DTP 2nd Call for Proposal

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
DOs and DONTs Joan-Anton Carbonell Kingston University EC External Expert TEMPUS Modernising Higher Education TEMPUS INFORMATION DAY.
Advertisements

CENTRAL EUROPE first call for proposals National Infoday, Prague, 17 February 2015 Viera Slavikova, Joint Secretariat.
CENTRAL EUROPE PROGRAMME SUCCESS FACTORS FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT: focus on activities and partnership JTS CENTRAL EUROPE PROGRAMME.
1 Danube Transnational Programme Zsuzsanna Drahos Ministry for National Economy Department of Territorial Development Planning 17 April 2015.
The URBACT II Programme General Presentation Vilnius, 20 January 2011.
Regional Policy Managing Authorities of the ETC programmes Annual Meeting W Piskorz, Head of Unit Competence Centre Inclusive Growth, Urban and.
Application Form – Part C Kirsti Mijnhijmer, Secretariat How to Apply Seminar 4th February 2015, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Project Implementation Monika Balode Joint Technical Secretariat Lead Partner Seminar 16 October 2009, Šiauliai.
Evaluation plans for programming period in Poland Experience and new arrangements Ministry of Infrastructure and Development, Poland Athens,
CENTRAL EUROPE PROGRAMME SUCCESS FACTORS FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT: focus on finances Partner Search Forum Poznań, Poland 16 – 17 December 2008.
An overview The EU Strategy for the Danube Region in the programming of ESIF for : state of play and next steps.
Cooperation in the mainstream programmes / article 37-6b example of Limousin (France) ‏ inhabitants inhabitants 43 inhab / km² 43 inhab.
APPLICATION FORM OF ROBINWOOD SUBPROJECT SECOND STEP 1. The short listed Local Beneficiaries work together to create international partnerships and prepare.
South East Europe Transnational Cooperation Programme Bologna, 15° June 2009 Kick-off meeting of project SARMa SEE Joint Technical Secretariat.
European Territorial Cooperation SAWP meeting, 9 July
“ BIRD Project“ 1 Broadband Access, Innovation & Regional Development” Broadband Access, Innovation & Regional Development” Project Description Ulrich.
Result Orientation in Interreg CENTRAL EUROPE Annual Meeting, Luxemburg, 15 September 2015 Monika Schönerklee-Grasser, Joint Secretariat.
National Info Day 1st call of Interreg DANUBE 9 th October 2015 Prague.
Project preparation workshop “Bringing a transnational project to life” Project idea “Challenges and chances from Climate Change for regional and local.
Project Management Birutė Markevičiūtė Joint Technical Secretariat Lead Partner Seminar 13 October 2008, Riga.
Danube Transnational Programme – opportunities for cooperation Bucharest
Grant Application Form (Annex A) Grant Application Form (Annex A) 2nd Call for Proposals.
Results Focus & Partnership Kirsti Mijnhijmer, Secretariat How to Apply Seminar 1st October 2014, Strathpeffer, Scotland.
Interreg IIIB Trans-national cooperation: Budget comparison : 440 million EURO 420 m EURO (Interreg IIC prog.) + 20 m EURO (Pilot Actions)
Part-financed by the European Union From application to implementation – the procedures Joint Technical Secretariat Lead Applicant Seminar for 1st application.
CENTRAL EUROPE PROGRAMME PROJECT DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL ISSUES Project development seminar Prague, 1 st February 2010 Luca FERRARESE JTS CENTRAL.
URBACT IMPLEMENTATION NETWORKS. URBACT in a nutshell  European Territorial Cooperation programme (ETC) co- financed by ERDF  All 28 Member States as.
Summary of the State of the Art of Programme Implementation CENTRAL EUROPE PROGRAMME Project development seminar Prague, 1-2 February 2010 Monika.
Project design – Activities and partnership CENTRAL EUROPE PROGRAMME Project development seminar Prague, 1-2 February 2010 Monika Schönerklee-Grasser.
CENTRAL EUROPE PROGRAMME WORKSHOP A: Preparing an application – focus on activities and partnership Project development seminar Prague, 1-2 February.
Sharing solutions for better regional policies European Union | European Regional Development Fund Erika Fulgenzi Policy Officer | Interreg Europe JS
Synergies between EUSDR PA 10 and the Danube Transnational Programme DTP First Call for Proposal and beyond 8th Steering Group Meeting of Priority Area.
National Info Day Bosnia and Herzegovina– 2nd call for proposals
Annex III to BS/SC/PDF/A(2003)1
Danube Transnational Programme: opportunities for cooperation in the energy sector EUSDR PA2 SG meeting , Budapest, Hungary.
Project Cycle Management
EUSDR Strategic Projects & Seed Money Facility in DTP
Danube Transnational Programme DTP First Call for Proposal and beyond
Introduction - Final activity reporting
What is a grant? A direct financial contribution – donation – from EU budget An action - contributing to EU policy achievement Functioning of a body acting.
Funding schema to support public/private initiatives
How to prepare your Concept Note.
GREECE-ALBANIA IPA CROSS BORDER COOPERATION PROGRAMME
Danube Transnational Programme: opportunities for cooperation in the transport sector Railways Summit , Bucharest, Romania.
Danube Transnational Programme
CENTRAL EUROPE PROGRAMME
Tips on developing a good budget
PROJECT MANUAL Galina Georgieva Project Officer
Results Focus Kirsti Mijnhijmer, Joint Secretariat
Application Form Sections 4-9 Christopher Parker & Kirsti Mijnhijmer 28 January 2009 – Copenhagen, Denmark European Union European Regional Development.
Seed Money Facility EUSDR PA4 – 14th SG meeting
ERASMUS+ KA3 European Youth Together EACEA Tuesday 24th April 2018.
Advices to project developers
The ERA.Net instrument Aims and benefits
Application Form – Part C
Danube Transnational Programme Marius V. Niculae Project Officer
Evaluation plans for programming period in Poland
CENTRAL EUROPE first call for proposals
FP7 SCIENTIFIC NEGOTIATIONS
Information session SCIENTIFIC NEGOTIATIONS Call FP7-ENV-2013-two-stage "Environment (including climate change)" Brussels 22/05/2013 José M. Jiménez.
Information session SCIENTIFIC & TECHNICAL NEGOTIATIONS Call FP7-ENV-2013-WATER-INNO-DEMO "Environment (including climate change)" Brussels 24/06/2013.
Projects under DTP Thematic Pole 2 TP2 (Framework Support for RDI)
Helene Skikos DG Education and Culture
DG ENV/MSFD 2018 call for proposals
Project intervention logic
INFORMATION SEMINAR Interreg V-A Latvia-Lithuania programme
Early School Leaving and NEETs across the Danube Region – Towards new regional perspectives 18th December 2018, Vienna.
Project intervention logic
XVII PA7 Steering Group Meeting
Presentation transcript:

DTP 2nd Call for Proposal National Info Day DTP 2nd Call for Proposal 22nd February 2017 Prague

Agenda Application and Assessment (Applicants Manual part 4) How to develop a Successful Project (AM part 6) Intervention Logic

1.1 Application 1-Step application procedure Maximum project duration: 36 months Launch: May 2017 Deadline for submission: not before June 2017 Though the CfP is not officially launched yet, most important documents are already available Technical framework for submission like DTP 1st CfP http://www.interreg-danube.eu/calls/calls-for-proposals/second-call-for-proposals

1.1 Application

1.1 Application

Budget of the 2nd Call for Proposals in EUR How much money do I have? Budget of the 2nd Call for Proposals in EUR Planned to be available at the launch of the call!

1.2 Eligibility Assessment Eligibility check Eligibility of the proposal - 9 Yes/No questions Eligibility of the partners - 3 Yes/No questions

1.2 Eligibility Assessment 1. The AF in all its parts has been submitted within the set deadline Deadline (date and time) to be provided in the Call Announcement. 2. The AF in all its parts has been submitted in the official templates and through the DTP website Official templates to be published by DTP on the website/ All AF parts to be submitted through DTP website. 3. The AF in all its parts, including the annexes have been submitted in one single package Application Form pdf xls Annexes (…) 4. The AF is compiled in English AF is to be compiled in EN. 5. Partnership is composed by at least three financing partners from at least three participating countries of which at least one (LP) is located in a Member State Financing Partners – ERDF, IPA, ENI PPs LA – ERDF PP. 6. Lead Applicant is an eligible beneficiary LA fulfills the eligibility criteria. 7. At least 3 joint cooperation levels are indicated According to Art 12(4) of EU reg. 1299/2013: Joint development Joint implementation Joint staffing Joint financing

1.2 Eligibility Assessment 8. The proposal contributes to at least two programme output indicators The proposal contributes to the mandatory output indicator (documented learning interaction) and at least another one. 9. Completeness of Partnership Agreement PA is signed by all directly financed partners. Failure to meet criteria 1-9 leads to the rejection of the whole project proposal!

1.2 Eligibility Assessment 10. Financed partners (ERDF/IPA/ENI) are eligible ERDF, IPA, ENI PPs fulfil the requirements of Applicants Manual Part 2 section II 11. Completeness of submitted ERDF/IPA/ENI partner documents For each ERDF (incl. LA), IPA and ENI PP there should be enclosed a duly filled in and signed copy of: Declaration of co-financing State Aid declaration Declaration of International Organisations (if relevant) 12. Completeness of submitted ASP documents For each ASP there should be enclosed a duly filled in and signed copy of ASP declaration Failure to meet criteria 10-12 by one PP leads to the rejection of the respective PP!

1.2 Eligibility Assessment BUT A 5-day healing period is granted to submit missing documents (i.e. Annexes) and meet the eligibility criteria!

1.3 Quality Assessment Relevance of the proposal: 2 main criteria, 4 sub-criteria, each 0-5 points < 60% > 59% Strategic relevance: 5 main criteria, 17 sub-criteria, each 0-5 points < 60% > 59% Operational relevance: 4 main criteria, 14 sub-criteria >74% Direct approval 74% - 60% Approval decided by MC < 60%

1.3 Quality Assessment Relevance of the proposal 1. Is the project relevant for the Programme? Project topic - in line with the SO and Call provisions Project - is NOT investment or research oriented and it does not target mere networking Project - is NOT a duplication of previously funded actions Project intervention logic - coherent with the Programme intervention logic 2. Is the need for transnational cooperation demonstrated? Project transnational dimension and impact - demonstrated through geographical coverage and planned activities Added value of the transnational cooperation - clearly demonstrated in comparison to a national/ cross-border approach

1.3 Quality Assessment Strategic Relevance 1. Are the territorial needs and challenges identified and duly justified? Needs and challenges - coherently and comprehensively described Clear link between planned activities and described needs/ challenges Needs and challenges - consistent with the programme objectives Capitalisation of previous results and synergies 2. Is the project intervention logic coherent? IL elements - clearly defined and interlinked 3. To what extent does the proposal contribute to an EU strategy or policy? Relevant strategies/ policies Relevant EUSDR PA(s), targets and actions EUSDR is embedded in the proposal (e.g. involvement of EUSDR bodies, ensure uptake of results by EUSDR)

1.3 Quality Assessment 4. Is the partnership composition relevant, justified and balanced for the proposed project? Geographical coverage - consistent with the territorial needs PPs - competent to implement planned activities and produce envisaged outputs All relevant sectors and levels of governance are present Partnership is balanced Harmonized benefits for all countries Equitable distribution of tasks; PP involvement - concordant with the project activities 5. Is the target group defined and has ownership of the project results? Relevant target groups - clearly identified and listed Integration and use of project outputs Concrete measures to ensure durability and transferability of project outputs Contribution to the horizontal principles

1.3 Quality Assessment Operational Relevance 1. Is the work plan realistic, consistent and coherent? Timetable – realistic and coherent Clear link between the activities/ outputs and methodology Activities and outputs – achievable Activities - comprehensively and clearly described 2. To what extent are management structures and procedures in line with the project size, duration and needs? Clear governance of the project Effective know-how transfer inside the partnership Quality management structure and adequate procedures LA - experience in implementing/ coordinating EU projects (esp. ETC) and institutional capacity to manage the project

1.3 Quality Assessment 3. To what extent are communication activities appropriate and forceful to reach the relevant target groups and stakeholders? Adequate methods, means and channels to reach the target groups Communication activities - consistent with the project deliverables and the specificities of the addressed target group 4. Does the project budget demonstrate value for money? Activity/ WP/ BL budget - consistent with the planned actions, involved PPs and duration of activity Spending forecast - coherent with the sequence of activities/ duration WP1 & WP2 budget - justified by the planned activities and involved PPs EE and equipment budget - justified and realistic for planned activities

1.3 Quality Assessment Final considerations Sound understanding of the assessment procedure / criteria helps to develop a project proposal in a more “targeted” way Small differences in scoring can make a big difference … all sections of the AF should be carefully elaborated Self-assess your project proposal in a critical manner and reserve enough time for revisions and adjustments!

2. Project Development Applicants Manual part 6 Project generation and support from the DTP How to set up the partnership How to develop the intervention logic How to set up efficient project coordination Communication Strategy

2. Project Development Result Orientation Reinforced and (more) systematic approach to ensure direct contribution of projects to achieve Specific Objectives and Programme Objectives Stringent alignment of projects and Programme regarding Objectives Results Outputs Exact specification quantification of project outputs along a set of limited, pre-defined output indicators

2.1 Intervention Logic Programme Project Targets Programme Mission Specific Objective X [ … ] Project Main Objective Contribution to Programme Specific Objective Project Specific Objectives Contribution to Project Main Objective Targets (semi-quantitative) Result Indicator Intensity of cooperation of key actors and stakeholders in the Danube area … Project Result Contribution to Programme Result Indicator Project Outputs Contribution to Programme Output Indicators Targets (quantitative) Output Indicators Nr. of strategies Nr. of tools Nr. of pilot actions Nr. of documented learning interactions

2.1 Project Intervention Logic Project Intervention Logic - Objectives Specific Objective X [ … ] Project Main Objective What is the intended strategic, long-term change? Definition of only one concise main objective Description of the contribution of the main objective to the Programme Specific Objective Project Specific Objectives What are the immediate effects of the project? Definition of up to three concrete sub-objectives Description of the contribution of the specific objectives to the project main objective

2.1 Project Intervention Logic Project Intervention Logic – Result Programme Result Indicator Intensity of cooperation of key actors and stakeholders in the Danube area … Project Result What is the benefit of using the project outputs? Description of one concise result only Description of the contribution of the project result to the Programme Result Indicator

2.1 Project Intervention Logic Project Intervention Logic - Outputs Programme Output Indicators Nr. of strategies Nr. of tools Nr. of pilot actions Nr. of documented learning interactions Project Outputs What has been produced for the money given? Project outputs have to contribute to one compulsory programme output indicator (documented learning interactions) … and have to contribute to one up to max. 4 further programme output indicator

2.1 Project Intervention Logic Intervention Logic – Outputs Project Outputs Programme Output Indicators Nr. of strategies Nr. of tools Nr. of pilot actions Nr. of documented learning interactions Output Value 1 Danubian strategy for (…) based on 8 country reports 1 8 4 local action plans (for 4 pilots) 4 1 E-learning platform 1 internal project management manual Pilot implementation of action plans in 4 sites Implementation 1 E-learning course (4 X 25 particip.) 100

2.1 Project Intervention Logic Output Indicators Documented learning interaction process of acquiring institutional knowledge through transnational cooperation addressing common problems and\or challenges in a specific field E.g. capacity building measures, e-learning platforms, peer-reviews … Mandatory horizontal output indicator; each projects has to implement at least one (recommended: three) learning interactions! Documented means that physical proofs that such a learning process has been implemented Strategy Should start with the definition of joint problems/ challenges and set up clear mid and long term objectives reflecting the common vision of the Danube Region in a specific field. Should aim at policy integration in the Danube area in the selected fields and act as policy drivers below EU level but above national level. Action plans break down the strategy goals and objectives into specific actions.

2.1 Project Intervention Logic Output Indicators Tool means for achieving a specific task. Tools should be jointly developed at transnational level and be innovative. Tools can be tangible (physical or technical objects) and intangible (methods, concepts or services). e.g. analytical tools, management tools, software tools, monitoring tools, decision support tools, technical tools Pilot action practical implementation of newly developed solutions (e.g. services, tools, methods or approaches, even an investment) has an experimental nature which aims at testing, evaluating and/or demonstrating the feasibility and effectiveness of a scheme Deliverable: side product or service contributing to the development of an output All products under WP1 and WP2 are deliverables

2.2 Check List Do we have a vision regarding a concrete territorial change in the Danube Region? Do we address Danube-specific needs (potentials) with our project idea? Is the project idea clearly, explicitly and authentically addressing one of the SO of the DTP (taking into account thematic restrictions under the 2nd CfP)? Partners we have in mind: is it a partnership or the partnership for the topic addressed? Synergies with EUSDR considered? (during generation and within AF) Intervention logic: is it really in line with DTP requirements? Does it convince us? Did we critically self-assess all dimensions of the proposal (including operational)? Did we double-check with the JS PO? Did we double-check with “grandma”?

Contact Johannes Gabriel Project Officer   Johannes Gabriel Project Officer Joint Secretariat | Danube Transnational Programme Honvéd utca 13-15 – 1055 Budapest, Hungary Tel: +36 1 795 5886   johannes.gabriel@interreg-danube.eu www.interreg-danube.eu