1 quality workshop interreg/tacis contracting, reporting, project changes experience from sebco,...

Zur Anzeige wird der QuickTime™ Dekompressor „TIFF (Unkomprimiert)“

benötigt.

1

Quality Workshop Interreg/TacisContracting, Reporting, Project Changes

Experience from SEBco, ASAP, PlanCoast

Angela Schultz-Zehden


benötigt.

Quality Workshop Riga 26th Sept 07 2

o One Project Rationale, but different....o contracting authoritieso contracting procedureso budget lineso financial reporting o payment procedures o activity report formatso Lead Partner responsibilities / financial risko regional / geographic perspectiveo project time lines

Challenges ERDF / Tacis


benötigt.


Budget Lines

INTERREG BL1 Project Coordination BL2 Personnel BL3 Meetings BL4 Travel&Accom. BL5 Promotion BL6 External Expertise BL7 SmallScaleInvest BL8 Others

No more detail required!

Tacis 1a Human Resources 1b Per Diems 2 Travel 3 Equipment 4 Local Office Costs 5 Other Costs / Services 6 Other 7 Total Direct 8 Overhead (7%)

Only Headings - detailed cost lines under each heading!


benötigt.


Contracting

Interreg Project Start

immediately Planning / budget

flexible within BLs Project Coordination

acknowledged BSR regional

perspective

Tacis Project Start after

Contract Detailed planning /

budget required BEFORE Overall project

coordination not acknowledged per se

Only Tacis regional perspective


benötigt.


Financial Management

INTERREG Cash Flow negative Minimal risk for Lead

Partner - as payments retrospective

Constant auditing Decentralised financial

administration Individual Partner

Budgets Budget Planning Flexible

within BLs

Tacis Positive Cash Flow But higher risk for Lead

Partner Audit formally only

required at end More financial

administration Only one budget visible to

Tacis - no partner division Avoid Addendum - good

budget planning


benötigt.


Reporting

INTERREG Half Year Reporting

Activity / Finance According to WPs Includes extra

Tacis Part

One Final Report

Tacis Half Year Reporting

Activity / Progress According to Activities Includes ONLY Tacis - no

INTERREG Also to be used for

INTERREG Interim Reporting

No calendar requirement Finance / Activity

Final Report Finance / Activity


benötigt.


Practical Approaches

General Points: Accept the “given differences” - but make them “work” for you Try to align Tacis as much as possible to INTERREG - one

partner contact, same reporting periods, same activity reporting, same WP milestones, Tacis partner “just another” project partner

Try to define transnational activities with Tacis contribution as much as possible at outset (also good for INTERREG!)

Lead Partner - connecting point between ERDF and Tacis parts One overall coordination point Ideally - even WP coordinators part of Tacis Transfer risks as much as possible to original points of

responsibility (i.e. project partners) Tacis partners = should not serve INTERREG interests =>

project activities according to own interests


benötigt.


Tacis/ERDF ≠Tacis only

Big difference between joint Tacis / Interreg projects to normal “big” Tacis contracts: Tacis partners = should not serve INTERREG

interests => project activities according to own interests

EU Lead Partners ≠Tacis contractors / consulting companies

EU Lead Partners no “mission” in Russia Tacis partners have to use their own co-finance,

if they want external “expertise” Exchange of Experience - not only “transfer” of

experience


benötigt.


Practical Contracting

Use Time Difference Use months of Tacis contracting to define INTERREG parts in

more detail - so that Tacis contract / budget also for transnational elements as detailed as possible

IMPORTANT: Try to clarify open questions / issues esp with budget BEFORE contracting - the easier later on implementation of project

Now: use remaining Tacis months to promote also INTERREG results

Try to achieve at least two project years together Plan budgets accordingly (i.e. Lead Partner invites RU partners

via INTERREG at beginning / uses Tacis budget in the end) Establish contact not only with JTS but also EU Delegation

Moscow


benötigt.



Example SEBco / ASAP: INTERREG = Tacis Lead Partner No Pre-Payment to any partner (also not Lead Partner) Project Trustee Account One Tacis Budget split into separate Project Partner budgets

(similar to INTEREG partner budgets) Each project partner responsible for their own budget use Financial / Activity Reporting on three-months basis If Financial Invoices correct (with all originals, etc.) - and linkage

to activities => immediate transfer of money Payments thus much faster than in INTERREG - but not all risk

with Lead Partner Interim Audit with Lead Partner (thus still possible to reduce

partner payments afterwards)


benötigt.



Other approaches possible Depends on partner structure In ASAP for example in one region = Regional Lead Partner

responsible for six RU partners Audit required with every invoice from RU side (originals can then

remain in RU / EU auditor accepts RU audits) => more security, but higher costs?

Important Avoid high risks => esp with tenders (use more audits than

required) Avoid too many separate payments Develop clear financial reporting guidelines / templates

(excel sheets) Lead Partner should have budget in Tacis as well

(at least to cover for extra coordination costs)


benötigt.


Remaining Challenges

Tacis contracts to reflect also transnational elements / activities / outputs

Difficulties to cover for “joint” costs in Tacis budgets More information/security of approval of costs (Tacis) “Creative” solutions to deal with RU reality should not be

necessary and not left to project partners Different procedures not so much a real barrier, but

psychologically RU partners - always seen as “other” partners

Double Know-How necessary: Interreg / Tacis - administrative challenge

Unrealistic budget details necessary at beginning (rolling reporting better)


benötigt.


Remaining Challenges

BUT Interreg/Tacis BSR experience MUCH better than

Interreg/Tacis CADSES experience, where external funds not via LeadPartner, but via national project partner => no overall project coordination accepted transnational element not reflected in separate contracts

at all LeadPartner responsible for something he has no control

over no information beforehand about procedures extreme time delays

1 quality workshop interreg/tacis contracting, reporting, project changes experience from sebco,...

Documents