Challenges/development needs

Challenges/development needs

Investment Priority

Specific Objectives

• 
  Mobilisation of funding sources and preparation and governance of complex projects including EU and non-EU countries is challenging
  
• 
  Tasks of the PACs and HALs often reach beyond the regular tasks of the staff in the responsible organisations (mainly ministries and agencies)
  

4- Need financial resources during the initiation of complex projects

4- PACs and HALs need additional resources in particular for frequent communication with project leaders and stakeholders

.c

-o c

(3

"5 c .g

&
£

■&

c .o

4^

(3

c "2

u "o c

(3

4^

c £

CL

.o

.o L

4*

£ "5.

s s

4.1 "Seed Money":

To increase capacity for transnational cooperation implementing the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and working on common priorities with partner countries. (minor change)

4.2 "Coordination of macro-regional cooperation":

To increase capacity of public administrations and pan-Baltic organisations for transnational coordination in implementing the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and facilitating the implementation of common priorities with the neighbouring countries

• 
  Amount of funding for projects implementing the EUSBSR resulting from seed money projects
  
• 
  Number of organisations from the partner countries working on joint projects resulting from seed money projects
  
• 
  Percentage of EUSBSR priority areas and horizontal actions reaching the identified targets
  
• 
  Percentage of EUSBSR priority areas and horizontal actions facilitating the implementation of joint priorities with the partner countries
  

Preparation of projects under the priority areas and horizontal actions of the EUSBSR Strategy (including building partnerships, planning the activities and outputs, preparing an indicative budget and searching for funding possibilities, pre-investment studies), preferably link to joint priorities with the partner countries

Facilitating policy discussions in the Baltic Sea Region, Facilitating development and implementation of actions and flagship projects • Conveying relevant results and recommendations o Ensuring communication and visibility

Maintaining a dialogue with bodies in charge of implementation Intensifying links of the EUSBSR with strategies

Implementing the Strategy Forum, including a platform of civil society

• 
  No of project plans for a main project including information on possible financial sources
  
• 
  No of project plans contributing to joint priorities with neighbouring countries
  
• 
  No of transnational meetings held to facilitate
  

implementation of the EUSBSR targets

• 
  No of transnational meetings held to facilitate joint work on common priorities with the neighbouring countries
  
• 
  No of strategic policy documents supporting the implementation of the EUSBSR targets and/or common priorities with the neighbouring countries.
  
• 
  No of support measures provided to
  

the EUSBSR

4.7 Potential svnergies and complementaritv

The following presents the assessment of the internai coherence of the operation programme. The assessment includes an analysis of the relationship between the specific objectives of each priority axis, and between the specific objectives of the different priority objectives verifying complementarities and potential synergies⁷. The assessment is based on the following definitions.
Definitions for the analysis of internai coherence


Table 4.5

Definition	Type of relationship	Difference in types of activity	Level of analysis
Potential synergy	Possible positive effect on same result	Not relevant	Results
Complementarity	Expected or known contribution to the same problem	Yes	Activities

The first level of analysis establishes possible synergies between the SOs at result level, i.e. the result of supported activities. The second level of the analysis looks at direct complementarity between the activities supported by the SOs, where synergy was identified. The results of the coherence assessment are presented Table 4.7 below. The matrix presents the SOs in a relationship to each other.

Possible synergy

The following presents the main findings from the first level of analysis.

• 
  the majority of the SOs have possible synergy with 3-5 of the other SOs;
  
• 
  there is little synergy between the SOs under priority axes 2 and 3;
  
• 
  the SOs 3.1 and 3.2 show limited synergy with SOs under other priority axes;
  
• 
  P1 (and it's SOs) has possible synergy with all other SOs.
  

Areas with possible synergy

The areas within which, possible synergy between the specific objectives were identified, by the ex-ante evaluator, are growth and innovation, sustainability and transport. It should be noted that some areas belong to only one of the three issues.

Complementarity

The second level of analysis looks at complementarity between the SOs. There is possible complementarity between some of the SOs, especially in P1 (see comment on smart specialisation below), but generally the description of the SOs do not provide an adequate basis for an exhaustive assessments. It is suggested to elaborate the description on complementarity between the SOs in Section 2, considering complementarity within each priority axis as well as between the priority axes.

Table 4.7 Overview of synergy between the specific objectives

Directory: doc
doc -> Enterprise Network Management iPost: Implementing Continuous Risk Monitoring at the Department of State
doc -> Concept stage
doc -> Application for acem
doc -> What programs are available?
doc -> 100 Village Primary School Music Classrooms
doc -> Observational Assessment of Teaching Practices Teaching Assessment Initiative Proposal Submitted to The Teachers for a New Era project
doc -> Concept stage
doc -> Traditional British values