of the situation and needs of the civil society...

OF THE SITUATION AND

NEEDS OF THE CIVIL SOCIETY

ORGANIZATIONS FOR

UTILIZATION OF IPA FUNDS

AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

Comparative study

Local Consultative Mechanism for IPA2 EuropeAid/138660/ID/ACT/MK

The Project is financed by the European Union

This document was prepared under the auspices of the “Local Consultative Mechanism for IPA2” Project, supported by EU and implemented by the NGO Info-centre, in partnership

with the Organization of Women of Strumica.

The content of this document is sole responsibility of the NGO Info-centre and shall not be understood to represent the views or positions of the European Union.

Reproduction is allowed for non-commercial purposes with attribution of source.

Comparative study refers to the City of Skopje and the Municipalities Bitola, Strumica and Tetovo

Project: Local Consultative Mechanism for IPA2National Transition Assistance and Institution Building Programme (TAIB) 2013 - IPA, EuropeAid/138660/ID/ACT/MK

Спроведуван од:NGO Info-centre, SkopjeOrganization of Women of Strumica.

Analytical report: Local level capacities to absorb and programme IPA Funds

Case study: City of Skopje

Authors: Marjan Stepanovski, analystLjupco Petkovski, researcher

Date: May 2018

Comparative study of the situation and needs of the civil society organizations for utilization of IPA funds at the local level

3

Content

List of Abbreviations ..................................................................... 4

Project Description ......................................................................... 5

Introduction ................................................................................... 6

Methodology and Subject of Analysis .......................................... 7

Analysis of Situation –Prospects and Challenges for CSOs in Use and Programming of IPA Funds .................................................... 8

Local mechanisms for cooperation and joint participation in EU programmes ........................13

Key Findings and Recommendations ...........................................14

Findinigs ..............................................................................................................................................................14

Recommendations ..........................................................................................................................................15

References and Sources ................................................................ 16

List of Annexes ............................................................................. 18

Annex 1: Questionnaire for interviews/focus group with representatives of the municipal administration .................................................................................................................................................18

Annex 2: Questionnaire for CSOs ............................................................................................................... 20

4

European Union EU

Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance IPA

Civil Society Organisations CSO

Units of local self-government ULS

Sector of economic development, public activities and information technologies SED

Cross-border cooperation programme CBC

List of Abbreviations


5

Programme: National Transition Assistance and Institution Building Programme (TAIB) 2013 - IPA

Project Name: Local Consultative Mechanism for IPA2

Reference No.: EuropeAid/138660/ID/ACT/MK

Contract No.: 12-7455/1

Length: 18 months

Start date: December 19, 2017

End date: June 18, 2019

Name: Foundation NGO Infocentre Skopje Ministry of Finance - CFCD

Government of the Republic of Macedonia – General Secretariat

Role: User Contracting Party

Contact Person: Elena Simonoska Elena Ristomanov Dragana Kolevska

E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Goal: To improve the involvement of local actors in decision-making mechanisms related to the EU accession process.

Objective: Increased involvement of municipalities and local civil society organisations from four statistical regions in programming, monitoring and implementation of IPA2 funds.

Expected results:

1. Analytical reports from the mapping of existing situation and cooperation between municipal administrations and civil society organisations in programming and participation in IPA funding (in municipalities of Bitola, Strumica, Tetovo and the City of Skopje)

2. Study of existing situation, needs and policies of civil society organisations for access to and use of IPA funds.

3. Improved knowledge and increased capacities of municipalities and civil society organisations to participate in the programming of IPA funding and apply for European financing.

4. Improved networking of civil society organisations to follow joint advocacy strategies that reflect the local interests and needs.

5. Preparation of action plans in municipalities to provide for permanent mechanisms for consultations among municipalities, improved contributions and participation of municipalities in programming of funding and platform for joint applications for European funds.

Activities:

1. Identification of local challenges and needs, through consultations, research and analyses.2. Transfer of knowledge through training for municipal administrations and civil society

organisations.3. Development of municipal action plans and establishment of local consultation mechanisms.

Key stakeholders Local civil society organisations, municipalities: Bitola, Tetovo, Strumica and the City of Skopje

Target groups Civil society organisations, local administration

Project Description

6

Introduction

This study provides a comparative overview of situation, needs and policies that influence the use, absorption and programming of IPA funds by the local

civil society organisations in Skopje, Bitola, Strumica and Tetovo. This document was preceded by four analytical reports on capacities of municipalities of Bitola, Tetovo Strumica and the City of Skopje, including the respective local CSOs, to absorb IPA funds.

The four analytical reports were prepared using a unified methodology for collection and analysis of data. The uniform methodological approach allowed for a comparative analysis of different local contexts and for definition of recommendations for improvement of structural dialogue on local level.

Therefore, this comparative study considers the specific local characteristics and situations and makes recommendations for increased and effective participation of SCOs in EU programmes. The key findings of the study also provide the basis on which bespoke training for local CSOs will be designed, aimed to increase and enhance their capacities.


7

The subject of this comparative study is an analysis of the model and effectiveness of participation of CSOs in EU programmes, from the current (2014-2020) and previous

financial perspective of EU, the success of the cooperation between the local CSOs and other local actors (primarily the units of local self-government), and the level of participation in programming of IPA funds. Information and data from many primary and secondary sources was analysed in order to be able to assess and evaluate the capacities of the CSOs.

The preparation of this study relied on a combined methodological approach of research and analysis: questionnaires/online surveys for CSO representatives, semi-structured in-depth interviews with the key actors from CSOs, semi-structured in-depth interviews with representatives of ULS, and analysis of relevant strategic and reference documents.

The analysis of documents1, including primary and secondary sources of information, initially focused on the key strategic documents that offer information on performance of municipal administration and local CSOs, regarding their participation in programming and implementation of EU/IPA programmes.

1 РRelevant reference documents: � Existing strategic frameworks and programmes, planning documents and related action plans, and other referent national strategic documents, including the documents on IPA programming. � Available publications and research on experience and involvement of CSOs in programming period 2007-2013, as well as the available information on ongoing programming period, together with published expectations and projections (available from the processes and stages of programming for period 2014-2020). � Information and data on already supported projects under IPA1, as well as the signed agreements for implementation of projects under IPA2 (that is, corresponding participation of CSOs in programming of EU programmes).

Through semi-structured in-depth interviews with representatives of CSOs and municipal administration, and an additional online survey intended for CSOs (implemented in March and April 2018), we mapped and identified the context of local development interests and self-assessment of existing capacities on the local level. In the preparatory stage, before interviews were conducted, we developed interviewing guidelines with clear instructions and areas of interest, including interviewing questionnaires (annexed to this document). We interviewed representatives of the most prominent CSO and the targeted planning regions.

The online questionnaires were developed and shared with CSOs in the four selected ULSs, listed on the official lists of registered and active organisations, available on the respective websites of of the four municipalities. We took into consideration, as another representative contact list, the database of the IPA2 CSO Mechanism2 . Those activities allowed us to map the existing situation, especially the deficiencies and challenges that demand additional support and intervention. The online questionnaire was completed by 24 active CSOs from the four planning regions that were subject to comparison.

2 IPA2 CSO Mechanism http://www.ipa2cso.mk/

Methodology and Subject of Analysis

8

Over the last decade, a negative trend was noted in Macedonia regarding the number of active CSOs on the local level. One exception were the City of Skopje and the Skopje Planning Region, which boast the greatest concentration of active CSOs in the country. In other words, the civil sector outside of the City of Skopje is not sufficiently active at the moment and has limited capacity to create sustainable and inclusive projects that may influence the development of the local community and the existing development prospects of cities, municipalities and regions.

There was a notable stagnation of activities of the civil sector in the municipalities of Bitola, Tetovo and Strumica, accompanied by limited cooperation with the local administration in general, but also in terms of IPA programmes. Almost 40% of CSOs covered by the survey noted, in the descriptions of their programming focus, that they were focused on national level activities, while only 25% of them emphasized that they worked on local/regional (within the planning region, that is) level.

Regarding concrete areas of work, CSOs work simultaneously on several issues and problems, with youth policies predominating (40%), rule of law and fundamental rights (33%) and democracy (almost 30%). Almost 40% of all organizations note that they focus on different models of sustainable economic development (including rural development, development of tourism, agriculture, etc.). One quarter, 25% of polled CSOs work in the area of culture, and an equal number of them work in education sector.

Analysis of Situation – Prospects and Challenges for CSOs in Use and Programming of IPA Funds

Picture 1: CSOs Programming Focus

Picture 2: Area of work of CSOs

Local (City, municipality)

Regional

National (Macedonia)

International (SEE/interna….)

Decentralisation

Social policies and employment

Democracy

Rule of law and fundamental rights

Culture

Media

Youth and youth policies

Agriculture and rural development

Sustainable and economic development

Tourism

Sport

Education

Services (for the private/public sector)

Other, please note


9

The limited opportunities for financial sustainability, as well as the lack of adequate human resources, were the most common reason for the dropping numbers of active local CSOs. More than 505 of the polled organizations have no employees or permanent staff. One third (33%) reported that they implement their activities with help of people hired on service contracts, while 21% of them used only volunteers. Only 10% of the polled organisations reported they have staff of more than 5 employees.

Regarding CSOs’ annual budgets, one third have annual budgets of up to EUR 5,000, and 29% reported they have annual budgets of up to EUR 100,000. 17% of CSOs boast budgets ranging from EUR 100,001 to EUR 500,000, and majority of them work in Skopje. Almost 60% of Skopje-based polled organisations have annual budgets of up to EUR 100,000.

The amounts of annual budgets of CSOs are related to their capacity for preparation and implementation of larger projects, usually available through EU’s IPA programmes. Almost 46% of the polled CSOs never submitted a project proposal for some of the EU funded programmes. The other organisations have applied, both as lead-applicant and as partners, to EU‘s calls for proposals.

For almost 70% of the CSOs, EU’s IPA programmes offer an opportunity to access funding for their projects for which no national financing is available. Almost 60% of the CSOs believe that IPA programmes enable cooperation and learning from partners/similar organizations, domestic and foreign, while for 40% of the organizations European funds provide opportunity to finance innovative initiatives which would face great difficulties finding financial support from other donors and institutions.

CSO participation in IPA programmes depends on a series of diverse factors. Over 60% of polled

Picture 3: Number of employees of CSOs

Picture 4: Annual budgets of CSOs on national level

Picture 5:CSOs that filed application for an IPA project

We have no employees, just persons

engaged on service contracts

We have no employees or

persons engaged

1

2

3

4

5

More than 5

Up to 5,000

From 5,000 to 20,000

From 20,000 to 50,000

50.001 Up to 100,000

From 100,001 to 500,000

More than 500,000

I don’t know/no answer

Yes, only as lead applicant

Yes, only as a partner

Yes, we have submitted applications both as lead applicants

and as partners

No, we have never submitted

application for IPA funding

10

organizations believe they need more active cooperation with national and local government and institutions (ministries, municipal administrations, etc.), and greater access to co-financing sources. For 72% of CSOs, the percentage of their own contributions (co-financing) necessary for EU funded projects is set too high and presents them with a huge, almost insurmountable obstacle. Also, more than a half of polled CSOs noted the need for greater and improved information and education on project funding opportunities from EU sources, as well as EU‘s development goals. For 64% of the polled CSOs, the key challenge affecting the success of preparation of project-proposals for IPA programmes was the complexity and length of application procedures.

Having all that in mind, we are hardly surprized by the data showing that 45% of CSOs in Macedonia never implemented an IPA funded project. Among CSOs that did implement IPA projects, almost 30% participated in just one project, while the rest took part in three to six IPA projects. Only one organization implemented more than eight IPA projects, both under the previous and the current financial perspective. CSOs participated with a municipality or a public enterprise in the implementation of just four IPA funded projects.

Picture 6: Benefits for CSOs from participation in EU programmes

Picture 7: CSOs that implemented IPA projects

Picture 8: Capacity building

Financial benefits

Access to funds for projects for which

no national financing is available

Financing of innovative initiatives which wouldn’t exist without EU support

Development of new partnerships

through multiple sectors and levels

Working with and learning

from partners/similar organisations from other

countries

Sense of belonging to Europe

Don’t know/no answer

Your organisation

Public institutions

(Government)/institutions responsible

for EU integrations

Public institutions

(Government) and your organisation

Public institutions

(Government), your organisation and other

partners

Employees who work (will work) in

that area

Don’t know/no answer

Yes

No


11

Regarding the expertise of the staff charged with preparation and implementation of IPA projects, CSOs note that they need additional education and upgrading of their skills. They locate the responsibility for capacity building primarily within their respective CSOs, followed by public institutions directly involved in processes of Macedonian accession to EU.

One requirement that need to be met to use funds from EU‘s IPA programmes is for users to provide a share of co-financing. Just 10% of polled CSOs are able to provide the full amount of the necessary co-financing, while 50% of the polled said they can secure just a fraction of the necessary co-financing. Full 40$ of the CSOs can‘t secure any co-financing whatsoever.

Regarding the issue of overcoming key challenges and obstacles to greater absorption and use of IPA funds, 70% of CSOs propose creation of dedicated funds for co-financing of EU projects. A high proportion of 65% believe that procedures for application, reporting and audit of projects need to be simplified.

Almost 80% of the CSOs never cooperated with ULS/Regional Development Centre/Public enterprise in preparation or implementation of IPA project. Also, 78% of the polled CSOs have not been involved in processes of programming of IPA programmes or some other EU programme.

Picture 9: Financial condition of CSOs

Picture 10: Obstacles to CSOs participation in IPA

Picture 9: Cooperation of CSOs with ULS

We can provide the full co-financing on

our own

We can provide only a fragment of the necessary co-financing

We can’t provide any co-financing

Don’t know/No answer

Training, workshops, seminars, etc.

Simplified rules by EU’s IPA programmes

Activities of national support bodies

Activities to promote the

Programmes (more publications, info-days)

Creation of special funds for co-financing of

EU projects

Access to adequate sources of

co-financing (banks, other financial institutions, etc. )

Simplified procedures for

administration and financial management

of projects

Simplified procedures for

application, reporting and auditing of projects

Yes

No

12

� Direct involvement of SCSs in wider consultation processes;

� Training for personnel that would be charged with the work on IPA programmes;

� Better information and alleviation of rules for participation in the programmes (translation of programmes into Macedonian language);

� Efficient models of cooperation, financial support and co-financing by ULS/state institutions;

� More detailed information, training and instructions for CSO involvement;

� Stimulations for involvement of small and newly-established organizations in IPA programmes;

� Promotion and building of partnerships.

� Introduction to IPA programmes;

� Use and application to IPA programmes;

� Project management, with practical examples;

� Financial management and procurement/tender procedures in accordance with PRAG;

� Project preparation, and

� Securing finances.

� Networking of similar organizations/creation of a network of organisations working in the same field;

� Increased availability and involvement of municipalities and other actors in preparation of project-proposals;

� Greater openness of ULS;

� Strategy of cooperation with CSOs, with clear monitoring mechanisms, with participation by CSOs;

� Joint trainings aimed at learning and exchange of experience;

� Municipal co-financing for IPA projects;

� Stimulus for joint participation in IPA, while evaluation of application would judge the joint participation of municipalities and civil society organisations;

� Regular meetings to promote increased cooperation, development of joint ideas and participation in joint projects of CSOs and municipalities.

CSO representatives believe that their participation in IPA programmes could be increased through the following:

Regarding training that would be useful to improve CSOs capacities for increased absorption of IPA funds, the polled CSOs noted the need of training in the following areas:

To improve the cooperation between CSOs, municipalities and other actors, the CSOs propose the following:


13

Local mechanisms for cooperation and joint participation in EU programmes

All municipalities covered by this project have declared their political will to increase their participation in absorption and programming of IPA funds, and for

an improved and better organized cooperation with the civil sector.

The local authorities, without exception, view the civil society organisations as a potential and useful partner, both in preparation and application and in implementation of projects related to local development, financed by EU and other donors. Civil society organisations, too, believe that cooperation with municipalities is of extreme importance, increasing the chances for improved and more purposeful use of donor support, especially funds projected by the European IPA programmes.

However, the analysis indicates that, in practice, the cooperation between municipal administrations and CSOs is mostly ad hoc, through the sectors of local economic development or international cooperation (depending on the actual systemisation of jobs and positions). None of the local self-governments covered by the project has a special department of cooperation with the civil sector. It is civil society organisations that usually approach a municipality with requests for support to local projects when applying projects with foreign donors. Municipalities usually respond positively to such proposals and secure endorsement and support letters. This mode of cooperation should be improved from the stage of basic declarative support to effective partner cooperation on implementation of joint projects. The communication and cooperation needs to intensify in both directions and channelled properly, that is, grow from ad hoc initiative into well-planned and coordinated strategic cooperation. That will allow ULSs and CSOs to work together on projects and increase their chanced to use IPA funds and other donor funds and programmes to benefit local development.

All units of local self-government involved in this survey have annual programmes for support of the civil sector. The distribution of funds from municipal budgets is conducted through public calls that define areas of interest, as well as terms of reference and necessary documents that need to be presented with an application. With exception of the Municipality of Strumica, which allocates over 3 million MKD annually to support the local civil sector, the other municipalities, including the City of Skopje, earmark only 2 million MKD from their respective budgets. The programming of allocated funds, i.e., their inadequacy compared to the key local strategic priorities, and the absence of proper evaluation and monitoring of submitted projects remain a cause of concern. CSOs note that the model of selection and evaluation of project-proposals needs to be improved, with emphasis on the transparency of the whole process. The practice to level all projects in line with “equal distribution to all” principle still prevails in some ULSs, without prior analysis of effects of activities and their relation to the strategic development goals and priorities. That practice doesn‘t contribute to sustainability and development of the civil sector or, for that matter, to the development of the municipality.

As far as strategic framework of cooperation with CSOs is concerned, only the Municipality of Strumica has a strategy of cooperation with CSOs in place, covering the period 2015-2020. On national level, the Municipality of Strumica was a leader of a sort in terms of success of the model of structural dialogue and effective cooperation with CSOs, and also in terms of sectoral support for civil sector’s activities. One cause of concern is the trend of deterioration of those practices, that is, the reduced participation of CSOs in processes of creation of strategic documents and local policies. An opinion prevails with civic activists that the municipal administrations lack the will to cooperate with the civil sector, so, they advocate preparation of a new strategies that will prescribe measures and activities for improvement of the mutual cooperation.

14

Findinigs � The civil sector, outside of the City of Skopje, is not sufficiently active at the moment and has limited capacity to create sustainable and inclusive projects that may influence the development of the local community and the existing development prospects of cities, municipalities and regions.

� The limited opportunities for financial sustainability, as well as the lack of adequate human resources, were the most common reason for the dropping numbers of active local CSOs.

� For the majority of organisations the percentage of their own contributions (co-financing) necessary for EU funded projects is set too high and presents them with a huge, almost insurmountable obstacle.

� All units of local self-government have declared their political will to increase their participation in absorption and programming of IPA funds, and for an improved and better organized cooperation with the civil sector.

� The local authorities, without exception, view the civil society organisations as a potential and useful partner, both in preparation and application, as well as implementation of projects related to local development.

� In practice, the cooperation between municipal administrations and CSOs is mostly on ad hoc basis, through the sectors of local economic development or international cooperation while none of the local self-governments has a special department of cooperation with the civil sector.

� It is civil society organisations that usually approach a municipality with requests for support to local projects when applying projects with foreign donors.

� Municipalities have annual programmes for support of the civil sector to the amount of 2 million MKD. Only the Municipality of Strumica allocates more than 3 million MKD annually from its budget for civil society organisations.

� The programming of allocated funds is not in line with key local strategic priorities, and there is no adequate and transparent model for selection and evaluation of submitted projects .

� Only the Municipality of Strumica has a strategy of cooperation with CSOs in place, covering the period 2015-2020.

� An opinion prevails with civic activists that the municipal administrations lack the will to cooperate with the civil sector, so, they advocate preparation of a new strategies that will prescribe measures and activities for improvement of the mutual cooperation.

Key Findings and Recommendations


15

Recommendations � The declared political will of the municipal administrations to cooperate and partner with civil society organisations needs to materialise in reality.

� The municipalities that have not adopted strategies of cooperation with the civil sector need to start that process as soon as possible, with active participation and involvement of civic activists.

� The strategic documents should provide a clear framework and models of cooperation and partnership between municipalities and civil society organisations, to facilitate local development and support for civil activism.

� The municipalities should create special departments of cooperation with the civil sector and to appoint specialists for communication with civil society organisations.

� The annual support for CSOs by municipalities should be planned in accordance with strategic development priorities, should be increased and selection process should be made more transparent.

� The municipalities should prepare and adopt action plans for increased participation and absorption of donor funds, especially regarding funds from the IPA programmes. The preparation of such plans should actively involve the civil society organisations.

� Municipalities and civil society organisations should work together to consider and advance possibilities for joint, partner application of projects focused on the development of the local community as their main goal. Such a partnership would be beneficial for both sides. For the civil society organisations, among other things, it will mean a possibility for a municipality to secure the necessary co-financing funds.

� An improved cooperation between CSOs and ULS on local level could have significant influence on joint participation in cross-border cooperation programmes, a practice that could present an excellent model for future joint projects and cooperation.

� Both municipalities and civil society organisations should pay greater attention to the development of their internal human resource capacities, especially in view of better utilisation and implementation of projects supported by IPA programmes. Training focused on IPA programmes and other EU funds is necessary, including preparation of project-proposals, project management, financial management, introduction to PRAG, communication skills, public advocacy, etc.

16

Documents

� Стратегија за локален економски развој на Општина Битола 2014-2018. Општина Битола, 2014

� Стратегија за локален економски развој на Општина Битола 2012-2015. Општина Битола, 2011

� Стратегија за локален економски развој на Општина Струмица 2016-2020. Општина Струмица, 2016

� Стратегија на Општина Струмица за соработка со граѓанскиот сектор: 2015-2020. Општина Струмица, 2015

� Стратегија за млади на општина Струмица 2015-2020. Општина Струмица, 2015

� Стратегија на Општина Струмица за развој на образованието: 2015-2020. Општина Струмица, 2015

� Стратегија за социјална заштита на граѓаните на Општина Струмица: 2015-2020. Општина Струмица, 2015

� Стратегија за одржлив развој на Општина Тетово за периодот 2017-2021. Општина Тетово, 2017

� Стратегија за ЛЕР стратегија со акционен план за локален економски развој на Град Скопје, за период 2014-2017 година

� Стратегијата на Град Скопје за соработка со граѓанските организации за период 2013-2016 година

� Годишни Програми за поддршка на локалниот економски развој во Град Скопје

� Macedonia - Albania IPA CBC programme 2007-2013

� Macedonia – Kosovo IPA CBC programme 2007-2013

� Macedonia - Greece IPA CBC programme 2007-2013

� Macedonia – Bulgaria IPA CBC programme 2007-2013

� Macedonia - Albania IPA CBC programme 2014-2020

� Macedonia – Kosovo IPA CBC programme 2014-2020

� Macedonia – Bulgaria IPA CBC programme 2014-2020

� Macedonia - Greece IPA CBC programme 2014-2020

� Multicountry indicative strategy paper (2014-2020)

� Multicountry indicative strategy paper (2014-2020)

References and Sources


17

� Cross-border cooperation: European priority and political objective of the EU

� Analysis of CSOs involvement in Cross-border cooperation programmes, Summary of the draft report for conference participants

Websites

� Official website of the Central Database on foreign assistance of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia http://cdad.sep.gov.mk/

� Official website of the Municipality of Bitola http://bitola.gov.mk/

� Official website of the Municipality of Tetovo http://www.tetova.gov.mk/

� Official website of the Municipality of Strumica http://www.strumica.gov.mk/

� Official website of the City of Skopje http://www.skopje.gov.mk/

� Official website of the Ministry of Local Self-Government http://mls.gov.mk/

18

Annex 1: Questionnaire for interviews/focus group with representatives of the municipal administration 1. List EU’s Programmes in which you have participated (used them) as a municipality (in the period from

2007 to this day)?

2. Number of submitted project proposals (in the period from 2007 to this day)?

3. Number of implemented projects (in the period from 2007 to this day)?

4. Which are the main benefits from the participation of municipalities in EU programmes?

� Development of partnerships in different sectors, focus and levels

� Working with partners (national and foreign) and exchange of knowledge and experience

� Financial benefits and financing of innovative initiatives

� Support for public-private partnerships (new models of cooperation with the local businesses)

5. How would you assess the expertise of the employees that work on projects financed by EU programmes?

� Fully trained

� Additional training is needed

� Minor abilities/abilities on level of basic information

� Insufficient ability and experience

� Have no information/No answer

6. Where do you locate the deficit of expert abilities of the employees?

� Experience

� Project management

� Knowledge of foreign languages

� Formal education

� Additional training

List of Annexes


19

7. In your opinion, to what extent the internal capacities and experience influence the absorption of EU funds?

� Fully influences the absorption of EU funds

� Has great influence on the absorption of EU funds

� Has no influence on the absorption of EU funds

� Has little influence on the absorption of EU funds

8. In your opinion, how could the Municipality increase its participation in EU programmes?

� Trainings, workshops, seminars, etc.

� Enhanced activities of national support bodies

� Increased promotion of the programmes and the benefits they bring

� Improved inter-sectoral cooperation in preparation of project proposals that respond to real local needs

� Adequate planning and correlation of local and national strategies with EU’s Financial perspectives/programmes

9. Which of the listed potential/existing partners you find most useful for preparation and implementation of project under EU programmes?

� Public institutions/enterprises

� Business sector

� Civil society organisations/foundations

20

Annex 2: Questionnaire for CSOs1. In which municipality is your organisation registered?

� Strumica

� Skopje

� Tetovo

� Bitola

2. In general terms, what is the programming focus, that is, the geographic level of operation of your organisation? Which of the options listed below best reflects your work?

� Local (city, municipality)

� Regional (within the planning region)

� National (Macedonia)

� International (SEE/international)

� Other, please note

3. What is the area of operation (sectoral focus) of your organisation? Please choose from the list below (you may select up to two answers)

� Decentralisation

� Social policies and employment

� Democracy

� Rule of law and fundamental rights

� Culture

� Media

� Youth and youth policies

� Agriculture and rural development

� Sustainable and economic development

� Tourism

� Sport

� Education

� Services (for the private/public sector)


4. How many persons are employed by your organisation at the moment?

� We have no employees, just persons engaged on service contracts

� We have no employees or persons engaged on service contracts, we work on voluntary basis

� 1

� 2

� 3

� 4

� 5

� More than 5


21

5. What is your average annual budget for the past five years (in EUR)?

� Up to 5,000

� From 5,000 to 20,000

� From 20,000 to 50,000

� 50.001 Up to 100,000

� From 100,001 to 500,000

� More than 500,000

� I don’t know/no answer

6. Has your organisation ever submitted a project application for financing from IPA funds, either as lead organisation or partner?

� Yes, only as lead applicant

� Yes, only as a partner

� Yes, we have submitted applications both as lead applicants and as partners

� No, we have never submitted application for IPA funding

7. In your opinion, which are the main benefits from the participation of your organisation in EU’s IPA programmes? (you may select more than one answer)

� Financial benefits

� Access to funds for projects for which no national financing is available

� Financing of innovative initiatives which wouldn’t exist without EU support

� Development of new partnerships through multiple sectors and levels

� Working with and learning from partners/similar organisations from other countries

� Sense of belonging to Europe

� Don’t know/no answer

8. Which of the listed general terms/factors would contribute to greater utilisation of EU’s IPA funds? (you may select more than one answer)

� Information about project opportunities from EU sources

� More active support for lead institutions (ministries, contact points, municipalities, etc.)

� Development and promotion of a culture of public-private partnerships

� (Greater) accessibility of external sources of co-financing

� Improved information and education about EU’s development goals

� Don’t know/No answer

9. List the key challenges that influence the success of preparation of project proposals for IPA programmes? (you may select more than one answer)

� Applications are in English

� Complex and time-consuming application procedures

� Inadequate criteria for evaluation of project applications

� Insufficiently transparent process of evaluation of project applications

� Lack of adequate partners (for joint application and implementation of projects)

� Problems with ownership of projects

� Huge competition for limited funding

� High percentage of co-financing needed

� Complex and inflexible procedures for monitoring, reporting and evaluation of projects

22

10. Do you implement/have you ever implemented project financed by IPA funds?

� Yes

� No

11. How many IPA projects have you implemented? (including ongoing projects, if any)

12. Did you implement the project(s) as …

� Lead applicant only

� Partner organisation only

� We have implemented projects in both capacities

13. You have implemented a project in partnership with which of the following entities? (you may select more than one answer)

� Units of local self-government (municipalities)

� NGOs

� Centres for regional development

� Public enterprises

� Private sector


14. Projects you implement/have implemented were covered by which IPA programme?

� IPA Cross Border Programme

� IPA Operational Programme for Human Resources Development

� IPA Civil Society Facility

� IPA II

� Other programme, please explain…

15. Does your organisation have employees responsible for preparation and implementation of project-proposals under EU’s IPA programmes?

� Yes

� No

� Other model, please explain

16. How many employees in your organisation are responsible and trained to prepare and implement project proposals under the EU’s IPA Programmes?

� 0

� 1

� 2

� 3

� 4

� 5

� More than 5

17. How would you assess the expertise of employees responsible for preparation and implementation of IPA projects?

� Fully trained

� They need some additional education and training

� Their knowledge is on the level of basic information about the project, training and abilities are insufficient

� Insufficient experience

� No experience



23

� Other, please explain

18. If you find your employees to be insufficiently trained, where do you locate that lack of expertise and training? (you may select more than one answer)

� Knowledge of foreign languages/English language

� Education and training

� Knowledge about the subject of project management

� Experience



19. In your opinion, who shall be responsible for building of capacities of your organisation’s staff to prepare and implement EU projects? (you may select more than one answer)

� Your organisation

� Public institutions (Government)/institutions responsible for EU integrations

� Public institutions (Government) and your organisation

� Public institutions (Government), your organisation and other partners

� Employees who work (will work) in that area



20. If no employee works on preparation of projects, would your institution:

� Train some of the existing staff

� Seek services from an external consultant(s)

� Employ a qualified person(s)



21. One requirement for use of funds from EU’s IPA programmes is for users to provide a share of co-financing. How would you estimate the financial condition of your organisation?

� We can provide the full co-financing on our own

� We can provide only a fragment of the necessary co-financing

� We can’t provide any co-financing


22. How would you evaluate the access to sources of co-financing for IPA projects?

� There are sufficient external sources of co-financing

� There are too few external sources of co-financing

� There are no external sources of co-financing


23. Which (potential) partners you can count on for the co-financing of projects of your organisation? (you may select more than one answer)

� Organisations that work in the same field and area of interest

� Municipalities/ULS/Public enterprises

� Public institutions (on national/regional level)

� Business sector

� Chambers of commerce

� Banks

� Other financial institutions

� Other partners

24


24. Which of the activities listed below may help overcome the obstacles to greater use of EU’s IPA funds? (you may select more than one answer)

� Training, workshops, seminars, etc.

� Simplified rules by EU’s IPA programmes

� Activities of national support bodies (assistance to find funding opportunities, finding partners and preparation of applications)

� Activities to promote the Programmes (more publications, info-days)

� Creation of special funds for co-financing of EU projects

� Access to adequate sources of co-financing (banks, other financial institutions, etc. )

� Simplified procedures for administration and financial management of projects

� Simplified procedures for application, reporting and auditing of projects

25. Have you cooperated with ULS/Centre for regional development/Public enterprise in preparation or implementation of IPA project?

� Yes

� No

� If yes, please note which Municipality/Centre for regional development/Public enterprise was involved

26. Have you ever been involved (as a CSO or as representative of the civil sector) in processes of programming of IPA programme or other EU programme?

� Yes

� No

� If Yes, please note in which form – consultation meetings/processes, as contributor, etc.

27. In your opinion, how could your organisation’s participation in IPA programmes be increased?

28. Please list what types of trainings would your find useful to increase the capacities of your organisation for greater absorption of IPA funds?

29. Do you have some proposal to stimulate and promote cooperation between CSOs, municipalities and other actors to facilitate cooperation regarding IPA programmes?