Upload
anissa-white
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Progress Reporting
Kirsti Mijnhijmer, Joint Secretariat
Lead Partner Seminar25th March 2015, Svolvær, Norway
RationaleYOUR project is monitored by:1. First Level Controllers
2. The Monitoring Committee (MA)3.The Manging Authority (MA)
4. The Joint Secretariat (JS)
5. European Commission WE want to
guarantee satisfactory project
implementation
Start to end measurement AND quantification of
project outputs.... YOUR products and
services
Activity Reports are cross checked with
the project application/ decision
throughout the project’s
implementation.
If you report in time, we will make a payment ideally within 3 months,
provided there are no serious errors.
Communication and publicity is vital the NPA 2014-2020; the public should know about your project
outputs
Overview of NPA claim system
Activity Report in the NPA claim system
Purpose of the Activity Report
To allow programme bodies to monitor the development of the project
To help guarantee a satisfactory achievement of the project results
To provide quantification and continuous quality assurance of project outputs (quality objectives)
To allow a cross-check between the implementation versus the project application or decision.
To collect information for the NPA’s Annual Implementation Report
To help disseminate information about the project to the wider public.
To identify best practices in project implementation and publicity
To approve minor project changes pre-approved by the Secretariat
To assess the project’s risk profile
Reporting Forms
An activity report consists of 2 parts:A. Partner Activity Report: activities carried out by
partnerB. Project Activity Report: progress of project
implementation+ Supporting documentation
Types of information asked: Achievements of the project objectives and results, highlights Development status of main project outputs, including output
indicators Status of work package activities, deliverables, and target groups
reached Measures addressing horizontal principles Synergies with other strategies and programmes Changes and other project implementation issues
A. Partner progress report in eMS
A. Partner progress report in eMS
B. Project progress report in eMS
B. Project progress report in eMS
Result indicators – Programme level
Specific Objective
Result Indicator
Priority axis 1 - Innovation1.1 Degree of collaborations between SMEs and R&D1.2 Awareness and attitudes among health professionals towards the use of eHealth
technologies. Priority axis 2 – Entrepreneurship2.1 Conditions for start-ups in remote, sparsely populated areas2.2 Awareness of business opportunities beyond local markets among SMEsPriority axis 3 – Renewables and energy efficiency3 Awareness of energy efficiency opportunities and renewable solutions in housing
sector and public infrastructures in remote and sparsely populated areasPriority axis 4 – Protecting, developing and promoting natural and cultural heritage 4 Preparedness of responsible authorities in remote and sparsely populated areas
for environmental management in relation to climate change and impacts of new investments in exploitation of natural resources
(Programme Manual section 2.4.1)
Output indicators – Project level
Type Output Indicator Measurement unit
Common indicators
Number of enterprises receiving support Enterprises
Number of enterprises cooperating with research institutions Enterprises
Specific indicators
Number of product and service opportunities to be developed, based on new or existing R&D
Products and services
Number of supported SMEs reporting productivity increase in %. (i.e. Increased sales, customer base and increased productivity)
SMEs
Number of innovative models/solutions addressing viability and low critical mass in public service provision
Collaborations
Number of innovative technology-driven solutions for public service provision in remote areas
Services
Example Priority Axis 1 (Programme Manual section 2.4.2)
Assessment of the Activity Report by JS
Completeness of the information Eligibility of activities carried out Coherence of activities with objectives set out in application/
decision Progress achieved of the implementation vs. the
application/decision Analysis of the efficiency and effectiveness of project
implementation Measurement of quality and quantity of project outputs and
results Analysis of project spending profile, value-for-money, etc. Quality of partnership and distribution of roles between the
partners Analysis of synergies with other strategies and programmes Concrete actions meeting the horizontal principles
Project changes – General Principles
Project managers are expected to manage issues within the project in cooperation with their partnership. However, it may become evident that the implementation plan or budget needs to be revised
Changes are divided into minor and major changes: The degree of the change will be determined by the
JS Generally, projects are expected to have only one
major change in their lifetime, and maximum one minor change request per reporting period.
Minor changes
Budget changes below 50 000 EUR/10% (tbc) per project budget line, accumulated since the latest decision.
Implementation changes with no major impact on work plan, the project outputs, or results.
Travel outside the programme area, if not part of the approved application.
Copenhagen = outside the area!
Minor administrative changes.
LP sends an e-mail to JS Desk Officer outlining the change together with a justification and assessment of the impact on implementation and outputs.
Once pre-approved, the changes should be listed in the Activity Report confirming the picture that the changes are minor
Formal approval when approving the Activity Report. Latest decision remains valid for future reporting.
Major changes
Budget changes above 50 000 EUR/10% (tbc) per project budget line, accumulated since the latest decision.
A change/withdrawal of partner
A change in the number/ character of main outputs
Implementation changes with a major impact on the work plan, the project outputs, or results.
An extension of eligibility period.
LP informs the JS Desk Officer asap, outlining the change together with a justification and assessment of the impact on implementation and outputs
The Desk Officer may ask the LP to submit a revised application + supporting docs
The Desk Officer will make a decision proposal for the MA or, if necessary, the Monitoring Committee.
The MA issues a new decision
Further guidance
JS Desk Officer and RCPs Programme Manual:
3.3.2. Changes in project implementation 3.5.1. Activity Reporting 3.5.3. Assessment of the Progress Report
More details about the online forms and training at next Lead Partner seminar in Autumn 2015
Thank you for listening!
Kirsti MijnhijmerSecretariatTel.: +45 3283 3784E-mail: [email protected]
www.interreg-npa.eu