On Contracting and Life

The contracting of Tourism Cooperation projects is nearly finished and most projects are up and running. On the whole, this process has been interesting and engaging. As one can expect, various problems and issues have risen along the way, but most of them have been solved smoothly and swiftly. This experience can and will be utilized in making future contracting processes more efficient and rapid, which is of utmost importance since the Programming period is getting shorter day by day. My next contract negotiations will begin in the fall and they should progress with better pace than the previous ones. 

Meanwhile, as my first round of contracting is almost over, I thought this would be a good opportunity to look back and reflect on the differences I have so far encountered between the ENPI CBC Programme and other funding programmes. Having moved to Karelia ENPI from a position in which I worked with the ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) and a few national development Programmes, I can safely say that there are clear differences between them. For example, decision-making processes are very different, as is the contract-based funding system, which does not exist in ERDF or national programmes. The role of the JMA is also very different, not to say anything about my role as programme coordinator. My title in ERDF was the same, but my tasks and duties could not possibly be more different: in ERDF coordinators receive applications as soon as they come in and are in charge of starting the preparation and decision-making processes. In ENPI we receive the applications when they have already been accepted for funding, and my job is to manage the contracting process and negotiate with the applicants. 

ENPI differs from ERDF also in terms of individual projects and their objectives. The bulk of ERDF projects is thematically fragmented, meaning that no two projects usually aim at the same objectives or address the same general problem in any complementary manner. This makes it very difficult to assess their overall impact and it can be said to be a somewhat inefficient approach in general. Karelia ENPI, on the other hand, makes use of thematic calls, which creates a kind of portfolio of projects that operate under the same theme – tourism, for example. While this approach does not necessarily help in assessing the impact of individual projects, it does allow better assessment of the impact of the whole Programme. 

ENPI and ERDF are also governed by different laws and regulations, both on the EC and national levels. This obviously means that the rules are also slightly different. Laws and regulations concerning both Programmes are clear enough but this does not mean that the instructions derived from them are equally simple. The instructions in Karelia ENPI are extremely good and clear compared to ERDF. The Programme Manual and Guidelines to calls are extensive but not off-putting, and they cover more or less every aspect that applicants need to know about applying and implementation. ERDF includes a fairly large number of rules that are not transparent because they exist only in memos that pass between different organizations. As the Karelia ENPI has only one organization that is responsible for the management of the Programme, it is easier to keep the instructions updated and simple.

-         Toni Saranpää

Programme Coordinator

Working of the Joint Monitoring Committee

The Joint Monitoring Committee is the highest decision making body in the Programme. The Committee includes members from the regional and national levels from both participating countries (3 regional level and 2 national level members from both Finland and Russia).  On 13^th of June the JMC had a meeting in Petrozavodsk,  seventh in all. The discussions in the meeting were constructive and onward directed.

Working of the JMC has developed and changed during these years since the first meeting in March 2009. In the beginning the Programme contended with the problems arising from the delay. This had an influence also to the work of the JMC. First meetings were mostly loaded with the questions concerning the programme management and practicalities – which are important issues as well if you want the programme proceed smoothly.   First meetings also proved that the starting of something new requires always some time – in the case of JMC the work didn’t start from scratch but anyhow it took its time before the things started to advance. Most of the Committee members had already some experience about the Monitoring Committee working in previous programmes but the launching of ENPI CBC Programmes brought new bodies to the table – and also new rules and regulations.

The roles of different bodies were discussed several times: Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC), Joint Selection Committee (JSC) , Joint Managing Authority (JMA) , Member state, partner country, European Commission.  Basic structures had been already agreed during the Joint Operational Programme (JOP) preparation but when the step was taken from the theory to practice it was clearly seen that some gaps and overlapping  existed – and the Prag (Practical guide to contract procedures for EU external actions) didn’t help with this work. On the contrary: Prag didn’t recognize the Joint Monitoring Committee or Joint Selection Committee – not to speak about Joint Managing Authority. Prag speaks about contracting authority, which in ENPI CBC context may mean JMC in some case and JMA in other and so on.

And why to talk about all these complex and difficult issues at this moment when the things seem to proceed? My opinion is that it is good to highlight the fact that the JMC managed to solve all the difficult issues in the beginning and had a clear will to go forward with the Programme. Without this strong will the whole structure would have most propably already collapsed and CBC on EU’s external borders would be only a good idea.

Now the picture looks pretty good on JMC’s aspect: in autumn the last project selections shall be confirmed by the JMC and after that the focus shall change: more and more attention will be paid to the outputs and results of projects and different prioritized themes of the Programme. This monitoring work builds up a solid basis for the preparation of future ENI CBC Programme…which is then a subject to a different story!

Marko Ruokangas

Programme Director 

Behind coordinator's desk

I am the person you call to ask when will the call for proposals open, what does 'outputs' mean or is it OK if we do this activity this way instead of that. I've been that person - a coordinator - for ten years already (yes indeed, I was 16 when I started). My title has remained but the operational environment, as well as my tasks and answers to the questions, have changed a lot during the past decade.

When I started as a coordinator we were implementing Interreg III A Karjala programme. That time the biggest problem, at ideological level, was that we were doing cooperation between Finland and Russia but only had funding for the activities taking place in Finland.

With the Neighbourhood programme a step forward was taken when it became possible to apply for funding for both sides of border with a single application even the funding came from two different instruments (Interreg and Tacis). However, the administration of one action with two set of rules and raporting was quite challenging for the beneficiaries.

Now there's only one set of rules and both Finns and Russians are eligible as lead partners. That is definitely a step to the right direction.

Hopefully it won't be the last step. The cross-border cooperation programmes can still be improved with the experiences from the current programmes.

From coordinators viewpoint it would be better if we didn't have stick to the European Commission's Practical guide to the External Assistance but could more freely define the guidelines of the calls and to modify the annexes and forms to better emphasize the cross-border nature of the programme  - not all the rules and policies that fit for external assistance fit to cross-border cooperation.

Then again, restricted and thematic calls are a good idea and they can and should be used and evolved further in the future as well. It is not possible to pay too much attention on the effectiveness and productivity of the projects and programmes.

While waiting for the operational environment to change once again, I keep on working with the ongoing projects trying to answer their questions and in return asking even more questions from them.

Henna-Mari Helenius
Programme Coordinator

The blog is opened - welcome!

For projects and programme management years 2012-2014 will be interesting and busy. Year 2012 will be especially demanding for project selection procedures: all the remaining calls for proposals shall be implemented and projects selected by the end of this year. The objective is to get the projects contracted and launched by the beginning of 2013.

The tight schedule shall be challenging also for the projects. The projects have to be finalized by the end of 2014 – there’s no time to loose. Despite of the tight schedules, the concrete results and impacts of themes and projects start to emerge and this will make the following years especially interesting!

At the same time the preparation of the next programming period creates its own challenges. We have a possibility to contribute to this process on both programme and project levels by taking care of our tasks with the strong expertise and know-how that has accumulated to our programme and projects level stakeholders during the years.

During the next years a lot of things will happen at many levels. This blog will bring up different perspectives to the programme implementation, from grassroots to state and EU level. The writers shall come from projects, Programme Committees, participating countries and from EU. However, the Joint Managing Authority together with the Programme’s branch Office in Petrozavodsk is taking the main responsibility on the blog and will bring up the “management” side of the programme.

The opening of the blog is published in three languages (English, Finnish and Russian) but in order to keep the maintaining of the blog possible the language used will English from now on. Comments and opinions to the language regime are welcome – it is important that the blog is practical and useful for the programme stakeholders and also for everyone interested.

Marko Ruokangas

Programme Director