This project is funded by the EUAnd implemented by a consortium led by MWH RCBI ‘handover’ meeting Hungary-Slovakia-Romania-Ukraine ENPI CBC Programme

This project is funded by the EU And implemented by a consortium led by MWH

RCBI ‘handover’ meetingHungary-Slovakia-Romania-

Ukraine ENPI CBC Programme

RCBI ‘handover’ meetingHungary-Slovakia-Romania-

Ukraine ENPI CBC Programme

Budapest, 21 March 2012


Meeting outlineMeeting outline

• Expectations

• Review of the involvement of PC and what the programme plans to do to facilitate involvement

• Identify what RCBI tools/materials may be needed to help with this including a presentation on some of these, e.g. e-modules + support needed to the end of the project

• Situation at the start of the project (2007) and situation at end. How has it changed

• Review of support from RCBI - what was useful and what could be improved and what might be needed in the future programming phase

• Evaluation and wrap up


BasisBasis

• Quantitative analysis based on statistics on calls, provided by the programme

• Analysis based on questionnaires:– Programme: JMA, JTS, BO

– Ua: NCP, CSE

• Input from - RCBI Key Experts


No. of Ua applicants – 1st & 2nd callsNo. of Ua applicants – 1st & 2nd calls


No. of Ua partners -1st & 2nd callsNo. of Ua partners -1st & 2nd calls


No. of Ua applicants and partners -1st & 2nd callNo. of Ua applicants and partners -1st & 2nd call


Awarded projects - Ist callAwarded projects - Ist call


Awarded Projects - 2nd call awardedAwarded Projects - 2nd call awarded


Success rate -1st and & 2nd calls Success rate -1st and & 2nd calls

59% 26%

29% 15%


Budget share Ua – 1st and 2nd calls Budget share Ua – 1st and 2nd calls


Involvement of PC organisations in applications - 1Involvement of PC organisations in applications - 1

As Applicants:

• Very well represented (3); not very well represented (2)

Reasons:

• Number of UA applicants in the 1st CfP was under the average, but due to the experiences and successful promotional events, this number doubled

• Attraction to Programme’s priorities as well as to the system of financing

• Good innovative and development ideas

• Depends on a programme – we are satisfied with the level of involvement of our applicants/partners in “Hungary-Slovakia-Romania-Ukraine”

• Complicated national requirements and unstable national legislation

• Lack of partners

• Lack of experience


Involvement of PC organisations in applications - 2Involvement of PC organisations in applications - 2

As Partners:

• Very well represented (3); well represented (1); not very well represented (1)

Reasons:

• Due to the rule, that at least one participant should be from the PC

• Building of project partnership between PC organisation and MS organisation is a

fundamental obligation for submitting a project proposal and further implementation of

the project in case it has been selected

• Desire to get acquainted with the Programmes rules and requirements better

• Chance for experience exchange

• Being a partner is more convenient and involves less responsibility compared to being

an Applicant

• Depends on a programme – we are satisfied with the level of involvement of our

applicants/partners in “Hungary-Slovakia-Romania-Ukraine” (2)

• Interest of Ukrainian organisations to participate in the ENPI CBC


Involvement of PC organisations in awarded projects - 1Involvement of PC organisations in awarded projects - 1

As Applicants:

• Very well represented (2); well represented (1); not very well represented (2)

Reasons:

• The rules were not so strict

• Attractive system of financing

• Good experience in working with EU Programmes

• Depends on a programme – we are satisfied with the level of involvement of our applicants/partners in “Hungary-Slovakia-Romania-Ukraine” (2)


Involvement of PC organisations in awarded projects - 2Involvement of PC organisations in awarded projects - 2

As Partners:

• Very well represented (3); not very well represented (2)

Reasons:

• In awarded projects not just one UA partner participates

• Building of project partnership between PC organisation and MS organisation is a fundamental obligation for submitting a project proposal and further implementation of the project in case it has been selected (2)

• Depends on a programme – we are satisfied with the level of involvement of our applicants/partners in “Hungary-Slovakia-Romania-Ukraine” (2)


Main challenges - 1Main challenges - 1

As Applicants:

• Legislative obstacles (2)

• Banking difficulties (money transfer, proof of spending, etc)

• Complicated national requirements

• Assessment procedure

• Application package

• Language barrier

• Visa, national permissions

• Lack of experience (incl. in the preparation of project proposals according to EU rules)

(2)

• Afraid to take responsibility for project management

• Lack of partners

• Co-financing


Main challenges - 2Main challenges - 2

As Partners:

• Legislative obstacles (2)

• Visa, national permissions

• Complicated national requirements

• Finding a partner (2)

• Assessment procedure

• Language barrier

• Application package

• Lack of experience

• Co-financing


Disadvantage issueDisadvantage issue

Disadvantage – 2

No disadvantage – 3

Reasons:

• In PC, legislation does not reflect the needs of project implementation

• In MS the system is more flexible

• MS have more experience in Programme participation and in preparing application forms


Balanced participationBalanced participation

• Equal treatment of all applicants is more important than balanced participation – 2

• A balanced distribution of funds among participating countries is very important – 2

• Balanced participation is extremely important for programme success – 4

Explanations:

• Balanced distribution of funds proves that the Action is being implemented mutually and actively by the partners

• The quantity of PC organisations participating in projects is essential for their further development and increasing of their skills and know-how

• A balanced distribution of funds among participating countries seems to be very important, but it much depends on the quality of the applications

• It would be good to balance the rules for participation of Adjacent/Adjoining regions and main regions


Responsibility for facilitating balanced participation Responsibility for facilitating balanced participation

• JMA/JTS – 2

• Branch offices – 2

• JMC –

• National authorities – 3

• Other: – JMA/JTS was to use the best and independent assessors in order to find the best

applications. The points/scores were doing their own job to rank the projects, and distribute the fund among the participants/countries. National authorities, umbrella organizations should motivate the potential applications too

– Regional Councils or self-governing regions


What are you doing to facilitate participation ?What are you doing to facilitate participation ?

Programme

• Info days (2)

• Partner search forums (3)

• Spreading information through media, project website, internet (2)

Ua

• Our Authorities hold information events and provide our applicants with explanations

• Stimulates balanced participation at its level (JTFs, JMCs)


What can/should you do in the future?What can/should you do in the future?

Programme

• To keep spreading information (e.g. Info days) (2)

• To guarantee independent and satisfactory assessors

• Continue providing information on the Programme and informing organizations about

the rules and requirements of the Programme

• List of successful PC organisations and of all implemented projects should be

published on Programme’s website as well as on the websites of Regional Authorities

Ua

• Balanced participation of MC and PC should be the provision in programme

documents

• Be more active in communicating with the regional authorities from MS to encourage

more active participation of the organisations from MS in ENPI CBC projects


RCBI support to HSRU 2007-2011RCBI support to HSRU 2007-2011

• Support for programming - contributions from experts from Ukraine and other programming experts

• Training on programme management - JTS/JMC (2)

• Events to support calls for proposals - info seminars (2), project preparation workshop (9), partner search forums (3)

• Support for PC to participate in programme events (5)


RCBI materials/tools - 1RCBI materials/tools - 1

• Database of partners and contacts in MPC

• E support for project identification and development and project implementation

• Identifying, developing and implementing ENPI CBC projects: Tips from RCBI practice of supporting potential applicants and partners

• RCBI Project Implementation Manual (PIM)

• Guides to national requirements for implementing ENPI CBC projects


RCBI materials/tools - 2RCBI materials/tools - 2

• The clock is ticking: Steps for preparing ENPI CBC project proposals

• ‘Who does What When’ Wheel - Responsibilities and tasks for each programme management structure

• Power point presentations from events – Project Preparation workshops, Partner search Forums, Project Management and Implementation training

• Reports on PC involvement

• Other support?

Documents

This project is funded by the EUAnd implemented by a consortium led by MWH RCBI ‘handover’ meeting Hungary-Slovakia-Romania-Ukraine ENPI CBC Programme