1. First meeting of the south-south-eastern ENPI CBC NIPs networks Florence, 23 June 2009 WORKSHOP Promoting viable and effective trans-national partnerships Supporting high quality projects generation and development MAIN CONCLUSIONS

2. Partnership success factors:  Adopt a shared vision and focus on important needs - Commitment depends on how well project suits partners needs  Have complementary expertise to support exchange of experience, commitment to take part actively already during project development, enthusiasm and trust towards other partners  Make partnership a “WIN-WIN” (mutual benefits) ‏ and ensure partners are equals (“GIVE and TAKE” (each partner may not benefit equally but each partner must realise an added value benefit) ‏  Utilise strengths of each partner and be aware of each other’s weakness  Understand each other’s mission and organisational culture and pay attention to intercultural understanding  Have good financial capabilities in order to secure co-financing as well as the necessary human resources and technical and institutional capabilities to allow a flowing implementation of the project’s procedures  Negotiate formal agreement and clearly define roles and responsibilities and document it (partnership statement and partnership agreement) ‏  Assure accountability and transparency and ensure good communication (this, with the role Lead partner must play, will ensure that no partner is “sleeping one”) ‏

3. Partnership challenges:  Partnerships are put together only for the purpose of obtaining EU funds – there are no shared goals/ understanding/ trust among partners  Low degree of commitment with regards to cooperation, quality, delivering on time,..  Remote team working situation  Different level of experience/specialism  Cross-cultural differences (can also be considered as positive!)  Differences in working methods  Languages barriers – lack of a common technical language (differences in the definitions/terminology) ‏  Too little involvement of public, private and other key local players (need for long-standing cooperation) ‏  Different administrative and political structures and legal system, and different responsibilities of the administrative levels involved  No new partners and repetition of activities entailing a funding dependency risk + lose focus on real needs

4. Partnership success factors  At least 1 partner with experience in projects, ENPI, CBC...  Common interest  Have good financial capabilities in order to secure co-financing as well as the necessary human resources and technical and institutional capabilities to allow a flowing implementation of the project’s procedures  Joint preparation of the Application, cooperation before the project  Projects based on the needs of the communities/target groups  Make partnership a “WIN-WIN” (mutual benefits) ‏ and ensure partners are equals (“GIVE and TAKE” (each partner may not benefit equally but each partner must realise an added value benefit) ‏  Negotiate formal agreement and clearly define roles and responsibilities and document it (partnership statement and partnership agreement) ‏

5. Partnership success factors:  Understand each other’s mission and organisational culture and pay attention to intercultural understanding  Assure accountability and transparency and ensure good communication (this, with the role Lead partner must play, will ensure that no partner is “sleeping one”) ‏  Utilise strengths of each partner and be aware of each other’s weakness

6. Partnership challenges  Different languages, cultural differences (can also be considered as positive!)  Visa requirements, political constraints  Different legal basis  Consultancy “patronising” projects  Remote team working situation, long geographical distance  Technical difficulties (e.g. some small partners without access to Internet)  Different level of experience/specialism  Differences in working methods  Negative attitude of the Lead partner (“rule of consensus” lost)

7. Partnership challenges:  Partnerships only for the purpose of obtaining EU funds – there are no shared goals/ understanding/ trust among partners, low degree of commitment  Too little involvement of public, private and other key local players (need for long-standing cooperation) ‏  No new partners and repetition of activities entailing a funding dependency risk + lose focus on real needs  Partnership based on personal relations not institutional  Different administrative and political structures and legal system, and different administrative levels involved

8. Most effective activities and tools to facilitate partnership development process  Depends a lot on the different roles of the NIPs in the Programmes  Effective coordination/synergy with other initiatives (INTERACT, RCBI, etc.)  Websites  Project partners, Project ideas Dbases  Ineligible project ideas to be presented? (also “stolen ideas”) Vague formulation, just a little bit more precise than just measure  Consultancy to be put in the Partners Dbases? Ineligible partners? Insert a rubric “status” limited to partners eligible in the Programme  Interactive forums  Meetings, trainings, seminars  How to select the participants in trainings, info events? Announcement, horizontal involvement of those who will further inform

9. NIPs support to partnership development and project generation  Involved in project generation, BUT  Avoiding the conflict of interest (depending on whether NIP is involved in the evaluation/selection process)  Respecting the equal treatment principles  Creating of a network with regions for dissemination  Networking of NIPs  Just facilitate, the main work have still to be done by applicants

10. First meeting of the south-south-eastern ENPI CBC NIPs networks Florence, 23 June 2009 WORKSHOP/PRESENTATION Capitalising and disseminating programmes and projects results Communicationg to programmes´stakeholders and general public MAIN CONCLUSIONS

11. Capitalisation -In some programmes is not mentioned at all -No financial resources allocated for it -Can be understood as an additional burden -It should be carefully considered, not to overload people -BUT IT IS NECESSARY !!!

12. Capitalisation -Similar to evaluation? Strategic evaluation on programme level and Capitalisation on cluster level ??? - Necesity to clarify differences in between

13. Capitalisation Financing possibilities/Responsibility: -TA? -IPA? -Hosting institutions? (to be managed horizontally) -Branch offices? It should be decided by programmes´ authorities

14. Capitalisation Proposal: To create a working group on capitalising in order to discuss tools and methodologies?