RCBI ‘handover’ meeting Hungary-Slovakia-Romania-Ukraine ENPI CBC Programme

1. RCBI ‘handover’ meetingHungary-Slovakia-Romania-Ukraine ENPI CBC Programme Budapest, 21 March 2012

2. Meeting outline • Expectations • Review of the involvement of PC and what the programme plans 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 • Analysis based on questionnaires: • Programme: JMA, JTS, BO • Ua: NCP, CSE • Input from - RCBI Key Experts

4. No. of Uaapplicants– 1st & 2nd calls

5. No. of Uapartners -1st & 2nd calls

6. No. of Uaapplicants and partners -1st & 2nd call

7. Awarded projects - Ist call

8. Awarded Projects - 2nd call awarded

9. Success rate -1st and & 2nd calls

10. Budget share Ua – 1st and 2nd calls

11. Involvement of PC organisations in applications - 1 As Applicants: • Very well represented (3); not very well represented (2) Reasons: • Number of UA applicants in the 1st CfP was under the average, but due to the experiences and successful promotional events, this number doubled • Attraction to Programme’s priorities as well as to the system of financing • Good innovative and development ideas • Depends on a programme – we are satisfied with the level of involvement of our applicants/partners in “Hungary-Slovakia-Romania-Ukraine” • Complicated national requirements and unstable national legislation • Lack of partners • Lack of experience

12. Involvement of PC organisations in applications - 2 As Partners: • Very well represented (3); well represented (1); not very well represented (1) Reasons: • Due to the rule, that at least one participant should be from the PC • Building of project partnership between PC organisation and MS organisation is a fundamental obligation for submitting a project proposal and further implementation of the project in case it has been selected • Desire to get acquainted with the Programmes rules and requirements better • Chance for experience exchange • Being a partner is more convenient and involves less responsibility compared to being an Applicant • Depends on a programme – we are satisfied with the level of involvement of our applicants/partners in “Hungary-Slovakia-Romania-Ukraine” (2) • Interest of Ukrainian organisations to participate in the ENPI CBC

13. Involvement of PC organisations in awarded projects - 1 As Applicants: • Very well represented (2); well represented (1); not very well represented (2) Reasons: • The rules were not so strict • Attractive system of financing • Good experience in working with EU Programmes • Depends on a programme – we are satisfied with the level of involvement of our applicants/partners in “Hungary-Slovakia-Romania-Ukraine” (2)

14. Involvement of PC organisations in awarded projects - 2 As Partners: • Very well represented (3); not very well represented (2) Reasons: • In awarded projects not just one UA partner participates • Building of project partnership between PC organisation and MS organisation is a fundamental obligation for submitting a project proposal and further implementation of the project in case it has been selected (2) • Depends on a programme – we are satisfied with the level of involvement of our applicants/partners in “Hungary-Slovakia-Romania-Ukraine” (2)

15. Main challenges - 1 AsApplicants: • Legislative obstacles (2) • Banking difficulties (money transfer, proof of spending, etc) • Complicated national requirements • Assessment procedure • Application package • Language barrier • Visa, national permissions • Lack of experience (incl. in the preparation of project proposals according to EU rules) (2) • Afraid to take responsibility for project management • Lack of partners • Co-financing

16. Main challenges - 2 As Partners: • Legislative obstacles (2) • Visa, national permissions • Complicated national requirements • Finding a partner (2) • Assessment procedure • Language barrier • Application package • Lack of experience • Co-financing

17. Disadvantage issue Disadvantage – 2 No disadvantage – 3 Reasons: • In PC, legislation does not reflect the needs of project implementation • In MS the system is more flexible • MS have more experience in Programme participation and in preparing application forms

18. Balanced participation • Equal treatment of all applicants is more important than balanced participation – 2 • A balanced distribution of funds among participating countries is very important – 2 • Balanced participation is extremely important for programme success – 4 Explanations: • Balanced distribution of funds proves that the Action is being implemented mutually and actively by the partners • The quantity of PC organisations participating in projects is essential for their further development and increasing of their skills and know-how • A balanced distribution of funds among participating countries seems to be very important, but it much depends on the quality of the applications • It would be good to balance the rules for participation of Adjacent/Adjoining regions and main regions

19. Responsibility for facilitating balanced participation • JMA/JTS – 2 • Branch offices – 2 • JMC – • National authorities – 3 • Other: • JMA/JTS was to use the best and independent assessors in order to find the best applications. The points/scores were doing their own job to rank the projects, and distribute the fund among the participants/countries. National authorities, umbrella organizations should motivate the potential applications too • Regional Councils or self-governing regions

20. What are you doing to facilitate participation ? Programme • Info days (2) • Partner search forums (3) • Spreading information through media, project website, internet (2) Ua • Our Authorities hold information events and provide our applicants with explanations • Stimulates balanced participation at its level (JTFs, JMCs)

21. What can/should you do in the future? Programme • To keep spreading information (e.g. Info days) (2) • To guarantee independent and satisfactory assessors • Continue providing information on the Programme and informing organizations about the rules and requirements of the Programme • List of successful PC organisations and of all implemented projects should be published on Programme’s website as well as on the websites of Regional Authorities Ua • Balanced participation of MC and PC should be the provision in programme documents • Be more active in communicating with the regional authorities from MS to encourage more active participation of the organisations from MS in ENPI CBC projects

22. RCBI support to HSRU 2007-2011 • Support for programming - contributions from experts from Ukraine and other programming experts • Training on programme management - JTS/JMC (2) • Events to support calls for proposals - info seminars (2), project preparation workshop (9), partner search forums (3) • Support for PC to participate in programme events (5)

23. RCBI materials/tools - 1 • Database of partners and contacts in MPC • E support for project identification and development and project implementation • Identifying, developing and implementing 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

24. 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?