RCBI ‘handover’ meeting Estonia-Latvia-Russia ENPI CBC Programme

1. RCBI ‘handover’ meetingEstonia-Latvia-Russia ENPI CBC Programme Riga, 20 March 2012

2. Meeting 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

3. Applications – 1st call

4. AwardedProjects – 1st call

5. LSPs –applicants/partners/together

6. Success rate Ruapplicants - 1st call

7. RuBudget share - applicants & in total - 1st call

8. Involvement of PC organisations in applications - 1 As Applicants: • Well represented (1); not very well represented (1); low level of representation (1) Reasons: • Great interest in Programme • Differences in Russian and EU legislation • Different requirements to financial management • Certain difficulties in receiving grant from JMA and transferring money to EU partners • Legal status of the CBC ENPI projects in Russia is not clarified and therefore taxation issues are not resolved • Specific problems of the public bodies that are managed by Federal treasury

9. Involvement of PC organisations in applications - 2 As Partners: • Very well represented (1); well represented (2) Reasons: • Great interest in Programme • RU partners are widely informed about ENPI CBC • Good experience in previous CBC Programmes • Relevant topics and problems to be solved between border related territories • In quite a big amount of applications Russian partners are involved just to fulfil formal requirements

10. Involvement of PC organisations in awarded projects - 1 As Applicants: • Well represented (1); not very well represented (2); low level of representation (1) Reasons: • Russian organisations are very much motivated to lead projects, so that they fully meet regional needs/priorities • Lack of previous experience • Different requirements to financial management • Differences in Russian and EU legislation

11. Involvement of PC organisations in awarded projects - 2 As Partners: • Very well represented (2); well represented (1) Reasons: • Consensus decision making in frames of the joint selection bodies ensures selection of the projects satisfying requirements of all parties involved • RU partner – is an obligatory • Relevant topics and problems to be solved between border related territories • Russian organisations (regional/local authorities, universities, NGOs, private companies, etc.) are fully represented in all awarded projects

12. Main challenges - 1 As Applicants: • Differences in EU and Russian legislation • Lack of international project management skills • Correct management • Financial management and reporting • Additional financial and administrative difficulties (distribution of money, audit) • Certain difficulties in receiving grant from JMA and transferring money to EU partners • Specific problems of the public bodies that are managed by Federal treasury • Legislative restrictions, especially for state and municipal bodies • Legal status of the CBC ENPI projects in Russia is not clarified and therefore taxation issues are not resolved • Lack of language skills

13. Main challenges - 2 As Partners: • Problems in finding EU partners • Cooperation with all partners, management • Equal participation in decision making • Intercultural barriers • Partners are not informed enough about the rules and procedures of the Programme • Differences and specificities in national rules and legislation • Lack of language skills • Lack of financial management skills in international projects • Specific problems in different types of organisations (e.g. procurement by public organisations)

14. Disadvantage issue Disadvantage – 1 No disadvantage – 2 Reasons: • Due to non-clarified legal status of the CBC ENPI projects in Russia, taxation issues are not resolved and there are problems with receiving grants and transferring money to EU partners

15. Balanced participation • As long as the organisations from Ru are represented in some way in all projects, this is enough – 1 • Equal treatment of all applicants is more important than balanced participation – 2 • Balanced participation is very important but there is not much that can be done about this - 1 • Balanced participation is extremely important for programme success – 2 Explanation • Since the programme is aimed at joint sustainable development of the programme area, only balanced and equal involvement of partners on both sides of the border can contribute to it (NCP) • Balanced participation ensures true partnership that is a core essence of the CBC projects. Equal treatment does not guarantee balanced participation when the legal basis for CBC ENPI in Russia is not comprehensive (CSE)

16. Responsibility for facilitating balanced participation • JMA/JTS – 1x • Branch offices – 1x • National authorities – 1x

17. What are you doing to facilitate involvement? Programme • Information seminars, explanations, etc. (2) NCP/Regions/CSE: • Efforts made on national level in harmonising legislation regulating cross-border cooperation • Information and consulting activities on regional level • Support to regional partners in partner search • Support in project concept development and then in project implementation as associates or as a members of the project steering bodies • National and regional authorities are represented in joint management bodies (Joint Monitoring Committee, etc., they are involved in selection of projects)

18. What can/should you do in the future? Programme • Information and training NCP/CSE • Develop new approaches for next programme periods together with EU on partner basis • Common rules should be elaborated for future programmes (for all countries, for all partners) • Common co-financing from all participating countries should be provided • All parties are to follow the common timetable for approval of the Programmes within the respective countries not to postpone common start in the programmes as equal partners • Harmonise legislation regulating cross-border cooperation • Additional education and consultation will be available • Next year regional programme for co-financing of our regional partners will start

19. RCBI support to ELR 2007-2011 • Support for programming - contributions from experts from Russia and other programming experts • Training on programme management - JMA/JMC (2) • Events to support calls for proposals - project preparation workshops (5), partner search forums (2) • Support for PC to participate in programme events (11)

20. RCBI materials/tools - 1 • Database of partners and contacts in Russia • E support for project management and implementation • Identifying, developing & implementing ENPI CBC projects: Tips from RCBI practice of supporting potential applicants and partners • RCBI Project Implementation Manual (PIM) • Guide to national requirements for implementing ENPI CBC projects

21. 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, Programme Management and Implementation training • Reports on PC involvement • Other support?