1. INTERACT ENPI is a project funded by the European Union Summary of the Workshops www.interact-eu.net

2. INTERACT ENPI is a project funded by the European Union Evaluation and selection Worshop I www.interact-eu.net

3. Key questions: Amounts devoted to the calls appears limited in view of number of applications received. If allowed, increase of the amount finally contracted must be coherent with human resources => proper monitoring must be ensured. Financial allocations and project sizes

4. Key questions: Low maximum grants in some priorities are not attractive for applicants when compared to the effort needed to build an application. Statistics broken down per partner will help to identify gaps. Financial allocations and project sizes

5. Key questions: Application forms perceived as difficult by potential applicants and partners. Not always the adaptations made to PRAG have brought simplification. Elaboration of single application forms programmed to ensure correctness => avoids unnecessary mistakes. Application package

6. Key questions: Translations of application forms into national languages proved very useful => reduction in number of questions put forward to JMA. Better no translation than a bad translation!!. Application package

7. Key questions: Forecast 2 nd call => simplification (e.g., reduction in number of annexes, requirements for supporting documents). Boomerang effect: more requirements lead to time- consuming administrative check. Applicant responsibility: ”no grants are for free”. Application package

8. Key questions: Still not full capacity to draft applications. Capacity building outside calls. Capacity building also for Member States (mostly EU15) => PRAG as ”terra incognita”. Better results shown in cases where JTS in place and national authorities have been actively involved. Support to applicants

9. Key questions: Financial support for attendance to partner forums. Limitations in number of attendants from hosting country in order to have balanced participation. Involvement of national authorities and availability of multinational staffed JTS. Support to applicants

10. INTERACT ENPI is a project funded by the European Union Monitoring and evaluation Worshop II www.interact-eu.net

11. General approach  Practical  Effective  User oriented  Complementary to EC own monitoring and evaluation activities

12. Monitoring – Main challenges  Lack of template for annual implementation report  Need to better develop templates for reporting at project level (annexes VI and VII) – Defining clearly what is expected from projects  Existence of cultural differences in interpreting monitoring (process) and data  Define sampling methodologies (which to monitor during field visits? Checklists to be developed)  Lack/limited financial resources (i.e. for field visits)  Understand who does what and define the different roles and responsibilities (different views about the involvement of NCPs/NIPs in monitoring projects)  Build capacities at beneficiary and partner level) (training sessions for beneficiaries and partners + tutoring (face2face) + manuals)

13. Indicators  Programmes have to be very pragmatic (taking into account technical assistance budget, sometime limited)  Limited number of indicators  Indicators about communication activities (at programme level) (to be included in the communication plan)

14. Evaluation: what?  Effectiveness of information activities following to the launch of a call for proposals  Calls for proposals (to draw lessons learned)  Horizontal/cluster evaluation (projects with same activities)

15. Evaluation: how? How?  Evaluation plan  ToR  Survey, questionnaires, interviews  Participatory approach (direct involvement of programmes staff – decision makers)  Follow up and dissemination (need to show results and added value)

16. Evaluation – actors involved  JMA + JTS (including BO) with the support of external experts  Project beneficiaries and partners  Target Groups/Final beneficiaries  Use of external experts  + : Give a view from outside (“a pair of fresh eyes”) – Independence – A more objective analysis and judgements  - Costs (some programmes have limited TA budget)

17. INTERACT ENPI is a project funded by the European Union Procurement procedures and Large scale projects Worshop III www.interact-eu.net

18. LSP not only ”big projects” – many other criteria Some programmes that do not have LSP – foresee now to open this possibility BUT the time constraints have to be considered! – LSPs are long projects, 2014 LSP Beneficiaries are usually not experienced with implementation of EU or other projects Specific actions needed Large scale projects

19. One do not exclude another Similarities: Both have investment character High subcontracting level (linked to procurement check) Same challenges in sustainability Supporting documents; Big preparatory costs in both Implementation of projects (works, supplies) Synergies: LSPs may lead to other infrastructure projects (roads to border crossings, etc) Large scale – infrastructural projects

20. Procurement TA – is a way of “ex-ante” follow up, whereas only ex-post (or ex- post, but before contract signature) check is foreseen Whereas Member states authorities using the national rules are by definition in line with EU rules, the situation is different with NGOs BUT Rules of nationality and origin to be respected by MS too Procurement procedures

21. In some countries the approach from the national authorities is different to EU funds and national co-financing funds Difficult to switch from national/ERDF procedures to PRAG, some Beneficiaries are dealing with both, or no experience Often no experience - some assistance to Beneficiaries on procurement procedures is needed Procurement procedures