RCBI ‘handover’ meeting Ukraine

1. RCBI ‘handover’ meetingUkraine Kyiv, 29 March 2012

2. Meeting outline • Expectations • Review of the involvement of Ua and of what the programme/ authorities in Ua 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 programmes • Qualitative analysis based on questionnaires: • Ukraine: NCP, applicants, beneficiaries and partners • Programmes: JMA ,JTS, BO • Input from - RCBI Experts

4. No.of applicants by country -1st call & LSP (RUM) 1st call LSP

5. No. of applicants by country -1st call (BSB)

6. No. of applicants by country -1st call and LSP (PBU) 1st call LSP

7. No. of Uaapplicants– 1st & 2nd calls (HSRU)

8. No. of partners by country -1st call (RUM)

9. No. of partners by country -1st call (BSB)

10. No. of partners by country in 1st call &LSP (PBU) 1st call LSP

11. No. of Uapartners -1st & 2nd calls (HSRU)

12. No. of applicants and partners by country -1st call (RUM)

13. No. of applicants and partners PC &MS - LSP (RUM)

14. No. of applicants and partners by country – 1st call (BSB)

15. No. of applicants and partners by country -1st call &LSP (PBU) 1st Call LSP

16. No. of Uaapplicants and partners -1st & 2nd call (HSRU)

17. Success rate PC & MS -1st call (RUM)

18. Success rate of applicantsby country –1st call (BSB)

19. Success rate by country -1st call (PBU)

20. Success rate -1st and & 2nd calls (HSRU)

21. Budget share applicants and total – 1st call (RUM)

22. Budget share applicants & partners awarded projects by country – 1st call (BSB)

23. Budget share by applicant country – 1st call (PBU)

24. Budget share Ua –applicants & parnters- 1st &2nd calls (HSRU)

25. Involvement of Uaorganisations in applications - 1 As Applicants: • Very well represented/not very well represented Ua reasons: • Good innovative and development ideas • Number of UA applicants in the 1st CfP was under the average, but doubled in 2nd call due to the experiences and successful promotional events (HSRU) • Level of involvement of applicants/partners depends on programme – it is more active in HSRU and not so active in RUM and BSB • Afraid to take responsibility for project management • Complicated national requirements/Unstable national legislation • Lack of experience of organisations in regions, which were new for ENPI CBC/preparation of proposals/project management/ • Lack of partners

26. Involvement of Ua organisations in applications - 2 As Applicants Programme explanations • Different actions (information and training seminars, helpdesk) to raise the public awareness and to provide information • Application package/Assessment procedure • Not very familiar with the EU grant programmes and their project cycling logic • Applicants from MS (Poland) have a high-level experience in proposals elaboration • Low quality of projects applications (lack of experience in completing those) • Legislative obstacles/Banking difficulties (money transfer, proof of spending, etc)/Visa, national permissions • Language barrier • Co-financing

27. Involvement of Uaorganisations in applications - 3 As Partners: • Very well represented/well represented/not very well represented Ua reasons: • Desire to get acquainted with the Programmes rules and requirements better • Chance for experience exchange • Interest of Ukrainian organisation to participate in the ENPI CBC • Level of involvement of applicants/partners depends on programme – it is more active in HSRU and not so active in RUM and BSB • Lack of partners • Complicacy of the national requirements and unstable national legislation • Lack of experience • Co-financing

28. Involvement of Uaorganisations in applications - 4 As Partners: Programme Explanations: • Building of project partnership between PC organisation and MS organisation is a fundamental obligation for submitting a project proposal and implementation • Requirement for each project to have at least one partner from PC • Information about the Programme is widely disseminated, interest is high • Attraction to Programme’s priorities as well as to the system of financing • Partnership with Polish partners already exists • Being a partner is more convenient and involves less responsibility compared to being an Applicant • Partners from PC used this opportunity as an entry point in this type of cooperation, using already established contacts or making new ones • Desire to gain valuable experience for applying as Applicants in the future

29. Involvement of Uaorganisations in awarded projects - 1 As Applicants: • Very well represented/well represented/not very well represented Ua Reasons: • Level of involvement of depends on programme – it is more active in HSRU and not so active in RUM and BSB

30. Involvement of Uaorganisations in awarded projects - 2 As Applicants: Programme Explanations: • The rules were not so strict • Good experience in working with EU Programmes • It can be deemed good considering the new elements brought by the programme • The initial low level of participation combined with the poor quality of the applications submitted • Scores awarded for the projects submitted by the MS applicants were better than for the projects submitted by the PC organizations, especially for the financial and operational capacity and relevance of the project • Lack of experience in these kind of programmes

31. Involvement of Uaorganisations in awarded projects - 3 As Partners: • Very well represented/not very well represented Ua explanations: • In awarded projects not just one UA partner participates Programme explanations: • Level of involvement is satisfactory and can be an indicator of future applications to be prepared and submitted by the current partners • 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 • level of involvement of applicants/partners depends on programme – it is more active in HSRU and not so active in RUM and BSB

32. Main challenges - 1 As Applicants: Ua: • To take the overall responsibility • Low level of experience (e.g. in implementing projects, preparing project proposals) • Financial resources to cover co-financing as well as the development costs • The official language of the programme (English) • Lack of partners/partner search • Complexity of national requirements/ banking difficulties (money transfer, proof of spending, etc)

33. Main challenges - 2 As Applicants: Programmes: • A new initiative that brings new rules in the area • Know-how on leading a consortium/partnership • Need for a good understanding of the following terms: cross border impact, needs, constraints, results, indicators, budget for the action, logical intervention • More involvement of national and regional authorities might bring additional knowledge and dissemination • Less supporting documents need to be asked (as it is done in the 2nd Call of BSB CBC) • Establishing communication links and cooperating with entities outside the countries

34. Main challenges - 3 As Partners: Ua • Low level of experience (incl. in implementing projects) • Lack of financial resources (co-financing) • Lack of partners • Complicated national requirements

35. Main challenges - 4 As Partners: Programmes • The need to be familiarized with the standard forms used in the application (grant application form, budget, logical framework) • Good understanding of the following terms: cross border impact, needs, constraints, results, indicators, budget for the action, logical intervention • More attention and formal support need to be provided to the PC organisations by the PC institutions • Finding new partners outside traditional cooperation areas • The official language of the programme (English)

36. Success factors - Uaapplicants and partners - 1 Reasons for success: • Innovative ideas • Reflection of existing interests in the area • Good project design; Realistic goals an results; Dealing with hot issues • Correct decisions on the priority and topic of grant application • Well-written project proposal/Strict methodology • Reliable partner • Good reputation of the organization, Extensive experience in implementing projects • Good understanding of partners’ roles in the project • Objectivity of Monitoring Committee at the stage of project evaluation • Labour, perseverance and professional approach

37. Success factors - Uaapplicants and partners - 2 Main challenges to overcome: • Financial management • HR management • Lack of cooperation with local authorities • Inconsistency of the contract by the EC and the laws of Ukraine (2x) How they were overcome: • Studying the relevant documents, consulting with programme manager • Working with authorities, making the problem public • Some activities were postponed to the next stage due to delays in funding partner • Finding compromises

38. Reasons for not applying/not being successful – Uaapplicants and partners Not applying • Lack of reliable partners • Public administrations do not work close enough with community Reasons for not being successful • Lack of experience • Did not get any feedback about the score • Poor communication between partners • Too short time period for filing the application • Absence of skilled employees for preparation of materials • Information for possible applicants is insufficient

39. Level of involvement in applications – Uaapplicants and partners • Active involvement that is also equal to the involvement of other Partners (12) • Member State partners have higher involvement than Partner Country partners • The Lead Partner has been doing almost all of the work, partners being passive • The level of our involvement is in line with what was planned (9) • We expected to be more involved in the project • So far, we have had very little or no involvement in the project

40. Balanced participation • A balanced distribution of funds among participating countries is very important – 4x • Balanced participation is extremely important for programme success – 3x • Equal treatment of all applicants is more important than balanced participation – 2x • Other – 1x (A balanced distribution of funds among participating countries seems to be very important, but it much depends on the quality of the applications) 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 • It would be good to balance the rules for participation of Adjacent/Adjoining regions and main regions

41. What are you doing to facilitate involvement? - 1 Ua • Our authorities hold information events and provide our applicants with explanations • NCU does a lot to stimulate balanced participation at its level (JTFs, JMCs) • Partner search forums • Participation in JMC should be supported also by the actions to be taken on site (i.e. stimulation of participation in ENPI CBC with dissemination of information, active participation in the events etc.) • Spreading information through media, project website, internet

42. What are you doing to facilitate involvement? - 2 RUM programme • Newsletters, electronic bulletins, the webpage, brochures, billboards (JMA, JTS) • Information seminars, workshops, trainings, annual conferences, partnership events, helpdesk • Setting up an information network including organizations from PC and MS • JTS and BOs staff permanently available for providing support to the potential applicants • Partnership forums organised in PCs (expenditures for a large number of participants covered by the TA funds) • Setting up antennas in the PC • In selecting the LSPs, a balanced distribution of funds between countries was considered • Unofficial translations of the Guidelines for grant applicants

43. What are you doing to facilitate involvement? - 3 BSB programme • Balanced distribution of information and support events among participating countries • National Info Points established in order to provide information in the national languages and answers on specific national issues • Additional scoring incentives for PC and TR participation in the second call • Events for building partnerships and promoting the Programme in PCs

44. What are you doing to facilitate involvement? - 4 PBU programme • Stimulation of the balanced participation of all countries in the Programme is documented and should be reflected in results of the 2nd CfP • Information is disseminated to all partners on equal basis • 3 Partner Search Forums to stimulate partnerships • Establishing and functioning of Branch offices of the JTS in PCs HSRU programme • Info days • Partner search forums • Spreading information through media, project website, internet

45. What can/should you do in the future? - 1 Ua • Better flow of information and information campaign • Encourage stakeholders for participating in CBC projects through including CBC thematic sessions on various conferences, seminars • Be more active in communicating with the regional authorities from member states • Provide support and necessary consultation also in implementation process • Establish a national co-financing system • Support NCP office with more capacities • To guarantee independent and satisfactory assessors

46. What can/should you do in the future? - 2 RUM Programme • In the 2nd call, the projects involving a trilateral partnership will be supplementary scored • In the 2nd call, the projects involving a participation in the budget of at least 30 % for the PCs will be supplementary scored • Unofficial translations of the Guidelines for grant applicants • Case studies of best practices • TV, radio and billboard campaign, press announcements in national language of the PC • Information seminars, workshops, trainings, annual conferences, partnership events, helpdesk, electronic bulletin

47. What can/should you do in the future? - 3 BSB Programme • Continuous support for potential applicants and partners even between calls • Building capacity in PCs • Ensure equal treatment in the selection process • Encourage the national authorities in the PCs to provide co-financing in a similar fashion as in the MSs (if that is not possible, offer a lower contribution % as co-financing for the organisations from PCs) • Continue organisation of informative events (about the programme, on submitting applications)

48. What can/should you do in the future? - 4 PBU programme • JMC members and NA from PC should be more actively involved in Programme implementation • Introduction and approval of a balanced distribution of funds among participating countries HSRU programme • Further active information activities • JMC members and NA from PC should be more actively involved in Programme implementation • Introduction and approval of a balanced distribution of funds among participating countries • Further active information activities

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

50. 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?