REGIONAL OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME OF THE …1 REGIONAL OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME OF THE NUTS 2 SOUTH–EAST 2007–2013 This project was co–financed by the European Union November, 2007

1

REGIONAL OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME OF THE NUTS 2 SOUTH–EAST

2007–2013

This project was co–financed by the European Union

November, 2007

European Union European Regional Development Fund Investing in Your Future

2

3

CONTENT LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... 7 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 10

1 CURRENT ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SITUATION IN THE REGION ........................ 12 1.1 INITIAL DOCUMENTS AND LEGISLATION ............................................................... 12

1.2 ANALYSIS OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SITUATION ............................................ 15

1.2.1 General description and position of the region .......................................................... 15

1.2.2 Social and economic situation of the region .............................................................. 16 1.2.2.1 Demographic development ................................................................................ 16

1.2.2.2 Economy of the region, its competitiveness and growth potential .................... 17

1.2.2.3 Human resources and labour market .................................................................. 21

1.2.2.4 Tourism .............................................................................................................. 23 1.2.3 Transport accessibility ................................................................................................ 25

1.2.3.1 Road transport .................................................................................................... 26 1.2.3.2 Public transport .................................................................................................. 27 1.2.3.3 Air transport ....................................................................................................... 28 1.2.3.4 Unpowered transport .......................................................................................... 30

1.2.4 Regional disparities .................................................................................................... 30 1.2.4.1 Settlement pattern ............................................................................................... 30 1.2.4.2 Urbanization centres (poles of growth) and regional centres ............................. 31

1.2.4.3 Rural space ......................................................................................................... 36 1.2.4.4 Regional disparities and the Strategy of Regional Development of the ČR ...... 38

1.3 SWOT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 40 1.4 EVALUATION OF THE PRESENT EXPERIENCE FROM THE PROGRAMME

IMPLEMENTATION AND THE ABSORPTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS .................. 44 1.4.1 Evaluation of the present experience from the programme implementation ............. 44

1.4.2 Absorption capacity analysis ...................................................................................... 47 2 ROP NUTS 2 SOUTHEAST STRATEGY ........................................................................... 50

2.1 STRATEGY STARTING POINTS ................................................................................... 50 2.1.1 Internal strategy starting points .................................................................................. 50 2.1.2 External strategy starting points ................................................................................. 51 2.1.3 External and internal strategy starting points – the “tree of problems” ..................... 52

2.1.4 Main marks of strategy ............................................................................................... 55 2.2 VISION, GLOBAL OBJECTIVE AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THE ROP .......... 55

2.2.1 Vision ......................................................................................................................... 55 2.2.2 Global objective ......................................................................................................... 56 2.2.3 Specific objectives and high–priority axes ................................................................. 58 2.2.4 ROP consistency with the EU strategic documents ................................................... 66

2.2.5 ROP consistency with the strategic documents of national significance ................... 68

2.2.6 ROP consistency with the strategic development documents of regions ................... 70

2.3 EX–ANTE EVALUATION ............................................................................................... 72 2.4 THE PROCESS OF PARTNERSHIP ................................................................................ 79 2.5 HORIZONTAL THEMES ................................................................................................. 82 2.6 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................................................... 82 2.7 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................. 83 2.8 SEA RESULTS .................................................................................................................. 85 3.1 PRIORITY AXIS 1: TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY .................................................... 89

3.2 PRIORITY AXIS 2: DEVELOPMENT OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM ..................... 100

4

3.3 PRIORITY AXIS 3: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF TOWNS AND RURAL AREA ............................................................................................................................... 108

3.4 PRIORITY AXIS 4: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ........................................................ 127

3.5 TYPES OF PROJECTS IN ROP SE AND THEIR COMPLEMENTARITY WITH OTHER OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES ................................................................... 131

3.6 INDICATORS FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION .......................................... 134

3.6.1 Context indicators .................................................................................................... 135 3.6.2 Programme indicators .............................................................................................. 136 3.6.3 Priority axes indicators ............................................................................................. 137

4 IMPLEMENTATION SECTION ........................................................................................ 142 4.1 PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................ 147

4.1.1 Programme Management ......................................................................................... 147 4.1.2 Capacity for Administration ..................................................................................... 151 4.1.3 Beneficiaries, the system of project selection .......................................................... 152 4.1.4 Partnership in ROP implementation ......................................................................... 154

4.2 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................... 154 4.2.1 System of SF financial flows ................................................................................... 155 4.2.2 Cross–financing ........................................................................................................ 157

4.3 CONTROL SYSTEM ...................................................................................................... 158 4.3.1 External control (external audit): ............................................................................. 158 4.3.2 Internal control system ............................................................................................. 160

4.3.2.1 Management control ......................................................................................... 160 4.3.2.2 Internal audit .................................................................................................... 161 4.3.2.3 Irregularities ..................................................................................................... 163

4.4 MONITORING ................................................................................................................ 163 4.4.1 Monitoring Committee ............................................................................................. 163 4.4.2 Annual and final implementation report .................................................................. 164 4.4.3 Information systems, data transmission ................................................................... 165

4.5 EVALUATION ................................................................................................................ 167 4.6 COMPLIANCE WITH THE POLICIES OF THE COMMUNITY ................................ 170

4.6.1 Compliance with the rules of state aid ..................................................................... 171 4.6.2 Public procurement .................................................................................................. 172 4.6.3 Equality of opportunities .......................................................................................... 172 4.6.4 Earmarking ............................................................................................................... 173 4.6.5 Possibilities of PPP in ROP SE ................................................................................ 173

4.7 PUBLICITY AND PUBLIC AWARENESS ................................................................... 175

5 FINANCIAL PROVISION .................................................................................................. 176 5.1 STARTING POINTS FOR THE ROP FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK ........................... 176 5.2 FINANCIAL PLAN OF ROP .......................................................................................... 176

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 179

A Tables and figures ............................................................................................................. 179

B. Standpoint of the Ministry of Environment ...................................................................... 187 C. Definition of indicators for monitoring and evaluation .................................................... 190

a. Context indicators ........................................................................................................ 190 b. Programme indicators .................................................................................................. 191 c. Priority axes indicators ................................................................................................. 192

.

5

List of tables: Table 1: Prognosis of population development in the SE region ................................................... 16 Table 2: Primary macro–economic indicators of the SE region .................................................... 17 Table 3: Structure and Gross values added (GVA) of the SE region ............................................. 18 Table 4: Some indicators of industrial production in 1999 and 2005 ............................................ 18 Table 5:The number and share of innovating enterprises in 2002–2003 ....................................... 19 Table 6: Basic regional indicators of the SE region and the Czech Republic ................................ 19 Table 7: Economic entities as of 31 December 2004 ..................................................................... 20 Table 8:Workers in national economy by industries – SE ............................................................. 21 Table 9:Employment rate (in %) .................................................................................................... 21

Table 10:General unemployment rate for the age group 15+ i ...................................................... 22 Table 11: Capacity of accommodation facilities as of 31 December 2005 .................................... 23 Table 12: Use of beds and rooms in hotels and similar accommodation facilities in 2005 ........... 24

Table 13: Guests in mass accommodation facilities I – Arrivals ................................................... 24 Table 14: Guests in mass accommodation facilities II – Nights .................................................... 25 Table 15: Transportation services in the region ............................................................................. 25 Table 16: Road network length as of 31December 2005 (in km) ................................................. 26 Table 17:Passenger transport in the region (thous. persons) .......................................................... 27 Table 18:Primary IDS data – SE region ......................................................................................... 28 Table 19: Primary statistics of the International Airport Brno–Tuřany ......................................... 29

Table 20: Size groups of municipalities as of 1 January 2005 ....................................................... 31 Table 21: Schools by types – SE region ........................................................................................ 33 Table 22: Selected indicators of public health – SE region ........................................................... 34 Table 23: Social services – SE region ............................................................................................ 35

Table 24: Cultural and sports establishments – SE region ............................................................. 35 Table 25: Expenditure of regions on development projects in 2004 – 2006 (in thous. CZK) ....... 44

Table 26: Problems identified in the present SF realization .......................................................... 46 Table 27: Project programmes collected in the region (status as of 1 September 2006) ............... 48

Table 28: Consistency of the ROP with the Community Strategic Guidelines ............................. 67

Table 29: Consistency of the ROP with the NSRF ........................................................................ 68 Table 30: Consistency of the ROP with the NRP .......................................................................... 69 Table 31: Consistency of the ROP with the SDS ........................................................................... 70 Table 32: Consistency of the ROP with the RDS .......................................................................... 70 Table 33:Consistency of the ROP with the PRK of the Vysočina region ...................................... 71

Table 34:Consistency of the ROP with the PRK of the South–Moravian region .......................... 71

Table 35: Overview of the settled comments to ROP (situation as of 1 January 2007) ................ 81

Table 36: Summary opinions given by the various partners .......................................................... 81 Table 37: Overview of settled comments to the SEA (as of 1 January 2007) ............................... 88

Table 38: Percentage financial allocation ROP SE ........................................................................ 89 Table 39: The list of exemptions from the prohibition of state aid .............................................. 171 Table 40: Indicative diversification of SF’s resources for categories of earmarking support ..... 173

Table 41:Contributions from EU funds for ROP SE in the respective years (in EUR, c.p.) ....... 177

Table 42: Indicative financial plan of ROP SE for the entire programming period .................... 178

6

List of figures: Fig. 1: Cohesion regions of the Czech Republic and demarcation of NUTS 2 SE (CZ 06). ........ 15

Fig. 2: Current expenditure for a pupil in 2005 (in CZE). ............................................................ 32 Fig. 3: Recipients of social security (number of person). ............................................................. 34 Fig. 4: Unemployment 2001 – 2007 (in %) and the sequence within ČR. .................................... 38

Fig. 5: Regions with concentrated state aid: ................................................................................. 39 Fig. 6: Tree of problems of the NUTS 2 Southeast ....................................................................... 53 Fig. 7: Coincidence matrix ............................................................................................................ 62

Fig. 8: Diagram of the structured links ........................................................................................ 66

Fig. 9: Diagram of partnership during the ROP SE preparation ................................................... 79 Fig. 10: Organizational structure of the Regional Council Office of the SE cohesion region .... 150

Fig. 11: Diagram of the information systems relevant to ROP SE ............................................. 167

7

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AA Audit Authority Bike+R System “bike and ride“ / parking sites for bicycles with tie–in public transport CEDR Central files of subsidies from budget CHU Central Harmonization Unit CO Certification body CR Tourism CTP Central Trade Park CZK Czech crown ČMKOS Bohemian–Moravian Chamber of Trade Unions ČNB Czech National Bank ČOV Sewage water treatment plant ČR Czech Republic CSO Czech Statistical Office DAMS Department of Administration of Monitoring System EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development EFF European Fisheries Fund EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIB European Investment Bank EIF European Investment Fund EK/EC European Commission ERDF European Fund for Regional Development ES European Communities ESF European Social Fund EU European Union EUR Euro, common European currency EUROSTAT Statistical Office of European Communities CF Cohesion Fund GDP Gross domestic product GVA Gross value added IAD Individual automobile transport ICT Information and communication technologies IDS Integrated transportation system ILO International Labour Organization IOP Integrated Operational Programme IS Information system ISPA Instrument of pre–accession structural policies ISPROFIN Information system of programme financing IUDP Integrated urban development plan JASPERS Programme of technical assistance in the preparation of extensive projects in European

regions JEREMIE Initiative for the enhancement of access to finance for MSP JESSICA Initiative for the enforcement of sustainable investment, growth and jobs in European

urban areas JMK the South–Moravian Region JROP Joint Regional Operational Programme K+R System “kiss and ride“ / short–time car parking with a possibility for a front–

passenger(–s) to change for public transport CoP Communication plan

8

KSÚS Regional Road Administration and Maintenance KrÚ Regional Office kV the Vysočina Region LEADER Initiative of the Communities for rural development LZZ Human resources and employment MA Managing authority MC Monitoring Committee MD Ministry of Transport MF Ministry of Finance MHD City public transport MK Ministry of Culture MPSV Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs MRD Ministry for Regional Development MSP SME Small and medium–size enterprises MVČR Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic MZd Ministry of Health Mze Ministry of Agriculture MŽP Ministry of Environment NCA National Coordinating Authority NDHI Net disposable household income NH National economy NNO NGO Non–governmental non–profit organization NPR National Reform Programme NRP National Plan of Development NRPS National framework of cohesion policy NSRF National strategic reference framework NUTS Classification of territorial statistical units OEF Department of European Funds of the Ministry for Reg. Development OKEČ Status ranking of industries OP Operational Programme OP E Operational Programme Environment OP EC Operational Programme Education for Competitiveness OP EI Operational Programme Enterprise and innovation OP HRE Operational Programme Human resources and employment OP R&DI Operational Programme Research and Development for Innovations OP T Operational Programme Transport OP TA Operational Programme Technical Assistance ORP Municipalities with extended sphere of action OSMS Department of Monitoring System Management of the Ministry of Reg. Development P+R System “park and ride“ / parking sites with tie–in public transport PAS Entity commissioned by the Audit Authority PCA Payment and Certification Authority PO Priority axis PP Police Presidium PPS Purchasing Power Standards RDP Rural Development Programme PRK Region Development Programme RCO Regional Council Office RIS Regional innovative strategy ROP Regional Operational Programme ROP SE Regional Operational Programme NUTS 2 SE

9

RR Regional Council ŘKV Managing and Coordinating Committee SAPARD Special pre–accession programme for agriculture and rural development SE Southeast SEA Strategic environmental impact assessment SEZ Old ecological burden SF Structural Funds SHR Strategy of economic development SOZS Community Strategic Guidelines SRR Strategy of Regional Development SŠ Secondary school SUR Strategy of sustainable development SWOT Strong and weak points analysis SZIF State Agricultural Intervention Fund TA Technical assistance TEN–T Trans–European Transport Networks THFK Creation of gross fixed assets TINA Assessment of transport infrastructure needs UNESCO UN Organization for Education, Science and Culture VHD Public mass transport VIOLA Managerial information and accounting system for EC resources VK Education for competitiveness VRT High–speed tariff VŠ University, academic VŠPS Sample survey of labour force WG Working group ZK Regional Council ZŠ Elementary school

10

INTRODUCTION The Regional Operational Programme of the NUTS 2 SE cohesion region (ROP SE) for the programme period 2007–2013is one of seven regional successors of a single Joint regional operational programme (JROP) realized in the Czech Republic in the shortened programming period 2004–2006.

The starting point for the preparation of ROP SE concerned, in particular, the European Commission regulations on the cohesion policy for the period 2007–2013, the Community Strategic Guidelines (SOZS), the Convergence programme of the Czech Republic and the National reforms programme of the Czech Republic (Lisbon Strategy). These strategic documents served as groundwork for the preparation of the National Development Plan of the Czech Republic (NDP) for 2007–2013 and subsequently the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) for financing from the funds of the European Union in the period from 2007–2013. Within the framework of these documents, the preparation of separate regional operational programmes at the level of NUTS 2 cohesion regions in the Czech Republic was acknowledged.

ROP SE is one of the instruments for the fulfilment of NSRF strategic objectives and priorities with direct impact on the territory of the SE cohesion region. The scope of the ROP SE has been formulated with reference to the thematic scopes of other operational programmes. The formulation also took into account the principle of subsidiarity, competence qualifications, as well as predispositions related to the development of the region. The ROP SE complementarity with other thematic and regional operational programmes is absolutely essential for the thorough and efficient resolution of the needs and priorities of the SE cohesion region.

The global objective of ROP SE is to “Strengthen the region’s competitiveness by creating conditions for the effective use of developmental potential in the NUTS 2 SE territory by means of a general improvement of transport accessibility and interlinking of developmental poles of the region, also especially leading to the utilization of potential in the field of tourism. Furthermore, to enhance the living conditions of urban and rural inhabitants in line with the principles of sustainable development. “The intention of this pro–development objective is to support the gradual achievement of economic, social and cultural standards in the region comparable with those of advanced regions in Europe. The achievement of this global objective is conditional on the improvement of the territory’s transport accessibility and serviceability. This is a basic prerequisite for effective use of the territory’s economic and social potential, the enhancement of living conditions for urban and rural inhabitants, and for the use of existing potential in the field of tourism.

The ROP SE strategy takes fully into account the renewed Lisbon Agenda. The proposed structural interventions are in agreement with the strategy of the Lisbon objectives leading to improved competitiveness and employment.

Responsibility for the formulation of the ROP SE is borne by regions included in the NUTS 2 SE cohesion region: the South–Moravian and Vysočina regions, or more precisely by the managing authority of the ROP SE, i.e. the Regional Council1 of the NUTS 2 SE cohesion region.

The ROP SE was prepared on the basis of partnership principles2. In order to coordinate ROP works the two regions each established a ROP Steering Group and a ROP Working Group. The groups contributed to the creation of the ROP SE, especially through working sessions and commenting on individual working versions of the document. A wider circle of partners with whom the regions cooperated and coordinated activities during the entire process of ROP SE preparation consisted of municipalities and their associations, non–profit organizations, economic and agricultural chambers, schools, public employment offices and other entities from the respective regions. Each approved and evaluated draft version of the ROP SE was published on web sites, including their SEA–based updates and ex–ante evaluation of the operational programme.

1 Based on Act no. 248/2000 Coll., on the support for regional development, as amended. 2 More details see Chapter 2.4.

11

Structure and scheme of document

ROP SE is structured in accordance with principles of creation of strategic documents and in line with methodology for preparation of program document for period 2007–2013 edited by MRD.

SWOT analysis

Formulation of Region development strategy

Vision, global objective and specific objectives of the region

Ex–ante evaluation

The process of partnership Horizontal themes and equal opportunities SEA results

Priority axis 1: Transport accessibility

Priority axis 2: Development of sustainable tourism

Priority axis 3: Sustainable development of towns and rural area Priority axis 4: Technical assistance

Indicators Implementation section

Financial management

Control system

Evaluation

Monitoring

State aid rules, public procurement

Publicity and public awareness

Financial plan of ROP SE

Implementation

and

realization part

Priority axes

of

ROP SE

Processes of specifiing

the priority axes

Observing the goals

Processes of formulating

the priority axes

Socio-economical analysis

12

1 CURRENT ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SITUATION IN THE REGION

1.1 INITIAL DOCUMENTS AND LEGISLATION

ROP SE is a document that must be seen in a broader context as a whole range of principal strategic, programme and conceptual documents both at a European level and at the level of the Czech Republic, or of individual regions constituting the SE cohesion region.

The ROP SE programme's scope is not only in agreement with the documents of fundamental character listed below, but at the same time it fully respects the corresponding EC and CR legislation.

The following strategic documents and materials formed the basis for preparation of the ROP SE.

Documents and legislation at the European level:

Relevant documents:

• Community Strategic Guidelines (SOZS) 2006/702/ES, adopted 6/10/2006

• Fourth Progress Report on Cohesion: Towards a new partnership for growth, jobs and cohesion.

• Jointly towards growth and jobs: A new start of the Lisbon Strategy (communication of the EC Chairman at the Meeting of the European Council)

• Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007–2013, OJ C 54, 4/3/2006

• Working Paper for the Development of Towns

Legislation:

• Council Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions concerning the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund, and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 1260/1999 (hereinafter “General Regulation“)3.

• Regulation (EC) No. 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 1783/1999, OJ L 210, 31 July 2006.

• Regulation of the European Commission (EC) No. 1828/2006 laying down implementation rules for the General Regulation.

• Regulation of the Commission (EC) No. 1628/2006 of 24 October 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty of the European Community to national regional investment aid.

Documents and legislation at the national level:

Relevant documents:

• National Strategic Reference Framework of the Czech Republic 2007–2013 (Final version, June 2007).

• National Development Plan of the Czech Republic 2007–2013

• National Lisbon Programme 2005–2008 / National Reforms Programme of the Czech Republic.

3 The final reading was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 31 July 2006.

13

• Sustainable Development Strategy of the Czech Republic.

• Regional Development Strategy of the Czech Republic.

• Economic Growth Strategy of the Czech Republic 2005–2013.

• Spatial Development Policy of the Czech Republic.

• Final report of the project 1/04 “Analysis and evaluation of weak points in the implementation system and of breakdown risk”

Legislation:

• Act No. 248/2000 Coll. on regional development support, as amended.

• Act No. 129/2000 Coll. on regions, as amended.

• Act No. 490/2003 Coll. on the publication of the Classification of territorial statistic units (CZ–NUTS), as amended.

• Act No. 218/2000 Coll. on budgeting rules, as amended.

• Act No. 250/2000 Coll. on territorial budgeting rules, as amended.

• Act No. 320/2001 Coll. on the financial control in public administration and on the change of some related rules, as amended.

• Act No. 420/2004 Coll. on municipalities management review, as amended.

• Act No. 137/2006 Coll. on public procurement, as amended.

• Act No. 138/2006 Coll. on the change of legislation in connection with the adoption of Public Procurement Act, as amended.

Other documents:

• Tourism in regions of the Czech Republic, 2003.

• Transport policy of the Czech Republic for 2005–2013, July 2005.

• General plan for the development of road infrastructure, 2006.

• National strategy for the development of cycling in the Czech Republic, January 2005.

• Spatial Development Policy of the Czech Republic, March 2006.

• Territorial Transport Service Support Strategy, 2006.

Documents at the regional level

Relevant documents:

• Regional Development Programme for the South–Moravian Region – Update of the draft part, May 2006.

• Development Strategy for the South–Moravian Region, April 2006.

• Regional Development Programme for the Vysočina Region:

○ Profile of the Vysočina Region, June 2006

○ SWOT analysis of the Vysočina Region, October 2004

○ Regional Development Programme for the Vysočina Region, December 2005 – Programme Part.

14

Other documents (in alphabetical order):

• Updated strategy for the development of tourism in the South–Moravian region, October 2003.

• Absorption capacity analysis for the Vysočina Region, September 2005.

• Binek, J. et. al.: Venkovský prostor a jeho oživení (Rural space and its regeneration), Brno: Georgetown, 2006, 145 pages, IŘON 80–251–195 (research task of the MRD WB 29–04).

• Demographic, social and economic development of the South–Moravian region in 2000–2004.

• Demographic, social and economic development of the Vysočina region in 2000–2004.

• Long–term plan for education and education system development in the South–Moravian region 2006.

• Long–term plan for education and education system development in the Vysočina Region, 2006.

• General transport plan of the South–Moravian region, February 2006.

• “Introducing the Vysočina region: Basic information on the surface area, population and economy“(12/2004).

• Backbone road pattern of the Vysočina Region, May 2006.

• Second class road network maintenance and repair plan for the Vysočina region prepared by using the RoSy® PMS system, 2005.

• Regional Operational Plan of the Vysočina region, May 2006.

• Regional Innovation Strategy of the South–Moravian region (Version II, 06/2005).

• Economy Development Strategy in the South–Moravian region (Volume 2: Analysis of the current status of economy in the South–Moravian region, 10/2005).

• Strategy of human resources development in the South–Moravian region (Situation analysis, 11/2005).

• Tourist barometer of South Moravia 2004, November 2004.

• Search study for brownfield localization in the territory of the South–Moravian region, August 2006.

• “Vysočina in figures (Popular Regional Statistics)“, January 2006.

15

1.2 ANALYSIS OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SITUATION

The approach to the analysis of the economic and social situation in the SE cohesion region is based on the fact that the two regions constituting this cohesion region have each prepared their own development documents for the purposes of their own regional development. These documents are the result of extensive and detailed analyses specifying all spheres of socio–economic life in the regions4. The analysis of the economic and social situation for ROP SE builds on these detailed analyses, making use of their data and figures to formulate analytical conclusions for ROP purposes.

The present economic and social situation in the region is assessed, especially in the context of EC legislation on the policy of economic and social cohesion, or more precisely, emphasis is put particularly on the areas whose financing is feasible within the framework of EU structural funds (namely ERDF). Furthermore, the approach to the analysis of the economic and social situation in the SE cohesion region takes into account the general approach of the Czech Republic to the division of competency between regional and thematic operational programmes as defined by the National Strategic Reference Framework of the Czech Republic.

The analytical conclusions therefore represent a starting point for the formulation of the SWOT analysis and subsequently the ROP SE strategy.

1.2.1 General description and position of the region

The NUTS 2 SE cohesion region informs, as indicated by its name, its geographical location within the Czech territory. The region borders the NUTS 2 cohesion regions of Central Moravia, North–East, Central Bohemia, and South–West, and is comprised of two NUTS 3 territorial units: the Vysočina region and the South–Moravian region (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Cohesion regions of the Czech Republic and demarcation of NUTS 2 SE (CZ 06).

Source: NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 regions of the Czech Republic, GIS of the Vysočina Regional Authority, 2005.

4 Development Strategy of the South-Moravian Region 2006; Profile of the Vysočina Region 2006.

16

With its surface area of 13,991 km2, the SE cohesion region is the second largest NUTS 2 cohesion region in the Czech Republic, after the South–West cohesion region. The NUTS 3 territorial units – the Vysočina region and the South–Moravian region – have a total area of 6,796 km2 and 7,195 km2, respectively. With its population of 1,641,125 (as of 1 January 2006), the NUTS 2 SE cohesion region is the most densely populated cohesion region in the Czech Republic, its proportion of the total Czech population being about 16%.

As to the position of the SE cohesion region in the Czech Republic’s economy, it is the second most important cohesion region, contributing about 15% of GDP generation. An important feature in the development of the economy of the SE cohesion region is the continuous growth of GDP since 1999.

Per capita GDP of the SE cohesion region represents 91.6% of the CR average, which ranks the region in third place behind the entirely specific capital, Prague, whose per capita GDP is more than double the CR average, and behind that of the cohesion region of Central Bohemia.

The development of this indicator in recent years also suggests gradual convergent tendencies towards the EU average. While the per capita GDP in the SE region was 58.1% of the EU average (CR av. 64.8%) in 2000 as converted according to purchasing power parity, in 2004 it was already 64.9% of the EU average (CR av. 70.9%). Published estimates5 indicate that the positive developmental trend can be expected to continue in the following years.

1.2.2 Social and economic situation of the region

1.2.2.1 Demographic development

In 2000–2005, the total population of the SE cohesion region decreased by ca. 1%6. A population prognosis prepared by CSO predicts a continuous naturally–occurring population decrease in the SE cohesion region in the coming years. According to the prepared projection, the number of inhabitants in the SE cohesion region should reach: 1,616,213 in 2010 and 1,597,660 in 20157.

Table 1: Prognosis of population development in the SE region

2002 2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Total 1 639 422 1 640 282 1 616 213 1 573 075 1 500 195 1 407 665 1 308 346

Age group:

0–14 257 933 244 269 220 432 215 440 187 954 169 195 160 235

15–64 1 146 945 1 157 110 113 5081 1 028 027 951 804 838 987 709 806

65+ 234 544 238 903 260 700 329 608 360 437 399 483 438 305 Source: CSO.

This decline is largely the consequence of a general societal development in the Czech Republic in recent decades. One of its characteristic features is a low birth rate. The population’s average lifespan is, however, constantly increasing. Combinations of these phenomena (as well as the impact of a whole range of other factors) result in a gradual population “ageing” with all the economic and social consequences accompanying the phenomenon.

A gradual decrease in the proportion of persons aged up to 14 years, and a continuous decrease in the proportion of the productive population component aged 15–65 years (i.e. working population) are to be expected also in the SE cohesion region. Conversely, the share of persons at post–productive age (over 65 years) is expected to grow.

Clearly, a number of fundamental measures must be implemented in order to ensure a sufficient labour

5 National Development Plan 2007 – 2013. 6 Source: Czech Statistical Office ČSÚ. 7 Note: without the influence of migration.

17

force for the economy of the SE cohesion region. One of them – within the framework of national policies – will be, without doubt, the gradually increasing age boundary for retirement.

In this connection, the assignment at a regional level must be, firstly, the implementation of measures that will lead to a “higher standard” and development of human resources in the region. The need can be fulfilled only through the co–action of various funds, i.e. regional and state budgets, but primarily from ESF. The regional operational programme should endeavour to create conditions for enhancing the population’s culture and the qualifications of the labour force. The effective development of human potential requires relevant complementary infrastructure together with the development of progressive economic sectors with high added value. This in turn requires improvement of health standards which will also result in extended working age. Last but not least, enhancing the attractiveness of the environment in towns and rural areas will support stabilization of the population. All this, together with available jobs, may at the same time be the impetus for a new inflow of population into the region.

1.2.2.2 Economy of the region, its competitiveness and growth potential

An important role in the region’s economy is played by small and medium–size companies which represent approx. 71% of all entities carrying out business in the region’s territory8.

As mentioned in the groundwork documents9, industrial production has recently been one of the sectors with the highest growth dynamics in both regions of the SE cohesion region, which significantly affects the entire region’s economy. The industry with the most prominent position in the region is engineering, particularly power, mechanical and electrical engineering. These are followed by the electronics industry and textile manufacturing, which is experiencing a long–term recession. Other industries of importance are the food, chemical and pharmaceutical industries, glass and ceramic fibres and wood–working industries10.

Table 2: Primary macro–economic indicators of the SE region

Indicator Unit of

measure 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Gross Value Added mil. CZK 313 336 325 736 341 450 358 897 382 722

Gross National Product in c.p. mil. CZK 345 641 358 360 375 559 399 889 427 009

Gross National Product, CR = 100 % 14.7 14.5 14.6 14.4 14.4

Gross National Product per capita CZK 209 999 218 416 229 105 243 883 260 327

GDP per capita, CR = 100 % 91.3 90.4 90.7 89.5 89.7

GDP per capita, EU25 = 100 % 60.3 61.4 61.9 63.1 66.1

GDP per capita, EU27 = 100 % 63.0 64.0 67.0 67.4 –

GDP, previous year = 100 % 103.7 101.5 104.0 102.8 106.4 Creation of gross fixed assets mil. CZK 85 010 86 484 91 339 100 154 107 203

Region’s share in THFK, CR = 100 % 12.9 12.8 13.3 13.7 14.5

THFK per capita Kč 51 649 52 711 55 720 61 082 65 356

THFK per capita, CR = 100 % 80.1 79.3 82.7 85.5 90.3 Net disposable household income mil. CZK 188 166 195 492 203 587 214 045 224 037

NDHI, CR = 100 % 15.4 15.3 15.2 15.5 15.5

NDHI per capita CZK 114 323 119 150 124 196 130 541 136 585

NDHI per capita, CR = 100 % 95.4 95.1 94.8 96.4 96.6 Source: CSO, www.czso.cz, Regional national accounts 2005, EUROSTAT.

8 Source: Czech Statistical Office ČSÚ. 9 Profile of the Vysočina Region (December 2005), Development Strategy for the South-Moravian Region – Update of the Region’s Profile (October 2005). 10 Profile of the Vysočina Region, 2006. Profile of the South-Moravian Region, 2006.

18

Table 3: Structure and Gross values added (GVA) of the SE region

Indicator Unit of

measure 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Gross value added mil. CZK 313 336 325 736 341 450 358 897 382 722

of this industry:

A agriculture and forestry % 6.8 5.7 5.2 5.5 4.8

B fisheries % 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0

C mining of minerals % 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.0

D processing industry % 27.8 27.1 26.4 26.9 27.4

E power generation and distribution % 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.5

F building % 6.2 6.2 7.1 7.2 7.3

G trade, consumer goods repair % 11.7 12.5 12.1 11.5 11.8

H catering and accommodation % 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.5

I transport, warehousing, % 9.4 10.1 10.2 9.6 9.1

J banking and insurance % 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.3

K commercial services % 14.1 13.5 13.3 13.4 14.1

L public administrative % 5.2 5.1 5.5 5.3 5.2

M schools % 4.7 4.8 5.1 5.1 5.1

N public health, veter. and social services % 3.9 4.3 4.0 4.3 4.0

O other public, and personal services % 2.1 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.8

P private households with domestic staff % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Q exterritorial organizations % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Source: CSO, www.czso.cz.

The structure of industries is influenced by big developers coming to the region. An increasingly significant role is also played by SME with innovation production programmes. The association of these enterprises in industrial branch–oriented clusters may considerably strengthen the region’s position in both scientific–technical and industrial development. In order to encourage the inflow of (particularly foreign) investments there is a range of newly–established industrial zones in the region.

Table 4: Some indicators of industrial production in 1999 and 2005 (enterprises with 20 and more employees)

Area, region

1999 2005 Index 04/99 (in %)

Receipts

(mil. CZK) Workers

Receipts/ Worker

(mil. CZK)

Receipts (mil. CZK)

Workers

Receipts/ Worker

(mil. CZK)

Recpts Workers

Czech Republic 1 645 297 1 216 536 1.35 2 573 134 1 128 962 2.28 156.39 92.80

SE 198 391 181 520 1.09 288 947 171 335 1.69 145.65 94.39

region (NUTS 3):

Vysočina region 59 894 61 708 0.97 111 261 63 772 1.74 185.76 103.34

South–Moravian r. 138 497 119 812 1.16 177 686 107 563 1.65 128.30 89.78 Source: CR Districts in 1999, 2004. CSO, Praha, 2000, 2005; own calculations.

The SE cohesion region has great potential for the development of innovations and innovative enterprise. Institutions and infrastructure supporting innovative businesses are e.g. Jihomoravské inovační centrum (South Moravian Innovations Centre), CTP Brno, CTP Modřice, Český technologický park (Czech Technology Park) Brno, Regional Development Agency of South Moravia, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, etc. The Vysočina region is preparing the construction of a Vysočina Region Technological Centre.

Another highly significant prerequisite is the presence of numerous academic facilities. In terms of academic educational institutions and scientific facilities, the SE cohesion region represents, after the

19

capital of Prague, the second most important academic and scientific centre in the Czech Republic11.

Table 5: The number and share of innovating enterprises in 2002–2003

Area, region

enterprises in selected fields of manufacture and services total innovating in processing industry in services

Total innovating % total innovating %

Czech Republic 23 928 6 202 25,9 14 214 3 988 28.1 9 714 2 214 22.8

SE 3 802 909 23,9 2 420 584 24.1 1 383 325 23.5

Vysočina region 1 094 310 28,4 828 266 32.2 266 44 16.5

South–Moravian r. 2 708 599 22,2 1 592 318 20.0 1 117 281 25.2 Source: CSO – Technical innovations in CR in 2002–2003, www.czso.cz, 2006, own calculations.

With respect to the potential in the field of innovation and R&D in the SE cohesion region, the main centre of development is the Brno agglomeration. The favourable image of the locality attracts foreign investors (largely to Brno), especially those engaged in high–tech and, increasingly, also in R&D. This is contributed to also by the continually developing structure of universities. Brno’s favourable geographical location and transport accessibility represent important preconditions for further development.

Table 6: Basic regional indicators of the SE region and the Czech Republic as of 31 December 2004:

Indicator Sphere Unit of

measure SE CR EU 27

Number of inhabitants

Population

Thousands 1 636 10 207 489 671

Population density Pers./sq.m 119.4 132.1 116.0

Population increase / decrease % – 0.2 – 0.1 0.3

GDP in PPS per capita, EU27 = 100

Economy

% 67.4 75.2 100.0

GDP/employee in Euro, EU27 = 100 % 32.7 35.7 100.0

GDP growth (average change in %) 1995–2004 % 1.9 2.2 2.3

People employed in agriculture (primer) % 6.0 4.0 6.2

People employed in the industrial sector % 40.6 39.5 27.7

People employed in services (tertiary) % 53.4 56.5 66.1

Expenditure on Research & Development (% GDP) % 1.1 1.3 1.8

Expenditure on R&D in the entre. sector (% GDP) % 0.6 0.8 1.2

Total employment rate of persons aged 15 – 64

Labour market

% 64.1 64.8 63.3

Employment rate of women aged 15 – 64 % 55.4 56.3 55.9

Total employment rate of persons aged 55 – 64 % 41.6 44.5 42.2

Total general rate of unemployment % 7.7 7.9 9.0

General rate of unemployment – women % 9.3 9.8 9.8

General rate of unemployment - age15 – 24 % 19.9 19.2 18.8

Long–term unemployment rate % 50.3 53.0 46.0

Proportion of population aged < 15 years

Age structure

% 15.3 15.2 16.3

Proportion of population aged 15 – 64 years % 70.3 70.8 67.3

Proportion of population aged 65+ % 14.4 13.9 16.4

Highest attained education – basic (25–64 years)

Education structure

% 9.6 10.1 29.1

Highest attained education – secondary (25–64 years) % 76.1 76.9 48.6

Highest attained education – higher and university (25–64 years)

% 14.3 13.1 22.4

Economic Lisbon indicator (to the average EU27 2004–2005)

Lisbon 0.53 0.57 0.51

Source: Growing regions, growing Europe. Fourth report on economic and social cohesion. EC 2007.

11 Note: with a total of 13 universities.

20

An important part is also played by medium-sized domestic companies focusing on innovation. These companies are able to bolster the use of scientific–technical potential and to contribute to the region’s economic competitiveness through their research and development.

At a time of advanced information and communication technologies, it is not necessary to concentrate the development of such companies only in Brno although the town will certainly keep its dominant position even in the future. For the region to progress, they should also be developed in other centres of the SE cohesion region. This would generate positive synergic effects for the whole region.

After reaching the goal it is of course necessary to create conditions that would sufficiently support the positive trend. A vital prerequisite is to strengthen and enhance transport accessibility in the progressing regional centres, emphasising both higher supra–regional transport links within the whole country or the European space, and problem–free connection and interconnection within the region itself - particularly accessibility of regional centres from their hinterlands.

Construction of suitable infrastructure for enterprise is one of the other necessary conditions. The development of modern entrepreneurial real estate is particularly important, with emphasis on regeneration or, preferably, utilization of brownfields. Assuring the availability of a qualified workforce is also essential. This objective can be achieved by promoting an educational system focused on acquisition of practical skills, by better interlinking of fields of study, by linking qualifications with labour market needs, and by higher workforce flexibility.

Table 7: Economic entities as of 31 December 2004

CR SE Vysočina South Moravian

Total number of registered units 2 388 490 354 006 95 715 258 291 Size category (by the number of employees)

not indicated 721 093 102 410 26 364 76 046

with no employees 1 382 128 209 702 58 435 151 267

1 – 5 183 703 31 993 8 203 23 790

6 – 19 70 740 4 433 1 082 3 351

20 – 49 17 365 3 218 908 2 310

50 – 99 7 402 1 239 409 830

100 – 499 5 198 894 281 613

500 – 999 554 73 20 53

1 000 – 1 499 129 23 9 14

1 500 – 1 999 65 9 2 7

2 000 – 2 499 33 3 0 3

2 500 – and more 80 9 2 7

Dominant activity OKEČ

agriculture, forestry and fisheries 135 216 27 931 10 733 17 198

industry and power engineering 310 776 51 241 14 895 36 346

building industry 269 625 40 238 11 294 28 944

trade, accommodation and catering 781 257 105 136 27 388 77 748

transport, warehousing and communications 82 677 10 385 2 736 7 649

financial intermediation 71 039 11 113 3 392 7 721

activities in real estates; entre. activities 457 911 66 923 12 796 54 127

public administration and defence; 15 434 3 099 1 701 1398

education 35 208 5 160 1 350 3 810

health and social services;

34 026 5 163 1 485 3 678

other public, social and personal services 192 321 27 617 7 945 19 672

Source: Statistical Annual Reports of regions 2006, own calculations.

21

1.2.2.3 Human resources and labour market

The economic transformation which began after 1989 markedly affected the labour force in the SE cohesion region. The 1990s were characterized by a rapid decrease in the number of workers in manufacturing industries of the national economy, accompanied by increasing numbers of persons working in the tertiary sphere, particularly in trade and services. The trend was recorded in all regions of the Czech Republic.

Before the end of 2005, the number of persons employed in the SE region’s territory decreased by about a tenth, with the drop being most obvious in the primary sphere of the economy. The existing number of persons employed in this sector is about 38% of the 1989 figure.

The employment composition in the region is gradually nearing that of advanced economies. The proportion of the workforce in the manufacturing sectors (agriculture, industry) has decreased while the proportion in total employment in manufacturing sectors has increased. Table 8: Workers in national economy by industries – SE (in thousands of persons)

1995 2000 2005

Total 778.6 760.5 750.6

Agriculture, game management and related activities 58.3 48.1 39.3

Forestry, fisheries, fish culture and related activities 8.6 9.2 6.0

Mining of minerals 7.7 4.4 2.8

Processing industry 234.9 220.5 216.1

Generation and distribution of el. energy, heat and water 14.9 13.1 10.4

Building industry 69.9 69.7 75.6

Trade, repair of motor vehicles and consumer goods 81.0 91.1 89.5

Accommodation and catering 20.0 20.4 22.6

Transport, warehousing, communications 53.6 45.2 52.4

Financial intermediation 11.6 13.4 13.1

Real estates and leasing, entrepreneurial activities 46.0 41.5 46.5

Public administration and defence, obligatory social insurance 46.7 56.3 49.9

Education 59.1 54.7 48.9

Health and social services, veterin. activities 41.1 47.3 53.4

Other public, social and personal services 24.7 24.2 23.2

Household activities – 0.7 0.7

Exterritorial organizations and institutions – – –

Not indicated – – –

Source: CSO.

The region’s employment rate in the first quarter of 2006 was 53.1%, which is less than the national average (54.7%). In terms of job sectors, the largest proportion of persons work in the tertiary sector of the economy (63%), followed by the secondary sector (41.4%) and the primary sector (5.6%).

Table 9: Employment rate (in %)

2003 2004 2005

Czech Republic 64.7 64.2 64.8

EU27 62.5 62.9 63.4

EU25 62.9 63.3 63.8

SE 64.7 64.2 64.8

Source: EUROSTAT, CSO, MPSV.

22

Unemployment

The SE cohesion region reports an unemployment rate comparable with the Czech national average. In the fourth quarter of 2005 it amounted to 7.5% while the national average was 7.8%12. Of the 8 NUTS 2 cohesion regions in the Czech Republic, higher unemployment is recorded only in the cohesion regions of Moravian Silesia, North–West and Central Moravia.

Unemployment in the SE cohesion region exhibits a distinct internal territorial differentiation, the unemployment rate in the most affected micro regions being 4.5–times higher than in micro regions with the lowest unemployment rate13. Common characteristics of areas with high unemployment include poor transport accessibility, peripheral location of regional centres, insufficient equipment with services and infrastructure, and lower skills of the local labour force14.

Table 10: General unemployment rate for the age group 15+ in %

1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006*)

Czech Republic 4.0 8.8 8.1 7.3 7.8 8.3 7.9 8.0

EU 27 9.2 8.7 9.1 9.2 9.2 9.0

EU25 9.2 8.6 8.9 9.2 9.2 9.0

SE 3.4 7.8 7.8 6.8 7.2 7.9 7.7

Vysočina region 3.7 6.8 6.1 5.1 5.3 6.8 6.8 6.8

South–Moravian region 3.3 8.3 8.5 7.6 8.0 8.3 8.1 8.9

Source: EUROSTAT, CSO, MPSV. *) 1st Quarter 2006.

One of the main reasons for the high unemployment rate in the region is the discrepancy between the qualifications of job applicants and the requirements of the labour market15. Groundwork studies in the SE cohesion region provided a positive assessment of the structure of schools and educational establishments in terms of their territorial distribution, number and type. It is necessary, however, to continue the ongoing optimization of the entire network of schools, paying attention to demographic trends16. The material condition of individual schools in the region varies greatly. The best conditions can be seen in gymnasiums and large secondary technical schools. The machinery and equipment in most vocational training colleges is functional but frequently does not meet the requirements of the dynamically developing field of practice17.

This is of particular concern in the secondary education system where it is necessary to redesign the existing fields of study and to align them with labour market requirements, thereby raising the competitiveness of the region’s economy. These measures could be supported by regional interventions of thematic operational programmes with a contribution from ESF funds. Development and improvement of educational infrastructure is within the scope of ROP. Through the combined action of thematic OPs and ROP it will be possible to achieve significant synergic effects, leading in turn to raising of the population’s cultural level and an improvement in the quality of the region’s labour force.

The requirements for assurance of economic growth in the SE cohesion region, positive development of a society with constantly changing needs, and for continuous adaptation all call for a new concept of life–long education. Its implementation is requires changes, both in the education of children and young people, and in adult education. Although having the potential, the educational institutions in the region have not so far become vehicles of development in the ongoing education of adults. In the field of adult

12 ČSÚ – Sample survey of labour force (made according to ILO methodology). 13 Based on data provided by Správa služeb zaměstnanosti MPSV. Microregions are demarcated by districts of administration under mandated municipal authorities. 14 Profile of the Vysočina Region (December 2005), Development Strategy of the South-Moravian Region – Update of the Region’s Profile (October 2005). 15 Analysis of labour market status and development in the Vysočina region for 2005, Report on labour market situation in the South-Moravian region for 2005. 16 Long-term plan for education and educational system development in the South-Moravian region, 2006; Long-term plan for education and educational system development in the Vysočina region, 2006. 17 Dtto.

23

education it is necessary to emphasize the importance of informal education provided by non–profit organizations, educational and training institutions, citizen’s associations, companies and organizations, counselling firms, professional groups, unions, etc. Considerable potential exists in this field for the synergy of “hard“ developments financed from ERDF, and ESF–funded “soft“ activities focused on the development of human resources.

1.2.2.4 Tourism

Tourism is an important component of economic activity in the SE cohesion region. Based on data presented in the groundwork documents18, it is possible to delineate 2 main tourist areas in the SE region’s territory – Vysočina in the NW part of the region and South Moravia in the SE section.

Table 11: Capacity of accommodation facilities as of 31 December 2005

Number of facilities Rooms Beds

CR in total 7 608 164 871 435 993

SE 851 18 429 49 358

Vysočina region 354 6 402 18 803

Southmoravian region 497 12 027 30 555

Source: CSO.

Vysočina offers a wide choice of areas and facilities for summer and winter hiking, as well as valuable cultural and historic sites. Attractions of international significance in this region include, for example, the urban conservation area of Telč, the Jewish Quarter and St. Procop’s Basilica in Třebíč, and the national cultural monument site of the pilgrimage church of St. John of Nepomuk on the Zelená Hora mountain near Žďár nad Sázavou, all of which are listed by UNESCO as world heritage sites. Apart from Telč, two other urban conservation areas are the historic town centres of Jihlava and Pelhřimov. A large part of the Bohemian–Moravian Upland is favourable for winter tourism – especially cross–country skiing. The Žďárské vrchy highland is an exceptional location and a skiing centre of national prominence. In terms of the distribution pattern of tourist attractions, there is an apparent tendency to concentrate tourist facilities and infrastructure (lodging and boarding facilities, services) in several more prominent centres, towns and recreational localities. The seasonal character of tourist arrivals is a weak point, with a marked fall in attendance during the summer months. The dominant recreational function of Vysočina is moderately strenuous recreation and active tourism in the important summer season. Potential future developments include the increasingly popular tranquil and ecologically–clean hotel–based tourism. There is also great potential for development of learning tourism through visits to cultural and historic sites. The future development of tourism in Vysočina should also be focused on the development of rural tourism and agro–tourism emphasising greater use of cultural wealth, with the construction of more cycling tracks (including related services), with the use of waterways and with the preparation of specific programmes to increase visiting rates (incl. cultural and sports festivals and competitions of international significance).

South Moravia is rich in historic sites which demonstrate that this part of the SE cohesion region was one of the most prominent settlement centres at all stages of primeval and medieval history. It is a district of numerous castles and manors, and the potential for culture–learning tourism can also be seen in the historic urban and architectural structure of the centres of both larger towns and small rural villages (folk architecture). Examples of attractions of pan–European significance are the Lednice–Valtice area, the Tugendhat Villa in Brno and the biospheric reserve of Dolní Morava – all listed by UNESCO as world heritage objects. The urban conservation areas in Brno, Mikulov and Znojmo are also remarkable. South Moravia typically caters for the needs of individual hikers for tourist sojourns at rivers and other bodies of water, culture–learning tourism, and hiking and cycling around interesting nature sites. A specific demand in the region is for wine tourism and a further notable development is water tourism. Demand in Brno is centred mainly on urban culture–learning tourism, congress and sports tourism, and many visitors arrive in Brno in connection with the organization of 18 E.g.:The concept of state policy of tourism in the Czech Republic for the period 2007 – 2013, Tourism in regions of the Czech Republic, 2003; Profile of the Vysočina region, 2006; Profile of the South-Moravian region, 2006.

24

international trade fairs and exhibitions. Only one town (Hodonín) has the status of a health resort. The Hodonín spa is one of the most recently opened, therapies beginning there in 1979. The quality of water from the local mineral springs is among the best of its kind in Europe. Natural mineral springs, containing curative substances like iodine and bromine, are used to cure illnesses of the locomotive organs, root syndromes and illnesses of the circulatory system. The potential for spa tourism in the SE region is not sufficiently utilized as compared with other Czech regions. The situation should change for the better in future thanks to the construction of new balneal facilities in the Lednice and Pasohlávky district19.

Table 12: Use of beds and rooms in hotels and similar accommodation facilities in 2005

Gross use of beds (%) Net use of beds (%) Use of rooms (%)

CR in total 33.8 35.8 42.4

Vysočina region 23.3 24.8 29.9

Southmoravian region 26.0 27.2 34.1

Source: CSO.

In terms of basic tourist data, approximately 11% of the total numbers of large accommodation facilities in the Czech Republic are in the SE cohesion region and approximately the same proportion of number of beds (11.3% out of the total number in the Czech Republic in 2005). Considering that the population of the SE region represents roughly 16% of the overall Czech population, the region’s share of accommodation facilities is relatively low. The utilization of beds and rooms in the region is also below the average values. In 2005, 3.5 million guests stayed overnight in large accommodation facilities in the cohesion region (8.6% of the total number in the Czech Republic), of which approximately 874, 000 were foreigners (only 4.5% of the total number in the Czech Republic).20

Table 13: Guests in mass accommodation facilities I – Arrivals

Arrivals

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

CR in total 10 863 772 11 283 185 10 415 255 11 346 482 12 219 689 12 361 793

SE 1 294 985 1 275 784 1 190 305 1 440 550 1 413 519 1 445 442

Vysočina region 392 253 383 766 383 724 399 905 399 005 389 135

Southmoravian region 902 732 892 018 806 581 1 040 645 1 014 514 1 056 307

of this arrivals of foreigners

CR in total 4 772 794 5 405 239 4 742 773 5 075 756 6 061 225 6 336 128

SE 379 334 376 355 382 034 386 578 410 124 426 721

Vysočina region 60 318 71 768 67 826 55 879 64 194 59 282

Southmoravian region 319 016 304 587 314 208 330 699 345 930 367 439

Source: CSO.

The potential for tourism in the SE cohesion region is realized only partially at present, due especially to poor transport infrastructure, and as well as unsatisfactory primary and complementary tourism infrastructure; the availability and quality of services in many tourist centres do not meet high standards21. The supply of specialized and original tourist products and programmes is inadequate, and there are also limitations in tourist organizational structure and in human resources, information, advertising and marketing22.

Another limiting factor in increasing the attendance at interesting showplaces in the region is their poor transport accessibility due to the poor quality of roads and transportation services, and the absence of safe tracks for cyclists. A serious and long–standing problem for owners and custodians of historic and cultural sites in the region is the high cost of their maintenance and refurbishment. Many of these monuments are at risk of deterioration in their technical condition due to lack of finance.

19 Development strategy of the South-Moravian region – Update of the Region’s Profile, 2006. 20 For details see the tables in the Appendix to ROP. 21 Acknowledged for example by service quality certification. 22 Development strategy of the South-Moravian region – Update of the Region’s Profile, 2006.

25

Table 14: Guests in mass accommodation facilities II – Nights

Nights

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

CR in total 44 199 616 39 122 187 37 109 835 39 343 250 40 780 708 40 320 477

SE 5 058 216 3 688 461 3 266 655 3 816 381 3 442 600 3 481 729

Vysočina region 1 830 475 1 388 628 1 264 991 1 368 955 1 229 548 1 160 101

Southmoravian region 3 227 741 2 299 833 2 001 664 2 447 426 2 213 052 2 321 628

of this nights spent by foreigners

CR in total 15 597 087 17 254 881 15 569 156 16 510 618 18 980 462 19 595 035

SE 949 166 808 196 854 483 821 746 845 099 874 225

Vysočina region 190 591 188 036 201 964 174 722 191 351 193 722

Southmoravian region 758 575 620 160 652 519 647 024 653 748 680 503

Source: CSO.

Tourism can significantly contribute to economic development in the SE region by the creation of new jobs and by increasing receipts from services provided to visitors. In order to make maximum use of this potential, the focus must be on specific local conditions and the unique features of the region. On this basis, relevant tourist products and programmes can be developed provided that the region’s unique attractions are sufficiently publicized and high–quality services are offered which are well accessible to transport. Only in this way will the region be able to compete with other tourist destinations, to attract visitors and to increase receipts from tourism.

It also contributes to tourism development and improvement of regional transport infrastructure network because tourism depends on the quality of the whole range of regional infrastructure and accessibility. The scope of the ROP SE allows it to directly influence only part of the infrastructure – the accessibility.

1.2.3 Transport accessibility

In terms of transportation, the NUTS 2 SE is one of the most important regions in the Czech Republic. It represents an important crossing of two main central–European road transport routes: from Germany and northern Europe down to the Balkans, and from Poland and the eastern Baltic down to Austria and Italy.

For further development of NUTS 2 SE better interconnectivity with EU member states as well as with other European countries is of crucial importance. Also for this reason the Conference of Ministers of Transport of the European Union demarcated 10 pan-European transport corridors. Uniqueness of the NUTS 2 Southeast transport location is further emphasized by the fact that it lies on the intersection of IV corridor (Dresden/Nuremberg – Prague – Vienna/Bratislava – Györ – Budapest – Bucharest – Sofia – Istanbul) and VI corridor, strand B (Gdansk – Warsaw – Katowice – Ostrava – Brno – Vienna) of the Trans-European Network (TEN–T). By decision No. 884/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 for the development of the trans-European transport network within the area of NUTS 2 SE parts of three projects should be realized. Namely they are project No. 22 (Railway Axis Athens –Sofia–Budapest–Wien–Prague–Nurnberg/Dresden), project No. 23 (Railway Axis Gdansk – Warszawa – Brno/Bratislava – Wien) and project No. 25 (Motorway Axis Gdansk-Brno/Bratislava-Wien).

The residential significance of the city of Brno has influenced the current mainly radial road patterns in the territory of the entire SE cohesion region, whose border regions merge with other important tangents (the corridor along the Morava River in the East, the traditional connection between Prague and Vienna through Jihlava and Znojmo in the West, and the NS corridor representing a connecting line from Poland through Pardubice – Havlíčkův Brod – Pelhřimov – Jindřichův Hradec – České Budějovice – to Austria).

Table 15: Transportation services in the region

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Train connections in total 13 642 21 509 21 509 21 401 21 605 Public bus transport connects. in NUTS 2 in total 72 700 73 799 73 672 83 356 82 355

Source: Statistics of the CR MD.

26

1.2.3.1 Road transport Among the most important road transport routes in the territory of the SE cohesion region are above all two multimodal corridors (No. IV and VI) of the TEN–T network. Road transport is in the framework of the IV multimodal corridor ensured by extremely used motorway D1 (Prague – Brno – (Kroměříž)) and motorway D2 (Brno – Bratislava). For the VI multimodal corridor the R46 ((Brno) – Vyškov – Olomouc) and R52 (Brno – Pohořelice – (Vienna)) motorways are the backbone communications within the scope of road transport. The VI multimodal corridor will be significantly improved by project No. 25 (Motorway axis Gdansk-Brno/Bratislava-Wien) before year 2020.

Other important routes are those indicated by TINA. This network also includes, apart from the above mentioned corridor lines, motorways I/43 (Brno – Svitavy), I/55 (Břeclav – Přerov) and I/47 (Vyškov – Přerov – Hranice na Moravě).

A vital and conclusive role in transport accessibility in the SE cohesion region is played by state–owned motorways and 1st class roads and by the linked regional road network with non–primary 2nd and 3rd class roads owned by regions. The regional road transport network plays a very important role in the region’s internal transport mobility, for it connects all larger regional centres, at the same time providing, transport accessibility to these centres from their hinterlands including connections with rural areas.

Table 16: Road network length as of 31December 2005 (in km)

Area, region motorway Roads

total total 1st class 2nd class 3rd class

Region (NUTS 2):

Prague 11 61 31 30 0 72

Central Bohemia 174 9 400 780 2 369 6 251 9 574

South–West 115 11 135 1 073 3 150 6 912 11 250

North–West 29 6 188 716 1 465 4 007 6 217

North–East 0 9 772 1 205 2 301 6 265 9 772

SE 228 9 373 870 3 112 5 390 9 601

Central Moravia 8 5 672 765 1 497 3 411 5 680

Moravia–Silesia 0 3 344 713 744 1 887 3 344

Region (NUTS 3):

Vysočina region 93 5 003 422 1 632 2 949 5 096

Southmoravian region 135 4 370 448 1 480 2 442 4 505 Source: Ředitelství silnic a dálnic ČR – Roads and motorways in the Czech Republic 2005, www.rsd.cz, own calculations.

Based on the assessment of data from the strategic documents of regions23, internal groundwork and consultations with transport experts from the transport departments of regional authorities, with the KSÚS (Regional Road Administration and Maintenance) and with others, the main road infrastructure problems of the SE cohesion region are as follows:

• Incomplete network of regional communications, i.e. 2nd and 3rd class roads, • Poor quality of most surface routes of all ranks, particularly their poor and long–neglected

technical condition, • Insufficient capacity of the most loaded arteries, and • Poor transport accessibility of some areas in the region (this applies particularly to the Vysočina

region and to areas on regional boundaries), which endangers their further economic

23 Esp.: General transport plan of the South-Moravian region, February 2006; Development strategy of the South-Moravian region – Profile of the Region, May 2006; Profile of the Vysočina region, June 2006; Backbone pattern of the Vysočina region – Material for the regional council, May 2006. Preliminary proposal of the programme and reconstructions, repairs and new constructions of 2nd and 3rd class roads of the South Moravian Region for the period 2007 – 2013. The list of projects approved by the resolution of the council of the Vysočina region No. 0124/02/2007/ZK for the period 2007-2009 and proposal of projects (of 2nd and 3rd class roads) of the Vysočina Region with supposed submission of application for the period 2007 – 2013.

27

development and which causes social exclusion of inhabitants, especially in term of equal opportunities.24

A negative consequence of increasing individual passenger car and lorry traffic on surface routes in the cohesion region is the local increase in air pollution, particularly along the most frequented arteries, in the centres of towns cut by traffic arteries, and also at the border crossings to Austria and Slovakia. The implementation of measures leading to the enhancement of environmental quality for the population living in affected areas will call for further considerable investments in the construction of required infrastructure that would deflect the transit transport from towns (road bypasses) and contribute to smoother traffic flow (widening of carriageways, construction of roundabouts, etc.). Investments in this area, as well as support of mass public transport and unpowered transport, are absolutely necessary for the improvement of the transport situation in the region in order to compensate for the environmental impact of individual automobile conveyance.

Road networks function as a whole from the highest rank to the lowest. For the region to be able to fully use opportunities created by means of government investments in “large“ road networks at a national or European level (TEN–T), it will also be very important to invest in the modernization and enhancement of connecting links in the regional road network. This network consists mainly of 2nd class roads and selected sections of 3rd class roads, the total length of which is 8.5 thousand km. The total length of the 2nd class roads intersecting the region is 3,115 km; if the population of the city of Brno is not considered, there are 2.5 km of roads per 1,000 inhabitants in the cohesion region – i.e. the second highest value in the Czech Republic. Their connection to the TEN–T network is, with respect to the economic development of the regions, of great importance because they connect primarily mid–sized towns, characterized by growth potential, to multimodal transport arteries.

The present condition of the road network in the SE cohesion region falls far short of the region’s economic or road traffic safety25.needs This is due mainly to historical factors and was caused by the regions' limited budgets. The intention of the SE cohesion region is therefore a gradual modernization and reconstruction of the regional road network.

Only very good transport accessibility in the region, as viewed in the broader context of the central–European space, combined with problem–free internal interconnection of the region’s important urban development centres and their accessibility from their hinterlands will create satisfactory prerequisites for successful development of economic activities to enhance the region’s competitiveness and to ensure its economic development. Efficient, flexible and safe road infrastructure increases productivity, and hence the prospects for the region’s development, by facilitating the movement of persons and goods. A high–standard road network leads to increased business opportunities and, at the same time, to the increased effectiveness of enterprise.

1.2.3.2 Public transport

The 1990s witnessed a steep increase in the number of passenger cars in both the SE region and in the whole country. As a result, traffic intensity increased markedly, especially on the most frequented arteries but also in towns and villages. Increasing the attractiveness of public passenger transport therefore appears very desirable and needs to take into account the traffic load in the region, the condition and capacity of local road networks and obsoleteness of traffic control systems.

Table 17: Passenger transport in the region (thous. persons)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

City public transport 374 379 384 310 372 872 366 537 366 427

Railway transport in region – total 18 774 22 216 20 470

Railway transport of passengers within IDS – total 81 4 814 4 441

Public bus transport in region 65 093 57 153 68 417 51 264 46 668

Source: Statistics of the CR MD

24 See NSRF Chapter 7.2.3, page 37. 25 Dtto.

28

An integrated transport system is being systematically developed in the SE region’s territory at present (hereinafter “IDS“). It is playing an important role in the removal of barriers to population mobility, and will represent a key contribution to the control of unemployment and to the enhancement of the SE region’s competitiveness. The IDS is coming into existence in stages and the goal is its introduction across the territory of the cohesion region. It makes use of the advantages, and suppresses the disadvantages, of individual means of transport, making possible their mutual interconnection, distinct improvement in the supply of transportation services in the area, as well as connection between the centres of settlement and stream zones. This improves the accessibility of regional centres (Brno in particular) for commuting workers, these centres being the main focus for business development and the creation of new jobs, partly preventing the outflow of people from peripheral areas. The existence of IDS also considerably supports the development of tourism at both local and regional levels.

Table 18: Primary IDS data – SE region Inhabitants in the territory of 1st, 2nd and 3rd stage of IDS 685 211

Surface area of 1st, 2nd and 3rd stage of IDS (ha) 242 899

Number of municipalities engaged in IDS 257

Number of lines of 1st, 2nd and 3rd stage of IDS 168

Number of train lines 7

Number of City public transport lines 81

Number of regional bus transport lines 80

Source: KORDIS JMK, spol. s.r.o.

As mentioned in expert studies26, the main task in the future will be – with respect to the expected further increase in population mobility – at least maintaining the existing transport division between individual automobile conveyance (IAD) and public transport (VHD). This will be achieved through the enhanced supply of public transport services and a slight regulation of the amount of individual transport. The enhancement and higher efficiency of public transport will be achieved primarily by the development of integrated transport with the inclusion of the related IAD function (P+R, Bike+R, K+R systems).

The development of integrated transport systems in the territory of the SE region will be focused in coming years especially on the gradual extension of IDS, progressing from regional centres (Brno in particular so far) to more distant areas. A necessary requirement for properly functioning IDS is the organization of related bus and individual transport in selected terminals on railway branches. The terminals (and the necessary infrastructure) are to be modified and equipped with additional facilities in the further stages of IDS development according to local conditions.

A further integral part of efforts focused on sustaining the attractiveness of public transport as a whole is the enhancement of passenger comfort by means of fleet modernization and renovation, both of which were largely neglected in the past.

1.2.3.3 Air transport Air transport is the most dynamically growing branch of the transportation industry, not only in the Czech Republic but also in a global context27. It also plays an increasingly important role in the development of the SE region. In the region’s territory there is a public international civil airport, Brno–Tuřany, with both regular and irregular passenger and freight transport, whose owner is the South–Moravian region. Air transport operated from this airport provides fast connection of the SE region with other European regions and large urban agglomerations. A necessary precondition is the enhancement of the airport’s performance and significance. At present, the airport operates 3 regular lines (London, Prague, Moscow, and Barcelona/Gerona from October 29, 2007) and it is to be expected that the number of serviced destinations will gradually increase28. Other air transport at the airport is of irregular character (with a dominant share of charter flights to Mediterranean tourist destinations). A plan to meet the airport’s future needs is

26 See e.g. General Transport Plan of the Southmoravian region. 27 Transport Policy of the Czech Republic for 2005-2013. 28 General Transport Plan of the South-Moravian Region.

29

outlined in the Territorial Master Plan of the Brno – Tuřany airport, which is part of the Territorial Plan of the City of Brno. The proposed development will be carried out in three phases in order to achieve the gradual completion of construction necessary for the provision of the planned transport performance which, according to the airport statistics29, is growing on a yearly basis. Some phases have already been implemented (especially construction of the new passenger terminal) in the last program period 2004–2006 from ERDF through Operational Programme Infrastructure. Further, in accordance with the growth of operations it is necessary to complete the construction of the check–in area and the airport infrastructure, provision of the airport with equipment for flight operation, construction of hangars and reconstruction of taxiways etc.30 If the present condition of the airport is considered, these investments are necessary to ensure that the airport is capable of responding to the rapid growth in its air transport (see Table 19).

The significance and concurrently the potential of the Brno–Tuřany airport lie especially in its strategic geographical location on the boundary between Western and Eastern Europe, and its advantageous position with respect to destinations in the Near East, Persian Gulf, Far East and Russia. It is an important transport connecting point particularly for the City of Brno , which is an industrial, commercial, administrative and cultural centre of importance for the SE region and the entire Czech Republic, and also an important centre for fairs and exhibitions which attracts more than 5000 exhibitors from Europe and non–European countries annually.31

The Brno – Tuřany airport is especially important for Brno’ position as the second biggest Czech city, as well as for the whole cohesion region. The vital importance of Brno’s accessibility by air– for investors, exhibitors, visitors to the vicinity and more remote tourist attractions (UNESCO monuments, national park, Moravian Karst, etc.) and for pendlers (= participant of a short–term work migration especially those using the regular airline to London) – is also documented by the increased number of checked–in passengers.

Table 19: Primary statistics of the International Airport Brno–Tuřany

Year Aircraft movements Number of checked–in passengers

1995 8 000 87 000 2000 6 289 112 797 2001 8 136 128 583 2002 12 620 157 257 2003 16 596 166 142 2004 17 823 171 888 2005 16 126 315 672 2006 20 105 393 686

Source: www.airport–brno.cz

The number of passengers rose by almost 350 % between 2000 and 2006. The feasibility study prepared for the previous project showed satisfactory economic efficiency and recovery of investment. Each of eight resulting variants calculated in the framework of the project proved to be viable32.

These activities significantly aid the development of the local economy and contribute to a general bolstering of the region’s competitiveness (especially the influx of new investors, know–how transfer, development of specific services etc.).

29 See www.airport-brno.cz. 30 For further information see the Territorial Master Plan of the Brno-Tuřany airport, Transport Master Plan of the South Moravian Region, Principles for the Spatial Development of the City of Brno, Brno City Plan etc. 31 See www. airport-brno.cz. 32 See feasibility study of project „Construction of check-in terminal of airport Brno“ – project was financed by ERDF through OP I in period 2004 – 2006

30

1.2.3.4 Unpowered transport

The geographical location and natural conditions of the SE region provide an excellent foundation for the development of bicycle transport. At the same time, recreational cycling represents one of the main trends in modern tourism. The issue of bicycle transport in the region is conceived in several studies33 which summarize the present situation and propose strategies for the development of a network of bicycle tracks in the region’s territory.

Tourist bicycle tracks are classified as international, supra–regional, regional, local and other tracks, and they are linked with Austrian and Slovak networks. The South–Moravian region is cut by long-distance tracks named Pražská, Moravská and Jantarová (component parts of the European EURO VELO network) with other tracks being for example the Greenways Prague–Vienna, Czech–Austrian border cycle–way, Jihlava–Český Těšín, Jeseník–Znojmo, Hradec Králové–Břeclav cycle tracks. In the southern section of the region, wine tracks are important parts of the tourist infrastructure. Important the count of thematic tracks and the inclusion of existing bicycle tracks in tourist programmes are however still at an unsatisfactory level. The same applies to equipment for field information, solutions at collision points (points of meeting other roads or obstacles) and complementary services for bikers along the tracks (parking for cyclists, rest stops, amenities, etc.). A further problem is the low proportion of safe sections on the existing bicycle tracks34. For bicycle transport to function as a regulator of IAD, the construction of high–quality bicycle tracks, which is still very much behind35, is essential.

Cycling as a form of transport is not a minor trend but rather an alternative to other types of transport. It can offer considerable flexibility for moving around urban environs and may represent a partial solution for transportation services in the region. The interlinking of bicycle infrastructure in the form of urban networks of bicycle paths and regional patterns of bicycle tracks enables at the same time, smooth movement of cyclists and hikers with bicycles. Thus bicycle tourism can also play an important role in the urban environment. Town cycling tracks and paths can take their users, without traffic jams36, to historic town–centres, municipal parks, nature reserves, recreational areas and swimming–pools.

1.2.4 Regional disparities

1.2.4.1 Settlement pattern

The settlement pattern of the Czech Republic is characterized by its fragmentation which is a result of historic development. The number of self–governing municipalities currently existing in the Czech Republic is over 6 thousand, a quite exceptional situation as compared with other European countries37.

There are 1,376 self–governing municipalities in the territory of the SE cohesion region. Of these, 92% are municipalities with populations of up to 2,000. Only two municipalities have more than 50 thousand inhabitants. The specific character of the settlement pattern does not make it possible to define the concept of “towns” in the usual European context (see Fig. 2 of Appendix A).

33 E.g. Study for the finalization of cycling infrastructure and specific forms of biking in the South-Moravian region, etc. 34 i.e. bicycle tracks in the form of self-contained tracks constructed mainly for cyclists, skaters, scooter riders, etc. possibly also for pedestrians, and provided with road markings. 35 Profile of the Vysočina Region, 2006. Profile of the South-Moravian Region, 2006. 36 National Strategy for the Development of Bicycle Transport of the Czech Republic, January 2005. 37 Belgium which is comparable with the Czech Republic both in terms of surface area and population size has for example 589 municipalities; the Netherlands with the population by a half greater than the Czech Republic have only 458 municipalities.

31

Table 20: Size groups of municipalities as of 1 January 2005

Municipalities

Size group

Total

Municipalities with the

administrative statue of the

city

up to 1 999

2 000 to 9 999

10 000 to 99 999

over 100 000

Czech Republic Municipalities 5 612 505 126 5 6 248 527 Inhabitants 2 689 676 2 054 988 3 362 832 2 113 081 10 220 577 7 174 756 Share in % 26.3 20.1 32.9 20.7 100.0 70.2

SE Municipalities 1 266 93 16 1 1 376 80 Inhabitants 549 623 371 893 351 109 367 729 1 640 354 1 007 952 Share in % 33.5 22.7 21.4 22.4 100.0 61.4

Vysočina region

Municipalities 673 23 8 0 704 33 Inhabitants 213 373 110 335 186 406 0 510 114 298 077 Share in % 41.8 21.6 36.6 0.0 100.0 58.4

Southmoravian region

Municipalities 593 70 8 1 672 47 Inhabitants 336 250 261 558 164 703 367 729 1 130 240 709 875 Share in % 29.8 23.1 14.6 32.5 100.0 62.8

Source: CSO.

The policy of spatial development of the Czech Republic38 demarcates two development areas in the territory of the SE region with distinctive concentration of activities of international or national significance: Brno and Jihlava. The poles of development are created by these two urban agglomerations, which may also be designated as urbanization centres39, with a diversified economic structure and with a representation of industries able to generate growth in their surroundings.

There are other centres of regional significance that can be distinguished in the settlement pattern of the SE cohesion region. These are towns with over 5000 inhabitants, as well as the towns of Pohořelice and Židlochovice, which have the status of municipalities with extended authority.

With respect to the territorial concept of growth potential in the SE region, the above mentioned urbanization centres, as well as some regional centres in which higher order socio–economic functions are concentrated, could become the key poles of economic growth of the region. A subsequent flow-on effect to hinterlands will enable stimulated development of the whole settlement system including its competitiveness. Therefore it is necessary to stimulate the development of these urban areas/regional centres by means of suitable instruments and to contribute to the solution of problems they have to face.

1.2.4.2 Urbanization centres (poles of growth) and regional centres

The population in the above urbanization and regional centres amounts to more than two thirds (71.3%) of the SE region’s total. The centres concentrate business and investment activities, job opportunities and in connection with them, also public services and civic amenities. The stimulation of these centres (urban areas) as the SE region’s poles of growth must take into account the comprehensive development of these urbanized spaces as well as regional and supra–regional contexts. Specifically the development of socio–economic functions of the urbanization centres as the most prominent poles of growth must proceed through an integrated approach utilizing and combining in the most appropriate way all possibilities and

38 Spatial Development Policy of the Czech Republic, approved by the Czech government in May 2006, is a landuse planning instrument to determine requirements and frameworks for the concretization of landuse planning assignments in the national, cross-border and international context, namely with respect to sustainable development of the territory, which establishes the strategy and the basic conditions for the fulfilment of these assignments. The Spatial Development Strategy of the Czech Republic provides a framework for the consensual development and validation of the Czech territory. Among other things it specifies areas of increased requirements for changes in the territory due to the concentration of activities of international and national significance or activities the significance of which reaches beyond the territory of one region ("development areas"). 39 See Strategy of Regional Development of the Czech Republic, and according to calculations of main significance characteristics and on the basis of the socio-geographical regionalization of the Czech Republic (details see Hampl, M.: The geographical organization of the society in the Czech Republic: transformation processes and their general context, Charles University Prague, 2005).

32

opportunities within the framework of the implementation of the economic and social cohesion policy of the European Union. This approach must include the support of enterprise, development of human resources, assistance to education, science and research, enhancement of environment and a range of others through the synergies of the regional and thematic operational programmes.

In this context, the ROP is targeted at a solution of selected social and economic problems faced by towns, particularly through indirect assistance to enterprise, extension and enhancement of public infrastructure, infrastructure for services of civic amenities, by means of the cultivation and revitalization of selected urban areas, improvement of the physical environment in towns, etc.

Infrastructure of public services The capacity and technical condition of infrastructure for education development is in general at a higher level in larger towns and regional centres than in the seats of the lower order. The reality of demographic development and the demand for adaptable labour power will have particular impact on elementary schools in the coming years. The expected decrease in pupils at elementary schools by about a half of the present number will require from founder towns a mutually coordinated procedure for the reduction of the rapidly increasing available capacities of elementary schools40.

Fig. 2: Current expenditure for a pupil in 2005 (in CZE).

0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

70 000

Praha Střední

Čechy

Jihozápad Severo-

západ

Severo-

východ

Jihovýchod Střední

Morava

Moravsko-

slezsko

ISCED 1

ISCED 2

ISCED 3

ISCED 4

Source: CSO

Note: The International standard classification of education (ISCED): code 1 – primary education; code 2 – lower secondary education; code 3 – higher secondary education; code 4 – postsecondary education lower than tertiary.

The network of basic schools in the region corresponds to the settlement structure of the SE cohesion region. Secondary and higher trade schools are established and are in the competence of individual regions of the SE cohesion region. The regions make an effort to optimize the school and educational institution network in their territories. Higher trade schools are usually concentrated in the region’s capital, Brno, which is an important centre of higher trade education. Also an important prerequisite in developing the educational system and level of education of the population’s the standard of the material equipment of

40 Profile of the Vysočina region, 2006; Profile of the South-Moravian region, 2006.

33

educational establishments (both primary and secondary), which enhances the quality of lessons. The facilities are often unsatisfactory, particularly in terms of a lack of modern technical equipment and other teaching aids, and also the technical condition of buildings and educational facilities. A good opportunity can be seen in using the available capacity for other purposes (informal education, hobby interests, etc.). Another important area of activity in education development is the creation of conditions for life–long education of the general public and for people interested in extension education. The situation in the region is shown on maps of Fig. 4 and 5 of Appendix A.

Table 21: Schools by types – SE region

School year 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005

Kindergartens Schools 1 044 906 900

Children 46 275 46 266 45 840

Elementary schools

Schools 726 713 697

pupils in total 163 937 157 197 151 025

Gymnasiums

Schools 61 61 58

pupils of regular study 24 668 25 064 25 036

Secondary vocational schools

Schools 127 133 123


Secondary training colleges

Schools 91 88 74

pupils in total 34 690 34 320 34 048

Special schools

Schools 191 199 198

pupils in total 8 735 8 578 8 319

Higher vocational schools

Schools 27 27 28


Universities

Schools 9 10 10 Source: CSO.

The network of health services in the SE region consists of hospitals, after–care services, asylums, rehabilitation establishments, specialized medical institutions and other facilities. The overwhelming majority of these institutions are situated in larger towns with some of them (for instance the Faculty Hospital in Brno) distinctly supra–regional, and in some branches of medicine, even at the national level of activity. The technical condition of some regional medical institutions can be considered unsatisfactory at present. The infrastructure is often several decades old and must be refurbished. Inpatient establishments providing medical services in the region must often face obsoleteness of their equipment and instruments, which have to be brought to a higher standard in order to meet legislative requirements.

34

Table 22: Selected indicators of public health – SE region 2002 2003 2004 2005

Hospitals 29 29 29 29

Beds 11 163 11 147 10 953 10 962

Specialized health institutions 21 21 22 22

Beds 3 661 3 671 3 665 3 673

of these medical institutions for long–term patients 7 7 7 7

Beds 774 774 796 845

Other independent health facilities 524 549 559 552

Source: CSO.

Modern health institutions are a prerequisite for improving the health of the population. Good quality medical care means lower absenteeism, higher participation in the labour market, extended working age, higher productivity and lower expenditure on medical care and social work.

The range of social services in the region includes old people’s homes, pensions for retired people, social care institutions, day care establishments and other social service facilities. The greater part of this infrastructure of community services is owned by towns, regions and the state. The facilities are often located not only in towns but also in rural areas. The demographic prognosis for population development in the SE region shows the need to find social service solutions for the population of post–working age by developing all forms of these services, not only those for inpatient treatment. Despite recent growth in the capacity of establishments providing social services in the region (especially old people’s homes), the demand–supply deficit has been steadily increasing, too41. Another burning problem is a labour shortage in these establishments and their poor technical condition. Larger towns report the growing significance of community services for population groups at risk (the long–term unemployed, physically and mentally handicapped, homeless people, single mothers, national minorities, drug addicts, etc.).

Fig. 3: Recipients of social security (number of person).

Source: CSO

41 Profile of the Vysočina region, 2006; Profile of the South-Moravian region, 2006.

0

50 000

100 000

150 000

200 000

250 000

300 000

350 000

400 000

450 000

500 000

Praha Central Bohemia

Southwest Northwest Northeast Southeast Central Moravia

Moravia– Silesia

Social beneficiaries in total (31. 12.2005) from that retired in total

35

Table 23: Social services – SE region

2002 2003 2004 2005

Social care institutions for adults 14 14 18 12

Places 1 145 1 182 1 517 1 115

Social care institutions for young people 27 22 20 25

Places 1 934 1 806 1 637 1 759

Retirement homes 52 55 55 55

Places 6 155 6 306 6 154 5 937

Old people’s homes 28 26 26 29

Places not indicated not indicated not indicated 2200

Day–care homes 129 136 156 132

Apartment units 3 871 4 088 4 683 4261

Other social care establishments 79 67 53 55

Places 1 325 1 484 1 379 1453

Children’s homes 23 23 28 32

Places 799 813 1 010 994

Source: CSO.

In connection with the increase of socio–pathological phenomena, it is necessary to promote the foundation and operation of leisure facilities for young people, increase the number of social workers (street workers), and to support the functioning of low–threshold establishments interlinked with the network of round-the-clock SOS centres operated by non–government non–profit organizations.

The main problem faced by towns in the SE region in providing for cultural, sports and other informal and leisure time activities of citizens is the relative scarcity of facilities in relation to the high concentration and number of inhabitants and often also the obsoleteness and poor technical condition of those facilities. The accessibility of these establishments from more remote marginal areas is also problematic.

Table 24: Cultural and sports establishments – SE region

2001 2002 2003 2005

Culture

Permanent cinema and multicinemas 110 107 103 103

Public libraries incl. subsidiaries 1 359 1 345 1 342 1 342

Museums 129 132 132 133

Galleries 145 151 156 164

Theatres 22 22 22 24

Amphitheatres 84 87 84 85

Sports

Open–air pools and swimming pools 207 207 211 210

of these indoor swimming–pools 42 42 45 45

Playgrounds 1 981 2 052 2 055 2 063

Gyms 996 996 997 997

Stadiums incl. indoor ones 127 125 123 123

Ice stadiums incl. indoor ones 33 33 33 34

Source: CSO.

The efforts of the SE cohesion region in the programming period 2007–2013 will aim at channelling support from structural funds through ROP SE, in compliance with the development strategies of the South Moravian and Vysočina Regions, into regional infrastructure and facilities in the education, health care and social welfare sectors. All types of support channelled into these infrastructures will be realized

36

pursuant to the Community law and the Czech legal system (including the rules for assigning public contracts and public tenders) in a manner assuring proper and effective use of financial resources from SF in the public interest. Resources from SF within the framework of ROP SE will be used in conjunction with other operations funded from the other OP in compliance with NSRF and coordinated by NCA. This is described in chapter 4 Implementation section.

Physical environment in towns, brownfields Many towns in the SE cohesion region struggle with the neglected state of the physical environment and public spaces in urbanized areas. Pleasant public spaces contribute not only to the satisfaction of residents but they also attract developers and businesses. Revitalization of these areas should be approached by way of comprehensive solutions focused on the renovation of neglected public infrastructure (streets, squares, parks) including their equipment with small–scale architecture and greenery42.

A specific problem is “brownfields“, i.e. land and real estate both in and outside urbanized areas, which have lost their function, and now lay idle, unused or abandoned, often with old environmental burden and derelict industrial premises in them. These properties adversely affect the area’s appearance, preventing its potential development for another use. The brownfields usually include old industrial operations, office buildings, military premises and the like. Today, these brownfield sites can be found in most seats in the territory of the SE region43. Their regeneration is desirable not only for their reuse, but would also bring a range of other benefits such as increased receipts and support of the local economy, new job opportunities, large–scale revitalization, the removal of old environmental burdens in the residential landscape, an alternative to land appropriation for the purposes of building on a “green field“, protection of the population’s health and enhanced quality of the environment. The issue of brownfields will be comprehensively tackled on the basis of firmly delineated interfaces within the framework of thematic operational programmes.

1.2.4.3 Rural space

As far as rural areas in the SE cohesion region are concerned, clearly the most advantageous position and the best conditions for development occur in the hinterlands of large towns. They are affected by suburbanization; their population is increasing, as is the level of infrastructure and services. This trend is palpable particularly in the hinterland of Brno44. On the other hand, marginal rural areas, scarcely populated and isolated from major towns and main transport networks, represent the most problematic group. These areas are concentrated particularly at the boundary of the two self–governing regions of the SE cohesion region.

The development of marginal rural areas in the region is especially limited by the shortage of jobs, deteriorating infrastructure, low standard of services and, last but not least, also by the unfavourable age and education structure of the population. Unsatisfactory transport connections with regional centres cause problems for commuting workers. Remoteness is one of the reasons for unemployment, which has long been above average, and it is also responsible for the low income of local inhabitants, the low standard of civil amenities and for the general downsizing of economic activities in the area. The situation is shown in Fig. 3 of Appendix A. Marginal regions suffer from developers’ lack of interest in building new manufacturing operations in them. A considerable share of the working rural population is employed in services, industrial establishments and artisan workshops, or they commute from work to towns if this is made possible by local transportation services45. In small villages in particular the lack of personnel and material resources often results in the low efficiency and quality of public administration execution.

42 See e.g. project pipelines the Vysočina region and the South-Moravian region. 43 See e.g. Search study for brownfields localization in the territory of the South-Moravian region, August 2006, Search study for brownfields localization in the territory of the Vysočina region, April 2006. 44 Profile of the South-Moravian region, 2006. – Note: Suburbanization can be partly seen also in the vicinity of medium-sized towns in the region (incl. Jihlava); however, it is more the individual construction than the building of housing estates, and the processes in question are quantitatively incomparable with the extent of suburbanization in the surroundings of Brno. 45 Note: In contrast with the town population, inhabitants of rural areas are handicapped in the labour market due to additional travel costs, time spent for commuting and limited transportation services.

37

A similar problem that must be resolved both by rural areas and towns concerns social services provided to disadvantaged population groups, the post–working age population in particular. Social service establishments are scarce and their capacity is insufficient. Moreover, they often struggle with the poor technical condition of their facilities and lack skilled personnel. The same applies to educational establishments whose current condition and equipment levels are often very low. Rural areas of the region often contain infrastructure that once served educational and cultural purposes, and other community services (old schools, former houses of culture, shopping centres, etc.), but which are now unused due to changes in population structure and settlement patterns of rural areas. These often combine with rural brownfields in the form of abandoned sites and properties used for farming, recreation, military purposes and, to a limited extent, also for industrial operations. Revitalization of these sites and premises will help create conditions for the development of enterprise in rural areas. Neglected public spaces in a number of rural areas require revitalization46.

Another common problem of many rural municipalities in the region is the shortage of facilities for citizens’ leisure and for informal activities. These facilities are concentrated in larger towns and their accessibility, especially from marginal areas, may be problematic. The technical condition of such facilities in villages (e.g. sports grounds) is often unsatisfactory47.

Creation of an environment for successful economic and social development of the region is increasingly influenced by information and communication technologies, tools with powerful innovation potential which can facilitate the enhancement of quality of life for local inhabitants if used efficiently and on a large–scale. While the use of ICT is at a high standard in urban centres and larger towns thanks to good area coverage by the communication infrastructure, the supply of telecommunication services, and the population’s level of information literacy in other parts of the region are hampered by frequent failures of the telecommunication market due to geographic conditions and low population in seats, by the lack of competition in the provision of telecommunication services, or by poor coverage of remote localities by ICT infrastructure. These areas are also lacking a supply of specific telecommunication services such as hosting or support on the part of service providers. All this results in a further deepening of social differences and in a worsening standard of living for people living in these disadvantaged areas, which results in the decreased attractiveness of these areas for current or potential inhabitants. In this way, territorial disparities further deepen and the region as a whole suffers from the internal threat of uneven development. The unemployment rate is considered to be one of the key indicators of socio–economic development. Regional disparities in the distribution of the unemployment rate in the SE cohesion region are shown in Figures 6 and 7 of Appendix A.

In spite of all the above mentioned problems, one of the great strengths of the rural community in the SE region is its high measure of cultural and social stability. Folk culture particularly, which is still alive and adding to the region’s unique position within the country, deserves special protection and support. Many rural areas can boast of valuable historic sites and monuments. The traditions of local crafts and processing of food–products (wine and vegetable growing, potatoes, milk and meat) are also still alive. These are worthy of further development and may be of interest for the development of tourism.

Interventions for the benefit of the countryside in the SE region must be focused differentially on the stabilization of occupancy in rural areas, on the creation of conditions for the successful development of entrepreneurial activities in them, on the maintenance and enhancement of the rural population’s quality of life, improved accessibility of public goods and services, strengthening of links between rural areas and towns, and on the strengthening of traditional links to nature in the region. An essential requirement is good accessibility of rural areas by transportation services, along with a gradual improvement of both infrastructure and the physical environment in rural areas. The use of information and communication technologies in these areas is a further priority.

46 See e.g. project pipelines of the Vysočina region and the South-Moravian region. 47 Dtto.

38

1.2.4.4 Regional disparities and the Strategy of Regional Development of the Czech Republic

The material approved by the government resolution No. 682 of 12 June 2000, the Strategy of Regional Development of the Czech Republic, and the Strategy of Regional Development for 2007–2013, approved by the government resolution of the Czech Republic No. 560 of May 17 2006 demarcates the so called “regions with a concentrated state aid” in the territory of the Czech Republic. Those are further divided into structurally affected regions, economically weak regions and regions with unemployment rates high above the average; all the regions are administratively delimited by the district borders. There were four economically weak regions (out of the total number of ten) in the SE cohesion region as of 31 December 2006 delimited by the district territories of Třebíč in the Vysočina region, Hodonín, Vyškov and Znojmo in the Southmoravian region. The inclusion of the district among the economically weak regions48 indicates that low economic performance of some areas (weakness) lingers in the region which previous aid helped to alleviate but did not remove altogether.

Fig. 4: Unemployment 2001 – 2007 (in %) and the sequence within ČR (numbers above columns).

9

7

1110

910

11

16

14

171315

14

18

10

514

1117

9

12

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

16,0

18,0

XII.01 XII.02 XII.03 XII.04 XII.05 XII.06 VII.07

Hodonín

Třebíč

Znojmo

ČR

Source: CSO

48 For the definition of economically weak regions, following indicators were chosen:

• Overall evaluation of employment as per 31 December 1999, 2000, 2001 (the indicator represents overall evaluation of the influence of employment, long-term employment and pressure, on working positions in the individual regions. The stress of the indicator is 0.3.)

• Tax incomes pro habitant in 1999, 2000, 2001 (the indicator represents annual tax payoff in CZK in district per habitant. The stress of the indicator is 0.2.)

• Average salary in district in 1999, 2000, 2001 (the indicator represents amount of average monthly salary in CZK in the appropriate year. The stress of the indicator is 0.2.)

• Proportion of employment in the field of agriculture, forestry and fishing in the total employment in 1995 (the indicator represents the number of employees in the field of agriculture, forestry and fishing as a proportion (percentage) in the total employment in the appropriate district. The stress of the indicator is 0.1.)

• Employment development proportion in the field of agriculture, forestry and fishing in 1999, 2000, 2001 to the basic year 1995 (the indicator represents change of employment in the field of agriculture, forestry and fishing in the relevant year as proportion (percentage) in the basic year 1995 value. The stress of the indicator is 0.15.)

• Population density (habitants per square kilometre) in 1999, 2000, 2001 (the indicator represents number of habitants per square kilometre in the appropriate district and year. The stress of the indicator is 0.05.)

39

In relation to the still low investment activity at the level of the state, these areas are still “on the fringe” for a number of reasons: These areas do not attract entrepreneurial activities due to deficiencies in infrastructure (transport, technical and entrepreneurial); consequently, different types of infrastructure systems do not develop in a sufficient manner due to low entrepreneurial activity. These weak areas cannot get on the track of faster development solely through their inner economic forces and the need for social (structural) support persists. Rural regions represent a specific kind of economically weak region (some of their problems are of a structural nature – outdated focus of agricultural production with respect to natural conditions and market demand). The districts of Vyškov and Znojmo are examples of such regions. A big disadvantage of the rural areas as opposed to the urbanized areas is the low concentration of consumption which unfortunately cannot compensate for the growing costs associated with companies located in these regions.

On the basis of the government resolution No. 829 of 3 July 2006 on support until 2008 to economically weak regions not included among regions with focused state aid for the years 2007–2013, transitional aid to economically weak regions until 2008 was approved by the government. With respect to the SE cohesion region, the resolution concerns the district of Vyškov, which was not included in the regions with concentrated state aid for the period between 2007 and 2013.

Fig. 5: Regions with concentrated state aid:

Source of the data: MRD of the Czech Republic, 2006.

40

1.3 SWOT ANALYSIS

The SWOT analysis of the ROP SE was carried out using the findings of the analysis of the region’ economic and social situation. The resulting SWOT analysis of the ROP includes a summary of relevant strong and weak points, opportunities and risks, and forms one of the foundation pillars for formulation of the ROP SE strategy and priority axes.

STRONG POINTS Economic and social development

• Position of the region as the second most prominent NUTS 2 in the generation of GDP. • Economic growth of the region as measured by GDP growth rate. • Dynamic growth of industrial production, growth of productivity and revenues. • Strong position of engineering in the structure of industries. • Inflow of investments into the region from large developers. • Development of SME with innovative manufacturing programmes. • Great potential in the development of innovations and innovative enterprise, existence of institutions

and infrastructure supporting innovation businesses in the region. • Favourable trends in the development of employment structure sector. Tourism • Presence of attractions of supra–regional and international significance (esp. natural and cultural

monuments and UNESCO sites), many castles and manors and other cultural and historic sites. • Geomorphologic and natural conditions favourable for the development of active forms of tourism

(cycling, water sports, cross–country skiing in the Vysočina Uplands, etc.). • Existence of regional specifics with potential for the development of thematic products of tourism

(wine districts, local folklore and traditions, good condition of countryside, etc.). • Specific position of Brno as a centre of congress tourism, trades and exhibitions, and as an existing

venue for cultural and sports events of international significance.

Accessibility

• Favourable geographical position of the region with respect to the road pattern of supra–regional and international significance (TEN–T network).

• Existence and development of Integrated Transportation System. • Public international civil airport in Brno–Tuřany. • Network of international, supra–regional, regional, local and other bicycle tracks (incl. thematic ones).

Towns and rural areas

• Brno and Jihlava as urbanization centres of international and national importance. • Existence of other regional centres with economic potential, jobs and civil amenities. • Availability and number of educational establishments. • Good facilities in the region as regards the health care services network. • Good availability of ICT infrastructure and telecommunication services in larger regional centres. • High level of cultural and social stability of rural areas in the region. • Local food product processing traditions in rural areas (wine and vegetables growing, processing of

potatoes, milk and meat).

Resources for development

• Existence of financial instruments in the two regions to support regional development (endowment programmes, Vysočina Fund, etc.).

• Existence of supporting financial instruments of the state (esp. government funds). • Experience with implementation of projects (incl. large ones focused on infrastructure) co–financed

from the pre–accession assistance and from structural funds of the European Union.

41

• Implementation of projects to support absorption capacity for the programming period 2007–2013 in both administrative units of the region; development of project pipeline programmes, promotion of partnership development in the two regions.

• Highly qualified staff at the secretariats of Regional Councils, experienced in SF implementation in the region.

WEAK POINTS Economic and social development

• As compared with the EU average, the region can still be considered under–developed (GDP per capita in the Purchasing Power Parity is lower than 75% of the EU average).

• Decreasing population in the SE region; low birth rate results in a declining population, population ageing.

• Recession in some traditional industries (esp. textile). • Pronounced intraregional disparities in unemployment rate. • Structural unemployment, mismatch between qualifications of applicants for work and labour market

requirements. • Insufficiently developed extension education of adults and life–long education. Tourism • Seasonal character of tourist visit rates. • Unsatisfactory primary and complementary infrastructure for tourism. • Supply and quality of services provided in tourist facilities do not always meet the requirements of

target groups. • Insufficient supply of specialized and original programmes for tourists. • Deficiencies in the tourist organizational structure and human resources, information, advertising and

marketing. • Poor technical condition of many cultural sites, high cost of maintenance and repair. • Poor quality of roads and transportation services affecting visiting rates. • Low number of tracks for safe cycling.

Accessibility

• Overloading of main communication arteries. • Poor technical condition of road infrastructure at all levels. • Incomplete regional road pattern and slow modernization of roads in the region. • Unsatisfactory road connection with neighbouring countries. • Impact of busy traffic on population (noise, emissions, safety of pedestrians and cyclists). • Impaired accessibility and serviceability of some marginal parts of the region. • Uneven development of Integrated Transport System in the region’s territory; insufficient

infrastructure. • Insufficient safe sections for unpowered transport on current bicycle tracks. • Lack of bicycle tracks in rural areas.


• Unsatisfactory standard of material equipment in educational institutions, problematic technical condition of school buildings and educational facilities in towns.

• Obsolete infrastructure of health facilities and their equipment. • Increasing deficit between demand for and supply of social services, poor technical condition of

buildings and premises. • Population groups at risk (long–term unemployed, physically and mentally handicapped, homeless,

single mothers, national minorities, drug addicts, etc.).

42

• Relative lack of establishments for informal and leisure time activities in towns with respect to high concentration and number of inhabitants and obsoleteness and poor technical condition; poor accessibility of these establishment from marginal areas.

• Dilapidated state of physical environment and public spaces in urbanized areas. • Shortage of jobs in rural areas. • Insufficient infrastructure and system of allowances for the purposes of developing entrepreneurial

activities in rural areas. • Neglected infrastructure and poor standard of services and civil amenities in rural (mainly peripheral)

areas. • Unsatisfactory or non–existent supply of ICT infrastructure and telecommunication services in areas

affected by market failure. • Unfavourable age and educational structure of rural population. • Unsatisfactory and low standard road connection of marginal areas with regional centres. • Existence of brownfields in towns and rural areas with impact on environment.

Potential for development

• Complicated system of SF implementation in the programming period 2004–6. • Lack of resources for the full pre–financing and co–financing of applicants. • Shortcomings in the system of management and monitoring of current programmes. • Insufficient awareness about SF.

OPPORTUNITIES Economic and social development

• Strengthening of the region’s competitiveness by means of strong innovative policy. • Enhancement of the region’s competitiveness by means of school reform and through intervention

from ESF to increase the available skilled labour force. Tourism • Utilization of unique cultural and natural wealth for development of tourism. • Growth potential, especially in congress tourism, learning tourism, cycling, water sports and hiking

connected with local traditions (folklore) and products (esp. wine making). • Utilization of EU structural funds for the development of tourist infrastructure and to support publicity

for tourist programmes and facilities.

Accessibility

• Admission to the Schengen area – interconnection with neighbouring regions. • Willingness of the region’s population to use IDS and unpowered transport as an alternative to IAD. • Utilization of EU structural funds for the development of road infrastructure and transportation

services in the region (for example, by the development of the international civil airport).


• Reinforcement of the functionality and role of urban and regional centres as the region’s poles of growth.

• Demand of the population for housing in rural areas, transfer of development incentives from centres to their hinterlands.

• Health improvement of the population and labour force in the region by means of properly formulated and implemented reform of health services and social security.

• Available skilled labour force and enhanced competitiveness of the region achieved through school reform and by means of interventions from ESF.

• Utilization of information and communication technologies for strengthening the competitiveness of remote and sparsely populated areas in the region.

• Revitalization of brownfields and other unused premises for new purposes.

43


• Existing project pipelines, high absorption capacity of the region. • Opportunity to use EU funds, availability of necessary co–financing (regional, state, private

resources). • Simplified system of programme implementation and administration in the programming period

2007–13. • Existence of qualified experts working in implementation structures in the region, who participate in

the creation of implementation structure for ROP and creation of incentives for their retention. • Sufficient resources for publicity and raising public awareness of the ROP SE.

THREATS

Economic and social development

• Decreased competitiveness of the region due to poor utilization of the available technological and innovative potential.

• Growing unemployment, structural and long–term unemployment in particular. Tourism • Low visiting rate due to problematic competitiveness of region at international level and on national

level as well.

• Decreasing visiting rate in the region due to global decline in the interest of tourists in European countries or due to unforeseeable events (natural disasters, terrorism, etc.).

Accessibility

• Delays in the construction and modernization of higher rank communication routes.

• Further worsening of transport infrastructure quality at the level of NUTS 2 region.


• Decreasing proportion of working population due to population ageing and migration. • Postponement of health and school reforms will result in a worsening of the population´s health

condition and in a decreased number of employable persons. • Postponement of reform of the social system will result in an increasing deficit between the demand

for and supply of social services. • Digital divide – increasing social and economic differences in the society due to territorial disparities

in the use of modern information and communication technologies. • Unsatisfactory coordination between the ROP, the thematic OPs and the national programmes of

environmental protection may result in a continuous worsening of environmental quality in towns and villages; Poor government support for revitalization of brownfields and old ecological burdens.


• Persistently complicated implementation system with negative impact on the speed and efficiency of drawing resources from the ROP.

• Departure of skilled experts from the programme implementation structure and high staff turnover will have an unfavourable impact on the ROP management.

• Insufficient resources for co–financing projects of applicants.

The SWOT analysis helped to identify barriers to the region´s development (and areas of potential development) with a particular emphasis on those which can be efficiently overcome by means of the regional operational programme. These include especially accessibility, tourism and specific problems of towns and rural regions. The areas of potential development are reflected in three thematic priority axes of the ROP SE further extended upon in Chapter 2 and 3.

44

1.4 EVALUATION OF THE PRESENT EXPERIENCE FROM THE PROGR AMME IMPLEMENTATION AND THE ABSORPTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS

1.4.1 Evaluation of the present experience from the programme implementation

1.4.1.1 Financial resources of regions and state budget

The two regions constituting the cohesion region NUTS 2 SE have financial instruments singled out from their annual budgets for the development of their territories. Development projects of the South–Moravian region are co–financed by means of grant programmes assigned to relevant departments of the regional authority. In the Vysočina region the funds were put together into a single financial instrument – the Vysočina Fund within the framework of which several grant projects are announced.

A significant role in regional development is played by the state budget finance especially from national funds (Transport Infrastructure Fund. Environment Fund, Housing Development State Fund, etc.). The financial resources of the state budget will be used in the coming years as a complement in financing the implementation of development projects.

From the point of view of the Vysočina and South–Moravian regions, i.e. the “vehicles“ of the ROP SE, an essential role is played by the estimate of the finance needed for the co–financing of projects realized by means of ROP SE. Analyses of financial allocations from SF funds for the ROP SE for the period from 2007–2013 indicate that it is necessary to assure the co–financing from national sources at about 500 mil. CZK to add to the Community contribution. It follows from the financial analyses of relevant documents49 that from the beginning of 2004 to the middle of 2006 the regions invested more than 2 billion CZK (see Table 25) in the implementation of development projects in thematic ROP–related areas. These findings suggest that the regions are capable of assuring a sufficient co–financing of ROP SE interventions and can support a relatively large number of projects with their finances.

In estimating the drawing of finance from the EU funds it is very important to consider the project absorption capacity of the region and the capacity of entities from the region to take part in co–financing. These present estimates are unfortunately complicated by the availability of so far only preliminary information about the planned programmes gathered within the framework of projects focused on the consolidation of absorption capacity (Chapter 1.4.2).

Table 25: Expenditure of regions on development projects in 2004–2006 (in thous. CZK)

Thematic focus Expenditure on development projects in the region Financial contributions of regions

to co–financing of other subjects*

own funds state budget

the Southmoravian region

Transport 617 349 31 725

Tourism 38 075 1 146 22 890

Towns and rural areas 666 291 373 518 170 145

the Vysočina region

Transport 20 799 2 919

Tourism 61 6 175

Towns and rural areas 411 909 78 100 18 126

Source: Southmoravian region, region Vysočina* by means of own endowment items, regional funds, etc.

49 Budget of the Vysočina region, Budget of the South-Moravian region, Financial Framework of the Development Strategy of the South-Moravian Region, Budget of the Vysočina Fund.

45

1.4.1.2 EU Programmes

Pre–accession assistance of the European Union

The SE region as a whole was very successful in the realization of projects co–financed by EU pre–accession assistance for the Czech Republic. Entities in the region received considerable resources during the last period from the Phare programme for regional development, with a large part of them having been invested in the development of cross–border cooperation. In addition to large projects focused mainly on infrastructure, (e.g. sewage systems and sewage water treatment plants in Veselí nad Moravou, Telč, Třebíč, Břeclav, Znojmo, Lanžhot, Rokytnice nad Rokytnou and in other towns and villages, road repair work in the border corridor Dolní Rakousko, building and operation of a tourist information centre in Pálava and Lednice–Valtice area, business incubators in Třebíč and an information database for entrepreneurs operated by the Commercial and Economic Chamber in Brno), there was a range of successfully realized smaller non–investment projects which did not require time–consuming preparation and which spontaneously reacted to currently emerging needs in the region, as well as smaller projects of investment character connected with the mitigation of damage caused by flooding in 1997.

The SE cohesion region was also very successful in drawing resources from the ISPA programme, namely in projects which contributed to the solution of serious problems in the field of environment (water source protection in the Dyje River catchment, collection and purification of waste water in Brno, Jihlava, Znojmo and Žďár nad Sázavou, waste management solution in Brno). The total allocated amount of EU grants was about 130 mil. EUR. A number of projects implemented by entrepreneurs in agriculture and by public entities involved in the sustainable development of agriculture and rural areas, and in the introduction and implementation of EU regulations and rules concerning the Common agricultural policy were supported from the SAPARD programme. The realization of projects from EU funds in the pre–accession period made it possible to gain valuable experience, not only for the individual beneficiaries, but it also helped to better learn the processes and mechanisms necessary for the management of European financial resources.

Structural funds of the European Union

In the programming period 2004–2006, the Czech Republic had no individual operating programmes at a regional level. The experience required for the preparation of the ROP SE therefore had to be drawn from the Joint Regional Operating Programme in particular.

As shown in the publicized data on the withdrawal of resources from SF EU50, the greatest amounts of finance within the whole SE cohesion region were required for projects focused on the development of infrastructure for tourism, transport development in regions, and development of services for tourism. The analysis of data on the implementation of JROP grant schemes in the SE region revealed that requirements for subsidies in the submitted applications were considerably higher than the subsequently approved amounts in all measures included therein (enterprise, social integration, tourism), which indicates ample potential project programmes for the coming programming period also.

Regarding the relatively short time for the realization of the EU Economic and Social Cohesion Policy in the Czech Republic by means of EU structural funds, there is not enough output from evaluations available yet from which unambiguous and precise conclusions could be drawn concerning experience with the withdrawal of funds in the Czech Republic and hence in the SE cohesion region. A document used as groundwork for the evaluation was therefore the material51 prepared for the Brno Association of non–profit organizations. In the material, an expert team of authors identified bottlenecks in the existing system and outlined basic proposals of measures for the programming period 2007–2013, building on the experience in the preparation and implementation of projects financed from the SF, and also from the available conclusions of evaluation reports that were prepared for the respective managing authorities of the operational programmes.

50 IS MSC2007. 51 Eurion, o.s.: Draft measures to increase the efficiency of drawing finance within the framework of operational programmes SF EU 2007 – 2013, Brno, May 2006.

46

There were a total of 6 main problems identified and measures were proposed for their minimization:

Table 26: Problems identified in the present SF realization

Problem Solution 1: The system of implementation is complicated and suffers from comprehensive and time–consuming paper work

To achieve maximum simplification of the system in preparing its implementation and administration for 2007+. This applies both to the excessively high number of intermediary entities, and to the high demand of paper work and the necessity of submitting duplicate documents during the project preparation. The three–stage architecture during the programme implementation was dropped in the case of ROP (MRD, Centre for Regional Development, and Regional Council Secretariat of the Cohesion Region). In the programming period 2007–2013 the applicants are guided from the preparation to the implementation and inspection after completion stages by only one institution – the Regional Council Office of the Cohesion Region. ROP SE will not have any mediating entities.

2: Deadlines defined for individual operations are often extended in the process of approving applications as well as in the subsequent steering of the programme with active projects. The practice has among other things a significant impact on the withdrawal of resources and their efficiency.

To enforce the mandatory observation of deadlines in project approval and administration, and its anchorage in the system of programme implementation (including the prepared ROPs). Each applicant for financial resources from ROP SE is informed about the eligibility of the project for financing within 160 days after his project application was submitted to the Regional Council Office of the cohesion region NUTS 2 SE. For further information about the deadlines see the Operational Manual of ROP SE.

3: An important factor for the limited absorption capacity is a shortage of resources for the full pre–financing and co–financing of projects on the part of applicants.

To create conditions for the financing of projects that will be transparent, efficient and will serve its purpose. ROP SE will make ex–post payments (continuous reimbursement of already–made payments, according to accounting documents). For further information see the Operational Manual of ROP SE.

4: The situation in awareness of possible actors is unsatisfactory in spite of the declared OP efforts.

To improve the situation in awareness of all stakeholder groups in the Czech Republic through consistent use and realization of communication action plans (KAP). The Regional Council Office of the cohesion region NUTS 2 SE is preparing a "communication plan" which shall be authorized by the Monitoring Committee and shall be approved by the European Commission in compliance with the Regulation of the European Commission (EC) No. 1828/2006.

5: The system of programme management and monitoring is complicated and user–unfriendly.

To ensure creation or transformation of the existing system into an efficient system of programme management and monitoring in the sense of unification and pronounced simplification of the implementation methodologies of programmes and projects.

6: State aid and de minimis regime. There are cases where the rules of state aid are interpreted by intermediary entities in different ways (e.g. between the regions).

To clarify the rules for including entities into the regime of state aid according to “de minimis” rule. For the purposes of the clarification of the rules for state aid and “de minimis” support a workgroup “State Aid and Legislation” was constituted whose members are the employees of the regional council offices.

47

Medium–term evaluations of operational programmes corroborate the above listed weak points of the system, too, adding to them problems occurring in the area of financial flows, communication and coordination within the framework of realization and implementation of current operational programmes, and problems with the assurance of the implementation of programmes in terms of paper work, time and staff capacity. In consequence, these drawbacks affect both the administrative and absorption capacity of the programmes.

During the preparation of the ROP SE, the above findings were analyzed in detail and subsequently reflected in the draft implementation mechanism of the ROP SE for the programming period 2007–2013.

1.4.2 Absorption capacity analysis

Both regions of the SE cohesion region are implementing projects supported by JROP that are focused on the support of absorption capacity for the coming period of 2007–13. The aim is to prepare entities in the region for the possibility of drawing financial support from the SF EU programmes, to systematically prepare high–quality projects for the programming period 2007–2013 and to support the smooth implementation of projects.

The present results from the implementation of these projects are as follows:

• The project “Increasing the project absorption capacity of the South–Moravian region”52 has so far had two rounds of collection of project themes. Most submissions were in the following thematic areas: transport infrastructure, human resources and labour market53, development of rural areas and agriculture, and tourism. On the basis of the evaluation results, selected draft projects will be recommended for possible further preparation and implementation.

• An essential output from the project “Building of developmental partnership for the purposes of strengthening capacities in planning and realization of programmes in the Vysočina region”54 is the Regional operational plan of the Vysočina region. The document came into existence through the cooperation of 15 local partnerships in the Vysočina region. At the level of these partnerships, so called “local operational programmes” were prepared, including the regional project pipelines ready for implementation in the new programming period 2007–13. A comparison was made between community planning results in the Regional operational plan of the Vysočina region and the priorities of expert plans in the region. The draft projects were then allocated to the selected priorities. The major part of the costs involved in draft projects fall into the following categories: transportation network in the region in a broader context, tourism and services for the Czech Republic, and opportunities for sports and recreation. The collection of draft projects will continue and the database will be continuously updated.

A summary of the present outputs from the survey in both regions constituting the SE cohesion region assumes the following layout of project themes (the data are from 1 September 2006, projects should be finished by November 2007).

Data on the assumed absorption capacity were taken into account in formulating the general strategy of the ROP SE, specifically in the specification of priority axes and distribution pattern of allocated financial resources. Data in table 27 are in compliance with the allocation of funds in priority axes.

A relatively high allocation for new constructions, reconstructions and modernizations of 2nd and 3rd class roads and bridges for Area of Support 1.1 was made on the basis of identified needs. In their position as 2nd and 3rd class roads administrators, both regions assessed their needs for new constructions, reconstructions and modernization of the aforementioned roads for the period 2007–2013 at approximately EUR 400 million. On the basis of the MA of the ROP SE interventions, this amount did not include requirements for repairs. With the current indicative allocation to intervention code 23

52 www.partnerstvi-jmk.cz 53 Projects in the field of human resources and labour market will be tackled within the framework of the Operational Programme Human Resources and Employment. 54 www.partnerstvi-vysocina.cz

48

Regional/local roads of EUR 248 million, approximately 60% of the region´s demand is met. The absorption capacity analysis showed a similar excess of demand over supply for the other areas of support in compliance with the structural funds selectivity principle. The excess demand will lead to competitiveness among the projects and, as a consequence, to their higher quality.

Table 27: Project programmes collected in the region (status as of 1 September 2006)

Project programmes

Number of project programmes

in % required resources (in thousand CZK)

in %

South–Moravian region

Transport 97 21.4 29 214 837 46.6

Tourism 146 32.2 9 954 429 15.8

Towns and rural areas 210 46.4 23 620 278 37.6

Vysočina region

Transport 413 32.4 23 350 663 53.3

Tourism 420 32.9 9 955 742 22.6


Total – SE

Transport 510 29.6 52 565 500 49.3

Tourism 563 32.6 19 910 171 18.7


Source: South–Moravian region, Vysočina region.

Successful implementation of the ROP SE in the programming period 2007–2013 must be based on an active approach to the raising of absorption capacity. An essential part of the strategy for raising absorption capacity is continuous monitoring and evaluation, on the basis of which enhancement measures can be adopted. It is also very important that the ROP SE is coordinated with thematic operational programmes so that solutions for the region’s needs can be found and successfully implemented.

Boosting the absorption capacity of beneficiaries and a correct approach of the administration towards the aid beneficiaries represents another task of MA. Thematic area of intervention Support of Absorption Capacity in OP TA will create important tool in reinforcement of administration capacity for implementation of NSRF. It will cover needs for coordination and support of strategic and methodical management of development of the absorption capacity. On the basis of results of analyses, the measures for its increasing will be introduced. From the position of central coordinator, support of absorption capacity will be provided at sectional interventions, including interconnection of ROPs with thematic operational programmes.

Institutional and human resources

In the shortened programming period 2004–2006, a Regional Council of the Cohesion Region NUTS 2 SE for the South–Moravian Region and the Vysočina Region was established as an intermediate body for the JROP 2004–2006 and the Community Initiative INTERREG IIIA. Within the framework of activities performed as an intermediate body, it was responsible in the two programmes for activities connected with calls for projects, programme publicity, accepting applications for payment of project expenditure, assessment of received applications up to the preparation of groundwork documents for steering committees. The activities are performed by highly qualified experts who further extend their skills by attending training sessions and by participating in transfer of knowhow projects. The experience of these highly qualified staff will be utilized in the programming period 2007–2013, specifically in the ROP SE implementation structure.

The new programming period 2007–13 brings great changes in the regional dimension of support from SF

49

since a single JROP has been replaced by seven individual regional operational programmes, each serving one of the seven NUTS 2 cohesion regions. JROP programme management, consultations and collection of projects, their assessment, implementation and control, i.e. activities being carried out so far by the MRD, Regional Council Secretariat and Centre for Regional Development, will be carried out for ROP SE by a single institution: SE RCA as a MA of the ROP SE. This essential change reflects the findings of evaluations of implementation structure in the previous programming period. The evaluation projects were commissioned by the Managing authority of JROP (such as the document “Analysis and evaluation of weak points in the implementation system and of breakdown risk”).

50

2 ROP NUTS 2 SOUTHEAST STRATEGY

2.1 STRATEGY STARTING POINTS

2.1.1 Internal strategy starting points

Internal resource of the ROP SE strategy is represented by results from the SWOT analysis and the socio–economic analysis.

The regional disparities and the position of the SE cohesion region within the Czech Republic and EU in the context of regional and national indicators were identified in the socio–economic analysis. This created a framework for the preparation of a relevant SWOT analysis. Along with challenges, the strong points of the region create the basis for global and specific objectives supporting sustainable growth and the region’s prosperity. Weak points leading to potential risks on the other hand guide the strategy towards the solution of problematic and long neglected issues.

The strong points of the cohesion region consist first of all of a stable economy which is backed by inflowing investments, the development of innovative enterprise, and a skilled workforce. The attractive environment and good conditions for the development of tourism subsequently create a space for jobs in the tertiary sector together with the reduction of unemployment in structurally affected areas. Favourable aspects of the region include its location at a crossing of multimodal corridors, and its international accessibility by air transport. The strong points of the region are of permanent and sustainable character, which represents one of the pillars for implementation by means of ROP SE.

Weak points of the region are seen first of all in the profuse intraregional disparities that were also identified in the national strategic documents. Areas of high unemployment often occur in regions affected by unsuccessful transformation of the economy, remote from transport and accessible only through bad roads. These areas are affected by a so-called multiple peripheral character within the NUTS 2 SE. Low mobility of the working population as one of the consequences of this unfavourable transport location, and the poor condition of the road network further decrease the attractiveness of peripheral areas, thereby hampering the potential for diffusion of innovations, inflow of investments and enhancement of the situation in the affected territory. In the inadequate quality of the transport infrastructure has a major effect on the economic attractiveness of the region. The neglected tourist infrastructure and poor accessibility then represents part of the region’s untapped potential. Similarly, the infrastructure for social and medical care in the demographically ageing region is below–average and represents a considerable risk in the future.

The SE cohesion region offers opportunities for development and for the promotion of strong points, through which the region’s competitiveness and sustainable development can be reinforced. In this context, support directed to the use of unique cultural and natural wealth, improvement of transport infrastructure, ensuring availability of a skilled workforce, novel use of brownfields, along with the strengthening of the functionality and the role of urbanization centres and regional centres as the poles of the region’s growth appear to be a very rational use of the SF EU resources.

Particular risks threatening the cohesion region consist of the low attractiveness of peripheral and difficult–to–access areas, which results in the deepening of regional disparities, growing unemployment and social exclusion. A great risk for the future is the change of the population’s age structure, in combination with poor solutions to problems of social and medical care.

Based on the elaborated socio–economic analysis, SWOT analysis, and the region’s vision, the global objective was defined as the general direction of the region’s development. In line with the strategy, specific objectives were established in the identified core areas of the region’s development, through the

51

fulfilment of which the ROP SE, in interaction with other Ops, will strive for the maximization of synergic effects of interventions from the EU funds.

2.1.2 External strategy starting points

External resources for the optimization of the strategy are represented by the objectives contained in the programme and in the strategic documents of the Southmoravian region, the Vysočina region, the Czech Republic and the EU. The strategy is defined by the limited number of areas in which it could have an impact on the competitiveness of the region. Areas of impact for these interventions from the ERDF in the Regional operational plan are defined in its priority axes.

The European objective of the Economic and Social Cohesion (ESC) policy is expressed by the motto: "Europe must renew the foundation of its competitiveness, increase its growth potential and productivity and strengthen social cohesion and emphasis should be laid on knowledge, innovation and optimization of human capital." The objectives of ROP SE unequivocally contribute to the fulfilment of the European objectives.

The formulation of the ROP strategy for the SE cohesion region in the period 2007–2013 is based on more general objectives and priorities of the Czech Republic and the European Union. The strategy forms an integral part of the whole strategic approach to programming for the period 2007–2013 in a clear and logical sequence: Community Strategic Guidelines – National Development Plan of the Czech Republic – National Strategic Reference Framework – ROP SE.

In the process of formulation of the ROP strategy for the SE cohesion region the following principles were taken into account:

• The strategy must take into account the openness of the region´s economy and its participation in the internal market of the EU.

• Focus of intervention on the stimulation of growth and employment with a strong multiplication effect. The strategy will focus on investments of a material character – development of infrastructure for the business sphere in the form of revitalisation and consequent utilisation of brownfield sites, infrastructure in the sphere of tourism, transport infrastructure, public infrastructure and of public service infrastructure in towns and in rural areas.

• Focus of intervention on balanced development of the SE cohesion region with stress on assistance to the centres of the cohesion region as poles of growth, and the stabilization of rural areas, whilst respecting and utilizing the social, economic and cultural specifics of the region.

• Sustainability of economic growth in terms of the quality of the environment. The ROP strategy for the SE cohesion region for the period 2007–2013 is based on respect for the environment as the basis of sustainable development. A high quality environment is an indispensable condition for the sustainability of economic growth.

• The ROP SE strategy is complementary to other policies of the Community implemented in the Czech Republic, and to the policies of the region and of the Czech Republic. At the regional level, the core documents for the creation of the ROP SE strategy are the strategies of regional development which define the main priorities of the region, and the development strategies included in individual thematic conception documents for the specific problem areas. At the national level, the core documents are the National Development Plan of the Czech Republic and the linking National Strategic Reference Framework which is an interface document for national and European priorities. At the European level, the external resource for the creation of the strategy is the Community Strategic Guideline defining the principal development strategy of the European Union in the areas of economy and social cohesion.

The prerequisite for fulfilling the European objective of strengthening the competitiveness of the EU as a whole is the increase in the competitive strength of individual member countries and their regions. Long–term competitiveness of the SE cohesion region will enable sustainable growth which is essential for gradual equalisation of the SE cohesion region´s economic development with that of the most

52

developed regions of the EU.

The priorities of ROP SE have been formulated with respect to those of other operational programmes and follow the principles of subsidiarity and relevant prerequisites and dispositions for regional development. Both regions comprising the SE cohesion region have paid particular attention to the projection of their priorities into the overall framework of the Czech Republic´s operational programmes for the programming period 2007–2013. In the course of determining the areas of support in the ROP SE, it was also important to define the demarcation lines with specific operational programmes and with other interventions financed by the EU.

The ROP SE strategy seeks to enforce the principles of sustainable development, which would employ the capacity of the region. Such development shall be based on stable economic growth accompanied by considerate use of resources, on respect for the social needs of the population, and on protection of the environment.

The basic value perspectives considered during the process of formulating the ROP SE strategy include all dimensions of sustainable development – economic, social and environmental.

The suggested ROP SE strategy fully respects the basic objectives of the Lisbon Strategy (proclaimed at the spring session of the European Council in 2000). Individual member countries, including the Czech Republic, have further developed the Lisbon strategy into separate national documents – national reform programmes.

The most important reform measures of the Czech National Reform Programme, which is reflected in the ROP SE, are modernisation and development of the transport networks, creation of a high–quality business environment and, in the employment sphere, flexibility of the labour market. Reforms implemented in the education sphere, along with the necessary modernisation of the infrastructure, will lead to an improvement of the workforce´s qualifications, increase the number of opportunities for obtaining education and lead to an improved ability to meet the demands of the changing labour market.

2.1.3 External and internal strategy starting points – the “tree of problems”

The “tree of problems” identifies crucial development barriers/spheres of problems with their causation and potential impacts. ROP SE is complementarily with other thematic OP´s focused on eliminating or minimising of impacts caused by identified causations for problematic areas, respectively minimising of intensity of such impacts.

53

Fig. 6: Tree of problems of the NUTS 2 Southeast Im

pa

cts

Decrease of transport safety, increase of number

of accidents

Poor competitiveness of graduates.

Further deepening of regional disparities

Insufficient propagation of potential

attractiveness of tourism in the region

Degradation of quality of health and social

services

Increasing of number of population socially

excluded due to problematic accessibility

Poorly accessible neglected tourist

landmarks

Intensifying of socio–pathological phenomena,

deepening of social exclusion.

Decreasing and ageing of population as a result of

migration

Further deepening of regional disparities

between urban and rural areas

Decreasing and ageing of population, namely in

rural areas as a result of migration

Low attractiveness of region due to increase of

costs for investors.

Low attractiveness of region, exodus of

visitors and possible funds.

Impacts of unsolved ecological burdens and under-used potential of

brownfields.

Co

nse

qu

ence

s

Continuous degradation of

transport infrastructure.

Poor infrastructure for tourism resulting in low attractiveness of region, deepening of regional disparities, increase of

unemployment.

Further deepening of regional disparities,

impairing public services quality standards,

deterioration of quality of life.

Key

pro

ble

m

Problematically competitive region without conditions for efficient utilisation of the development capacity, without comprehensively improved transport accessibility and connection of the poles of growth in the region, with limited use of capacity in the sphere of tourism along with stagnation or worsening of quality of life in urban and rural areas in defiance of the principles of sustainable development.

54

Sp

her

e o

f P

rob

lem

s

Substandard transport infrastructure, impaired

accessibility.

Under-used potential of tourism, decreasing of region attractiveness, dilapidation of tourist

landmarks.

Significant disparities between urban and rural

areas, increasing of unemployment,

insufficient quality of public services.

Ca

usa

tio

n

Poor technical condition of road infrastructure at all

levels, incomplete regional road pattern and slow

modernization of roads in the region.

Poor technical condition of transport infrastructure and services influencing

visiting rate.

Dilapidation of physical environment and public

spaces in urbanized areas.

Impaired accessibility and serviceability of some marginal parts of the

region.

Poor technical condition of many cultural sites,

high cost of maintenance and repair.

Decreasing population in the SE region; low birth rate results in a declining population, population

ageing.

Impact of busy traffic on population (noise,

emissions, safety of pedestrians and cyclists).

Unsatisfactory primary and complementary

infrastructure of tourism, including transport

infrastructure.

Pronounced intraregional disparities, i.e. in

unemployment rate along with structural unemployment.

Underdeveloped inform. and propag. system of tourism in the region.

Insufficiently developed extension education of

adults and life–long education.

Increasing deficit between demand for and supply of social services, poor technical condition

of buildings.

Brownfields.

55

2.1.4 Main marks of strategy

The strategy and the ROP SE interventions inseparably interlinked with it are targeted at the region’s problems unambiguously identified in the SWOT analysis and in the socio–economic analysis. Interventions by means of ROP SE are complementary to the system of interventions tackled by programmes aided from both SF and CF, and to the Programme for the Development of Countryside funded from EAFRD. It is exactly the coordination and the mutual interlinking of all interventions realized in the territory of the SE cohesion region that will lead to a maximum synergic effect. The use of financial resources from the regional and thematic operational programmes will provide a comprehensive solution for all core problems of the region, including the fulfilment of global and specific programme objectives. During the fulfilment of the strategy and objectives, ROP SE will put strong emphasis on maintaining its effectiveness, the principle of transparency, enforcing equal opportunities, and positive impact on the environment.

While the interventions of thematic operational programmes are channelled to the relevant sectors, ROP SE accentuates a comprehensive approach to the region. The emphasis is put primarily on enhanced transport accessibility for inhabitants, and on enhancing the quality and attractiveness of the region’s environment for both visitors and for residents. An attractive, equally developing region with good transport connections has a significant competitive advantage for its further growth and the inflow of investments.

As to geographic differentiation, ROP SE is directed at the solution of current problems in towns including their relation to hinterland, in rural areas, including civic amenities, and at the interconnection of urban and rural space. Interventions focused on strengthening towns as generators of growth and centres of regional development will also aid the creation of urban networks capable of providing the impetus for development and innovation. Support focused on enhancing the quality of life in small towns and rural areas will lead to the reduction of regional disparities, to the stimulation of the local economy and consequently to the fulfilment of the objective of the balanced development of the whole region.

2.2 VISION, GLOBAL OBJECTIVE AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THE ROP

2.2.1 Vision

“The region should become highly competitive through several components of development: growing knowledge based economy of major centres, well-connected smaller poles of growth, and sustainable competitiveness of the regions well known and attractive tourist destinations.”

The region is effectively exploiting its strategic geographical position as an important transport hub for the Czech Republic, and also, thanks to its good international connections, for the whole Central European territory. Air transport also plays a very important role in the region’s development.

It is a region with a high quality living environment and a well-maintained landscape.

The region has a low unemployment rate and it can offer trouble-free and attractive use of its labour market.

The region will continue to employ modern and competitive agricultural methods in rural areas, with an emphasis on quality of life in the countryside and in border regions.

The conception will be completed by participation of all the operational programmes in the programming period 2007–2013.

• Research and development potential, innovative and educational potential of the region: OP RDI, OP HRE, OP EI, OP EC, ROP SE.

• Employment and labour market: OP HRE, OP EI, ROP SE. • Tourism – IOP, ROP SE.

56

• Rural development, competitive agriculture, environment: RDP, OP E, ROP SE. • Transport: OP T, ROP SE.

The regions have the capacity to increase the effectiveness of the aid through the expertise of regional authorities, councils and municipalities. They effectively support and extend the absorption capacity of the region and notify the inhabitants – beneficiaries – of available options within the family of European funds. In this way, the experience from the previous programming period will be exploited.

2.2.2 Global objective

The global objective of the Regional Operational Programme for the NUTS 2 SE cohesion region, based on the vision of the SE region, is an answer to the region’s substantiated needs. It corresponds with the priorities of the Czech Republic expressed in the National Strategic Reference Framework, and with those of the European Union expressed in the Community Strategic Guidelines. The global objective of the ROP for the NUTS 2 SE cohesion region is as follows:

“Strengthening the competitiveness of the region by creating the conditions for efficient utilisation of the development capacity in the NUTS 2 SE cohesion region through the overall improvement of transport accessibility and by connecting the poles of growth in the region, leading in turn to the use of capacity in the sphere of tourism. The objective also includes improvement in quality of life in urban and rural areas in line with the principles of sustainable development.”

The developmental objective is to gradually achieve an economic, social and cultural level for the region that would be comparable with advanced European regions. Attainment of this global objective is conditional on improvement of transport accessibility and transport services of the area in order to make use of the economic and social capacities of the region, to improve the conditions for the lives of people in urban and rural areas and to utilise the existing capacity in the sphere of tourism. The global objective of the ROP SE respects the strategic plans of regional policy of the Czech Republic, the Sustainable Development Strategy and the Economic Growth Strategy of the Czech Republic.

However, the Regional Operational Programme is not, and cannot be, the only means of achieving the global objective of the SE cohesion region. Efficient co–ordination of the interventions by the ROP SE and those of the thematic operational programmes in the interests of the SE cohesion region is an absolutely essential condition. Fulfilment of the following external prerequisites is of particular importance: central policy and interventions of thematic operational programmes will facilitate and support the region’s restructuring. They will make the region accessible via arterial roads and remove the deficit in the sphere of research, development and productive investments. They will also bolster resources for continuous training of employees in the productive sectors and provide sufficient funds for elimination of environmental risks and for landscape care. The position and importance of the Regional Operational Programme must be therefore defined in the context of other operational programmes, taking into account that the basis of this definition is specified in the approved National Strategic Reference Framework.

In the sphere of strengthening the economic competitiveness of the SE cohesion region, investments in the development and strengthening of the competitive business sector in the region will play an especially important role. Interventions directed at increasing motivation to do business, developing necessary business infrastructure and the provision of high–quality consulting services for enterprise are provided by means of the thematic operational programme, as are further R&D capacities, their enhanced standard, and utilisation of the innovative capacity of the SE cohesion region. One of the main roles of the ROP SE will be to support the development of sustainable tourism as an important development activity boosting the economic diversification of the SE cohesion region. This contributes to the development of business, increased employment and the creation of new jobs. Synergy with the Integrated Operational Programme (IOP) which will, in complement with ROP, support organization and management of the tourist trade and marketing and promotion of the Czech Republic at a national level, will also be significant. At the same

57

time, support will be channelled to renovation of monuments at national and transregional levels and to utilization of Czech cultural heritage.

One of the prerequisites for economic growth of the SE cohesion region is ensuring the necessary infrastructure (road infrastructure in particular) for factories. Modern transport infrastructure is an important factor within the framework of many companies’ business activities, which also significantly influences the economic and social attractiveness of a given location. Investment in the transport infrastructure of the SE cohesion region, which in economic terms lags behind the average European cohesion region, represents one of the basic conditions for ensuring long–term sustainable economic growth, which will strengthen the convergence of the region with the rest of the European Union. Construction and modernisation of the transport infrastructure, which plays a major role in both the region’s and in the whole country’s economy, will be implemented in the territory of the region by means of a thematic operational programme. Attention will be paid especially to the construction and modernisation of the Trans–European transport network (TEN–T) and other linked networks, including the assurance of necessary traffic safety and smooth traffic flow. The connection of the SE cohesion region to the backbone network of the Czech Republic, and the interconnections to be implemented within the region, will significantly strengthen the permeability of road networks, and the region’s accessibility. Regional air transport, with respect to its role as a dynamically developing branch of transport providing connection of the region with more distant European destinations, will be also supported.

The creation of a modern civil society open to external opportunities, as well as the ability to respond to such impulses, are essential conditions for long–term sustainable growth and improvement in the quality of life of the SE cohesion region’s inhabitants. This in turn requires a modern education system as a source of efficiency and flexibility on the labour market. The general objective is to build a strong and competitive knowledge economy capable of creating new, high–quality jobs. The main source of financial resources for human resources development in the Southeast region is OP HRE. Also important are modernization of the educational system, development of the school system and of the population’s level of education by means of targeted interventions by OP EC.

A specific mark of the ROP is its respect for the regional dimension of the cohesion policy. Local capacity contributing to the sustainability of economic and social structures will be developed in the region by means of a strategic approach. Emphasis will be laid especially on the development of urban and regional centres as poles of growth which have a great impact on the region’s competitiveness. The consequent synergic effects will have a stabilizing effect on rural areas.

The specific problems and needs of these poles of growth will therefore be considered within the framework of the proposed objectives and priorities of the ROP SE. It is, for example, important to acquire highly–qualified workers (by way of measures influencing the accessibility of high–quality education, healthcare and other services). It is important that in the context of deep–rooted problems of social cohesion, economic, social and cultural integration are intensified for the most disadvantaged groups in towns. It is also important to enhance the availability and accessibility of key services. In compliance with the improvement of the standard of living of population groups suffering from social exclusion, it is necessary to improve their access to key services – health, education and social infrastructure. The IOP intervention in the sphere of public service infrastructure – complementary to the ROP and extending the synergy therewith – will be primarily centred on modernization and renewal of technical and medical equipment within the framework of the national health care network and on investment projects aimed at social integration at a national level.

In the sphere of public services infrastructure, the ROP SE intervention will be directed at enhancing the quality of the care provided in public health facilities which are not part of the national network assisted by the Integrated Operational Programme. In the sphere of social integration, support will be provided for investments directed at the assurance of accessibility, sufficient capacity and quality of non–profit establishments providing social welfare services. This support will function primarily as a follow–up to local community planning of social services. In the sphere of enhancing the quality of education, ROP interventions will be channelled into projects of equipment upgrades and improvement of technical conditions in the instruction of schools, educational institutions and infrastructure for further education.

58

Interventions benefitting rural settlements will assure a corresponding level of access to services of general economic and social concern, which is essential to prevent the outflow of people from rural areas. It is also necessary to build connections with the main regional, inland and European transportation networks. Rural areas are often strongly dependent on tourism. The integrated approach should be primarily concerned with having a beneficial impact on the sphere of tourism, local economy, people employed in the sphere of tourism, visitors, local population and on natural and cultural heritage. The objective of the interventions in favour of the countryside is the stabilization of population in rural (particularly peripheral) regions accompanied by strengthening of the centres of rural micro–regions, and harmonizing the relationships between the urban areas and their hinterlands by reinforcing their partnership.

The inclusion of innovative actions is also planned within the framework of ROP SE, focusing especially on supporting the implementation (or completion of the existing) regional innovative strategies with the objective of interconnecting their implementation with other strategic documents at the level of towns or regions. However, the aim of the aid from ROP will be the implementation of these strategies, i.e. the coordination of regional participants and meeting the strategic objectives. Significant utilization of the networking method at the European level is planned with respect to these innovative actions.

2.2.3 Specific objectives and high–priority axes

For the programming period 2007–2013, the global objective is divided into the following specific objectives of the ROP SE on the basis of the SE cohesion region’s needs as identified by means of a socioeconomic analysis and SWOT analysis, and with respect to the complementarity of the ROP with other instruments of public interventions supporting the SE cohesion region’s development:

Specific objective 1: Increasing the quality of accessibility and transport services in the area whilst respecting the need for environmental protection.

Specific objective 2: Increasing the participation of sustainable tourism in the economic prosperity of the region.

Specific objective 3: Increasing the quality of living conditions for the population in urban and rural areas.

Specific objective 1: Increasing the quality of transport accessibility and transport services in the area while respecting the need for environmental protection

This specific objective is linked to the global objective of the ROP from the perspective of the region’s transport accessibility, which is the main prerequisite of development of all other economic and social activities. The key priority of specific objective 1 is to increase attractiveness of the region for economic activities (national and international investment) which are now concentrated mainly in few urban centres. It is essential to closely link this specific objective with support for quality transport accessibility of the region’s tourist destinations.

In this field the ROP strategy is oriented to the assurance of the region’s quality connection with the European and state transport infrastructures and interconnection inside the region within the framework of its regional road pattern and to the assurance of the quality of the regional transport services system. Attention is also paid to town public transport services, connections with the region’s marginal areas, and air transport accessibility of the region via an international airport in the hinterland of the region’s urban centre – Brno.

A specific objective of the ROP, “Increasing the quality of transport accessibility and transport services whilst respecting the need for environmental protection”, will be implemented by means of the priority axis Transport accessibility.

59

The specific objective of the ROP, “Increasing the quality of transport accessibility and transport services whilst respecting the need for environmental protection”, is linked to the Community Strategic Guidelines, particularly with Guideline I – Making Europe and its regions more attractive places to invest and work, or the strategic objective of the National Strategic Reference Framework Attractive environment. It contains a direct link to strategic objective IV Balanced Development of Territory. The assurance of efficient, flexible and safe transport infrastructure is a basic precondition for economic growth because it increases productivity and therefore the SE cohesion region’s development prospects by facilitating the movement of persons and goods. The complementarity of the ROP investments in secondary connections with the TEN–T projects of European significance, financed from the thematic operational programme, is also important for the region’s potential full utilisation of the opportunities opened by modernisation of the interregional transport infrastructures. No less important is the assistance to sustainable modes of transportation and taking measures with a positive impact on the environment. That includes assistance to the public transportation system, measures aimed at increasing safety on roads, and construction of roads and pavements designed for pedestrians and cyclists. Last but not least, transport accessibility is of great significance with respect to horizontal themes, particularly equal opportunities. Persons living in areas characterized by difficult transport accessibility are considerably handicapped with respect to the labour market, a fact which has an essential impact on the economic situation of the region.

Specific objective 2: Increasing the participation of sustainable tourism in the economic prosperity of the region

An important aspect of tourism is its positive impact on employment, the creation of new jobs and the promotion of enterprise, all of which contribute to an increase in the region’s prosperity. This objective can be achieved through activating the capacity in this sphere, particularly by developing infrastructure for tourism, developing new services and improving existing ones and products of tourism, boosting marketing and promoting and assisting activities oriented to the preservation of the cultural and natural heritage.

The focus of the ROP strategy SE in the promotion of tourism in the region is on creating an attractive and colourful range of products and programmes that will be competitive in the marketplace of tourist destinations in the Czech Republic and in the whole central–European area.

The specific objective of the ROP SE “Increasing the participation of tourism in the economic prosperity of the region” will be implemented by means of the priority axis Development of sustainable tourism.

The specific objective of the ROP “Increasing the participation of tourism in the economic prosperity of the region” is consistent with the NSRF priority “Development of sustainable tourism and utilization of the cultural wealth potential” defined in the strategic objective Competitive Czech economy and focused on increasing the competitiveness of the whole sphere of tourism through assistance to the utilisation and further expansion of the capacity existing in the Czech Republic.

Specific objective 3: Increasing the quality of living conditions for the population in

urban and rural areas

This specific objective extends to the global objective of the ROP with respect to balanced and harmonious development in the whole territory of the SE cohesion region. It deals with the spatial structures in the region (settlement structure, urban centres and centres of regional significance, rural areas) and their specific problems that need to be addressed.

As far as the urban and regional centres (in the sense of poles of growth of the region) are concerned, it is especially a matter of developing their socioeconomic functions with the aim of strengthening their competitiveness. In synergy with the activities specified in the thematic operational programmes implemented in urban areas, (especially assistance to enterprise by means of the Operational Programme (OP) Enterprise and Innovation, increasing the level of education of the population by means of the OP Education for Competitiveness, assistance to research and development by means of the OP Research and

60

Development for Innovation and increasing employment by means of the OP Human Resources and Employment), the ROP SE will focus particularly on completing the construction of public infrastructure and services along with the improvement of their quality, indirect assistance to enterprise in towns especially in the form of revitalisation of abandoned and neglected sites (brownfields) and their transformation into functional socioeconomic urban zones, and comprehensive regeneration of town quarters in the social, economic, town–planning, cultural and ecological spheres. It is also a matter of creating leisure facilities for the population and improving the facilities of residential zones by public services and utilities.

Interventions designed for the rural settlements will focus on preserving and increasing the rural population’s quality of life, improving accessibility of public services and utilities, strengthening the bonds between rural and urban areas, aiding economic diversification of rural areas, and improving the quality of public open spaces as a follow–up to the stabilization of settlements in the rural areas.

As far as the educational sphere is concerned, the SE cohesion region is fully aware that educated people capable of life–long learning are of key significance for the increased competitiveness of the region, for boosting its economic growth and, last but not least, for the assurance of a flexible workforce. In order to ensure that the standard of graduates of each level of the educational system is compatible with the requirements, it is necessary to support processes in line with the Lisbon Strategy until 2010 in the educational system, which will lead to enhanced quality, efficiency and ease of access to education for everybody and which will open up the sphere of education to people from other countries. This strategy of school and educational infrastructure support corresponds to the objectives of the National Plan of Development of the Czech Republic 2007–2013, Long–term education plans and the development of the pedagogical and educational system of the South Moravian and Vysočina regions. The need for investment in maintenance, and in development of the structural and technical condition of schools and educational institutions is included in the activities of the draft part for the year 2006 of the Programme of the Southmoravian region. Development and investment in this sphere is also indirectly planned in the objectives of measure 2.1.2 Development of the system of regional education, implementation of suitable educational programmes and their coordination with the labour market needs of the programming part of the Programme of the Vysočina region Development.

With respect to the need for investment in health care infrastructure and in the technical equipment of health care facilities, investments (e.g. radiographic equipment, rehabilitation establishments and post–rehabilitation facilities) in this sphere aimed at enhancing the quality of the provided services and increasing the range of available medical services in the region will be supported in the ROP SE. Support of these investments is in compliance with the National Plan of Development of the Czech Republic 2007–2013 and with the EU Community Strategic Guidelines for the period of 2007–2013 which identifies the improvement of health care infrastructure and services as one of the ways of enhancing the health care sector’s efficiency. Support of investments in health care infrastructure is also in line with the Commission Directive No. 2006/702//EC on community general strategic guidelines for cohesion, which also emphasises the importance, particularly in regions which are falling behind, of enhancing the quality of long–term care facilities, and investing in health care infrastructure within the scope of cohesion policy, especially when their non–existence or inadequate development represents an obstacle to economic development. The need for investment in health care infrastructure corresponds to measures of the Programme for Development of individual regions of the cohesion region Southeast, in which the Vysočina region will set the target of continuous quality enhancement of the medical equipment within the framework of the measure 2.3.1 Preservation and enhancement of conditions in the health care sphere. Within the framework of the measures stipulated in C.3 draft part of the Programme of the Southmoravian region Development: Support and development of health care and social welfare establishments network and quality enhancement of health and social services, the Southmoravian region sets the target to optimize the health facilities network’s accessibility, technical equipment, economic situation, and the quality of the provided services. Optimization of the health facilities network’s accessibility, technical equipment, economic situation and quality of the provided services, as well as the safeguarding of accessibility of medical first–aid service in less accessible parts of the region, is a method for quality enhancement of that network; it can be further strengthened by aiding non–governmental non–profit

61

organizations’ operating in the health education and prevention sphere in the territory of the region, i.e. by augmentation of non–governmental non–profit organizations activity in the health care sphere.

In connection with the solution to the social infrastructure problems listed in subchapter 1.2.4 Regional disparities, particular emphasis will be placed on assisting, in line with the National Plan of Development of the Czech Republic 2007–2013, investment in the infrastructure of non–profit social welfare establishments registered pursuant to the Act No. 108/2006 Coll. on social services as amended, in the sense of quality and comfort enhancement of the social welfare establishments as a follow–up to the community plans which are used as an instrument for ameliorating the situation in the social services sphere. In addition, investments within the framework of ROP SE in infrastructure and equipment of facilities serving the purposes of social integration services for groups threatened and affected by social exclusion will be supported. Support to investments in social services infrastructure is also mentioned in the Joint Memorandum on Social Inclusion and the National Action Plan of Social Inclusion. This support is essential because, in spite of the economic boom, the rise of productivity and growth in living standards of the majority of the population in the SE cohesion region, the bulk of social welfare facilities are inadequate or in unsatisfactory condition and individual facilities are not in the position (or only at the cost of disproportionate expenditures especially on human resources) to provide quality services at an adequate level. One of the basic prerequisites for equal living conditions for all inhabitants is a balanced social infrastructure which contributes to the creation of appropriate social securities, education and potential for the development of lifestyle and life opportunities.

The implementation (or completion of the existing) regional innovative strategies (RIS) will also form a part of the fulfilment of the specific objective.

The specific objective of the ROP SE “Improving the quality of living conditions for the population in urban and rural areas” will be implemented by means of the priority axis Sustainable development of towns and rural area.

The specific objective of the ROP SE “Improving the quality of living conditions for the population in urban and rural areas” is directly related to the strategic objective of the NSRF Balanced development of the region and its priority “Development of urban areas” (by strengthening the role of the regional centres as poles of growth of the SE cohesion region) and “Development of rural areas” (by means of sustainable development of rural areas in the region). There is also a direct connection with the “Education” and “Strengthening of social cohesion” priorities defined in the NSRF strategic objective Open, flexible and coherent society especially by means of conceptually and systematically created and developed infrastructure aimed at supporting education and knowledge, as well as by means of high quality, easily available social, cultural and healthcare infrastructures essential for implementing the social cohesion.

The achievement of the global objective of the ROP SE is conditioned not only by fulfilling individual specific objectives of the ROP but also by key links between these specific objectives:

1 Fulfilment of the specific objective “Increasing the participation of sustainable tourism in the economic prosperity of the region” is conditioned by good quality transport accessibility and transport services of the region which provide smooth spatial mobility to its visitors;

2 Similarly, the fulfilment of the specific objective “Increasing the quality of transport accessibility and transportation services of the area whilst respecting the need for protection of the environment” is interrelated with the specific objective “Increasing the quality of living conditions of the population in urban and rural areas” because only good transport accessibility of regional centres and rural areas can enable successful development of economic activities in urban and rural areas, which increases the competitive strength of the SE cohesion region and ensures its economic growth.

62

Fig. 7: Coincidence matrix link between SWOT analysis and specific objectives of the ROP SE

SELECTED STRENGHTS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND

THREATS OF THE SWOT ANYLYSIS

Spec. objective

Spec

ific

obj

. 1

Spec

ific

obj

. 2

Spec

ific

obj

. 3

STRENGHTS

Inflow of investments into the region from large developers. +++ + ++

Great potential in the development of innovations and innovative enterprise, existence of institutions and infrastructure supporting innovation businesses in the region. +++

++

Favourable trends in the development of employment structure sector. +++ +++

Presence of attractions of supra–regional and international significance (esp. natural and cultural monuments and UNESCO sites), many castles and manors and other cultural and historic sites.

++ +++ ++

Existence of regional specifics with potential for the development of thematic products of tourism (wine districts, local folklore and traditions, good condition of countryside, etc.).

++ +++ ++

Favourable geographical position of the region with respect to the road pattern of supra–regional and international significance (TEN–T network). +++ ++ +

Existence and development of Integrated Transportation System. +++ + ++

Public international civil airport in Brno–Tuřany. +++ ++ +

Network of international, supra–regional, regional, local and other bicycle tracks (incl. thematic ones). ++ ++ ++

Brno and Jihlava as urbanization centres of international and national importance, Existence of other regional centres with economic potential, jobs and civil amenities.

++ + +++

Availability and number of educational establishments along with good facilities in the region as regards the health care services network.

+ +++

High level of cultural and social stability of rural areas in the region. ++ ++ +++

63



Spec. objective

Spec

ific

obj

. 1

Spec

ific

obj

. 2

Spec

ific

obj

. 3

WEAKNESSES cifi

cký

cíl

Decreasing population in the SE region; low birth rate results in a declining population, population ageing. + +++

Pronounced intraregional disparities, i.e. in unemployment rate along with structural unemployment. +++ +++ +++

Insufficiently developed extension education of adults and life–long education. +++

Unsatisfactory primary and complementary infrastructure of tourism, including transport infrastructure. +++ +++ ++

Poor technical condition of many cultural sites, high cost of maintenance and repair. +++ ++

Poor quality of roads and transportation services affecting visiting rates. +++ +++ ++

Poor technical condition of road infrastructure at all levels, incomplete regional road pattern and slow modernization of roads in the region. +++ + ++

Impact of busy traffic on population (noise, emissions, safety of pedestrians and cyclists). +++ +++

Impaired accessibility and serviceability of some marginal parts of the region. +++ + +++

Increasing deficit between demand for and supply of social services, poor technical condition of buildings and premises. +++

Dilapidation of physical environment and public spaces in urbanized areas. +++

64



Spec. objective

Spec

ific

obj

. 1

Spec

ific

obj

. 2

Spec

ific

obj

. 3

OPPORTUNITIES

Strengthening of the region’s competitiveness by means of strong innovative policy. ++ ++

Utilization of unique cultural and natural wealth for development of tourism. +++ ++

Growth potential, especially in congress tourism, learning tourism, cycling, water sports and hiking connected with local traditions (folklore) and products (esp. wine making).

+ +++ ++

Willingness of the region’s population to use IDS and unpowered transport as an alternative to IAD. +++ ++

Utilization of EU structural funds for the development of road infrastructure and transportation services in the region (for example, by the development of the international civil airport).

+++ ++

Reinforcement of the functionality and role of urban and regional centres as the region’s poles of growth. ++ + +++

Demand of the population for housing in rural areas, transfer of development incentives from centres to their hinterlands. +++ + +++

Health improvement of the population and labour force in the region. +++

Utilization of information and communication technologies for strengthening the competitiveness of remote and sparsely populated areas in the region. + + +++

Revitalization of brownfields and other unused premises for new purposes. + + +++

65



Spec. objective

Spec

ific

obj

. 1

Spec

ific

obj

. 2

Spec

ific

obj

. 3

THREATS

Decreased competitiveness of the region due to poor utilization of the available technological and innovative potential. +++ +++ +++

Growing unemployment, structural and long–term unemployment in particular. ++ +++ +++

Low visiting rate due to problematic competitiveness of region at international level and on national level as well. ++ +++ ++

Delays in the construction and modernization of higher rank communication routes. +++ + ++

Further worsening transport infrastructure quality at the level of NUTS 2 region. +++ ++ +++

Decreasing proportion of working population due to population ageing and migration. +++ +++

Worsening of the population´s health condition. + +++

Increasing deficit between the demand for and supply of social services. + +++

Digital divide – increasing social and economic differences in the society due to territorial disparities in the use of modern information and communication technologies.

+ +++

Poor support on the part of government for revitalization of brownfields and old ecological burdens. ++ +++

+++ – high coincidence, ++ – medium coincidence, + – low coincidence.

66

Fig. 8: Diagram of the structured links between the global objective, specific objectives and priority axes of the ROP SE

Technical assistance

In order to support efficient management and utilisation of the ROP SE during the programming period 2007–2013, the priority axis Technical assistance has been developed. It is a sectional priority axis of the ROP SE which will concern all other priority axes of the ROP SE. Resources covering the costs associated with management, monitoring, supervision, analysis, promotion and provision of information on the level of the whole ROP, and strengthening of the region’s absorption capacity will be provided within the framework of this priority axis.

2.2.4 ROP consistency with the EU strategic documents

Community Strategic Guidelines

The main objective of the Community Strategic Guidelines 2007–2013, which will be specified by the Council (EC) after relevant regulations have been passed and on the basis of the proposal of the Commission, is the definition of the priorities of the Community. These priorities will be addressed within the framework of the cohesion policy in order to strengthen the cooperation activities specified in the Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs with the Lisbon Strategy.

Community Strategic Guidelines 2007–2013 state the priorities of the Community which will be addressed in the coming programming period within the framework of cohesion policy in individual member countries. These determined priorities shall significantly contribute to the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy, defined in the Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs. The table below shows the rate of consistency of the ROP SE with the Community.

Global objective Strengthening the competitiveness of the region by means of creating the

conditions for efficient utilisation of the development capacity in the NUTS 2

SE cohesion region through the comprehensive improvement of transport

accessibility and connecting the poles of growth in the region, which also

leads to the use of capacity in the sphere of tourism. The objective also

includes improvement of conditions for life quality of people living in urban

and rural areas in line with the principles of sustainable development

Specific objective 1 Improving the quality of

transportation accessibi-

lity and transport ser-

vices of the region

whilst resp. the need for

envir. protection

Specific objective 3

Improving the living

conditions of the

population in urban and

rural areas

Priority axis Transport accessibility

Priority axis Sustainable

development of towns

and rural area

Priority axis Technical assistance

Specific objective 2

Increasing the

participation of

sustainable tourism in

the economic prosperity

of the region

Priority axis Development of

sustainable tourism

67

Table 28: Consistency of the ROP with the Community Strategic Guidelines Priority axes of the ROP SE Transport

accessibility Development of

sustainable tourism

Sustainable development of

towns and rural area General principle I: Making Europe and its regions more attractive places to invest and work

Extending and improving transport infrastructures

XXX X

Strengthening the cooperation between environmental protection and growth

X X XX

Addressing intensive utilisation of traditional energy resources in Europe

General principle II: Improvement of knowledge and innovation: Road to growth Increasing and improving investments in research and technological development

X

Facilitating innovations and supporting entrepreneurship

X X

Assisting the development of information (ICT) society for all

X

Facilitating access to information General principle III: Creation of more and better jobs Bringing more people to work, assurance of their permanence at work, modernising systems of social security

X

Increasing adaptability of workers and companies, increasing flexibility of the labour markets

X

Increasing investments in human capital by means of enhanced education and qualification

XX

Administrative capacity Assisting the creation of a healthy workforce XXX

Note: XXX – Priority axis of the ROP is predominantly focused on achieving objectives of the concerned priority of the Community Strategic Guidelines

XX – Priority axis of the ROP significantly contributes to achieving objectives of the concerned priority of the Community Strategic Guidelines

X – Priority axis of the ROP does not directly address the concerned priority of the Community Strategic Guidelines but it contributes to achievement of their objectives in a mediated way

Working paper EC “Cohesion Policy and cities: The urban contribution to growth and jobs in the regions”

This working paper formulates the recommendation of a more integrated and strategic approach towards addressing issues concerning towns and cities. The proposals form a part of the reform of the cohesion policy put into effect by the European Commission in the period 2007–2013. The results of a public hearing of this document served as one of the supporting documents for the formulation of the framework of future priorities for programmes financed by the EU in the programming period 2007–2013 in the sphere of city and urban areas development.

The strategy of the ROP SE complies with the recommendations of this working document. The recommendations concern the priority solution of problematic areas of the urban space, which are the following: transportation, accessibility, and mobility, availability of services, physical environment and culture. These problematic areas should become the centre of attention in relation to the economic growth and increasing quality of life in the cities.

68

2.2.5 ROP consistency with the strategic documents of national significance

National Strategic Reference Framework

The National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) is a key political document that is required by the Guidelines at the level of individual member states. The NSRF of the Czech Republic defines the system of coordination between the economic and cohesion policies in the Czech Republic and develops the priorities of individual partial objectives in detail. The NSRF also defines the strategies necessary for achieving these objectives, including the projection of these strategies into the structure of operational programmes.

Table 29: Consistency of the ROP with the NSRF Priority axes of the ROP SE Transport


sustainable tourism


towns and rural area Strategic objective I: Competitive Czech economy

Competitive business sector XX XX Increasing the capacities of research and development in order to boost innovations

X X

Sustainable development of tourism X XXX X Strategic objective II: Open, flexible and cohesive society Education XXX Increasing employment and employability X X Strengthening social cohesion X XX XX Developing information society X XX Smart Administration Strategic objective III: Attractive environment Protecting and improving the quality of the environment

X X XX

Enhancing transport accessibility XXX Strategic objective IV: Balanced regional development Balanced development of regions XXX XX XX Developing urban areas X X XXX Developing rural areas X X XXX

Note: XXX – Priority axis of the ROP is predominantly focused on achieving objectives of the concerned priority of the NSRF XX – Priority axis of the ROP significantly contributes to achieving objectives of the concerned priority of the NSRF

X – Priority axis of the ROP does not directly address the concerned priority of the NSRF but it contributes to achievement of its objectives in a mediated way

A considerable contribution to the fulfilment of the NSRF strategic objective “Balanced development of the area” is expected from ROP SE. ROP focuses primarily on the development of relevant transport infrastructure (i.e. construction, reconstructions, modernization, and improvement of 2nd and 3rd class roads; particularly those which serve as a connection to the TEN–T road network) and on the creation or reinforcement of the integrated metropolitan or regional systems of public transport. Furthermore, ROP will support the development of tourism for which there is also substantial potential in the rural and peripheral areas. The renovation and rescue operations of cultural monuments which have an essential impact on the development of tourism will be supported.

The inclusion of innovative actions, the character of which will depend on the needs of the SE region, is planned within the framework of Priority Axis ROP SE “Balanced development of towns and rural areas.” These innovative actions will concentrate especially on the support to the implementation (or completion of the existing) regional innovative strategies with the objective of interconnecting their implementation with other strategic documents at the level of towns or regions. However, the aim of the aid from ROP will be the emphasis on the implementation of these strategies, i.e. on the coordination of regional participants and actual assertion of the strategy objectives. Significant utilization of the networking method at the European level is planned with respect to these innovative actions.

69

National Reform Programme of the Czech Republic The National Lisbon Programme 2005–2008 (the National Reform Programme of the Czech Republic – NRP) is a binding political document regarding priorities and measures in the macroeconomic and microeconomic spheres and employment policy for the period 2005–2008. The objective of the NRP is to strengthen political responsibility for the fulfilment of the Lisbon Strategy and to enable an evaluation and fulfilment of the prescribed reform measures at the state level. The National Reform Programme also gives the opportunity to raise public awareness of the priorities of economic policy, the employment policy in particular, and to inform the public about the necessity of taking the reform steps to which the Czech Republic is committing itself.

Table 30: Consistency of the ROP with the NRP Priority axes of the ROP SE Transport


sustainable tourism


towns and rural area Macroeconomic sphere

Macroeconomic stability and sustainable growth Microeconomic sphere Business sector X Research and development, innovation X X Sustainable use of resources Modernisation and development of transportation and ICT comm. networks

XXX X

Employment sphere Flexibility in the labour market X X Integration in the Labour market X X Education XX

Note: XXX – Priority axis of the ROP is predominantly focused on achieving objectives of the concerned priority of the NRP XX – Priority axis of the ROP significantly contributes to achieving objectives of the concerned priority of the NRP

X – Priority axis of the ROP does not directly address the concerned priority of the NRP but it contributes to the achievement of its objectives in a mediated way

The strategy of the ROP SE fully respects the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy and will contribute to the fulfilment of the objectives of the NRP of the Czech Republic. Individual relations between the NRP of the Czech Republic and the ROP SE are shown in the table above.

Sustainable Development Strategy of the Czech Republic

The Sustainable Development Strategy of the Czech Republic (SDS) is a strategic document of the Czech Republic which emphasises the need for development and mutual balance of the social, economic and environmental pillars of sustainable development in a manner that prevents preference of one sphere over the other. It is also conceived as a long–range framework for political decision–making in the context of international commitments which have been made by the Czech Republic or which are planned to be made in connection with its membership in the European Union. The specific conditions and needs of the Czech Republic have, however, been considered. The need for balanced development in the three aforementioned pillars was taken into account in the process of preparation of the ROP SE strategy, and the implementation of the ROP priorities will contribute to the fulfilment of lasting sustainable development in the cohesion region territory.

70

Table 31: Consistency of the ROP with the SDS Priority axes of the ROP SE Transport


sustainable tourism


towns and rural area 1. Economic pillar: Strengthening

competitiveness of the Czech economy XX X

2. Environmental pillar: Protection of the environment, natural resources and landscape; environmental limits

X XX

3. Social pillar: Strengthening social cohesion and stability

X XX

4. Research, development and education X 5. European and international contexts X X X 6. Public administration XX XX XX

Note: XXX – Priority axis of the ROP is predominantly focused on achieving objectives of the concerned pillar of the SDS XX – Priority axis of the ROP significantly contributes to achieving objectives of the concerned pillar of the SDS

X – Priority axis of the ROP does not directly address the concerned pillar of the SDS but it contributes to the achievement of its objectives in a mediated way

Regional Development Strategy of the Czech Republic

The conception of the Regional Development Strategy of the Czech Republic (RDS) respects the objectives of regional policy of the European Union and anticipates a maximum rate of utilisation of all opportunities which arise due to the Czech Republic’s membership of the European Union. It gives a summary of objectives, problematic areas and priorities that need to be addressed during the implementation of a regional development policy in the Czech Republic.

Table 32: Consistency of the ROP with the RDS Priority axes of the ROP SE Transport


sustainable tourism


towns and rural area 1: EU and nation. econ. strat. framework

2: Economy of the regions X X XX 3: Population and settlement XXX 4: Infrastructure XXX X 5: Nature, landscape and environment X X 6: Tourism X XXX 7: Culture XX XX 8: Problematic areas X X X

Note: XXX – Priority axis of the ROP is predominantly focused on achieving objectives of the concerned priority axis of the RDS

XX – Priority axis of the ROP significantly contributes to achieving objectives of the concerned priority axis of the RDS X – Priority axis of the ROP does not directly address the concerned priority axis of the RDS but it contributes to the

achievement of its objectives in a mediated way

2.2.6 ROP consistency with the strategic development documents of regions

The Regional Development Programme is a basic medium–term programming document aimed at assisting development at the regional level with emphasis on the socioeconomic sphere. It specifies the strategic objectives and development activities in the form of particular measures and projects, and determines their recipients and the manner of implementation and financing.

The ROP SE has been developed in close concordance with the key documents of both regions which constitute the SE cohesion region. The ROP strategy reacts to the needs identified in these documents, which are essential for the development of the region from the perspective of future development. They can be financed by means of interventions from the Structural Funds (SF) or from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The Consistency of the ROP SE with the Regional Development Programme

71

(PRK) of the Vysočina region and with the PRK of the South Moravia region is shown in the following tables.

Regional Development Programme of the Vysočina region

Table 33: Consistency of the ROP with the PRK of the Vysočina region

Priority axes of the ROP SE Transport


sustainable tourism


towns and rural area Improving competitive positions of the

economy X XXX XX

Improving quality of the social environment with emphasis on the development of human resources

X XX

Improving quality of the technical background with emphasis on the development of the infrastructure network

XXX X

Introducing principles of sustainable development of the region

X X X

Note: XXX – Priority axis of the ROP is predominantly focused on achieving objectives of the concerned objective of the PRK of the Vysočina region

XX – Priority axis of the ROP significantly contributes to achieving objectives of the concerned objective of the PRK of the Vysočina region

X – Priority axis of the ROP does not directly address the concerned objective of the PRK of the Vysočina region but it contributes to the achievement of its objectives in a mediated way

Regional Development Programme of the Southmoravian region

Table 34: Consistency of the ROP with the PRK of the South–Moravian region

Priority axes of the ROP SE Transport


sustainable tourism Sustainable

development of towns and rural area

Enterprise, research, innovation X XX X

Rural development XX

Human resources and labour market X XXX

Accessibility and infrastructure XXX X X

Environment and natural resources X

Integrated development of the region X X Note: XXX – Priority axis of the ROP is predominantly focused on achieving objectives of the concerned objective of the PRK

of the South–Moravian region XX – Priority axis of the ROP significantly contributes to achieving objectives of the concerned objective of the PRK of

the South–Moravian region X – Priority axis of the ROP does not directly address the concerned objective of the PRK of the South–Moravian region but it contributes to the achievement of its objectives in a mediated way

In conclusion, the proposed ROP SE strategy can be considered as fully complying with the objectives and priorities at the level of the European Community as well as at the national and regional levels. Interventions implemented within the framework of the ROP SE together with the interventions of other programmes will contribute to the achievement of more general objectives leading to the well balanced and harmonious development of regions, accompanied by an increase in the population’s standard of living.

72

2.3 EX–ANTE EVALUATION

Introduction

This report summarizes the main results, conclusions and recommendations from the final ex–ante evaluation of the Regional Operational Programme NUTS 2 SE for the programming period 2007–2013 published in December 2006 and includes the update after incorporation of comments made by the European Commission on the concerned programme in June 2007. The complete wording of the ex–ante evaluation is available at www.jihovychod.cz.

The ex–ante evaluator (the consortium of companies Regio Partner, s.r.o., RavenConsulting, a.s. and Evasco, s.r.o.) was selected on the basis of a competitive tendering; the evaluation was elaborated in accordance with the Performance Contract as of 10 April 2006, or 3 October 2006 as the case may be.

The ex–ante evaluation proceeded in parallel with the ROP creation and its starting points linked up with outputs from the ex–ante evaluation of the National Development Plan and the National Strategic Reference Framework (hereinafter the “NSRF“). Concurrently with the ex–ante evaluation, there was also an assessment of the impact of the operational plan on environment (SEA), which is an integral part of the preliminary assessment of strategic programme documents.

The structure of the whole final ex–ante evaluation of ROP SE is as follows:

Chapter 2 describes the approach to the evaluation project, specifying the process of assessment and the chosen methodology. The methodology of evaluation was based on working documents of the European Commission, viz. “Working Paper on Ex–Ante Evaluation“ and “Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation: A Practical Guide“. Thus, all basic principles emphasized by the European Commission were applied in the assessment. The main methods used for the ex–ante evaluation included e.g. comparative analysis, secondary analysis of administrative and statistical data, analysis of intervention logic, SWOT analysis, problem analysis and participation methods.

Chapter 3 presents results from the ex–ante evaluation in six sub–chapters. The first sub–chapter presents an evaluation of the analytical part of ROP, the second deals with the assessment of whether or not the chosen strategy is justifiable, generally consistent and coherent with externalities. The third sub-chapter evaluates the relevance of the direction of priority axes, and the fourth sub–chapter presents an assessment of the adjustment of indicators, quantification of objectives and anticipated impacts, and the fifth sub–chapter deals with the provision. The sixth sub–chapter is an evaluation of the draft implementation system.

Chapter 4 of the ex–ante evaluation of ROP SE describes the evaluator’s conclusions and recommendations based on the performed evaluation. In relation to the update of ROP according to the comments made by the EC of June 2007, the whole final evaluation report was supplemented by a chapter assessing the progress reached in the period between December 2006 and June 2007 or March and June 2007, as the case may be.

The team of evaluators collaborated closely with the authors of ROP SE, with the Regional Councils of the South–Moravian region and the Vysočina region, and with other relevant partners in the region. Over 20 workshops were held at various levels during the evaluation, which shows that the source for the ex–ante evaluation was not only the analysis of submitted documents but also results from the controlled group discussion and from individual consultations.

ROP SE underwent substantial modifications on the basis of the EC comments in relation to the negotiations with the EC which took place in the period between March and June 2007 and which concerned the final form of the NSRF and the operational programmes. Therefore, the elaborated “Summary of the final ex–ante evaluation of ROP SE” was supplemented by a separate section assessing the progress made with respect to the incorporation of the EC comments.

73

Part I – Evaluation of ROP NUTS 2 SE version of 22 November 2006

Progress in the period from February – November 2006

The final elaboration of the ex–ante evaluation of ROP SE in December 2006 was preceded by interim evaluations and consultations on individual versions dated from February to October 2006. The version which was subject to the final evaluation was dated 22 November 2006.

Reminders and comments on versions from February–May 2006, especially those of methodological character, were available to the authors of ROP only to a limited extent. Significant progress was made after the evaluation of a consolidated version of the document ROP SE that was submitted to the government of the Czech Republic and acknowledged by it. In the month of July, the ex–ante evaluator prepared a general ex–ante evaluation of that version, which identified gross imperfections in the operational programme that would impede – in the evaluator’s opinion – the programme’s acceptance by the European Commission.

Based on this interim evaluation report of July 2006, the reading of ROP SE was completely reworked and the recommendations of the ex–ante evaluator of both methodological and technical character were taken into account in drawing up a new version of ROP of November 22 2006.

• The analytical part underwent substantial changes. The current version is more straightforward, more concise and interlinked with the strategic part of the programme. The chapter in which the experience with the implementation of the programmes of aid in the SE region is analyzed has been extended and necessary conclusions have been added.

• The external coherence of the strategy has been improved as recommended in the ex–ante evaluation by reducing the description of individual strategic documents to a necessary minimum and through the focus on a clear definition of mutual links including the illustration of their intensity. Another important improvement was a greater consideration of complementarity and possible synergic effects with other programmes.

• Priority axes of the operational programme have become a logical conclusion of the line socio–economic analysis – SWOT analysis – strategies, which strengthened the internal consistency of the operational programme.

• Adjustment of indicators, quantification of objectives and anticipated impacts experienced an important move forward in the completion of the system of indicators which now includes relevant indicators linked to NSRF and in fact all mandatory, referred to as “core", indicators.

• Implementation and monitoring reflects the introduction of new implementation structures in the regions (Regional Council of the Cohesion Region), the beneficial influence of the modified methodology for the quantification of indicators, and the extended description of groundwork collection for monitoring and more precise timetabling of the collection.

The interim evaluation report of ROP SE suggested 116 changes in total to ROP SE. 108 of these were accepted and incorporated in full, 6 were accepted and partially incorporated, and 2 comments were rejected.

Results and conclusions of the ex–ante evaluation version of November 22nd 2006

Analytical part

The socio–economic analysis was shortened and is now better arranged, with more logical interlinks, containing only the areas that are relevant for the evaluated ROP SE programme. It clearly shows which problems will be solved by ROP SE.

The analytical part deals only with areas that are relevant for the subsequent strategy of the programme. A sub–chapter of regional disparities has been added to it, which helps to interlink the analytical part with the strategic part. A more exact identification of regional disparities would have been feasible if a clear and concise formulation of essential differences within the region was presented in a separate sub–chapter, i.e. their separation from the analysis of urban and rural spaces.

74

The socio–economic analysis shows an unambiguous need to invest in the regional road pattern, to enhance the accessibility of some districts by public transport service, to support tourism in order to exploit the existing developmental potential in this industry, to stabilize settlement of rural areas, and to resolve problems in towns – main carriers of the region’s growth and development.

There is no discrepancy between the situation analysis and the SWOT analysis. The situation analysis includes developmental trends and the fields of developmental potential, and the suggested interventions reflect the developmental trends.

The current form of the SWOT analysis puts together fundamental findings and conclusions of the situation analysis and represents a bridge connecting the analytical part with the strategic one. In line with the extent of the socio–economic analysis the authors reduced the SWOT analysis so that it reflects only the areas that are relevant with respect to the strategies and interventions of ROP SE. The logical line between the situation analysis, disparities, SWOT analysis and the programme strategy is strong and there are no “gaps“ in it.

Strategy

The defined strategy of the ROP SE programme document is relevant with respect to requirements identified in the analytical part of the document. The strategy and proposed interventions based on it directly reflect the main problems of the region defined in the analytical part.

The programme strategy includes the principles of equal opportunities, sustainable development and well–balanced regional growth. Horizontal themes are projected into the adjustment of indicators.

The strategy exhibits the required external coherence with strategic documents at the European, national and regional levels and expects a significant complementarity with the thematic operational programmes. The implementation of activities drafted within the framework of ROP with relatively limited financial resources cannot by itself meet the defined global objective. This is why the ROP activities are complemented with priorities and interventions proposed within the framework of individual thematic operational programmes. It can be assumed that the fulfilment of the global objective will exceed the financial possibilities and the time horizon of the programme.

Specific objectives extend upon the global objective and it can be claimed that the hierarchy and linkage of the global objective with the individual specific objectives have been retained at the programme level. The individual priority axes are not isolated but rather mutually interlinked, creating a consistent entity.

The internal consistency of the programme and the integral orientation of all priority axes towards the achievement of the global objective are assured by the hierarchic interlinking of the objectives which are defined not only at the programme level but also at the level of priority axes.

Priorities

Priority axis Transport accessibility is of prominent cross–sectional character and contributes to the fulfilment of all three specific programme objectives. The financial allocation for this priority axis amounts to 51.0% of total allocation. As compared with the other priority axes, considerable emphasis in terms of resources is placed particularly on this axis. The amount of this allocation is in line with the identified needs and is underlain with actual absorption capacity. The character of interventions within the framework of this priority axis is well balanced with respect to sustainability.

Priority axis Development of sustainable tourism concerns the whole territory of the region and the allocation for its realization amounts to 19.0% of available financial resources. The possibility of cross–financing is not likely to be used for this priority axis. Nevertheless, the issue of tourism is closely related to the level of human capital, and it can be presumed, therefore, that the use of the cross–financing might contribute to the achievement of set–up objectives. In the evaluator’s opinion, the overlapping with IOP in the field of refurbishment and use of cultural monuments has been resolved in a not entirely satisfactory way.

75

Priority axis Sustainable development of towns and rural area can be understood as a key one in the context of ROP SE. In the Region’s territory two urbanization centres were identified with populations above 50,000 (the towns of Brno and Jihlava) and 9 seats whose size and importance are lower but which can still be characterized as centres of regional significance. The remaining part of the Region, with 60% of the Region’s total population, is a rural space which can be characterized by pronounced regional disparities. From this point of view, the inclusion of urban issues together with problems of rural areas within the framework of a single priority axis appears unsuitable to the evaluator. This priority axis has been allocated 26.6% of total financial resources.

Indicators and the quantification of objectives

The system of indicators is in line with the National Code Book of Indicators and to a great extent consistent with NSRF indicators, both in terms of indicators at a programme level and of those at the level of priority axes. The coverage of all priority axes with the indicators of output, outcome and impact is well balanced with a greater part of indicators reaching beyond the framework of the National Code Book of Indicators.

The quantification of objectives was made by using the impact and outcome indicators both at the level of global and specific programme objectives, and at the level of the specific objectives of priority axes. The quantified objectives mirror in fact the financial allocation, only in some indicators their levels can be considered to have been adjusted in a relatively conservative way. The coherence of indicators with NSRF is sufficient both at the level of the global objective and at the level of the respective relevant strategic objectives. Also satisfactory is the scale of indicators to measure the programme’s impact on the number and quality of jobs and on the achievement of the objectives of the Lisbon strategy.

Implementation

The chapter contains all information required by EC legislation, Council Regulation (EC) 1083/2006 in particular.

The managing authority for ROP SE is the Regional Council of the SE cohesion region. The Committee of the Regional Council of the SE cohesion region is fully functional, which can be deduced from the active participation of its members in the proper elaboration of ROP SE. The executive body of the Regional Council is the Regional Council Office, which performs all activities connected with the function of the MA.

The Regional Council Office will establish “territorial” workplaces in the two regions concerned, which can be considered a very positive and responsive step towards the applicants for the payment of project expenses. The reading of ROP SE does not specify the individual processes of programme implementation or the responsibilities of concrete participants; nevertheless, regarding the gradual building of capacities at the Regional Council Office and with respect to the gradual creation of managing and implementation documentation it can be expected that a detailed description of the processes will be included in the implementation document and consequently in the Operational Manual.

It can be generally concluded, however, that the diction of the chapter on implementation shows a certain non–conceptuality and methodological disunity in the adjustment of the implementation mechanism, which clearly results from the above mentioned gradual building of the managing authority, and from the absence of primary methodologies and manuals for management. The fact can be seen especially in the disproportionate extent and elaboration of individual partial chapters.

76

Recommendations from the ex–ante evaluation version of November 22nd 2006

Socio–economic analysis and SWOT analysis

• To consider a separation of the identification of regional disparities from the analysis of rural and urban spaces. A separate sub–chapter on regional disparities and their clear and concise definitions will reinforce the bridging of the analytical and strategic parts of the document.

Internal consistency of the strategy

• To consider singling out the urban issue in a separate priority axis which would include the aid directed both to urbanized centres (Brno and Jihlava) and to the other nine defined centres of regional significance. It is recommended that the intervention be provided not only on the basis of the Integrated programme for town development, but also within the framework of the aid to regional centres because the absence of an integrated approach may result in the realization of a range of isolated projects without sufficient impact and without synergic effects on development of concrete territory.

External coherence of the strategy

• To consider the use of cross–financing in Priority axis Development of sustainable tourism. The issue of tourism closely relates to the level of human potential and it can be assumed therefore that the use of cross–financing could contribute to the achievement of the set–up objectives.

Indicators and the quantification of objectives

• As to the adjustment of the system of indicators, it would be considered useful to add the allocation of indicators to individual areas of support. Another recommendation is to complement the definition and description of indicators in such a way that their content is entirely unambiguous, and possibly also their scope (e.g. impact indicator of Priority axis 1 – Environmental impacts in affected areas); in some indicators expressed in per cent (increase/decrease). It is advised that the initial values be presented also in respective units for a possible comparison.

• In order to achieve the set–up goals of ROP SE it will be necessary to adjust the objective system for assessment of the impact of implemented measures, including the adjustment of criteria for project assessment. This will contribute to the fulfilment of comprehensive developmental programmes in the whole Region.

Financing

• To rectify the discordance in Chapter 5: Financial Provision where the reading claims that the national financing will be provided from the state budget, from the budgets of regions, budgets of municipalities and from private sources. The indicative financial table mentions only the national public sources without providing a closer specification of these financial resources and it does not take into account the private sources.

Implementation and monitoring

• One of the critical issues in the current system of SF implementation is the method of selection and assessment of projects, which has not been emphasized in the analysis of experience. In setting up a detailed system for the assessment and selection of projects within the framework of the implementation document, it is necessary to take into account the experience from the current period and to attempt the establishment of such a system that would not only evaluate the formal part of submitted projects, but which would also be capable of assessing their quality and impact.

77

• It would be useful to detail of subsequent checks on fulfilment of the monitoring indicators, and the impact of their possible non–observance, particularly in those cases where these indicators’ value will affect the project evaluation.

Part II – Evaluation of ROP NUTS 2 SE version of June 2007 (after the incorporation of the EC comments)

Progress in the period December 2006–25 June 2007 The National Strategic Reference Framework along with individual operational programmes, including ROP SE, was officially submitted to the European Commission in March 2007 and negotiations were initiated. The managing authority of ROP SE received the EC comments on the contents of the programme on 11 June 2007.

It can be stated that many of the comments raised by the EC were taken into account and incorporated, thereby increasing the quality of the document. The main changes are as follows:

Analytical part

The analytical part was supplemented, in compliance with the requirements of the EC, with information concerning balneology, conditions of the tourist infrastructure and the significance of the Brno–Tuřany airport, not only for the SE region, but for the whole Czech Republic.

The executor updated and supplemented some statistical data. Although the evaluator would also welcome the comparison of data at a European level, he is aware of the fact that the executor is fully dependent on the Czech Statistical Office (CSO) and EUROSTAT for statistical data. Many data published by these institutions are available only with a considerable time delay or they are not available at all.

With respect to the aforementioned limitations, the evaluator believes that the statistical data within the programme are used appropriately. Tables with data are included in a separate Appendix A which can create a false impression that the text of the socio–economic analysis is too descriptive. We regard this approach as suitable because the “readability” and arrangement of the analytical part of the document is thus assured.

With respect to the EC comment concerning the regional disparities, it needs be stated that although ROP SE contains the subchapter “Regional disparities,” a brief but more precise specification of regional disparities was already recommended by the previous ex–ante evaluation. The executor therefore supplemented this part with maps which document the differences within the SE cohesion region geographically. These maps are well–arranged and delimit areas in need of concentrated aid (e.g. see the demarcation of areas with concentrated state aid).

The executor further supplemented the part concerning the evaluation of previous experience by providing specifications of the identified problems from the previous period. In this way, those problems will be avoided or solved in the course of implementing ROP SE. In this regard, the evaluator sees a very strong interconnection with chapter 4 of the programme implementation and it can be said that past experience has been taken fully into account in the setting of the implementation system.

The evaluator believes that the analytical part contains sufficient information and that it clearly identifies the problems which must be tackled through the programme’s interventions.

Strategy

As already stated in the last evaluation, the evaluator believes that there is an adequate link between the socio–economic analysis, the SWOT analysis and the programme’s strategy. The defined strategy is relevant with respect to the identified needs, and the proposed interventions tackle the region’s major problems as defined in the analytical part.

78

The ROP SE Strategy shows sufficient external consistency, particularly with regard to the updated NSRF. ROP SE will contribute considerably to the fulfilment of the NSRF strategic objective “Balanced development of the area.”

The part concerning the inclusion of horizontal priorities (equal opportunity and sustainable development) has been significantly reinforced, thereby strengthening the strategy. The inclusion of the issue of horizontal priorities within the scope of the overall management of ROP SE is evaluated positively.

Further information regarding the assurance of the partnership principle has been added within both the framework of programming and the subsequent programme implementation. The partnership principle was very important in the process of drawing up the programme and the evaluator tried to take into account the comments made by the partners as much as possible.

Priority axes

The change in the structure of the priority axes was not performed within the framework of the update. ROP SE continues to plan the interventions by means of Priority Axes Transport accessibility, Development of sustainable tourism and Sustainable development of towns and rural seats.

The evaluator believes that Priority Axis Transport Accessibility fully respects the identified needs. From the perspective of road transport and with respect to the specific settlement structure in the region, the support not only focuses on roads leading into the TEN–T transeuropean network, but also stresses the importance of creation of a regional transport infrastructure which will ensure the necessary interconnections within the region. Investments in road infrastructure are appropriately supplemented by aid to public transport, unpowered transport and air transport. Financial allocations for this priority axis have been decreased by 2 percent in favour of Priority Axis 3, specifically in favour of Area of Support 3.4. From the perspective of the general context of the programme, this shift is of no great significance.

Equally to Priority Axis Transport accessibility, Priority Axis Development of sustainable tourism was supplemented with information concerning coordination with the interventions of other relevant programmes. In the evaluator’s opinion, this contributed to the clear delimitation of the boundaries and also synergies between these programmes.

Priority Axis Sustainable development of towns and rural seats was finalized in line with the wording of the updated NSRF version or, as appropriate, with the EC comments. In particular, the finalization involves the IUDP specification (contents and implementation), and takes into account, in line with the EC proposal, the size of municipalities, and ensuring coordination with other programmes.

Indicators and quantification of objectives

The executor further specified the system of indicators in this version of the programme. The system was updated in line with the approved National Code Book of Indicators, and the values of some context indicators were modified. The completion of horizontal priorities indicators, especially indicators of sustainable development, is evaluated as positive.

Quantification of objectives corresponds to the financial allocation. The coherence of indicators with NSRF is sufficient at the global objective level as well as at the level of individual priority axes.

Implementation

Chapter 4 – Implementation, has seen the most substantial adjustments. It has been completely reworked and the fact that the MA worked intensively on the creation of the necessary implementation system from November 2006 to June 2007 is positively reflected in the quality of the chapter. A clear idea about the future arrangement and processes which will be part of ROP implementation is clearly presented in the text of the programme. The fact that “lower–level” implementation documentations (such as the Operational Manual) were referred to in the specification of the programme’s implementation can be seen

79

as very positive. This demonstrates that the MA approached the implementing documentation correctly and that they conformed to its inner hierarchy.

Conclusions of the ex–ante evaluation version of June 2007

The ex–ante evaluator must state that, in comparison with the previous evaluated version, substantial progress has been made in the updating process, which has increased the quality of the document.

The evaluator believes that the current version of the programme complies with the general requirements of both quantitative and qualitative nature for a document of this type.

The comments and recommendations of the evaluator have been appropriately taken into account in this version of the programme. The only comment which has not been accepted by the executor is the division of Priority Axis 3 into a self–standing priority axis which would address urban issues and another priority axis to tackle rural issues. Nevertheless, the inner structuring of Priority Axis 3 provides sufficient distinct demarcation of individual areas of support and thus it can be assumed that the set objectives will be accomplished.

ROP SE implementation will undoubtedly contribute to the implementation of the global objective set within the framework of NSRF. From the perspective of Community added value, the evaluator believes that the implementation of the ROP SE strategy will contribute to the general objectives of the Community, particularly to the basic objectives of the policy of economic and social cohesion, renewed Lisbon Strategy, sustainable development, support to equal opportunities etc.

The ex–ante evaluator believes that the document is now at such a stage that it can be accepted by the EC.

2.4 THE PROCESS OF PARTNERSHIP

The preparation of the ROP SE was in full agreement with the principles of partnership. The interactive process of the ROP creation is shown in the following diagram:

Fig. 9: Diagram of partnership during the ROP SE preparation

ROP customer

The Vysočina region,

The South-Moravian

region

ROP elaborator

Social partners in the

region

Towns and villages and their

partnerships

Economic and Agrarian

chambers

Schools

Non-profit organizations, etc.

Ex-ante evaluator

Strategic

Environmental

Assessment (SEA)

evaluator

Central bodies

Ministry of Finance and

Ministry for Regional Develop-

ment of the Czech Republic;

Other entities, especially by

means of horizontal working

groups

80

Both regions constituting the cohesion region NUTS 2 SE, i.e. the Vysočina region and the South–Moravian region, bear responsibility for the ROP SE preparation. The ROP SE was prepared within the framework of the programmes “Partnership for EU programmes” of the South–Moravian region, and “Partnership for the Vysočina region” of the Vysočina region. The aim of these projects, which were subsidized from the EU, is to systematically prepare both regions for drawing resources from EU funds in the coming programming period 2007–2013.

The two regions created ROP coordinating committees to coordinate the progress of work on the ROP SE. They were composed of representatives of the Regional Councils and ROP working groups. These two groups formed a narrower constituency of entities participating in the creation of the ROP SE, and commented on individual working versions of the document. The institutions involved in a wider constituency of key partners were as follows:

The Vysočina region:

1 Regional Economic Chamber, 2 Regional Agrarian Chamber, 3 The Vysočina Community Association (SOV – Sdružení obcí Vysočiny) 4 Public employment office, 5 NNO (Non–governmental and non–profit organizations) coordination group 6 School of renewal of the rural development, 7 College of Polytechnics 8 Statutory Town of Jihlava

The South–Moravian region:

1 Statutory City of Brno, 2 Public employment office Brno–venkov, Public employment office Brno–město 3 Regional Council of Trade Unions ČMKOS JMK, 4 Association of South Moravia Villages and Towns, 5 Banno, Association of non–profit NGOs of the South–Moravian region, 6 The Brno Centre of European Studies (BCES), 7 Regional Chamber of Economy of South Moravia, 8 Regional Agrarian Chamber, 9 Regional Organization of the Association for Revitalisation of Rural Areas, 10 Masaryk University, Faculty of Economics and Administration 11 Brno University of Technology, Faculty of Business and Management 12 Regional Development Agency, South Moravia

The preparation of the ROP SE text was assigned to an external contractor chosen in a tender. Authors of the ROP ex–ante evaluation and SEA were chosen in a similar way.

Several workshops and public consultations were organized within the framework of the ROP SE preparation. with the regular participation of ROP and SEA authors and ex–ante evaluators, and representatives of key regional partners. Representatives from the directly involved departments (MF, MRD) were also regular participants. The main purpose of these public negotiations and workshops was to continuously comment on and discuss proposals for the overall concept of the operational programme and individual priorities, and to advise the involved administrative bodies on further steps in the preparation of the operational programme. In the course of the creation of ROP SE, the author presented successive working versions which were discussed and commented on by the coordinating committees and working groups, social partners and ex–ante and SEA assessors. These ROP working versions were also published on the internet. Several rounds of notice and comment proceedings concerning the working versions of the document generated interesting and helpful input which was subsequently taken into account in the ROP SE text.

Continuous consultations were organized with the coordinators and elaborators of these programmes, and with other central institutions, particularly within the framework of horizontal workgroups. This was done

81

in order to ensure a logical context, and precisely defined relations and overlaps, with the thematic operational programmes prepared in the Czech Republic for the programming period 2007–2013. The ROP SE proposal was also subject to interdepartmental notice and comment proceeding. Close cooperation with representatives of the ROP regional workgroups from other NUTS 2 regions was maintained throughout the preparation of the ROP SE.

Comments to ROP

In the process of creation, ROP SE was regularly subject to comment procedure. 232 comments from 25 institutions were included in the comment procedure for the version submitted to the European Commission. The settlement of the most important comments is specified on the Regional Development (RR) SE website at www.jihovychod.cz. The statistics for comments on ROP SE are listed in the following table.

Table 35: Overview of the settled comments to ROP (situation as of 1 January 2007)

Institutions Total number of

comments

Out of which

Accepted Partially accepted

Not accepted

Ministries 149 117 14 18

City councils and town councils 13 9 0 4

Regional offices 52 43 3 6

Other non–profit organizations 18 4 1 13

Source: Database of RCO SE

Table 36: Summary opinions given by the various partners

Comments Result Municipalities Requirement to increase the allocation in priority

axis 3 Sustainable development of towns and rural area, especially to support area 3.1 Development of urbanization centres

Accepted

Non–profit organizations

Requirement to make project pre–funding possible, as it was possible in the new programming period.

Not accepted. Pre–funding will not be allowed with the exception of the so called “continuous funding.” It will be performed by running reimbursements of executed payments on the basis of accounting vouchers.

Non–profit organizations

Requirement to include a possibility of cross–funding in ROP SE.

Accepted


82

2.5 HORIZONTAL THEMES

Respecting horizontal priorities is an important aspect of the programming, and of the subsequent implementation of intervention within the framework of ROP SE.

In compliance with the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006 and the Community Strategic Guidelines, two basic horizontal themes are defined for the period 2007–2013 and are reflected in ROP SE and its subsequent implementation:

1. equal opportunities (Article 16 Equal opportunities of men and women and ban on discrimination)

2. sustainable development (Article 17 Sustainable development)

The issue of horizontal priorities is taken into account in the whole scope of ROP SE procedure and is incorporated into all programme documents related to ROP SE, i.e. the operational programme, Implementing Document, Operational Manual, Instructions for applicants and beneficiaries of the support, Instructions for evaluators, etc.

The perspective of horizontal themes is included in ROP SE implementation in order to strengthen the quality of the submitted projects and, as a consequence, to increase the added value of the interventions from SF.

2.6 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES

In compliance with Article 16 of the General Regulation, ROP SE will ensure equality of women and men and the consideration of sexual equality factors during every stage of implementation of support. Concurrently, equality of opportunities will also be taken into account with respect to racial and ethnic origin, physical handicap, age, religious and world view, and sexual orientation.

Special attention in the context of SF is paid to gender issues. It is therefore necessary for ROP SE to take into account contributions to the equal treatment and support of women in the course of programming, monitoring and evaluation, to ensure that they benefit from the SF resources in the same way as men.

Although the projects within the framework of ROP SE will not be financed from the ESF through except cross–funding, and consequently do not include activities primarily centred on support to equal opportunities, great stress will be laid on the observance of these principles. All applicants will have to prove that they at least do not violate these principles.

The ROP SE is directly related to equal opportunities, especially with regard to ROP interventions and activities channelling subsidies into public transport within Priority axis 1: Transport accessibility. In this area, the specific needs of physically disabled persons, elderly people, or parents with children must be taken into account and easy access for all should be provided. Priority Axis 1 also contributes to solving the issue of persons threatened by social exclusion due to their geographic location in areas with poor transport accessibility.

Barrier–free access will also be emphasized in Priority Axis 2 – Development of sustainable tourism with infrastructure projects, as well as within the scope of surveys and plans for the development of tourism.

Directly linked with equal opportunities is the next area, strengthening the cohesion of communities in towns and rural area within the framework of Priority axis 3: Sustainable development of towns and rural areas. Support will be provided for activities that have a positive impact on the development of infrastructure in the spheres of social services, education, health care and leisure–time activities. Equal access to these public services shall be ensured.

The Implementing Document specifies in detail the relationship of the supported activities to equal opportunities. It also explains how the activities significantly contribute to the elimination of discrimination and to the promotion of equal opportunities. This issue is included in both stages of the evaluation of the project’s fulfilment of horizontal themes objectives. During the evaluation of their acceptability, projects negatively impacting the sphere of equal opportunities will be discarded. On the other hand, projects involving concrete activities aimed at boosting equal opportunities will receive more

83

points. The Instructions for evaluators will include guidelines for labelling projects as purposely focused on equal opportunities, and which can therefore be declared positive. The applicant will obtain similar information within the framework of the Instructions for applicants.

The managing authority of the ROP SE will ensure that equal opportunity guidelines are adhered to in all programme interventions at the level of projects. The applicant for assistance will therefore describe the influence of the project on equal opportunities and will answer the questions in the relevant section of the project application as to whether or not the project plans to implement concrete activities aimed at supporting equal opportunities. The applicants will then categorize the relation of their projects to equal opportunities by means of the following classification:

a) Targeted on equal opportunities or, b) With positive approach towards equal opportunities or, c) Impartial to equal opportunities.

The aim of classifying projects according to their influence on equal opportunities is to motivate the applicants to consider the extension of project activities with a positive impact on equal opportunities, in addition to the main objective of the project. The consideration of equal opportunities will play a large part in the setting up of the implementation structure, and in the monitoring processes, evaluation and implementation of the partnership principles. The managing authority will pay attention to the observance of equal opportunities principles in the MC. It will also ensure, depending on the nature of the supported area and provided that it is useful, the participation of institutions or organizations engaged in advocacy of equal opportunities in the MC, workgroups of the MA, and evaluator boards for the selection of projects, etc.

Indicators classified on the basis of sex will be used in relation to monitoring. Information concerning horizontal priorities will be monitored primarily at the level of projects. The managing authority will, however, ensure that horizontal themes are aggregated within the framework of the programme’s implementation monitoring at the level of area of support or priority axis, as the case may be.

The contribution of ROP SE to the fulfilment of the equal opportunities principle will be assessed during the processing of strategic evaluations.

2.7 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

SF are primarily designed for the aid and development of the economic and social sphere provided that their implementation will contribute to the improvement of the environment. MA will hence monitor the impact on the environment of the ROP SE implementation with the intention of maximizing improvement of environmental conditions in the territory of NUTS 2 SE.

A statutory duty of the ROP SE MA, as stipulated in Act No. 100/2001 Coll. on the assessment of environmental impacts, as amended, is to monitor the impact of the programme on the environment and public health. A set of environmental indicators was compiled for OP monitoring by the elaborator of SEA NRP/NSRF, from which indicators were selected relevant to concrete ROP SE priorities that are to be affected by the ROP activities. These indicators were subsequently incorporated in the ROP SE system of indicators.

The objective of the proposed system is to consider the environmental field within the framework of the overall evaluation and selection of projects for the allocation of financial support. It is also desirable to support projects that (in addition to their primary focus and purpose) will show better environmental impact. The proposed system is focused especially on projects’ positive effects on the environment. Possible adverse effects are carefully monitored within the framework of legislative procedures (e.g. EIA), and projects’ impact on the environment is also stipulated in the relevant environmental legislation.

The horizontal theme of sustainable development mirrors Priority axis 1, Transport accessibility, namely in provisions for the promotion of public transport and modernization of its fleet, with emphasis on its environmental friendliness. Other forms of sustainable transportation (esp. bicycle transport) will be given similar support. Some projects focused on transport infrastructure (e.g. construction of bypasses in towns)

84

will have an indirect influence on the improvement of environmental quality.

Priority axis 2, Development of sustainable tourism, is intended to support only projects without negative impact on the environment, and the development of environmentally friendly forms of tourism such as biking, hiking, etc.

In Priority axis 3, Sustainable development of towns and rural areas, a particularly positive influence on the environment is expected from projects focused on revitalization of the physical environment in towns and villages. This will lead to the increased environmental value of these areas and to their more expedient use. This priority axis will also give support to the revitalization of brownfields.

The issue of sustainable energy, especially in relation to decreased energy intensity, increased energy efficiency, and development of energy resources which do not present a burden for the environment etc., will be also considered as a horizontal theme within the framework of sustainable development. Projects which will contribute to these objectives will therefore be assisted preferentially. The criterion of sustainable energy will be taken into account during the evaluation of concrete projects and points will be awarded accordingly.

With respect to the environment, ROP SE interventions can be divided into the following items:

a) activities which are directly centred on the environmental sphere (for example the development of urban areas)

b) activities which are not directly centred on the environmental sphere but which could influence it (for example the development of transport)

c) activities without any links to the environment

In principle, projects which would negatively impact the environment in the territory of NUTS 2 SE will not be supported.

Aggregation of data concerning the projects’ impact on the quantities monitored by means of indicators will serve as the basis for the evaluation of the total environmental impact of the ROP SE. The environmental evaluation of projects will be performed in two stages:

1. Pre–project environmental evaluation taking place during the project’s preparation

This project evaluation with respect to the environment will be carried out by the submitter of the project in the form of a verbal evaluation, i.e. an assessment of whether the project has a positive, neutral, or negative influence on individual environmental criteria. The applicant will be able to modify the project proposal on the basis of the results of the pre–project evaluation in order to achieve the best environmental assessment. The applicant will give his opinion in the indicator section on the environmental criteria selected by the MA as relevant for the given activity. The applicant’s evaluation will be subsequently verified by the evaluation board’s members.

2. Formal environmental evaluation within the framework of project evaluation

Environmental criteria assessed by the evaluators on the basis of the data and information provided by the applicant are used in the process of project selection within the framework of evaluation. MA will therefore ensure that the evaluation is carried out by the evaluation board’s members in full knowledge of the environmental points at issue.

Environmental criteria are connected to the environmental indicators which are binding for ROP SE. By choosing the relevant environmental indicators, the relevant environmental criteria for the selection of projects are also chosen.

A project evaluated as having better environmental results will generally obtain more points than an equivalent project with lower positive impacts on the environment.

The project submitter will be committed to the observation of the environmental parameters of the submitted project and to the observation of potential conditions for the implementation under contract.

85

MA lays great emphasis on the fulfilment of horizontal priorities during the implementation of the operational programme. MA will develop the required knowledge in the field of horizontal priorities by means of further training and increasing the qualifications of its employees.

2.8 SEA RESULTS

Legal starting points

The assessment of the environmental impact of concepts is governed by Act No. 100/2001 Coll. on the assessment of environmental impacts, as amended, which implements into Czech legislation the EU Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of environmental impact of some plans and projects.

Paragraph 10a of the Act stipulates that the subject of assessing the influence of the concepts on environment are all concepts defined within the framework for future approval of programmes listed in Supplement 1 to the Act, prepared in the fields of agriculture, forestry, game management, fisheries, surface and groundwater treatment, power engineering, industrial operations, transportation, waste management, telecommunications, tourism, land planning, regional development and environment including nature conservation, concepts in which the necessity for assessment of their possible environmental impact follows a special legal regulation, and concepts co–financed from the resources of the European Community; these concepts are subject to assessment at all times when the area in question is formed by a territory of more than one municipality. It follows unambiguously from the above facts that it is also the ROP SE that is responsible for carrying out the assessment of possible environmental impacts.

The submitter of the concept is the South–Moravian region which represents both regions of the cohesion region NUTS 2 SE (South–Moravian and Vysočina) in the matter of work administration on the basis of internal agreements. The SEA ROP SE assessment is made by an external evaluator company within the framework of a contract for work concluded on the basis of a tender called by the South–Moravian region according to Act No. 40/2004 Coll. on public procurement.

The SEA assessment was prepared in the period from March–July 2006. The evaluation of ROP SE impacts on the environment was made by a working group consisting of experts from the evaluator company, specialized in individual areas of the environment. ROP SE invited comments from representatives of NGOs active in the region. The list of the addressed organizations is given on the website www.jihovychod.cz.

The main factors in assessing a concept’s impact on the environment (hereinafter SEA assessment) must be ensuring the environmental integrity of the resulting concept, i.e. respecting the reference documents adopted at European and national levels, supporting sustainable development, preventing severe or irreversible damage to the environment or to human health, and, last but not least, also the involvement of the general public in the process of concept preparation and assessment with respect to its environmental impact. The process of SEA evaluation takes place in several parallel steps.

The process of assessment

The Concept notification prepared within the scope of Supplement 7 of Act No. 100/2001 Coll. on the assessment of environmental impacts, as amended by Act No. 163/2006 Coll. (hereinafter Act No. 100/2001 Coll.) was submitted to the MŽP on 9 May 2006. The Declaratory procedure was opened on 19 May 2006 by publicizing the Concept notification in the SEA Information system and through the distribution of the Concept notification to relevant bodies and to the regional authorities of self–governing territorial units. The Declaratory procedure was concluded on 10 July 2006 by the issue of a Conclusion from the declaratory procedure. The first public hearing of the draft “Regional Operational Programme of the Region NUTS 2 SE for the Programming Period 2007–2013” took place at the Regional authority of the South–Moravian region in Brno on 4 May 2006.

The Draft concept, including the evaluation of environmental impacts prepared within the scope of

86

Supplement 9 to Act No. 100/2001 Coll., was submitted to the MŽP on 21 August 2006 and, after control of requisites, it was publicized in the SEA Information system and forwarded to relevant administrative bodies and authorities in self–governing regions. Public hearing of the “Regional Operational Programme of the Region NUTS 2 SE for the Programming Period 2007–2013”, including the evaluation of the impacts of the concept on the environment, took place at the Regional authority in Brno on 25 September 2006. Minutes from the public hearing were received by the MŽP on 25 September 2006.

A brief description of the assessment

The assessment of the environmental impact of the “Regional Operational Programme of the Region NUTS 2 SE for the Programming Period 2007–2013” was made in conjunction with legislation and prepared within the scope of Supplement 9 to Act No. 100/2001 Coll. The assessment was made in conjunction with the concept preparation by using the method of reference objectives, i.e. comparison of the possible impact of specific objectives of the ROP SE on the established reference objectives of environmental conservation. The evaluation deals with the SWOT analysis and with consideration of environmental conservation objectives in activities expected by the ROP SE implementation to concern inputs into the landscape, in the field of conservation of environment constituents and in the field of anticipated consequences of the implementation of this strategic material. With respect to environmental conservation, no anticipated significant negative or limiting impacts of the proposed measures were found as indicated in the tabular form of the matrix of expected effects.

ROP SE was also assessed within the scope of Art. 45i of Act No. 114/1992 Coll. on nature conservation and landscape protection as amended, with respect to the impact on localities of European importance, on avian zones and the status of their protection, taking into account viewpoints enlisted in Art. 45h of Act No. 114/1992 Coll. on nature conservation and landscape protection as amended.

Conclusions from the assessment

The Ministry of Environment as the competent authority according to Art. 21 of Act No. 100/2001 Coll. released a standpoint on the basis of the draft concept, the concept assessment prepared within the scope of Act No. 100/2001 Coll. including the concept assessment according to Art. 45i of Act No. 114/1992 Coll. on nature conservation and landscape protection as amended, the expression of relevant state administration bodies, the relevant regions and general public and results from the public hearing. The standpoint is presented in an Appendix to the ROP SE.

All relevant and involved bodies as defined by the Czech Republic in Article 9 of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament of 27 June 2007 were informed during the preparation of SEA. The public was also informed in accordance with the Directive (see “Public Involvement” below).

ROP SE, in accordance of Article 9 of Directive, contains information including a declaration summarising the implementation of environmental measures into the programme and results of public discussion and comments proceeding were taken into account. Information about involved public, including time schedule, was contained also.

The implementation of the programme has no impact on the environment in any other member state and therefore no other EU member states were officially informed.

All significant impacts on the environment caused by the operation of this programme shall be monitored so that any unexpected adverse effects can be detected in time and the appropriate correctional measures taken.

The SEA assessment of ROP SE includes several comments (a list of recommendations) of elaborator. These comments result from an evaluation of ROP SE influences on environment. List of these comments, including their results, is published at www.jihovychod.cz.

Involvement of the general public

An integral part of the SEA assessment process is the involvement of the general public in the concept preparation and its assessment for environmental impacts. For these purposes, a “Methodology for

87

engaging general public into the process of assessment of ROP NUTS SE environmental impacts” was prepared at the beginning of May 2006.

Relevant documents emerging within the framework of SEA ROP SE, and data about the process of the assessment of ROP SE impacts on the environment are currently publicized on the web sites of the SEA elaborator. The Ministry of Environment publicizes individual documents during the SEA process in the SEA Information system as stipulated by provisions of Act No. 100/2001 Coll. on the assessment of environmental impacts, as amended. The information on ROP SE is also available on the web sites of the Regional Council of the SE cohesion region and on web sites of the Partnership for the South–Moravian region.

Reminders from the concerned general public and relevant official bodies of state administration were gathered and dealt with during the entire SEA process. The settlement of reminders arising from the SEA process was given to the MŽP and serves as one of the groundwork documents for the SEA Standpoint.

The first preliminary public hearing of the “Evaluation of the impacts of the Regional Operational Programme of the Region NUTS 2 SE on Environment” took place in the conference room of the South–Moravian Regional Council on 4 May 2006. The purpose of this public hearing was to inform the relevant bodies of state administration and the concerned public about the current situation in the preparation of ROP SE and in the assessment of its environmental impacts, as well as to obtain feedback for further works on the two documents. The public hearing included presentations by the ROP SE elaborator and by the evaluator of the ROP SE’s environmental impacts.

The public hearing of the ROP SE and SEA ROP SE is held within the scope of Act No. 100/2001 Coll. on the assessment of environmental impacts, as amended, in order to inform participants about ROP SE and SEA ROP SE, and about the further process of document approval. The public hearing of the “Regional Operational Programme of the region NUTS 2 SE for the programming period 2007–2013”, including the evaluation of concept impacts on environment, was held at the South–Moravian Regional Council in Brno on 25 September 2006. Minutes from the public hearing of the concept were received by the MŽP on 25 September 2006 and made public by the Ministry in the EIA/SEA Information system. The complete SEA evaluation is available at www.jihovychod.cz.

Comments to SEA

SEA ROP SE was subject to the comment procedure in June 2006: The Ministry of the Environment sent SEA to the so called “Green circle” in which the relevant organizations expressed their opinions on SEA. The executor sent SEA ROP SE for comments to NGOs such as DUHA, Klub českých turistů, Klub Bicybo – Bicyklové Brno, Sdružení obcí čistá Jihlava, Sdružení Krajina and other. These subjects did not express their opinion of SEA ROP SE.

ÚRR SE also received 55 comments from 14 institutions in June 2006. The settlement of comments is available at the RR SE website at www.jihovychod.cz and in the supplement no. 4 of SEA assessment, including results of comments from MŽP. They are published at www.jihovychod.cz also. The statistics on comments to SEA is shown in the following table.

At www.jihovychod.cz is the list of all comments result from public discussion.

88

Table 37: Overview of settled comments to the SEA (as of 1 January 2007)

Institution Total number of

comments

Out of which

Accepted Partly accepted Not accepted

Ministries 15 11 4 0

City and town councils 27 19 8 0

Regional offices 7 4 1 2

Other non–profit organizations 6 5 1 0


Programme Monitoring Measures

Chapter 10 of the SEA document regarding the evaluation of the ROP SE sets reference goals of environmental protection as well as a set of corresponding indicators that should be monitored. With regard to the character of interventions, the ROP SE generally contributes to meeting the goals of environmental protection indirectly. 11 indicators were included in ROP SE on the basis of proposed indicators. These will monitor an environmental influence of activities realized within ROP SE.

The non-technical summary of SEA assessment

The non-technical summary of SEA assessment is noticed in chapter 14 of SEA document and is also in extended and updated version at www.jihovychod.cz. The non-technical summary covers all items which are stated in supplement no. I of Directive ES 2001/42/ES.

89

3. PRIORITY AXES AND INDICATORS Table 38: Percentage financial allocation ROP SE

Priority axis ROP SE Share of priority axes

P1 TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY 49,0 %

1.1 – Transport infrastructure development in the cohesion region

1.2 – Transport services and public transport development

1.3 – Public transport rail rolling stock renovation

1.4 – Unpowered transport infrastructure development

P2 DEVELOPMENT OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 19,0 %

2.1 – Development of infrastructure for tourism

2.2 – Development of services in tourism

P3 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF TOWNS AND RURAL AREA 28,6 %

3.1 - Development of urbanization centres

3.2 – Development of regional centres

3.3 – Development and stabilization of rural area

3.4 – Public services of regional significance

P4 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 3,4 %

4.1 – Activities connected with the realization and management of ROP 4.2 – Support to absorption capacity

3.1 PRIORITY AXIS 1: TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY

Current situation: The 1990s were marked by a sharp rise in the number of passenger cars in the SE cohesion region and, in fact, in the entire Czech Republic. As a consequence, the traffic intensity especially on important transport arteries, but also in towns and municipalities, has soared. As the conclusions of the socio–economic analysis and SWOT analysis have already indicated, the following problems are among the major issues in the transport accessibility of the SE cohesion region:

1 Incomplete regional transport network connecting the cohesion region to the supra–regional TEN–T network,

2 Unsatisfactory accessibility of tourist destinations, 3 Economic impact of poor quality 2nd and 3rd class roads on unemployment and on the status of

marginalized groups, 4 Unsatisfactory technical situation of the majority of roads, 5 Insufficient capacity of the busiest transport arteries, 6 Insufficient capacity and often outdated railway network, railway junctions in particular, 7 Outdated public transport rolling stock, 8 Bad transport accessibility of some areas of the cohesion region, which cause unequal opportunities

for labour force and also 9 Insufficient connection of the cohesion region to neighbouring regions and countries.

International air transport accessibility is also going to play an ever increasing role in the economic development of the cohesion region. At present however, the full utilisation of air transport is still prevented by outdated and insufficient equipment at the international airport in Brno–Tuřany and by inadequate associated services and infrastructure.

The SE cohesion region is characterized by a relatively scattered settlement structure with a high proportion of rural settlements which, according to the legislation, need to have public transport services at their disposal. Overloading of city centres by car traffic and inadequate public transport services in

90

some rural regions are becoming ever more evident. Increased use of public transport is perceived as highly desirable and necessary due to the region’s high traffic density, the low quality and capacity of local road networks and also to outdated traffic regulation systems. The Integrated Public Transport System (IDS) has been undergoing systematic development recently and it will gradually include other present unincorporated areas of the cohesion region.

While the largest urban conurbations of the region are mutually interconnected by an arterial network of motorways, expressways and class 1 roads, transport accessibility of the majority of the remaining area depends on the quality and safety of regional 2nd and 3rd class roads. Regional roads connect the urban centres especially to rural or economically weak areas where processing of agricultural products or extraction of raw material occurred but where no alternative economic branch (such as tourism) developed due to poor transport accessibility. Inferior transport accessibility of some NUTS 2 SE areas is documented in Figure 2 of Appendix. 2nd and 3rd class roads are undersized as regards investment in a long term. They have insufficient wide, direction and height parameters. The construction of the road has plenty of static disturbances, because they were built to other traffic frequency.

Good transport accessibility of economically weaker regions is not a guarantee of their immediate and universal development; nonetheless, it is one of the important factors influencing the extent to which their potential for development can be utilised. In addition, investments channelled into transport infrastructure are characterized by one of the highest multiplication effects. Interventions of Priority Axis 1 will also significantly contribute to the solution of the issue of persons threatened with social exclusion by their geographic location in areas with poor transport accessibility.

The substantial internal debt associated with the regional road network necessitates financial support for the radical modernization of regional roads within the scope of ROP in order to fulfil one of the main preconditions of balanced regional development. Despite the extensive resources channelled into this sphere, the suggested amount of assistance is minimal compared to the OP T resources allocated to the development of the arterial road network.

Several long–distance international cycling routes cut across the cohesion region. The total length of cycling routes, however, includes a very low proportion of safe bicycle tracks from which automobile traffic is excluded. Cycling infrastructure should therefore be adequately addressed. The increase in road traffic density, especially in bigger cities, represents a continuously growing threat to pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. Main objective:

Strengthen transport accessibility and public transport services in the region in line with sustainable development. Specific objectives:

1 Enhance the quality of the cohesion region’s connection to the supra–regional TEN–T network and of the internal connecting network of roads, and improve the quality of transport accessibility through reconstruction and modernisation of roads whilst respecting the environment.

2 Greatly improve the standard of the region’s transport services and enhance the quality of public transport in the region with the emphasis on supporting those types of public transport which respect the environment.

3 Construct a dense network of safe and suitably located cycling routes and associated infrastructure within and outside the settled areas, and increase pedestrian safety in urbanised areas.

Indicators:

See chapter 3.6 Indicators for monitoring and evaluation.

91

Strategy:

Priority axis Transport accessibility is based on the identified needs of the SE cohesion region reflected in the specific objective of the ROP “Improving the transport accessibility and transport services of the area whilst respecting the need for environmental protection.” A good quality transport network is a basic requirement for integrating the SE cohesion region into international trade and cooperation and, after the entry of the CR into the EU, also into the common European economic area. The SE cohesion region’s position, bordering on EU member countries Austria and Slovakia, along with the economic potential and its location on important European transport routes, substantiates the need for improving the transport network so as not to impede the free movement of persons and goods in the future.

Support on this priority axis of ROP SE can assist modernisation of the main regional road network. This facilitates trouble–free connection of the cohesion region to the 1st class road network (motorways, 1st class roads) and to transport networks of neighbouring countries, and allows interlinking of the region's settlement centres with their hinterlands, It also ensures improved traffic flow and passenger safety on regional roads.

Investments will be also channelled into the modernisation of the public international civil airport in Brno Tuřany. This airport, with a sizeable potential for future development, is the most significant transport connection point of the region’s urban centre, Brno, and of the whole SE cohesion region.

The priority axis will also focus on supporting good transport connections between the individual regional centres and their hinterlands through public transport integration, and the introduction of modern technologies into public transport. Sustainable development principles shall be observed during the development of transport services in the region. In this cohesion region the IDS, which makes use of several types of public transport and improves transport services between the regional centres and their hinterlands, will play a crucial role. Investments related to public transport in the SE cohesion region and further development and quality enhancement of the IDS shall be implemented within the framework of this ROP SE priority axis. The intended enhancement of the attractiveness of public transport, and its increased utilisation will remove the barriers to the population’s mobility in the SE cohesion region and will improve the accessibility of the regional centres from the hinterland. The assistance is also directed at renovation of the city and suburban passenger rolling stock, a sphere which needs to be attended to because it did not receive sufficient assistance in the previous period. An outdated rolling stock hampers improvement of the service’s quality standards, especially the insurance of transport services within the framework of commitment to public services and public transport.

A large enterprise, which is determined in compliance with Regulation of the European Commission (EC) No. 70/2001, can be the beneficiary in intervention to public transport rail rolling stock renovation. ROP SE supports small and medium size entrepreneurs, determined in compliance with Regulation of the European Commission (EC) No. 70/2001, by 80 % from estimated allocation for entrepreneurs.

An alternative to traditional means of transport is cycling, which offers considerable flexibility of movement in the city environment and offers a partial solution to passenger transport in the cohesion region. Cycling is also one of the most dynamic and fast–developing forms of tourism. Interlinking the cycling infrastructure in the form of a city cycling network and a regional network of bicycle tracks will enable the fluid movement of cyclists and bicycle tourists at the same time. Projects oriented at increasing road traffic safety in towns and municipalities will also be assisted through appropriate measures. Another area which will therefore be addressed in the priority axis is the development of unpowered transport infrastructure, particularly in relation to increasing the safety of its participants. Key areas of support:

Area of support 1.1 Transport infrastructure development in the cohesion region

Assisted activities will involve construction, reconstruction, modernisation and upgrading (but not maintenance) of 2nd and 3rd class roads, as well as bridges. Projects involving roads will be solely of an investment character and, apart from new construction, will lead to improvement of currently unsatisfactory roads. Interventions should be focused on 2nd and 3rd class roads, which form the major part

92

of the SE cohesion region’s transport network, and which connect it to the TEN–T network class roads (motorways and 1st class roads), interlink important settlement centres, and connect the cohesion region to the transport networks of neighbouring countries. Assistance will therefore be directed preferentially at modernization, reconstruction and construction of roads connecting to the transeuropean TEN–T network, and of associated roads. The aim is for urbanized centres, tourist centres and the region’s other popular destinations to be fully connected to the TEN–T network and for remote areas with a scattered and weak economic foundation to also gain access to the TEN–T network. One of the evaluation criteria in the given area of support will be a statement that the project concerns the connection to the above–defined higher–class roads.

Projects addressing the undesirable effects of traffic on the population, and the elimination of safety risks will include road relocations, the construction and reconstruction of bridges, noise barriers, roundabouts, and other road structures.

In connection with the development of regional airports, funding will allow the construction, reconstruction and modernisation of the necessary infrastructure of the cohesion region’s international airport.

Classification of area of intervention of Area of Support 1.1 including allocations for orientation purposes:

No. Transport Indicative allocation in EUR 23 Regional / local roads 248 218 685

Indicative type of operations Construction, technical evaluation and improvement of 2nd and 3rd class roads (including bridges) which constitute the main regional transport network of the SE cohesion region and connect the region to higher category road networks or the TEN–T, or which interconnect urban and regional centres. Technical evaluation and construction of bridges, noise walls and barriers, bypasses or their parts, noise reduction of thoroughfares, construction of roundabout intersections, relocation of roads and other transport structures of 2nd and 3rd class roads.

No. Transport Indicative allocation in EUR

29 Airports 7 142 858

Indicative type of operations Construction and technical evaluation of necessary infrastructure at the public international civil airport.

In total 255 361 543 Area of support 1.2 Transport services and public transport development

Activities covered by this area of assistance will especially address the necessary enlargement and quality enhancement of the existing IDS and the overall optimisation of public transport in the territory of the SE cohesion region. The investments will be directed particularly at the installation of up–to–date information and handling systems for IDS passengers, construction and modernisation of transfer terminals and park–and–ride facilities and of other public transport technical equipment and infrastructure, modifications to existing bus stops and terminals, installation of traffic guidance and information systems, and construction of follow–up P+R, K+R and Bike+R systems. In the process of implementation of these activities, emphasis will be laid on their easy accessibility for persons with impaired mobility or senses (barrier–free character of these constructions). Purchasing and modernisation of ecological means of public transport (except railway vehicles) will be supported with a view to enhancing air quality in urban areas and municipalities. Vehicles complying with the EURO 4 emission standard or higher (prior to 2009), EURO 5 and higher (valid after 2009 pursuant to the Commission Directive 2003/27/EC) or EURO 6 (valid after 2015) are considered to be ecological means of transport.

93


No. Transport Indicative allocation in EUR 25 Urban Transport 24 526 230

Indicative type of operations Purchase of ecological means of transport and modernization and reconstruction of public means of transport (except for rail vehicles) and City public transport (CPT) with a significant ecological impact (e.g. leading to a considerable decrease of emissions from the means of transport.


28 Intelligent transport systems 500 535

Indicative type of operations Installation of modern information and check–in systems for passengers.

Installation of transport telematics – guidance, information and dispatching systems.

No. Protection of the environment and risk prevention Indicative allocation in EUR

52 Promotion of clean urban transport 9 782 641

Indicative type of operations Construction and technical evaluation of transfer terminals and related park–and–ride facilities and other technical equipment for public mass transport (PMT), providing existing stops and terminals with barrier–free access.

Construction of associated Park and Ride systems (car parks for passenger cars with transfer access to Public Mass Transportation), Bike and Ride (space for the safe storage of a bicycle with transfer access to PMT), Kiss and Ride (short–term parking for loading and unloading materials and for cars picking up or dropping off passengers for transfer to PMT) etc.

In total 34 809 406

Classification of area of intervention of Area of Support 1.2 including allocations for orientation purposes for MHD in towns over 50 000 inhabitants:


25 Urban Transport 8 584 181

28 Intelligent transport systems 175 187 No. Protection of the environment and risk prevention Indicative allocation in EUR 52 Promotion of clean urban transport 3 423 924

In total 12 183 292

Area of support 1.3 Public transport rail rolling stock renovation

Rail transport has been and will continue to form the backbone of the IDS system. Public transport quality enhancement will be implemented through investment in the renovation of the rolling stock. The assistance will cover the purchase of new vehicles and modernisation of existing public transport rail vehicles55, suburban rail transport or the linking of tram and railway transportation networks. One of the priorities for the renovation of vehicles is accessibility for persons with impaired mobility or senses. Special assistance will be allocated to vehicles with environmentally friendly power sources (i.e. electric or meeting the standards EURO 4, 5, resp. 6).

55 Pursuant to Act No. 266/1994 Coll., about railway, as amended.

94


No. Transport Indicative allocation in EUR 18 Mobile rail assets 11 113 215

Indicative type of operations Purchase of new vehicles and modernization of existing rail vehicles providing suburban regional railway transport.

No. Transport Indicative allocation in EUR 25 Urban Transport 12 780 197

Indicative type of operations Purchase of new vehicles and modernization of existing rail vehicles providing PMT.

No. Transport Indicative allocation in EUR 28 Intelligent transport systems 370 440

Indicative type of operations Installation of modern information and check–in systems for passengers in PMT.



Indicative type of operations Purchase of new vehicles and modernization of existing rail vehicles providing PMT, or vehicles used in systems combining railway and tram transport (tram–train), as the case may be.

In total 37 044 049 Classification of area of intervention of Area of Support 1.3 including allocations for orientation purposes for MHD in towns over 50 000 inhabitants:




No. Protection of the environment and risk prevention Indicative allocation in EUR 52 Promotion of clean urban transport 12 780 197

In total 25 930 834

Area of support 1.4 Unpowered transport infrastructure development

Part of the investment in the development of unpowered transport in the cohesion region will be channelled into the construction and reconstruction of bicycle tracks for the sole use of cyclists, roller skaters, scooters and pedestrians, along with structural adjustments and traffic signs. These tracks exclude all motor transport.

This area of assistance will also include the implementation of measures taken to enhance the safety of cyclists and pedestrians in municipalities particularly by constructing bicycle tracks, dealing with collision points (at crossings with other roads) and by adapting roads to the movement and safety needs of persons with impaired mobility or senses.

95


No. Transport Indicative allocation in EUR 24 Cycle tracks 17 065 196

Indicative type of operations Construction and technical evaluation of bicycle tracks and similarly converted roads delimited by a system of road signs and excluding automotive transport.


52 Promotion of clean urban transport 898 168

Indicative type of operations Dealing with collision points (bicycle tracks intersections with other overland communications – e.g. signal light devices, etc.). Adaptation of roads for unpowered transport for the use of persons with impaired mobility or senses.

In total 17 963 364 Operation type:

Individual projects. Large projects are not considered (in accordance with general regulation). Classification of areas of support of Priority Axis 1 including allocations for orientation purposes:

No. Transport Indicative allocation in EUR 18 Mobile rail assets 11 113 215 23 Regional / local roads 248 218 685 24 Cycle tracks 17 065 196 25 Urban Transport 37 306 427

28 Intelligent transport systems 849 116 29 Airports 7 142 858



In total 345 178 362 Classification of area of intervention of Priority axis 1 including allocations for orientation purposes for MHD in towns over 50 000 inhabitants:




No. Protection of the environment and risk prevention Indicative allocation in EUR 52 Promotion of clean urban transport 16 204 121

In total 38 114 126

Form of support:

Non–repayable direct aid.

96

Beneficiaries and target groups:

Beneficiaries:

• Regions. • Municipalities. • Municipal associations56. • Organizations established or founded by regions or municipalities57. • Business entity providing basic transport services within the scope of a public service obligation. • Railway operator58. • Railway transport operators59

Target groups:

• Cohesion region’s population. • Business sector. • Tourists and visitors to the cohesion region. • Foreign investors.

Flexibility (cross–funding):

Not to be employed. Coordination with the interventions of other programmes:

ROP SE priority axis Transport accessibility has key links to other programmes implemented in the Czech Republic in the programming period 2007–13 and also to regional competencies of regions (NUTS 3). Coordination at the national level is described in ROP SE Chapter 4.

In the course of fulfilling the NSRF strategic objective “Attractive environment” in terms of enhancing transport accessibility, the construction and modernisation of transport infrastructure of crucial significance for the Czech economy will be implemented. Rendering the European road and railway transport corridors permeable and connecting the main national economic centres to the European transport network will be emphasized. Attention will be paid particularly to the construction and modernisation of the TEN–T network and linked networks, including assurance of the necessary degree of traffic fluency and safety. Completion of construction of the Czech arterial road network, its connection to the cohesion region and interlinking within the cohesion region will strengthen the transport network’s permeability and improve the transport accessibility of the SE cohesion region. Attention shall also be given to environmentally friendly means of transport. The following concern railway transport in particular: Construction and modernisation in the sphere of rail transportation (apart from trans–European railway transportation) with the objective of increasing the proportion railway usage for passenger and goods transport. Major national and regional railway lines will be modernized in order to create a competitive alternative to road transport and to stimulate the development of multimodal transport (combined transport in particular), potentially also including connection to water transport with a view to environmental protection. Implementation of modern management methods and progressive transport

56 Voluntary associations of municipalities created according to Act No. 128/2000 Coll., on Municipalities. 57 Must also meet the following 3 conditions: a) is founded for the special purpose of addressing the needs of public interest of a non-industrial or non-business nature; b) is a legal entity; and c) is prevailingly financed by the state, regional or local authorities or other public entities, or is governed by these authorities, or its administrative, executive or supervisory body has more than a half of its members designed by the state, regional or local authorities or other public entities. 58 The owner of railway infrastructure which serves the purposes of operating public transport. Railway operators can become beneficiaries only within Area of Support 1.2. 59 Carrier providing basic transport services within the framework of a public service obligation. Railway transport carriers can become beneficiaries only within Area of Support 1.3.

97

strategies will be supported with the objective of increasing the efficiency and comfort of transportation systems. Assistance will be also directed at limiting the impact of traffic on the environment and on the population’s health (ecoducts and ecological corridors, noise barriers etc.).

The NSRF priority Improvement of transport accessibility will be implemented in the SE cohesion region through the OP Transportation priorities focused on the modernisation of the TEN–T network and 1st class roads not included in the TEN–T network. Investments in major regional 2nd and 3rd class roads owned by the Regions follow within the framework of the ROP, which will also enable the development of integrated public transport systems, optimisation of public transport in the cohesion region and the purchase of means of public transport.

OP Transport

ROP focuses on transport infrastructure owned by regions, particularly modernization, reconstruction and construction of 2nd and 3rd class roads connecting the region to the TEN–T road network, elimination of the undesirable effects of transport on the inhabitants and the environment, construction of integrated transportation systems, development of urban public transport and on improvement of transport accessibility in the region’s rural areas. The development of air transport at the international public airport is another priority area. Construction and modernization of infrastructure of national significance, i.e. the motorway and road TEN–T network, railway networks within and outside the TEN–T network, modernization of 1st class roads outside the TEN–T, support to multimodal haulage, development of inland water transport and modernization and development of the Prague underground and road transport traffic control systems in the capital Prague, are part of the Operational programme Transport. The ROP and OP Transport public interventions have distinctly different, but complementary, focuses.

The purchase and modernization of non–rail vehicles for country and urban public transport will be supported by resources from ROP SE within the framework of Areas of Support 1.2 Development of transport accessibility and public transport. Support will be given for projects for purchase of vehicles complying with the EURO 4 emission standard or higher (prior to 2009), EURO 5 and higher (valid until 2009 pursuant to the Commission Directive 2003/27/EC) or EURO 6 (valid until 2015), and for reconstruction and modernization of means of public mass transport (PMT) leading to compliance with the EURO 5 or EURO 6 standards.

The purchase of electrically powered rail vehicles (trams, trolleybuses and suburban electric units/trains) for inter–city, suburban and urban public transport will be supported within the framework of Area of Support 1.3 Renovation of the public transport rolling stock.

In the OP Transport, the activities in the rail transport area of support concentrate on four of the seven priority axes. Priority Axes 2 and 4 centres exclusively on the sphere of road infrastructure and any overlap with ROP SE within the framework of these activities is excluded. On the other hand, support for railway transport concentrates on Priority Axes 1 and 3 which cover interventions in railway infrastructure: particularly the modernization of railway tracks, modifications to railway junctions and points leading to decreased negative impact of railway transport on the environment and public health (e.g. noise barriers). These priority axes are complementary because arterial railway lines of the TEN–T network will be supported by Priority Axis 1, while Priority Axis 3 will provide assistance to other railway lines. The supported activities are very similar in both cases. But investments channelled into the rolling stock of the railways are dealt with only by Priority 1 as a part of the partial problems of interoperability, i.e. of the compatibility of our railway network with European standards (and thus enabling smooth operation of powered vehicles from other European countries on our railways lines). The security system of the concerned railway lines, both stationary (on the railroad track) and mobile (on the powered vehicles), will be addressed within the scope of these activities. The activities within the framework of these priority axes, however, do not go beyond the scope of these adaptations and they absolutely do not involve modernization or even purchase of new vehicles (this is tackled in ROP).

The activities of Priority Axis 6 focus on freight transport, water transport (outside the focus of ROP) and also on multimodal transport, in which it will be possible to partially support the purchase and modernization of rail vehicles but only freight and highly specialised vehicles (such as wagons for the

98

transport of containers/replacement transporter bodies etc.). These types of vehicle are again not covered within the framework of ROP SE and thus no overlap is possible. Personal railway transport is not addressed in any of the priority axes of OP Transport. OP Transport does not support purchase of vehicles for public transport.

In compliance with the provision of Article 88 Paragraph 3 of the EC Treaty, and according to the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999 laying down the implementation rules for the aforementioned article of the EC Treaty governing the Czech Republic, the Regional Council Office SE (the provider) will ensure the compatibility of the discussed measures with the EC regulations in the sphere of state aid.

Programme funded by EAFRD – Rural Development Plan:

Areas and activities related to construction and reconstruction of local roads, bus stops and other small–scale investments are supported from EAFRD by means of the Rural Development Plan. RDP is territorially focused on support of activities in municipalities with up to 500 inhabitants, and investment will be implemented directly in the territory of the municipality. RDP thus complements ROP through a number of improvements to transport infrastructure and transport services. ROP will address the transport infrastructure of 2nd and 3rd class roads in rural regions which connect regional centres and rural areas to the TEN–T network. It will also address public transport services in rural areas, including the IDS (Integrated Transportation System). Projects of up to CZK 5 million focusing on development of local roads in municipalities with a maximum of 500 inhabitants are supported in the Rural Development Plan. ROP SE will support investments into local roads only in municipalities with over 500 inhabitants the investments are part of a comprehensive project aimed at the improvement of public open spaces in those municipalities, or investments in access roads to tourist monuments associated with the tourist trade (ROP SE Area of Support 2.1).

ROP and the abovementioned operational programmes are complementary and mutually condition each other. In the course of implementation of concrete supported projects, they will create sufficient synergic effects which will multiply the results and impact of these programmes. At the same time they will contribute to the fulfilment of objectives and priorities of the superior programme document (NSRF).

Cross–border cooperation programmes:

Transport infrastructure, with the emphasis on improving the permeability of the borderland and connection of the region to important cross–border transport arteries in particular, is the central theme in the sphere of transport in the cross–border cooperation programmes. ROP and OP Cross–border cooperation interventions are complementary, and both contribute to the improvement of the region’s connection to the surrounding areas, as well as to the of its internal connections.

OP Austria – Czech Republic 2007–2013: ROP has a thematic link to the Operation Programme Cross–border cooperation Czech Republic – Austria which includes a priority aimed at strengthening transport accessibility exclusively in border areas. Public interventions of the operational programme focus on the construction and modernization of transport infrastructure with the emphasis on improving the quality of border region connections (local and regional network), on more ecological transport in border areas, utilization of telematics applications in border area transport, and support for logistics in combined transport. The areas of public interventions of these two programmes do not overlap because they differ in both their subject–matter and territorial focus. ROP public interventions in the sphere of transport infrastructure will therefore be supplemented by interventions directed solely at border areas. Their objective is the development of cross–border cooperation by means of improved transport accessibility.

OP Slovak Republic – Czech Republic 2007–2013: The Operational Programme Cross–border cooperation Czech Republic – Slovakia addresses support for transport infrastructure, particularly connections of border areas to the national and transeuropean traffic networks. Access to these networks is important in common border areas suitable for the development of tourism, other locally tied entrepreneurial activities, and for the improvement of information and

99

navigation systems. The geographic and subject focus of ROP is different and does not conflict with the activities supported within the framework of this cross–border cooperation.

Regions:

Regions (NUTS 3), in compliance with Section 35 Article 2 Letter. g) of the Act No. 129/2000 Coll. on Regions, determine the scope of the basic transport services and of the organization of regional transport in their territories. In relation to that, they conclude public service commitments in the field of public transport in compliance with Section 19 of the Act No. 111/1994 Coll. on Road Transport, and in the field of railway transport in compliance with Section 39 of the Act No. 266/1994 Coll. on Railways, The objective is to ensure regularity and continuity of transport for the regions’ citizens. Construction of integrated transportation systems in the territories of regions, and their connection to transport systems of the Czech Republic and foreign countries, is therefore one of the main objectives of the regions.

The regions are the owners of 2nd and 3rd class roads on the basis of Section 9 Article 1 of Act No. 13/1997 Coll. on Roads. Based on Section 9 Article 4 of the Act on Roads, the regions are obliged to carry out maintenance of these roads in compliance with Regulation No. 104/1997 Coll. implementing the Act on Roads. This obligation also involves inspection, maintenance, and reconstruction of roads. The Ministry of Transport can further contractually transfer the execution of some rights and obligations of the state from the title of the owner of 1st class roads to organizations of road administration and maintenance established by the regions. In compliance with Section 3 Letter e) of the Act No. 248/2000 Coll. on regional development support, regions further ensure the improvement of the region’s infrastructure capacities. For these purposes, the regions expertly manage and administer contributing organizations whose task is to perform the management and maintenance of these roads, i.e. Road Administration and Maintenance of the Southmoravian region and Regional Road Administration and Maintenance of the Vysočina region.

In accordance with the Act on Road Traffic (No. 361/2000 Coll. as amended), the regions implement preventive measures in the sphere of road traffic safety.

Innovative financial instruments

Implementation of innovative financial instruments is not expected in the case of the ROP SE priority axis Transport accessibility.

100

3.2 PRIORITY AXIS 2: DEVELOPMENT OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

Current situation:

Tourism is a significant regional industry and has a positive influence on the creation of new jobs, on socio–economic development and on investment activities in the region. The SE region offers a variety of cultural and natural sites (including NATURA 2000 localities) and monuments, and its natural conditions are favourable for all–year tourism. Development of sustainable tourism will take into account NATURA 2000 localities. Only environmentally sound forms of tourism will be provided with support in the NATURA 2000 localities. One of the main barriers to using the region’s potential and increasing attendance is the inadequate standard of services and mediocre primary and complementary infrastructures for tourism. The existing infrastructure in many cases does not meet the requirements for service certification. Another weak point is a lack of supply of specialized and original products for tourists in the region and some shortcomings can be seen also in publicity and marketing and the provision of tourist information. Main objective:

To promote the development of tourism through support to infrastructure, coordination of development activities, marketing and human resources. Specific objectives:

• To enhance and develop infrastructure and tourist facilities with respected of protection of nature and countryside.

• To enhance and develop marketing, publicity and information services, organization of tourism management and tourist products.

Indicators:

See Chapter 3.6 Indicators for monitoring and evaluation Strategy:

The strategy for strengthening the position of tourism in the economy of the SE region will be enforced by means of two key areas of assistance focused especially on the construction and enhancement of primary and complementary tourist infrastructure as a vital prerequisite for the implementation of all other related activities, and on the development of tourist products and programmes for publicity and marketing in tourism.

In addition to traditional types of tourism (urban tourism, cultural and learning tourism, recreation and sports tourism) the SE region has favourable conditions for the development of other types, within the framework of which many advanced tourist products can be created. These prospective products can also economically stimulate a number of presently marginal areas in the region.

The considerable potential of the SE region can be seen especially in the field of congress tourism, cultural and learning tourism, bicycle tourism, water tourism, balneology and rural tourism bound to local traditions (folklore) and products (esp. wine making). Attention will therefore be focused on these forms of tourism as they can offer the best future prospects for the SE region, strengthening the region’s competitiveness in comparison with other regions and having the highest potential to generate receipts for the region and to attract visitors. The interventions will be primarily focused on projects which resolve the development of tourism in the region’s territory in an integrated way and which have positive economic effects.

An integral part of strategic measures directed at enhancement of the region’s competitiveness in tourism

101

is intensive publicity and the carrying out of comprehensive marketing activities interconnected esp. with progressive forms of tourism in the region. They constitute an integral part of the development of tourism and are aimed at attracting new visitors and effectively publicising the SE region. It is therefore necessary to support and develop the activities and imagination of entities engaged in tourism by designing programmes focused on strengthening publicity activities and on raising the standard of information services.

Key areas of support:

Area of support 2.1 Development of infrastructure for tourism

Supported activities will be focused primarily on the construction or refurbishment of infrastructure, and on the development of new forms of tourism and innovative thematic tourist products in the region.

Required investments include first of all, refurbishment of lodging facilities, building or modernization of other infrastructure (e.g. congress and conference centres, spa facilities, sports and recreation facilities inc. infrastructure for recreational sailing, etc.), reconstruction and renovation of cultural monuments60 with their subsequent opening to the public and use for tourist purposes (investments into cultural monuments can only be made in municipalities of over 500 inhabitants), modification and reconstruction of bicycle tracks incl. their marking and repair61, construction and refurbishment of tourist trails for hikers, skiers and horse riders, thematic tracks, nature trails (especially those leading to NATURA 2000 localities in the region – the list of localities in NUTS 2 SE is published on the website www.jihovychod.cz). Complementary facilities of the preceding list are included. Each project will be implemented with respect for NATURA 2000 localities and must not lead to any damage or deterioration of the site. The reconstruction or construction of access roads (including related car parks and pavements) to objects and cultural sites potentially visited by tourists (castles, manors, ski lifts, bicycle tracks, tourist trails, etc.) will also be supported.


No. Tourism Indicative allocation in EUR 55 Promotion of natural assets 2 844 200

Indicative type of operations Marking and modifications to bicycle routes (those which do not constitute 2nd and 3rd class roads), construction and technical evaluation of tourist routes and tracks for pedestrians and skiers, nature trails including complementary facilities.

No. Tourism Indicative allocation in EUR 56 Protection and development of the natural heritage 3 413 039

Indicative type of operations Technical evaluation and opening of monuments of regional significance for tourism.

No. Tourism Indicative allocation in EUR 57 Other assistance to improve tourist services 82 481 778

Indicative type of operations Construction and technical evaluation of certified lodging and catering establishments with a direct link to tourism.

No. Culture Indicative allocation in EUR 58 Protection and preservation of the cultural heritage 13 652 156

Indicative type of operations Technical evaluation and opening of monuments of regional significance for tourism.

60 Those proclaimed as an immovable monument according to Act no. 20/1987 Coll., on state care for monuments, as amended. 61 Directional guidance signs for cyclists; can be placed on cycling tracks as well as on routes shared with road traffic.

102

No. Culture Indicative allocation in EUR 59 Development of cultural infrastructure 9 101 438

Indicative type of operations Construction, modification and technical evaluation of access roads to structures and monuments of superregional significance utilizable by the tourism trade (which do not constitute 2nd and 3rd class roads.

No. Culture Indicative allocation in EUR 60 Other assistance to improve cultural services 2 275 359

Indicative type of operations Marking and modification of bicycle routes (those which do not constitute 2nd and 3rd class roads), construction and technical evaluation of tourist routes and tracks for pedestrians and skiers, nature trails including accessory facilities.

In total 113 767 970 Area of support 2.2 Development of services in tourism

In developing tourist services, it is necessary to focus especially on the creation of marketing strategies and strategies for prospective and competitive forms of tourism of regional significance, on the promotion and publicity of specific tourist products, the creation of local and regional information systems for tourists about natural and cultural sites, the development of tourist information systems and public places with internet access used by visitors, the support of marketing and information campaigns focused on advertising of the region as a rare tourist destination and on the related creation of new printed and digital multilingual publicity materials and articles. In line with this rationale, publicity for NATURA 2000 localities within the area of NUTS 2 SE will be supported. The beneficiaries implementing projects involving NATURA 2000 localities will be obliged to provide information about these localities in all of their information materials. All interventions in the NATURA 2000 habitats will be performed in observance of protection of the concerned localities.


No. Tourism Indicative allocation in EUR 55 Promotion of natural assets 4 015 340

Indicative type of operations Creation of local and regional information systems for informing tourists about the tourist attractions. Development of tourist information systems, and locations with publicly accessible internet for tourists and visitors to the region.

No. Tourism Indicative allocation in EUR 56 Protection and development of the natural heritage 2 007 669

Indicative type of operations Assistance and promotion of specific regional tourist products.

No. Tourism Indicative allocation in EUR 57 Other assistance to improve tourist services 10 841 419

Indicative type of operations Creation of marketing strategies and strategies for prospective and competitive forms of tourist trade of regional significance.

No. Culture Indicative allocation in EUR 58 Protection and preservation of the cultural heritage

3 212 272

103

Indicative type of operations Marketing and awareness raising campaigns directed at promotion of the region as a unique tourist destination. Assistance to cultural events with long–term and significant regional impact.

In total 20 076 700 Operation type:

Individual projects. Large projects are not considered (in accordance with general regulation). Classification of area of assistance for Priority Axis 2 with allocations for orientation purposes: No. Tourism Indicative allocation in EUR 55 Promotion of natural assets 6 859 540 56 Protection and development of the natural heritage 5 420 708 57 Other assistance to improve tourist services 93 323 197

No. Culture Indicative allocation in EUR 58 Protection and preservation of the cultural heritage 16 864 428 59 Development of cultural infrastructure 9 101 438 60 Other assistance to improve cultural services 2 275 359

In total 133 844 670 Form of support:

Non–repayable aid. Beneficiaries and target groups:

Beneficiaries: • Regions. • Municipalities. • Municipal associations62 • Organizations established or founded by regions or by municipalities63 • Legal entities with the participation of municipal government64 • Non–governmental non–profit organizations65 • Small and medium- size entrepreneurs66

62 Voluntary associations of municipalities founded pursuant to Act No. 128/2000 Coll., on municipalities. 63 Must also meet the following 3 conditions: a) is founded for the special purpose of addressing the needs of public interest of a non-industrial or non-business nature; b) is a legal entity; and c) is prevailingly financed by the state, regional or local authorities or other public entities, or is governed by these authorities, or its administrative, executive or supervisory body has more than a half of its members designed by the state, regional or local authorities or other public entities. 64 Legal entities in which regions or municipalities have equity holding greater than 50% or in which they elect more than a half of members in their statutory, administrative, supervisory or control body and whose subject of business is enterprise in tourism and promotion and publicity of tourism. 65 NGOs with legal personality and minimum two years of operation (citizen associations, public service enterprises, church legal entities, foundations) whose subject of business is enterprise in tourism and tourism promotion and advertising. NGOs must implement the project from Area of Support 2.1 in municipalities with more than 2000 inhabitants. 66 Entrepreneurs whose current subject of business in enterprise in tourism and whose history is at least 2 years. Pursuant to Art. 2 of Act No. 47/2002 Coll., small and medium-size entrepreneurs are considered to be entrepreneurs meeting the criteria stipulated in the directly applicable EC regulation which is Supplement 1 to Commission Regulation (EC) No. 364/2004 of 25 February 2004, amending Regulation (EC) No. 70/2001.

104

Target groups: • Tourists and visitors to the region • Residents of the region Flexibility (cross–funding):

Will be used for: Educational and complementary activities accompanying investments in the development of sustainable tourism, such as a further professional education of employees (namely of small and medium-sized enterprises engaged in tourism) and development of corporate educational programmes for employees in the field of tourism. Coordination with the interventions of other programmes:

Priority axis Development of sustainable tourism has key links with the priorities of other programmes realized in the Czech Republic in the programming period 2007–13 and also with regional competencies of the regions (NUTS 3). Coordination at a national level is described in ROP SE Chapter 4.

The strategic objective of NSRF “The Competitive Czech Economy“ respects the role of tourism as an important developmental activity diversifying the economy, helping the development of enterprise, contributing to increased employment and new jobs. Attention will be focused on the sustainable development of current activities, on the exploitation of natural resources whilst respecting the natural values of the area and conditions for their protection and cultural heritage, removal of barriers preventing their effective and sustainable use, and on the construction of primary and complementary infrastructures. Support will be provided for the creation and supply of products, programmes and activities of regional and supra–regional significance attractive to domestic and foreign tourists.

Integrated operational programme

The priority of NSRF Development of sustainable tourism and the use of the cultural heritage potential is implemented by means of IOP in the organization and management of tourism at national and supra–regional levels, in the field of marketing and publicity at national and supra–regional levels, and in other cases (i.e. at regional and local levels) by means of ROP SE. Infrastructure for tourism is supported solely through the ROP. Differences in focus and the synergy between the IOP and ROP, structured according to the respective areas of IOP intervention, are the following:

IOP Area of Intervention 4.1a – National support of tourism

IOP ensures support of promotion and marketing of the Czech Republic as a whole (i.e. of the Czech Republic as a tourist destination) especially abroad. The implementation of this form of promotion and marketing is effective at a national level. IOP further promotes the introduction of information and booking system and international tourist services standards, unified for the whole country. ROP primarily supports the development of regional tourist infrastructure and the marketing of regions as tourist destinations.

Coordination of the IOP and ROP interventions will be ensured by a coordinating committee for tourism with representatives from the MRD, Regional Council, Southmoravian region and the Vysočina region.

IOP area of intervention 5.1 – National assistance for the utilization of cultural heritage potential

The objective of the IOP support is increasing the efficiency of existing services and creating new cultural services focused on identification, renovation, preservation, presentation and utilization of the cultural heritage of the Czech Republic. ROP will, on the other hand, be of assistance in the regeneration of monuments to facilitate their use in tourism or to revitalize towns or rural areas.

ROP SE focuses on sites of regional and local importance that can be used for the development of tourism, with the exception of national cultural monuments and UNESCO monuments which are in the list of projects specified in IOP.

105

IOP will be used for financing the renovation of national cultural monuments and of monuments listed by UNESCO as part of the world’s cultural heritage specified in the IOP list of monuments. A list of monuments (priority projects) is provided in appendix A in Table 2.

IOP will also support infrastructure of museums, art galleries, libraries, archives, etc.

OP LZZ This priority axis of ROP SE and the OP Human Resources and Employment are mutually complementary and will create synergic effects in the course of projects implementation. Public interventions within the priority axis 2 of ROP SE are focused on the quality improvement of infrastructural background for ESF interventions in the field of education and accompanying activities; this is why the mutual complementarity is foreseen with the Operational programme Human Resources and Employment. As it will not be possible to cover some planned activities from the cross-financing within ROP SE, the Managing Authority of the Operational programme Human Resources and Employment will be addressed with an informative list of requirements for complementary education. This particularly applies to the area of support 1.1 Enhancement of staff adaptability and competitiveness of enterprises, which in a complementary manner develops the investment projects of ROP SE. OP Human Resources and Employment will support the so called soft activities while the centre of ROP SE activities consists in the so called hard projects.

Programmes funded from EAFRD – Rural Development Plan:

Measures II. 2.4.2. Non–productive investment in forests

The RDP is focused inter alia on non–productive investment in forests (plots of land determined to fulfil the role of forest), through which it supports activities that strengthen the recreational function of forests (i.e. building, reconstruction and modernization of the tourist trails up to a width of two metres, bike trails and constructions built on them to make them safe, e.g. bridges, railings, parking facilities, rest places, shelters, information boards, springs etc.) ROP JV will provide complementary support for the marking system on bike trails and tourist trails, and for constructions for the safety of visitors, located outside the plots of land designated as forest.

Measures III.1.3 a) Support of tourism

This support is intended for the development of recreational infrastructure and equipment. This includes facilities for hiking, water sports and skiing (except for ski tows and cable railways), building and marking of hiking trails, viticulture trails, (i.e. local or regional trails for visitors interested in the history of winegrowing and in the present situation of vineyards in the country, mainly in South Moravia. These trails will be equipped with rest places with information boards, showing the local viticulture places of interest. Horse trails will also be supported as well as the purchase and planting of vegetation for grazing. RDP supports projects proposed by agricultural entrepreneurs67 in municipalities with fewer than two thousand, by other entrepreneurs with less than two years’ experience in tourism, and by non–profit organizations. The focus of ROP JV is thematically complementary to RDP in the area of modernization and increase in the capacities of basic and accompanying infrastructure, marking of tourist trails etc. However, the receivers can only be, apart from public institutions, entrepreneurs68 with more than two years’ experience. If entrepreneur implement projects in a municipality with fewer than 2,000 inhabitants, they must provide evidence of a two–year accounting period in the tourist trade. In municipalities with populations fewer than 2 thousand, non–profit organizations will have to comply with a minimum amount of CZK 2 million for the project.

67 According to Act No. 252/1997 Coll., on agriculture. 68 Except for the agricultural entrepreneurs according to Act No. 85/2004 Coll., which amends a Act No. 252/1997 Coll., on agriculture, as amended, and other acts regulating the subsistent agriculturalists, in the sense of Article II of Act No. 85/2004 Coll

106

Measures III.1.3 b) Support of tourism

This s support is exclusively intended for the building of recreational infrastructure for small–scale accommodation, including boarding and recreational facilities (swimming pools for public use, including necessary equipment, playgrounds, horse-riding schools and other recreational facilities). Facilities for hiking, viticulture trails, rest places, horse trails, and the use of animals in tourism will also be supported, as well as the purchase and planting of vegetation for grazing. EAFRD supports projects proposed by agricultural entrepreneurs, municipalities fewer than two thousand inhabitants, by other entrepreneurs with than two years’ experience and by non–profit organizations. The focus of ROP is thematically complementary to RDP in the area of small–scale accommodation and horse trails. However, the receivers can only be, apart from public institutions, entrepreneurs69 with more than two years’ experience. If entrepreneurs implement projects in a municipality with fewer than 2,000 inhabitants, they must provide evidence of a two–year accounting period in the tourist trade70. In municipalities with populations fewer than 2 thousand, non–profit organizations will have to comply with a minimum amount of CZK 2 million for the project.

Measures III.2 – Measures aimed at improving the quality of life in rural areas

The RDP implements a number of measures for municipalities of up to 500 inhabitants that are aimed at improving the quality of life in rural areas. These include: regeneration of public space, construction and reconstruction of local roads (which ROP SE supports only in connection with brownfields, buildings of significance for tourism and a comprehensive renewal of public places), buildings for educational, health and social purposes, areas for sporting and cultural events, and buildings for the activities of associations. ROP SE supports similar activities in municipalities of over 500 inhabitants.

Measures III.2.2 Protection and development of rural cultural heritage

This support is intended for studies on the renewal and use of cultural heritage (cultural monuments, cultural reserves and zones, cultural elements in villages and the landscape, local sights, historical parks, gardens, avenues and groves of trees), for preparation of programmes for the regeneration of protected cultural areas and plans for the care of protected landscape zones. Support will also be provided for the maintenance, renewal and enhancement or use of cultural heritage, such as cultural monuments, areas of cultural significance, cultural elements in villages and the landscape, including historical parks, gardens and avenues. Additionally, support will be given to the development of new permanent exhibitions and local history museums, sights, cultural and artistic activities and traditional folk-lore. Interventions within this measure must be used for the purposes of providing tourist services (ROP intervention), and will be made only in municipalities of up to 500 inhabitants, with the exception of national cultural monuments, UNESCO monuments (IOP intervention) and cultural monuments71 in municipalities of over 500 inhabitants. ROP SE supports much larger projects of regional importance, which will have a greater territorial impact in the region. Recipients of RDP support can be municipalities, associations of municipalities, non–profit organizations with the status of legal entities, including churches and their organizations, and interest groups of legal entities.

Programmes of cross–border cooperation:

OP Austria – Czech Republic 2007–2013: ROP has a thematic link to the Operational Programme Cross–border cooperation Czech Republic – Austria, which includes priorities focused, exclusively in the border areas, on tourism, culture and economic activities in the sphere of leisure time. Public interventions of the operational programme concentrate on increasing the quality of services associated with tourism, developing the existing range of tourist activities and cultural wealth in the most expedient manner, producing promotion materials and marketing strategies which enhance the image of tourism, opening (socially modified) markets and

69 According to Act No. 252/1997 Coll., on agriculture. 70 Except for the agricultural entrepreneurs according to Act No. 85/2004 Coll., which amends a Act No. 252/1997 Coll., on agriculture, as amended, and other acts regulating the subsistant agriculturalists, in the sense of Article II of Act No. 85/2004 Coll. 71 Those proclaimed as an immovable monument according to Act no. 20/1987 Coll., on state care for monuments, as amended.

107

attracting new tourists from areas outside the border region. The areas of public interventions of these two programmes do not overlap due to their differing geographic and subject focuses. ROP public interventions in the sphere of tourism and culture will therefore be complemented by interventions concentrating exclusively on border areas. Their aim is to develop cross–border cooperation by means of improving the quality of the offered products for tourism and cultural life.

OP Slovak Republic – Czech Republic 2007–2013: The aim of the Operational Programme Cross–border cooperation Czech Republic – Slovakia in the sphere of tourism is especially the organization of joint cross–border tourist and cultural events, exchange of knowledge, and support for the creation of common cultural products, tourism and traditional crafts. ROP differs in terms of its geographic and subject focus and hence does not clash with the activities supported within the framework of this cross–border cooperation.

Regions:

The regions are preparing conceptions for tourism development in their territories and participating in the process of ensuring their implementation (Section 35 of the Act No.129/2000 Coll. on Regions, Section 3 Letter d) of the Act No. 248/2000 Coll. on regional development support). This is being done primarily by performing analyses and working out strategies for, tourism development in the region, by collaborating on the creation of a national tourism strategy, defining major territorial problems and priorities, coordinating the creation of resources for funding the development of tourism in the region, ensuring a comprehensive agenda for presentation of the region’s attractions, cooperating with the CzechTourism agency, entrepreneurial and non–profit spheres, development agencies and cultural conservation and environmental protection bodies in the sphere of promotion and development of tourism in the region, performing activities encouraging the region’s foreign ties, participating in the preparation of the regional tourism information system, and by coordinating the development of bicycle tracks and bicycle transport, etc.

The regions deal with and approve documents of a conceptual nature concerning the development of state preservation of monuments. Pursuant to Section 28 of the Act No. 20/1987 Coll. on state preservation of monuments, the regions independently approve plans for preservation of the region’s monuments in compliance with the concept of development of state preservation of monuments in the Czech Republic. After discussion with the MK, they also approve drafts of long–term, medium–term and implementation plans and programmes for the preservation and renovation of the region’s cultural monuments, and regulate the use of cultural monuments in the region for cultural education. The regions further prepare strategic documents in the field of cultural development in the region, maintain an overview of the condition and activity of museums, galleries, observatories, libraries and other contributing organizations, analyse and evaluate the results and problems and submit proposals for necessary measures, monitor professional and non-professional cultural activities of citizens, and provide them with financial allowances within the framework of grant programmes, provide financial contributions designed to cover increased costs associated with the preservation or reconstruction of cultural monuments with the aim of enhancing their effective use by society.

Innovative financial instruments of EIB and EIF

In the case of Priority axis Development of sustainable tourism, the use of innovative financial instruments is not expected.

108

3.3 PRIORITY AXIS 3: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF TOWNS A ND RURAL AREA

Current situation:

The SE cohesion region can be divided into 2 key urbanization centres/development areas (Brno and Jihlava) and 9 centres of regional significance in which administrative and socio–economic functions of a higher order are concentrated.

This however puts increased demands on their capability to ensure an attractive environment for their inhabitants in terms of housing, enterprise, mobility for successful engagement in labour markets, and satisfactory conditions for leisure time activity. A basic prerequisite is first of all high–standard public infrastructure and public services infrastructure (esp. availability and quality of services in education, health care and social services, as well as in the field of leisure activities, which are an important aspect of regional development particularly in terms of the strengthening of social cohesion and the population’s associated quality of life.

A high–quality environment is the basis for a healthy lifestyle and a tool for enhancing the region’s general attractiveness for life, work and investments. Although the environmental quality in the region has been gradually improving since the beginning of the 1990s, there are many persistent environmental problems hampering sustainable development. Due to the development and downsizing of industrial operations, many towns and villages see their cores, and historic or industrial quarters gradually falling into disrepair. The long–term negligence of building stock in these urbanized areas therefore calls for solutions which, however, are limited by local governments’ lack of funds.

Smaller and rural seats in the region face many problems similar to those of the centres of regional significance. Their development is however even more limited by the lack of jobs, neglected infrastructure, low–standard services and unfavourable age and educational structure of the population. Unsatisfactory transport connections to regional centres cause difficulties in commuting. Remoteness contributes to a long–term above–average unemployment rate, low income, and poor standard of utilities and to a general downsizing of economic activities in the region.

Restructuring of the economy in the Czech Republic has resulted in a rising number of unused or abandoned sites, and of real estate in the entire region that has lost its function. These abandoned manufacturing or other premises often represent an ecological burden, have a negative influence on the appearance of the area, preventing its potential development for other use. Main objective:

Systematic enhancement of the region’s competitiveness through the reinforcement of development potential in towns, and the stabilization of population in rural areas. Specific objectives:

• Development of the socio–economic function of urbanization centres as accelerators of growth and development in the region.

• Reinforcement of the role of regional centres as important centres of development in the region. • Sustainable development and stabilization of settlements in rural areas and enhancement of their

attractiveness for living. • Enhancement of quality of life for the region’s population. Indicators:

See Chapter 3.6 Indicators for monitoring and evaluation.

109

Strategy of urbanization centres:

The development strategy and support focus for the development of urbanization centres are aimed at the solution of those centres’ specific economic, environmental and social problems and at their enhanced competitiveness. The objectives of support are the development of socio–economic functions, the conservation and enhancement of historic and cultural heritage, in combination with the support of enterprise, innovations, education, local employment and provision of services to residents according to the changing age structure (health care, non–profit community services), enhancement of the physical environment, reclamation of old industrial premises and regeneration of sites, solution of transportation problems ins urbanized areas, improvement of urban environments, enhancement of quality of life in urban areas, social integration and services.

In agreement with the regional development policy of the Czech Republic (see the socio–economic analysis), two urbanization centres were defined in the SE cohesion region: Brno and Jihlava. The selection of these centres was based on the analysis of seats in the SE cohesion region with respect to: number of inhabitants, functional size (considering the commuting hinterland for industry and services), balance of work migration, civic amenities available in the centre and number of inhabitants of the micro region the urbanization centre.

These urbanization centres will be developed in an integrated and comprehensive manner through integrated urban development plans for these towns (IUDP).

Definition of the Integrated Urban Development Plan

The definition of the IUDP: an IUDP includes a set of time related actions (projects) which are implemented: A) In a selected zone of a municipality (zone based approach). The IUDP in principle covers for example the following types of interventions:

� Regeneration and revitalisation of brownfields � Revitalisation of specific municipal zones � Modernisation of public space � Development of infrastructure in the area of schools and education � Development of health care infrastructure � Strengthening of social cohesion, quality of life, health of urban population

The purpose of the zone based integrated urban development approach is to concentrate financial resources on a limited selected zone of a municipality and to tackle all the existing problems (deprived area) or to support growth potential (growth pole) in a complex way in this zone.

B) Through a thematic integrated approach (e.g. urban public transport, greenery) in the whole municipality.

Consequently, the integrated approach should achieve a defined target of a selected urban zone or of a thematic area of a given municipality.

Minimum size of the IUDP budget is set as 10 MEUR in order to reach sufficient concentration of resources and to avoid their scattering. The MA ROP SE commits itself further make effort to reach 15 MEUR as average value of the IUDP.

The IUDP contains activities co-financed by ROP SE. It can also mention, separately for information, important projects in the selected zone of the municipality or in the selected thematic area of a given municipality which are co-financed from other operational programmes. However, these projects co-financed from other (thematic) Operational Programmes are operationally not part of the IUDP. Those projects co-funded from other (thematic) operational programmes will get during the evaluation by the relevant MA of the corresponding OP 10 % bonification in line with the government resolution No. 883 of 13 August 2007.

110

Area of application of the IUDP approach:

A) Municipalities with more than 50,000 inhabitants have obligation to prepare IUDP in order to benefit from the urban priority axis 3 Sustainable development of towns and rural area of the ROP JV. Within the region NUTS 2 framework, this concerns these municipalities:

Municipality No. of inhabitants as of 1 January 2006

Brno 366 757

Jihlava 50 859

The MA ROP SE may also publish call for proposal for IUDP for municipalities with less than 50,000 inhabitants. These IUDPs will not be financed from the above mentioned IUDP funding under the urban priority axis dedicated only to towns with more than 50,000 inhabitants. Doing that, the MA of the ROP may adjust the IUDP provisions (modify the IUDP minimal budget) for municipalities with less than 50,000 inhabitants taking into account geographic, demographic and economic potential of such municipalities in the region.

B) The indicative amount for rural areas is specified in the area of support 3.3 Development and stabilization of rural area.

Indicative amount for the urban public transport is specified in the priority axis 1Transport accessibility in areas of support 1.2 Transport services and public transport development and 1.3 Public transport rail rolling stock renovation.

Criteria for the selection of the zone for IUDP:

The IUDP is designed to tackle: a) Deprived areas (zones) with a concentration of negative phenomena, such as high

unemployment, criminality, social exclusion, etc.

b) Growth areas; there, the leverage effect of structural funds may be used to enhance the competitiveness of the zone.

c) Thematic area of a municipality

A geographically demarcated zone for the implementation of IUDP is a continuous area in the territory of the town delimited on the basis of fulfilment of indicators for:

A) Deprived area – it is characterized by unfavourable values of some indicators in the regional context pursuant to Article 47 of the implementing Regulation No. 1828/2006:

• a high level of poverty and exclusion; • a high level of long-term unemployment; • precarious demographic trends; • a low level of education, significant skills deficiencies and high dropout rates from

school; • a high level of criminality and delinquency; • a particularly rundown environment; • a low level of economic activity; • a high number of immigrants, ethnic and minority groups, or refugees; • a comparatively low level of housing value; • a low level of energy performance in buildings.

B) Area with a high potential for growth characterized by some of the following indicators:

• High concentration of economic activities. • High potential for stimulation of enterprise and development of services.

111

• Significant application of service and administrative functions. • High concentration of educational activities. • High importance of the transport system providing the citizens with the mobility and contributing

to the development of the municipality • High importance for assurance of health, social, culture and educational needs of citizens, the

improvement of life quality in the municipality • High innovation potential, especially in relation to the development of the business sector and

educational institutions, aimed at reaching synergies

IUDP preparation

In the initial phase MA of the ROP JV launches a call for proposals inviting municipalities to prepare and submit IUDP proposals. MA ROP JV specifies in this invitation the type and characteristics of an IUDP, its content, the selection criteria, etc. Consequently the municipality prepares an IUDP (selects the zone/theme on the basis of the above indicated criteria, determines the strategy and quantifies goals, consults with partners, etc.). The municipality can prepare and submit several IUDPs, whose justification and prioritization is based upon the vision of the municipality's of the needs of selected zones/theme. IUDP consists of:

The integrated urban development plan should contain among others the following information: a) Socio economic analysis and SWOT analysis of the municipality b) Justification for selection of the given zone/theme in the municipality on the basis of above

mentioned criteria c) Zone / theme area description d) Quantification of targets; definition of indicators e) Description of expected results f) Description of partners, their involvement in both the preparation and implementation of the

IUDP (application of partnership principle) g) Budget and time schedule (description of the means of financing) h) Description of administrative capacity and management of the IUDP. i) Impact of the IUDP on horizontal themes etc. j) Important projects co-financed from other operational programmes can be mentioned in the IUDP

but they do not represent operationally the part of the IUDP).Their list shall be annexed to the IUDP

k) Description of actions to achieve defined IUDP target (indicative list of projects) The next specification, roles of the town and the managing authority in IUDP creation and approval

The municipality submits an IUDP to the OP MA which evaluates and approves/refuses it. While evaluating the IUDP, the OP Managing Authority pays special attention to:

� Criteria set by the call for proposal � Justification of selected zone / thematic area, analysis of initial situation for the IUDP

implementation strategy � Defined target, selected strategy, indicative list of actions / projects to achieve the chosen target,

budget and time schedule, foreseen results, respect of partnership principle, impact on horizontal themes, administrative capacity, management of the IUDP, indicators etc.

� Technical quality and maturity of the proposed IUDP

Once the IUDP is approved by the MA the municipality pre-selects most suitable projects to reach the defined objective of the IUDP. The pre-selection of individual projects is in the competence of the municipality, which in line with principles of transparency, equal opportunities and respect of partnership principle establishes procedures for the assessment and selection of projects.

112

The projects pre-selected by the municipality are then submitted directly to the MA ROP JV which assesses them. The MA of the ROP JV can reject these pre-selected projects only on the basis of the formal / technical mistakes (e.g. ineligibility, insufficient budget).

IUDP implementation

During the implementation phase of the IUDP the municipality follows closely progress of all projects and reports to the Managing authority. Individual projects are implemented by the project holder (the municipality or its partners). Managing authority monitors projects as in the case of all other projects within the OP.

The interventions implemented via the IUDP will be carried out while respecting the legislative framework of the Czech Republic and the European Communities (especially in relation to the public procurement, rules for state aid, principles of free competition, eligibility etc.) to ensure the effective use of EU Structural Funds, as well as to ensure public interest and to prevent undue profits.

Strategy for regional centres

Support for the development of regional centres is focused on tangible investments into the construction and modernization of public infrastructure and the infrastructure of civil amenities (education,72 health care and non–profit social services) in the fields of culture, sport and other informal activities, and also in the field of social cohesion. As in the case of urbanization centres, the support will be extended to investment projects focused on regeneration and revitalization of towns’ deteriorating cores or affected areas (in relation to e.g. the downsizing of economic or social activities) and their subsequent incorporation into active city life. Part of the solution will also be a search for new uses for brownfields73. The result of supporting brownfields revitalization will be positive environmental effects such as decontamination of premises and sites, enhancement of the environment and preservation of urban and architectural integrity.

Regional and administrative centres with between 5 000 and 49 999 inhabitants and the towns of Židlochovice and Pohořelice, with the administrative status of municipalities with extended authority, were defined in compliance with NSRF (see the socio–economic analysis) in the SE cohesion region. Drawing on financial resources for regional and administrative centres will not depend on the obligation of elaborating IUDP.

Strategy for rural areas

The region’s rural areas show a wide variation in terms of socio–economic trends. Differentiated approaches will therefore be applied, focused on the stabilization of rural area settlement, on the maintenance and enhancement of the population’s quality of life, on improved availability of public goods and services, strengthening of links between rural areas and regional centres, and on the reinforcement of traditional bonds with nature. Rural areas were defined as municipalities having 5000–49999 inhabitants, with the exception of the towns of Pohořelice and Židlochovice.

72 Construction will not be supported with health-care facilities. 73 Brownfields are, as defined for the purposes of ROP SE, situated in intravillan and extravillan of municipalities and are either dilapidated and unused former agricultural or industrial sites or lands and objects inside urbanized town areas that have lost their original function.. Their revitalization aims at their recurrent use, namely for the extension of civil amenities or even for economic activities with the exception of agriculture (OKEČ-Section A), fishery (OKEČ-Section B), mining (OKEČ-Section C), processing industry (OKEČ-Section D), energetic industry (OKEČ-Section E) and building (OKEČ-Section F). There is no upper limit for the brownfields surface area supported from ROP SE, but economic activities are permitted only in up to 50% of the real estate’s floor area and up to 50% of the site’s surface area. Regeneration of brownfields in urbanized areas for future use as public open spaces/greenery will be permitted only if these brownfields are owned by public institutions.

113


Area of support 3.1 Development of urbanization centres

This area of support is focused on an integrated solution to the specific problems of urbanization centres through the Integrated plan of town development (IUDP) leading to the regeneration of urban areas. Interventions will concentrate especially on regeneration of historic town centres, urban conservation areas and other urban areas with specific problems, and on restoring the stock of buildings in older built–up areas to suitable functional use. The objective is to improve the functionality and competitiveness of towns, their image, aesthetics and quality of life. Public spaces in towns (squares, parks, children playgrounds, urban greenery) will be revitalized, and problems of unsatisfactory transport infrastructure related to growing automobile traffic will be resolved with the aim of enhancing the quality of the living environment in towns. Emphasis will be put on access for the disabled aided projects.

Support is further aimed at investment projects in the field of education, including vocational education and life–long learning, and on the development of infrastructure for health care services, and for the construction and development of infrastructure for non–profit social services. Co–financing will be available for projects focused on the construction and modernization of infrastructure (equipment) for life–long learning, and for improving the standard of institutions’ equipment and aids necessary for instruction and for increasing educational level. Support is also provided for modernisation and physical renovation of regional health care facilities, for construction, modernisation and physical renovation of non–profit regional care facilities, instruments and IT equipment and for related construction works within the projects, focused on enhancing the quality of medical care provided to the region’s inhabitants. Further interventions will target the extension and improvements of infrastructure and equipment at facilities providing services for the social integration of population groups impacted by social exclusion, and the construction and modernization of infrastructure for the development of informal activities of citizens (e.g. sports grounds).

Support in the area of brownfields is focused primarily on their regeneration. Part of this activity will be the construction and refurbishment of access and service roads, car parks and related technical infrastructure (sewerage system, street lighting, gas and water distribution, electrical and telecommunications cabling, low–current installations, etc.). Regeneration of brownfields in urbanized areas for future public open space/greenery will be permitted only if these brownfields are owned by public institutions.

Preparation of integrated urban development plans (IUDP) and their implementation will be, however, the responsibility solely of towns. The ROP managing authority will approve the IUDP, finance its preparation and also individual partial projects within the framework of IUDP and within the focus of ROP. The rules of transparency, equal opportunities and the partnership principle will naturally be observed. The ROP managing authority will assess the fulfilment of IUDP via monitoring systems and in cooperation with the town. The integrated plans of town development may also include innovative pilot projects focused on supporting implementation of (or completion of existing) innovative strategies with the aim of interconnecting their execution with other strategic documents at the level of towns. Emphasis will be laid on the implementation of these strategies, i.e. on the coordination of local participants and the actual enforcement of the strategy objectives. Significant use of the networking method at a European level is planned in the process of implementing these innovative strategies. These towns, together with the whole region, will be further integrated into the European Commission initiative “Regions for Economic Change {SEK (2006) 1432}.” The managing authority will ensure the following conditions with respect to the abovementioned facts:

a) It will take necessary measures for incorporation into the main programming process of innovative operations related to the results of networking connections in which the region participates;

b) It will enable participation in the MC (or programming committee) of a representative (observer) of the network(s) in which the Region participates in order to provide information about the progress of networking activities;

114

c) There will be an item in the MC (or programming committee) agenda at least once a year which draws attention to the networking activities, within whose framework proposals for the concerned main programme will be discussed.

d) It will provide information in the annual report about activities in the of region taking place within the scope of Regions for Economic Change.


No. Urban and rural regeneration Indicative allocation in EUR 61 Integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration 81 511 404

Indicative type of operations Construction and technical appreciation of infrastructure for cultural events.

Regeneration of historical centres and urban conservation areas, and restoration of building stock in older housing developments of these centres and reserves to suitable functional use.

Revitalization of public spaces in towns (e.g.: squares, parks, children’s playgrounds including public green etc.) including arrangement of the associated infrastructure.

Solution of inadequate quality and capacity of transport infrastructure as a result of growing automobile transport. Regeneration, revitalization and conversion of brownfields and related neglected sites, including conversion and completion of the supporting infrastructure and technical infrastructure. Building of partnerships and development of networks between towns and other entities in order to exchange best practice in the sphere of innovative strategies in education, public services and public administration.

Construction and technical evaluation of schools, educational institutions and infrastructure for further education focused on enhancing relevance in labour markets along with acquisition and modernization of teaching aids and equipment used directly in teaching.

Technical evaluation of health care facilities providing ward and outpatient care pursuant to the Act No. 20/1966, as amended and their equipment with information technologies, technical equipment including associated renovations. Construction and technical evaluation of infrastructure for sport and work with children and youth. Construction and technical evaluation of the infrastructure of non–profit social welfare establishments registered according to the Act No. 108/2006 Coll. on social services. Technical evaluation of infrastructure and equipment of facilities providing services for social integration of groups threatened and affected by social exclusion.

In total 81 511 404 Area of support 3.2 Development of regional centres

Activities supported in the field of public infrastructure will be chiefly comprehensive adaptation and renewal of public spaces (e.g. squares, parks, streets, children playgrounds) and adjacent surroundings, construction and reconstruction of related transport and technical infrastructure, and conversion of previously urbanized areas for reuse.

Areas to be supported within the framework of public service infrastructure will be particularly the construction and modernization of infrastructure and equipment for life–long learning with emphasis on elementary (secondary modern), secondary, higher technical and special education, and on further education focused on enhanced exercisability on labour markets.

The interventions will be further directed at the modernization and physical renovation of regional health care facilities, the construction, modernization and physical renovation of regional non–profit social

115

services and instruments and IT equipment and related alterations and renovations. Supported is also directed at the construction and modernization of infrastructure for culture, sports and other informal activities, for club activities, citizen s’ initiatives, and work with children, young people, national minorities and population groups at risk. As in the case of urbanization centres, revitalization of brownfields and small–scale commercial brownfields will be supported along with the construction and reconstruction of access and service communications, parking areas and related technical infrastructure.

Support will be provided for ICT development in spheres affected by a verifiable failure of the market (typically due to zero return on private investments). This will be done by creating a more accessible and non–discriminatory environment for the realization of commercial services, and will focus especially on the construction of local broadband data networks providing open, non–discriminatory public access (with the exception of public administration services). Efforts will also be directed at development of the environment for local private sector ICT services requiring broadband access, and at encouraging the participation of commercial providers in the local telecommunication market.


No. Information society Indicative allocation in EUR 11 Information and communication technologies 1 997 506

Indicative type of operations Construction of local broadband data networks to provide open, non–discriminatory public access (except for internal services of the public administration). Development of the environment for private sector ICT services requiring broadband access. Incentives for commercial providers to enter the local telecommunication market.


Indicative type of operations Construction and technical evaluation of infrastructure for cultural events.

No. Investment in social infrastructure Indicative allocation in EUR 75 Education infrastructure 12 484 414

Indicative type of operations Construction and technical evaluation of schools, educational institutions and infrastructure for further education, focused on enhancing exercisability in labour markets along with acquisition and modernization of aids and equipment used directly in teaching. Technical evaluation must be used to improve the quality and innovativeness of the provided instruction.

No. Investment in social infrastructure Indicative allocation in EUR 76 Health infrastructure 3 995 013

Indicative type of operations Technical evaluation of health care facilities providing ward and outpatient care pursuant to the Act No. 20/1966, as amended, (established and founded by self–governing territorial units) and their IT equipment, technical equipment including associated renovations.

No. Investment in social infrastructure Indicative allocation in EUR 77 Childcare infrastructure 13 982 544

Indicative type of operations Construction and technical evaluation of infrastructure for cultural events, sport and work with children and youth.

No. Investment in social infrastructure Indicative allocation in EUR 79 Other social infrastructure 7 490 649

116

Indicative type of operations Comprehensive conversions of public spaces.

Regeneration, revitalization and conversion of brownfields and related neglected sites, including conversion and completion of the supporting and technical infrastructure. Construction and technical evaluation of non–profit social welfare establishment infrastructure registered according to the Act No. 108/2006 Coll. on social services. Technical evaluation of infrastructure and equipment of facilities providing services for social integration of groups threatened and affected by social exclusion.

In total 49 937 657 Area of support 3.3 Development and stabilization of rural area

ROP interventions will assist the provision of services and civic amenities through the construction, modernization and utilization of various buildings and adapted premises offering services for inhabitants, namely educational establishments, cultural and sports facilities, health74 and non–profit social services, leisure activities, etc.

In addition to the usual types of community establishments, social development creates new needs such as special schools, new types of sports grounds, institutions for informal education, etc. Some newly emerging establishments providing civic amenities can make use of existing and unused building stock; others will have to be incorporated into urban structures.

Support is also directed towards the physical revitalization of rural areas, especially public infrastructure (special–purpose and service roads, public spaces, transformation of inefficiently used areas) and revitalization of brownfields.

Support will be provided for the development of ICT in districts affected by demonstrable market failure (typically due to low or zero return on private investments) through the creation of an accessible, non-discriminatory environment for implementation of commercial services. These efforts will be focused primarily on the construction of local data networks to improve the availability of broadband services for the general public (except for internal services of public administration). This will encourage the provision of local ICT broadband services by the private sector and will act as an incentive for commercial providers to enter the local telecommunications market (support of supply).


No. Information society Indicative allocation in EUR 11 Information and communication technologies 1 143 964

Indicative type of operations Construction of local broadband data networks providing open, non–discriminatory access to the public (except for internal services of the public administration). Development of the environment for private sector broadband services. Encouraging entry of commercial providers to the local telecommunication market (supply encouragement).


Indicative type of operations Construction and technical evaluation of infrastructure for cultural events.

No. Investment in social infrastructure Indicative allocation in EUR

75 Education infrastructure

10 295 677

74 Construction will not be supported with health-care facilities.

117

Indicative type of operations Construction and technical evaluation of schools, educational institutions and infrastructure for further education focused on enhancing exercisability in labour markets along with acquisition and modernization of teaching aids and equipment used directly in teaching. Technical evaluation must be used to promote quality and innovation of the provided instruction.


Indicative type of operations Technical evaluation of health care facilities providing ward and outpatient care pursuant to Act No. 20/1966, as amended, (established and founded by self–governing territorial units) and of their IT equipment, technical equipment including associated renovations.


Indicative type of operations Construction and technical evaluation of infrastructure for cultural events, sport, and work with children and youth.


Indicative type of operations Comprehensive conversions of public spaces. Regeneration, revitalization and conversion of brownfields and related neglected sites, including conversion and completion of the supporting infrastructure. Construction and technical evaluation of the infrastructure of non–profit social welfare establishments registered according to the Act No. 108/2006 Coll. on social services. Technical evaluation of infrastructure and equipment of facilities providing services for social integration of groups threatened and affected by social exclusion.

In total 38 132 136 Area of support 3.4 Public services of regional significance

This field of support will focus on enhancing the population’s quality of life through of investment in public services of regional significance such as educational and social infrastructure of higher order owned by the region. The significance of these facilities extends beyond the limits of the respective towns and villages, serving public needs over a wide area. Support will target development projects focused on the construction and modernization of facilities for life–long education (secondary schools, special schools, libraries, etc.) including enhancement of their equipment by the provision of teaching aids, and improvement of educational standards. Support will also be provided for the construction, modernization, refurbishment and physical renovation of regional health care establishments, non–profit social services and their instruments and IT equipment, and for related alterations and renewals. Further support will focus on the extension and enhancement of infrastructure and equipment of facilities assisting social integration of population groups affected by social exclusion.

Support in the field of ICT development will focus on areas affected by demonstrable market failure75 through the creation of a more accessible non-discriminatory environment for the realization of commercial services. This primarily concerns the construction of access and backbone networks public access to broadband services (with the exception of the internal services of public administration) based on the principle of non-discriminatory open networks, support for the development of an environment for regional broadband ICT services provided by the private sector, encouraging the involvement of commercial providers in the local telecommunications market (support of supply), support for regional

75 dtto.

118

innovation centres’ ICT equipment, and for regional hosting and peering services76.

Within this area of support, innovative activities will be included, the character of which will depend on the region’s needs. They will primarily involve the implementation of new or existing regional innovative strategies with the objective of interconnecting their implementation with other strategic documents at the level of towns or regions. Emphasis will be laid on the implementation of these strategies; i.e. on the coordination of regional participants and actual enforcement of the strategy objectives. A significant level of application of the networking method at a European level is planned in the course of implementing these innovative strategies.


No. Information society Indicative allocation in EUR 11 Information and communication technologies 357 170

Indicative type of operations Encouraging involvement of commercial providers in the local telecommunication market (supply encouragement). Support provision of ICT equipment for RIS. Construction of local data networks meeting the need for open, non-discriminatory public broadband services (except for internal services of the public administration). Development of environment for private sector broadband ICT services (supply encouragement).


Indicative type of operations Construction and technical evaluation of public libraries.

No. Investment in social infrastructure Indicative allocation in EUR 75 Education infrastructure 5 695 600

Indicative type of operations Construction and technical evaluation of establishments for lifelong learning.


Indicative type of operations Construction and technical evaluation of health care facilities providing ward and outpatient care pursuant to Act No. 20/1966, as amended, (established and founded by self–governing territorial units) and their IT equipment, technical equipment including associated renovations.


Indicative type of operations Technical evaluation of infrastructure for cultural events, sport and work with children and youth.


Indicative type of operations Construction and technical evaluation of the infrastructure of non–profit social welfare establishments registered according to Act No. 108/2006 Coll. on social services. Technical evaluation of infrastructure and equipment of facilities providing services for social integration of groups threatened and affected by social exclusion. In total 31 890 255

76 Hosting – provision of services meant for the operation and provision of internet applications and services related tothe operation of domain names by service providers. Peering – interconnection among individual providers enabling them to transfer data directly rather than via the hierarchical structure of their interconnection.

119

Operation type:

Integrated urban development plans. Individual projects. Large projects are not considered (in accordance with general regulation). Classification of area of support for Priority Axis 3 including allocations for orientation purposes: No. Information society Indicative allocation in EUR 11 Information and communication technologies (access, securing,

interoperability, preventing risk, research, innovation, e-content etc.)

3 498 641

No. Culture Indicative allocation in EUR 59 Development of cultural infrastructure 17 681 823 No. Urban and rural regeneration Indicative allocation in EUR 61 Integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration 81 511 404

No. Investment in social infrastructure Indicative allocation in EUR 75 Education infrastructure 28 475 691 76 Health infrastructure 29 431 682 77 Childcare infrastructure 22 677 295 79 Other social infrastructure 18 194 916

In total 201 471 452 Form of support:

Non–repayable aid. Beneficiaries and target groups:

Beneficiaries77 • Regions. • Municipalities. • Municipal associations78. • Organizations established or founded by regions or municipalities79. • Non–governmental non–profit organizations80.

77 In the case of Area of Support 3.1 beneficiaries can only be:

• the cities of Brno and Jihlava defined as urbanization centres/development areas of the SE cohesion region and organizations established or founded by them,

• NGOs, educational institutions and small and medium-scale entrepreneurs only if they will implement their projects in the territories of the defined cities.

In the case of Area of Support 3.2, beneficiaries can only be towns with populations of between 5000 and 49999, and the towns of Židlochovice and Pohořelice defined as centres of regional significance, and organizations established or founded by them,

• NGOs, educational institutions and small and medium-scale entrepreneurs only if they implement their projects in the territories of the defined towns.

In the case of Area of Support 3.3 beneficiaries can only be: • Municipalities with 501 – 4 999 inhabitants (and organizations established or founded by them) apart from the towns of

Židlochovice and Pohořelice. In the case of Area of Support 3.4 the beneficiaries can only be: krajs (and organizations established or founded by them). 78 Voluntary confederations of municipalities created pursuant to Act No. 128/2000 Coll., on municipalities. 79 Must also meet the following 3 conditions: a) is founded for the special purpose of addressing the needs of public interest of a non-industrial or non-business nature; b) is a legal entity; and c) is prevailingly financed by the state, regional or local authorities or other public entities, or is governed by these authorities, or its administrative, executive or supervisory body has more than a half of its members designed by the state, regional or local authorities or other public entities.

120

• Educational institutions81. • Small– and medium–size entrepreneurs82.

Target groups: • Residents of the region. • The private sector Flexibility (cross–funding):

Will be used for: Activities complementary to sustainable development infrastructure in towns and rural settlements. These activities include the introduction of special teaching methods, organizational forms and instruction activities, development of programmes for extension education of teachers and lecturers of technical subjects, enhancement of competences of pedagogic workers for the elimination of barriers preventing the equal access of all individuals to education.

The concerned activities also include education in the process of planning the availability of social services or in the development of further local and regional partnerships, education for the introduction and control of quality standards in social services and professional education for the providers of social services (especially education in the field of management, cooperation and project documentation, education in areas that will enable provision of services aimed at a return of their users onto the labour market and into the society, education with the aim of strengthening capabilities and skills for return to society and on labour market), development of education for employers, employees and other entities engaged with the harmonization of employment and family life.

Flexibility also includes the exchange of experience and the transfer of good practice between member countries in issues concerning the solution of problems with the social inclusion of specific population groups and further occupational education and also the transfer of experience in the field of regeneration and reuse of brownfields.

Coordination with the interventions of other programmes:

Priority axis Sustainable development of town and rural area has key links with the priorities of other programmes implemented in the Czech Republic in the programming period 2007–2013 and also with the regional competencies of regions (NUTS 3). Coordination at a national level is described in ROP SE Chapter 4.

Programmes receiving support from ERDF:

OP EI:

The strategic NSRF “Competitive Czech economy“, within the priority of the Competitive private sector, will focus on, among other things, the building, establishment, operation and further development of commercial infrastructure including the regeneration of existing brownfields. As to complementarity with OP Enterprise and innovations, which is, within the priority axis Environment for enterprise and innovations, focused on the solution of commercial brownfields above 5 ha and their subsequent use for processing industries, the ROP will channel the aid to small commercial brownfields (up to 5 ha) and to commercial brownfields with no restrictions if these are to be used for commercial services and trade and other OKEČ except for processing industries and agriculture. There is no upper limit for the brownfields surface area supported from ROP but economic activities are permitted only in up to 50% of the real

80 NGOs with legal subjectivity and two year history (citizen associations, public service enterprises, church legal entities, foundations). 81 School establishments with legal personality incorporated in the school register. 82 Pursuant to Art. 2 of Act No. 47/2002 Coll., small or medium-size entrepreneur is understood an entrepreneur who meets criteria stipulated by the directly applicable EC regulation which is Supplement 1 to the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 364/2004 of 25 February 2004 amending the Regulation (EC) No. 70/2001.

121

estate’s floor area and in up to 50% of the site’s surface area. The regeneration of brownfields in an urbanized area for use as public open space/public greenery will be permitted only if these brownfields are owned by public institutions.

OP EI, within the area of support to innovations, focuses on assistance to technical and non–technical innovations and the fostering of capacity for research and development. Part of this assistance involves the creation of an environment for enterprise and innovation within the programme’s focus on infrastructure for the establishment of entrepreneurial incubators, and also involves increasing the level of collaboration between the entrepreneurial sphere and educational institutions in the field of research and development. In contrast, ROP concentrates on pilot projects in the field of innovation, the aim of which is to create an environment for the cooperation of research and development organizations on the basis of regional innovative strategies (information about activities in the regions and improvement of access of public administration in the sphere of innovative activities). In the spheres of development of infrastructure for education, and enhancement of human resources, OP EI centres entirely on further education in the industry, while ROP focuses on those graduates of secondary and vocational schools that lack specific professional orientation.

IOP:

Systemic measures will be implemented by means of IOP within the framework of fulfilment of the NSRF strategic objective “Balanced development of the territory” to support comprehensive concentrated interventions at national and supra–regional levels for the solution of problems common to the entire territory of the Czech Republic. The interventions are focused on risk prevention, on the solution of social problems with broad impact, and on health care. ROP interventions will focus on solution of the SE region’s problems in medical and social services at a regional level.

Complementary to ROP interventions in the field of regeneration and revitalization of neglected sites and premises in towns, the IOP also finances the regeneration of prefabricated blocks of flats and, in the defined problematic locations only, projects for the comprehensive revitalization of the environment in prefab housing estates.

In the field of ICT, the IOP supports improvement of management and control quality, interdepartmental cooperation, communication and coordination between state administration and local governments by means of modern management and ICT methods, and increased use of ICT in state administration. It is also focused on increased ICT use and improved management and control in territorial public administration. The ROP supports ICT development in the region, namely in areas affected by demonstrable market failure due to low or no return of private investments. Such measures will involve the creation of a more accessible, non–discriminatory environment for the implementation of commercial services.

The difference in focus between IOP and ROP in the relevant IOP intervention areas are as follows:

Priority axis 2 – Introduction of ICT in the territ orial public administration (Smart Administration)

ROP does not include interventions in the sphere of Smart Administration.

Coordination:

The link to the territorial self–government authorities is tackled by the strategy for modernization of public administration of the Czech Republic and “Strategy of implementation of Smart Administration in the period 2007–2015.” The Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic, which bears material responsibility for implementing reforms of public administration in the Czech Republic, will create a coordinating body – Panel – which will ensure mutual awareness and coordination during the execution of the Smart Administration strategy. Representatives of central administration offices and local self–government entities are members of this panel.

122

Priority axis 3 – Improving the quality and accessibility of public services

This IOP area of intervention has three objectives:

IOP area of intervention 3.1 – Services in the area of social integration

Transformation of the residential facilities – IOP will deal with pilot transformation projects in specific residential facilities selected in collaboration with MPSV and the regions. There are four such facilities in the territory of NUTS 2 SE: Habrovanský castle and Srdce in the Klentnice house in the Southmoravian region and nursing homes in Jinošov and Ledeč nad Sázavou in the Vysočina region. ROP, in a complementary role, will deal with the infrastructure of social services included in the Act No. 108/2006 Coll. on Social Services. Selected facilities indicated in IOP are shown in appendix A table No. 3

The return to the labour market and to society of members of the most threatened and socially excluded Roma localities. This objective will be addressed by strategic project/projects within IOP focusing on the most threatened locations selected on the basis of an expert survey. The failure of instruments applied at the local and regional levels was identified in these places. ROP SE will intervene by means of social services infrastructure or within the framework of integrated plans for the development of towns in other locations not specified in IOP. Selected localities of IOP are in appendix A, table No. 4

Enforcement and implementation of instruments of social economy – IOP will develop innovative methods for the development of social economy, while ROP will support proven techniques which are documented in the legislation, such as protected workshops (see priority axis 3, chapter 3.3).

Coordination:

Coordination is ensured by specification of subject area, as well as by localization of IOP interventions. Coordination of the specification of subject area for ROP and IOP interventions is dealt with by the social commission of the Association of Regions of the Czech Republic.

IOP Area of Intervention 3.2 – Services in the sphere of public health IOP will support the provision of medical technology to selected networks of acute care centres – these centres are specified according to field of specialisation and located in selected hospitals by the MZd. They are primarily located in faculty hospitals which are administered by the MZd. ROP will complement these activities through support for any necessary building alterations related to the development of these centres, and also for provision of medical technology. It may also provide support for building alterations in health–care facilities outside the selected networks, or parts thereof.

IOP will support projects at a system level for prevention of health risks, or projects of national or supra–regional significance. ROP SE will provide assistance to health risk prevention projects of regional significance. Coordination is ensured by means of specification of subject areas, localization of interventions and specification of IOP beneficiaries.

IOP Area of Intervention 5.2 – Enhancement of the environment in problematic prefab housing estates

ROP will not intervene in the field of assistance to housing. Interventions in the sphere of housing supported by IOP will be incorporated in the IUDP strategies submitted by towns to the Regional Council. These interventions must be directed at the territories of towns complying with the conditions laid down by Article 47 Article 1 of the Regulation No. 1828/2006. ROP will support other activities in the selected area within the integrated plans framework, such as transport and social services infrastructure, school system etc.

Coordination and complementarity of ROP and IOP interventions will be ensured by the IPRMs which must be carried out for ROP according to a unified methodology in towns with over 50,000 inhabitants.

OP Environment:

Interventions within the OP Environment are focused on the reclamation of heavily contaminated localities (industrial premises, military and agricultural sites, brownfields with old ecological burdens) endangering aspects of the environment and human health in cases when the applicant for payment did not

123

cause the contamination, or when the source of contamination no longer exists (old ecological burdens). Elimination of this serious ecological burden (serious contamination) will be supported only from OP E. Serious contamination can be defined neither in terms of price nor in terms of the location‘s surface area, but by the risk to the environment and public health when future utilization is taken into account. The definition of old ecological burden (SEZ) is specified in area of support 4.2 Removing old ecological burdens OP E. Serious SEZ usually means that either the legislative limits are exceeded (for drinking water, above ground water, agricultural soil etc.) or that the health risks to the inhabitants or ecological risks to the surrounding ecosystems are unacceptable. (Dangerous waste from demolitions, dumping sites for dangerous waste or the content of dry wells and reservoirs can all be considered as contamination.)

Further, interventions from OP E are implemented within area of support 6.5 Regeneration of urbanized areas, and focus on the sustainable development of towns and cities through conservation and an increase in the number and size of green zones in built–up areas, establishment of green belts around towns and cities, planting and revitalisation of parks, planting of vegetation to replace old burdens, and clearance or securing of unused facilities inside protected areas, planting environmentally appropriate vegetation in place of formerly removed SEZ (up to 10 ha) and on brownfields with limited economical potential.

ROP is complementarily focused on planting and revitalising of parks, and planting of vegetation in former brownfields. Unlike OP E, which focuses on the strengthening of biodiversity in urbanized areas, ROP SE is restricted to comprehensive solutions, i.e. investment not only in replanting of city parks and brownfields, but also in the overall revitalising of the areas (park trails, benches, fountains, pergolas and other inventory).

Unlike OP E (in municipalities with over 2,000 inhabitants) and the Rural Development Plan (in municipalities with over 2,000 inhabitants), ROP SE does not support the construction of waste water treatment plants (ČOV).

Reconstruction and modernization of buildings involving only their overall energy efficiency will be supported exclusively from OP E.

OP supported from ESF in general:

The strategic objective "Open, flexible and consistent society" is focused on, among other things, enhancing the adaptability of the workforce to increase the competitiveness of the Czech economy, increased employment and employability, for the creation of a society offering equal opportunities for all, elimination of impediments to the integration of endangered groups and guaranteed availability of social infrastructure for all citizens. NSSR priorities based on the above mentioned strategic objective will be fulfilled through the synergic effect of activities in the field of "soft" projects funded from ESF by means of the respective priority axes of the OP Human resources and employment, and the OP Education for competitiveness, and by "hard" investments into the renovation and modernization of physical infrastructure funded from ERDF by means of ROP SE.

OP Human resources and employment (OP HRE)

Public interventions within Priority Axis 3 of ROP SE focus on the improvement of quality of the infrastructural background for ESF interventions in the sphere of education, health–care and social services (the focus of ROP is in the so called “hard projects”). These interventions are therefore complementary with the Operational Programme Human Resources and Employment, the content of which are interventions centred on the foundation and development of systems in the sphere of public employment services with nationwide implications. In relation to OP HREZ, ROP SE also supports infrastructure in the sphere of social integration by means of investments from ERDF. Some of planned activities cannot be covered within the framework of cross-financing (due to time reasons or lacking resources); it is therefore necessary to contact MA of OP Human Resources and Employment with an informative list of needs for additional education in order to target the interventions. This concerns primarily the following areas of support, which in a complementary manner further develop the investment projects of ROP SE: 1.1 Enhancement of staff adaptability and competitiveness of enterprises, 2.1 Strengthening the active policies of employment, 3.1 Supporting social integration and social services,

124

3.2 Supporting social integration of the members of Romany localities, 3.3 Integration of socially excluded groups on the labour market, 3.4 Equal opportunities of males and females on the labour market and harmonization of employment and family life, and 5.1 International cooperation.

OP Education for competitiveness (OP EC)

OP EC supports the development of the system and concept of further education including the support to innovative approaches and interconnectedness of the research and development fields with the world of practical implementation of their discoveries. In this respect there are synergic effects with the focus of ROP SE support towards the increase in the region's prosperity by means of creating the environment for the development of small and medium–size enterprises.

OP EC supports the modernization and improvement of conditions for inhabitants in towns and rural areas related to the quality of education (including the accessibility of further education) and leisure activities which contribute to the increase in attractiveness of these areas to economic development. ROP SE supports the infrastructure for education (initial and further education). The demarcation line between ROP and Operational Programme Education for competitiveness is thus defined especially by the type of interventions. ROP public interventions financed from ERDF concentrate on “hard” investments i.e. support to the renewal of physical infrastructure in the field of teaching and education. OP Education for competitiveness financed from ESF is, on the contrary, focused on “soft” projects including system changes, support to the improvement of qualification and generally growth of the inhabitants’ education. In the case of the OP EC this primarily applies to the complementary development of the investment projects of ROP SE in the priority axis 1 Starting education. Areas of public interventions of these two operational programmes do not overlap due to their differing subject–matter focus. Remarkable synergy can be reached in the course of joint effect of the public interventions.

Programmes supported from EAFRD – Rural Development Plan:

The aid from EAFRD intended for the development of rural areas is in the majority of cases meant for municipalities of up to 500 inhabitants and is among other things focused on the redevelopment (reconstruction, modernization, static security) of buildings, sites, possibly also for new construction, renovation of underground services, village greens and streets, pavements, stops, lighting, fencing, playgrounds and sports grounds, benches and movables. Resources from EAFRD are also directed to provide for missing civic amenities and services (school, health care, social services including pre–school and leisure child welfare and services for women, day care for seniors, primary commercial infrastructure, market places, objects and grounds for sports and cultural activities, complementary boarding facilities, objects for club activities, etc.). By means of ROP it is possible to realize projects focused on civic amenities and services in the territory of municipalities with more than 500 inhabitants. Through EAFRD it is possible to finance the construction and refurbishment of local roads in municipalities with up to 500 inhabitants, from the ROP it is possible to finance the construction and refurbishment of access and service roads in municipalities with more than 500 inhabitants on the condition that they form an integral component part of the project supported from Priority axis 3 of the ROP SE.

RDP, similarly to ROP, focuses on the regeneration and revitalization of brownfields. The difference between these programmes is especially in the support beneficiaries and future brownfields utilization. RDP is centred on entrepreneurs in agriculture and on the future agricultural utilization of the brownfields.

Programmes of cross–border cooperation:

OP Austria – Czech Republic 2007–2013: ROP has a thematic link to the Operational Programme Cross–border cooperation Czech Republic – Austria which includes a priority focused on health and social risks prevention and social integration. Areas of public intervention of these two programmes do not overlap due to their differing subject–matter and territorial focuses. ROP public interventions in the sphere of medical care and social welfare will be

125

thus supplemented by interventions concentrated entirely on border areas. Their objective is the development of health and social risks prevention and social integration of cross–border significance.

OP Slovak Republic – Czech Republic 2007–2013: ROP is thematically linked with the OP Slovak Republic – Czech Republic 2007–2013 which includes a priority centred on aid to social, cultural and economic development of the borderland region of cooperation. Public intervention spheres of these two programmes do not overlap due to their territorial variance and focus on different issues. ROP public interventions in the social services sphere will be directed at the improvement of equipment in facilities providing social welfare and they will be complemented by interventions specializing exclusively in the border areas within the scope of OP Slovak Republic – Czech Republic; their objective is i.e. to develop common systems of social services of significance for the borderland.

Regions:

The regions support the development of civic amenities and services in order to ensure balanced development of their territories and satisfaction of the needs of the citizens in a tolerably accessible distance (Section 3 Letter g) of the Act No. 248/2000 Coll. on regional development support) and prevent the depopulation of areas with poorer accessibility. These activities will also contribute to the creation of new jobs in these areas.

Regions add to the balanced development of human resources pursuant to Section 3 Letter b) of the Act No. 248/2000 Coll. on regional development support particularly by proposing realizations of a long–term plan for education and development of the pedagogical and educational system in their territories which is updated regularly in order to correspond to the market needs and economic and social development of the region. According to Section 181 of the Act No. 561/2004 Coll. on pre–school, primary, secondary and tertiary professional and other education the regions are obliged to assure conditions for the realization of secondary education and advanced vocational training, education of physically disabled or otherwise handicapped children, pupils and students, language, elementary artistic and leisure education and for the execution of institutional education. For these purposes the regions establish secondary schools, higher professional schools and numerous other school institutions. Regions also provide environmental education and public education in their territories.

To ensure the development of social welfare and social assistance services (Section 3 Letter h) of the Act No. 248/2000 Coll. on regional development support) the regions coordinate activities related to the activity of non–governmental non–profit organizations at the level of region from the sphere of social affairs and services, Roma people integration, integration of national minorities, drug prevention, development of human resources, development of the civic sector and from the sphere of health care. In compliance with Section 73a Article 1 of the Act No. 100/1988 Coll. on social security the regions can provide social services. As a matter of fact, the regions provide social services also by being the founders of social welfare facilities and social welfare institutions and by safeguarding their operation in terms of organization, personnel and management.

According to the provision of Section 3 Letter i) of the Act No. 248/2000 Coll. on regional development support the support to regional development also focuses on the assurance of adequate accessibility and improvement of the level of medical services provision. Based on Section 18b of the Act No. 20/1966 Coll. on public health care the first–aid service facilities are established by the regions which are responsible for the organization and assurance of the first–aid service operation in its territorial district. According to Section 39 the region establishes health care facilities which must provide basic health care in the catchment areas specified by a decree of the MZd. On the basis of the abovementioned provisions the regions establish and run nongovernmental health–care facilities, such as hospitals, medical institutions and sanatoriums, medical emergency services etc. The regional office grants consent to the operation of non–governmental health–care facilities pursuant to Act No. 160/1992 Coll. on health care in non–governmental health establishments. On the summons of the region these non–governmental health–care facilities are also obligated to conclude an agreement therewith on the assurance of health care in its sphere of competence district on the basis of which they also have to participate in the provision of

126

necessary medical services, especially emergency service including medical first–aid service, health care in the cases of mass traffic accidents, poisoning and natural disasters, decreed investigations, inspections and measures in relation to anti–epidemic measures, inspections and evaluations of health ability of persons in an adequate measure and in compliance with Section 5 Article 2 Letter e) of the aforementioned Act.

The regions support, or potentially implement measures for environment protection, limiting the impacts which have disturbing effects on the landscape and maintaining the cultural landscape (Section 3 Letter j) of the Act No. 248/2000 Coll. on regional development support). In this respect the regions, in collaboration with the MŽP, particularly prepare forecasts, concepts and strategies for environment protection in the sphere of their territorial competence unless these are nationally protected areas (Section 77a Article 1 of the Act No. 114/1992 Coll. on nature and landscape protection). The regions can issue decrees ordering the establishment of a nature park, including limitations concerning the usage of its territory, and decrees ordering the establishment of a nature reserve and a nature monument, including the specification of more detailed conditions for their protection, and they make sure that care of these areas is provided (Section 77a Article 2 of the Act No. 114/1992 Coll.). The regions further ensure the elaboration and approval of plans for water conduits and sewerages development (Act No. 254/2001 Coll. on waters), plans for waste management (Section 78 Article 1 Letter a) of the Act No. 185/2001 Coll. on waste), programmes for reducing emissions and programmes for air quality improvement (Section 48 Article 2 Letter a) of the Act No. 86/2002 Coll. on protection of the air). They also express their opinion on some documents of the spatial planning if designated plots with forest function are concerned (Section 48a of the Act No. 289/1995 Coll. on forests, modifying and amending certain acts (the forest act)) and assure the enforcement of other activities ensuing from the transferred competence.

The regions in their independent competence in the sphere of the Act No. 50/1976 Coll. on spatial planning and building code, as amended, and the Act No. 129/2000 Coll. on regions, as amended, monitor and recommend suitable sites for the preparation of an offer of comprehensive entrepreneurial and investment opportunities and participate in the creation of prerequisites for their territorial preparation by means of background documentation for spatial planning and land–use plans of large districts.

In the sphere of the development of private enterprise beneficial to the region (Section 13 Article 2 Letter a) of the Act No. 248/2000 Coll. on regional development support) the regions coordinate methods and forms of support to small and medium–size enterprise in their territory, contacts with entities representing entrepreneurs in the region’s territory and policy measures in the sphere of regeneration and development of the rural areas and support to enterprise in the rural areas with the aim of improving the economic structures and creating new or stabilizing jobs at risk (Section 3 Letter a) of the Act No. 248/2000 Coll. on regional development support).

Innovative financial instruments of EIB and EIF

In the case of the ROP Priority axis Sustainable development of towns and rural area a possibility is anticipated of using financial instrument Jessica eventually other financial engineering instruments may be used. These interventions will proceed in the form of an integrated approach for sustainable development of towns and big cities. In this respect, planning and decision–making concerning urban investments on the basis of the Integrated Plan of Town Development (IUDP) is essential. A new initiative, JESSICA, is aimed at Public Private Partnership or other urban projects producing income involved in the integrated plans of town development with the prospect of achieving financial strength and recycling of operational programmes resources channelled into such projects.

In connection to this, the MA plans to aid projects within the framework of the new JESSICA initiative in order to bolster – where applicable – investments from urban development funds in income–producing urban projects.

127

3.4 PRIORITY AXIS 4: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Current situation:

Priority axis Technical assistance will be focused on supporting the efficient steering and use of the Regional operational programme NUTS 2 SE in the programming period 2007–2013. It is a cross–sectional priority axis of the ROP that will concern all priority axes and fields of ROP assistance. Within the framework of this priority axis means will be provided to cover costs related with the steering, monitoring, control, analysis, publicity and information release at a level of the entire ROP, as well as to reinforce the region’s absorption capacity. Main objective:

Assurance of activities supporting effective management, control, monitoring and evaluation of ROP SE, assurance of activities connected with propagation and provision of information, as well as strengthening of absorption capacity in the region. Specific objectives:

• Assurance of responsible and efficient administration and implementation of ROP and assurance of effective and efficient technical assistance for all relevant actors in the process of ROP administration and implementation.

• Enhancement of absorption capacity in the region and assurance of successful drawing of resources from the SF EU.

Indicators:

See Chapter 3.6 Indicators for monitoring and evaluation. Strategy:

In the process of steering the priority axis Technical assistance will support activities relating to the preparation, selection and assessment of aid and operations. Monitoring activities cover the meetings of the ROP SE MC, attendance of experts from other bodies in these meetings and the preparation of ground works for MC sessions. Control activities concern site audits and inspections. Other supported activities falling under engagement of the technical assistance are related with the acquisition, installation and interconnection of computer systems.

Other costs of the technical assistance concern the performance of additional required analyses and studies measuring impacts of programme implementation and management effectiveness through the realization of the Communication Plan (CoP) for the dissemination of information, creation of networks, enhancement of awareness about ROP SE, organization of information and promotion events, publication of publicity materials, and analyses of these events, enhancement of assessment methods and exchange of information about practical procedures of aid realization, creation and distribution of best practice examples, organization of seminars and workshops focused on experience exchange of individual actors and preparation for the next programming period.

The main intention in supporting absorption capacity is to increase the capabilities of beneficiaries to prepare and subsequently realize successfully, projects that are co–financed from ERDF by means of ROP. Instruments will particularly assist potential submitters of projects.


Area of support 4.1 Activities connected with the realization and management of ROP

Activities aided within this area of support will be those connected with the realization and management of ROP SE, namely activities important for the effective realization and management of ROP and in line

128

with the plan of technical assistance prepared by the competent Regional Council Office Section, and the preparation for the next programming period of the EU.


No. Strengthening institutional capacity at national, regional and local level Indicative allocation in EUR

81

Mechanisms of improving good policy and programme design, monitoring and evaluation at national, regional and local level, capacity building in the delivery of policies and programmes.

4 311 207

Indicative type of operations Preparation and organization of a negotiation of the ROP SE Monitoring Committee and other work groups, including participation of experts and other entities in these negotiations.

Installation, operation and connection of computer systems for management, monitoring, control and evaluation of ROP SE operations.

Preparation, elaboration of analyses, background studies and documents for the programming period 2014–2020.

No. Technical assistance Indicative allocation in EUR 85 Preparation, implementation, monitoring and inspection 3 951 940

Indicative type of operations Preparation, selection, evaluation and monitoring of Intervention and operations.

Performance of audits, internal control system, and inspections carried out in the location of activities, inspections of public contracts assignment, supervision over state Intervention provision rules, employees’ wages, etc.

Preparation of the ROP SE Communication plan (CoP).

No. Technical assistance Indicative allocation in EUR

86 Evaluation and studies. information and communication 3 712 429

Indicative type of operations Elaboration of evaluations, statistical materials, surveys, particularly analyses specialized on monitoring the programme realization impacts, process of its realization, adequacy and efficiency of the implementation structures and other documents which complement the basic implementation system of the programme.

Improvement of evaluation methods and exchange of information in this sphere.

In total 11 975 576 Area of support 4.2 Support to absorption capacity

Activities aided within this area of assistance will be those strategically focused on the increased capability of beneficiaries to prepare and subsequently, successfully realize projects co–financed from ERDF by means of ROP. Instrument will particularly assist potential submitters of projects, namely in the form of activities focused on programme publicity, provision of information, counselling and educational activities, provision of assistance and methodological support to potential submitters of projects, and also for the preparation and realization of projects of educational programmes. Supported will also be exchange of experience between various factors involved in the ROP SE implementation, transfer of best practices, extension of networks between regions and towns as tools for the improvement of the quality of interventions prepared by regional and local authorities, and also activities related with the preparation for the next EU programming period.

129


No. Strengthening institutional capacity at national, regional and local level

Indicative allocation in EUR

81

Mechanisms of improving good policy and programme design, monitoring and evaluation at national, regional and local level, capacity building in the delivery of policies and programmes.

4 311 207

Indicative type of operations Elaboration of manuals and aids in order to provide methodological assistance for potential applicants in the process of quality projects preparation (e.g. model applications, pilot projects and models, best practice etc.).

Educational programmes associated with the programme and projects preparation and realization.

No. Technical assistance Indicative allocation in EUR 85 Preparation, implementation, monitoring and inspection 3 951 940

Indicative type of operations Coordination and consultancy for potential applicants in the process of preparation of project documentation for project plans which will be subsequently submitted to ROP SE in order to achieve co–financing from EFRD. Provision of information and advisory and consulting services to potential applicants for ROP SE assistance.

No. Technical assistance Indicative allocation in EUR 86 Evaluation and studies. information and communication 3 712 429

Indicative type of operations Raising awareness about the programme, information channel, creation of networks, organizing informational and promotional events, publishing promotional materials and executing analyses centred on impacts of these events. Realization of activities ensuing from ROP SE CoP focused on the sphere of awareness and ROP SE publicity. Other activities focused on regional partnership for institutional and public capacity in accordance with CoP.

In total 11 975 576 Type of operation:

Individual projects.

Classification of area of support for Priority Axis 4 including allocations for orientation purposes:

No. Strengthening institutional capacity at national, regional and local level Indicative allocation in EUR

81 Mechanisms of improving good policy and programme design, monitoring and evaluation at national, regional and local level, capacity building in the delivery of policies and programmes.

8 622 414

No. Technical assistance Indicative allocation in EUR 85 Preparation, implementation, monitoring and inspection 7 903 880 86 Evaluation and studies. information and communication 7 424 858

In total 23 951 152

130

Form of support:

Non–repayable direct aid. Beneficiaries and target groups:

Beneficiaries:

• Regional Council of the SE cohesion region (MA). • The Southmoravian Region. • The Vysočina Region.

Target groups:

• Regional Council of the SE cohesion region. • Entities of implementation structure. • Applicants for payment of project expenditure from ROP. • General public. Flexibility (cross–funding):

Not to be employed.

Coordination with the interventions of other programmes:

Priority axis Technical assistance has key links with the priorities of other programmes realized in the Czech Republic in the programming period 2007–2013:

OP Technical assistance will ensure the preparation of methodologies for the preparation of manuals for SF implementation, for the development of financial management, for the support of activities of the Payment and Certification Authority (PCA) and the Audit Authority (AA) and external education for employees engaged in ERDF implementation at central and regional levels in the field of ERDF implementation reaching beyond the framework of the respective Ops including regional ones. The OP technical assistance will also cover needs of coordination and support of strategic and methodological management of the development of absorption capacity, supporting absorption capacity in cross–sectional interventions.

The ROP will be focused on the support of absorption capacity in concrete areas thematically falling in its sphere of action. Technical assistance will be paid immediately after invoice and directly from the budget of RC SE.

131

3.5 TYPES OF PROJECTS IN ROP SE AND THEIR COMPLEMENTARI TY WITH OTHER OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES

Priority/area of supp. ROP SE

Type of project in ROP SE

TOP/intervention (priority)

Type of project TOP/RDP

1.1

Construction, technical appreciation and improvement of 2nd and 3rd class roads

OP T/2 – Construction and Upgrading of the Motorway and Road TEN–T Network.

Construction TEN–T Network Upgrading and improving of capacity already functional sections of roads in category D, R and other 1st class roads of TEN–T Network.

1.1

Construction, technical appreciation and improvement of 2nd and 3rd class roads

RDP/III.2.1.1 Regeneration and development of rural areas

Projects for constructing and regeneration of transport infrastructure (local roads), in municipalities up to 500 inhabitants.

1.2

Installation of modern information and check–in systems for passengers, Construction and technical appreciation of transfer terminals, Installation of transport telematics – guidance, information and dispatching systems

OP T /1 – Upgrading the TEN-T Railway Network, Priority axis 3 – Upgrading Railway Networks outside of the TEN-T Network

Modernization of crucial railway nods in and out of TEN–T Network, reconstruction of other railway tracks, in and out of TEN–T Network, finalizing of modernisation of transit corridors.

1.3

Purchase of new vehicles and modernization of existing rail vehicles providing suburban regional railway and PMT transport, or vehicles used in systems combining railway and tram transport (tram–train) respectively.

OP T /1 – Upgrading the TEN-T Railway Network, Priority axis 3 – Upgrading Railway Networks outside of the TEN-T Network

Modernization of crucial railway nods in and out of TEN–T Network, reconstruction of other railway tracks, in and out of TEN–T Network, finalizing of modernisation of transit corridors.

1.4 Construction and technical appreciation of bicycle tracks.

RDP/II.2.4.2 – Non productive investments in forests.

Construction, reconstruction and modernisation of roads serving as bicycle track (on forest plots).

132





2.1

Technical appreciation and opening monuments of regional significance for tourism (cultural and technical monuments) including necessary infrastructure (marking, restrooms, mobiliary, rest places i.e.).

IOP/5.1 – National assistance to the utilization of the cultural heritage potential.

Revitalisation of national cultural monuments and monuments included in UNESCO and the IOP list.

2.1

Technical appreciation and opening monuments of regional significance for tourism (cultural and technical monuments) including necessary infrastructure (marking, restrooms, mobiliary, rest places i.e.).

RDP/ III.2.2 – Protection and development of rural cultural heritage

Investments for maintenance, revitalising and appraising or utilisation of cultural heritage, i.e. cultural monuments, areas with historical importance, cultural aspects of villages and rural areas including historical parks, gardens and alleys.

2.1

Marking and adjustments of bicycle routes (those which do not constitute the 2nd and 3rd class roads), construction and technical appreciation of tourist routes and tracks for pedestrians and skiers, nature trails including accessory facilities.

RDP/II.2.4.2c – Non productive investments in forests.

Interventions for strengthening of recreational function of forest (construction of tourist tracks up to 2 meters wide, marking of bicycle routes, etc.), revitalising and construction of park lots, rest places, bicycle sheds, springs, information tables, etc. These investments are eligible only on forest plots.

2.1

Construction and technical appreciation of certified lodging and catering establishments with a direct link to tourism). (for demarcation line see chapter 3.2)

RDP/ III.1.3 – Support of tourism

Support for construction of recreational infrastructure in municipalities with less than 2 000 inhabitants. Beneficiary could be an agricultural entrepreneur.

2.2

Creation of marketing strategies and strategies of prospective and competitive forms of tourist trade of regional significance, Creation of local and regional information systems for tourists regarding the tourist attractions.

IOP/4.1a – National support to tourism.

Support for propagation and marketing of cultural and natural heritage of the Czech Republic as a whole, establishing of national information system for tourism.

133





3.

Construction and technical appreciation of non–profit social welfare establishment infrastructure registered according to the Act No. 108/2006 Coll. on social services.

IOP/3.1 – Services in area of social integration.

Technical appreciation of social welfare establishment, selected in cooperation between MPSV and regions.

3.

Technical appreciation of health care facilities providing ward and ambulatory care pursuant to the Act No. 20/1966, as amended, (established and founded by self–governing territorial units) and their equipment with information technologies, technical equipment including associated renovations.

IOP/3.2 – Services in the sphere of public health.

Support for purchase of health care facilities of selected networks of acute health care centres – these centres are specified by MZd from branches of activities and localized in selected hospitals.

3.

Regeneration, revitalization and conversion of brownfields.

OP E/4.2 – Removing of old ecological burdens.

Removing of severe ecological burdens in brownfields.

3.

Construction and technical appreciation of schools, educational institutions and infrastructure for further education in municipalities over 500 inhabitants. Revitalization of public spaces in municipalities.

RDP/III.2.1 – Regeneration and revitalisation of rural municipalities, public services and infrastructure

Revitalising of public places, building and rebuilding activities (reconstruction, modernisation, static securing) of buildings and spaces serving for public infrastructure (educational, health and social, child care, culture and sport activities). Interventions are eligible only in municipalities with less than 500 inhabitants.

134

3.6 INDICATORS FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION

A system of ROP indicators was developed for the purposes of efficient control of the distribution of resources from EU structural funds (ERDF) and especially for the needs of progress in meeting the program objectives. At summary judgement stages a control is made of achieved values of the indicators of outputs and results. It is also necessary to point out the role of core indicators with a key importance for the control made by EC bodies.

The factual framework for the system of measurement and quantification of programme objectives is given by the character of expected outputs from the realized activities, and includes in conjunction with the methodology of the European Commission, three levels of indicators as follows:

• Output indicators expressing the extent of executed activities, which are a part of the current monitoring process,

• Outcome indicators characterizing the direct effects of the programme on the beneficiary, • Impact indicators expressing mid–term or long–term effects of ROP on the socio–economic situation

onto which global and specific programme objectives are focused.

Furthermore, context indicators have been developed for the programme level, characterizing core determinants forming the environment in which ROP activities are realized.

The proposed monitoring and evaluation indicators reflect to a maximum extent the possibilities provided by existing official information sources available to CSO, departmental statistics and EUROSTAT.

The indicators of impact serve to measure the fulfilment of ROP objectives. They will be measured with annually depending on the publishing of statistics by individual relevant providers of information (sources). The first measuring of impacts will be made 2–3 years from the launch of ROP activity at the earliest. The indicators of impact will be applied especially in the preparation of strategic final and annual reports, during monitoring, evaluations, ad hoc activities, etc.

The indicators of output will serve to measure what has been assisted by ROP. The measurements will be made at monthly, half–a–year and annual periodicities dependant on monitoring/final reports from project implementers. The output indicators will be applied especially in the ROP management, in annual and interim reports, in monitoring, evaluations, ad hoc activities, etc.

Target indicator values were set up with using different methods, namely the methods of calculation based on unit costs, analysis of project pipelines within absorption capacity, consultations with MRD, experts for indicators and CSO experts, qualified estimates, extrapolations based on long–term development of monitored indicators etc. The assessment of some results and impacts of the ROP implementation will be possible only on the basis of results of evaluation studies.

The collection of factual and financial data on projects (from the stage of receipt of the application for project co–financing from SF, selection of projects, support provision agreement, application for payment execution, transfer of payment to the account of the beneficiary, information about the project’s progress, controls of the physical implementation of the project and control of project samples up to the project termination, introduction of all data about projects in the programme’s monitoring system and their current updating will be assured by the MA (Regional Council Office).

135

3.6.1 Context indicators

The description of the context for implementing the ROP SE performance is done by the context indicators. They serve to describe the context characteristics of the socio–economic situation.

Code Indicator Unit of measure Source Value 2005

55 20 00

Regional GDP per capita in PPS GDP conversion per capita by means of PPS (Purchasing Power Standards) – (EU unit based on jointly considered purchasing power parity and used in the comparison of volumes)

CSO 15 525

55 20 01 Regional GDP per capita

CR = 100

GDP per capita., CR = 100 CSO 89.7

55 20 02 Regional GDP per capita,

EU 25 = 100

GDP per capita, EU 25 = 100 CSO 66.1

55 21 01 Net disposable household income per capita, CR = 100

NDHI per capita, CR = 100 CSO 96.6

52 08 00 General unemployment rate83 Unemployment rate according to Sample survey of labour force (%) NUTS 2 SE

CSO 7.7

52 08 01 General unemployment rate – men

Unemployment rate according to Sample survey of labour force (%) NUTS 2 SE

CSO 6.4

52 08 02 General unemployment rate – women

Unemployment rate according to Sample survey of labour force (%) NUTS 2 SE

CSO 9.3

52 10 00 Average monthly pay in CZK Average gross monthly nominal pay per employee in CZK

CSO kV: 18 715

JMk:20 272

52 05 05 Employment rate 15–64 Share of employed persons over 15 yrs in the population above 15 yrs in %

CSO 64.8

52 05 11

52 05 12

52 05 13

Employees in the national economy by sectors:

primary

secondary

tertiary

Share of persons over 15 yrs employed in national economy (in %)

MPSV

6.1

40.6

53.3

52 12 01

52 12 02

Life expectancy at birth

� males

� females

Years of age84 (average of several years)

CSO

72.5

79.2

(2002)

53 13 00 Share of population with secondary and higher education

Share of population aged 15+ with secondary education with GCSE examination and higher professional education of population aged 15+ in %

CSO 31.2

83 General unemployment rate expresses the share of the number of unemployed persons in the general labour force (in percents). The indicator is constituted according to the EUROSTAT and ILO (International Labour Organization) methodology. 84 Life expectancy indicates how many years does a person have ahead of him or her at birth in average, considered that the mortality rates will remain unchanged.

136

53 13 01 Share of population with university education

Share of population aged 15+ with university education for population aged 15+ in %

CSO 11.2

63 05 03 Average time of stay Stay overnight per person CSO 2.4

63 15 01 Foreign visitors to the region – number of arrivals

Number of visitors in thousands CSO 427

63 15 02 Foreign visitors to the region – number of overnight stays


63 05 02 Visitors to the region – number of overnight stays


63 05 01

Visitors to the regions – number of arrivals

total number of arrivals of foreign and domestic guests per year in thousands of arrivals

CSO 1 445

3.6.2 Programme indicators

Indicators of global objective:

Code Indicator Unit of measure Source Quantification Value 2005 Target value

55.20.00 Regional GDP per capita in PPS

GDP conversion per capita by means of PPS (Purchasing Power Standards) – (EU unit based on jointly considered purchasing power parity and used in the comparison of volumes)

CSO region: 15 525 kV: 14 582

JMK: 15 951

region: 15 924 kV: 15 039

JMK: 16 332

52.10.00 Average monthly pay in CZK Average gross monthly nominal pay per employee in CZK

CSO kV: 18 715 JMK: 20 272

kV: 22 458 JMK: 24 326

52.05.13 Employees in the national economy by sectors: Tertiary

Share of persons over 15 yrs employed in the tertiary sector of national economy (in %)

MPSV region: 53,3 kV: 44.7

JMK: 57.3

region: 58,63 kV: 49.17

JMK: 63.03

Indicators of horizontal themes: Sustainable development

Code Indicator Unit of measure Source Quantification

Value 2005 Target value

65 31 07 Reduction of the noise burden on the population

Share of population living beyond the noise limits according to noise maps in %

MA

Noise maps elaborated by MZd

Results from

evaluation study

made by MA

65 31 03 Emission of troposphere ozone precursor

Annual emissions of troposphere ozone: VOC, NOx, PCO and CH4 – kilotons

MA Region

Results from

evaluation study

made by MA

65 31 04 Reduction of emissions of primary elements and precursors of secondary elements

Total annual emissions of primary elements PM10 and emissions of NOx, SO2 and NH3 – kilotons (in the potential for elements formation)

MA Region

Results from

evaluation study

made by MA

65 11 20

Surface area of a newly established or reconstructed public green space

Surface area in sq.m MA 0 200 000

137

65 20 00 Total surface area of revitalized unutilized or neglected sites (brownfields)

Surface area in sq.m MA 0 66 000

Equal opportunities


52 01 00 Core 01

Total newly created jobs

Gross number of newly created jobs (according to the records

of the public employment offices converted to full–time)

Ř 0 219

52 01 01 Core 02

of these for males 0 Results from evaluation study

made by MA 52 01 02 Core 03

of these for females 0 Results from evaluation study

made by MA

3.6.3 Priority axes indicators

Indicators of Priority axis 1: Transport accessibility

Code Indicator Unit of measure Source Quantification

Initial value 2005

Target value

Output indicators 51 11 00 Core 13

Number of aided projects focused on the development of transport (transport accessibility)

Number of aided projects focused on transport infrastructure.

MA 0 91

61 02 41 Number of newly purchased environment–friendly means of transport in public transport

Number of vehicles MA 0 15

61 02 44 Number of newly purchased rail and traction vehicles in public transport

Number of vehicles MA 0 9

61 01 00 Core 16

Length of new and reconstructed roads

in km of roads MA 0 270

61 03 01 Number of adapted regional airports

Number of projects MA 0 1

61 01 11 Length of new bicycle tracks with the exclusion of powered transport

Length of bicycle tracks in km MA 0 40

61 01 09 Length of newly constructed or reconstructed road bypasses of towns or villages

km RO 0 12

Outcome indicators 61 01 08 Share of reconstructed roads

in the total length of regional network of 2nd and 3rd class roads

Share in % MA 0 3

61 02 05 Number of passengers using public transport - total

Thousands passengers MD, Providers

424 470 461 000

61 02 11 Number of municipalities involved in IDS

Number of municipalities involved in integrated transport systems (IDS) in the region

MA 257 650

61 02 49 Number of new or reconstructed transfer terminals of public mass transport

Number. MA 0 20

61 11 05 Number of users of the new bicycle and horse tracks after the first year of use

Number of users MA 0 Results of evaluation study made by MA

138

Impact indicators 61 03 00 Number of checked in

passengers in regional airports

Number of travellers MA 315 000 450 000

Indicators of horizontal themes Sustainable development 65 31 07 Reduction of the noise

burden on the population Share of population living beyond the noise limits according to noise maps in %

MA

Noise maps elaborated by

MZd

Results from evaluation study made

by MA 65 31 03 Emission of troposphere

ozone precursor Annual emissions of troposphere ozone: VOC, NOx, PCO and CH4 – kilotons

MA Region


by MA 65 31 04 Reduction of emissions of

primary elements and precursors of secondary elements

Total annual emissions of primary elements PM10 and emissions of NOx, SO2 and NH3 – kilotons (in the potential for elements formation)

MA Region


by MA

Indicators of Priority axis 2: Development of sustainable tourism

Code Indicator Unit of measure Source Quantification Value 2005 Target

value Output indicators 51 12 00 Core 34

Number of aided projects for the development of tourism

Number of projects focused on the development of tourism.

MA 0

250

63 01 00 Total number newly constructed or reconstructed beds

Number of new beds MA 0 120

63 01 15 Length of new or reconstructed tracks exclusively for horse riders and pedestrians

Length of new or reconstructed tracks for pedestrians, bikers, horse riders and skiers in km

MA 0 150

63 22 00 Number of newly refurbished monuments

Number of refurbished monuments made accessible for the purposes of tourism

MA 0 30

63 31 11 Number of new products for orientation and direction purposes for the visitors

Number MA 0 95

63 31 01 Number of new types of publicity materials or marketing products for the sphere of tourism

Number MA 0 56

Outcome indicators 63 21 02 Number of newly certified

accommodation establishments in tourism

Number of certified accommodation establishments

competent certification bodies

0 15

63 23 00 Number of new and technically improved buildings of tourist infrastructure

Number of buildings MA 0 18

52 02 12 Core 35

Number of new jobs within the framework of projects for development

Created jobs converted to full–time

CSO 200

Indicators of horizontal themes Equal opportunities 52 01 01 Core 02

Number of newly created jobs for men

Gross number of newly created jobs

(according to the records of the public employment offices converted to full–time)

MA 0 Results of evaluation

survey made by MA

139

52 01 02 Core 03

Number of newly created jobs for women

Gross number of newly created jobs

(according to the records of the public employment offices converted to full–time)

MA 0 Results of evaluation

survey made by MA

Indicators of Priority axis 3: Sustainable development of towns and rural seats


Output indicators 51 15 18-9 Core 39 51 15 19 51 15 18

Number of aided projects increasing the attractiveness of urbanization centres – of these: Brno Jihlava

Number of supported projects (the achieved value will be divided according to main activity categories / social services and health care, activities of pastime and leisure nature, development of education, other)

MA 0

10 6 4

51 15 31 Core 39

Total number of aided projects increasing the attractiveness of selected towns


MA 0

38

51 21 00 Core 39

Total number of aided projects increasing the attractiveness of seats


MA 0 35

Outcome indicators 65 01 01 Surface area of the

regenerated and revitalized area – in towns

Surface in sq.km MA 0 2.20

65 05 05

Surface area of the regenerated and revitalized area – in rural areas


65 01 00 Total surface are of the regenerated and revitalized area


65 11 00 Total surface area of the regenerated and revitalized buildings in towns

Built–up area in sq.m MA 0 86 000

65 15 00 Total surface area of the regenerated and revitalized buildings in rural areas (villages)


65 11 03

Surface area of the regenerated and revitalized buildings for social services and health care


65 11 04 Surface area of the regenerated and revitalized buildings of pastime and leisure nature


64 01 02 Number of health care facilities newly equipped with special technological devices

Number of facilities MA 0 7

64 01 01 Number of educational facilities newly equipped with special devices used in the lessons

Number of facilities MA 0 22

140

65 11 01 Surface area of the regenerated and revitalized buildings designated for the development of education


65 12 01 Surface area of newly constructed buildings for pastime and leisure activities


65 12 02 Surface area of newly constructed buildings for social services


65 12 03 Surface area of newly constructed buildings for education


65 12 04 Surface area of newly constructed buildings for health care

Built–up area in sq.m ŘO 0 2 750

62 12 05 Number of open networks in areas affected by market failure

Number MA 3 8

Impact indicators 52 02 13 Core 01

Number of newly created jobs within the projects for sustainable development of towns

Gross number of newly created jobs (based on the records of public employment offices converted to full–time)

MA 0 15

52 02 15 Core 01

Number of newly created jobs within the projects for sustainable development of rural areas (villages)


MA 0 4

Number of inhabitants of newly covered by broadband access to Internet


MA 0 Results of evaluation study made

by MA Indicators of horizontal themes Sustainable development 65 11 20





Equal opportunities 52 01 01 Core 02




by MA 52 01 02 Core 03




by MA

Indicators of Priority axis 4: Technical assistance


Output indicators 71 05 00

Realization of evaluation studies and reports

Number MA 0

14

71 07 00

Number of produced methodological, technical and information materials

Number of material types MA 0 65

71 11 01 71 11 02

Number of realized training courses, seminars, workshops, conferences of these events with international attendance

Number of events MA 0 0

100

20 Outcome indicators 71 15 00

Participation in abroad held events focused on knowledge deepening and exchange of information

Number of persons attending the consultations held abroad

MA 0 14

141

71 25 01

Number of executed inspections of drawing of financial resources

Number of executed controls (ex–ante, mid–term, ex post, sample survey)

MA 0 466

71 16 01

Number of persons participating in educational courses for enhancement of absorption capacity

Number of persons participating in educational courses within the framework of technical assistance

MA 0 1250

71 19 00 Number of trained persons Number of persons assistance and accomplishing the courses in a prescribed manner

MA 0 88

142

4 IMPLEMENTATION SECTION The coordination of all aspects of the implementation system is generally under the auspices of MRD – National Coordinating Authority (NCA) in cooperation with MF – Payment and Certification Authority (PCA) and Audit Authority (AA) in the sphere of methodological management of financial flows and financial control. OP Technical assistance is a financial instrument for the implementation of operational programmes. ROP SE Managing Authority is obliged to collaborate with NCA during the fulfilment of its coordinating role. Responsibility and descriptions of individual entities follow out from the General Regulation.

Coordination of ROP SE

Coordination at the level of NSRF:

In compliance with the General Regulation the Czech Republic has defined the basic institutions for the management and coordination of NSRF:

• National Coordinating Authority • Monitoring Committee – Managing and Coordinating Committee • Payment and Certification Authority – National Fund • Audit Authority – Central Harmonization Unit (CHU) for Public Internal Audit

Coordination between Operational programmes describes National strategic reference framework. This cooperation is so deepen in order to be ensured widely closed cooperation and synergic effect of realized activities in these programmes. This is on the basis of agreement with MA of IOP, OP T and ESF programmes (OP HRE and OP EC). These agreements specify and extend forms of cooperation. It is concerned about collective process of calls within all Operational programmes and mutual cooperation in some areas. In these areas is desired to coordinate and informs about preparation of realization activities.

The MRD, the competence of which is defined by Act No. 248/2000 Coll. on regional development support, was commissioned by the government resolution of the Czech Republic No. 198 of 22 February 2006 to be the National Coordinating Authority (NCA) of NSRF. A specific department within MRD has been appointed as the National Coordinating Authority of the NSRF. NCA is responsible for the overall coordination of NSRF and it is an official partner for NSRF issues. NCA is responsible for operational, administrative and technical conditions for activities of ŘKV.

The role of the MC for NSRF is performed by the Managing and Coordinating Committee (ŘKV) established by the MRD on the basis of the Act No. 248/2000 Coll. on regional development support. The role of the ŘKV for the period 2007–2013 was specified by the government resolution of the Czech Republic No. 245 of 2 March 2005.

Managing and Coordinating Committee (ŘKV) is a mechanism at a national level which ensures the widest coordination. Details concerning the compositions, competencies, organization and activities of the ŘKV will be laid down by its statute and rules of procedure which is approved by the government based on a proposal filed by the MRD. Professional, organizational, administrative and technical conditions for the operation of ŘKV are assured and the function of the ŘKV secretariat is discharged by the NCA.

In compliance with the Statute, ŘKV particularly:

• discusses and recommends financial and material modifications of the approved operational programmes,

• discusses proposals and modifications of the procedural methods and rules for the realization of the economic and social cohesion policy,

• Coordinates system measures necessary for the realization of the economic and social cohesion policy (monitoring and information system, institutional structures, etc.).

143

For a better coordination among the cooperation programmes four coordination committees were established under the Steering and Coordination Committee. The members of the coordinating committees are the representatives of the managing authorities at the level of trade unions directors and the chairman is always a representative of the NCA.

Only one Payment and Certification Authority (PCA) – the Department of National Funding of the MF – was constituted for the implementation of assistance from SF and CF. The Payment and Certification Authority functions in close cooperation with the NCA.

The Audit Authority is established in the sense of Article 59 of the General Regulation. The MF – department of the CHU was commissioned by the government resolution of the Czech Republic No. 198 of 22 February 2006 to be the AO. The MF – department of the CHU for financial control, is responsible, in additional to other duties, for audits to verify effective functioning of the managing and control systems of the implementation of assistance form SF and CF.

Coordination of ROP SE with individual operational programmes

To ensure continuous flow of information, reinforce the synergic effect, prevent overlaps and to maximize the utilization of the resources from SF and CF it is necessary that there is a close cooperation between ROP SE Managing Authority and other managing authorities.

Especially the cooperation with the managing authorities of ROP and IOP is of key importance for ROP SE. Other important partners for MA ROP SE are especially the managing authorities of OP T, OP E and OP EI. The coordinating role will be executed by NCA. Collaboration takes place at the level of department directors – managing authorities for the NCA coordinating roles. ROP SE MA will work also towards membership of cohesion region representatives in the MCs of these OPs within its limits.

The coordination and cooperation of the managing authorities of the Rural Development Plan (programme financed from the EAFRD), EFF and cohesion policy operational programmes is ensured by means of the MRD departmental coordinating group at a central level. This group will put the database of all projects in individual programmes at the disposal of all the managing authorities.

Coordination with other ROPs

Coordination with other ROPs takes place especially on the basis of collaboration between MC, ROP SE and other MCs. The ROP SE MC will strive within its limits for the coordination of dates and locations of the sessions with the aim of assuring a flow of information. For coordination and cooperation among ROP is established expert worked group Association of regions of the Czech Republic for European funds and worked groups or specific activities of RR.

Coordination with IOP

Agreement on mutual cooperation and coordination during implementation of the IOP and ROP was concluded between regional councils of all seven cohesion regions NUTS 2 and IOP. In compliance with this Agreement a MRD representative will be a member of the ROP SE MC and, reciprocally, a ROP SE MA representative will be a member of the IOP MC. ROP SE MA and IOP MA will cooperate in the process of selection criteria preparation, project announcements, selection of projects, transmission of information on selected projects and in other spheres with the objective of improving coordination, enhancing efficiency of the programmes and assuring the highest possible synergic effect.

The following mechanisms will be set for the coordination of ROP SE with IOP:

A) Monitoring Committee – the representation of the MRD in the MC of ROP SE and reciprocal representation of the MA ROP SE in the MC of IOP will form the top coordination level between the IOP and ROPs.

B) Coordinating Committee for Strategic objective 4 NSRF This coordinating committee will serve as a platform for mutual consultations regarding the selection criteria, making the boundaries, prepared appeals and informing of applicants between MA ROP SE a MA

144

IOP more accurate. The access of MA ROP SE and MA IOP to information about projects selected for implementation in both operational programmes will be provided by means of MSC2007. Furthermore, workgroups will be established within the framework of this coordinating committee which will guarantee the coordination of the implementation of medium–term national strategies in the sphere of Smart Administration (representation of MC, MPSV, MRD and regions) and tourism (representation of MRD and regions).

C) Workgroup for the coordination of ROP SE and IOP interventions with EAFRD (consisting of MA ROP SE, regional department of the State Agricultural Intervention Fund (SZIF) in Brno, MZe, MRD)

D) Subject–matter and territorial demarcation of interventions and delimitation of the beneficiaries:

• Sphere of public health o Provision of medical technology – IOP will support acute care centres in the selected

national networks; these centres will be concretized in terms of specialization and localization in the selected hospitals listed in the national network of health–care facilities. ROP SE supports complementary investments related to the development of these centres and also to the provision of medical technology in other health care facilitates or parts of health care facilities which will not be part of these networks.

o Health risk prevention projects – IOP will provide assistance to projects realized by state health–care facilities and health insurance companies and to national or superregional projects realized by NGO. ROP SE will support health risk prevention projects of regional significance.

• Social integration

o Transformation of residential social facilities – IOP will address pilot projects of transformation of namely specified residential facilities which were selected based on the collaboration of MPSV and regions. ROP SE complementarily tackles the infrastructure for social services involved in the Act No. 108/2006 Coll. on social services.

o Return of the members of the most threatened socially excluded Roma localities back to the labour market and society will be addressed in IOP by a system project/projects which will focus on the most threatened localities selected on the basis of an expert study. These are localities in which the failure of instruments applied at local and regional levels was identified. ROP SE intervenes through infrastructure of social services or combined interventions within the framework of integrated plans for the development of towns in other localities which are not specified in IOP.

o Enforcement and realization of social economy instruments – while innovative approaches to the development of social economy will be developed in IOP, ROP SE supports well–tried methods documented by the legislation, such as the protected workshops. These types of interventions are namely specified within Priority axis 3.

• Culture

o Realization of model projects, building of infrastructure for modern cultural services – IOP subsidizes monuments that are included in the list prepared by the MK. This list will be approved by the regions in which these monuments are located. ROP SE involves thematic and locally specific follow–up appeals for the submission of projects in the sphere of tourism development (if required, also in other fields, such as transport infrastructure, transport services) centred on complementary activities to the projects aided by IOP.

145

OP T

Agreement on mutual cooperation and coordination during implementation of the OP T and ROP was concluded between regional councils of all seven cohesion regions NUTS 2 and OP T. In compliance with this Agreement a Ministry of Transport representative will be a member of the ROP SE MC and, reciprocally, a ROP SE MA representative will be a member of the OP T MC. ROP SE MA and OP T MA will cooperate in the process of selection criteria preparation, project announcements, selection of projects, transmission of information on selected projects and in other spheres with the objective of improving coordination, enhancing efficiency of the programmes and assuring the highest possible synergic effect.

For coordination ROP SE with OP T will be established these mechanisms:

A) Monitoring Committee

The Ministry of Transport is represented in the MC of ROP SE. The access of MA OPD to the determination of criteria for the selection of projects in ROP SE and to the reports informing about the progress of the ROP SE realization is thus assured.

B) Provision of information

ROP SE Managing Authority will provide the MD of the Czech Republic with the documentation for applicants focusing on the sphere “Support to the renovation of the rail rolling stock for the public transport” always prior to the announcement of such an appeal.

MSC 2007 will assure that MA ROP SE and MA OPD have access to information on projects selected for implementation in both operational programmes and to reports informing on the progress of operational programmes.

C) Consultation

MA ROP SE will use expert consultations with the MD during the determination of technical conditions for the selection of rail vehicles.

Coordination with OP E and OP EI – the issue of brownfields:

The coordination between ROP SE, OP E and OP EI is running especially in the sphere of brownfields regeneration and dealing with the old ecological burdens by following mechanisms:

A) Dealing with the old ecological burdens

• MŽP will be informed about projects of brownfields regeneration submitted to ROP SE and OP EI beforehand. MŽP will inform MA ROP SE or OP EI whether the submitted project presents a serious ecological burden which will be addressed by OP E or if it can be tackled by ROP SE (OP EI). This mechanism was put into effect between OPI and OPPP in the last programming period.

• MŽP will provide information from the database of old ecological burdens, the mapping of which is currently being performed by MŽP, to MA ROP SE and OP EI, as required.

B) Provision of information

• ŘOs will inform each other about the appeals in the field of removal of old environmental burdens (OP E) and brownfields regeneration (ROP, OP EI) which will be in the process of preparation

• MSC 2007 will ensure that MA ROP SE, MA OP E and OP EI have access to information concerning projects selected for realization in these operational programmes and to reports informing about the progress of implementation of these programmes.

C) Subject–matter and territorial delimitation of the interventions

• Subject–matter boundary of the brownfields regeneration between ROP SE and OP EI has been agreed upon on the basis of their future utilization:

146

• OP EI will support regeneration of the brownfields which will be subsequently used for entrepreneurial activities (future use of the real estate will fall within OKEČ: 15–37 or it will concern strategic services or technological centres)

• ROP SE supports regeneration of the brownfields for public use and services • In connection with EAFRD neither ROP SE nor OP EI addresses regeneration of brownfields for

future agricultural utilization.

Coordination with operational programmes funded from the ESF:

Coordination with operational programmes funded from the ESF will proceed on the basis of an agreement between ROP SE MA and ESF–funded operational programmes MA. In order to achieve maximal synergic effect the ROP will employ an alternative of cross–financing (see Chapter 4.2.2 Cross–financing) with precisely stipulated conditions. Demarcation lines between ROP SE and ESF–funded operational programmes are described in individual priority axes in detail.

Coordination with operational programmes of cross–border cooperation

Two of the bilateral operational programmes will be realized within the framework of the European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) 2007–2013 in the territory of the cohesion region Southeast: Czech–Austrian and Czech–Slovak.

OP Austria – Czech Republic 2007–2013

Managing Authority of the Czech–Austrian Operational Programme is the Office of the Federal Government of Lower Austria. National authority for coordination of activities of the Operational Programme is the MRD. Coordination is going to be ensured by a MRD representative in the ROP SE MC.

A) Subject–matter and territorial delimitation of interventions:

Transport

OP Austria – Czech Republic 2007–2013 addresses the strengthening of transport accessibility solely in the borderland areas. Public interventions of the Operational Programme focus on quality enhancement of the borderland region connection.

Tourism

The OP Austria – Czech Republic complements ROP interventions by supporting tourist services; it is particularly aimed at quality improvement of services and offer in the tourist trade and in the borderland area.

Sustainable development of towns and rural seats

ROP public interventions in the sphere of health facilities and social welfare will be complemented by interventions centring exclusively on borderland regions within the framework of the OP Austria – Czech Republic the objective of which is to develop prevention of health and social risks and social integration of cross–border significance.

OP Slovak Republic – Czech Republic 2007–2013

Managing Authority of the Czech–Slovak Operational Programme is the Ministry of Construction and Regional Development of the Slovak Republic. National authority for coordination of activities of the Operational Programme is the MRD. Coordination is going to be ensured by a MRD representative in the ROP SE MC.

147

A) Subject–matter and territorial delimitation of interventions

Transport

OP Slovak Republic – Czech Republic 2007–2013 supports transport infrastructure, particularly the connection of borderland to the national and Trans–European transport network providing access to common border spaces.

Tourism

As far as tourism is concerned, OP Slovak Republic – Czech Republic 2007–2013 focuses on support to common cross–border events in the sphere of tourism, culture, exchange of information and creation of common products of culture, tourism and traditional crafts.

The part of ŘKV and NCA is essential for the coordination with other operational programmes.

4.1 PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION

The Regional Council of the SE cohesion region was commissioned the role of the ROP SE MA on the basis of Act No. 248/2000 Coll. on regional development support, as amended; the Regional Council also bears overall responsibility for the realization of ROP SE. The general responsibility for executing the ROP SE is born by the MA, the Regional Council of the SE Cohesion Region (hereinafter the “RR”). The bodies of the Regional Councils are, pursuant to the Law: the Committee of the Regional Council (hereinafter “Committee”), the Chairman of the Regional Council and the Regional Council Office (hereinafter “Office”).

According to Article 58(b) of the General Regulation it is necessary to assure the observance of the principle of separation of functions between the management and control bodies. This compliance is realized by means of payment and auditing functions at the central level and clearly defined powers of the individual entities. Correct observance of the principles is coordinated also by the NCA which from its title of the central coordinator creates a unified framework for the implementing environment for the managing authorities. The basic prerequisite for efficient use of the allocated financial resources is a functional, simple and well–arranged structure which will be straightforward towards the users of aid to the maximum extent and which will ensure quick depletion of resources within the limits of the so called rule “n+3 or n+2.” “Territorial” departments of MA will be established for these purposes in both regions of the SE region. In the adjustment of implementation system the Managing Authority of ROP SE made use of the evaluation document "Final Report for Project 1/04 – Analysis and Evaluation of Weak Points in the system of implementation and accident risks" prepared for the Ministry of Regional Development in August 2005 in order to use the recommendations for improvements in the preparedness of potential final users of the aid, quality of project applications and project administration system.

4.1.1 Programme Management

The Regional Council of the SE cohesion region is a legal entity. In accordance with the principle of due financial management, the RC is responsible namely for the transparent selection of projects, monitoring of projects, provision of co–financing from national public resources, support for activities of the MC, provision of information and news, provision of publicity for the programme, etc.

According to Article 60 of the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006, and in accordance with relevant financial management principles, MA ROP SE is responsible for setting up and operating the system in the following areas:

Management and control

• it sets up the management and control systems in line with the valid legislation of the Czech Republic and the EU and it is responsible for effective and correct functioning of these systems;

• it prevents irregularities, searches for irregularities and suggests revisions of financing in the case that breach of obligations ensuing from legal regulations is detected;

148

• it verifies the delivery of co–financed products and services and actual spending of financial resources designated for operations shown by the beneficiaries and their conformity with the regulations of the Community and the Czech Republic;

• it ensures the conformity of the aided actions with the policies of the Community; • it ensures the conformity with the requirements for the provision and publishing of information

(pursuant to Article 69 of the General Regulation); • it ensures the sustainability of the operation for the period of 5 years from the part of the OP

managing authorities and informing the EC if the operations undergo significant modification; • It defines the methods of assuring that all documents concerning expenses and audits necessary

for the execution of an adequate audit trail are kept in accordance with the requirements of Article 90 of the General Regulation.

Realization

• It elaborates selection and evaluation criteria for the selection of projects and submits them for approval to the MC;

• It assures that operations to receive funding are selected according to the criteria approved by the MC for the operational programme and that the operations are in compliance with the relevant regulations of the Community and the Czech Republic.

Financial flows

• It assures that the beneficiaries and other entities involved in the implementation of the operations either keep a separate accounting system or a corresponding accounting code for all transactions related to the operation without the affection of the intrastate accounting regulations.

Monitoring

• it constitutes the monitoring committee according to Articles 63 – 66 of the General Regulation; • it collects reliable financial and statistical data enabling the monitoring of the implementation of

assistance and the handover of these data to MRD – NCA, or the EC, as the case may be, usually in an electronic form;

• it ensures the recording and storage of accounting records in an electronic form for each operation within the framework of an operational programme and the collecting of data about the execution of operations necessary for the financial management, monitoring, verification, audit and evaluation;

• it elaborates annual and final reports on the implementation of aid and submits them to the EC after their approval by the MC; it also sends the copy of these documents to AA;

• It controls the activity of the MC for which it also provides documents enabling the monitoring of the operational programme fulfilment with respect to its concrete objectives.

Evaluation

• It makes sure that the evaluation of the operational programme is realized in compliance with European regulations (Article 47 and 48 of the General Regulation).

Certification

• It provides all necessary information on the procedures and verifications performed in connection with the PCA expenditures for the purposes of certification.

Execution of audits

• It is responsible for preparing the conditions for the execution of audits at the level of MA.

The managing authority will make sure that any public support provided within the framework of the programme ROP SE will be in accordance with the procedural and material rules of public support enforceable at the moment when such subsidy from public resources is granted. The division of tasks among the bodies of the Regional council is determined by amendment of the Act No. 248/2000 Coll. on Support to Regional Development.

149

The RC bodies include:

1 Committee of the Regional Council. 2 Chairman of the Regional Council. 3 Office of the Regional Council.

Committee of the Regional Council

The committee of RC is established pursuant to Art. 16 of Act 248/2006 Coll. on the support to regional development. The Committee of the Regional Council is responsible for the management and execution of ROP. The Committee members are elected from the board of representatives for the regions constituting the SE cohesion region, i.e. the Vysočina Region and the South–Moravian Region.

Pursuant to the Act no. 248/2000 Coll. on the support of regional development, as amended, the Committee:

a) approves the implementation and guiding documentation of ROP SE; b) approves measures concerning the publicity and awareness about ROP SE; c) approves the choice of projects to be granted subvention by Regional Council; d) approves budget and final account; e) elects chairman and vice chairman of the Regional Council; f) nominates and withdraws Director of the Office of the Regional Council on the proposal of the

chairman of the Regional Council; g) sets up organizational structure and staff number of the Regional Council; h) approves other matters if stipulated by the Rules of Procedure of the Committee of the Regional

Council.

Chairman of the Regional Council

The chairman is a statutory body of the Regional Council and represents the council outwards. The chairman reports to the Committee. When absent, the chairman is substituted by the vice–chairman. When multiple vice–chairmen are elected, the chairman is substituted by the vice–chairmen in the order laid down by the Committee. The powers of the chairman are defined along with the powers of the RC Committee by the Statute and the Rules of procedure.

Regional Council Office

The Office is an executive body of RC. It performs all the tasks associated with the function of the MA of ROP except for the issues that are entrusted or reserved to the Committee and to the Chairman of RC. The Office also fulfils the tasks related to the professional, organizational and technical background for the RC activity.

Assignments ensured by the Office are as follows:

a) receipt of applications for aid and organization of calls for proposals, b) provision of information about the programme, c) assessment of formal requisites and acceptability of the submitted projects, d) assurance of the qualitative assessment of the projects, e) preparation of contracts on project funding, f) monitoring of the observation of rules for public procurement in the implementation of successful

projects g) work progress control for individual projects, h) assurance of the monitoring system functioning – electronic register of data for the monitoring

and evaluation of programme implementation, i) elaboration of data on expenditures as ground works for certification, j) preparation of ground works for the annual and final report of ROP SE, k) execution and assurance of project implementation financial audits with the aim of checking

whether the co–financed products and services were delivered and the requested expenses spent in

150

Ředitel Úřadu RR (1)

compliance with the conditions of the contract on project funding and in line with the legislation of the Czech Republic and the European Union,

l) review of submitted applications for payment of effective expenses to aid beneficiaries (especially the verification of compliance with the set–up performance targets and financial plan of the project and correspondence with the policies and legislations of both Czech Republic and European Community, assessment of eligible costs, etc.) including the payment of applications,

m) assurance of programme publicity, n) preparation of budget and final account of the Regional Council, o) keeping of all documents concerning expenses and audits required for the assurance of

corresponding instrument for audit with emphasis on financial flows in line with Art. 90 of general regulation.

The organizational structure of the Office is set up as follows:

A) Director’s office B) Internal audit C) Financial department D) ROP management departments E) Project implementation departments - departments for implementing projects – territorial classification (the South–Moravian region and the

Vysočina region).

The departments are further structured into individual sections. Their activities are described in the Implementing Document and Operational Manual.

Fig. 10: Organizational structure of the Regional Council Office of the SE cohesion region as of 4 June 2007

The organizational structure of MA is set so as to ensure effective implementation of ROP SE and that the financial resources are spent functionally. Concurrently, it is set to guarantee the condition of independence and separation of management, payment and control functions is assured. Competencies and responsibilities for processes and activities are clearly distributed in order to make the decision–making and competencies unchallengeable, without duplicities and ambiguities.

The management, payment and controlling functions are described in depth in the Operational Manual of ROP SE. The Operational Manual applies the recommendations of the General Parameters document laying down the implementation structures for the operational programmes elaborated within the scope of technical assistance of the NCA.

In the course of laying down the strict separation of management, payment and controlling functions the information system is used which respects the separation of individual processes within the implementation of the management, payment and control functions.

Director’s Office

Project implementation department Jihlava

Internal audit department

ROP management department

Financial department Project implementation department Brno

Director of the RCO

151

The separation of the management, payment and controlling functions is assured also in the sphere of personnel. Each function is executed in a functionally separated department and at the head of each department there is an administrator who answers for the execution of the entrusted activities.

Intermediate bodies of ROP SE

The MA ROP SE will not establish any intermediate body for programming period 2007–2013.

4.1.2 Capacity for Administration

Sufficient administrative capacity has a key position for drawing of financial recourses from SF. That’s why it is necessary to pay permanent and systemic attention to the reinforcement of the administrative capacity. The implementation of administrative capacity of RR is link with government resolution No 818/2007 of July 18 2007. The MRD is responsible for systemic and permanent support to the institutional framework and to absorption capacity. On this support MA closely cooperates with the MRD. For this purpose the document “Framework parameters of the implementation structure of an operational programme model” that was worked out with the help of technical assistance. The basis of the system is:

a) Analysis of the MA’s ROP SE needs during the implementation of operational programmes; b) Definition of functions and procedures; c) Formulation of employees’ profiles, job description; d) Quality of the selection and recruitment of new employees;

High quality performance of all the functions of the system of withdrawal of the EU resources is closely related to the profile and stabilization of the workers who participate in the preparations and execution of the complete implementing system. The public administration employees must systematically study (including languages) even for a number of years in order to be able to deliver a due and first–rate execution of these activities. Quality of the selection and recruitment of new employees that takes into account the best practice is an essential condition for quality human resources management. This system will be used at all implementation levels. With respect to this the outflow of educated and experienced employees into the European institutions or private sphere must be limited to the minimum. A comprehensive system of stabilization and motivation of public sphere employees integrated in a system of resources from the EU budget must be created in the Czech Republic in order to achieve such situation.

SE cohesion region The RR Committee is responsible for the setup of the implementing structure and definition of the organizational structure within the framework of the MA (pursuant to Article 22 Letter b) of the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1828/2006. The setup of the implementation structure involves the following processes:

a) strategic management of the operational programme b) building the absorption capacity c) technical assistance d) methodological support e) monitoring of the operational programme f) evaluation of the operational programme g) communication and publicity h) irregularities i) administration, evaluation and selection of projects j) monitoring the progress of the projects’ realization k) payments l) control m) internal audit

Organizational structure follows out from the model of a procedural management of an organization. Procedural organizational structure corresponds to the implementing structure hierarchy.

152

Optimal assurance of capacity is achieved by assigning a sufficient number of workers, who will be responsible for the execution of activities within individual processes.

Supposed target number of employees is 56 employees of MA. The number of employees will be 50 at the end of the year 2007.

Sufficiency of the personal capacity will be regularly verified.

The following measures are planned in order to secure due functioning of the implementing system and minimization of worker fluctuation risks:85

a) application of financial and non–financial motivation, b) educating employees, equipment with technology, trainings of senior employees in the

management of human resources and courses on specialized issues, c) reassessment of the systemization, especially non–used of salary grades, d) increase in personal bonuses connected to participation in and preparation on execution of

functions in management and control of EU resources, e) remunerations paid in relation to the management of resources from the EU, f) further labour–law measures

An important instrument during the reinforcement of the administrative capacity for the implementation of ROP SE is the use of support in Priority Axis 4 – Technical assistance ROP SE. Activities ensured centrally by NCA and financed from OP TA will be used also. In case of need, systemic activities ensured centrally by OP TA will be co financed under the coordination of NCA from technical assistant of ROP also.

4.1.3 Beneficiaries, the system of project selection

Only a legal entity can become beneficiary. The beneficiary shall receive a financial assistance based on the Agreement on provision of subsidy pursuant to Act No 250/2000 Coll. on budget rules for territorial budgets serving as a basis for the agreement, as amended.

Duties of beneficiaries

Duties of beneficiaries shall be specified in Contract about providing subsidy. The beneficiaries must primarily ensure:

1 preparation of applications for payment the project expenditure including identification, evaluation and preparation of the project and including the financial plan;

2 preparation of contracting documents for the project; 3 public procurement and signature of relevant contracting documents with suppliers in close

coordination with the MA; 4 proper implementation of the project according to contracts concluded with selected suppliers; 5 verification and reimbursement of checked invoices to suppliers; 6 a functioning and separate accounting system of the project pursuant to Act No 563/1991 Coll. on

accounting, as amended; 7 internal financial control; 8 regular reporting to the MA on the project’s progress and possible ad hoc reports during the

preparation if required; 9 elaboration and presentation of supporting documents to the MA for monitoring; 10 regional and local publicity and information boards on the construction sites according to the relevant

EU rules.

The beneficiaries must ensure that the project expenses required for reimbursement in the framework of

85 ROP MA takes into consideration the Decree of the Government of the CR No. 818 of 18 July on the procedure of addressing administrative capacity in the process of drawing resources from the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund for the period of 2007 – 2013. SE Regional Council (RC) is not bound by the Act No. 143/1992 Coll. on payment and remuneration for work readiness.

153

ROP SE are eligible according to the rules for eligibility of expenses set by the MA and the MRD, and that the project implementation complies with the terms and conditions stipulated in the subsidy provision contract and in the relevant legislation of CR and EU.

When placing applications for payments the beneficiaries shall give reasons for the presented expenses and shall present documents to substantiate that they comply with the terms and conditions for project implementation stipulated in the subsidy provision contract. Any payment claims must be substantiated by documents demonstrating that the funds are spent in an efficient, economic, reasonable and transparent way.

The beneficiaries must provide for keeping files of project documentation. Beneficiaries must have the project documents available at any time for possible checks and audit procedures performed by authorized persons or bodies. The documents shall be archived in line with the EU and CR legislations.

In case, the large enterprise (which is determined in compliance with Regulation of the European Commission (EC) No. 70/2001) is the beneficiary, it have to propose the declaration that the assistance will not be used in support of investment that concerns the relocation of its production or service facilities between another member State of the European Union.

System of project selection

Managing Authority (MA) is responsible for the project selection system setup in line with the ROP SE objectives or with the priority axes objectives, as the case may be. The Managing Authority shall assure elaboration of binding methodological instructions for the purposes of project selection.

Organization presenting the project will submit it to the MA.

The Office will assess formal completeness and acceptability of the project and ensure its qualitative evaluation according to the established selection criteria.

With respect to formal completeness the entireness of the application for subsidy and its appendices is considered against the requirements specified in the documentation for applicants prepared by the MA.

Project acceptability is considered especially with respect to:

- compliance with ROP SE priority axes,

- regional impact and importance of the project, - economic and social contribution, especially impact on regional development, - evaluation with respect to horizontal themes, - project sustainability.

Next step is the assessment of projects on the basis of the following evaluation criteria.

A project is always assessed by at least two evaluators against assessment criteria approved by the MC. For the purposes of project selection, MA can nominate evaluation boards including independent experts who will evaluate, choose and recommend the most suitable projects for funding on the basis of methodological instructions. Selection of projects for funding will be transparent and in the form of competition between projects with respect to their contribution to the development of the whole region and on the basis of evaluation criteria authorized by the MC according to individual ROP SE areas of support. Projects will be evaluated primarily with respect to fulfilment of the individual priority axes objectives. The evaluation criteria will be particularly directed towards the fulfilment of SC4 NSRF – Balanced development of the area. The evaluation criteria include a general part which is a common basis for all areas of support and a specific part for individual types of aid.

During the evaluation of projects the evaluation criteria are divided into categories focusing on the evaluation of:

- applicant – experience of the applicant, project team, financial health of the applicant - necessity of the project – clear substantiation of the necessity of the project, other multiplication

effects

154

- quality of the project with respect to its contributions and adequacy; link with the monitoring indicators

- quality of the project elaboration – interconnection of the project’s activities, timetable, budget - sustainability – whether the project is sustainable financially and its outputs will be utilizable also

after its completion - horizontal criteria which are considered on the basis of the project’s contribution to sustainable

development – environment and equal opportunities.

The assessment of projects is based on the allocation of points for compliance with the individual criteria. The final score is acquired by taking the average evaluation from all evaluators.

Final decision on granting the support will be taken by the Regional Council Committee based on the list of recommended projects ordered according to their scores.

For each area of support the Regional Council Committee approves a minimum score at the opening of the project selection meeting which will stand for the minimum score limit; the score limit shall be minimum 60 points of the total score. Projects which will not reach this limit will not be assisted. The Regional Council Committee can authorize a subsidy from ROP SE programme in the amount of up to the exhaustion of the financial allocation announced in the notice for projects which reach a higher score and which are recommended by the evaluators. The Regional Council Committee changes neither the order of evaluated projects nor the amount of the provided subsidy.

Public transport interventions as well as interventions of all other types of support in ROP SE will be executed in compliance with the national rule of law and Community legislation (including rules for public procurement and economic competition) which will guarantee correct and effective application of resources from Structural Funds and public interest in the prevention of inadequate profit.

4.1.4 Partnership in ROP implementation

One of the key principles which was applied in the creation and is to be promoted also in the implementation of ROP is the principle of partnership.

A partnership proven at a stage of ROP SE preparation shall be further promoted at the implementation stage, i.e. in funding, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the assistance. It seems useful that, apart from proven partners from the programming stage, all bodies participating in ROP funding and regional bodies (such as professional chambers, village unions, community work centres, charity organization) become partners. The entire process of implementation and evaluation of the ROP benefits shall include the search for an efficient way of integrating all relevant regional entities in the project selection to ensure that the selected projects are a true contribution for each cohesion region.

The Monitoring Committee of ROP SE shall have an important role for integrating the principle of partnership. This institution shall include relevant partners at regional level (see Chapter 4.4.1). An important role in partnership shall be played by the Regional Council which shall be responsible for the creation of regional partnerships (namely in relation to the preparation of projects incl. their co–financing and preliminary environmental impact assessment) and for providing information about the programme and its promotion. For more information see ROP SE Chapter 2.4.

4.2 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

The European Commission shall send the resources from the EU (SF) budget to the account of the Payment and Certification Authority. Within the Payment and Certification Authority, the funds from the EU (SF) budget shall be methodically managed by the department of Methodology of financial management a payments of MF CR, which again shall perform transfers of funds from the EU (SF) budget to the state budget.

For ROP SE, the system of financial flows of funds from the EU (SF) budgets is based on the principle of financing through applications for payment from the resources of the Regional Council, which has received funds for financing the share financed from the EU (SF) budget from the budget of the MRD

155

chapter and the share of funds corresponding to the national co–financing from the budget of the MRD chapter and from the budgets of regions. The funds from the EU (SF) budget are subsequently reimbursed to PCA to the account of the manager of the MRD chapter.

Endowments provided from the state budget for pre–financing the expenses which should be covered by resources from the budget of the EU and funds for national financing are provided by MRD on the basis of the Decision on the endowment provision and pursuant to Act No. 218/2000 Coll. on budget rules. MRD issues a General Decision on the provision of endowments for the programming period 2007–2013. Thereupon MRD issues the Decision on the endowment provision for the respective calendar year within 15 days after the date of reception of a correct Application for endowment provision from MA ROP SE. Endowment provided for the financing of MA ROP projects (or its first instalment) is transferred by MRD to a special account of MA ROP within 15 days after the date of accepting the decision on the RR endowment provision. The support will be determined on the basis of the beneficiaries´ expenses as estimated for the appropriate period in line with approved Czech state budget for the relevant calendar year. The terms and transfers of others financial resources are set by MRD in the Decision on the endowment provision.

4.2.1 System of SF financial flows

Payments to beneficiaries are carried out as ex–post payments (reimbursement of expenses already spent by the beneficiary).

1) Based on the documented expenses, the beneficiary files a simplified application for reimbursement, attaches copies of all accounting documents and list of invoices, bank statements and other documents.

2) MA performs objective control and control of invoicing rightfulness, generates and approves the application for reimbursement and issues a declaration of approval and order to reimburse eligible expenses of the project.

3) MA submits the application for reimbursement and declaration of approval and order to reimburse to the Financial department for formal control; the Financial department accepts the declaration of approval and order to reimburse.

4) The Financial department releases the funds to the beneficiary (within 20 calendar days). 5) The Financial department informs MA about the performed reimbursement to the beneficiary by an

internal memo. 6) The Financial department sends in stated terms an Aggregate application for reimbursement

(generated from MSC2007 and approved by the Office of the Regional Council director) to the MRD. 7) The administrator of MRD section sends the authorized Aggregate application for reimbursement to

the PCA. 8) PCA transfers the resources from the PCA account to the receiving account of the MRD Chapter on

the basis of the approved Aggregate application for reimbursement. 9) MRD transfers the resources to the RR account by the deadline established in Decision on the

provision of endowment.

Expenditures within the technical assistance of MA will be refunded immediately after their creation, directly from the budget of the Southeast Regional Council Office.

Certification Authority

One Certification Authority has been constituted for the implementation of aid from SF and CF which executes activities according to Article 61 of the General Regulation. In the Czech Republic the function of CO is executed by The Payment and Certification Authority. The National Fund department of the MF was commissioned the role of PCA for Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund on the basis of government resolution No. 198 of 22 February 2006. The National fund of the MF does not transfer part of its competences to third parties.

PCA is responsible for these activities:

156

a) manages and coordinates financial flows from EU budget and ensures the smooth flow of financial funds from the PCA to beneficiaries;

b) sets and updates methodical instructions for the certification of SF and CF expenditure; c) ensures that beneficiaries receive EU contributions without undue delay; d) processes and submits certified statements of expenditure and applications for payment (interim

and final) to the EC, for all programmes on the basis of statements of expenditures submitted by the MAs, they are sent to AA in copy;

e) verifies the accuracy of statement of expenditure, that it results from a reliable accounting system and is based on verifiable supporting documents, certifies this statement and approves the applications for payments from the EU;

f) monitors procedure manuals used by the bodies involved in the implementation of SF and CF and verifies the compliance with these procedures;

g) continuously monitors and verifies the compliance of activities and procedures of the managing authorities and intermediate bodies with applicable Czech and EU acts;

h) verifies the application of the management processes and control systems used by the managing authorities and intermediate bodies (including the on the spot checks);

i) evaluates drawing performance of allocations; j) receives payments from EU budget and ensures transfers of funds to the budget chapters; k) provides methodical guidance to the preparation of forecasts of applications for payment from the

EU budget and submits these forecasts to the EC; l) provides for the concept, methodology, establishment, development and operation of the

accounting system used for the administration of SF and CF, m) provides methodical management in the field of accounting for SF and CF funds; n) cooperates with the EC in the mid–term and ex–post verification of the additionality; o) ensures the recoveries of amounts unduly paid in the case the principles of operation terms are

violated p) proposes manuals of PCO’s procedures to AA.

Financial department of MA

The financial department performs the role of the financial department, in particular: a) provides transfers of funds to beneficiaries for financing projects co–financed from the EU (SF) budget from the resources of the RC budget,

b) keeps accurate and complete records on fund transfers to beneficiaries from the funds of the RC budget;

c) conveys to the MA required data on performed transfers of funds to beneficiaries according to its files (namely data about the beneficiary, amount of finance transferred, date of payment to the beneficiary);

d) proceeds in accordance with the internal written working procedures (manuals) in each activity related to transfers of finance to the beneficiaries.

More detailed procedures of the financial management are covered in the Methodology for financial flows and control of programmes co–financed from the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund, and the European Fisheries Fund for the programming period 2007–2013 prepared by the MF of the Czech Republic

157

4.2.2 Cross–financing

Funding of measures eligible for assistance from the ESF will be possible in selected ROP SE areas of support in order to fulfil objectives of the interventions and of the programme. The Cross-financing will be possibly used on the basis of Article 34, paragraph 2 of the General Regulation86. The requirement for confirming the cross–financing is the necessity of such measure for satisfactory realisation of the project and the direct association with a project. Closely linked to the building of infrastructure the cross-financing will complementarily assure the initial realization and the progress of project activities otherwise aided from ESF.

Cross–financing will be available in Priority Axis 2 Development of sustainable tourism and 3 Sustainable development of towns and rural seats.

The priority axes 2 Development of sustainable tourism involves projects focused on development of infrastructure of services in tourism. Existing potential for tourism in the SE region is used only in a limited amount. The reason for these limitations is most of all; bad transport infrastructure, insufficient basic and supplementary tourist infrastructure; similarly, offer and quality of services do not comply with higher standards in many tourist centres. The offer on specialized and original tourist programmes and products is also insufficient and there are deficiencies in the tourist organization structure and human resources, information, promotion and marketing.

The priority axis 3 Sustainable development of towns and rural area involves projects focusing on construction of public services infrastructure (social and educational infrastructure). Material background must be complemented by education of providers, submitters, employees and users related to change in the nature of provided services87. In the field of education it will be possible to support the creation of educational programmes related to the new infrastructure and to the equipment of schools and schooling facilities while supporting equal opportunities for children and pupils including pupils with specific educational requirements88.

The ROP SE MA will examine the necessity of application cross–financing with respect to the total project budget in each individual case (MA will observe unified limits of support per project which are based on the Instructions for cross–financing). MA ROP SE can decide if the cross-financing will be (or not) used in the call. In case of application of cross–financing will be act upon the document “Instructions for Cross–financing in Programming Period of 2007–2013” issued at national level to ensure fulfilling of EU Regulations.

The limit for using of cross – financing is set at maximum rate 9% for the priority axes 2 and 3 of ROP SE and will be monitored at the level of projects implemented within the framework of ROP SE in the form of the fulfilment of allocated resources for cross-financing by the applicant into BENEFIT7 systems and translated into MONIT7+. The limit was established on the basis of recommendation from the Ministry of Finance.

86 Basic legislation for cross-financing:

- Article 34 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions concerning the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund, and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 1260/1999,

- Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No. 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 1783/1999,

Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No. 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 1783/1999. 87 Coordination with OP HRE – area of support 3.1 Support of social integration, 3.2 Integration of socially excluded groups on the labour market, 3.3 Equal opportunities of women and men on the labour market and reconciliation of family and working life, 5.1 Transnational cooperation. 88 Coordination with OP EC – priority axis 1 Initial education

158

4.3 CONTROL SYSTEM

4.3.1 External control (external audit):

External financial control is an inspection performed by authorities outside the ROP implementation structure. The Central Harmonizing Unit (CHU) of the MF has a competence to perform these inspections pursuant to Section 7 of the Act on financial control, European Court of Auditors (ECA) and European Commission pursuant to Section 24 of the Act on financial control or Supreme Audit Office (SAO) pursuant to the Act No. 166/1993 Coll. on the Supreme Audit Office, as amended All entities of the operational programme implementation structure are obliged to enable the execution of the aforementioned inspections or accommodate the raised demand for cooperation. Employees of the audited institution are required to cooperate during these controls as necessary.

External financial audit is performed by the following authorities:

Audit Authority (AA):

The Ministry of Finance was appointed as the Audit Authority for all operational programmes authorized to draw on financial resources from ERDF, ESF and CF in the programming period 2007–2013 pursuant to Article 59 of the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006 by the government resolution of the Czech Republic No. 198 of 22 February, 2006. The Central Harmonizing Unit for financial control, which is functionally independent on the MA and on the PCA, was commissioned to be the department responsible for the execution of the AA with respect to Article 58 Letters a) and b), Article 59 Paragraph 1 Letter c) and Paragraph 4 of the Council Regulation (EC). AA bears responsibility for the verification of effective functioning of the managing and controlling system within the framework of individual operational programmes. AA discharges functions specified in Article 62 Paragraph 1 of the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006. At preserving its responsibility it can commission other audit entities (see 4.3.2.2) for the performance of activities specified in Article 62 Paragraph 1 Letters a) and b), i.e. audits verifying effective functioning of the managing and controlling system and operations audits. Only one level of commissioning for the execution of the aforementioned activities is allowed (i.e. auditing entity cannot commission another entity to perform the activities in question).

In compliance with the requirements and deadlines of the relevant European Community legislation (namely with articles 58, 62 and 71 of the General Regulation) and legal regulations of the Czech Republic the AA executes especially the following activities:

a) assures audit of the readiness of the programmes management and control systems;

b) submits a report to the European Commission evaluating setup of the programme’s managing and controlling systems, including an opinion in accordance with article 71(2) of the General Regulation regarding their conformity with relevant provisions of the European Community legal regulations, namely with articles 58 and 62 of the General Regulation – prior to filing the first application for a continuous payment at the latest within twelve months after the authorization of a relevant programme.

c) within 9 months after the approval of a respective OP submits an audit strategy showing entities which are to perform the audits to the European Commission;

d) ensures execution of audit in order to verify effective functioning of the programmes managing and controlling systems and to certify reported expenditures on a sample of operations;

e) submits to the EC annually and continuously evaluates a consolidated audit plan for resources provided from the SF and CF;

f) assures that PCA receives results of all audits executed by the AA or other entities authorized thereby for the certification purposes;

g) provides methodological leadership of the commissioned auditing entities participating in the audits of all programmes;

159

h) supervises quality of audits of projects co–financed from the SF and CF executed by commissioned auditing entities;

i) participates in the creation and updating of methodological instructions for execution of an audit of individual programmes resources;

j) submits an annual control report specifying the results of audits from the preceding period including determined deficiencies in the management and control systems of the programme to the European Commission every year;

k) issues a statement to the European Commission every year of whether the functioning of the management and control system provides an adequate guarantee that the statements of expenditures submitted to the European Commission are correct and the related transactions are legal and proper;

l) participates in the European Commission audit missions to check the aspects of the management and control system which are determined by the annual controlling report;

m) shall submit a declaration of programme closing (or partial closing) to the European Commission in which it will evaluate validity of an application for final payment and legitimacy and soundness of related transactions involved in the final statement of expenditures;

n) cooperates with the European Commission on coordination of audit plans and audit methods and immediately exchanges results from audits carried out in accordance with Article 73(1) of the General Regulation;

o) assures that internationally recognized auditing standards are applied in the process of auditing activity;

p) performs analysis of reported irregularities for the purposes of processing the declaration of closure or partial closure

q) processes report on results of financial controls of the programmes for the government on a yearly basis;

Supreme Audit Office

Supreme Audit Office is authorized to execute independent auditing activity pursuant to relevant provisions of the Act No. 166/1993 Coll. on Supreme Audit Office, as amended.

European Commission

European Commission will ascertain that within the framework of an operational programme in question management and control systems complying with Article 72 Paragraph 1 of the General Regulation are implemented and function effectively. This audit is performed by the European Commission on the basis of annual control reports and of the AA standpoint with respect to these reports and on the basis of the actual audits.

European Court of Auditors

Within the framework of its competence the European Court of Auditors executes separate and independent inspections ensuing from its sphere of activity.

OLAF (Organisation de la lutte antifraude – European Anti–Fraud Office)

OLAF is a body of the European Commission which investigates and fights fraudulent behaviour, corruption or any other illegal acts targeted against the financial interests of the European Community. OLAF carries out controls and inspections in the member countries pursuant to the Regulation No. 2185/1996 and controls and inspections within the framework of the Regulation No. 2988/1995 regarding the protection of financial interests, as well as other regulations concerning the relevant spheres. In practice, fraudulent behaviour or other irregularities are always detected with close cooperation between OLAF and the national investigating authorities. The contact point for cooperation with OLAF in the Czech Republic is the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office.

160

4.3.2 Internal control system

All bodies participating in the operational programme implementation will have the necessary management and control system which will comply with national legislation and which will be capable of timely identification of administrative, system or intentional faults and capable of creating conditions to prevent their recurrence.

The Financial control system of the ROP is based on the Act No. 320/2001 Coll. on financial control in public administration and on the amendment to some acts (hereinafter also “Act on Financial Control”) and Executive Regulation No. 416/2004 Coll. Financial control is performed pursuant to the Act No. 552/1991 Coll. on state inspection and according to the EU legislation:

• General Regulation

• Council Regulation (EC) No. 1828/2006 setting out rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006.

MA ROP SE executes control in the public administration at all levels of ROP SE realization and project co–financed from the EU and public resources; it bears final and comprehensive responsibility for the correctness of the factual utilization of the provided resources according to the EU rules.

MA ROP SE submits annual reports to the MF on results of the audits in the system of financial control executed in connection with the application of the EU financial resources.

With respect to the principles of an effective and efficient management and control system in the course of programme implementation it is assured that: a) all entities involved in the programme’s management and control have unequivocally determined

concrete functions within the framework of the whole implementation system as well as within each entity individually;

b) principle of separation of payment, management and control functions between individual entities involved in the programme's implementation and within the framework of the actual entities is observed;

c) unequivocal procedures assuring correctness and competency of expenditures reported within the framework of the programme are established;

d) reliable accounting systems, monitoring systems and systems of financial reporting are set up; e) system of transmission of reports on implementation of the progr., projects and monitoring is set up; f) measures for execution of the audit of the managing and controlling system are taken; g) such systems are put into effect and such procedures are established which will provide data for the

audit (audit trail); h) reporting procedures and monitoring of incongruities and recovery of unauthorized disbursed amounts

are established.

Internal control system manual in the form of a conducted documentation which includes detailed description of the work procedures for the performed activities is elaborated for every management and programme implementation level.

The management and control system will ensure that control of the physical implementation is carried out properly. If the physical implementation control is not exhaustive and it is executed only on a sample of operations, the records must specify the concerned operations and the method of sample selection must be characterized pursuant to Article 13 of the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1828/2006.

All documentation related to the controls is preserved for the purposes of subsequent inspections by the Project Implementation Department in individual regions of the cohesion region.

4.3.2.1 Management control

Pursuant to Article 60 of the General Regulation the MA bears responsibility for the management and implementation of the operational programme in compliance with the principle of proper financial management and it therefore assures that operations for funding are selected according to operational

161

programme’s criteria and that they comply with the relevant Community regulations and intrastate regulations with the stress on public contracts and eligible expenditures for the whole period of implementation. MA ensures the execution of control by verifying the delivery of co–financed products and services and actual spending on operations reported by the beneficiaries. MA assures the existence of a system for recording and preservation of accounting records in electronic form for each operation and for collection of data necessary for audit. The task of the MA is also to ensure that procedure and all documents concerning expenditures and audits are at the disposal of the European Commission and the Court of Auditors for the period of three years after the termination of the operational programme.

Managing control is carried out by responsible leaders and it constitutes part of the internal management during the preparation of operations before their authorization, in the course of monitoring of the realized operations until their final settlement and account and subsequent examination of selected operations within the framework of evaluation of achieved results and correctness of financial management.

The management control involves:

a) 1st degree control – performed by the Project Implementation Department; this control is carried out during the project implementation (pursuant to Article 13 of the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1828/2006) from the acceptance of a project in the Regional Council Office (RCO) workplace to the project termination stage. The control proceeds at the administrative level, which is based on the data documented in the form of Monitoring reports concerning the progress of the project realization, as well as at the level of physical control directly in the location of project implementation or in the applicant's seat. The control also consists of an ex–ante control which takes place in the stage prior to the signature of the Contract. Main task of this control is the verification of contractual obligations observation ensuing from the Contract between the Provider and the Beneficiary.

b) The MA bears responsibility for the 1st degree control in compliance with Article 60b of the Council Regulation (EC) 1083/2006 and the General Regulation. The Managing Authority delegates activities implemented within the framework of the primary system of controls at the Project Implementation Department. Preliminary (prior to the conclusion of the Contract), continuous (in the period after the Contract on subsidy provision is concluded to finish realization of project) and subsequent (in the specified period after the payment) controls will take place within the framework of the 1st degree controls which involve physical and financial inspections of individual projects in the form of document control or directly in the location of project implementation or with the entities which are obliged to keep all original copies of technical procedures and payment vouchers.

c) 2nd degree control is carried out by the Financial Department for each project by confirming the F2 form which is issued by the Project Implementation Department for every beneficiary application. This control certifies that payment order for the reimbursement of eligible expenditures of the F2 project and all facts specified in the Approval Declaration are correct and in compliance with the national legal regulations and the regulations of the European Communities.

4.3.2.2 Internal audit

Entity commissioned by the Audit Authority (PAS)

The function of the PAS for the ROP SE is executed by the Regional Council of cohesion region Southeast (government resolution ČR No. 760 from June 11, 2007). On 17 September 2007 a written agreement between AA and RC SE on execution of audit was signed. PAS in accordance with this agreement will assure that execution of the audit of financial resources from the EU funds is separated from the execution of the MA function. In accordance with Article 62 Paragraph 3 of the General regulation is the authority responsible for carrying out the audit of RCO the internal audit department, which is functionally independent on its managing and executive structures. PAS shall proceed pursuant to Article 62 Paragraph 1 Letters a) and b) of the General regulation and with relevant paragraphs of

162

Commission regulation No. 1828/2006 and pursuant to international recognized auditor standard and methodical documents AA.

In compliance with the agreement on execution of audit, the PAS performs in accordance with internationally recognized audit standards following activities:

i. audit directed at the verification of the functioning of the operational programmes management and control systems

ii. audit of operations on an appropriate sample for the purposes of verification of reported expenditures; the audit will particularly verify:

- whether the operations comply with the operational programmes selection criteria and whether they are carried out in accordance with the approval decisions and comply with all related conditions concerning their functionality, application or objectives which need to be achieved; it is, for example, the verification of actual spending of the reported expenditures, correspondence of the reported expenditures to the project budget components specified in the legal act establishing the obligation to grant financial resources (including approved modifications in the course of realization) and verification of whether deliveries of co–financed products and services took place,

- eligibility of expenditures and correctness of reported expenditures from the accounting perspective,

- conformity of the performed operations with national and European Community regulations (e.g. regulations specifying regulations of public procurement, state aid, etc.),

- whether public subsidy was paid to the beneficiary pursuant to Article 80 of the general regulation

PAS will submit particularly groundwork documents for reports evaluating the management and control system setup prior to filing application for the first payment, audit strategy documents, background papers for audit annual plans, groundwork documents for annual control reports including findings from audits together with the detected deficiencies, documents for standpoints specifying whether the functioning of the management and control systems sufficiently guarantees that the statements of expenditures are correct and that the related transactions are due and legal, and groundwork documents for the final control performed at the finalization of the OP.

The Internal Audit Department

The department responsible for execution of audit of RCO is The Internal Audit Department, which is subordinated to director of RCO and is functional independent and separated from managing and executive structures.

The Internal Audit Department will, except execution of audit within PAS, examine the setup of the internal control system. The activity will also consist in the submitting of recommendations for internal control system quality improvements, prevention or reduction of risks, taking measures to remedy the determined deficiencies and consulting activity.

Reports from internal audits

Reports from internal audits carried out regularly at individual levels of implementation will be submitted to the director of the Regional Council Office and the MA. Audit findings will represent one of the documents for risk management at a level of the MA.

163

4.3.2.3 Irregularities

MA ROP SE is responsible for solution to irregularities. All bodies participating in the operational programme implementation are obliged to notify the MA ROP SE when suspicions of incongruity are raised. MA ROP SE opens a relevant proceeding in accordance with Act No. 320/2001, about financial control without any redundant delay if there is no reason for visible unsubstantial suspicion. MA ROP SE shall also notify the entities involved in external level of the report about these substantiated suspicions within the fifteenth day of the following month.

MA ROP SE exacts resources touched by irregularities itself – in accordance with valid law.

4.4 MONITORING

4.4.1 Monitoring Committee

The MA of the ROP SE establishes a MC within 3 months from the date of the ROP SE authorization by EC. The Monitoring Committee aims at the assurance of the effectiveness and quality of the provided assistance. The position and role of the MC is defined in the statute to be authorized by the MA. The Monitoring Committee (MC) will be constituted on the basis of the partnership principle pursuant to Article 11 of the General Regulation and will respect the equal representation of men and women inasmuch it will be possible. The MC team shall namely include representatives from the state administration and self–government, Coordinating Body of the MRD which will also represent the IOP, a representative of the MD, the PCA, the AA of the chambers of commerce and the most important educational institutions in the cohesion region. Towns and municipalities will be well represented by the Union of Towns and Municipalities of the Czech Republic. Two representatives from its two regional organizations were nominated into the MC. Non–governmental non–profit organizations will be also represented in the MC through their regional coordination groups. These groups at the same time also represent non–governmental non–profit organizations active in the field of equal opportunities and protection of environment. The appointment of the representative of the given body at MC meetings is in the competence of the given body. Expert view of the regional development issue and of other issues tackled by ROP SE is given by the representation of academic institutions and professional organizations in the Monitoring Committee. The MA will hold meetings at least twice a year. The MC is responsible for the supervision over ROP SE realization, primarily of its conformity with the EC regulations and with the Czech legislation and over the achievement of the programme’s objectives at the observance of an effective use of the public resources.

Tasks of the Monitoring Committee

Pursuant to Article 65 of the General Regulation the MC bears responsibility for effective and quality implementation of the operational programme. It fulfils especially the following tasks in compliance with this Article. Monitoring Committee:

a) elaborates and, in agreement with MA, approves the Rules of procedure in compliance with the national, institutional, legislative and financial frameworks;

b) in 6 months from the programme authorization, reviews and authorizes criteria (suggested by MA) for selecting projects co–financed in the relevant programme and confirms all revisions of such criteria according to programming needs,

c) regularly reviews the progress achieved during the ROP SE implementation based on the documents submitted by the MA, particularly in relation to the achievement of the specified objectives,

d) evaluates and authorizes the annual and final implementation report before it is forwarded to the European Commission,

164

e) is informed of the annual control report and of any related comments raised by EC after a revision of the report.

f) evaluates and authorizes proposals for the change of EC decisions on resources from the EU budget, g) can suggest to the MA any programme revision or re–examination of the operational programme that

could contribute to the achievement of the funds objectives specified in Article 3 or to improve its management, including the financial management.

h) re–examines the results of the programme implemented pursuant to Article 48 of the General Regulation;

i) establishes working groups, as required, for addressing specific problems (for the preparation of expert opinions);

j) is further informed about the Communication Plan and its amendments, Evaluation Plan and its amendments and the Technical Assistance Plan for the following year.

The meeting of MC will be headed by its chairman on the basis of the Rules of procedure. The MC chairman will propose the programme and set the date for the meeting of the committee. If necessary, the written form procedure of discussing the issues can be used. The representatives of the European Commission can participate in the work of the MC either on the basis of request or initiative of the MC. The organizational and coordination functions will be discharged by the MC Secretariat – the Monitoring and Evaluation Section.

4.4.2 Annual and final implementation report

The Managing authority sends to the Commission the annual implementation report (after it has been authorized by the MC) by 30 June of the following year, the first report to be submitted to the Commission in 2008.

The final implementation report shall be submitted to the European Commission by 31 December 2017. All annual and final implementation reports will include the following information:

a) important socio–economic trends in relation to assistance, including national, regional and departmental policies,

b) procedure for implementation of priority axes and areas of assistance in relation to their specific objectives, including the quantification of their physical indicators and indicators of results and impacts (evaluation of the progress achieved in the fulfilment of indicators specified in Chapter 3.6),

c) financial implementation of assistance, summary of total expenses paid by PCA for each area of assistance and records of total payments from the European Commission and further quantification of financial indicators,

d) all steps taken by the MA and MC to ensure quality and effectiveness of implementation, namely: o monitoring, financial control and evaluation of measures, including the organization of data

collection, o the list of all essential problems occurring during the management of the assistance and the

list of measures taken, o measures taken to ensure publicity,

e) steps to ensure compatibility with the policy of the Community, f) measures taken to ensure awareness and publicity of ROP SE, g) information on important problems related to the compliance with the policies of the Community,

disclosed during the ROP SE implementation, and corrective measures taken, h) utilization of the assistance returned to the MA or other public body in the period of the ROP SE

implementation pursuant to Article 99 (2) of the General Regulation.

On an annual basis, after the annual report has been submitted to the European Commission, the EC and the MA shall review the key outputs of the previous year. Based upon this evaluation the EC shall raise suggestions and the MA shall subsequently notify the Commission of the measures taken on the basis of these comments. When the European Commission arrives at a conclusion that the measures taken are inadequate, it can recommend to the MA modifications in order to improve the efficiency of monitoring or management of assistance. The MA should respond to such recommendations by introducing the

165

recommended changes or by explaining why the suggested recommendations have not been accepted.

4.4.3 Information systems, data transmission

Uniform central information system

The definition of the extent of the binding data and procedures for their acquiring and transmission is the basic means for ensuring the uniformity of the monitoring system.

The provision of comparable, objectively correct and topical data to support management, monitoring and evaluation is provided for by the obligatory Methodology of monitoring SF and CF 2007–2013 which defines the centrally binding range of data, obligatory procedures and deadlines for the monitoring of operational programmes and projects at all levels of implementation. Along with the specification of uniform and obligatory procedures for the transmission of data the fully integrated uniform managing monitoring system is thus ensured at all levels of implementation. The integrated system will secure necessary data for the management, monitoring and evaluation of programmes and projects, including regular data collection from the aid beneficiaries for the purposes of monitoring the progress of realization of projects by way of a beneficiary web account.

Data communication between the PCO IS VIOLA accounting system as a basic tool for the support to PCO and MSC2007 function is ensured.

Comprehensive applications from IS MSC2007 are transmitted to IS VIOLA. Comprehensive fact is retrospectively transmitted from IS VIOLA to MSC2007.

Data collection and electronic data exchange

The Ministry for Regional Development creates an information system which is particularly designed for the purposes of financial assistance monitoring which is one of the necessary preconditions for the receipt of aid from SF and CF. Pursuant to the government resolution No. 198 of 22 February 2006 the MRD is responsible for a uniform central information system which will be binding for all parties involved in the implementation in the programming period 2007–2013.

The Ministry for Regional Development administers the setup of the information system in the sphere of management, data collection, monitoring and communication with the EC. MRD accomplishes the readiness of the central monitoring system which is another important instrument of the realization of implementation of all OPs.

The managing authorities are obliged to supply data in the required scope, structure and not later than the required deadlines from the level of aid beneficiary.

Electronic data exchange

The Czech Republic chose the alternative of transmitting the data into the EK SFC2007 system by means of a technical interface and internet services. Electronic data exchange between the Czech Republic and the EC is arranged for by means of data transmission from the MSC2007 information monitoring system into the EK SFC2007 database. Therefore, the required data must be first processed and then transmitted in the extent of the General Regulation and Implementing Regulation in the Czech MSC2007 database. A special module has been created in this database which is used for the authorization of the data by the managing authorities responsible for the management and coordination of the EU funds programmes. This module creates and exports the validated data of the management authorities and the Payment and Certification Authority into the SFC2007 database of the European Commission over the internet. The module complies with the EC requirement for eGovernment.

The application of SFC2007 is specified in “Methodological Instruction for Data Transmission into the Database of the European Commission SFC2007” which was prepared by the MRD. In compliance with this instruction and due to security reasons one person is identified (hereinafter “MS Liaison”), representative of the MRD, which concentrates all requirements regarding creation of modifications in the SFC2007 access rights.

166

MS Liaison’s tasks are particularly the following:

• verifies whether persons asking for access really work in the organization in question

• verifies applicants’ claims for the required level of access

• files applications for termination of access rights

• notifies of any suspicious circumstances

• makes sure that the list is up–to–date

• informs the EC on any changes concerning MS Liaison

Information system parameters

The system will be the primary tool for communication with the MF and EK in terms of full administration of programmes and projects. The information system for the monitoring of assistance for the programming period 2007–2013 must ensure the integrity of the data included therein as to provide comparable, objectively correct and current data for the management, monitoring and evaluation at a central level.

Preparation and operation of the information system

Full functionality of the integrated system which will ensure the monitoring at all levels of implementation (central, executive, and applicant/beneficiary) is provided for the monitoring in the programming period 2007–2013 starting from 1 January 2007. The system fully supports the management, monitoring, evaluation and administration of programmes and projects. It respects the requirements of the EC and provides the required data collection function and the transmission of these data to the EC and PCA.

The monitoring system of Structural Funds (central part – executive part of project administration – beneficiary level) is modified to meet the requirements for the provision of binding and mandatory data within the framework of the new central data clause. The information system meets the requirements of the stored data security. The MA of the ROP SE uses the monitoring IS on the basis of the provision of a sub–licence concluded with the MRD and conditioned by the conclusion of a service contract with the IS supplier for the specific part proper.

The information system provides for monitoring of the following activities:

a) drawing of resources from the Structural Funds, b) drawing of national co–financing resources, c) monitoring, evaluation and control, d) communication with the European Commission and provision of data for the EC monitoring table, e) monitoring of data at a level of beneficiary, f) interconnection to the relevant systems of state administration, g) fulfilment of monitoring indicators.

The system is conceived as a three–level comprehensive of mutually communicating information systems – the central level, the executive level and the web account of the beneficiary (see Fig. 9).

A. Central module MSC2007 provides monitoring, planning, procedure and evaluation of ROP SE in factual, financial and procedural aspects; the Central module shall be able to supply data according to EC needs; it shall enable the exchange of all relevant data even among additional information systems. The application administrator is the MRD;

B. Implementation module MONIT7+ for monitoring the ROP SE, which provides executive activities of programme preparation and management, i.e. primarily the selection of projects, filing of projects, monitoring and evaluation of the factual and financial aspects at a project level and reporting. It is installed and operated by MA. The security and reliability of the data at this level are guaranteed by

167

the agreement with the Centre for Regional Development which is the supplier of the information system for all regional operational programmes. The security of the data is safeguarded at two basic levels. The first level is defined as the protection of the data against their unauthorized use and the second level secures the data against loss or damage;

C. Information module BENEFIT7 for applicants and beneficiaries of the assistance from the ROP SE, which facilitates forwarding of project applications and completion of project applications; the information module is linked to other modules of the information system; the module shall also be used for a further communication with beneficiaries of the assistance during project implementation (application for payments, reporting).

Fig. 11: Diagram of the information systems relevant to ROP SE

The accounting system of Regional Council will be link to this basic structure. Information system as a whole is in compliance with Art.58 (d) of the general regulation. It is focused on accounting, monitoring and financial reporting data.

The VIOLA information system, which is in competence of PCA, ensures accounting for EU budget resources of SF/CF in the Czech Republic in the framework of PCA. Integral part of the monitoring system is the interface that facilitates communication between IS VIOLA and MSC2007. The data for IS VIOLA about operational programmes are downloaded from the MSC2007. Respectively the data about executed payments and other necessary information for proper monitoring of SF/CF funds are downloaded from the IS VIOLA to the MSC2007.

4.5 EVALUATION

The evaluation of the ROP SE is performed in compliance with obligations stipulated in Articles 47 to 49 of the General Regulation, in line with methodological instructions of the European Commission and in accordance with the methodological instructions of NCA. A body responsible for evaluation is the MA.

The objective of evaluation according to Article 47 Subsection 1 of the General Regulation is:

a) to increase the quality and effectiveness of the assistance provided from the EU Funds and its consistency with the objectives of the European Union and of the Czech Republic;

b) to improve the strategy and enhance the efficiency of operational programme implementation;

European Union

Managing authority

DAMS MRD

Managing authority

Applicant / Aid beneficiary

BENEFIT7

MSC2007

MONIT7+

• Aggregate reporting of the Structural Funds • Links to other systems • Structural operations planning • Management and evaluation of programmes • Preparation of programmes

• Evaluation of the realization of projects • Monitoring of the life cycle of projects • Project preparation • Collection of applications, evaluation

• Filing information on the realization of a project • Completing the application for endowment

168

c) to examine specific structural issues of the Czech Republic and sustainable growth in relation to the subject of the operational programme.

According to Article 48 Subsection 2 a 3 of the General Regulation, the evaluation includes:

a) preliminary evaluation (ex ante) of operational programmes – for the improvement of prepared programme documents,

b) evaluation during the implementation period o ad hoc in response to findings from monitoring (deviations from objectives, requirements for

revisions, etc.) – to improve the implementation process, o ongoing o aggregate for strategic reports pursuant to Article 29 Subsection 2 of the General Regulation.

In addition to the activities stated above, some ROP parts shall be evaluated by NCA (in line with the NCA Evaluation Plan) and by the European Union. The ROP shall provide full cooperation in the implementation of the evaluations.

Actual procedures for ensuring evaluation

Obligations of the ROP SE evaluation are as follows:

1 preparation, implementation, updating and assessment of the ROP evaluation plan (in relation to the evaluation plan for the Czech Republic created by NFCP);

2 provision of all key evaluations (ex–ante, ad–hoc, on–going, strategic evaluations); 3 provision of sources and data for the evaluation implementation and use of data and information from

the monitoring system for sectional evaluation performed and organized by NCA, but namely for strategic reports 2009 and 2012 (Article 29 Subsection 2) and for the ex–post evaluation performed by the EC;

4 active mutual cooperation with evaluators and evaluation staff at a national level (with the NCA Evaluation Unit) and at different levels of the ROP SE implementation and at different levels of the implementation of Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund in the Czech Republic;

5 obligation to publicize evaluation results, in accordance with the requirement of Subsection 3 Article 47 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006.

Pursuant to Article 48 of the General Regulation the evaluation will be executed concurrently in relation to the ROP monitoring, especially if this monitoring will identify significant diversion from the originally set objectives. The main assumption is the correct setup of the system of monitoring indicators. This will enable the measurement of achievement of objectives of the individual priority axes. For a more in–depth coverage of the issue of indicators see Chapter 3.6. With respect to the specific ROP elements the indicators and other data generated by the monitoring system could become the platform for the implementation of the interim evaluation the aim of which would be the proposals for necessary modifications of the programme. The Monitoring Committee will become acquainted with the results and can subsequently propose a revision or re-examination of ROP pursuant to Article 65 of the General Regulation. The results of this evaluation are sent to the Commission as well.

Evaluation plan

The first step in the evaluation process preparation is to set up the ROP SE evaluation plan, which links up with the NCA evaluation plan. The evaluation plan is prepared for the entire programming period, being updated on an annual basis and worked out in detail for the next calendar year.

Evaluation plan contains:

1) indicative list of evaluating activities which would be realized during the programme period;

2) thematic contains of each of evaluation;

3) justifying of selected thematic extent;

4) potential use of each of evaluation;

169

5) indicative time-schedule for the whole period, including its annual actualization and more detailed elaboration;

6) type of evaluation (evaluation for strategic news, on-going, ad hoc, activities associated with ex post evaluation etc.)

Evaluation workplace – internal evaluation capacity

Article 48 Subsection 1 of the General Regulation requires creation of a background for the evaluation pursuance. Evaluation tasks are performed at a level of the ROP SE by the authorized evaluation office equipped with the required knowledge of programming cycle and evaluation procedures. This office is capable of assuring both the preparatory stages of evaluations (plans and assignment preparation including budget) and the organizational activity at the implementation stages of evaluations, including the use of the opponent function of expert groups and making their results public.

The evaluation workplace prepares / performs / ensures:

a) draft evaluation plan and its annual updates, b) implementation of the evaluation plan:

o elaboration of the assignment for the selection of an external supplier, o commissioning of tender procedures for the implementation of evaluation projects, o creation of the best possible conditions for the implementation of evaluation projects, their

coordination with the use of expert groups, c) assessment of evaluation plan fulfilment, d) submission of the results of evaluation plan fulfilment to MC ROP SE and MC NSRF (through the

evaluation unit of NSRF), e) development of the evaluation capacity for the operational programme, f) the widest possible presentation of the results of evaluation activities to responsible bodies, g) wide publicity of the results of the evaluation activities and promotion of the experience gained from

the evaluations, h) comments on materials presented during cooperation with other evaluation workplaces, including

NSRF.

The evaluation workplace of the ROP SE MA supports the activity of the NSRF evaluation body through the participation of its representatives in activities of work and advisory bodies of the NSRF evaluation body (working group, expert groups) or through direct cooperation, especially in the creation of groundwork documents for strategic reports according to Article 29 Subsection 2 of the General Regulation for SF and CF.

Working group for operational programme evaluation, expert groups

The role of an advisory and coordination body for general evaluation activities such as a compilation of the evaluation plan, for activities of developing evaluation capacities, for the use of evaluation results and their presentation to the MC of the operational programme, shall be performed by the Working group for the evaluation of ROP SE.

The working group shall discuss:

• preparation of an evaluation plan, • update of evaluation plan for next year, • (formal) procedure for preparing evaluation implementation, • development of evaluation capacity, • (factual) preparation for the implementation of the evaluation plan, • evaluation of the evaluation plan fulfilment, • draft reports for the MC of ROP SE.

The working group for evaluation is further preparing a competitive tendering for a contract on evaluation activities which will be worked out by independent evaluators who are not members of the MA and who

170

will be decided upon by a selection evaluation board. If possible, independent experts and potential and actual users of the results of the evaluation will be also represented in the board.

The Managing authority shall appoint expert and independent groups to supervise the implementation of each evaluation project. Their staffs will be chosen by the ROP SE MA so that a variety of opinions are included. To ensure transparency the MA of ROP SE invites group members also from outside the MA, for example, partners affected by the structural measure to be a subject of evaluation or experts or potentially evaluators of other evaluation programmes invited ad hoc. The expert group can also include as a member a representative of the coordination body at a national level – NSRF (= NSRF evaluation unit) and, if required, also the representatives of other bodies/operational programmes provided that a subject–matter context exists between the evaluated areas.

Cooperation in the strategic evaluation including the preparation of groundwork for reports according to Article 29 of the General Regulation

To fulfil the evaluation requirements imposed on CR as a whole, the evaluation body shall cooperate with the Working group for the evaluation of NSRF both in the preparatory and implementation phase of the evaluation activity, and particularly in the preparation of groundwork for strategic reports, as laid down by Article 29 Subsection 2 of the General Regulation.

Monitoring and evaluation of the horizontal priorit ies

Monitoring of the horizontal theme of equal opportunities is an integral part of the central monitoring system which takes into account equal opportunities in the form of gender–structured output indicators, results and impacts on the NSRF strategic level and monitoring of relevant ROP priorities. Monitoring and evaluation of the implementation efficiency of the measures from the funds with respect to the specified objectives and impact on the RP target groups is ensured centrally from the MRD. MA ROP cooperates with the WG for evaluation and horizontal themes in the framework of which the transfer of information also takes place.

The monitoring of environmental impacts is also included in the IS monitoring through a set of indicators proposed by the executor of SEA NSRF at the central level and a set of indicators proposed by the executor of SEA ROP at the programme level. Expert evaluation of impacts will be carried out by the MRD as a part of WG which will also involve all ŘOs and by means of which the process of impacts monitoring will be coordinated and controlled methodologically.

Use and publication of evaluation outputs

The MA ROP SE evaluation workplace shall mediate the use of the results of evaluation projects within the implementation structure of the operational programme, providing them to other interested parties to make use of experience included therein and to the coordination evaluation workplace of NSRF (evaluation unit NSRF), which shall place them in the publicly accessible central database of already realized evaluations.

The evaluation outputs are published by the MA ROP SE on the Internet or elsewhere. The obligation to publish the results of evaluation activities is dictated by the provisions of Article 47 Subsection 3 of the General Regulation.

4.6 COMPLIANCE WITH THE POLICIES OF THE COMMUNITY

The ROP SE Managing authority ensures the observance of operational programme compatibility with the policies of the Community at all stages of preparation and implementation of ROP SE. The implementation document contains detailed data about the method of assurance of the compatibility of proposed priority axes and area of assistance with the policies of the Community.

All institutions involved in the creation of the operational programme undertake to observe the principle of compatibility with community policies.

171

4.6.1 Compliance with the rules of state aid

Financial resources provided from Structural Funds are considered state resources and their provision will therefore be governed by all relevant rules and regulations of the EC for state aid only after all attributes stipulated in Article 87 of the EC Foundation Treaty will be in full compliance.

The Managing authority will ensure that the projects financed from Structural Funds meet the rules for the provision on state aid as stipulated in Article 87 of the EC Foundation Treaty. Managing Authority will also assure that any state aid provided within the framework of this programme will be in compliance with procedural and material rules for state aid enforceable at the moment when such a subsidy from public resources is allocated.

Every assistance that is of character of state aid will be notified (Article 88 Article 3 of the EC Foundation Treaty) and no assistance of character of state aid will be provided before the Commission´s decision, unless any block exemptions of will be applied.

In the case of “de minimis” assistance provision, the provider will notify the beneficiary that the concerned assistance is of the given type and will be required from the beneficiary at the same time a statutory declaration in which the beneficiary will state whether any other assistance “de minimis“ was obtained by him in the last three years and, if so, the amount of the assistance. If during the last three years the beneficiary has received a “de minimis” assistance and the sum total of subsidies received by him exceeds the limit of de minimis determined by EC Regulation (200 000 EUR), the subsidy will not be aware in such a case.

Special attention shall be paid to state aid for projects from several sources (e.g. state budget, budgets of regions and municipalities, financial resources from the Structural Funds). Total state aid from the sources of the Czech Republic and the EU must not exceed the limits defined in the National regional state aid map: Czech Republic, for years 2007–2013.

The following table presents an indicative list of regulations for granting exemptions from the prohibition of state aid for individual priority axes of the ROP SE.

Table 39: The list of exemptions from the prohibition of state aid

Priority axis Regulation PO 1: Transport accessibility –1 public civilian international airport; –2 public transport systems, information and check–in

systems; infrastructure for public transport –3 purchase of public means of transport

Instructions of the Community for financing airports Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007–2013 Support will be provided on the basis of notification pursuant to Article 88 of the EC Treaty after the authorization of the programme by the European Commission.

PO 2: Growth of sustainable tourism –1 infrastructure in CR; –2 services for CR

Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007–2013 de minimis Public support will be provided pursuant to the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1628/2006 of 24 October 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to national regional investment aid published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 1 November 2006 and in compliance with the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1628/2006 of 24 October on the application of Articles 87 and 88 on aids de minimis (this regulation has not yet been published in the Official Journal of the Czech Republic and will be applied to projects of non–investment nature).

172

PO 3: Sustainable development of towns and rural area –1 infrastructure, amenities; brownfields

Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007–2013 de minimis Public support will be provided pursuant to the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1628/2006 of 24 October 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to national regional investment aid published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 1 November 2006 and in compliance with the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1628/2006 of 24 October on the application of Articles 87 and 88 on aids de minimis (this regulation has not yet been published in the Official Journal of the Czech Republic and will be applied to projects of non–investment nature).

PO 4: Technical support no exemption

4.6.2 Public procurement

Contracts for goods, services and works to be co–financed from Structural Funds shall be performed in line with the applicable legislation of the CR and the EC regulating public procurement (namely with Act No. 137/2006 Coll.).

At the same time, a compliance will be ensured with the Community requirements defined in the Treaty (Articles 12, 28, 43, and 49) and in relevant directives of the EU for public procurement (Directive 2004/18/EC on the coordination of procedures in public procurement for construction works, supplies, and services, as amended by the Directive 2005/75/EC and Directive 2005/51/EC, Directive 2004/17/EC for the coordination of procedures in public procurement by entities involved in water management, power engineering, transport and postal services, as amended by Directive 2005/51/EC). The Managing authority shall monitor whether the beneficiaries award public contracts in line with valid legal regulations of CR and EC.

4.6.3 Equality of opportunities

Projects co–financed from the EU funds must contribute to the fulfilment of the principle of equal opportunities for men and women. The assessment of the projects applying for co–financing from the funds, which are not specifically focused on the enhancement of equal opportunities, must include the evaluation of their impact on equal opportunities. Within the framework of management and monitoring the ROP SE the MA will ensure the elaboration of statistics broken down by genders (based on available data). It will also ensure that the evaluations shall specify to what extent the principle of support to equal opportunities is taken into account during the programme implementation. In justified cases, the MA shall strive for the creation of adequate evaluation procedures, tools, and indicators for these purposes. Key tasks in equal opportunities will be given a possibility of using the technical assistance. Annual reports and the final report on the ROP implementation shall include a special chapter describing what activities undertaken within the programme framework contribute to the implementation of the programme objectives with the character of equal opportunities.

173

4.6.4 Earmarking

The ROP SE has identified earmarked interventions in total amount of 34 416 677 €, which represents 4.89 % of the total ERDF allocation of the ROP of 704 445 636 €.

The codes of earmarked intervention areas are the following:

Table 40: Indicative diversification of SF’s resources for categories of earmarking support

Code Information society Indicative amount EUR 11 ICT 3 498 641

Code Transport Indicative amount EUR 28 Intelligent transport systems 870 976 29 Airports 7 142 858

Code Environmental protection and risk prevention Indicative amount EUR 52 Clean urban transport 23 461 006

Total earmarked interventions 34 973 481

The SE Cohesion Region is eligible for funding under the Objective Convergence. The regulatory obligation in line with article 9 of general regulation 1083/2006 to ensure that 60 % of the expenditure for the Convergence objective is set for the European Union priorities of promoting competitiveness and creating jobs, including meeting the objectives of the Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs is not binding for the Czech Republic since it accessed the European Union after 1 May 2004. Nevertheless, the Czech Republic committed itself in official letter submitted to the European Commission on 4 July 2007 to earmarking.

The reason why the share of earmarked interventions within total Community allocation to this Objective is only 4.89% can be justified by the following arguments:

a) The interventions in the area of R&TD are out of scope of the ROP SE b) For efficiency reasons the ICT in regions is co-financed mainly from the IOP c) For efficiency reasons the TEN-T is co-financed from the OP Transport d) For efficiency reasons it is mainly OP EI that support innovation and entrepreneurship in the

regions e) Support of energetic and renewable energy is priority of specialized programme – OP E and OP

EI f) Increasing the adaptability of workers and firms, enterprises and entrepreneurs, improving access

to employment and sustainability, improving the social inclusion of less-favoured persons and improving the human capital are supported entirely from ESF so from specialized programme OP R&DI and OP HRE within the ČR.

During the implementation of ROP SE the MA should prioritise those projects which fall under earmarked interventions.

4.6.5 Possibilities of PPP in ROP SE

The partnership of public and private sector might, under some conditions, be of great interest for the public sector, especially for preparation and implementation of infrastructure projects.

Principal advantages of PPP for public sector are following: a) saving of public resources

b) possibility of increased volume of investment ( leverage effect)

c) better "value for money" due to private sector' s experience

d) reduced length of the construction periods

e) high technical quality of projects

f) lower level of risk for public sector since some risks are transferred to private sector

174

PPP projects are not necessarily profitable for public sector. Therefore, to ensure successful use of PPP and to reduce economic risks, public authorities have to focus on several aspects:

a) to use right PPP model

b) to encourage competition among prospective private partners

c) to protect public interest

d) to guarantee viability of project without any undue profit resulting from public subsidies

The experience in PPP for the realisation of infrastructure projects is limited in the Czech Republic. Moreover some doubts exist whether the related legal framework is sufficiently developed. Therefore Ministry for Regional Development shall lead activities concerning creation of appropriate legal base for PPP projects. This base shall be introduced by the end of 2008 at the latest.

The MRD elaborated (pursuant to the Government Decree No 536/2007) the detailed Methodological interpretation of the “Concession Contracts and Concession Procedures Act No 139/2006 (Concession Act)”, as an important aid for the whole process of the PPP projects preparation and implementation; it can be applied namely by regions, cities and municipalities. According to the above Decree, the Ministry of Finance prepares partial methodologies for the areas of taxation and finance. In the year 2008 the Czech Republic will thus have a complete legislative and methodological framework for the preparation and implementation of the PPP projects. In 2008, the Ministry of Regional Development will prepare studies identifying types of projects within individual Operational Programmes that would be eligible for the application of the PPP method. Such studies and activities will be supported from the OP Technical Assistance.

The first task of Managing Authorities of ROP’s, to promote PPP projects, will be in dissemination of the above mentioned information and reports to prospective final beneficiaries in the form of workshops, seminars, conferences, publications, etc.

MA of ROP SE will as well, by December 2008 at the latest, launch call for proposals to support of PPP projects preparation. Technical assistance will be at disposal to final beneficiaries who will plan to introduce PPP projects proposals. Prepared PPP project proposals will be submitted in the course of calls for proposal launched within priority axis or areas of intervention appropriate to the project.

The fundamental target of all ROP’s will be to carry out as many PPP projects as possible in the programming period 2007–2013. These projects will create positive experience and it is expected that this will create positive dynamics for other partnerships of this type.

When considering implementation of a particular project through partnership of public and private sector it will be inevitable to prevent undue profit and to preserve equal and transparent approach while respecting national and Community law. This applies especially to the area of public support.

175

4.7 PUBLICITY AND PUBLIC AWARENESS

Pursuant to provisions of Article 69 of the General Regulation, the MA is obliged to provide publicity for the OP in line with the implementation rules of the implementation decree. The purpose of the information and publicity measures is to increase the public awareness about the ROP SE and about EU activities in the field of the Cohesion Policy.

The Managing authority is responsible for providing publicity for the ROP SE namely in the following activities:

1 elaboration of the Communication Plan for ROP SE (CoP) for the whole duration of programme and its submission to EC,

2 reporting on the completed CoP activities and notification of the MC about applied publicity measures,

3 notification of possible beneficiaries of assistance, business and social partners, entities enforcing equality between men and women, and relevant NGOs about opportunities brought by ROP SE to beneficiaries,

4 ensuring public awareness about the role of the EC in providing assistance through ERDF and also about final results of the assistance.

The CoP puts emphasis on general objectives and strategic targets of ROP, on target groups and tools to be used. Guarantor of the CoP is the MA ROP SE; its implementation shall be financed from the resources allocated to ROP SE for technical support. The MA ROP SE shall appoint a communication official of the programme, responsible for CoP preparation and implementation.

The communication plan includes several forms of direct presentation:

1 Publications, methodologies, guides, instructions. 2 Information leaflets, posters, billboards. 3 Press releases, statements, issues. 4 Publicity objects. 5 Conferences, seminars, presentations. 6 Web sites, on-line tools, etc.

The beneficiary is obliged to provide information on the receipt of resources from the EU budget. In connexion with the project implementation the beneficiary answers for providing information to public and arranging for publicity. Main mission is the information that the project is aided by the European Union, resp. EFRD – by means of ROP SE. In ensuring publicity the beneficiary follows the instructions defined by MA ROP SE.

176

5 FINANCIAL PROVISION 5.1 STARTING POINTS FOR THE ROP FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK The implementation of the policy of economic and social cohesion in 2007–2013 will be funded by Structural funds and from the Cohesion Fund of the European Union. The development of resources allocation among operational programmes stemmed from the approved allocation of resources to OP with their distribution reflecting priorities of the Czech Republic linking with strategic documents of the European Union. The financial framework of ROP SE builds on the set–up share of resources within the framework of the objective of the Convergence for Regional Operational Programmes at 18%. According to the most recent actual breakdown of resources among the respective objectives of the policy of economic and social cohesion, a total amount singled out for the objective Convergence for the entire period will be 25 883.5 mil. EUR 89from the EFRR, the ESF, and the CF. The share of regional operational programmes amounts to a total of 4 659.03 mil. EUR. Of this amount the ROP SE will be given 15.12% of the total allocation for all ROPs. Thus, a total allocation for the ROP SE in absolute figures amounts to 704.4 mil. EUR. The realization of ROP SE will be aided only from ERDF. The calculation of ERDF resources for the respective years is derived from the calculations of total allocations of SF resources for individual years of the period 2007–2013 that were made by the MF according to EC methodology. 5.2 FINANCIAL PLAN OF ROP The financial plan of the Regional Operational Programme of the region NUTS 2 SE stems from the agreement of the two regions of the SE cohesion region. After a thorough consideration of their needs and priorities based on financial analyses and current outputs from projects focused on the strengthening of absorption capacity the regions agreed upon the distribution of resources allocated for the ROP SE to individual priority axes of the ROP as follows: Priority axis 1: Transport accessibility 49.0% Priority axis 2: Development of sustainable tourism 19.0% Priority axis 3: Sustainable development of towns and rural area 28.6% Priority axis 4: Technical assistance 3.4% The financing of the ROP SE will be provided through the resources of ERDF, state budget, budgets of regions, and budgets of municipalities in the region’s territory and from private resources. The different sources of financing will have different shares in the co–financing of respective ROP priority axes on the basis of their focus and scope of the areas of support. Technical assistance will be paid immediately after invoice and directly from the budget of RC SE.

89 In current prices.

177

Table 41: Contributions from EU funds for ROP SE in the respective years (in EUR, c.p.)

Structural Funds (ERDF) Cohesion Fund Total

1 2 3=1+2

2007 87 402 795 – 87 402 795 2008 91 702 020 – 91 702 020 2009 96 020 039 – 96 020 039 2010 100 539 972 – 100 539 972 2011 105 061 969 – 105 061 969 2012 109 567 528 – 109 567 528

2013 114 151 313 – 114 151 313

Total 2007–2013 704 445 636 – 704 445 636

178

Table 42: Indicative financial plan of ROP SE for the entire programming period (in EUR, rounded)

*) Rounded.

Priority number

Name of priority Fund EU National

Indicative division of national funds

Total EU co

financing FOR

INFORMATION National public funds

National private funds

a b(=c+d) c d e=a+b f=a/e EIB Other*)

1 Transport accessibility ERDF 345 178 362 60 913 829 60 913 829 406 092 191 85%

2 Development of sustainable tourism ERDF 133 844 670 23 619 647 23 619 647 157 464 317 85%

26 377 649

3 Sustainable development of towns and rural seats

ERDF 201 471 452 35 553 786 35 553 786 237 025 238 85%

47 405 048

4 Technical assistance ERDF 23 951 152 4 226 674 4 226 674 28 177 826 85%

In total 704 445 636 124 313 936 124 313 936 828 759 572 85%

179

APPENDICES A Tables and figures Table 1: Indicative division of the Community subsidy by category in the operational programme Commission ref. No.: 2007CZ161PO001 Programme name: Regional Operational Programme of the Cohesion Region NUTS 2 SE Date of the last decision of the Commission regarding the concerned operational programme: __/__/__ (In EUR) (In EUR) (In EUR)

Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Priority theme Form of financing Area

Code Amount Code Amount Code Amount

11 3 498 641 01 704 445 636 01 367 082 010

18 11 113 215 05 337 363 626

23 248 218 685

24 17 065 196

25 37 306 427

28 870 976

29 7 142 858

52 23 461 006

55 6 859 539

56 5 420 709

57 93 323 196

58 16 864 428

59 26 783 261

60 2 275 359

61 81 511 404

75 28 475 691

76 29 431 682

77 22 677 295

79 18 194 916

81 8 622 415

85 7 903 880

86 7 424 857

Total 704 445 636 Total 704 445 636 Total 704 445 636 * Categories should have a special code for each theme at using the standard classification. ** Assessed amount of the Community subsidy for each category.

180

Table 2: IOP – Priority projects in the area of intervention 5.1(activities a+b)

No. Name of project Beneficiary Location Region A. Priority projects (ready)

1. Sanace areálu Malé pevnosti Památník Terezín Terezín Ústecký 2. Revitalizace zámeckého návrší Město Litomyšl Litomyšl Pardubický 3. Obnova historického areálu

Evropského hřebčína Kladruby Státní hřebčín Kladruby

Kladruby Pardubický

4. Reanimace budovy prelatury a areálu hospodářského dvora

Národní památkový ústav

Plasy Plzeňský

5. Reanimace budovy Nového konventu v komplexu kláštera

Národní památkový ústav

Kladruby u Stříbra Plzeňský

6. Revitalizace Vlašského dvora a obnova Sv. Barbory Kutná Hora

Město Kutná Hora Kutná Hora Středočeský

7. Ústav paměti národa Ústav paměti národa Středočeský 8. Reanimace zámku a jezuitské koleje

– národní centrum fotografie Národní památkový ústav

Jindřichův Hradec Jihočeský

9. Reanimace areálu zámku a velkostatku

Město Telč Telč Vysočina

10. Národní skanzen ČR Valašské muzeum v přírodě

Rožnov pod Radhoštěm

Zlínský

11. Zahrada Evropy Národní památkový ústav

Kroměříž Zlínský

12. Centrum kulturní krajiny Národní památkový ústav

Lednicko–valtický areál

Southmoravian

13. Metodické centrum konzervace a centrální depozitáře

Technické muzeum v Brně

Brno Southmoravian

14. Centrum moderního a současného umění

Muzeum umění Olomouc

Olomouc Olomoucký

15. Revitalizace industriální zóny Národní památkový ústav

Ostrava – Vítkovice Moravskoslezský

B. Other projects (in stack) 1. Veltrusy Národní památkový

ústav Veltrusy Středočeský

2. Reanimace Sv.Bartoloměje Město Kolín Farnost Kolín

Kolín Středočeský

3. Reanimace hospodářské části zámku Národní památkový ústav

Hrádek u Nechanic Královéhradecký

4. Kuks – obnova hospitalu Národní památkový ústav

Kuks Královéhradecký

5. Národní centrum tradiční lidové kultury

Národní ústav lidové kultury

Strážnice Southmoravian

6. Reanimace dolu sv.Michal Národní památkový ústav

Ostrava Moravskoslezský

7. Centrum exteriérového divadla Národní památkový ústav

Český Krumlov Jihočeský

181

Table 3: IOP – Priority facilities in activity 3.1a

Regional facilities/MPSV

Priority Facility

Jihočeský kraj 1 Ústav sociální péče Domeček Hrabice Jihočeský kraj 2 Ústav sociální péče Pístina, příspěvková organizace Southmoravian kraj 1 Habrovanský zámek Southmoravian kraj 2 Srdce v domě Kletnice Karlovarský kraj 1 Domov pro osoby se zdravotním postižením v Mariánské, Jáchymov Karlovarský kraj 2 Domov pro osoby se zdravotním postižením „Pata“ Hazlov, příspěvková

organizace Královéhradecký kraj 1 Ústav sociální péče Hajnice, příspěvková organizace

a Ústav sociální péče Markoušovice, příspěvková organizace Královéhradecký kraj 2 Ústav sociální péče Skřivany, příspěvková organizace

a Ústav sociální péče Chotělice, příspěvková organizace Liberecký kraj 1 Ústav sociální péče Jestřebí, příspěvková organizace Liberecký kraj 2 Ústav sociální péče Mařenice, příspěvková organizace Moravskoslezský kraj 1 Ústav sociální péče pro mládež s mentálním postižením Marianum,

příspěvková organizace Moravskoslezský kraj 2 Ústav sociální péče pro mládež s mentálním postižením Jindřichov ve

Slezsku, příspěvková organizace MPSV 1 Ústav sociální péče pro dospělé tělesně postižené Hrabyně MPSV 2 Ústav sociální péče Tloskov Pardubický kraj 1 Ústav sociální péče Slatiňany, příspěvková organizace Pardubický kraj 2 Ústav sociální péče Svitavy, příspěvková organizace Plzeňský kraj 1 Domov pro osoby se zdravotním postižením Stod, příspěvková organizace Středočeský kraj 1 Bellevue Ledce, Šternberk Středočeský kraj 2 Domov Buda Ústecký kraj 1 Ústav sociální péče Jiříkov, příspěvková organizace Ústecký kraj 2 Ústav sociální péče Lobendava, příspěvková organizace Region Vysočina 1 Ústav sociální péče Jinošov, příspěvková organizace Region Vysočina 2 Ústav sociální péče Ledeč nad Sázavou Zlínský kraj 1 Domov pro osoby se zdravotním postižením Zašová, příspěvková

organizace Zlínský kraj 2 Domov pro osoby se zdravotním postižením Velehrad – Valašská

182

Table 4: Priority localities in activity 3.1 b

Kraj M ěsto Kraj M ěsto Středočeský Jihočeský

1 Boreč 43 Pohorská Ves 2 Horní Počáply Southmoravian 3 Klobuky 44 Brno 4 Kutná Hora 45 Ivanovice na Hané 5 Nové Dvory 46 Zastávka 6 Poříčí nad Sázavou Plzeňský 7 Rožďálovice 47 Bělá nad Radbuzou 8 Slaný 48 Klatovy 9 Spomyšl 49 Nýřany

10 Třebestovice 50 Velká Malakov 11 Třebešice Liberecký 12 Zákolany 51 Bulovka 13 Kolín 52 Nový Bor 14 Kladno 53 Ralsko 15 Želenice 54 Semily

Ústecký 55 Stráž pod Ralskem 16 Bečov 56 Tanvald 17 Cítoliby 57 Velké Hamry 18 Česká Kamenice 58 Zákupy 19 Hostomice 20 Chomutov Pardubický 21 Klášterec nad Ohří 22 Most Olomoucký 23 Obrnice 59 Hanušovice 24 Podbořany 60 Hranice 25 Straškov–Vodochody 61 Kobylá nad Vidnavkou 26 Ústí nad Labem 62 Přerov

Vysočina 63 Skalička 27 Jihlava 64 Vrbátky

28 Vrbice 29 Jaroměřice nad Rokytnou Moravskoslezský 30 Kojatice 65 Karviná 31 Mirošov 66 Orlová 32 Telč 67 Ostrava

Zlínský 33 Bezměrov Karlovarský Královéhradecký

34 Aš 68 Černožice 35 Habartov 69 Dohalice 36 Jáchymov 70 Holohlavy 37 Kraslice 71 Kostelec nad Orlicí 38 Nová Ves 72 Ledce 39 Oloví 73 Meziměstí 40 Rotava 74 Třebechovice pod Orebem 41 Sokolov 75 Vysoké Veselí 42 Teplá

183

Figure 1: Specialization of industrial centres in the SE region

Figure 2: Size structure of the municipalities of the SE cohesion region. Taken from Binek, J. a kol.: Venkovský prostor a jeho oživení (Rural area and its regeneration), Brno: Georgetown, 2006, 145 s, ISBN 80–251––195

184

Figure 3: Location differentiation of the municipalities of the SE cohesion region – accessibility of the TEN–T network and 1st class roads. Classes according to the selected criteria:

Brief overview of the evaluation criteria:

Type Transport criteria Points

Roa

d

Distance of the municipality intravillan from the D/R* exit up to 5.0 km 5

Distance of the municipality intravillan from the D/R* exit 5.1 –10.0 km 3

Distance of the municipality intravillan from the D/R* exit 10.1 –15.0 km 1

Passage of a 1st class road through the municipality intravillan 4

Distance of the municipality intravillan from 1st class road up to 5.0 km 2

Distance of the municipality intravillan from 1st class road 5.1 –10.0 km 1

Passage of a 2nd class road through the municipality intravillan 1

Rai

lroa

d

Passage of a national corridor 1

Passage of a nationwide railway 2

Passage of a regional railway 1

Passage of two multiple–lines railway 1

Passage of an electrified railway 1

Note: D – motorway (TEN–T), R – thoroughfare

Source: Binek, J. a kol.: Venkovský prostor a jeho oživení, Brno: Georgetown, 2006, 145 s, ISBN 80–251––195

185

Figure 4: Share of population with GCSE examination and higher education of the age group 15 + in the Southmoravian region as of 1 March 2001 (taken from Profile of the Southmoravian region 2006):

Figure 5: Share of population with GCSE examination and higher education of the age group 15 + in the Vysočina region as of 1 March 2001 (taken from Region Vysočina se představuje (The Vysočina region presents itself). Region Vysočina 2004 ):

186

Figure 6: Unemployment rate in the Southmoravian region as of 30 June 2005 (taken from Profil Jihomoravského kraje 2006 (Profile of the Southmoravian region 2006):

Figure 7: Unemployment rate in the Vysočina region as of 31 December 2005 (taken from Vysočina v číslech – regionální statistika populárně. Region Vysočina 2006):

187

B. Standpoint of the Ministry of Environment MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT 100 10 PRAHA 10 – VRŠOVICE, Vršovická 65 Prague, 26 October 2006 Ref. No.: 75285/ENV/06 STANDPOINT of the Ministry of Environment pursuant to Act No. 100/2001 Coll. on Environmental Impact Assessment, as amended to concept proposal “Regional Operational Programme for NUTS 2 SE for the programming period 2007 – 2013” Version 0.4 as of June 23, 2006 Submitter of the concept: The South–Moravian Region, the Vysočina Region Evaluators: Ing. Petr Mynář, INVEST projekt NNC, s.r.o. (certification of qualification for environmental impact assessment Ref. No. 1278/167/OPVŽP/97)

Mgr. Edita Ondráčková, INVEST projekt NNC, s.r.o. Mgr. Jana Nezvalová, INVEST projekt NNC, s.r.o. Mgr. Eva Chvojková

(authorisation Ref. No. 630/214/05 according to Art. 45i of Act No. 114/1992 Coll., on the Environment and Landscape Protection, as amended)

188

The process of assessment:

Notification of the concept developed within the scope of Supplement No. 7 to Act No. 100/2001 Coll. on environmental impact assessment, as amended (further referred to as Act. No. 100/2001 Coll.) was submitted to the Ministry of Environment on May 9, 2006.The declaratory procedure was initiated on June 6, 2006 by publishing the concept on the bulletin board of the Vysočina region. The declaratory procedure ended on July 10, 2006 by issue of a conclusion from the declaratory procedure.

The draft concept including the environmental impact assessment elaborated within the scope of Supplement No. 9 to Act No. 100/2001 Coll. was submitted to the Ministry of Environment on August 21, 2006. After the prescribed particulars have been examined, the draft concept was made public according to Paragraph 16. Public hearing of the draft concept, including the environmental impact assessment, took place in the building of the South–Moravian Regional Office, Žerotínovo nám. 3/5, Brno, from 10 a.m. on September 25.

An introductory public workshop took place in the offices of the South–Moravian Regional Office, Žerotínovo nám. 3/5, Brno, on May 5, 2006. The workshop was organised by the Submitter in cooperation with the Evaluator beyond the scope of the Act.

Brief description of the concept: The Regional Operational Programme for NUTS 2 SE is a concept of regional development of

territorial unit NUTS 2 co–financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The global objective of this concept is the acceleration of the region’s development, enhancement of competitiveness and attractiveness for investments and increase in the quality of the population’s living conditions at respecting balanced and sustainable development of the cohesion region based on the utilisation of its potential.

Brief description of the assessment:

An environmental impact assessment of the Regional Operational Programme for NUTS 2 SE for the programming period 2007–2013 (further on referred to as ROP SE) was carried out in compliance with the law and elaborated on within the scope of Supplement No. 9 to Act No. 100/2001 Coll. ROP SE was also assessed according to Paragraph 45i of Act No. 114/1992 Coll. on nature conservation and landscape protection, as amended, with respect to impacts on the locations and avian habitats of European significance and to the status of their protection from the above mentioned perspectives pursuant to Act No. 114/1992 Coll. on nature conservation and landscape protection, as amended.

Conclusions from the assessment:

The Ministry of Environment as a competent body according to Paragraph 21 of Act No. 100/2001 Coll. and on the basis of the draft concept, elaborated draft concept assessment according to Act No. 100/2001 Coll., including the draft concept evaluation according to Paragraph 45i of Act No. 114/1992 Coll. on nature conservation and landscape protection, as amended, statements of concerned administrative authorities, concerned self–governing administrative units and the general public, and results of public hearing issues.

189

STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT Concerning the draft concept “Regional Operational Programme for NUTS 2 SE for the programming period 2007–2013” Version 0.4 as of June 23, 2006 on the observation of the following conditions (section A):

1. To follow the environmental impacts of the ROP SE implementation within the framework of the ROP SE monitoring. That is to especially incorporate the proposed environmental indicators and public health indicators into the general system of ROP SE impacts monitoring.

2. To regularly publish the outcomes of the monitoring – i.e. to publish the continuous environmental and public health impacts of the ROP SE implementation.

3. To take into account the environmental issue within the framework of the general assessment and project selection systems, in particular the following: a) To incorporate the proposed environmental criteria into the general assessment and project

selection systems (it is also necessary to carry out their selection and potential modifications for individual areas of support or individual projects, as the case may be),

b) In the process of implementation it is necessary to respect the management plans in Particularly Protected Areas and locations with the occurrence of particularly protected plant and animal species.

4. To ensure that applicants are sufficiently aware of the environmental issues and potential impacts of submitted projects on the environment.

5. The Submitter of the concept will publish the evaluation of all received statements and reminders to the concept proposal and to its evaluation on their website.

The implementation of the concept of “Regional Operational Programme for NUTS 2 SE for the programming

period 2007–2013” will not have a significant negative impact on the localities and avian habitats of European

significance provided that the below listed conditions (section B) are observed.

Specific projects supported within the framework of the ROP SE must respect area protection and integrity of

the localities and avian habitats of European significance occurring within the Natura 2000 system and it must not lead to a worsened condition of the subject of these areas of conservation.

The Ministry of Environment presumes furthermore that the managing authorities of this concept’s

implementation will assure in as wide a scale as possible, publicity and public awareness with respect to every proposed measure.

(Official stamp: Ministry of Environment) Ing. Jaroslava HONOVÁ Director of EIA and IPPC Department

190

C. Definition of indicators for monitoring and evaluation

a. Context indicators

Code Indicator Definition

55 20 00

Regional GDP per capita in PPS Gross domestic product per capita expressed in Purchasing Power Standards (PPS). Figures are expressed in purchasing power standards as in the units of artificial common currency, which eliminate price level differences among countries. This makes it possible to compare dimensional (actual) indicators among the countries, i.e. to make a spatial comparison.

55 20 01 Regional GDP per capita

CR = 100

This is a fundamental macroeconomic indicator expressing the amount of GDP generated per capita (mean value) as compared with averages of the concerned territory for a certain period of time.

55 20 02 Regional GDP per capita,

EU 25 = 100

The indicator to express the amount of GDP generated per capita (mean value) as compared with the EU 25 average for a certain period of time.

55 21 01 Net disposable household income per capita, CR = 100

Net disposable income represents a result of current receipts and expenditures (routine transactions) from the primary and secondary income divisions, explicitly excluding capital transfers, actual profits and losses from the possession, and consequences of events such as natural disasters. Unlike the gross disposable income it does not include fixed capital consumption.

52 08 00 General unemployment rate90 General unemployment rate is to express the share of unemployed persons in total labour force (in percent) with numerator and denominator being indicators constructed pursuant to international definitions and recommendations. The indicator is constructed according to the Eurostat methodology worked out on the basis of ILO (International Labour Organization) recommendations.

52 08 01 General unemployment rate – men General unemployment rate is to express the share of unemployed persons in total labour force (in percent) with numerator and denominator being indicators constructed pursuant to international definitions and recommendations. The indicator is constructed according to the Eurostat methodology worked out on the basis of ILO (International Labour Organization) recommendations.

52 08 02 General unemployment rate – women General unemployment rate is to express the share of unemployed persons in total labour force (in percent) with numerator and denominator being indicators constructed pursuant to international definitions and recommendations. The indicator is constructed according to the Eurostat methodology worked out on the basis of ILO (International Labour Organization) recommendations.

52 10 00 Average monthly pay in CZK The share of wages without other personnel costs falling on average to one worker of the adjusted number of employees per month. The calculation is made according to formula: m = M / (Zpp * n), where: m – average gross monthly pay M – wages without other personnel costs for the monitored period of time Zpp – average enrolled number of workers adjusted to full-time employed in the concerned period of time n – number of months in the period under consideration

52 05 05 Employment rate 15–64 The share of employed persons aged 15-64 years in the number of inhabitants aged 15-64 years in %.

52 05 11

52 05 12

52 05 13

Employees in the national economy by sectors:

primary

secondary

tertiary

The share of persons over 15 years of age, employed in the main sectors of national economy (in %).

90 General unemployment rate expresses the share of the number of unemployed persons in the general labour force (in percents). The indicator is constituted according to the EUROSTAT and ILO (International Labour Organization) methodology.

191

52 12 01 52 12 02

Life expectancy at birth

� males

� females

Also the lifespan (ex) is to express the number of years to be likely lived by a person currently 0-years old, provided that the dying pattern established by the mortality table does not change throughout the entire further life of this individual. Lifespan is calculated as a share of years expected to be further lived by the tabular generation at a given age (Tx) and the tabular number of survivors (lx) ex=Tx/lx. These data can be obtained only from the calculation of the complete mortality table.

53 13 00 Share of population with secondary and higher education

Share of population of age 15 and over with secondary and higher education on total population of age 15 and over in %.

53 13 01 Share of population with university education

Share of population of age 15 and over with university education on total population of age 15 and over in %.

63 05 03 Average time of stay 63 15 01 Foreign visitors to the region – number

of arrivals Foreign visitors are all persons that arrived in the Czech Republic (i.e. tourists,

one-day visitors or transit persons). The number of arrivals of foreign visitors from neighbouring countries and from other countries without the visa requirement is established on road and railway border crossings by qualified estimate. Exact counts of foreign visitors are presented for air transport and from countries with the visa requirement.

63 15 02 Foreign visitors to the region – number of overnight stays

The total number of nights spent by foreign visitors in accommodation facilities in the period under consideration. Foreign visitors are all persons arriving in the Czech Republic (i.e. tourists, one-day visitors or transit persons).

63 05 02 Visitors to the region – number of overnight stays

Total number of nights spent by guests in accommodation facilities in the period under consideration.

63 05 01

Visitors to the regions – number of arrivals

Foreign visitors are all persons that arrived in the Czech Republic (i.e. tourists, one-day visitors or transit persons).

b. Programme indicators Indicators of global objective


55.20.00 Regional GDP per capita in PPS

Gross domestic product per capita expressed in Purchasing Power Standards (PPS). Figures are expressed in purchasing power standards as the units of artificial common currency, which eliminate price level differences among countries. This makes it possible to compare dimensional (actual) indicators among the countries, i.e. to make a spatial comparison.

52.10.00 Average monthly pay in CZK The share of wages without other personnel costs falling on average to one worker of the adjusted number of employees per month. The calculation is made according to formula: m = M / (Zpp * n), where: m – average gross monthly pay M – wages without other personnel costs for the monitored period of time Zpp – average enrolled number of workers adjusted to full-time employed in the concerned period of time n – number of months in the monitored period of time

52.05.13 Employees in the national economy by sectors: Tertiary

The share of persons over 15 years of age, employed in the main sectors of national economy (in %).

192

Indicators of horizontal themes Sustainable development


65 31 07 Reduction of the noise burden on the population

Change of share of population living beyond the noise limits according to noise maps in %.


Total annual emissions of tropospheric ozone: VOC, NOx, PCO a CH4 – kilotons

65 31 04 Reduction of emissions of

primary elements and precursors of secondary elements

Reduction of total annual emissions of primary elements PM10 and NOx, SO2, NH3 – kilotons (in the potential for elements formation)

65 11 20


Surface area of a newly established or reconstructed public green space in sq. m.


Surface area of revitalized unutilized or neglected sites (brownfields) total in sq. m.

Equal opportunities

Code Indicator

Definition

52 01 00 Core 01

Total newly created jobs Gross number of newly created jobs (according to Employments Bureau records adjusted to full working time)

52 01 01 Core 02

of these for males Gross number of jobs newly created for males (according to Employments Bureau records adjusted to full working time)

52 01 02 Core 03

of these for females Gross number of jobs newly created for females (according to Employments Bureau records adjusted to full working time)

c. Priority axes indicators Indicators of Priority axis 1: Transport accessibility



Number of aided projects focused on the development of transport (transport accessibility)

Number of projects aided within ROP SE and focused on transport infrastructure.

61 02 41 Number of newly purchased environment–friendly means of transport in public transport

Number of newly purchased environment-friendly vehicles in public transport.

61 02 44 Number of newly purchased rail and traction vehicles in public transport

Number of newly purchased vehicles of railway and traction transport in public transport (trams, trains, trolley buses)

61 01 00 Core 16

Length of new and reconstructed roads

Length of new and reconstructed Class II and Class III roads – total length in km

61 03 01 Number of adapted regional airports

Number of projects for adaptation of regional airports

61 01 11 Length of new bicycle tracks with the exclusion of powered transport

Length of newly constructed cycling tracks with the exclusion of motor transport in km

61 01 09 Length of newly constructed or reconstructed road bypasses of towns or villages

Length of newly constructed or reconstructed bypass roads of towns and villages in km

193

Outcome indicators 61 01 08 Share of reconstructed roads

in the total length of regional network of 2nd and 3rd class roads

The share of reconstructed roads in total length of the pattern of Class II and Class III roads in %

61 02 11 Number of municipalities involved in IDS

Number of communes included in integrated transport systems (IDS) in the region

61 02 49 Number of new or reconstructed transfer terminals of public mass transport

Number of new or reconstructed transfer terminals of mass public transport

61 11 05 Number of users of the new bicycle and horse tracks after the first year of use

Number of users of new cycling and hippo tracks after 1 year of operation

Impact indicators 61 03 00 Number of checked in

passengers in regional airports

Number of passengers dispatched on regional airports

Indicators of horizontal themes Sustainable development 65 31 07 Reduction of the noise burden

on the population The share of inhabitants living in areas beyond the noise limit according to noise maps in

%


Total annual emissions of tropospheric ozone: VOC, NOx, PCO and CH4 – kilotons

65 31 04 Reduction of emissions of primary elements and precursors of secondary elements

Total annual emissions of primary PM10 particles and emissions of NOx, SO2 and NH3 – kilotons (in the potential of particle generation)

Indicators of Priority axis 2: Development of sustainable tourism



Number of aided projects for the development of tourism

Number of projects focused on the development of tourism aided from ROP SE

63 01 00 Total number newly constructed or reconstructed beds

Number of newly built or refurbished beds in accommodation facilities

63 01 15 Length of new or reconstructed tracks exclusively for horse riders and pedestrians

63 22 00 Number of newly refurbished monuments

Number of reconstructed and accessed monuments and sights for the needs of tourism

63 31 11 Number of new products for orientation and direction purposes for the visitors

Number of newly developed products for orientation and information of visitors

63 31 01 Number of new types of publicity materials or marketing products for the sphere of tourism

Number of created publicity or marketing products for tourism

Outcome indicators 63 21 02 Number of newly certified

accommodation establishments in tourism

Number of certified accommodation facilities

63 23 00 Number of new and technically improved buildings of tourist infrastructure

Number of new and technically valorised objects of tourist infrastructure

52 02 12 Core 35

Number of new jobs within the framework of projects for development

Number of newly created jobs within the framework of projects focused on the development of tourism – gross (according to Employments Bureau records adjusted to full working time)

194

Indicators of horizontal themes Equal opportunities 52 01 01 Core 02


Gross number of jobs newly created for males (according to Employments Bureau records adjusted to full working time)

52 01 02 Core 03


Gross number of jobs newly created for females (according to Employments Bureau records adjusted to full working time)

Indicators of Priority axis 3: Sustainable development of towns and rural seats


Output indicators 51 15 18-19 Core 39 51 15 19 51 15 18

Number of aided projects increasing the attractiveness of urbanization centres – of these: Brno Jihlava

Number of projects aided within the area of support 3.1 (the reached value will be broken down by the main categories of activities – social services and health care, spare- and leisure-time activities, development of education, other)

51 15 31 Core 39

Tot Total number of aided projects increasing the attractiveness of selected towns


51 21 00 Core 39

Total number of aided projects increasing the attractiveness of seats


Outcome indicators 65 01 01 Surface area of the

regenerated and revitalized area – in towns

Surface area of regenerated and revitalized sites – in towns in km2

65 05 05

Surface area of the regenerated and revitalized area – in rural areas

Surface area of regenerated and revitalized sites – in rural districts in km2

65 01 00 Total surface are of the regenerated and revitalized area

Surface area of regenerated and revitalized sites in km2

65 11 00 Total surface area of the regenerated and revitalized buildings in towns

Surface area of regenerated and revitalized objects in towns in m2

65 15 00 Total surface area of the regenerated and revitalized buildings in rural areas (villages)

Surface area of regenerated and revitalized objects in rural districts in m2

65 11 03

Surface area of the regenerated and revitalized buildings for social services and health care

Surface area of regenerated and revitalized objects for social services and health care in m2

65 11 04 Surface area of the regenerated and revitalized buildings of pastime and leisure nature

Surface area of regenerated and revitalized objects for spare- and leisure-time activities in m2

64 01 02 Number of health care facilities newly equipped with special technological devices

Number of health facilities newly equipped with special instrumentation

64 01 01 Number of educational facilities newly equipped with special devices used in the lessons

Number of educational facilities newly equipped with special instrumentation for teaching

65 11 01 Surface area of the regenerated and revitalized buildings designated for the development of education

Surface area of regenerated and revitalized objects intended for the development of education in m2

65 12 01 Surface area of newly constructed buildings for pastime and leisure activities

Surface area of newly built objects for spare- and leisure-time activities in m2

195

65 12 02 Surface area of newly constructed buildings for social services

Surface area of newly built objects for social services in m2

65 12 03 Surface area of newly constructed buildings for education

Surface area of newly built objects for education in m2

65 12 04 Surface area of newly constructed buildings for health care

Surface area of newly built objects for health care in m2

65 12 05 Number of open networks in areas affected by market failure

Number of open networks in areas affected by market failure

Impact indicators 52 02 13 Core 01

Number of newly created jobs within the projects for sustainable development of towns

Number of newly created jobs – gross (according to Employments Bureau records adjusted to full working time) within projects for sustainable development of towns

52 02 15 Core 01

Number of newly created jobs within the projects for sustainable development of rural areas (villages)

Number of newly created jobs – gross (according to Employments Bureau records adjusted to full working time) within projects for sustainable development of rural areas


Number of inhabitants newly covered by broad-band access to internet

Indicators of horizontal themes Sustainable development 65 11 20


Surface area of newly established or reconstructed public greenery in m2


Surface area of revitalized unused or uncared sites (brownfields) in m2

Equal opportunities 52 01 01 Core 02


Gross number of jobs newly created for males (according to Employments Bureau records adjusted to full working time)

52 01 02 Core 03


Gross number of jobs newly created for females (according to Employments Bureau records adjusted to full working time)

Indicators of Priority axis 4: Technical assistance


Output indicators 71 05 00

Realization of evaluation studies and reports

Number of prepared evaluation studies and reports on ROP SE

71 07 00

Number of produced methodological, technical and information materials

Number of produced materials of methodological and technical-informative character

71 11 00 71 11 01

Number of realized training courses, seminars, workshops, conferences of these events with international attendance

Number of realized training courses, seminars, workshops, conferences Number of realized training courses, seminars, workshops and conferences with international participation

Outcome indicators 71 15 00

Participation in abroad held events focused on knowledge deepening and exchange of information

Numbers of persons who attended events focused on deepening knowledge and exchange of information held abroad

71 25 01

Number of executed inspections of drawing of financial resources

Number of inspections focused on the use of financial resources

71 16 01

Number of persons participating in educational courses for enhancement of absorption capacity

Number of persons who attended educational courses for strengthening the absorption capacity

71 19 00 Number of trained persons Number of persons attending the training