RCBI ‘handover’ meeting Palestinian Authority

1. RCBI ‘handover’ meetingPalestinian Authority Ramallah - 13 May 2012

2. Meeting outline • Expectations • Review of the involvement of Palestine and of what the programme and authorities in Palestine 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: • Palestine: NCP, applicants, beneficiaries and partners • Programme: JMA/JTS • Input from - RCBI Experts

4. No. of applicants by country – 1st standard call

5. No. of applicants by country - strategic projects

6. No. of partners by country – 1st standard call

7. No. of partners by country - strategic projects

8. No. of applicants and partners by country -1st standard call

9. No. of applicants and partners by country -strategic projects

10. No. of applicants and partners by country –2nd standard call (concept notes)

11. Success rate of beneficiaries by country –1st standard call

12. No. of applicants & partners in projects to submit full applications – strategic projects

13. Budget share overall by country –1st standard call

14. Involvement of PC organisations in applications-1 As Applicants: • Well represented (1), not very well represented (1), low level of representation (1) Reasons: NCP: • To give the chance to all the line countries to participate and be a part of the EU project Programme: • Lack of experience (incl. in project management) • Institutional barriers related to procedures and job responsibilities • Complicated administrative procedures • High level of bureaucracy of organizations in the MPC

15. Involvement of PC organisations in applications-2 As Partners: • Very well represented (2) Reasons: Programme: • Interest in the Programme • Existing good cooperation with other organisations from EU countries • Literacy and financial improvement • Professionalism

16. Involvement of PC organisations in awarded projects - 1 As Beneficiaries: • Not very well represented (1), low level of representation (1) Reasons: Programme: • Only one MPC has been awarded due to its longer experience in managing projects

17. Involvement of PC organisations in awarded projects - 2 As Partners: • Very well represented (1), well represented (2) Reasons: NCP: • To join efforts with other partners from different countries and benefit from their experience Programme: • There is an overall participation of all MPC involved in the Programme at project level • The number of partners from MPC is very well balanced • The rule of 50% of activities to be implemented in MPC could have definitely contributed to achieve this equal participation

18. Main challenges - 1 As Applicants: NCP: • The proposal submitted by each applicant which shows the ability of the PC organizations in their fields Programme: • Enhance knowledge of the Programme rules • Lack of experience • Legislation • To manage funds - that seems to be complicated for some MPC countries

19. Main challenges - 2 As Partners: NCP: • Difficulties are in finding the best partner in common fields Programme: • To improve knowledge of the management rules • Many organisations are not familiar with working in partnership • To achieve common objectives in a coordinated way • Low level of initiatives

20. Success factors - PA beneficiaries & partners Reasons for success: • Well prepared project (2) • Project responds to the needs (2) Main challenges to be overcome • Identification of project components • Political situation that was dominating the life in the region How they were overcome • Participatory proposal writing • Work at the national level • Meetings between regional partners were held outside the region

21. Reasons for not applying/not being successful – PA applicants, beneficiaries & partners • Our need to participate in workshop about how to find partners • Our need to participate in workshop concerning how to write proposal for this call • Not following up the proposal discussion process

22. Level of involvement in applications – PA applicants, beneficiaries & partners • Active involvement that is also equal to the involvement of other Partners (4) • 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 (1) • We expected to be more involved in the project (0) • So far, we have had very little or no involvement in the project (1)

23. Are MPC at a disadvantage? Yes (2) No (1) Reasons: Programme: • Less experience and resources to compete • Financial and legislative barriers

24. Balanced participation • As long as the PC are represented in some way in all projects, this will be enough (2) • Equal treatment of all applicants is more important than balanced participation (1) • A balanced distribution of funds among participating countries is very important (2) • Balanced participation is extremely important for programme success (2) Explanation: • Balanced participation underlines a true and real co-ownership of the Programme

25. What are you doing to facilitate involvement? NCP: • Professional committee studies all applications in details Programme: • Providing rules that boost MPCs participation in the call (50% rule for instance) • Awareness-raising and technical events • Any kind of communication actions • Programmes are not the main player to stimulate involvement

26. What can/should you do in the future? NCP: • Workshops before submitting applications Programme: • Provide for technical assistance funds to National Contact Points • Reconduct a similar RCBI experience • Programmes are not the main player to stimulate involvement

27. 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

28. 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?

29. RCBI support to the Palestinian Authority 2007-2011 • Support for programming – contributions from local expert and other programming experts • Training on programme management - JMC (1) • Events to support calls for proposals - info seminars (2), project preparation workshops (2) and contribution for participation at Partner Search Forums outside Palestine (4) • Training in project management & implementation - NCP (1), beneficiaries and partners (3) • Support to participate in programme events (5) • Guides to National Requirements for implementing ENPI CBC projects - steps to takewhenawarded a project