JESSICA
JOINT EUROPEAN SUPPORT FOR
SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENT IN CITY AREAS
JESSICA Evaluation Study
Implementing JESSICA Instruments in
Mazowieckie Voivodship, Poland
INCEPTION REPORT
February 2011
This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union.
The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the
European Union.
JESSICA Evaluation Study
Implementing JESSICA Instruments
in Mazowieckie Voivodship, Poland
INCEPTION REPORT
28 February 2011
2
CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 5
RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING JESSICA IMPLEMENTATION IN POLAND ........................ 6
JESSICA implementation status ............................................................................................................6
JESSICA in Mazowieckie Voivodship .....................................................................................................8
Status of Regulations for State Aid in the context of JESSICA ..............................................................8
OVERVIEW OF PRIORITIES RELEVANT FOR ASSESSMENT OF PROJECTS .......................................... 9
Priorities relevant in the context of Regional Operational Programme for Mazowieckie
Voivodship for years 2007-2013 .........................................................................................................9
Priorities relevant in the context of JESSICA initiative .......................................................................12
SITUATION OF MAZOWIECKIE VOIVODSHIP IN THE CONTEXT OF THREE MEASURES ..................... 14
Brief overview of the Local Revitalization Programmes ....................................................................14
Energy sector in Mazowieckie Voivodship .........................................................................................22
Clusters in Mazowieckie Voivodship ..................................................................................................25
KEY METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS ............................................................................................. 27
Stages of Evaluation Study preparation .............................................................................................27
Explanation of Evaluation Study preparation steps ...........................................................................29
Work organization and data gathering process .................................................................................36
PROJECT PLAN ....................................................................................................................... 42
General considerations ......................................................................................................................42
Milestones ..........................................................................................................................................43
Steering Committee and flow of deliverables ....................................................................................44
Planned content of the final JESSICA Evaluation Study .....................................................................45
3
ABBREVIATIONS
EE
Energy Efficiency
EIB
European Investment Bank
HF
Holding Fund
IUDP
Integrated Urban Development Plan
LRP
Local Regeneration Programme / Local Revitalization Programme
MA ROP
Managing Authority for Regional Operational Programme
NDP
National Development Plan
NSRD
National Strategy for Regional Development
NSRF
National Strategic Reference Framework
OP
Operational Programme
R&D
Research & Development
RE
Renewable Energy
ROP
Regional Operational Programme
SC
Steering Committee
SMEs
Small and medium sized enterprises
UDF
Urban Development Fund
4
INTRODUCTION
The Inception Report was produced after the award of the contract for elaboration of an
evaluation study to identify challenges and opportunities associated with the practical
implementation of JESSICA instruments in Mazowieckie Voivodship. It is meant to cover the
following topics:
 Presentation of the Consultant’s understanding of objectives and tasks to be achieved by
the Study;
 Key methodological aspects in preparing the JESSICA Evaluation Study;
 Sources of data / information and scope of research to be undertaken;
 Project plan and contents of the Final Report.
This Report will be followed by an Interim Report, approximately half-way in the implementation
of the project and by the Final Report, developed towards the end of the project, which will
stand in fact for the JESSICA Evaluation Study for the Mazowieckie Voivodship.
5
RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING JESSICA
IMPLEMENTATION IN POLAND
In this chapter our intention is to capture some of the actions that took place up in the recent
years, relevant for the implementation of JESSICA instruments in Poland.
Four voivodships have made the decision on implementation of the JESSICA so far, e.g.
Wielkopolskie, Zachodniopomorskie, Śląskie and Pomorskie. Mazowieckie and other
voivodships are considering the possibility of implementing the initiative.
JESSICA implementation status
Four voivodships have already started the process of implementing JESSICA mechanism1.
Wielkopolskie Voivodship

On October 16th, 2008 the Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the EIB
and the MA of Wielkopolskie Voivodship.

On April 29th, 2009 the MA for Wielkopolska ROP and the EIB signed the Funding
Agreement (FA) for the establishment of the Holding Fund. Wielkopolskie Voivodship
became the first region in Europe which started implementation of JESSICA.

On May 29th and July 13th, 2009 contribution equal to 66 264 706 EUR was transferred to
the Holding Fund (50 875 000 EUR comes from the ERDF and 15 389 706 Euro comes
from the state budget).

March 22 – April 8, 2010 EIB (HF Manager) launched a Call for EoI for Urban
Development Funds (UDFs) which will provide returnable financial instruments for
public-private partnerships and other projects included in the Integrated Plans for
Sustainable Urban Development.

On September 29th, 2010 the Operational Agreement with selected entity (BGK) was
signed.

An open call for Urban Projects was launched in October 2010 and is in progress now.
1
Ewa Wnukowska, „Implementation of JESSICA initiative in Poland. Status of regulations for public assistance in
context of the initiative”, Ministry of Regional Development – Coordination and Implementation of Regional
Programmes Department, Seminar “Jessica and Jeremie – practical aspects of implementation”, Warsaw, 14 October
2010.
6
Zachodniopomorskie Voivodship

On July 30th, 2009 the FA between the MA for Zachodniopomorskie ROP and the
EIB was signed.

On August 31st, 2009 a contribution in the amount of 33 082 000 EUR to establish
the HF was transferred to the account of the EIB.

On May 28th, 2010 EIB launched a Call for EoI. Bids could be submitted until 12th of
July 2010.

On December 28th 2010 contract with the first selected entity (Bank Ochrony
Środowiska) was signed. BOŚ will manage the UDF in respect of investments in
urban projects outside Szczecin Metropolitan Area.

Agreement with the second selected UDF is expected to be signed soon.
Śląskie Voivodship

On January 29th, 2010 the EIB and the MA for Śląskie ROP signed the Memorandum of
Understanding.

In March 2010 the MA of Śląskie Voivodship and the EIB started formal negotiations on
the establishment of HF.

On July 9th, 2010 the FA between the MA for Śląskie ROP and the EIB was signed.
Currently, the European Investment Bank has begun the process of preparation for selection
of the UDF manager.
Pomorskie Voivodship

On July 12th, 2010 the EIB and the MA for Pomorskie ROP signed the FA to establish
the Holding Fund.

In August 2010 the funds from the ROP for Pomorskie Voivodship were transferred to
the Holding Fund (56 800 000 EUR).
Currently, the EIB, in cooperation with the MA for Pomorskie ROP is engaged in the process
of identifying and selecting Urban Development Fund(s) in Pomorskie Voivodship.
7
JESSICA in Mazowieckie Voivodship
On 10 October 2007, the European Commission approved the 2007-2013 Regional Operational
Programme for the Mazowieckie Voivodship (the “ROP”). This programme is aligned to the
development strategy for the Mazowieckie Voivoidship for the years 2007-2020 and involves
Community support within the framework of the Convergence objective, with an overall budget
of about EUR 2.15 billion, of which EUR 1.83 billion is contributed from the ERDF. The use of
JESSICA instrument is explicitly foreseen under Priority Axis V “Strengthening the role of cities
in the development of the region”, Measure 5.2 “Urban Revitalization”. Under this measure, the
main goal of the JESSICA mechanism should be to exploit the potential of cities for the
activation of endogenous socio-economic growth in the region. However, the Evaluation Study
will also take into account Priority Axis I “Creating condition for development of innovation
potential and entrepreneurship”, Measure 1.6 “Supporting cooperative relations of crossregional importance” under which the area of its interest is the creation of clusters. The third
important axis which this Evaluation Study will focus on is Priority Axis IV “Environment,
prevention of threats and energy”, Measure 4.3 “Air protection, energy”. In the framework of this
axis this Evaluation Study will focus on improving quality of air.
Additionally, potential JESSICA investments may exploit the existence of "Special Economic
Zones" in the region. Projects which will help achieving the Lisbon Strategy goals shall be given
a special importance (e.g. clusters).
Status of Regulations for State Aid in the context of JESSICA
Work on the programme which regulates the provision of state aid under the JESSICA Initiative
at the level of Urban Development Fund and the beneficiaries has been lasting since mid 2009.
The Ministry of Regional Development has been working on a project of an aid programme
which requires a notification to the European Commission2.
Due to the fact that it is not possible to indicate the exact date when this regulation could come
into force it was necessary to start simultaneous works on another act which does not require a
notification to the European Commission and will be implemented to the national legal system
as soon as possible. Therefore, the regulation based on the scheme of the regional investment
aid3 was prepared by the Ministry and came into force on 30th December 2010 (Regulation of
the Minister of Regional Development of 21st December 2010 on the provision of regional
investment aid by urban development funds under regional operational programmes).
At the same time, works on the first regulation which concerns assistance for restoration of
degraded area and requires notification to the European Commission have been continuing.
2
Ewa Wnukowska, „Implementation of JESSICA initiative in Poland. Status of regulations for public assistance in
context of the initiative”, Ministry of Regional Development – Coordination and Implementation of Regional
Programmes Department, Seminar “Jessica and Jeremie – practical aspects of implementation”, Warsaw, 14 October
2010.
3
Ibid.
8
OVERVIEW OF PRIORITIES RELEVANT FOR ASSESSMENT
OF PROJECTS
In this chapter of the Inception Report we describe priorities which should be taken into account
during further stages of this Evaluation Study, as well as priorities which deal with general
themes concerning the set-up and functioning of JESSICA structures.
Priorities relevant in the context of Regional Operational Programme for
Mazowieckie Voivodship for years 2007-2013
The Evaluation Study is targeted at the possibility and advisability of implementing the JESSICA
mechanism in the Mazowieckie Voivodship using EU funds allocated to non-grant support under
Regional Operational Programme for the Mazowieckie Voivodship 2007-2013 (ROP MV) under
Priority Axis V, Measure 5.2 which focuses on the economic and social revitalisation of
degraded urban areas. Additionally, this study will also look at possibilities for implementing
JESSICA under Priority Axis IV “Environment, prevention of threats and energy”, Measure 4.3
“Air protection, energy” and Priority Axis I “Creating conditions for development of innovation
potential and entrepreneurship”, Measure 1.6 “Supporting cooperative relations of crossregional importance”.
Urban revitalization
Considering priorities relevant for urban regeneration, the example of revitalization projects
should include one of the below-mentioned types of actions4:

Renovation of buildings of architectural value and historic significance inter alia buildings
located within the protection and conservation zone, including conservation works,
restoration of facades and roofs of buildings and development of adjacent land

Adaptation, reconstruction and renovation of buildings, public space and its adjacent
surroundings for educational and social purposes

Adaptation, reconstruction or renovation of infrastructure related to the development of
tourism, recreation and culture.

Adaptation, reconstruction or renovation of buildings, facilities, infrastructure, postindustrial/post-military equipment and the development of adjacent land in order to give
them new functions: service, tourist, recreational or educational.
4
Based on Regional Operational Programme for the Mazowieckie Voivodship for the years 2007-2013, Warsaw
2007, p. 110; Detailed Description of Priority Axis of Regional Operational Programme for the Mazowieckie
Voivodship for the years 2007-2013, Marshal’s Office, Warsaw 2010, p. 159-160.
9

Renovation and reconstruction of technical infrastructure, including: construction and
repairs of sewage systems and other devices to treatment, collection, disposal and
transfer of sewage.

Organization of public space: regeneration and development of public space, including
renovation or reconstruction of: squares, markets, parks, playgrounds, public toilets,
urban landscaping (e.g. terraces, fountains, benches), places of recreation work and
green areas.

Creation of security zones and zones of crime prevention in urban areas vulnerable for
social pathologies, including: construction or renovation of lightning, purchase and
implementation of monitoring systems.
Energy efficiency and renewable energy
Under Priority Axis IV, Measure 4.3 activities aimed at air protection, assurance of energy safety
and increase in use of renewable energy are implemented through inter alia5:

Construction, expansion and modernization of infrastructure for production and
transmission of energy from renewable energy sources (energy: wind, hydro, solar,
geothermal, organic/biomass, other)

Construction, expansion and modernization of reservoirs storage and barrages to allow
the use of rivers (waterpower)

Construction, expansion and modernization of local and regional infrastructure of
transmission and distribution of electricity and gas

Construction, expansion and modernization of heating systems for energy efficient
systems through the use of energy-saving technologies and solutions.

Conversion of existing heating systems of public utilities buildings in more
environmentally friendly systems.

Thermomodernization of public utility buildings and replacement of their equipment for
energy savings: warming of the object, replacement of windows and exterior doors.
Cooperative relations
Taking into account priorities relevant for supporting cooperative relations of cross-regional
importance the actions under Priority Axis I, Measure 1.6 should be aimed at6:
5
Based on Regional Operational Programme for the Mazowieckie Voivodship for the years 2007-2013, Warsaw
2007, p. 103; Detailed Description of Priority Axis of Regional Operational Programme for the Mazowieckie
Voivodship for the years 2007-2013, Marshal’s Office, Warsaw 2010, p. 138-140.
10

Creation and development of clusters of regional character

Advisory in terms of preparation of clusters development plans

Support of the clusters coordinators’ activities

Support of clusters’ promotional activities that are aimed at acquisition of new
enterprises

Implementation and commercialization of innovative technologies and products.
Financing
According to the financial tables included in National Strategic Reference Framework 20072013 in support of growth and jobs (National Cohesion Strategy) in the period of 2007-2013
Mazowieckie Voivodship was granted the support from the European Regional Development
Fund in the amount of EUR 1 831 496 698 which in connection with the national match funding
amounted to EUR 2 154 809 574. Allocation of resources under Priority Axis V, Measure 5.2,
Priority Axis IV, Measure 4.3 and Priority Axis I, Measure 1.6 estimates at EUR 393 000 000, of
which EUR 146 370 000 comes from EU funds (ERDF)7.
Detailed allocation of funds according to financing sources is presented in the tables below.
PRIORITY AXIS V
Strengthening the role of cities in the development of the region
Contribution from EU funds
Measure 5.2
Urban Revitalization
TOTAL
Contribution from National public
resources
The anticipated volume of private
resources
74 800 000
13 200 000
132 000 000
220 000 000
Source: Detailed Description of Priority Axis of Regional Operational Programme for the Mazowieckie Voivodship for
the years 2007-2013, Marshal’s Office, Warsaw 2010, p. 162.
6
Based on Regional Operational Programme for the Mazowieckie Voivodship for the years 2007-2013, Warsaw
2007, p. 84; Detailed Description of Priority Axis of Regional Operational Programme for the Mazowieckie Voivodship
for the years 2007-2013, Marshal’s Office, Warsaw 2010, p. 76.
7
Regional Operational Programme for the Mazowieckie Voivodship for the years 2007-2013, Warsaw 2007, p. 133.
11
PRIORITY AXIS IV
Environment, prevention of threats and energy
Contribution from EU funds
Measure 4.3
Air Protection, Energy
Contribution from National public
resources
The anticipated volume of private
resources
TOTAL
49 895 000
8 805 000
88 050 000
146 750 000
Source: Detailed Description of Priority Axis of Regional Operational Programme for the Mazowieckie Voivodship for
the years 2007-2013, Marshal’s Office, Warsaw 2010, p. 141.
PRIORITY AXIS I
Creating condition for development of innovation potential and entrepreneurship
Measure 1.6
Supporting
Cooperative Relations
of Cross-Regional
Importance
Contribution from EU funds
Contribution from National public
resources
The anticipated volume of private
resources
TOTAL
21 675 000
3 825 000
750 000
26 250 000
Source: Detailed Description of Priority Axis of Regional Operational Programme for the Mazowieckie Voivodship for
the years 2007-2013, Marshal’s Office, Warsaw 2010, p. 78.
Priorities relevant in the context of JESSICA initiative
According to the definition, “Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas
(JESSICA) is a policy initiative of the European Commission (EC), developed with the European
Investment Bank (EIB) and in collaboration with the Council of Europe Development Bank
(CEB), with the objective of supporting sustainable urban development through financial
engineering mechanisms.
It has been launched with the view to leveraging additional resources for public-private
partnerships (PPPs) for other urban projects covered by integrated plans for sustainable urban
development.
To the aforementioned financial engineering instruments belong:

Urban Development Funds (“UDFs”) investing in Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) and
other urban projects inserted in integrated plans for sustainable urban development –
and optionally

Holding Fund (“HF”)

Project promoters could be public or private sector enterprises.
12
The financial mechanism will reinforce long-term sustainability through the recyclable and
recoverable nature of the funds. Money generated through UDFs can be reinvested to support
other urban development projects.
Whereas the above description of JESSICA, the projects selected for this initiative have to meet
the following requirements:

Maturity of the project

Project implementation (expenditure of available funds) by 2015

Eligibility of the project for the co-financing in the framework of ROP Mazowieckie
Voivodship

Eligibility of the project with the Local Revitalization Programmes

Ability of the project to generate sufficient revenues to provide a realistic chance to
reimbursement of JESSICA funds

Engagement of private or public entities or financial institutions to provide
complementary project funding

Significant value of the project
Project maturity is understood as desired readiness for implementation. It is determined whether
a project has necessary documentation concerning all relevant urban regulations (feasibility
studies, approvals from different authorities, etc.). The maturity of a project is an essential
selection criterion for JESSICA.
13
SITUATION OF MAZOWIECKIE VOIVODSHIP IN THE
CONTEXT OF THREE MEASURES
In this chapter of the Inception Report we present the most important information concerning
situation of Mazowieckie Voivodship in the context of three measures of the ROP MV under
which JESSICA instruments will be implemented: Measure 5.2 Urban Revitalization, Measure
4.3 Air protection, Energy, Measure 1.6 Supporting cooperative relations of cross-regional
importance.
Brief overview of the Local Revitalization Programmes
In Mazowieckie Voivodship there are 85 cities, including 5 cities with districts rights. There are
also 42 districts which are divided into 314 communities.
Local Revitalization Programmes in cities of
Mazowieckie Voivodship
Lack of LRPs (27)
Current LRPs (58)
Source: Bogumiła Wiśniewska, The role of the Mazowieckie Voivodship Local Government in the revitalization
process - experiences of the URBACT II project, Katowice 2010.
For the Inception Report purposes we took the effort of making a preliminary analysis of the
Local Revitalization Programmes in all districts’ capital cities.
14
All the data is based on information available on local authorities websites and will be verified
(and updated if necessary) in the course of the evaluation study through questionnaires and in
selected cases through meetings and discussions with representatives of city halls.
It is necessary to underline that all districts’ capital cities presented in a table on the next page
were ranked by the total value of projects included in their LRPs, from the city with the highest
value of projects to the one with the lowest value.
15
Lp.
City
1
Warszawa
2
Siedlce
3
Population
Local
Revitalization
Programme
(LRP)
Value of projects (kPLN)
Number of projects
Total
Potential*
Total
Potential**
Projects
concerning
EE/RE
Timeframe
of LRP
1 711 466
YES
1 077 350
535 385
142
93
YES
2013
78 654
YES
576 571
392 663
145
69
YES
2013
Płock
126 255
YES
437 783
352 252
162
72
YES
2013
4
Radom
223 397
YES
247 193
76 026
111
31
YES
2013
5
Ciechanów
45 940
YES
186 767
62 855
46
13
YES
2013
6
Legionowo
50 726
YES
185 719
63 934
67
N/A
YES
2025
7
Maków Mazowiecki
9 808
YES
174 144
20 929
96
11
YES
2013
8
Ostrów Mazowiecki
23 540
YES
167 059
77 589
95
31
YES
2015
9
Węgrów
12 600
YES
154 315
75 721
15
12
YES
2013
10
Otwock
44 054
YES
113 847
99 397
22
18
YES
2015
11
Piaseczno
41 787
YES
104 456
68 129
18
16
NO
2013
12
Pruszków
54 817
YES
99 187
17 165
87
6
YES
2013
16
Lp.
City
Population
Local
Revitalization
Programme
(LRP)
Value of projects (kPLN)
Total
Number of projects
Potential*
Total
Potential**
Projects
concerning
EE/RE
Timeframe
of LRP
13
Żyrardów
41 110
YES
97 064
49 930
25
13
YES
2013
14
Płońsk
22 500
YES
79 915
61 431
86
66
YES
2015
15
Pułtusk
19 131
YES
73 715
25 491
68
26
YES
2013
16
Przasnysz
16 819
YES
69 771
67 602
49
41
YES
2013
17
Mława
30 423
YES
62 975
62 975
31
31
NO
2015
18
Sierpc
18 653
YES
55 000
30 400
15
6
NO
2013
19
Białobrzegi
7 328
YES
51 779
20 453
22
16
YES
2015
20
Zwoleń
8 048
YES
48 658
4 150
53
15
YES
2015
21
Żuromin
9 019
YES
47 922
17 439
55
22
YES
2015
22
Ostrołęka
53 789
YES
39 379
30 975
39
32
NO
2015
23
Kozienice
18 075
YES
38 300
36 800
11
5
YES
2013
24
Grójec
15 403
YES
36 432
22 000
13
6
NO
2013
17
Lp.
City
25
Mińsk Mazowiecki
26
Lipsko
27
Population
Local
Revitalization
Programme
(LRP)
Value of projects (kPLN)
Total
Potential*
Number of projects
Total
Potential**
Projects
concerning
EE/RE
Timeframe
of LRP
38 181
YES
35 670
4 300
11
4
NO
2015
5 723
YES
31 541
9 640
14
7
YES
2013
Sochaczew
37 189
YES
30 252
29 532
9
8
YES
2015
28
Wołomin
36 998
YES
29 242
29 242
3
3
NO
2015
29
Wyszków
27 188
YES
21 955
N/A
39
N/A
YES
2012
30
Grodzisk
Mazowiecki
27 767
YES
19 300
16 700
8
1
NO
2013
31
Szydłowiec
11 966
YES
8 850
3 930
3
2
NO
2013
32
Garwolin
16 710
YES
N/A
N/A
11
4
NO
2013
33
Nowy Dwór
Mazowiecki
27 757
YES
N/A
N/A
13
N/A
YES
2013
34
Gostynin
19 037
NO
35
Łosice
7 207
NO
18
Lp.
City
36
Przysucha
37
Sokołów Podlaski
38
Ożarów Mazowiecki
Population
Local
Revitalization
Programme
(LRP)
6 188
NO
(in preparation)
18 460
NO
(expired 2006)
8 041
NO
(expired 2011)
Value of projects (kPLN)
Total
Potential*
Number of projects
Total
Potential**
Projects
concerning
EE/RE
Timeframe
of LRP
EE – Energy Efficiency
RE – Renewable Energy
* value of projects foreseen (according to LRPs) to be implemented in 2011 or in following years (financing sources may not have been finally agreed)
** number of projects foreseen (according to LRPs) to be implemented in 2011 or in following years (according to the LRPs)
19
Conclusions from brief overview of the Local Revitalization Programmes

Mazowieckie Voivodship has a great potential for revitalization projects
LRP in districts’ capital cities
of Mazowieckie Voivodship
Lack of
LRP
13%
Current
LRP
87%
NO
33%
YES
67%

5 of 38 districts’ capital cities do not have valid LRPs

Total number of projects included in all LRPs of districts’ capital cities of Mazowieckie
Voivodship is equal to 1568

Value of “potential projects” which are foreseen to be implemented in 2011 or in following
years8 is estimated at 2,365 billion PLN while the total value of all projects exceeds 4,4
billion PLN
Share of completed and
potential projects (%)
53,33%
(831)
Value of projects (kPLN)
2 037 076
46,66%
(737)
Completed projects
8
Are there EE/RE projects
in LRP?
2 365 035
Potential projects
Timeframe of “potential projects” implementation: start defined as 2011, end date depends on the timeframe of LRPs.
See pages 16-19.

The vast majority of revitalization projects included in the LRPs are projects on urban
Infrastructure (e.g. revitalization of urban buildings). Projects concerning EE/RE and
heritage of cultural sites (including tourism) (e.g. revitalization of historic buildings such as
palaces, inns for tourism purposes etc.) represent a small minority.
Types of projects
1,49%
(23)
9,38%
(148)
Urban infrastructure
11,51%
(179)
EE/RE
Heritage of cultural sites
77,62%
(1217)
Redevelopment of brown-field sites

Almost 180 projects concerning Energy Efficiency (EE) or Renewable Energy (RE) were
identified. More than 90% of them are projects concerning thermomodernization of buildings
and heating distribution networks.

It was mentioned in only one LRP (Mława) about the need to develop clusters.

LRPs mostly depended on EU financing (most of the projects are expected to be
implemented with the EU financial support inter alia from the European Regional
Development Fund and European Social Fund).

Many of the revitalization projects included in LRPs of all districts capital cities at first glance
seem not to be revenue-generating. As a result, there is a risk that at least some of them
will not be eligible for delivery under the JESSICA mechanism.
21
Energy sector in Mazowieckie Voivodship
Over the past 10 years Poland has made great progress in terms of energy efficiency. The energy
consumption fell for nearly 1/3 during that time. The main achievements in this area are:
thermomodernization projects carried out under the Act of Law on support of thermomodernization
projects, modernization of street lighting and the optimization of industrial processes. However, the
energy efficiency of the Polish economy is still about three times lower than in the most developed
European countries and about two times lower than the average in EU Member States.
Additionally, consumption of primary energy in Poland related to population is almost 40% lower
than in the “old 15”. All abovementioned facts demonstrate that there is still a lot to improve in
Poland in the field of energy efficiency9.
Great potential for energy savings in the construction sector exists and the fact that this sector is
responsible for 40% of the final energy consumption in the European Union means that
investments in improving energy efficiency in this sector are very interesting. Programme of
thermomodernization of buildings is being implemented in Poland since 1999. This programme is
aimed at ensuring technical and financial support for projects in the field of energy savings in
buildings and for projects concerning the reduction of heat loss in distribution networks or
replacement of traditional sources with unconventional energy sources, including renewable
energy10.
Mazowieckie Voivodship has generally good conditions in terms of energy supply and consumption.
It has two baseload power plants supported by Warsaw thermal power plants and system of high
voltage transmission grid, as well as the access to the national network of industrial pipelines.
However, some problems are created due to the low degree of security of the Warsaw electricity,
as well as bad technical condition of the electricity networks in rural areas. Additionally, the
Mazowieckie Voivodship is characterized by under-utilization of renewable energy sources,
including bio-mass, geo-thermal energy etc.*

According to The Development Strategy of Mazowieckie Voivodship for years 2007 – 2020
the key objectives in terms of energy are as follows:
o
regional economic development - usage of surplus biomass for energy
purposes, possibility of usage a fallow lands, creation of new sources of
income for farmers;
o
reduction of pollutants emission;
o
reduction of the cost of energy acquisition;
o
promotion of the region as an ecologically clean;
o
increase the energy security of the region – particularly areas with poor
energy infrastructure;
9
http://www.mg.gov.pl/Gospodarka/Energetyka/Efektywnosc+energetyczna; http://dlaklimatu.pl/Efektywnoscenergetyczna
10 Ibid
* See table on page 23.
22
o
increase social acceptance of technologies using renewable energy
sources – new jobs are created when handling equipment using
renewable energy;
o
usage of efficient and environment-friendly energy technologies.

Almost all of the capital cities of sub-regions (except Ostrołęka) have included in their local
strategies some development strategies for renewable energy and energy efficiency
(including thermomodernization). Two cities (Warszawa, Płock) have separate energy policy
documents.

Pilot programmes that use renewable energy sources:
o
Programme of modernization of heat sources in public buildings using
renewable energy sources
o
Programme of promotion of the exchange of existing conventional
sources on biomass-fired
o
Programme of support of the development of small hydropower.
Conclusions for renewable energy in Mazowieckie Voivodship:

The Mazowieckie Voivodship has a large untapped potential of renewable energy sources.
(The current status of utilization of particular types of renewable energy sources in
Mazowieckie Voivodship is presented in the table below).
Types of Renewable Energy
Sources (RE)
Biomass
TJ11
Solar Energy
TJ
Wind Energy
Potential
Utilization
Free resources
7 780 TJ
2 500 TJ
5 280 TJ
68%
10 900 TJ
2 TJ
10 898 TJ
100%
MWh12
232 000 MWh
250 MWh
231 750 MWh
100%
Water Energy
MWh
156 500 MWh
96 000 MWh
60 500 MWh
40%
Geo-thermal Energy
TJ
8 700 TJ
10,2 TJ
8 690 TJ
99%
Source: Programme of Possibilities of Using Renewable Energy Sources for the Mazowieckie Voivodship, Warsaw 2006,
p.122.

11
12
Small hydro power is the best solution to improve the security of energy supply in rural
areas. However, due to the high cost of its construction it should be built in existing places,
TJ – Terajoule
MWh – Megawatt hour
23
e.g. windmills. Production of energy from water sources and other renewable energy
sources in Mazowieckie Voivodship is presented on the graph below.
200,0
180,0
160,0
140,0
120,0
100,0
80,0
60,0
40,0
20,0
GWh
0,0
2000
2001
2002
Water sources
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Water sources + Renewable Energy Sources
Source: Marek Palonka, Possibilities of development of renewable energy in Mazowieckie Voivodship, Mazovia Energy
Agency, Warsaw.

Conditions of solar energy development are similar across the Mazowieckie Voivodship.
Urban agglomerations are characterized by slightly worse conditions (due to increased level
of air pollution), while the utilization of solar energy is much higher in cities (due to the much
higher demand for power and heat)13.

Mazowieckie has large resources of biomass. According to results of the studies conducted
by the Institute of Renewable Energy biomass will belong to the main RE in the future in
Mazowieckie. It is expected to be used in large boilers and in central heating systems in
small individual households. Appropriate implementation of programmes of biomass
utilization in communities can significantly contribute to lowering the cost of heat supply in
rural households and improving the living standards of residents.
13
Programme of Possibilities of Using Renewable Energy Sources for the Mazowieckie Voivodship, Warsaw 2006,
p.122-123.
24
Clusters in Mazowieckie Voivodship
According to the definition published by PARP14, a cluster is “a geographic concentration of
interconnected business, suppliers and associated institutions (e.g. universities, standard setters,
industry associations, supporting bodies), competing and cooperating with one another. A cluster is
closely related to its territory of operation “regionally rooted”. Clusters constitute a specific
production organization involving concentration of flexible enterprises that carry out complementary
business activities in close proximity. The entities both cooperate and compete, as well as build
relationships with other institutions in a specific field. A cluster is based on cooperative links among
entities that generate specific knowledge-building processes and increase adaptation abilities”.
At the end of 2008 5 clusters and 2 cluster initiatives have been identified in Mazowieckie
Voivodship. These are as follows:
Clusters:

Aviation Mazovia

Mazowiecki Cluster of Print
Cluster
Cluster Initiative
and Advertisement “The Colour
Valley”

Optocluster – Mazowiecki Cluster of Innovative Photonic Technologies

Alternative IT Cluster

Mazowiecki Cluster of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)
14
Own study, based on: K.B. Matusiak (red), Innovation and transfer of technology. Glossary, Polish Agency for
Enterprise Development, Warsaw 2008.
25
Cluster Initiatives:

Mazowiecki IT Cluster

Mazowiecki Energy Cluster
Source: Maps of Polish Clusters, http://www.pi.gov.pl/
However, it is important to underline that there is a number of clusters which are not officially
registered but fulfil all criteria of being such a body. For these reasons their identification is
extremely difficult, e.g. Cluster of Advisory Companies. In the course of evaluation study we will try
to identify regional clusters, as well as planned activities concerning development of clusters
through desk research and interviews with local authorities.
Mazowieckie Voivodship leads in most of the national rankings describing the economic and
competitive potential of Polish regions. One of the examples might be a ranking concerning
competitive and innovative potential which was developed especially for the purposes of the
National Strategy of Regional Development. The ranking evaluates variables which define
competitiveness (prosperity, investments, exports, growth poles, foreign investments,
entrepreneurship, the attractiveness of settlement, pro-market economy) and innovation system
(human capital, high-tech clusters, R+D expenditures, innovations and cooperation). Mazowieckie
Voivodship took first place in this ranking15. Similarly, in ranking on the success of the development
of Polish voivodships in years 1999-2004 Mazovia won the first place. Such a high scores show
that Mazowieckie Voivodship has a great potential in terms of innovation, and thus also in terms of
creating an environment for development of clusters.
On the other side the Mazowieckie Voivodship suffers from the lack of unequivocal analysis on the
regional level which could indicate the areas of specialization of Mazowieckie Voivodship. It will
definitely help to create efficient structures of innovative nature e.g. clusters16.
15
Regional Innovation Strategy for Mazovia for years 2007-2015, Warsaw 2008, p. 12-13.
16
Ibid, p. 60
26
KEY METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS
In this chapter we will elaborate on the flow of main actions to be undertaken during the process of
preparing the Study. The results of those actions will enable us to fulfil all the objectives set to be
covered by the final report.
Stages of Evaluation Study preparation
Our approach towards preparation of the Evaluation Study consists of 7 major steps:

Step 1 – Analysis of the Mazowieckie Voivodship 's economic conditions

Step 2 – Overall potential resulting from current programmes and available documentation

Step 3 – Financing sources currently available to revitalization projects

Step 4 – Demand for (additional) financing: projects meeting JESSICA criteria
27

Step 5 – Organizations / bodies possibly involved in implementation of JESSICA

Step 6 – Implementation guidelines and action plan

Step 7 – Further development possibilities for JESSICA
Those steps will be explained in more details in the next sections.
All the actions performed within particular steps (and as a result the steps themselves too) can be
aligned with the major objectives set upon the Evaluation Study:
Objective 1
To establish the rationale for and the financial feasibility of using the JESSICA instrument for
investments in Priority Axis 1 (“Creating conditions for development of innovation potential and
entrepreneurship”) Axis 4 (“Environment, prevention of threats and energy”) and Axis 5
(“Strengthening the role of cities in the region”), but considering also the relevance of other priority
axes for the successful implementation of JESSICA
financial engineering instruments. To analyse the
urban development needs and market failures in the
Mazowieckie Voivoidship, examine to what extent they
are being addressed by existing instruments, assess
what types of projects addressing these needs could
be suitably financed on a repayable basis under the
ROP and which stakeholders and beneficiaries are
involved.
This Objective should also indicate any flexibility in the
ROP regarding re-allocation of funds (changes under
different axis under the ROP) in order to facilitate the
most successful implementation of the JESSICA
instrument.
Objective 2
To analyse the market potential for investments aimed at urban revitalisation of problem areas,
energy efficiency, renewable energy and clusters, and on this basis identify and analyse in more
detail pilot JESSICA projects. Criteria mentioned in the ROP and other relevant documentation, as
well as other useful approaches in the Consultant’s view can be used in the analysis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Objective 3
To identify and evaluate various institutional options to implement JESSICA in the Mazowieckie
Voivoidship, bearing in mind the existing national and regional institutional framework, local market
opportunities and limitations as well as other relevant conditions, which have an impact on the
decision.
Objective 4
28
To propose a practical implementation strategy and action plan for JESSICA in the Mazowieckie
Voivoidship for the period 2011-2015, taking into account the results of the analysis under
Objectives 1 to 3 above.
To implement JESSICA in this programming period, a well organised action plan and planning is
necessary, and capacity within the MA and local and regional offices which are working on urban
revitalisation plans.
For efficient implementation of JESSICA, workshops will be organized with different stakeholders
(cities, banks and other potential public or private investors). The Consultant will be requested to
contribute to up to three of these workshops, which
might be organized during the time of the Study or
during the first phase of implementation in 2011. The
dates of these workshops will be agreed upon between
the EIB, the MA and Deloitte.
The Consultant should describe how the ROP Technical
Assistance priority could be employed so that 1)
JESSICA can be rapidly and effectively implemented in
the current programming period, and 2) preparations
can be made to enable local players to implement
JESSICA structures more widely for the 2014-2020
programming period.
Explanation of Evaluation Study preparation steps
Step 1 – Analysis of the Mazowieckie Voivodship 's economic conditions
Tasks referring (in full or partially) to this step:
1.1. Brief overview of the Mazowieckie Voivoidship economy against the wider regional and urban
development background outlined in Section I of these ToR, outlining long-term growth and
competitiveness scenarios for the region. Within this wider perspective, overview of the regional
market for urban projects eligible under Priority Axis 1, 4 and 5, including its institutional and
regulatory framework, considering also the relevance of other Priority axes for the successful
implementation of financial engineering instruments, including energy-efficiency and renewable
energy investments and promoting high-tech and R&D clusters. This analysis should mainly be
focused on measures 1.6, 4.3 and 5.2.
Based on our own desk research and valuable materials obtained from the Marshall’s Office of the
Mazowieckie Voivodship, we shall conduct an analysis of regional economic conditions in
comparison to neighbouring regions and the country overall. Situation of the regional economy is a
backbone for any assumptions and predictions concerning the directions in which particular local
29
markets might evolve with the highest probability of success. Gathered data will also support the
further steps of our analysis, particularly the assessment of cities’ capabilities to implement planned
regeneration projects.
Step 2 – Overall potential resulting from current programmes and available documentation
Tasks referring (in full or partially) to this step:
1.1. Brief overview of the Mazowieckie Voivoidship economy against the wider regional and urban
development background outlined in Section I of these ToR, outlining long-term growth and
competitiveness scenarios for the region. Within this wider perspective, overview of the regional
market for urban projects eligible under Priority Axis 1, 4 and 5, including its institutional and
regulatory framework, considering also the relevance of other Priority axes for the successful
implementation of financial engineering instruments, including energy-efficiency and renewable
energy investments and promoting high-tech and R&D clusters. This analysis should mainly be
focused on measures 1.6, 4.3 and 5.2.
1.4. Integrated urban development: in order to be eligible under JESSICA instruments, the projects
should be part of an “Integrated Plan for Sustainable Urban Development” or planning-led
instruments satisfying this requirement. Clarify how this JESSICA pre-requisite (Art. 44 of
Regulation 1083/2006) can be fulfilled in the Mazowieckie Voivoidship.
2.1. Review briefly the market for Urban Regeneration projects in the capital cities of the subregions and evaluate briefly the “planning environment”. The MA and the Consultant shall decide
which cities will be looked at in closer detail. These will be no more than 7 (including Warsaw).
Identify and analyse Local Revitalisation Programmes (LRPs) of the cities and the “Development
Strategy for the Mazowieckie Voivoidship for the Years 2007-2020” as well as other relevant
documents. It should be also determined whether and to what extent the LRPs need to be
amended in order to enable/facilitate JESSICA implementation. The Consultant shall also share
any knowledge acquired on the reasons – if that were the case - why JESSICA-relevant projects
may not have been included in the LRPs. The MA will provide a list with all available documents
regarding the planning environment.
The project areas possibly eligible for support under the JESSICA instruments play a significant
role in Priority Axis 1 (“Creating condition for development of innovation potential and
entrepreneurship”) Axis 4 (“Environment, prevention of threats and energy”) and Axis 5
(“Strengthening the role of cities in the region”) of Regional Operational Programme for the
Mazowieckie Voivodship for the years 2007-2013. Number of cities within Mazowieckie region also
possesses their own Local Revitalization Programmes.
We will synthesise the territorial priorities as deriving from the Regional Operational Programme
and Local Revitalization Programmes. Then, taking into account inter alia the Local Revitalization
Programmes and specifics of particular cities / communes, we will try to summarize the overall
regional and local potential for urban regeneration projects.
30
Such a summary will be a starting point for determining the actual potential demand for financing of
urban regeneration.
Step 3 – Financing sources currently available to revitalization projects
Tasks referring (in full or partially) to this step:
1.3. Description of existing public programmes and any other (public or private sector) financial
instruments (including existing investment delivery vehicles/structures/funds) designed to promote
urban regeneration/ development and encourage urban investment in the Mazowieckie Voivoidship.
This review should also include an assessment of the ability and the capacity of public authorities
and public agencies in the cities of the Mazowieckie Voivoidship to provide equity, loans,
guarantees and other non-grant financing to urban regeneration projects.
The traditional route for public sector investment in urban investment has been through grant
funding or direct investment. In many cases, this has not been the most efficient way of investing
public money and the public sector has often failed to properly share in the value uplift that flows
from regeneration. The willingness of local government to participate in urban investment and
regeneration in the form of equity/loan guarantees and non-grant financing and better structure the
contractual relationship is essential.
During this part of our analysis we will focus on:

Prevailing public programmes (national and European) to promote urban regeneration and
encourage investment in the urban sector;

Existing funding arrangements and financial instruments to improve the financing capacity
of municipalities and private promoters;

Existing delivery mechanisms for urban investments;

Existing national legislation on Tax Increment Financing.
Step 4 – Demand on (additional) financing: projects meeting JESSICA criteria
Tasks referring (in full or partially) to this step:
1.2. Review of investment needs linked to sustainable transformation and possible market failures,
including identification of (i) key project typologies, (ii) thematic or geographic areas where more
investment, or a different type of investment than currently available are needed, (iii) related
financing requirements and (iv) key market participants and beneficiaries, such as public bodies or
authorities, private sector players, investment institutions and other actors.
2.1. Review briefly the market for Urban Regeneration projects in the capital cities of the subregions and evaluate briefly the “planning environment”. The MA and the Consultant shall decide
which cities will be looked at in closer detail. These will be no more than 7 (including Warsaw).
31
Identify and analyse Local Revitalisation Programmes (LRPs) of the cities and the “Development
Strategy for the Mazowieckie Voivoidship for the Years 2007-2020” as well as other relevant
documents. It should be also determined whether and to what extent the LRPs need to be
amended in order to enable/facilitate JESSICA implementation. The Consultant shall also share
any knowledge acquired on the reasons – if that were the case - why JESSICA-relevant projects
may have not been included in the LRPs. The MA will provide a list with all available documents
regarding the planning environment.
2.2. Identification and preliminary assessment of the potential for JESSICA projects in the target
territories, consistent with the ROP and the integrated urban development plan requirement. The
Consultant should identify, together with the Managing Authority and the EIB, the target cities for
potential JESSICA investments on the basis of ROP goals and any other relevant criteria (like
maturity of projects and their complementarity to other initiatives developed in the same area). The
aim should be to get structured information on JESSICA-compliant projects in order to obtain a
clear picture of their maturity and possibly indicate further steps to develop a JESSICA project
portfolio.
2.3. On the basis of this assessment the Consultant will propose a limited number of pilot projects
(“Pilot Projects”) which are to be analysed in more detail including: background and rationale, public
interest aspects, compliance with eligibility criteria, project costs and revenues, timing of
implementation, financial performance analysis (revenue generating capacity), financial
sustainability under alternative funding structures, including with and without JESSICA instruments,
and other relevant information. If necessary, the Consultant is encouraged to provide new
ideas/project options on how projects, including Pilot Projects, can be reconfigured in order to
become viable under the JESSICA mechanism (e.g. recommendations as to technical
documentation, market analysis, property acquisition/contributions, planning/land use changes,
etc.).
Given the time available for the study, we will undertake the following activities to achieve the
above objectives:
1. General documentation analysis:

Review past JESSICA Studies for Poland and establish if trends exist in the LRPs that need
reference in this work.

Request each city to provide its latest (and complete) version of the LPR for our review.

Review a reasonable level of city plan documentation to support the identification of
demand.
2. Aggregation of detailed data on projects:

Design a questionnaire to identify suitable JESSICA projects

Provide a questionnaire for major cities, together with a briefing note, so that key relevant
projects can be assembled on a list
32

Undertake high level review of each project and identify any obstacles for the
implementation under JESSICA mechanism.

Review each project to make clear that the project:

o
Contains eligible expenditure
o
Is covered by an Integrated Urban Development Plan
o
Is financially viable and has identified revenue sources
o
Has the support of other funders (including grants) where reasonable
o
Delivers outputs / outcomes as outlined in the Regional Operational Programme
o
Can be completed by 2015 (limited by the Regional Operational Programme)
Hold at least one field visit to each selected City to meet with appropriate City
representative to discuss the listed projects and request further information (if necessary) to
enable more detailed assessment to be prepared.
Using the results of actions above, we will prepare a suitable number of projects to undertake more
detailed analysis on. The selection of project will be based on a number of criteria, including inter
alia:

Maturity of the project

Project implementation (expenditure of available funds) by 2015

Eligibility of the project for the co-financing in the framework of ROP Mazowieckie
Voivodship

Eligibility of the project under Local Revitalization Programmes

Ability of the project to generate sufficient revenues to ensure repayment of JESSICA funds

Involvement of private entities or financial institutions to provide complementary funding into
a project

Significant value of the project
Step 5 – Organizations / bodies possibly involved in implementation of JESSICA
Tasks referring (in full or partially) to this step:
3.1.Description of the potential market participants in JESSICA from both public and private
sectors, as well as identification of existing investment vehicles/structures (e.g. investment funds,
regional development agencies), which could be adapted/customised as potential JESSICA
delivery vehicles.
3.2.Description of the ability and willingness of the private and public sectors to support urban
regeneration in the Mazowieckie Voivoidship through JESSICA and the estimated size of capital
(including contributions in-kind from cities or other entities) that could be raised for that purpose.
33
In order to achieve this task, we will make an inventory of the main urban development
mechanisms and of the entities in charge with implementing financing mechanisms for this
purpose.
We will discuss requirements with key public and private institutions and highlight options for further
development – this will include the Cities, national and local banks, central and regional
government bodies, key regional project promoters.
As part of our discussion with key public and private organisations, we will suggest indicative roles
that they could play and the opportunities to provide complementary funding. To do this we will
present a series of options for the size and structure of a JESSICA fund and the nature of their
possible funding commitments required.
Step 6 – Implementation guidelines and action plan
Tasks referring (in full or partially) to this step:
3.3. Following the analysis of the projects, including the Pilot Projects, investigated under Objective
2, recommend what kind of UDF structure (including city-based UDF) will be appropriate to finance
the selected project(s), including co-financing options.
3.4. Indication of the most appropriate and advantageous option to implement JESSICA in the
Mazowieckie Voivoidship. Assess which structure of the JESSICA mechanism is the most
appropriate: with a Holding Fund and a UDF or just with a UDF selected directly by the Managing
Authority. If a two-level structure is appropriate (Holding Fund and UDF), whether the EIB or other
institution should act as HF.
3.5. Analysis of the OP indicators measuring results to be achieved by implementation of the
objectives of Priority I, IV and V and other priorities which may contribute to the establishment of
the JESSICA HF/UDF structure. The aim is to investigate if there is a need to introduce
modifications to the catalogue of existing indicators within the OP in order to better manage and
monitor JESSICA implementation.
4.1. Propose an action plan and planning timetable covering the cities and projects identified under
Objectives 1-3, in order to implement JESSICA within the current programming period.
4.2. To analyse the possibility of using Technical Assistance funds to reinforce institutional capacity
and skills of the local and regional authorities to implement and set up JESSICA structures (e.g. city
UDF).
4.3. Potential risks for the Managing Authority resulting from implementing JESSICA late in the
current programming period should also be analysed, with respect to the MA’s financial obligations
resulting from the ROP.
Based on the information gathered in previous steps, we will move to the review of available
options of actual JESSICA implementation in Mazowieckie Voivodship. Our analysis will take into
account the findings of already conducted studies, covering major areas such as: market conditions
34
for JESSICA implementation, assessment of implementation possibilities, identification of both
potential project types and market participants.
Two main categories of information will be used by us for providing the recommendations
concerning the organisational scheme for using JESSICA:

The analysis undertaken within the frame of step 5 (Organizations / bodies possibly involved
in implementation of JESSICA) and

Case studies drawn from our experience with other JESSICA projects implemented by
Deloitte in other regions (as shown in the section dedicated to our previous JESSICA
projects), displaying the organisational schemes implemented successfully implemented in
other European regions.
Some of the key decisions related to establishment of the Holding Fund are:

Are projects ready to accept investment and investment cash can flow immediately

Are suitable structures (e.g. entities and regulatory framework) in place that can efficiently
become UDFs in a reasonable period of time

Does the Managing Authority have the skills and capacity to procure UDFs

Are significant technical and regulatory issues to be resolved which would benefit from a
dedicated Holding Fund Manager.
In the event that a Holding Fund is required, we will put forward the evolving arguments for the EIB
being appointed as its Manager, including the value for money proposition we helped develop in
previous studies.
Based on the findings of our call for projects and the field work we will undertake, we will use our
knowledge of the implementation of JESSICA, the procurement of UDFs and the wider experience
of preparing projects for investment by financial institutions to determine if the skills and capacities
of project promoters in the public and private sectors require further support from Technical
Assistance Funds.
We will also review the performance of other regions adopting JESSICA in Poland, through
discussion with the EIB’s personnel to highlight areas of risk to the implementation in this region.
The results of our work during this step will be summarized in a proposed action plan, taking into
account the suggested organizational shape of JESSICA implementation and (based on experience
from other voivodships) approximate time required to establish JESSICA structures in the region.
Step 7 – Further development possibilities for JESSICA
Tasks referring (in full or partially) to this step:
4.2. To analyse the possibility of using Technical Assistance funds to reinforce institutional capacity
and skills of the local and regional authorities to implement and set up JESSICA structures (e.g. city
UDF).
35
During this step we will focus on describing how the ROP Technical Assistance priority could be
employed so that preparations can be made to enable local players to implement JESSICA
structures more widely for the 2014-2020 programming period.
To deliver this task we will:

Analyze the possibility to support further JESSICA implementation using Technical
Assistance funds

Include it in discussions with City representatives

Utilise our experience of the development of JESSICA in other Countries
Work organization and data gathering process
General information on JESSICA and the region
During the analysis of economic, documentation-related and organization conditions of the region,
as well as while preparation of recommendations on possible JESSICA solutions to fund local
projects we will take into account previously prepared studies and documentation made available
by the EIB, the Marshall’s Office or the local authorities. In particular, information from the following
document may be used:

Regional Operational Programme for the Mazowieckie Voivodship for the years 2007-2013

Detailed Description of Priority Axes of Regional Operational Programme for the
Mazowieckie Voivodship for the years 2007-2013 (contains a list of 7 projects of significant
value and 55 key projects) (Marshal’s Office, January 2010)

Development Strategy for the Mazowieckie Voivoidship for the years 2007-2020

Local Regeneration Programmes / Integrated Urban Development Programmes of all
districts’ capital cities in Mazowieckie Voivodship

Spatial Development Plans of selected districts’ capital cities in Mazowieckie Voivodship

Analysis of legal conditions for the implementation of the JESSICA initiative in Poland
(WKB, September 2008)

JESSICA Evaluation Study - South Poland (ARUP, January 2009)

JESSICA Evaluation Study - West Poland (ARUP, January 2009)

JESSICA Evaluation Study for Pomerania (ARUP, April 2010)

JESSICA Evaluation Study for Silesia (CCi)

Programme of Possibilities of Using Renewable Energy Sources for the Mazowieckie
Voivodship

Regional Innovation Strategy for Mazovia for years 2007-2015

Cluster Benchmarking in Poland, Study Report
36
Information for preliminary cities prioritization
We will start the process of projects prioritization by concentrating on potential projects in all
districts’ capital cities (miasta siedziby powiatów). Their initial potential for “Jessicable projects” will
be assessed based on the information in their LRPs and using a simple, straightforward
questionnaire.
The set of questions will be prepared in a way allowing to provide answers to them even in case of
very general knowledge of JESSICA. In fact, the objective of this stage is selecting cities with
highest potential, but which at this point may not yet know much about the possibilities of utilizing
JESSICA. The questionnaire should be accompanied by a letter from the Marshal`s Office, which
will hopefully increase its impact and help in achieving high response rate.
The overall process of selecting target cities is presented on the following diagram:
Once all the questionnaires are completed, data will be aggregated in a form allowing their easy
further processing, including especially the decision which cities will be looked at in closer detail
(done together with the Managing Authority).
Up to 7 cities (including Warsaw) will be selected, based on quality of information and the assessed
potential of regeneration projects provided by all the local authorities in our questionnaire. Reported
projects’ maturity, alignment with JESSICA priorities and with ROP’s Priority Axis 1 (“Creating
condition for development of innovation potential and entrepreneurship”), Axis 4 (“Environment,
prevention of threats and energy”) or Axis 5 (“Strengthening the role of cities in the region”) will be
among the most important assessment criteria.
37
Detailed data on projects
Once the cities for in depth analysis are selected, we will analyse in more detail their Local
Revitalisation Programmes (LRPs) and other relevant documents, concentrating particularly on
projects possibly compliant with JESSICA criteria.
Based on our experience from Evaluation Study in Łódzkie Voivodship, we find it useful to have two
series of meetings with cities representatives:

On the first meeting with each city we will focus on familiarizing them more thoroughly with
JESSICA instruments. Based on the knowledge from those meetings local authorities
should be able to update the previously provided data on planned projects (using our
questionnaire once again).

After about two weeks, during which an update of data on projects should be provided, we
will schedule another meeting with local authorities of each city. Those meeting will be
devoted completely to detailed characteristics of particular planned projects. In case of
projects implemented with private partners their presence will also be welcome.
After the first meeting local authorities will be asked to provide detailed data on selected projects
and LRPs / IUDPs themselves, allowing application of defined set of project analysis criteria. Data
shall be obtained using a dedicated questionnaire, including questions regarding scope of projects
and their major financial/operating assumptions (for the purpose of preliminary financial analysis).
38
Wybierz język (Select language)
English
Evaluation Study of implementing JESSICA Instruments
in Mazowieck ie Voivodship
Questionnaire for planned regeneration projects
The purpose of this questionnaire is to provide information regarding city area regeneration projects. Obtained
data shall be used during the analysis of potential implementation of JESSICA instruments and their financial
support for selected projects in the Mazowieck ie Voivodship.
Please use the drop-down list to select the city, for which you will provide information:
Please provide details of the person delivering information on projects:
Name and Surname:
Department / Unit:
Position held:
Please click the buttons below and provide information on LRP and planned projects:
Uzupełnij informacje nt. LPR
(Fill-in the information on LRP)
Uzupełnij informacje o projektach
(Fill-in the information on projects)
After providing all the requested information on projects please click the following button or manually
send the saved file to kburkot@deloitteCE.com
Wyślij plik (Send the file)
Examples of questions on LRPs / IUDPs:

Does the commune currently have a formal document describing the strategy and planned
activities in the area of regeneration?

What’s the type of this document (LRP / IUDP / other)?

Which years does the document include?

Are there any current activities or plans related to the update of LRP / IUDP?

When is the update expected to be completed and the updated document implemented?

To what extent do the documents describing regeneration strategy take into account
undertaking actions (delivery of projects) under the PPP scheme?

Does the commune have any experience in delivering projects (especially regenerationrelated) with cooperation of private or public partners, particularly under the PPP scheme?
Examples of questions on particular projects:
39

What's the name of the project?

Please provide a short description of the project.

Please assign the project to one of the eligible project types (urban revitalization, EE/RE,
clusters)

What years will the project be completed?

Is the project going to be implemented under the PPP scheme or in any other type of cooperation with private or public partners?

Is the project included in the current Local Regeneration Plan or Integrated Urban
Development Plan?

Would it be possible to include the project into LRP/IUDP during its next update?

Please provide the total value of the project (PLN)

Please list all the financing sources, with contributed values (and their shares in total value
of the project) and the status of their securing process.

Does the project have potential to generate (directly or indirectly) revenues or savings?

If not, would it be possible to rearrange the project's scope in order to start generating
revenues or savings?

Please provide the expected NPV and IRR of the project

Does the project have a feasibility study or other comparable document (e.g. a business
plan)?

Please provide the scope and status of public consultations (if required) and environmental
impact analyses (if required)
We believe that such a process of data gathering will result in very high quality of gathered data,
allowing for credible assessment of projects and efficient selection of pilot projects.
Meetings and interviews
40
Important set of information is expected to be obtained via face-to-face or phone interviews with the
following stakeholders of the potential JESSICA implementation:
#
Stakeholder
Indicative topics
Marshal`s Office of the
Mazowieckie Voivodship Managing Authority for
Regional Operational
Programme
 JESSICA funding from Regional Operational Programme
 Possibilities of contributing additional funds from regional
budget, other ROP axes/measures, National Performance
Reserve or doubtful key projects
 Voivodship’s priorities concerning projects’ characteristics, with
regard to obligations resulting from implementing the Lisbon
Strategy
 Organizational possibilities of the management structure of the
JESSICA mechanism
 Preferences towards JESSICA resources engagement type
(equity, debt, guarantee etc.)
 Experience from running previous regional projects with the
participation of private sector, especially under the PPP scheme
Local authorities of 7
selected cities Mazowieckie
Voivodship
 Details on Local Regeneration Programmes / Integrated Urban
Development Programmes (scope, timeliness, compliance with
JESSICA requirements etc.);
 Projects included in LRPs / IUDPs (their scope, status,
prioritization, owners, financial parameters, eligibility to be
financed via ROP and JESSICA, etc.);
 Availability of commercial credits or other financing sources
assumed so far for the projects;
 Willingness to involve JESSICA mechanisms in financing of
regeneration projects;
 Possibilities of updating the LRPs / IUDPs and redefining the
shape of selected projects, in order to enable JESSICA
financing;
 Experience from running previous local projects with the
participation of private sector, especially under the PPP scheme
 Financial debt in 2009 and expected in 2010
3.
Commercial banks acting in
Mazowieckie Voivodship
 Standard applicable interest rates on credits for projects
comparable to those in LRPs / IUDPs;
 Interest in equity investment in JESSICA projects;
 Interest in being private promoters of JESSICA projects;
 Interest in managing the HF / UFD(s).
4.
Other public or financial
institutions and/or
organizations potentially
involved in JESSICA
implementation
 Interest in equity investment in JESSICA projects;
 Interest in being private promoters of JESSICA projects;
 Interest in managing the HF / UFD(s).
1.
2.
As the project develops, other relevant stakeholders, including private investors and/or
cooperatives may be identified.
41
PROJECT PLAN
General considerations
The project plan has been prepared taking into consideration the following aspects:

The terms of reference of the project as defined by EIB in the call for tender;

Our technical proposal, which defined general action plan for achieving objectives set by
EIB;

Amount of data already available on JESSICA implementation possibilities (previously
prepared studies);

Information on potential projects in Mazowieckie Voivodship available in Local Regeneration
Programme and to be obtained via questionnaires and interviews;

Project start date of February 14th, 2011 (the kick-off meeting) with the end date of May 13th,
2011.
Slight adjustments arisen from actual implementation of the project are naturally to be expected.
Changes will be discussed and agreed on a case by case with EIB.
42
Milestones
The table below lists all major milestones of the project.
#
Milestone
Short description
Deadline
Week
1
Project kick-off
Kick-off meeting of EIB, Managing Authority and Deloitte
February
14th, 2011
-
2a
Draft Inception
Report
Initial version of the Inception Report describing the
approach to preparation of the study
February
15th, 2011
-
February
21th, 2011
1 week
Comments to the
EIB’s comments / remarks to the initial version of Inception
2b Draft Inception
Report
Report
2c
Final Inception
Report
Final version of the Inception Report, taking into account
potential changes discussed with EIB
February
28th, 2011
2 weeks
3a
Draft Interim
Report
Initial version of the Interim Report describing the progress
March 28th,
of work done during preparation of the study and first results
2011
obtained in selected areas of analysis
6 weeks
3b
Comments to the
EIB’s comments / remarks to the initial version of Interim
Draft Interim
Report
Report
April 4th,
2011
7 weeks
Steering
Committee
First Steering Committee - presentation of initial results of
the Evaluation Study
Between
4th-11th of
April
TBD
Final Interim
Report
Final version of the Interim Report, taking into account
potential changes discussed with EIB
April 11th,
2011
8 weeks
3c 3c
3d
4a Draft Final Report Draft version of the Evaluation Study
4b
Comments to the EIB’s comments / remarks to the initial version of Final
Draft Final Report Report
4c
Final version of
the Final Report
Final version of the Evaluation Study to be assumed by EIB
5
Steering
Committee
Seminar/workshop for presenting final JESSICA Evaluation
Study for the Mazowieckie Voivodship
Report
Meeting / Steering Committee
April 29th, 10 weeks
2011
and 4 days
May 6h,
2011
11 weeks
and 4 days
May 13th, 12 weeks
2011
and 4 days
TBD
TBD
Steering Committee and flow of deliverables
The Steering Committee should assume the following roles and responsibilities in relation to the
successful implementation of this project:

Provide the necessary documentation and information to the Consultant as per the role of
each member in the institutional architecture relevant for JESSICA implementation;

Facilitate for the Consultant the organisation of meetings / interviews in order to gather data;

Identification of relevant investment projects potentially suitable for support through financial
engineering instruments in the field of urban regeneration;

Review the findings of the Study and provide clarifications, indications, where applicable.
Members of the Steering Committee:
1. European Investment Bank;
2. Marshal`s Office of the Mazowieckie Voivodship
- Managing Authority for Regional Operational Programme;
3. Deloitte.
In addition to the above entities, the representatives of local authorities of the target (max. 7) cities
may be optionally invited to take part in the SC meeting. However, their participation in meetings is
not mandatory and should be closely linked to the issues discussed at the meetings.
As presented in the Milestones section, it is expected that the SC will meet at least once during the
project lifetime (after the Final Report). However it should be possible to arrange additional
meetings in case of urgent situations crucial for preparation of the Evaluation Study.
Project deliverables (draft and final reports) prepared by Deloitte in accordance with the Milestones
section will be delivered by e-mail to European Investment Bank. In case of draft versions, EIB may
be willing to forward them to MA in order to collect opinions on presented conclusions.
It is recommended that Evaluation Study work-in-progress documents (or any interim results and
conclusions) are not revealed to parties other than the SC members.
All the documents shall be prepared in English, apart from the Final Report which will be available
both in English and Polish.
44
Planned content of the final JESSICA Evaluation Study
The final report will be submitted in draft version 10 weeks and 4 days after award of the contract
and it will address the following main topics:

JESSICA initiative as a suitable mechanism of implementing the Structural Funds in the
context of the Polish policy drivers and approach to planning of urban regeneration, energy
efficiency/renewable energy and clusters;

The most appropriate and advantageous option to implement JESSICA in Mazowieckie
Voivodship and the most appropriate structure of the JESSICA mechanism in the context of
establishment of the Holding Fund;

The most appropriate architecture of JESSICA in terms of number of possible UDFs and
the role of the public and private sector in the JESSICA structure (If setting up of a Holding
Fund is not recommended, what other implementation structure would be optimal?);

Presentation of the initial projects that will lend themselves an early implementation by the
first UDF(s);

An efficient set of criteria for practical analysis of project considered to be included into
JESSICA financing in the future;

Implications for JESSICA and possible next steps and actions for all the stakeholders;

Identification of possible statutory or legislative barriers which can prevent the optimum
delivery of the JESSICA instrument in Mazowieckie Voivodship.
45