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)