Improving policy instruments/ Structural Funds programmes

In terms of results, cooperation can influence policy instruments in various ways. Based on the INTERREG IVC experience, this improvement may take different forms (see types 1, 2 and 3 below), which can sometimes be interconnected.

Type 1: implementation of new projects

Type 1 implies that the policy instrument provides funding as is the case with Structural Funds programmes. Thanks to interregional cooperation, managing authorities and other relevant bodies can find inspiration in other regions and import new projects to be financed within their programmes. This type of impact requires the availability of funding in the programme.

Examples from INTERREG IVC

In the EVITA project, the Latvian Information and Communication Technology Association (LIKTA), which represents more than 200 organisations and professionals from the ICT industry, research and educational institutions, implements many national and international projects for training entrepreneurs in ICT and e-business skills. Within EVITA, LIKTA piloted the transfer of two EVITA initiatives: 2Bdigital (from Catalonia Company Support Agency, Spain) and Go-Online (from GRNET, Greece), by implementing their methodologies in two training seminars on digital marketing issues. These seminars were attended by 50 companies in total. LIKTA has fully adopted these methodologies identified within the EVITA project. The development of e-business training materials will also be subject to new applications for of ERDF grant aiming at training Latvian IT and e-business companies.

In the WF project, the good practice developed by the Province of Ferrara, Italy, on promoting innovative tourism has served as a basis in the development of the ERDF project called, in Finnish, ““Matkailuelämykset euroiksi Saimaalla” and dedicated to the promotion of lake tourism in the Savonlinna region, Finland. The idea is to generate industry tourism revenues by providing experiences and services for visiting tourists. The implementation of the project with a budget of EUR 800,000 started in December 2011 and ended on 31 December 2013.

It had the objective of using international electronic marketing and distribution channels for the lake tourism products of the region.

The Region of Brittany, France, participated in the ERIK ACTION project, to improve its SME competitiveness and innovation policy. Inspired by two partners’ experiences (Lower Austria and Tuscany, Italy), the region financed two new initiatives within its operational programme:

one measure to offer coaching and training in innovation for SMEs, and one measure to include the concept of corporate social responsibility in businesses, both financed by the ERDF.

Type 2: change in the management of the policy instrument (improved governance)

Interregional cooperation can also influence the way policy instruments are managed. New approaches can be adopted thanks to the lessons learnt in other regions. For instance, a new methodology for monitoring or evaluating a measure can be developed within the policy instrument. A managing authority or any other relevant body can also improve the way thematic calls are organised or the way projects are selected. The governance of the programme may also refer to the way environmental issues are integrated into the different measures of the operational programmes.

Example from INTERREG IVC

In the SCINNOPOLI project, and based on the experience of Flanders, Belgium; Navarra, Spain; Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur and Brittany (both France), Lower Austria improved the evaluation of its innovation measures financed within the ERDF Competiveness programme.

A revised indicator system allowed the authorities responsible for innovation policy to measure if targets were being reached and to identify trends in a simple way. As a direct result of the lessons learnt in SCINNOPOLI, Lower Austria harmonised the ex-post questionnaires for all its regional funding schemes on innovation.

Type 3: change in the strategic focus of the policy instrument (structural change)

The third type is the most challenging since it requires a change in the operational programme. To integrate the lessons learnt from the cooperation, some managing authorities can modify existing measures or even create new measures in their programme.

Example from INTERREG IVC

In ESF6CIA, the Bulgarian Ministry of Labour and Social Policy modified the specification of its ESF ‘Development’ programme. This programme was initially designed to tackle only unemployment following mass redundancies in enterprises. The planned budget was EUR 75 million. Thanks to the lessons learnt within the project, the programme was updated and included preferential treatment to people over 50.

In ERIK ACTION, the Fabrica Ethica practice from the Tuscany Region, Italy, has also led to a structural evolution in the Brittany Region, France. Thanks to this first experience and the long-standing willingness of the Regional Council to develop ‘social innovation’ expertise in the territory, a specific team in charge of developing a strategy on social innovation and corporate social responsibility was created within Bretagne Développement Innovation. This strategy will be fully integrated into the future smart specialisation strategies of the region called ‘Regional Strategy for Development and Innovation’ (Stratégie Régionale de Développment et d’Innovation, SRDEI).

Similarly, the Innovation Assistance measure was first imported from Lower Austria as an initiative called ‘Innov’acteur’. This initiative was so successful that it has now become a core programme of the Regional Innovation Strategy called ‘SIDE’ (www.bdi.fr/notre-action/programmes). This programme is managed by Bretagne Développement Innovation.

It is developed within the Regional Innovation Network (150 business advisers from more than 40 entities) and is the backbone of the regional innovation system in Brittany. It is co-financed by the ERDF via the regional operational programme.

In the RAPIDE project, the region of Saxony-Anhalt in Germany directly profited from the interregional training on Innovation Vouchers. International experts shared their experience on Innovation Vouchers and their experience of using ERDF funds for such a scheme with all the interested RAPIDE regions. Directly deriving from that exchange, Saxony-Anhalt decided to adopt new funding guidelines (reference ‘MW-03-10’) on grant support for projects in the field of innovation and R&D.

Another interesting example of policy improvement is provided by the Prešov Self-Governing Region (SK). Further to the lessons learnt within RAPIDE, this region requested funding for the regional Innovation Voucher Scheme from the operational programme on competitiveness and economic growth, priority 1.1, axis 1 ‘Innovation and Growth Competitiveness’, measure 1.3 ‘Support for innovation activities in enterprises’. The responsible body, the Ministry for Economy in Bratislava, agreed in principle but there was a need for a minor change to the national legislation on public funding to enable the Innovation Voucher scheme to be supported in Slovakia.