This project is funded by the EUAnd implemented by a consortium led by MWH RCBI ‘handover’...

This project is funded by the EU And implemented by a consortium led by MWH

RCBI ‘handover’ meetingRussian Federation

RCBI ‘handover’ meetingRussian Federation

St Petersburg - 18 May 2012


Meeting outlineMeeting outline

• Expectations

• Review of the involvement of Ru and of what the programme/ authorities in Ru 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


BasisBasis

• Quantitative analysis based on statistics on calls, provided by the programmes

• Qualitative analysis based on questionnaires:

– Russia RA (3), CSE (1), applicants, beneficiaries and partners (18)

– Programmes: JMA (4), JTS (2), BO (3)

• Input from - RCBI Experts


No. applicants & partners - calls 1-3 (Kolarctic)No. applicants & partners - calls 1-3 (Kolarctic)


No. applicants & partners - calls 1-3 (Karelia)No. applicants & partners - calls 1-3 (Karelia)


No. of applicants & partners - calls 1-2 (SEF-Ru)No. of applicants & partners - calls 1-2 (SEF-Ru)


No. applicants & partners - call 1 & LSP (ELR)No. applicants & partners - call 1 & LSP (ELR)


No. applicants & partners - call 1& LSP (LPR)No. applicants & partners - call 1& LSP (LPR)


Success rate – calls 1-2 (Kolarctic)Success rate – calls 1-2 (Kolarctic)


Success rate – calls 1-2 (Karelia)Success rate – calls 1-2 (Karelia)


Success rate – calls 1-2 (SEF-Ru)Success rate – calls 1-2 (SEF-Ru)


Success rate – call 1 & LSP (ELR)Success rate – call 1 & LSP (ELR)


Budget share beneficiaries & total – calls 1-2 (Kolarctic)Budget share beneficiaries & total – calls 1-2 (Kolarctic)


Budget share beneficiaries – calls 1-2 (Karelia)Budget share beneficiaries – calls 1-2 (Karelia)


Budget share – call 1 (ELR)Budget share – call 1 (ELR)


Involvement of Ru organisations in applications - 1Involvement of Ru organisations in applications - 1

As applicants

• Well represented (6) not very well represented (2) low level of representation (1)

Ru reasons

• Experience of participation in the Neighbourhood Programme and in CBC projects through EU and other Programmes

• Differences in EU and Russian legislation

• Different requirements to financial management

• Difficulties in receiving grant from JMA and transferring money to EU partners

• Taxation issues (legal status of CBC ENPI project not clarified)

• Specific problems of public bodies managed by Federal treasury



As applicants - Programme explanations

• Great interest in Programme

• Widespread information dissemination - large involvement in seminars, BO info activities

• Long list of contacts of local/regional NGOs, universities, other companies

• Previous networks of Finland and Russia organisations

• Great number of ideas to be implemented in partnership with Finnish organisations

• Good level and qualification of organisations in Saint-Petersburg

• Experience of participation in the Neighbourhood Programme and in CBC projects through EU and other Programmes

• Lack of experience and/or capacity to prepare the application and to manage projects

• Difficulty in providing project co-financing



As partners

• Very well represented (5) well represented (5)

Ru reasons

• The level of awareness about the programme is rather high

• Organisations are ready to participate in projects

• Many connections, relevant topics and problems to be solved between border related territories

• Experience of participation in CBC projects through EU and other Programmes

• In quite a big amount of applications EU partners involved Russian partners just to fulfil formal requirements


As Partners - Programme explanations

• Great interest in Programme

• Large involvement in seminars, BO info activities



• Chance to learn from more experienced organisations from MS and Norway

• Requirement for each project to have at least one Russian partner

• Good cooperation ties with Finnish organisations

• Source of financing for NGOs

• Lack of experience

• Insufficient English



Involvement of Ru organisations in awarded projects - 1Involvement of Ru organisations in awarded projects - 1

As beneficiaries

Well represented (3) not very well represented (3) low level of representation (3)

Ru reasons


• Different requirements to financial management

• Russian organisations are very much motivated to lead projects


As beneficiaries

Programme explanations

• Good experience in implementation of previous international projects



• Understanding of responsibility

• High level of involvement in project activities

• Russian organizations prefer to be Partners, not the LP

• Lack of previous experience (incl. project management skills)




As partners

• Very well represented (4) well represented (4)

Ru explanations

• Many connections, relevant topics and problems to be solved between border related territories

• Ru partner – is obligatory

• Consensus decision making in frames of the joint selection bodies ensure selection of the projects satisfying requirements of all parties involved

• Russian organisations (regional/local authorities, universities, NGOs, private companies, etc.) are fully represented in all awarded projects



As Partners - Programme explanations

• Large involvement in seminars, BO info activities

• Previous networks of FI and RU organisations



• Chance to learn from more experienced organisations from MS and Norway

• High interest to participate in the Programme

• Good experience in implementation of previous international projects

• Understanding of responsibility

• High level of involvement in project activities


Main challenges – As applicants - RussiaMain challenges – As applicants - Russia

• Lack of sufficient experience (incl. international project management skills)

• Insufficient English skills


• Russian legislation - does not cover all the aspects of the implementation of international projects

• Problems connected with VAT exemption, mutual payments between municipalities

• Difficulties in receiving grant from JMA and transferring money to EU partners

• Specific problems of the public bodies managed by Federal treasury

• Financial management and reporting

• Additional financial and administrative difficulties


• Lack of sufficient experience (incl. international project management skills), insufficient English


• Financial management and reporting

• To realise project ideas

• To ensure needed project cofinancing

• To make realistic time-schedule and cost-effective budget, adequate risk assessment

• Russian applicants are often not fully aware of the demands of the Programme, regulations and terms of submitting the applications (also the Application Form and Logical Framework are difficult)

• Finding a Finnish project partner

• Sometimes interests in project ideas differ between Russian and Finnish sides

Main challenges – As applicants - ProgrammesMain challenges – As applicants - Programmes


Main challenges - As partners - RussiaMain challenges - As partners - Russia

• Lack of sufficient experience (incl. international project management skills, how to write an application)

• Differences and specificities in national rules and legislation


• Problems connected with VAT exemption, mutual payments between municipalities and arranging payment to partners abroad

• Insufficient English skills

• Not informed enough about the rules and procedures of the programmes

• Equal participation in decision making

• Problems in finding EU partners

• Intercultural barriers

• Specific problems in different types of organisations


• Lack of sufficient experience (incl. international project management

skills, how to write an application)

• Problems connected with VAT exemption, mutual payments between

municipalities and arranging payment to partners abroad

• High taxation, bank fees

• Qualitative cooperation with all partners, management

• Different kind of practices in, for example, partnership agreements

• Rule of origin

• To ensure needed project cofinancing

• To make adequate planning of activities

Main challenges - As partners - ProgrammesMain challenges - As partners - Programmes


Reasons for success – Ru beneficiaries and partners Reasons for success – Ru beneficiaries and partners

• Effectiveness in addressing the social transboundary problems

• Relevant topic of the project (3)

• Attracting a large number of participants to realization of the project

• High quality of the application (2)

• Strong and sustained partnership network

• High competence of LP in project development (2)

• Reliable applicant and partners (2)

• Small amount of money required

• Financial resources and experts

• Close communications with government authorities


Main challenges to overcome - Ru beneficiaries and partnersMain challenges to overcome - Ru beneficiaries and partners

• Language barrier

• Absence of constant financing for public organizations

• Financing of the project development stage

• Budgeting of the project costs in a proper/equal way for the partners

• Budgeting (2)

• Collecting and submitting the original documents in due time

• Making agreements on the schedule for the project activities

• Long evaluation period (increase in the prices specified in the application)

• Bureaucracy

• Complicated application form

• Lack of highly-skilled project managers in the area

• Partner search


How challenges were overcome – Ru beneficiaries and partnersHow challenges were overcome – Ru beneficiaries and partners

• Constant communication/interaction with project participants (2)

• Creating a link of crisis centres in Russia

• Used own resources

• Clarification of uncertainties with the representative of the ENPI

• Careful examination of each item of the application

• Refusal from participation as applicant

• Creation of realistic work plan

• Involvement of less fastidious and rich partners


Reasons for not applying/not being successful -Ru applicants, beneficiaries and partners

Reasons for not applying/not being successful -Ru applicants, beneficiaries and partners Not applying

• Insufficient experience

• Not enough information about the programme

• No regional representative of RCBI in Murmansk before

• Fierce competition was expected

• Difficult to find a partner

• Too little time for preparing an application

Reasons for not being successful

• Difficult process of preparation and registration of the application

• Too high project budget

• Imperfect selection process

• No distinct sense of project idea and results


Level of involvement in applications – Ru applicants, beneficiaries and partners

Level of involvement in applications – Ru applicants, beneficiaries and partners

• Active involvement that is also equal to the involvement of other Partners (8)

• 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 (0)

• The level of our involvement is in line with what was planned (12)

• We expected to be more involved in the project (2)

• So far, we have had very little or no involvement in the project (1)


What are you doing to facilitate involvement? - RussiaWhat are you doing to facilitate involvement? - Russia

• Contacts/meetings with the municipalities (Kaliningrad)

• Annual conferences (Kaliningrad)

• Individual consultations provided for stakeholders (Kaliningrad)

• Additional education and consultation available (Pskov, Leningrad)

• Training events (Kaliningrad)

• Project concept (idea) development (Pskov)

• Project implementation as associates or as members of project steering bodies (Pskov)

• Regional programme for co-financing of our regional partners will start (Pskov)

• Harmonising legislation regulating cross-border cooperation (Leningrad)

• National and regional authorities are represented in joint management bodies (CSE)


What are you doing to facilitate involvement? What are you doing to facilitate involvement?

Karelia Programme

• Seminars regularly held

• Information disseminated

• Consultations given

• Assisting in understanding the main trends of the Programme

Kolarctic Programme

• Information seminars

• Trainings

• Face-to-face meetings

• Practical consultation


What are you doing to facilitate involvement? What are you doing to facilitate involvement?

SEF Programme

• Information seminars

• Education for potential Applicants from Russian side

• Consultation

• Development and dissemination of methodological materials

• Special seminars for authorities (at regional level and municipalities)

ELR Programme

• Information seminars, explanations

LPR Programme

• Programme is establishing 3 Branch offices


What can/should you do in the future? - Russia What can/should you do in the future? - Russia

• Common rules should be elaborated for future programmes (Pskov)

• Common co-financing from all participating countries should be provided (Pskov)

• All parties are to follow the common timetable for approval of the Programmes within the respective countries not to postpone common start in the programmes as equal partners (Pskov)

• Harmonising legislation regulating cross-border cooperation (Leningrad)

• Developing new approaches for next programme periods together with EU on partner basis (Leningrad)

• To provide support in partner search (more partner-search events) (CSE, Kaliningrad)

• To organise training (incl. in PCM) (CSE)

• To clarify legal status of CBC ENPI projects that will help to resolve taxation issues (CSE)


What can/should you do in the future? What can/should you do in the future?

Karelia Programme

• Keep on doing regular information work

• Provide assistance to the interested applicants

• Disseminate information more actively in the regions

Kolarctic Programme

• Organize travelling consultations for Naryan-Mar organizations to increase number of applications from this region

• More practical consultations in Murmansk, Arkhangelsk, Naryan-Mar are already planned to be held within the 4th Call for Proposals


What can/should you do in the future? What can/should you do in the future?

SEF Programme

• To start new Programme not later than in 2015

ELR Programme

• Information and training

LPR Programme

• To provide more information to potential applicants and interested stakeholders

• To distribute information among various institutions and general public


RCBI materials/tools - 1RCBI materials/tools - 1

• Database of partners and contacts in PC

• E support for project identification and development and project implementation

• Identifying, developing and implementing ENPI CBC projects: Tips from RCBI practice of supporting applicants, partners and beneficiaries

• RCBI Project Implementation Manual (PIM)

• Guide to national requirements for implementing ENPI CBC projects


RCBI materials/tools - 2RCBI 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?


RCBI support to Russia 2007-2011RCBI support to Russia 2007-2011

• Support for programming – contributions from experts from Russia and other programming experts

• Briefing for officials in Russia (1)

• Training on programme management– 1 joint JMC briefing for Kolarctic, Karelia & SEF-Ru

– 1 JMC briefing for each of Estonia-Latvia-Russia & Lithuania-Poland-Russia

– 1 JMA briefings for each of Kolartic, Estonia-Latvia-Russia & Lithuania-Poland-Russia


RCBI support to Russia 2007-2011RCBI support to Russia 2007-2011

• Events to support calls for proposals– 4 info seminars and 6 project preparation workshops for Kolarctic

– 1 info seminar and 1 project preparation workshop for Karelia

– 5 project preparation workshops and 2 PF for Estonia-Latvia-Russia

– 3 project preparation workshops for Lithuania-Poland-Russia

• Support for PC to participate in programme events– 6 events for Kolarctic

– 4 events for Karelia

– 3 events for SEF-Russia

– 11 events for Estonia-Latvia-Russia

– 4 events for Lithuania-Poland-Russia

• Guide to National Requirements

Date post:	01-Apr-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	luciano-mince
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

This project is funded by the EUAnd implemented by a consortium led by MWH RCBI ‘handover’...

Documents