Issue 5.1
The Urbact Secretariat has issued guidelines for local support groups on 23 May. Whilst the need for guidelines is clear, it is regrettable that the guidelines have emerged in such a “top-downward” way. This is one issue that requires the full engagement of all partners in each of the projects. It would have been better to have issued a paper for discussion with a request that each partnership discusses these at their first steering group meetings and then the outcomes be feed back.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
CASE STUDY 2
The London Borough of Southwark submitted a proposal relating to creative cities.
The project synthesis is as follows:
“Current theories of regional competitiveness emphasise the significance of "soft" factors such as human, cultural (knowledge and creativity) and socio-institutional capital, environmental quality. Quality living environments and access to environmental and cultural amenities are among factors that attract investment and people to a location. A creative work force, including artists has been identified by a number of regions and cities as being a strategic priority, vital to innovation.Simarly, the European Commission’s recent report ‘Culture and the Economy’, emphasises that creative and cultural industries are now currently one of the most significant growth sectors for the economy in terms of GDP and added value and that they are a key source of ‘innovation’ and employment.Within this context therefore our aim is to set up an exchange network of cities on the theme of ‘innovation and cultural clusters’ and to examine how creative and cultural industries best impact on economic growth, innovation and social cohesion.”
Here is the score for the Southwark project against the evaluation criteria:
EAP Assessment
Crit 1- Relevance of proposal and European value added 17
Crit 2- Coherence of proposal 17
Crit 3 - Quality of expected results 15
Crit 4 - Quality of partnership and lead partner 13
Crit 5 - Budget and Finances Development phase 8
Total 70
Here are the evaluation report comments (in black) provided by the Urbact Secretariat and our observations/concerns in red:
The project would contribute to the main objectives of the URBACT II pro-gramme.
Having established this it is unclear why the score is 17 out of 25.
The analysis of the nature of the problem is average, not extremely convincing; as the expected results are not very innovative, and they would not bring a clear added value compared to present or even past initiatives.
If this is the case why a score of 17 out of 25. The same as criteria one. Here the comments highlight the subjectivity that seems to be a strong characteristic of the evaluation process.
The quality of the strategy is also average. There is not a very strong focus on the exchange of experiences.
This comment is bizarre, as the whole focus naturally is on the exchange of experience. If this were the case it could not justify the above average score of 13 out of 20 that the project was given.
The activities and outputs of the Project Development Phase are average. It must be emphasised that there is no serious consideration of baseline study (which does not appear with a specific heading in the schedule of the Project Development Phase). The nature of this project would need a very serious in-depth baseline study.
This is simply wrong. The expression of Interest specifically mentions a base line study in the action plan for the development phase .
The Lead Partner is experienced in the topic, as well as in European exchanges of experiences; nevertheless, the partnership is not balanced, and the diversity of partners would not benefit its development: the partners are simply too different.
The partners are Riga, Lecce, Bacau and Madrid. What makes this “unbalanced”? Why is the diversity too much?
Conclusions
What the two case studies highlight are the following points :
There has not been good practice used in the evaluation process. Each project needs to be moderated by at least two other evaluators. This is standard procedure in EU programmes
Evaluators should score projects against each of the sub-indicators for each of the criteria. That is to say that for each of the 8 indicators for criteria there should a score allocated which the totals up to 25. This would reduce the impressionistic evaluations that the two case studies highlight.
The quality of feedback to candidates needs to be improved and the comments should be grouped to each specific criteria.
There needs to be an appeals procedure established. This is also standard good practice.
The project synthesis is as follows:
“Current theories of regional competitiveness emphasise the significance of "soft" factors such as human, cultural (knowledge and creativity) and socio-institutional capital, environmental quality. Quality living environments and access to environmental and cultural amenities are among factors that attract investment and people to a location. A creative work force, including artists has been identified by a number of regions and cities as being a strategic priority, vital to innovation.Simarly, the European Commission’s recent report ‘Culture and the Economy’, emphasises that creative and cultural industries are now currently one of the most significant growth sectors for the economy in terms of GDP and added value and that they are a key source of ‘innovation’ and employment.Within this context therefore our aim is to set up an exchange network of cities on the theme of ‘innovation and cultural clusters’ and to examine how creative and cultural industries best impact on economic growth, innovation and social cohesion.”
Here is the score for the Southwark project against the evaluation criteria:
EAP Assessment
Crit 1- Relevance of proposal and European value added 17
Crit 2- Coherence of proposal 17
Crit 3 - Quality of expected results 15
Crit 4 - Quality of partnership and lead partner 13
Crit 5 - Budget and Finances Development phase 8
Total 70
Here are the evaluation report comments (in black) provided by the Urbact Secretariat and our observations/concerns in red:
The project would contribute to the main objectives of the URBACT II pro-gramme.
Having established this it is unclear why the score is 17 out of 25.
The analysis of the nature of the problem is average, not extremely convincing; as the expected results are not very innovative, and they would not bring a clear added value compared to present or even past initiatives.
If this is the case why a score of 17 out of 25. The same as criteria one. Here the comments highlight the subjectivity that seems to be a strong characteristic of the evaluation process.
The quality of the strategy is also average. There is not a very strong focus on the exchange of experiences.
This comment is bizarre, as the whole focus naturally is on the exchange of experience. If this were the case it could not justify the above average score of 13 out of 20 that the project was given.
The activities and outputs of the Project Development Phase are average. It must be emphasised that there is no serious consideration of baseline study (which does not appear with a specific heading in the schedule of the Project Development Phase). The nature of this project would need a very serious in-depth baseline study.
This is simply wrong. The expression of Interest specifically mentions a base line study in the action plan for the development phase .
The Lead Partner is experienced in the topic, as well as in European exchanges of experiences; nevertheless, the partnership is not balanced, and the diversity of partners would not benefit its development: the partners are simply too different.
The partners are Riga, Lecce, Bacau and Madrid. What makes this “unbalanced”? Why is the diversity too much?
Conclusions
What the two case studies highlight are the following points :
There has not been good practice used in the evaluation process. Each project needs to be moderated by at least two other evaluators. This is standard procedure in EU programmes
Evaluators should score projects against each of the sub-indicators for each of the criteria. That is to say that for each of the 8 indicators for criteria there should a score allocated which the totals up to 25. This would reduce the impressionistic evaluations that the two case studies highlight.
The quality of feedback to candidates needs to be improved and the comments should be grouped to each specific criteria.
There needs to be an appeals procedure established. This is also standard good practice.
CASE STUDY 1
The City of St Helens Submitted a proposal relating to new methodologies for intergrated Urban Devlopment.
The project synthesis is as follows:
“Sustainable Urban Development has become the leading paradigm in urban policy across member states and at EU level. This paradigm is based on the central prin-ciple that , issues faced should be tackled in an integrated and holistic manner. Cities have increasing therefore begun to develop integrated approaches which seek to improve the physical environment, preserve historical and cultural heritage, promote entrepreneurship and local employment, community development, and service needs of specific demographic groups.This project seeks to build a transnational exchange that will share experience in terms of using new methodologies such as master planning, cultural planning as well as new tools such as re-branding . These methodologies are often linked to processes through which cities seeks to develop a shared integrated vision for the future.”
The assessment criteria for the expression of interest are as follows:
Thematic Networks
Criterion 1: Relevance of the proposal and European value added
Out of 25
1.1 The project is contributing to the main objectives of the URBACT II programme
1.2 The project is contributing to the themes outlined in the URBACT II call for proposals
1.3 The declaration of interest clearly analyses the nature of the problem to be tackled (e.g. through use of a problem tree)
1.4 The problem exists in all of the partner cities and this has been evidenced
1.5 The project is clearly building on the stated experiences of the partners
1.6 The expected results are innovative (they bring clear added value compared to other current or past initiatives)
1.7 There is a European level interest in the work that they propose (e.g. clear contribution to Lisbon/Gothenburg agendas)
1.8 The project has been explicitly designed and organized to generate a low carbon footprint
Criterion 2: Coherence of the proposal Out of 25
2.1. Quality of the strategy: The issue tackled by the project, the objectives and expected effects (outputs and results) are clearly defined and meaningful
2.2. The objectives, the work programme and the expected outputs and results are logically interrelated
2.3. The project has a clear focus on the exchange of experiences and transfer of good practice and this has been evidenced in the work programme and expected results
2.4. The activities in the work programme have been set out as indicative work packages (specific objective, actions, time frame, leader)
2.5. The proposed activities in the work packages are in line with the objectives and expected effects
Criterion 3: Quality of the expected results Out of 20
3.1 The expected outputs/results are in line with what has been outlined in the Call for proposals
3.2 The expected outputs/results are concrete (visible and measurable). They are specified precisely and quantified
3.3 The activities and outputs are explicitly interrelated
3.4 The expected impact of the project on the policies and future actions of the partners is clearly demonstrated (i.e. There is a commitment to implement the results among the partners through their local action plans)
Criterion 4: Quality of partnership and lead partner
Out of 20
4.1 There is an adequate balance between partners from Competitiveness and Convergence regions
4.2 There is substantial commitment of each partner in the implementation of the project (e.g. different leadership and participation in the proposed work packages). There is evidence that each partner commits to set up and run an URBACT Local Support Group.
4.3 The candidate Lead partner has real evidenced experience of the problem being addressed in this field
4.4 The candidate Lead partner has real experience of leading exchange of experience projects in fields close to the proposed project (i.e. utilising existing departmental capacity)
4.5 The named officer to act in the name of the Lead partner (project coordinator) has good experience (from attached CV) of leading this type of work
4.6 A political decision-maker has been nominated within the Lead partner local authority to guarantee a strong political backing to the project
4.7 The skills needed to achieve the expected results have been identified and integrated in the partnership &/or the expertise
4.8 A Lead Expert has been identified and designated
Criterion 5: Budget and Finances for Development phase (phase I)
Out of 10
5.1 The budget is logically distributed between the budget lines and components
5.2 The budget reflects the planned activities in the development phase
5.3 The budget adds up to the total (vertically and horizontally!)
5.4 The budget allocated to management and coordination tasks (Component 1) is reasonable (e.g. percentage of total costs)
5.5 The budget foresees a reasonable allocation to finance the creation and the first activities of the URBACT Local Support Groups
TOTAL
Out of 100
Here is the score for the St. Helens project against these criteria:
EAP Assessment
Crit 1- Relevance of proposal and European value added 15 out of 25
Crit 2- Coherence of proposal 14 out of 25
Crit 3 - Quality of expected results 12 out of 20
Crit 4 - Quality of partnership and lead partner 9 out of 20
Crit 5 - Budget and Finances Development phase 8 out of 10
Total 58
Here is the evaluation report comments (in black) provided by the Urbact Secretariat and our observations/concerns in red:
The proposal identifies a valid number of core problem generators in city management and justifiably addresses capacity building for integrated urban development as a crucial factor.
This comment relates to Criteria 1 and 2 . However, having rated the project as addressing “crucial factors” the score given hardly reflects the “crucial” relevance of the project.
In the same time however, the topics proposed can not be regarded as innovative.
There is no critera in the assessment criteria that relates to innovation of topic. The programme is about exchanging existing practice NOT creating new innovation. The only reference to innovation is in relation to indicator 1.6. This however is about results NOT the topic. This comment seems to have resulted in the evaluation score for Criteria 1 and 2 being so low.
Furthermore the project acknowledges the interdependencies among the mentioned topics but also attempts to address too many objectives and hence lacks on concentration. Related to that is a lack of detail in some activities and outputs.
The project as stated above focuses on master planning, cultural planning as well as new tools such as re-branding .These are interrelated issues and the comment about lack of concentration therefore perplexing .Furthermore, it ignores the "integrated approach" that underpins the proposal.
The working connection between Master Planning on the one side and concepts like "place creation", Identity and Branding is meaningful and of EU-wide applicability.
This is reinforcing the need for the interconnections that the project is making and is indeed is a very positive comment. However, this is not reflected in the score for criteria 3.
Nevertheless the interaction with Master Plans should be described in a more detailed manner, since the latter are very complicated (definitely beyond URBACT II) and long-term processes, where actions have to be convincingly placed in order to make a difference. This fact is not clearly addressed in the proposal.
Here , the comment of the evaluator is confusing. It seems that the evaluator is of the view that masterplanning has to be undertaken in the Urbact II programme. This is definitely not the objective of the programme. It is about exchange of experience. It would be impossible for any partner to undertake masterplanning in a 30 month project. The aim is the exchange methodologies NOT to take direct action during the life of the project.
The partnership is led by an enthusiastic LP but is not very cohesive. A focus on a limited number of specific concepts and tools (e.g. branding) could eventually help to bond the partnership together.
How is “cohesive” being assessed? The programme requires a mix of competition and convergence partners. The partnership included Lodz, Madrid, Starogard Gandanski. It is totally unclear why this group is deemed to lack cohesion. There are approved networks with partnerships that are considerable less cohesive.
Finally the project commits a large amount for the ULSG (which is a welcomed gesture) but does not justify this choice.
The application makes clear that the funding is to establish the LSG’s and in conjunction with the LSG’s to undertake a local mapping that would feed into the benchmarking report.
The project synthesis is as follows:
“Sustainable Urban Development has become the leading paradigm in urban policy across member states and at EU level. This paradigm is based on the central prin-ciple that , issues faced should be tackled in an integrated and holistic manner. Cities have increasing therefore begun to develop integrated approaches which seek to improve the physical environment, preserve historical and cultural heritage, promote entrepreneurship and local employment, community development, and service needs of specific demographic groups.This project seeks to build a transnational exchange that will share experience in terms of using new methodologies such as master planning, cultural planning as well as new tools such as re-branding . These methodologies are often linked to processes through which cities seeks to develop a shared integrated vision for the future.”
The assessment criteria for the expression of interest are as follows:
Thematic Networks
Criterion 1: Relevance of the proposal and European value added
Out of 25
1.1 The project is contributing to the main objectives of the URBACT II programme
1.2 The project is contributing to the themes outlined in the URBACT II call for proposals
1.3 The declaration of interest clearly analyses the nature of the problem to be tackled (e.g. through use of a problem tree)
1.4 The problem exists in all of the partner cities and this has been evidenced
1.5 The project is clearly building on the stated experiences of the partners
1.6 The expected results are innovative (they bring clear added value compared to other current or past initiatives)
1.7 There is a European level interest in the work that they propose (e.g. clear contribution to Lisbon/Gothenburg agendas)
1.8 The project has been explicitly designed and organized to generate a low carbon footprint
Criterion 2: Coherence of the proposal Out of 25
2.1. Quality of the strategy: The issue tackled by the project, the objectives and expected effects (outputs and results) are clearly defined and meaningful
2.2. The objectives, the work programme and the expected outputs and results are logically interrelated
2.3. The project has a clear focus on the exchange of experiences and transfer of good practice and this has been evidenced in the work programme and expected results
2.4. The activities in the work programme have been set out as indicative work packages (specific objective, actions, time frame, leader)
2.5. The proposed activities in the work packages are in line with the objectives and expected effects
Criterion 3: Quality of the expected results Out of 20
3.1 The expected outputs/results are in line with what has been outlined in the Call for proposals
3.2 The expected outputs/results are concrete (visible and measurable). They are specified precisely and quantified
3.3 The activities and outputs are explicitly interrelated
3.4 The expected impact of the project on the policies and future actions of the partners is clearly demonstrated (i.e. There is a commitment to implement the results among the partners through their local action plans)
Criterion 4: Quality of partnership and lead partner
Out of 20
4.1 There is an adequate balance between partners from Competitiveness and Convergence regions
4.2 There is substantial commitment of each partner in the implementation of the project (e.g. different leadership and participation in the proposed work packages). There is evidence that each partner commits to set up and run an URBACT Local Support Group.
4.3 The candidate Lead partner has real evidenced experience of the problem being addressed in this field
4.4 The candidate Lead partner has real experience of leading exchange of experience projects in fields close to the proposed project (i.e. utilising existing departmental capacity)
4.5 The named officer to act in the name of the Lead partner (project coordinator) has good experience (from attached CV) of leading this type of work
4.6 A political decision-maker has been nominated within the Lead partner local authority to guarantee a strong political backing to the project
4.7 The skills needed to achieve the expected results have been identified and integrated in the partnership &/or the expertise
4.8 A Lead Expert has been identified and designated
Criterion 5: Budget and Finances for Development phase (phase I)
Out of 10
5.1 The budget is logically distributed between the budget lines and components
5.2 The budget reflects the planned activities in the development phase
5.3 The budget adds up to the total (vertically and horizontally!)
5.4 The budget allocated to management and coordination tasks (Component 1) is reasonable (e.g. percentage of total costs)
5.5 The budget foresees a reasonable allocation to finance the creation and the first activities of the URBACT Local Support Groups
TOTAL
Out of 100
Here is the score for the St. Helens project against these criteria:
EAP Assessment
Crit 1- Relevance of proposal and European value added 15 out of 25
Crit 2- Coherence of proposal 14 out of 25
Crit 3 - Quality of expected results 12 out of 20
Crit 4 - Quality of partnership and lead partner 9 out of 20
Crit 5 - Budget and Finances Development phase 8 out of 10
Total 58
Here is the evaluation report comments (in black) provided by the Urbact Secretariat and our observations/concerns in red:
The proposal identifies a valid number of core problem generators in city management and justifiably addresses capacity building for integrated urban development as a crucial factor.
This comment relates to Criteria 1 and 2 . However, having rated the project as addressing “crucial factors” the score given hardly reflects the “crucial” relevance of the project.
In the same time however, the topics proposed can not be regarded as innovative.
There is no critera in the assessment criteria that relates to innovation of topic. The programme is about exchanging existing practice NOT creating new innovation. The only reference to innovation is in relation to indicator 1.6. This however is about results NOT the topic. This comment seems to have resulted in the evaluation score for Criteria 1 and 2 being so low.
Furthermore the project acknowledges the interdependencies among the mentioned topics but also attempts to address too many objectives and hence lacks on concentration. Related to that is a lack of detail in some activities and outputs.
The project as stated above focuses on master planning, cultural planning as well as new tools such as re-branding .These are interrelated issues and the comment about lack of concentration therefore perplexing .Furthermore, it ignores the "integrated approach" that underpins the proposal.
The working connection between Master Planning on the one side and concepts like "place creation", Identity and Branding is meaningful and of EU-wide applicability.
This is reinforcing the need for the interconnections that the project is making and is indeed is a very positive comment. However, this is not reflected in the score for criteria 3.
Nevertheless the interaction with Master Plans should be described in a more detailed manner, since the latter are very complicated (definitely beyond URBACT II) and long-term processes, where actions have to be convincingly placed in order to make a difference. This fact is not clearly addressed in the proposal.
Here , the comment of the evaluator is confusing. It seems that the evaluator is of the view that masterplanning has to be undertaken in the Urbact II programme. This is definitely not the objective of the programme. It is about exchange of experience. It would be impossible for any partner to undertake masterplanning in a 30 month project. The aim is the exchange methodologies NOT to take direct action during the life of the project.
The partnership is led by an enthusiastic LP but is not very cohesive. A focus on a limited number of specific concepts and tools (e.g. branding) could eventually help to bond the partnership together.
How is “cohesive” being assessed? The programme requires a mix of competition and convergence partners. The partnership included Lodz, Madrid, Starogard Gandanski. It is totally unclear why this group is deemed to lack cohesion. There are approved networks with partnerships that are considerable less cohesive.
Finally the project commits a large amount for the ULSG (which is a welcomed gesture) but does not justify this choice.
The application makes clear that the funding is to establish the LSG’s and in conjunction with the LSG’s to undertake a local mapping that would feed into the benchmarking report.
Project selection
Issue 3.1
The documentation released with the call caused a certain amount of confusion in respect of eligibility. It was unclear as to whether in the first five partners it was permissible to include non city partners. The programme makes it clear that non city partners can be involved(no more than three in a network). Furthermore, the programme made it possible for the involvement of EU networks to also be involved(subject to the agreement of the MC).
The confusion created by the lack of clarity meant that a number of proposals were deemed ineligible by the Secretariat as they included non-city partners. Some of these projects infact wrote to the President of the Urbact Monitoring Committee. Below is the letter sent by one of those effected, which lays out the confusion in the documentation:
Dear Mr. President Metka Černelč
URBACT Monitoring Committee President
RE: URBACT Expression of Interest for establishing a thematic network called Community Regeneration: Capacity Building Exchange
We have learnt that our expression of interest has been declared ineligible by the URBACT secretariat. The reason for ineligibility has been that we have included a European network and the association of municipalities from Malta in the first five partners in our expression of interest.
We have learnt that over 10% of the expressions of interest submitted have the same problem in terms of the initial partnership having one non-city member.
We understand that one of the criteria for eligibility relates to having an initial partnership of five cities, HOWEVER, in respect of this criteria the communications from the URBACT programme have clearly caused some confusion. Hence the large number of submissions that have been deemed to be ineligible. We request that the monitoring committee urgently reviews this decision by written procedure as this matter cannot wait until the next Monitoring Committee in April.
We are also writing to you as there is no appeal procedure outlined in the documentation regarding the programme. This seems to be an oversight that maybe the monitoring committee should also consider.
The grounds for requesting this review is simply that the documentation released are confusing and thus have created a lack of clarity.
As you are aware, the programme issued three documents connected to the first call of proposals. These are:
· The call for proposals
· The guide for applicants
· The URBACT 2 Programme Manual (Technical Annex)
In the call for proposals it is stated:
“Applicants are invited to submit proposals for the creation of a Thematic network or of a Working group, depending on how they intend to deal with their theme and on the kind of partnership they want to set up. Details on these projects are included in the URBACT II Technical Working Document (Fact sheet 2a – Thematic networks, and Fact sheet 2c – Working groups).”
However when you turn to Fact Sheet 2a there is no reference to the eligibility criteria that all five partners have to be cities. Fact Sheet 2a states the following:
“2.4. Building the partnership
Every project proposal shall be submitted to the URBACT Secretariat, in the form of a Declaration of Interest, by an initial core group of 5 partners (including the Lead Partner). Further information on this procedure is available in section 6.3.). a) Beneficiaries”
Section 6.3 goes on to state that:
The beneficiaries of the URBACT II Programme include the following categories of partners:
- Cities (municipalities, infra-municipal bodies and organised agglomerations) of the 27 EU Member and 2 Partner states;
- Regional and national authorities of the Member and Partner states, as far as urban issues are concerned;
- Universities and research centres of the Member and Partner States, as far as urban issues are concerned.
Furthermore in the same fact Sheet it goes on to state:
“In the context of URBACT II, Lead Partners are the target for calls for proposals to be launched under Priority axes I and II. Only public authorities, NORMALLY CITIES, can be Lead Partners.”
This phase lends support to our concern regarding clarity of communication. The phrase “normally cities” suggests that a public body other than a city could be a lead partner. If the eligibility criteria is that all five partners have to be cities, then it is strange to see that a lead partner could in fact be another type of public body eg region or province.
The same document goes on to state:
“2.3 Composition of partnerships
Each thematic network shall consist of not more than 12 partners, plus up to 2 observer cities (non Member or Partner State).
Each network shall have at least 8 partners from at least 3 different Member and Partner States, taking into account the necessity to find a balance between Competitiveness objective and Convergence objective regions.
No more than 3 partners in any thematic network shall be non-city partners (be they beneficiaries of the programme, i.e. regional and national authorities, universities and research centers as defined in section 2.2.a; or other partners as defined in section 2.2.b). These non-city partners will be from 3 different countries.”
Thus this statement also makes clear that non- city partners are eligible to be partners in a thematic network. Furthermore this section makes no distinction between the first and second phase of thematic networks and as such creates further confusion and lack of clarity.
To add to the confusion, in the Guide for applicants it states:
“Partnerships for projects are to be fully developed in the Development phase (first 6 months for thematic networks / first 4 months for working groups). However in order to be eligible, projects should build their Declaration of Interest on a certain number of initial partners:
- 5 partner cities for a Thematic network (including the Lead partner),
- 4 public authorities in the case of a Working group (including the Lead partner).”
This is the first and only time in 218 pages of documentation that this criteria is stated BUT, in the same section the text states:
“A detailed explanation of eligible partners can be found in the URBACT II Programme Manual (Technical Working Document), especially Fact
Sheets 2a and 2c.”
This of course takes you to the text quoted above and which is silent on this criteria.
Finally , we are also of the view that the confused and confusing eligibility criteria for the first five partners may in fact be in contravention of EC Regulation N° 1083/2006 which states that:
“Article 2 of Regulation (EC) N°1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 defines beneficiaries as “an operator, body or firm, whether public or private, responsible for initiating or initiating and implementing operations. In the context of aid schemes under Article 87 of the Treaty, beneficiaries are public or private firms carrying out an individual project and receiving public aid”.
The following categories of beneficiaries can be identified for the URBACT II Programme all of which will be eligible to receive ERDF co-financing:
- Cities (municipalities and organized agglomerations) of the European Union 27;
- Regions and Member States as far as urban issues are concerned;
- Universities and Research centres as far as urban issues are concerned.”
Given the above grounds for appeal we request that under written procedure that it be agreed that given the confusion and lack of consistency in the formal documents regarding this call, that the Monitoring Committee agrees that applications that fail to meet the criteria of having 5 city partners be allowed to proceed to the evaluation phase and be finally judged on the basis of their quality rather than being rejected against a criteria as we have shown is not effectively communicated in the programme documentation.
Here is the response from the Secretariat:
You referred to me the decision of the Secretariat of the URBACT programme to declare ineligible your Declaration of Interest for the creation of a Thematic Network .
The URBACT Secretariat is currently processing the eligibility check of all Declarations of Interest received (91 DoI for Thematic networks and 32 DoI for Working groups).
While a majority of DoI do fulfill the eligibility requirements, it appears unfortunately, that some candidates misunderstood some of the rules relating to partnership building, documents to be provided, etc. even though they were clearly indicated in the Call for Proposals (annex 1:
Eligibility criteria) and the template to be used for the Declaration of Interest (Section 1.3 Partnership).
I deeply regreat this situation. However, I keep in mind that over 400 European cities did apply to this first call for proposals It is a hard competition with clear and written rules approved by the Monitoring Committee and ensuring transparency and equity of treatment.
Eligible DoI are transferred progressively to External Assessment Panel for assessment and ranking. DoI that do not fulfill the eligibility criteria are not transferred to the EAP.
For this reason, it appears to me quite impossible to consider a written procedure aiming to change the rules in the middle of the assessment process.
At the next meeting on 18 April, the Secretariat will provide the Monitoring Committee with a complete and detailed report on this first call
for proposals, outlining the number of applications received, the
nationality of applicants, the thematic coverage, etc. The Monitoring Committee will then be in the position to decide on the next steps.
We shall keep you informed .
Best regards
Having stated the rule, of no city partners in the first five partnership, it was a great surprise to see that a number of projects with non-city partners were deemed eligible by the Urbact Secreatriat. This in effect has meant a double –standard being applied. This is not good practice and raises issues of transparency.
Here is a list of projects deemed eligible by the Urbact Secretariat which included non-city partners:
REPAIR
Medway, Hanseastadt Rostock, Kaunas, Karlskona, Thessaloniki
Medway is NOT a CITY. It is a county council. There is no city called Medway.
Weser
Moncomunidad Intermuniciőal de Sur Este Gran Canaria, Colalition of 21 municipalities of Northern and Eastern Prefecture of Athens, Menidi, Brindisi, Euguera
Neither Moncomunidad Intermuniciőal de Sur Este Gran Canaria, OR Coalition of 21 municipalities of Northern and Eastern Prefecture of Athens are cities. They are associations.
Greening SMEs
Moncomunidad Sagra Alta, Communauté d’ agglomeration Béziers-Mediterranée, Tarnow, Targiviste, Kirklees Metropolitan Council
Moncomunidad Sagra Alta is NOT a CITY. It is an association
SUITE
Santiago de Compostela, Ministry for the Urban Dev. and Env.-Hamburg, Medway, Nantes Metropole, Siemianowice Slaskie
Ministry for the Urban Dev. and Env.-Hamburg, is by definition not a city;
Medway see comment above
DECIFER
Nottingham, Terrassa, Warsaw, Genova, Kmepaida Eco Dev. Agency
Kmepaida Eco Dev. Agency is NOT a CITY
Transition
Malmö, Gijon, Utrecht, South Lanarkshire, Montevarchi
South Lanarkshire is NOT a CITY. It is a county.
STUCA TEAM
ASDA-Association of Municipalities of West Athens, Catania, Kavala, Novara, Stara Zagora
ASDA-Association of Municipalities of West Athens is NOT a CITY. It is as its name says an association.
EISHC
Ios, Samothrace, Moudros, Samso, Western Isles Community Council
Western Isles Community Council is NOT a CITY. Furthermore The only large town in the Western Isles is Stornoway ( Steòrnabhagh ) with approximately 5,600 people. This does not meet the Urbact criteria in this respect also.
4 R’s Rules
Noventa di Piave, Brda, Rence Vogrsko, Baia Sprie, Bistrita
Rence Vogrsko is NOT a city it is a collection of Four villages. Population is just over 6000. This does not meet the Urbact criteria.
Baia Sprie has only a population of 16,000. This does not meet the Urbact criteria.
Issue 3.2
The programme having established an independent evaluation panel and clear criteria for the evaluation of the initial expression of interest is a welcome new development. However, it is far from clear as to whether the procedure has been used in accordance with “good practice” established at EU level in other programmes. To date the Urbact Secretariat has been silent about actually how the evaluations were undertaken. The issues that cause concern are:
It seems that projects were evaluated just by one evaluator. The EU good practice standard is at least two and generally three. As such there was no effective process of moderation in the evaluation process.
The scoring system used seems to have failed to ensure that evaluators scored projects against the specific indicators listed in the documentation for each of the five criteria. Instead, it seems that evaluators simply used “impressionistic” criteria in awarding the total score for each criteria. This is simply bad practice and allows for far to great a level of subjectivity if the process.
An example of the quality of evaluation is provided by the following two case studies:
The City of St Helens Submitted a proposal relating to new methodologies for intergrated Urban Devlopment.
The London Borough of Southwark submitted a proposal relating to creative cities
Issue 3.3
In the guidelines for applicants for the first call , a ceiling has been set for the total budgets of networks and working groups. The limit for working groups is €50,000. Of the eight working group approved , 6 have respected this rule. Two have not respected this rule. Jessica 4 Cities has an expression of interest which shows a budget of €300,000. One could be charitable and say that this is an error, but the same application also shows a request for ERDF funding that exceeds the €150,000 ceiling laid down in the programme documentation. Joining Forces, another approved working group has a budget of €65,361.
The point here is not whether the two working groups are good projects, but simply the principle that applies in all EU programmes, namely that if the application does not respect the limits laid down then it is automatically rejected on technical grounds. Here again we have an example of lack of transparency. Had other candidates known that the limits set in the approved documentation were “flexible” then perhaps they would have entered the programme or presented their proposals with a different budgetary construction.
The documentation released with the call caused a certain amount of confusion in respect of eligibility. It was unclear as to whether in the first five partners it was permissible to include non city partners. The programme makes it clear that non city partners can be involved(no more than three in a network). Furthermore, the programme made it possible for the involvement of EU networks to also be involved(subject to the agreement of the MC).
The confusion created by the lack of clarity meant that a number of proposals were deemed ineligible by the Secretariat as they included non-city partners. Some of these projects infact wrote to the President of the Urbact Monitoring Committee. Below is the letter sent by one of those effected, which lays out the confusion in the documentation:
Dear Mr. President Metka Černelč
URBACT Monitoring Committee President
RE: URBACT Expression of Interest for establishing a thematic network called Community Regeneration: Capacity Building Exchange
We have learnt that our expression of interest has been declared ineligible by the URBACT secretariat. The reason for ineligibility has been that we have included a European network and the association of municipalities from Malta in the first five partners in our expression of interest.
We have learnt that over 10% of the expressions of interest submitted have the same problem in terms of the initial partnership having one non-city member.
We understand that one of the criteria for eligibility relates to having an initial partnership of five cities, HOWEVER, in respect of this criteria the communications from the URBACT programme have clearly caused some confusion. Hence the large number of submissions that have been deemed to be ineligible. We request that the monitoring committee urgently reviews this decision by written procedure as this matter cannot wait until the next Monitoring Committee in April.
We are also writing to you as there is no appeal procedure outlined in the documentation regarding the programme. This seems to be an oversight that maybe the monitoring committee should also consider.
The grounds for requesting this review is simply that the documentation released are confusing and thus have created a lack of clarity.
As you are aware, the programme issued three documents connected to the first call of proposals. These are:
· The call for proposals
· The guide for applicants
· The URBACT 2 Programme Manual (Technical Annex)
In the call for proposals it is stated:
“Applicants are invited to submit proposals for the creation of a Thematic network or of a Working group, depending on how they intend to deal with their theme and on the kind of partnership they want to set up. Details on these projects are included in the URBACT II Technical Working Document (Fact sheet 2a – Thematic networks, and Fact sheet 2c – Working groups).”
However when you turn to Fact Sheet 2a there is no reference to the eligibility criteria that all five partners have to be cities. Fact Sheet 2a states the following:
“2.4. Building the partnership
Every project proposal shall be submitted to the URBACT Secretariat, in the form of a Declaration of Interest, by an initial core group of 5 partners (including the Lead Partner). Further information on this procedure is available in section 6.3.). a) Beneficiaries”
Section 6.3 goes on to state that:
The beneficiaries of the URBACT II Programme include the following categories of partners:
- Cities (municipalities, infra-municipal bodies and organised agglomerations) of the 27 EU Member and 2 Partner states;
- Regional and national authorities of the Member and Partner states, as far as urban issues are concerned;
- Universities and research centres of the Member and Partner States, as far as urban issues are concerned.
Furthermore in the same fact Sheet it goes on to state:
“In the context of URBACT II, Lead Partners are the target for calls for proposals to be launched under Priority axes I and II. Only public authorities, NORMALLY CITIES, can be Lead Partners.”
This phase lends support to our concern regarding clarity of communication. The phrase “normally cities” suggests that a public body other than a city could be a lead partner. If the eligibility criteria is that all five partners have to be cities, then it is strange to see that a lead partner could in fact be another type of public body eg region or province.
The same document goes on to state:
“2.3 Composition of partnerships
Each thematic network shall consist of not more than 12 partners, plus up to 2 observer cities (non Member or Partner State).
Each network shall have at least 8 partners from at least 3 different Member and Partner States, taking into account the necessity to find a balance between Competitiveness objective and Convergence objective regions.
No more than 3 partners in any thematic network shall be non-city partners (be they beneficiaries of the programme, i.e. regional and national authorities, universities and research centers as defined in section 2.2.a; or other partners as defined in section 2.2.b). These non-city partners will be from 3 different countries.”
Thus this statement also makes clear that non- city partners are eligible to be partners in a thematic network. Furthermore this section makes no distinction between the first and second phase of thematic networks and as such creates further confusion and lack of clarity.
To add to the confusion, in the Guide for applicants it states:
“Partnerships for projects are to be fully developed in the Development phase (first 6 months for thematic networks / first 4 months for working groups). However in order to be eligible, projects should build their Declaration of Interest on a certain number of initial partners:
- 5 partner cities for a Thematic network (including the Lead partner),
- 4 public authorities in the case of a Working group (including the Lead partner).”
This is the first and only time in 218 pages of documentation that this criteria is stated BUT, in the same section the text states:
“A detailed explanation of eligible partners can be found in the URBACT II Programme Manual (Technical Working Document), especially Fact
Sheets 2a and 2c.”
This of course takes you to the text quoted above and which is silent on this criteria.
Finally , we are also of the view that the confused and confusing eligibility criteria for the first five partners may in fact be in contravention of EC Regulation N° 1083/2006 which states that:
“Article 2 of Regulation (EC) N°1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 defines beneficiaries as “an operator, body or firm, whether public or private, responsible for initiating or initiating and implementing operations. In the context of aid schemes under Article 87 of the Treaty, beneficiaries are public or private firms carrying out an individual project and receiving public aid”.
The following categories of beneficiaries can be identified for the URBACT II Programme all of which will be eligible to receive ERDF co-financing:
- Cities (municipalities and organized agglomerations) of the European Union 27;
- Regions and Member States as far as urban issues are concerned;
- Universities and Research centres as far as urban issues are concerned.”
Given the above grounds for appeal we request that under written procedure that it be agreed that given the confusion and lack of consistency in the formal documents regarding this call, that the Monitoring Committee agrees that applications that fail to meet the criteria of having 5 city partners be allowed to proceed to the evaluation phase and be finally judged on the basis of their quality rather than being rejected against a criteria as we have shown is not effectively communicated in the programme documentation.
Here is the response from the Secretariat:
You referred to me the decision of the Secretariat of the URBACT programme to declare ineligible your Declaration of Interest for the creation of a Thematic Network .
The URBACT Secretariat is currently processing the eligibility check of all Declarations of Interest received (91 DoI for Thematic networks and 32 DoI for Working groups).
While a majority of DoI do fulfill the eligibility requirements, it appears unfortunately, that some candidates misunderstood some of the rules relating to partnership building, documents to be provided, etc. even though they were clearly indicated in the Call for Proposals (annex 1:
Eligibility criteria) and the template to be used for the Declaration of Interest (Section 1.3 Partnership).
I deeply regreat this situation. However, I keep in mind that over 400 European cities did apply to this first call for proposals It is a hard competition with clear and written rules approved by the Monitoring Committee and ensuring transparency and equity of treatment.
Eligible DoI are transferred progressively to External Assessment Panel for assessment and ranking. DoI that do not fulfill the eligibility criteria are not transferred to the EAP.
For this reason, it appears to me quite impossible to consider a written procedure aiming to change the rules in the middle of the assessment process.
At the next meeting on 18 April, the Secretariat will provide the Monitoring Committee with a complete and detailed report on this first call
for proposals, outlining the number of applications received, the
nationality of applicants, the thematic coverage, etc. The Monitoring Committee will then be in the position to decide on the next steps.
We shall keep you informed .
Best regards
Having stated the rule, of no city partners in the first five partnership, it was a great surprise to see that a number of projects with non-city partners were deemed eligible by the Urbact Secreatriat. This in effect has meant a double –standard being applied. This is not good practice and raises issues of transparency.
Here is a list of projects deemed eligible by the Urbact Secretariat which included non-city partners:
REPAIR
Medway, Hanseastadt Rostock, Kaunas, Karlskona, Thessaloniki
Medway is NOT a CITY. It is a county council. There is no city called Medway.
Weser
Moncomunidad Intermuniciőal de Sur Este Gran Canaria, Colalition of 21 municipalities of Northern and Eastern Prefecture of Athens, Menidi, Brindisi, Euguera
Neither Moncomunidad Intermuniciőal de Sur Este Gran Canaria, OR Coalition of 21 municipalities of Northern and Eastern Prefecture of Athens are cities. They are associations.
Greening SMEs
Moncomunidad Sagra Alta, Communauté d’ agglomeration Béziers-Mediterranée, Tarnow, Targiviste, Kirklees Metropolitan Council
Moncomunidad Sagra Alta is NOT a CITY. It is an association
SUITE
Santiago de Compostela, Ministry for the Urban Dev. and Env.-Hamburg, Medway, Nantes Metropole, Siemianowice Slaskie
Ministry for the Urban Dev. and Env.-Hamburg, is by definition not a city;
Medway see comment above
DECIFER
Nottingham, Terrassa, Warsaw, Genova, Kmepaida Eco Dev. Agency
Kmepaida Eco Dev. Agency is NOT a CITY
Transition
Malmö, Gijon, Utrecht, South Lanarkshire, Montevarchi
South Lanarkshire is NOT a CITY. It is a county.
STUCA TEAM
ASDA-Association of Municipalities of West Athens, Catania, Kavala, Novara, Stara Zagora
ASDA-Association of Municipalities of West Athens is NOT a CITY. It is as its name says an association.
EISHC
Ios, Samothrace, Moudros, Samso, Western Isles Community Council
Western Isles Community Council is NOT a CITY. Furthermore The only large town in the Western Isles is Stornoway ( Steòrnabhagh ) with approximately 5,600 people. This does not meet the Urbact criteria in this respect also.
4 R’s Rules
Noventa di Piave, Brda, Rence Vogrsko, Baia Sprie, Bistrita
Rence Vogrsko is NOT a city it is a collection of Four villages. Population is just over 6000. This does not meet the Urbact criteria.
Baia Sprie has only a population of 16,000. This does not meet the Urbact criteria.
Issue 3.2
The programme having established an independent evaluation panel and clear criteria for the evaluation of the initial expression of interest is a welcome new development. However, it is far from clear as to whether the procedure has been used in accordance with “good practice” established at EU level in other programmes. To date the Urbact Secretariat has been silent about actually how the evaluations were undertaken. The issues that cause concern are:
It seems that projects were evaluated just by one evaluator. The EU good practice standard is at least two and generally three. As such there was no effective process of moderation in the evaluation process.
The scoring system used seems to have failed to ensure that evaluators scored projects against the specific indicators listed in the documentation for each of the five criteria. Instead, it seems that evaluators simply used “impressionistic” criteria in awarding the total score for each criteria. This is simply bad practice and allows for far to great a level of subjectivity if the process.
An example of the quality of evaluation is provided by the following two case studies:
The City of St Helens Submitted a proposal relating to new methodologies for intergrated Urban Devlopment.
The London Borough of Southwark submitted a proposal relating to creative cities
Issue 3.3
In the guidelines for applicants for the first call , a ceiling has been set for the total budgets of networks and working groups. The limit for working groups is €50,000. Of the eight working group approved , 6 have respected this rule. Two have not respected this rule. Jessica 4 Cities has an expression of interest which shows a budget of €300,000. One could be charitable and say that this is an error, but the same application also shows a request for ERDF funding that exceeds the €150,000 ceiling laid down in the programme documentation. Joining Forces, another approved working group has a budget of €65,361.
The point here is not whether the two working groups are good projects, but simply the principle that applies in all EU programmes, namely that if the application does not respect the limits laid down then it is automatically rejected on technical grounds. Here again we have an example of lack of transparency. Had other candidates known that the limits set in the approved documentation were “flexible” then perhaps they would have entered the programme or presented their proposals with a different budgetary construction.
Programme Communication
Issue 2.1
A new website has been launched and in the process information has disappeared. There has been no consultation with stakeholders regarding the new website and it is already causing difficulties in that no-one knows what the plan is and how the site has been constructed
Issue 2.2
A three day induction programme took place in Paris at the end of April for lead partners and lead experts. However, the event, whilst being a good idea, was not effective as none of the key documentation was ready. As a result, it was an impressionistic event and not one that enabled the target group to really get to grips with the requirements of the programme in terms of administration and also content management.
Issue 2.3
Key information is emerging is a drip feed manner. For example , on the 15th of May the Secretariat wrote to lead partners informing them that they had to ensure that they had a 50-50 balance in their partnership. This means 50% of partners being from Competition areas and 50% from Convergence. In Paris at the induction event and in the technical documentation the terms used is “balance” between competition and convergence areas. Now “balance” has become literal. This is strange given the fact that 70% of ERDF funds are actually in Convergence areas. Furthermore, this instruction fails to recognise that there are certain issues that are going to be of more interest and relevance to convergence rather than competition areas.
This new interpretation also raises a question as to whether this is what was agreed by the MC or is this the Secretariat taking an “executive” role.
A new website has been launched and in the process information has disappeared. There has been no consultation with stakeholders regarding the new website and it is already causing difficulties in that no-one knows what the plan is and how the site has been constructed
Issue 2.2
A three day induction programme took place in Paris at the end of April for lead partners and lead experts. However, the event, whilst being a good idea, was not effective as none of the key documentation was ready. As a result, it was an impressionistic event and not one that enabled the target group to really get to grips with the requirements of the programme in terms of administration and also content management.
Issue 2.3
Key information is emerging is a drip feed manner. For example , on the 15th of May the Secretariat wrote to lead partners informing them that they had to ensure that they had a 50-50 balance in their partnership. This means 50% of partners being from Competition areas and 50% from Convergence. In Paris at the induction event and in the technical documentation the terms used is “balance” between competition and convergence areas. Now “balance” has become literal. This is strange given the fact that 70% of ERDF funds are actually in Convergence areas. Furthermore, this instruction fails to recognise that there are certain issues that are going to be of more interest and relevance to convergence rather than competition areas.
This new interpretation also raises a question as to whether this is what was agreed by the MC or is this the Secretariat taking an “executive” role.
Programme Adminstration
Issue 1.1
The first projects were approved by the MC in Mid April. The initial six month phase for networks formally began on 21 April. However, contracts for lead city authorities have not been finalised. This has made it difficult for lead partners to start the work as they require to have some documentation before they can start incurring expenses for their respective projects. In effect the first month has passed by , given the fact that the first six month phase also includes the summer holidays, this in effect means that the real timescale has been reduced to 4 months.
Issue 1.2
Lead Thematic experts were identified by lead partners when the expression of interest applications were submitted. These experts have been approved by the Urbact Secretariat prior to the decision of the MC. To date none of the experts has received any form of contract. Again the issue of loss of time is critical. In deed the forms for the lead partners to initiate the contract process for lead partners were only posted on the Urbact website on 23 May. What this means is that experts will only receive their contracts in Mid June at the earliest.
Issue 1.3
The MC has approved to set a fixed budget for thematic networks of €670,000. Of this amount at least €70,000 is for the Local Support Groups which are obligatory for each partner in each network to establish. The question that needs to be posed from the outset is whether this budget construction is feasible to deliver the objectives of each thematic network. Experience from Urbact I and other transnational programmes suggests that the setting of a budget BEFORE detailing the tasks to be undertaken by each thematic network will lead to problems. In particular, with such a budget the issue of interpretation costs and the need to produce some materials in the languages of partner organisations will cause difficulties. If Local Support Groups bring together local actors then the chances are they will be excluded from effective involvement as there will not be sufficient resources for address this issue.
It would be good for lead partners to post their experiences and reflections in this respect.
The first projects were approved by the MC in Mid April. The initial six month phase for networks formally began on 21 April. However, contracts for lead city authorities have not been finalised. This has made it difficult for lead partners to start the work as they require to have some documentation before they can start incurring expenses for their respective projects. In effect the first month has passed by , given the fact that the first six month phase also includes the summer holidays, this in effect means that the real timescale has been reduced to 4 months.
Issue 1.2
Lead Thematic experts were identified by lead partners when the expression of interest applications were submitted. These experts have been approved by the Urbact Secretariat prior to the decision of the MC. To date none of the experts has received any form of contract. Again the issue of loss of time is critical. In deed the forms for the lead partners to initiate the contract process for lead partners were only posted on the Urbact website on 23 May. What this means is that experts will only receive their contracts in Mid June at the earliest.
Issue 1.3
The MC has approved to set a fixed budget for thematic networks of €670,000. Of this amount at least €70,000 is for the Local Support Groups which are obligatory for each partner in each network to establish. The question that needs to be posed from the outset is whether this budget construction is feasible to deliver the objectives of each thematic network. Experience from Urbact I and other transnational programmes suggests that the setting of a budget BEFORE detailing the tasks to be undertaken by each thematic network will lead to problems. In particular, with such a budget the issue of interpretation costs and the need to produce some materials in the languages of partner organisations will cause difficulties. If Local Support Groups bring together local actors then the chances are they will be excluded from effective involvement as there will not be sufficient resources for address this issue.
It would be good for lead partners to post their experiences and reflections in this respect.
URBACT II 2007-2013
URBACT II has the following specific objectives:
To facilitate the exchange of experience and learning among city policy makers and practitioners in the field of sustainable urban development among local and regional authorities. Taking into account the acquis of the URBACT I Programme, it will draw lessons to increase their impact on local policies;
To disseminate widely the experiences and examples of good practice collected by the cities, and especially the lessons drawn from these projects and policies, and to ensure the transfer of know-how in the area of sustainable urban development;
To assist policy-makers and practitioners in the cities and managers of operational programmes under the Convergence and Competitiveness Objectives to define action plans on sustainable development of urban areas, which may be selected for Structural Funds programmes.
The URBACT II programme is structured around 3 priority axes, 2 of which are thematic priorities:
- Priority Axe 1 - Cities, Engines of Growth and Jobs
There are three themes identified within the Priority Axe 1:
Promoting Entrepreneurship
Improving Innovation and Knowledge Economy
Employment and Human Capital
- Priority Axe 2 - Attractive and Cohesive Cities
There are four themes identified within the Priority Axe II:
Integrated development of deprived areas and areas at risk of deprivation
Social integration
Environmental issues
Governance and Urban Planning
- Priority Axe 3 - Technical Assistance
The programme has an overall budget of just over €68m
There have been some new features introduced some of which directly address some of the issues raised in Urbact I:
- An independent external evaluation panel has been established. This consists of 6 assessors who have been recruited by the means of calls for tender. These people are meant to be “independent from the cities and from national and European networks.”
- Assessment criteria for evaluation have been produced fro the first time.
- A two stage process has been established:
o Phase one –six months development phase. At the end of this phase a further more detailed application for phase two has to be submitted and then evaluated and then approved by the MC.
o Phase two-30 months implementation phase
- A fixed budget for thematic networks has been set-€670,000. Which is the total available for both phases.
- Each Thematic Network has to support the development of Local Support Groups in each partner location and a minimum budget of €7000 has been set for each LSG(this is part of the total fixed budget)
- Thematic poles have been established in the programme to create cross- project working from the outset.
The first call for proposals was issued in December 2007 and first 23 networks and 8 working groups were approved by the MC in April 2008 and the work of these approved projects began on 21 April for the initial Six month phase.
You can find the approved projects on the following website http://urbact.eu/thematic-poles.html
To facilitate the exchange of experience and learning among city policy makers and practitioners in the field of sustainable urban development among local and regional authorities. Taking into account the acquis of the URBACT I Programme, it will draw lessons to increase their impact on local policies;
To disseminate widely the experiences and examples of good practice collected by the cities, and especially the lessons drawn from these projects and policies, and to ensure the transfer of know-how in the area of sustainable urban development;
To assist policy-makers and practitioners in the cities and managers of operational programmes under the Convergence and Competitiveness Objectives to define action plans on sustainable development of urban areas, which may be selected for Structural Funds programmes.
The URBACT II programme is structured around 3 priority axes, 2 of which are thematic priorities:
- Priority Axe 1 - Cities, Engines of Growth and Jobs
There are three themes identified within the Priority Axe 1:
Promoting Entrepreneurship
Improving Innovation and Knowledge Economy
Employment and Human Capital
- Priority Axe 2 - Attractive and Cohesive Cities
There are four themes identified within the Priority Axe II:
Integrated development of deprived areas and areas at risk of deprivation
Social integration
Environmental issues
Governance and Urban Planning
- Priority Axe 3 - Technical Assistance
The programme has an overall budget of just over €68m
There have been some new features introduced some of which directly address some of the issues raised in Urbact I:
- An independent external evaluation panel has been established. This consists of 6 assessors who have been recruited by the means of calls for tender. These people are meant to be “independent from the cities and from national and European networks.”
- Assessment criteria for evaluation have been produced fro the first time.
- A two stage process has been established:
o Phase one –six months development phase. At the end of this phase a further more detailed application for phase two has to be submitted and then evaluated and then approved by the MC.
o Phase two-30 months implementation phase
- A fixed budget for thematic networks has been set-€670,000. Which is the total available for both phases.
- Each Thematic Network has to support the development of Local Support Groups in each partner location and a minimum budget of €7000 has been set for each LSG(this is part of the total fixed budget)
- Thematic poles have been established in the programme to create cross- project working from the outset.
The first call for proposals was issued in December 2007 and first 23 networks and 8 working groups were approved by the MC in April 2008 and the work of these approved projects began on 21 April for the initial Six month phase.
You can find the approved projects on the following website http://urbact.eu/thematic-poles.html
FROM URBACT I TO URBACT II
URBACT I, as a Community Initiative Programme, was approved by the Commission on 22 December 2002 to organise exchanges among cities receiving assistance under the URBAN Programme, to draw lessons from implemented projects, and to disseminate such knowledge and know-how as widely as possible.
Urbact I created 20 thematic networks, 8 working groups, 3 studies,4 training programmes in new EU Member States, 2 Pilot Fast Track Networks and a " Support for cities " initiative.
You can find out more about the three URBACT Thematic Poles and their projects on the URBACT website: http://urbact.eu/thematic-poles.html
Total programme budget was € 28,42 million (€ 18.03 million in community contributions,€ 10,39 million in national cofinancing).
There were a number of points that emerged from Urbact I that are important to take forward in respect of the URBACT II programme:
The evaluation of the Urbact programme highlighted that whilst the programme had been successful in mobilising participation in the programme, its outcomes had no impact at a local level.
Furthermore, from peer accounts it became clear that the quality of products and outcomes delivered by the 24 networks and X working group had been very mixed. A significant percentage of the products created added nothing in terms of value added to the focus of the thematic network or the working group.
The programme created “professional tourism”. There are numerous examples of transnational meetings at which the content and outcomes were questionable.Some experts undertook “whistle stop” tours of cities , which had questionable relevance in terms of the quality of products produced.
The programme operated in a “top-down” manner. The Secreatriat operated in a classic French civil service centralised and hierarchical manner. There was a lack of structured involvement by stakeholders in the review and shaping of the programme.
The role and performance of the Secretariat was also another matter that surfaced. There were a number of issues highlighted:
The Secretariat on many occasions acted in an “executive capacity”. That is say that decisions were made which were not subject to scrutiny or approval by the Urbact Monitoring Committee. The Secretariat took a centralised control function which meant that they were often directing projects. This confused their correct role of monitoring and reviewing.
The Secretariat also undertook the evaluation of proposals submitted. This procedure was contrary to good practice in that it meant that there was no independent evaluation undertaken. This also created a culture which meant that those “favoured” by the Secretariat were assured of success.
The Secretariat initiated projects, which is directly contrary to their role. Instead of using an open and transparent procedure for inviting applications, applications were “created” by the Secretariat.
The Urbact website was an ongoing disaster. Contracts with more than 5 different providers were awarded over the 4 years and each in turn created further difficulties and problems. The cost for the website has never been made clear, but it is certain that value for money was never achieved.
The Secretariat also “controlled” access to the Urbact Monitoring Committee. Lead partners were unable to get issues placed on the agenda which they felt required the MC to review decisions made. Direct action became the only possibility and this in turn led to such lead partners as being viewed negatively by the Secretariat.
The role and quality of the Secretariat experts was also an ongoing issue of concern. No one understood what their role was and what support they provided to approved projects.
The Secretariat failed to utilise the expertise of the thematic experts. Each working group and thematic network had “approved” experts, however, this resource was never effectively used in reviewing the programme.
The Secretariat also launched actions within the programme without effective consultation with stakeholders. A large amount of resources were invested in what were known as the “Cross-thematic working groups”. None of these groups functioned effectively and furthermore the products created by these groups had marginal value. Similarly a programme of support for the EU 10 was launched without any effective assessment of the needs of the new members and also the most effective way to address their needs. Instead, a programme was launched that provided cities in EU10 with a few days of “expert advice”. This was, simply cosmetic.
Urbact I created 20 thematic networks, 8 working groups, 3 studies,4 training programmes in new EU Member States, 2 Pilot Fast Track Networks and a " Support for cities " initiative.
You can find out more about the three URBACT Thematic Poles and their projects on the URBACT website: http://urbact.eu/thematic-poles.html
Total programme budget was € 28,42 million (€ 18.03 million in community contributions,€ 10,39 million in national cofinancing).
There were a number of points that emerged from Urbact I that are important to take forward in respect of the URBACT II programme:
The evaluation of the Urbact programme highlighted that whilst the programme had been successful in mobilising participation in the programme, its outcomes had no impact at a local level.
Furthermore, from peer accounts it became clear that the quality of products and outcomes delivered by the 24 networks and X working group had been very mixed. A significant percentage of the products created added nothing in terms of value added to the focus of the thematic network or the working group.
The programme created “professional tourism”. There are numerous examples of transnational meetings at which the content and outcomes were questionable.Some experts undertook “whistle stop” tours of cities , which had questionable relevance in terms of the quality of products produced.
The programme operated in a “top-down” manner. The Secreatriat operated in a classic French civil service centralised and hierarchical manner. There was a lack of structured involvement by stakeholders in the review and shaping of the programme.
The role and performance of the Secretariat was also another matter that surfaced. There were a number of issues highlighted:
The Secretariat on many occasions acted in an “executive capacity”. That is say that decisions were made which were not subject to scrutiny or approval by the Urbact Monitoring Committee. The Secretariat took a centralised control function which meant that they were often directing projects. This confused their correct role of monitoring and reviewing.
The Secretariat also undertook the evaluation of proposals submitted. This procedure was contrary to good practice in that it meant that there was no independent evaluation undertaken. This also created a culture which meant that those “favoured” by the Secretariat were assured of success.
The Secretariat initiated projects, which is directly contrary to their role. Instead of using an open and transparent procedure for inviting applications, applications were “created” by the Secretariat.
The Urbact website was an ongoing disaster. Contracts with more than 5 different providers were awarded over the 4 years and each in turn created further difficulties and problems. The cost for the website has never been made clear, but it is certain that value for money was never achieved.
The Secretariat also “controlled” access to the Urbact Monitoring Committee. Lead partners were unable to get issues placed on the agenda which they felt required the MC to review decisions made. Direct action became the only possibility and this in turn led to such lead partners as being viewed negatively by the Secretariat.
The role and quality of the Secretariat experts was also an ongoing issue of concern. No one understood what their role was and what support they provided to approved projects.
The Secretariat failed to utilise the expertise of the thematic experts. Each working group and thematic network had “approved” experts, however, this resource was never effectively used in reviewing the programme.
The Secretariat also launched actions within the programme without effective consultation with stakeholders. A large amount of resources were invested in what were known as the “Cross-thematic working groups”. None of these groups functioned effectively and furthermore the products created by these groups had marginal value. Similarly a programme of support for the EU 10 was launched without any effective assessment of the needs of the new members and also the most effective way to address their needs. Instead, a programme was launched that provided cities in EU10 with a few days of “expert advice”. This was, simply cosmetic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)