1. Simplification of ETC Project Management
Robert Nemeth
Pannon Business Network
CoR, Brussels - 22 November 2017

2. Overview of the presentation
Application phase
Content-related implementation
Financial implementation
Communication
Management tools

3. R&D, SME development, Internationalisation, Cluster management
Pannon Business Network Leading independent business development organization in Western Hungary
International projects’ number: 53
EU partner organizations number: 400+
Full-time employees: 17
Year of Establishment: 2006
Contracted value: 8,6 mio €
Key topics:
R&D, SME development, Internationalisation, Cluster management

4. 7 Central Europe 7 South-East Europe
Interreg experiences
Interreg IV
Interreg V
9 Interreg IVC
4 Interreg Europe
7 Central Europe 7 South-East Europe
6 Central Europe
4 Danube Transnational
5 AT-HU
C interregional
B transnational
A cross-border

5. Application phase Thematic focus
Significant R&D infrastructures had been developped from structural funds, national funds and from Interreg
However the sustainability is challenging
Interreg shall be a cooperation possibility for non-profit R&D players and private players
Focusing on smart digitalisation
Service development
Transnational network of complementer services (e.g. Network of Digital Innovation Hubs)
No more strategies, but real life cooperations with measurable impacts

6. Application phase
Timely start of the programme – comparison of Interreg IV and V 6 years of implementation, then no projects for almost 1.5 years Impact on beneficiaries and FLC-s Although experienced managing bodies 5-9 months delay of Interreg V compared to Interreg IV
2007
2008 Q4 start IVC, CE
2009 Q1 start SEE
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014 end
2014
2015 first calls
2016 Q2 start IE,CE
2017 Q1 start DTP
2018
2019
2020
2021 end

7. Application phase Support from the Program Authorities
Transnational and national events
Lead applicant training
Individual consultation with JS. Discussing project ideas more in depth with the JS. Check the relevance of the idea.
Two phase procedure - ”never again”
1st call timing example
Interreg Europe
Central Europe
DTP
Nr. of applicants
261
620
576
Nr. of winners 64 35 55
Time to start
8 months 
13,5 months 
14 months

8. Application phase
Introduction of on-line application systems Online submission (iOLF, EMS) is a great achievement Unfortunatelly not all programmes implemented this Use of intelligent XLS, intelligent PDF docs more complicated Partner declarations in scanned PDF or hardcopies ? Reduce the need of original hard copies

9. Content-related implementation
Component –Work Package
Interreg Europe eliminated Components 
Structure of a Central Europe project:
Project outputs
Thematic result indicators (linked to project outputs)
Workpackages
Outputs
Activities (connection is not clear)
Deliverables
Clearer, harmonised structure would be appreciated
Balance between simpler structure and clear workplan is a challenge

10. Content-related implementation
Impact of having Work Packages also in the budget.
Please include the travel costs in WP2 – for the days spent on forum, and WP3 and/or WP4 for the day when you took a part at LAP meeting/Transnational partnership training.
Allocation WPs of PSC Szombathely: 30% WPM, 30% WPT1, 20% WPT2, 20% WPT3
Allocation WPs of PSC Karlsruhe: 60% WPM, 20% WPT2, 20% WPT3
Are they really want to do this?
After the consultation with our Financial officer from JS, you can have the expenditures for WP5 in this Period. I will prepare the Change log file which should be approved by Project officer and then I will send it to you as you will need to attach this file to your Partner report.

11. Financial implementation
Budget lines
Simplifications done already
Recommendations for post 2020
Preparation cost
Lump sum
Keep it!
Staff cost
A) Flat rate up to 20 % of direct c.
B) Real costs basis
Full time, no timesheet
Fixed %, no timesheet
Flex. hours – contractual hours
Flex. hours – 1720 hours rule
Hourly basis
OK (limited use) 
Not implemented in CE
Anyone uses it ?
Place for improvement…
Administration cost
Flat rate of 15% of staff costs

12. Financial implementation
Budget lines
Simplifications done already
Recommendations for post 2020
Travel and accomodation
ASP or stakeholder travel costs shall be paid by the sponsorinng ERDF partner only
External budget
Detailed information (budget and activity) regarding external expertise budget line in AFs
Equipment and investment
same rule for “in house purchase” for all ETC programmes
no more WPs or Components (only BLs) in the budget
Same financial rules for all ETC programmes!

13. Financial implementation
Budget flexibility
20% budget flexibility, where no prior approval by the managing authority/joint secretariat required, is appropriate in most cases - like in Interreg Europe 
5 % on partner level, 10 % on project level (like in DTP) is very limited together with WPs 
Extra administration on monitoring the spending by WP
Extra administration by managing the changes
Higher budget flexibility (without WPs) would be welcomed.

14. Financial implementation
Cash-flow issues - Time to get the ERDF funds
Implementation 6 months
FLC/NC 2-3 months
JS/MA/CA 6 months (?)
Elapsed time from the end of the reporting period
Prepayment would be welcomed
Speeding up control and payment procedures at JS/MA/CA
Average payment time
IVC and IE CE
SEE and DTP
AT-HU
(165 payments)
8,8 months
14,4 months
9,6 months
15,5 months
(8 payments)
7.4 months
10.5 months -

15. More really means more attention?
Communication
Harmonised design (branding, website) was a great step  Communication is an isolated activity in most projects Connection between communication goals and project outputs is not clear (eg. in CE) The access of new target groups through social media is questionable
More really means more attention?

16. Management tools Same systems towards FLC and LP (JS)  iOLF EMS
Application phase
YES
Activity report (partner)
Short summary
Full report
Activity report (project)
YES (information collected by LP separately)
Financial report (partner)
Automatic notification s NO
Electronic certificate documents
ing certificate documents
Not needed
Still needed
Financial report (project)
Automatic (inclusion)
JS clarification form
Offline (DOC)
Same systems towards FLC and LP (JS) 

17. Management tools iOLF – Interreg Europe
EMS – as of October 2017, 37 territorial cooperation programmes (including Interreg, Interreg-IPA CBC and ENI CBC) signed the license agreement and are either testing or already using the system.
Not all programmes use it 
Place for slight improvements in EMS:
Automatic notifications
No more hard copy version regarding certificate documents
Online clarification form

18. Summary
Individual consultation with the JS - Check the relevance of the idea
1 step application procedure would be welcomed
Clearer structure of the activity plan
No more WPs or Components (only BLs) in the budget
Same financial rules for all ETC programmes
Higher budget flexibility (without WPs)
Faster payments and/or prepayment
Further improvemements of the EMS system

19. Thank you for your attention!
Contact information:
Robert Nemeth
Financial director
Find us: