1. Interim project evaluation August 2013 – June 2014

2. The aim of project interim evaluation is to assess compliance of the working plan, quality of the partnership, impact on target groups as well as dissemination of the project. In other words, interim evaluation have to measure the overall progress and quality of project after 1 year implementation.

3. Methodology 4 questionnaires have been submitted by members of Steering Commettee (1 questionnaire per institution): 1. Associazione N.E.T. 2. Growing Rural Enterprise. 3. Retzhof. 4. Education, Research & Consultancy Center. All the scores of each question were added and divided by the number of valid answers.The average rate is showed in the tables of interim project evaluation report.

4. PART 1: Project main focus To analyse, if project, carried out so far, answers objectives of LLP and main topics of application. Most of partners understood the importance of mobility activities. Growing Rural Enterprise from UK even hosted the member of staff from Retzhof for a 3-months work placement. Only Bulgarian partner didn’t realise the need to participate in partners meetings, they attended only Paduva meeting. Partners mentioned that mobility activities were useful, because they saw best practice examples and got ideas for future. SCORE AVERAGE OF PART 1 IS 4,5 (FROM 5).

5. PART 2: Compliance of the workplan “In Green Shape” tourist brochure with itineraries is in creation process. Partners agreed on the content and structure of brochure. There are still some questions regarding the map, dissemination of brochure and etc. The main product of partnership – brochure – will finalised during 2nd of project. The biggest impact of project is on local communities and local authorities. Difficulties: communication with Bulgarian partner, to receive answers in time from partners, materials and documents are sent by partners after deadline. SCORE AVERAGE OF PART 2 IS 4,44 (FROM 5).

6. PART 3: The quality of partnership Partners think that allocation of tasks among partners is balanced, just UK organization should be helped more by partnership, because their tasks are most important, as they are related to the main product of project. EISD from Bulgaria is not complying with its role. All partners, who attended the last meetings have been very motivated and reliable. SCORE AVERAGE OF PART 3 IS 4,6 (FROM 5).

7. Some insights Partners did not mention about local/international workshops for adults; According to initial application partnership have to compare local experiences on sustainable tourism services; There is the evident problem of Bulgaria.