_minutes.docx · web viewmr. maciejowski thanked for the overview and gave the word to the...

Project Steering GroupFirst MeetingStockholm, Sweden26 October 2012

Title Minutes from the 1st Meeting of ADPY Project Steering Group members

Submitted by Secretariat

Summary / Note This document outlines the main discussion points and decisions made during the 1st meeting for ADPY PSG members

List of Annexes Annex 1 – List of documents submitted to the meetingAnnex 2 – List of participants

1. Opening of the meeting and welcome The meeting was opened by Ms. Mia Sundelin (Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs (CAN)), who also hosted the meeting. After welcoming everybody to Swe-den, she gave a brief overview of the schedule of the day and asked the participants to intro-duce themselves. Subsequently Ms. Mia Sundelin gave the floor to Mr. Marek Maciejowski (Head of the NDPHS Secretariat) who chaired the 1st meeting of ADPY project steering group (PSG).

Mr. Maciejowski thanked Project Partners for joining the ADPY project. Special gratitude was given to Mr. Håkan Leifman (CAN) and the CAN team in general, as well as to Ms. Neringa Tarvydiene (Klaipeda District Municipality Public Health Bureau) for providing inputs during the development of the project proposals. He further specified that the purpose of the 1st PSG meeting was to concentrate on the management of the ADPY project and to identify and discuss key issues arising from the Grant Contract. He emphasized that the NDPHS Secretariat would be always available to support the Project Partners, however the meeting was a good place to ask the questions.

2. Adoption of the agendaThe meeting adopted the Provisional agenda with timetable (as submitted in document PSG 1/2/1).

3. Project Steering Group ToRWith reference to document PSG1/3/1, Mr. Maciejowski introduced the Proposed Terms of Reference to PSG members. The document pointed out the objectives of the PSG, listed its members and informed about the PSG meetings. Mr. Maciejowski further notified that the list of PSG members was preliminary and if Partners suggested other member to the steering group, it was possible to amend the list.

Project Partners did not have suggestions to change the ToR, therefore it was adopted by the meeting as presented.

This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of the CBSS Secretariat and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.

document.docx 1

4. Project partners’ duties and responsibilities arising from the Grant Contract4.1 Technical

With reference to document PSG 1/4.1/Info 1, Mr. Maciejowski introduced the main technical requirements imposed by the Grant Contract. The emphasis was put to the visibility of the action, termination of the contract/ accounts and technical and financial checks. Regarding the visibility of the action he stressed that it was obligatory to display EU logos whenever a Project Partner had a formal meeting, published a document or distributed a questionnaire. Additionally he emphasized the importance to follow the requirements of the Grant Contract for avoiding any difficulties vis-à-vis the European Union being the main co-financier of the project. Special attention was drawn to Article 16 in the Grant Contract’s general conditions, which listed the documents/proofs that Project Partners had to keep track of. Mr. Maciejowski invited the Partners to keep a proper paperwork and bookkeeping in place throughout the entire project implementation period, in order to simplify the reporting at the end of the project.

Project Partners did not have any comments/ questions regarding the technical requirements, thus the meeting moved on with financial requirements imposed by the Grant Contract.

4.2 Financial

With reference to document PSG 1/4.2/Info 1, Mr. Maciejowski introduced the main financial requirements imposed by the Grant Contract. He informed that almost 80% of the total budget would be received from EU and that the first installment of pre-financing should be received within 45 days after the contract had been signed. He explained the relevance of having a clear understanding by all project partners of how the money would be spent in the project, so that when developing the progress and final reports there would be no surprises or need for budget adjustment.

Further Mr. Maciejowski introduced the two options regarding receiving financing from the EU:

1) As soon as the first installment of the pre-financing was spent, the Secretariat would ask for the second installment from the European Commission (EC), or

2) The whole project would be implemented and in the end the Secretariat would ask for the balance from the EC. In this case the Partner organizations would need to spend their own money closer to the end of the project implementation. To that end it should be kept in mind that, on average, the Project Partners are, anyway, required to provide own-co-financing amounting to approx.. 80% of the total budget.

Considering that the issue might require consultations back in Partners own organizations, he suggested coming back to that issue later, when the project was already running for some time.

Regarding the reporting requirements Mr. Maciejowski informed the Partners that when the time comes to submit the progress or final financial and narrative reports, the input from Partners would be asked for. With regard to the eligible costs he explained that costs that were not properly documented would not be considered as eligible. It is, therefore, important to meet all the requirements spelled out in the Grant Contract. Additionally he drew Partners attention to costs related to VAT. It was clarified, that in case VAT was a cost that was possible to prove, it was considered eligible for funding. Finally, he suggested to the Partners, that accountants in their organizations would go through the financial provisions in the Grant Contract to be very clear which were the eligible costs.


document.docx 2

To Mr. Ola Hägg’s (Nynäshamn Municipality) question, where the bank of the project was, Mr. Maciejowski replied that the Secretariat of the Council of Baltic Sea States (CBSS)/ NDPHS Secretariat was the beneficiary of the EU funding and that the money would be transferred to beneficiary’s account. Further he explained that the beneficiary had a freedom of choice whether it would transfer part of the pre-financing to the Project Partners for them to use it for the implementation of the activities in accordance with the Grant Contract. However - he clarified – if the project was centrally financed, it would simplify the verification of expenditures by an external auditor and, therefore, make the auditing by an external auditor less costly.

Mr. Marek Maciejowski asked the Project Partners how they preferred to receive the funding: either as a portion of pre-financing or to have a centrally financed project. He added that if the project would be centrally managed, the Secretariat would be buying for the Project Partners flight tickets in connection with project meetings and would pre-pay/ pay for accommodation directly with hotels. In such case, however, it would require of the Project Partners that they would provide it with very concrete information as to their flight and accommodation preferences.

Mr. Håkan Leifman notified that Partners had to pay the salaries to the employees. He asked to clarify whether the Partners would receive the money before or after activities.

Mr. Maciejowski clarified that regarding human resources costs the 1st option would be that the Project Partner organizations would send the request for the salary payment to the Secretariat every month. The 2nd option would be that the Partner organizations would receive a pre-installment for 6 months in one payment as soon as the first installment of pre-financing was received from the EC. To Mr. Håkan Leifman’s question whether 6 months could also be changed to 3 or 4 months, Mr. Maciejowski replied that it would be based on the Partners’ choice. Mr. Maciejowski added that for travel accommodation and subsistence, the Secretariat would definitely prefer to exercise a centralized budget approach. This would mean that payments would be done straightly from project’s account and there would be no need for reimbursement of costs except for daily allowances. Mr. Maciejowski emphasized that all Partners should agree on the same solution.

Ms. Ann-Louise Sirén (Stockholm County Council (SCC)) asked Mr. Maciejowski to describe the salary payment in more detail. In response Mr. Maciejowski clarified that as one option the Secretariat would send pre-installment for Partner organizations for salaries, which would avoid the problems with cash flow within their organizations. Closer to the end of the project, the Partners would need to report about their costs so that the Secretariat would get an overview of the budget and judge if there was a need for the second installment of pre-financing. When choosing that option Partner organizations would need to estimate the salary expenditures for human resources.

The second option would be that the organizations would make salary payments to their employees from their own budget and later would be reimbursed the respective part of the cost in accordance with the percentage of the employee’s salary foreseen in the project budget.

Partners from Klaipeda and Russia preferred that salary payments would not be centralized, for other payments they agreed that the centralized approach would be better.

In conclusion Mr. Maciejowski suggested that the first installment of pre-financing for salary payments would be done for 6 months.

The Project Partners agreed. In response to Mr. Håkan Leifman’s question, whether it was possible to make the transfer for the whole year at a time, he replied that it would put the Secretariat into a difficult


document.docx 3

situation in case a Project Partner would not perform their tasks and it would be necessary to ask that Partner to transfer (some) money back.

Mr. Maciejowski informed that as soon as the Secretariat received the funding, the first installment of pre-financing for salary payments would be transferred to Partners. He asked the Partners to provide The Secretariat with the following information: name of the beneficiary institution, account number, SWIFT/ IBAN codes. He emphasized that the Secretariat should receive from Partner institutions as soon as possible a formal request (written on formal letterheads), signed by the authorized manager of the organization. The request should be called “Request of the first installment of pre-financing for salary payments.”

Ms. Cristina Rudberg (Nynäshamn Municipality) asked whether it was possible to have external expertise as the organization’s own contribution to the budget. Mr. Maciejowski clarified that it was possible. He added that any eligible direct project costs (e.g. under budget items like “services”, “other costs”) could also be included as the organization’s co-financing.

Finally Mr. Maciejowski added that if the project had produced income then the latter would be deducted from the final balance.

5. Implementation of the Project Work Packages5.1 Introduction and overview

Mr. Maciejowski proposed that all the Work Packages’ (WP) leaders would briefly introduce how they planned to implement the project, so that everybody would get an overview. He proposed that, regarding the general project implementation matters, the Secretariat would be in contact with ADPY and PPHS team leaders (Mr. Håkan Leifman, Ms. Neringa Tarvydiene, respectively) and if Partners would have any expert level questions they should contact the above mentioned team leaders as well. The Secretariat should be copied into those emails only in case of more important technical issues.

Further Mr. Maciejowski introduced document Corrected Indicative ADPY project Action Plan (PSG 1/5.1/Info 1) and introduced the corrections that had been made to the plan. He emphasized that the WP5 (“Presentation/ dissemination of generic manuals and recommendations”) leader (CAN) needs to inform the Secretariat about the missing data in the Corrected Indicative ADPY project Action Plan within one week after the meeting.

5.2 WP 1 Project management

Mr. Maciejowski introduced document Template for calculation of daily rate of a project staff cost (PSG 1/5.2/Info 1). He informed Partners that for the ease of calculation the table was submitted to the Project Partners in an excel format. Further on he emphasized that only people who were employed for that project (the ones represented in the item “human resources” in the project’s budget) had to fill out that template. He asked the Partners to provide The Secretariat with the list of employees who would be employed for the project. He also asked to provide the information about the salaries of those employees, as that was required by auditors to verify whether the costs on human resources were equal to the ones actually spent on salaries. Additionally he drew Partners’ attention to be cautious that level of salaries would be consistent with the organization’s salary policy. A proper documentation would


document.docx 4

have to be sent to the Secretariat to evidence the amount of paid out salaries (e.g. the salary slips of the project-employed personnel. Furthermore he emphasized the importance of using conversion rates for a given month from InforEURO (http://ec.europa.eu/budget/contracts_grants/info_contracts/inforeuro/inforeuro_en.cfm), whenever Partners needed to convert from original currency to EURO. That was relevant because in the final financial report the currency rate form InforEURO would be used. He added that this requirement would be added as a footnote to the above document with a link to InforEURO website and be posted on the website.

In response to a request from the floor, Mr. Maciejowski briefly introduced the coding system of the NDPHS documents. He suggested that the Partners would follow the same pattern while producing any formal meeting documents for the project. He explained that the abbreviation in the documents’ code stood for the meeting name (e.g. PSG - Project Steering Group), the following number indicated the number of the meeting; subsequent one specified the agenda item in which the given document would be discussed. He also clarified that there were two types of documents: 1) for decisions (i.e. the meeting had to come up with a conclusion for a given document (adopt, approve etc.)); 2) for information (i.e. participants were informed about a certain topic and no decisions had to be taken).

Mr. Maciejowski introduced the Timesheet template for 2012 (PSG1/5.2/Info 2) and notified that it was another document that would be checked and verified by auditors. He further explained that Partners had to fill out the hours that they spent on working for the project, on sickness and the travel time, etc. The second page of the sheet was to clarify how many hours one spent on a specific WP. He emphasized the importance that the hours in both sheets would match each other and clarified that it was possible to be flexible with the working hours between days within a given month. However the total working hours should not exceed the time indicated in the budget as it was not possible to pay extra money for salaries.

Regarding the above documents (PSG 1/5.2/Info 1; PSG1/5.2/Info 2), Mr. Maciejowski asked the Partners to fill them out during the first week after a given month had finished and send it by email to the Secretariat. The originals could be sent by regular post after every 3-4 months in a mailing combined, e.g., together with travel/ accommodation claims.

Ms. Maika Kummel (Turku University of the Applied Sciences) asked if it was possible to start filling out the working hours from January 2013 as their schedule was full for the current year. In response Mr. Maciejowski clarified which WP Turku University was involved in and said that it was possible for them to start in January as the foreseen employment did not extend for the entire project period. However, it should be done in such a way that the project implementation process would not suffer.

Mr. Maciejowski moved on to document Template for travel, accommodation and subsistence claim (PSG 1/5.2/Info 3). He explained that in the budget only international travels were foreseen for funding. Further he emphasized that a certain number of trips were assigned for each team and that Project Partners’ had to keep track of them, to be sure they had enough money to complete all the activities foreseen for them.

Mr. Maciejowski informed the Partners that the Project Partners would have to follow the selected relevant provisions of document: Decision on implementing rules for the staff regulations of officials of the European Communities and conditions of employment of other servants of the European Medicines Agency. He explained that per diems for each country would be taken from the above mentioned document. He explained that per diems consisted of two parts: daily allowance, that would be fully


document.docx 5

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/contracts_grants/info_contracts/inforeuro/inforeuro_en.cfm

reimbursed and the expenses for accommodation that would be reimbursed based on the amount on the original invoice but not above the ceiling specified for a given country, unless there was a clear agreement for that from the leader in a given team and there was sufficient amount of funding left in the project budget.

Mr. Jón Sigfússon (Icelandic Centre for Social Research and Analysis) informed that it was rather expensive to travel from Iceland in case the meeting date was not set in advance and that his current travel expenses would most probably exceed the amount that was set in the budget. He asked Mr. Maciejowski to clarify how he should fill out the reimbursement claim for instance if the travel cost was 700 EUR but it was not expected to exceed 400 EUR. Mr. Maciejowski explained that in the total costs 700 EUR should be mentioned in the form’s travel description cell, whereas 400 EUR should be inserted as amount to claim for reimbursement.

Clarified above, Mr. Maciejowski continued introducing how to fill out the reimbursement claim. The following points were made:

Provide a proper meeting name, place and the date. Provide the WP to which the travel belongs to. In case private money is used for purchasing tickets, then the details of private

bank account should be provided for reimbursement. In case meals were provided free of charge to the traveler (e.g. breakfast

included in the hotel price), deductions from the daily rates shall be made as follows: 15% for breakfast, 30% for lunch and 30% for dinner.

When converting original currency to EURO, use the InforEURO exchange rate for the month when the travel took place (as discussed earlier in the meeting).

Provide exact times when the international travel started (i.e. the plane took off) and ended (i.e. the plane landed back in the home country). Based on that, the number of days and amount of money reimbursed would be calculated. Fractions of the day(s) would be calculated for trips that would not last full days.

Attach the scanned bills, boarding passes etc. to the form and email it to the Secretariat at [email protected]. As soon as approved, send by post the claim with all required supporting documents to the NDPHS Secretariat.

Further, Mr. Maciejowski drew Partners’ attention to the issue that reimbursement payments would be made from EURO account, meaning that exchange rates from beneficiaries’ personal banks would be used when transferring money to non-EURO account.

Regarding the possibility that the Secretariat would book and pay for Partners’ travelling and accommodation, Mr. Maciejowski emphasized that the reimbursement claim should still be submitted to get the daily allowances, however for travel and accommodation claims the amount claimed would be 0 (a note in the description cell would need to state the price and that it had been paid for by the NDPHS Secretariat. In addition the original boarding passes should be attached to reimbursement claim and sent to the Secretariat by post).To Mr. Jón Sigfússon’s question whether for current meeting the Secretariat would need two claims, Mr. Maciejowski replied affirmative and asked to email them first and send the originals by post later on, after approval.

Mr. Maciejowski moved on and introduced the document Template for expert services invoice (PSG 1/5.2/Info 4). He emphasized that salaries for external experts had to be within the budget limits and contracts had to be signed with these experts before they would commence their work. He further mentioned that information regarding recruitment


document.docx 6

mailto:[email protected]

of the experts will be clarified with WP leaders who will be involved with external experts. Additionally he said that salaries to the experts would be paid out only in case the respective team leader confirmed his/her team was satisfied with the work provided by the expert.

Ms. Maika Kummel asked to specify whether these contracts should be done between the expert and their Partner organization or between expert and the Secretariat.

Mr. Maciejowski clarified that these contracts concern only external experts, meaning that they will be involved in development of the manuals/ recommendations and with translators and interpreters, if necessary. These contracts would be done between the expert and the Secretariat but at the request of a given team/Project Partner. The respective organizations responsible for those activities should be in contact with him before the time for commissioning expert work comes.

Mr. Maciejowski introduced document Template for list of participants (PSG 1/5.2/Info 5). He suggested that whenever Partners organize a meeting, it would be good if they would fill out that form, and emphasized that regarding the workshops and seminars receiving co-financing from the project, it was obligatory to fill out that document. Subsequently he sent out the template to be filled out by the participants of the PSG 1 meeting.

5.3 WP 2 Dissemination of project results

Ms. Triin Pärn introduced document Communication plan for the Alcohol and Drug Prevention among Youth (ADPY); situation analysis for evidence based policies project (PSG 1/5.3/1). Communication goals, target groups, activities, tools, indicators and resources were introduced to the Project Partners. Emphasis was put to the activities that Partners would need to take in their local communities and to the requirements they needed to follow when undertaking communication activities.

Mr. Maciejowski added that when the Secretariat is preparing e-news or e-newsletters, the Partners will be asked to contribute to them.

The meeting approved the plan for submission to the EU for approval.

Ms. Mia Sundelin and Mr. Håkan Leifman informed partners that they had a very good communication team in CAN, which had a vast experience in web campaigns and in disseminating the information. They suggested that it would be a good network for disseminating the project results. Additionally the journal, published by CAN could be used for distributing the information.

5.4 WP 3 Project evaluation

Mr. Maciejowski recalled that within WP3 both, internal and external evaluations would be performed and would involve the Swedish Ministry of Health (technical aspects) and an external auditor (financial aspects).

Mr. Håkan Leifman underlined the importance of having key measurements to evaluate the project during its process to identify the process and development. He further discussed about the possibility of applying for additional money to expand the project in the future. However to do that, proper evaluation of the current project needed to be performed in order to show results to the EU.


document.docx 7

Mr. Jón Sigfússon agreed with the idea. He noted that in February 2013 the baseline data would be collected and there would be a clear picture about the situation in those communities. He emphasized the importance of repeating the mapping later on, to evaluate the impact of the project.

Mr. Maciejowski added that ADPY was a flagship project and had been included in EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. Furthermore it was the only health project included on the EU - Russia list of cooperation projects in the Baltic Sea Region, indicating that it had a lot of visibility and possibility for follow up in the future.

5.5 WP 4 Mapping, situation analysis and community reports

Mr. Jón Sigfússon described the 1st mapping component. He said that their aim was to measure the situation of substance abuse in participating municipalities and later on give out the information about policy indicators and protective factors in these communities. He mentioned the need to coordinate the work between researches and that everybody had to collect the data similarly, so that it would be comparable. He explained that due to the Russian Christmas the data collection would start in the middle of February and reports would be ready by May 2013.

Mr. Maciejowski thanked for the overview and gave the word to the representatives of Stockholm County Council (SCC).

Ms. Maria Pilblad and Ms. Ann-Louise Sirén (SCC) gave an overview of the 2nd mapping component about community readiness, to identify how ready the communities were to implement the action. They described that the work would start with drafting a questionnaire that would hopefully be ready in January 2013. Mr. Jón Sigfússon emphasized the importance of evaluating the community readiness.

Ms. Maria Pilblad added that in case they found out that communities were not ready for the implementation processes, there were certain strategies to overcome that issue. Ms. Ann-Louise Sirén said that they had several questions to community coordinators.

Ms. Mia Sundelin suggested discussing these topics in the afternoon meeting.

5.6 WP 5 ADPY manuals and recommendations for local work, and

5.7 WP 6 Local and international ADPY networks. Letters of local commitment to action

Ms. Mia Sundelin explained that as soon as WP4 had finished their work, they could start writing recommendations. Further she described that there would be local manuals and generic recommendations. The development of the manuals and recommendations would start in May - June 2013 and dissemination would take place in September 2013. SCC asked CAN to clarify when they needed the WP4 to be in place. Mr. Håkan Leifman suggested taking that issue during afternoon meeting. Mr. Håkan Leifman informed that to be able to produce good manuals and recommendations, it was relevant to have a good community coordinating group, including public health specialist, policy makers, researchers etc., meaning that local stakeholders would be involved to the project and hence enhance the implementation. The aim would be to have a local base, which would hold regular meetings.


document.docx 8

5.8 WP 7 Development of an ADPY cooperation model

Ms. Neringa Tarvydiene recalled that 4 institutions would be involved in that WP, with the main aim to identify the needs of workshops’ participants and based on that run four workshops in different municipalities. She continued that the Partners from Turku University would provide the material together with the input from Klaipeda University. Furthermore she said that they were trying to create a team to work in Kaliningrad and Klaipeda municipalities. The aim would be to identify how the connections were created and based on that they would describe the cooperation model. She specified that in cooperation model they would explain how to involve the parents, advise them as well as how to approach young people. However she emphasized the importance to see the mapping before they would start developing the cooperation model.

Mr. Maciejowski thanked WP leaders for their overviews.

5.9 General discussion and conclusions

Ms. Mia Sundelin suggested that WP leaders would submit an interim report immediately after the completion of their given WP, with the aim to ease the writing of final reports. Everybody agreed that it was a good idea to do it that way.

Following Mr. Håkan Leifman’s request, Mr. Maciejowski described the NDPHS (www.ndphs.org) and its Secretariat. He explained that Partnership Annual Conference (PAC) was the highest decision making body in the organization, who was responsible for the strategic vision, while Committee of Senior Representatives (CSR) was the coordinating body, handling budgets, structures, policy issues. He further mentioned that employees from ministries of the health and the organizations’ senior staff were sitting on the CSR. He explained the difference between expert groups (EG) and task groups (TG) and clarified that EGs mainly worked on policy and project related issues and reported to PAC about their activities. TGs were structures handling a concrete issue with a specific aim. He named the ADPY TG as an example. Moreover he described the idea of ad hoc groups that were created in special occasions (e.g. evaluation team, legal capacity team etc.). He then notified that the Secretariat helped facilitating the projects, raising funds, contributed to policy exchange dialogue etc. and that it was currently located within the Secretariat of the Council of the Baltic Sea States as it had no legal capacity (this would change in early 2013 when it is supposed to be authorized its own legal capacity).

6. Next PSG meetingMr. Maciejowski announced that regarding the next PSG meeting, it had been agreed to meet in Kaliningrad, Russia and that it would have been good to combine the PSG 2 meeting with ADPY Task Group meeting. Participants agreed that it was a good idea to get all the Partners together at the same time.

Mr. Maciejowski specified that the 2nd PSG meeting should take place before the meeting of Committee of Senior Representatives (CSR), which would be held on 11-12 of April 2013. Stockholm County Council asked to have the meeting towards the end of March 2013, as their mapping activity would take place in the end of February and they would need some time to analyze the data before the meeting.

It was agreed among the participants that the 2nd PSG meeting would take place on the morning of 26th of March 2013 and in the preceding day (25th March 2013) it would be the workshop in Kaliningrad.


document.docx 9

http://www.ndphs.org/

Nynashämn Municipality asked to specify which people should attend the 2nd PSG meeting. Mr. Maciejowski clarified that PSG meeting would be about management and costs would be reimbursed only for one person representing the partner organization. More people could join the meeting, yet on their own expense. Furthermore he specified that it was possible that another specialist from the organization attended the parallel meeting.

Regarding the organizing of the 2nd PSG meeting, Mr. Maciejowski said that The Secretariat would advise and cooperate with the host organization in the organizational matters.

7. Any other businessNo business was discussed in this agenda item.

8. Adoption of the PSG 1 meeting minutesThe NDPHS Secretariat proposed that, to reflect the outcome of the PSG 1st meeting, minutes would be produced and that the draft document would be sent out to the participants on 31st October 2012. Comments on the draft would be due, at the latest, on 7th November 2012. Revised minutes would then be distributed on 12th November 2012.

9. Closing of the meetingThe Chairman of the meeting thanked CAN for hosting the meeting and the participants for a good meeting. The meeting was closed at 12.30 hours.


document.docx 10

Reference Annex 1

Title List of documents submitted to the meeting

Summary / Note This list includes all documents submitted to the meeting

Main documents

Code Title Submitted by Date

PSG 1/2/1 Provisional agenda Secretariat 12/10/12

PSG 1/3/1 Proposed Terms of Reference Secretariat 12/10/12

PSG 1/4.1/Info 1 Selected main technical requirements as imposed by the Grant Contract, Annex II General Conditions.

Secretariat 12/10/12

PSG 1/4.2/Info 1 Selected main financial requirements as imposed by the Grant Contract, Special Conditions and Annex II General Conditions.


PSG 1/5.1/Info 1 Corrected Indicative ADPY project Action Plan Secretariat 23/10/12

PSG 1/5.2/Info 1 Template for calculation of daily rate of a project staff cost Secretariat 12/10/12

PSG 1/5.2/Info 2 Timesheet template for 2012 Secretariat 12/10/12

PSG 1/5.2/Info 3 Template for travel, accommodation and subsistence claim Secretariat 12/10/12

PSG 1/5.2/Info 4 Template for expert services invoice Secretariat 12/10/12

PSG 1/5.2/Info 5 Template for list of participants Secretariat 12/10/12

PSG 1/5.3/1 Communication Plan for the Alcohol and Drug Prevention among Youth (ADPY); situation analysis for evidence based policies project


Auxiliary documents

Code Title Submitted by Date

PSG 1/Info 1 Preliminary timetable Secretariat 12/10/12

PSG 1/Info 2 List of documents submitted to the meeting


PSG 1/Info 2/Rev 1 Revised list of documents submitted to the meeting



document.docx 11

PSG 1/Info 2/Rev 2 2nd revised list of documents Secretariat 23/10/12

PSG 1/Info 3 List of Project Steering Group members Secretariat 12/10/12

PSG 1/Info 4 Practical information for participants Secretariat 15/10/12

PSG 1/Info 5 Preliminary list of participants Secretariat 23/10/12


document.docx 12

Reference Annex 2

Title List of participants

Summary / Note This list includes all persons who attended the meeting

Beneficiary (Lead Partner)CBSS/NDPHS Secretariat

Mr. Marek Maciejowski Head of SecretariatP.O. Box 2010SE-103-11 StockholmSwedenPhone: +46 8 4401938Fax: +46 8 4401944E-mail: [email protected]

Ms. Triin PärnInternP.O. Box 2010SE-103-11 StockholmSwedenPhone: +46 84401925Fax: +46 8 4401944E-mail: [email protected]

Project Partner 1Stockholm County Council (Centre for Epidemiology and Community Medicine (CES))

Ms. Maria PilbladStockholm County Council (Centre for Epidemiology and Community Medicine (CES))Västgötagatan 2P.O. Box 17070 SE- 104 62 StockholmSwedenPhone: +46 812337121Fax: +46 86583350E-mail: [email protected]

Ms. Ann-Louise SirénStockholm County Council (Centre for Epidemiology and Community Medicine (CES))Västgötagatan 2P.O. Box 17070SE- 104 62 StockholmSwedenPhone: +46 812337171Fax: +46 86583350E-mail: [email protected]

Project Partner 2Federal Research Institute for Health Care Organization and Information of MoH&SD of Russian Federation

Ms. Mariya LisitsynaFederal Research Institute for Health Care Organization and Information of MoH&SD of Russian FederationDobrolubov Str. 11RU- 127254 MoscowRussian FederationPhone: +7 4956182731Fax: +7 4956181109E-mail: [email protected]

Ms. Elena ScvortsovaFederal Research Institute for Health Care Organization and Information of MoH&SD of Russian FederationDobrolubov Str. 11RU- 127254 MoscowRussian FederationPhone: +7 4956182731Fax: +7 4956181109E-mail: [email protected]


document.docx 13







Project Partner 3Centre of Prevention and Rehabilitation of Kaliningrad Region; Fund of Overcoming of Demographic Crisis

Ms. Tatyana ZadorkinaCentre of Prevention and Rehabilitation of Kaliningrad Region; Fund of Overcoming of Demographic CrisisUl. Litovsky Val, D. 64ARU- 236006 KaliningradRussian FederationPhone: +7 9097888222Fax: +7 4012467271E-mail: [email protected]

Project Partner 4Icelandic Centre for Social Research and Analysis

Mr. Jón SigfússonIcelandic Centre for Social Research and AnalysisMenntavegi 1IS- 101 ReykjavíkIcelandPhone: +354 8256431Fax: +354 5996201E-mail: [email protected]

Project Partner 5Klaipeda City Public Health Bureau

Ms. Viktorija RičkutėKlaipeda City Public Health BureauTaikos Pr. 76LT - 932000 KlaipėdaLithuaniaPhone: +370 46234796Fax: +370 46234796E-mail: [email protected]

Project Partner 6Klaipeda District Municipality Public Health Bureau

Ms. Neringa TarvydieneKlaipeda District Municipality Public Health BureauKlaipėda Str. 11LT- 96135 GargždaiLithuania Phone: +370 46453754Fax: +370 46470064E-mail: [email protected]

Project Partner 7Nynäshamn Municipality

Ms. Cathrine ForsbergNynäshamn MunicipalityStadshusplatsen 1S- 14981, NynäshamnSwedenPhone: +46 852068394Fax: +46 852013515E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Ola HäggNynäshamn MunicipalityStadshusplatsen 1S- 14981, NynäshamnSwedenPhone: +46 852068423Fax: +46 852010835E-mail: [email protected]

Ms. Cristina RudbergNynäshamn MunicipalityStadshusplatsen 1S- 14981, NynäshamnSwedenPhone: +46 852068268E-mail: [email protected]


document.docx 14








Project Partner 8Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs (C.A.N)

Mr. Håkan LeifmanSwedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs (C.A.N)P.O. Box 70412 Klara Norra Kyrkogata 34SE- 107 25 StockholmSwedenPhone: + 46 4124608Fax: +46 8104641E-mail: [email protected]

Ms. Mia SundelinSwedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs (C.A.N)P.O. Box 70412 Klara Norra Kyrkogata 34SE- 107 25 StockholmSwedenPhone: +46 84124620Fax: +46 8104641E-mail: [email protected]

Project Partner 9Turku University of the Applied Sciences

Dr. Maika KummelTurku University of the Applied SciencesRuiskatu 8FI- 20720 TurkuFinlandPhone: + 358 403550444Fax: +358 226335451E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Susanna MörtTurku University of Applied Sciences,Ruiskatu 8FI- 20720 TurkuFinlandPhone: +358 403550445Fax: +358 226335451E-mail: [email protected]


document.docx 15





_minutes.docx · web viewmr. maciejowski thanked for the overview and gave the word to the...

Documents