Administrative structure

In this subchapter the administrative structure of the South Baltic Programme is analysed. The covered issues concern the projects’ generating process, support for the beneficiaries and the resources of the institutions implementing the South Baltic Programme. Following research questions are answered in the chapter:

 How does the administrative structure of the Programme contribute to achievement of the Programme goals (Managing Authority, Joint Technical Secretary, National Contact Points, Regional Contact Points, Country National Coordinators, Monitoring Committee, Steering Committee)?  Is the assistance of National and Regional Contact Points useful for the Beneficiaries? How to

strengthen their pro-active role in the process of projects generating?

 What are the weaknesses and strengths of the administrative structure in the context of support offered to the applicants and projects partners?

How does the administrative structure of the Programme contribute to achievement of the Programme goals (Managing Authority, Joint Technical Secretary, National Contact Points, Regional Contact Points, Country National Coordinators, Monitoring Committee, Steering Committee)?

The analysis of the efficiency of the current administrative structure of the Programme was based on the information collected during the telephone interviews with representatives of the institutions implementing the programme. It was further complemented with the results of the desk research.

The contribution of the administrative structure to the achievement of the Programme goals is generally assessed as positive by the representatives of the institutions involved. However, there were also some critical opinions and suggestions for changes. The weak financing structure of the institutions was criticized– Regional Contact Points and Contact Points are underfunded. One of their main fields of activity is extended promotion and information but they should be given more financing for these tasks, what could enable them to expand these activities. This means, that the financial resources on the Technical Assistance for the Programme should be increased. It should be considered that the Programme is cross-border and now has more participating countries than typical cross-border programmes, bilateral cooperation programmes.

It is also crucial to employ more staff in Contact Points and Regional Contact Points – their knowledge and assistance to Beneficiaries is a basis for good implementation of the Programme. It also requires strengthening the contact Points and Regional Contact Points in terms of financial and human resources. This opinion was also confirmed during experts’ forum discussion. There should be also more international staff in Joint Technical Secretary.

When it comes to the division of competences the respondents from the JTS and Contact Points indicated that changes should be introduced in the functioning of the CPE (The Centre of European Projects). The JTS is subordinated in organisational and financial tasks to the CPE and in the substantial tasks to MA. The respondents indicated that in practice reporting to the two institutions on different matters in some cases problematic. The CPE is involved in implementation of five different programmes what sometimes results in longer procedures or longer time needed to get a decision. Additionally each of those programmes has its specific, what should be stronger reflected in the functioning of the CPE. In the opinion of the respondents the role of the CPE in the future programming period should be subject of a separate discussion.

Final Report

R

An additional interesting observation is that the Programme is seen as becoming more transnational than cross-border. In the opinion of respondents its local character should be emphasized.

When it comes to project implementation it could be more effective when advance payments would be possible, what is recommended by the evaluator. The respondents also indicated that there is not enough staff to assess the projects’ reports, and this makes the process of assessment longer than it should be. After completion implementation the projects are closed, catalogued and forgotten instead of promoting them and using their results for the future.

Summary

In the analysis of the administrative structure of the Programme and its contribution to the achievement of the Programme goals three important issues were identified: 1) the need to strengthen the Contact Points and Regional Contact Points in terms of financial and human resources, 2) the need to discus and probably redefine the role of CPE in the Programme implementation, 3) introducing advance payments in the Programme.

Is the assistance of National and Regional Contact Points useful for the Beneficiaries? How to strengthen their pro-active role in the process of projects generating?

The assessment of the assistance of the National and Regional Contact points is based on the opinions collected during the telephone interviews with the Lead Beneficiaries, Projects Partners and representatives of the institutions implementing the Programme.

- The Beneficiaries

The Lithuanian Lead Beneficiaries and Partners were generally satisfied with the assistance they obtained from the Contact Points and Regional Contact Points. Additionally they underlined the usefulness of support they got from the JTS. The German Lead Beneficiaries were very satisfied with the individual project consultations provided by the Contact Point. They obtained specific and targeted recommendations.

In the opinion of Swedish respondents there is a need to increase the awareness about the support that can by be provided by the Regional Contact Points. Especially the assistance concerning formal issues was seen as very important (i.e. help with understanding the application procedures). The Swedish Lead Beneficiaries and partners pointed out that there is a need for more meetings, seminars and trainings concerning such issues as project budget and reporting. Also help in finding and acquiring partners is crucial. In the opinion of the respondent, the support provided by the JTS was the most useful. This was the institution that the beneficiaries contacted the most frequently.

The Polish respondents stressed the useful help of the JTS in Gdansk. Polish beneficiaries suggested that the Contact Points should be more actively involved in the search for foreign partners for the project. There is also need for more consultation meetings at JTS, support with financial analysis, information and professional trainings for those who are joining the Programme for the first time. There was only one outlying opinion about too much bureaucracy in JTS and changes implementation of the regulations.

The Danish respondents suggested that Contact Points should pay more attention the projects’ promotion. They would also like to have more meetings, conversations and in general more information about the Programme prepared for the organisations which could be interested in participation in the projects. The most needed support that should be provided for the beneficiaries by the Programme institutions was also analysed within the Capacity Building Projects. For the Danish beneficiaries most important was the assistance with preparing project’s budget, finding partner and information about the application process. The respondents from Germany expected help with preparing the budget, elaborating project idea, and

Final Report

R

R

activities description in the application form. For Polish organizations the most important were: support with budget preparation, information about the application procedures and help with finding partners. The Swedish beneficiaries indicated that they need help with preparing the complete documentation, including budget and developing the project idea.

As it results of the information presented above, the most important needs of the Programme participants didn’t significantly change over time. They would prefer to have the possibility of participating in more consultations and meetings including trainings concerning budget and reporting skills. Assistance in preparing the application is also needed. They need better support in finding partners for the projects. Similar about the support for the potential beneficiaries expressed the organizations, whose projects were rejected. What is interesting, they strongly prefer direct contact with the representatives of the institutions (individual consultations and workshops in the second place). Only few of them opted for info-line or

webcasts.

To respond to the needs of the beneficiaries it is recommended to elaborate the data base of projects partners, which participated in the Programme. The data base should contain information about the willingness to cooperate and the areas of interest. It should also include information about the other organisations which showed interest in the Programme and / or participated in Programme’s events. The data base should be used in during trainings and consultations for the potential Beneficiaries as an example how to find partners.

- The representatives of the institutions

The representatives of the organizations implementing the Programme highly appreciated the effectiveness of two main tools for supporting the Beneficiaries - the ideas database, and the Capacity Building Project. They’re both worth continuing and improving. Additionally an expanded and well promoted projects database is needed. Such data base should build on the existing projects data base and contain besides project’s title, name of beneficiary and amount of co-financing, also the description of the project, all the documents connected with its preparation and realization, and also the list of its results. The data base should be regularly updated and promoted among applicants. The list of possible results should be previously elaborated during Programme preparation stage. Such a list would assure aggregation of the indicators. Currently it is impossible, as there are too many “other results indicators”.

The respondents also indicated a need for wider promotion of the projects. The good-practice from Sweden shows that the good way of spreading results is to organise “learning conferences” for the audience wider that only the project partners. Raising media interest would also have a positive impact on the familiarity with results of the Programme and of the projects.

The recommendation of the evaluator is to elaborate the data base with the information about the completed project and to popularise it among the potential beneficiaries of the South Baltic Programme in the next programming period. The data base should contain information if the beneficiary is willing to cooperate in the future.

What are the weaknesses and strengths of the administrative structure in the context of support offered to the applicants and projects partners?

To summarize all information about the administrative structure and its functioning a SWOT analysis was conducted. It presents the most important strengths and weaknesses of the system as well as chances and risks.

Final Report

Positive Negative

- appropriate administrative structure for Programme implementation (in general)

- useful assistance provided by JTS in Gdansk - satisfied assistance provided by Contact Points and Regional Contact Points

- good quality of the support provided for the Beneficiaries (high level of satisfaction)

- not sufficient human resources, in Regional Contact Points as well as Contact Points in particular - not sufficient financial resources, for Regional Contact Points and Contact Points in particular - not enough staff for projects' assessment

- not enough Regional Contact Points assistance in partners finding process

- no international stuff in the JTS

- too weak promotion of the Programme at Contact Points level in particular

- no facilitation for smaller (not rich) beneficiaries at project preparatory stage, lack of advance payments and seed funds

- difficult, especially for new participants, projects' preparation procedures

- Programme is well positioned within EU assistance programmes

- territory covered by the Programme gives the possibility to implement complex projects with significant meaning for the whole region

- Programme objectives assure cooperation and exchange of knowledge between organisations from the EU and non-EU countries as well as cooperation with highly qualified market companies - decentralized system of FLC in some of the countries

- time consuming procedures for payments certification at FLC

- not enough interest in the Program from possible project partners

Internal

Final Report

SUMMARY

Effectiveness of the projects implementing system that is defined within the Programme documents The overall assessment of the projects implementing system is positive although there are some possible changes which could be introduced to increase its effectiveness. Most problems in the implementation system occur at the FLC and are referred to the certification process. Important changes that are needed in the system concern introducing a seed money facility for projects preparation and the system od advance payments. Both on the application as well as on the implementation stage there is a need for stronger support for the potential beneficiaries and beneficiaries by the Contact Point. In order to meet those needs the Contacts Points should be financially strengthened.

1. Project implementation

Problems in the project preparation phase

The main problems on the application stage were connected with following issues:

• understanding formal rules of project preparation (cost eligibility, cost sharing between partners, required formal documents),

• finding projects partners,

• cost of project preparation - the desired amount of the seed money should be between 20 000 and 40 000 Euro.

In response to these problems it is recommended to strengthen the support provided to the potential beneficiaries in the projects preparation phase by the Contact Points in terms of workshops, consultations and partners search – promoting wider use of the projects partners’ data base.

Assessment criteria

The selection of the most suitable projects according to Programme’s objectives is ensured trough the criterion: Contribution to the Programme Priority Axes and regional strategic plans. The criteria Contribution to the Programme Priority Axes and regional strategic and Impact on the situation of the target group adjust the assessment procedure to the types of the projects. Both objectives of the measures (which result from the Programme objectives) and the target groups (listed in the Programme manual) are specific for the types projects recommended for implementation in each measure.

The current projects assessment process and the applied assessment criteria are in the opinion of the evaluator sufficient to provide the selection of the most suitable projects and properly adjusted to the types of the projects. No changes in the project assessment criteria are suggested.

Reasons of projects rejection

Within the South Baltic Programme application rejections rate it high – 58%. The share of the applications rejected for formal reasons is low (7% of the rejected applications), so activities undertaken to reduce the rejection rate should concentrate on the substantial quality of the applications. It was observed that the potential beneficiaries had problems with presenting the logical framework of the projects and defining the future benefits resulting from the projects (after projects’ completion). These two issues should be stressed during the workshops and seminars for potential beneficiaries. From the 53 once rejected projects 15 were approved in one of the subsequent calls. The analysis showed also that the quality of the twice rejected projects increased in the subsequent calls. This can indicate that the quality of the application depends i. a. on the beneficiaries experience in applying for funding. If so it can be expected that the quality of the

Final Report applications which will be submitted to the Programme in the next programming period will increase (in comparison to the current programing period).

Reasons for lack of interest in applying for funding

All of the potential beneficiaries who didn’t apply for funding heard about the South Baltic programme before. The most common reason for not applying was that the requirements are too high and application procedure too complicated and therefore too much time and money consuming. The majority of the respondents plan to implement new projects in the future and apply for funding to the new South Baltic Programme. The main suggested change in the Programme is to simplify the Programme rules and procedures. The planned project will concern transport, tourism and institutional capacity building.

Delays in the projects implementation

The analysis of the project application forms and the list of payments showed that there are delays in implementation of some projects. This was confirmed by the Lead Beneficiaries in the interviews. In some of the projects the delays are caused by too optimistic preparatory phase. In general the occurring delays don’t significantly affect the implementation of the Programme

Reporting progress on the JST and MA level; Project Progress Reports reimbursement (interim payment) and reimbursement of the final Project Progress Reports (final payment)

The complaints about the certification project process referred more to the FLC than to JST or MA level. Some of the respondents were also dissatisfied with the long waiting time that passes between the acceptance of expenses and reimbursement, but the monitoring data doesn’t show significant delays. If the process was longer than the average then it resulted from the need of clarification. It can be assumed that the Beneficiaries are mainly dissatisfied with the length of the expenditures certification by the FLC, which was not a subject of detailed analysis within the evaluation.

2. Administrative structure

Contribution of the administrative structure to the achievement of Programme goals and the Support of the Contact Points and Regional Contact Points

To increase the contribution of the administrative structure of the Programme to the achievement of Programme goals numerous suggestions were given by the respondents, e.g.: expanding the possibilities of Regional Contact Points and Contact Points in the areas concern promotion and information though increasing the financing for Regional Contact Points and Contact Points activities, hiring more staff for these organisations, hiring more international staff for JTS, introducing advance payments system or, providing the funds for projects pre-financing and capacity building.

Final Report