Submission of Applications

1
Submission of Applications Assessment
procedure and criteria Typical shortcomings of
the projects Iveta Puzo, JS Riga
2
Submission of Application
3
Submission of Application

• One original and electronic version to be
  submitted
• To be filled in English
• Co-financing Statements from ALL partners
• Additional documents in accordance with the
  Section 8.4. of the Programme Manual
• Application has to be submitted no later than 4
  December 2006 to the JS
• Baltic Sea Region INTERREG III B
• Neighbourhood Programme
• Joint Secretariat Riga
• State Regional Development Agency
• Elizabetes iela 19, Riga LV 1010, Latvia

4
Additional documents for Tacis partners

• All partners applying for Tacis have to submit
• Partnership Statement
• Lead Partner has to submit
• Legal Entity Form, including the necessary
  supporting documents
• Financial Identification Form signed by the
  Partner and the bank
• Last available audited annual financial
  statements including audits report of the Lead
  Partner in the case that the requested Tacis
  financing exceeds 300,000 EUR.

5
Additional documents for Tacis partners (2)

• In case the Lead Partner is not a local or
  regional authority it has to submit additionally
  the following documents
• the complete statutes and/or articles of
  association of the organisations, to justify
  their organisational status as non-profit making
• an official document giving evidence that the
  organisations are registered as legal entities in
  the eligible territories.
• Where such documents are in a language other than
  English, a faithful translation of the relevant
  parts of these documents, must be attached

6
Assessment procedure (1)

• Is done using 2 step approach evaluation of
  projects against the
• - technical eligibility criteria (i.e. if the
  project fulfils the formal requirements of the
  programme) and
• - quality assessment criteria.
• Projects are assessed by the JS Riga, additional
  experts can be invited to express their opinion
  on projects in specific fields.
• The final decision on projects to be supported is
  taken by the Steering Committee (meeting on
  February 1-2, 2007).

7
Assessment procedure (2)

• The verifications of the
• project partners eligibility and
• that no funds from other EU supported programmes
  have been received
• will be carried out in co-operation with the
  relevant national authorities responsible for
  INTERREG in the respective country and the
  European Commission Delegation in Kiev.

8
Technical eligibility criteria

• Project within the financial limits set
• All partners contribute financially
• Application duly filled in, signed, stamped
• Co-financing rates observed
• No duplication with other projects
• Relevant with national and EU legislation

• Received in due time
• Lead partner is eligible
• Project partners are eligible
• At least 2 partners from 2 countries
• Project activities carried out in eligible area
• Project duration within the limits set
• Co-financing statements attached

9
Technical eligibility check
okay
not okay
10
Quality assessment criteria (1)

• 4 categories of criteria
• POLICY CONTEXT
• PROJECT AND PARTNERSHIP
• BUDGET AND FINANCES
• MANAGEMENT AND PROMOTION

11
Quality assessment criteria (2)

• POLICY CONTEXT
• relevance to the priority objectives
• cross-border nature and impact on both sides of
  the border
• clear impact on development of border regions
• added value of the project (making a
  difference)
• impact on sustainable development.

12
Quality assessment criteria (3)

• PROJECT AND PARTNERSHIP
• methodology and approach coherent with the
  rationale
• coherence between problem, objectives and
  outcomes
• time plan is realistic
• partnership is relevant for the project
• proportional involvement of all partners
• expected results are concrete
• results promote development of the region
• provisions for the project durability.

13
Quality assessment criteria (4)

• BUDGET AND FINANCES
• coherence between activities, effects and
  budget
• division of budget between activities and work
  packages is logical
• proposed costs are realistic
• proportional division of budget between project
  partners.

14
Quality assessment criteria (5)

• MANAGEMENT AND PROMOTION
• clear management structures and procedures
• clear and fair division of tasks between
  partners
• capacity of the Lead Partner in project
  implementation
• clear strategy for dissemination of project
  results.

15
Decision of the Steering Committee
approved for detailed elaboration
not approved
16
Typical shortcomings of the first project
application round (1)

• Project does not contribute to the achievement of
  the Priority objectives
• Project has no impact on development of the
  cross-border territory
• No clear focus on the problem to be solved

17
Typical shortcomings (2)

• Situation analyses and problem description are
  too general
• Investment needs have not been justified and
  explained in sufficient detail
• Some activities are insufficiently explained

18
Typical shortcomings (3)

• Project has no clear focus on a target group or
  target territory, on which the activities of the
  project will be carried out
• Durability of project results is not foreseen/
  not explained

19
Typical shortcomings (4)

• Project is too much dominated by the Lead Partner
• Partnership is irrelevant or important players
  are missing from the partnership
• Foreseen management and coordination costs are
  high/not relevant to the complexity of the
  partnership and/or project