Transcript Slide 1
Common Weaknesses in Project Applications
Paula MacLachlan
Ian Hill
Contact Points
Context: NWE success rates
Interreg NW Europe calls 1-5
13%
38%
29%
Approved
Referred back
20%
Rejected
Ineligible
General Areas for Improvement
• Projects undergo a technical assessment against 13
selection criteria, listed in the Guidance Notes
• Most common areas of weakness:
Transnationality
Partnership & management
Project structure
Finance
Value for money & outputs
Programme & strategic fit
Administrative issues
Why does Priority 4 present a problem?
• What is the Programme about?
• Common issues - hard to demonstrate transnational
implementation
• ‘Community’ often understood as local
• ‘Territorial cohesion’ less well-developed for P4 themes;
what are the spatial dimensions of social issues?
• Social and community aspects of Lisbon and
Gothenburg strategies themselves
• Project that don’t fit other Priorities
• EQUAL legacy?
• Potential?
Priority 4 : Most challenging selection criteria
• Transnationality
• Consistency action plan/Objectives
• Innovativeness
• Earlier EU projects
Also:
• Value for money
• Communications
Priority 4: What went wrong
• Problem is too vague or not relevant to OP
• No proven need to co-operate: investments already
planned, actions and impact local
• Co-operation too limited: exchange of experience only, or
only workshops and data collection or baseline info
• The 'shopping list' approach, no link between
investments
• No tangible outputs
• Actions unclear, do not logically follow from the
objectives
• Actions and investments don’t deliver objectives
Priority 4: What went wrong
• Grandiose claims for results/impact
• Not enough MSs for this topic/issue
• NWE-wide impact not thought through
• Poor design and planning at the start which weakens
project
• Joint design not evident in application
• Letting consultants lead too much
• All partners have identical budgets
Partnership & Project Structure
Do……
●
Ensure each partner has a purpose or something to add to the
partnership, and be clear how they each benefit
●
NB specific legal meaning of the term ‘partner’; different from
associates,
observers,
sub-partners
sub-contractors
and
consultants;
●
Describe activities clearly and simply.
Say how they address
problem;
●
Ensure logical link between aims, activities, investments and
results;
●
Are actions really innovative?
●
Think widely about dissemination; Who needs to know about your
Value for Money & Tangible Outputs
• Tangible outputs are those that will last beyond Interreg
funding
•
Quantify, where possible
•
Quote benchmark figures if you have them
Focus your plans – ensure actions, spend and outputs fit
project aims and objective
•
•
Be realistic and immediate about results
•
Check budget against outputs (‘what am I buying?’)
Programme & Strategic fit
Do this!
• Read the Operational Programme, especially SWOT analysis (and
the Guidance Notes.....)
• Explain how your project addresses these issues
• Check if the Programme has already funded project on this topic
(IVB or IIIB), and if this is the right INTERREG programme
• Identify how you will extend the work of previous Interreg projects
in your field and build on other EU programmes on your topic
• Remember that exchange of experience alone is not enough
• Talk to Regional or national authorities before submission
Summary
Plan well in advance, with all your partners
Read all the documentation early in the process
Understand your common vision and objectives
Involve finance managers in budget setting
Make use of the support available. Discuss your idea
early with CPs and JTS
Make sure you have a plan B....
Group work questions
•What is the problem you are addressing?
Why NW Europe?
How do you want the world to change?
What needs to happen to solve the
problem?
Who can make that happen?
Why can’t you do this without people in other
Member States?
What is innovative? How do you know?
What is the cake? (the tangible outcomes)