Representativeness of keep.eu data
Keep.eu has extensive data on projects, programmes and partners of Territorial Cooperation involving the European Union, since 2000. And it adds more by the minute, even though updates to this page only come once a day, after business close.
This page provides an understanding of how much keep.eu covers the projects and partners in the overall sector made up of Interreg, Interreg-IPA and ENI cross-border to this date.
The charts and base figures show how representative keep.eu is overall. The Excel exports contain how each single field is represented, both at programme-type and at programme levels. An important note in connection with this: Fields with very little text are a real challenge for language detection, which may lead to errors.
The FAQ entry on data contains important information regarding the full array of data, their meaning, concepts pertaining to data in keep.eu, processes, among many other issues that provide a solid understanding of data in keep.eu.
Important dates to understand keep.eu’s representativeness
- 2021-11-25, last addition of projects or partnerships to the keep.eu database.
- 2021-10-21, latest counting of projects/partnerships from all programmes’ websites.
- 2022-01-31, foreseen next counting of projects/partnerships from all programmes’ websites.
Projects in keep.eu versus the sector (%)
The chart compares the number of projects in the database with the overall number of actual projects. The latter is collected manually from all the Interreg, Interreg-IPA and ENI cross-border programmes’ websites every three months. Be sure to check the dates on the top-right side of this page to understand when the last count was and when the next one will be.
Important note: Keep.eu focuses on contracted projects. Representativeness per project thus shows, as much as possible, how many contracted projects there are in keep.eu versus overall. However, some programmes show on their websites the number of approved projects only. In these cases, representativeness is reckoned with the number of approved projects in the denominator. We thus tend to show an apparent representativeness rate of keep.eu somewhat below the real one.
Furthermore, to refer to the figures feeding the chart, click the link right below it. For full detail on the representativeness of each project field (per programme type and down to programme), use the Export to Excel button (button to the right of this text).
| Programme type/programming period | All programming periods | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In keep.eu | Overall | % | In keep.eu | Overall | % | In keep.eu | Overall | % | In keep.eu | Overall | % | |||
| Total | 0 | 0 | -NaN% | |||||||||||
Partnerships in keep.eu versus the sector (%)
The chart compares the number of partnerships in the database with the overall number of actual partnerships in the sector. This is collected from all the Interreg, Interreg-IPA and ENI cross-border programmes’ websites every three months. Be sure to check the dates on the top-right side of this page to understand when the last count was and when the next one will be.
Furthermore, to refer to the figures feeding the chart, click the link right below it. For full detail on the representativeness of each partner field (per programme type and down to programme), use the Export to Excel button (button to the right of this text).
| Programme type/programming period | All programming periods | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In keep.eu | Overall | % | In keep.eu | Overall | % | In keep.eu | Overall | % | In keep.eu | Overall | % | |||
| Total | 0 | 0 | -NaN% | |||||||||||
Programmes with projects featured in keep.eu (%)
Keep.eu contains information on ALL the Interreg (cross-border, transnational and networking), Interreg-IPA cross-border, ENPI/ENI cross-border and IPA-IPA cross-border programmes since 2000. Programme data representativeness is thus 100%.
What the chart compares is the number of programmes featuring projects in the database with the overall number of existing Interreg, Interreg-IPA and ENI cross-border programmes (IPA-IPA cross-border programmes are not included in this reckoning, since the goal is, for these programmes’ projects, to show in keep.eu a qualitatively, as opposed to quantitatively, representative set).
To refer to the figures feeding the chart, click the link right below it. For full detail on the project and partner representativeness per programme type and per programme, use the Export to Excel button (button to the right of this text).
| Programme type/programming period | All programming periods | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In keep.eu | Overall | % | In keep.eu | Overall | % | In keep.eu | Overall | % | In keep.eu | Overall | % | |||
| Total | 0 | 0 | -NaN% | |||||||||||
Documents
Starting in the 2014-2020 period, the keep.eu team has been collecting output documents on the projects featured in the keep.eu database. The goal is to preserve and aggregate (for ease of search) the wealth of knowledge and expertise gained by the sector’s projects.
It is not possible to reckon how representative our library is. For instance, many projects produce no thematic documents, or very few, whereas others produce a large number of documents. This doesn’t mean that the former projects do not deliver (document production is mainly a result of a project’s nature, goals, and method). But it means that representativeness will tend to skew negatively. The more documents are collected and published, the more distorted the sense of representativeness will be.
The chart and table below (and the Excel export) should only be used as an imperfect gauge of keep.eu’s progress in collecting documents, per programme. Uses beyond that are a misuse of its nature. We are putting serious efforts into collecting all the relevant documents from the 2014-2020 period. And we know already that, even at the end of this quest, the chart below will be far from showing a 100% representativeness. But the wealth of thematic information produced by the programmes and projects will be there.
Important to know about the process: The keep.eu team collects documents in rounds, each round covering all the programmes with data in keep.eu. It started with the programmes which projects closed the earliest. Documents are collected only for projects that closed at least six months beforehand. Regarding videos, only those in Youtube or Vimeo are embedded in keep.eu. Lastly, and this last rule applies only to transnational programmes, in case a transnational project lists the same document in different language editions, only the one in English is uploaded to keep.eu.
| Programme types | 2014-2020 programmes | Projects in keep. eu closed for more than 6 months | Projects with documents in keep. eu | % | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | All 2014-2020 programmes | 4 409 | 1 126 | 26% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Finland – Estonia – Latvia – Sweden (Central Baltic) |
93 | 32 | 34% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Germany – The Netherlands | 71 | 12 | 17% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A France-Switzerland | 71 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Germany – Denmark | 33 | 24 | 73% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Belgium – Germany – The Netherlands Euregio Meuse-Rhin / Euregio Maas-Rijn / Euregio Maas-Rhein |
15 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Italy – Croatia | 28 | 24 | 86% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Germany / Mecklenburg – Western Pomerania / Brandenburg – Poland |
18 | 10 | 56% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Austria – Germany / Bavaria (Bayern – Österreich) |
36 | 1 | 3% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Greece – Bulgaria | 28 | 14 | 50% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Sweden – Denmark – Norway (Öresund – Kattegat – Skagerrak) |
43 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Greece – Cyprus | 29 | 16 | 55% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Estonia – Latvia | 42 | 4 | 10% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A France (Saint Martin – Sint Maarten) | 0 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A France – Belgium – The Netherlands – United Kingdom (Les Deux Mers / Two seas / Twee Zeeën) |
17 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Romania – Hungary | 48 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Slovakia – Czech Republic | 60 | 53 | 88% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Hungary – Croatia | 54 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Italy – Malta | 6 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Germany – Austria – Switzerland – Liechtenstein (Alpenrhein – Bodensee – Hochrhein) |
54 | 21 | 39% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Slovenia – Austria | 32 | 14 | 44% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Belgium – The Netherlands (Vlaanderen – Nederland) |
59 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Italy – France (Maritime) | 77 | 14 | 18% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Germany / Brandenburg – Poland | 36 | 13 | 36% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Slovakia – Austria | 17 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Lithuania – Poland | 76 | 3 | 4% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Czech Republic – Poland | 114 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Poland – Germany / Saxony | 44 | 2 | 5% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A France – Belgium – Germany – Luxembourg (Grande Région / Großregion) |
16 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A United Kingdom-Ireland (Ireland-Northern Ireland-Scotland) |
5 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Greece – Italy | 0 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Slovakia – Hungary | 59 | 34 | 58% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Romania – Bulgaria | 111 | 24 | 22% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Sweden – Finland – Norway (Botnia Atlantica) | 36 | 17 | 47% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Belgium – France (France – Wallonie – Vlaanderen) |
88 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Austria – Czech Republic | 25 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Sweden – Finland – Norway (Nord) | 67 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A France – United Kingdom (Manche – Channel) | 16 | 14 | 88% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Germany / Saxony – Czech Republic | 122 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A France – Italy (ALCOTRA) | 69 | 15 | 22% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Germany / Bavaria – Czech Republic | 85 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Poland – Slovakia | 56 | 14 | 25% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A United Kingdom – Ireland (Ireland – Wales) | 8 | 5 | 62% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Italy – Slovenia | 30 | 26 | 87% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Italy – Austria | 68 | 47 | 69% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Austria – Hungary | 22 | 15 | 68% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Italy – Switzerland | 19 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Slovenia – Croatia | 37 | 24 | 65% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Latvia – Lithuania | 89 | 13 | 15% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Slovenia – Hungary | 15 | 14 | 93% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Sweden – Norway | 66 | 5 | 8% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Spain – France – Andorra (POCTEFA) | 120 | 91 | 76% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A France – Germany – Switzerland (Rhin supérieur-Oberrhein) |
97 | 8 | 8% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Spain – Portugal (Madeira – Açores – Canarias (MAC)) |
56 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Spain – Portugal (POCTEP) | 135 | 94 | 70% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A Poland – Denmark – Germany – Lithuania – Sweden (South Baltic) |
74 | 10 | 14% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | INTERREG V-A France (Mayotte / Comores / Madagascar) | 0 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg cross-border | Ireland – United Kingdom (PEACE IV) | 40 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg transnational | INTERREG VB Central Europe | 85 | 27 | 32% | ||||||||||
| Interreg transnational | INTERREG VB North West Europe | 10 | 12 | 120% | ||||||||||
| Interreg transnational | INTERREG VB Amazonia | 7 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg transnational | INTERREG VB Mediterranean | 82 | 22 | 27% | ||||||||||
| Interreg transnational | INTERREG VB Atlantic Area | 41 | 35 | 85% | ||||||||||
| Interreg transnational | INTERREG VB Danube | 87 | 46 | 53% | ||||||||||
| Interreg transnational | INTERREG VB Adriatic – Ionian | 29 | 27 | 93% | ||||||||||
| Interreg transnational | INTERREG VB Indian Ocean Area | 135 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg transnational | INTERREG VB Caribbean Area | 12 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg transnational | INTERREG VB North Sea | 11 | 9 | 82% | ||||||||||
| Interreg transnational | INTERREG VB Northern Periphery and Arctic | 100 | 21 | 21% | ||||||||||
| Interreg transnational | INTERREG VB South West Europe | 57 | 27 | 47% | ||||||||||
| Interreg transnational | INTERREG VB Alpine Space | 39 | 15 | 38% | ||||||||||
| Interreg transnational | INTERREG VB Baltic Sea | 99 | 8 | 8% | ||||||||||
| Interreg transnational | INTERREG VB Balkan-Mediterranean | 40 | 9 | 22% | ||||||||||
| Interreg interregional | Interreg Europe | 76 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg interregional | ESPON 2020 | 45 | 43 | 96% | ||||||||||
| Interreg interregional | INTERACT III | 0 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg interregional | URBACT III | 30 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| ENPI/ENI cross-border | Romania – Republic of Moldova ENI CBC | 6 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| ENPI/ENI cross-border | South-East Finland – Russia ENI CBC | 2 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| ENPI/ENI cross-border | Latvia – Russia ENI CBC | 5 | 2 | 40% | ||||||||||
| ENPI/ENI cross-border | Black Sea Basin ENI CBC | 6 | 6 | 100% | ||||||||||
| ENPI/ENI cross-border | Poland – Russia ENI CBC | 1 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| ENPI/ENI cross-border | Poland – Belarus – Ukraine ENI CBC | 46 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| ENPI/ENI cross-border | Mediterranean Sea Basin ENI CBC | 0 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| ENPI/ENI cross-border | Karelia ENI CBC | 30 | 9 | 30% | ||||||||||
| ENPI/ENI cross-border | Kolarctic ENI CBC | 2 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| ENPI/ENI cross-border | Latvia – Lithuania – Belarus ENI CBC | 20 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| ENPI/ENI cross-border | Lithuania – Russia ENI CBC | 3 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| ENPI/ENI cross-border | Estonia – Russia ENI CBC | 1 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| ENPI/ENI cross-border | Romania – Ukraine ENI CBC | 1 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| ENPI/ENI cross-border | Italy – Tunisia ENI CBC | 0 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| ENPI/ENI cross-border | Hungary – Slovakia – Romania – Ukraine ENI CBC | 6 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg-IPA cross-border | Interreg IPA CBC Greece – Albania | 46 | 6 | 13% | ||||||||||
| Interreg-IPA cross-border | Interreg IPA CBC Greece – Republic of North Macedonia | 39 | 25 | 64% | ||||||||||
| Interreg-IPA cross-border | Interreg IPA CBC Romania – Serbia | 42 | 15 | 36% | ||||||||||
| Interreg-IPA cross-border | Interreg IPA CBC Bulgaria – Turkey | 65 | 35 | 54% | ||||||||||
| Interreg-IPA cross-border | Interreg IPA CBC Bulgaria – Serbia | 65 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg-IPA cross-border | Interreg IPA CBC Bulgaria – Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia |
55 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg-IPA cross-border | Interreg IPA CBC Croatia-Serbia | 23 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg-IPA cross-border | Interreg IPA CBC Croatia – Bosnia and Herzegovina – Montenegro |
23 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg-IPA cross-border | Interreg IPA CBC Italy – Albania – Montenegro | 32 | 0 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Interreg-IPA cross-border | Interreg IPA CBC Hungary – Serbia | 73 | 0 | 0% |