Baltic Sea Region Programme

Transcription

1 Baltic Sea Region Programme Evaluation Criteria and Practices METNET Workshop, Hämeenlinna Vice Executive Director Matti Lipsanen, Regional Council of Häme

2 EU financing for territorial co-operation Territorial co-operation Interreg, objective 3 of the EU structural policy Competitiveness and sustainability 7,75 billion euro ERDF financing Cross border co-operation Interreg A Transnational co-operation Interreg B Interregional Interreg C

3 Eligible area EU Member States: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden and northern parts of Germany Norway North-west regions of Russia Belarus

4 Financing available MEUR 20.3 MEUR 5.7 MEUR MEUR ERDF ENPI Norway total

5 Programme co-financing rates up to 75% of costs generated by partners from Denmark, Germany, Sweden and Finland up to 85% for partners from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland up to 50% for partners from Norway up to 90% for partners from Russia and Belarus + own contribution of the project partners

6 Baltic Sea Region Programme new profile Focus on fewer themes inside the four priorities Implement goals of Lisbon and Gothenburg Agendas Emphasis on investments: preparation or implementation More effort on information and communication Possibility to be approved as a strategic project.

7 Strategic objectives and priorities 1. Fostering innovations 3. Baltic Sea as a common resource To make the Baltic Sea region an attractive place to invest, work and live in 2. External and internal accessibility 4. Attractive and competitive cities and regions

8 Project strategy in the application form Problem => objective => results Horizontal issues Durability and transferability Work plan => outputs (means developed and used to reach the objective)

9 Selection criteria used to assess the project strategy Relevance of the proposal to the programme Coherence of the proposal and quality of the approach undertaken Durability, transferability and dissemination Partnership Management Budget

10 Additional selection criteria used to assess the project strategy Investments Private partners Partners from Russia and Belarus Experience in EU Projects Focus on geographical disparities in the BSR

11 First application round Closing date Financing decisions applications 24 projects approved 59 Meuro financing committed

12

13 First application round

14 METNET BSR Outcome of the assessment Category 2b: Proposals that should not be approved Relevance: 3 Coherence: 2 Durability: 2 Partnership: 3 Management: 2 Budget: 3 Additional quality features Active RU/BY partners

15 METNET BSR Outcome of the assessment The project has not quality enough to be approved. The main strong feature is that the project idea and objectives as such match well to the selected priority. The public sector, research sector and public business advisors are well incorporated into the project in each participating region either as financing partners or as associated organisations. The weakest point is lack of focus regarding the activities to be carried out and the results that the project would like to achieve as well as the lack of incorporating the SMEs directly into the project partnership. In addition, some costs are clearly over-budgeted. Recommendation: Please note that the project partner 9 (Association of Technology and Innovation) is ineligible according to the programme rules.

16 Second application round More info at