide publicity of results of evaluation activities and spreading evaluation experienceacquired;• Comments on materials submitted while cooperating with other evaluationworkplaces including NSRF.The evaluation workplace of the Managing Authority of the Northwest ROP supports the activity ofthe evaluation body NSRF by its representatives’ participation in activities of the working andevaluation body NSRF (working group, special groups), as well as by direct cooperation, especiallyPage 247 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionwhile creating documentation for strategic reports according to Article 29, Paragraph 2 of CouncilRegulation (ES) No. 1083/2006.10.7.3 WORKING GROUP FOR EVALUATION OF OPERATIONALPROGRAMME, EXPERT GROUPSThe task of an advisory and coordinating authority for framework evaluation activities, such asprocessing an evaluation plan, for the activities of developing the evaluation capacity, for use ofevaluation results and their submission to the Monitoring Committee of the operational programmewill be fulfilled by the Working Group for the Northwest ROP evaluation.The working group will discuss:• Preparation of the evaluation plan;• Updating the evaluation plan for the following year;• (Formal) procedure while preparing the implementation of evaluation;• Development of evaluation capacity;• (Factual) preparation of the implementation of the evaluation plan;• Assessment of implementation of the evaluation plan;• Drafts of reports for the Monitoring Committee of the Northwest ROP.The Managing Authority of the Northwest ROP will appoint expert groups to carry out expertsupervision of the implementation of individual evaluation projects. Their members will be selectedby the Managing Authority of the Northwest ROP in such a manner, so that various opinions shouldbe included.For transparency reasons members outside the Managing Authority will be invited to the group,e.g. partners concerned with the structural interference, which is the subject of evaluation. Arepresentative of the coordinating authority at the national level – NSRF (= evaluation unit NSRF),and representatives of other authorities/operational programmes are also members of the expertgroup, provided that there exists factual interconnection between the evaluated areas.Cooperation in connection with strategic evaluation including drawing up documents forreports pursuant to Article 29 of the Council Regulation (ES) No. 1083/2006To meet the requirements placed upon the Czech Republic as a whole in the sphere of evaluation.The evaluating workplace will cooperate with the Working Group for evaluation NSRF both in thePage 248 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionpreparatory and implementing stage of the evaluation activity, above all for processing documentsfor strategic reports pursuant to Article 29, Paragraph 2 of Council Regulation (ES) No. 1083/2006.10.7.4 USE AND PUBLICIZING EVALUATION OUTPUTSThe evaluating workplace of the Managing Authority of the Northwest ROP will mediate the use ofevaluation projects’ results inside the implementation structure of the operational programme andprovide them to other interested parties, so that they could implement experience containedtherein, and to the coordinating evaluating workplace NSRF (evaluation unit NSRF), which willplace them in the central database of implemented evaluations accessible to the public.Evaluation outputs are publicized by the Managing Authority of the Northwest ROP on the Internet,or otherwise. The obligation to publicize results of evaluation activities is stipulated by theprovisions of Article 47, Paragraph 3 of Council Regulation (ES) No. 1083/2006.10.8 COORDINATION OF NORTHWEST ROP WITH NSRF AND OTHEROPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES10.8.1 COORDINATION AT THE LEVEL OF NSRFIn compliance with the general regulation, the CR has defined the main institutions formanagement and coordination NSRF:• National Coordination Authority;• Monitoring Committee – Managing and Coordinating Authority;• Paying and Certifying Authority – National Fund;• Audit Authority – Central Harmonization Unit for financial control.National Coordination Authority (NOK)Based on the resolution of the CR government No. 198 as of February 22, 2006, MMR, whoseauthorities are also based on Act No. 248/2000 Coll., on the support of regional development, wasauthorized to perform the function of the National Coordination Authority (NOK) NSRF. In MMR, aspecial department has been set up that ensures the function of the National CoordinationAuthority for NSRF. NOK is responsible for the general coordination NSRF, and it is an officialpartner of the EU for NSRF. NOK responsibilities are defined in NSRF.Monitoring Committee for NSRFThe role of the Monitoring Committee for NSRF is ensured by the Managing and CoordinatingAuthority (ŘKV), set up by MMR on the basis of Act No. 248/2000 Coll., on support of regionalPage 249 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regiondevelopment. The role of ŘKV for the period 2007-2013 was specified in government resolutionNo. 245 as of March 2, 2005.ŘKV is a mechanism at the national level to ensure the widest possible coordination involving notonly authorities involved in implementation, but also economic and social partners. The detailsconcerning ŘKV composition, operation, organization and activities are defined by its statute andrules of procedure approved of by the government. NOK supports ŘKV activities and ensures therole of the secretariat.Under the statute, ŘKV primarily:• Discusses and recommends financial and factual changes in the operationalprogrammes approved;• Discusses and recommends proposals and changes in procedures and rules ofimplementation of the policy of economic and social cohesion;• Approves and submits measures aimed at improving the effectiveness of theimplementation of NSRF and OP to the government;Discusses and approves of proposals for financial and factual changes in NSSR, arising from theCommission decision.Paying and Certifying Authority (PCO)In order to implement support from the SF and FS, the Czech Republic has set up a uniformPaying and Certifying Authority (PCO), which is the department of the National Fund MF. ThePaying and Certifying Authority functions in close cooperation with NOK.Audit Authority (AO)The Audit Authority is set up in the sense of Article 59 of the general regulation. Based on the CRGovernment Resolution No. 198 as of February 22, 2006, MF – the department of CentralHarmonization Unit for financial control was authorized to perform the function of AO for SF andFS. The department of Central Harmonization Unit is functionally independent from the managingauthorities and PCO. The Central Harmonization Unit for financial control functioning within theframework of MF is centrally responsible for implementing audits aimed at checking the effectivefunctioning of the managing and control system of the implementation of support from SF and FS.Coordination of all aspects of the implementation system is generally covered by MMR – NOK.Another significant coordinator in the sphere of methodical management of financial flows andfinancial control is MF – PCO and AO. Coordination in the sphere of ESF is ensured by MPSV.With regards to ensuring the coordination of programming and implementation of the operationalprogrammes and implementation of related policies, programming and implementation of cofinancedactions and other financial tools, in the process of programming and implementingoperational programmes NOK organizes regular meetings of representatives of the managingPage 250 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionauthorities, which take place at least once quarterly. Representatives of other institutions canparticipate in the meetings, if necessary.Individual managing authorities are obliged to cooperate with NOK while performing itscoordination role.10.8.2 COOPERATION AT THE LEVEL OF ROP NORTHWESTCooperation of the MA of ROP Northwest with other Managing AuthoritiesIn order to ensure the smooth flow of information, strengthen the synergistic effect, preventoverlapping and use funds from SF and FS as effectively as possible, it is essential that theManaging Authority of the ROP Northwest closely cooperate with the other managing authorities.MA cooperation with other OP and subjects involved in implementation SF occurs at the level ofmonitoring committees and coordinating committees. Regarding the fact that coordination amongoperational programmes often involves specific sectors, apart from regular meetings of theMonitoring Committee NSRF the Coordinating Authority NSRF also organizes meetings focused onthe four strategic objectives of NSRF. For that reason the following coordinating committees havebeen established under ŘKV:• Coordinating Committee for Competitive Czech Economy;• Coordinating Committee for Open, Flexible and Cohesive Society;• Coordinating Committee for Attractive Environment;• Coordinating Committee for Balanced Regional Development.Members of the coordinating committees are representatives of the managing authorities at thelevel of heads of departments, and their chairman is always a NOK representative.For the ROP Northwest it is important that it cooperate above all with the managing authorities ofother ROP and MA IOP within the framework of the Coordinating Committee for Balanced RegionalDevelopment. The coordinating role will be ensured by NOK at the level of the head of thedepartment. Other important partners of MA of the ROP Northwest are above all MA OP D, MA OPŽP, MA OP PI. Cooperation is carried out at the level of heads of the departments – managingauthorities, whereas NOK plays the coordinating role.The departmental coordinating group MMR ensures coordination and cooperation of the MA of theROP Northwest, managing authorities of the Programme of Rural Development, EFF andoperational programmes of cohesion policy at the central level. The departmental coordinatinggroup MMR will provide all managing authorities with a database of all projects within individualprogrammes.Page 251 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region10.8.3 COORDINATION OF ROP NORTHWEST WITH INDIVIDUALOPERATIONAL PROGRAMMESCoordination with IOPThe Regional Councils of all seven regions of the Cohesion NUTS II and IOP have entered into anAgreement on mutual cooperation and coordination while implementing IOP and the regionaloperational programmes. According to this Agreement, representative of MA IOP will berepresented in the monitoring committees of individual ROP, and reciprocally representative of themanaging authorities of individual ROP will be represented in the monitoring committee IOP. Theabove managing authorities will cooperate while preparing selection criteria, announcing calls,selecting projects, transferring information on selected projects and in other spheres with a view toimproving coordination, increasing the effectiveness of the programmes and ensuring the highestpossible synergistic effect.The purpose of the agreement is the establishment and coordination during the implementation ofIOP and regional operational programmes, especially in matter of assurance of synergy betweenthese programmes, namely in areas of social integration, public health, tourism, culture, IUDPs,ground planning and housing, which are in scope of MA of IOP and MA of ROPs.In order to coordinate the Northwest ROP with IOP, the following mechanisms have beenestablished:A) Monitoring Committee – MMR is represented in the Monitoring Committee of the ROPNorthwest, and reciprocally the representation of MA of the ROP Northwest in the MonitoringCommittee IOP will form the top level of coordination among IOP and ROPs.B) Coordinating Committee SC 4 NSRFThis coordinating committee will be a platform for mutual consultations on selection criteria,specifying interface, prepared calls and informing applicants between MA ROP and MA IOP. MSC2007 will ensure that MA ROP and MA IOP have access to information on the projects selected forimplementation in both operational programmes. Besides, working groups will be set up at thiscoordinating committee, which will ensure coordination of the implementation of the medium-rangenational strategies in the area of Smart Administration (representation of MV, MPSV, MMR and theregions), and tourism (representation of MMR and the regions).This coordinating committee will also ensure coordination among the Northwest ROP, IOP andPrague – Competitiveness.C) Working group for coordination of interventions of the ROP Northwest and IOP with EAFRD(composition of MA of the ROP Northwest, regional workplace SZIF in Ústí nad Labem, MZe,MMR).D) Regions’ consent to projects submitted IOP – in the spheres of social integration, public healthand culture MA IOP will require that the regions give positive opinion of the projects proposed forimplementation in IOP.Page 252 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionE) Factual and territorial limitation of interventions and definition of beneficiaries1) Public health sectorProviding medical equipment - IOP will support emergency care centres within the selectednational networks – these centres will be specified by MZd based on branches and by localizationin selected hospitals. The ROP Northwest will support complementary investments related to thedevelopment of these centres and providing other medical facilities, or parts of medical facilitiesthat will not be a part of these networks, with medical equipment.2) Social integrationa) Transformation of residential social facilities – IOP will solve pilot projects on transformation ofresidential facilities specified by name, which were selected by MPSV in cooperation with theregions. The ROP Northwest solves infrastructure of the social services included in Act No.08/2006 Coll., on social services, on a complementary basis.b) The return of members of the most deprived, socially excluded Romany localities back onto thelabour market and to the society will be solved in IOP based on systemic project/projects, whichwill be focused on the most deprived localities selected on the basis of an expert study. These arelocalities, where a failure of tools has been identified used on the local and regional level. The ROPNorthwest will intervene through the infrastructure of social services in other localities, not specifiedin IOP.c) Promotion and implementation of social economy tools – IOP will develop innovative procedureswhile developing social economy, whereas the Northwest ROP supports opened proceduresanchored in legislation, such as protected workshops.3) Culturea) Creation of national centres for cultural heritage – as a mediating subject IOP, the Ministry ofCulture (MK) will prepare a specification of proposed centres. This specification will be agreedupon with the regions.b) Implementation of specimen projects, creation of the infrastructure of modern cultural services –it was agreed that MK will draw up a list of monuments that will be supported by IOP. This list willbe agreed upon with the region, where these monuments are located. The ROP Northwestcontinues with thematically and locally specific calls for submitting projects in the sphere of thedevelopment of tourism (or, if necessary, in other spheres, such as transport infrastructure,transport services) focused on complementary activities to the projects supported by IOP.Coordination with OP TransportThe Regional Councils of all seven regions of the Cohesion NUTS II and the Ministry of Transport(MA OP D) have entered into an Agreement on mutual cooperation and coordination whileimplementing the Operational Programme Transport and the regional operational programmes(ROPs). According to this Agreement, representatives of MA OP D will be represented in themonitoring committees of ROPs, and reciprocally representatives of the managing authorities ofROPs will be represented in the monitoring committee OP D. The above managing authorities willcooperate while preparing selection criteria, announcing calls, selecting projects, transferringPage 253 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regioninformation on selected projects and in other areas with a view to improving coordination,increasing the programmes effectiveness and ensuring the highest possible synergistic effect.A) Monitoring committeeThe Ministry of Transport (MD) is represented in MV ROP Northwest. Thereby access of the MAOP Transport has been assured to establishing criteria for the selection of projects in the ROPNorthwest and to reports on the course of implementation of the Northwest ROP.B) Providing informationThe Managing Authority of the ROP Northwest will make it possible for the Ministry of Transport toparticipate in the approval procedure at the level of external observers for the area of “Support ofRenovation of the Fleet of Railway Vehicles for Mass Passenger Transport” in the sense of thegovernment resolution No. 1302 as of November 15, 2006. A coordinating group at NOK level hasbeen established to define the particular mechanism.MSC 2007 will ensure that MA of the ROP Northwest and MA OP Transport have access toinformation on the projects selected for implementation in both operational programmes and toreports on the course of implementation of the operational programmes.C) ConsultationsMA of the Northwest ROP will use special consultations with MD while setting technical conditionsfor the selection of railway vehicles.Brownfields – coordination with OP ŽP and OP PIThe ROP Northwest, OP Environment and OP PI have agreed on the following coordinationmechanism in the sphere of brownfields regeneration and the solution of old ecological burdens:A) Solution of old ecological burdensa) The Ministry of the Environment will be informed in advance of the projects aimed atbrownfields regeneration, submitted to the ROP Northwest and OP PI. MŽP will inform MAof the Northwest ROP or OP PI of whether a submitted project involves an old ecologicalburden, which will be solved by OP Environment, or whether it can be solved by theNorthwest ROP (OP PI). This mechanism functioned between OPI and OPPP during thelast programme period.b) If necessary, the Ministry of the Environment will provide MA of the ROP Northwest and OPPI with information from the database of old ecological burdens, whose mapping is beingcurrently carried out by MŽP.B) Providing informationa) The managing authorities will inform one another on prepared calls in the sphere ofelimination of old ecological burdens (OP ŽP) and brownfields regeneration (the NorthwestROP, OP PI).Page 254 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionc) MSC 2007 will ensure that MA ROP, MA OP Environment and OP PI have access toinformation on the projects selected for implementation in these operational programmesand to reports on the course of implementation of the operational programmes.C) Factual limitation of interventionsThe ROP Northwest and OP PI have agreed on the factual limits of support of brownfieldsregeneration, namely based on the future use of the territories:• The operational programme OP PI will support regeneration of the brownfields thatwill be mostly used for entrepreneurial activities in the future (the future use of thereal estate will come under OKEČ: 15-37, or it may concern strategic services ortechnological centres);• The Northwest ROP will support regeneration of brownfields for public use andservices;• In relation to EAFRD the Northwest ROP and OP PI will not solve the regeneration ofbrownfields intended for agricultural use in the future.Coordination with the Rural Development ProgrammeRural Development Programme will aim its interventions for development of local roads at theprojects up to CZK 5 mil. in municipalities to 500 inhabitants. The support for the development oflocal roads will be granted via ROP in municipalities with 500 and more inhabitants.The agricultural renewable resources will be supported by means of the EAFRD via PRV, ČOV andwaste management to 2 000 EO, local roads up to 5 mill. in municipalities to 500 inhabitants andagricultural brownfields (brownfields with future agricultural and manufacturing use within theAnnex I of the EU Treaty.Furthermore will be from the EAFRD through the PRV supported activities of development of ruralmunicipalities and basic amenities and service amenities (in relation to ROP Northwest it meansthe area of civic amenities, education, healthcare and social services) in municipalities up to 500inhabitants. The ROP Northwest has a similar aim, the difference is its area orientation(municipalities over 500 inhabitants).The PRV is aimed at the support of agricultural enterprises and further the young tourismenterprisers. Through the ROP Northwest the tourism enterprisers with at least 2-year accountancyhistory will be supported.In the area of protection of the cultural heritage is the PRV aimed at the interventions inmunicipalities to 500 inhabitants. ROP Northwest will support projects in municipalities with morethan 500 inhabitants.Coordination with OP financed from ESFNSRF priorities based on the strategic objective “Open, flexible and cohesive society” will befulfilled based on the synergistic effect, namely by carrying out activities in the area of soft projectsfinanced from ESF and investments in reconstruction and modernization of the infrastructure,financed from ERDF within the framework of the relevant priority axes of individual Northwest ROP.Page 255 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionThe Northwest ROP focuses on infrastructure-related activities that are complementary to activitiesfinanced from various operational programmes, in case of public services they are primarilycomplementary to activities supported by IOP (financed from ERDF), which are of the systemic orinnovative character, and to non-investment activities in the sphere of social integration andintegration on the labour market supported from OP LZZ, and educational activities within OP VK(financed from ESF).In the sphere of public services the following manners of coordination and interconnection ofsupported activities have been agreed upon with the managing authorities of individual OP cofinancedfrom ESF:A) Information on supported projects and MA activitiesThrough the Association of the Regions, representatives of the regions will become members ofthe Monitoring Committees of the above OP, which will be a platform for possibly informing theregions of the progress made while carrying out activities at their territory from the point of view ofhard investments within the framework of ROPs, and for identifying possible problems, which willbe appropriate to solve together for the purposes of greater interconnection of activities financedfrom ROPs with other thematic OP.B) MA agreement concerning selection criteriaWithin the framework of the Northwest ROP, complementarity with other OP is monitored in thesystem of projects evaluation. The selection criteria of the Northwest ROP take account of supportof the interconnection of the projects with the other, also non-investment projects supported by OPfinanced from ESF (a subgroup of criteria “Project results” – they assess synergy andinterconnection with the other prepared projects, projects that are being implemented and thathave already been implemented within the framework of other OP in the programme year2007 - 2013, or 2004 - 2006).The role of ŘKV and NOR is essential in coordination with other operational programmes.10.9 STATE AID WITHIN NORTHWEST ROPFinancial aid provided from structural funds is to be deemed state aid. Once granted, it will bedeemed aid provided from public funds and therefore subject to relevant EC rules and regulationsconcerning state aid. Aid granted from the public funds stands purely for in sense of Article 87 ofthe EC Treaty.The Managing Authority shall ensure that projects funded under structural funds comply with therules governing the granting of state aid as specified in Article 87 of the Agreement on ECFoundation. “ In addition, the Managing Authority shall ensure that any state aid provided within theframework of this programme complies with the procedures and material rules on state aidprovision applicable at the moment when the aid provided from public funds is granted.“Page 256 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionIn case of assistance granted from the Structural Funds to a large enterprise, the MA undertakes torequest an assurance from the enterprise concerned that the assistance will not be used in supportof investment that concerns the relocation of its production or service facilities from anotherMember State of the European Union.All aid intended to be provided from public funds has to be announced (Article 88 subparagraph 3of the Agreement on EC Foundation) and no aid from public funds can be granted prior to finaldecision of the European Commission.If “de minimis” aid is granted, the provider shall notify the beneficiary that the aid in question is ofthe above named type and shall at the same time require a statement from the beneficiary if anyother “de minimis” aid had been granted in the last three years, and if so what was the amount. If“de minimis” aid had been granted to the beneficiary in the last three years and the total amountexceeds the maximum amount of 200,000 EUR defined by the EC Resolution, additional grant willnot be provided to the beneficiary.Special attention shall be paid to state aid granted from several sources (primarily a combination offunds from state budget, budget of regions and municipalities and funds from structural funds).Total amount of state aid from the Czech Republic and European Union resources shall not exceedthe limits established in the Regional Map of Czech Republic State Aid Intensity for the years2007 – 2013.Within the Northwest ROP, “de minimis” support and block exemptions for regional investmentsupport, or support to small and medium-sized enterprises respectively can be assumed (detailswill be specified in the Implementing Document).a) de minimisA part of support will be provided only in small financial volumes, i.e. at the amount of the so-calledde minimis, which is governed by Commission Regulation No. 1998/2006 as of December 15,2006, on application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Agreement on de minimis support. The totalamount of de minimis support, provided to one subject within a three-years period, will not exceedthe gross sum of EUR 200,000 (or EUR 100,000 for enterprises involved in road transport), namelyregardless of the form of support or the pursued objective thereof, or irrespective of the fact,whether provided support is financed from the EU sources entirely or partially.b) Block exemptions from prohibition of state aidPermitted state aid can be provided for a part of the programme, which is defined in theCommission Special Regulations, issued on the basis of Article 87, Paragraph 3 of the Agreementon ES. These are so-called block exemptions, i.e. exemptions from prohibited state aid accordingto Article 87, Paragraph 1 of the Agreement on ES. It is unnecessary to give notifications of thesedefined categories of support.In case of the Northwest ROP it concerns support, so far regulated by the Commission RegulationNo. 70/2001 as of January 12, 2001, on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Agreement onPage 257 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionES for state support of small and medium entrepreneurial activities, as well as support providedwithin the framework of a block exemption according to the Commission Regulation No. 1628/2006as of October 24, 2006, on application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Agreement on domestic regionalinvestment support.To specify what has been mentioned above, a list of priority axes identifying the assumed form ofstate aid is attached hereinafter.Table 64 – state aid within the Northwest ROPPriority axisPO 1 – Urban regeneration and developmentRegulation based on which exemption fromprohibited state aid will be given- Block Exemption for regional aid;- De minimisPO 2 – Integrated support of local development- Block Exemption for regional aid;- - De minimisPO 3 – Accessibility and transport services inthe regionPO 4 – Sustainable development of tourism- Block Exemption for regional aid;- De minimis- Block Exemption for regional aid;- Block exemption for state aid to SME;- De minimisPO 5 – Technical assistance - De minimisShould state aid be provided above the framework of de minimis and block exemptions, the partiesconcerned will proceed in accordance with Article 88, Paragraph 3 of the Agreement on ES, i.e. theEuropean Commission will be informed on the intention to provide or adjust the state aid systemwithin the framework of the ROP Northwest. In this case the relevant ROP Northwest supportschemes will not be implemented until the European Commission has taken a final decision oncompatibility of relevant support provided within the ROP Northwest with the common marketaccording to Article 87 of the Agreement on ES.10.10 PUBLIC CONTRACTSContracts for goods, services and work that will be co-financed from the EU Structural Funds withinthe framework of the ROP Northwest will be implemented in compliance with the current CR andES legislation regulating commissioning of public contracts (above all Act No. 137/ 2006 Coll., onpublic contracts in the current version).Page 258 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionAt the same time, there compliance will be ensured with the Community requirements defined inthe Agreement (Articles 12, 28, 43 and 49) and in the applicable Commission Regulations oncommissioning public contracts (Regulation 2004/18/ES on coordinating procedures whilecommissioning public orders for constructional work, supplies and services, based on the wordingof Regulation 2005/75/ES and Regulation 2005/51/ES, Regulation 2004/17/ES on coordinatingprocedures while commissioning public contracts by the subjects involved in the sphere of watermanagement, power engineering, transport and postal services, based on the wording ofRegulation 2005/51/ES).The Managing Authority will monitor whether beneficiaries commission public contracts incompliance with the valid CR and ES legislation.10.11 PROMOTION AND PUBLICITYAccording to the Article 69 of Council Regulation (ES) No. 1083/2006, the Managing Authority isresponsible for ensuring publicity of the operational programme, namely in compliance withimplementing rules of the above EC Regulation concerning promotion and publicity (Chapter II.Information and Communication, Articles 2 – 11).The Managing Authority is responsible for informing above all potential beneficiaries/users ofsupport, commercial and professional chambers, economic and social partners, NGOs and thepublic at large, while adhering to the principle of transparency and equality of opportunities inaccess to information.Informational and promotional measures based on the programme are implemented on the basisof the Northwest ROP Communication Plan (KoP), which will be made known to of the NorthwestROP Monitoring Committee by the MA ROP Northwest and submitted to EK for approval. The MAof the ROP Northwest is responsible for KoP implementation, and informs the EK of itsimplementation through Annual Reports and the Final Report in implementation of the ROPNorthwest.KoP is a framework communication programme strategy for the period 2007 – 2013, which iselaborated and specified through annual plans of communication activities. The CommunicationPlan respects the CR and EU strategy, the National Development Plan and the National StrategicReference Framework, and it is in compliance with the Northwest ROP objectives. KoPimplementation is financed from the funds allocated within the framework of Priority Axes 5Technical Assistance.KoP implementation is monitored by the ROP Northwest Monitoring Committee. The MA of theROP Northwest informs the ROP Northwest Monitoring Committee on KoP implementation throughReports on programme implementation for MV, annual reports and the final report onimplementation of the programme.Page 259 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region11 SEA RESULTSINTRODUCTIONThe ROP Northwest, being a component part of the system of the Czech Republic’s operationalprogrammes, supports, through its public interventions, sustainable development in compliancewith the Czech Republic’s Sustainable Development Strategy. The ROP Northwest solvesproblems related to economic, social and territorial differences by strengthening the economicgrowth, competitiveness and employment, social integration and the environment protection andquality. Strategic objectives and priority axes in the area of intervention of the ROP Northwest, asinstruments of public intervention, have been formulated so as to constrain the imbalance in mutualrelations between economic, environmental and social sustainability pillar to the utmost degree. Allpriority axes of the ROP Northwest meet 3 pillars of the region’s sustainable developmentaccording to their thematic orientation.Identification dataPresenter – Karlovy Vary Regional Authority is the presenter of the Regional OperationalProgramme of the Northwest Cohesion Region.Author – Mgr. Karel Houdek, together with the group of researchers of Landscape EcologyLaboratory of FLE ČZU Prague with the registered office in Kostelec nad Černými lesy, is theauthor of the assessment of the Northwest ROP impacts on the environment.Respective authority – Czech Republic Ministry of the Environment, Department of Assessmentof Impacts on the Environment and IPPC is authorized for issuing an opinion in terms of the citedAct.Approving authorities – Karlovy Vary Regional Board of Representatives and Ústí RegionalBoard of Representatives are authorised for approving the concept and its environmental impactsassessment.CONCEPT CONTENT AND OBJECTIVES, AFFINITY TO OTHER CONCEPTSThe aim of the Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region is based onand related to the global target, strategic objectives and priorities of the Czech Republic’s NationalDevelopment Plan for the 2007-2013 period. The ROP´s contents direction has been formulatedwith regard to the thematic direction of other operational programmes, as well as to the applicationof the principle of subsidiary and ensuing derived competency prerequisites and dispositionsrelated to the development of the region. Priority axes and areas of intervention of the RegionalOperational Programme will be modified and made more specific according to the results ofnegotiations between government departments and regions concerning the precise demarcation of“boundaries” between thematic operational programmes and regional operational programmes.For developing the Northwest ROP, three crucial strategic documents have been considered,namely Community General Strategic Principles (EC), National Development Plan (CzechRepublic) and related National Strategic Reference Framework (Czech Republic). RegionalPage 260 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionoperational programme is consistent with other national strategic documents, namely SustainableDevelopment Strategy, Economic Growth Strategy, as well as regional development strategies ofindividual sub-regions forming the Northwest Cohesion Region.CURRENT ENVIRONMENT-RELATED STATE OF CONCERNED TERRITORY AND ITSLIKELY CONCEPT-ABSENT DEVELOPMENTThe assessment has been based on documents produced not only within the framework of theNorthwest ROP preparation, but also on the results of the reviewer’s team very own investigation,in which basic categories of the protection of individual sections of the environment, as well aspossible impacts on public health, have been mapped. In this connection, it may well be noted thatthe initial state of the environment in the area concerned does not constitute any crucial limitingbarrier for the implementation of proposed priority axes and supported areas specified in ROP.Within the ROP’s framework, projects focused on protecting the environment will be implemented,where any delay in the ROP implementation might result in stagnation of the current state, or evenin its deterioration. Projects that may have a certain and potentially negative impact on theenvironment must be assessed in detail within the framework of the assessment of impacts ofconcepts on the environment, including the proposal for minimization and compensation measures.Reference targets of the environment protection, established for the Northwest ROP on theinternational, community and national level, are as follows:1. Reduce by 2020, after the completion of the Protocol’s initial test period, the CO 2 specific percapita emissions by 30 %; reducing the CO 2 total aggregated emissions by 25 % as compared to2000, and continuing the commenced trend until 2030;2. Reach national emission upper limits for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organicsubstances, and ammonia by 2010, and meet target values for human health and vegetationacidification in 2020;3. Reduce emissions and escapes of priority substances and stop or gradually eliminate discharge,emissions, and escapes of priority danger substances;4. Reduce land requisition;5. Restrict landscape fragmentation and ensure protection and recovery of migration routes,corridors, and migrating species resting points;6. Improve landscape’s retention function;7. Restrict intrusion of major environmental toxicants into the environment and seek substitutesolutions;8. Reduce consumption of primary non-renewable resources by 1 % absolute value per year, 1.5% in the public sector;9. Stabilize lowering the general energy demand by 3 % and the electric energy demand by 2 %per year for the GNP generation;10. Reduce consumption of inorganic raw materials due to structural changes in economy andtechnical development;Page 261 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region11. Increase the reuse of waste preferring 55 % recycling of all generated waste by 2012;12. Reduce specific hazardous waste generation by 20 % by 2010 as compared to 2000 withfurther reducing assumed;13. Protect natural elements in developed areas;14. Support utilisation of brownfields;15. Support environment-friendly forms of transportation, including management measures;16. Reduce transit and load freight road transportation;17. Reduce exposure of population to traffic and industrial operation noise in residential areas;18. Encourage demand and supply of environment-friendly products and, thus, stimulate thepotential for continuous market-controlled environmental enhancement.Specific conditions have been designed based on the assessment of single priority axes withregard to the environment protection reference targets.Forming an important component of the measures for preventing negative impacts of theimplementation of ROP Northwest on the environment are draft environmental criteria for theselection of projects, as well as draft incorporation of these criteria in the system of assessmentand selection of projects, submitted with the objective of obtaining aid from ROP Northwest.The Northwest ROP is submitted in one final version that constitutes the consensus of manyprevious negotiations and the evaluation of a number of previous solution versions. Alternativesolutions may arise while implementing the Northwest ROP, i.e. in accomplishing single specificprojects. Considering that, it is necessary to integrate environmental indicators and projectselection criteria into the Northwest ROP monitoring system as per the SEA elaborator proposal.The evaluation of the Northwest ROP impacts on the environment was carried out in compliancewith Act No. 100/2001 Coll., on the assessment of impacts on the environment, as amended bylater regulations. As an important document, Methodology of Assessing Impacts of Concepts onthe Environment (Ministry of the Environment, Planeta Edition 7/2004) was used. Also, theassessment of impacts on the system of the Natura 2000 localities was performed as part of theassessment of impacts on the environment based on the published results of the investigativeanalysis.No problems of crucial importance were encountered when gathering basic data and all availableinformation was included in the SEA documents. When drafting the SEA documents, nodeficiencies were ascertained as far as basic documents or knowledge were concerned that mightprevent the formulation of the final conclusion.The author of the SEA proposed environmental indicators for observing the level of the ROPimpacts on single reference objectives. In order to assess ROP influence regarding the proposedindicators and to simultaneously eliminate inclusion of other than ROP influences, it is necessary toobserve the indicators of the environmental assessment of projects submitted within single areasof support, i.e. utilize the environmental criteria also as the criteria for the assessment andselection of projects.Page 262 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionIncluded in the overall system of ROP monitoring are the following activities: the evaluation ofsubmitted projects with the help of environmental criteria; monitoring of environmental indicators(especially on the basis of aggregation of data from the project level); the evaluation of monitoring,i.e. monitoring environmental indicator changes; the initiation of relevant steps for determiningnegative impacts of the ROP on the environment; publishing monitoring results; the adjustmentand modification of environmental indicators and criteria with regard to the nature of submittedprojects; communication with a relevant evaluation authority (Ministry of the Environment), natureprotection bodies, and other local government bodies acting in environmental protection; theprovision of consultations in the environmental sector to the operational programmeimplementation structure staff, primarily to the members of evaluation and selection committees;the provision of consultations in the environment area to project authors; the provision ofinformation on environmental problems related to the ROP to all interested subjects andindividuals.For single environment protection reference target, the SEA author proposed environmental criteriathat should be included into the system of projects evaluation and selection. It may well beassumed that environmental criteria might possibly be changed in order to reflect directions ofsubmitted and evaluated projects.In spite of the omission of basic documents and their objectives in public health care in thesubmitted Northwest ROP, most of the health determinants will not be significantly affected by ROPimplementation. On the contrary, it may well be objectively assumed that in the optimal case theirimplementation might rather have a positive impact on public health, especially due to improvedsocial and economic determinants of the population. This applies above all to the expectedincrease in the level of education, as well as an increase in the number of vacancies offered andthe creation of an infrastructure for healthy life style as an integral component of human resourcescare. When respecting environmental protection, both the environment and, consequently, also thehealth of the population will improve.When implementing an ROP that accepts SEA evaluation outputs, no deterioration of theenvironment and its health determinants is to be expected. In cases where possible negativeimpacts on human health or environmental components determining human health are referred to,it may well happen that these will be excluded, especially in the course of ROP implementation, i.e.during the selection, approval and authorisation of individual submitted projects.On the basis of current outputs of the assessment of the Northwest (ROP) impacts on theenvironment it may be noted that no negative impacts of the ROP on the environment and publichealth were identified. Due to the general nature of the ROP, specific impacts on individualcomponents of the environment may only be determined once specific projects are implemented.Therefore, the determination of the environmental criteria of projects selection, the application ofwhich should provide for the implementation of the projects within the framework of individual ROPmeasures or related programmes is an important element of the ROP SEA.11.1 METHOD OF ELABORATION OF THE SEATwo public hearings (in July 2006 in Karlovy Vary and Ústí nad Labem) and, further, a publicdiscussion on the Northwest ROP concept and the assessment of its impact on the environmentPage 263 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region(SEA) on 27 October 2006 in Chomutov were organized. The public hearings and the publicdiscussion were intended for the engaged professional and general public, non-government andspecial interest organisations, entrepreneurs, academic and research organisations andrepresentatives of state and local administrations. The manner in which suggestions andobjections were handled and the resulting outcome is presented in “Assessment of the NorthwestROP (SEA) Concept regarding impacts on the environment”.Throughout the whole assessment process, single versions of the Concept and SEA stages werepublished on an ongoing basis. Relevant documents and outcomes of the SEA assessmentprocess were published on the websites of the Karlovy Vary and Ústí nad Labem regions and,further, on the websites of the Northwest ROP SEA assessment elaborator - The Ministry of the Environment, as per requirements of ActNo. 100/2001 Coll. on assessing impacts on the environment, as amended, was publishing singledocuments during the SEA process in the SEA Information System on the Ministry of the Environment issued an Approving Statement to the Draft of theConcept of the ROP Northwest, which has been published on the MA ROP Northwest and is also a part of the Programme Document ROPNorthwest as Annex 4. The proposal of the Statement was also a part of the Environmental ImpactAssessment to the Concept of the ROP Northwest.Page 264 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region12 EX-ANTE EVALUATION RESULTSThis report is the summary of major results, conclusions, and recommendations of theperformed ex-ante evaluation of the Northwest NUTS II Regional Operational Programme for theprogramming period of 2007 to 2013 published in December 2006 and updated with commentsand opinions from the European Commission to the given programme in August and June 2007.The complete ex-ante evaluation is available at http://www.nuts2severozapad.czThe ex-ante evaluator of the Northwest ROP (the association of RegioPartner, s.r.o. andEvasco, s.r.o.) came of the selection process, the evaluation was elaborated in accordance withthe work completion agreement of May 15, 2006, or of June, 18 2007.The ex-ante evaluation was performed in parallel with the ROP development and its outputsfollowed up with the outputs of the ex-ante evaluation of the National Development Plan and theNational Strategic Reference Framework (hereinafter “NSRF”). Along with the ex-ante evaluation wasalso performed the assessment of the operational programme impacts on the environment (SEA) thatis also an integral part of the preliminary evaluation of the strategic programme documents.The structure of the complete report of the Northwest ROP final ex-ante evaluation is asfollows:Chapter 2 describes the approach to the evaluation project, specifies the process of evaluationand the methodology selected. Working documents of the EK – “Working Paper on Ex-AnteEvaluation” and “Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation: A Practical Guide” were used as a base fordeveloping the evaluation guidelines. Thus, all the basic principles stressed by the EK were appliedwithin the evaluation framework. The cross-impact analysis, the secondary analysis of administrativestatistical data, the intervention logic analysis, the SWOT analysis, the problem analysis, and theparticipation methods may be mentioned as the major methods used for the ex-ante analysis.Chapter 3 describes in six sub-chapters the results of the ex-ante analysis. The first subchapterevaluates the ROP analytical section; the second one evaluates the justification of the selectedstrategy, its overall consistency and external coherence; the third one then evaluates the relevance ofthe direction of priority axes; The fourth sub-chapter evaluates the setting of indicators, thequantification of objectives and anticipated impacts, and the fifth sub-chapter evaluates financialresources. The sixth sub-chapter is the evaluation of the implementation system design proposal.Chapter 4 of the Northwest ROP ex-ante evaluation then formulates conclusions andrecommendations of the evaluator ensuing from the evaluation performed.In connection with the Northwest ROP revision taking into account opinions of the EK, thecomplete report on the ex-ante evaluation will be amended with a separate section extra evaluating theprogress made from December 2006, or March to June 2007, and then June – August 2007 ; thissummary was also amended with this section.The team of evaluators (staffed with Lucie Bučinová, Mariana Nachtigallová, Marie Kaufmann,Martin Krištof, Pavel Machánek, Jan Ženka) closely cooperated with the author of the Northwest ROP,the work submitter (Karlovarsko Regional Authority, Ústecko Regional Authority), and other relevantpartners in the region. Workshops were held during the evaluation with the Northwest ROP submitterPage 265 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionand author, thus, not only the analysis of the submitted documents, but also the results of the panelgroup discussion and individual consultations became the information source for the ex-anteevaluation.Summary of evaluating activitiesThe ex-ante team of evaluators has been intensively in touch with the programme'selaborator and has formulated running opinions on all emitted versions of the ROP NUTS II North-West. The running opinions have been formulated on the versions dated:• 23/03/06• 13/04/06• 21/04/06• 05/05/06• 09/06/06• 06/09/06• 09/10/06• 22/11/06The "final" ex-ante evaluation of the ROP NUTS II North-West, emitted 06/12/06, has beenelaborated for the version of the ROP 21/11/06. The version of the programme was officiallysubmitted to the European Commission together with the National Strategic Reference Framework(NSRR) and other operational programmes in March 2007, as a result of which negotiations on asupport from the EU Structural funds for the Czech republic were opened for the programmingperiod 2007 - 2013.At the end of the month of May, the regional operational programmes' managing authoritiesobtained the EK general comments, with general effect in relation to the ROPs.At the beginning of June 2007, the managing authority of the ROP NUTS II North-Westobtained the EK comments (Draft Position Paper) on the content of the programme itself.At the end of June 2007, a new version of the ROP NUTS II North-West dated 21/06/07 hasbeen submitted to the European Commission that also contained an additional ex-ante evaluation,having as its task to assess progress in the past time.On the basis of the comments raised by the EK within the official Position Paper, the text ofthe ROP NUTS II North-West has been significantly amended, and that called for a need of bothan up-date and the ex-ante evaluation to the 29 August 2007.Page 266 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionThe following table summarises the ex-ante analysis results:ROP Version November 2006 June 2007 August 2007Analytic Part 1 Situation analysis was not condensed • Socio-economic analysis remainedas recommended and it stillemphasised parts that are notNorthwest NUTS II ROP interventiondomains. New text segments weretoo broadly conceived; however,some excess and descriptivepassages were condensed and, percontra, new passages were addedadded highlighting the specific position improving the interconnectionof the region as structurally afflicted;link to Lisbon Strategy andenvironmental aspects.between the analytical and strategicparts of the document. Regardingthe integral nature of reasons for2 SWOT analysis was adjustedregional disparities and economiccontinually into a comprehensible andlag, the scope of the analysis iswell-arranged form; however, it stillacceptable. Specifics of social, orcontained items among strong andhistoric, progress and theweak aspects that the programmeconsequences ensuing from it,cannot directly influence.which the region has to cope with,were emphasised.• Statistical data was updated and,compared to EU values withinpossible scope. In accordance withEK requirements, the analysis wasadded with information on the LMT(Local Mass Transportation)situation and also with a brief- In relation to EK suggestions andreviewer’s ex-ante, the processorincluded Chapter 2.4.5 Exploitation ofrenewable energy resources andextended Chapter 2.9 Summary ofregional disparities with a statisticalevaluation of the most significant socioeconomicdisparities within theNorthwest region as well as in theCzech Republic. Despite its broadscope, the socio-economic analysis isapt; it deals with relevant issues, anddraws from actual statistical data.- The SWOT analysis went throughsignificant changes of which the mostimportant one is dividing statements(including opportunities and threats) intosix major groups of factors influencingthe development and competitivenessof the region. New division betterreflects the structure of socio-economicanalysis and the most significantproblems and issues in the NorthwestPage 267 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionsummary of educational, health andsocial infrastructure, includingidentification of key problems.• SWOT analysis was appropriatelysegmented into three parts inrelation to the socio-economicanalysis structure. Goodarrangement was supported byhighlighting statements outside ROPscope. SWOT analysis statementswere adequate and in accordancewith the situation analysis. However,the order of statements did notcorrespond to the diminishingbenefits for regional development.region. The majority of opportunities arecorrectly conceived and formulated asexternal processes and parameters ofthe environment that are not underdirect control of the local administration.- SWOT analysis aptly characterisesmajor limits and the potential of theNorthwest region and is interconnectedwith conclusions of the socio-economicanalysis.Strategy ● The defined strategy was relevant,however, its objectives and priorityaxes did not cover all needsidentified in the extensive analysis.Potential overlapping of priority axeswas removed during ongoingmodifications. The strategy assumescomplementarity of activities withthematic operational programmesbecause ROP activities cannotthemselves complete the stipulatedThe part dealing with thedescription of the programme’sstrategy was not significantlymodified. The global objective,specific objectives, and priorityaxes were retained; minorchanges were made in the innercontents of priority axes only.Strategy was strengthened withissues of horizontal priorities• The strategy is closelyinterconnected with the analyticalpart, it is relevant in relation toidentified needs of the region,and shows a sufficient externalconsistence. The processor paida sufficient attention to an exactdetermination of competenciesand ensuring coordinationbetween the ROP and otherPage 268 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region●●global objective, regarding relativelylimited financial resources.Hierarchy of specific objectives andtheir linkage to the global objectivewere maintained. Single priorityaxes were mutually interconnectedand consistent.Global objective, specific objectivesand also proposed priority axeswere in compliance with CommunityGeneral Strategic Principles andalso with the major strategicdocument on the Czech Republiclevel – National Strategic ReferenceFramework – and contributed toachieving objectives of LisbonStrategy.(equal opportunities andsustainable development) thatwere taken into account in thewhole scope of the NorthwestROP management.operational programmes.• The processor condensedextensive and descriptivesegments dealing with thedescription of strategicdocuments and characteristics ofthe initial situation within singlepriority axes where overlappingwith the socio-economic analysisoccurred. In relation to EKrecommendations, the processorincluded a sub-chapter detailingbrownfields’ regenerationstrategy.Priority axis • Regarding the high rate ofurbanisation, the inclusion of urbanand rural issues into separatepriority axes was positive. However,Regeneration and development ofurban areas priority axis was stillfinancially fragmented; higherconcentration of financial resources●Increase in financial allocation forRegeneration and developmentof urban areas priority axis waspositive. The priority axis wasnewly divided into three areas ofinterventions focused on theregion’s development poles(towns with population over- In relation to EK suggestion, Chapter6.3 was incorporated, whichspecifies rules of cross financingwithin priority axes 1, 2, and 4, andreasons for the necessity of financinginvestment and non-investmentactivities within a single project.- Also incorporated was Chapter 6.4Page 269 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionand their targeting to potential polesof economic growth and socialstability would have a strongersocio-economic impact.• Technical Assistance priority axislacked a factual character.Programme did not specify in moredetail the status and position of socalled“technical assistance unit” forwhich this priority axis was toallocate financial resources.Financial allocation for the priorityaxis was reduced to 2.7% from 3%.Regarding the fact that financialresources are also to be used forimplementing priority axes 1 and 2,the reviewer considered financialcoverage of this priority axis asinsufficient.●●●50,000), medium-sized and smalltowns (population of 5,000 to50,000), and supplementarysupport to educational and socialinfrastructure.Within Integrated support to localdevelopment priority axis, thereviewer’s suggestion to thevagueness of the role of“technical assistance unit” wastaken into account and theinclusion of this subject wasdropped.For Accessibility and transportserviceability priority axis, themajor objective was appropriatelyspecified in more detail in relationto the completed analytical part.Within Technical assistance, theinner structure was simplified, thenumber of interventions reducedfrom five to two. However, thesuggestion concerninginsufficient financial resources forthis priority axis was not takeninto account.specifying conditions for exploitingJessica financial tool of whichactivities focusing on the urbandevelopment within priority axis 1may be financed.Page 270 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionIndicatorsandquantificationof objectives●The number of indicators wasreduced and the indicators weremore precisely focused on themeasurement of anticipated resultsand impacts. Quantification ofobjectives was carried out usingindicators of impact and result onthe level of the programme’s globaland specific objectives of the priorityaxis. Coherence of indicators withNSRR was sufficient.●●The processor incorporated thedetailed description of theindicator system functions andthe classification dividing theindicator system into the contextindicators and programmeindicator. However, the distinctionbetween these indicators,regarding methodology and datacollection, was insufficient. Theindicator system of programme’sglobal and specific objectivescomplied with the outcomes ofthe analytical and strategic parts.Indicators selected evaluated theprogress in the most significantareas of interventions.An evaluation study will beappropriately used for revealingthe impact of the Northwest ROPinterventions and for enhancingthe attractiveness of supportedtowns and communes, which areimpacts very difficult to bequantified.- The processor utilised partial monitoringevaluation focused on the indicatorsystem and the quantification ofobjectives whereby he reacted to thereviewer’s principal suggestions primarilyconcerning relevance, informationprovision ability, and mutual overlappingamong single context indicators.- Inclusion of four new context indicatorsand comparison of initial values ofcontext indicators with national valuescontributed to information provisionability.- Programme indicators and priority axeswent through partial changes of whichthe most significant is decreasingpreviously non-realistically exaggeratedindicative values of migration balance asthe indicator of interventions’ impact onthe Northwest region attractiveness.- After having been adjusted, the indicatorsystem appropriately and proportionallycovers the suggested priority axes.- The context indicators are closelyinterconnected with outcomes of thePage 271 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionsocio-economic analysis and SWOTanalysis. The indicators also concurwithin groups; they mutually complementand improve each other.Implementation●The intention of establishing“territorial” workshops in bothdistricts of the region within thescope of the Office of the RegionalCouncil is a positive step. As per thediction of the chapter, a certain lackof conception and methodologicalcomprehensiveness in setting theimplementation mechanism, whichwas caused by gradualestablishment of the control body,and by the absence of basicmethodologies and manuals formanagement was apparent. Thisfact was primarily apparent in thelack of proportionality andpunctuality of single sub-chapters.●●The part dealing with theimplementation of the programmewas significantly changedprimarily in the area of linksrelated to the national level, or toensuring the coordination with theNational Coordination Authorityfor Cooperation and other controlbodies. Issues of the programmemanagement itself, or ensuringthe control body functionperformance, were completed insub-segments only.Processes of financial flows inrelation to EK, as well as on theprogrammes, or projects,financing level, were refined. Thecompletion of the projectsevaluation system by the controlbody was positive. Also, thespecification of the monitoringsystem and the electronic data● The programme managementsystem was finalised into a completeand comprehensive form. The controlbody disposes all necessarydocumentation of “lower order”,which describes all aspects ofprogramme management in detail.Chapter 10 Executive measurescontains all information required bythe EC legislation, primarily CouncilRegulation (EC) No. 1083/2006.●Partial processes and responsibilitiesof single subjects involved inprogramme management arespecified in the document;introducing a graphical presentationof the Office's organisationalstructure contributes to synopticproperties of the text. In accordancewith recommendations of the ex-anteevaluation, the projects’ selectionsystem was specified in more detail,Page 272 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionexchange system is on thecorresponding level.●including criteria for their evaluation.The part concerning the controlsystem was significantly completed.The section dealing with themonitoring system was completelyrevised and it now includes actualinformation related to both theexisting system and the systembeing newly built up.Page 273 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionConclusions of the ex-ante evaluation for the version of 29/08/07The ex-ante evaluator has to claim that, compared to the last evaluatedversions (especially to the version of the November last year), a significant progresshas been made with the update made out, which has contributed to the document'squality.The evaluator assumes that the current version of the programme meetsgeneral requirements posed for a document of this type, namely of both quantitativeand qualitative nature.The evaluator's comments and recommendations have been properly taken intoaccount in this programme's version. The only comment that has not been accepted onthe part of the elaborator is recommendation of an increase in financial allocation to thepriority axis 5 Technical Assistance.The implementation of the ROP NUTS II North-West will contribute without anydoubt to the realization of the global target set within NSRR. In the view of the addedvalue of the Community the evaluator assumes that the realization of the ROP Northweststrategy will contribute to the fulfilment of the Community's general objectives,especially the basic objectives of the economic and social cohesion policies, a renewedLisbon strategy, a sustainable development, and support for equal opportunities andother policies.The ex-ante evaluator considers the document to be in the stage that it can beaccepted by the EK.Page 274 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region13 PROGRAMME ANNEXESAnnex 1 – List of AbbreviationsAbbreviation Definitionabs.AbsoluteAFCOSAnti Fraud Co-ordination Structure (Czech Anti Fraud CoordinationService)AOAudit Authoritya. s. Joint Stock companyBROÚK Prospective Development of the Ústecký kraj (project)CHJCentral Harmonisation UnitCOCertification AuthorityCSGCommunity Strategic GuidelinesCZTCentral Heat SupplyČCCRCzech Tourism HeadquartersČNBCzech National BankČHMÚCzech Hydro meteorological InstituteCRCzech RepublicČOVWater Treatment PlantČSÚCzech Statistical OfficeČVUTCzech Technical University in PragueDSLDigital Subscriber LineEAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural DevelopmentECEuropean CommunityEFFEuropean Fisheries FundEIBEuropean Investment BankEHKEuropean Economic CommissionEHPEuropean Economic AreaEKEuropean CommissionERDFEuropean Regional Development FundESEuropean CommunityESDPEuropean Spatial and Development PerspectiveESFEuropean Social FundESF MU v Brně Economic Administrative Faculty of Masaryk University in BrnoEÚDEuropean Court of AuditorsEUR Euro, €FSCohesion FundHl. m. Praha Capital city PragueHDPGross Domestic ProductCHKOProtected Landscape AreaICTInformation and Communication TechnologyPage 275 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionIDOKKarlovarsko Region Integrated TransportINTERREG Interregional cooperationIPCCIntergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeIPRMIntegrated Urban Development PlanJVSoutheastJZSouthwestKoPThe Northwest ROP Communication PlankVKilovoltLEADER Liaison Entre Actions de Developpement de l´Economie RuraleLZHuman ResourcesMAManaging AuthorityMASLocal Action GroupMDMinistry of TransportMFMinistry of Financemil.MillionMHDMunicipal Public Transportmld.BillionMKMinistry of CultureMMRMinistry for Regional DevelopmentMPOMinistry of Industry and TradeMslMoravia-SilesiaMSPSmall and Medium-sized EnterprisesMSSFStructural Funds Monitoring SystemMVMonitoring CommitteeMZdMinistry of HealthMŽPMinistry of the EnvironmentNHNational EconomyNKÚSupreme Audit Office Czech RepublicNNONon Governmental OrganisationsNO xNitrogen oxideNOKNational Coordination AuthorityNDPNational Development PlanNPNational ParkNSRFNational Strategic Reference FrameworkNUTSNomenclature of Territorial Statistical UnitsOLAFOrganisation de la lutte antifraude –European Anti-Fraud OfficeOPOperational ProgrammeOP DOperational Programme TransportOPI Operational Programme Infrastructure (2004 - 2006)OP PIOperational Programme Enterprise and InnovationOP PP Operational Programme Industry and Enterpise (2004 – 2006)OP TPOperational Programme Technical AssistancePage 276 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionOP VKOP ŽPOSNPPASPCOPhaPhare CBCPM10PPPPRKREZZOPRVRLZROPRRŘKVs.r.o.SAPARDSb.SCSEASFSMJROPSO 2CSGSRRStČSVSWOTSZSZIFTATEN-Ttis.TOPubyt. zař.UP OlomoucUVOperational Programme Education for CompetitivenessOperational Programme EnvironmentUnited Nations OrganisationPriority AxisAuthorized Audit EntityPaying and Certifying AuthorityPraguePoland and Hungary: Action For the Restructuring of the Economy –Cross Border Co-operationParticulate matterPublic Private PartnershipRegional Development PlanEmissions and Air Pollution Sources RegisterRural Development ProgrammeHuman Resources DevelopmentRegional Operational ProgrammeRegional CouncilManaging and Coordination CommitteeLimited Liability company (Ltd.)Special Pre-Accession Programme for Agriculture and RuralDevelopmentCollection of Laws CRSpecific ObjectiveAssessment of the Environmental Impacts of ConceptsStructural FundsCentral MoraviaCommon Regional Operational ProgrammeSulphur dioxideStrategic General Principles of the CommunityRegional Development Strategy of the CRCentral BohemiaNortheastStrengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats - AnalysisNorthwestState Agricultural Intervention FundTechnical assistanceTrans-European Network for TransportThousandthematic operational programmeAccommodation facilityPalacký University OlomoucGovernment ResolutionPage 277 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionÚOHSÚORPÚPVaVVOCVNVŠVŠBVŠFSŽPAntimonopoly OfficeTerritorial Department of the Programme ImplementationEmployment OfficeScience and ResearchGroup of volatile organic matter pursuant to Section 2 paragraph 1 subparagraphn) Act No. 86/2002 Coll., on air protectionHigh voltageUniversityMining UniversityThe Institute of Finance and AdministrationEnvironmentPage 278 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionAnnex 2 – Categorization (reference structure)Reference Community's contribution structure by category in theoperating programmeReference No.committee:____________________________________Programme name: Regional Operational Programme of theNorthwest Cohesion RegionDate of last Commission’s decision on the relevantoperating programme: __/__/__(in EUR) (in EUR) (in EUR)Subject 1Subject2Subject 3PrioritysubjectFinancingform AreaCode Amount Code Amount CodeAmount1118* ** * ** * **Informationandcommunicationtechnologies 13 628 788Mobile railassets01 Nonrepayableaid745 91102100 Notapplicable25 493 258 01 Urban282 178 138379 862 44523Regional/localroads 168 435 60324 Cycle tracks 37 372 57505 Ruralareas 83 870 43825282Urbantransport 12 897 362Intelligenttransportsystems 3 903 2309 Airports 5 209 349Promotion of5 clean urban2 transport 20 241 23455565758Promotion ofnatural assets 2 994 981Protection anddevelopment ofnatural heritage 22 287 658Otherassistance toimprove touristservices 69 266 089Protectionandpreservationof the culturalheritage 22 287 657Page 279 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region59606175767779818586Developmentof culturalinfrastructure 34 599 326Otherassistance toimproveculturalservices 3 494 146Integratedprojects forurban andruralregeneration 135 754 269Educationinfrastructure 54 640 241Healthinfrastructure 54 640 241Childcareinfrastructure 3 805 041Other socialinfrastructure 31 568 201Mechanismsfor improvinggood policyand programmedesign,monitoring andevaluation …. 3 252 171Preparation,implementation, monitoringand inspection 15 104 697Evaluation andstudies;informationandcommunication5 034 899Total 745 911 021 Total745 911021 Total 745 911 021Page 280 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionAnnex 3 – Review of Selected Cities in the Region with Population Above 10,000ResidentsPage 281 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionAnnex 4 - Statement of the MŽP to the Draft of the Concept of ROP NUTS 2Northwest (translation from Czech)Ministry of the Environment100 10 Praha 10 – Vršovice, Vršovická 65In Prague on 8 November 2006File No. 65904/ENVI06Statementby the Ministry of the Environmentaccording to Section 10g of Act No. 100/2001 Coll. to provide for the environmentimpact assessment as amended,to the Draft of the Concept of“The Regional Operational Programme for NUTS II North-West(for the Period of 2007 – 2013)”(hereinafter only as ROP NW)Version of 6 September 2006Concept Submitter:Concept Developer:Regional Council of the Karlovy Vary RegionSPF Group, PLCPage 282 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionAssessment Developer:Mgr. Karel Houdek(certificate of professional competence to carry out environmental impact assessmentsfile No. 5916/950/OPV/93 of 19 April 1994 in accordance with Section 19 of Act No.100/2001 Sb. and amendment to subsequent regulations – refer to the official letter bythe Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic of 2002, and a holder of extendedauthorisation to develop documents and an expert’s opinion file No. 47678/ENV/06 of17 July 2006)RNDr. Miroslav Martiš, CSc.Charter (certificate file No. 5914/948/OPV/93 of 1 June 1993) in accordance withsection 19 of the Act No. 100/2001 Sb. to provide for the environment impactassessment and amendment to relating regulations (letter by the Ministry ofEnvironment file No. 4532/OPVŽP/02 of 18 September 2002), certificate ofprofessional competence to carry out export or capital project environmental impactassessment according to common procedures of OECD and with regard to the Act No.58/1995 Sb.Ing. Vladimír ZdražilCharter (certificate file No. 5920/946/OPV/93 of 3 May 1994) according to section 19 ofthe Act No. 100/2001 Sb. to provide for the environment impact assessment andamendment to relating regulations (letter by the Ministry of Environment file No.4532/OPVŽP/02 of 18 September 2002), certificate of professional competence tocarry out export or capital project environmental impact assessment according tocommon procedures of OECD and with regard to the Act No. 58/1995 Sb.MUDr. Magdalena Zimová, CSc.Professional expert in the area of public health impact assessments and health riskassessments, a holder of a charter to carry out health risk assessments No. 013/04 of18 May 2004Mgr. Stanislav MudraDeveloper of a number of Natura 2000 system impact assessments concerningprojects and concepts, a charter to perform assessments according to Section 45h and45i of Act No. 114/1992 Sb. to provide for nature and landscape preservation in force.The decision by the Ministry of Environment file No. 630/66/05 of 8 March 2005,charters to carry out biological risk assessments as determined in Section 67 accordingto section 45i of Act No. 114/1992 Sb. to provide for nature and landscape preservationin force. The decision by the Ministry of Environment file No. OEKL/1985/05 of 12 July2005.Page 283 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionThe Progress of the Assessment:The notification on the concept developed in the scope of Annex 7 of the Act wassubmitted to the Ministry of the Environment on 4 May 2006. The discoveryproceeding was commenced on 24 May 2006 by publishing the information onnotification according to section 16 on the official board of the Regional Council of theKarlovy Vary, and completed on 26 June 2006 with a conclusion of the discoveryproceeding to read as follows:The “Regional Operational Programme for NUTS II North-West (for the Period of 2007– 2013)” concept complies with the provisions of section 10a sub-section 1 letter a),and for that reason, the environmental impact assessment will be performed inaccordance with provisions of section 10e of the Act. The draft of the concept and theenvironmental impact assessment in the scope of Annex 9 of the Act were submittedon 25 September 2006. The assessment of impacts on European significant sites andbird sanctuaries according to section 45h and section 45i of the Act No. 114/1992 provide for nature and landscape preservation as amended was also included in thisevaluation. The draft of the concept including the assessment was published on 11October 2006 according to section 16 of the Act. Public discussion took place on 27October 2006 at the Kulturní zařízení Chomutov s.r.o., lounge B, B. Němcové Street552, Chomutov. The minutes of the public discussion were received by the Ministry ofEnvironment on 2 November 2006.A Brief Description of the Concept:The Regional Operational Programme for NUTS II North-West (ROP NW) constitutesone part of the systems of programme documents developed by the Czech Republicand their regions with the aim to provide the European Commission with tools to usefor meeting the objectives of the European Union and its economic and social cohesionpolicy. The Objective 1 – Convergence applies to the NUTS II North-West region andits operational programme.The focus of ROP NW in its submitted version arises and is a follow-up to the globalobjective, strategic targets and priorities of the National Development Plan of theCzech Republic for the period 2007 – 2013. The content of ROP NW was stated withregard to the thematic focus of other operational programmes and application of thesubsidiarity principle and competence prerequisites and dispositions derived from it,which relate to the development of the territory. ROP NW priorities and interventionareas will be modified and specified according to the outcomes from discussionsbetween government departments and regions concerning delimitation of “boundaries”between thematic operational programmes and the regional operational programmes.Page 284 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionWhen developing ROP NW, the principle of a comprehensive resolution of issues wasadopted, resulting from application of the territorial-integrated approach based onknowledge of the specific conditions of NUTS II Northwest.A Brief Description of the Evaluation:The impact evaluation for ROP NW was performed in compliance with Act. No.100/2001 Coll. to provide for the environment impact assessment as amended, anddrafted in the scope determined in Annex 9 thereof.In order to ensure evaluation of potential significant environmental impacts, theassessment of a potential impact of an individual significant environmental componentwas used, and the basic set of these targets was selected at the level of significantrelevant environmental targets, which arises out of the analysed environmentalstrategies and methodology recommendations by the European Commissionapplicable to environmental impact assessments of structural fund operations.The submitted ROP NW was also assessed according to provisions set out in sections45h and 45i of the Act No. 114/1992 Coll. to provide for nature and landscapepreservation as amended, for consequences on European significant sites and birdsanctuaries, and the state of their preservation.Conclusions of the Evaluation:Pursuant to the draft of the concept, the concept evaluation developed according to lawincluding evaluation of the concept according to section 45i of the Act No. 114/1992Coll. to provide for nature and landscape preservation as amended, statements byaffected national administration bodies, affected territorial self-governing units andpublic, and outcomes of the public discussion, the Ministry of Environment, as acompetent authority according to section 21 of the Act, hereby issues:Page 285 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion RegionTHE APPROVING STATEMENTto the Draft of the Concept of“The Regional Operational Programme for NUTS II North-West(for the Period of 2007 – 2013)”Version of 6 September 2006provided that observance of the below listed requirements of the Statement (PartA) is ensured.Implementation of the concept titled “The Regional Operational Programme forNUTS II North-West (for the Period of 2007 – 2013)” will not produce a significantadverse impact on European significant sites and bird sanctuaries provided thatobservance of the below listed requirements of the Statement (Part B) isensured.A. Requirements of the approving statement from the environmental impactperspective:1 The objective “Development of the Transport Infrastructure Determining EffectiveUtilisation of the Potential of the Labe Waterway” should be eliminated from theInterventions 3.1. Area: “Development of a Transport Infrastructure of Regionaland Trans-Regional Importance” in the event that its implementation would involvea major conflict with nature preservation interests, and namely with Natura 2000system location protection and territorial and species protection requirements.2 Under the overall monitoring system of the ROP NW implementation impacts,environmental impacts should be monitored, i.e. in particular:○○○Application of recommended environmental indicators and public healthindicators (with due regard of the updated version of the National IndicatorCodebook for the 2007 – 2013 Programme Period); specifically publichealth targets concerning a reduced noise nuisance exposure ofinhabitants, elimination of air pollutants, an improvement in social andeconomic relationships;Regular publishing of the monitoring outputs, i.e. continuous impacts of theROP NW implementation on the environment and public health,Linkage of the monitoring system and the project evaluation and selectionsystem with a use of environmental criteria,○Provision of sufficient personnel and professional capacities for theenvironmental area under the ROP NW monitoring.Page 286 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Region3 The environmental issues in the framework of the overall project evaluation andselection system should be considered, i.e. in particular:○○○○Application of recommended environmental indicators and public healthindicators (with due regard of the updated version of the National IndicatorCodebook for the 2007 – 2013 Programme Period) on the overall projectevaluation and selection system (indicator selection and potentialmodification for individual aid areas, or individual projects as the case maybe, is required),Linkage of the project environmental assessment system and the ROP NWimplementation impact monitoring,Development of a sufficient degree of awareness of the applicants aboutenvironmental issues and potential ties of the submitted projects to theenvironment,Inclusion of such criteria to the project evaluation and selection system,which would respect the reference targets of environmental and publichealth protection in the given region and the continuous sustainabledevelopment principles.4 Environmental criteria for project evaluation and selection should be determined,which use should provide for project implementation under individual ROP NWmeasures. Supported projects must not possess significant adverse impacts onthe nature and landscape.5 During the project selection, account of whether none of the following belowcircumstances arises in connection with the project implementation should betaken:○Violation of protection conditions of any specially protected area,○ Violation of any protection and integrity areas of sites within the Natura 2000system (European significant sites and bird sanctuaries),○○Damage or elimination of biotopes with occurrence of specially protectedspecies of plants and animals,Interference with features of the Regional System of the EnvironmentalStability and Significant Landscape Features, adverse impacts on naturalhabitats, biotopes, fauna, flora, an increased landscape fragmentation,reduced landscape passability.6 During development of individual projects, specially protected areas, theirprotection conditions and their preservation plans must be observed. Duringconsideration of specific projects, location with occurrence of specially protectedspecies of plants and animals need to be observed. Furthermore, competentenvironmental and landscape protection bodies need to be involved in thesubsequent selection of specific projects.7 During execution of individual projects, proposed measures to eliminate theirpotential adverse environmental and public health impacts are required to bePage 287 of 288

Regional Operational Programme of the Northwest Cohesion Regionconsidered, i.e. these measures should be used to determine requirementsapplicable for implementation of projects for allocation of aid under ROP NW.8 On its web pages, the concept submitter will publish an evaluation of all receivedstatements and comments, including the public discussion, both to the conceptdraft and its evaluation.B. Requirements of the approving statement from the perspective of the Natura2000 system location impacts:1. Specific projects supported under ROP NW have to observe requirements onterritorial protection and integrity of the European significant sites and birdsanctuaries under the Natura 2000 system, and must not lead to any damage ordeterioration of the subject-matter of protection in these territories.The Ministry of the Environment further anticipates that leadership of theconcept implementation process will ensure that each of the proposed action receivesas broadest publicity and public awareness efforts as possible.[Stamp imprint:] Ministry of the EnvironmentIng. Jaroslava HonováDirector of the Environmental Impact Assessment and IPPC DepartmentPage 288 of 288

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines