Interact Pro Monte Kick Off Meeting 56July 2004 30 Brussels Delegation Region of Lombardy

1
Interact Pro MonteKick Off Meeting5-6July 2004
30Brussels Delegation Region of Lombardy

• Partnership agreement

2
Work plan / I 14 months

•  I) Evaluation and adaptation
•  
• I.1) Evaluation of Interreg programmes and
  projects in mountain regions 8 months. 
• I.1.a- Definition of evaluation criteria
  integrating mountains specificities 2 months 
• Based on the work of evaluation already done at
  different levels (European, national or regional)
  and their experiences both in mountain questions
  and in cooperation questions, the project
  partners would define several criteria for a
  large evaluation of Interreg projects of the
  various periods and levels.
•  
• The objective is to benchmark the best practices.
  So, the criteria would be defined under several
  objectives which would defined what is a best
  practice of interregional cooperation in
  mountains areas. This question would certainly
  focus on the major specificities, both problems
  or potentials, of mountain areas tackling with
  environment conservation and civil security,
  sustainable tourism, accessibility which means
  both transport and communication questions,
  specific kind of employment structure as
  pluriactivity, rural development or urban
  organisation, quality label, culture and
  heritage, etc.. 

3
Work plan / I.1.b 3 months

• I.1.b - Searching and collecting projects in
  Interreg various strands.
•  
• On their own territories or "massif" for the
  local and regional authorities involved in the
  project and in the other regions member of AEM,
  the one who are not project partners, a
  collection of all the projects done in mountain
  regions would be done across Europe. Euromontana,
  throw its own network, would also find other
  cooperation projects.
• This collection work could be sustained with the
  help of the Interact Secretariat, the Interact
  points and the various authorities of Interreg
  based in mountain regions, some of which are also
  member of AEM.
•  
• Some strands would be certainly more focused than
  other III B Alpine space would certainly be one
  of the more important.
•  This research and this evaluation would cover
  the entire Europe, but also the neighbour states
  (Mediterranean and wider Europe) and of course
  the applicant countries.

4
Work plan / I.1.c 3 months

• I.1.c- Evaluation and recognition of "best
  practices" in mountain regions.
•  Based on the criteria defined in the first
  phase, the various projects or programmes (a
  specific attention should be given to Interreg
  IIIC Regional Framework Operation done or to be
  done), would be analysed. The way they were
  formed, how their partnership was created, their
  objectives, their results, their management,
  their financial settlement, their sustainability,
  could be various types of practices to be
  evaluated and benchmarked.
•  
• According to the various criteria, various types
  of best practices should be analysed and
  presented. These best practices could covered the
  whole agenda of creation of a cooperation project
  from the analyse of a subject of cooperation
  partnership (why forming a cooperation? and why
  searching Interreg funding or not ?) to the
  sustainability of the projects (is the
  partnership going on after the funding period and
  why ?).
•  
• The benchmark working group or cluster that
  should be established with Priority 1 - Measure 1
  (as indicated in Interact Programme Complement p
  34) would be consulted and associated to this
  work.
•  
• A other important aim of this project is also to
  find arguments and experiences for the work done
  by the European Commission on the legal and
  regulatory framework of crossborder,
  interregional and transnational cooperation on
  this specific items a consultation of the
  European Association of Border Regions would be
  done as for the national or regional structures
  created to sustain transnational cooperation like
  in France la Mission Opérationnelle
  Transfrontalière. 

5
Work plan/ I.2 6 months over both I.1.a and
I.1.c

• I.2) Integration of data from Objectives 1, 2 and
  3, and Leader experiences in mountain regions.
•  
• Because the "Interact Pro Monte" project is not
  only working on Interreg experience, but also on
  "mountain" experience, it has to integrate the
  special expectations of regional and local
  actors. And the best way to tackle with them, is
  to have some information on the work done inside
  Objectives 1, 2 and 3 and Leader programme.
•  
• The collected data would give to the project an
  overview on the mountain authorities
• preoccupations. This local information would be
  based on the territories of each local and
  regional authorities or actors involved in the
  project. So, it would mainly be at NUTS III
  (Province) level. Both AEM and Euromontana would
  also work in their network of local and regional
  authorities and professional actors to ask them
  some examples of relevant projects in Objectives
  1, 2, 3 or Leader.
•  
• The published evaluation of DOCUP in mountain
  regions could also help to identify some relevant
  aspects of the work done in mountain areas with
  the European funds as the national and regional
  laws and policies fro mountain areas.
•  

6
Work plan (I.2)

•  
• For the new member states, Zdanie based in Poland
  would gathered information on the mountain
  policies in Eastern and Central Europe and on the
  items selected by the European Commission and the
  States (with mountain areas) in the negotiations
  of application.
• A cross analysis would them clarify if the
  mountain questions have been taken into account
  as a potentiality of development, a problem or
  simply ignored. 

7
Work plan / I.3 6 months

• I.3)Adaptation tools and actions issued of
  Interact P1M1 and P1M2 and shaping new specific
  tools if necessary to put in value the "best
  mountain practices.
•  
• That is a central phase of the "Interact Pro
  Monte" Project, when the work done by the
  Interact secretariat and IP should be strongly
  involved in. In particular for this phase, the
  work done on a toolbox to develop practical
  management tools, to promote common standards, to
  promote wide use of common standards would be
  integrated in. As for the work done by the other
  IP on Information and Animation based on source
  examples of good practice to make them available
  and encourage their use, and to increase
  exchange, interaction between all players in
  Interreg.
•  
• These two actions covered by two of the Interact
  points would be sustained by the "Interact Pro
  Monte" project, which, in this phase 1, would
  work on the same activities than the IP but
  focused on a geographic and thematic target
  mountain territories (which has to be understood
  as environment and populations).
•  
• So, the best practices evaluated in periods 1 and
  2 of phase I would be compared to the work done
  by the IP. Therefore, the project partners would
  analyse what can give an added-value to the
  toolbox and the work of "information and
  animation" with the results of the evaluation
  phase.

8
Work plan (I.3 6 months)

• There are then to kinds of possible adaptation.
• First, an adaptation of the IP works to mountain
  specificities the best Interreg practices in
  mountain sustainable development best
  interregional practices.
• Second, an adaptation of the best practices
  evaluated in periods 1 and 2 to the expectations
  of local and regional authorities and development
  actors, which could be private or public,
  economic or social the mountain sustainable
  development best interregional practices in
  future Interreg project in mountain areas.
•  A specific attention would focus on the special
  cases of mountain areas in Central and Eastern
  Europe. That is why the adaptation phase would
  strongly involved Zdanie on this question.
•  
• Depending of the adaptability of the IP work to
  the mountain best specificities, two solution
  could be imagined. The first one is a complement
  tool and a catalogue of best practices in
  Mountain regions. The second is to create a new
  tool or a new approach to integer both IP actions
  and "Pro Monte" evaluation. This second option
  should be done in a very close cooperation with
  the Interact secretariat.
•  
• Then, at the end of Phase 1, "Interact Pro Monte"
  would dispose of toolbox and available good
  practices. The second phase would work on
  qualification and transfer.

9
Work plan (II 12 months)

• II) Transfers and Development activities
•  
• II.1) Platforms and seminars ( 9 months)
•  
• Platforms would target some public at local and
  regional levels composed of public authorities,
  elected representatives and civil servants,
  development agencies, local public companies
  tackling with General Interest Services and
  socio-professional actors involved in mountain
  areas. Associating Interreg and Interact
  authorities (Interact Secretariat and Points, MA,
  PA, JTS) in particular the Managing Authorities
  and Paying Authorities of mountain regions.
•  
• First, a transfer work for a coherent
  communication phase, using the work done by the
  IP on qualification and transfer. The work done
  to develop training and qualification packages to
  make specific know-how available outside of
  individual programmes and strands of Interreg, to
  provide a coherent framework for exchange and
  transfer between the stakeholders of all Interreg
  strands, to make use of Interact's achievements
  for training, qualification, exchange and
  transfer, this work would be the heart of the
  "Interact Pro Monte" project.  

10
Work plan (II.1 9 months)

•  An adaptation of this training and qualification
  packages, this coherent framework and to support
  new and specific achievements are the aim of this
  phase of this project.
•  
• It would then give to the several regional and
  local platforms as for a European platform a
  coherent information framework. The training and
  qualification packages would then be used in all
  the regional seminars as for the final
  conference.
•  
• These seminars would be organised on a
  geographical and horizontal base. There is one
  for the Iberic peninsula, one for the Alpine
  Space, one for Mediterranean and/or insular
  mountains, one for eastern and central Europe.
  Thus seminars would transfer information to the
  platforms and participants in workshops on
  specific items identified as been important in
  the evaluation phase.
•  
• The workshops should be pro-active it wouldn't
  be only passive training but it is hope to create
  a pro-acting approach of the participants towards
  the proposed tools and indications in a bottom
  up movement.
•  
•  

11
Work plan (II.2 3 months)

•  
• II.2) "Bottom - Up debriefing" Integrating
  remarks and feedbacks of the platform and seminar
  participants.
•  
• A synthetic report, done by the partner in charge
  of it- would be done for each seminar with the
  main results, problems and expectations of
  members of the platforms and the participants to
  the seminars. This return of information from
  local actors would help to define or not the
  needed correction of the work done in Phase 1.
•  
• After such a correction, the results of all
  "Interact Pro Monte" project could be present to
  the whole Europe.
•  

12
Work plan (II.3 June 2006)

•  II.3) European Added Value setting up a common
  tool and recommendations for the objective of
  cooperation" during a European conference about
  "interregional cooperation in Mountain
  territories".
•  
• This is the main political dimension of the
  project based on the principles developed in the
  White book of the Europe Commission on "European
  governance".
•  
• The results of a two year project on
  interregional, cross-border and transnational
  cooperation in mountain regions could be present
  in a large European conference.
• The best practices, the best projects or
  programmes, the more innovative cooperations
  would be presented. The tools and documents
  created during the project would also be.
•  
• This conference gathering all the platforms
  members and most of mountain authorities and
  professional would be the time for the European
  mountain territory to propose new orientation for
  the future of Interreg initiative.
• Even if the cooperation with the Europe
  Commission DG Regio would be organised all along
  the project, this conference should be the time
  to conclude a period of programmation and to open
  a new one. 

13
Budget framework (1)
14
Budget framework (2)
15
Budget framework (3)
16
Budget framework (4)