CBIB II Assessment 1st CfPs Presentation

8/8/2019 CBIB II Assessment 1st CfPs Presentation

1/53

This project is funded bythe European Union

A project implemented byATC in association with VATI/NDA

ASSESSMENT OF THE 1st ROUND OF CfPs

AT INTRA WB BORDERS

Tirana

28/01/2010


2/53


A project implemented byBDPA in association with EWC / MDF / CEU

Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

22

Content

Assessment: key issues and

recommendations

State of play and next steps

Methodology: structure and questionnaires

Why assess the 1st CfPs?

Background: IPA CBC in the Western

Balkans- achievements and timeframe


3/53


4/53



Timeframe and Milestones

Jan 07

Jan 08 June 09

Nov 08

31/05/07

Programmesprepared

31/05/07

Programmesprepared

12/07

Programmesapproved

12/07

Programmesapproved

1st CfP

launched

1st CfP

launched

JMS established

1st CfPClosed

1st CfP

Closed

Nov 09

Preparation and Approval of the Application Packages

April 08

Jan 10

200920082007


5/53



JMCJMC OSOS

PAPA ECDECD

CBIBCBIB

NA TANA TA

EC

Regional Coordination

established

JTSJTS

Joint efforts of

programme structures

Joint efforts of

programme structures

Direct involvement of ECDirect involvement of EC

Constant support

of ECDs

Constant supportof ECDs

CBIB supportCBIB support


6/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

66

1st

CfP: Information Campaign

Background Over5000 participants attended more than 150 events organized in all 6countries for all 8 programmes!

The following type of events were organised:

Partner Search Forums

Awareness Seminars

Info Days

Meetings with representatives of different sectors

PCM Trainings

Project Pipeline Development Workshops


7/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

77

6 programme websites* established, with number of visitors ranging

from 2000 to almost 8000!

2000

5423

7733

4853

4184

BIH - MNE

CRO - BIH

CRO - MNE

CRO - SRB

SRB - MNE

1

st

CfP: Programme Websites

Background

*Programme website SRB-BiH was set up in December 2009, thus no data on the visitors


8/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

88

xxx grant applications received in total!

First Calls - First Results

Background

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Number of Grant Applications

received per programme

AL-MNE

BiH-MNE

CRO-BiH

CRO-MNE

CRO-SRB

FYROM-AL

SRB-BiH

SRB-MNE


9/53

First Calls - First Results

18.167.700AVAILABLE

18.167.700AVAILABLE

xxx.xxx.xxx

REQUESTED


10/53

Congratulations!


11/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

1111

Why assess the 1st CfPs?

ObjectivesObjectives

2nd

Calls expected soon: FYROM-AL and AL-MNE in the 1st half of 2010 Other programmes will follow!

2nd

Calls expected soon: FYROM-AL and AL-MNE in the 1st half of 2010 Other programmes will follow!

The process is a learning opportunity - there areelements that require improvement!

The process is a learning opportunity - there areelements that require improvement!


12/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

1212

Identifying main lessons learnedas well asproblems and

bottlenecks so as to improve the process before the next

CfPs are launched!

Presenting the regional overview of capacities, interactions

and activities ofall institutional actors!

Providing valuable inputs on best practices applied in the

WB Region!

Assessment:

Objectives

Objectives

Presenting feedback obtained from the potential applicants!


13/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

1313

The assessment of the first CfPs is structured in two parts:

1) first part concerns the preparation, launching, promotion and

closure of the CfP, with a specific emphasis on:

2) second part of the assessment will cover the evaluation process

and its outcomes (planned tentatively for spring 2010).

roles of all actors and their interactions,

timing,

mechanisms behind decisions,information campaign,

analysis of received requests for additional information,

general response of Potential Applicants on the CfP.

Methodology:

two-stage assessment

Methodology


14/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

1414

Methodology:

Questionnaires

Methodology

A set of four questionnaires were designed targeting all relevant

stakeholders in the process:

Operating Structures

Joint Technical Secretariats and Antenna/e staff

Task Managers from the ECDs

Potential applicants in all Western Balkan countries

In total, 256 questionnaires were received and assessed:

6 from OSs

11 JTS/A6 from ECD TM

233 from PAs from all 6 countries


15/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

1515

Assessment of the 1st CfPs:

What will we present today?

Regional overview of key issues and

recommendations identified by:

Assessment

Full report contains main findings and key observationsspecific for individual programmes and structures!

OSs, JTS/A and ECDs

Potential Applicants


16/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

1616

Assessment

Assessment of the 1st CfPs:

Sections of the presentation

Structures, Roles and Responsibilities,

Interactions

Preparation and Approval of Application

Packages

Additional Information

Information and Visibility

Views of Potential Applicants


17/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

1717

Assessment

Structures, Roles and

Responsibilities, Interactions

Objectives:Objectives:

To assess:

Human and financial capacities of OSs and JTS/A;

Definitions of roles and responsibilities of main programme structures;

Communication channels and interactions among actors;

Level of involvement of JMC members in decision-making process.


18/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

1818

No clear division of

responsibilities since most

OSs have insufficient

number of employees;

3 JTS/A are still not fully

staffed;

Human and Financial Resources:

Key Issues and Recommendations

Assessment

HR

Apart from SRB and CRO, other

countries are still using CARDS Regional2005/2006 potential risk of

unbalanced usage of funds;

Annual IPA TA allocations might not be

enough to cover the operation of JTS/A

potential risk of lack of funds forvisibility/training activities for PAs;

TA funds

OSs: Hire additional staff in2010, as foreseen in OS/JTS

employment plans!

OSs: Ensure coordination and careful

planning of funds necessary to coverboth JTS/A operations and all envisaged

activities targeting PAs!


19/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

1919

Coordination and harmonisation in

the revision of the JTS Manual

necessary in order to:

provide clear definition of rolesand responsibilities of JTS and

Antennae;

set up adequate internal

communication and reporting

channels between programme

structures.

More regular meetings on the

programme level between JTS/A and

OSs of both partner countries needed!

Roles, responsibilities and interactions:

Key Issues and Recommendations Some OSs and ECDs believe that the

roles and responsibilities of and

between JTS and Antennae are not

clear; Some of the respondents believe that

Antenna staff is insufficiently involved

and that JTS/A do not operate fully as

a joint structure;

There are still constraints regarding the

frequency and a clear definition ofproper communication and reporting

channels, even though regular

communication among programme

structures is established;

Assessment

In some countries, ECDs were not able to

apply the principle of Lead Delegation in

practice;

Official instruction note from DG

ELARG is needed


20/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

2020

JMC members are not sufficiently involved in the process!

There is different perception on the level of involvement of JMC members between

partner countries and programmes structures

JMC involvement

Assessment

More JMC meetings necessary!

However, there is a lack of funds to cover travel expenses of JMCmembers for some programmes!

Recommendations:Main reasons:

Preparatory/coordination meetings

prior to official meetings

Raise awareness and train JMC

members

Maintain regular communication

Ensure presence and clear

answers from the ECD

representatives at JMC meetings!

Low level of awareness and interest

Poor attendance at JMC meetings

JMC members rarely comment on

documents they are approving In some cases, ECDs amenddecisions of JMC which negativelyaffects the perception of their roleand need to participate

Poor knowledge of English


21/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

2121

Assessment

Structures, Roles, Responsibilities,

Interactions: Main Observations

Strengthen interactions between JTS/Antennae/OSs, to make them

function more as a joint body!3

Further improve communication and reporting channels among all

programme stakeholders!4

Involve JMC members more in order to increase their ownership

over the programme!5

JTS/A and OS need to hire staff as planned due to the upcoming increased

workload: implementation of projects and preparation and launching of the2nd CfP in parallel!

1

2Improve division of roles and responsibilities both within and among

different programme structures!


22/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

2222

In addition, other mechanisms (e.g. MIS) if implemented on both

regional and programme level, will contribute to improved

frequency and quality of communication, management andmonitoring of the process and involvement of all relevant actors!

Structures, Roles, Responsibilities,

Interactions: Main Observations

Assessment


23/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

2323


to assess time needed for each stage in the preparation and approval

of Application Packages (APs) taken by the main stakeholders;

to highlight main constraints related to the process of AP preparation

and approval;

to present suggestions for the improvement of APs.

Preparation and Approval of the

Application Package

Assessment


24/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

12 15

12 15

11 6

6 14

6 8

13 14

12 9

16 8

AL-MNE

BIH-MNE

CRO-BIH

CRO-MNE

CRO-SRB

FYROM-AL

SRB-BIH

SRB-MNE

AL

BIH

CRO

fYRoM

MNESRB

2424

Minimum time spent on the preparation of the Application packages was 6 while maximum

was 16 months.

Preparation Timeframe

* Detailed answers presented in Annex

Assessment

Months spent by each OS for the preparation of the AP


25/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

2525

The approval phase lasted approximately from 2 to 4 months except for the programme

FYROM-AL where the official approval was not issued until the JTS was established.

Approval Timeframe

Assessment

78 75

86 85

96 97

90 122

84 58

323 323

88 86

54 75

AL - MNE

BIH - MNE

CRO - BIH

CRO MNE

CRO - SRB

FYROM - AL

SRB - BIH

SRB - MNEAL

BIH

CRO

fYRoM

MNE

SRB

Total Days spent on approval of AP


26/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

2626

General constraints in the process of preparation and approval identified by

respondents:

Complicated procedure, new for the majority of participants in the process;

Different interpretations of IPA IR regarding eligibility led to several

revisions of application packages;

Inexperienced JTS staff;

The approval phase took more time than necessary due to the lack ofcommunication and coordination between the OSs from partner countries,

long lasting JMC written procedure and time taken by ECD/CA to approve the

APs.

Preparation and Approval Process:

Key Issues and Constraints

Assessment

The preparation of the AP for the 1st CfP was not initiated simultaneously in the

partner countries for any of the programmes!


27/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

2727

Quality of the Application Package

Assessment

Quality of the APs assessed by OS, JTS/A and ECDs

AL-MNE

BIH-MNE

CRO-BIH

CRO-MNE

CRO-SRB

fYRoM-AL

SRB - BIH

SRB-MNE

Very good Good Satisfactory

Quality of AP as assessed by programme structures and ECDs


28/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

2828

Suggestions for improvement of GfA

and Application Form

In general, the quality of the APs was assessed as good on the Regional level.

However, partners in the process have expressed different views on the AP quality.

Guidelines for Applicants

CfP rules should be explainedclearly and in more details,

specifficaly the part on

eligibility;

Simplify GfA on the basis of

the analysis of additional

information requested under the

first CfP

Suggestions for ImprovementSuggestions for Improvement

Application Form

Clear identification ofdocuments to be filled in by

each of the lead partners

(budget, partnership/agreement);

More consistency between GfA

and Application Form

(mismatching instructions in

GfA and AF);

Formatting and layout

Assessment


29/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

2929

Assessment Ensure consistency between GfA and Application form!3

Officially establish and apply the Lead Delegation principle!4

In order to initiate a simultaneous and more harmonized approach to the

preparation of the 2nd CfP establish better coordination between OSs and

with the JTS/A!

1

2 Ensure clear guidance from EC/ECDs and proper interpretation of IPA!

Preparation and Approval of the

Application Package: Main Observations

5Organise more regional coordination meetings involving all

stakeholders!


30/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

3030

Additional Information


Procedure for handling requests for additional information was established

by CBIB and agreed by all ECD on the regional level with a two-fold aim:

a) Identifying relevant actors, steps and time needed to provide potential

applicants with information requested in the shortest possible period so as

to aid them with project preparation as much as possible;

b) Ensure consistency for 6 countries and 8 programmes, so that answers to

same questions do not differ between programmes and confusion is

avoided;

Assessment

The aim of the Assessment was to see how the procedure

functioned in practice!


31/53


A project implemented byATC in association with VATI/NDAR

egionallyagr

eedandado

ptedProcedurefor

h

andlingrequ

estsforAdditionalInform

ation

Outcome of the established procedure:

Principle of Lead Delegation!


32/53



Project

contexts

Needsassessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

3232

708 requests for additional information processed, answered andpublished!

1st CfP: Additional Information

4356

174

85

102

58

116

74

AL MNE BIH MNE CRO BIH CRO MNE CRO SRB fYRoM AL SRB BIH SRB MNE

Number of requests for Additional

Information received per programme

Assessment


33/53


34/53

This project is funded bythe European Union A project implemented byATC in association with VATI/NDA

Programme

Questions

AL MNE

Lead: AL

BIH MNE

Lead: BiH

CRO BIH

Lead: CRO

CRO MNE

Lead: MNE

CRO SRB

Lead: CRO

FYROM AL

Lead: FYROM

SRB BIH

Lead: SRB

SRB MNE

Lead: SRB

JTS: time

needed to

prepare

answers?

1 day 2 days 5 days Few daysOn regular

basis2 weeks

One to two

weeks

depending on

the number

of questions

Weekly basis

ECDs: time

needed for

approval?

2 weeks 2 months

As per

deadline in

the GfAs

Few days

As per

deadline in

GfA

2 weeks

55 days for

the first set of

questions

and 8 for last

set

3 weeks

Support

used?CBIB CBIB No support CBIB

CBIB/NA TA

for questions

collected

during IS

CBIB CBIB CBIB/NA TA

Additional Information: Timeframe

All JTSs were able to respect the procedure

Half ECDs were able to respect the procedure

CBIB supported 7 programmes


35/53

This project is funded bythe European Union A project implemented byBDPA in association with EWC / MDF / CEU

Project

contextsNeeds

assessment

Next steps

Methodology


Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

3535

Additional Information:


Not all ECD/CA were able to

respect the agreed deadline of twoweeks for approving answers to

requests for additional information

AssessmentReach an agreement on the need for

support to JTS/A in handling requests for

additional information for each

programme

JTS/A vs ECDs: different

opinions on capacities of JTS/A for

handling requests for additionalinformation in the future

Lead ECD principle needs to be

applied consistently for all programmes;

ECDs need to reach consensus on the

deadline to be applied


36/53


Project

contextsNeeds

assessment

Next steps

Methodology


Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

3636

Information and Visibility


To assess:

General visibility;

Approach, methodology and quality of information sessionsAssessment


37/53


Project

contextsNeeds

assessment

Next steps

Methodology


Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

3737

General Visibility as assessed

by JMS and ECDsProgramme visibility is high throughout the Region, with little difference on national, regional

and local level;

Regionally, the highest level of visibility was given to JTS/A followed by OS and JMC

JMC OS JTS

Local Regional National

Programme Visibility

Structure Visibility

Assessment


38/53


Project

contextsNeeds

assessment

Next steps

Methodology


Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

3838

Information sessions

Over 2700 participants attended 51 information sessions organized in all 6 countries

for all 8 programmes!

Assessment

OSs and ECDs satisfied with the work done by JTS/A!

Number of participants on information sessions per programme


39/53


Project

contextsNeeds

assessment

Next steps

Methodology


Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

3939

Different approach and

understanding of the scope and

content of information sessions byprogramme structures due to

differences in previous CBC

experience;

Differences in duration and

content of presentations on the

events held under the sameprogramme in two partner countries;

Timing of the information

campaign (holiday season) and the

fact that CfP documents were in

English (not translated) are general

constraints faced by programmestructures in the organisation of

information sessions;

Information and Visibility:


Assessment

Preparation of information sessions

must be initiated on time;

Information sessions must be

conducted as a joint effort of two OSsand JTS/A;

Harmonized approach to the content

and scope of information sessions must

be ensured;


40/53



Project

contextsNeeds

assessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

4040

Views of Potential Applicants


Through questionnaires, Potential Applicants were asked to assess:

General visibility of IPA CBC programmes and programme

structures;Participation at the events organised before and after the

launching of the CfP;

Suggestions on type of events to be organised and topics to be

covered;Main difficulties faced in the preparation of project proposals;

Quality of Application Packages

233 questionnaries from Potential Applicants received and assessed, equally distributed

per beneficiary country

Assessment


41/53



AL BiH CRO MNE fYRoM SRB

NO

YES


NO

YES


NO

YES


NO

YES

Do you have information on the cross-border

and/or transnational cooperation programmes?

Did you have the opportunity to see or to

receive any of the promotional/information

materials on CBC?

Do you know what the Joint

Technical Secretariat is?Do you know what an Antenna is?

General Visibility


42/53




NO

YES


NOYES


NO

YES


NO

YES

Information Sessions

In general, were you satisfied with

the information sessions?

Was the duration of information

sessions suitable?

Were the rules of CfP and GfA

presented clearly?

Was the presentation of CfP and

GfA sufficient?

Information Sessions:


43/53



Project

contextsNeeds

assessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

4343

Information Sessions:

Constraints listed by PAs

General constraints regarding the information sessions, listed by Potential

Applicants:

CfP documents were not translated into local languages;

A lot of information presented in a short period of time making it

difficult to absorb key data;

Resource persons during the information sessions provided

different answers to the same questions and were not preparedenough;

Unclear explanations of the budget;

Difficulties in understanding the logical framework;

Inadequate premises.

Assessment


44/53



PA Suggestions

PA Trainings

Partner Search Forums

Awareness Raising Seminars

WS on specific sectors

Project Idea Generation WS

WS on CBC partnership

Information Sessions

20%

17,3%

11,2%

11,4%

14,5%

16%

9,1%

CBC Project Preparation

CBC Project Implementation

CBC Partnerships

Basic information on IPA/CBC

33%

29%

23%

15%

Types of events to be organised

Topics to be covered


45/53

Main problems encountered


46/53



Main problems encountered

by the PAs in project preparation

20%

3%

4%

5%

7%

12%

14%

16%

18%

The procedure/standards related to the project

preparation are too complex

It is hard to define good project idea

Lack of human resources within our organization

Lack of knowledge related to the project development process

Information is not clear and we dont know where /how to find it

Lack of domestic funds to cover the beneficiary contribution amount for the project

It is hard to find partner from other side of the border

Lack/no adequate communication with partner institutions

Lack of knowledge on PRAG and difficulty for us to prepare the project document in English

Views of Potential Applicants:


47/53



Project

contextsNeeds

assessment

Next steps

Methodology



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

4747

Assessment

Views of Potential Applicants:

Main Observations

Programme structures could consider providing unofficial translationof the GfA

3

Organise more awareness raising activities and capacity building in

project preparation and implementation prior to the launching of the

next CfP

1

2Organise more cross-border events and sector-specific workshops

allowing Potential Applicants to meet partners

IPA CBC Programme Cycle


48/53

This project is funded by

the European Union

A project implemented by

BDPA in association with EWC / MDF / CEU

Project

contextsNeeds

assessment

Next steps

Methodology


the European Union


ATC in association with VATI/NDA

Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

4848

IPA CBC Programme Cycle

State of play

Program

mepreparation

JMSestablishment

Awareness

raising

Capacitybuilding

(structures

and PAs)

Preparationand

launching of

the 1st CfPs

Project

evaluatio

nand

contracti

ng

Proje

ct/

prog

ramme

im

plem

entatio

n

Programme

evaluation andmonitoring

Next Steps

IPACBC

Preparati

on

and

launchin

go

f2n

dCfP


49/53


the European Union



Project

contextsNeeds

assessment

Next steps

Methodology


the European Union



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

4949

Finalization of the 1st CfP:

Next Steps

Finalise the evaluation process;

Discuss and agree on implementation packages;

Synchronise budgetary clearing process;

Harmonise contracting process in the partner countries;

Analyse results of the first CfP after the evaluation process is

finalized;

Promote the results of the first CfP after the contracting;

Ensure smooth implementation of CBC projects (build

capacities of the JTS/A and grant beneficiaries on project

implementation);

Set-up proper monitoring and evaluation system and build

capacities on monitoring and evaluation process;

Implementation of projects contracted under 1st

CfP and preparation and launching of the 2nd CfP

in parallel!

Main recommendations


50/53


the European Union



Project

contextsNeeds

assessment

Next steps

Methodology


the European Union



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

5050

for the 2nd CfP:

Next Steps

Improve communication and coordination between OSs in order to harmonize approach

during the preparation, launching and promotion of the second CfP;

Further strengthen JTS/A capacities so they can properly manage the upcoming workload:

in parallel, preparation and launching of the 2nd CfP and implementation of projects

contracted under 1st CfP!

Active participation of JMC members has to be improved in order to strengthened

ownership over the programmes!

JMS

Initiate the preparation of the 2nd CfP simultaneously and in a harmonized manner!Prepare GfA in accordance with the results of the first CfP and ensure consistency with the

Application Form!

Improve quality of the Application packages!

Proper interpretation of IPA and strong support and guidance from ECDs must be ensured!

Application Packages

More capacity building efforts for project preparation targeting Potential Applicants

necessary!

Facilitating partner search and matching applicants from same sectors through more cross-

border events needed!

Potential Applicants


51/53


the European Union



Timeframe and Milestones

Programme

revision

Programme

revision

Evaluation

1st CfPs Preparation

201020092008 2011 2012

Implementation

2 CfPs Prep

CfPs launched

CfPslaunched

Evaluation

Implementation

ARoIARoI

???

ARoIARoIARoIARoIARoIARoI

3 CfPs?


52/53


the European Union



Project

contextsNeeds

assessment

Next steps

Methodology


the European Union



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

5252

?

Next Steps

Implementation Packages

Contracting

Budgetary clearingContracting deadlines

First Level Control

JTS/A: support to grant beneficiaries

JTS/A: monitoring

Functional Lead Partner (reporting)

IMPLEMENTATION

Timing

Application PackagesEligibility of costs of civil servants

PROGRAMME STRUCTURES

JMC involvement

Contracting and management

of the technical assistance (TA)

2nd CfP

Programme revision 2011


53/53


the European Union



Project

contextsNeeds

assessment

Next steps

Methodology


the European Union



Assessment

Objectives

Background

Next Steps

5353

Next Steps

Thank you!

Date post:	10-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ahmetis
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

CBIB II Assessment 1st CfPs Presentation

Documents