Home / Representativeness

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).

– Show base figures –
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).

– Show base figures –
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).

– Show base figures –
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.

– Show base figures –
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%