RCBI ‘handover’ meeting Lebanon

1. RCBI ‘handover’ meetingLebanon Beirut – 24 April 2012

2. Meeting outline • Expectations • Review of the involvement of Lebanon and of what the programme and authorities in Lebanon 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: • Lebanon: 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 PC organisations in applications-1 As Applicants: • Very well represented (1), well represented (1), not very well represented (1), low level of representation (1) Reasons: NCP/CSE: • Applicants were encouraged, their requests for information were answered • It was ensured that all parties are contacted and aware of all milestones • Wide network of connections with other institutions in Mediterranean countries • Relatively high sophistication level of activities and management of Lebanese institutions • Close coordination between all parties • Fluency in at least two European languages

13. Involvement of PC organisations in applications-2 As applicants 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

14. Involvement of PC organisations in applications-3 As Partners: • Very well represented (2), not very well represented (2) Reasons: NCP/CSE: • Lack of experience in dealing with complicated EU regulations • Certain amount of disconnection between Lebanon and the decision making in Europe Programme: • Interest in the Programme • Existing good cooperation with other organisations from EU countries • Literacy and financial improvement • Professionalism

15. Involvement of PC organisations in awarded projects - 1 As Beneficiaries: • Very well represented (1), well represented (1), not very well represented (1), low level of representation (1) Reasons: NCP/CSE: • High number of applications from Lebanon • Close coordination between all parties • Wide network of connections with other institutions in Mediterranean countries • Relatively high sophistication level of activities and management of Lebanese institutions • Fluency in at least two European languages Programme: • Only one MPC has been awarded due to its longer experience in managing projects

16. Involvement of PC organisations in awarded projects - 2 As Partners: • Very well represented (1), well represented (1), not very well represented (2) Reasons: NCP/CSE: • Lack of experience in dealing with complicated EU regulations • Long time lag between application and award 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

17. Main challenges - 1 As Applicants: NCP/CSE: • Complicated and strict EU regulations • Applications are still too complex • Period of waiting is too long and deadline keeps sliding - applicants lose faith in process (2) Programme: • Enhance knowledge of the Programme rules • Lack of experience • Legislation • To manage funds - that seems to be complicated for some MPC countries

18. Main challenges - 2 As Partners: NCP/CSE: • Difficulty in understanding and applying the requirements to prepare a complete dossier • Not enough opportunities to meet and explore partnership options with other EU institutions • Very little effective communication on what PCs are or are not able to contribute and how Programme: • To improve knowledge of the management rules • Many organisations are not familiar with working in partnership • To achieve common objectives in a coordinated way • Low level of initiatives

19. Success factors - Lb applicants, beneficiaries and partners - 1 Reasons for success: • Strong leadership of the applicant and their knowledge of the EU requirements • Applicant’s knowledge of its partners • Excellent coordination efforts and partners invovlment in the full stages of the project • Local partners ownership of the project Main challenges to be overcome • Aligning organizations legal requirements with that of the EU’s and applicants requirements How they were overcome • Close coordination and involvement of different parties

20. Reasons for not applying/not being successful – Lb applicants, beneficiaries and partners • Geopolitical conflicts in Lebanon • Lack of human capital and resources to apply • Weak applicant expertise in EU project proposals • Lack of agreement among partners on the basic principles of the call guidelines • Disqualification due to wrong table format and absence of ENPI logo on budget files • High competition • Not enough time for developing project and finding suitable partners across borders

21. Level of involvement in applications – Lb applicants, beneficiaries and partners • Active involvement that is also equal to the involvement of other Partners (3) • 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 (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 (0)

22. Are MPC at a disadvantage Yes (3) Reasons: NCP/CSE: • Knowledge and experience with EU rules and regulations is still lagging Programme: • Less experience and resources to compete • Financial and legislative barriers

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

24. What are you doing to facilitate involvement? NCP/CSE: • Organising info sessions • Authorities are doing their very best, but the system is largely biased in favour of much larger NGOs and much more institutionalized bodies 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

25. What can/should you do in the future NCP/CSE: • Open to any suggestions from RCBI • They cannot do more than they are doing Programme: • Provide for technical assistance funds to National Contact Points • Reconduct a similar RCBI experience • Programmes are not the main player to stimulate involvement

26. 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

27. I look forward to meeting you soon. For your information, I attach a presentation we will make on the involvement of Jordan in the Mediterranean Sea Basin ENPI CBC programme along with the agenda.  We are bringing with us paper copies for distribution on  the day. 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?

28. RCBI support to Lebanon 2007-2011 • Support for programming – contributions from local expert and other programming experts • Training on programme management - JMC (1) • Events to support calls for proposals - info seminars (3), project preparation workshops (3), Partner Search Forum in Lebanon (1) and contribution for participation at Partner Search Forums outside Lebanon (2) • Training in project management & implementation - NCP (1), beneficiaries and partners (3) • Support to participate in programme events (3) • Guides to National Requirements for implementing ENPI CBC projects - steps to takewhenawarded a project