RCBI ‘handover’ meeting Republic of Moldova

1. RCBI ‘handover’ meetingRepublic of Moldova Chisinau, 28 March 2012

2. Meeting outline • Expectations • Review of the involvement of Md and of what the programme/ authorities in Md 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: • Moldova: NCP/BO, 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 applicants & partners awarded projects by country – 1st call (BSB)

9. No. of applicants by country -1st call& LSP(RUM) 1st call LSP

10. No. of partners by country -1st call (RUM)

11. No. of applicants and partners by country -1st call (RUM)

12. No. of applicants and partners PC & MS, in LSP (RUM)

13. Success rate PC & MS -1st call (RUM)

14. Budget share applicants and total – 1st call (RUM)

15. Involvement of Md organisations in applications - 1 As Applicants: • Well represented/not very well represented Reasons: Md: • Lack of sufficient financial and operational resources • Still low capacities and desire to take over the responsibility for entire project management Programmes • Lack of experience (incl. in project management) • Co-financing

16. Involvement of Md organisations in applications - 2 As Partners: • Very well represented/well represented Reasons: Md: • High expectations from the Programmes • CBC Programmes are considered as an important tool for local public administrations to solve local problems • Participation as partners was easier as far as it was not related to preparation of application, finding partners • Experience from the previous projects financed under the Neighbourhood Programme • Previously established partnerships • Existence of in-country support system (NA and NCP)

17. Involvement of Md organisations in applications - 3 Programmes • Partners from PC used this opportunity as an entry point in this type of cooperation, using already established contacts or making new ones • Different actions (information and training seminars, helpdesk) to raise the public awareness and to provide the potential beneficiaries with information • Desire to gain experience in implementing a project and in following the procedures

18. Involvement of Mdorganisations in awarded projects - 1 As Applicants: • Well represented/not very well represented/ Reasons: Md • Some difficulties and shortages in legal system that should be overcome in order to ensure a smooth project management • PC organisation still considers that institution from MS has more chance to get a higher score within the evaluation process Programmes • 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 • The initial low level of participation combined with the poor quality of the applications submitted • Participation can be deemed good considering the new elements brought • The level of interest towards the Programme

19. Involvement of Md organisations in awarded projects - 2 As Partners: • Very well represented Reasons: Md • Good quality of project proposals • Good and experienced partners involved that have sufficient financial and operational capacities • Support from NA and NCP Programmes • The level of interest towards the Programme • Desire to gain experience in implementing a project and in following the procedures

20. Main challenges - 1 As Applicants: Md • Lack of sufficient experience • Lack of financial resources and operational capacities • Lack of willingness to participate Programmes • Understanding the cross border character of the Programme and terms such as cross border impact, needs, constraints, results, indicators, budget for the action, logical intervention • The official language of the programme (English) • A new initiative that brings new rules in the area • Know-how on leading a consortium/partnership and willingness to take overall responsibility • Establishing communication links and cooperating with entities outside their countries • 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 BSB 2nd Call • Co-financing issue

21. Main challenges - 2 As Partners Md • Better awareness campaign needed • More capacity building measures are required (trainings) • Partner search should be supported Programmes • 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) • Lack of financial resources (incl. co-financing)

22. Success factors - Md applicants and partners - 1 Reasons for Success: • Relevance of the topic (5) • Innovative ideas • Extensive experience of the team (2) • Expertise in the field • Partnership with state structure to ensure sustainability • Compliance with all requirements (3) • Lack of international consultants providing assistance in the development of projects (2)

23. Success factors - Md applicants and partners- 2 Main challenges to overcome: • Lack of communication with the representatives of local public administration, the neighbouring countries and partners (2) • Lack or insufficient contacts with donor community • Finding partners from other countries (2) • Insufficient knowledge of large scale applications of public private partnerships • Lack of knowledge that prevents local public authorities to apply and capitalise on European funds • Complexity of the budget template • Lack of international consultants providing assistance in the development of projects (2)

24. Success factors - Md applicants and partners - 3 How challenges were overcome • Increasing the capacities of training institutes • Strengthening of the cooperation between local public authorities, NGOs, civil society and donor communities • Creation of sustainable and lasting regional and cross-border partnerships • Intensification of the information and communication process • Sharing experience • Consultation with the JTS and with experienced partners • E-mailing organisations in other countries with a proposal to become a partner (2) • Consultations by UNDP with Md representatives developing of projects • More transparency

25. Reasons for not applying – Md applicants and partners • Limited knowledge in writing applications for EU • Difficulties in finding partners (2) • Insufficient information about the call • Procedure of application is sophisticated • Long evaluation period • Insufficient financial resources

26. Reasons for not being successful – Md applicants and partners • Requirement to have a certain period of experience • Problems and domination of political involvement during the decision making • Strong domination of Romania in decision making process • Less interest from the Government of Moldova as well as from Romanian decision makers in the Education System

27. Level of involvement in applications – Md applicants and partners • Active involvement that is also equal to the involvement of other Partners (9) • Member State partners have higher involvement than Partner Country partners (2) • The level of our involvement is in line with what was planned (3) • The Lead Partner has been doing almost all of the work, partners being passive (2) • We expected to be more involved in the project (1) • So far, we have had very little or no involvement in the project (0)

28. What are you doing to facilitate involvement? - 1 Md • Organising seminars and encourages awareness campaign • Supports people to people contacts on all levels • Ensures better flow of information through existing network of would be partners – i.e.s via the municipalities and NGO networks • Provides consultation to stakeholders through the CCP

29. What are you doing to facilitate involvement? - 2 BSB 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 • Additional scoring incentives for PC and TR participation in the second call • Events for building partnerships and promoting the Programme in PCs

30. What are you doing to facilitate involvement? - 3 RUM programme • 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 • JTS and BOs staff permanently available for providing support to the potential applicants • Partnership forums organised in PCs (expenditures for a large number of participants covered by the TA funds) • Setting up antennas in the PC • In selecting the LSPs, a balanced distribution of funds between countries was considered • Unofficial translations of the Guidelines for grant applicants

31. What can/should you do in the future? - 1 Md • Better flow of information and information campaign • Encourage stakeholders for participating in CBC projects through including CBC thematic sessions on various conferences, seminars • Provide support and necessary consultation also in implementation process • Establish a national co-financing system • Support NCP office with more capacities

32. What can/should you do in the future? - 2 BSB 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)

33. What can/should you do in the future? - 3 RUM 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 • TV, radio and billboard campaign, press announcements in national language of the PC • Information seminars, workshops, trainings, annual conferences, partnership events, helpdesk, electronic bulletin

34. 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

35. 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?

36. Specific RCBI support in Moldova 2007-2011 • Support for programming – contributions from programming experts • Support for PC to participate in programme events (9) • Training on programme management - JMA/JTS and BSB NIP (3) • Events to support calls for proposals - info seminars/project preparation workshops (14 incl input to other events), partner search forums (1) • Training in project management & implementation - beneficiaries and partners (2) • Guide to National Requirements for implementing ENPI CBC projects - steps to takewhenawarded a projects