1 / 42

RCBI ‘handover’ meeting Russia n Federation

RCBI ‘handover’ meeting Russia n Federation. St Petersburg - 18 May 2012. Meeting outline. Expectations Review of the involvement of Ru and of what the programme/ authorities in Ru plan to do to facilitate involvement

kaloni
Download Presentation

RCBI ‘handover’ meeting Russia n Federation

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’ meetingRussian Federation St Petersburg - 18 May 2012

  2. Meeting outline • Expectations • Review of the involvement of Ru and of what the programme/ authorities in Ru 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 programmes • Qualitative analysis based on questionnaires: • Russia RA (3), CSE (1), applicants, beneficiaries and partners (18) • Programmes: JMA (4),JTS (2), BO(3) • Input from - RCBI Experts

  4. No. applicants & partners - calls 1-3 (Kolarctic)

  5. No. applicants & partners - calls 1-3 (Karelia)

  6. No. of applicants & partners - calls 1-2 (SEF-Ru)

  7. No. applicants & partners - call 1 & LSP (ELR)

  8. No. applicants & partners - call 1& LSP (LPR)

  9. Success rate –calls 1-2 (Kolarctic)

  10. Success rate –calls 1-2 (Karelia)

  11. Success rate –calls 1-2 (SEF-Ru)

  12. Success rate – call 1 & LSP (ELR)

  13. Budget share beneficiaries &total – calls 1-2 (Kolarctic)

  14. Budget share beneficiaries – calls 1-2 (Karelia)

  15. Budget share– call 1 (ELR)

  16. Involvement of Ru organisations in applications - 1 As applicants • Well represented (6) not very well represented (2) low level of representation (1) Ru reasons • Experience of participation in the Neighbourhood Programme and in CBC projects through EU and other Programmes • Differences in EU and Russian legislation • Different requirements to financial management • Difficulties in receiving grant from JMA and transferring money to EU partners • Taxation issues (legal status of CBC ENPI project not clarified) • Specific problems of public bodies managed by Federal treasury

  17. Involvement of Ru organisations in applications - 2 As applicants - Programme explanations • Great interest in Programme • Widespread information dissemination - large involvement in seminars, BO info activities • Long list of contacts of local/regional NGOs, universities, other companies • Previous networks of Finland and Russia organisations • Great number of ideas to be implemented in partnership with Finnish organisations • Good level and qualification of organisations in Saint-Petersburg • Experience of participation in the Neighbourhood Programme and in CBC projects through EU and other Programmes • Lack of experience and/or capacity to prepare the application and to manage projects • Difficulty in providing project co-financing

  18. Involvement of Ru organisations in applications - 3 As partners • Very well represented (5) well represented (5) Ru reasons • The level of awareness about the programme is rather high • Organisations are ready to participate in projects • Many connections, relevant topics and problems to be solved between border related territories • Experience of participation in CBC projects through EU and other Programmes • In quite a big amount of applications EU partners involved Russian partners just to fulfil formal requirements

  19. Involvement of Ru organisations in applications - 4 As Partners - Programme explanations • Great interest in Programme • Large involvement in seminars, BO info activities • Good level and qualification of organisations in Saint-Petersburg • Experience of participation in CBC projects through EU and other Programmes • Chance to learn from more experienced organisations from MS and Norway • Requirement for each project to have at least one Russian partner • Good cooperation ties with Finnish organisations • Source of financing for NGOs • Lack of experience • Insufficient English

  20. Involvement of Ru organisations in awarded projects - 1 As beneficiaries Well represented (3) not very well represented (3) low level of representation (3) Ru reasons • Differences in EU and Russian legislation • Different requirements to financial management • Russian organisations are very much motivated to lead projects

  21. Involvement of Ru organisations in awarded projects - 2 As beneficiaries Programme explanations • Good experience in implementation of previous international projects • Experience of participation in CBC projects through EU and other Programmes • Good level and qualification of organisations in Saint-Petersburg • Understanding of responsibility • High level of involvement in project activities • Russian organizations prefer to be Partners, not the LP • Lack of previous experience (incl. project management skills)

  22. Involvement of Ru organisations in awarded projects - 3 As partners • Very well represented (4) well represented (4) Ru explanations • Many connections, relevant topics and problems to be solved between border related territories • Ru partner – is obligatory • Consensus decision making in frames of the joint selection bodies ensure selection of the projects satisfying requirements of all parties involved • Russian organisations (regional/local authorities, universities, NGOs, private companies, etc.) are fully represented in all awarded projects

  23. Involvement of Ru organisations in awarded projects - 4 As Partners - Programme explanations • Large involvement in seminars, BO info activities • Previous networks of FI and RU organisations • Good level and qualification of organisations in Saint-Petersburg • Experience of participation in CBC projects through EU and other Programmes • Chance to learn from more experienced organisations from MS and Norway • High interest to participate in the Programme • Good experience in implementation of previous international projects • Understanding of responsibility • High level of involvement in project activities

  24. Main challenges – As applicants - Russia • Lack of sufficient experience (incl. international project management skills) • Insufficient English skills • Differences in EU and Russian legislation • Russian legislation - does not cover all the aspects of the implementation of international projects • Problems connected with VAT exemption, mutual payments between municipalities • Difficulties in receiving grant from JMA and transferring money to EU partners • Specific problems of the public bodies managed by Federal treasury • Financial management and reporting • Additional financial and administrative difficulties

  25. Main challenges – As applicants - Programmes • Lack of sufficient experience (incl. international project management skills),insufficient English • Russian legislation - does not cover all the aspects of the implementation of international projects • Financial management and reporting • To realise project ideas • To ensure needed project cofinancing • To make realistic time-schedule and cost-effective budget, adequate risk assessment • Russian applicants are often not fully aware of the demands of the Programme, regulations and terms of submitting the applications (also the Application Form and Logical Framework are difficult) • Finding a Finnish project partner • Sometimes interests in project ideas differ between Russian and Finnish sides

  26. Main challenges - As partners - Russia • Lack of sufficient experience (incl. international project management skills, how to write an application) • Differences and specificities in national rules and legislation • Russian legislation - does not cover all the aspects of the implementation of international projects • Problems connected with VAT exemption, mutual payments between municipalities and arranging payment to partners abroad • Insufficient English skills • Not informed enough about the rules and procedures of the programmes • Equal participation in decision making • Problems in finding EU partners • Intercultural barriers • Specific problems in different types of organisations

  27. Main challenges - As partners - Programmes • Lack of sufficient experience (incl. international project management skills, how to write an application) • Problems connected with VAT exemption, mutual payments between municipalities and arranging payment to partners abroad • High taxation, bank fees • Qualitative cooperation with all partners, management • Different kind of practices in, for example, partnership agreements • Rule of origin • To ensure needed project cofinancing • To make adequate planning of activities

  28. Reasons for success – Ru beneficiaries and partners • Effectiveness in addressing the social transboundary problems • Relevant topic of the project (3) • Attracting a large number of participants to realization of the project • High quality of the application (2) • Strong and sustained partnership network • High competence of LP in project development (2) • Reliable applicant and partners (2) • Small amount of money required • Financial resources and experts • Close communications with government authorities

  29. Main challenges to overcome - Ru beneficiaries and partners • Language barrier • Absence of constant financing for public organizations • Financing of the project development stage • Budgeting of the project costs in a proper/equal way for the partners • Budgeting (2) • Collecting and submitting the original documents in due time • Making agreements on the schedule for the project activities • Long evaluation period (increase in the prices specified in the application) • Bureaucracy • Complicated application form • Lack of highly-skilled project managers in the area • Partner search

  30. How challenges were overcome – Ru beneficiaries and partners • Constant communication/interaction with project participants (2) • Creating a link of crisis centres in Russia • Used own resources • Clarification of uncertainties with the representative of the ENPI • Careful examination of each item of the application • Refusal from participation as applicant • Creation of realistic work plan • Involvement of less fastidious and rich partners

  31. Reasons for not applying/not being successful -Ru applicants, beneficiaries and partners Not applying • Insufficient experience • Not enough information about the programme • No regional representative of RCBI in Murmansk before • Fierce competition was expected • Difficult to find a partner • Too little time for preparing an application Reasons for not being successful • Difficult process of preparation and registration of the application • Too high project budget • Imperfect selection process • No distinct sense of project idea and results

  32. Level of involvement in applications – Ru applicants, beneficiaries and partners • Active involvement that is also equal to the involvement of other Partners (8) • 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 (12) • We expected to be more involved in the project (2) • So far, we have had very little or no involvement in the project (1)

  33. What are you doing to facilitate involvement? - Russia • Contacts/meetings with the municipalities (Kaliningrad) • Annual conferences (Kaliningrad) • Individual consultations provided for stakeholders (Kaliningrad) • Additional education and consultation available (Pskov, Leningrad) • Training events (Kaliningrad) • Project concept (idea) development (Pskov) • Project implementation as associates or as members of project steering bodies (Pskov) • Regional programme for co-financing of our regional partners will start (Pskov) • Harmonising legislation regulating cross-border cooperation (Leningrad) • National and regional authorities are represented in joint management bodies (CSE)

  34. What are you doing to facilitate involvement? Karelia Programme • Seminars regularly held • Information disseminated • Consultations given • Assisting in understanding the main trends of the Programme Kolarctic Programme • Information seminars • Trainings • Face-to-face meetings • Practical consultation

  35. What are you doing to facilitate involvement? SEF Programme • Information seminars • Education for potential Applicants from Russian side • Consultation • Development and dissemination of methodological materials • Special seminars for authorities (at regional level and municipalities) ELR Programme • Information seminars, explanations LPR Programme • Programme is establishing 3 Branch offices

  36. What can/should you do in the future? - Russia • Common rules should be elaborated for future programmes (Pskov) • Common co-financing from all participating countries should be provided (Pskov) • 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 (Pskov) • Harmonising legislation regulating cross-border cooperation (Leningrad) • Developing new approaches for next programme periods together with EU on partner basis (Leningrad) • To provide support in partner search (more partner-search events) (CSE, Kaliningrad) • To organise training (incl. in PCM) (CSE) • To clarify legal status of CBC ENPI projects that will help to resolve taxation issues (CSE)

  37. What can/should you do in the future? Karelia Programme • Keep on doing regular information work • Provide assistance to the interested applicants • Disseminate information more actively in the regions Kolarctic Programme • Organize travelling consultations for Naryan-Mar organizations to increase number of applications from this region • More practical consultations in Murmansk, Arkhangelsk, Naryan-Mar are already planned to be held within the 4th Call for Proposals

  38. What can/should you do in the future? SEF Programme • To start new Programme not later than in 2015 ELR Programme • Information and training LPR Programme • To provide more information to potential applicants and interested stakeholders • To distribute information among various institutions and general public

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

  40. 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?

  41. RCBI support to Russia 2007-2011 • Support for programming – contributions from experts from Russia and other programming experts • Briefing for officials in Russia (1) • Training on programme management • 1 joint JMC briefing for Kolarctic, Karelia & SEF-Ru • 1 JMC briefing for each of Estonia-Latvia-Russia & Lithuania-Poland-Russia • 1 JMA briefings for each of Kolartic, Estonia-Latvia-Russia & Lithuania-Poland-Russia

  42. RCBI support to Russia 2007-2011 • Events to support calls for proposals • 4 info seminars and 6 project preparation workshops for Kolarctic • 1 info seminar and 1 project preparation workshop for Karelia • 5 project preparation workshops and 2 PF for Estonia-Latvia-Russia • 3 project preparation workshops for Lithuania-Poland-Russia • Support for PC to participate in programme events • 6 events for Kolarctic • 4 events for Karelia • 3 events for SEF-Russia • 11 events for Estonia-Latvia-Russia • 4 events for Lithuania-Poland-Russia • Guide to National Requirements

More Related