INTERACT ENPI is a project funded by the European Union

1. Summary of the Workshops INTERACT ENPI is a project funded by the European Union www.interact-eu.net

2. Worshop I Evaluation and selection INTERACT ENPI is a project funded by the European Union www.interact-eu.net

3. Financial allocations and project sizes • Key questions: • Amounts devoted to the calls appears limited in view of number of applications received. • If allowed, increase of the amount finally contracted must be coherent with human resources => proper monitoring must be ensured.

4. Financial allocations and project sizes • Key questions: • Low maximum grants in some priorities are not attractive for applicants when compared to the effort needed to build an application. • Statistics broken down per partner will help to identify gaps.

5. Application package • Key questions: • Application forms perceived as difficult by potential applicants and partners. • Not always the adaptations made to PRAG have brought simplification. • Elaboration of single application forms programmed to ensure correctness => avoids unnecessary mistakes.

6. Application package • Key questions: • Translations of application forms into national languages proved very useful => reduction in number of questions put forward to JMA. • Better no translation than a bad translation!!.

7. Application package • Key questions: • Forecast 2nd call => simplification (e.g., reduction in number of annexes, requirements for supporting documents). • Boomerang effect: more requirements lead to time-consuming administrative check. • Applicant responsibility: ”no grants are for free” .

8. Support to applicants • Key questions: • Still not full capacity to draft applications. • Capacity building outside calls. • Capacity building also for Member States (mostly EU15) => PRAG as ”terra incognita”. • Better results shown in cases where JTS in place and national authorities have been actively involved.

9. Support to applicants • Key questions: • Financial support for attendance to partner forums. • Limitations in number of attendants from hosting country in order to have balanced participation. • Involvement of national authorities and availability of multinational staffed JTS.

10. Worshop II Monitoring and evaluation INTERACT ENPI is a project funded by the European Union www.interact-eu.net

11. General approach • Practical • Effective • User oriented • Complementary to EC own monitoring and evaluation activities

12. Monitoring – Main challenges • Lack of template for annual implementation report • Need to better develop templates for reporting at project level (annexes VI and VII) – Defining clearly what is expected from projects • Existence of cultural differences in interpreting monitoring (process) and data • Define sampling methodologies (which to monitor during field visits? Checklists to be developed) • Lack/limited financial resources (i.e. for field visits) • Understand who does what and define the different roles and responsibilities (different views about the involvement of NCPs/NIPs in monitoring projects) • Build capacities at beneficiary and partner level) (training sessions for beneficiaries and partners + tutoring (face2face) + manuals)

13. Indicators • Programmes have to be very pragmatic (taking into account technical assistance budget, sometime limited) • Limited number of indicators • Indicators about communication activities (at programme level) (to be included in the communication plan)

14. Evaluation: what? • Effectiveness of information activities following to the launch of a call for proposals • Calls for proposals (to draw lessons learned) • Horizontal/cluster evaluation (projects with same activities)

15. Evaluation: how? How? • Evaluation plan • ToR • Survey, questionnaires, interviews • Participatory approach (direct involvement of programmes staff – decision makers) • Follow up and dissemination (need to show results and added value)

16. Evaluation – actors involved • JMA + JTS (including BO) with the support of external experts • Project beneficiaries and partners • Target Groups/Final beneficiaries • Use of external experts • +: Give a view from outside (“a pair offresh eyes”) – Independence – A more objective analysis and judgements • - Costs (some programmes have limited TA budget)

17. Worshop III Procurement procedures and Large scale projects INTERACT ENPI is a project funded by the European Union www.interact-eu.net

18. Large scale projects • LSP not only ”big projects” – many other criteria • Some programmes that do not have LSP – foresee now to open this possibility • BUT the time constraints have to be considered! – LSPs are long projects, 2014 • LSP Beneficiaries are usually not experienced with implementation of EU or other projects • Specific actions needed

19. Large scale – infrastructural projects • One do not exclude another • Similarities: • Both have investment character • High subcontracting level (linked to procurement check) • Same challenges in sustainability • Supporting documents; Big preparatory costs in both • Implementation of projects (works, supplies) • Synergies: • LSPs may lead to other infrastructure projects (roads to border crossings, etc)

20. Procurement procedures • Procurement TA – is a way of “ex-ante” follow up, whereas only ex-post (or ex-post, but before contract signature) check is foreseen • Whereas Member states authorities using the national rules are by definition in line with EU rules, the situation is different with NGOs • BUT Rules of nationality and origin to be respected by MS too

21. Procurement procedures • In some countries the approach from the national authorities is different to EU funds and national co-financing funds • Difficult to switch from national/ERDF procedures to PRAG, some Beneficiaries are dealing with both, or no experience • Often no experience - some assistance to Beneficiaries on procurement procedures is needed