FLEMISH COOPERATION PROGRAMME Central and Eastern Europe Call 2009 Information session

1. FLEMISH COOPERATION PROGRAMME Central and Eastern Europe Call 2009 Information session

2. Structure • Procedure • Criteria • Historical background - statistics • Some cases, examples of best practice • Orientation, changes in priority

3. Method • Rephrasing the official call • Rhetorical point of view • Unravel the decision making • Historical roll back

4. Objectives • Transfer of knowledge • Replication and promotion of best practice • Spread and adaptation of procedures • Information in pre-market or non competitive economical and social processes • Value oriented rather than profit oriented

5. Situation 2009 2008 • 55 formally correct requests, 32 approvals • 2,656 mio euro • average subsidy 83.000 euro • 0,250 mio unused funds 2009 • Area 1 – 1,170 mio euro • Area 2 – 1,900 mio euro • Area 3 – 0,450 mio euro

6. Situation 2009 • Area 1 – EU members, EU-12, new 2004 • No country quota • Quality criterium first • Area 2 • Country quota for KRO, MAC • Area quota limit for rest • Area 3 • Country quota for MOL, UKR

7. Evolution • 2001:        46                                      6.172.000          2002:        45                                      6.172.0002003:        47                                      5.720.0002004:        37                                      2.920.0002005:        24                                      2.820.0002006:        40                                      2.452.0002007:        33                                      2.920.000 • Till 2003 max subsidy was 85% • From 2004 max subsidy 50% • From 2004 EU effect (EFRD)

8. Milestones • 92 – 2000 - 420 projects, 60 mio euro volume • 2000 • Pre-accession treaties with COE countries • Financing Foreign Affairs (85%) + 15% < partner • 5 priority sectors (agriculture - SME - social - environment – ports) • quota per country / country helps with selection • 92 – 2000 - Image effect, export for Flanders - regional autonomy in foreign affairs

9. Post 2000 Objectives • EU policy convergence, compliance • Institutional stability • Democratic decision making • Social market economy • Multiple stakeholders balance • Long term planning • Identify like-minded actors • Social (e-)quality

10. Operational targets • Knowledge transfer • Training civil servants • Capacity development, leverage improvement • Social model of consensus decision making • Empowering non-state economical actors SME Federations and interest clusters, ngo’s City and regional executive bodies Regulators (infrastructure, utilities) • Ecological compliance

11. Procedure Who can apply? • Any Flemish enterprise, organisation, institute, federation, public body etc • Located in Flanders or • Located in Brussels operating in Dutch • Middlefield organisations • Together with one (or more) CEE based partner(s) • You need a Flemish promoter • We can help you identify one

12. Procedure How is the application dealt with? • Screening on formal grounds • Evaluation on content, quality and budget • Ranking • Decision • foreign affairs dept, partner country, expert committee, finance, ministry • possibly budget adjustment loop Information flow, typical for 06-08 period • Bad news in less than four months • Good news in up to seven months • Budget loop after five months

13. Procedure What are the limits in Area 1 (!) • 50% of project cost as subsidy • Remaining 50% has to be proven input • 15% minimum threshold own funds from commercial promoters • 150.000 euro for one year projects • 300.000 euro for projects from 24 to 36 months • 36 months duration limit Area 2 projects – max 85% subsidy towards same limits

14. Procedure • Origin of initiative is neutral, all parties sign • For trilateral projects some limits of Area 2, 3 apply • Accountability from both sides, financing from Flemish promoter • Notification binds timing commitment, start & finish • Installements 30 / 30 / reporting / 40% • Document structure (electronic, paper) • iv.vlaanderen.be/nlapps/docs/default.asp?id=518 • We do provide case by case councelling

15. Procedure How to fail? Almost with certification! • .ac to .ac, study grants, teachers, language * • Individuals • Mere transfer of goods or services • Construction or infrastructure (post 2000...) • One time events (conference ...) • Feasability study with no implementation commitment • Humanitarian aid • Commercial goal (but not commercial promoter!) • Commercial project proxied by non-commercial partner • B2B, joint ventures (but subcontractors are fine) * • 46 language course units, different programmes in 2008 • Flanders Investment and Trade

16. Trilateral procedure • If three countries from Area 1, then max 50% subsidy • If two countries from Area 1, AND one from Area 2, AND all results are focused in the Area 2 partner, then max 85% subsidy

17. Trilateral procedure • If three countries, AND one from Area 2, AND results divided over both CEE countries, then maximum 50% subsidy • In bilateral deals Area 2 country and promoter must prove 15% own input • In trilateral deal Area 2 country does not have to prove its contribution – netto investment case

18. Evaluation procedure Important formal criterium Just the documents, all the documents, the complete documents Important content, implementation criteria Does this project build on strengths of Flemish promoters? * Is the government in the partner country involved, committed? Will results be disseminated and replicated? Where and how? Is this partner a unique and best choice? Measurable results, measurable communication? Is follow-up and follow-on financing guaranteed, likely? Have we financed a similar programme before in the same country?

19. Evaluation procedure Important method criteria • Have the needs been identified clearly? • How strong is the EU regulatory compliance? • Is the timeline, roadmap convincing? • A candid, clear swot-analysis • Are the goals and intermediate results quantifiable? Single most important criterium • Is the budget transparant, accountable and credible?

20. Budget rules • Tough, very tough, but not on the partner or country • Main area of contention for promoters • Promoting Flanders, subsidizing the partner, not inverse • A new project, not a reward for existing procedure • Transparency, cost benchmark: civil servant fee structure • Restraint and disclosure in salary matters • No stacked subsidizing • Clear rules for operational costs, overhead, travel • Disclosure of co-financing • Control and inspection sessions

21. Budget limitations Promoters report following limitations, stress points Investment intensity Prefinancing, liquidity Dedicated manpower, personnel, headcount Assesment of 50% own contribution Calculation method on 50% own contribution

22. What is a good project? Some case studies • ROM-06 - Speaking with sign language • BUL-07 ILVO – Minimum standards in agriculture ... • ROM-07 – Waste management in Vaslui • UKR-08 – Flood risk management • UKR-08 – Environmental sustainability for schools • MUL-02 – PLATO (Voka West Vlaanderen) • XX-08 – e-PLATfOrm (Voka) Euregio Carpathia • ROM-07 – Energy management of city council • BUL-07 – Containerparks (OVAM)

23. Reading materials • Selected project proposals • Website • 06, 07 decision matrix, 07 projects • Text of call

24. Criteria shift • 92 – 2000 • Allocations proportional to population size • Allocations inversely proportional to gdp/capita • Aim to create fundamentals for export • Strong focus on infrastructure • 2000 - 04 • Allocations less strictly export driven • Social integration, ethical value ambitions • 2006 • Allocations shifted towards Area 2, 3 • Environment

25. 2008 criteria* • Vlaanderen in Actie 2020 • Strategic investment & development plan • Key sectors, breakthrough goals and targets • Export driven, innovation, R&D • Health care technology, database, web-based • Traffic and mobility management • Logistics, transportation • Green cities, energy sustainability, waste, recycling • Social responsability • Permanent learning