Presentation on theme: "Belarus Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Latvia Lithuania Norway Poland Russia Sweden A Community Initiative Baltic Sea Region INTERREG III B Neighbourhood."— Presentation transcript:
Belarus Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Latvia Lithuania Norway Poland Russia Sweden A Community Initiative Baltic Sea Region INTERREG III B Neighbourhood Programme
Content of the presentation 1.Programme area 2.Programme thematic content 3.Programme management 4.Programme budget 5.Project partnership and management 6.Project budget 7.Project implementation 8.Good practice 9.Main challanges
INTERREG III B programmes Alpine SpaceBaltic Sea RegionNorth Sea Region Atlantic Area Archimed South West Europe North West Europe Westers Mediterranean CADSESNorthern Periphery Most remote regions (3 programmes) Transnational cooperation on spatial planning and regional development
Cooperation area: Denmark Sweden Finland Germany (North – East) Estonia Lithuania Latvia Poland Norway Belarus (North – West) Russia (North – West & Kaliningrad)
Strategic objective: Strengthening economic, social and spatial cohesion by promoting transnational economic relationships in order to reach an increased level of BSR integration and to form a region with sustainable growth prospects.
Priority 1: Promotion of spatial development approaches and actions for specific territories and sectors Priority 2: Promotion of territorial structures supporting sustainable BSR development Priority 3: Transnational and bilateral institution and capacity building in the Baltic Sea Region Programme priorities
Priority 4 – border regions (committed) Priority 5: Cross-border (INTERREG III A) priority Estonia-Latvia-Russia (North) Priority 6: Cross-border (INTERREG III A) priority Latvia-Lithuania-Belarus (South) Priority 7: Technical Assistance Programme priorities
Priority 1: Promotion of spatial development approaches and actions for specific territories and sectors Measure 1.1: Supporting joint strategies and implementation actions for macro-regions Measure 1.2: Promoting sustainable spatial development of specific sectors Measure 1.3: Strengthening integrated development of coastal zones, islands and other specific areas Measures in Priority 1
Priority 2: Promotion of territorial structures supporting sustainable BSR development Measure 2.1: Promoting balanced polycentric settlement structures Measure 2.2: Creating sustainable communication links for improved spatial integration Measure 2.3: Enhancing good management of cultural and natural heritage and of natural resources Measures in Priority 2
Priority 3: Transnational and bilateral institution and capacity building in the Baltic Sea Region Measure 3.1: Promotion of transnational institution and capacity building Measure 3.2: Bilateral maritime cooperation across the Baltic Sea Measures in Priority 3
Transnational studies and strategies Preparation of investments Transnational exchange of experience Training of professional staff Workshops, seminars, networking, etc. Examples of eligible activities:
.... Monitoring Committee Steering Committee Municipalities & Regions National Sub-committees SFINDEDKN Supervising the programme Information and support Investitionsbank Schleswig-Holstein Joint Secretariat Selection of projects and funding decisions Paying Authority Managing Authority PLLTLVESTRU BSR INTERREG III B management structure BY Projects Lead Partner Project Partner day to day programme management
Programme funding ERDF funds:149.0 M EURO* Norwegian national: 6.0 M EURO Total programme funding: M EURO All ERDF available for III B priorities was committed in 1-8 rounds *including the additional funding from the new MS and IIIA priorities
Partnership (minimum requirements) partners from three different countries two countries should be financial contributors one partner from EU
The Lead Partner Principle (example)
full financial and legal responsibility for: project management system submitting Application Form signing the Subsidy Contract reporting of the project progress requesting payments Lead Partner Principle
17 National, regional and local public authorities Public equivalent bodies Public equivalent body means any legal body: governed by public or private law established for the specific purpose of meeting needs of the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character only, having legal personality, Who can be a project partner?
Who can be a Lead Partner? In addition a LPs institution should: Be financed, for the most part, by the State, or regional or local authorities, or other bodies governed by public law, Or be subject to management supervision by those bodies, Or have an administrative, managerial or supervisory board, more than half of whose members are appointed by the State, regional or local authorities or by other bodies governed by public law.
Examples of partners that can apply for funding from the BSR INTERREG III B National, regional and local public authorities: Ministries; regional councils; municipalities, etc.;
Institutions that could be considered as Public equivalent bodies: associations; academic institutions; research institutes; foundations; NGOs and non-profit organizations (community- based, humanitarian, industrial, cultural, etc.); development agencies, etc. Examples of partners that can apply for funding from the BSR INTERREG III B (2)
1. ERDF contributions up to 75% for Objective 1 regions up to 50% for other regions 2. National co-funding Partners own funding – eg. public funds at national, regional or local level BSR INTERREG III B Project Budget
Project implementation Joint Secretariat / PA Lead Partner Lead Partner submits activity and audited financial report Paying Authority effects payment to Lead Partner Project Partners Submit activity and audited financial reports to Lead Partner ReportsPayments Lead Partner effects payments to Project Partners PA - Paying Authority European Commission Joint Secretariat / PA submit Payment Request Europ. Commission effects payment to PA
Good practice at strategic level A joint pool of ERDF funds on a joint bank account without national sub-accounts Tasks of Managing and Paying Authority carried out by single, competent institution which is not a public authority Lead Partner principle (clear responsibilities between MA and project) Joint management structures/bodies including a strong joint transnational Joint Technical Secretariat National sub-committees responsible for disseminating information at national/regional level Work of Monitoring and Steering Committees facilitated by various task forces.
General tools: English as official programme language An up-to-date website as most important info tool Project database Related to project life cycle: Pro-active project development - Seed Money, Partner Search Forum, Information Seminars, Individual Consultations Application, assessment and approval –Joint and transparent decision making (unanimous decisions, clear documentation of assessment and approval) Pro-active project implementation - Lead Partner Seminar, Seminars for financial managers and auditors, Quality Workshops, Publicity and communication training etc. Good practice at operational level
Challenges for project partners Problem:Way out: Simple Objective 1 programmes preferred (infrastructure investments) Convince decision makers of added value of transnational networking and cooperation Culture and language barriersLearn English! High technical and quality requirements of transnational projects Invest in human resources – training of qualified staff in public administrations Low awareness about the programme Increased information activities at national and programme level Considerable administrative workload Make use of standardized tools, training, support actions! Significant competition among projects … lobby at your decision makers….?!