Project Title

IPA CROSS BORDER PROGRAM «GREECE – ALBANIA 2007 -2013» PROJECT INCOMMON

Project Title: Fostering cooperation and mobilization composing economic clusters Project acronym: InCommon

Work Package 4: Evaluation

Action 4.1: Evaluation Deliverable 4.1.4: External evaluation quality assessment

Thessaloniki, December 2013

WP4: Evaluation

1/53


Contents 1. Executive summary______________________________________________________________ 7 1.1. Main findings of the evaluation _________________________________________________ 7 1.2. Conclusions and recommendations ______________________________________________ 7 2. Introduction ___________________________________________________________________ 9 2.1. Purpose of the evaluation report ________________________________________________ 9 2.2. Structure of the evaluation report _______________________________________________ 9 3. The evaluation context __________________________________________________________ 10 3.1. Brief description of the InCommon Project ______________________________________ 10 3.2. Description of the evaluation process: recapitulation of the purpose and scope of the evaluation _____________________________________________________________________ 11 3.3. Relevant policies to the InCommon Project ______________________________________ 13 4. Methodological approach ________________________________________________________ 17 4.1. Explanation of the evaluation design and the methods used ________________________ 17 4.1.1. Rationale of the evaluation _________________________________________________ 17 4.1.1.1. Does the undertaking make sense? ________________________________________ 17 4.1.1.2. Are the objectives relevant and realizable? _________________________________ 18 4.1.1.3. Should alternative objectives be considered? ________________________________ 18 4.1.2. Achievement of objectives _________________________________________________ 19 4.1.2.1. To what extent were the original objectives achieved or likely to be achieved? _____ 19 4.1.2.2. What are the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of objectives? _________________________________________________________________ 20 4.1.3. Impacts and effects _______________________________________________________ 20 4.1.3.1. Evaluation tools ______________________________________________________ 21 4.1.3.2. Input indicators _______________________________________________________ 21 4.1.3.3. Output indicators _____________________________________________________ 23 4.1.3.4. Result indicators ______________________________________________________ 25 4.1.3.5. Impact indicators _____________________________________________________ 29 4.2. Sources of data, techniques for data collection, information about the calculation of indicators _____________________________________________________________________ 29 4.3. Problems or limitations of the methodological approach and of the evaluation report in general _______________________________________________________________________ 29 5. Description of the Actions of the Project and budget allocation __________________________ 30 5.1. Project implementation: actors involved, institutional context ______________________ 30 5.2. Composition of the Project. Description of priorities and Actions ____________________ 36 5.3. Budget foreseen and budget structure __________________________________________ 38 5.4. Uptake and budget actually spent ______________________________________________ 40 6. Data analysis __________________________________________________________________ 43 6.1. Has the InCommon Project realized its objective? ________________________________ 43 6.2. Do you think that the gradual introduction of the quality policy to the services and agrofood products can contribute to their marketing and renown? __________________________ 43 6.3. Do you think that the InCommon Project has, or will have in the near future, an impact on the development of tourism in the areas of Korçë and Grevena? ________________________ 44 6.4. Were there any procedural problems during the implementation of the Project? _______ 44

WP4: Evaluation

2/53

IPA CROSS BORDER PROGRAM «GREECE – ALBANIA 2007 -2013» PROJECT INCOMMON 6.5. What do you think about the interaction between the three Partners of the Project? ____ 45 6.6. Successful characteristics of the Project _________________________________________ 45 6.7. Unsuccessful characteristics of the Project_______________________________________ 46 6.8. What do you think about the viability of the InCommon logo? Will enterprises use it still after two years from now? _______________________________________________________ 46 6.9. Should the InCommon Project continue in the following Programming Period (20142020)? If yes, which actions should include? _________________________________________ 47 6.10. Add anything that you feel that must be said regarding the InCommon Project _______ 48 7. Conclusions and recommendations ________________________________________________ 49 REFERENCES__________________________________________________________________ 50 Annex I: the questionnaire which was used ___________________________________________ 51

WP4: Evaluation

3/53


Tables Table 1: Interconnection of the Main Targets of the InCommon Project to its Actions _________ 12 Table 2: Proposed evaluation tools for the InCommon Project ____________________________ 21 Table 3: Input indicators for the InCommon Project ____________________________________ 23 Table 4: Output indicators and ways of measurement ___________________________________ 23 Table 5: Result indicators and their measurement ______________________________________ 25 Table 6: List of companies which participated in the food festival which took place in Grevena __ 26 Table 7: EU funded or co-funded Projects/ Programmes that the CCG has participated to ______ 31 Table 8: Programmes and Projects that EPD has participated to (2004-2013) ________________ 32 Table 9: Projects funded or co-funded by the EU that the RCK has participated to ____________ 35 Table 10: Work Packages, Actions and Deliverables of the InCommon Project _______________ 37 Table 11: Structure of the budget per Deliverable and per category of expenditure (in €) _______ 38 Table 12: Budget structure per partner (in €) __________________________________________ 39 Table 13: Budget uptake per partner and per expenditure category until 8/11/2013 (in €) _______ 40 Table 14:Uptake of the budget – LP1 (in €) ___________________________________________ 41 Table 15:Uptake of the budget – LP2 (in €) ___________________________________________ 41 Table 16:Uptake of the budget – P3 (in €) _____________________________________________ 42

WP4: Evaluation

4/53


Figures Figure 1: Major objective and main targets of the InCommon Project ______________________ 11 Figure 2: Core tourism products and specialized tourism products of Albania ________________ 16 Figure 3: Ways to deal with the increasing cost of the intensive model of farming_____________ 18 Figure 4: The Top 25 countries regarding the site’s traffic (November December 2013) ________ 27 Figure 5: The InCommon logo _____________________________________________________ 27 Figure 6: The second award logo ___________________________________________________ 28 Figure 7: The third award logo _____________________________________________________ 28

\

WP4: Evaluation

5/53


Contributors to the report The contributors of the Deliverable 4.1.4. include: 1. Hristos Vakoufaris: BA in Agricultural Studies, MSc in Environmental Policy and Management, PhD in specific agro-food products and sustainable development of less favored areas; 2. Stathis Vakoufaris, BA in Agricultural Studies, MSc in Environmental Planning of cities and buildings.

WP4: Evaluation

6/53


1. Executive summary This report is the Deliverable 4.1.4. ‘External evaluation quality assessment’ of the Project InCommon. It is part of the Action 4.1. ‘Evaluation’. A brief description of the Project is given on Paragraph 3.1. 1.1. Main findings of the evaluation The main findings of the evaluation are: -

It is very early to assess the achievement of the overall goal of the Project. Indicatively, it is mentioned that no companies have yet, until 10/12/2013 registered for the use of the logo of the InCommon Project;

-

The Project is rather successful when referring to its outputs and results since almost all of its expected outputs were produced while the result indicators, some of which at this point are just indicative, show also very interesting results;

-

The budget uptake is very low especially when considering that the end of the Project duration is in less than two months after the date of the last available data;

-

There is a consensus for an effort to continue the Project in the next Programming Period (2014-2020). The InCommon Project is viewed by the Partners as the beginning of a lengthy effort. The need for more cooperation among the Partners and between the two countries is expressed;

-

The 18 month duration of the Project, even after its 6 month extension (24 months in total), proved to be not enough as the subcontracting procedure and other issues of bureaucracy resulted to the fact that the Project had to be implemented ‘in haste’ in an actual period of just 8-9 months.

1.2. Conclusions and recommendations -

The InCommon Project is characterized by the advantages and shortcomings of a newly established network between the three Partners. The real benefits will show if this cooperation will continue, not necessarily for the continuation of this Project;

-

Both the Regional Council of Korçë (RCK) and the Chamber of Commerce of Grevena (CCG) do not have a history of managing a quality logo and the InCommon Project demands from their side paperwork, inspections, transparency, operational costs. This will probably be the key point for the long term impact of the Project;

-

Should this Project continue in the next Programming Period (2014-2020) then its duration should be at least 2 years;

-

Greater joint efforts must take place before submitting the follow-up proposal of the Project to the EU regarding planning issues;

WP4: Evaluation

7/53


-

The ideas and expectations of the Partners about the continuation of the Project must be born in mind. However, the Partners have diverging ideas about how this Project should continue therefore common ground must be found through dialogue.

WP4: Evaluation

8/53


2. Introduction 2.1. Purpose of the evaluation report The purpose of this evaluation is to point to advantages and disadvantages of the implementation of the InCommon Project and to consider a continuation of the Project in the following Programming Period (2014 – 2020). 2.2. Structure of the evaluation report The structure of this evaluation report is as follows: Chapter 1 presents the executive summary of this report by outlining the main findings of the report but also the conclusions and recommendations. Chapter 2 is the introduction of the report, while the purpose and structure of the report are analyzed. Chapter 3 deals with the evaluation context, while Chapter 4 presents the methodological approach. Chapter 5 refers to the description of the Actions of the Project and to the budget allocation. Chapter 6 analyzes the various existing data and finally Chapter 7 presents the conclusions and recommendations of the report.

WP4: Evaluation

9/53


3. The evaluation context 3.1. Brief description of the InCommon Project The InCommon Project aims to create a strategy towards quality which will contribute to the tourism development of the participating territories, meaning the Prefectural Unit of Grevena in Greece and the Region of Korçë along with the areas of Gjirokaster and Vlore in Albania. The InCommon Project boosts a joint effort by partners of the eligible area, lead by the Chamber of Commerce of Grevena, that tries to promote traditional products and breathe behaviors and attitudes that characterize the history of each area. By promoting a basket of goods in each territory and also promoting traditional recipes the InCommon Project wants to mobilize local stakeholders. Moreover, the Project adopts a “quality logo” that is awarded only to firms and economic actors that fulfill quality-based criteria. These firms will be obliged to use traditional products and traditional recipes in their cooking. The ambition of this effort is to create “quality areas” that enhance traditional products in a strategic way. This –by its turn- will be the pole of attraction of tourists and travelers. The Project aims to the sustainable tourism development to the participating areas of both countries. To do this there will be a mobilization of local actors in both countries, the basket of quality agro-food goods will be identified, a strategy for the dissemination of the logo will be drawn (criteria for the selection of products and enterprises, integrated feedback strategy, etc.) but also festivals that deal with local traditional recipes will be organized in order to promote the Project. The Project’s expected results are direct and indirect. Both are long lasting with a general positive impact in the participating areas. These results are: - the awareness of the local stakeholders, - the step-by-step introduction of a quality policy to every service and agro-food product, - the involvement of traditional firms (restaurants, cafes, bistros, greengrocer stores) and upgrade of their role to economic circulation. - the increase of the annually tourism flow, - the gradually reduction of the seasonality of the tourism flow, - the environmental friendly development of the participating areas in terms of exploitation of the current natural resources avoiding the adaptation of other ways of tourism attraction, - the gradually reduction of the unemployment in the participating areas and the abidance of the human resources and especially of the higher educated ones, - the joint implementation between a Member State and an IPA country and the knowhow transfer, - the reduction of people that choose to move away from their homeland, - the change of way of behaving towards travelers and tourists, WP4: Evaluation

10/53


- the adaption of a strategic way of thinking regarding the tourism development, - the annual increase in local GDP, - long lasting impact in areas development. 3.2. Description of the evaluation process: recapitulation of the purpose and scope of the evaluation Figure 1: Major objective and main targets of the InCommon Project Major objective

Main targets

1.The change of the behavior of local stakeholders on visitors and travelers

The creation of a quality oriented strategy aiming at the tourism valorization of the participating areas to the InCommon Project

2.The promotion and valorization of a different tourism product

3.The improvement of the services in the area

4.The improvement of the areas’ GDP and the improvement of working conditions

5.CBC coordination and enhancement of local and traditional products

6.The quality logo strategy to create a long lasting tourism strategy

The InCommon Project has a Major Objective (MO) that is the “creation of a quality oriented strategy aiming at the tourism valorization of the participating areas” and also 6 main targets (MT) which are: 1. The change of the behavior of local stake holders towards the visitors and travelers, 2. The promotion and valorization of a different – attractive though- tourism product, WP4: Evaluation

11/53


3. The improvement of services in the area, 4. The improvement of the areas GDP and the improvement of working conditions, 5. The CBC coordination and enhancement of local and traditional products, 6. The quality logo strategy which aims to create a long lasting touristic strategy. In the case of the InCommon Project the Major Objective of the Project and its six Main Targets (sub-objectives) as they are described in the Project’s call must be borne in mind. The major objective of the Project is “the creation of a quality oriented strategy aiming at the tourism valorisation of the participating areas”. This Major Objective can be analyzed to six Main Targets which are presented in detail on Figure 1 (e.g. Main Target 1 is ‘the change of the behaviour of local stakeholders on visitors and travellers’). Then follows the interconnection of the six Main Targets with the Actions of the Project which is presented on Table 1. The InCommon Project has four Work Packages (WPs) which are furthermore structured in eleven specific Actions. It is easy to understand that some of those Actions are interconnected to more than one of the Main Targets (MTs) of the InCommon Project. Table 1: Interconnection of the Main Targets of the InCommon Project to its Actions WPs

WP 1

WP 2

WP 3

WP 4

Deliverable

MT1

MT2

MT3

MT4

MT5

1.2. Project management meetings

Χ

1.3. Project coordination

Χ

1.4. Audit

Χ

2.1. Multilingual project communication package

Χ

2.2. Open international conferences

Χ

2.3. Recipes festivals

Χ

Χ

2.4. InCommon Panorama

Χ

Χ

Χ

Χ

Χ

Χ

Χ

Χ

Χ

Χ

3.1. Basket of goods 3.2. InCommon awareness 4.1. Evaluation 4.2. InCommon protocol

Χ

Χ

Χ Χ

Χ

MT6

Χ

Χ Χ

Χ Χ

Χ

Χ

Χ Χ

MT: Main Target, WP: Work Package

This evaluation is an interim evaluation of the Project InCommon. As it has been mentioned in the Deliverable 4.1.1. there are two kinds of interim evaluations: (i) mid-term evaluations (which take place halfway through the intervention); (ii) final evaluations (which take place near the end of the intervention). Therefore this evaluation is the final evaluation of the InCommon Project. Regarding the time period that this evaluation covers this starts at 1/2/2012 and ends at 15/11/2013. It must be noted here that the end of the Project’s duration is at 31/12/2013. The evaluation is conducted by two external evaluators which are not members of the three partners WP4: Evaluation

12/53


participating in the Project, and it deals with the InCommon Project as a whole (overall scope). This evaluation is a formative evaluation. This means that it focuses on the implementation procedures and their effectiveness and relevance. In specific, this Project and this evaluation refers to: -

The Prefectural Unit (PU) of Grevena (Greece) and the Region of Korçë (Albania);

-

The period during 1/2/2012-15/11/2013;

-

The sectors of agriculture and tourism. The Project aims at remunerating the quality agri-food products of both areas in order to form a strategy for the differentiation of their tourism products;

-

The local level regarding the institutional status.

The purpose of this evaluation is to point to advantages and disadvantages of the implementation of the InCommon Project and to consider a possible continuation of the Project in the following Programming Period (2014 – 2020). The recipients of the findings of this evaluation are mainly: -

The three Partners of the InCommon Project;

-

The agro-food and tourism enterprises of the Region of Korçë and of the Prefectural Unit of Grevena which use, or think about using, the InCommon logo,

-

The wider public of the Region of Korçë and of the Prefectural Unit of Grevena.

However, this evaluation can also benefit the EU, the governments of Albania and Greece, and the personnel of the Public Services which relate to the sectors of tourism and agriculture. 3.3. Relevant policies to the InCommon Project The InCommon Project is highly related to the sectors of tourism and agriculture. In specific it aims to differentiate the tourism product provided in the Region of Korçë and in the Prefectural Unit of Grevena by focusing on the quality agro-food products produced in both areas. This differentiation can be twofold: -

On the one hand tourism enterprises can differentiate the product they provide either directly (e.g. through agro-tourism services) or indirectly (e.g. by providing local quality agro-food products for breakfast).

-

On the other hand agro-food actors (farmers, processors, middlemen, restaurants) can increasingly invest in the quality of the products and services that they provide. The increasing quality of the produced agro-food products can also lead to increased benefits for the tourism sector of the areas.

Based on the above, relevant national or EU policies for the InCommon Project are those that deal with alternative forms of tourism, especially agro-tourism and rural tourism, and with the promotion of quality agro-food products. WP4: Evaluation

13/53


However, the different status of the two countries, one being an EU member and one being a ‘potentially candidate country’, means that are differences in the applied policies in both of those areas. The main objective of the EU tourism policy is ‘to improve the competitiveness of the European tourism industry and create more and better jobs through the sustainable growth of tourism in Europe and globally’ (Commission of the European Communities, 2007). The Commission acknowledges that to achieve a competitive and sustainable tourism all relevant actors must respect the following principles: -

Take a holistic and integrated approach;

-

Plan for the long term;

-

Achieve an appropriate pace and rhythm of development;

-

Involve all stakeholders;

-

Use best available knowledge;

-

Minimize and manage risk;

-

Reflect impacts in costs;

-

Set and respect limits, where appropriate;

-

Undertake continuous Communities, 2007).

monitoring

(Commission

of

the

European

In Greece, according to the Hellenic Organization for Tourism (EOT) the tourism strategy is to shift the country’s positioning from a ‘summer vacation and archaeological sites’ destination’ to ‘a destination characterized by unique changes in scenery and unexplored antitheses, a place of experiences where unexpected stories unravel effortlessly’ (University of the Aegean, 2010). 9 strategic tourism sectors have been identified, one of which is rural tourism. In Greece agro-tourism actions are usually funded by the EU LEADER initiative. Women’s cooperatives which in some cases provide agro-tourism services (e.g. lodgings) have been funded in the past by the Community Initiative NOW and later on also by the LEADER initiative. Technoeconomic assistance to the women’s cooperatives has been given also by other Greek organizations such as the General Secretariat of Equality, The Greek Ministry of Agriculture, the Agricultural Bank of Greece, the Pan-Hellenic Confederation of the Agricultural Cooperatives’ Unions, the Greek National Tourism Organization, the Hellenic Organization of SMEs and Handicraft and finally the Greek Manpower Employment Organization (Vakoufaris et al, 2007). Regarding the quality agro-food products, the Greek policy coincides with the EU policy. EU policies for a-spatial quality products is the organic farming policy, the integrated farming policy, and the policy for Traditional Specialties Guaranteed (TSGs). The inclusion of the organic sector in EU policies was rather late and it took place in 1991 with Council Regulation 2092/91 (European Commission, 2010) – which was later replaced by Council Regulation 834/ 2007. Prior to the introduction of the Regulation a definition for organic farming did not exist in Greece. Council Regulation 2078/92 referred to agri-environmental measures, one of which is organic farming, as an obligatory part of the CAP and included financial support for organic farmers (Michelsen, 2009). Agri-environmental measures are obligatory for the WP4: Evaluation

14/53


Member States but voluntary for the farmers that participate. Regarding integrated farming production Directive 91/414 is not binding for Member States but by 2014 the general standards of integrated production will be implemented by all EU farmers. TSGs were initially defined by Council Regulation 2082/92 and later on by Council Regulation 509/2006. Regarding spatial quality products the legal basis for Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs) and Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs) was until recently Council Regulation 510/2006 although PDOs and PGIs were first introduced as a policy tool in 1992 with Council Regulation 2081/92. Nowadays both Regulations (509/2006 and 510/2006) are replaced by European Parliament and Council Regulation 1151/2012. In Albania, the legal framework for the support to agriculture and rural development is provided by the Law for Agriculture and Rural Development 9817 of 22.10.2007. Each year an annual National Action Plan is elaborated. There are four priority axes: axis 3 refers to the ‘improvement of quality of life and encouragement of diversified economic activities in rural areas’ while axis 4 refers to the ‘development of local initiatives of farmers, people working in forest management and other rural actors to preserve and develop the natural and cultural local heritage, improve the environment, promote local brands, tourism and the use of renewable energy resources as well as creation of public-private partnerships, encouragements of entrepreneurship, etc’. Both those 2 axes are relevant to the objectives of the InCommon Project. Organic farming started with the establishment of the Organic Agriculture Association in 1997 (Bernet and Kazazi, 2012). Another milestone was the approval of Law 9199 of 26.02.2004 ‘on the production, processing, certification and marketing of “bio” products’. The Albanian government first provided financial support, a part of the certification cost, in 2009 with the Decision of the Council of Ministers 18 of 07.01.2009 (Leksinaj, 2009). However, most activities in the organic farming sector have been driven by donor funding (FAO, 2013). According to FAO (2013, p. 12) ‘there has been progress in adopting legislation in various areas, including quality policy that refers to the introduction and promotion of Geographical Indications’ in Albania. The strategy for the development of the Albanian tourism sector is based on cultural and environmental tourism. Potential is seen in rural tourism with further developing nature tourism, in history and archaeology tourism as well as in culture-specialized tourism products (folk festivals, etc.) (Wehinger and Schäfer, 2011). The organization of tourism in Albania is under the responsibility of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, Youth and Sports. The Ministry is the competent authority for policy-making and programming in the tourism sector, for destination marketing and promotion, development control and regulation. In June 2008 Albania approved the Tourism Sector Strategy 2007-2013. The strategy is based on: -

The development of sustainable tourism;

-

The sustainable growth and development of cultural tourism, as well as the undertaking of positive steps, endorsed in long-term plans, aimed at increasing the number of tourists;

-

The need to recognize and invest in cultural tourism sites (OECD, 2012).

WP4: Evaluation

15/53


The main tourism products in Albania according to its Ministry of Tourism, Culture, Youth and Sports (2008) are: -

Sun and beach tourism;

-

Special interest tourism;

-

Business and conference tourism.

The special interest tourism includes: natural tourism, ecotourism, adventure tourism (nature excursions, horse-riding, boat rowing, river rafting, parachute jumping, mountain bike trips, scuba-diving, canoeing, sail boating), rural tourism and cultural tourism (historical towns, archaeological centres, etc.). The core and specialized tourism products are shown on Figure 2. Figure 2: Core tourism products and specialized tourism products of Albania

Source: Ministry of Tourism, Culture, Youth and Sports of Albania (2008, p. 9)

WP4: Evaluation

16/53


4. Methodological approach 4.1. Explanation of the evaluation design and the methods used 4.1.1. Rationale of the evaluation As it has already been said, the purpose of this evaluation is to point to advantages and disadvantages of the implementation of the InCommon Project and to consider a possible continuation of the Project in the following Programming Period (2014 – 2020). Ideally this evaluation should take place ex post in order to have a more clear picture about the outcomes and impacts of the Project. However, the fact that the implementation of the Project has witnessed great delays (it is characteristic that the Actions 2.2., 2.3., 3.1., 3.2., 4.1., and 4.2. were subcontracted by the Greek Partner just on 29/4/2013) and the fact that the evaluation must take place, according to the Project’s timeline, before 31/12/2013 (interim evaluation) necessitate the realization of the evaluation earlier. The objectives of the evaluation are to ascertain the Project’s results and to assess its effectiveness, its efficiency and its relevance. Also, to provide findings, conclusions and recommendations. 4.1.1.1. Does the undertaking make sense? According to what has been written on Deliverable 3.1.1. the so-called broadening (agri-tourism, diversification, etc.) and deepening (organic farming, high quality production and regional products, etc.) actions are farmer strategies that deal with the problems of the intensive model of agriculture (Figure 3). Therefore, the production of quality agro-food products and the turn towards agri-tourism are advisable strategy choices for the farmers of the areas of Korçë and Grevena. As again it has been mentioned on Deliverable 3.1.1. alternative forms of tourism offer quality agro-food products and services, with the focus on the local character and the provision of ‘authentic’ services and personal contact between the tourist and the provider of the service. In these alternative forms of tourism both agri-tourism and gastronomy tourism are included. Therefore, the turn of agricultural production towards quality agro-food products which are further utilized by the tourism section of both areas is a perfectly sound policy choice. Concerning the question of whether the undertaking of the evaluation itself makes sense, the evaluation has to be, de facto, an interim evaluation. Therefore it cannot focus on the impacts of the Project but rather on its outcomes and results. Moreover, an assessment of the progress regarding the inputs used also takes place. The specific evaluation tools, and the used indicators (input, output, result, impact) are analyzed in detail on Paragraph 4.1.3.

WP4: Evaluation

17/53


Figure 3: Ways to deal with the increasing cost of the intensive model of farming

Source: van der Ploeg et al (2012, p. 134)

4.1.1.2. Are the objectives relevant and realizable? The Major Objective and the six Main Targets of the InCommon Project as they are described on Figure 1 are judged to be relevant to the diversification effort of the tourism product which is based on the quality agro-food products which are produced in both the areas under investigation. Bearing in mind that most of the Main Targets are long-term (with the exception of Main Target 5: ‘CBC coordination and enhancement of local and traditional products’ which can already be thought that it has been achieved) it is hard to assess whether, and to what extent, they are realizable as this demands an ex post evaluation. For instance the long-term quality policy of the InCommon logo is something that cannot be assessed by now. 4.1.1.3. Should alternative objectives be considered? The Main Targets of the Project could possibly be short-term in order to be assessed more easily. However, this does not mean that alternative objectives should be considered.

WP4: Evaluation

18/53


4.1.2. Achievement of objectives 4.1.2.1. To what extent were the original objectives achieved or likely to be achieved? As it has already been said in Paragraph 4.1.1.2 and Figure 1 the Major Objective of the Project is ‘the creation of a quality oriented strategy aiming at the tourism valorization of the participating areas to the InCommon Project’. This objective has been realized, at least partially, since: -

An effort to identify local/ traditional/ quality agro-food products has been done (Deliverables 3.1.1. and 3.1.2.). This has been especially important for the Albanian Partners. With the notable exception of organic farming other forms of quality agro-food products are absent or in their infancy (e.g. PDO – PGI policy). In Greece already existing quality agro-food policies helped the Partner to identify more easily the products;

-

The logo of the InCommon Project has been created (Deliverable 2.1.1.) after the international contest that took place;

-

The dissemination strategy has been recognized (Deliverable 3.2.1.). The strategy will increase the benefits of the overall effort of the Project;

-

Criteria for the insertion of businesses have been identified (Deliverables 3.1.1. & 3.1.2.). Those criteria increase the quality level of provided services by the enterprises that use them;

-

The InCommon site is running (www.incommonproject.com) since 19/11/2013 (Deliverable 3.2.3.). This a crucial step for information, dissemination, but also networking among farmers, companies that operate in the agro-food sector, citizens of both areas, but also potential tourists who can have an insight in the agro-food products, recipes, participating companies, etc.;

-

The two recipes’ festivals have taken place with great success regarding the participation of agro-food companies but also the participation of consumers (Deliverables 2.3.1. and 2.3.2.). Moreover, the two International Seminars have already taken place;

-

All other information and publicity Deliverables are ready (e.g. InCommon Panorama, leaflets, etc.).

However, the most important step for the achievement of the Major Objective cannot yet be assessed. This is the number of participating companies (manufacturing units, restaurants, hotels) in the InCommon strategy and of course the actual benefits (economic or other) from this participation. Due to delays up until now no companies have yet registered for the use of the logo. But this is not just a simple matter of ‘registration’. Personnel from the Chamber of Commerce of Grevena and from the Regional Council of Korçë must be trained for the inspections needed in order to grant the logo to the interested companies. Paperwork needs to be done, procedures must be identified and outlined, the institutional part of the InCommon strategy must be crystal clear and just. The inspection procedure will probably mean economic costs WP4: Evaluation

19/53


for the participating enterprises, if not now, then in the near future. This is also a very important element that will form the decision of companies to participate or not, especially during the economic crisis which makes their operation more difficult. Based on the aforementioned, and regarding the participation of companies in the InCommon strategy, the achievement of the objective is still unclear. 4.1.2.2. What are the major factors influencing the achievement or nonachievement of objectives? Again, because of the delays and the fact that this is an interim evaluation it is very difficult to have a clear picture of what are the major factors that influence the achievement of objectives. However, there are clear indications: -

The InCommon strategy, in order to be operational, demands on behalf of the two Partners (the Chamber of Commerce of Grevena and the Regional Council of Korçë) to become ‘gatekeepers’ for the use and inspection of the logo. This is indeed alien to their function and demands great effort from both parties. The Partners must: o Prepare specific documents for the companies’ applications, for the inspections to the companies, they must keep a record of communication with the companies; o Appoint personnel that will be responsible for the inspections, the paperwork and the unhindered operation of the InCommon strategy; o Prepare clear procedures for the companies’ applications, for the inspections, for informing the companies about the results of the inspections. Also a procedure for complaints of even objections by the companies must be formed.

-

Besides the effort, all the aforementioned mean an operational cost. Ideally this should be covered by the companies themselves, but these additional costs could become a disincentive to adopt the InCommon strategy. Costs should be handled with great care.

-

The InCommon strategy is a strategy whose success will be observable in the long-term. Companies who may think that effects will be observable in the short-term may be disappointed and draw away. Especially if in the short-term they will experience just an additional cost for the InCommon operational costs.

4.1.3. Impacts and effects As it has already been mentioned this evaluation is an interim evaluation, therefore it does not evaluate the impacts of the Project (for that, an ex post evaluation that must take place 1-2 years after the completion of the Project is needed). However, on Paragraph 4.1.3.5. impact indicators are provided despite the fact that they are not measured as part of this evaluation.

WP4: Evaluation

20/53


4.1.3.1. Evaluation tools The evaluation tools were analyzed in detail on Deliverable 4.1.1. According to the Project’s specific peculiarities some of the tools were judged as unsuitable for the evaluation of the InCommon Project (e.g. some of the tools are used only in ex ante evaluations). The evaluation tools which were thought to be appropriate for the evaluation of InCommon are shown on Table 2. Table 2: Proposed evaluation tools for the InCommon Project 1

Questionnaire survey

2

Interview

3

Focus group

4

Case study

5

Logical framework

6

Cost – benefit analysis

7

Counterfactual impact evaluation

8

Expert panel/ opinion

9

Multi-criteria analysis

10

Color vote

11

Delphi survey

12

Theory based impact evaluation

13

Factor analysis

14

Variance analysis

15

Concept mapping of impacts

16

Social network analysis

From the above list the tool that is used for this evaluation is ‘questionnaire survey’. This evaluation, being an interim evaluation, uses input, output and result indicators that were analyzed in detail on Deliverable 4.1.1. However, some of the issues that the evaluation needs to cover (e.g. the view of the Partners about the advantages and disadvantages of the Project or about the continuation of the Project) cannot be answered by those data alone. Therefore a simple open questionnaire has been used (found on Annex Ι). The questionnaire has been sent to 6 key stuff of all the Partners. 5 questionnaires have been collected (2 from Albania, 3 from Greece) and a qualitative analysis of those follows on Chapter 6. 4.1.3.2. Input indicators As it has already been mentioned on Deliverable 4.1.1. inputs may refer to financial, material and institutional means which are used for the implementation of the InCommon Project. Regarding the economic means the indicators “absorbed budget” and “percentage of the absorbed budget” are used. Those indicators can be measured WP4: Evaluation

21/53


per Work Package (WP), per Action, per Deliverable, while they can be measured for the whole of the Project or for each Partner separately. Those indicators can provide answers as to whether there were any problems in the budget absorption and which were those problems exactly. The absorbed budget until 8/11/2013 was 194,888.69€ and the percentage of the absorbed budget was 50.47%. Therefore the absorbed budget is rather low bearing in mind that there are left only two months for the Project’s completion. Additional indicators that are used are: -

The total budget of the Project (measurement: in €) which is 386,172€ reduced by 1.21% when compared to the approved budget (390,888€) due to a discount by the CCG;

-

The EU financing as part of the total public financing (measurement: percentage of the EU financing to the total public financing). The EU financing is 307,601.8€ and the total public financing is 359,212.8€. Therefore the EU financing is the 85.63% of the total public financing;

-

The public financing as part of the total financing (measurement: percentage of the public financing to the total financing). As already mentioned the total public financing is 359,212.8€ and the total budget is 386,172€. Therefore the public financing is the 93.02% of the total budget.

All the above indicators that refer to the budget of the Project are analyzed in detail on Paragraphs 5.3. and 5.4. Regarding the human resources the following indicators are used: -

People who worked for the implementation of the Project (measurement: number of people). There are 5 people working fulltime and 7 people working part-time. Details are shown on Table 3;

-

Organizations that participated to the Project (measurement: number of organizations). There are three organizations participating, the 3 Partners of the Project. However, the CCG has subcontracted a large part of its work to another company (mentioned with two asterisks on Table 3).

Regarding the institutional resources of the Partners of the InCommon Project the following indicator is used: -

Experience in other EU Projects/ Programmes that took place in the past (measurement: number of Projects/ Programmes). The CCG has participated to 7 EU funded or co-funded Projects, the EPD has participated to 23 Projects and the RCK has participated to 10 Projects. The experience of the InCommon Partners in EU funded or co-funded Projects is shown on Paragraph 5.1. in detail.

Table 3 presents in detail all the input indicators used for this evaluation. To conclude, this Project is evidently driven by EU and state funding (93.02% of the funding), it has created a significant number of jobs (5 fulltime, 7 part-time), and it is carried out by Partners with a significant experience in EU funded Projects. However, the Partners of the Project subcontract large parts of the Project to other companies or individuals. WP4: Evaluation

22/53


Table 3: Input indicators for the InCommon Project

Economic indicators

Human resources indicators Institutional indicators

Total budget of the Project (in €)

386,172

Absorbed budget (in €)

194,888.69

Percentage of the absorbed budget

50.47%

EU financing as part of the total public financing

85.63%

Public financing as part of the total financing

93.02%

Number of people who worked for the implementation of the Project

5 + 7*

Organizations that participated to the Project

3 +1**

Number of EU Projects/ Programmes that the CCG participated to

7

Number of EU Projects/ Programmes that the EPD participated to

23

Number of EU Projects/ Programmes that the RCK participated to

10

* 5 fulltime (2 from the CCG, 2 from the EPD, 1 from the RCK) and 7 part-time (2 from the CCG, 3 from the EPD and 2 from the RCK) ** A large part of the CCG work was subcontracted to another company. EPD has subcontracted also part of its work but to individuals and not organizations

4.1.3.3. Output indicators The proposed output indicators outlined on Deliverable 4.1.1. are the actual output indicators used (Table 4). According to the data of Table 4: -

The international contest for the InCommon logo started on 1/8/2013 and finished on 19/8/2013;

-

Regarding the Project’s site, this has started its operation on 19/11/2013. On the site one can find all the relevant information about the Project (newsletters, information about the products, information about the recipes, etc.). Also, the site has a dynamic character and this can multiple the overall benefits;

-

There will not be realized 20 newsletters but instead 5. This has to do mainly with the delays in the implementation of the Project. Moreover, the newsletters are sent to 400 e-mail addresses since the target of 1,000 e-mail addresses was unrealistic. However, it must be mentioned that other ‘not-expected outputs’ such as the elaboration of a calendar and the elaboration of a card postal have taken place;

-

Another expected output that will not be realized is the Facebook page. This is so because the site of the Project is more than enough for the interactive communication between all parties;

-

Regarding the food festivals the 1st one took place in Korçë during 46/10/2013. The 2nd one took place in Grevena during 2-3/11/2013;

Table 4: Output indicators and ways of measurement WP4: Evaluation

23/53

IPA CROSS BORDER PROGRAM «GREECE – ALBANIA 2007 -2013» PROJECT INCOMMON Expected outputs

Output indicators

Measurement

2 strategic identification studies of the current situation

Elaboration of the 2 studies

Yes

2 identification surveys on the typical and quality baskets of goods

Elaboration of the 2 researches

Yes

1 common Project logo international contest, that will mobilize local actors and the general public

Realization of the international contest

Yes

2 integrated studies regarding the quality criteria for logo award

Elaboration of the 2 studies

Yes

1 concrete dissemination strategy regarding the logo enhancement (training – publicity – etc.)

Realization of the dissemination strategy

Yes

1 integrated feedback strategy regarding ways that a traveller could spot wrong behaviours

Realization of the feedback strategy

Not yet realized

10,000 Project’s leaflets

Printing of 10,000 leaflets

Yes

20 newsletters in 1,000 e-mail addresses on a regular basis

Formation of 20 newsletters. Dispatch of the newsletters to 1,000 email addresses

Until now 4 newsletters have been produced and they have been sent to 400 e-mail addresses

1 Facebook page

Creation of 1 Facebook page

It will not be realized

1 YouTube channel

Creation of a YouTube channel

Not yet realized

1 Project’s website that includes all the essential information for a visitor (logo awarded firms)

Creation of a website

Yes

2 international Conferences

Realization of the 2 international conferences

Yes

2 recipes’ festivals

Realization of the 2 recipes festivals

Yes

1 InCommon panorama

Elaboration of 1 InCommon panorama

In the final stages of realization

5,000 copies of the InCommon panorama

Production of 5,000 copies of the InCommon Panorama

Not yet realized

An integrated evaluation (external and internal) quality assessment.

Realization of the evaluation

Not yet realized

-

Elaboration of a calendar

Yes

-

Elaboration of card postals

Yes

-

Regarding the international conferences the 1st one took place in Grevena on 3/11/2013 while the 2nd one took place in Korçë during 12/12/2013.

WP4: Evaluation

24/53


To sum up, with a few minor exceptions (the Facebook page, the number of newsletters) the outputs of the Project are satisfactory and those which were expected according to the Project’s plan. The elaboration of a calendar and a card postal is a surplus output, a fact which is very positive. 4.1.3.4. Result indicators The result indicators of the InCommon Project are presented on Table 5: Table 5: Result indicators and their measurement Number of enterprises using the InCommon logo

-

Number of enterprises participating in the recipes’ festival

36

Number of people participating in the recipes’ festival

1,000

Number of people participating in the international conferences

111

Number of personnel which has been trained for the inspections

-

Number of applications for the InCommon logo international contest

13

Number of ‘hits’ to the Project’s website

119,077

Number of unique visitors to the Project’s website

558

Number of people that registered to the Project’s website

5

Number of downloads of the documents found on the website

14

No enterprises use the InCommon logo yet. However, as these lines are written applications have already started to be applied to the CCG. As it has already been described, the Albanian Partners have to wait for 3 months due to the registration process of the InCommon logo, and the application process will start later on. As far as the number of the enterprises that participated in the two recipes’ festivals, there were at least 36 participating companies (24 in Greece, 12 in Albania). The list of Greek companies is shown on Table 6. Although an exact figure of the number of people participating in the two festivals is not available, with moderate calculations they were at least 1,000. As far as the people which participated to the international conferences, they were 111 (89 in Greece and 22 in Albania). There is no personnel trained yet from both the CCG and the RCK for the inspections that both parties will have to perform after the application by the companies. As far as the international contest for the InCommon logo is concerned, there were 13 applications. The best three are shown on Figures 5, 6, 7 (on Figure 5 the logo of the Project is presented). As far as the indicators that refer to the operation of the website, there were 558 unique visitors (during November and the first week of December 2013) but only 5 people have registered to the website and there were only 14 downloads of the

WP4: Evaluation

25/53


existing documents on the website. However, visitors from many countries exist within less than a month of the ‘official existence’ of the site (see Figure 4). Table 6: List of companies which participated in the food festival which took place in Grevena Trapeza gefseon Restaurants

Avlais Akraion Natasa Natasa

Hotels – rented rooms

To agnanti tou Beka Achileion Tsarsiotis Hristos Niakas Dimitrios

Farmers

Ktima Tsepidi Ktima Paschou Ktima Kapsi Agroktimata Tzimas Siafarikas Apicultural union of Grevena Domain Raptis Kyrkou Georgia Idigefston

Manufacturing units

Women’s cooperative of Agios Georgios Morena I kivotos ton gefseon Ekavi O Vasos O glykos Vasilis Achileas

Other

Corporation of Grevena Union of nutritionists – dieticians of Greece

To sum up, the participation to the two festivals and to the 1st international conference was satisfactory as it was also the participation to the international contest for the logo. However, the lack – for the time being – of companies that use the logo and the non training of the personnel of the RCK and the CCG are problematic as far as the results of the Project is concerned. Moreover, the site proves to be a powerful tool, WP4: Evaluation

26/53


and perhaps more data should be uploaded (e.g. all Deliverables of the Project). Figure 4 shows that there are people in far away countries such as Togo, or Pakistan or even Indonesia who find the theme of the Project interesting and have already visited the site within less than a month after its initial release. Figure 4: The Top 25 countries regarding the site’s traffic (November December 2013)

Figure 5: The InCommon logo

WP4: Evaluation

27/53


Figure 6: The second award logo

Figure 7: The third award logo

WP4: Evaluation

28/53


4.1.3.5. Impact indicators The Deliverable 4.1.1. proposed the following impact indicators of the InCommon Project: -

Enterprises that use the InCommon logo one year after the completion of the Project (measurement: number of enterprises);

-

Positive impact on the image of the participating areas (measurement: qualitative estimate);

-

Gross value added generated as a result of the Project (measurement: €).

Bearing in mind that the impact indicators refer to the period after the completion of the Project and that the evaluation of the InCommon Project must take place before the end of the Project (in other words that this evaluation is a mid-term evaluation), it is obvious that these impact indicators will not be measured as part of this evaluation. 4.2. Sources of data, techniques for data collection, information about the calculation of indicators Both secondary and primary data were used. Secondary data refer to the funding and budget absorption data, but also to the output and result indicators. Primary data refer to the qualitative and quantitative data that have derived from the used questionnaires. Those data are analyzed in detail on Chapter 6. For the various calculations simple statistical methods were used. 4.3. Problems or limitations of the methodological approach and of the evaluation report in general There are a number of limitations that deal with the methodological approach and with the evaluation report in general: -

Since this evaluation is interim, the impact indicators cannot be calculated at this point in time. Impacts can be measured when the evaluation is ex post and in specific when the ex post evaluation takes place 1 to 2 years after the end of the Project;

-

The Project is too recent to produce observable effects. For instance no enterprises have registered for the use of the logo of the Project;

-

The same problem refers to the uptake of the budget. Since this does not take place ex post and since some of the Actions of the InCommon Project are characterized by a linear logic (e.g. Action X must take place and then follows Action Z) the uptake of the budget is rather schematic since the Actions and Deliverables that take place during the last months of the Project show a limited budget uptake;

-

There have been also some minor problems with the different institutional frameworks in the two countries.

WP4: Evaluation

29/53


5. Description of the Actions of the Project and budget allocation 5.1. Project implementation: actors involved, institutional context The participants of the Project are: o As an Overall Leading Partner (LP1) the Chamber of Commerce of Grevena (Greece), o As the Leading Partner from the Albanian side (LP2) EuroPartners Development SA (Albania), o (P3) The Regional Council of Korçë (Albania). The Chamber of Commerce of Grevena (CCG) is a Legal Entity of Public Law and it was founded in 1976. It acts in the administrative boundaries of the Prefectural Unit of Grevena. Its organizational structure includes 4 departments: the Department of Commerce, the Department of Manufacturing, the Department of Tourism, and the Department of Other Professions. The CCG has 2,420 members of which 663 are commercial companies, 359 are manufacturing companies, 183 are tourism companies and 1,215 belong to other categories. The mission of CCG is to act as a consultant of the Greek Government in matters of commerce, industry, provision of services and development policy in general. Moreover, it represents, supports and promotes the entrepreneurial activity. In specific: 1. It formulates specific views and it realizes a number of interventions to the political leadership for all the advanced laws that are related to its activities; 2. It innovates by recording the priorities of the market forces and promoting them to the appropriate people and services; 3. It examines the development process and it provides new dynamics to the sectors of commerce, industry and tourism by trying to minimize the various disadvantages and enhancing the advantages; 4. It contributes to a climate of cooperation, mutual trust and information of the entrepreneurs; 5. It informs systematically its members on developments in critical economic and entrepreneurial matters; 6. It provides free-of-charge information and advice to its members; 7. It organizes conferences, seminars, and meetings for the analysis of specific economic issues and specific sectorial matters; 8. It organizes and participates to entrepreneurial expeditions to other countries in order to broaden the international economic relations; 9. It conducts surveys and researches in order to help in the best possible way the productive classes and in order to better inform its members; 10. It contacts European and international organizations and services in order to inform them and to promote positions which are relevant to the interests of the Greek enterprises; WP4: Evaluation

30/53


11. It organizes vocational programs and training seminars which promote the upgrade of the human resources of its members; 12. It publishes a series of frequent informative publications which upgrades its role and its effect to the Greek entrepreneurial community; 13. It awards on an annual basis its Entrepreneurial Awards in order to reward the entrepreneurial excellence which contributes to the economic and social development of the PU of Grevena. With its initiatives, actions and interventions the CCG aims to: -

Encourage and support the entrepreneurial initiatives;

-

Eliminate the counterincentives which block the entrepreneurial efforts;

-

Create the proper environment in order to attract and promote new investments;

-

Support the competitiveness of the enterprises and of the Greek economy in general;

-

Create an institutional and administrative environment which will ensure effectiveness, transparency and healthy competitiveness for all;

-

Support the small and medium enterprises in the modern competitive environment;

Table 7: EU funded or co-funded Projects/ Programmes that the CCG has participated to 1

Adapt – Human Resource Community Initiative

2

Electronic centre of commerce of the West Macedonia Region

3

Orestida – Rwm: local employment strategies and innovation – National Action Plan on employment

4

Information society – 3rd Community Support Framework, Regional Operational Programme

5

Green enterprise: a framework for planning and implementing local level strategies serving sustainable economic development – Interreg III B Archimed 2000-2006

6

Integrated program for the restructuring of the PUs of Grevena – Kozani

7

Digital Convergence Operational Programme

-

Promote research and technology and their adoption by the Greek enterprises;

-

Promote a more flexible labor market which will favor the employment in combination with the true needs of the market;

-

Support the extravert character of the Greek enterprises and their presence in the international markets;

-

Upgrade and adjustment of the educational system in order to correspond to the needs of the productive process and the needs of the market;

WP4: Evaluation

31/53


-

Promote the Corporal Societal Responsibility and support the environmentally responsible operation of the enterprises;

-

Broaden its services to its members.

The EU funded or co-funded Projects or Programmes that the CCG has participated to are shown on Table 7. EuroPartners Development (EPD) is an Albanian based organization with a mission to advance the Albanian society towards a cultural and institutional change in view of the European Integration. This happens with the provision of expertise to raise capacities, inform, educate and encourage the public and non-public institutions and the community at large for the active participation in the democratization and the socio-economic development processes and reforms. EPD perceives Albania as a country pursuing its interests in growth beyond its own borders and involving the education of future generations. Table 8: Programmes and Projects that EPD has participated to (2004-2013) COUNTRY

PROJECT TITLE

YEAR

DONOR AGENCY

LEAD PARTNER

Albania

Strengthening the capacity of Albanian Municipalities through Municipal Twinning Program

2013 - 2015

EU

Association of Municipalities

Albania

"OUR RIGHT TO ASK .....OUR RIGHT TO KNOW"

2013 - 2015

Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands

EuroPartners Development

Albania

Fostering Cooperation and mobilization composing economic clusters

2012 - 2013

EU


Western Balkan, Turkey

TACSO Project - Technical Assistance for Civil Society Organisations

2009 - 2013

EU

SIPU International (Sweden)

Albania

Preparation of the Albanian Authorities for the EU's Decentralised Implementation System (DIS)

2010 - 2013

EU

East West Consulting

Albania

Support to Government for preparation of strategic document for new IPA financial assistance (IPA II)

2013

EU

PPF Project

Western Balkan, Turkey

Thematic evaluation of EU's support to civil society in the Western Balkans (AL, BiH, CRO, FYROM, KOS, MON, SRB) and Turkey

2013

EU

IBF International

Albania / Kosovo

Outlining Sida Support to Public Administration in Albania and Kosovo 2014-2020

2013

Sida

PAI (London)

Albania

Establishment of Local Action Groups and Albanian National Rural Organizations Network

2011 - 2013

SNV - Albania


Albania

Strengthening of Human Resource Managment Capacities of Local Government Units

2010 - 2012

Government of the Netherlands


Serbia

Preparation of ToR for the IPA "Reforming Policy Coordination and the Centre of the Government"

2011 - 2012

EU

IBF International

Kosovo

Support to Cross Border Cooperation Programme for Kosovo

2008 - 2012

EU

EWC (Belgium)

Albania

Support to Public Administration Reform (Par) in Kosovo

2011 - 2012

DFID


Albania

Mapping of Participatory Monitoring in Albanian and Kosovo

2011

Olof Palme Center


Albania

Public Awareness Campaign for the Metrology, Standards, Testing and Quality (MSTQ) System

2011

World Bank


WP4: Evaluation

32/53

IPA CROSS BORDER PROGRAM «GREECE – ALBANIA 2007 -2013» PROJECT INCOMMON Western Balkan, Turkey

Evaluation of EU's Support to Civil Society in the Western Balkans (Albania, Bosnia Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Kosovo, Serbia, Turkey)

2010 - 2011

EU

IBF International (Belgium)

Albania

Enhancing transparency and information on Local Government services delivery in Puka and Lushnja

2010 - 2011

Soros Foundation


Albania

Support to the Ministry of Environment in elaboration of an Operational Plan for the Environment Sector

2011

Sida

SIPU International

Albania

Consultancy on Implementation of Access to Information Reforms in Albania

2010 - 2011

World Bank

Albania

Freedom of Information Framework in Albania

2009 - 2011

WB

Individual Contract

Western Balkans

Cost-benefit analysis of Twinning versus Technical Assistance (Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia)

2010

EU

ECORYS (The Netherlands)

Albania

Support to Strengthening the Judicial System in Albania

2008 - 2010

Spanish Agency for Cooperation


Albania

Enhansing stakeholders capacities for participation in the EU regional cooperation programs

2009 - 2010

Spanish Agency for Cooperation


Albania

Encouraging further Transparency, Public Access to Information at Local Level

2009 - 2010

EU & Canada


Albania

Increase the Capacities of NGOs towards future Sustainability

2008 - 2010

EU


Albania

Capacity Building Support to Implement the Integrated Planning System

2009 - 2010

WB


Albania

Support to Public Expenditure Management Phase III

2006 - 2010

DFID / World Bank

REPIM (UK)

Albania

Strengthening Capacities of Albanian public administration and training support

2010

World Bank

SIPU International

Albania

Contributing to Macroeconomic reporting of the European Delegation in Tirana

2008 - 2010

EU


Kosovo

Support to Public Finance Management reform Action Plan

2010

DFID Kosovo


Kosovo

Preparation of Terms of Reference "Support to Legal interpreters/translators and legal linguists"

2010

EU


Albania

Support to Market Surveillance System

2008 - 2010

EU


Albania

TA for sector analysis in Albania

2009

EU

IBF International

Albania

Increase Capacities of Local Actors in the regions of Dibra and Kukes to benefit from EU funded Programs

2008 - 2009

SOROS (OSFA)


Kosovo

TA to draft the ToRs for IPA 2009 TA Project "Support to Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare"

2009

EU


Albania

Organisation of the Study Tour to Albania for Jordan Government Officials

2009

EU


Albania

Preparation of Tourism Development Plans in Kryevidh

2008 - 2009

ADF

EuroPartner Development

Albania

Evaluation of CARDS assistance to Albania 2001-2006

2008

EU

COWI (Denmark)

Albania

Support to improve the legal framework or ICT in Albania

2008

EU

EWC (Belgium)

Kosovo

Support to Regional Development in Kosovo

2008

EU

ACE Consulting (Spain)

Albania

YES!+ Youth Empowerment and Skills Workshop

2008

IAHV/EPD


Macedonia

Impact evaluation of the EU support to

2008

EU

IBF International

WP4: Evaluation

33/53

IPA CROSS BORDER PROGRAM «GREECE – ALBANIA 2007 -2013» PROJECT INCOMMON Public Administration and European Integration in Macedonia

(Belgium)

Kosovo

Impact evaluation of the EU support to Public Administration and European Integration in Kosovo

2007 - 2008

EU

Kosovo

Fiscal Impact Assessment of draft legislation on the Civil Service-Kosovo

2008

DFID

Albania

Strengthening the Management and Effectiveness of Public Investments in Albania

2007

WB

Albania

Management and Coordination of External Assistance for the Government of Albania

2007

UNDP

Albania

Assessment of the Development Cooperation Strategy for Albania

2007

Sida

Albania

Modernization of the Civil Registration and Address systems

2006 - 2007

ODHIR

Kosovo

Support for institutional building reforms in Kosovo

2004 - 2006

DFID


COWI (Denmark)

PAI (UK)

This requires the support of international development agencies, non-government organizations, and citizens. EPD believes that development is increasingly a continuing learning process of collaboration between stakeholders contributing towards common goals. The organization sees itself as a learning organization that will continue to evolve and grow in response to changes in the environment affecting the development in Albania and in other Western Balkan Countries. At the same time EPD is committed to the provision of local expertise and experience to its international partners to achieve the best possible Project/ Programme outcomes. EPD’s experience covers the following areas: •

Democratization and Civil Society Development

•

Public Administration Reform

•

Economic and Regional Development

•

Anti-Corruption Initiatives

•

Public Finance

•

Local Development and Decentralization

•

Aid Coordination

•

Cross Border Cooperation

•

Social Development / Poverty

•

Evaluation and Impact Assessment

•

Management Training

•

Assistance to develop project proposals for donors funding

EPD has participated to a number of Programmes and Projects, national and international, many of which are funded or co-funded by the EU. Those are shown on Table 8 for the time period 2004-2013. The Regional Council of Korçë (RCK) employs 41 people in ten different Departments. Most of the personnel are University alumni, while each Department WP4: Evaluation

34/53


has a Director which is responsible for the coordination and guidance of the personnel. The RCK as a regional authority has participated in a number of similar Projects and it has a supportive and coordinative role regarding the social and economic development of the region. The region of Korçë is one of the 12 regions of Albania and is located in the eastern part of the country. It is the largest region in the country, its center is the city of Korçë and it includes the provinces of Devoll, Kolonjë, Korçë and Pogradec. The region has borders with Greece on the south and FYROM on the east. The RCK has participated to a number of Projects which are funded or co-funded by the EU. Those are shown on Table 9. Table 9: Projects funded or co-funded by the EU that the RCK has participated to 1

Promotion of activities for musical and dance traditions of the cross-border area

2

Action plan for the promotion of the cross-border area as a competitive tourism destination (TOUR ACT)

3

Automated systems of advanced technology for water monitoring

4

Establishing an entrepreneurial center in the cross-border area (C-Entre)

5

Improving SMEs in the cross-border area

6

Promotion of music and dance in the bordering areas of Ioannina and Korçë

7

Creation of a center for environmental observation and planning in the cross-border area of Ioannina & Korçë

8

Promoting Cooperation and constituent mobilization economic groupings

9

Innovative practices in ecotourism

10

Empowerment of women through the production of handicrafts. Creating craft incubators

The institutional framework in which the two countries operate presents a number of differences which made the implementation of the Project more problematic (e.g. more delays): -

The managing authority of the Project is different in the two countries; the Albanian Partners have as managing authority the EU Delegation to Albania (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/albania/index_en.htm) while the Greek Partner has as managing authority the Managing Authority of European Territorial Cooperation Programmes. The EU Delegation to Albania was established in 1993 and its main tasks are: (i) to facilitate the development of political and economic relations between the EU and Albania in the framework of the Stabilization and Association Process; (ii) to manage EU assistance Programmes; (iii) to disseminate information on the EU, informing the Albanian general public, decision makers and opinion formers about the integration process, EU institutions and its policies. Greece takes part in 14 European Territorial Cooperation Programmes and networks in total. The Managing Authority of European Territorial Cooperation Programmes is responsible for the managing of 5 of these, whilst it is the National Coordinator for the rest, except for the networks ESPON and URBACT, which are coordinates at the national level by the Special Service for Strategy, Planning and Evaluation of Development Programmes at the Ministry of Development, Competitiveness and Shipping.

WP4: Evaluation

35/53


-

The Greek Partner had to make a number of competitions, at least one of which was international (the logo contest), in order to subcontract some parts of the Project. This inevitably led to delays in the implementation from the Greek side but also to delays for the overall Project since the Greek Partner was the lead Partner. Although the Albanian Partners were ready to proceed with the implementation of the Project the Greek Partner was not. This caused also a certain amount of friction between the Albanian Partners and the managing authority, between the Partners themselves, but also implementation problems for the overall Project since an extension of the Project’s timeframe for six months had to take place. The Albanian Partners when wanting to subcontract a part of the Project had to go through a negotiated procedure without publication in which they had to consult at least three service providers of their own choice;

-

Another important difference between the two countries regarding the institutional context was that the InCommon logo had to be registered to the Directorate of Patents and Trademarks of Albania. This is a procedure that demands time, human but also economic resources. The required documents have to be properly filled in and then submitted. Then follows an announcement of the proposed Trademark in the Albanian Bulletin in order to check whether the proposed name/ figure of the Trademark conflicts with any other existing one. This step requires three months. Then follows the payment of the proposed Trademark which takes some more time (three weeks) but also money (a total cost of 450€ in the case of the InCommon logo);

-

One final aspect that needs to be noted is that Greece has already a number of policy tools that refer to quality agro-food products (e.g. PDO and PGI policy) while in Albania these tools are nowadays in the making. This on the one hand was very helpful for the Greek Partner but on the other hand the Albanian Partners had to invest time and resources researching the local/ traditional agro-food products of the region of Korçë ‘from scratch’.

5.2. Composition of the Project. Description of priorities and Actions The Project includes four Work Packages (WP) which are the following: -

WP1 “Management and Coordination”;

-

WP2 “Information and Publicity”;

-

WP3 “Development and Research”;

-

WP4 “Evaluation Strategy”.

Each WP is comprised of a number of Actions which are implemented by the Participants of the Project. WP1 includes the following Actions: 1.1. «Preparation Activities»; 1.2.«Project Management meetings»; 1.3.«Project Coordination»; WP4: Evaluation

36/53


1.4.«Audit». Table 10: Work Packages, Actions and Deliverables of the InCommon Project WP

Action

Deliverable

1.2

1

Conducted by

1.2.1.

Project management

LP1

1.2.2.

Project management

LP2

1.2.3.

Project management

P3

1.3.1. 1.3.

1.4.

2.1.

2

Deliverable title

2.2.

2.3.

2.4.

3.1. 3 3.2.

4.1.

4

4.2.

1.3.2.

st

LP1

nd

LP2

rd

1 steering group 2 steering group

1.3.3.

3 steering group

P3

1.4.1.

Audit costs

LP2

2.1.1.

InCommon logo international contest – 3 prices

LP1

2.1.2.

10,000 Project’s leaflets. Reproduction & design

LP2

2.1.3.

20 newsletters in 1,000 e-mails

P3

2.2.1. 2.2.2. 2.3.1.

st

LP1

nd

LP2

st

LP1

nd

1 open international conference 2 open international conference 1 international recipes’ festival

2.3.2.

2 international recipes’ festival

LP2

2.4.1.

InCommon Panorama layout design & input data

LP2

2.4.2.

InCommon Panorama reproduction in 6,000 copies

LP2

3.1.1.

Identification of basket of goods–recipes & criteria

LP1

3.1.2.

Identification of basket of goods–recipes & criteria

LP2

3.2.1.

Dissemination strategy for the Project’s logo

LP1

3.2.2.

Publication – translation – layouts of the 3.2.1

LP2

3.2.3.

Website construction and maintenance

P3

4.1.1.

Quotas build-up

LP1

4.1.2.

Questionnaires distribution

P3

4.1.3.

Internal evaluation quality assessment

LP2

4.1.4.

External evaluation quality assessment

LP1

4.1.5.

InCommon quality strategy assessment & follow-up

LP1

4.2.1.

Protocol draft

LP1

4.2.2.

Protocol signatory

LP1

4.2.3.

Protocol signatory

LP2

4.2.4.

Protocol signatory

P3

WP2 includes the following Actions: 2.1. «Multilingual Project communication package»; WP4: Evaluation

37/53


2.2. «Open International Conferences»; 2.3. «Recipes Festivals»; 2.4. «InCommon Panorama». WP3 includes the following Actions: 3.1. «Basket of Goods»; 3.2. «InCommon awareness»; WP4 includes the following Actions: 4.1. «Evaluation»; 4.2. «InCommon Protocol». The above Actions are structured to a number of Deliverables. Those can be seen in detail on Table 10. 5.3. Budget foreseen and budget structure The overall approved budget for the InCommon Project was 390,888€ but the contracted budget was 386,172€ (98.79% of the approved budget). This difference refers solely to LP1 whose approved budget is 211,160€ but whose contracted budget is just 206,444€ (96.77% of the approved budget). The approved and contracted budget for LP2 and P3 is 135,816€ and 43,912€ respectively. The structure of the contracted budget per Deliverable and per category of expenditure is shown on Table 11. The largest part of the budget (329,672€, 85.37%) refers to the category ‘external expertise and services’ and then follows the category ‘staff costs’ (35,534€, 9.46%). Two more categories exist: ‘travel and accommodation’ (11,966€, 3.10%) and ‘others’ (8,000€, 2.07%). Table 11: Structure of the budget per Deliverable and per category of expenditure (in €) WP

Action

Deliverable

Staff costs

Travel & accommodation

1.2.1. 1.2.

1 1.3.

1.4.

2.1.

WP4: Evaluation

Others

14,000

Total 14,000

1.2.2.

12,600

12,600

1.2.3.

4,392

4,392

1.3.1.

2,250

7,000

9,250

1.3.2.

1,510

1,000

2,510

1.3.3.

1,800

1.4.1. 2.1.1.

2

External expertise & services

1,800 3,600

2,090

3,600 8,000

10,090

2.1.2.

5,000

5,000

2.1.3.

6,704

6,704

38/53

IPA CROSS BORDER PROGRAM «GREECE – ALBANIA 2007 -2013» PROJECT INCOMMON 2.2.

2.3.

2.4.

3.1. 3 3.2.

4.1.

4

2.2.1.

11,880

11,880

2.2.2.

3,800

3,800

2.3.1.

12,375

12,375

2.3.2.

5,000

5,000

2.4.1.

3,000

3,000

2.4.2.

3,000

3,000

3.1.1.

44,550

45,550

3.1.2.

42,200

42,200

3.2.1.

53,559

53,559

3.2.2.

27,500

27,500

3.2.3.

23,800

23,800

4.1.1.

13,365

13,365

4.1.2.

4,716

4,716

4.1.3.

26,100

26,100

4.1.4.

10,791

10,791

4.1.5.

16,552

16,552

4.2.1. 4.2.

4.2.2.

6,732 2,400

3,300

4.2.3.

1,506

1,506

4.2.4.

2,500

2,500

Sum

900

6,732

36,534

11,966

329,672

8,000

386,172

Table 12: Budget structure per partner (in €) Partner

Staff costs



Others

Total

LP1

19,542 (9.47%)

4,650 (2.25%)

174,252 (84.41%)

8,000 (3.87%)

206,444 (100.00%)

LP2

12,600 (9.28%)

3,016 (2.22%)

120,200 (88.50%)

-

135,816 (100.00%)

P3

4,392 (10.00%)

4,300 (9.79%)

35,220 (80.21%)

-

43,912 (100.00%)

In parenthesis is shown the category expenditure as a percentage of the total budget of each partner

Examining the budget structure of the partners (Table 12), one can notice that: -

‘External expertise and services’ is the bulk of the budget for all three partners;

-

LP2 and P3 do not have any expenditure in the category ‘others’;

WP4: Evaluation

39/53


-

LP3’s expenditure in the category ‘travel and accommodation’ is significantly higher (9.79% of LP3’s overall budget) when compared to the other two partners.

5.4. Uptake and budget actually spent Considering the uptake of the budget until 8/11/2013 (Table 13) the following can be mentioned: -

The uptake of the overall budget is very low (just 50.47%) especially when considering that the end of the Project duration is in less than two months;

-

The partner with the highest budget uptake is LP2 (62.27%) and the partner with the lowest budget uptake is LP1 (just 41.07%). In all three cases the budget uptake is alarmingly low less than two months before the end of the Project duration;

-

LP1 has a zero uptake in the ‘staff costs’ and ‘others’ categories;

-

P3 has a very low uptake in the ‘travel and accommodation’ category (just 16.89%);

-

Overall, the category ‘external expertise and services’ is characterized by the highest budget uptake (53.36%).

Table 13: Budget uptake per partner and per expenditure category until 8/11/2013 (in €) Staff costs

Travel & accommodati on


Others

Total

Budget

19,542

4,650

174,252

8,000

206,444

Budget uptake

0

2,004.32

82,778.72

0

84,783.04

Uptake as %

0.00

43.10

47,51

0.00

41.07

Budget

12,600

3,016

120,200

-

135,816

Budget uptake

10,850

1,220.93

72,498.57

-

84,569.5

Uptake as %

86.11

40.48

60,31

-

62.27

Budget

4,392

4,300

35,220

-

43,912

Budget uptake

4,180

726.15

20,630

-

25,536.15

Uptake as %

95.17

16.89

58.57

-

58.15

Budget

36,534

11,966

329,672

8,000

386,172

Budget uptake

15,030

3,951.4

175,907.29

0

194,888.69

Uptake as %

41.14

33.02

53.36

0.00

50.47

Partner

LP1

LP2

P3

SUM

In parenthesis is shown the budget uptake as a percentage of the total budget of the particular category

WP4: Evaluation

40/53


Table 14:Uptake of the budget – LP1 (in €) WP

1

2

3

Action

Deliverable

1.2.

1.2.1.

1.3.

1.3.1.

2.1.

2.1.1.

2.2.

2.2.1.

2.3.

Staff costs


2,250


Others

Budget uptake (%)

Budget uptake*

Total

14,000

14,000

6,000

42.86

7,000

9,250

8,240

89.08

10,090

0.00

11,880

11,880

0.00

2.3.1.

12,375

12,375

0.00

3.1.

3.1.1.

44,550

44,550

32,184.51

72.24

3.2.

3.2.1.

53,559

53,559

38,358.53

71.62

4.1.1.

13,365

13,365

0.00

4.1.4.

10,791

10,791

0.00

16,552

0.00

6,732

0.00

4.1. 4

4.1.5. 4.2.

2,090

8,000

16,552

4.2.1. 4.2.2.

6,732 900

2,400

3,300

0.00 *

Until 8/11/2013

Table 15:Uptake of the budget – LP2 (in €) WP

1

2

Action 1.2.

1.2.2.

1.3.

1.3.2.

1.4.

4

Staff costs



12,600

Others

Total

Budget uptake

Budget uptake (%)

*

12,600

10,850

86,11

1,000

2,510

2,029.5

80.86

1.4.1.

3,600

3,600

2.1.

2.1.2.

5,000

5,000

2.2.

2.2.2.

3,800

3,800

2.3.

2.3.2.

5,000

5,000

5,000

100.00

2.4.1.

3,000

3,000

2,400

80.00

2.4.2.

3,000

3,000

3.1.

3.1.1.

42,200

42,200

37,200

88.15

3.2.

3.2.2.

27,500

27,500

13,000

47.27

4.1.

4.1.3.

26,100

26,100

9,090

34.83

4.2.

4.2.3.

2.4.

3

Deliverable

1,510

1,506

0.00 5,000

0.00

0.00

1,506 *

100.0

0.00

Until 8/11/2013

Focusing on the budget uptake of each partner alone (Tables 14, 15, 16) it appears that specific Actions and Deliverables have a zero budget uptake. In some cases this makes sense (e.g. WP 4 refers to the evaluation of the Project which takes place WP4: Evaluation

41/53


during the end of the Project and therefore it has a very low budget uptake) but in others it is characteristic of the delay in the conduct of the Project’s Actions (e.g. the Deliverable 2.1.1 ‘InCommon Logo International contest’ of LP1, the Deliverable 1.4.1. ‘Audit costs’ of LP2 and the Deliverable 2.1.3. ‘20 newsletters in 1,000 e-mail addresses’ of LP3). Table 16:Uptake of the budget – P3 (in €) WP

Action

Deliverable

1.2.

1.2.3.

1.3.

1.3.3.

2

2.1.

2.1.3.

3

3.2.

1

4

Staff costs



4,392

Others

Total

Budget uptake

Budget uptake (%)

*

4,392

4,180

95.17

1,800

726,15

40.34

6,704

6,704

720

10.74

3.2.3.

23,800

23,800

15,200

63.86

4.1.

4.1.2.

4,716

4,716

4,710

99.87

4.2.

4.2.4.

1,800

2,500

2,500 *

WP4: Evaluation

0.00

Until 8/11/2013

42/53


6. Data analysis The data that are analyzed here derive from a questionnaire which was submitted to key people working for the InCommon Project. Ideally, this process would have to take place 1-2 years after the end of the Project and the interviewees would have to be businesspeople adopting the InCommon strategy. Since until now no companies have registered for the use of the logo from both countries, the questionnaire focuses on the views of the Partners that participated to it. The questionnaire consists of 13 questions and is presented in Annex Ι. Not all questions refer to this Deliverable since questions 9-10 are relevant for the Deliverable 4.1.5. Therefore, the questions analyzed here are the questions 1-8 and 11-13. Some of the questions are of the ‘closed type’ while others are ‘open ended’. The questions cover a lot of topics: from the achievement of the objective of the Project to the viability of the InCommon strategy to the strong and weak characteristics of the Project. 6.1. Has the InCommon Project realized its objective? The interviewees stress the fact that it is too early to make an assessment of whether the objective has been realized. Some of the opinions express a positive while others a negative view. The interviewees also stress the fact that both target areas have many quality agro-food products but what is lacking is the right mentality to exploit them. “The objective is usually achieved in a medium to long term and as such we cannot measure the achievement without respecting this time. We can definitely say that the outputs were received as the project identified the typical products of the region, started the promotion campaign and prepared the logo dissemination strategy that will facilitate the tourism valorization”. “Quality agro-food products can be a way to differentiate the tourism product in both areas. This quality strategy is in its initial steps though. It is very hard to assess the actual impact on tourism at this early stage”. “That’s relative. The truth is that there has been a certain ‘awakening’ at the local level, especially with the actions of the festivals and conferences. The connection between agri-tourism, local flavors, quality of food and visibility of the products has entered the mind thinking of many people. ”. “The Project has taken a significant step for a coordinated economic development between Greece and Albania in the perspective of further expansion of cooperation and joint business initiatives”. 6.2. Do you think that the gradual introduction of the quality policy to the services and agro-food products can contribute to their marketing and renown? This was a ‘closed’ numerical question, using a 1-5 scale with 1 representing ‘very little’ and 5 representing ‘very much’. The overall score was 3.8. Therefore the interviewees feel that this quality policy turn can really help, at least partially, in the promotion of the agro-food products. WP4: Evaluation

43/53


One of the respondents also gave a brief explanation for the provided grade: “The quality logo policy will enlighten the farmers about the advantages of the usage of the logo and the way they should follow in order to obtain it”. 6.3. Do you think that the InCommon Project has, or will have in the near future, an impact on the development of tourism in the areas of Korçë and Grevena? This was a ‘closed’ numerical question, using a 1-5 scale with 1 representing ‘very small impact’ and 5 representing ‘very large impact’. The overall score was 3.2. Therefore the interviewees believe that a mild impact is possible but with the prerequisite that either the Project will continue or the local population and businessmen embrace this effort. “The InCommon Project will achieve tourism development in a medium term as the infrastructure for making it realistic, the connection from farmers to agro-processors, hotels, restaurants and travel agencies is being prepared and the promotional campaign will strengthen it”. “A lot of factors impact on the choices made by tourists. Perhaps only a mild impact is not such a bad thing”. “The InCommon Project has given to many businessmen the opportunity to promote their products but also an incentive to try, through their participation, to create products based on the raw materials of the area. This action if worked properly and in length will lead to more followers. The Project’s actions have been implemented but they are ‘isolated’. More actions are needed in order that the businessmen will accept this specific way of exploiting the quality characteristics of our area. E.g. training of the businessmen – mentoring for the promotion of quality agro-food products and recipes, with a support and promotion by institutions not only at the local but also at the national and international level”. “Should the effort continue after the end of the Project, the impact will be satisfactory. But it is more likely that the Project will not continue”. “The main question is the increase of the awareness of the businesses and their commitment in order to be consistent with the quality policy. Thus, their competitive advantage in the market in terms of opening the economy and in terms of the diversity of the local products will increase”. 6.4. Were there any procedural problems during the implementation of the Project? ‘Closed’ question with 4 possible answers: (a) payment delays; (b) bureaucracy; (c) communication problems due to the different language (Greek – Albanian) between the Partners; (d) other. Three interviewees have identified bureaucracy as a problem and one of them the payment delays. “No problems, except from the national Greek authorities that delayed the tendering procedures of the project management and technical expertise. Eventually this delay caused a stress and the actions had to be carried out in a very intensive way”. WP4: Evaluation

44/53


“In some cases during the research the businessmen/women were unwilling to participate in the research”. “There was a problem of communication with the Albanian Partners, not because of the language, but because they didn’t fully understand the nature and the limits of their Actions which is probably due to the fact that were inexperienced and couldn’t understand their Actions according to the technical document limitations”. 6.5. What do you think about the interaction between the three Partners of the Project? This was a ‘closed’ numerical question, using a 1-5 scale with 1 representing ‘very weak’ and 5 representing ‘very strong’. The overall score was 3.6. Therefore the interaction is thought to be positive although the strict time framework had a negative impact on it. One of the respondents graded each Partner separately. “There were some delays initially from the RCK in terms of clarification of activities and responsibilities, but after that everything went very well in terms of cooperation and understanding”. “In a sense, and due to time constraints, I think that the interaction was not very strong. Time was so little that each Partner had to focus on its own Deliverables. I think this had a negative impact on the interaction among Partners”. “I give to EPD the highest rank (score: 5) since it was them who tried most to mobilize the whole procedure. I believe that the RCK had a pretty dynamic presence (score: 4), although I don’t have a clear picture of its activities. The questionnaire that they created for all the farmers of their area was pretty impressive, since an integrated system of declaration of production did not exist. The CCG is ranked last (score: 2) due to bureaucratic problems that it faces when implementing European Projects as does every Institution in Greece” (mean score for the three Partners: 4). “There was cooperation and the Partners correctly asked for the opinion and confirmation by the Lead Partner for their Deliverables, but I don’t think that this reached the level of effective interaction between the Partners”. “All the Partners have been actively working regarding the traditional products in both countries of the cross-border area”. 6.6. Successful characteristics of the Project This was an ‘open’ question. The interviewees could write whatever they wanted. The network created, the scope of the Project, the topic, the Project’s outputs and the mobilization of the local society are thought to be its successful features. “The creation of a network among the three Partners. This can prove to be a plus should the Project continue in the following Programming Period. The three Partners could also work on other Projects. The fact that Albania is in the process for the European Integration opens up various possibilities”. “The scope of the Project. Especially for Albania, the focus on quality agro-food products could have interesting potential results (perhaps a product identified as PDO or PGI?)”. WP4: Evaluation

45/53


“The selected topic was very pertinent and the intervention was quite timely for the future tourism development”. “The research study about the agricultural products and their respective produced quantities in the area of Grevena, which we can have as a guide for future actions”. “The cross-border cooperation”. “The mobilization of the local society”. “The revaluation of the products and of the traditional recipes”. “The creation of the logo for the cross-border area”. “The promotion of the products at the international level (fairs, website)”. 6.7. Unsuccessful characteristics of the Project This was an ‘open’ question. The interviewees could write whatever they wanted. Unsuccessful characteristics are thought to be the strict time frame, the exchange of experiences among Partners, the minimum promotion and information for the Project’s Actions, and possible Actions that could be included in the Project. “The time frame. 18 months are very few. And bearing in mind the various delays this was a huge problem despite the fact that there was a 6 month extension”. “The exchange of experience”. “The promotion and the information about the Actions of the Project”. “I would also prefer that mentoring actions for the businessmen and businesswomen were included. Thus, they would better comprehend the usefulness [of the quality strategy], the ways to promote their products, etc.”. “There should be more common Actions in order that the cross-border cooperation would be more meaningful”. “The Project should have more available time because the 2/3 of that was consumed in the competition procedures”. “For a sustainable tourism development in these regions there must be a coordinated strategic cooperation for the economic development which is associated with the natural and cultural heritage”. 6.8. What do you think about the viability of the InCommon logo? Will enterprises use it still after two years from now? This was an ‘open’ question. The interviewees could write whatever they wanted. Generally speaking the interviewees expect a positive impact although there is some skepticism expressed by at least two interviewees. “Yes. The InCommon logo will be viable as it will be managed by the RCK. One of the missions of the RCK is to advance and contribute to the development policies and strategies in the region”. “Yes, provided that the procedures are followed properly, etc.”. WP4: Evaluation

46/53


“I am not optimistic. Mostly because the operation of the logo means operational costs that will have to be covered by the participating companies. In my experience when operational costs appear in the horizon the companies have a disincentive to participate”. “According to my experience no [it will not be viable]. This will only happen if the members of the CCG have the will to pursue this more or if it [the logo] is included in another Project/ Programme and they are obliged to carry on”. “The InCommon logo will be used in the long term because it will have a positive impact on the identification of the products, while it will contribute to the reliability and it will also comprise a standard”. 6.9. Should the InCommon Project continue in the following Programming Period (2014-2020)? If yes, which actions should include? This was a twofold question. The first part was ‘closed’ and it answered to whether the Project should continue (possible answers: yes, no). The second part of the question was ‘open’ and the interviewees could write whatever they wanted. All interviewees express their wish for the continuation of the Project. However, regarding the possible actions that this new effort might include different approaches are recorded. “Trying to register a PDO or PGI product from the Albanian side. This however might not be achieved in a period of 12-18 months. In Greece there are products that were registered after a 7 year process. So, the objective of the future Project should not be the actual registration”. “Perhaps a good idea would be to analyze the chemical composition of the products under investigation. This could also help for the registration of an Albanian PDO or PGI product”. “This Project’s research focused on the agricultural production side. A consumer survey about the identified quality agro-food products would be spot on to cover the full range ‘from farm to fork’”. “Registration of the typical products into the European PDO, PGI and TSG system as of December 2013 (once Albania is granted the status of the potential EU candidate country)”. “Mentoring for the businessmen and businesswomen”. “Organization and information activities about the PDO/PGI recognition procedures, their benefits, the procedures and instructions to obtain a certification for exports but also for standardization and packaging of the products”. “An integrated campaign for the promotion of the products in Greece and abroad”. “The organization of a network of producers and entrepreneurs for the promotion of the quality logo and of the various procedures within but also outside the Action areas. We suggest the creation of a network with the form of an information desk and an internet application which will record the small producers with a small description of their activities and products, so that a database of products and produces will exist, WP4: Evaluation

47/53


which will be updated. This will give the opportunity to anybody who is interested in obtaining a quantity of the product (e.g. beans or lentils from Grevena) to locate the producer, to buy a certain quantity of his/her product, even to standardize it and trade it. This achieves the following: I guess that the farmers in Grevena and Albania sell their products in bulk on their own so they lose time (productive time) trying to find customers, but also the region could know what is produced by which producer and in which quantity. Moreover, though this channel, a large super market could check which products are produced and in which quantities, etc. This is essentially a networking form so that producers and products will have access to markets but also information about existing financing programmes, with a simultaneous promotion and mentoring actions regarding the PDO and PGI products (benefits, procedures, certifications, etc.) but also an organized campaign for their promotion, with participation to fairs, to thematic journals and websites, in relative media shows, etc. “Cooperation with ELOT (Hellenic Organization for Standardization)”. “Greater advertizing efforts at the national level”. “Active participation by the producers”. “Promotion of the InCommon products using the logo with a campaign”. “The association with the natural and cultural heritage”. 6.10. Add anything that you feel that must be said regarding the InCommon Project Only three interviewees responded in this section. The need for more cooperation between the two countries is expressed, but also the greater efforts that the Partners should make. “The Partners should be more involved in the implementation of the Project. Subcontracting less and implementing more should be their aim. Also, greater efforts for cooperation between Partners are needed”. “The Project gave the chance to the businessmen and businesswomen of the sector to have a glimpse at the benefits of using quality symbols”. “The InCommon Project derived as a natural consequence of the need for a coordinated economic development between Greece and Albania with the purpose to promote sustainable development under the perspective of the further expansion of the joint business initiatives to support the local communities in Korçë and Grevena”.

WP4: Evaluation

48/53


7. Conclusions and recommendations The InCommon Project is characterized by the advantages and shortcomings of a newly established network between the three participating Partners who operate in different institutional settings. Although the theme of the Project is very relevant for the development of tourism and agriculture in both areas and some of its actions (e.g. the festivals) have been embraced by the participating actors and the wider public, there are other actions which are very demanding and whose success (or failure) is not yet clear. The Project ‘demands’ that a Public Body (the RCK) and a Legal Entity of Public Law (the CCG) must transform to managers of a common logo for both areas which refers to the products and services of the agro-food and tourism sector of both areas. None of those two actors has a history of managing such a logo and the Project demands paperwork, inspections, transparency, operational costs from both actors. As can one imagine this is not easy and the near future will show if and in what degree both actors will manage to successfully support this strategy. Should this Project continue in the next Programming Period then its duration should be at least 2 years. This would allow more fruitful discussions between the Partners, more time for time consuming practices (bibliographic research, the conduct of research, etc.), while this would also allow a more integrated evaluation since the results of the Project would be more easily observed. This Project should be more complete regarding the planning stage. As it is mentioned in the Deliverable 4.1.1. there were some problems in the approved proposal of the Project which confused results with impacts, did not set target values for the output indicators, while many output indicators did not derive from the expected outputs. This lack of clarity makes more difficult the implementation of the Project, and the implementation of the evaluation. Should there be an effort to continue the Project in the following Programming Period then the planning must be more clear and not replicate the same mistakes. Since the network between the three Partners has already been formed great efforts must take place before submitting the follow-up proposal of the Project to the EU.

WP4: Evaluation

49/53


REFERENCES Bernet, T., Kazazi, I.S. (2012). Organic agriculture in Albania - sector study 2011, Swiss Coordination Office in Albania (SCO-A), Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) & Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Consumer Production of Albania (MoAFCP), Tirana, Albania. Commission of the European Communities (2007). Communication from the Commission: Agenda for a sustainable and competitive European tourism, Commission of the European Communities. European Commission (2010). An analysis of the EU organic sector, European Commission. FAO (2013). Eastern Europe and Central Asia agro-industry development. Country brief: Albania, FAO. Lampkin, N., Foster, C., Padel, S., Midmore, P. (1999). The policy and regulatory environment for organic farming in Europe, Vol. I of the series “Organic farming in Europe: economics and policy”, ISBN: 3-933403-00-6, Hohenheim. Leksinaj, E., Cicia, G., Cembalo, L., Del Giudice, T., Meço, M., Nelaj, T. (2009). The contribution of organic sector in the Albanian agriculture, paper presented at the 113rd EAAE Seminar ‘A resilient European food industry and food chain in a challenging world’, Chania, Greece, September 3-6. Michelsen, J. (2009). The Europeanization of organic agriculture and conflicts over agricultural policy, Food Policy 34, 252-257. OECD (2012). Tourism trends and policies 2012, OECD. Oréade – Brèche (2005). Evaluation of agri-environmental measures – Greece, Oréade – Brèche. University of the Aegean (2010). The importance of tourism for the Greek economy/ society and policy suggestions for tourism development, University of the Aegean (in Greek). Vakoufaris, H., Kizos, T., Spilanis, I., Koulouri, M., Zacharaki, A. (2007). Women’s cooperatives and their contribution to the local development of the North Aegean Region, Greece, Journal of Rural Cooperation 35(1), 19-41. van der Ploeg, J.D., Jingzhong, Y., Schneider, S. (2012). Rural development through the construction of new, nested markets: comparative perspectives from China, Brazil and the European Union, The Journal of Peasant Studies 39(1), 133-173. Wehinger, T., Schäfer, B. (2011). Potential for the diversification of the rural sectors in Albania and Montenegro, Naccon GbR.

WP4: Evaluation

50/53


Annex I: the questionnaire which was used 1.Do you believe that the InCommon Project realized its objective? (the objective was “the creation of a quality strategy aiming at the tourism valorization of the participating areas”). Explain in a few words. 2.Do you think that the gradual introduction of the quality/logo policy to the services and agro-food products can contribute to their marketing and renown? [on a 1-5 scale with 1 representing “very little” and 5 representing “very much” circle the number of your choice] 1

2

3

4

5

3.Do you think that the InCommon Project has, or will have in the near future, an impact on the development of tourism in the areas of Korçë and Grevena [on a 1-5 scale with 1 representing “very small impact” and 5 representing “very large impact” circle the number of your choice] 1

2

3

4

5

3.1.Explain in a few words your above choice 4.Were there any procedural problems during the implementation of the Project? [Circle your answer(s), or add one, or more, of your own]. 4.1. Payment delays 4.2. Bureaucracy 4.3.Lack of clarity of the InCommon objectives or actions (bad design) 4.4.Communication problems due to the different language (Greek-Albanian) between Partners 4.5.Other [add a procedural problem that was not listed above] 5.What do you think about the interaction between the three partners (Chamber of Commerce of Grevena, Regional Council of Korçë, EuroPartners Development) of the Project? How would you rate this interaction based on a 1-5 scale with 1 representing “very weak” and 5 representing “very strong”? [circle the number of your choice] 1

2

3

4

5

5.1. Explain in a few words your above choice

WP4: Evaluation

51/53


6.Name a characteristic (or characteristics) of the Project that you think was (were) a Success 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 7.Name a characteristic (or characteristics) of the Project that you think was (were) Weak and that could be improved 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 8.What do you think about the viability of the InCommon logo? Do you think that enterprises will still use if after 2 years? Why? 9.Do you think that a complain procedure (by the discontented tourists / consumers of the agro-food products/ services) followed by the InCommon logo awarded companies will improve the quality of the products? [on a 1-5 scale with 1 representing “very little” and 5 representing “very much” circle the number of your choice] 1

2

3

4

5

10.Do you think that a complain procedure (by the discontented tourists / consumers of the agro-food products/ services) followed by the InCommon logo awarded companies will have an impact in the improvement of tourism services and an increase of tourism in the area? [on a 1-5 scale with 1 representing “very little” and 5 representing “very much” circle the number of your choice] 1

2

3

4

5

11.What is your opinion on a continuation of the Project InCommon during the next EU Programming period (2014 –2020)? [circle your choice] YES

WP4: Evaluation

NO

52/53


12.[If you answered YES on the above question] If the InCommon Project is to continue in the next Programming period (2014 - 2020), which actions should it include? 12.1. 12.2. 12.3. 13. Add anything that you feel that must be said regarding the InCommon Project

WP4: Evaluation

53/53

Project Title

Project Title

Suggest Documents

Project Proposal PROJECT TITLE

Project Title

Project Title:

Proposed project proposal title:

e1 project title - CiteSeerX

Project Title

O4C Project title: OPEN4CITIZENS

enter your project title

Project Title - Google Groups

INCOFISH Project title - CiteSeerX

O4C Project title - Open4Citizens

Project Title - EPA WA

My title/project - Nasdaq

Project Title - CiteSeerX

Project title - Casindo

My Project Title

Project Title

Project Title - NOAA Fisheries

project title

Project Title

Project Title here - UNSWorks

Project Title here

My title/project - Nasdaq

Project Acronym SoBigData Project Title SoBigData ... - D4Science