420 likes | 500 Views
RCBI ‘handover’ meeting Russia n Federation. St Petersburg - 18 May 2012. Meeting outline. Expectations Review of the involvement of Ru and of what the programme/ authorities in Ru plan to do to facilitate involvement
E N D
RCBI ‘handover’ meetingRussian Federation St Petersburg - 18 May 2012
Meeting outline • Expectations • Review of the involvement of Ru and of what the programme/ authorities in Ru 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
Basis • Quantitative analysis based on statistics on calls, provided by the programmes • Qualitative analysis based on questionnaires: • Russia RA (3), CSE (1), applicants, beneficiaries and partners (18) • Programmes: JMA (4),JTS (2), BO(3) • Input from - RCBI Experts
Involvement of Ru organisations in applications - 1 As applicants • Well represented (6) not very well represented (2) low level of representation (1) Ru reasons • Experience of participation in the Neighbourhood Programme and in CBC projects through EU and other Programmes • Differences in EU and Russian legislation • Different requirements to financial management • Difficulties in receiving grant from JMA and transferring money to EU partners • Taxation issues (legal status of CBC ENPI project not clarified) • Specific problems of public bodies managed by Federal treasury
Involvement of Ru organisations in applications - 2 As applicants - Programme explanations • Great interest in Programme • Widespread information dissemination - large involvement in seminars, BO info activities • Long list of contacts of local/regional NGOs, universities, other companies • Previous networks of Finland and Russia organisations • Great number of ideas to be implemented in partnership with Finnish organisations • Good level and qualification of organisations in Saint-Petersburg • Experience of participation in the Neighbourhood Programme and in CBC projects through EU and other Programmes • Lack of experience and/or capacity to prepare the application and to manage projects • Difficulty in providing project co-financing
Involvement of Ru organisations in applications - 3 As partners • Very well represented (5) well represented (5) Ru reasons • The level of awareness about the programme is rather high • Organisations are ready to participate in projects • Many connections, relevant topics and problems to be solved between border related territories • Experience of participation in CBC projects through EU and other Programmes • In quite a big amount of applications EU partners involved Russian partners just to fulfil formal requirements
Involvement of Ru organisations in applications - 4 As Partners - Programme explanations • Great interest in Programme • Large involvement in seminars, BO info activities • Good level and qualification of organisations in Saint-Petersburg • Experience of participation in CBC projects through EU and other Programmes • Chance to learn from more experienced organisations from MS and Norway • Requirement for each project to have at least one Russian partner • Good cooperation ties with Finnish organisations • Source of financing for NGOs • Lack of experience • Insufficient English
Involvement of Ru organisations in awarded projects - 1 As beneficiaries Well represented (3) not very well represented (3) low level of representation (3) Ru reasons • Differences in EU and Russian legislation • Different requirements to financial management • Russian organisations are very much motivated to lead projects
Involvement of Ru organisations in awarded projects - 2 As beneficiaries Programme explanations • Good experience in implementation of previous international projects • Experience of participation in CBC projects through EU and other Programmes • Good level and qualification of organisations in Saint-Petersburg • Understanding of responsibility • High level of involvement in project activities • Russian organizations prefer to be Partners, not the LP • Lack of previous experience (incl. project management skills)
Involvement of Ru organisations in awarded projects - 3 As partners • Very well represented (4) well represented (4) Ru explanations • Many connections, relevant topics and problems to be solved between border related territories • Ru partner – is obligatory • Consensus decision making in frames of the joint selection bodies ensure selection of the projects satisfying requirements of all parties involved • Russian organisations (regional/local authorities, universities, NGOs, private companies, etc.) are fully represented in all awarded projects
Involvement of Ru organisations in awarded projects - 4 As Partners - Programme explanations • Large involvement in seminars, BO info activities • Previous networks of FI and RU organisations • Good level and qualification of organisations in Saint-Petersburg • Experience of participation in CBC projects through EU and other Programmes • Chance to learn from more experienced organisations from MS and Norway • High interest to participate in the Programme • Good experience in implementation of previous international projects • Understanding of responsibility • High level of involvement in project activities
Main challenges – As applicants - Russia • Lack of sufficient experience (incl. international project management skills) • Insufficient English skills • Differences in EU and Russian legislation • Russian legislation - does not cover all the aspects of the implementation of international projects • Problems connected with VAT exemption, mutual payments between municipalities • Difficulties in receiving grant from JMA and transferring money to EU partners • Specific problems of the public bodies managed by Federal treasury • Financial management and reporting • Additional financial and administrative difficulties
Main challenges – As applicants - Programmes • Lack of sufficient experience (incl. international project management skills),insufficient English • Russian legislation - does not cover all the aspects of the implementation of international projects • Financial management and reporting • To realise project ideas • To ensure needed project cofinancing • To make realistic time-schedule and cost-effective budget, adequate risk assessment • Russian applicants are often not fully aware of the demands of the Programme, regulations and terms of submitting the applications (also the Application Form and Logical Framework are difficult) • Finding a Finnish project partner • Sometimes interests in project ideas differ between Russian and Finnish sides
Main challenges - As partners - Russia • Lack of sufficient experience (incl. international project management skills, how to write an application) • Differences and specificities in national rules and legislation • Russian legislation - does not cover all the aspects of the implementation of international projects • Problems connected with VAT exemption, mutual payments between municipalities and arranging payment to partners abroad • Insufficient English skills • Not informed enough about the rules and procedures of the programmes • Equal participation in decision making • Problems in finding EU partners • Intercultural barriers • Specific problems in different types of organisations
Main challenges - As partners - Programmes • Lack of sufficient experience (incl. international project management skills, how to write an application) • Problems connected with VAT exemption, mutual payments between municipalities and arranging payment to partners abroad • High taxation, bank fees • Qualitative cooperation with all partners, management • Different kind of practices in, for example, partnership agreements • Rule of origin • To ensure needed project cofinancing • To make adequate planning of activities
Reasons for success – Ru beneficiaries and partners • Effectiveness in addressing the social transboundary problems • Relevant topic of the project (3) • Attracting a large number of participants to realization of the project • High quality of the application (2) • Strong and sustained partnership network • High competence of LP in project development (2) • Reliable applicant and partners (2) • Small amount of money required • Financial resources and experts • Close communications with government authorities
Main challenges to overcome - Ru beneficiaries and partners • Language barrier • Absence of constant financing for public organizations • Financing of the project development stage • Budgeting of the project costs in a proper/equal way for the partners • Budgeting (2) • Collecting and submitting the original documents in due time • Making agreements on the schedule for the project activities • Long evaluation period (increase in the prices specified in the application) • Bureaucracy • Complicated application form • Lack of highly-skilled project managers in the area • Partner search
How challenges were overcome – Ru beneficiaries and partners • Constant communication/interaction with project participants (2) • Creating a link of crisis centres in Russia • Used own resources • Clarification of uncertainties with the representative of the ENPI • Careful examination of each item of the application • Refusal from participation as applicant • Creation of realistic work plan • Involvement of less fastidious and rich partners
Reasons for not applying/not being successful -Ru applicants, beneficiaries and partners Not applying • Insufficient experience • Not enough information about the programme • No regional representative of RCBI in Murmansk before • Fierce competition was expected • Difficult to find a partner • Too little time for preparing an application Reasons for not being successful • Difficult process of preparation and registration of the application • Too high project budget • Imperfect selection process • No distinct sense of project idea and results
Level of involvement in applications – Ru applicants, beneficiaries and partners • Active involvement that is also equal to the involvement of other Partners (8) • 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 (12) • We expected to be more involved in the project (2) • So far, we have had very little or no involvement in the project (1)
What are you doing to facilitate involvement? - Russia • Contacts/meetings with the municipalities (Kaliningrad) • Annual conferences (Kaliningrad) • Individual consultations provided for stakeholders (Kaliningrad) • Additional education and consultation available (Pskov, Leningrad) • Training events (Kaliningrad) • Project concept (idea) development (Pskov) • Project implementation as associates or as members of project steering bodies (Pskov) • Regional programme for co-financing of our regional partners will start (Pskov) • Harmonising legislation regulating cross-border cooperation (Leningrad) • National and regional authorities are represented in joint management bodies (CSE)
What are you doing to facilitate involvement? Karelia Programme • Seminars regularly held • Information disseminated • Consultations given • Assisting in understanding the main trends of the Programme Kolarctic Programme • Information seminars • Trainings • Face-to-face meetings • Practical consultation
What are you doing to facilitate involvement? SEF Programme • Information seminars • Education for potential Applicants from Russian side • Consultation • Development and dissemination of methodological materials • Special seminars for authorities (at regional level and municipalities) ELR Programme • Information seminars, explanations LPR Programme • Programme is establishing 3 Branch offices
What can/should you do in the future? - Russia • Common rules should be elaborated for future programmes (Pskov) • Common co-financing from all participating countries should be provided (Pskov) • All parties are to follow the common timetable for approval of the Programmes within the respective countries not to postpone common start in the programmes as equal partners (Pskov) • Harmonising legislation regulating cross-border cooperation (Leningrad) • Developing new approaches for next programme periods together with EU on partner basis (Leningrad) • To provide support in partner search (more partner-search events) (CSE, Kaliningrad) • To organise training (incl. in PCM) (CSE) • To clarify legal status of CBC ENPI projects that will help to resolve taxation issues (CSE)
What can/should you do in the future? Karelia Programme • Keep on doing regular information work • Provide assistance to the interested applicants • Disseminate information more actively in the regions Kolarctic Programme • Organize travelling consultations for Naryan-Mar organizations to increase number of applications from this region • More practical consultations in Murmansk, Arkhangelsk, Naryan-Mar are already planned to be held within the 4th Call for Proposals
What can/should you do in the future? SEF Programme • To start new Programme not later than in 2015 ELR Programme • Information and training LPR Programme • To provide more information to potential applicants and interested stakeholders • To distribute information among various institutions and general public
RCBI materials/tools - 1 • Database of partners and contacts in PC • E support for project identification and development and project implementation • Identifying, developing and implementing ENPI CBC projects: Tips from RCBI practice of supporting applicants, partners and beneficiaries • RCBI Project Implementation Manual (PIM) • Guide to national requirements for implementing ENPI CBC projects
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?
RCBI support to Russia 2007-2011 • Support for programming – contributions from experts from Russia and other programming experts • Briefing for officials in Russia (1) • Training on programme management • 1 joint JMC briefing for Kolarctic, Karelia & SEF-Ru • 1 JMC briefing for each of Estonia-Latvia-Russia & Lithuania-Poland-Russia • 1 JMA briefings for each of Kolartic, Estonia-Latvia-Russia & Lithuania-Poland-Russia
RCBI support to Russia 2007-2011 • Events to support calls for proposals • 4 info seminars and 6 project preparation workshops for Kolarctic • 1 info seminar and 1 project preparation workshop for Karelia • 5 project preparation workshops and 2 PF for Estonia-Latvia-Russia • 3 project preparation workshops for Lithuania-Poland-Russia • Support for PC to participate in programme events • 6 events for Kolarctic • 4 events for Karelia • 3 events for SEF-Russia • 11 events for Estonia-Latvia-Russia • 4 events for Lithuania-Poland-Russia • Guide to National Requirements