Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
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. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
RCBI ‘handover’ meetingRomania-Ukraine-R.Moldova ENPI CBC Programme Bucharest 16 March 2012
Meeting outline • Expectations • Review of the involvement of MPC and what the programmes 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
Basis • Quantitative analysis based on statistics on calls, provided by the programme • Qualitative analysis based on questionnaires: • Programme JMA/JTS • Partner Countries: NCP & CSE • Input from RCBI excepts
No.of applicants by country -1st & LSPcall (RUM) 1st call LSP
Involvement of PC organisations in applications - 1 As Applicants: • Well represented (2); not very well represented (4) Reasons: • Different actions (information and training seminars, helpdesk) to raise the public awareness about the Programme and to provide the potential beneficiaries with information on the Programme (JTS) • Lack of sufficient financial and operational resources (MD-NCP) • Lack of experience (incl. in project management) (JMA, JTS, UA-CSE) • Still low capacities and desire to take over the responsibility for entire project management (MD-NCP) • Co-financing (JTS) • Not satisfied with the level of involvement in “Romania-Ukraine-Moldova” (UA-NCP) • Less active participation due to programme’s specifics (UA-CSE) • Complicated national requirements and unstable national legislation (UA-CSE) • Lack of partners (UA-CSE)
Involvement of PC organisations in applications - 2 As Partners: • Very well represented (1); well represented (3); not very well represented (1) Reasons: • Experience from the previous projects financed under the Neighbourhood Programme ( • Previously established partnerships • Existence of in-country support system (2) • High expectations from the Programmes • Participation as partners was easier as far as it was not related to preparation of application, finding partners • Different actions (information and training seminars, helpdesk) to raise the public awareness about the Programme and to provide the potential beneficiaries with information on the Programme • Desire to gain experience in implementing a project and in following the procedures • Interest of Ukrainian organisations to participate in the ENPI CBC • CBC Programmes are considered as an important tool for local public administrations to solve local problems • Less active participation due to programme’s specifics
Involvement of PC organisations in awarded projects - 1 As Applicants: • Well represented (2), not very well represented (3); low level of representation () Reasons: • The level of interest towards the Programme • PC organisation still considers that institution from MS has a better chance to get a higher score within the evaluation process • Some difficulties and shortages in legal system that should be overcome in order to ensure a smooth project management • The initial low level of participation combined with the poor quality of the applications submitted • Not satisfied with the level of involvement in “Romania-Ukraine-Moldova” • Less active participation due to programme’s specifics and more active contacts between Romania and Moldova • Scores awarded for the projects submitted by the MS applicants were better than for the projects submitted by the PC organizations, especially for the financial and operational capacity and relevance of the project
Involvement of PC organisations in awarded projects - 2 As Partners: • Very well represented (1); well represented (1); not very well represented (2) Reasons: • Good quality of project proposals • Good and experienced partners involved that have sufficient financial and operational capacities • Support from NA and NCP • The level of interest towards the Programme • Desire to gain experience in implementing a project and in following the procedures • Not satisfied with the level of involvement in “Romania-Ukraine-Moldova • Less active participation due to programme’s specifics and more active contacts between Romania and Moldova
Main challenges - 1 As Applicants: • Lack of financial resources and operational capacities (co-financing issue) (4) • Low level of experience (e.g. in implementing projects, preparing project proposals) (5) • Understanding the cross border character of the Programme • To take over the overall responsibility (2) • The official language of the programme (English) • Good understanding of the following terms: cross border impact, needs, constraints, results, indicators, budget for the action, logical intervention (JTS) • Lack of willingness to participate • Lack of partners • Complicated national requirements
Main challenges - 2 As Partners: • Better awareness campaign needed • More capacity building measures required (trainings) • The official language of the programme (English) • Good understanding of the following terms: cross border impact, needs, constraints, results, indicators, budget for the action, logical intervention • Low level of experience (incl. in implementing projects) (2) • Lack of financial resources (co-financing) • Lack of partners - Partner search should be supported • Complicated national requirements
Disadvantage issue Disadvantage – 4 No disadvantage – Reasons: • Lack of experience, resources, national co-financing system • Language constraints (2) • Shortages in national legal framework • Difficulties in communicating with Programme structures • Romanian organisations have already been beneficiaries of national programmes funded by EC, including ETC programmes (experienced in preparing applications and project management) • The lack of experience in project cycle management and in writing applications (2)
Balanced 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 • Other - It would be good to balance the rules for participation of Explanations: • In order to avoid formal partnerships and achieve a real cross border impact, the PC should be represented in the projects with tangible activities and supporting budget (MD-NCP) • The balanced distribution is important but also the principles of equal treatment should also be carefully considered when selecting the projects. So, any measures to increase this participation may only be taken prior the submission of the application but not during the selection process (JMA)
Responsibility for facilitating balanced participation • JMA/JTS – JMA, JTS • Branch offices – JMA, JTS • JMC – JMA, JTS • National authorities – JTS Following the proposals made by the JMA, the JMC should take those decisions meant to facilitate the balanced participation (JMA)
What are you doing to facilitate involvement? Programme • Partnership forums organised in PCs (expenditures for a large number of participants covered by the TA funds) • Newsletters, electronic bulletins, the webpage, brochures, billboards (JMA, JTS) • Information seminars, workshops, trainings, annual conferences, partnership events, helpdesk) • Setting up an information network including organizations from PC and MS • Communication activities • Setting up antennas in the PC • Unofficial translations of the Guidelines for grant applicants • JTS and BOs staff permanently available for providing support to the potential applicants • In selecting the LSPs, a balanced distribution of funds between countries was considered
What are you doing to facilitate involvement? NCP • Supports people to people contacts on all levels • Ensures better flow of information through existing network of would be partners, than through the municipalities and NGO networks • Provides consultation to stakeholders through the CCP • Authorities hold information events and provide our applicants with explanations • Stimulates balanced participation at its level (JTFs, JMCs) • The authorities in Donetsk region (BSB) demonstrated very low interest and activity
What can/should you do in the future? Programme • In the 2nd call, the projects involving a trilateral partnership will be supplementary scored • In the 2nd call, the projects involving a participation in the budget of at least 30 % for the PCs will be supplementary scored • Unofficial translations of the Guidelines for grant applicants • Case studies of best practices • The statute of the adjoining regions (much developed) was changed so that in the 2nd call they are granted with rights almost similar with the core area of the Programme • There are foreseen a large number of information seminars and trainings for potential applicants • TV, radio and billboard campaign, press announcements in national language of the PC • Information seminars, workshops, trainings, annual conferences, partnership events, helpdesk, electronic bulletin
What can/should you do in the future? NCP • Better flow of information and information campaign • Encourage stakeholders for participating in CBC projects through including CBC thematic sessions on various conferences, seminars • Be more active in communicating with the regional authorities from MSs to encourage more active participation of the organisations from MSs in ENPI CBC projects • Provide support and necessary consultation also in implementation process (MD-NCP) • Establish a national co-financing system • Support NCP office with more capacities • Balanced participation of MC and PC should be the provision in programme documents
RCBI support to RUM 2007-2011 • Support for programming – contributions from experts from Moldova and Ukraine and other programming experts • Training on programme management - JMA/JTS (2) • Events to support calls for proposals - info seminars (6), project preparation workshops (8), partner search forums (2)
RCBI support to RUM 2007-2011 • Training in project management & implementation - JMA/JTS (1) • Support for Moldovan and Ukrainain representatives to participate in programme events (2) • Guide to National Requirements for implementing ENPI CBC projects - steps to takewhenawarded a project
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
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?