INTERREG IVC Programme
3rd Monitoring Committee
Thursday 18 and Friday 19 September 2008
Hôtel de Région
27 place Jules Guesde, Marseille, France
Draft DECISION NOTES
Chaired by: Claude Marcori, DIACT, France, and
Nicolas Grosse, Préfecture de Région Nord-Pas de Calais, France
Participants: See Participants List in Annex 1.
Decision Notes: INTERREG IVC JTS
1. Opening and approval of the agenda
Mrs Marie-Noëlle Lienemann, Vice-President of the Région Nord-Pas de Calais, and Mr Christophe Castaner, Vice-President of the Région Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, welcomed participants and introduced the working session. Chair presented the agenda which was approved by the Monitoring Committee..
2. Follow-up of Monitoring Committee’s written procedures launched
JTS updated the MC on the results of written procedures launched since the last meeting, with the result that the Annual Report for 2007 has been approved on 27th June 2008.
3. Update on signing of the Agreements between MS, MA and CA
JTS presented a table detailing the status of agreements signed between the MA, EU Member States, Norway and Switzerland. The MC was reminded to take all necessary steps to sign the Agreements. Otherwise, partners from these countries would not able to report any expenditure, either for themselves as partner or for the whole partnership if they are Lead Partner. As soon as the MS sends the signed Agreement to the MA, costs of the partners concerned can be retrospectively reported from the start date of their project.
Summary of discussion:
· DE stated that the agreement is about to be signed.
· EL informed that the JTS will receive by letter a description of the system within 10 days.
· HU confirmed it has received the JTS document which should be signed and posted back.
· IT apologised for the delay but still asked for further clarification on the role, tasks and responsibilities of the 1st level control network group.
· LT declared that the agreement will be signed and returned to the JTS by the end of September.
· RO declared that the agreement will be signed and returned to the JTS by the end of September.
· PT provided the JTS with the signed version of the agreement on the day of the meeting. However, an incorrect version of the second level control questionnaire had been signed previously and thus had to be resubmitted.
· JTS stated that as long as the agreement is not yet signed, funds cannot be released to partners of projects located in these countries. In case the respective partner is the Lead Partner the whole project can not receive any funds.
· MA underlined the afore mentioned statement of the JTS and asked the respective Member States to sign soon the agreements.
· EC also hoped that all countries will have signed the agreement soon, in particular with regard to the running capitalisation projects. For instance, Italian partners are leading 3 capitalisation projects.
4. Description of the Management and Control System
JTS delivered a presentation on the status of the description of the management and control system. The description was submitted to the EC on 10 September 2008. The compliance assessment of the description by the Audit Authority (AA) was positive with the reservation that some first level control systems descriptions are still missing. In addition, the AA required that besides the LP control confirmation, the individual partner’s control confirmations are submitted to the JTS with each progress report and not only for the first one. This requirement leads to a change in the wording of the subsidy contract on page 5, Article 3, paragraph 4.
Decision:
MC approved the change in Article 3 paragraph 4 of the Subsidy Contract.
5. Update of the Operational Programme
JTS presented the modifications in the Operational Programme.
Summary of discussion:
· NL proposed to delete the words ‘side effect resulting from’ in section 4.3 – Agreed.
· DE raised the issue of IPs’ involvement in the assessment procedure and expressed concerns about the quality of their consultation work during this time-consuming assessment procedure.
· JTS answered that the need for consultation is very low once the call for proposals is closed. Moreover, not only does IPs’ involvement help to speed up the assessment process, but it also increases the quality of advice delivered during individual consultations.
· DE raised the issue of conflict of interest.
· JTS explained that this issue is also true for the whole JTS. However, each application is assessed by 3 different assessors and an external expert, in order to avoid any risk.
· EE also raised the issue of conflict of interest and asked whether the advising body can also take part in the assessment. Ideally, JTS should concentrate on technical checks and leave the assessment of the content to external experts.
· JTS explained that this would imply a complete change of the assessment procedure. Moreover, in 80% of the cases, external experts did agree with JTS.
· IT declared its support to DE and EE.
· IE stated that this assessment process is transparent and has been tested successfully under INTERREG IIIC, so the need for changing the whole system is not obvious
· JTS proposed to shift the final decision on this issue to a latter stage, under item 13.
· EC raised the issue of eligibility and rejection of applications and asked for more flexibility.
· JTS explained that this specific item is on tomorrow’s agenda.
Decision
MC approved the changes in the Operational Programme
6. JTS, Information Points and Human Resources
JTS presented the complete INTERREG IVC structure (JTS + IP) and explained the main reasons underlying the need for recruiting a 3rd assistant on INTERREG IVC, i.e. the unexpectedly high number of questions and applications received together with the weight of the regulatory constraint in general (public tenders, audit and controls). The presentation is attached as Annex 2.
Decision:
MC agreed on the opening of a new position of Assistant to start on 1 January 2009. The selection and recruitment procedure will start in the week following the MC meeting with the publication of the job profile on the INTERREG IVC website.
7. Communication
JTS presented the programme communication work plan for the 2nd semester of 2008, highlighting that all resources will be mobilised to ensure maximum coverage (Annex 3). The main event of this semester will be the annual EU Interregional Cooperation Forum, held on 27 and 28 October in Lille Grand Palais. As agreed in the Communication Plan, a focus on Bulgaria and Romania this year will be translated by prioritising stands or project developers from these countries and inviting their respective National Contact Points to hold national stands. Following this event, Lead Applicant Seminars and National Information Days will be organised by the IPs.
8. Update on TA Budget and actual expenditure 2008
JTS updated the MC on TA Budget and actual expenditure 2008 underlying that spending targets should be reached by the end of this year, as important payments for items such as the annual EU Interregional Cooperation Forum, the experts for the assessment of applications and Information Points have not been effected yet.
9. National Contributions to the Technical Assistance Budget 2007+2008
JTS presented a table detailing updated EU Member States’ and Partner States’ contributions to the TA budget. There are still outstanding national contributions. A reminder was sent on 11 June 2008. Following an update by the CA, on the day of the MC meeting the contribution of 4 MS was still missing. The invoice for the next instalment will be sent at the end of October 2008. The JTS kindly requested the MS to take all necessary steps to ensure regular, timely and full payment of their 2007+ 2008 + 2009 instalments to the TA Budget.
10. Financial Control and Audit
JTS reminded the MC about the latest developments in the field of first-level control and the positive outcomes of the first-level control networking meeting which was held on 10 June 2008 in Lille. JTS summarised the key developments in the audit field, namely the submission and acceptance of the Draft Audit Strategy to the EC, the launch of the tender for the externalisation of the Audit Work as well as the preparation of the next Group of Auditors meeting to take place on 26 November 2008 in Luxembourg. The presentation is attached as Annex 4.
Summary of discussion:
· IT asked clarification about the exact scope of responsibilities of the first-level control group and reassurance that this group is not entitled to take any decision.
· JTS underlined the advisory capacity of the first-level control network group. Any decision is taken by the Monitoring Committee.
· IE asked whether the Audit Authority could be the contractor of the selected audit firm to ensure transparency and independence.
· JTS explained that only the Managing Authority, the Région Nord-Pas de Calais, can contract the audit firm, but based on the GoA decision, thus ensuring full transparency and independence.
11. Report on running operations
JTS presented a table highlighting the current status of the six approved capitalisation projects. It was added that three of them – ERIK ACTION, PIKE and B3 Regions – have already organised their kick-off meeting with the active participation of the JTS and EC.
Summary of discussion:
· SE asked if the subsidy contract can be signed although the 1st level control is not yet in place.
JTS answered that the MA is willing to sign the contract; however, a letter was added to specify the restrictions concerning the payments to partners as mentioned under item 2 of agenda.
12. Overview of the 1st call for proposals: key results
JTS presented the key results of the INTERREG IVC 1st call for proposals stressing two main issues (Annex 5):
- The high ineligibility rate (94 applications out of 492 were declared ineligible, 19%);
- The large number of low quality applications (357 out of 398 were not recommended, 91.2%).
However, it should be noted that with 35 projects scoring 3.00 and above, about 23% of the total ERDF available for the overall programme – EUR 70 million – would be committed.
JTS concluded by underlying the two key challenges to be overcome for the 2nd call for proposals:
- The need to reinforce communication on capitalisation projects;
- The need to improve the quality of submitted project proposals.
Summary of discussion:
· LU asked how many projects that have applied had previously benefited from assistance from JTS/IPs.
· JTS replied that this specific data is unfortunately not available.
13. Assessment procedure
JTS reminded the MC briefly about the eligibility assessment, before detailing the quality assessment procedure which took place between 12 February and 21 August 2008 (see Annex 6). JTS reported that 11 Member States filled in clarification forms and answers were sent back to the MS. Concerning the quality assessment, JTS highlighted the following elements::
- IPs were solicited to take part into the assessment procedure (approved by MC2 in Ljubljana)
- External experts provided a thematic analysis on three main issues:
· Relevance of the theme tackled under Criterion 1 ‘Relevance of the proposal’;
· Added-value of the expected results under Criterion 3 ‘Quality of results’;
· Coherence of the partnership under Criterion 5 ‘Quality of partnership’.
- In more than 85% of the cases, the feed-back of the experts was in line with the assessor’s analysis. The ‘contradictory cases’ were treated case by case and, when justified, the final assessment was modified accordingly. The integration of the external expert’s analysis did not lead to any major changes in the final assessment.
- The methodology adopted for quality assessment is a complex process. Several examples of this complexity were presented by JTS who also reminded the MC of the fundamental principle of equal treatment of all applications submitted.
Summary of discussion:
· EE stated that it was not convinced by the quality of the assessment procedure. On this basis, EE argued in favour of a greater involvement of external experts.
· JTS indicated that the presentation aimed to provide MC with additional information on the whole assessment process. JTS also reminded MC of the past experience of working with external experts. These experts were usually required to provide a full assessment of the applications. This approach was not considered as very successful and explained the new methodology adopted in IVC.
· DE also stressed the need to improve the quality of the assessment procedure.
· IE reminded MC about the successful long-lasting experience of this assessment procedure.
14. Procedure for approval of projects
Chair presented proposal for the procedure for the approval of projects. It was proposed that the Member States in principle take a decision en bloc to approve recommended and to reject not recommended applications. For any application put in opposition for a bloc agreement by a Member States an individual decision should be taken.
Discussion:
MS requested to limit the block decision on non-recommended projects up to a certain score and make a decision on the remaining projects.
Decision:
Proposal was approved as presented with the limitation of the block decision of non-recommended projects up to a certain score as proposed during the discussion as mentioned above.
15. Approval of Regional Initiative Projects
JTS stated that the current wording of the rules of procedures – in particular § 4, No 4, – could be misleading. JTS proposed to amend them, so that no Member State could exert a veto right on the whole project under the current Rules of procedure.
Summary of discussion:
· MC rejected JTS proposal and agreed on proceding with project approvals.
· MC approved by block decision regional initiative projects having a score of 3.00 and above.
· MC decided by block decision to disregard projects having a score of 2.33 and below.
· MC could not reach any agreement on the approval of projects scored 2.83, 2.67 and 2.5
Decision:
MC agreed on approving the 35 recommended projects having a score of 3.00 and above. Together with the results of MC2, 41 cooperation projects amounting to about 23% of the total ERDF – EUR 70 million – were approved. None of the projects having a score below 3.00 was approved.