The Sub-regional Regeneration Network (SRN) is a networking project co-financed by the European Union’s INTERREG IIIC interregional cooperation programme1.
The overall objective of IIIC for the 2000 – 2006 funding period has been to improve the effectiveness of policies and instruments for regional development, mainly through large-scale exchange of experience, know-how and information.
Recognition that this kind of collaboration really works underpins the decision to mainstream it within the new European Territorial Cooperation objective of Structural Funds2. The European Commission’s Regions for Economic Change initiative goes further in proposing networking on particular themes linked to Structural Funds implementation3.
Other initiatives have examined the role of regional governments and other agencies operating at regional level4. The SRN project is unusual because it focuses on the involvement of urban authorities and other sub-regional organisations in the management and delivery of programmes. The aim of the network has been to contribute to more effective use and delivery of EU Structural Funds and other regeneration programmes in sub-regional areas, such as local authorities or groups of local authorities in a particular locality, especially by identifying ways of improving programme performance and management.
With Bristol City Council in the lead, SRN has brought together 12 partners from 7 countries (Box 1.1). They include :
Box 1.1 The SRN partners
| Partner | Website | Type of organisation | Region | Member State |
| City of Hranice |  | Local authority | Stredni Morava | Czech Republic |
| City of Tampere |  | Local authority | Lansi-Suomi | Finland |
| City of Turku |  | Local authority | Etela-Suomi | Finland |
| Lille Métropole Communauté Urbaine |  | Local authority | Nord-Pas-de-Calais | France |
| Langhe Monferrato Roero |  | Consortium of local authorities | Piedmont | Italy |
| Provincia Di Modena |  | Local authority | Emilia-Romagna | Italy |
| Sviluppo Marche (SVIM) |  | Regional Development Company | Marche | Italy |
| Klaipeda Regional Development Agency |  | Development Agency | Lietuva | Lithuania |
| Diputació de Barcelona |  | Local authority | Catalonia | Spain |
| Sociedad de Desarrollo de Santa Cruz de Tenerife |  | Development Agency | Islas Canarias | Spain |
| Bristol City Council |  | Local authority | South West | UK |
| Cumbria County Council |  | Local authority | North West | UK |
See partner pages for further information
The experiences of sub-regional authorities in dealing with Structural Funds and other funding programmes range from the development and implementation of projects to significant involvement in programme management. For SRN partners currently not directly involved in the management of funds, the project has been an opportunity to gear up in anticipation of responsibility for a devolved budget post 2006.
The aim of this Guide is mainly to demonstrate the important role that sub-regional organisations are already playing in the management and delivery of European Structural Funds. We wanted to identify lessons – especially ‘good practices’ – from our own activities likely to be of interest for many other agencies, especially those becoming involved in EU funds management for the first time, and for all different levels of government. The Guide is also a summarised record of our fruitful cooperation over a three year period and the basis for continued collaboration in the future.
As well as representing different types of organisation, the SRN partners are drawn from very different territorial settings (large city regions, medium sized cities, rural areas and islands) and from the north, south, east and west of Europe, including the old ‘heartland’ of north west Europe, the Atlantic periphery and new EU countries to the east.
Barcelona and Lille are major metropolitan centres within the recognisably dynamic regions of Catalonia and Nord-pas de Calais respectively.
Bristol, Turku and Tampere are more modestly sized cities, but all fulfil key roles as motors of their relatively successful regional economies. All are located within regions which have established strategies for innovation, for example supporting clusters of high technology, media or other growth sector enterprises. However, all of these major urban centres have areas with high concentrations of unemployed or socially excluded citizens, including migrants and those from minority ethnic groups, and all have disadvantaged neighbourhoods which qualified for Objective 2 assistance in 2000-06. They need to find integrated ways of working in which they can both foster competitiveness and make sure that all sectors of the local community benefit.
Other sub regions represented in the project are experiencing or seeking to achieve economic restructuring, primarily as a response to globalisation. This applies to the towns of Klaipeda and Hranice, both of which are eligible for substantial Cohesion funding.
Cumbria County Council in the North West of England is responsible for a wide geographical area and must deal with both urban and rural regeneration. In this peripheral part of the UK, GDP is still only 77 percent of the EU average. Contrasts between the urban/industrial and rural parts of the county, and the distances between communities, make the integrated delivery of regeneration programmes difficult.
Santa Cruz de Tenerife is a medium-sized city, capital of Tenerife in the Canary Islands, part of the outermost regions of the EU. It must tackle a range of urban and rural issues over a relatively small territory.
Hranice, Modena Province and LAMORO typically deal with a mix of issues relating to smaller urban centres and villages spread over a largely rural area. SVIM works mainly with departments of Marche region and with other regional and sub-regional stakeholders.
Looking specifically at their involvement with the EU Structural Funds, five SRN partners had decentralised responsibilities (though not necessarily fully-devolved spending powers) in the management and delivery of Objective 2 programmes during the period 2000-06. These are Bristol City Council, Cumbria County Council, Modena Province and the Cities of Tampere and Turku.
Bristol managed neighbourhood renewal within the South West Objective 2 Programme, enjoying an unusual degree of devolved responsibility for this task. Cumbria County Council was accountable for the delivery of four devolved action plans. In Modena there was decentralisation of specific elements from several different programmes – including Objectives 2 and 3 and the Rural Development Plan. The City of Turku coordinated the East Turku programme, the urban element of Southern Finland Objective 2. Similarly in Tampere the City Council participated in the Western Finland Objective 2 programme by setting up its own coordination body – the Hervanta EU programme – to deliver some of the projects and manage the municipal match funding in the Hervanta suburb.
There has been no devolution of Structural Funds programme management functions to Lille Métropole or the Diputació de Barcelona recently, despite the eligibility of these localities for Objective 2 and their previous experience of managing EU funds - URBAN I in the case of Lille Métropole, and in the case of Barcelona, a project implementing employment actions in the 1994-99 ESF programme by means of a global grant. In both cases this is a reflection of decisions taken at national or regional level on how funds would be managed in the period 2000-06. In France there was no devolved management of ERDF except in the case of URBAN II. In Spain, the percentage of Structural Funds directed to the municipal level in 2000-06 was very low. Sub regional and local entities had little involvement in the management of Structural Funds and have been little consulted on future programming and management arrangements.
While several SRN partners have special expertise in Objective 2, it is clear that their experience in Structural Funds management and delivery has not only been acquired through this programme.
Engagement with the Community Initiatives is particularly relevant. Both Bristol City Council and Lille Métropole managed URBAN I (1994-99), and Bristol also managed the URBAN II programme for the city. Moreover, some SRN partners (Cumbria, Hranice and the Sociedad de Desarrollo de Santa Cruz deTenerife) have also had delegated responsibility to represent their regions in INTERREG IIIC Regional Framework Operations (RFOs), which has meant that they have been involved in preparing calls for proposals, assessing funding applications and then managing clusters of sub-regional projects with international partners.
In both the Czech Republic and Lithuania, Structural Funds for the period 2000-2006 were delivered mainly through national programmes.
In the Czech Republic an SPD for Prague covered Objectives 2 and 3. The rest of the country, including the region in which the City of Hranice is located, was eligible for Objective 1, managed through a National Development Plan and Community Support Framework. There was no engagement by sub-regional bodies like Hranice in the management of the programme, but they were very active in project development.
In the case of the Lithuania SPD, even ‘counties’ like Klaipeda did not have a role in programme management but rather benefited from a financial allocation from the national programme. Involvement of bodies like Klaipeda Regional Development Agency was through projects rather than programme management tasks.
Similarly, the Sociedad de Desarrollo de Santa Cruz de Tenerife has experience in implementing projects supported by the Objective 1 Programme for the Canary Islands 2000-06.
The regional development agencies Langhe Monferrato Roero and SVIM in Italy are also mainly involved at the project level, focusing on the development, management and monitoring of projects. However, their work to develop local or sub-regional strategies for economic development, bringing in both enterprises and citizens, has influenced Structural Funds programming in their regions.
Although not all the SRN partners have a role in programme management, all have significant experience in brokering, developing and implementing EU-funded projects. In this respect they have typically accessed more than one EU programme (see Annex for a summary). Participation in SRN has enabled them to pool their experience on a range of different EU and domestic budgets.
These diverse experiences are at the heart of this report.
Significant effort during the SRN project has been devoted to identifying and assessing aspects of good practice in the management and delivery of European regeneration programmes. We set out to discover ‘what works?’, ‘why does it work?’ and ‘how do we know it works?’
A pragmatic approach to these questions was adopted, starting from examples of action from partners’ localities which are acknowledged to be successful and then deriving good practice criteria in discussion. In some cases formal evaluations were available to back up informed opinions. Although partners varied in their choice of criteria to define good practice there was much common ground.
SRN’s main focus has been on processes of programme management and delivery. Individual projects carried out in the locality take place in the context of these on-going processes. They are the outcome of these management processes ‘on the ground’ and represent effective implementation.
In assessing the effectiveness of processes the range of criteria used by sub-regional organisations is very wide including, for example:
The fit with the context in which programme management and delivery functions take place is particularly important. Judging good practice in management and delivery of funding programmes depends upon having a clear set of objectives against which to measure success. Bottom-up approaches which support top-down objectives are especially valued.
However the key indicator of ‘process success’ is the quality of the projects eventually delivered, as measured against the overall goals of the funding programme in question.
Projects may be rated as good practice if they :
Other marks of a successful project are:
Examples of projects on Lisbon/Gothenburg themes are annexed to this Guide. They have been chosen not only for their relevance to these major policy topics but also because they illustrate how good management processes by sub-regional organisations have resulted in high quality projects with measurable outcomes.
Lastly in this section, in any exchange of experience project the question of transferability of good practice also arises. For both processes and projects we have also asked ‘will it work somewhere else?’.
Many examples of good practice are briefly presented in this Guide. All have passed one further essential test. Other sub-regional organisations find them interesting and innovative. They see the possibility of taking up these management approaches, or developing comparable projects, in their own localities.
In preparing this Guide we wanted to demonstrate, in particular :
These themes provide the structure for the remainder of the Guide.
Chapter 2 on Meeting EU agendas establishes the context for sub-regional involvement in relation to EU policy priorities and in the programming, management and delivery of the reformed Structural Funds.
Part 2 – Sub-regional organisations in action presents examples of good practice drawn from the SRN partners’ own experiences.
Chapter 3, Partnership and projects at sub-regional level, focuses on some of the tasks which sub-regional organisations do best - working in partnership with stakeholders and supporting project development, especially the development and delivery of high quality, relevant projects, which in the European context increasingly means addressing the Lisbon and broader sustainable development agendas.
In Chapter 4, Managing and using different funds, the more strategic capabilities of sub-regional organisations are exposed. This Chapter draws on the experience of the SRN partners in working with a range of different EU and domestic budgets in pursuit of agreed policy goals. Here the focus is more on sub-regional organisations as beneficiaries. This Chapter is subtitled Towards a strategy for the sub-region. It stresses the importance of developing an integrated plan which sets out the locality’s main policy goals in the context of agreed European priorities, and guides decisions about the use of different financial resources.
Chapter 5 focuses on different ways on working in Partnership with the region - in programming, in carrying out certain management tasks, and in some cases in devolved delivery of a ring-fenced budget.
Chapter 6 reinforces The value of territorial cooperation. Sharing experiences and developing new ideas by working with colleagues from very different parts of Europe is an important way to build capacity.
Each Chapter in Part 2 contains examples of good management practices, along with signposting to examples of successful projects – the result of good planning and decision-making processes.
Part 3 of this Guide – Looking to the Future summarises lessons from the SRN exchange.
Chapter 7, A role for sub-regional organisations in Structural Funds : rising to the challenge, sets out recommendations for key players involved with Structural Funds programming, management and project work at different governmental levels.
A key message of this Guide is that local authorities and other sub-regional organisations need to be more strategic in the way they work. Within their own localities they need to develop more organised approaches to securing and spending funds in line with identified policy objectives. With their regions, and with partners from elsewhere in the EU, they need to form new strategic alliances. The reformed Structural Funds framework for the period 2007 – 2013 provides many opportunities to pursue these actions and thus to secure the position of sub-regional organisations as key players in the multi-level governance of the EU.
We hope that many other local authorities and regional and local development agencies will find these lessons useful and make use of SRN’s experience in designing their own arrangements for managing and spending Structural Funds in this programming period.
