Upload
brandon-wade
View
223
Download
5
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
BelarusDenmarkEstoniaFinlandGermanyLatviaLithuaniaNorwayPolandRussiaSweden
A Community Initiative
Baltic Sea Region INTERREG III BNeighbourhood Programme
Content of the presentation
1. Programme area2. Programme thematic content3. Programme management4. Programme budget5. Project partnership and management6. Project budget7. Project implementation8. Good practice9. Main challanges
INTERREG III B programmes
Alpine Space Baltic Sea Region North Sea Region
Atlantic Area
Archimed
South West Europe
North West Europe
Westers Mediterranean
CADSES Northern Periphery
Most remote regions (3 programmes)
Transnational cooperation on spatial planning and regional development
Cooperation area:
Denmark Sweden Finland Germany (North – East) Estonia Lithuania Latvia Poland Norway Belarus (North – West) Russia (North – West & Kaliningrad)
Strategic objective:
Strengtheningeconomic, social and spatial cohesion
by promoting transnational economic relationships
in order to reach an increased level of BSR integration and to form a region with sustainable growth prospects.
Priority 1:
Promotion of spatial development approaches and actions for specific territories and sectors
Priority 2:
Promotion of territorial structures supporting sustainable BSR development
Priority 3:
Transnational and bilateral institution and capacity building in the Baltic Sea Region
Programme priorities
Priority 4 – border regions (committed)
Priority 5: • Cross-border (INTERREG III A) priority
Estonia-Latvia-Russia (North)
Priority 6:• Cross-border (INTERREG III A) priority
Latvia-Lithuania-Belarus (South)
Priority 7:
Technical Assistance
Programme priorities
Priority 1: Promotion of spatial development approaches and actions for specific territories and sectors
Measure 1.1: Supporting joint strategies and implementation actions for macro-regions
Measure 1.2: Promoting sustainable spatial development of specific sectors
Measure 1.3: Strengthening integrated development of coastal zones, islands and other specific areas
Measures in Priority 1
Priority 2: Promotion of territorial structures supporting sustainable BSR development
Measure 2.1: Promoting balanced polycentric settlement structures
Measure 2.2: Creating sustainable communication links for improved spatial integration
Measure 2.3: Enhancing good management of cultural and natural heritage and of natural resources
Measures in Priority 2
Priority 3: Transnational and bilateral institution and capacity building in the Baltic Sea Region
Measure 3.1: Promotion of transnational institution and capacity building
Measure 3.2: Bilateral maritime cooperation across the Baltic Sea
Measures in Priority 3
Transnational studies and strategies
Preparation of investments
Transnational exchange of experience
Training of professional staff
Workshops, seminars, networking, etc.
Examples of eligible activities:
.... Monitoring Committee
Steering Committee
Municipalities & Regions
NationalSub-committees
S FINDEDK N
Supervising the programme
Information and support
Investitionsbank Schleswig-Holstein
Joint Secretariat
Selection of projects and funding decisions
Paying Authority
ManagingAuthority
PL LT LV EST RU
BSR INTERREG III B management structure
BYProject’s
Lead Partner
ProjectPartner
ProjectPartner
ProjectPartner
ProjectPartner
day to day programme management
Programme funding
ERDF funds: 149.0 M EURO*Norwegian national: 6.0 M EUROTotal programme funding: 155.0 M EURO
All ERDF available for III B priorities was committed in 1-8 rounds
*including the additional funding from the new MS and IIIA priorities
Partnership (minimum requirements)
• partners from three different countries
• two countries should be financial contributors
• one partner from EU
The Lead Partner Principle (example)
full financial and legal responsibility for:
• project management system• submitting Application Form• signing the Subsidy Contract• reporting of the project progress• requesting payments
Lead Partner Principle
Examples of partners that can apply for funding from the BSR INTERREG III B
National, regional and local public authorities:
• Ministries;• regional councils;• municipalities, etc.;
Institutions that could be considered as “Public equivalent bodies”:
• associations;• academic institutions;• research institutes;• foundations;• NGOs and non-profit organizations (community-
based, humanitarian, industrial, cultural, etc.);• development agencies, etc.
Examples of partners that can apply for funding from the BSR INTERREG III B (2)
1. ERDF contributionsup to 75% for Objective 1 regionsup to 50% for other regions
2. National co-funding
Partner’s own funding – eg. public funds at national, regional
or local level
BSR INTERREG III B Project Budget
Project implementation
Joint Secretariat / PA
Lead PartnerLead Partner submits
activity and audited financial report
Paying Authority effects payment to Lead Partner
Project PartnersSubmit activity and
audited financial reports to Lead Partner
Reports Payments
Lead Partner effects payments to Project
Partners
PA - Paying Authority
European Commission
Joint Secretariat / PAsubmit
Payment Request
Europ. Commission effects
payment to PA
Good practice at strategic level
• A joint pool of ERDF funds on a joint bank account without national “sub-accounts”
• Tasks of Managing and Paying Authority carried out by single, competent institution which is not a public authority
• Lead Partner principle (clear responsibilities between MA and project)
• Joint management structures/bodies including a strong joint transnational Joint Technical Secretariat
• National sub-committees responsible for disseminating information at national/regional level
• Work of Monitoring and Steering Committees facilitated by various task forces.
General tools:• English as official programme language• An up-to-date website as most important info tool• Project database
Related to project life cycle:• Pro-active project development - Seed Money, Partner
Search Forum, Information Seminars, Individual Consultations• Application, assessment and approval –Joint and transparent
decision making (unanimous decisions, clear documentation of assessment and approval)
• Pro-active project implementation - Lead Partner Seminar, Seminars for financial managers and auditors, Quality Workshops, Publicity and communication training etc.
Good practice at operational level
Challenges for project partners Problem: Way out:
“Simple” Objective 1 programmes preferred (infrastructure investments)
Convince decision makers of added value of transnational networking and cooperation
Culture and language barriers Learn English!
High technical and quality requirements of transnational projects
Invest in human resources – training of qualified staff in public administrations
Low awareness about the programme
Increased information activities at national and programme level
Considerable administrative workload
Make use of standardized tools, training, support actions!
Significant competition among projects
… lobby at your decisionmakers….?!
Thank you for your attention!
www.bsrinterreg.net