1. 1 Quality Workshop Interreg/Tacis Contracting, Reporting, Project Changes Experience from SEBco, ASAP, PlanCoast Angela Schultz-Zehden

2. Quality Workshop Riga 26th Sept 072 oOne Project Rationale, but different.... ocontracting authorities ocontracting procedures obudget lines ofinancial reporting opayment procedures oactivity report formats oLead Partner responsibilities / financial risk oregional / geographic perspective oproject time lines Challenges ERDF / Tacis

3. Quality Workshop Riga 26th Sept 073 Budget Lines INTERREG BL1 Project Coordination BL2 Personnel BL3 Meetings BL4 Travel&Accom. BL5 Promotion BL6 External Expertise BL7 SmallScaleInvest BL8 Others No more detail required! Tacis 1a Human Resources 1b Per Diems 2 Travel 3 Equipment 4 Local Office Costs 5 Other Costs / Services 6 Other 7 Total Direct 8 Overhead (7%) Only Headings - detailed cost lines under each heading!

4. Quality Workshop Riga 26th Sept 074 Contracting Interreg Project Start immediately Planning / budget flexible within BLs Project Coordination acknowledged BSR regional perspective Tacis Project Start after Contract Detailed planning / budget required BEFORE Overall project coordination not acknowledged per se Only Tacis regional perspective

5. Quality Workshop Riga 26th Sept 075 Financial Management INTERREG Cash Flow negative Minimal risk for Lead Partner - as payments retrospective Constant auditing Decentralised financial administration Individual Partner Budgets Budget Planning Flexible within BLs Tacis Positive Cash Flow But higher risk for Lead Partner Audit formally only required at end More financial administration Only one budget visible to Tacis - no partner division Avoid Addendum - good budget planning

6. Quality Workshop Riga 26th Sept 076 Reporting INTERREG Half Year Reporting  Activity / Finance  According to WPs  Includes extra Tacis Part One Final Report Tacis Half Year Reporting  Activity / Progress  According to Activities  Includes ONLY Tacis - no INTERREG  Also to be used for INTERREG Interim Reporting  No calendar requirement  Finance / Activity Final Report  Finance / Activity

7. Quality Workshop Riga 26th Sept 077 Practical Approaches General Points:  Accept the “given differences” - but make them “work” for you  Try to align Tacis as much as possible to INTERREG - one partner contact, same reporting periods, same activity reporting, same WP milestones, Tacis partner “just another” project partner  Try to define transnational activities with Tacis contribution as much as possible at outset (also good for INTERREG!)  Lead Partner - connecting point between ERDF and Tacis parts  One overall coordination point  Ideally - even WP coordinators part of Tacis  Transfer risks as much as possible to original points of responsibility (i.e. project partners)  Tacis partners = should not serve INTERREG interests => project activities according to own interests

8. Quality Workshop Riga 26th Sept 078 Tacis/ERDF ≠Tacis only Big difference between joint Tacis / Interreg projects to normal “big” Tacis contracts:  Tacis partners = should not serve INTERREG interests => project activities according to own interests  EU Lead Partners ≠Tacis contractors / consulting companies  EU Lead Partners no “mission” in Russia  Tacis partners have to use their own co-finance, if they want external “expertise”  Exchange of Experience - not only “transfer” of experience

9. Quality Workshop Riga 26th Sept 079 Practical Contracting Use Time Difference  Use months of Tacis contracting to define INTERREG parts in more detail - so that Tacis contract / budget also for transnational elements as detailed as possible  IMPORTANT: Try to clarify open questions / issues esp with budget BEFORE contracting - the easier later on implementation of project  Now: use remaining Tacis months to promote also INTERREG results  Try to achieve at least two project years together  Plan budgets accordingly (i.e. Lead Partner invites RU partners via INTERREG at beginning / uses Tacis budget in the end)  Establish contact not only with JTS but also EU Delegation Moscow

10. Quality Workshop Riga 26th Sept 0710 Financial Management Example SEBco / ASAP:  INTERREG = Tacis Lead Partner  No Pre-Payment to any partner (also not Lead Partner)  Project Trustee Account  One Tacis Budget split into separate Project Partner budgets (similar to INTEREG partner budgets)  Each project partner responsible for their own budget use  Financial / Activity Reporting on three-months basis  If Financial Invoices correct (with all originals, etc.) - and linkage to activities => immediate transfer of money  Payments thus much faster than in INTERREG - but not all risk with Lead Partner  Interim Audit with Lead Partner (thus still possible to reduce partner payments afterwards)

11. Quality Workshop Riga 26th Sept 0711 Financial Management Other approaches possible  Depends on partner structure  In ASAP for example in one region = Regional Lead Partner responsible for six RU partners  Audit required with every invoice from RU side (originals can then remain in RU / EU auditor accepts RU audits) => more security, but higher costs? Important  Avoid high risks => esp with tenders (use more audits than required)  Avoid too many separate payments  Develop clear financial reporting guidelines / templates (excel sheets)  Lead Partner should have budget in Tacis as well (at least to cover for extra coordination costs)

12. Quality Workshop Riga 26th Sept 0712 Remaining Challenges Tacis contracts to reflect also transnational elements / activities / outputs Difficulties to cover for “joint” costs in Tacis budgets More information/security of approval of costs (Tacis) “Creative” solutions to deal with RU reality should not be necessary and not left to project partners Different procedures not so much a real barrier, but psychologically RU partners - always seen as “other” partners Double Know-How necessary: Interreg / Tacis - administrative challenge Unrealistic budget details necessary at beginning (rolling reporting better)

13. Quality Workshop Riga 26th Sept 0713 Remaining Challenges BUT Interreg/Tacis BSR experience MUCH better than Interreg/Tacis CADSES experience, where external funds not via LeadPartner, but via national project partner =>  no overall project coordination accepted  transnational element not reflected in separate contracts at all  LeadPartner responsible for something he has no control over  no information beforehand about procedures  extreme time delays