1 / 7

Danube Regional Project Regional Grants Update

Danube Regional Project Regional Grants Update. Szentendre, Hungary Nov. 4, 2003 Entela Pinguli. Regional Grants: Statistics. Statistical Results of the Regional Grants selection in 11 countries: 5 Selected proposals 3 rejected proposals 18 NGOs involved in 5 projects

inga-summers
Download Presentation

Danube Regional Project Regional Grants Update

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. Danube Regional ProjectRegional Grants Update Szentendre, Hungary Nov. 4, 2003 Entela Pinguli

  2. Regional Grants: Statistics Statistical Results of the Regional Grants selection in 11 countries: • 5 Selected proposals • 3 rejected proposals • 18 NGOs involved in 5 projects • Available amount – 200,000 USD • Requested amount – 324,190 USD • Awarded amount – 207,764 USD • Pending decision 32,494 USD

  3. Regional Grants: Statistics Some other statistics of the Regional Grants selection Nr. of CP submitted (NGO interest): 16 Nr of eligible CP: 13 Nr of CP selected: 9 Nr. of FP Submitted: 8

  4. Regional Grants: Topic • Agriculture: Promoting Eco agriculture, training; • Land use: • River basin approach: wetland restoration, river coalition, • prevention actions (Canal)

  5. Regional Grants: Stakeholders Beneficiaries: Students, pupils, teachers, farmers, common people Partners: Municipalities, state authorities Observations: • Stakeholders are present but approaches to target/involve them are weakly developed. • The tasks and responsibilities are not well defined. • Support letters from the Stakeholders are generally missing

  6. Regional Grants: evaluation process Criteria: • Quality of the proposals was generally good • Nutrients - not addressed directly • Sub-basin approach applied • Water shed approach – in a small scale • Poor follow up • Policy development – poorly addressed (WFD/ Common agriculture policies)

  7. Regional Grants: approach • Mostly linkages of local projects • watershed / sub basin • balance between planning and actions • “end of pipe” approach • No change of behaviour actions

More Related