Feasibility Study on a pilot project "ERASMUS" for Local and Regional Elected Representatives Final Report

An assignment for DG REGIO of the European Commission Specific Contract No 2009.CE.16.0.AT.036

With

Csil Milano

Brussels, 26th July 2010

Feasibility Study on a pilot project "ERASMUS" for Local and Regional Elected Representatives Final Report

26th July 2010

ECOTEC in collaboration with ECORYS, COWI and CSIL

Rue Joseph II 9 6th Floor B-1000 Brussels Belgium

T +32 2 743 89 49 F +32 2 732 71 11 www.ecotec.com

ECOTEC Erasmus Pilot Project

i

Contents PAGE

Executive summary................................................................................ 1 1. About the feasibility study.........................................................................................1 2. Key conclusions.........................................................................................................1 A. The relevance of additional support for exchange........................................................1 B. Objectives and design factors for effectiveness ...........................................................3 C. Factors affecting the practical feasibility of a pilot project.............................................6 3. Ways forward..............................................................................................................8

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................. 1 1.1 About the feasibility study.........................................................................................1 1.1.1 The policy proposal: the “ERASMUS” exchange initiative and pilot project..................1 1.1.2 Key research questions and analytical framework .......................................................3 1.1.3 Approach to data collection and analysis .....................................................................4 1.2 About this report ........................................................................................................5

2.0 Is additional support for exchange required? ..................................... 7 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................7 2.2 Is there an underlying problem and corresponding need for intervention? .........8 2.2.1 The perceived problem: closed minds and limited knowledge and capacity ................8 2.2.2 Exchange as a mechanism to help address the capacity problem.............................10 2.2.3 Complementarity: existing initiatives have a different focus .......................................12 2.3 Is there support on the ground for an exchange initiative? .................................14 2.3.1 Broad stakeholder support for the concept.................................................................14 2.3.2 A range of factors will condition actual demand for a scheme....................................14 2.3.3 Relevant organisations have expressed interest in facilitating exchange...................16 2.3.4 The level of financial resources envisaged would allow a pilot project to be run........17 2.4 Should the EU be involved?....................................................................................17

3.0 What could a potential new scheme achieve?................................... 19 3.1 Defining strategic and specific objectives for a potential pilot project ...............19 3.2 A list of objectives....................................................................................................20 3.3 A hierarchy of objectives.........................................................................................21 3.4 Indicators of success: a basis for monitoring and evaluation .............................24 3.4.1 Intended outputs.........................................................................................................24 3.4.2 Intended results and impacts......................................................................................24 3.4.3 Towards quantification: an impact chain ....................................................................26

ECOTEC Erasmus Pilot Project

i

4.0 Design factors for effectiveness and feasibility ................................ 29 4.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................29 4.2 Key factors for the effectiveness and practical feasibility of a pilot project.......30 4.2.1 Target audience .........................................................................................................30 4.2.2 Marketing and raising awareness of the initiative .......................................................33 4.2.3 Selection and matching: a preference for bottom-up expressions of interest .............34 4.2.4 Topics for exchange: local policy challenges related to the EU agenda.....................37 4.2.5 Activities and methodology: peer learning rather than top-down instruction?.............39 4.2.6 Time and timing..........................................................................................................41 4.2.7 Managing multi-lingualism: a specific challenge.........................................................41 4.2.8 Reimbursement of participants...................................................................................42 4.2.9 Application and implementation: balancing accountability and administrative burden42 4.2.10 Monitoring and evaluating: measuring results and impact..........................................43 4.3 Experience from comparable initiatives.................................................................44 4.3.1 Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs (EYE) Pilot Project ..............................................45 4.3.2 PROGRESS: Good practice exchange projects.........................................................48 4.3.3 Covenant of Mayors Office.........................................................................................50

5.0 Detailed options for a stand-alone pilot project ................................ 53 5.1 Overview of implementation options......................................................................53 5.2 Option 1: Single EU coordinating body with devolved local projects .................56 5.2.1 Option 1: Implementation process..............................................................................56 5.2.2 Option 1: costings.......................................................................................................58 5.2.3 Assessment of Option 1 .............................................................................................60 5.3 Option 2: Multiple EU coordinating “bodies” with devolved local projects........61 5.3.1 Option 2: Implementation process..............................................................................62 5.3.2 Option 2: costings.......................................................................................................62 5.3.3 Assessment of Option 2 .............................................................................................64 5.4 Option 3: Multiple integrated projects....................................................................65 5.4.1 Option 3: Implementation process..............................................................................66 5.4.2 Option 3: Costings......................................................................................................68 5.4.3 Assessment of Option 3 .............................................................................................70 5.5 Option 4: Single integrated project.........................................................................71 5.6 Potential Impact Range............................................................................................71 5.7 Comparative assessment and conclusion.............................................................72

6.0 Conclusions and ways forward........................................................... 75 6.1 Key Conclusions ......................................................................................................75 6.1.1 The relevance of additional support for exchange......................................................75

ECOTEC Erasmus Pilot Project

ii

ECOTEC Erasmus Pilot Project

iii

6.1.2 Objectives and design factors for effectiveness .........................................................76 6.1.3 Factors affecting the practical feasibility of a pilot project...........................................79 6.2 Ways forward............................................................................................................81

Annex 1: Summary of EP Resolution ................................................................ 85

Annex 2: Interviewees and workshop attendees ............................................. 86

Annex 3: Findings from consultative workshops ............................................ 87

Annex 4: Guidance for Option A........................................................................ 88

Executive summary

1. About the feasibility study

ECOTEC (ECORYS UK) was appointed by the European Commission to undertake a Feasibility Study on a pilot project "ERASMUS" for Local and Regional Elected Representatives1. In response to a specific recommendation from the European Parliament, the primary objective of this study has been to assess the feasibility of supporting a "stand-alone" pilot project to test the concept of an exchange programme targeting local and regional elected politicians in the EU. In its 2008 report on governance and partnership in regional policy2, the European Parliament proposed the creation of an exchange programme for local and regional elected representatives as a tool for promoting good governance. According to the Terms of Reference for the present study, such a scheme should seek to promote mutual learning about local and regional policy issues among the target group and increase the capacity of those involved to contribute positively to local and regional governance.

The feasibility study has used the steps involved in European Commission Impact Assessment (IA)3 as an analytical framework. These analytical steps systematically consider the underlying problem and need for a proposed initiative, the views of relevant stakeholders, the rationale for EU involvement, the detailed objectives to be pursued, the strengths and weaknesses of different policy options and arrangements for evaluating actual performance. In addition to interviews with relevant policy-makers and stakeholders at EU level and review of policy documents and past evaluations, the study has been informed by the findings of 11 consultative workshops with local and regional elected representatives, held in nine Member States. These workshops involved moderated discussion of both the rationale for a new exchange initiative and they way such a scheme could be designed.

2. Key conclusions

A. The relevance of additional support for exchange

1 Although it is inherently difficult to make an accurate assessment of the knowledge and capacity development needs of elected representatives at local and regional level for the EU27 as a whole, the balance of available evidence and the results of the stakeholder consultation suggest that a capacity and knowledge development need does indeed exist. Moreover, there is a widespread consensus in available literature and among stakeholders consulted that local and regional elected representatives can and should play a central role in shaping local and regional development policies, as part of their democratic mandates.

1 Specific Contract No 2009.CE.16.0.AT.036 2 "Report on governance and partnership at national and regional levels and a basis for projects in the sphere of regional policy" 2008/2064(INI) 18 September 2008. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A6-2008-0356&language=EN 3 See SEC(2009) 92 Impact Assessment Guidelines 15 January 2009

1

2 Various transnational exchange and mutual learning activities already exist at local, regional and national level across Europe. 1 Within this context, the URBACT and INTERREG programmes provide the most relevant point of reference. The experience from these programmes show that well-structured and organised exchange activities can generate a valuable impact on the knowledge and understanding of individual participants, but that it is more difficult for such activities to have wider “institutional” impacts and change local policy. However, given their status and role, elected representatives have greater potential to influence strategic policy decisions at local and regional level than the unelected officials typically involved in URBACT and other existing exchange and networking programmes.

3 The feasibility study has not found any existing policy initiative run by the EU or other trans-national bodies with an explicit focus on exchange and mutual learning for elected representatives from local or regional level. Existing networking and exchange initiatives tend to focus on the national government level or on non-elected officers and civil servants, rather than on elected representatives. A majority of participants in URBACT and INTERREG projects are currently non-elected officers and the projects in question are comparatively large and complex. Moreover, URBACT focuses only on cities, while the stakeholder consultation undertaken for this study revealed a demand for exchange activities from other units of local or regional government (including districts, counties, provinces etc).

4 A total of 11 stakeholder workshops bringing together local and regional elected representatives were held in nine Member States and constituted a core element of the feasibility study. The feedback from these workshops concerning the notion of establishing an EU initiative to support exchange among elected representatives was overwhelmingly positive. All workshops supported the idea in principle, although some participants expressed doubts as to whether elected representative would have the time to take part and/or the necessary language skills. It is noteworthy that even some comparatively “euro-sceptic” participants supported an initiative focused on practical issues that need to be addressed at local level.

5 The feasibility study also found that relevant organisations – for example umbrella organisations like Eurocities and CEMR – would be willing and may be able to implement such a potential pilot project. The activities envisaged in the proposed pilot project are in line with their activities. They could respond to a call for proposals.

6 Stakeholders consulted for the feasibility study showed strong support for the view that trans-national exchange and learning between local and regional elected representatives has the potential to be more enriching and valuable than exchange activities at purely national or regional level (existing national training schemes, for example). Moreover, the EU is in principle well placed to launch an initiative to support such trans-national exchange activities.

1 Examples are Town twinning, the EU programme to support Town Twinning, EU level networks such as Eurocities and Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR), the Open Society's Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative (LGI), as well as exchanges within the Nordic Council, the Visegrad Group and the Council of Europe's Congress of Local and Regional Authorities.

2

Projects organised by the Nordic Council (Nordic countries) or the Visegrad Group (CZ, HU, PL, SK) tend to focus on the level of national government and, by definition, do not cover the whole EU. The trans-national dimension, coverage of the whole EU and a focus on the EU’s strategic development goals (notably those in Europe 2020) would be the core elements of the potential European Added Value of an exchange scheme.

KEY MESSAGE 1: A case for a pilot project exists

In light of the evidence in relation to the underlying problem and need for knowledge and capacity building, the potential relevance of European exchange and mutual learning activities as a tool to respond to this need, the enthusiasm of relevant stakeholders for the proposal and the absence of comparable existing initiatives, a case exists for the EU to support pilot actions to test the effectiveness of such exchange and mutual learning activities for local and regional elected representatives.

B. Objectives and design factors for effectiveness

7 It is clear that the potential of an exchange scheme can only be realised if it is carefully designed and implemented. The risks attached to implementing an ill-conceived scheme, with poorly-designed objectives would be significant. Taking into account the context for the proposed exchange initiative, the experience of existing initiatives and stakeholder feedback, a more detailed hierarchy of objectives for European exchange activities can be developed, with the following logic. At an operational level, local elected representatives from different Member States could be supported to present and exchange (often tacit) knowledge through peer learning activities. At the level of specific objectives, the activities involved would be expected to provide local elected representatives with a) improved understanding of the range of policy choices available to their locality and b) improve their knowledge and capacity in specific local development and governance-related topics. At the same time, results of the exchange activities could generate new information on local policy challenges and effective solutions relevant for EU level policy-makers. At a strategic level, it is hoped that the improved knowledge and capacity among participating elected representatives would lead to improved strategic decision-making at local and regional level in the EU (the main intended impact of exchange activities).

8 The activities (the potential pilot project) developed to achieve the objectives established above need to be designed in such a way as to make them as effective as possible (to ensure they can achieve the outputs, results and impacts specified), while remaining feasible and practical within the institutional and administrative framework of the EU institutions (we return to the latter aspect below). The most important factors influencing the potential effectiveness of exchange appear to be the target audience for activities and composition of exchange and learning groups (“who?” questions), the subject focus and methodologies and activities for exchange (“what?” questions) and duration of exchange activities (“when?” and “how long?”).

3

9 Local and regional elected representatives in the EU – the core target audience for exchange activities – have different levels of responsibility and experience and represent different types of local government unit. The feasibility study has concluded that that all directly elected representatives at local and regional level in the EU should in principle be eligible to take part in EU-sponsored exchange. However, this could potentially create an enormous demand: the potential size of this target group should not be underestimated and could easily amount to 1 mln. local elected officials in the whole of the EU. 1 A narrower focus – say on cities – would therefore be necessary and could certainly be imagined in the context of a pilot phase. However, such a restriction would be hard to justify in future, mainstreamed Cohesion Policy activities, given the important role in local development played by other types of local and regional authority. At the level of individuals, a focus on less experienced but promising elected members (perhaps “mayors of the future”) could be imagined, but this could be difficult to define and impose in practice. As such, flexibility should be left to local and regional authorities to propose the most suitable candidates to take part: personal commitment and motivation should be key criteria.

10 For exchange and peer-learning to be effective, participating elected representatives from different Member States should come from local or regional authorities which a) have similar competences in the field on which exchange is focused (eg strategic planning) and b) serve areas facing similar policy challenges. As the division of responsibilities between local government units varies across Member States, authorities from different levels (regional, intermediate, local) can cooperate meaningfully, provided they share similar competences and policy challenges. These two factors should thus be the main criteria guiding the “matching” of participants in specific exchange and learning groups. The feasibility study found a strong preference for “bottom-up” formation of partnerships, rather than centralised “allocation” of individuals to groups, but also found widespread support for a rigorous selection process to ensure the real commitment of individual participants.

11 Although the local and regional level stakeholders consulted overwhelmingly argued for a completely open approach to the subject focus for exchange activities, the feasibility study considers that a narrower focus on specific EU policy priorities is appropriate. Such a focus would further increase the European Added Value of exchange activities. Example topics might include practical approaches to integrated local development (practical guidance of the “integrated approach”, for example) or effective local and regional policy measures for climate change mitigation.

12 Capacity building involves not only passive but above all active forms of exchange and mutual learning. The experience of previous exchange initiatives (notably URBACT) shows that well-structured exchange activities are vital to the success of this process. Activity-based learning, involving practical exercises linked to participants’ own experience or localities, as

1 An estimate about the number of local elected representatives in France alone, which counts the biggest number of elected representatives (497,200) gives an indication of the potential size of the target group for the whole EU 27 even if some countries like UK have a smaller number of elected representatives.

4

well as site visits, seems far more likely to generate an impact on participants’ understanding and subsequent behaviour than presentations and discussions alone. Participative, activity-based exchange activities are inherently more complex (and costly) to organise than less interactive approaches such as large-scale seminars (mini-conferences). This is primarily because of the increased resources required for preparation and facilitation and the requirement for comparatively small learning and exchange groups to allow real interaction. As a general rule, the unit cost of supporting individuals to take part in activity-based learning programmes will be greater than the unit cost of supporting them to take part in a more standard seminar or event. However, the likely effectiveness of such approaches, in terms of learning outcomes and potential impact on subsequent behaviour, is also considerably greater.

13 Closely linked to the previous point, the experience of URBACT and other cooperation programmes has also shown that longer projects are more likely to generate an impact on individuals’ knowledge and understanding than one-off events and that it is important to allow adequate time for individual exchange meetings. The Terms of Reference for this study specified a pilot project with a 15-month duration, which would allow projects lasting several months, with multiple exchange meetings, to be supported. A model with learning groups of 12 participants from four different localities in the EU, meeting four times for two-day meetings in a period of eight months (ie a two-day meeting every two months) is considered feasible. This model would appear to provide an appropriate framework for implementing a project with high chances of achieving an impact. However, although a majority of stakeholders consulted supported involvement in exchange over an extended period of time and often recognised the importance of structured, participative approaches, many also argued they had very limited time (see point 4 above). It is thus not possible to say with certainty whether elected representatives would be able to commit the amount of time required – a well-designed exchange project with clearly defined outcomes would be crucial for gaining commitment.

14 With regard to the potential impact of the pilot project, we have focused on the ability of the pilot project to influence improved local decision-making. Building on a hypothetical impact chain, we estimate the impact on improved local decision-making to be in the order of € 5,000 - € 20,000 per participating municipality. This results in a potential monetised impact range of the pilot project of € 600,000 - € 2.4 mln. for Option 1 and € 360,000 to € 1.44 mln. for Option 3, with Option 2 positioned between these. These differences are purely based on the difference in number of participating municipalities, and not on any other differences between the Options. Any real impact will however be heavily influenced by the size of local investment projects that require a decision, the frequency with which these decisions need to be made, and the influence of participating elected officials on these decisions. All these variables call for a carefully designed and targeted pilot project.

KEY MESSAGE 2: Participative, activity-based exchange activities would be most effective

Activity-based exchange and learning is likely to be the most effective way to contribute to improved strategic decision-making at local and regional level in the EU. Such activities are more costly than less interactive “exchange events”, in terms of both financial resources and time. The

5

assumptions made by the study about potential effectiveness take into account the best available evidence, but, in the absence of directly comparable initiatives and taking into account the complex causal chains involved, the assumed results and impacts cannot be guaranteed in all cases. At the same time, the stakeholder consultation produced somewhat ambiguous messages on whether elected representatives would have time to take part in intensive exchange activities. Both these areas of uncertainty could be tested in real life through an experimental pilot project.

C. Factors affecting the practical feasibility of a pilot project

15 As noted, the feasibility study also considered a series of more practical, implementation-related questions concerning the implementation of the proposed pilot project. This would require feasible approaches to be developed for awareness-raising and application procedures, dealing with multi-lingual exchange groups, reimbursement of participants, financial management and reporting and monitoring and evaluation. In addition to these issues of relevance to any EU exchange initiative for elected representatives, a further factor emerged as particularly important for the design of a stand-alone pilot project. With some exceptions, the EU Financial Regulation1 limits transfers by direct beneficiaries of EU grants (including potential coordinators of exchange activities) to third parties (participants in exchange, for example) to a maximum of €100 000. This requirement places clear limitations on the form a pilot project can take. Finding an appropriate balance between promoting effectiveness, in line with the considerations highlighted above, and ensuring practical feasibility has been the most significant challenge for the feasibility study.

16 In the context of an experimental pilot project focused on testing models and methods for exchange, reaching a wide and geographically balanced audience is not a primary objective. In fact, this would be impossible with the large numbers of local elected representatives present in Europe as mentioned. Expectation management amongst potential participants would therefore be important in the pilot stage. However, reaching a wide and geographically balanced audience would be important for any larger scale, mainstreamed exchange programme in the future. Appropriate awareness raising and outreach to ensure local and regional elected representatives are aware the opportunities on offer would then be crucial. Existing local government networks and associations, as well as the Committee of the Regions are potentially effective channels to support the marketing of both a pilot action and any larger scheme in the future. Furthermore, and depending on the outcome of the pilot, it could be envisioned that such an exchange programme would be embedded in a larger knowledge exchange initiative that may be part of a new Cohesion Policy for the period 2014-2020.

17 There is no “one-size-fits-all” solution with regard to the use of multiple languages and individual exchange groups will need to develop their own pragmatic approaches to dealing with the language competences of participants in their group – hence a clear need for tailor-made solutions. In practice, the exchange programme would be much more effective if

1 Financial Regulation (No 1605/2002), Article 120(2), specified by Implementing Rules, Article 184a

6

participating individuals would have at least some foreign language skills, particularly in common languages such as English, French and German. Some additional use of consecutive interpretation and parallel group activities in different language groups could be provided for specific individuals, and would be feasible within the cost structures examined by the study. In practice, however, having more than two working languages in an exchange group is likely to be impractical.

18 Taking into account the findings of the stakeholder consultation, the feasibility study considers that individual participants should be reimbursed travel and subsistence costs incurred in taking part in the exchange and peer learning activities. Relying on local and regional authorities to provide funding would certainly act as a barrier to participation in exchange activities, particularly from less wealthy localities and particularly in the current economic climate. Given the scale of resources used, formal co-financing arrangements for individual participants would be disproportionately complex in the context of a pilot project. The time, effort and commitment to preparation and follow-up activities required from individuals and local authorities will be considerable. In this context, financing of direct costs (travel and subsistence) at standardised flat rates would appear to be justified. In addition, in kind contribution (labour and offices) could be considered as co-finance.

19 The feasibility study considered the “administrative burden” for individual participants and local authorities arising from an exchange initiative. Although it is clear that bureaucracy should be kept to a minimum, it is equally clear that a pilot project would need a sound application procedure to allow the commitment and motivation of participants to be checked, while participants should be required to report back on the outcomes of the activities supported with EU funds. By maintaining simple financial provisions and using clear and well-structured application and reporting templates, it would be possible to keep administrative requirements to a minimum, while ensuring sufficient rigour in implementation of a pilot project.

20 The experimental nature of pilot projects means that appropriate monitoring and evaluation to measure the results obtained are always of vital importance. The nature of the exchange activities means the evaluation would rely heavily on feedback from individual participants on the learning outcomes and other effects of participating in exchange activities. The necessary questionnaires for monitoring feedback and results would need to be developed and supplied to participants in advance to allow information to be collected over the course of project implementation and the evaluation to proceed swiftly after activities had been completed. The timing of the proposed pilot project means there would be little time for wider, longer-term “impacts” to materialise– at least if these are to be considered in any decision regarding the follow-up of the pilot initiative within the period 2014-2020.

21 The feasibility study (see Chapter 5 of this report) examined different ways to structure a pilot project to accommodate the €100 000 limit on transfers to third parties by EU grant beneficiaries, while still trying to maximise the potential effectiveness of the activities. The potentially most effective and feasible option for a stand-alone pilot project identified would involve supporting a series of (up to six) integrated exchange projects, with a maximum budget

7

of €250 000, each containing three trans-national “learning and exchange groups” of 12 individuals. Such an approach, in which participants take part in a comparatively intensive programme of exchange and learning (involving four exchange meetings in each group) would allow 36 individuals to receive capacity building in each project (216 in total). If projects used the full budget allocation, this would equate to a cost per participant of almost €7000, without counting the overall management and coordination costs. This cost reflects not only the number of meetings envisaged and the resources needed for facilitation and preparation, but also, to some extent, the comparatively high “overhead” cost attached to the smaller projects necessitated by the rules of the Financial Regulation. “Economies of scale” could be achieved in a future, larger scale exchange programme.

KEY MESSAGE 3: A stand-alone pilot would be practically feasible, but implementation risks remain.

Although a range of general practical challenges will need to be addressed in the implementation of any form of exchange and learning activity for elected representatives, the feasibility study considers that these operational challenges could all be addressed and overcome with a pragmatic, well-designed implementation approach. Moreover, the specific challenge for launching a stand-alone pilot project, related to limits on transfer of EU grant funding to third parties, could be addressed through supporting integrated projects (Option 3 in Chapter 5), in which such transfers are unnecessary. Nevertheless, the most suitable option for a stand-alone pilot project involves a comparatively high unit cost per participant – which can be viewed as an additional risk factor – and would require a clear commitment in terms of time and human resources from all stakeholders involved.

3. Ways forward

22 The preferred option as it emerges from this feasibility study is to implement a stand-alone pilot project in line with the most promising model (Option 3) identified by this study. Although this option would carry the risks highlighted above, the more intensive programme of exchange and learning involved provides the greatest chance of generating impacts on the ground. The key features would be: • An appropriate human resources commitment within the European Commission (depending

on the Option 1 – 3 fte), with a view to the full implementation of a pilot project (finalising its design; preparing, publicising and launching the call; selecting, monitoring and evaluating the exchange projects);

• A Call for Proposals, preceded by "pre-information" to raise awareness, launched by the European Commission for up to six integrated, trans-national exchange projects;

• Applicants would be invited to form consortia involving “coordinating” partners (with expertise in facilitating mutual learning and in relevant subject fields) and 12 “local and regional” partners (local and regional authorities) formed into three groups of four;

8

• Eligibility of local and regional elected representatives would be left open, but preference could be given to less experienced elected members and / or those with leadership roles in particular thematic areas;

• Projects would be required to demonstrate and justify appropriate matching of local and regional authorities on the basis of competences and policy challenges;

• A focus on EU policy priorities, such as local approaches to climate change mitigation or practical approaches to integrated development planning could be appropriate;

• The learning and exchange should include activity-based learning methods and support follow-up actions to promote the translation of learning into policy changes on the ground.

• A 15-month duration with a core implementation period of eight months for exchange activities, indicatively involving four two-day meetings/visits in each learning and exchange group;

• Evaluation of effectiveness (at least in terms of short-term effects) in time to inform the detailed programming of future EU territorial cooperation programmes.

23 The feasibility study has concluded that a case exists to test the effectiveness of trans-national exchange activities through pilot activities: activity-based exchange and learning is likely to be the most effective way to contribute to improved strategic decision-making at local and regional level in the EU, and the potential impact of such an initiative could be considerable. However, these expected results and impacts are only likely to materialise if the initiative – as well as the selected projects – is sufficiently well designed and carefully implemented. Depending on the Option favoured, and as specified in the main report, this would require appropriate capacity from the Commission as well. Overall, the practical challenges for implementing a stand-alone pilot project, based on a Call for Proposals, are not insignificant as such a pilot project carries with it some inherent risks.

24 During the discussion on the draft final report, and in light of the above considerations,

representatives of the EC asked the contractor to reflect on whether there are alternative ways to deliver the objectives set for the pilot project proposed by the European Parliament. The question was whether similar results could be obtained through other means. ECOTEC worked on this question and came back with complementary input to the report. According to ECOTEC experience, capacity building schemes for locally or regionally elected officials could be addressed within existing European Territorial Cooperation Programmes. Within INTERREG IVc and within URBACT, networks exist which could expand the scope of their activities in order to involve elected representatives in networking and mobility schemes. As previously stated, these programmes would not have the appropriate legal framework for implementing the pilot project as proposed by the European Parliament. Their budgets could not be combined with the budget as allocated for the European Parliament pilot project.

25 However, such a pilot action could take place in the current or future context of URBACT and INTERREG programmes on the basis of their specific budgets. If such a pilot action were to be launched in the framework of URBACT Programme, a workable solution would be to facilitate the exchange of the local representatives of cities involved in thematic networks financed by

9

10

this Programme. Such an option could be an alternative to the favoured option presented in this report, however this alternative was not included in the scope of the feasibility study. This alternative, could involve allocating funds within the existing URBACT programme to support greater involvement of elected representatives and exchange between representatives from different URBACT cities. A suggestion would be to build on the existing Local Support Groups, which have been created in each participating city in all URBACT thematic networks. These Local Support Groups contribute to the development and subsequent implementation of the Local Action Plans, which all participating cities must produce. Networks could provide a "ready-made" forum or platform for exchange between elected representatives from the participating cities. As the study did not examine this alternative in detail, its feasibility and in particular its impacts could be explored further by the European Commission and the URBACT programme Secretariat.

KEY MESSAGE 4: A balance must be struck between risks and potential returns

This study set out to examine the feasibility of a the European Commission launching a stand-alone pilot project to test the potential effectiveness of trans-national exchange and mutual learning activities for local and regional elected representatives. The study has concluded that the launch of such a pilot project would be feasible in principle. However, such a project would be experimental in nature and involve a range of risks, as well as commitment of considerable time and human resources by the European Commission. The potential rewards in terms of improved knowledge about appropriate methods for exchange and mutual learning between elected representatives and the effectiveness of such methods would be significant. However, an alternative of building on existing activities within the context of INTERACT IVc or the URBACT programmes would provide an alternative way forward, with lower risks, but with yet unknown returns.

1.0 Introduction

This is the final report for the Feasibility Study on a pilot project "ERASMUS" for Local and Regional Elected Representatives1, undertaken by ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd on behalf of DG REGIO of the European Commission. In response to a specific recommendation from the European Parliament, this study has examined the feasibility of supporting a "pilot project" to test the concept of an exchange programme targeting local and regional elected politicians in the EU. The following sections provide more information on the background for the study, the policy proposal being examined and the main research questions examined by the study.

1.1 About the feasibility study

1.1.1 The policy proposal: the “ERASMUS” exchange initiative and pilot project

The proposal to establish an exchange initiative for local and regional elected politicians originated in the European Parliament. The Parliament Regional Development (REGI) Committee's report on governance and partnership in regional policy of 18 September 20082 recommended "the creation of a programme, similar to the ERASMUS programme, for regional and local elected officials", as one way to promote good local governance in the EU. The term "governance" was specifically defined to refer to way in which local and regional development activities should be organised and structured, as opposed to simply the focus and objectives of these activities: the “how”, rather than just the “what”.

The European Parliament's report provides no further detail on the intended form of the exchange initiative it recommends. The fact that the initiative should be similar to the successful Erasmus programme in the field of higher education implies, as a minimum, that it should involve three basic elements: 1 Bringing together institutions or individuals from different EU Member States to undertake

some form of collaborative activity. 2 "Mobility" – in other words, individuals from one Member State should spend time in another

Member State. 3 Learning activities – as in the Erasmus programme, the "mobility" should be a means to

allow participants to gain new experience and knowledge.

In its initial analysis of the proposed initiative, DG REGIO argued that the exchange initiative could be "a tool to enhance the learning and experience of elected local and regional representatives and to increase the capacity of local and regional councils regarding the application of concepts,

1 Specific Contract No 2009.CE.16.0.AT.036 2 "Report on governance and partnership at national and regional levels and a basis for projects in the sphere of regional policy" 2008/2064(INI) 18 September 2008. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A6-2008-0356&language=EN

1

democratic principles and strategies"1. Reflecting this, the Terms of Reference for this feasibility study specify the following objectives for the exchange initiative2: • Foster peer learning [between elected representatives]; • [Promote] exchange [of] experience [between] elected representatives facing similar obstacles

and challenges in spatial planning and sustainable urban development; • Facilitate the search for potential partners for European co-operation; • Provide specific guidance on how to manage and successfully address specific issues of

governance in the scope of sustainable urban development, particularly with the support of cohesion policy.

• Ensure that local and regional elected representatives, by means of developing in-depth knowledge and experience through exchanges and working sessions, improve their abilities in the domain of territorial governance.

The Terms of Reference ask for an assessment of the feasibility of implementing a stand-alone pilot project, which would be run in order to test the viability of an exchange initiative with the above objectives. The evaluation of this proposed pilot project would then inform a decision on whether to mainstream similar exchange activities as part of new territorial cooperation programmes within the next generation of Structural Funds (from 2014). The initial analysis by DG REGIO assumed that the pilot project would involve organising 3-5 day study visits for local and regional elected representatives to local and regional administrations in other Member States. These visits would be designed to bring together elected representatives from areas facing similar challenges and aim at identifying lessons and transferring knowledge about "good practice" in fields related to integrated urban and territorial development3. The Terms of Reference specify that the pilot project would be implemented over a period of 15 months4, following a Call for Proposals to select implementing organisations and would most probably start in 20115.

In this context, the overarching objective of this feasibility study is to “Test overall feasibility of the pilot project given timeframe and institutional setting”, answering a range of key research questions.

1 Internal note DG REGIO 2 Terms of Reference, p.2 3 The example topics mentioned in the Terms of Reference were: Brownfield redevelopment, urban transport, zero-carbon models, cultural heritage, regeneration of city centres, while cross-cutting issues would include financial engineering, land use policies, citizens' participation and institutional innovation 4 Terms of Reference, p.5 5 An initial budget allocation of € 2 million was made available by the European Parliament in 2009. However, as this was not used, a new budget allocation will need to be secured in the course of 2010.

2

1.1.2 Key research questions and analytical framework

The Terms of Reference for the feasibility study specified a wide range of questions to be examined1, focusing on the following main elements: 1 Assessing the interest, capacity and needs of the “supply side”2 – defined as the

institutions or organisations able to coordinate mobility projects in general, and a pilot project in particular, as well as potentially “host” participating elected representatives.

2 Assessing the views, interests and priorities of the “demand side”1 – in other words the target audience of sub-national elected representatives who would potentially participate the in the scheme.

3 Developing and assessing the strengths and weaknesses of possible implementation options – including structuring of the pilot project, duration and form of exchange activities and visits, financial flows and resourcing, selection of the participating elected representatives, associated risks and barriers etc.

4 Proposing a recommended implementation option – based on the assessment of possible alternatives, with recommendations for addressing any main obstacles (such as language), proposed monitoring system and indicators to measure success.

5 Preparing inputs for a European Commission Call for Proposals, including a context and objectives section for the Call itself and accompanying “Guide for proposers”3.

The first two of these issues deal with the views of relevant stakeholders and the demand for new exchange activities for elected representatives in general terms. The latter three issues clearly deal specifically with the feasibility of a stand-alone pilot project to test the organisation of exchange activities in practice. The task of this study has thus been to assess the feasibility of such a stand-alone pilot project, including alternative options for its implementation. The working assumption from the outset of the study has been that this pilot project could be implemented from early 2011 onwards and thus be completed by mid-2012. The results of the evaluation of the pilot could therefore inform the detailed programming of territorial cooperation actions within the next generation of EU Cohesion Policy.

The European Commission’s Impact Assessment Guidelines4 form a key point of reference for studies examining the feasibility and potential effectiveness of future EU policy interventions, even if they are not part of a formal Impact Assessment process. These Guidelines specify eight core questions for all Impact Assessments, as listed below.

1 Terms of Reference pp.4-6 2 The distinction between a “supply side” of hosting institutions and a “demand side” of participating individuals assumed in the Terms of Reference is borrowed directly from the ERASMUS programme, in which universities in one Member State “host” students (the demand side) from another Member State. Given the explicit focus of the initiative under examination on peer learning and exchange between elected representatives, this distinction proved to be less clear cut and less relevant. The study has thus considered the “supply side” as organisations and actors that are in a position to organise and facilitate peer learning among elected representatives (all of whom have equal status within the project). 3 The ToR (p.7) specify “Draft guidelines that can be addressed to and used by the participants in the pilot project and by hosting institutions”. These guidelines would cover the content of the pilot project. Legal and administrative requirements would follow standard European Commission procedures. 4 SEC(2009) 92 Impact Assessment Guidelines 15 January 2009

3

Figure 1.1 Key questions for Community Impact Assessments 1 What is the nature and scale of the problem, how is it evolving, and who is most affected by it? 2 What are the views of the stakeholders concerned? 3 Should the Union be involved? 4 If so, what objectives should it set to address the problem? 5 What are the main policy options for reaching these objectives? 6 What are the likely economic, social and environmental impacts of those options? 7 How do the main options compare in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence in solving the problems and

what risks remain attached to the most promising option? 8 How could future monitoring and evaluation be organised?

The core points from the Terms of Reference highlighted above already cover (explicitly or implicitly) the views of stakeholders (2), policy options (5), potential impacts (6), comparison of options (7) and monitoring and evaluation (8). However, in addition, the research team felt it was important to:

a) Establish a clearer picture of the “problem” that an EU exchange and mobility programme might address (IA question 1)

b) Identify the specific rationale for the EU (rather than other governance levels) to intervene in this field (IA question 3) and;

c) Specify the global and specific objectives of the proposed intervention, as a basis for assessing the potential effectiveness of different options and defining indicators of success (IA question 4).

The steps of Community Impact Assessment have thus provided a framework for our analysis and have been used as a basis for structuring this report. It should be stressed, however, that the present study does not focus on assessing the potential impacts of the proposed initiative to the same extent as a formal Impact Assessment. Rather, the focus is on determining the feasibility of an "experimental" pilot initiative which would itself seek to test the potential impact of such a scheme.

1.1.3 Approach to data collection and analysis

Three main information sources have been used for this feasibility study: a) Interviews with EU-level stakeholders (see Annex 2); b) 11 consultative workshops in nine Member States (see Annex 3); c) Relevant documents, including evaluations of URBACT and other programmes, as

background material and Calls for Proposals for comparable EU pilot projects and good practice exchange initiatives.

The EU-level stakeholders consulted have included representatives of the European Parliament (including the originator of the initiative) and the Committee of the Regions, representatives of EU-level city and local government networks and associations, representatives of URBACT and European Commission staff who have been involved in comparable initiatives. A full list of interviews in provided in Annex 2.

4

The 11 consultative workshops, bringing together a total of 109 participants, were held in October and November 2009. Participants were mostly elected local and regional representatives from a range of different institutional units, as well as some local government officers and representatives of local government associations and networks. The moderated workshops, each lasting half a day, focused on gathering stakeholder views on the relevance and added value of a new exchange scheme, as well as preferences for the design of such an initiative. The workshops were as follows (a full synthesis of workshops findings, individual workshop reports and lists of participants is provided in Annex 3):

Table 1.1 Workshops for stakeholder consultation

No Location (Language) Date

1 Rotterdam (NL) 19 October 2009

2 Copenhagen (DA / SE) 27 October 2009

3 Lyon (FR) 28 October 2009

4 Warsaw (PL) 29 October 2009

5 Milan (IT) 30 October 2009

6 Lille (FR) 5 November 2009

7 Berlin (DE) 5 November 2009

8 Budapest (HU) 12 November 2009

9 Madrid (ES) 12 November 2009

10 Birmingham (EN) 16 November 2009

11 Munich (DE) 18 November 2009

The findings from the different information sources and the wide-ranging stakeholder consultation have been analysed in light of the core questions for the feasibility study and are reflected in the relevant sections of this report.

1.2 About this report

In line with the analytical framework outlined above, the structure of this report reflects the steps in Community Impact Assessment, with the core questions and elements from the Terms of Reference integrated into the relevant sections. As such, the report is structured as follows: • Chapter 2 examines the relevance of additional support for exchange between local and

regional elected representatives in Europe. It examines whether there is an underlying problem in the EU that generates a real need for some form of new exchange initiative, reviews evidence from the consultation on likely demand for such a scheme and considers the justification for the EU to support increased intervention in this field (thus addressing the question of subsidiarity and potential Community Added Value).

5

• Chapter 3 draws on the findings of the stakeholder consultation and the problem and needs analysis to establish a clear hierarchy of objectives for a potential pilot project, as well as defining indicators of success, which can inform the design of the monitoring and evaluation system.

• Chapter 4 examines the key design factors which affect the potential effectiveness a pilot project. These factors, including the identification and selection of participants, the thematic focus and types of activities involved, affect ability of a pilot project (or exchange activities more generally) to achieve the objectives established. This chapter draws on the findings of the stakeholder consultation and independent analysis, as well as practical examples of comparable European Commission-led projects.

• Chapter 5 presents and assesses four possible implementation options for a stand-alone pilot project outsourced by the European Commission through a Call for Proposals (the approach suggested by the Terms of Reference). These options were developed taking into account both the key design factors examined in Chapter 4 and the administrative rules applicable for European Commission initiatives, which place clear constraints on the way a pilot project could be implemented.

• Chapter 6 presents key conclusions arising from the analysis, together with recommendations for two possible ways forward.

6

2.0 Is additional support for exchange required?

2.1 Introduction

The European Parliament proposal for an “ERASMUS” for local and regional elected representatives was based on an implicit assumption that such a scheme would address an underlying “problem” and corresponding “need” for policy intervention at EU level. The precise objectives of the proposed exchange scheme (and the specific problem it would address) were not articulated explicitly in the European Parliament proposal. Nevertheless, the basic assumption, supported by initial analysis by the European Commission, is that the scheme could improve the capacity of participating elected representatives to understand and address the policy challenges1 faced by their localities or regions, in terms of both content (what sort of action to take) and “governance” (how to organise it).

As a first step in the feasibility study, it was important to explore and assess the validity of the implicit assumptions made about the need for additional support for exchange and mobility among elected representatives. This process required us to address the following questions: • Is there evidence that elected representatives at sub-national level in the EU lack the

knowledge and capacity to address the policy challenges faced in their localities or regions? In other words, is there an underlying problem, and a corresponding need, for additional policy intervention? This is the first main question in the Community Impact Assessment framework.

• Are exchange activities, of the type proposed, likely to address this need or at least contribute to addressing it? In other words, would an exchange scheme (assuming it is appropriately designed) be an appropriate and relevant policy response to the problem identified?

• Is it clear that existing initiatives led by the public, voluntary or private sector at EU, national or local level are not attempting to respond to the problem and need identified? In other words, would a new exchange scheme clearly add something new in comparison to existing efforts?

We examine the evidence assembled in relation to these questions in Section 2.2 below.

If a problem and need can be identified, exchange activities are likely to help address the problem and existing initiatives are not already trying to do the same thing, it is still important to assess whether relevant stakeholders actually support the initiative and would be willing to take part. Gathering the views of relevant stakeholders is the second analytical step in Community Impact Assessment. As noted above, the most “relevant stakeholders” for the exchange scheme in question are, firstly, elected representatives at sub-national level in the EU (the demand side) and, secondly, EU and national associations, networks and organisations that could organise and facilitate exchange activities (the supply side). In practice, the “supply side” organisations are the organisations that would lead the implementation of a pilot project (or projects) on behalf of

1 We use the term “policy challenge” to mean a problem in a particular locality or region which can realistically be tackled by intervention by the public authorities: in other words a problem which requires a policy response. By extension, a "local policy challenge" is a problem that can realistically be tackled by local policy action, although this will always depend on the competences of local authorities.

7

the European Commission1. In Section 2.3, we examine the views of elected representatives obtained through the stakeholder consultation on both the principle of an exchange scheme and the practical factors that would affect their willingness and ability to take part. We also present the findings of consultations with European and other national networks concerning their likely capacity to implement an exchange scheme, taking into account the financial resources available.

Finally, in Section 2.4, we consider the specific justification for the EU to intervene and support an exchange scheme. This section considers the third main question in Community Impact Assessment: should the Union be involved? The key issue here is one of subsidiarity. The EU should only intervene where it is clear that EU-level intervention could be more effective and efficient than equivalent measures at national, regional or local level. As such, we review the evidence collected on the potential Community Added Value of an EU-level exchange scheme for sub-national elected representatives.

2.2 Is there an underlying problem and corresponding need for intervention?

2.2.1 The perceived problem: closed minds and limited knowledge and capacity

As noted, the assumption underlying the proposal for an exchange scheme is that elected representatives at sub-national level in the EU currently lack knowledge and capacity that would help them to address the policy challenges with which they are confronted.

To the best of our knowledge, no systematic analysis of the learning and skills needs of local and regional elected representatives has ever been undertaken at EU level and such analysis was outside the scope of this feasibility study. However, at a more general level, the Bristol Accord2, agreed by EU ministers in 2005, highlighted the importance of promoting skills for all those involved in local development planning and implementation. In this respect, the Accord built on the findings of the Egan Review in the UK, which argued that a lack of appropriate knowledge and skills among relevant stakeholders (including local councillors) was hampering the development of "sustainable communities"3.

Although officers (staff from local authority administrations) are generally responsible for developing detailed policy responses and advising the members of local or regional councils, it is clear that elected representatives have an important role to play in shaping policy choices. Through their democratic mandate, it is ultimately they who are responsible for policy decisions in all forms of local and regional government with directly elected assemblies. Interviews with EU level stakeholders, including representatives of the URBACT programme, revealed a widespread conviction that, firstly, elected representatives play a vital role in local and regional policy making

1 As specified in the Terms of Reference, the European Commission does not have sufficient capacity to run a pilot project “in house”. As such, it has been clear from the start that some form of “outsourcing”, most probably through a Call for Proposals, will be required. 2 http://www.eukn.org/eukn/themes/Urban_Policy/bristol-accord-minsterial-informal_1400.html 3 DCLG (2004) The Egan Review: Skills for Sustainable Communities, 19 April 2004 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/152086.pdf

8

and, secondly, that many such councillors lack knowledge about effective policy and practice that would help them perform their decision-making role more effectively.

Importantly, the results of the stakeholder consultation lend weight to the view that a knowledge and capacity “gap” exists among elected representatives at sub-national level in the EU. A clear majority of the elected representatives participating in the consultative workshops expressed the view that they and their counterparts need to be better informed about how effective policies at local and regional level (including those supported by the EU) should be designed and implemented. Even if there is considerable variation between individual councillors, workshop participants felt that policy-relevant knowledge among the overall population of sub-national elected representatives is generally rather limited. Participants in the workshop held in Hungary went as far as to suggest that over two thirds of elected representatives do not have sufficient policy-relevant understanding and knowledge to fulfil their roles effectively.

Although a majority of consultees agreed that elected representatives at the beginning of their political career had the greatest needs in terms of policy relevant knowledge, the general view was that all councillors could benefit from capacity building and knowledge development.

A distinction was made in various workshops between different types of learning or capacity development needs. Firstly, a distinction was highlighted between knowledge relevant to specific, relatively technical, policy fields (what we may term specific subject knowledge) and more general knowledge and skills related to the development, management and implementation of policy. The latter type of “governance” skills are akin to the “generic” skills for sustainable communities identified in the context of the UK’s Egan Review and including leadership, partnership development, project management and financial management1. Participants in nearly all workshops also highlighted a more general need for local elected representatives to “broaden their mindsets”, to reflect more critically on their own work and be open to alternative ways to doing things.

In addition to an information, skills and capacity need at sub-national level, participants in several workshops specifically called for better communication between the EU institutions and local and regional authorities and an improved understanding by the EU of local and regional needs. Participants argued in some cases that the EU level is not sufficiently aware of the real challenges and needs of local authorities and that, as a consequence, EU regional policy does not respond to actual requirements. The establishment of an exchange scheme (see below) was seen be some consultees as an opportunity to address the perceived “disconnection” between the EU and local levels, in addition to addressing knowledge and capacity needs at local level.

1 DCLG (2004), pp.55-57

9

2.2.2 Exchange as a mechanism to help address the capacity problem

If there is evidence of capacity development needs among sub-national elected representatives, the next question is whether creating a trans-national exchange and mutual learning scheme is an appropriate policy response. Evaluations of existing EU initiatives to support exchange, trans-national partnership and capacity building in the field of local development, notably the URBACT programme, have highlighted a range of expected impacts from such initiatives: • Personal impact – whereby the individual, direct participants gain increased awareness and

improved knowledge of the issues dealt with in the exchange, including policy and practice in partner locations;

• Institutional / organisational impact – whereby the knowledge gained by individuals is dissemination and exploited in some way by others in the "home" organisations of participants or has an influence on their activities;

• Policy impact – whereby knowledge gained from exchange influences the design of local / regional development policies and actions in the "home" locality (with the potential to impact on the economic, social or environmental performance of the territory concerned).

The evaluations of the first URBACT programme1 revealed considerable evidence of “personal impact” (reported benefits) among direct participants in the trans-national Thematic Networks and Working Groups supported, but comparatively few examples of participation in URBACT influencing the activities of wider local government organisations, let alone policy decisions themselves. URBACT II has sought to address this by insisting that localities taking part in URBACT projects prepare Local Action Plans, overseen in part by Local Support Groups2, in order to translate the lessons learned from exchange into policy actions on the ground. Moreover, a key aspect of URBACT (I and II) is the comparatively limited involvement of elected representatives. Indeed, the URBACT programme authorities have made a concerted effort to increase the involvement of elected members from participating cities in order to increase the connection between the exchange projects and the political decision-making level3.

The relevance of establishing an exchange programme focused specifically on sub-national elected representatives was discussed with EU-level stakeholders. It could be argued that local and regional development professionals (including local government officers), rather than elected representatives per se, are best placed to analyse the detail of policy and practice examples from elsewhere. Moreover, as elected members may only be in office for a limited period of time, it could be considered more appropriate to concentrate limited capacity building resources on permanent members of staff in local governments. However, in the face of these points, the stakeholders consulted argued consistently that the role played by elected members in political decision-making should not be underestimated. Interviewees argued that well-informed councillors

1 ECOTEC (2005), Mid-term evaluation (update) of the URBACT programme) and ECOTEC (2010) Ex-post evaluation of the URBAN II Community Initiative, including the URBACT programme. 2 Local Support Groups assemble the main interested parties and local actors concerned by the project topic and the issues the partner is looking to resolve. The groups include local elected officials, representatives of various local administrative departments and representatives of residents/users. 3 Source: interview with URBACT programme director.

10

(including members of local executives) are generally best placed to provide the strategic direction for local policy and bring together other actors necessary for successful local governance.

Given the apparent effectiveness of exchange programmes in promoting learning at the individual level and the role of elected representatives in the strategic decision-making process, EU-level stakeholders felt that a well designed and implemented exchange programme specifically targeting this group had the potential to be effective. That said, interviewees generally felt that exchange schemes could only generate impact at a personal level in the first instance (as the direct participants increase their own knowledge and capacity). Although it would be hoped that this would lead to improvements in decision-making and possible institutional and policy impacts, it was widely acknowledged that such impacts are hard (and often impossible) to measure. Our own experience of evaluating URBACT confirms this view, particularly as lines of causality between exchange and capacity building and policy outcomes are often blurred and difficult to prove. The implication of this for the proposed pilot project (and the possible programme in the longer term) is that the objectives should be proportionate and focused primarily on personal level impacts and immediate follow-up. To expect objectively verifiable impacts on local policy may be overly ambitious, at least in the short term.

A majority of participants in the wider stakeholder consultation felt that a European exchange scheme for elected representatives would be welcome and potentially valuable. Many workshop participants believed that such a scheme could contribute to building capacity on both personal and institutional level. The expected benefits on an individual level corresponded to the different learning or capacity building needs mentioned above: most notably specific sector knowledge and a more general broadening of perspectives through raising awareness of alternative approaches and methods (“looking across borders increases the range of policy examples and input available”).

Stakeholders in several workshops did argue that participation in an exchange initiative could bring institutional impacts for local authorities, although the expected impacts were not always well defined. Some participants argued that taking part in an EU programme could increase awareness and expertise related to EU project rules and procedures (with the potential to increase future accessibility of European Funds), while others referred to the potential to model their own policy approaches on practice from elsewhere. Gaining inspiration from the practice of others as a basis for formulating ones own policy responses lies at the heart of exchange programmes. However, experience from URBACT and elsewhere illustrates firstly, that direct transfer of policies is rare and potentially undesirable1 and, secondly, that it is generally difficult to isolate the precise contribution of “good practice” examples to policy development and implementation in the real world. A clear message from the consultation – as well as evidence from URBACT – is that cooperating localities should share common characteristics in order to maximise the mutual relevance of the different policy and governance examples on offer.

1 As differing institutional or socio-economic conditions in one locality may make render “good practice” methods from other localities ineffective or even counter-productive.

11

2.2.3 Complementarity: existing initiatives have a different focus

If a need for mutual learning and capacity building among elected representatives is shown to exist and trans-national exchange is a viable means to address this need, the question remains whether existing initiatives or programmes already provide the necessary framework for these activities or could provide such a framework with only limited changes. It is clearly important that any new initiative does not duplicate, and is complementary to, existing local, national or EU initiatives, whether town twinning arrangements or EU programmes, such as URBACT or INTERREG. Both EU level stakeholders and participants in the consultative workshops were asked about the role and effectiveness of existing initiatives, while the research team examined potentially comparable programmes.

The key points that emerged in relation to existing trans-national exchange and networking schemes were as follows: • Town twinning and other locally-organised exchanges tend to focus on exchange between

citizens, rather than on policy-making and policy challenges. Moreover, existing partner towns and cities may not face the same issues or have the same responsibilities, which can reduce the relevance of policy-focused discussions and exchange.

• The EU programme to support Town Twinning (overseen by DG Education and Culture, as part of the "Citizenship" programme1) also focuses on links between citizens, rather than policy learning and exchange, so does not cover the same ground as the proposed exchange programme.

• As already noted, the most relevant existing EU programmes are URBACT2 (city networking and cooperation) and INTERREG (regional cooperation). However, projects in these programmes generally involve officers (local authority staff) and experts. Although URBACT has sought to increase the involvement of elected representatives, none of its projects explicitly target them and involvement of elected representatives in URBACT II (2007-2013) remains relatively low3.

• The activities of EU level networks such as Eurocities4 and Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR)5 (a network of local government associations) tend to involve officers (unelected officials) rather than elected representatives.

• Although the Open Society's Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative (LGI)6 promotes better local governance and runs training courses in this field, these courses are also focused on local officials rather than elected representatives and activities are concentrated in Eastern Europe and transition states (outside the EU).

• Both the Nordic Council7 and the Visegrad Group (V4)1 focus on trans-national cooperation in a wide range of policy areas and do support some activities involving local and regional

1 http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/programme-actions/doc30_en.htm 2 http://urbact.eu 3 Source: interview with URBACT programme director. 4 http://www.eurocities.eu 5 http://www.ccre.org 6 http://lgi.osi.hu 7 Grouping the Nordic Countries, including non-EU members http://www.norden.org/

12

authorities. However, the core activities involve primarily national-level governments and neither body runs an exchange scheme targeting local / regional elected representatives. Similarly, the Council of Europe's Congress of Local and Regional Authorities2 does not run any activities specifically targeted at locally elected representatives.

Although the detailed awareness of trans-national programmes and initiatives among participants in the consultative workshops varied, there was a consensus perception that existing schemes were not targeted at elected representatives. Moreover, it was felt that EU programmes such as INTERREG, URBACT or EQUAL (2000-2006), currently placed high demands on the time of participants, which are frequently not possible for elected representatives to assume alongside their other council responsibilities and jobs. The participants of in some workshops, such as that in Warsaw, also argued that URBACT and INTERREG “favour larger units of local government" and thus exclude many local authorities.

Even taking into account these perspectives, opinion among consultees was divided on the most appropriate policy response for the EU. While some participants favoured a new, stand-alone initiative, others advocated the re-design of existing programmes (such as URBACT or INTERREG) to introduce capacity building for elected representatives. Some felt a new, dedicated programme would be focused and provide a high profile. For example, a representative of the Danish Local Government Association argued “It would be nice to have a little programme only directed towards exchange of politicians – we often get requests from municipalities for exactly such a programme”. In other cases, workshop participants, notably in Germany and France argued in favour of "opening-up" existing EU programmes, before deciding to start a new one. Some participants suggested making the participation of elected representatives a compulsory element for projects or introducing new and more flexible funding lines aimed at boosting the participation of this group.

In practice, it would be very difficult to create a new, stand-alone pilot project within an existing EU funding programme. The current generation of EU programmes cannot be adapted at this stage in the 2007-2013 programming period and the policy proposal examined by this feasibility study is to test a new exchange scheme through a stand-alone pilot project in the short term. In the longer term, if the pilot project were to prove successful, it would clearly be appropriate for exchange for elected representatives to be incorporated into a larger programme within a future territorial cooperation objective of EU Cohesion Policy.

1 Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary http://visegradgroup.eu 2 http://www.coe.int/T/Congress/Default_en.asp

13

2.3 Is there support on the ground for an exchange initiative?

2.3.1 Broad stakeholder support for the concept

One of the main objectives of the stakeholder consultation through national consultative workshops was to test the reaction to the proposal for an exchange scheme among the proposed beneficiary group in a range of EU Member States. The 11 half-day workshops were held in nine Member States, with participants (predominantly elected representatives) invited primarily from the host city and a wide range of local authorities in the surrounding region. This approach was adopted specifically to facilitate participation (by minimising travel time) and to ensure the study consulted elected representatives from outside the Brussels / European circuit.

As already highlighted in the preceding sections, the workshop participants generally supported the concept of a European initiative to support exchange and mutual learning between elected representatives in different Member States on issues related to local development and territorial governance. Representatives of local government associations in Denmark and Poland even reported that they have received explicit enquiries asking if such a programme or mechanism already exists. This generally positive reaction, which was not necessarily expected, suggests that there would be real demand from local elected representative for participating in an exchange scheme. The level of this demand will in practice depend on the design of the exchange activities and the requirements for participation.

2.3.2 A range of factors will condition actual demand for a scheme

The factors that would affect the willingness and ability of sub-national elected representative to participate in an EU exchange programme were discussed at some length with EU-level stakeholders and participants in the consultative workshops. Even if there is widespread support for the basic concept of an exchange scheme, a number of potential barriers to participation exist. The most important barriers identified through the consultation process can be summarised as: a) time and timing; b) personal motivation; c) political considerations; d) language skills; e) funding and f) the administrative burden of taking part. We examine these issues in turn.

a) Time and timing. On a practical level, many elected representatives have very busy schedules, linked to official duties and, frequently, the need to combine these with a full or part-time job elsewhere1. In the consultative workshops, finding time to take part in the planned exchange activities emerged as the most important challenge facing local elected representatives in relation to the proposed scheme. The main implication of this for the proposed exchange scheme is that individual study visits could not be longer than two to three days without causing inconvenience that might dissuade people from participating. Although the summer period is less busy for councillors, the timing and duration of summer breaks varies across Europe, meaning that no one period is less busy across the Union. In addition, participants in several workshops argued that elected representatives would be less willing to participate in exchange activities

1 A majority of elected representatives taking part in the consultative workshops had full or part-time jobs alongside their council activities.

14

during electoral periods. However, as local and regional elections can take place throughout the year across the Member States, there is little that can be done to avoid this problem. [Also see Section 4.2.6]

b) Personal motivation. From the outset of the feasibility study, stakeholder consultees argued that individuals’ belief in the utility of exchange activities would be a key factor determining their willingness to participate and the benefits they obtained from participation. As the workshops demonstrated considerable support for the principle of an exchange programme, we conclude that there is likely to be a sufficient body of “motivated” individuals who are willing to make part to make the scheme viable. Those who do not view the scheme as useful are naturally under no obligation to take part.

c) Political considerations. On a political level, participating in exchange activities and "study visits" may be viewed as "tourism" by electors, the press and members of opposing political formations, which can make this type of activity sensitive. Although the issue was raised as a possible constraint in the consultative workshops, participants tended to view it as less of a concern than the research team had assumed in the early stages of the study. In workshops where the issues was discussed in detail, participants reached the conclusion that public and opposition suspicions about study visits constituting tourism could be addressed by through clear communication about the objectives and content of the trips, rigorous reporting requirements and by ensuring that exchange visits involve units of government that are broadly comparable in size and structure and face similar challenges. Involving several elected representatives from a single location from different political parties, as a “cross-party” delegation, was suggested in a number of cases as a means to overcome potential criticism from the political opposition in local councils.

d) Language skills. Another important consideration for trans-national exchange is foreign language ability. Many of the elected representatives participating in the consultative workshops considered they did not have the foreign language capabilities necessary to engage in subject-specific exchange activities in a language other than their own and believed this situation was the same for many of their colleagues. Even where participants do have foreign language skills, a common language (most likely English, but potentially French or German) is required and not all participants may master this common language well. While some workshops took the view that interpretation on a large scale is not a feasible option and would obstruct constructive exchange and learning, others concluded that some form of interpretation would be necessary in most exchange settings and should therefore be supported by the programme. A key argument for not making foreign language skills a precondition for participation in an exchange scheme was that elected representatives who speak foreign languages fluently are far more likely to already be involved in European exchange activities and may not necessarily be the ones who would benefit most from participation. [Also see Section 4.2.7]

e) Funding. Participants in the consultative workshops raised the availability of funding as a potential constraint on participation. Local and regional authorities generally have only very limited resources for international and European cooperation and exchange activities. Small and medium-sized units of self-government are often unable to participate in existing programmes

15

because they lack the necessary funds and administrative capacity. This concern was stressed particularly during the workshops in Poland and Hungary. Although participants generally recognised that a certain contribution in terms of resources would be required to cover the costs of participating in exchange, some participants argued strongly that this should be limited. The assumption underpinning discussions of finance in the workshops was that funding would be available for travel and subsistence costs and interpretation, where required. It is clearly the case that the group consulted in the workshops, as potential beneficiaries of the scheme, had a clear interest in maximising EU financing. [Also see Section 4.2.8]

f) Administrative burden: Many workshop participants expressed concerns about the administrative requirements attached to participation in EU-funded activities, which were widely perceived to be burdensome. This reputation, whether justified or not, is certainly widespread among the beneficiaries of different EU programmes evaluated by ECORYS-ECOTEC. The workshop participants argued strongly for the administrative requirements, in terms of application, reporting and financial management to be kept as simple as possible in order to encourage participation. [Also see Section 4.2.9]

In addition to these potential constraints, the consultation exercise highlighted the need to publicise any exchange scheme sufficiently well at local and regional level within the Member States [See Section 4.2.2].

2.3.3 Relevant organisations have expressed interest in facilitating exchange

While the consultative workshops focused on the demand for a European exchange scheme, the feasibility study must also consider whether relevant organisations would be willing and able to implement a potential pilot project to organise and facilitate the exchange (the supply side in the exchange equation). Given the limited human resources in the European Commission and standard Commission practice with pilot projects, it is certain that implementation of a pilot project would need to be outsourced to one or more external organisations. The most likely candidates for running pilot activities (either as a single project or multiple projects) were considered from the outset to include European and national local government associations and networks, including thematically focused networks. In addition, the study examined the possibility of the URBACT Secretariat coordinating implementation of a stand-alone pilot project.

Although there could be clear synergies in the URBACT Secretariat running a pilot project, the institutional structure in which the Secretariat functions (it is hosted by the French government department for urban affairs, the Secrétariat général du Comité interministériel des villes) is rather complex and its own human resources are limited. As such, the representatives of URBACT consulted did not believe it would be feasible for the Secretariat to take on the implementation of a stand-alone pilot project. They did nevertheless express support for the initiative and offer support for the oversight of pilot activities, potentially by providing a member of a steering committee.

In contrast, EU level networks (for example, CEMR and Eurocities), as well as a number of national local government associations expressed interest in implementing the pilot project, based

16

on the assumption the implementation would be outsourced through a Call for Proposals or even a Call for Tender.

2.3.4 The level of financial resources envisaged would allow a pilot project to be run

The European Parliament committed a budget line of €2 million for the pilot project in the 2009 budget. However, the decisions required to commit this money were not finalised until May 2009, which left limited time to conduct both this feasibility study and launch a pilot project. As such, for European Parliament resources to be used, the Parliament would need to commit a new budget line in the budget. If such a budget commitment were made, a sum of between €1.5 and €2 million1 could be available to fund a pilot project. This sum would certainly allow a pilot project to be supported – the number of cooperation partnerships supported would naturally have to be tailored to the budget available.

Leaving aside the theoretical level of funding available, at the time of writing, it is understood that it will be difficult for to ensure the budgetary approval process is completed in 2010 and that a budget line could only be approved in June 2011 at the earliest. This would mean that a pilot project with a 15-month duration (the duration specified by the Terms of Reference) could not be completed before October 2012. This naturally means that the findings of an evaluation, which could take at least another two to three months to complete after the end of a pilot project, could not be taken into account for the development of the new Structural Funds regulations. However, within this timeframe, the evaluation findings could still be taken into account in the detailed programming of individual territorial cooperation programmes.

2.4 Should the EU be involved?

Although, on the basis of the evidence so far, there is case for testing some form of exchange scheme for local elected representatives through a pilot project, it is important to consider whether it is the EU that should initiate such a scheme. The essential question is one of subsidiarity: is it clear that lower level of governance (national, regional, local or groups of these) would not be better placed to organise and implement an exchange scheme? Put another way, what is the specific added value of EU involvement?

The evidence from the stakeholder consultation on this question is clear. None of the workshops came to the conclusion that a national level exchange and learning initiative could substitute for an EU-wide initiative, in terms of potential attractiveness and benefits for the participants. In the workshops where this issue was explicitly discussed, participants agreed that exchange within individual Member States does not offer the same opportunities for learning and sharing of experience as those potentially offered by an EU-level programme. One participant of the Copenhagen workshop argued that "it is difficult to be innovative in your approaches if you keep your focus on organisations similar to your own within your own country". Similarly, it was argued during the Warsaw workshop that having access to the "full spectrum" of possible measures and

1 Making an allocation for the independent evaluation of the pilot project

17

approaches represents a distinct advantage over a purely national or more regional approach, only including a sub-group of EU Member States. The basic assumption that diversity is conducive to identifying new and bold solutions was shared across workshops.

Workshop participants most frequently considered the added value of improved knowledge and understanding of practices in other EU localities as a way of identifying new policy options, which they may not otherwise have developed. Sharing practical experience through exchange was seen to promote the dissemination of innovative policy approaches across the EU. This knowledge transfer coming from an external country allows local and regional authorities to "mirror themselves" with localities that share similar problems and policy concerns and adopt pioneering ideas to tackle their policy challenges. Personal and direct contact (face to face meetings and visits) were viewed as the most effective way to gain a proper understanding of the policy practice of the other party.

18

3.0 What could a potential new scheme achieve?

3.1 Defining strategic and specific objectives for a potential pilot project

Following the methodological steps of EU Impact Assessment, once a) the underlying problem that a policy should address has been analysed, b) stakeholders have been consulted about the problem and need for a policy response and c) the rationale for EU involvement has been established, it is time to formulate more detailed objectives for the policy intervention being considered. The EU’s Impact Assessment and evaluation systems use a standard classification (or hierarchy) of objectives for policy interventions, with each level of objectives corresponding to intended outcomes, which should be measured through evaluation. The framework for the hierarchy of objectives, moving from the highest to lowest level, is as follows: • Strategic objectives: these are the highest level objectives that a policy can reasonably be

expected to achieve directly. This level of objectives leads to expected impacts – effects in the longer term or over a broader geographical area, which should be measurable and attributable to the policy;

• Specific objectives: these objectives specify the short term, measurable effects: results; • Operational objectives: these objectives specify the immediate outputs of the intervention and

will depend to a large extent on how the intervention is organised.

In principle, the strategic and specific objectives are specified on the basis of detailed problems that a policy should address and are formulated to respond directly to these problems. These higher-level objectives need to be specified before detailed policy design occurs, as different policy options (detailed policy designs) may be able to respond to the same strategic and specific objectives. In contrast, operational objectives set out objectives for the detailed implementation of a given policy intervention (covering, for example, the detailed target group, organisational structures and timing) and are likely to vary more between different policy options. In the current case, it is possible to define operational objectives in broad terms, as the policy option under consideration has already been specified as support for exchange and mutual learning activities.

Taking these factors into account, in this chapter we set out a formulation of the strategic and specific objectives and broad operational objectives for the proposed pilot project, based on the problem analysis set out in the previous chapter. Section 3.2 presents a long list of objectives, based on the specific elements of the problem identified, while Section 3.3 structures this list into a hierarchy of objectives. In Section 3.4, we examine the indicators that could be used to measure success against these objectives, thus providing the basis for a monitoring and evaluation system for a possible pilot project. In chapter 4, we then go on to examine the different factors influencing the potential effectiveness and the practical feasibility of a stand-alone pilot project, which will affect the detailed design of a pilot action.

19

3.2 A list of objectives

Table 3.1 below sets out, in the first column, the problems and needs identified in the problem analysis and, in the second column, formulates a corresponding objective to address this problem or need.

Table 3.1 Problems to be addressed and corresponding objectives

Problem / need identified Corresponding objective

Narrow perspectives / closed mindsets – local and regional politicians can become very focused on specific local issues, loose sight of the "big picture" and lack inspiration about how to address local development challenges. This obviously varies between individuals.

Support local elected politicians to step back from their day to day work and to take a strategic view in relation to local development challenges

Lack of specific knowledge - Workshops supported the view that many local and regional politicians are not sufficiently informed about approaches to addressing particular local development challenges and ways to organise these approaches (governance).

To develop the knowledge and capacity of local elected politicians by supporting them to learn about good practices in local develop policy and governance, through direct contact with counterparts in other EU Member States (see, touch and smell)

Limited knowledge building – Information about good practice and policy for addressing particular challenges and employing effective governance models is not captured and presented effectively

To identify and capture "good practice" in addressing particular challenges and employing effective governance models

Limited knowledge exchange - Information about good practice and policy for addressing particular challenges and implementing effective governance models in particular contexts is not circulated or exchanged effectively among relevant actors

To promote exchange of knowledge and information on good practice and policy for addressing particular challenges and employing effective governance models, taking into account the role of differing institutional and socio-economic contexts.

EU level does not understand local development challenges and needs – a perception of distance and lack of understanding of local challenges – needed by EU level to develop appropriate policies

To provide improved information on challenges faced by local actors (notably elected representatives) for EU-level decision makers

Limited knowledge of local government in other MS – local politicians can lack understanding of structures and responsibilities in other countries, which can be important for EU cooperative projects (eg INTERREG)

To improve knowledge among local elected politicians about local government structures, regulatory frameworks and policy contexts in other Member States

Limited opportunities for elected politicians to engage in exchange – the common view was that existing initiatives are not targeted at and do not cater well for elected representatives. This is due to their inherent design and the time commitments required (not feasible for elected reps). This is particularly true for smaller government units (ie not so relevant for big cities).

To provide an appropriate framework for local elected politicians, including from smaller governance units to participate in exchange projects. Such projects will be smaller in scale than existing initiatives (eg INTERREG or URBACT) and less complex and administratively burdensome for participants

20

21

3.3 A hierarchy of objectives

The list of objectives included in the table above can be viewed as a form of “long list” of desirable aims, emerging from the analysis. In order to produce a coherent policy intervention, it is necessary to review and structure these objectives into an appropriate hierarchy – showing how each relates to the others. This process allows us to identify the most important objectives and, at the same time, possible contradictory objectives or objectives that are more marginal to the core "intervention logic" of the proposed initiative.

A draft version of a hierarchy of objectives for the proposed pilot project is shown overleaf. The core objectives follow an assumed causal chain, whereby: 1 Local elected representatives are supported to take part in trans-national exchange and

mobility activities. 2 These activities facilitate a) the externalisation of tacit knowledge about successful policy

practice and governance and b) exchange of knowledge and information about effective policy, practice and governance relevant to the participating elected representatives1.

3 As a result, direct participants are able a) to broaden their perspectives and b) acquire new knowledge about effective policy, practice and governance relevant to their own work and the policy challenges faced within their own locality.

4 These broadened perspectives and acquired knowledge are expected to lead to improved strategic decision-making at local and regional level. This should lead to the design and implementation of more effective local development policies or, at the very least, help to avoid inappropriate decisions. The crucial role played by local and regional elected representatives in shaping local and regional policy choices is of key importance in ensuring this link between knowledge and policy is made.

5 Such improved policy-making should support economic development, social cohesion and environmental sustainability.

6 This should thus support the EU’s strategic objectives for Cohesion policy, focused on convergence, competitiveness and territorial cohesion.

In addition, almost as a by-product of the activities, the exchange process generates knowledge about the challenges faced by local actors in the EU, which can be of relevance for decision-makers at EU level, charged with designing and implementing EU Cohesion Policy.

1 We assume that effective policy, practice and governance will be most relevant when localities facing similar challenges and with similar institutional competences are brought together.

22

Figure 3.1 Proposed hierarchy of objectives

To improve the knowledge and capacity of local elected representatives in specific

local development and governance topics

To improve strategic decision-making at sub-national / local level in the EU STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

POLICY CONTEXT EU Cohesion Policy Goals

To provide local elected representatives with improved understanding of the range of strategic development & governance

choices available to their locality

To support local elected representatives to externalise and exchange knowledge through trans-national peer learning activities

To improve knowledge of local policy challenges

and effective solutions at EU level

Source: ECORYS Brussels

The hierarchy of objectives assumes a first distinction between “knowledge building” and “knowledge exchange”. “Knowledge building” refers to the identification and presentation (externalisation) of, often tacit, information and knowledge about effective local development practice (including governance). This process usually involves individuals who have been responsible for a policy or governance arrangement reviewing and reflecting on what they have done and the factors that that contributed to the success or otherwise of the initiative. This process of externalisation provides inputs (in terms of stories, presentations, guided visits, input into guidance or advice) for the exchange and learning process. “Knowledge exchange” refers to the process of sharing and transferring the “externalised” knowledge to others. In a system of mutual exchange or peer learning (between a number of localities, for example), all participants would engage in knowledge building (by presenting and reflecting on their own experiences and practice) and knowledge exchange (as they also listen to and discuss the experience of others).

A second distinction is made between a general “broadening of perspectives” and exchange and learning around specific knowledge (about policy, practice or governance). The consultative workshops highlighted a perceived benefit in promoting exchange as a means to demonstrate that different approaches to similar problems can exist and thus “open minds”. This can be viewed as a necessary basis for innovation in policy making.

In considering the causal chain assumed in the hierarchy of objectives, two important challenges are evident, which will need to be addressed in the detailed design (the operational objectives) of any pilot project: • Firstly, what should be the primary source of the policy-relevant knowledge and information to

be identified, externalised and exchanged in the pilot project? Is it sufficient to rely on participating local and regional elected politicians and local governments to generate (externalise) relevant knowledge and policy, practice and governance examples? Or is additional “expert” support and/or examples from localities outside the exchange group required? The concept of “peer learning” implies that the policy and practice discussed and exchanged should come primarily from the direct experience of the participants (the “peers” around the table). However, it is possible that such exchange could be enriched by knowledge and examples from outside the circle of immediate participants: in the form of expert input or practice examples from other locations.

• Secondly, how can the link between a) learning by individual participants and b) improved decision-making at local level be strengthened and supported? The experience of URBACT has shown the importance of creating opportunities for participants in networking and exchange to apply the lessons learnt, in order to increase local impact. However, trying to ensure that participants translate their learning into action through specific follow-up requirements has proved challenging in URBACT1, which is a more complex programme providing far greater levels of financial support than envisaged for the exchange scheme. Very exacting follow-up requirements could also be administratively burdensome (and discourage participation), risk imposing an inappropriate “one size fits all” model across participants and, ultimately, be disproportionate in light of the financial resources on offer.

1 Source: Interviews with representatives of the URBACT programme

23

3.4 Indicators of success: a basis for monitoring and evaluation

Notwithstanding the two key challenges mentioned above, the hierarchy of objectives already allows us to specify intended outputs, results and impacts for the pilot project, as well as indicators that can be used to measure these.

3.4.1 Intended outputs

As mentioned, the final definition of the intended outputs and the corresponding output indicators will depend on the final design of the proposed pilot project. In this respect, outputs would be mainly based on the establishment of the framework for exchange and mutual learning, the involvement of local / regional elected representatives in the exchange initiative, the dissemination of knowledge and the applicability of lessons learnt among other issues.

It is nevertheless possible to specify valid output indicators on the basis that the project will support exchange and mutual learning activities. Outputs and output indicators focus on the processes supported by the project and can be measured objectively in a quantified manner (number of participants, number of local projects supported, number of exchange meetings held, etc).

3.4.2 Intended results and impacts

The nature of the intended results and impacts of the pilot project makes them difficult or impossible to measure in an entirely objective manner. The immediate effects are expected at the level of the individual participants, whose openness to new ideas, knowledge and understanding should be improved. By the end of the exchange initiative, participants are meant to have a wider understanding of the various policy options and solutions available to respond to policy challenges in their localities as well as a good knowledge of the specific policy-relevant actions discussed in the exchange. Moreover, another result emerging from the programme would be the awareness-raising of local policy challenges, mainly at EU level. In the absence of specifically developed tests or exams to assess the level of knowledge acquired, it is most appropriate to measure the intended results through a standard feedback questionnaire (potentially linked to a short report) to be completed by all participants immediately after participation (probably after each separate exchange "session" or visit). This would give an indication of the proportion of elected representatives having increased, for instance, their knowledge of policy options related to their own work. Another reported result could be the increased number of formal and/or informal contacts with relevant people from other cities.

The wider impact of a pilot project would be expected at an institutional level on decision-making and practice in the localities from which the participants come, as they apply the knowledge and capacity they have acquired. Decisions and the whole decision-making process concerning local policy challenges are meant to be improved. This is also difficult to measure. The experience of evaluating URBACT has highlighted the difficulty of identifying examples of learning affecting policy decisions and, in cases where such examples are found, of attributing causality to the exchange and learning activities, rather than other sources of inspiration. Nevertheless, as the proposed pilot project targets political decision-makers, rather than unelected officials as in the case of URBACT,

24

the chances of the knowledge gained having a direct impact on decision-making might be assumed to be greater. Some impact indicators would cover the proportion of elected participants reporting that participation had had a positive influence on their capacity to undertake their daily council work. Another reported impact could also consist of an increased cooperation between the elected representatives and officials within public administration services.

The standard feedback questionnaire would also make possible to assess the perceived usefulness of participating in the exchange initiative, mainly considering its utility and/or impact:

• The overall usefulness of participating in the exchange initiative (Very useful / Not at all useful) • Personal knowledge on the theme/policy sphere (Significant impact / No impact) • City policy making in related fields (Significant impact / No impact) • Relations city-elected representatives with services (Significant impact / No impact) • Informal/Formal contacts with relevant people from other cities (Significant impact / No impact) • Lessons learnt by city/elected representative about good practice through the participation in

the exchange initiative (Yes / No) • Lessons learnt and good practice disseminated beyond the active participants in the project

(Yes / No) In case several or all answers to the above questions are positive, we assume that there will be a considerable chance that decisions and the whole decision-making process concerning local policy challenges will be improved.

Table 3.2 below outlines the intended effects corresponding to the different objectives included in the hierarchy of objectives, along with the definition of indicators that could be used to measure these effects. This table provides the basis for the monitoring and evaluation of a pilot project.

Table 3.2 Intended effects and corresponding indicators Objective Intended output / result / impact Relevant verifiable indicators

Operational objective Outputs (depends on option adopted) Output indicators (depends on option adopted)

1. To support local elected representatives to externalise and exchange knowledge through trans-national peer learning activities

• Framework for exchange and mutual learning is established

• Local exchange partnerships or capacity building courses implemented

• Local / regional elected representatives are involved in exchange and mutual learning

• Exchange and learning meetings / sessions are held

• Knowledge is externalised into oral presentations, stories, written summaries.

• Applicability of lessons and knowledge in local areas is discussed (potentially using practical activities / role-play etc)

• Number of projects established to support mutual learning / exchange

• Number of local projects supported / capacity building courses run

• Number of "localities" and Member States involved

• Total number of elected representatives involved

• Number of exchange meetings / sessions held • Number of elected participants in each meeting • Number of presentations given / written

summaries produced • Number of group discussions, activity sessions,

role-play exercises held or undertaken.

25

Objective Intended output / result / impact Relevant verifiable indicators

Specific objectives Results Result indicators

2. To provide local elected representatives with improved understanding of the range of strategic development & governance choices available to their locality

• "An opening of minds": participating elected representatives have a better understanding of the range of possible policy actions / solutions available to localities such as theirs a feel more able to respond to related policy challenges in their locality.

• Proportion of participating elected representatives responding positively to a question based on the intended result (standard follow-up survey after each session).

• Proportion of participating elected representatives that have increased formal and/or informal contacts with relevant people from other cities

3. To improve the knowledge and capacity of local elected representatives in specific local development and governance topics

• "Increased subject capacity": participating elected representatives have a better understanding of the specific policy-relevant actions discussed in the exchange and peer-learning and consider the knowledge / understanding gained to be relevant to their own work.

• Proportion of participating elected representatives responding positively to a question based on the intended result – both on increased knowledge and relevance to their own work (standard follow-up survey after each session).

4. To improve knowledge of local policy challenges and effective solutions at EU level

• Relevant European Commission Officials / Members of the European Parliament REGI Committee / relevant EU level interest bodies have increased awareness about local policy challenges

• Proportion of relevant individuals in European Commission, European Parliament, EU level interest bodies (consulted in interview or survey) reporting awareness of outcomes of activities supported by exchange and increased awareness of local policy challenges.

Strategic objectives Impacts Impact indicators

5. To improve strategic decision-making at sub-national / local level in the EU

• Decisions and decision-making concerning local policy challenges and governance issues are is "improved" (inherently difficult to measure objectively)

• Proportion of elected participants reporting 4-6 months after participating that participation had had a positive influence on their capacity to undertake their daily council work (qualitative survey requesting examples)

• Proportion of elected participants reporting 4-6 months after participating that the knowledge gained from participation had influenced local policy decisions or the design of local policies (qualitative survey requesting examples)

• Proportion of participating elected representatives reporting the increased knowledge-sharing and cooperation between the elected representatives and officials / public administration services

Source: ECORYS Brussels

3.4.3 Towards quantification: an impact chain

It is assumed that the exchange initiative will have an impact on human behaviour and practices in ways that lead to the achievement of the desired outcomes: improving knowledge and strategic decision-making by elected representatives. Although the below logic is based on a number of

26

hypotheses, it provides an illustration of the orders of magnitute that the project could achieve. Our quantification of the impact expected by the project can be obtained taking into account the following impact criteria:

• The number of localities involved in the exchange initiative: The higher the number of municipalities participating in the exchange initiative, the higher the expected contribution of such localities and their respective local representatives to the overall impact of the programme;

• The average size of investment projects: Looking at the size of typical investment projects, it is assumed that the range between € 2 and € 4 million appears conservative but reasonable for an investment project;1

• Chance that an investment project is to be decided in this locality within 3 years after the finalisation of the exchange programme: We assume that participants in the initiative have a decent understanding of potential investment projects able to take place in their municipality. We have estimated the chance that such a decision comes up within 3 years to be between 25 – 50%

• Average weight of participants influencing the decision-making process: This points to the importance of a careful selection of participants. Although in small municipalities participants could have a higher degree of influence in decision-making, a conservative estimate is that the average weight of participants to influence the decision-making process will be 10%. We considered the programme will reasonably target 2 elected representatives per municipality and one civil servant.

• Average impact on cost-effectiveness / Impact resulting from an improved decision-making process: It is estimated that 'improved decision-making' will be translated into a choice for an investment option which will be 10% better than the baseline decision. A quantification of the impact on the decision-making process is set up at 10%, considered a conservative estimate of the impact on cost-effectiveness.

Table 3.3 Intended effects and corresponding indicators Impact criteria Estimated value

Total number of localities involved in the exchange initiative Depends on option, See Chapter 5

Average size of (EU) investment project

€2 to €4 million

Chance that an investment project is to be decided in this locality within 3 years after the finalisation of the exchange programme

25-50%

Average weight of participants influencing the decision-making process (2 elected participants per municipality)

10%

Average impact on cost-effectiveness / Impact resulting from an improved decision-making process

10%

1 The average size of investment project is backed up by an average size of € 2.8 mln for ERDF-funded urban investment projects; the figure is based on financial data covering 90 urban investment projects in five European case cities collected in the framework of a recent ECORYS study for DG REGIO.

27

28

Impact criteria Estimated value

Proposed impact range Value range

Possible Impact Range per participating municipality €5,000x to 20,000x

The resulting estimated impact value of the pilot project per participating municipality would be in the range from €5,000x to €20,000x, considering x as the number of municipalities involved in the programme. Despite the considerable bandwith of this estimate, its sensitivity would be further enhanced by a deviation in the size of projects and the influence of participating elected officials on the decision-making process.

The above possible Impact Range will be translated into a quantitative figure while exploring the potential options for the pilot project under Chapter 5.

4.0 Design factors for effectiveness and feasibility

4.1 Introduction

We have established, on the basis of original specifications for the scheme (Section 1.1.1) and the analysis in the preceding chapters, that the proposed pilot project should provide a framework for elected representatives from sub-national government in the EU to participate in peer-learning and exchange activities with their counterparts from other Member States, focused on policy challenges relevant to them. As noted, these peer-learning and exchange activities should facilitate the externalisation of tacit knowledge and critical reflection on current policy, practice and governance and allow the participants acquire new knowledge and ideas. This should, in turn, have a positive effect on the capacity of the individual participants to respond to the policy challenges in their home localities and, ultimately, have a positive influence on decision-making at local and regional government level in Europe.

The key question remains how the exchange and peer-learning should be organised in order a) to maximise its chance of effectiveness and b) be practically feasible within the EU administrative and institutional framework. The implementation of a pilot project can be viewed as a process, involving design choices at each stage. The most important questions relating to effectiveness and practical feasibility can be summarised as follows: 1 Who should participate in the exchange and peer-learning activities? 2 How should the initiative be marketed in order to raise awareness of its objectives and attract

interested participants from a wide range of localities? 3 Given the focus on peer-learning, how should groups of “peers” be identified, selected and

matched? 4 Within the broad field of “relevant policy challenges”, what should be the subject focus on the

peer-learning and exchange? 5 In practical terms, how should peer-learning and exchange be organised and what

methodologies or activities should be deployed to achieve the desired results? 6 What should be the overall length of involvement for participants in the peer-learning and

exchange scheme and how long should individual meetings or visits last? 7 How can the issue of multi-lingualism in exchange groups best be addressed? 8 To what extent should the costs of participating incurred individual participants (travel,

accommodation) be funded by the programme? 9 How can the application procedure, financial transfers and reporting requirements be

designed to balance requirements for transparency and sound financial management with an accessible, user-friendly approach?

10 How should monitoring and evaluation be organised in the scope of the pilot project?

In the first part of this chapter (Section 4.2), we review each of these ten questions in turn, taking into account views expressed in the stakeholder consultation as an input to our own analysis of the issues at stake. In the second part of the chapter (Section 4.3), we present the findings of an

29

analysis of comparable pilot projects or mutual learning initiatives supported by other Commission Services in the recent past. These examples provide potential lessons for the practical implementation of such initiatives in the European Commission operating framework.

4.2 Key factors for the effectiveness and practical feasibility of a pilot project

4.2.1 Target audience

The first question raised for the detailed design of a pilot project concerns a) the type of local / regional government unit and b) the type of individual that should be eligible to participate in exchange. Elected representatives exist at three main levels of sub-national government in the EU: a) at the local or municipal level; b) at the province, county or département level (the intermediate level) and c) at the regional level. In addition, metropolitan authorities (such as the French Communautés urbaines) exist in some Member States, although these generally bring together elected representatives from "lower" units of self-government.

The competences of these different government levels vary considerably between EU Member States1, while, as shown in Table 4.1 overleaf, not all levels of sub-national government have elected representatives in all Member States. Given the diversity in local government competences within the EU, there appears to be no strong justification for excluding particular units of local government a priori. Moreover, the participants in the consultative workshops overwhelmingly argued for a flexible approach to defining eligible sub-national governance units.

In line with the initial assumptions of the research team and findings of stakeholder interviews, elected representatives participating in the workshops argued that cooperating / exchanging localities should share similar characteristics (such as size, general policy competences, economic conditions and policy challenges). In reality, for an initiative focused on policy learning, competence to act in a particular policy area, rather than the position in the national local government structure, is probably the most important criteria in matching localities. Thus, for example, it would conceivably be appropriate for a Polish regional councillor (sejmik member) to discuss issues related to strategic planning with an English county councillor and a French municipal councillor who sits on the assembly of the Communauté urbaine of which his/her municipality is a part.

Participants in some workshops2 argued that a “large city bias” already exists within European cooperation activities, with large cities viewed as “over-represented” in existing projects and networks. This situation is likely to reflect the greater organisational capacity of larger cities to take part in trans-national projects, as well as the focus of some existing programmes, such as URBACT, on cities. Stakeholders in some workshops also argued for excluding representatives from regional governments in Germany, Belgium and even Spain, given the lack of units of sub-national government with similarly wide-ranging powers ("peers" for peer learning) elsewhere in

1 On this, see the first State of European Cities report, Chapter 5 2 See, for example, the Warsaw workshop

30

Europe. However, given the competences of these government units and their important role in local development, it would be difficult in practice to justify excluding them from an EU exchange scheme.

Table 4.1 Sub-national units of government with elected representatives in the EU

MS Directly elected representatives at

LOCAL level?

Directly elected representatives at

INTERMEDIATE level?

Directly elected representatives at REGIONAL level?

"Sub-regional" units with elected representatives

AT YES NO Länder Municipalities, Statutory Cities

BE YES YES Regions Municipalities; Provinces

BU YES NO NO Municipalities

CY YES NO NO Municipalities

CZ YES YES NO Municipalities, Kraje

DE YES YES Länder Municipalities, Kreisfreie Städte, Landkreise

DK YES YES See left. Municipalities, Regioner (replaced Counties)

EE YES NO NO Municipalities

EL YES NO NO Municipalities and communities

ES YES NO Auton Communities Municipalities (Provinces not directly elected)

FI YES NO NO Municipalities

FR YES YES Regions Municipalities, Départements

HU YES NO NO Municipalities, Cities

IE YES YES NO Cities and Towns, Counties

IT YES YES Regions Municipalities, Provinces

LT YES NO NO Municipalities

LU YES NO NO Municipalities

LV YES NO NO Cities and municipalities

MT YES NO NO Local councils

NL YES YES NO Municipalities, Provinces

PL YES YES Voivodeships Municipalities, Powiats

PT YES NO NO Municipalities

RO YES YES NO Municipalities, Counties

SE YES YES NO Municipalities, Counties

SI YES NO NO Municipalities

SK YES YES NO Municipalities, Kraje

UK YES YES Only Scotland, Wales & N. Ireland

Unitary Authorities, Counties, Districts, Greater London Authority (GLA)

31

Another issue raised was whether units of government below a certain size threshold should be explicitly excluded, given their limited internal capacity, their overall number in certain countries and the potentially limited impact of policy learning in small government units. Again, however, there is no rational logic to such an exclusion that would be easy to justify from a political perspective, notably as smaller communities may be particularly in need of capacity building. Participants in some stakeholder workshops suggested that groups of small communities could participate in exchange, potentially with support for regional or national local government associations.

At the level of individuals, the most important target group for the pilot project is specified by the European Parliament Resolution as directly elected members1 of sub-national governments in EU Member States. Participants in the consultative workshops supported this focus on elected representatives, although none of the workshops reached the conclusion that other groups of relevant actors (local authority staff, experts etc) should be excluded from participating in exchange and learning activities. Indeed, there was a strong view among workshop attendees that the involvement of officers from local administrations would be valuable and that some external expert support would be required to structure, moderate and facilitate the exchange and learning activities.

The consultative workshops also discussed the different “types” of elected representative that could or should participate in the initiative. There was a consensus view in the workshops that all directly elected members should be entitled to take part in the exchange programme, regardless of their level of responsibility and their political party. However, participants in several workshops argued that it made most sense to focus on those with specific expertise or those with a particular need to build on their personal capacities (mainly young elected politicians). The exchange was also generally seen as a cross-party initiative that should try to involve elected politicians from all political backgrounds.

In relation to this question, the other stakeholders consulted for the study generally considered that mayors and their equivalents in regions are least likely to have time to participate in exchange activities which examine issues in some detail (study visits, as opposed to political exchanges). Equally, this group may be expected to include highly experienced representatives, least in need of capacity development. It was thus considered to be better to focus the initiative on less experienced but promising member of councils, who may also have more time available. The term "mayors of the future" has been deployed in this respect2. In practice, although guidelines can be given regarding the profile of elected participants, it would probably be unwise to specify a restrictive, "one-size fits all" definition for eligibility, not least because this could be viewed as discriminatory.

1 In some countries, certain positions in local government (such as Aldermen (Wethouders) in the Netherlands) can be occupied by non-elected individuals. 2 This was a suggestion by Eurocities

32

4.2.2 Marketing and raising awareness of the initiative

If an "inclusive" approach is taken to participation in a pilot project, leaving participation open to elected representatives from across Europe, efforts would need to be made in order to publicise the project to ensure that local authorities have an equal chance of participating and to ensure sufficient demand for taking part. Although these priorities were specifically mentioned in several stakeholder workshops, a distinction needs to be made between the proposed pilot project and the potential future mainstreamed programme. While reaching a wide audience and achieving high levels of participation are appropriate objectives for a possible future programme, the primary focus of the pilot project is to test the viability of exchange and mutual learning activities targeted at local and regional elected representatives. As such, large-scale participation is not the main objective of the pilot project. Indeed, the potential target audience could easily amount to 1 mln. local elected officials in the whole of the EU. 1 A narrower focus – say on cities – would therefore be necessary and could certainly be imagined in the context of a philot phase. However, such a resection would be hard However, such a restriction would be hard to justify in future, mainstreamed Cohesion Policy activities, given the important role in local development played by other types of local and regional authority. This in turn means that wide-ranging publicity and awareness-raising is far less crucial for the pilot project than for a potential future programme.

As we go on to discuss, the pilot project could conceivably be implemented using a two-stage or a one-stage selection process. The former scenario would, as a first step, involve the European Commission launching a Call for Proposals to select a consortium or consortia of organisations able to set up a framework for supporting exchange between elected representatives and coordinate implementation. As a second step, the selected consortia would market the initiative to attract applications for local exchange projects prepared by groups of local authorities and their elected representatives from different Member States. This two-stage selection process would require a two-stage approach to marketing and awareness-raising, firstly to attract consortia to respond to the Call for Proposals by the Commission and secondly to attract expressions of interest and project proposals from the local and regional level. The second option is to require those responding to the initial Commission Call for Proposals to include the participating local and regional government units in their proposal. While this would almost certainly be unfeasible if the pilot project were implemented as a single integrated project, as we go on to argue later in this report, it could be imagined in the scope of a series of smaller scale projects.

In order to publicise the Commission’s intention to launch a pilot project, it will be important to give potential applicants "pre-information" about the timing and content of the Call, potentially via a press release or as part of a DG REGIO newsletter or web-based announcement. As discussed in Section 2.3.3, the most likely applicants are expected to be (consortia of) EU and national or

1 An estimate about the number of local elected representatives in France alone, which counts the biggest number of elected representatives (497,200) gives an indication of the potential size of the target group for the whole EU 27 even if some countries like UK have a smaller number of elected representatives.

33

regional local government associations and networks, potentially working with training providers or experts in this field.

If a two-stage selection process were adopted, some form of general marketing and awareness-raising would be required as part of the start-up phase for implementation of the project or projects in order to reach the local and regional level. In other words, the local and regional level needs to be informed, firstly, that the implementing consortium or consortia are running the pilot project and will be seeking applications to participate (for local exchange projects) and, secondly about the timing and requirements of this application process. An accessible, online database in multiple languages for registering interest could be a helpful way to record general "expressions of interest", which can subsequently be used to identify potential individual participants or support the formation of local projects. The first purpose of such a database would be to identify a community of interested candidates. As we discuss in Chapter 5, in the scenario of a two-stage selection process, there could be a case for supporting the provision of this online registration facility as a distinct project, to be delivered and put in place in the early stages of the pilot project.

Irrespective of whether a one or two-stage selection process is adopted, it is important to highlight that representatives of the Committee of the Regions and national and EU-level local government associations and networks have expressed interest in promoting an exchange scheme through their own communication channels. These offers of support (which would be free of cost) should certainly be exploited in advance of the launch of the Call for Proposals (to help raise awareness) and during implementation of the pilot project, if appropriate. In order to ensure a transparent process, the existence of the pilot project as a experimental, innovative exercise should be publicised during implementation, as should the results of the evaluation.

The question of the name to apply to the pilot project is raised in the Terms of Reference. The main finding of the stakeholder consultation at EU level was that the name "ERASMUS" was not necessarily appropriate for the scheme proposed. ERASMUS is the European exchange scheme for university students, involving students from a university in one Member State spending time at a "host" university in another Member State. The model is based on a clear hierarchy between the hosting institution and the individual students and involves a prolonged period of mobility (at least one semester). As such, it differs in two main ways from the proposed pilot project. Moreover, the widespread association between the ERASMUS programme and "partying" in the popular imagination mean that the ERASMUS brand is probably not appropriate for the pilot project.

The brand or name of the pilot project was not considered to be of primary importance in the stakeholder consultation. If the pilot project is coordinated by an implementing consortium or consortia, a proposed name and branding can be requested as part of the application procedure.

4.2.3 Selection and matching: a preference for bottom-up expressions of interest

By definition, "peer-learning" needs to take place among a group of “peers” – in other words participants who a) share similar characteristics and b) are able to discuss and learn on an equal basis with the other members of the group. An important question for the design of the pilot project

34

is how individuals (and the local governments to which they are attached) should be selected and "matched". From the outset, it has been argued that mutual learning stands most chance of success if the participants share common characteristics, notably in terms of: • The competences of the governance unit they serve (municipalities, large cities, counties,

regions with elected councils in different Member States share some competences, but as mentioned above, the pattern of responsibilities is not consistent across the EU).

• The characteristics of and types of policy challenge faced in the localities they serve (for example, largely rural areas, urbanised former industrial areas, large dynamic cities, cities experiencing demographic decline etc).

• Their personal level of experience and position in the elected council on which they serve (for example, mayors, cabinet / college members and committee chairs, committee members, long-standing members of councils, recently-elected members etc).

For exchange to be effective (in other words for knowledge and capacity gained through exchange to be applicable and relevant in "home" localities), it can reasonably be assumed that the exchange partners should come from governance units with broadly similar competences (at least in the thematic areas covered by the exchange) and that the localities they serve should share some common characteristics and face similar policy challenges. As it is frequently difficult to balance different criteria, it seems that "local government competences" are the most important criterion and should take precedence. A central question in exchange is: "how did locality or region X use its powers to achieve Y?" Even if two territories face similar problems, it is important for the local or regional authorities with competence to address those problems meet to discuss policy responses. This could mean, for example, that regional elected representatives (rather than local elected representatives) from one locality meet municipal elected representatives from another locality, if the division of competences in the respective national administrative frameworks makes this sensible.

In light of these considerations, two main models for matching localities / individuals emerged in the early phases of the feasibility study. Firstly, a "bottom-up" approach, where groups of local authorities (represented by elected members) form a trans-national partnership for exchange and peer-learning on the basis their own contacts or suggested "partners"1 and then apply for funding to implement activities to the implementing consortium or consortia. Alternatively, a more "top-down" approach could be envisaged, whereby individual elected representatives apply to a central coordination body or project management and are then selected on an individual basis and assigned to peer-learning groups with other selected applicants.

Both scenarios imply some form of centralised coordination and competitive selection of participants. The differences lie in whether the selection is made a the level of pre-formed “exchange projects” for which project applicants have already selected individual participants, or at the level of individuals, whereby the implementing consortium or consortia select groups on the basis of established criteria and the interests of participants. The first, “project-based” alternative is the more standard operational approach for EU cooperative projects,

1 Potentially found from the online database of "interested parties" mentioned earlier.

35

whether in regional development (URBACT, INTERREG), training (eg Leonardo da Vinci, Grundtvig) or research (FP7). The second approach is more like a form of selective training and capacity building programme.

The consultative workshops highlighted a strong preference among the target group of elected representatives for some form of "bottom-up" approach to formation of exchange groups and fixing themes for exchange. In such a "bottom-up" model, it was widely argued that support will be required from a coordination level for identifying relevant partners in other Member States (a form of partner search facility, akin to those used in other EU programmes). Participants predominantly expressed a desire for flexibility in choosing partners for exchange, while recognising the value of bringing together representatives of comparable localities (in terms of both governance and policy challenges). Table 4.2 summarises the key messages from individual workshops on the matching criteria and the way the process could be organised:

Table 4.2 Workshop findings on "matching" partners for exchange

Criteria for matching Organisation of matching

NL Comparability in theme and size of the participating cities/regions

DK Similar challenges and problems faced – but leave room for diversity

There is a need for match-making – a database of some sort. But the participants should not just be appointed. Making it too top-down would also kill the possibilities of success. There has to be a strong will to take on such a project – a will that comes bottom-up

FR Participants must be given considerable freedom to select exchange partners and built partnerships.

Central authority should facilitate the matching process and suggest suitable exchange partners

PL Matching criteria should take into account the subject the applicants are interested in, the characteristics of the localities they represent and the administrative level.

Partners should be matched in a centralised way. Bottom-up partnership approaches as an additional option

IT Localities with similar characteristics and problems, including territorial characterisation (mountainous vs. coastal), population (big vs. small cities), topic of interest.

The elected representatives themselves, not a central organisation, would operate the matching by choosing as partners the localities they consider the most appropriate ones.

DE Applicants would be matched on the basis of similar challenges faced and similar administrative structures and competences.

Central entity will be required to guide the application and match-making process and to select participants. Participants need to be assisted in finding suitable exchange partners.

HU In a first step a thematic issue is determined – after an application procedure a multilateral group (or database) is formed where potential partners can present themselves – after that bi- or trilateral groups are formed and more interactive, site-based exchange takes place

Based on the system described in the left column, a centrally organised selection process is preferred for the first step, which also provides some assistance when the actual exchange groups are forming.

ES Process based on two phases: 1) Drawing up shortlist of candidates to be matched, based on an expression of their thematic interests 2) Once applicants on the shortlist identify common interests and get in touch they can submit a joint

Central organisation has the role of 1) grouping applicants in shortlist 2) evaluate and select successful proposals 3) follow-up and development of the programme

36

Criteria for matching Organisation of matching

project proposal, with a detailed work plan.

UK Important to match local politicians participating to the exchange according to their competences. Unclear whether this is best addressed by matching by scale, as some examples of best practice can be universal. Bottom-line is that matching can be flexible.

The usefulness of a central matching authority was subject to debate.

Source: Consultative workshop findings

If a model based on local exchange projects were pursued, the size and format of these projects becomes relevant. Stakeholders consulted for this study tended not to have firm opinions on this subject. Nevertheless, for mutual learning, that goes beyond simple twinning, and ensures a range of experience, it appears reasonable to include three to four localities in an exchange partnership, with exchange meetings held in these localities over a period of six to eight months. Given a preference from several workshops for a "cross-party" approach and also with a view to maximising the chances of local impact, it appears sensible to involve more than one individual from each locality. As such, one could imagine small "delegations" of three participants from different localities, perhaps with two elected members and an officer from the administration. In any case, such a composition provides a theoretically interested constellation, which could be given as an example. In practice, some degree of flexibility will be required.

4.2.4 Topics for exchange: local policy challenges related to the EU agenda

The “content” of the exchange and peer-learning activities proposed within the context of the pilot project encompasses two main aspects: a) the subject focus (topic) of the exchange and b) the way the exchange and peer-learning is organised (the methodologies and activities involved). In this section we review the evidence collected in relation to the first of these issues.

From the outset, it was assumed that the topic or question to be addressed in individual exchange activities should be specific and "concrete" enough to allow specific practical lessons to be learnt and for the results of exchange to be of practical relevance in "home" localities. At the same time, given the target audience, it was assumed that topics should be general enough to attract participants and for participants to follow (thus that subjects should not be excessively "technical"). In principle, topics could focus on specific policy challenges in a particular thematic area (for example "redeveloping former industrial sites" or "municipal waste management") or on a more general theme related to "governance", such a local partnerships or cooperation between city and regional authorities. As the proposed pilot project would be an EU initiative, it was naturally assumed that policy topics related to EU Cohesion Policy goals could be prioritised. Indeed, this would be necessary to ensure the coherence of the hierarchy of objectives presented earlier.

The consultative workshop discussions all supported a rather open approach to topic selection. Participants argued in favour of a scheme in which they are free to propose and choose the most relevant topics for them. An overview of the themes highlighted as particularly relevant by the workshop participants is provided in the following table.

37

Table 4.3 Themes considered relevant for exchange by workshop participants

Themes

NL Exchange should be in any case thematic (e.g. EU regulation or peri-urban landscapes) and focused (e.g. young politicians dealing with immigrant workers in NL or integration of Roma in Eastern Europe)

DK Climate/environment, integration of minorities, transport/infrastructure, municipal reform, good governance, inclusion of citizens, children and youths in decision making, dealing with demographic change, high-speed trains, the economic crisis

FR Urban mobility and governance, making better use of the Structural Funds Integrated urban regeneration, participatory democracy, energy, environment, coastal protection, protection and management of cultural heritage

PL Social assistance, energy and environment, education, support to local entrepreneurship and innovation, public service management, change management and strategic planning, ICT tools in public administration, spatial planning, citizen consultation and participation

IT Waste water treatment, solid waste collection and treatment, renewable energy sources, sustainable urban mobility, social policies for elderly people, families, children, migrants

DE Public services, demographic change, local tourism promotion and marketing, adaptation to climate change and climate protection, innovative financing tools

HU EU and general fundraising, political ethics and techniques, project execution, social services, partnership and community building, stakeholder communication and feedback mechanisms, ability to enforce municipal interests at regional level

ES General concepts of governance and public management, citizen and stakeholder involvement

UK Local development strategies, regeneration, crime reduction, sustainable energy, migration and human trafficking, vocational training

Source: Consultative workshop findings

In designing the pilot project, it is thus necessary to balance a desire on the ground for exchange to cover a wide range of topics and a requirement from a project design perspective to focus on themes relevant to EU policy. Taking into account the findings from the stakeholder consultation, recent EU policy documents in the field of cohesion policy1 and the new EU 2020 Strategy, the following two areas could provide a promising thematic focus for projects: 1 Local and regional approaches to energy production and climate change. This is a

common problem and "hot topic" mentioned in the stakeholder consultation, an area of EU policy competence and a field prioritised with in EU 20202. It is also addressed in the Covenant of Mayors (see below), raising the possibility of synergies. Possible sub-themes, focusing on climate change mitigation, could be:

• Energy efficiency in buildings and local service provision and • Sustainable local energy sources, including micro-renewables and energy from waste.

2 Practical approaches to development project design and "governance". This would focus on practical examples of how to address two main "good practice" features of development

1 See, for example, COM (2008) 616 final Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion: Turning territorial diversity into strength, Brussels, 6.10.2008 and European Commission (2009) Territorial cohesion: unleashing the territorial potential: Background Document to the Conference on Cohesion Policy and Territorial Development: Make Use of the Territorial Potential! 10-11 December 2009, Kiruna, Sweden 2 A flagship initiative will be "resource efficient Europe"

38

projects which are promoted by the EU and others but are often difficult to implement in practical terms • Partnership for strategic planning – examples of how to bring together partners from

different governance levels and different sectoral departments to develop common strategies. This remains particularly relevant in the new Member States.

• Cross-sectoral integration in development or regeneration projects – how to implement the "integrated approach" in practical terms.

4.2.5 Activities and methodology: peer learning rather than top-down instruction?

The way exchange and peer-learning activities are organised will determine their potential effectiveness. As already discussed in the section on the intervention logic and hierarchy of objectives for the pilot project, a process of peer learning and exchange is likely to involve two main processes1: 1 An initial "externalisation" of experience and ideas, in which participants in exchange present

their experience to others. This could involve site visits, presentations or other techniques that serve to communicate knowledge and ideas to others in the exchange group;

2 A process of absorbing or "internalisation" of the knowledge by the other participants in the exchange group. Experience from URBACT and other learning exercises shows that "action learning", in which learners participate in directly relevant activities, rather than listen passively to presentations, can be an effective way to increase the benefit of exchange activities for participants. Such activities could include exercises in which participants are asked, alone or in groups, to apply principles or learning points obtained from the experience of one participating locality to the situation in their own locality (perhaps formulating a "policy response" on a specific issue), which can then be presented to and discussed with others in the exchange group.

While the principle of peer-learning implies learning and exchange between equals, rather than an explicit teacher–learner relationship, it is clear that an activity-based exchange and learning process would need careful moderation and facilitation. In addition, while the "externalisation" of participants’ own experience and knowledge can generate learning points and ideas for others in a learning group, it is likely that some additional expert input, perhaps drawing on the experience of other localities, will be beneficial. The facilitation and expert role could be fulfilled by a single person, supporting the exchange process. This "expert" role has worked quite effectively within URBACT projects, but is dependent on the availability of a suitably qualified expert. Multi-lingual experts (for example, speaking the two common languages of a particular group) can also play a valuable role in addressing the language issues inherent in trans-national exchange (see below).

Participants in the stakeholder workshops argued in their majority for an approach based on reciprocity and mutual learning. This was seen as more efficient and appealing to potential participants and as a factor that would encourage participation. Although stakeholders generally

1 On this, the experience of the URBACT project MILE provides a helpful reference.

39

did not have a clear view on how exchange visits and meetings should be organised in detail, there was widespread agreement that some form of expert support would be beneficial. Moreover, there was support for a preparatory phase before meetings and follow-up afterwards, potentially exploiting the internet as a means to keep in touch and facilitate preparation and follow-up.

Concerning the location of visits and meetings – the "mobility" aspect of the pilot project – two main models would appear to exist. Firstly, a model in which visits and meetings take place in the home localities of the participants in the exchange group and, secondly, a model with meetings taking place in a third locality, independent of the participants' home locations. The former approach is most consistent with peer-learning, while the latter could be used in a more top-down model, where participants are brought together in a form of capacity building programme. The latter approach could allow groups to be taken to the locations of established examples of "good practice" – for example, locations where particularly innovative local energy policies have been implemented. Within the stakeholder workshops, there was a majority preference for reciprocal visits to partner localities within a cooperation partnership. This option is, however, potentially more complex to implement and would require a extended period of time to allow, for example, four partners to visit each other and hold exchange meetings.

When asked how the quality of the exchange and learning process can best be ensured and how lasting impacts can be created, the workshop participants argued that this would mainly be dependent on the motivation level and commitment of individual participants. Good preparation and follow-up at the local level were also viewed as important factors.

In practice, it appears feasible to rely on good selection of projects and participants and the involvement of committed individuals and qualified experts / moderators to generate exchange activities of a high quality. Achieving lasting impacts, as already discussed, is difficult to ensure, given the intangible nature of the expected results and impacts of the pilot project. As a minimum, participants can be asked to prepare a short report on the main lessons they believe they have learned from exchange and how this is relevant (or not) to their locality. Participants could also be required to present the findings of the visit to a relevant committee or part of the council to which they belong.

Beyond this, it would appear to be difficult and disproportional to require concrete policy actions (along the lines of the Local Action Plans used in URBACT) at local level in the context of a small-scale, stand-alone pilot project. Effects on policy and practice (institutional impacts) would have to be assessed through evaluation some time after the main pilot project activities have ended. In addition, it could be hoped that the contacts established through the exchange are continued into the future after the pilot project. This could be facilitated by online groups, which could potentially exploit mainstream social networking sites (which provide a ready-made online forum). Participants should be assumed and expected to be IT literate, as local governments in many EU countries rely on electronic communication for much of their day-to-day work.

40

4.2.6 Time and timing

Closely related to the question of activities, preparation and follow-up is the overall time for which participants would be expected to be involved in a given exchange initiative or project and the duration of individual meetings or visits. The initial assumption by the research team that a longer-term involvement in exchange (through preparation and follow-up and, potentially, multiple meetings and visits) was overwhelmingly supported by the stakeholder consultation. Involvement of up to one year was considered reasonable by many participants. Where the subject was discussed in detail, many workshops participants considered that it would be feasible to organise exchange meetings every two or four months, but that individual meetings or visits should not last more than two to three days each. However, as already highlighted, a majority of participants also stressed that elected representatives tend to have limited time for additional activities on top of their council duties and employment. It is not possible to fully resolve these rather contradictory messages: the real level of commitment and availability of elected representatives would need to be tested as part of the proposed pilot project.

Within the scope of a pilot project with a total duration of 15 months, the key challenge is to support projects which last long enough to enable sustained and in-depth exchange and allow for multiple visits, while leaving sufficient time for a) preparation and b) follow-up and evaluation. In particular, it will be difficult to expect the impacts of the exchange activities to have been fully felt by the end of the 15-month pilot project. This means that the decision on future mainstreaming is likely to have to be based on an assessment of likely impacts, rather than necessarily on impacts empirically observed on the ground.

4.2.7 Managing multi-lingualism: a specific challenge

The prospect of organising exchange activities between local elected representatives from different EU Member States naturally raises the question of language. Given that elected representatives will not necessarily be competent in relevant foreign languages, it is clear that some allowance must be made for this in the design of the pilot project. On the other hand, as noted in 2.3.2, it is clear that the use of multiple languages and complex interpretation arrangements can hinder direct exchange and make meeting and visits unworkable.

The consultations highlighted that there is no simple solution to this challenge. Of course, some Member States and regions share the same language or a mutually comprehensible language (Germany and Austria, Wallonia, Luxembourg and France, Sweden and Denmark). In other cases, knowledge of a second language in the overall population of a Member State is very high, certainly among more educated sections of society (English in the Netherlands and Nordic Countries, French and English in Flanders or Spanish in Portugal). In a third set of cases, similarities between languages allow some degree of mutual comprehensibility, even if considerable differences do exist (the case with some Slavic languages, such as Polish, Czech and Slovak). In other cases, recourse to a combination of "passive understanding" and interpretation will be required.

41

Even if simultaneous or, less formal, consecutive interpretation undoubtedly slows discussion, experience from trans-national projects and twinning exercises shows that interpretation can be feasible in groups of two languages, particularly if participants have passive knowledge of the second language in question. For site visits and discussions of the type proposed, consecutive interpretation (where an individual interprets the key points after the speaker has explained them in the first language) is likely to be the only option, as simultaneous translation (with interpreters in booths) is costly, impractical and, in most of Europe, not widely available. More complex interpretation arrangements, involving more than two languages, would almost certainly be unfeasible. Applicants intending to implement individual local exchange projects would need to explain how they would manage the language issue as part of the application process for a pilot project. In the context of larger, more structured projects, the same activities could conceivably be organised in parallel (or consecutively) in different languages.

4.2.8 Reimbursement of participants

The study started from the assumption that it will be necessary to provide some financial support to elected representatives participating in exchange activities. This view was confirmed by the stakeholder consultation, although the target group in question clearly has an interest in recommending financial support. It is, however, clear that travel and subsistence will cost money and that a lack of financial resources at an individual level or at the level of local authorities should not be a primary factor in determining whether individuals take part in exchange. Moreover, given the disparities in wealth between Western and Eastern European countries, it would be difficult not to provide some support. At the same time on the grounds of equality, it would be difficult to justify reimbursing participants from some Member States, but not others.

In order to maintain a comparative level of simplicity in the design of the pilot project, it seems most sensible to deploy a set of standard flat rates for travel and subsistence costs, based on standard Commission rules. These establish maximum flat rates for one night's hotel accommodation, a daily subsistence allowance (DSA) and rates for travel based on kilometres travelled. These rates can be cut slightly in order to reduce the incentive of participating for financial reasons, but the rates are not considered excessive and provide an established framework. Costs incurred on top of the standard flat rates could be excluded, thus meaning other costs would have to be borne by the participant or their locality. If a system of local projects is used, the additional costs associated with organising visits and meetings would be borne by the host locality, even if a flat rate allowance could be made to cover fees for a facilitator / expert and interpretation.

4.2.9 Application and implementation: balancing accountability and administrative burden

Two key messages emerging from the stakeholder consultation and discussions with the European Commission have been a) that administrative burden of participating in the pilot project (for elected representatives and localities) should be limited and b) the administrative burden on the European Commission services of implementing the pilot project should also be minimised, given limits on the human resources available. At the same time, as with any use of Community Funds, the

42

necessary safeguards will need to be put in place to ensure that the pilot project is implemented in line with the principles of Sound Financial Management.

In relation to the first point, it is clear that the application process for elected representatives (either individually or for local exchange projects) should be as clear and simple as possible. At the same time, the application process should require applicants to provide clear explanations of how they meet the different criteria for participation. For all types of project, these criteria would include the relevance of participants' background and interests, their explanation for why they wish to take part in exchange, the position of participants within the elected body to which they belong and the needs and priorities of the locality from which they come. For applications for local exchange projects, criteria would also include the relevance of the exchange topics and the coherence of activities proposed.

Through "outsourcing" the implementation of the pilot project, the European Commission would reduce the direct administrative burden of implementation. It would still, however, need to launch and run a Call for Proposals or Call for Tender (the latter is more likely, as we discuss in Section 4.3), select the implementing consortium or consortia and oversee implementation, reporting and financial transfers to the direct project beneficiaries (the implementing consortium and consortia).

The launch of a Call for Proposals and the selection process will take most time. Although material for the substantive content of a possible Call for Proposals and input for an application form for applicant consortia are provided in annex to this report, the final decisions on financing and financial and reporting requirements will need to be developed within the Commission in consultation with the relevant financial department. Once up and running, the pilot project will need some degree of day-to-day monitoring and involvement in finalisation of selection criteria and decisions. The pattern of this work is likely to be uneven over time, but is likely to require the full-time attention of one member of staff during certain key periods and will require at least three or four colleagues to be involved in the selection committee for the implementing consortium / consortia.

4.2.10 Monitoring and evaluating: measuring results and impact

The basis for a monitoring and evaluation system for the pilot project has already been provided in Section 3.4. The implementation of the monitoring system will require all participants (ie both the implementing consortia and the individual participants in exchange projects in a two-tier structure) to report on progress, outputs and results. The reporting would be coordinated by the implementing consortia for the pilot project (or projects).

Given the comparatively short time available for implementing the pilot project and the potential for the evaluation results to inform the detailed programming of future EU territorial cooperation actions, it would be advisable to launch the evaluation as a parallel exercise, in parallel with the start of the pilot project (ongoing evaluation). This would mean that the contractor for the evaluation would be able to advise the Commission and the projects on the data requirements for the monitoring process and ensure that the most relevant monitoring data is collected from the start of the project. This will make the evaluation exercise at the end of the

43

project comparatively quick (as the evaluator is familiar with the process and guaranteed data inputs).

As previously mentioned, ideally monitoring and evaluation for all options will run throughout the life of the exchange programme1. Information gathering would at least take place at the beginning and the end of participants' involvement. Already at the proposal stage, a requirement for potential participants would encourage them to articulate their expectations and state the learning objectives they want to achieve before engaging in the project. Moreover, they would also be asked to indicate how they are planning to use this learning experience and the related dissemination. Other relevant data could be provided at the moment of application to create a database of participants (e.g. contact details, views on the European Union, planned communication activities to disseminate the initiative and/or lessons learnt among public officials/citizens after the end of the exchange initiative, etc.).

Following the finalisation of the projects, participants would complete a standard feedback questionnaire and a 'Report of Activities' template, giving a brief indication of activities undertaken, results achieved and overall assessment of the project and the exchange initiative as a whole. Moreover, feedback of the programme would be obtained at both institutional and participants level, including data review and data collection through targeted surveys and interviews. Such gathering of information would allow an in-depth review and analysis of the results achieved based on the objectives set out in the application phase by the participants. Findings would also examine the relevance, efficiency and quality of the exchange initiative.

It is also recommended that the evaluation process continues with a follow-up evaluation exercise (for instance, a brief questionnaire sent to participants) one year after the finalisation of the exchange as well as three years after the conclusion of their participation in the initiative. This will mainly serve to explore and assess the impacts and effectiveness of the programme (how participants see the impact of the initiative in their day-to-day work, what were the lessons learnt, etc.).

4.3 Experience from comparable initiatives

Information about the structures and implementation mechanisms used for relevant previous EU initiatives provide a useful input for this study, as they illustrate implementation mechanisms which are feasible within the European Commission's legal and administrative framework and which have already been tested in practice.

The following aspects of the proposed pilot project are relevant in selecting comparable initiatives: • The inherently experimental nature of the pilot project; • The comparatively limited total budget available (€1.5 to €1.9 million); • The fact that implementation needs to be "outsourced" from the European Commission;

1 This may imply a facilitator/evaluator being involved from the beginning of the programme.

44

• The fact that the pilot project will initially be a "one-off", stand-alone project (perhaps a basis for future actions within the Structural Funds), not integrated within existing EU programmes or wider funding schemes.

• The focus is on networking, learning and exchange of knowledge and practice.

The initially ad hoc nature of the pilot project and the limited resources available make it difficult to make meaningful comparisons with existing and much larger programmes, such as URBACT1 (which is implemented with the framework of the Structural Funds regulations) or the Town Twinning actions2 within the Europe for Citizens programme (implemented by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency - EACEA).

Previous EU pilot projects or networking and support projects have generally been implemented through the competitive award of a grant (call for proposals) or contract (call for tenders) to one or more external organisations or consortia. In the following sections, we briefly present three previous initiatives which appeared to be of relevance and in each case assess the relevance of the implementation model used for the proposed pilot project. The initiatives are: • The Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs Pilot Project (DG ENTR) – this very comparable

initiative was also a pilot project supporting mobility on an EU scale and involved was implemented through a call for proposals for multiple projects.

• PROGRESS projects for exchange of good practices (DG EMPL) – an example of a call for proposals implemented in the scope of the PROGRESS programme to support projects for dissemination and mutual learning in the field of employment policies, involving actors at national, regional and local level.

• Support Services for the Covenant of Mayors (DG TREN) – a service contract awarded to Energie-Cites in partnership with Eurocities, Climate Alliance, CEMR, Fedarene and Pracsisactors to support the implementation of the Covenant of Mayors (a commitment by the participating cities to go beyond EU objectives for reduction of greenhouse emissions through implementing sustainable energy actions).

4.3.1 Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs (EYE) Pilot Project

The pilot project implemented to test DG ENTR's Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs (EYE) scheme3 is, at first sight, directly comparable to the proposed DG REGIO pilot project. The initiative supports "young entrepreneurs" from one EU Member State to spend time in businesses run by experienced entrepreneurs in another EU Member State. The pilot project was launched by DG ENTR in 2008 and was implemented by a series of 24 project partnerships made up of national and regional business support organisations (Intermediary Organisations / IOs) and a central EU-level coordinating body (Eurochambres). Even before the pilot project was completed, a decision was taken to expand the scheme and launch a larger scale "Preparatory Action" with three more cycles of mobility funding. Table 4.4 presents the most important aspects of the pilot project.

1 http://urbact.eu/ 2 http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/programme-actions/doc30_en.htm 3 http://www.erasmus-entrepreneurs.eu/

45

Table 4.4 Overview of Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs (EYE) Pilot Project

Component Characteristics

1. Commission service DG Enterprise and Industry (ENTR)1

2. Objectives To help new (young) entrepreneurs in the EU to enrich their experiences, learning and networking by spending periods in enterprises run by experienced entrepreneurs in other EU Member States.

3. Target group "Nascent" (Young) Entrepreneurs (NE) and Host Entrepreneurs (HE)

4. Intended outputs / results Target of 870 mobility activities. Young entrepreneurs gain valuable experience, while Host entrepreneurs benefit from the presence of the Young entrepreneur (at no cost).

5. Implementation mechanism

Call for proposals (ENT/ERA/08/311)2 to select: • A European level coordination body (CB) – LOT 2 • 20-24 "European Partnerships", composed of national / regional "intermediary organisations" (IOs) in

the field of business support. Each European Partnership would then support 35-50 matched relationships between NE and HE – LOT 1

6. Available budget Total budget for the pilot project: € 2 850 000, split as follows: • European Coordination body: € 200 000 max. • "European Partnerships": € 140 000 max. (each able to distribute €100 000 max to 35-50 NEs on the

basis of maximum monthly flat rates of between €560 and €1100 a month). The planned average grant to NEs was €2300.

EU co-financing rate: 90% (10% from non-EU sources)

7. Timing / project duration Call for proposals launched June 2008, with deadline of 20 August 2008 and projects starting in December 2008. Project duration: • European Coordination body: 22 months (until October 2010) • European Partnerships: 18 months (until June 2010)

8. European Commission role

Coordinating call for proposals and selection of a) central coordination body and b) European Partnerships. Monitoring implementation, approval of implementation and financial reports (approval of eligible costs) and payment.

9. Implementing organisations

European-level coordination body: Eurochambres (Support Office) 24 "European Partnerships" of national / regional intermediary organisations (IO) (at least 2 partners from 2 Member States)

10. Participants Target to support 870 Young Entrepreneurs (NEs), who receive flat rate funding per month (dependent on Member State) and must provide a business plan in advance of participation, report on activities and justify costs to the IO that has supported them. Host Entrepreneurs (HEs) do not receive funding

11. Approach to language Young entrepreneurs must have the language skills necessary to cooperate effectively with the host business.

12. Summary of financial • European Commission provides grants to the European Coordination body (50% pre-financing) and

1 ENTR.E.1 – Entrepreneurship. Contact: Marko Curavic 2 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemlongdetail.cfm?item_id=1548&lang=en

46

Component Characteristics

transfers the European Partnerships (70% pre-financing) on the basis of the estimated project budget. 10% of eligible costs are obtained from other sources.

• European Partnerships transfer funding (flat rates) to NEs • NE must provide proof of expenditure on travel, accommodation and subsistence during mobility period

to European Partnership, which in turn uses this as justification of eligible costs to European Commission

• European Commission calculates final grant payable to EPs on basis of number of successful and unsuccessful relationships set up (€900 per successful relationship, €560 for unsuccessful relationships)

The experience of implementing the EYE pilot project is of direct relevance for the design and practical implementation of a possible DG REGIO pilot project. Notably, the implementation structure, with a central EU coordination body and separate projects to support exchange activities - all selected through a call for proposals - provides a potentially promising model for the DG REGIO project. The pilot project was developed and launched using the existing human resources in DG ENTR, Unit E2 and involved primarily one member of staff on a part time basis (with periods of full-time involvement).

In designing the EYE pilot project, DG ENTR needed to contend with the rule in the EU Financial Regulation1 that stipulate that grant beneficiaries can only transfer a maximum of €100 000 to third parties and a maximum of €10 000 to any one third party. This is why it was necessary to support at least 20 separate projects (each able to "delegate" €100 000) in order to allow a sum of up to €2 million to be transferred to the end beneficiaries of the scheme – the young entrepreneurs (NEs) themselves. The same rule also places limits on the amount a coordinating project could "delegate" directly to local governments or directly elected representatives in the scope of the DG REGIO pilot project.

Despite the similarities, the EYE pilot project "model" is not directly replicable in the context of the DG REGIO pilot project for a number of reasons: • EYE activities are based on a largely hierarchical teacher-learner principle (experienced

entrepreneur to young entrepreneur), rather than peer learning; • The EYE model involves prolonged periods of mobility for the NEs of at least one month –

much longer than the 3-5 day exchange visits envisaged in the DG REGIO project; • The overall budget available for the EYE pilot was almost 50% (€1 million) higher, allowing

more (and potentially more complex) projects to be funded; • The EYE project focused on young, independent individuals (not attached to a larger

organisation) and provided them with direct financial support (even if this support is rather minimal). In contrast, the DG REGIO project targets local elected representatives, who are already part of an established institutional structure. As the target audience is more institutionalised and several individuals from the same "institution" may be involved in

1 Financial Regulation (No 1605/2002), Article 120(2), specified by Implementing Rules, Article 184a

47

exchange, financial support does not necessarily have to be provided directly to the individual participants (as in Erasmus or EYE), but could be allocated to the institutional level or projects (which then reimburse participants for costs incurred).

4.3.2 PROGRESS: Good practice exchange projects

As part of the Open Method of Coordination in the field of employment and social affairs, DG Employment coordinates the Mutual Learning Programme1, which supports thematic seminars, peer review and dissemination activities focus on specific employment-related themes. The Mutual Learning Programme is focused on the national level, primarily involving actors from national ministries of employment and social affairs2. More generally, the PROGRESS programme in the field of employment and social solidarity aims to support exchange of good practice and innovative approaches and mutual learning in the EU, in order to contribute to the aims of the European Employment Strategy (EES)3. As part of the PROGRESS Work Programme, DG EMPL launched a call for proposals in mid 20094, which sought to attract projects to build on the Mutual Learning Programme by developing networking and mutual learning activities involving a wider range of stakeholders involved in employment policy at national, regional and local level in the EU. The most important aspects of the initiative (call for proposals) are presented in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 Overview of PROGRESS Call VP/2009/011

Component Characteristics

1. Commission service DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (DG EMPL)5

2. Objectives To fund dissemination and mutual learning projects in the form of national or joint follow-up activities of the Mutual Learning Programme (MLP). The projects should build on / complement the EU-level mutual learning activities in the MLP by: • Developing partnerships to identify and exchange good practice in a transnational context • Promoting mutual learning within and between Member States among actors (at all levels) involved in

implementing policies related to the EES Similar projects were also supported in the field of a) Skills needs and b) "Green jobs"

3. Target group Organisations involved in implementing policies related to the EES, from at least 2 PROGRESS countries – primarily public bodies "Applicants are encouraged to submit proposals that involve different levels of governance i.e. national, regional and local level"

4. Intended outputs / results • Workshops on benchmarks, policies or practices

1 See: http://www.mutual-learning-employment.net/ 2 For example, in November 2009, the Portuguese Ministry of Labour and Social Solidarity hosted a Peer Review in Lisbon at which they presented a (national-level) Portuguese "Professional Traineeship Programme for Young Adults" and discussed this with ministry officials and independent experts from ten countries (as well as representatives of DG EMPL). Experts and ministry officials from the other participating countries prepared "peer country comment papers" in response to an initial paper prepared by the Portuguese, in advance of the meeting itself. 3 See: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=327 4 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=631&langId=en&callId=232&furtherCalls=yes 5 EMPL.D.2 - European Employment Strategy, CSR, Local Development. Contact: Robert Strauss

48

Component Characteristics

• Reinforcing existing or new networks devoted to advancement of policy issues and practice • Focused information campaigns

5. Implementation mechanism

Open Call for Proposals (VP/2009/011) designed to select "around 15 projects" across the three themes (supporting Mutual Learning Programme; skills needs; green jobs)

6. Available budget Total budget: €4 490 000, to be allocated to around 15 projects (ie an average of almost €300 000 per project) EU co-financing rate: 80% (20% from non-EU sources)

7. Timing / project duration Call for Proposals launched in summer 2009 with deadline of 15 September 2009. Projects expected to start in April 2010 with a duration of up to 12 months.

8. European Commission role

Coordinating call for proposals and selection of projects Monitoring implementation, approval of implementation and financial reports (approval of eligible costs) and payment

9. Implementing organisations

Proposals expected primarily from public and voluntary sector organisations active in the field of employment policy (employment services, skills development services, etc)

10. Participants The members of exchange networks are expected to be part of the project consortia (ie already specified within the proposals). Dissemination activities and workshops organised as part of projects will involve individuals external to projects, although this does not necessarily imply a transfer of financial resources to third parties.

11. Approach to language Projects must propose their own approaches, with the use of common language preferred.

12. Summary of financial transfers

• European Commission provides grants to selected project coordinators (all projects will have a nominated lead partner to manage the budget)

• No transfer of funds to third parties is foreseen, although part of the project budget can conceivably be used to reimburse eg travel costs for external participants in events organised as part of the project.

From a methodological perspective, both the Mutual Learning Programme and the above Call for Proposals are relevant in the context of this study. Many of the activities supported focus on mutual learning, peer review and exchange of practice between actors involved in public policy development and implementation – the same type of activities as envisaged within the scope of the DG REGIO pilot project. Activities such as the "Peer Review Workshops" used in the Mutual Learning Programme could in principle be transposed to the DG REGIO pilot project, with the representatives of national ministries replaced by local elected representatives and the topics of discussion changed to cover local development issues (rather than national and regional level employment policies). In line with the discussions above, the role for external experts could also be maintained.

From a procedural perspective, the DG EMPL Call for Proposals is also interesting, because it sought to attract networks of actors at regional and local level to engage in mutual learning and exchange. In comparison to the EYE pilot project discussed above, the structure of the projects supported is less complex and less rigidly determined in advance. In particular, the partnerships that submit the project proposals will be the final beneficiaries of the grant awarded –

49

no transfer to third parties is foreseen. This means that all the main actors (partners) in a given project almost certainly have to be specified in the project proposal submitted to DG EMPL. However, the projects can certainly organise activities which involve external third parties as participants in exchange meetings or dissemination events. While it is not excluded that these third party participants be paid for direct services (eg expert fees) or reimbursed for travel costs out of the project budget, there is no explicit transfer of grant to final beneficiaries, as in the EYE example.

4.3.3 Covenant of Mayors Office

The "Covenant of Mayors" (CoM) is an initiative supported by DG Transport and Energy (DG TREN) in the scope of the EU Action Plan for Energy Efficiency1. Cities from across the EU are free to take part in the initiative. In so doing, they make a commitment to go beyond the objectives of EU energy policy in terms of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by implementing sustainable energy actions. In order to demonstrate such commitment, the cities submit a "Sustainable Energy Action Plan", outlining the measures and policies they will implement to achieve their objectives. Signatory cities accept to report and be monitored on their implementation of the Action Plans and the termination of their involvement in the Covenant in case of non-compliance2.

The other actors in the Covenant are so-called "Benchmarks for Excellence" (BoE) - initiatives and programmes that represent models of successful implementation of sustainable energy development concepts in urban contexts – and "Supporting Structures" - public administrations that are in a position to provide strategic guidance and financial and technical support to municipalities with the political will to sign up to the Covenant of Mayors, but lacking the skills and / or resources to fulfil its requirements.

The European Commission (DG TREN) is responsible for coordinating the Covenant of Mayors initiative and, in this context, launched an Open Call for Tenders3 in June 2008 to select an external provider for a range of support services. The launch of the Call for Tenders, selection of the contractor and follow-up have mostly been undertaken by one member of staff alongside other duties4. Details of the Call for Tenders are provided in Table 4.6 below.

Table 4.6 Overview of the Covenant of Mayors Office

Component Characteristics

1. Commission service DG Transport and Energy (DG TREN)5

2. Objectives The main objectives of the support services for the CoM are: • Monitor implementation of the Covenant by the participating cities

1 COM(2006)545 of 19.10.2006 2 See http://www.eumayors.eu/home_en.htm 3 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/tenders/doc/2008/s116_153992_specifications_en.pdf 4 With support from colleagues for the selection committee and at other moments 5 TREN.D.3 - Energy efficiency of products & Intelligent Energy Europe. Contact: Florence Dinkespiler

50

Component Characteristics

• Facilitate networking activities within the Covenant through exchange of experience and joint initiatives • Provide technical support to interested cities in order to facilitate and register their adhesion to the

Covenant • Support the liaison with other relevant EU initiatives concerning sustainable energy solutions in an

urban context, exploiting possible synergies of action • Support the promotion of the Covenant of Mayors, through a number of means: website, annual event,

promotional material, media activity, participation in events.

3. Target group All suitably qualified organisations / service providers meeting the standard EU procurement eligibility criteria were eligible to submit bids.

4. Intended outputs / results The support services (in the form of the Covenant of Mayors Office - COMO)

5. Implementation mechanism

Open Call for Tenders

6. Available budget Total budget for the contract awarded: €1 699 755 No total maximum budget appears in the original Terms of Reference

7. Timing / project duration Call for Tenders launched on 17/06/2008 with deadline of 05/09/2008 Contract duration: 30 months (ie December 2008 – May 2011)

8. European Commission role

Coordination of Call for Tenders and selection of winning bid Direct oversight of contract implementation according to standard Commission procedures.

9. Implementing organisations

Energie-Cités1 (Association of European local authorities promoting local sustainable energy policies) in partnership with Eurocities (hosts office in Brussels), Climate Alliance, CEMR, Fedarene (all 4 are networks of cities / municipalities), and Pracsis (a public relations company). 6 offers were received.

10. Participants The COMO provides technical support and advice to municipalities / cities that wish to participate in the Covenant of mayors and monitors implementation on behalf of the European Commission. It does not provide any financial assistance to third parties.

11. Approach to language The website is available in all EU official languages. The multilingual staff in the office cover the most important EU languages. Most activities are local (so the language issue does not arise).

12. Summary of financial transfers

• European Commission awards service contract to the consortium led by Energie-Cités • No transfer of funds to third parties, other than a limited amount of subcontracting, is foreseen.

The Covenant of Mayors is relevant here because it is an EU initiative directly targeted at local governments (and elected representatives) in the EU in a thematic area of vital importance to the EU's strategic objectives. Moreover, the initiative encourages learning from the good practice of the "Benchmarks for Excellence" (BoE) as a means to support the development of the local Sustainable Energy Action Plans. The concept of "Benchmark for Excellence", applied to other thematic areas, could be relevant within the scope of the DG REGIO initiative, while the European

1 http://www.energie-cites.eu/

51

local government associations involved in the consortium selected to run the Covenant of Mayors Office could be potential candidates for involvement in implementing the pilot project.

The way in which support tasks have been assigned to the Covenant of Mayors Office through an open Call for Tender also provides an interesting point of reference. The tasks involved are similar to those likely to be required to promote and encourage participation in a European exchange initiative for local elected representatives. The choice of a Call for Tenders, rather than a Call for Proposals, reflects the fact that the Commission wished to assign very specific and well-defined tasks to an external service provider. Such an option could also be considered for at least part of the DG REGIO pilot project. However, it is notable that the Covenant of Mayors office does not provide any direct financial support or reimbursement of expenses to the local governments participating in the scheme. Rather, it helps them to find support from other sources.

52

5.0 Detailed options for a stand-alone pilot project

5.1 Overview of implementation options

The question of how to structure the implementation of the pilot project is central to developing an initiative that responds to the different requirements for effectiveness and practical feasibility identified in the previous chapter. Taking into account the key issues and examples discussed, the study developed four potential structures (options) for implementing a pilot project. These are:

1 OPTION 1: A "mini URBACT" model, whereby the European Commission assigns1 the coordination of the pilot project to a single external organisation (or consortium of organisations), which in turn selects and supports separate local exchange projects composed of a minimum number of localities and individuals. The local projects would receive and manage their own project budget. This is structurally similar to the way the URBACT Secretariat supports Thematic Networks and initially appeared a promising way to address the need for a simple approach to "outsourcing" by the Commission and the desire for flexibility and autonomy at local level.

2 OPTION 2: A model with multiple coordinators and local projects. This is a variation on Option 1, whereby the coordination of the pilot project is broken up (into different "sub projects") primarily along thematic lines. (Potentially) different organisations / consortia are selected to assume responsibility for selecting, overseeing and supporting separate local exchange projects. As in Option 1, the local projects would receive and manage their own project funding. A separate website project is included in this option to provide a common website and registration database for all sub-projects. This option may better reflect the diversity of EU or national organisations (associations, networks etc) potentially able to coordinate the pilot project and also reduces the risk of "putting all ones eggs in the same basket", as in Option 1. However, this is clearly the most structurally complex of the four options.

3 OPTION 3: A model with multiple "integrated" projects. This model also breaks the overall pilot project up along thematic lines, but rather than selecting and supporting independent local-level projects (each with their own devolved activities and budget), the main project coordinators would control the entire budget directly and play a more direct role organising exchange and mutual learning activities. As in Option 2, a website project is included to serve the other projects. This option is inherently more "top-down" than Options 1 and 2. It would essentially involve the project coordinators forming exchange groups (potentially composed in a similar way to local exchange projects) and then supporting these groups to exchange and learn in a particular thematic area. Peer review and group activities would be structured, organised and moderated by the central project organisers and their experts, working in close

1 in principle through the award of a grant via a competitive call for proposals

53

54

cooperation with the participants themselves (a partnership approach). The cooperation between a central coordinating project and the local level has some similarities with the successful "Support for Cities" initiative funded by URBACT I1. The integrated funding model (without a transfer of parts of the overall grant to third parties) is more typical of the structure of projects supported by grants elsewhere in the European Commission - notably through the PROGRESS programme supported by DG EMPL – and reduces administrative complexity compared to Options 1 and 2.

4 OPTION 4: A model with a single integrated project. This model would involve awarding the entire sum available for implementation of the pilot project to a single beneficiary (organisation or consortium), which would then support exchange and mutual learning activities directly. This option thus follows the integrated model of Option 3, without breaking the overall funding available into separate, thematically-oriented parcels. It could be argued that such an approach would be the most efficient option, given the limited overall sum likely to be available, and it would clearly place less administrative burden on the European Commission. As with Option 3, it is inherently more top-down than Options 1 and 2. However, as a single project management team would need to organise and oversee the use of the entire project budget (rather than dividing responsibility, either horizontally or vertically, as in all the other Options), this Option could be the most challenging from an internal management and organisation perspective. Moreover, the aforementioned risk of "putting all ones eggs in the same basket" is greatest in this option.

The four different options are presented graphically in Figure 5.1 overleaf. The sections that follow go on to describe the options in more detail and assess each of the options in light of the proposed hierarchy of objectives and the points discussed in chapter 4. It is important to underline that the Options are not only different in terms of organisation, but also in terms of numbers of participants and projects – mostly for administrative and tendering reasons. A summary table of key ratios is therefore provided as part of the comparative assessment (Chapter 5.6).

1 This was a framework project, put in place centrally by the URBACT Secretariat which first invited expressions of interest from cities in Central and Eastern Europe that required support in developing Integrated Urban Development Plans (a requirement for ERDF funding) and then identified and funded experts to visit the city and help directly in this process. Experts were identified and paid by URBACT (as would be proposed in Option 3), but actually worked in partnership with the cities involved, to a large extent serving their needs (rather than URBACT as such).

55

Figure 5.1 Four options for structuring the pilot project

OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 OPTION 4Single coordinator with local Multiple coordinators with local Multiple coordinators with Single integrated projectprojects ("mini-URBACT" model) projects integrated projects (PROGRESS model)

European Commission

EU / trans-national level

Local level (elected

represent-atives and local

government)

Direct beneficiaries of EU grant Indirect beneficiaries of EU grant (third parties)

European Commission

EU level coordination body

Local exchange projects (x 25-30)

European Commission

Website support project

Local Pro-

jects x 3/4

Local Pro-

jects x 3/4

LocalPro-

jects x 3/4

LocalPro-

jects x 3/4

LocalPro-

jects x 3/4

Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5

European Commission

Website support project

Lot / Proj. 1

Lot / Proj. 2

Lot / Proj. 3

Lot / Proj. 4

Lot / Proj. 5

European Commission

Single EU level project

5.2 Option 1: Single EU coordinating body with devolved local projects

As illustrated in Figure 5.1 “Option 1” was the first option considered, as it at first sight appeared the most straightforward way to implement the pilot project. This option would involve replicating an implementation structure similar to that used for the URBACT programme (but on a much smaller scale) through a Call for Proposals. The European Commission would thus delegate EU-level coordination and implementation of the pilot project to a single Coordinating Body (CB), which would then attract, select and monitor multiple local exchange projects run by local elected representatives and their respective local authorities. As we go on to discuss, the number of local projects that could be run by a single Coordinating Body would be constrained to a far greater extent by limits on the management resources of the coordination body and the demand for participation from the local level than the overall budget available for the pilot project.

As we explain below, the structure envisaged in Option 1 could not be implemented within the rules of the EU Financial Regulation. Nevertheless, it provides a useful "baseline" or starting option for analytical purposes, against which to develop and compare the other options (2 to 4).

5.2.1 Option 1: Implementation process

In summary, the assumed implementation process for Option 1 could be:

• Step 1: The European Commission launches a Call for Proposals to select a Coordinating Body for the pilot project, selects the best proposal and awards a grant (assumed to cover 90% of eligible costs) to the winning consortium / organisation. The available evidence suggests that EU-level associations would be well placed and willing submit proposals to implement the pilot project, most probably in consortia (the number of realistic proposals would almost certainly be limited).

• Step 2: A Steering Committee, including representation from the European Commission, is formed to oversee implementation of the pilot project.

• Step 3: Start-up phase - the Coordinating Body prepares the infrastructure necessary to launch and implement the pilot project, including: website; translation of (a proportion of) content into all official languages1; marketing actions; systems to support matching of potential participants (database); procedures for a call for local projects and selection (probably involving an expert panel); procedures for monitoring implementation and follow-up of projects; financial procedures.

• Step 4: Marketing and initial call for expressions of interest: during a second phase after the start of the grant period, the CB would undertake actions to promote the pilot project and register expressions of interest in participating in local exchange projects from individual local authorities or groups / partnerships of local authorities. The themes identified in Section 4.2.4

1 It is clear that material explaining the objectives of the pilot project should be available in all official languages of the EU. For administrative simplicity, it seems appropriate to limit the number of languages for administrative forms and local project applications. Pragmatically, the most obvious choices would be either a) EN, FR and DE or b) EN, FR, DE, ES, IT and PL. Ease of communication, rather than respect of linguistic diversity at all costs, should be a guiding principle.

56

would be used to structure the call and project participants would be required to highlight how their project related to these issues in the context of their localities.

• Step 5: Project preparation at local level – On the basis of the focus and guidance established by the CB, local elected representatives and their local authorities would prepare exchange project proposals1 to submit to the CB. Local exchange projects would have the following characteristics:

o Participants and partnership: a partnership of four localities, each supplying three participants (predominantly local elected representatives) – making 12 participants in total. A majority of participants should be elected representatives, but unelected officers could also take part. Under Option 1, one locality would be nominated as “lead partner”;

o Objective: the objectives would be to externalise and exchange experience in addressing a policy challenge related to the theme in the participating localities. Participants from each locality would thus need to identify either a) the challenges they face in their locality and b) what they have done to tackle the problem so far, thus providing experience to share. The balance between localities with problems and those with experience in solving related problems would be left flexible;

o Activities: A moderator and expert able to work in the relevant working languages for the partnership would assist in the organisation and implementation of the exchange. It is assumed the local development projects will run for a period of several months (at least 6) and involve an exchange workshop in each locality;

o Financing: funding for local development projects would cover the cost of travel and subsistence for participants in the exchange workshops (at standardised flat rates) and (probably lump sum) allocations for expert input and interpretation. Requirements for interpretation would vary between projects and would need to be assessed and included in the project application.

o Support from the CB: the CB would support local authorities to find suitable partners for the exchange projects (on the basis of expressions of interest). In addition, it is likely the CB would run a database of suitably qualified moderators / experts to support project implementation (this has been done in URBACT).

• Step 6: Selection of local exchange projects – project applications would be assessed on the basis of clear criteria relating to the relevance and potential effectiveness of the proposed partnership in relation to the theme and the standard objectives for the pilot project. Projects involving localities with concrete actions already planned or underway and with which they are seeking assistance (or peer review) would be prioritised. External experts would be called up to assist with the selection process, to ensure its transparency and fairness.

• Step 7: Implementation of local exchange projects – selected local exchange projects would be implemented in line with the activities in the proposal. Responsibility for the success or otherwise of the project would lie with the participants. The lead partner will coordinate the project, although each locality can be assigned responsibility to organise the exchange workshop it hosts. To minimise financial transactions, it is assumed that each partner locality

1 A relatively concise, easy to understand, standard application format would be used.

57

will be reimbursed directly by the CB for its share of project costs, rather than all project budget being handled through the lead partner.

• Step 8: Monitoring and follow-up of local projects – Projects will be required to report on progress to the CB. Reporting will include presentation of outputs (ie the exchange workshops) in the form of short reports by each attendee and an attendance list. Participants will also be required to cooperate with the ongoing evaluation of the pilot project.

• Step 9: Verification of expenditure and final payments – Payments to localities participating in local exchange projects will be made ex-post (once the activities have taken place), although this may make participating in the pilot project less attractive. In any case, final payment should be based on proof that the activities foreseen actually took place. Flat rates for all types of cost would be used, as it should not be necessary to verify the precise costs incurred in each case.

• Step 10: Evaluation and reporting to the Commission – The CB monitor overall implementation ad report to the Steering Committee on this. The CB would also be expected to coordinate the collection of data for the evaluation exercise over the course of the pilot project, ensuring this data is supplied by local development projects. This will facilitate the external evaluation of the pilot project.

The pilot project in this form would be feasible within the proposed 15-month duration although evaluation of "impacts" cannot realistically be completed in this timeframe, given the need to leave time for effects to materialise.

5.2.2 Option 1: costings

On the basis of the scenario above, hypothetical budgets have been developed for: • a) a local exchange project involving four partner localities, with three participants from each

and involving four exchange meetings over a period of around 6 to 8 months and; • b) a Coordinating Body based in Brussels.

Table 5.1 A Costs for a Local Exchange Project (Option 1)

Item No of units Unit cost (€) Total (€)

Travel (9 traveling participants1 x 4 meetings) 36 400 14 400

Hotel & daily allowance (9 participants x 2 days x 4 meetings) 72 225.932 16 267

1 day expert input (for preparation / facilitation) 123 900 10 800

1 day interpreter time4 8 600 4 800

1 If four localities are involved with three participants from each, nine participants will need to travel to each exchange workshop (the participants from the host locality will not require travel or subsistence costs) 2 Average daily allowance for subsistence and accommodation, based on standard European Commission rates. 3 Assumption: 1 day facilitation, 2 days support for preparation and follow-up per exchange meeting 4 May not be required in all projects

58

Item No of units Unit cost (€) Total (€)

TOTAL per exchange project 46 267

Cost per exchange meeting (total / 4) 11 566

TOTAL (* 30 projects) 1.388.010

Table 5.1 B - Costs for Coordinating Body (CB) (Option 1)

Item No of units Unit cost (€) Total (€)

Full time project officer / finance officer for duration of project 2 65 000 130 000

Full time pilot project manager for duration of project 1 100 000 100 000

Office accommodation and costs for duration of project 1 30 000 30 000

Website and database development 1 40 000 40 000

Translation costs for content / forms + document production 1 25 000 25 000

Travel and subsistence for staff 1 10 000 10 000

TOTAL 335 000

90% TOTAL (possible EU co-financing rate?) 301 500

Estimated input from EC 1 fte

OVERALL COSTS OF OPTION 1 1 723 010

For the local exchange project configured as described, a standard rate of €400 for return travel per participant per meeting has been used, based on the assumption participating localities could come from different parts of Europe and could thus be widely dispersed (an assumption related to the inherent "European" dimension of the pilot project). Although many return trips could be secured for less, flexibility needs to be built into costing for trips to cost more (as can easily be the case within the EU, particularly when trips are booked at short notice). The day rates used for expert moderators and interpreters are based on common rates used within EU projects, including URBACT. Although, here again, day rates vary in practice, it is not uncommon for high quality experts with good moderation skills to request in excess of €1000 per day, particularly for short-term assignments. As such, an average daily fee of €900 is considered to be a robust and realistic estimate.

59

The costs outlined above would be designed to cover the direct costs of exchange meetings. No allocation has been made to cover the time of the participants (including time spent on follow-up reports) or of staff in local authorities who would need to prepare and follow-up the exchange actions. It is assumed that participants would perceive the benefits (in terms of knowledge and EU profile) to be gained from participating in the exchange project to justify the time and effort involved. The fact that this additional effort is required is considered to justify a 100% financing of the costs above, rather than a 90% co-financing rate, which would in any case add to the complexity of project implementation.

The basic cost for a "model" local exchange project has thus been established at €46 267, which would, in principle mean that at comparatively large number of local projects could be supported with a total budget of €1.9 million. Thus, 30 projects at this unit cost would amount to €1.39 million.

It is possible to estimate minimum costs for a Coordinating Body that could conceivably establish and coordinate the pilot project involving up to 30 local exchange projects of the type set out above. Taking into account the experience of the URBACT Secretariat under URBACT I (which supported more complex projects), it is likely that a Coordination Body would need a minimum of three full time staff, indicatively one "project officer", one "finance officer" and one project manager. In addition, allocations have been made for office accommodation and running costs (assuming a Brussels base), a website and database development, translation and document production and travel and subsistence costs for staff missions. The costs set out in Table 5.1 are based on best estimates available and amount to a total minimum costs for the Coordinating Body costs of € 335 000. In addition, it is estimated that a commitment of up to 1 fte will be needed from the European Commission, with a view to the full implementation of the pilot project. Tasks would include finalising the design, preparing, publicising and launching the call, selecting, monitoring and evaluating the exchange projects.

The configuration imagined above, with a Coordinating Body and 30 local projects would support exchange and mutual learning for 120 localities in the EU and 360 participants. The total cost would be €1.72 million, assuming a co-financing rate of 90% for the Coordinating Body. This figure would leave resources (say €40 000 to €60 000) for an evaluation of the pilot project by an independent evaluator (see Section 4.2.10) and consume a large proportion of the €1.9 million total funding assumed for the pilot project. As we discuss below, the figure of 30 local projects could be over-ambitious from a management and demand perspective.

5.2.3 Assessment of Option 1

Option 1 was developed on the basis that it was a priori the most "obvious" way to implement a pilot project meeting the requirements for a both a "bottom-up" approach for the local level and limited administrative burden for the European Commission. It was the approach initially suggested or imagined by a majority of stakeholders consulted at local and EU level. However, Option 1 has two main weaknesses, which render it unfeasible, while there are also inherent risks in "devolving" responsibility for project implementation to the local level. We examine these issues in turn.

60

Firstly, Option 1 relies on the CB being able to transfer financial resources to the local authorities involved in local exchange projects (almost €1.4 million in total). This is simply not possible within the framework of the EU Financial Regulation, which imposes a limit of €100 000 on the amount of funds that a grant beneficiary can transfer to third parties1. As noted, this was an issue encountered in the design of the EYE pilot project and one which places very significant constraints on the possibilities for the structural design of the pilot project.

Secondly, even if the Financial Regulation did allow transfers on the scale involved in Option 1, it is doubtful whether a single coordination body would be able to help establish, monitor and support up to 30 local projects, if it were possible to attract 30 projects in the first place2. The staffing levels assumed in our cost calculations are very much minimum requirements to implement a scheme with up to 30 projects. This level of staffing would not permit extensive hands-on support for local projects and would certainly not allow much time for monitoring of implementation beyond formal output and reporting requirements. Although resources for the central coordination of the project could be increased, this would increase further the "overhead" of coordination compared to direct project funding. This was a problem encountered in the first URBACT programme, where a limit on technical assistance within a programme budget meant that the Secretariat was chronically understaffed. In practice, local projects are likely to need considerable support from the coordination body, which means the configuration proposed in Option 1 would therefore be difficult from a management perspective.

Finally, following the majority expectation of local stakeholders, Option 1 devolves responsibility for project implementation and achievement of the pilot project objectives in terms of outputs, results and impacts to the local exchange projects. Moreover, as noted, the de minimis Coordination Body envisaged would not have the capacity to provide day to day support to the projects or to engage in in-depth monitoring and oversight of implementation. These factors carry risks for the overall success of the project, as we would rely almost exclusively on the capacities and good will of the local project leaders and partners (even with the role proposed for experts), which cannot always be guaranteed. There appears thus to be case for more "top-down" guidance and oversight of exchange and mutual-learning activities.

5.3 Option 2: Multiple EU coordinating “bodies” with devolved local projects

A possible response to the shortcomings of Option 1 is to split the coordination of the pilot project into a series of separate projects. As illustrated in Figure 5.1, "Option 2" would involve supporting a series of separate projects (most probably divided on thematic lines), each of which would then support three Local Exchange Projects. This would be feasible within the scope of the Financial Regulation, provided the total sum transferred to the local projects by the direct beneficiary does not exceed €100 000. Such an arrangement would also mean that each project

1 Financial Regulation (No 1605/2002), Article 120(2), specified by Implementing Rules, Article 184a 2 Although the stakeholder consultation demonstrated clear demand for an exchange scheme, we cannot easily predicted whether this rather theoretical interest will be translated into actual applications to participate in a scheme. As such, there may be insufficient interest to support so many local projects.

61

coordinator would have only three local projects to support and supervise. A separate Call for Tenders could be launched to put in place a service contract for the supply of a website and registration database that could be used for by all projects. This would remove unnecessary duplication of this core function and also allow a single identify to be maintained for the pilot project.

5.3.1 Option 2: Implementation process

In many ways, Option 2 would follow a similar implementation process to Option 1, with the following differences: 1 The Commission Call for Proposals would seek to support multiple projects to coordinate the

implementation of local exchange projects in specific thematic areas – indicatively those suggested in Section 4.2.4. In addition, a separate Call for Tenders for a service contract to supply a single website (including associated translation costs) and database services for all projects would be launched.

2 The tasks of marketing, supporting the formation of, and selecting local exchange projects would be assumed by the thematic coordination projects. Application procedures and criteria for selection could be harmonised between projects by providing common guidelines at the time of the Call for Proposal and then establishing a common working group bringing together the projects supported for the fine-tuning of procedures during implementation.

3 Each thematic project would be responsible for monitoring implementation of the local exchange projects it supports and reporting to the Commission on this. As we discuss below, the ratio of overhead and coordination costs to individual local exchange projects supported would increase substantially in comparison to Option 1, meaning that the coordinators would have more resources to support and monitor local projects on a day to day basis.

EU-level, membership-based organisations could be potential coordinating bodies for the thematic projects. It is also assumed that national and regional local government associations, working in partnership with relevant expert organisations would also be interested in bidding.

5.3.2 Option 2: costings

In financial terms, Option 2 would require coordinating projects to be given sufficient resources to assume the tasks related to coordination and the selection process, while the overall cost of the local exchange projects would need to be reduced in comparison to Option 1, given the need to support three local projects with a combined maximum value of €100 000.

Taking the local exchange projects first, the most obvious way to reduce costs would be to reduce the number of partners from four (seen as the "optimal" number on the basis of stakeholder consultations and the analysis in the previous chapter) to three. This would produce a "model" cost allocation for local exchange projects as set out in Table 5.2. This cost breakdown assumes that the three exchange visits and meetings are hosted by one of the partners in each case.

62

Table 5.2 A - Costs for a local exchange project (Option 2)

Item No of units Unit cost (€) Total (€)

Travel (6 traveling participants1 x 3 meetings) 18 400 7 200

Hotel & daily allowance (6 participants x 2 days x 3 meetings) 36 225.932 8 133

1 day expert input (for preparation / facilitation) 93 900 8 100

1 day interpreter time4 6 600 3 600

TOTAL per project 27 033

Cost per exchange meeting (total / 3) 9 011.16

TOTAL (for 10 Lots with each 3 projects) 810 099

Table 5.2 B - Costs for Coordinating Bodies (CB) (Option 2)

Item No of units Unit cost (€) Total (€)

Full time project officer / finance officer for duration of project 5 (10 part-time) 45 000 225 000

Full time pilot project manager for duration of project 1 100 000 100 000

Office accommodation and costs for duration of project 10 10 000 100 000

Translation costs for content / forms + document production 1 25 000 25 000

Travel and subsistence for staff 1 10 000 10 000

Subtotal for all Lots 460 000

90% TOTAL (possible EU co-financing rate?) 414 000

Website development and database (central) 1 100,000 100,000

Total 560 000

Estimate input for EC 3 fte

OVERALL COSTS OF OPTION 2 1 371 004

1 If three localities are involved with three participants from each, six participants will need to travel to each exchange workshop (the participants from the host locality will not require travel or subsistence costs) 2 Average daily allowance for subsistence and accommodation, based on standard European Commission rates. 3 Assumption: 1 day facilitation, 2 days support for preparation and follow-up per expert meeting 4 May not be required in all projects

63

As reducing the number of partners reduces the number of locations, the number of participants, and the number of meetings, the total cost for each exchange project is reduced to €27 033. Three projects can thus be supported with €81 100, leaving some flexibility for different local project configurations within the overall limit of €100 000.

The coordination function is assumed to require at least 5 full time equivalent (FTE), at a cost of €45 000, in addition to one project manager, fees for experts involved in a selection committee and costs for overheads, travel and marketing. The overall amount of costs for Coordinating Bodies is likely to require around € 460 000, excluding co-funding and excluding the website development and database, and divided over 5 Lots. Project applicants will, in any case, need a certain minimum level of funding to encourage them to bid and operate the project ("to make it worth their while"). With the €81 000 estimated for funding three local projects, and with average Coordination costs of € 46 000 per Lot, we arrive at a Lot cost of € 127 100 – to be multiplied by 10 Lots. This order of magnitude is somewhat below the project sizes funded through Calls for Proposal from programmes such as PROGRESS. In addition, and due to the complexity of this Option, it is estimated that a commitment of up to 3 fte will be needed from the European Commission, with a view to the full implementation of the pilot project. Tasks would include finalising the design, preparing, publicising and launching the call, selecting, monitoring and evaluating the exchange projects. It would also require the contracting of the website and database.

It is difficult to provide a precise estimate for the costs of a multilingual website and database of the type envisaged to support the pilot project. However, depending on the number of languages used and the amount of text in each, it is likely that the project would cost between €80 000 and €150 000 (above amount estimated: € 100 000). Taking this into account, along with the cost allocation for external evaluation, we have estimated to fund up to 10 Lots with the available budget. These Lots could collectively support 30 projects, involving 90 localities (10 x 9 localities per project) and 270 elected representatives (30 x 9 participants per project).

5.3.3 Assessment of Option 2

While Option 2 is theoretically feasible within the framework of the Financial Regulation, three related issues lead us to question its feasibility and appropriateness in practice.

Firstly, the option creates a complex structure involving multiple primary beneficiaries (the coordinating projects), which have to be overseen by the European Commission, each with multiple third part beneficiaries (local exchange projects). This dispersed structure with multiple actors in different locations, each responsible for the organisational and financial management of their own activities is inherently difficult to manage and monitor. The risks of communication breakdowns and implementation problems going unnoticed appear considerable. The “bottom-up”, two-stage selection process, whereby the Commission selects the coordinating Lots, which go on to select three local projects each also carries risks. In particular, the Commission will only have limited direct assurances at the time of selection that the coordinating projects will actually be able to attract and help to establish local exchange projects. Thereafter, if local projects are established, the lines of accountability between the local level and the European

64

Commission for the use of the EU funds provided are rather weak with the associated risks for sound financial management. Finally, the overall level of structural complexity in Option 2 appears disproportionate in relation to the level of financial resources available for the pilot project.

A second problem relates to the role of the thematic project coordinators. Although good quality, trans-national consortia of relevant organisations are vital in order to attract participants, help them develop local exchange projects and get these local exchange projects up and running, the devolved structure proposed means that the consortia will have comparatively little to do once the projects are running. By giving responsibility to local project coordinators, the coordinating project implicitly and explicitly restricts it own role and the exchange and mutual learning activities and becomes mainly an administrative support framework between the Commission and the local projects. It is doubtful how attractive such a role would be for the sort of organisations capable of running the coordination projects. Moreover, the structure would effectively involve the coordinating consortia assuming responsibility for the success of the local projects without being given very much direct control over their activities. This too brings risks and reduces the attractiveness of participation.

Finally, given the limited direct role for the coordinating projects in the direct exchange activities, the “overhead” costs for the coordination activities (essentially 58% of the total project costs) appear excessive in relation to the real added value added of these activities. However, as each coordinating project can only support a maximum of three local projects, the scope for economies of scale is inherently limited. At the same time, as already discussed, below a certain minimum level of resources it would become increasingly unattractive for organisations to bid to run projects, especially as resources would be distributed between multiple consortium partners.

5.4 Option 3: Multiple integrated projects

Option 3 was developed in order to provide an alternative to the structural complexity involved in Option 2. It also breaks the overall pilot project up into different thematically-oriented projects, but rather than selecting and supporting independent local exchange projects, the main project coordinators would control the entire budget directly and play a direct role organising exchange and mutual learning activities at local level. As in Option 2, the coordinating projects would each have a particular thematic focus, indicatively linked to the themes in Section 4.2.4. A website project on a smaller scale than in Option 2 (based on a Call for Tender) could be included to provide a common web presence for the projects. However, by integrating the coordination functions and the local exchange activities much more closely, Option 3 is inherently more "top-down" than Options 1 and 2, even if peer-learning and exchange remains at the core of the activities.

In Option 3, the thematic coordinating projects would still support three local exchange and learning groups structured in a similar way to the “local exchange project” in Option 1, but experts from the coordinating project would become a fifth partner in the group of localities formed.

65

These experts would provide advice to the local partners, assist them in the identification of issues to present and discuss in the peer-learning groups and provide support for follow-up. The level of expert input for each partnership would thus be considerably greater than in Options 1 and 2. The experts would be engaged and funded directly by the coordinating project, which would also reimburse participants eligible travel and subsistence costs associated with attending individual meetings. This is the model generally used in EU-supported projects or service contracts to reimburse external participants in meetings organised as part of the projects concerned.

Another difference built into Option 3, made possible for the integrated, less “bottom-up” approach, relates to the identification and selection of participating localities and elected representatives. Options 1 and 2 relied on a clear two-step process, whereby the Commission selects a coordinating consortium or consortia (step 1) and the consortia then select local projects (step 2), following a period of project development support on the basis of initial expressions of interest. In Option 3, we suggest that coordinating projects already identify as many participating localities as possible (ideally all) in their proposal development stage and present these “confirmed” partners in the proposals submitted to the Commission. Assuming three local "exchange and learning groups" per thematic coordinating project, a total of 12 participating localities (municipalities, provinces, counties, regions etc) would be included in the proposal. These localities would thus be involved in the initial proposal to the Commission and already be “matched” into exchange groups. Some individual elected participants could also be named, but the main priority would be to secure the “buy-in” of the local governments concerned. Projects would be asked to propose a balanced geographical spread of partners from at least two “zones of the EU”1. This overall approach would increase the level of direct control exercised by the Commission on project selection and increase the strength of the lines of accountability between the EU and the local level.

5.4.1 Option 3: Implementation process

The process for implementing Option 3 will involve a Call for Proposals to fund multiple projects to support mutual learning and exchange activities for local and regional elected representatives. Proposals would be invited for projects focused on a theme related to those outlined in Section 4.2.4 and involving:

• A core coordination partner (Lead partner); • At least two other “expert” partners with expertise in mutual learning and exchange

and/or the thematic subject of the exchange project and; • 12 local government units organised into three trans-national "exchange and learning

groups" from at least two “zones” of the EU. Indicatively, each local government unit would send three individuals (at least two of whom should be elected representatives) to participate in the "exchange and learning group" in which they are involved (meaning 12 local and regional government participants would be involved in each group and 36 in each integrated project). The exchange and learning groups should each involve localities from at least two different EU Member States.

1 Potentially: North West Europe, Northern Europe, Central and Eastern Europe and Southern Europe

66

The proposal should provide a clear rationale for the way the exchange and learning groups have been matched. This should reflect a) similarities between challenges and policy priorities and b) similarities in competence to act in response to the challenges in question. The expert partners should demonstrate they have the necessary thematic knowledge and moderation and organisational skills to organise exchange and mutual learning activities to help the participating localities to address the policy challenges they face. Projects could be encouraged through the Call for Proposal wording to include learning groups composed of localities with different types of profile. For example, a project with two groups of medium-sized cities and one of more rural provinces and counties could be imagined.

The objective should be for participating local and regional elected representatives to finish the programme of activities feeling better equipped to address the challenges faced in their locality and to have gained practical advice about the policy options open to them. The individual participants would be selected within the local authorities themselves. Provided at least two participants from each locality are elected members, some flexibility could be allowed a) in the choice of members (in terms of experience and profile) and b) the decision whether or not to include an unelected officer as well.

The design of the activities can be left up to project applicants to a large extent, provided they demonstrate experience and expertise in facilitating mutual learning activities. The involvement of training providers as expert partners within the consortia could be encouraged. There would, however, be an indicative requirement for a total of four exchange and learning meetings (indicatively 2 days each) to be held in each exchange and learning partnership in a period of eight months. Applicants should be free to suggest different configurations of meetings (for example, fewer, longer meetings) within the overall limits of the resources available. The approach to language within the exchange and learning groups would need to be explained in the proposal to the European Commission.

The formation of consortia and the preparation of proposals to meet the requirements above will take considerable time and effort. As such, adequate time (an absolute minimum of two months, but probably three months) should be allowed between the launch of the Call for Proposals the deadline for submission of proposals.

Based on the costing discussed in the next sub-section, we estimate it would be possible to support up to six integrated projects on the model describe above. However, there would be no obligation on the Commission to support six projects. If the quality of proposals proved to be insufficient, fewer projects could be supported. Moreover, if the Commission considered that it could only provide human resources to select and oversee a smaller number of projects (say three to four), this would be possible and could be justified on the grounds that the pilot project has an experimental character and the focus at this stage is on testing methods and approaches, rather than on reaching a large target audience.

67

5.4.2 Option 3: Costings

Our costings for Option 3 have been based on the concept of projects supporting three local exchange and learning groups, each consisting of 12 participants from four localities. A series of four two-day meetings would be held over a period of around eight months, most probably in the participating localities. Although project applicants could be free to propose meetings and study visits to other locations, the costs associated with this would be higher and thus the added value would need to be clearly justified in the proposal. We have used the same unit costs as for the assessment of Option 1 and 2, with the exception of the day rate for experts (moderators and expert presenters). Given the more intensive involvement of experts and the fact they would be engaged on a longer-term basis, we feel a lower average day rate of €800 is appropriate and realistic. Thus, although the amount of expert time per learning group, and corresponding costs, increases considerably in comparison to Options 1 and 2, the unit cost could be lower. The increased expert involvement would allow greater direct support and advice to the groups and hopefully increase the relevance of activities and the chances of success. The costs for a “model” exchange and learning group are shown in

Table 5.3 A Costs for exchange and learning groups (Option 3)

Item No of units Unit cost (€) Total (€)

Travel (9 traveling participants1 x 4 meetings) 36 400 14 400

Hotel & daily allowance (9 participants x 2 days x 4 meetings) 72 225.932 16 27

1 day expert input (for preparation / facilitation) 243 800 19 200

1 day interpreter time4 12 600 7 200

TOTAL per 'group' 57 067

Cost per exchange meeting (total / 4) 14 267

Total (based on 3 'groups' and 6 Lots/projects) 18 57 066.96 1 027 206

Table 5.3 B Costs for Coordinating Bodies (CB)

Item No of units Unit cost (€) Total (€)

Full time project officer / finance officer for duration of project 6 45 000 270 000

Office accommodation and costs for duration of project 6 10 000 60 000

1 If four localities are involved with three participants from each, nine participants will need to travel to each exchange workshop (the participants from the host locality will not require travel or subsistence costs) 2 Average daily allowance for subsistence and accommodation, based on standard European Commission rates. 3 Assumption: 2 days facilitation, 4 days support for preparation and follow-up 4 May not be required in all projects

68

Item No of units Unit cost (€) Total (€)

Translation costs for content / forms + document production 1 25 000 25 000

Travel and subsistence for staff 1 10 000 10 000

SUB TOTAL 365 000

90% TOTAL (possible EU co-financing rate?) 328 000

Website and database development 1 40 000 40 000

TOTAL 405 000

Estimate input for EC 2 fte

OVERALL COSTS OF OPTION 3 1 432 206

If each Lot (or integrated project) supports three exchange and learning groups on the basis set out above, this would give a total budget of €171 200 per Lot. Under this scenario, 36 participants from local and regional level would be involved in each Lot or integrated project. Given the need to organise the final selection of participants and methodologies, support logistical aspects, oversee reporting and manage financial transfers, up to €61 000 would be required for the Coordination of each Lot. As such, an indicative Lot envelope of € 232 000 appears appropriate. Including the costs of the website, this would lead to an overall budget required of € 1.432 mln. In addition, and due to the modest complexity of this Option, it is estimated that a commitment of up to 2 fte will be needed from the European Commission, with a view to the full implementation of the pilot project. Tasks would include finalising the design, preparing, publicising and launching the call, selecting, monitoring and evaluating the exchange projects. It would also require the contracting of the website and database.

As noted, this would allow up to six Lots to be supported within the overall budget available for the pilot project. Project applicants would be required to present a budget specifying the following elements:

• Number of days expert input and fees; • Number of days for support activities (administration, financial management etc) and fees; • Lump sum costs for office overheads (accommodation, telephone etc); • Number of days and unit cost of interpreters (if required); • Number of days subsistence and accommodation costs (at standard flat rates); • Number of units of travel costs (a flat rate or one based on bands of kilometres travelled).

Variations in the composition of the budget would naturally be allowed, provided unit costs were clear and basic requirements in terms of number of participants and days support were met. A budget ceiling of €250 000 would represent the upper limit for budgets.

69

5.4.3 Assessment of Option 3

Option three was deliberately developed in an effort to resolve the inherent weaknesses in Options 1 and 2. This Option is considered to have the following advantages: 1. It supports separate projects to be supported, thus allowing a wider range of actors to bid to

take part, for a range of thematic areas to be addressed and for different approaches to be tested and compared. These different approaches can be evaluated by the independent evaluation and the findings used to inform the design of any future mainstreamed programme.

2. The integrated approach, with the coordinators acting as a fifth partner in exchange groups means that participants from the local level receive more hands-on expert support, the quality of which can be verified in advance. Moreover the integrated structure reduces the risks associated with the more dispersed patterns of responsibility seen in Options 1 and 2. The greater involvement of qualified experts should assist the local level participants and increase the chance that the intended output and results are achieved and the basis is put in place to achieve longer-term impacts.

3. The decision to move from a two-step process of selection (coordinating Lot and then local projects) to a single main selection phase also reduces the uncertainties about real demand and participation levels inherent in Options 1 and 2. This approach also allows the European Commission more to verify more directly the composition of learning and exchange groups and ensures that the local level participants are also direct responsible to the European Commission for the use of funds and the outputs, results and impacts achieved. The decision to be involved and take on this responsibility should demonstrate clear commitment from the participating local authorities.

4. This approach to selection also means that the consortia submitting proposals have to undertake a considerable proportion of the organisational work as part of the proposal process and Community resources can then be concentrated on the exchange activities themselves (the “overhead” is thus reduced to 28% of the overall costs). This also allows exchange activities to begin more quickly after the launch of the pilot project, as the basis for the exchange groups is already in place from the proposal stage. The prior agreement between the partners concerned should reduce the risk that the experts and partners fail to work well together in the activities themselves.

It is clear that the approach to partnership formation involved in Option 3 is more “exclusive” than the more open approach foreseen in Options 1 and 2. However, the requirements in the Call for Proposals to achieve a good geographical balance within and between learning groups should ensure the pilot project achieves good coverage. Moreover, as noted, the focus of the pilot project is on testing approaches and methodologies, rather than reaching a very wide audience. The lessons learned from the pilot project will potentially inform the design of a future initiative with far greater scope.

It is also clear that Option 3 allows less direct flexibility to local level participants. However, provided the emphasis is placed on supporting, assisting and advising the local level participants in line with their needs and priorities, it should be feasible to achieve a workable balance between the top-down and bottom-up approaches.

70

5.5 Option 4: Single integrated project

Option 4 – a single integrated project – was not considered to be a promising option, as the risk of assigning the entire pilot project budget to a single implementation consortium appears too great. For this reason, it was finally not assessed in detail.

5.6 Potential Impact Range

Table 5.4 Potential Impact Range of the Options

Assessment criteria Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Total number of participants per project 12 9 12

Total number of participants 360 270 216

Total number of elected participants 240 180 144

Total number of participating municipalities 120 90 72

Potential impact range per participating municipality (see Section 3.4.3)

€ 5,000 - € 20,000

€ 5,000 - € 20,000

€ 5,000 - € 20,000

Total potential impact range € 600,000 - € 2.4 mln.

€ 450,000 - € 1.80 mln.

€ 360,000 - € 1.44 mln.

Building on the impact chain as presented in Section 3.4.3, we have applied the potential impact range per participating municipality (€ 5,000 - € 20,000) to the total number of participating municipalities, resulting in a potential impact range of € 600,000 - € 2.4 mln. for Option 1 and € 360,000 to € 1.44 mln. for Option 3, with Option 2 positioned between these. These differences are purely based on the difference in number of participating municipalities, and not on any differences between the Options. As already set out in Section 3.4.3, the real impact will be heavily influenced by the size of local investment projects that require a decision, the frequency with which these decisions need to be made, and the influence of participating elected officials on these decisions. All these variables call once more for a carefully designed and targeted pilot project.

71

5.7 Comparative assessment and conclusion

An overview of the various costs, outputs and key ratios are presented in Table 5.5 below, followed by a more schematic assessment table.

Table 5.5 A Comparative assessment of options – key ratios

Assessment criteria Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Total number of participants per project 12 9 12

Total number of participants 360 270 216

Total number of elected participants 240 180 144

Total number of participating municipalities 120 90 72

Total number of exchange meetings 120 90 112

Total number of exchange projects 30 30 18 1

Total costs of implementation 1388 010 810 099 1 027 206

Total costs of coordination 335 000 560 000 405 000

Total overall costs 1 723 010 1 371 004 1432 206

Estimated input from EC 1 fte 3 fte 2 fte

Total implementation costs per participant (excl. coordination costs) 3 855 3 000 4 755

Total implementation cost per meeting (excl. coordination cost) 11 567 9 001 9 171

Total implementation cost per project (excl. coordination cost) 46 267 27 033 57 066

Possible Impact Range per participating municipality [€600,000 to €2,4 million]

[€450,000 to €1.8 mln.

[€360,000 to €1.44 mln.]

1 Consisting of 6 Lots / projects with 3 'groups' each.

72

Table 5.5 B Comparative assessment of options

Assessment criteria Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

1. Activities feasible within the total budget of €1.9 million? + + +

2. Activities feasible within the framework of the EU Financial Regulation? - + +

3. "Overhead" costs in comparison to direct funding for exchange + - - + -

4. Solidity of monitoring and financial control mechanisms - - +

5. Potential for high quality exchange and wider results and impact + - + - +

While the earlier chapters in this report reviewed the underlying rationale for a pilot project and considered how a range of factors influencing effectiveness and practical feasibility could be addressed, Chapter 5 has focused on the detailed implementation options for the pilot project. Whereas the earlier chapters concluded that case for running a pilot project exists and that the main operational issues could reasonably be addressed, the preceding sections have illustrated some of the practical difficulties of implementing a rather experimental pilot project with somewhat intangible outcomes within the EU governance structure and the rules of sound financial management.

The intuitive model of creating a small scale URBACT-style programme for elected representatives (Option 1), with local projects undertaking exchange and mutual learning activities proved to be impossible within the scope of the EU Financial Regulation. In addition, although this model corresponds most closely to a bottom-up approach favoured by local stakeholders consulted for this study and local projects may in practice generate real buy-in from the local level, our assessment also identified some inherent risks with this implementation approach. In particular, it appeared doubtful that a single body would be able to coordinate up to 30 (or even 20) local projects, while responsibility for achieving the outputs, results and impacts is left to the capacities and good will of those running local level projects. The lines of accountability between the European Commission and the local level beneficiaries thus appear to be too weak, with inherent risks for effective monitoring and sound financial management.

Breaking the total sum available for a pilot project to fund a series of separate Lots (Option 2) would certainly overcome the constraint imposed by the €100 000 limit on transfers to third parties by primary beneficiaries of Community funds. However, the resulting structure of multiple projects, all selecting and overseeing their own local projects, which in turn have ultimate control over the success or otherwise of the activities appears excessively complex and plagued with risks related to communication and accountability. In particular, the two stage selection process, whereby the Commission selects coordinating projects, which in turn select local projects is risky, as the Commission has no guarantees that the coordinating project will actually succeed in attracting and selecting local projects and the local projects that are selected are not directly

73

accountable to the European Commission. In addition, the coordination and overhead costs associated Option 2 are excessive in comparison to the resources used directly to support exchange and learning, while the entire construction may be relatively unattractive for potential coordinating organisations.

Finally, therefore, supporting a series of more integrated projects emerged as a possible solution. The Option 3 described above has the advantage of requiring applicants to assemble all partners, including those at local level as part of the preparation of proposals for the European Commission. This eliminates the risky two-stage selection process and creates clearly lines of responsibility between the final beneficiaries (the elected representatives) and the funding body (the European Commission and European Parliament). Moreover, by removing the devolution of responsibility for resources and activities to local projects, financial management and control is simplified greatly. By making the coordinating projects partners in the learning and exchange groups, there is a greater chance that the local partners will receive high quality methodological support to structure their learning and exchange and relevant advice for addressing their particular challenges. There is thus a stronger engagement between the local partners and the coordinating and expert partners. At the same time, by focusing activities on the needs and priorities of the localities in the learning and exchange groups a clear connection with the ground and real problems and solutions is maintained.

As we discuss in more detail in the next chapter, Option 3 does not represent a "perfect solution", free of weaknesses and risks. However, it would be a viable way forward for implementing a stand-alone pilot project to test designs and methods for exchange and mutual learning.

74

6.0 Conclusions and ways forward

6.1 Key Conclusions

The following sections draw together the key conclusions of the feasibility study concerning the relevance of the proposed pilot project and factors affecting its effectiveness and practical feasibility. We then go on to discuss possible ways forward in Section 6.2.

6.1.1 The relevance of additional support for exchange

1 Although it is inherently difficult to make an accurate assessment of the knowledge and capacity development needs of elected representatives at local and regional level for the EU27 as a whole, the balance of available evidence and the results of the stakeholder consultation suggest that a capacity and knowledge development need does indeed exist. Moreover, there is a widespread consensus in available literature and among stakeholders consulted that local and regional elected representatives can and should play a central role in shaping local and regional development policies, as part of their democratic mandates.

2 Various trasnational exchange and mutual learning activities already exist at local, regional and national level across Europe. 1 Within this context, the URBACT and INTERREG programmes provide the most relevant point of reference. The experience from these programmes show that well-structured and organised exchange activities can generate a valuable impact on the knowledge and understanding of individual participants, but that it is more difficult for such activities to have wider “institutional” impacts and change local policy. However, given their status and role, elected representatives have greater potential to influence strategic policy decisions at local and regional level than the unelected officials typically involved in URBACT and other existing exchange and networking programmes.

3 The feasibility study has not found any existing policy initiative run by the EU or other trans-national bodies with an explicit focus on exchange and mutual learning for elected representatives from local or regional level. Existing networking and exchange initiatives tend to focus on the national government level or on non-elected officers and civil servants, rather than on elected representatives. A majority of participants in URBACT and INTERREG projects are currently non-elected officers and the projects in question are comparatively large and complex. Moreover, URBACT focuses only on cities, while the stakeholder consultation undertaken for this study revealed a demand for exchange activities from other units of local or regional government (including districts, counties, provinces etc).

1 Examples are Town twinning, the EU programme to support Town Twinning, EU level networks such as Eurocities and Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR), the Open Society's Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative (LGI), as well as exchanges within the Nordic Council, the Visegrad Group and the Council of Europe's Congress of Local and Regional Authorities.

75

4 A total of 11 stakeholder workshops bringing together local and regional elected representatives were held in nine Member States and constituted a core element of the feasibility study. The feedback from these workshops concerning the notion of establishing an EU initiative to support exchange among elected representatives was overwhelmingly positive. All workshops supported the idea in principle, although some participants expressed doubts as to whether elected representative would have the time to take part and/or the necessary language skills. It is noteworthy that even some comparatively “euro-sceptic” participants supported an initiative focused on practical issues that need to be addressed at local level.

5 The feasibility study also found that relevant organisations – for example umbrella organisations like Eurocities and CEMR – would be willing and may be able to implement such a potential pilot project. The activities envisaged in the proposed pilot project are in line with their activities. They could respond to a call for proposals.

6 Stakeholders consulted for the feasibility study showed strong support for the view that trans-national exchange and learning between local and regional elected representatives has the potential to be more enriching and valuable than exchange activities at purely national or regional level (existing national training schemes, for example). Moreover, the EU is in principle well placed to launch an initiative to support such trans-national exchange activities. Projects organised by the Nordic Council (Nordic countries) or the Visegrad Group (CZ, HU, PL, SK) tend to focus on the level of national government and, by definition, do not cover the whole EU. The trans-national dimension, coverage of the whole EU and a focus on the EU’s strategic development goals (notably those in Europe 2020) would be the core elements of the potential European Added Value of an exchange scheme.

KEY MESSAGE 1: A case for a pilot project exists

In light of the evidence in relation to the underlying problem and need for knowledge and capacity building, the potential relevance of European exchange and mutual learning activities as a tool to respond to this need, the enthusiasm of relevant stakeholders for the proposal and the absence of comparable existing initiatives, a case exists for the EU to support pilot actions to test the effectiveness of such exchange and mutual learning activities for local and regional elected representatives.

6.1.2 Objectives and design factors for effectiveness

7 It is clear that the potential of an exchange scheme can only be realised if it is carefully designed and implemented. The risks attached to implementing an ill-conceived scheme, with poorly-designed objectives would be significant. Taking into account the context for the proposed exchange initiative, the experience of existing initiatives and stakeholder feedback, a more detailed hierarchy of objectives for European exchange activities can be developed, with the following logic. At an operational level, local elected representatives from different

76

Member States could be supported to present and exchange (often tacit) knowledge through peer learning activities. At the level of specific objectives, the activities involved would be expected to provide local elected representatives with a) improved understanding of the range of policy choices available to their locality and b) improve their knowledge and capacity in specific local development and governance-related topics. At the same time, results of the exchange activities could generate new information on local policy challenges and effective solutions relevant for EU level policy-makers. At a strategic level, it is hoped that the improved knowledge and capacity among participating elected representatives would lead to improved strategic decision-making at local and regional level in the EU (the main intended impact of exchange activities).

8 The activities (the potential pilot project) developed to achieve the objectives established above need to be designed in such a way as to make them as effective as possible (to ensure they can achieve the outputs, results and impacts specified), while remaining feasible and practical within the institutional and administrative framework of the EU institutions (we return to the latter aspect below). The most important factors influencing the potential effectiveness of exchange appear to be the target audience for activities and composition of exchange and learning groups (“who?” questions), the subject focus and methodologies and activities for exchange (“what?” questions) and duration of exchange activities (“when?” and “how long?”).

9 Local and regional elected representatives in the EU – the core target audience for exchange activities – have different levels of responsibility and experience and represent different types of local government unit. The feasibility study has concluded that that all directly elected representatives at local and regional level in the EU should in principle be eligible to take part in EU-sponsored exchange. However, this could potentially create an enormous demand: the potential size of this target group should not be underestimated and could easily amount to 1 mln. local elected officials in the whole of the EU. 1 A narrower focus – say on cities – would therefore be necessary and could certainly be imagined in the context of a pilot phase. However, such a restriction would be hard to justify in future, mainstreamed Cohesion Policy activities, given the important role in local development played by other types of local and regional authority. At the level of individuals, a focus on less experienced but promising elected members (perhaps “mayors of the future”) could be imagined, but this could be difficult to define and impose in practice. As such, flexibility should be left to local and regional authorities to propose the most suitable candidates to take part: personal commitment and motivation should be key criteria.

10 For exchange and peer-learning to be effective, participating elected representatives from different Member States should come from local or regional authorities which a) have similar competences in the field on which exchange is focused (eg strategic planning) and b) serve

1 An estimate about the number of local elected representatives in France alone, which counts the biggest number of elected representatives (497,200) gives an indication of the potential size of the target group for the whole EU 27 even if some countries like UK have a smaller number of elected representatives.

77

areas facing similar policy challenges. As the division of responsibilities between local government units varies across Member States, authorities from different levels (regional, intermediate, local) can cooperate meaningfully, provided they share similar competences and policy challenges. These two factors should thus be the main criteria guiding the “matching” of participants in specific exchange and learning groups. The feasibility study found a strong preference for “bottom-up” formation of partnerships, rather than centralised “allocation” of individuals to groups, but also found widespread support for a rigorous selection process to ensure the real commitment of individual participants.

11 Although the local and regional level stakeholders consulted overwhelmingly argued for a completely open approach to the subject focus for exchange activities, the feasibility study considers that a narrower focus on specific EU policy priorities is appropriate. Such a focus would further increase the European Added Value of exchange activities. Example topics might include practical approaches to integrated local development (practical guidance of the “integrated approach”, for example) or effective local and regional policy measures for climate change mitigation.

12 Capacity building involves not only passive but above all active forms of exchange and mutual learning. The experience of previous exchange initiatives (notably URBACT) shows that well-structured exchange activities are vital to the success of this process. Activity-based learning, involving practical exercises linked to participants’ own experience or localities, as well as site visits, seems far more likely to generate an impact on participants’ understanding and subsequent behaviour than presentations and discussions alone. Participative, activity-based exchange activities are inherently more complex (and costly) to organise than less interactive approaches such as large-scale seminars (mini-conferences). This is primarily because of the increased resources required for preparation and facilitation and the requirement for comparatively small learning and exchange groups to allow real interaction. As a general rule, the unit cost of supporting individuals to take part in activity-based learning programmes will be greater than the unit cost of supporting them to take part in a more standard seminar or event. However, the likely effectiveness of such approaches, in terms of learning outcomes and potential impact on subsequent behaviour, is also considerably greater.

13 Closely linked to the previous point, the experience of URBACT and other cooperation programmes has also shown that longer projects are more likely to generate an impact on individuals’ knowledge and understanding than one-off events and that it is important to allow adequate time for individual exchange meetings. The Terms of Reference for this study specified a pilot project with a 15-month duration, which would allow projects lasting several months, with multiple exchange meetings, to be supported. A model with learning groups of 12 participants from four different localities in the EU, meeting four times for two-day meetings in a period of eight months (ie a two-day meeting every two months) is considered feasible. This model would appear to provide an appropriate framework for implementing a project with high chances of achieving an impact. However, although a majority of stakeholders consulted supported involvement in exchange over an extended period of time and often recognised the importance of structured, participative approaches, many also argued they had very limited

78

time (see point 4 above). It is thus not possible to say with certainty whether elected representatives would be able to commit the amount of time required – a well-designed exchange project with clearly defined outcomes would be crucial for gaining commitment.

KEY MESSAGE 2: Participative, activity-based exchange activities would be most effective

Activity-based exchange and learning is likely to be the most effective way to contribute to improved strategic decision-making at local and regional level in the EU. Such activities are more costly than less interactive “exchange events”, in terms of both financial resources and time. The assumptions made by the study about potential effectiveness take into account the best available evidence, but, in the absence of directly comparable initiatives and taking into account the complex causal chains involved, the assumed results and impacts cannot be guaranteed in all cases. At the same time, the stakeholder consultation produced somewhat ambiguous messages on whether elected representatives would have time to take part in intensive exchange activities. Both these areas of uncertainty could be tested in real life through an experimental pilot project.

6.1.3 Factors affecting the practical feasibility of a pilot project

14 As noted, the feasibility study also considered a series of more practical, implementation-related questions concerning the implementation of the proposed pilot project. This would require feasible approaches to be developed for awareness-raising and application procedures, dealing with multi-lingual exchange groups, reimbursement of participants, financial management and reporting and monitoring and evaluation. In addition to these issues of relevance to any EU exchange initiative for elected representatives, a further factor emerged as particularly important for the design of a stand-alone pilot project. With some exceptions, the EU Financial Regulation1 limits transfers by direct beneficiaries of EU grants (including potential coordinators of exchange activities) to third parties (participants in exchange, for example) to a maximum of €100 000. This requirement places clear limitations on the form a pilot project can take. Finding an appropriate balance between promoting effectiveness, in line with the considerations highlighted above, and ensuring practical feasibility has been the most significant challenge for the feasibility study.

15 In the context of an experimental pilot project focused on testing models and methods for exchange, reaching a wide and geographically balanced audience is not a primary objective. In fact, this would be impossible with the large numbers of local elected representatives present in Europe as mentioned. Expectation management amongst potential participants would therefore be important in the pilot stage. However, reaching a wide and geographically balanced audience would be important for any larger scale, mainstreamed exchange programme in the future. Appropriate awareness raising and outreach to ensure local and regional elected representatives are aware the opportunities on offer would then be crucial. Existing local government networks and associations, as well as the Committee of the Regions are potentially effective channels to support the marketing of both a pilot action and

1 Financial Regulation (No 1605/2002), Article 120(2), specified by Implementing Rules, Article 184a

79

any larger scheme in the future. Furthermore, and depending on the outcome of the pilot, it could be envisioned that such an exchange programme would be embedded in a larger knowledge exchange initiative that may be part of a new Cohesion Policy for the period 2014-2020.

16 There is no “one-size-fits-all” solution with regard to the use of multiple languages and individual exchange groups will need to develop their own pragmatic approaches to dealing with the language competences of participants in their group – hence a clear need for tailor-made solutions. In practice, the exchange programme would be much more effective if participating individuals would have at least some foreign language skills, particularly in common languages such as English, French and German. Some additional use of consecutive interpretation and parallel group activities in different language groups could be provided for specific individuals, and would be feasible within the cost structures examined by the study. In practice, however, having more than two working languages in an exchange group is likely to be impractical.

17 Taking into account the findings of the stakeholder consultation, the feasibility study considers that individual participants should be reimbursed travel and subsistence costs incurred in taking part in the exchange and peer learning activities. Relying on local and regional authorities to provide funding would certainly act as a barrier to participation in exchange activities, particularly from less wealthy localities and particularly in the current economic climate. Given the scale of resources used, formal co-financing arrangements for individual participants would be disproportionately complex in the context of a pilot project. The time, effort and commitment to preparation and follow-up activities required from individuals and local authorities will be considerable. In this context, financing of direct costs (travel and subsistence) at standardised flat rates would appear to be justified. In addition, in kind contribution (labour and offices) could be considered as co-finance.

18 The feasibility study considered the “administrative burden” for individual participants and local authorities arising from an exchange initiative. Although it is clear that bureaucracy should be kept to a minimum, it is equally clear that a pilot project would need a sound application procedure to allow the commitment and motivation of participants to be checked, while participants should be required to report back on the outcomes of the activities supported with EU funds. By maintaining simple financial provisions and using clear and well-structured application and reporting templates, it would be possible to keep administrative requirements to a minimum, while ensuring sufficient rigour in implementation of a pilot project.

19 The experimental nature of pilot projects means that appropriate monitoring and evaluation to measure the results obtained are always of vital importance. The nature of the exchange activities means the evaluation would rely heavily on feedback from individual participants on the learning outcomes and other effects of participating in exchange activities. The necessary questionnaires for monitoring feedback and results would need to be developed and supplied to participants in advance to allow information to be collected over the course of project implementation and the evaluation to proceed swiftly after activities had been completed. The

80

timing of the proposed pilot project means there would be little time for wider, longer-term “impacts” to materialise– at least if these are to be considered in any decision regarding the follow-up of the pilot initiative within the period 2014-2020.

20 The feasibility study (see Chapter 5 of this report) examined different ways to structure a pilot project to accommodate the €100 000 limit on transfers to third parties by EU grant beneficiaries, while still trying to maximise the potential effectiveness of the activities. The potentially most effective and feasible option for a stand-alone pilot project identified would involve supporting a series of (up to six) integrated exchange projects, with a maximum budget of €250 000, each containing three trans-national “learning and exchange groups” of 12 individuals. Such an approach, in which participants take part in a comparatively intensive programme of exchange and learning (involving four exchange meetings in each group) would allow 36 individuals to receive capacity building in each project (216 in total). If projects used the full budget allocation, this would equate to a cost per participant of almost €7000, without counting the overall management and coordination costs. This cost reflects not only the number of meetings envisaged and the resources needed for facilitation and preparation, but also, to some extent, the comparatively high “overhead” cost attached to the smaller projects necessitated by the rules of the Financial Regulation. “Economies of scale” could be achieved in a future, larger scale exchange programme.

KEY MESSAGE 3: A stand-alone pilot would be practically feasible, but implementation risks remain.

Although a range of general practical challenges will need to be addressed in the implementation of any form of exchange and learning activity for elected representatives, the feasibility study considers that these operational challenges could all be addressed and overcome with a pragmatic, well-designed implementation approach. Moreover, the specific challenge for launching a stand-alone pilot project, related to limits on transfer of EU grant funding to third parties, could be addressed through supporting integrated projects (Option 3 in Chapter 5), in which such transfers are unnecessary. Nevertheless, the most suitable option for a stand-alone pilot project involves a comparatively high unit cost per participant – which can be viewed as an additional risk factor – and would require a clear commitment in terms of time and human resources from all stakeholders involved.

6.2 Ways forward

The preferred option as it emerges from this feasibility study is to implement a stand-alone pilot project in line with the most promising model (Option 3) identified by this study. Although this option would carry the risks highlighted above, the more intensive programme of exchange and learning involved provides the greatest chance of generating impacts on the ground. The key features would be: • An appropriate human resources commitment within the European Commission, with a view to

the full implementation of a pilot project (finalising its design; preparing, publicising and

81

launching the call; selecting, monitoring and evaluating the exchange projects); depending on the Option chosen we estimate this resourcing would amount to 1 – 3 FTE;

• A Call for Proposals, preceded by "pre-information" to raise awareness, launched by the European Commission for up to six integrated, trans-national exchange projects;

• Applicants would be invited to form consortia involving “coordinating” partners (with expertise in facilitating mutual learning and in relevant subject fields) and 12 “local and regional” partners (local and regional authorities) formed into three groups of four;

• Eligibility of local and regional elected representatives would be left open, but preference could be given to less experienced elected members and / or those with leadership roles in particular thematic areas;

• Projects would be required to demonstrate and justify appropriate matching of local and regional authorities on the basis of competences and policy challenges;

• A focus on EU policy priorities, such as local approaches to climate change mitigation or practical approaches to integrated development planning could be appropriate;

• The learning and exchange should include activity-based learning methods and support follow-up actions to promote the translation of learning into policy changes on the ground.

• A 15-month duration with a core implementation period of eight months for exchange activities, indicatively involving four two-day meetings/visits in each learning and exchange group;

• Evaluation of effectiveness (at least in terms of short-term effects) in time to inform the detailed programming of future EU territorial cooperation programmes.

The feasibility study has concluded that a case exists to test the effectiveness of trans-national exchange activities through pilot activities: activity-based exchange and learning is likely to be the most effective way to contribute to improved strategic decision-making at local and regional level in the EU, and the potential impact of such an initiative could be considerable. However, these expected results and impacts are only likely to materialise if the initiative – as well as the selected projects – is sufficiently well designed and carefully implemented. Depending on the Option favoured, and as specified in the main report, this would require appropriate capacity from the Commission as well. Overall, the practical challenges for implementing a stand-alone pilot project, based on a Call for Proposals, are not insignificant as such a pilot project carries with it some inherent risks.

During the discussion on the draft final report, and in light of the above considerations, representatives of the EC asked the contractor to reflect on whether there are alternative ways to deliver the objectives set for the pilot project proposed by the European Parliament. The question was whether similar results could be obtained through other means. ECOTEC worked on this question and came back with complementary input to the report. According to ECOTEC experience, capacity building schemes for locally or regionally elected officials could be addressed within existing European Territorial Cooperation Programmes. Within INTERREG IVc and within URBACT, networks exist which could expand the scope of their activities in order to involve elected representatives in networking and mobility schemes. As previously stated, these programmes would not have the appropriate legal framework for implementing the pilot project as

82

83

proposed by the European Parliament. Their budgets could not be combined with the budget as allocated for the European Parliament pilot project.

However, such a pilot action could take place in the current or future context of URBACT and INTERREG programmes on the basis of their specific budgets. If such a pilot action were to be launched in the framework of URBACT Programme, a workable solution would be to facilitate the exchange of the local representatives of cities involved in thematic networks financed by this Programme. Such an option could be an alternative to the favoured option presented in this report, however this alternative was not included in the scope of the feasibility study. This alternative, could involve allocating funds within the existing URBACT programme to support greater involvement of elected representatives and exchange between representatives from different URBACT cities. A suggestion would be to build on the existing Local Support Groups, which have been created in each participating city in all URBACT thematic networks. These Local Support Groups contribute to the development and subsequent implementation of the Local Action Plans, which all participating cities must produce. Networks could provide a "ready-made" forum or platform for exchange between elected representatives from the participating cities. As the study did not examine this alternative in detail, its feasibility and in particular its impacts could be explored further by the European Commission and the URBACT programme Secretariat.

KEY MESSAGE 4: A balance must be struck between risks and potential returns

This study set out to examine the feasibility of a the European Commission launching a stand-alone pilot project to test the potential effectiveness of trans-national exchange and mutual learning activities for local and regional elected representatives. The study has concluded that the launch of such a pilot project would be feasible in principle. However, such a project would be experimental in nature and involve a range of risks, as well as commitment of considerable time and human resources by the European Commission. The potential rewards in terms of improved knowledge about appropriate methods for exchange and mutual learning between elected representatives and the effectiveness of such methods would be significant. However, an alternative of building on existing activities within the context of INTERACT IVc or the URBACT programmes would provide an alternative way forward, with lower risks, but with yet unknown returns.

Annex 1: Summary of EP Resolution

European Parliament Resolution "on governance and partnership at national and regional levels and a basis for projects in the sphere of regional policy"

The term "Governance" is used to refer to the way policy-making, policy implementation and public service delivery are organised at different geographical levels. It is seen to involve both an institutional system, which provides for the allocation of powers and budgets between the State and regional and local authorities and a partnership system, which brings together the public and private bodies concerned by a given topic in a given territory.

It is argued that regional and urban policies must form part of an integrated development strategy, which, in turn requires different actors to work together more closely.

Existing structures may focus on individual issues, rather than taking an integrated view, while administrative divisions may not always correspond to the geographical areas for which responses are required – hence the need for improvements in the way "governance" (see above) is organised.

The European Parliament considers that the European institutions can provide the impetus needed to improve governance at all levels: Community, national, regional and local. European initiatives such as URBAN I and II and LEADER have successfully implemented integrated approaches, based on a multi-sectoral, territorial and bottom-up working.

The "partnership principle", whereby policies are implemented on the basis of cooperation with individuals and public and private bodies concerned by a given subject, is seen as important.

The EU is interested in ensuring its own funding streams (notably Structural Funds) are implemented in an integrated way, notably through optimal coordination with other sources of funding and activities.

In addition, it is seen to be vital that actions are implemented at the most appropriate territorial level. In particular, this may mean taking into account such factors as labour catchment areas (not necessarily corresponding to administrative boundaries) and enhanced cross-border cooperation.

The main recommendation of the Parliament is Resolution is to improve training and capacity on governance (ie policy organisation and project management) issues for those most closely involved in delivering public sector services and interventions

In common with many EU initiatives, the importance of "exchanges of good practice" in governance is stressed as part of the training and capacity building required.

The creation of an "ERASMUS programme for local elected representatives" (ie an exchange programme) is seen to represent a means to contribute to exchanges of good practice in the area of governance. The Resolution does not elaborate further on why such a scheme is required and why it should focus particularly on local elected representatives.

85

Annex 2: Interviewees and workshop attendees

Table: EU-level stakeholder interviewees

Level Organisation Interviewee

Eurocities Bernardo Rodrigues (Policy Officer - Governance & International Cooperation) Vanda Knowles (Policy Director) Paul Bevan (Secretary General)

Council of European Municipalities and Regions

Angelika Poth-Mögele (Director of Policy) Marit Schweiker (Policy Officer - Cohesion and territorial policy)

Deutscher Verband Christian Huttenloher (Director of Brussels Office)

European Associations

Quartiers en crise Haroon Saad (Director)

Committee of the Regions Christof Kienel, briefed by Michael Schneider (Chair of Regional Development Commission),

Former MEP Jean-Marie Beaupuy (Member and rapporteur for EP Resolution) EU institutions

EP (Committee on Regional Development – REGI)

Kerstin Westphal (Member of REGI Committee)

Interreg IVC Secretariat Michel Lamblin, Programme Director Related EU programmes

Urbact Secretariat Jean-Loup Drubigny, Head of Secretariat

Related EU initiatives

DG ENTR (Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs)

Marko Curavic (Head of Unit) and Christian Weinberger from DG ENTR E1 (Responsible for programme design)

86

Annex 3: Findings from consultative workshops

SEE SEPARATE DOCUMENT

87

88

Annex 4: Guidance for Option A

SEE SEPARATE DOCUMENT