Gothenb

urg, Swed

en

09-12-2009

INTERREG IV

C

Capitalisation Conference report

qsdddf

2

INTERREG IVC Capitalisation Conference

9/10 December 2009

Gothenburg, Sweden

Contents

INTERREG IVC Capitalisation Conference 4

Participants overview and feedback 5

Workshop: Building on good practices, where does the basis come from? 10

Workshop: Developing partnerships, the importance of good choice 11

Workshop: Transfer process, mainstreaming the practices and elaborating the action plans 13

Keynote speech, Alf Hornborg: Are we serious about lowering our carbon dioxide emissions? 15

Round table discussion: the role of Managing Authorities in INTERREG IVC projects 16

Report compiled February 2010 Author: Grgoire Tardy Contributors: Nuala Morgan, Laure Lesec, Soraya Asmani, Agnieszka Kmiecik-Mikusek, Agnieszka Kwasniak, Kelly Zielniewski Photographs: Emilie Lager

3

4

INTERREG IVC Capitalisation Conference

December 9 10 2009

Gothenburg, Sweden

INTERREG IVCs annual event took place in Gothenburg, Sweden, on 9 - 10 December 2009, with a specific focus on capitalisation. The central part of the Conference was the launch of the third call for proposals for Capitalisation projects, that is to say cooperation projects dedicated to the transfer of good practices into the participating Regions mainstream programmes. The conference provided the participants with opportunities to attend to workshops on how to set up a Capitalisation project, to participate in speed-dating sessions, to network thematically, and to ask their questions to the members of INTERREG IVCs Joint technical Secretariat, Information Points and National Contact Points. On the first morning a working session was dedicated to the thirteen ongoing Capitalisation projects that had been approved under the first and second calls. A separate report focuses on this particular meeting. The first afternoon was dedicated to the call for proposals. Jean-Marc Vnineaux from the European Commissions DG REGIO depicted the background and the expectations for Capitalisation projects before Michel Lamblin INTERREG IVC Programme Director and Erwin Siweris Deputy Programme Director presented the characteristics of the call and explained how to apply. With a focus on innovation and environmental issues, and with the United Nations Climate Change Conference taking place in Copenhagen at the same time, it was fitting that INTERREG IVC asked Alf Hornborg, Professor of Human Ecology at Lund University, to be the guest speaker on the subject of alternative currencies as a means of mitigating climate change. Thanks to the host, Region Vstra Gtaland, participants to the conference also enjoyed a beautiful folk Santa Lucia celebration, a tra ditional festival of lights where a choir of girls and boys sang hymns celebrating the rebirth of the Sun at the winter solstice. The second day was dedicated to thematic networking and speed-dating, so that participants could identify potential partners, as well as a series of three workshops on how to create a Capitalisation project that were moderated by JTS staff members. Thomas Spriet from Nord Pas-de-Calais Region, Managing Authority for the INTERREG IVC programme, concluded the event with closing words on the specificity of this call for projects. Comparing the conference to previous INTERREG IVC annual events, he reminded the participants that Capitalisation is a process that is more about disseminating and transferring good practices than about creating bridges between partners and networks, and wished them luck for the writing of their projects.

5

Participants overview and feedback Turnout and geographical origin Fifty programme-related staff welcomed 150 participants from Managing Authorities, Intermediate Bodies and bodies governed by public law from eighteen countries across Europe. The call for projects being restricted to Capitalisation projects and the process of Capitalisation itself being unfamiliar to most Managing Authorities explain the difference in size between the Gothenburg Conference and previous annual events turnouts. In addition, some Managing Authorities encountered administrative end-of-year difficulties to travel to Sweden. The graph below shows the geographical origin of the participants according to INTERREG IVCs Information Point areas1. The geographical distribution of the participants showed that some of the countries were under-represented, particularly those from Eastern and Central Europe, mostly because of a lack of financial means to travel to Sweden. Moreover elections in Bulgaria led to changes in the administrative personnel, and the new personnel responsible for territorial cooperation were not known when the invitations were sent out. One of the objectives of this event was to reach out to Managing Authorities of Structural Funds programmes, i.e. to go beyond the regular INTERREG public. Feedback shows that 53% of the participants had never submitted an INTERREG project, thus achieving this objective. Feedback: content and format The participants feedback was very positive, both about the quality of the information given during the event, which was deemed clear and complete, and about the events organisation. It is interesting to read the next figures bearing in mind that about half of the participants had never submitted of project to INTERREG, while the other half had but not necessarily a Capitalisation project.

1 Worst 1 2% 2 1 2% 3 10 19% 4 27 52% 5 Best 13 25%

1 IP North : Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Norway IP East : Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania IP South : Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain IP West : Belgium, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Switzerland

Do you feel that you better understand the process of Capitalisation projects?

Yes 43 100%

No 0 0%

On a scale of 1 to 5, how clear did you find the information about the call for Capitalisation projects?

6

Networking Speed-dating sessions had been set up where participants were clustered by sub-theme and met one another during four-minute rounds. This was an opportunity for participants to quickly introduce themselves, meet people working on the same issues, exchange information, and find potential partners. Thematic networking sessions were also organised, providing more time for participants interested in a particular sub-theme to go into further details. An exhibition area provided the participants with the opportunity to have a stand to present their ongoing Capitalisation project or their project idea. Twelve projects and project ideas chose to do so. Specific stands for the European Commission and for the INTERREG IVC programme were also put up. The networking was made easier by the use of an all-encompassing networking device (SpotMe), which included a personalised agenda, a live Q&A tool during the presentations, virtual business cards, a radar function to identify possible partners across the hall (either by organisation or by ID photos). All the information gathered and shared by a given participant was then stored online on a password-protected site. It was the first time that INTERREG used this electronic tool and both the participants and the organisers found it of great help. On the organisers side, the SpotMe system also allowed instant polling and deferred feedback. According to the participants, the main limit to the Conferences success was that the turnout was a bit too low for the networking and speed-dating sessions to be as fruitful as they could have been.

1 Worst 0 0% 2 4 8% 3 15 28% 4 25 47% 5 Best 9 17%

Was the format of the workshops suitable?

Yes 41 93% No 3 7%

On a scale of 1 to 5, how complete did you find the information about the call for Capitalisation projects?

7

Call for Capitalisation Projects: application pack

The presentation of the application pack was delivered by the Deputy Programme Manager, Erwin Siweris, who presented the key elements of the application pack and focused on pointing out what is characteristic for the call and how it affected changes in these elements:

Terms of Reference Programme Manual Application Form Template Co-financing Statement Template Letter of support from Managing Authority (MA) / intermediate body

It was announced that the application pack would be available on-line on the 9 December. The audience was informed that the Terms of Reference for the Capitalisation call were based on the decisions of the Monitoring Committee meeting held in Stockholm on 4-6 November 2009. The MC also approved the updated programme manual. It was highlighted that the manual contains many annexes with examples of projects and other useful information. Also some user-friendly improvements were introduced to the application form, e.g. to avoid the wrong selection of the type of operation which might lead to ineligibility,

the Capitalisation box has already been ticked for applicants. The application form contains automatic checks which give applicants feedback on whether basic conditions are fulfilled, e.g. number of partners. It was recommended that the checklist be checked and double checked, as many mistakes leading to ineligibility still occur. The co-financing statement in the previous calls was the source of mistakes in about 50% of ineligible applications. Therefore in order to prevent applicants making changes to its main body, core text was developed and fields have been pre-filled, including the date. As to the content-wise change, if an amount stated on the statement is higher than in the application form, it will still be acceptable. In Capitalisation projects, the involvement of MAs or public bodies which carry out tasks of MAs is essential. For the third call, the letter of support is designed to ensure the direct involvement of the MAs. By signing the letter, the MAs declare to support their project partner, monitor the implementation and be involved in the development of an action plan. However, the commitment of MAs does not constitute a legal obligation to implement the action plan, as this depends on the modalities of each operational programme. When discussing the terms of reference, it was mentioned that both priorities are open for applications in the third call, however those submitting projects under sub-themes that are already covered by running projects would have to show the added value of the application. The basic rules did not change, although it was recommended to contact National Contact Points to check partner status at the earliest stage of project development. Applicants were reminded that only official partners the ones listed in the application form can apply, and that no sub-partners are valid for IVC. The major change in these terms of reference was that stricter guidance was introduced to applicants. This was caused by the fact that in the previous two calls, 19% of the applications were ineligible. The condition concerning the involvement of 6 to 10 countries which used to be a recommendation in previous call has now become a requirement, in order to provide a wider geographical coverage. Still to improve the geographical coverage a requirement to have at least one partner from each Information Point area, as well as to involve partners from at least 2 new Member States were introduced. As regards hints for the budget, it was stated that in order to avoid cases of overestimated budget, it is now required to stick to the amount between EUR 1 and 2 million. It was underlined that, based on the MC decision, the total budget for the call is EUR 15 million, which allows for the approval of 10 to 12 projects altogether in the third call. Nevertheless, it was also signalled that, based on the quality of applications received, this may be increased slightly.

8

Another piece of advice given to applicants was to make sure that both the electronic and printed versions of the application form are identical, to avoid ineligibility. When summarising the eligibility check, Erwin Siweris stressed the necessity of having a legible dispatch date on the envelope containing the application form, to avoid rejection. He also informed that the quality check should be completed by September 2010, and that the expected date for approved projects launch is October 2010. Initial information on the fourth call was given. It was explained that the launch and conditions of the next call will depend on the results of the programme evaluation, to be carried out by an external expert. Most probably the fourth call will take place by the end of 2010. Questions and Answers session At this session participants could ask questions verbally or in written form through the spot-me device. JTS experts available: Nicolas Singer, Anne-Cecile Renard. EC representatives: John Walsh, DG Regio; Jean-Marc Venineaux, DG Regio Q: In the context of the quality check of applications, are there any specific capitalisation criteria, such as having a pool of good practices? A: There are no specific qualitative criteria for Capitalisation projects, they are identical to Regional Initiative projects all six criteria are described in the programme manual. However, certain sections in the application form are adapted to the Capitalisation type of projects. For example, at one point applicants are obliged to describe the stock of experience available and the involvement of MAs. If this is not described, this may result in the project being rejected. Also a lot depends on how transfer is described. Q: How many good practices do you need in the project? A: Here differences may occur among regions. Some countries or regions will have a very specific, limited or focused action plan, whereas others a more extensive one, also depending on the area. Q: Are we looking for single good practices or types of good practices, or both? A: It depends on the type of project. The more precise you are in the preparation phase with your partners, the better you will be able to identify what you want to do. Then you will know which region is interested in which good practice. Q: In a question concerning the transfer process of good practices to structural funds programmes, the win-win approach was not clear for the participant. A: The win-win approach in the transfer process in the context of IVC means that all regions involved in the project should benefit from cooperation. Q: One question concerned the well and badly described involvement of MAs in the application form. A: A detailed explanation is recommended. Some projects demonstrate a proactive approach by giving an in-depth description, including even the name of the person responsible within the Managing Authority. The recommendation is to go as far as possible in describing the context. Q: (SpotMe) Do you have content priorities from energy projects? A: In the programme there is a subtheme dedicated to energy and sustainable transport, but no particular requirements as to the content of these projects are given.

9

Q: (SpotMe) Are you planning to hold seminars for project partners? A: For this call two Lead Applicant Seminars will be held: in Barcelona and in Prague. So far a series of National Information Days were held in particular Member States. For further information all the interested were asked to refer to relevant IPs. The programme also organises Lead Partner Seminars for approved projects (within one and a half year) on communication and separately on financial issues. Beneficiaries of running project can get legal and technical advice on projects implementation and management. Difference between the two types of seminars was explained, based on the target group. Q: Question related to the implementation process after the closure of IVC project. A: In case no Structural Funds are available, project partners need to find out if some specific measure or maybe Technical Assistance funds are available with which the action plans from Capitalisation projects can be implemented. Although, as Capitalisation projects are thematic projects, this other measure may not necessarily be adequate one. It was stressed that at the initial stage of project idea development, project partners need to make sure that an action plan can be later implemented through a relevant Regional / National Operational Programme. Sometimes OPs keep financing the same things so it may be useful to introduce some changes. Q: How can a Capitalisation Project become a Fast Track project? A: (DG Regio) There are two phases in the procedure: first, the application is checked by the programme, and secondly it is checked by the DGs staff. What counts in the ECs examination process is the projects links with the DGs scope of interest. It is impossible to declare in advance if a project will be fast tracked as it is an interactive process of examination and consultation among particular DGs. Q: The question concerned the EC involvement in supporting approved Fast Track projects, as well as its preferences as to the subtheme tackled. A: (DG Regio) The EC still wishes to fast track projects in the third call and are interested in receiving projects under subthemes that have not been covered yet in the first or second call. DG Transport and DG Energy have indicated that applicants are welcome to submit projects in these fields. Q: What is the difference between Intelligent Energy Europe and the IVC? Where to apply? A: Damien Cocard, from Intelligent Energy Europe was present in the audience and replied to this question. The programme finances soft activities in energy efficiency and sustainable transport. However, these projects are less focused on MA involvement, whereas NGOs and private bodies are very much welcome. In case of IVC, private bodies are not the main target group. The IEE programme could be a source of good practices for Capitalisation projects.

10

Workshop: Building on good practices, where does the basis come from?

Elena FERRARIO Project Officer - moderated the workshop. After a short introduction on the subject and aim of the workshop, Elena introduced the two speakers. Benot DALBERT Project Officer - first reminded the participants of the meaning of good practice in the context of the INTERREG IVC programme. Benot then explained where the stock of experiences can come from and specified that this stock should be sufficient to ensure the win-win character of the cooperation. Finally, he highlighted the main sections of the application form where the already identified good practices should be depicted. Sara BANCHI presented the capitalisation process carried out within the ERIK ACTION project. She highlighted the key elements of this process, namely:

- Time - Peer evaluation - Building on experience - Keep learning - Consensus

Sara Banchi then reminded the participants that a good practice should be simple and transferable. Questions and answers Q: How many good practices did ERIK ACTION identify? A: Paolo Frosini explained that 20 good practices were initially selected but only 16 were picked out after the approval of the project.

Q: Do you recommend having as many good practices as possible for the assessment? A: Benot answered that there is no threshold and that the criteria is not the number of good practices but their pertinence.

Q: What if a partner is looking for a good practice in a specific area? Is the programme providing a list of identified good practices? A: At the programme level, the IIIC projects are listed with their results. The DG REGIO identified good practices that are constantly uploaded in their database.

Q: At the application form step, should we already identify the good practices? A: This is the main difference between Capitalisation project and Regional Initiative projects. Good practices should already be identified in Capitalisation projects. Q: Have some regions already imported good practices in ERIK ACTION and what is the role of the EC? A: Paolo Frosini explained that while it is not necessary for a Capitalisation project, ERIK ACTION partners intend to import during the lifetime of the project. The EC is involved in a specific Fast Track committee: 4 DGs participate actively in meetings (every 2 months). For more information about ERIK ACTION, please visit http://www.eriknetwork.net/erikaction

11

Workshop: Developing partnerships, the importance of good choice

Silke Brocks Project Officer at JTS started with some welcoming words and explained the structure of the workshops, and was followed by a presentation on the programmes perspective on the partnership by Erika Fulgenzi Project Officer at JTS. The aim of the workshop was to facilitate the understanding of the programme rationale in terms of partnerships.

The presentation contained information on the requirements for partnerships under the third call for proposals. A minimum of 6 and a maximum of 10 countries, not partners, have to be involved, amongst which at least 2 of the 12 most recent EU Member States this gives a chance for less experienced countries to join the partnership. And at least 1 partner from each of the four IP areas in order to avoid projects with unbalanced partnerships. The presentation dwelled upon the core actors - bodies monitoring Regional Operational Programme as the main target group - that must be involved in IVC Capitalisation projects: appropriate partners should be involved to solve the issue tackled, and MAs should be directly involved in the mainstreaming and transfer process. It was remarked that in practice it is not always feasible to ensure the relevant MAs or Intermediate Bodies as project partners and often their involvement is not sufficient. That is why the Operational Programmes Monitoring Committee needs to be fully informed about the project as well. Then the concept of deep delegations was explained. It was emphasised that a wider partnership of the relevant regional stakeholders need to be involved in order to ensure the successful implementation of the action plan later on, so their participation in some of the project activities can be essential. In that case, the travel and accommodation costs can be budgeted under the External expertise budget line. Important sections of the application form concerning the partnership are Section 2.2.2 (involvement of relevant policy makers), and Section 5 (partnership) in which each partner explains the link to the MAs and where bodies governed by public law in particular need to demonstrate their capacity to directly influence policies. The experience of a RAPIDE partner The experience of a running project partner was presented by Sven-Erik Sahlen and Thord Andersson from the Orebro Regional Development Council (SE). The aim of the presentation was to help the audience understand how IVC partnerships work in reality. The Orebro Regional Development Council (SE) is a partner in the RAPIDE Capitalisation project approved under first call for proposals. RAPIDE stands for Regional Action Plans for Innovation development and Enterprise. The partner explained the process of building the partnership, the selection of the most suitable partners and the consequent allocation of tasks. Also the cooperation between the partners in the projects implementation process was rendered. In the beginning there were 25 regions that expressed interest in the project idea. Following the selection process, which was a tough process as the partner underlined, 12 regions finally constituted the RAPIDE consortium. Special care was made to ensure the presence of partners from all four Information Point areas. The selection was preceded by a meeting of all interested potential partners in Cornwall in the summer of 2007. Still even today it can be concluded that the selection process was not perfect since 2 or 3 of the current project partners did not prove as efficient and left the project. The presentation on RAPIDE continued with description of the good practices available within the partnership, the activities carried out so far and the ongoing development of the action plans (signing planned for May 2010).

12

Questions to the Swedish partner, Orebro Regional Development Council Q: Why did Orebro Regional Development Council join RAPIDE? A: Our lack of seed capital, of regional innovative arenas for developing commercialisation, and of plain structure for cooperation between academic institutions and the business sector were the main reasons. Furthermore, the Region has got a new programme for regional growth and RAPIDEs focus is quite clearly in line with this programme. Q: How does Orebro Regional Development Council contribute to RAPIDE? A: Through active involvement in the Action groups, working on the adaptation of the available good practices, especially the practices on effective funding and efficient cooperation between academic institutions and the business sector. Q: What RAPIDE good practice will be adapted and included in the partners action plan? A: The Business Angels network (BAN) good practices will be prepared for transfer in the Orebro Region. The practice represents a new link organisation for transforming academic institutions to the business and public sector and vice versa. Apart from it three new innovative arenas have been identified and would ensure further cooperation between the project partners. Q: What is the added value of the meetings with the Managing Authorities of the respective Operational Programmes? A: Very often interaction takes place between the project partners and the respective MAs. MAs should be involved from the beginning and follow-up the development of the action plans. The EC is interested in the MAs input and experience. It is very good to have the link with the Commission in this respect. Fast track is a label that raises the awareness among public authorities. Q: Can you give an insight into the benefits from the project for the citizens of the partner regions? (MA of the OP for Southern Netherlands) A: The project will ensure in the long term support for the establishment of new companies, which will result in the creation of more jobs. This will be made possible through the implementation of the action plan in accordance with the objectives of the growth programme for the region. That is why at this stage the financial leverage between the three MAs in the region (national and regional) is important. All the stakeholders are gathered round the same table to discuss the issues. The action plans should be realised in the next 3 to 5 years. Q: How do you work with the MAs of the partner regions? A: It is a region-to-region cooperation. There is a special network established between the MAs of the partner regions. Every regions MA is invited to the projects seminars and workshops where rules of funds are discussed, for example. Half of the partners have ensured the indirect participation of their MAs in the project. Q: How were the private actors, important for the project, incorporated? (EC) A: Through regular meetings with the respective regional stakeholders. It is essential to have a broad team so that at least one meeting with these stakeholders can be made possible each month. The cooperation with private actors is important since the project is being developed for them. Q: How do you deal with different levels NUTS 2 / 3 for the different partners? A: A project Steering committee was created with representatives of each of the partner regions. It is important for the Lead Partner to discuss this issue with the partners since it facilitates the identification of the correct MA and OP for the participating partners. http://www.rapidenetwork.eu/ For more information about the Orebro Regional Development Council, please visit: http://www.regionorebro.se

13

Workshop: Transfer process, mainstreaming the practices and elaborating the action plans

The workshop was held to help the applicants of the third call to understand what is meant by the transfer process. The workshop was divided into three parts: the first one was led by Nicolas Singer Senior Project Officer who explained how the transfer process works on a theoretical level. Then Rocio Rubio, Lead Partner from the PIKE project, presented the process in practice, showing how PIKE managed to follow the procedure. Finally, the third part was dedicated to the audience, enabling them to ask questions. Nicolas Singer started his presentation with the explanation of the notion of transfer, saying that the meaning is different depending on the type of intervention. In Capitalisation projects, INTERREG IVC supports the preparation of the transfer but the implementation itself of the practices is funded through other relevant Structural Fund programmes. The main points of the presentation of the transfer process were:

- The proposed methodology, from the selection of the good practices to the adaptation phase, and then to the commitment. During the selection, the partners have to decide which practice they are interested in. The adaptation consists in modifying the good practice so that it fits the regional context and characteristics. Then, the partners have to commit themselves to the action plan they defined.

- The binding character of the action plan. It is very important not to forget the specific procedure

applying to the Structural Fund programme of each region (e.g. selection process) which means that the commitments may be different depending on the country / region where the partner is from.

- The particular importance of the preparation phase. At this stage of the process, what is

important is:

Going as far as possible in the specification of the transfer process (e.g. which regions are interested in which practices?)

Checking the compatibility of the targeted OP.

Checking the availability of the ERDF. The second part was led by Rocio Rubio. She shared her experience concerning the transfer process. She explained that the process was divided into 3 parts, namely:

1. Documenting and selecting the good practices. Before starting the transfer of good practices, Rocio Rubio reminded the audience that they should be well-documented and then organise workshops.

2. Transferring the good practices. Then, it is important to do study visits and afterwards, write good practice transfer roadmaps in which it will be explained how the good practice will be implemented and how the adaptation process will work. The roadmap is hence the basis for the action plan; it is a common document agreed by the project partners.

3. Mainstreaming the good practices. In the PIKE project, the partnership decided to organise 3 local workshops per partner. The role of the MAs is also important because they took part in the Monitoring Committees. It was agreed also that each region will launch a part of the action plan.

14

Rocio Rubio ended her presentation saying that the challenges of the mainstreaming process were numerous. For example:

- Although the mainstreaming conditions may be fulfilled, it is sometimes easier for some Regions to finance the implementation of the good practices through other sources of funding than Structural Funds programmes.

- The timing and the possible political or staff changes. - The technological change: the project has to be adapted to the new technologies. - Financial problems with the crisis: the part financed by the project partners is not always

guaranteed.

Questions from the audience:

Q: The EC representative asked how much ERDF was dedicated to the implementation of the practices. A: This amount will only be known when the action plan is finalised in April 2010. The initial hypothesis which was estimated as a target figure in the PIKE application form was an average of EUR 500,000 per participating region.

Q: With the financial crisis, do the regions concentrate on their core task and own interests instead of sharing experience in programmes such as INTERREG? A: It is understandable that some regions might not give a priority to participating in the INTERREG IVC projects at this time. However, the IVC programme remains a very good opportunity to find suitable solutions to the crisis though leverage effect (avoid repeating the same mistakes, and reinventing the wheel through the exchange and transfer of good practices).

Q: Example of North Rhine-Westphalia (Nordrhein Westfalen): How can a specific local policy priority be put on the regional agenda and integrated in the policy priority of an MA? A: It is during the preparation phase that these issues have to be checked. By raising the awareness of the relevant regional policy makers, the local level can convince the regional MA of the importance of certain topics.

Q: What will happen if the action plan is not 100% financed after the Capitalisation project has ended? A: Nobody can be sure before starting a project that the action plan will be fully successful. The most important is that a real effort is demonstrated by all regions to mainstream the good practices. It would also be useful and important to understand the reason in case of failure. Q: Can we know how many Member States automatically fund the national co-financing part of partners from their countries? A: This information is not precisely known at the JTS/MA level but it is possible to check it with the contact points of each Member State.

Q: Is it possible to transfer the good practices into territorial cooperation programmes? A: Yes, this is possible although very few cases have been proposed until now. For more information about PIKE, please visit http://www.pike-project.eu/

15

Keynote speech Alf Hornborg, Professor, Human Ecology Division, Lund University, Sweden

Are we serious about lowering our carbon dioxide emissions? Alternative currencies as a means of mitigating climate change

Professor Hornborg started by reminding the audience that as he spoke, nations were meeting in Copenhagen to discuss ways of mitigating climate change for the fifteenth time. The goals nations committed themselves to in Kyoto in 1997 are far from achieved: with the exception of the EU (-2.2%), all major polluters have significantly increased their carbon emissions since 1990. The EU still emits 8 tons of carbon per capita, while the USA emits 18.7 tons, and India just over 1 ton. Those statistics, however, do not include export production: for instance, the production of goods that we buy from China is counted towards Chinas pollution. The most polluting industries are being transferred to poorer countries with lower wages and more lax environmental legislation. This displacement of our environmental problems really isnt compatible with the concepts of sustainable development or climate justice. An alternative approach to a global trade analysis that is solely based on money transfer is the material flow analysis. Trade measured in terms of tons of goods transferred show a net transfer of resources from the poorer to the richer countries, when it seems balanced in a purely monetary analysis. Economics, said Alf Hornborg, is not sufficient to understand the mechanics of accumulation. Carbon emissions are a form of entropy (as in energetic and material disorder) created by the industrial/urban infrastructure of our civilization. Like garbage, it needs to be dumped somewhere, but in the case of carbon emissions the garbage just goes into the atmosphere. Technomass (the global industrial infrastructure), like biomass, needs a net import of high quality energy to sustain itself. With that in mind, and in the context of INTERREG IVCs Conference, Alf Hornborg asked the following questions: what do we mean by sustainable transport or by energy efficiency, how can we reduce risks to humans and the environment, and how serious are we about trying truly innovative solutions? There are four solutions that are usually brought up in discussions about sustainable development:

Ethics sustainable consumption. But can 6 billion people really be responsible and caring? Technology sustainable production. Can we actually produce more goods with less

environmental consequences? Crisis socio-environmental collapse. A system breakdown is a possibility and would force us to

change our habits. But there is fourth option Alf Hornborg believes in. Politics a sustainable economy. According to Alf Hornborg it is possible to create a sustainable

economy, and that the central problem we should focus on is the money system as such.

Money is a cultural institution by which everything is deemed interchangeable with everything else, without distinction. We exchange rainforest for Coca-Cola. This system rewards an accelerating dissipation of resources by providing access to more resources to dissipate. A sustainable money system would distinguish between goods and services that are or arent exchangeable. A new, special currency would only be used for specific, local products and services. This currency could be equally distributed in households, tax-free and interest-free. This would allow households to free a part of their income for other uses, it would allow small businesses to employ this tax-free income for local products (compost, recycled packaging materials, etc.), and the State would reduce the costs for transportation infrastructure, social welfare, medical services, etc, which would exceed the costs of subsidies and the decrease of tax revenue. If implemented, this system would change the capitalist world market without abolishing it: it would still be necessary for the production of non-local goods, and it would even thrive in areas such as information technology or advanced medicine. But the alternative money system would be more efficient in the use of the worlds resources than it is today.

16

Round table discussion: the role of Managing Authorities in INTERREG IVC projects

In the framework of Capitalisation projects, Managing Authorities of Regional Operational programmes are primary targets for the programme. This is because the objective of Capitalisation projects is to transfer good policy practice in a given domain from one region to another. As the Managing Authority is responsible for implementing the Regional OP, it is essential that they are on board, involved in the policy adaptation and agree to its implementation. This is not always evident in practice. In some countries, the Managing Authority is a purely administrative body that is not directly involved in policy. In other countries, some of the competencies are devolved to Intermediate bodies. And this is before even mentioning the issue of ownership or perceived benefit by these bodies. Jean-Marc Venineaux, of the European Commissions DG REGIO, chaired a panel discussion involving a diverse range of Managing Authority representatives, in order to have an in-depth and tangible conversation on these issues.

Taking part in the panel were:

- Philippe Rousseau, Flemish

Government (MA partner of ERIK ACTION project)

- Shaun Henry, Special EU Programmes Body (MA of cross-border programmes in Northern Ireland)

- Cdric Leger, Regional Council of Limousin (MA of article 37-6b interregional cooperation project)

Philippe Rousseau began by outlining the role his organisation plays as partner in an already-approved Capitalisation project. Being directly involved in the partnership allows the MA to follow more closely the developments in policy practices that interest them, such as the Innovation assistant scheme, proposed by the Lower Austria Region.

Shaun Henry, of the Special EU Programmes body, stated that the Managing Authority had made a conscious decision to encourage regional actors to take part in cooperation programmes, but that he was finding it difficult to get into the already-established networks to build partnerships. He was also lucid about their ability to have an impact on current Operational Programmes, but looked forward to availing of opportunities to influence the next programming period. Cdric Leger, of the French Region of Limousin, presented how the transfer process works within the RURACT partnership, while underlining the need of the MA to make an informed decision based on the good practices on offer (not just the partners usually worked with), that are in line with the regions strategic priorities. One of the main discussion points with the audience centred on possible improvements for ensuring policy transfer during this programming period. The issue of financing under regional operational programmes might prove tricky, as in some cases the majority of the funds have been allocated already. Some themes may be more available than others for financing, so it is important to have this information before starting the project. There may also be other sources of funding available that would allow implementation of the good practices on a local level.

INTERREG IVC Capitalisation ConferenceParticipants overview and feedbackWorkshop: Building on good practices, where does the basis come from?Workshop: Developing partnerships, the importance of good choiceWorkshop: Transfer process,mainstreaming the practices and elaborating the action plansKeynote speechAlf Hornborg, Professor, Human Ecology Division, Lund University, SwedenAre we serious about lowering our carbon dioxide emissions?Round table discussion: the role of Managing Authorities in INTERREG IVC projects