1 / 16

The 2012 Revision of the Common Twinning Manual

The 2012 Revision of the Common Twinning Manual. Institution Building Days DG Enlargement – DG DEVCO EuropeAid Brussels,7 June 2012. Introduction. Why? Periodical revision of the Twinning rules Evaluation TA vs. Twinning (2010) ELARG

huong
Download Presentation

The 2012 Revision of the Common Twinning Manual

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. The 2012 Revision of theCommon Twinning Manual Institution Building DaysDG Enlargement – DG DEVCO EuropeAid Brussels,7 June 2012

  2. Introduction • Why? • Periodical revision of the Twinning rules • Evaluation TA vs. Twinning (2010) ELARG • First Evaluation of the Institutional Twinning Instrument with the ENP countries (2011) DEVCO • How? • Shorter gap between programming and implementation • More flexibility = more responsibility for twinners • NB: Some of the changes only for IPA projects

  3. Applicability The Twinning Manual 2012 is applicable to all projects for which the notification of selection has been sent on or after 2 April 2012

  4. Shortening the gap - I • Selection meeting 2 weeks after the deadline for submission of proposals. • Tight deadlines for Beneficiaries and EUD to decide on proposals and inform MS: selection within 3 weeks of selection meeting, communication with no delay. • If deadline not met, MS can notify that it is no longer bound by its proposal and Twinning Fiche may be re-circulated.

  5. Shortening the gap - II "Selection under ENPI" – Notification of Results: The CA specify in the letter possible dates for the first preparatory mission in the BC within the next two weeks. Reduction from 6 months to 4 (IPA) or 5 (ENPI) for the negotiation of the contract (but same reimbursable preparation costs).

  6. Increasing flexibility • Side letters for budgetary changes also after the “15% addendum” • No addenda for suspension or termination • No request for first pre-financing • Under IPA, Operative Side Letters detail the work plan and the budget, which in the contract are in an abridged form

  7. Increasing public character • Project Leader more involved in the steering of the project • Junior Project Leader attends Project Steering Committees • Clarification of RTA role and assignments • Clarification of competences of ad hoc mandated bodies

  8. Other significant changes Support to visibility events Consolidation of official notes and guidelines Alignement to the PRAG 2012 Text consistency

  9. Project Leaders responsibility • Under IPA: Operative Side Letters require deeper involvement of the Lead Project Leader • Junior Project Leader can attend Project Steering Committees – growing number of consortia

  10. Resident Twinning Adviser • Twinning project cannot run without RTA. • Avoid professionalization of RTA – secure link with the MS Public Administration – mark a difference with consultants • Limit to assignments (max 4): • Not more that 3 years in same Beneficiary • Not more than 2 projects in same region • For 3rd project at least 6 uninterrupted months in MS • For 4th project at least 3 uninterrupted years in MS

  11. Mandated Bodies • Mandated bodies are semi-public bodies that must satisfy the following criteria: • Proven competence in a field of the EU Acquis • Non-profit structure, non-commercial purpose • Public ownership • Under the permanent and structural supervision of a government authority • A sufficient and proportionate level of permanent staff • In case criteria 2 and 3 are partially fulfilled, restricted mandated body status can be granted.

  12. Special case: ad hoc mandated body • Ad hoc mandated bodies (do not fulfil one or more criteria other than 2 or 3) can provide only a "small, very specialised contribution to a Twinning project". • Therefore staff of ad hoc mandated bodies cannot perform any key role in the project (Project Leader or RTA).

  13. Increased importance of visibility • Opening and closure events are seen as visibility events • In exceptional cases up to 500 € can be foreseen for small catering during those events • Visibility important not only for the success of a project, also for its sustainability

  14. Consolidation of official notes and guidelines • Update of Twinning Review Missions procedures • Inclusion of Fact Finding Missions guidelines • Universities and academic institutions are not seen as practitioners of Public Administrations, therefore can apply only for ad hoc (letter EC to NCP of 2006).

  15. Main change under IPA • Details of WP and Budget outside of contract • Operative Side Letters – First one with contract, following every 6 months (Project Steering Committee) • PL cannot delegate signature OSL • CA must have at least five days to evaluate a draft OSL • No comment allows for implementation as of sixth working day

  16. Thank you for your attention Twinning Coordination Team – DG ELARG Paolo Gozzi (Team leader) Jordi Rodríguez Ruiz Marc Patuzzo Birgit Persson Elarg Twinning Mail: Elarg-twinning@ec.europa.eu Twinning Coordination Team – DG DEVCO Christophe Ingels (Team leader) Joanna Jablonska (Eastern Partnership) Lucia Santuccione (Middle East) María del Mar Roca (Northern Africa) Devco Twinning Mail: EuropeAid-Twinning-Operations@ec.europa.eu

More Related