Committee of Senior Representatives (CSR)Twenty-fifth MeetingStockholm, Sweden21-22 October 2015

Title Minutes from the 25th Meeting of the NDPHS Committee of Senior Representatives

Submitted by Secretariat

Summary / Note This document outlines the main discussion points and decisions made during the 25th meeting of the CSR

Annexes Annex 1 – Generic Expert Group’s Terms of ReferenceAnnex 2 – Individual Expert Groups’ Terms of ReferenceAnnex 3 – NDPHS Work Plan for 2016Annex 4 - Definition of various types of projects vis-à-vis which the NDPHS plays a roleAnnex 5 – NDPHS procedure for issuing letters of support to projects applying for Interreg Baltic Sea Region Programme 2014-2020Annex 6 – NDPHS criteria and procedure for issuing letters of support for Policy Area Health project applications for submission to the EUSBSR Seed Money FacilityAnnex 7 – List of participantsAnnex 8 – List of documents submitted to the meeting

1. Opening of the meeting and welcome

The meeting was opened and chaired by Ms. Dagmar Reitenbach, the NDPHS Chair Country Representative, the Federal Ministry of Health of Germany.

Ms. Agneta Karlsson, State Secretary to the Minister for Health Care, Public Health and Sport, Sweden, who welcomed the participants on behalf of Sweden, stressed that, whereas the overall healthcare in the Northern Dimension area is good and many areas are improving, the inequity within different groups in society and between and within the cities is growing. The equity of healthcare, which is an important issue for the Swedish government, does not only concern health itself, but also other areas such as education, city planning and environment. Reaching this equity in the long run requires patient-centeredness and treating everybody as an individual. However, equity does not concern treatment, but also the prevention of diseases, which again is an issue that is not just for the healthcare system to deal with. The primary care system needs to be strengthened, for which, for example, knowledge-based IT technology can be helpful with which patients can monitor their own health.

Further, she emphasized that a global commitment to combat AMR is needed, for example by supporting and implementing the WHO global action plan and by creating knowledge by systematically collecting data from local, regional and global surveillance programmes. The NDPHS can substantially contribute to this important task. She wished the Partnership a lot of success with implementing the new Strategy and Action Plan with the newly established Expert Groups.

document.docx 1

2. Adoption of the agenda

The Chair proposed to discuss agenda item 9.2 as the first item on the second day of the meeting after the welcome by the Swedish State Secretary, due to the AMR TG Chair’s availability.

The Meeting adopted the Provisional agenda with timetable (cf. document CSR 25/2/1) with the requested change included.

3. Information by the NDPHS Chairmanship and the NDPHS Secretariat

While recalling that the NDPHS Strategy 2020 and its accompanying Action Plan have been adopted, Germany thanked all those involved for their constructive work.

The Secretariat informed that the 23rd Meeting of the Northern Dimension Steering Group on 28 May 2015 in Brussels, Belgium, confirmed the formalization of the observer status of Belarus by amending paragraph 8 of the ND Policy Framework document to read: "The Northern Dimension Policy includes Belarus as an observer. This was granted by the Northern Dimension partners in the context of the second Northern Dimension Ministerial Meeting, which was held in Oslo on 2 November 2010. Belarus is invited to participate fully in all Northern Dimension partnerships and any other practical Northern Dimension cooperation in accordance with their rules and practices".

The Meeting took note of the presented information, encouraged all Expert Groups to involve Belarusian partners whenever possible and mandated the Secretariat to send a diplomatic note with the Chair Country’s letter to the Belarusian Ministry of Foreign Affairs informing that Belarusian experts are welcome to participate fully in the NDPHS, also including meetings of the NDPHS Expert Groups.

With reference to document CSR 25/3/Info 1, the Secretariat informed about the successful completion of the Secretariat-led project “Building capacity in prevention of HIV and associated infections among youth at high risk in the Northern Dimension Area” and thanked the EU for its co-financing and all Project Partners for their engagement and support. The HIV/AIDS & AI EG ITA summarized the main activities implemented within the project and emphasized that the project concluded that there is a big need for prevention work among the target group, children and youth at high risk of getting HIV and associated infections. She further thanked the Secretariat for its very accurate and good management of the project.

Russia stated that the project was not formally supported by the CSR and Russia has stated several times that all Russian experts providing data for any NDPHS project must be verified by the Ministry of Health and it was not the case in this project. The data provided within the project does not correspond to the official data.

The Meeting agreed to postpone the issue raised by Russia until agenda item 7.

Further, the Secretariat informed about the state of affairs of the Secretariat-led EU co-financed project “Northern Dimension Antibiotic Resistance Study (NoDARS)”, for which the first year of the implementation has just been completed. Further, with reference to document CSR 25/3/Info 3, it informed about the progress in the implementation of the “PA Health Support” project It highlighted that many of the planned activities have already been successfully implemented. For example, the NDPHS side-event to the 24th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) featuring the topic “Health is wealth and wealth is health” has received very positive feedback

document.docx 2

from the participating parliamentarians and the conclusions from the side-event were reflected in the BSPC resolution (cf. document CSR 25/3/Info3). Further, the speech of the Parliamentary State Secretary to the Federal Minister of Health of Germany, Ms. Annette Widmann-Mauz1 during the BSPC increased the partnership’s visibility. The Secretariat thanked the EU for the financial support provided for the previously mentioned three projects led by the Secretariat.

The Meeting took note of the presented information.

Finally, the Secretariat informed that in case the Partnership would like to receive funding from the ENI Regional East Programme next year, it would need to make an assessment of the work done so far with financial support from the Programme and agree on priority areas that could be subject to the EU’s support.

Russia noted that before giving its approval, it would need to know the conditions for this kind of financial support.

The Meeting mandated the Secretariat to (i) carry out such an assessment in cooperation with the respective Expert Groups and to present it to the CSR (ii) approach all NDPHS Expert Groups for their possible proposals regarding priority (project) ideas to be compiled by the Secretariat into one paper by the end of January, which would be submitted to the CSR for endorsement, before being sent to the European Commission.

4. Information by the NDPHS Partners

WHO Europe informed about the outcomes of the recently held Regional Committee meeting in September 2015, which focused on the work on inter-sectorial actions, which is part of the implementation of Health 2020. WHO also presented and adopted a new vision on strengthening people-centeredness, which fits well to the NDPHS Strategy. In addition, several action plans have been adopted. Further, Heads of States of all UN Members States have adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals, of which one is focusing explicitly on health and many others are linked to health and its social determinants.

Sweden informed that within the framework of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council the BEAC Working Group on Health and Related Social Issues is currently chaired by the Murmansk region and Sweden. A new framework for collaboration covering the period 2016-2019 was adopted at a recent meeting in Lulea, which sets communicable diseases (as Tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS), non-communicable diseases and targeting vulnerable children and youth as the top three thematic programmes of the group’s work in the future.

Estonia informed that Ms. Liis Rooväli had left the Ministry of Social Affairs and Mr. Jürgen Ojalo had taken over her NDPHS-related duties.

Russia informed that after structural changes within Russia as well as the European Union, the development of joint priorities of the EUSBSR Action Plan and the Strategy for the socio-economic development of the North-West Federal District of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020 is continuing to develop possibilities for future cooperation. Furthermore, the Strategy for the socio-economic development of the North-West Federal District of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020 is currently being reviewed.

The Meeting took note of the presented information.

1 Available from: http://www.ndphs.org/?speeches,2015.

document.docx 3

5. Future NDPHS expert-level structures

5.1 Generic Expert Group Terms of Reference

With reference to document CSR 25/5.1/1, the EGTOR 2015 Chair introduced the draft generic Expert Group Terms of Reference (ToR) and thanked the members of the EGTOR for their productive participation. He briefly summarized the development process and stressed that according to the current proposal there will be no distinction between Expert and Task Groups any more. He emphasized that after the adoption of the generic and individual Terms of Reference, the newly established Expert Groups would still have a possibility to review their own ToR and approach the CSR with requests for amendments to be approved through a silent procedure.

Germany highlighted the importance of finalizing the necessary steps during the meeting to be able to present the established expert level structures to the ministers during PAC 11.

Norway suggested adding the words “if possible” on page 3, V. “Lead Partner and co-Lead Partner,” so that the first sentence of the second paragraph will read: “In the case that the Lead Partner or the co-Lead Partner decides to step down, prior to its resignation, it should inform the CSR of its intentions and propose a replacement, if possible.” Further, on page 5, VIII. “Coordination, Supervision and Financial Aspects,” regarding the Lead Partner’s financial responsibilities, in the last paragraph the employment costs of the Vice Chair are included. This should be deleted, since it is the Vice Chair country’s or organization’s responsibility to finance this position. The changed wording under V. and VIII. should be revised in the individual Terms of Reference, correspondingly.

The EGTOR 2015 Chair clarified that all changes made to the generic Terms of Reference will also automatically be included in the Individual Terms of Reference.

Russia asked for item III. “Aims and functions” to be changed to allow for Expert Groups that are chaired by Russia to have English and Russian as official languages.

Having thoroughly discussed the issue, the Meeting agreed on the following wording:“The official language of the Expert Group is English.If Russia is the Lead Partner of the Expert Group, the official languages are English and Russian. Such meetings are conducted in English, documents are provided in both languages. Related costs for translation and interpretation, if necessary, are covered by the Russian Federation.”

The Meeting thanked Estonia for leading the EGTOR work and approved the generic Terms of Reference, with the amendments requested by Norway and Russia included (cf. Annex 1 to the Meeting minutes).

5.2 Establishment of the NDPHS expert-level structures and adoption of their individual Terms of Reference

With reference to document CSR 25/5.2/1, the Partners announced/confirmed their readiness to lead and co-lead future NDPHS Expert Groups:

Finland confirmed its readiness to lead the Expert Group on HIV, AIDS and Associated Infections and an Expert Group on Occupational Safety and Health.

document.docx 4

Poland announced its readiness to co-Chair the Expert Group on HIV, AIDS and Associated Infections.

Russia confirmed its readiness to lead the Expert Group on Non-communicable Diseases and the Expert Group on Primary Healthcare.

Norway confirmed its readiness to lead the Expert Group on Alcohol and Substance Abuse.

Germany confirmed its readiness to lead the Expert Group on Prison Health.

Sweden confirmed its readiness to lead the Expert Group on Antimicrobial Resistance and to co-lead an Expert Group on Primary Healthcare.

Latvia announced its readiness to co-Chair the Expert Group on Prison Health.

Germany thanked Latvia for its commitment and announced its readiness to co-Chair the Expert Group on Antimicrobial Resistance.

The Chair thanked all Partner Countries for their commitment and noted that the OSH, ASA and NCD Expert Groups still needed a co-Chair.

The Meeting took note of the announcements and confirmations with appreciation and established the following NDPHS Expert Groups:

Expert Group on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR EG); Expert Group on Alcohol and Substance Abuse (ASA EG); Expert Group on HIV, AIDS and Associated Infections (HIV, AIDS&AI EG); Expert Group on Non-communicable Diseases (NCD EG); Expert Group on Occupational Safety and Health (OSH EG); Expert Group on Prison Health (PH EG); Expert Group on Primary Healthcare (PHC EG).

Further, with reference to document CSR 25/5.2/2, the EGTOR 2015 Chair introduced the Terms of Reference for the individual NDPHS Expert Groups. He asked the Secretariat to insert the new information about co-Chair countries in the respective documents. Further, he introduced a proposal of the HIV/AIDS&AI EG to rename the group to “Expert Group on HIV, TB and Associated Infections” to make the title more in line with the Action Plan.

Sweden announced that Russia and Sweden have agreed on the name “Expert Group on Primary Healthcare”.

Germany announced that it agreed on the name “Expert Group on Prison Health”.

Following a remark from the NCD EG Chair regarding the overlapping of several objectives, the EGTOR 2015 Chair highlighted that the Expert Groups are welcome to include more than the currently listed objectives in their ToR and, in case more than one group works on one issue, they should cooperate to avoid overlapping.

Russia and Germany supported this idea.

document.docx 5

The ASA EG Chair stressed the importance of the EG Chairs & ITAs meetings, which should be used not only to discuss administrative issues, but also to exchange views about health issues. This is a necessity to achieve the planned results.

Having thoroughly discussed the issue, the Meeting;

Agreed to change the name of the EG on HIV/AIDS & AI to EG on HIV, TB and Associated Infections (EG HIV,TB & AI);

Agreed on the model of the individual Terms of Reference for the groups, with the revisions agreed in the generic Terms of Reference included in all individual Terms of Reference (cf. Annex 2 to the Meeting minutes);

Invited the Expert Groups to discuss their individual Terms of Reference during their first meetings and submit their proposed revisions concerning their own Terms of Reference through the Secretariat to the CSR for final adoption through a written silent procedure.

5.3 Other matters

The Chair requested the Partners to nominate experts to the newly established groups and suggested that the Secretariat would send a letter with a formal request to the Partners to nominate their experts within two weeks.

Sweden and Finland voiced their concerns that this time might be too short.

The Meeting mandated the Secretariat to send a letter with a formal request to the Partners to nominate their experts as soon as possible.

6. NDPHS Work Plan for 2016

The Secretariat introduced a proposed NDPHS Work Plan for 2016 (submitted as document CSR 25/6/1) and drew the Meeting’s attention to the fact that the individual work plans of the Expert Groups were not included since during this transitional year the groups were not in a position to develop them. However, Action Line 1, specific action 1.1 foresees that the Expert Groups would develop work plans and discuss and adopt them during their first meetings and, finally, submit these plans to the CSR meeting in spring 2016. The Secretariat also noted that the Chair Country raised this proposal during the 19th EG Chair and ITAs meeting and there had been no objections voiced against this idea.

Further, the Secretariat drew the Meeting’s attention to the fact that Action lines 1 and 2 contain references to three documents to be discussed during the CSR 25 meeting. If revisions were made in those documents, they would also be included in the Work Plan.

Finally, the Secretariat encouraged the Expert Groups to update their sections of the NDPHS website, since some of them were last updated a very long time ago and contained references to, e.g. work plans from 2010, and, therefore, urgently required updating/revision.

Germany suggested, in order to ease the groups’ work burden, that work plans can also be developed biennially.

The Secretariat emphasized that there will soon be new funding opportunities announced, which is why it would be important that the groups consider if they would like to apply for funding to be

document.docx 6

able to implement their actions in the NDPHS Action Plan. Having work plans developed would certainly facilitate the groups’ dialogue with the Secretariat regarding fund-raising.

The NCD EG Chair, the HIV/AIDS & AI EG Chair, the PPHS EG Chair and Sweden supported the proposal.

Sweden raised concerns that for the new Expert Groups to already adopt work plans during their first meeting is too ambitious.

The ASA EG ITA agreed with the concerns expressed by Sweden. He also mentioned that the proposed specific actions were too general and far from specific. He further proposed that, before such a document is presented to the CSR next time, it should be shared with the groups so they will know what kind of responsibilities they are taking on and would have time to discuss it within the group.

Germany, the NCD EG Chair and the HIV/AIDS&AI EG Chair stated that it should be possible for groups that are continuing their work to develop their work plans until March 2016. However, it might be more difficult for Expert Groups that are completely newly set up.

Norway added, regarding the continuation of the existing groups, that the current experts have to be asked if they want to continue their work, there will be internal discussions within the Ministry who the representatives in the different groups should be, and only after that the groups will be fully operational.

The Meeting adopted the proposed NDPHS Work Plan for 2016 (cf. Annex 3 to the Meeting minutes), agreed that the Expert Groups’ work plans should be biennial and encouraged the Expert Groups to develop their work plans as soon as possible.

7. Projects developed/facilitated by the NDPHS. Definition of a “NDPHS project”.

With reference to document CSR 25/7/1, the Secretariat re-introduced the original proposal of the Strategy Working Group regarding the various types of projects vis-à-vis which the NDPHS plays a role. During the presentation the Secretariat drew the attention to the footnotes, which required the Meeting’s decision: (i) footnote No. 2 concerning Russia’s suggestion to add “with regard to which the CSR has taken a decision that the NDPHS would be involved” and footnote No. 3 concerning Russia’s suggestion to delete the bullet point “Taking an initiative to formulate a project proposal in collaboration with project partners.”

Estonia suggested to accept footnote No. 2 and to delete footnote No. 3 as footnote No. 2 made the change proposed in footnote No. 3 unnecessary.

Russia explained that the background of footnote No. 3 was that it is not clear why the bullet point is needed.

In response to Russia’s concern, the Secretariat clarified that a project should be understood in a more holistic way and that the NDPHS should also be given credit for having initiated a project, even if the NDPHS would not subsequently be involved in its implementation.

Germany noted that awarding projects the “NDPHS facilitated-label” is also increasing the Partnership’s visibility.

document.docx 7

The HIV/AIDS & AI EG ITA referred to the EU joint action on HIV and co-infections as an example of when an NDPHS Expert Group has substantially contributed to the development of a project and for which the NDPHS should be given credit.

Russia stated that it is then unclear at which point in time the CSR would make a decision on whether it supports the project or not. Some projects should already be blocked on the idea level to avoid wasting of time on their development. As an example, he noted that Russia had never agreed upon the implementation of the project “Building capacity in prevention of HIV and associated infections among youth at high risk in the Northern Dimension Area.” Even though it did not receive a label, the name of the Partnership can be seen in the published Methodology Guide made available to the CSR. The proposal of having a CSR decision on whether the NDPHS should be involved in a project (footnote No. 2) is designed to avoid such a situation in the future.

The Secretariat clarified that, in practice, this would not be an issue considering that those projects which require the NDPHS’ support and approval would have to contact the CSR early enough.

The PPHS EG ITA explained that since the experts of the groups are appointed by their ministries, project ideas are already discussed within the respective ministries and receiving approval and directions.

The Meeting agreed on the definitions of an “NDPHS project” and “NDPHS-facilitated project” as proposed in document CSR 25/7/1, with the addition proposed in footnote No. 2 and excluding footnote No. 3 (cf. Annex 4 to the Meeting minutes).

In response to Russia’s earlier remark regarding the “Building capacity in prevention of HIV and associated infections among youth at high risk in the Northern Dimension Area” project, the Secretariat read aloud the respective decision taken during the CSR 21 meeting: “The Chair asked the CSR to consider granting the Secretariat permission to use the Secretariat’s time to be the lead partner on the project to build capacity in the prevention of HIV/AIDS among youth at high risk as a part of co-financing. (…) The Meeting took note of the information provided and mandated the Secretariat to become the lead partner of the HIV/AIDS project provided it takes on additional staff using the EU funds if the workload is unsustainable.” The Secretariat further noted that Russia’s misunderstanding might come from the fact that the said discussion took place in Tallinn in April 2013, whereas a similar but different project “Strengthening prevention and reduction of impacts of HIV/AIDS and associated infections in the Baltic Sea Region by joint international activities” was subsequently discussed in Reykjavik in October 2013 during the CSR 22 meeting. It was this latter project to which Russia withdrew its support. The Secretariat also emphasized it would never engage in a project without the CSR’s permission.

With regard to Russia’s request to delete the Methodology Guide developed within the “Building capacity in prevention of HIV and associated infections among youth at high risk in the Northern Dimension Area” project from the NDPHS Database (cf. agenda item 3), the Secretariat pointed out that the document contains a disclaimer which very clearly states that the content of the document is the responsibility of the authors and that the Secretariat, when it was presented with the draft of the document, requested that the NDPHS logo be not included therein. However, the Secretariat agreed that the document be uploaded to the NDPHS Database, since it is open to everybody, and given that it is an obligation stipulated in the Grant Contract that the project’s results be disseminated, not least through the Database. The NDPHS Secretariat had agreed it would mentioned as the Lead Partner in the publication, since this is consistent with the CSR 21 meeting’s decision quoted earlier.

document.docx 8

Russia stated that all experts engaged in a project should be appointed by national authorities, which was not the case in this project. A disclaimer written on a report does not change the circumstances that might follow from it.

Germany pointed out that it is not up to the CSR to decide on which partners are involved in a project and that many documents in the NDPHS Database were not developed by the NDPHS. The purpose of the Database is to give an overview of what is happening in the region, which is open for everybody.

Russia disagreed that the CSR cannot define the partners of a project. Further, not all information could be published on the NDPHS website, because it is a governmental forum. We are responsible for what is published on the webpage and it should only contain official information adopted by our governments.

The Secretariat remarked that this discussion was very important from the perspective of the purpose and character of the NDPHS Database. It also recalled that it is clearly stated on the homepage that the reports published in the Database do not necessarily reflect the view of the NDPHS. If the Meeting decided that every publication has to be first checked and approved by the CSR before it is posted in the Database, the CSR members will have more work. For the Secretariat it is important to clearly know the policy in this regard.

Russia stated that it does not want to put a burden on other CSR members, but that publications concerning Russia need to be approved before they are posted in the NDPHS Database.

Sweden recalled a previous CSR discussion during which a majority of the Meeting did not wish to have the role of identifying and appointing project experts and it has hence been decided to be flexible on this issue.

Norway noted that Russia’s concerns about the project were raised only during the CSR meeting in Reykjavik and that it would be strange to retract in retrospect the report of a project that was actually approved by the CSR. Further, Norway places a great trust in its appointed experts and that they will contact the Ministry if there are questions about a project in relation to Norwegian policy. Other countries are encouraged to have similar working relationship with their experts so that no extra procedure would need to be established.

Russia stated that it also trusts its experts, but that it had not chosen the ones who wrote the publication.

Norway replied that it was under the impression that the project was developed by the Expert Group.

The Secretariat confirmed this.

Having thoroughly discussed the issue, the Meeting agreed to delete the Methodological Guide developed within the “Building capacity in prevention of HIV and associated infections among youth at high risk in the Northern Dimension Area” project from the NDPHS Database. It also noted that all other organizations and institutions may wish to publish this publication on their own websites.

8. NDPHS “Health” Policy Area Coordinator role in the EUSBSR Action Plan

document.docx 9

8.1 Procedure for issuing letters of support to projects applying for Interreg Baltic Sea Region Programme 2014-2020

With reference to document CSR 25/8.1/1/Rev 1, the Secretariat introduced the revised procedure for issuing letters of support to projects applying for the Interreg Baltic Sea Region Programme 2014-2020 and highlighted two issues that required the Meeting’s attention: first, the letter was originally named “Letter of Commitment” as suggested by the template. However, the Secretariat of the Interreg programme confirmed that it is also possible to change the name to the “Letter of Support.” Second, the outlined procedure is used to confirm whether a project is in line with the requirements of a flagship project or has a potential to become a flagship project, which is why it is proposed to apply the same method for deciding on a recommendation to award projects the flagship status.

The subject of disagreement during the previous meeting was the wording in Chapter 3, item d/e, which in practice would cause two different procedures: either the Secretariat would submit all received applications to the CSR with a recommendation of which of those should, in its view, be awarded a letter, or the Secretariat would submit only those applications that it recommends, which means it would not send the ones that it suggests to reject.

Finland noted that this is an issue that mainly the Expert Groups are concerned with, since the CSR relies on their assessment. It should possibly be considered to increase the amount of time the EGs have to review a project and to shorten the time for the CSR.

Germany stated that it preferred naming the letter a “Letter of Support.”

Norway stated that it was under the impression that the document had already been adopted during the previous CSR meeting with the word “that” included and a renewed discussion was not necessary. However, since it is discussed again, it restated the reasons for asking for the wording “that” in item d (cf. footnote No. 2): “This tiny difference of one word implies that the CSR would have to receive all applications related to health and social well-being submitted to the programme from the NDPHS Secretariat, also those that the NDPHS Secretariat does not recommend or those that the NDPHS Secretariat is uncertain of whether to recommend for approval or not.”

Sweden supported the Norwegian proposal of only receiving those applications that the Secretariat recommends for approval.

Russia informed that it would be joining the Interreg Baltic Sea Region Programme 2014-2020, which will have an impact on the document and asked for a reference to the “Strategy of Social-Economic Development of the North-West Federal District of the Russian Federation till 2020 (NW 2020)” to be included in the eligibility criteria.

The Chair thanked Russia for the update and welcomed the development. She emphasized the message agreed upon during the 19th EG Chairs and ITAs (enlarged) meeting that all involved partners need to be flexible and make an effort to combine funding from different sources to finance projects.

The ASA EG ITA asked to clarify the procedure. The Secretariat receives and forwards the applications, the EGs then send comments to the Secretariat, which the Secretariat forwards to the applicant and then “the NDPHS Secretariat forwards the (revised, if necessary) application to the NDPHS Committee of Senior Representatives”. It would be possible that an applicant would not agree and would not address the EG’s comments. In the meantime, according to the current version the Expert Groups would have no opportunity to see the revised application again before

document.docx 10

it is submitted by the Secretariat to the CSR, while EGs are taking responsibility for its quality. The procedure needs to be explicitly laid out in the document to avoid future misunderstandings.

Latvia expressed its concerns regarding the Secretariat’s capacity to do all the work included in the proposed procedure. It also asked who was responsible for the quality of the projects and what was the role of the Interreg Secretariat. In response, the Secretariat noted that, while appreciating the concern, it had previously received about three applications per round and that it is the obligation of the Policy Area Coordinator to do this work.

Having thoroughly discussed the issue, the Meeting adopted the document (cf. Annex 5 to the Meeting minutes) with the following changes included:

Naming the letter a “Letter of Support” and changing the wording throughout the document;

Including the reference to the Strategy of Social-Economic Development of the North-West Federal District of the Russian Federation till 2020 (NW 2020), applying as the Russian Federation joins the Interreg Baltic Sea Region Programme 2014-2020;

Changing the wording in item 3a from “no later than three weeks” to “no later than one month”;

Introducing a new item 3d, stating that the revised application will be submitted to the Expert Groups again for their review and possible confirmation that it meets the eligibility criteria. If the criteria are not met again, the proposal will be rejected by the EGs and will not be submitted further to the CSR;

Accepting footnote No. 2 (the Norwegian comment) for the wording in item 3e to be “with its recommendation that the application should be granted a letter of support” and introducing 3f “The CSR takes a decision, within one week through a silent procedure”;

Extend the time the CSR takes for decision (item 3g) from one week to ten calendar days.

8.2 Procedure for issuing letters of support to projects applying for the EUSBSR Seed Money Facility

With reference to document CSR 25/8.2/1, the Secretariat introduced the “Draft NDPHS procedure for issuing letters of support to projects applying for the EUSBSR Seed Money Facility.” It emphasized that the document is also important for communicating the procedure outside the Partnership to potential applications to avoid misunderstandings such as in the current call. Further, it noted that in this procedure the Secretariat would use potentially more time (as compared to the one discussed in item 8.1) to work together with the applicants on improving their application in order to ensure the continued success of the PA Health in attracting Seed Money funding.

Norway asked substituting item 3 g (in document CSR 25/8.2/1) with d and e of document CSR 25/8.1/1/Rev 1.

Russia requested that the period for the CSR to decide on the applications through a silent procedure would be ten calendar days instead of one week in both procedures.

The Meeting adopted the procedure for issuing letters of support to projects applying for the EUSBSR Seed Money Facility (cf. Annex 6 to the Meeting minutes).

8.3 Other matters

With reference to documents CSR 25/8.1/1, CSR 25/8.3/2 and CSR 25/8.3/4, the Secretariat introduced the received project applications for submission to the EUSBSR Seed Money Facility

document.docx 11

together with requests of a letter of support. It explained that the two first projects “EmpowerBSR” and “SAM” have been sent to the Expert Groups for their review and possible recommendation. Due to the positive feedback from the groups, the Secretariat recommends all three project applications receive a letter of support. Further, the Secretariat noted that due to copyright reasons all application documents have been password protected on the meeting webpage.

Following the clarification from the ASA EG ITA, that not all Expert Groups have recommended the project applications, the Secretariat specified that the applications had been sent to all Expert Groups, but that only NCD EG and PPHS EG have responded and recommended the projects would receive a letter of support.

Norway requested that since the procedure was not adopted yet, it should be noted in the minutes, the Secretariat had recommended the projects for support.

The Meeting agreed that the three project applications would be granted letters of support and mandated the Secretariat to issue such letters.

Further, with reference to document CSR 25/8.3/3, the Secretariat introduced a preliminary proposal regarding possibly further elaborating on the topic of “Health is wealth and wealth is health.” It explained that this idea stemmed from the “PA Health Support” project, which the Secretariat is currently implementing. Judging from the discussions with parliamentarians during the BSPC it would be worth to further explore the connection between health and the economy and other policy areas. The proposal had already been sent for comments to and positively received by the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies.2

Estonia thanked the Secretariat for taking the initiative and already reaching out to potential partners. It further stated that the NDPHS should not tackle this issue alone, but should cooperate on it with other organizations that already work on those issues to avoid duplication and take advantage of their greater capacity and expertise in this area.

The NCD EG Chair emphasized the importance of the issue and strongly supported the idea of looking into it further. What has been done by WHO, the European Observatory and others covering the regional context already needs to be carefully reviewed.

Poland pointed out that it is not true that the European Observatory is supporting the Polish government with international evidence.

Norway stated that it has very positive experiences with the Observatory and is a keen supporter of their work and asked what the added value of NDPHS doing this study would be in comparison to what the Observatory is already doing and if it would mainly receive financial support from the NDPHS. Further, Norway asked, since the Activity Fund is listed as a possible source of financing, how much money is in the Activity Fund and pointed out that it might be needed next year due to extra costs.

In response, the Secretariat replied that there is an ample amount of money in the Activity Fund, but that it is not likely that it would be necessary to use this money for the proposed activity as funding from other sources would be sought. Concerning the added value, it explained that it had been informed there had been no study carried out focusing exclusively on the individual countries in the Northern Dimension area/Baltic Sea region regarding this issue yet. It would,

2 To that end, hard copies of two emails received by the Secretariat were disseminated during the meeting.

document.docx 12

therefore, be a good idea to analyze the global and European data available and translate them to the context of our region or selected countries that would be interested to be covered by such a study. From this research, policy advice for those interested countries could be developed. However, before the final decision could be taken the countries would need to clearly state that they are interested in it, so the Secretariat can develop a complete proposal.

Norway suggested that, since many of the NDPHS Partners are also partners of the European Observatory and pay contributions to it, the proposed study could be conducted within the Observatory’s framework with the funding that they already get.

Poland supported this idea and emphasized that they would not agree with a part of the NDPHS budget being transferred to the Observatory.

The Secretariat confirmed it was also its view that, if the Observatory could conduct such research, the NDPHS should not use its own resources on it.

WHO Europe suggested following up on this matter with the Observatory to see if this task could somehow be integrated, as it would need to be discussed with regard to the available time and resources.

Finland pointed out that the issue is important, because there is a lack of awareness for the interconnection between health and other policy areas in other sectors. In response to Finland’s question about the possibility of using money from Priority 4 of the Interreg Baltic Sea Region Programme 2014-2020, the Secretariat stated that it is exactly one of the possible funding opportunities mentioned in the submitted document. Last year, when the call for this money was announced, the Expert Groups were asked for their input to suggest activities to be financed. Since there were no suggestions, the Secretariat asked for approval to engage in the project “PA Health Support”, which among other things funded the study conducted by Mr. Björn Ekman. This year, ideas regarding the funding from the same sources will need to be discussed with the Expert Groups and, in the Secretariat’s view, good ideas from the interested groups aimed to implement the NDPHS Action Plan should be prioritized over the two discussed studies. However, in case no fundable ideas are presented by the groups, the proposed studies could be an option to go for.

Germany proposed that the Secretariat should collect more information about the available research and identify gaps in it. This should be delivered to the CSR for comments and a decision on how to proceed.

Norway suggested that WHO Europe could also come back to the CSR with information about whether the Observatory can conduct such a study.

In response, WHO Europe stated that it would get in touch with the Observatory and would inform the Secretariat about the outcome.

Norway noted that, consequently, the Secretariat would not need to work on this matter until the next CSR.

The Meeting mandated the Secretariat to further elaborate on the topic and to send a written proposal to the next CSR. The proposal should point out the gaps in the existing information and options for cooperation with interested parties.

9. Preparations for forthcoming ministerial-level PAC and its side-event

document.docx 13

9.1 PAC 11

Germany, which will host the ministerial-level PAC 11 on 20 November 2015, informed about the modalities of the event. It emphasized that those who want to participate in the guided tour of the Reichstag and in the ministerial dinner, need to provide their date and place of birth to pass the security. Further, the participating ministers and state secretaries will not be picked up at the airport by the Host, but all involved embassies will be informed. The Host is providing a bus transfer from the Kempinski hotel to the Reichstag as well as from the Robert Koch Institute to the Reichstag, for those participating in the PAC side-event.

With reference to document CSR 25/9.1/1, Germany introduced the draft provisional agenda for PAC 11.

Sweden asked to receive an annotated agenda as soon as possible to present it to the high-level representatives.

The Secretariat introduced a proposed procedure and timeline for developing the “Conclusions by the Chair” from PAC 11. At least two iterations should be planned to have a mature draft of the document ready 10 days prior to the event, which is the deadline requested by the Chair Country.

Having thoroughly discussed the issue, the Meeting:

Approved the draft provisional agenda for submission to PAC 11; Decided that the PAC 11 annotated agenda should be disseminated as soon as

possible; Mandated the Secretariat to send draft “Conclusions by the Chair” from PAC 11 to the

CSR members on 26 October 2015 for comments to be received within 5 days.

9.2 PAC 11 side-event

The AMR TG Chair informed about the modalities of the PAC 11 side-event and kindly asked all CSR members to widely distribute the invitation to the event. She briefly introduced the programme of the planned event.

WHO Europe announced that the WHO Europe Regional Director Ms. Zsuzsanna Jakab would unfortunately not be able to attend the side-event due to other commitments and would be represented by Dr. Lo Fo Wang. However, she was planning to attend PAC 11 and the ministerial dinner.

With reference to document CSR 25/9.2/1, the AMR TG Chair introduced the draft Declaration, which will be submitted to the PAC side-event for discussion and to the ministerial-level PAC 11 for adoption.

Sweden expressed its appreciation that its comments have been addressed.

Germany requested that any further comments regarding the Declaration be submitted until 30 October and thanked the Public Health Agency of Sweden for their commitment in organizing the event as well as all Partners who have already nominated national experts for the panel discussion.

document.docx 14

The Meeting took note of the presented information and agreed that final comments on the draft Declaration be submitted until 30 October 2015.

9.3 Future NDPHS Chair and Co-Chair

Estonia informed that Latvia was optimistic that it would assume the role of the next NDPHS Co-Chair, but had not yet officially confirmed it. The issue will be clarified before PAC 11.

The Meeting took note of the presented information.

10. Future CSR meetings

With reference to document CSR 25/10/Info 1, the Chair invited all Partners to consider hosting the next CSR meeting and inform the Secretariat and the future Chair Country.

WHO Europe replied that it would look into a possibility of hosting the next CSR meeting and will inform accordingly.

The Meeting agreed that the Secretariat and the future Chair Country would continue efforts to determine the host of the next CSR meeting and would inform Partners on the date and place.

11. Any other business

Germany suggested collecting ideas from all Partners on how the Secretariat’s workload can be reduced, taking into account the recommendation of the evaluation, as well as considering that a new Director will begin in 1.5 years. For example, the Expert Groups’ influence in projects could be increased and the number of decisions taken during the meetings could be reduced by taking more decisions through a written silent procedure. Moreover, the Meeting could choose to omit certain topics.

Russia noted that the workload must have been too high since the documents for the current meeting have been received late. Therefore, the Secretariat should not be involved in as many projects because this is not the Secretariat’s core function.

Norway restated its offer to chair an ad hoc working group on revising the Secretariat’s Terms of Reference, should the Partners wish to establish such a group.

The Secretariat apologized for the late submission of documents and explained that this was due to the necessary preparation of the HIV project final report and project’s audit, as well as preparing the NoDARS project interim report. In addition, there were a number of other duties, not least regarding the requested letters of support, etc.

The Meeting agreed that Germany would send an email inviting all Partners to submit ideas on how the Secretariat’s workload can be reduced.

Poland requested that the Chairs of the NDPHS Expert Groups take into account the respective international meetings when planning the dates of the Expert Groups’ meetings, so that there would be no overlaps with other important events.

The Meeting endorsed the request.

document.docx 15

The Chair reminded of the outstanding issue of the adoption of the CSR 24 meeting and, since many of the issues had been solved during the CSR 25 meeting, requested the Secretariat to send out the revised minutes once more for adoption.

12. Adoption of the CSR 25 meeting minutes

The Meeting agreed that the Secretariat would send out draft CSR 25 meeting minutes to the participants on 5 November 2015 and that comments on the draft would be due, at the latest, on 12 November 2015. The revised minutes will be distributed on 16 November 2015 to be adopted per capsulam provided that no further comments are submitted within one week.

13. Closing of the meeting

The Meeting terminated on 22 October 2015 at 11:50 hours.

document.docx 16