jasp e rs stakeholders meeting how to improve the quality of submissions

JASPERS STAKEHOLDERS MEETING

How to improve the quality of submissions and streamline the application process

Budapest, 7-8 April 2011

2

Session 1: JASPERS Strategy 2011-2013

Opening remarks: Rudolf Niessler, Director for Policy Co-ordination, Directorate General for Regional Policy, European Commission

Chair: Rudolf Niessler

Briefing on new JASPERS Strategy 2011-2013 Overview of 2011 JASPERS Action Plans Examples of new actions – information sharing, preparation of projects for next programming period, strategic support, implementation, capacity building

3

2007-2013 DG REGIO and JASPERS Pipeline

EU Grant (EUR bn) No. of Projects

Total Approved & Submitted 28.7 262

Total to be Submitted 34.3 353

% Submitted or approved so far 46% 43%

JASPERS Pipeline 316

March 2011 Snapshot: Projects Submitted/Approved, and new projects to be submitted 2011-2013

020406080

100120140160180200

No

. o

f P

roje

cts

Submitted & approved To be submitted 2011-13

4

JASPERS Strategy 2011-2013

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Action Plan Year

JA

SP

ER

S S

taff

Project Preparation for 2007-13 Programme Project Preparation for 2014-20 Programme

Capacity building / implementation support

Source: JASPERS DatabaseNote: Data is actual to mid September 2010, and forecast based on JASPERS assumptions thereafter

1. Continued preparation of projects for 2007-2013 programming period

2. Preparation of projects now for next programming period.3. Strategy work and horizontal assignments 4. Capacity building5. Selectively increasing implementation support beyond the pilot

phase

5

JASPERS Strategy – Building Continuity in Project Preparation across Programming Periods

Project preparation advanced 2 years

Wasted Opportunity

Year 7

777177Opportunity

Year 1 Opportunity

2020

Year 15

1511Opportunity

2007 Opportunity

2013

Opportunity

JASPERS

Project preparation activity

Project preparation capacity

•Horizontal Support•Strategy Support•Setting up TA•Developing national guidelines

•Project Preparation Support

•Setting up TA•Developing national guidelines

Setting up TADeveloping national guidelines

6

Overview of Action Plans 2011

- 2 Action Plans are signed only, BUT

- In other countries the Management Authorities and JASPERS, in consultation with DG REGIO desks have agreed on the assignments, and signature of Action Plans is awaited.

→ takes longer this year as partly shift to “new wave” projects:

- Capacity building/implementation support- Projects for next programming period- In total some 50 projects in this areas

- In addition, new “normal” projects for 2007-13 period are still being introduced- Number of active assignments as at 31/3/2011 is 368→ pay attention to absorption

8

Preparations for the next programming period

in the Environment sector in Romania

DOINA FRANŢ, General DirectorMinistry of Environment and Forests

Managing Authority for SOP Environment - 7th of April 2011 -

9

Water/wastewater

Waste management

Contaminated sites

Nature protection

Floods

Coastal erosion

Areas of intervention proposed for post 2014

10

Arrangements already initiated for the preparation of the project portfolio in the water/wastewater and waste management sectors:

call for projects in the water sector to be launched shortly; study that includes contaminated sites inventory, risk evaluation and

historical pollution investigation (+ 10-15 project applications) – to be launched soon.

revision/update of Master Plans in the water and waste sectors;

Changes expected:

Contract management to be brought closer to the beneficiaries to enhance project ownership in an initial phase of the preparation;

Increase the MA and the IBs role in coordination of project preparation;

Current/planned initiatives

11

Good cooperation so far with Jaspers and DG Regio during the entire process of project preparation: informal appraisal of major projects with a considerable reduction of the approval period

Important JASPERS contribution in approval of major projects for the 2007-2013 programming period; efforts to be continued in 2011;

JASPERS involvement sought in the implementation of approved projects.

Reflections on JASPERS contribution and further expectations

13

JASPERS involvement in strategic issuesFlórián Szalóki

Head of Transport Managing Authority

14

JASPERS involvement in strategic issues - 1

Project preparation:• Preparation of projects for the 2007-2013 programming period,• Preparation of reserve projects,• Preparation of projects for the 2014-2020 programming period.

Tools for full absorption of OP resources:• EU financing of project costs previously financed from the national budget,• Applying ’bridge project’ concept,• Fulfillment of n+2, n+3 rules.

15

JASPERS involvement in strategic issues - 2

Preparation of strategies for the 2014-2020 programming period:• Sub-sectoral transport strategies (road, railway, suburban railway, etc.)

- Rolling stock strategies,

- New road tolling system,• National integrated transport strategy,• Strategies for specific horizontal issues:

- Public Governance,

- Intelligent Transport Systems,

- Road safety measures.

16

JASPERS in Bulgaria

Cooperation with JASPERS dating from 2006 Assistance for preparation of projects for 3

operational programmes OP Transport OP Environment OP Regional Development

33 completed tasks, including 9 applications for major project (4 approved so far)

Action Plan for 2010 contained 50 tasks, out of which 14 were completed at the end of the year

17

Main trends in JASPERS assistance

Providing technical assistance on critical path for project development, including review and support for the preparation of high quality projects in the field of road, rail and urban transport, as well as in the waste and water sectors;

Introducing Jaspers input in project management i.e involvement of Jaspers in the implementation phase (environment sector);

Long-term institutional support for strengthening the capacity of the structures authorized to implement the reform in the transport and water sectors, including setting up appropriate PIUs;

Providing assistance on conceptual development and project structuring for the new programming period 2014-2020 (development of strategies and prioritization of the projects)

18

JASPERS Action Plan 2011

The preparation of the Action plan for 2011 is in its final stage;

AP includes 39 projects in the following sectors: Water and wastewater (9) Waste (11) Roads (4) Railways (3) Ports (1) Urban transport (3) Horizontal tasks (8)

JASPERS STAKEHOLDERS MEETINGThank you very much for your attention !

Nadia GUENOVACouncil of Minister, [email protected]

www.eufunds.bg


mailto:[email protected]

http://www.eufunds.bg/

Project co-financed from the European Regional Development Fund within the Innovative Economy Operational Programme

Involvement of JASPERS in the Implementation Phase of Knowledge

Economy RI Projects

Marcin Szumowski

Issues Beyond the tradition of curiosity driven research

Leveraging the new RI for stimulating innovation

Overcoming barriers to effective TT in Poland and CE

Verifying and validating CePT Technology Transfer model

– organisational, financial, legal aspects

Why get involved? - benefits of JASPERS intervention

Budapest EIB/JASPERS meeting April 7, 2011

Circle of curiosity driven research Circle of innovation

This circle can take months to decades

but also relies on high quality research !

Tax Payer

Results

Products Science


Main barriers to effective TT in Poland Scarce (0.6 GDP) and dispersed financing of research

Inefficient use of EU Funds to stimulate innovation

Political (short-term) approach to stimulate innovation

Legal and tax barriers + lack of proper incentives

University and research institute culture

Incorrect approach to TT – lack of accountability

Low awareness & lack of motivation among the research community

Unwillingness to cooperate in TT areaBudapest EIB/JASPERS meeting April 7, 2011

Themapharm

Adamed

DrIrenaEris

VC Inovo(100M)

Gedeon Richter Polska

ORENORESeed capital

(40M)

SPIN OFFUNIVERSITYINVENTORSINVESTORS

TTPBTM Sp. z o.o.

20 %

PAS WTU WMU UW HSE

VC Round ICERTIFICATION

EST. VALUE 10M

ERDF or National

VC Round 2

EXIT

TTP COMPETENCY AREAS

1. SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION2. SCIENTIFIC BASE3. INTERDISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT4. PRELIM. MARKET EVALUATION5. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS6. RECOMM. TO INVESTMENT TEAM7. INDUSTRY LIASON (NEGOT. / LEGAL)

AT ESTIMATED VALUATION 10MLN

20% GUARANTEE FOR RESEARCH / ACADEMIC PARTNERS & INVENTORS

RETAINING CORE TEAM MEMBERS

Industry Partners

UP TO 20/80

Research Partners

Bioton

Celon Pharma

MTZ Clinical

Medic-algorithmics

WTS Patent

CITY OF WARSAW

Private2M

Benefits of JASPERS intervention General (shared support)

RI management models – access to expertise, benchmarking, training Market creation, procurement models, bottom-up strategy development International networking, linking to ESFRI and pan-European RI

Specific (individual support) Implementation of best-practice commercialisation models Legal (FTO vs. public procurement), Financial (State Aid, Income) Evaluation of CePT model (Cluster formula, external entity, IP management) BTM Mazowsze legal structure (private, PPP, academic) – access to IPR?

Specialist: legal, finance, human resource / recruitment To get RoI guidance and specialist support is necessary



Science Business

Bussiness

Support Institut.

We need EIB & JASPERS knowledge to build a knowledge based economy

in Poland

Bringing Business to Science

and Life Science to Life

29

Session 2: Improving the quality and timingfor the application process

Chair: Agustin Auria, Head of JASPERS

Analysis of interruption letters Handling interruptions Guidelines for common issues: Lithuanian example New Completion Note format Bilateral/Tripartite cooperation – sharing experience and areas to improve Key remaining horizontal issues

30

Analysis of Interruption letters by Sector (1)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

B. PROJE

CT DETAIL

S

C. RESULT

S OF F

EASIBIL

ITY S

TUDIES

D. TIM

ETABLE

E. COST B

ENEFIT A

NALYSIS

F. ANALY

SIS O

F THE E

NVIRONM

ENTAL IM

PACT

G. JUSTIF

ICATIO

N FOR T

HE PUBLIC

CONTRIB

UTION

H. FIN

ANCING P

LAN

I. COM

PATIBIL

ITY W

ITH C

OMM

UNITY P

OLICIE

S AND L

AW

J. ENDORSEM

ENT OF C

OMPETENT N

ATIONAL A

UTHORITY

MUNSWEKEWATRODRAL

31

Analysis of Interruption lettersby Sector (2)

Criteria RAL ROD WAT KE SWE MUN Grand Total %

B. PROJECT DETAILS 18 22 17 4 6 14 81 14%

C. RESULTS OF FEASIBILITY STUDIES 8 20 4 0 4 12 48 8%

D. TIMETABLE 6 15 2 0 2 5 30 5%

E. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS 32 38 23 7 14 20 134 23%

F. ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 44 48 37 2 22 12 165 29%

G. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 1%

H. FINANCING PLAN 13 24 7 1 8 7 60 10%

I. COMPATIBILITY WITH COMMUNITY POLICIES AND LAW 13 16 6 2 10 9 56 10%

J. ENDORSEMENT OF COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITY 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0%

StatisticsTotal number of interruption reasons 136 185 96 16 66 79 578Number of interruption letters 16 27 20 3 8 9 83Average number of reasons per interruption letter 8.50 6.85 4.80 5.33 8.25 8.78 6.96

Number of Interruption Reasons / Sector

32

Interruption Letters (1)

A snapshot

F. ANALYSIS OFTHE

ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT

E. COST-BENEFITANALYSIS

B. PROJECTDETAILS

H. FINANCINGPLAN

I. COMPATIBILITYWITH

COMMUNITYPOLICIES AND

LAW

C. RESULTS OFFEASIBILITY

STUDIES

D. TIMETABLE G. JUSTIFICATIONFOR THE PUBLICCONTRIBUTION

33

Interruption Letters (2)

70% of interruption letters contain issues on: EIA and Natura 2000 CBA and socio-economic analysis Project details/Description

Interruption letters in EC12 EC 1590% 80%

Days to approval in EC 12 (JASPERS supported) 2010 257Days to approval in EC 12(NOT JASPERS supported) 2010 445Days to approval in EC 15 , 2010 264

Scope for improvement?Before appraisalAfter appraisal

Analysis of interruption letters

Typical comments

NATURA2000Maps, justifications

EIA public consultations, permitting authority’ procedures and

declarationsOperation issues

competition, no undue profit, operational costsReasoning for geograghical project scope

Delineation of agglomerations, grouping of settlementsOption analysis, CBA

Special comments by sectors:

Waste water sector:Capacity (treatment plant, sewage network, industrial – public

waste)Tertiary treatmentSludge treatment/disposal (long-term contracts, operational costs,

option analysis)

Solid waste sector:Waste transportation routesUse of compost (long term contract)

Flood protection:Landscape management

Comments look BACK and AHEAD

BACKdefinition of project, justification of geographical and technical scope

HU municipalities have a wide-range autonomy concerning with whom they want to co-operate

AHEADsustainability, operational phase, environment friendliness, country-scope concerns

HU adaptation/application of EIA directives forced to get improved (+ infringement )Force project promoters to look at the project in its full complexity (throughout project cycle + beyond)

+ Serves as a basis for project appraisals in full national responsibility (not MPs)

Thank You for Your kind attention.

SZABÓ SzilviaDep. Head of Managing Authority for Environmental Programmes

www.nfu.hu

JASPERSStakeholder Meeting

Guidelines for Preparing/Reviewing Applications

Pasquale Staffini

7-8 April 2011Budapest

41

JASPERS Guidelines for Preparing/Reviewing Applications

Initially prepared for evaluators Then developed as guidelines for

preparing / reviewing the Application Form

NOT a checklist Rather a guide/reminder Composed of evaluation sheet and

guidance for evaluators

42

JASPERS Guidelines for Preparing/Reviewing Applications

B.5.2 Socio-economic objectives (and targets)(1) The requested information to be provided in this section is twofold: (i) definition of project’s

socio-economic objectives; (ii) definition of targets.(2) An objective is an outcome that we want to achieve. Objectives should be in a clear relation to

the needs, presented in B.5.1. Objectives are relevant if they are solving the stated problems.

Available on JASPERS Web Site

Suggestions on the content, details and examples for each point in the application

Focus on links across sections in the application

43

JASPERS New Completion Note (1)

Aim To highlight significant issues critical to project approval To present separately JASPERS conclusions and

recommendations To make the Completion Note more useful for Beneficiaries, MAs

and Desk Officers To present clearly which issues are most relevant to raise during

project appraisal and approval

Timing Format agreed between JASPERS

and DG REGIO Presentation at REGIO-JASPERS

and Stakeholders Meeting Roll-out for new Completion Notes

from April 2011

Focus on the big issues

44

JASPERS New Completion Note (2)

3.2.2 Engineering feasibility

Project Measures

JASPERS CommentsComments should be grouped under sub-headings, or otherwise highlighted, to distinguish and draw attention to, where relevant, (1) Conclusions and (2) Significant outstanding issues.There should be full consistency with points made also under section 5 (Recommendations).

6. Additional JASPERS considerations (if any)

JASPERS CommentsJASPERS additional considerations that are not material to the approval of the project for EU co-financing (e.g. do not affect the project feasibility and/or economic desirability) but which are relevant to the preparation of similar projects in the pipeline, or should be addressed during the project implementation.

5. Recommendations

Draw together recommendations made under the different sections and summarise.Recommendations should primarily target steps which may be taken by the Management Authority (eg. points which should be taken into account in drafting the project agreement with the beneficiary) and the Beneficiary (eg. points which the beneficiary should consider to mitigate risks).This section must be clear and unambiguous and where a draft major project application is being reviewed identify clearly the sections to which comments relateThis section should be consistent with JASPERS Comments in sections3 and 4.

45

Implications for Member States

MA s should proactively review draft applications Focus attention on the Significant Outstanding Issues in the

Completion Note Do not submit application until all Significant Issues resolved Find other ways to handle additional considerations eg.

commitments to measures during implementation, clauses in national financing agreements, resolving sector-wide issues.

DG REGIO will expect the JASPERS section of the Application Form to explain how Significant Issues were addressed

Confirm sharing of Completion Notes with DG REGIO prior to submission

Better applications, fewer interruptions, faster approval

46

JASPERS Part of the Application Form

I.4. Involvement of JASPERS in project preparation

I.4.1. Has JASPERS technical assistance contributed to any part of the preparation of this project? Yes/No.

I.4.2. Describe the elements of the project where JASPERS had an input (e.g. environmental compliance, procurement, review of technical description).

I.4.3. What were the principal conclusions and recommendations of the JASPERS contribution and were these taken into account in the finalisation of the project?

What are JASPERS Progress Meetings?• The ‘tri-partite’ Progress Meetings were intended as a

forum for reviewing the entire JASPERS project portfolio in

the Member State.

• The meetings were scheduled on a systematic, quarterly

basis, covering all sectors over a 1- or 2-day series of

meetings.

•The Progress Meetings have evolved, and are now held

every-other quarter (2-3 times per year), with a series of

sector-specific meetings in the other quarters (also 2-3

times per year).

JASPERS STAKEHOLDERS MEETING -- Budapest, 7 April 2011

Particpants in JASPERS Progress Meetings

A ‘tri-partite’ meeting is typically among, and co-organized by:

•DG Regio (and other Comission services),

•JASPERS experts and managers,

•Managing Authority (Ministry of Regional

Development),

•Line Ministries,

•Intermediate Review Bodies, and

•Key Beneficiaries

‘A small, social gathering with your closest acquaintances’ !


Purpose of JASPERS Progress Meetings

•Discuss the status of projects and preparation

•Discuss the timetables for project review and submission to

the EC

•Address specific problems that arise in certain projects

•Resolve and harmonize approaches with the expectations of

DG Regio, practices in the Member State, and best practices

suggested by JASPERS

•Address Horizontal Issues that affect entire sectors (i.e.

Guidelines, assumptions, unit values, legislation and

compliance with Directives)

As you see, all topics that trigger no emotions !


Example of Progress Meeting Agenda Typical Day of a Two-Day Progress Meeting:


No. Time Topic 1. 9.30 - 9.35 Agenda 2. 9.35 - 9.45 Minutes of last meeting. 3. 9.45 - 10.50 1) Water Sector - 2010 Action Plan – Schedule and tasks –

Environment

4. 10.50 - 10.55 Coffee break

10.55 - 12.00 2) Solid Waste Sector - 2010 Action Plan – Schedule and tasks – Environment

4. 12.00 - 12.15 Coffee break 5. 12.15 - 13.00 3) Energy Sector - 2010 Action Plan – Schedule and tasks

– 7. 13.00 – 15.00 4) Knowledge Economy/R&D/ICT/Culture- 2010 Action Plan

– Schedule and tasks

8. 15.00 – 15.15 Any other business, Conclusions. 9. 15.15 -16.30 Lunch (Discussions during)

51

Session 2 continued:Discussion, Summary, Conclusions

Opening remarks: Matthias Kollatz-Ahnen,

Vice-President, European Investment Bank;

Dirk Ahner, Director General, DG Regional Policy

Chair: Matthias Kollatz-Ahnen

Continuation of Session 2 Discussion of outstanding points Summary and conclusions

53

Session 3: Future Perspectives

Chair: Dirk Ahner

Timetable and process for the preparation of new Regulations Member States views on future demand for JASPERS

jasp e rs stakeholders meeting how to improve the quality of submissions

Documents

new jaspers strategy

new projects

road junction nadezhda

stage lot

preparation of projects

railway infrastructure

projects submittedapproved

application form2nd