1 / 23

RCBI ‘handover’ meeting Armenia

RCBI ‘handover’ meeting Armenia. Yerevan – 18 April 2012. Meeting outline. Expectations Review of the involvement of Am and of what the programme and authorities in Am plan to do to facilitate involvement

ghada
Download Presentation

RCBI ‘handover’ meeting Armenia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RCBI ‘handover’ meetingArmenia Yerevan – 18 April 2012

  2. Meeting outline • Expectations • Review of the involvement of Am and of what the programme and authorities in Am plan 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

  3. Basis • Quantitative analysis based on statistics on calls provided by the programme • Qualitative analysis based on questionnaires: • Armenia: NCP, applicants, beneficiaries and partners • Programme: JMA/JTS • Input from - RCBI Experts

  4. No. of applicants by country -1st call (BSB)

  5. No. of partners by country -1st call (BSB)

  6. No. of applicants and partners by country - 1st call (BSB)

  7. Success rate of applicantsby country -1st call (BSB)

  8. Budget share beneficiaries & partnersby country – 1st call (BSB)

  9. Involvement of Am organisations in applications - 1 As Applicants: • Well represented (2); not very well represented (2) Reasons: NCP/CSE: • Training and awareness raising activities by the RCBI • Commitment of the beneficiary country • Lack of experience in these kind of programmes • Very complicated procedures and processes (e.g. huge documentation packages) • Fear to trust the possible partners without seeing them (low possibility to travel to meet them) Programme: • Capacity requirements for the applicants made this position open for a number of entities proportional to the administrative capacity and development of PC • Not very familiar with the EU grant programmes and their project cycling logic • PCsdo not have as developed mechanisms as the MS to provide institutionalized help to entities (e.g. co-financing)

  10. Involvement of Am organisations in applications - 2 AsPartners: • Well represented (4) Reasons: NCP/CSE: • Participation as partners easier - less responsibility though maybe less resources and budget as well • Training and awareness raising activities by the RCBI • Commitment of the beneficiary country Programme: • Partners from PC used this opportunity as an entry point in this type of cooperation, using already established contacts or making new ones • Programme was well promoted • Various events attracted attention of the entities from PCs

  11. Involvement of Am organisations in awarded projects - 1 As Applicants: • Well represented (1); not very well represented (1); low level of representation (1) Reasons: NCP/CSE: • Lack of experience in these kind of programmes • Deadlines and the papers required were not properly met • Not-very-professional approach of the main selecting authorities and countries Programme: • It is a natural process of development that justifies the low number, but their participation can be deemed good considering the new elements brought by the programme • Entities are in need of knowledge on how to implement projects under ENPI CBC rules

  12. Involvement of Am organisations in awarded projects - 2 As Partners: • Well represented (3) Reasons: NCP/CSE: • Requirement to involve partners from PCs Programmes: • Level of involvement is satisfactory and can be an indicator of future applications to be prepared and submitted by the current partners • There is an equal representation of PC and MS in the awarded projects (30 MS 31 PC)

  13. Main challenges - 1 As Applicants: NCP/CSE: • Language issues • Skills to prepare quality proposals • Partner search mechanisms Programme: • A new initiative that brings new rules in the area • Know-how on leading a consortium/partnership • Financial resources to cover cofinancing as well as the development costs • More involvement of national and regional authorities might bring additional knowledge and dissemination Less supporting documents need to be asked • Language issues • Establishing communication links and cooperating with entities outside their countries

  14. Main challenges - 2 As Partners: NCP/CSE: • Language issues • Skills to prepare quality proposals • Partner search mechanisms Programme: • The need to be familiarized with the standard forms used in the application (grant application form, budget, logical framework) • Finding new partners outside traditional cooperation areas • Co-financing • More attention and formal support need to be provided to the PC organisations by the PC institutions

  15. Reasons for not applying/not being successful – Am applicants, beneficiaries and partners • Difficult to allocate the relevant resources to build up such projects • Lack of knowledge, skills • The status of non-EU participants is not supportive to be an active entity in partnership schemes • Areas were not much relevant to our organization • Call for the applications was coming too close to the deadlines

  16. Level of involvement in applications – Am applicants, beneficiaries and partners • Active involvement that is also equal to the involvement of other Partners (1) • Member State partners have higher involvement than Partner Country partners (0) • The Lead Partner has been doing almost all of the work, partners being passive (0) • The level of our involvement is in line with what was planned (1) • We expected to be more involved in the project (0) • So far, we have had very little or no involvement in the project (0)

  17. Disadvantage issue Disadvantage (2) - No disadvantage (2) Reasons: NCP/CSE: • Border and visa problems play an essential role • Organisations in the PCs sometimes don’t see and feel directly “what is EU” Programme: • Organisations from MS are more familiar with the procedures (application, implementation, etc.) used in the ENPI CBC programmes • Organisations from MS have more possibilities to reach required knowledge for preparing an application (e.g. PCM trainings) • MS have developed institutionalised support mechanisms to the organisations taking part as applicants or partners (e.g. co-financing systems)

  18. Balanced participation • Equal treatment of all applicants is more important than balanced participation (3) • Balanced participation is extremely important for programme success (3) • Other - BSB JOP is not an aid programme, but one intended to build cooperation and for this the artificiality of a predetermined distribution (a “balanced” one) is not an option. Balanced participation can only be discussed in the context of the real capacity to participate of the entities from each country Explanation: • This is a regional capacity building initiative and should affect the region in a balanced way, including through balanced participation • Priorities defined within the Programmes can be achieved with balanced participation of the organisations on the both sides of the borders Who is responsible for facilitating this? • JMA/JTS (2) • National authorities

  19. What are you doing to facilitate involvement? NCP/CSE: • Awareness raising campaigns and periodic trainings for different audiences • Targeted meetings and day-to-day contacts with organisations • Works go not only on the CBC program level, but try to indicate the overall importance of EU cooperation Programme: • Balanced distribution of information and support events among participating countries • Events for building partnerships and promoting the Programme in PCs • National Info Points established in order to provide information in the national languages and answers on specific national issues • Additional scoring incentives for PC and TR participation in the second call

  20. What can/should you do in the future? NCP/CSE: • Same strategy will be followed • Steps and components for the stimulation are being developed • Should carry on like this Programme: • Continue with information campaigns and events • Continuous support for potential applicants and partners even between calls • Building capacity in PCs • Ensure equal treatment in the selection process • Encourage the national authorities in the PCs to provide co-financing in a similar fashion as in the MSs (if that is not possible, offer a lower contribution % as co-financing for the organisations from PCs)

  21. RCBI materials/tools - 1 • Database of partners and contacts in MPC • E support for project identification and development and project implementation • Identifying and developing 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

  22. RCBI 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?

  23. RCBI support to BSB 2007-2011 - 1 • Support for programming – contributions from experts from the Partner Countries and other programming experts • Support for PC to participate in programme events (9) • Briefing for officials in Armenia (1) • Training on programme management - NIP (2) • Events to support calls for proposals - info seminars (13 incl support to NCP regional seminars), project preparation workshops (9), partner search forums (1 plus support to attend addit. 5) • Training in project management & implementation - beneficiaries and partners (2) • Guide to National Requirements for implementing ENPI CBC projects - steps to takewhenawarded a project

More Related