harmonised implementation tools - hit towards simplification and streamlining of programme...
TRANSCRIPT
Harmonised Implementation Tools - HIT
Towards simplification and streamlining of
programme implementation
23 October 2013 | Stockholm
2
Why harmonise?
Less administration for programmes and
beneficiaries!
More emphasis on results More strategic monitoring of (the quality of) project’s outputs and results
Attracting new (desired) project partners
Analysis of current practice
3
Tools Number of Programmes analysed
Number of Programmes involved
Budget lines and eligibility criteria
3 Interregional Programmes6 TN Programmes2 CBC Programmes11 Programmes
3 Interregional Programmes9 TN Programmes26 CBC Programmes6 IPA Programmes44 Programmes
44
Administrative and Eligibility Criteria
Quality Assessment Criteria
Strategic and Operational Assessment Criteria
Project Application Form
Project Progress Report
Progress Report Monitoring ChecklistYES
Project selection
Project implementatio
n
PART A – Project SummaryPART B – Project PartnershipPART C – Project DescriptionPART D – Project BudgetPART E – Annexes
PART A – Activity reportPART B – Finance report
Administrative criteriaProject progressProblems, deviations, changesFinancial monitoring
Performance framework
Analysis of current good practice
Legal package
Fact sheets BL
ETC-spec. Indica-tors
FLC certifi-cate
FLC report
FLC check-list
• Joint activities, ETC/INTERREG programmes and ETC + Commission
• Almost 20 templates / fact sheest been drafted until now
• The complete list is available on INTERACT web• More to come, e.g. HIT tool for Communication
being developed this winter, presented in the EU-wide ETC Communication meeting in March 2014 in Finland
• Ambition is that 75 % would use / get inspired by HIT
HIT tools
5
6
• Reasonable harmonisation!• Common foundation on which to build
programme-specific elements
6
Harmonisation does not mean ’identical’!
7
Why harmonise?
Simplification and harmonisation of rules and procedures!
Reduction of errors and irregularities
Efficient programme management
Transparency and accountability
Q: Would you agree that the system needs to be simplified in order to avoid errors? Would you agree that harmonisation brings more legal certainty?
8
Project budget – 5 budget lines1.Staff costs
2.Office and administration3.External services and experts
4.Travel and accommodation5.Equipment and investment
5 budget lines in the Application Form and Project Progress Report
Coherence between budget lines and categories of costs eligible under each lineLOOK: Fact sheets on Budget Lines
Guidance on what costs are eligible: definitions of eligible costs
9
Harmonised approach to cost calculation
LOOK: Fact sheets on Budget LinesGuidance on how to calculate the eligible cost: rules
Example: Staff costs (calculation of hourly rate)Staff working full time on the project
Eligible: total personnel costStaff working part time on the project
Eligible: hours worked on the project * hourly rate
Proposal by the Council:Hourly rate
=
total personnel cost hours worked overall
Hourly rate
=
annual gross employment cost 1720 hours
10
Simplified cost options
Flat rate as defined in the Regulations (no justification required)Staff costs: up to 20% of direct costs other than staff costs (Art. 18 of the
ETC Reg.)Office and administration (indirect costs): up to 15% of direct staff costs
(Art. 58 of CPR)
Standard scale of unit costs defined by individual programmesStaff costs: method required to define fixed rates
Travel and accommodation (daily allowance): max. rates based on Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 337/2007
LOOK: Guidance on simplified cost options in ETC
11
”In my programme monitoring system we use different fields and a different language. How do the HITs relate to existing monitoring systems?”
12
”In my programme, we are currently not asking for a project summary in English/project beneficiary/target group classification. Why would we need to ask for that?”
13
Collecting harmonised data
Necessary to demonstrate the benefit of territorial cooperation
Necessary to make sure that projects capitalise on available knowledge and past results
European Territorial Cooperation
European Territorial CooperationBranding 2007-2013
Status quo of transnational cooperation in a few pictures…
European Territorial Cooperation
European Territorial CooperationBranding 2007-2013
The result is…
… a rather low visibility of European territorial cooperation programmes on all governance levels. At the same time the principles of harmonisation, simplification, result-orientation and better spending as introduced in the new legislation are hardly met when communicating the programmes.
European Territorial Cooperation
European Territorial CooperationBranding 2014-2020
Technical opinion expressed by ETC Programmes over summer: 32 out of 35 programmes responding support the initiative of harmonising branding
Next steps
• Decision on common branding in all ETC technical programme bodies – by mid-December 2013
• Development of common INTERREG logo by a working group made up of Programme representatives and EC (coordinated by INTERACT)– early January 2014
• Consultation of and decision on INTERREG logo (ETC Programmes, process coordinated by INTERACT)– mid-January to mid-March 2014
• Programme variations of common INTERREG logo (coordinated by INTERACT)– Spring 2014
INTERACT Point Turku INTERACT Point Valencia INTERACT Point Viborg
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
INTERACT Point Vienna INTERACT Programme [email protected] [email protected]
INTERACT is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) | European Territorial Cooperation
Thank you for your attention
Please do not hesitate to contact us for any further information or visit www.interact-eu.net