INTERACT Presentation Template

Report
Harmonised
Implementation Tools
- HIT
Towards simplification and
streamlining of programme
implementation
23 October 2013 | Stockholm
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
2
Analysis of current practice
Tools
Number of
Programmes analysed
Number of
Programmes involved
Budget lines and eligibility
criteria
3 Interregional
Programmes
6 TN Programmes
2 CBC Programmes
11 Programmes
3 Interregional
Programmes
9 TN Programmes
26 CBC Programmes
6 IPA Programmes
44 Programmes
3
Legal package
Project selection
Administrative and
Eligibility Criteria
YES
Quality Assessment
Criteria
Strategic and
Operational
Assessment Criteria
Performance framework
ETCspec.
Indicators
Project
Application Form
PART A – Project
Summary
PART B – Project
Partnership
PART C – Project
Description
PART D – Project
Budget
PART E – Annexes
Project
implementation
Fact
sheets
BL
Project
Progress Report
PART A – Activity
report
PART B – Finance
report
FLC
certificate
FLC
checklist
Progress Report
Monitoring
Checklist
Administrative
criteria
Project progress
Problems,
deviations,
changes
Financial
monitoring
FLC
report
Analysis of current good practice
4
HIT tools
• 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
5
Harmonisation does not mean ’identical’!
• Reasonable harmonisation!
• Common foundation on which to build programmespecific elements
6
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?
7
Project budget – 5 budget lines
1. Staff costs
2. Office and administration
3. External services and experts
4. Travel and accommodation
5. 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 line
LOOK: Fact sheets on Budget Lines
 Guidance on what costs are eligible: definitions of eligible
costs
8
Harmonised approach to cost calculation
LOOK: Fact sheets on Budget Lines
 Guidance 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 cost
 Staff working part time on the project
Eligible: hours worked on the project * hourly rate
Hourly rate = total personnel cost
hours worked overall
Proposal by the Council:
Hourly rate = annual gross employment cost
1720 hours
9
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
programmes
 Staff 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
10
”In my programme monitoring
system we use different fields and
a different language. How do the
HITs relate to existing monitoring
systems?”
11
”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?”
12
Collecting harmonised data
 Necessary to demonstrate the benefit of territorial
cooperation
 Necessary to make sure that projects capitalise on
available knowledge and past results
13
European Territorial Cooperation
Branding 2007-2013
European
Territorial
Cooperation
Status quo of transnational cooperation in a few pictures…
European Territorial Cooperation
Branding 2007-2013
European
Territorial
Cooperation
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
Branding 2014-2020
European
Territorial
Cooperation
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
Thank you for your attention
Please do not hesitate to contact us for any further information
or visit www.interact-eu.net
INTERACT Point Turku
[email protected]
INTERACT Point Valencia
[email protected]
INTERACT Point Vienna
[email protected]
INTERACT Programme Secretariat
[email protected]
INTERACT Point Viborg
[email protected]
INTERACT is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) | European Territorial Cooperation

similar documents