1 / 26

RCBI ‘handover’ meeting Black Sea Basin ENPI CBC Programme

RCBI ‘handover’ meeting Black Sea Basin 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

candra
Download Presentation

RCBI ‘handover’ meeting Black Sea Basin ENPI CBC Programme

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’ meetingBlack Sea Basin ENPI CBC Programme Bucharest 16 March 2012

  2. 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

  3. Basis • Quantitative analysis based on statistics on calls, provided by the programme • Qualitative analysis based on questionnaires: • Programme: JMA/JTS/BO • Partner Country NCP, CSE • 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 PC applicants and total (applicants + partners) by country – 1st call (BSB) Data only for 3rd priority

  9. Involvement of PC organisations in applications - 1 As Applicants: • Well represented (3); not very well represented (4); low level of representation (1) Reasons: • Training and awareness raising activities by the RCBI • Commitmentof the beneficiary country • 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 • Lack of experience in these kind of programmes (3)

  10. Involvement of PC organisations in applications - 2 • Low capacities and desire to take over the responsibility for entire project management • Do not have as developed mechanisms as the MS to provide institutionalized help to entities that submit project proposals (e.g. co-financing) • Lack of resources (financial, technical) (2) • Very complicated procedures and processes (e.g. huge documentation packages, application form) (2) • Fear to trust the possible partners without seeing them (low possibility to travel to meet them) • Lack of partners • Complicacy of the national requirements and unstable national legislation

  11. Involvement of PC organisations in applications - 3 As Partners: • Very well represented (1), well represented (6), not very well represented (1) Reasons: • 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 • Participation as partners easier (as far as it was not related to preparation of application, finding partners) - less responsibility though maybe less resources and budget as well (3) • Commitment of the beneficiary country

  12. Involvement of PC organisations in applications - 4 • Already accumulated experience in the previous projects financed under the Neighbourhood Programme • Previously established partnerships • Existence of in-country support system (2) • High expectations from the Programmes • CBC Programmes are considered as important tool for local public administrations to solve local problems • Training and awareness raising activities by the RCBI • Interest of Ukrainian organisation to participate in the ENPI CBC

  13. Involvement of PC organisations in awarded projects - 1 As Applicants: • Well represented (2); not very well represented (4); low level of representation (1) Reasons: • 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 • Lack of experience in these kind of programmes (3) • Not-very-professional approach of the main selecting authorities and countries • Deadlines and the papers required were not properly met • Very complicated procedures and processes • Not so active due to Programme’s specifics • Lack of resources (financial, technical) • PC organisation considers that the institution from MS has more chance to get a higher score within the evaluation process • Difficulties and shortages in legal system

  14. Involvement of PC organisations in awarded projects - 2 As Partners: • Very well represented (1), well represented (4), not very well represented (2) Reasons: • Level of involvement is satisfactory and can be an indicator of future applications to be prepared and submitted by the current partners • Requirement to involve partners from PCs • Participation as partners was easier as far as it was not related to preparation of application, finding partners etc. • Good quality of project proposals, due to the well organised preparatory process, involvement of different external partners • Good and experienced partners involved due to existing partnerships established within the previous CBC Programmes • Support from NA and NCP • Not so active due to Programme’s specifics

  15. Main challenges - 1 As Applicants: • A new initiative that brings new rules in the area • Skills to prepare quality proposals • Know-how on leading a consortium/partnership • Lack of experience (4) • Afraid to take responsibility for project management • Lack of additional expertise to be involved • Financial resources to cover cofinancing as well as the development costs (4) • More involvement of national and regional authorities might bring additional knowledge and dissemination • Less supporting documents need to be asked (as it is done in the 2nd Call of BSB CBC) • Language issues (3) • Establishing communication links and cooperating with entities outside their countries (JMA) • Partner search (3) • Lack of willingness to participate (less interest in the 2nd call due to the rejection in the 1st call) (2) • Complicacy of national requirements

  16. Main challenges - 2 As Partners: • Co-financing (2) • The need to be familiarized with the standard forms used in the application (grant application form, budget, logical framework) • Skills to prepare quality proposals • Lack of experience • More capacity building measures are required (trainings ) • More technical assistance needed (seminars, info days) • More attention and formal support need to be provided to the PC organisations by the PC institutions • Finding new partners outside traditional cooperation areas ( • Partner search should be supported (more partnership forums) (4) • Language barrier • Better awareness campaign needed (2) • Complicacy of national requirements

  17. Disadvantage issue Disadvantage – JTS, AR-NCP, GE-NCP, MD-NCP, UA-NCP No disadvantage – JMA, AR-CSE, UA-CSE Reasons: • Organisations from MSs are more familiar with the procedures (application, implementation, etc.) used in the ENPI CBC programmes (2) • Organisations from MSs have more possibilities to reach required knowledge for preparing an application (e.g. PCM trainings) • MSs have developed institutionalised support mechanisms to the organisations taking part as applicants or partners (e.g. co-financing systems) • Border and visa problems play an essential role • Organisations in the PCs sometimes don’t see and feel directly “what is EU” • Language constraints (2) • Lack of additional expertise to be involved , lack of experience, lack of resources (2) • Lack of national co-financing system • Shortages in national legal framework (secondary procurements, project accountancy etc.) • Difficulties in communicating with Programme structures

  18. Balanced participation • Equal treatment of all applicants is more important than balanced participation – 4 • Balanced participation is extremely important for programme success – 7 • Other – 2 Explanations: • Priorities defined within the Programmes can be achieved with balanced participation of the organisations on the both sides of the borders • 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 (JMA) • Balanced participation can only be discussed in the context of the real capacity to participate of the entities from each country • 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 • It would be good to balance the rules for participation of Adjacent/ Adjoining regions and main regions • Who is responsible?

  19. What are you doing to facilitate involvement? Programme • Balanced distribution of information and support events among participating countries • National Info Points established in order to provide information in the national languages and answers on specific national issues (2) • Additional scoring incentives for PC and TR participation in the second call (JMA) • Events for building partnerships and promoting the Programme in PCs (JTS)

  20. What are you doing to facilitate involvement NCP: • Awareness raising campaigns and periodic trainings for different audiences (2) • Organising seminars (2) • Hold information events and provide our applicants with explanations • Supports people to people contacts on all levels (2) • Ensures better flow in information through line ministries than through the municipalities and NGO networks (2) • Provides consultations to stakeholders through the CCP • Targeted meetings and day-to-day contacts with organisations • Stimulates balanced participation at its level (JTFs, JMCs) • The authorities in Donetsk region (BSB) demonstrated very low interest and activity

  21. What can/should you be doing in the future? Programme • 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) • Continue organisation of informative events (about the programme, on submitting applications) (3)

  22. What can/should you be doing in the future? NCP • Better awareness campaign and flow in information (through line ministries and municipalities and NGO networks) (2) • Encourage stakeholders to participate in CBC projects through including CBC thematic sessions in various conferences, seminars (2) • Steps and components for the stimulation are being developed • Provide support and necessary consultation also in implementation process • Establish a national co-financing system • Balanced participation of MC and PC should be the provision in programme documents (2) • Support NIP office with more capacities (2) • Support NIP office with more capacities (2) • 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 • Should carry on like this (AR-CSE)/ Same strategy will be followed

  23. 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

  24. 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?

  25. RCBI support to BSB 2007-2011 - 1 • Support for programming – contributions from experts from the Partner Countries and other programming experts • Briefing for officials in Armenia (1) • Training on programme management - JMA/NIP (3) • Events to support calls for proposals - info seminars (9), project preparation workshops (37), partner search forums (6)

  26. RCBI support to BSB 2007-2011 - 2 • Training in project management & implementation - beneficiaries and partners (2) • Support for PC to participate in programme events (9) • Guide to National Requirements for implementing ENPI CBC projects - steps to takewhenawarded a project

More Related