1 / 27

RCBI ‘handover’ meeting Jordan

RCBI ‘handover’ meeting Jordan. Amman – 23 April 2012. Meeting outline. Expectations Review of the involvement of Jordan and of what the programme and authorities in Jordan plan to do to facilitate involvement

shen
Download Presentation

RCBI ‘handover’ meeting Jordan

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. RCBI ‘handover’ meetingJordan Amman – 23 April 2012

  2. Meeting outline • Expectations • Review of the involvement of Jordan and of what the programme and authorities in Jordan 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

  3. Basis • Quantitative analysis based on statistics on calls provided by the programme • Qualitative analysis based on questionnaires: • Jordan: NCP, CSE, applicants, beneficiaries and partners • Programme: JMA/JTS • Input from - RCBI Experts

  4. No. of applicants by country - standard call

  5. No. of applicants by country - strategic projects

  6. No. of partners by country - standard call

  7. No. of partners by country - strategic projects

  8. No. of applicants and partners by country -standard call

  9. No. of applicants and partners by country -strategic projects

  10. Success rate of applicants by country -standard call

  11. Budget share overall by country -standard call

  12. Involvement of MPC organisations in applications-1 As Applicants: • Not very well represented (2), low level of representation (2) Reasons: NCP/CSE: • No or moderate experience in managing EU funded projects • Europeans were usually looking for partners as most of them were interested in being the leader • The need to work with partners from Europe and the region Programme: • Lack of experience (incl. in project management) • Institutional barriers related to procedures and job responsibilities • Complicated administrative procedures • High level of bureaucracy of organizations in the MPC

  13. Involvement of MPC organisations in applications-2 As Partners: • Very well represented (3), well represented (1) Reasons: NCP/CSE: • Amongst the first countries to sign the financing agreement with EU - allows applicants from EU to involve partners from Jordan • Organisations were approached by other applicants from other countries • Many active organizations and entities • Entities have offered many ideas on projects for building partnerships Programme: • Interest in the Programme • Existing good cooperation with other organisations from EU countries • Literacy and financial improvement • Professionalism

  14. Involvement of MPC organisations in awarded projects - 1 As Beneficiaries: • Not very well represented (1), low level of representation (2) Reasons: NCP/CSE: • Lack of experience with big projects with many partners • Exclusion of the capital Amman from eligible regions Programme: • Only one MPC has been awarded due to its longer experience in managing projects

  15. Involvement of MPC organisations in awarded projects - 2 As Partners: • Very well represented (1), well represented (3) Reasons: NCP/CSE: • Excellent cooperation between applicants and partners • The commitment towards finalizing all project documents • It is easier to be a partner of a project which other organisation is managing Programme: • There is an overall participation of all MPC involved in the Programme at project level • The number of partners from MPC is very well balanced • The rule of 50% of activities to be implemented in MPC could have definitely contributed to achieve this equal participation

  16. Main challenges - 1 As Applicants: NCP/CSE: • Knowledge of EU procedures • Proven previous experience in managing external funds • To have the right financial systems in place • Exclusion of Amman Programme: • Enhance knowledge of the Programme rules • Lack of experience • Legislation • To manage funds - that seems to be complicated for some MPC countries

  17. Main challenges - 2 As Partners: NCP/CSE: • Lack of better understanding about the programme documents (including documents required in the application form) • Need for further information sessions and partnership search forums • Long procedures of the evaluation • Exclusion of Amman Programme: • Many organisations are not familiar with working in partnership • To achieve common objectives in a coordinated way • To improve knowledge of the management rules • Low level of initiatives

  18. Success factors - Jo applicants, beneficiaries and partners - 1 Reasons for success: • Cooperation and working as a team where every partner has a certain role Main Challenges to be overcome • Long distance between partners • Miscommunication; • Strict deadlines How they were overcome • Good follow-up skills and cooperation with partners

  19. Reasons for not applying/not being successful – Jo applicants, beneficiaries and partners • Lack of partners from the European countries • Long proposal preparation and evaluation process • Project activities not much related to the EU policy and objectives • Lack of coordination between partners

  20. Level of involvement in applications – Jo applicants, beneficiaries and partners • Active involvement that is also equal to the involvement of other Partners (1) • Member State partners have higher involvement than Partner Country partners (2) • The Lead Partner has been doing almost all of the work, partners being passive (1) • The level of our involvement is in line with what was planned (2) • We expected to be more involved in the project (1) • So far, we have had very little or no involvement in the project (1)

  21. Are MPC at a disadvantage Yes (3) – No (1) Reasons: NCP/CSE: • Lack of experience in participating in such programme as a lead partner Programme: • Less experience and resources to compete • Financial and legislative barriers

  22. Balanced participation • As long as the PC are represented in some way in all projects, this will be enough (1) • A balanced distribution of funds among participating countries is very important (2) • Balanced participation is very important but there is not much that can be done about this (2) • Balanced participation is extremely important for programme success (4) Explanation: • Balanced participation underlines a true and real co-ownership of the Programme

  23. What are you doing to facilitate involvement? NCP/CSE: • Motivates to build partnerships • Facilitation of the programme implementation • Nothing, except some attempts to expand the database of organisations who receive info on calls and updates Programme: • Providing rules that boost MPCs participation in the call (50% rule for instance) • Awareness-raising and technical events • Any kind of communication actions • Programmes are not the main player to stimulate involvement

  24. What can/should you do in the future NCP/CSE: • Allocate the right team of human resources for the international cooperation programmes • Simplify the programme documents, requirements and the guidelines • Training and support to the team • Awareness and partnership search forums • Engage applicants and partners together in creative information sessions • Government and local authorities, universities are all qualified but they have not been assisted to be more involved in projects Programme: • Provide for technical assistance funds to National Contact Points • Reconduct a similar RCBI experience • Programmes are not the main player to stimulate involvement

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

  26. 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?

  27. RCBI support to Jordan 2007-2011 • Support for programming – contributions from expert from Jordan and other programming experts • Training on programme management - JMC (1) • Events to support calls for proposals - info seminars (4), project preparation workshops (3), Partner Search Forum in Jordan (1) and contribution for participation at Partner Search Forums outside Jordan (3) • Training in project management & implementation - NCP (1), beneficiaries and partners (3) • Support to participate in programme events (5) • Guides to National Requirements for implementing ENPI CBC projects - steps to takewhenawarded a project

More Related