The Rose Association Local Action Group

1
The Rose AssociationLocal Action Group
Through mistakes to quality
2
(No Transcript)
3
The Rose Association WHO ?

• Founded on 24. 1. 2004 as civil association
• of 17 individuals on behalf of organizations from
  public (7) and private
• (10) sectors z oblasti
• AUTORITHIES
• General meeiting of LAG
• LAGs committee (5 members)
• Evaluation committee (9)
• Control commission (3) monitoring and
  controlling
• Secretariate manager, adviser, bookkeeper
• DOCUMENTS
• Foundation charter, Constitution of the
  Association and Statute

4
The Rose Association WHAT ?
The Way of 5K 2004 Applicants 10
Beneficiaries 5 Grants
4,8mil 2005 Applicants 4 Beneficiaries
2 Grants 1,0mil 2006 Applicants
10 Beneficiaries 6 Grants 2,8mil
On the Way of 5K 1.call Applicants
13 Beneficiaries 11 Grants
3,76mil 2. call Applicants
29 Beneficiaries 17 Grants
6,2mil 3. call Applicants
6 Beneficiaries 5 Grants
1,72mil
5
The Rose Association How ?

• Administration
• 1) Have to be planned and described in the LAG
  strategy
• 2) Have to be kept these principles
• Clarity
• Transparency
• Records archive
• Four eyes
• Qualified human recources
• 3) Have to be observed thoroughly

6
Administration

• 1) Call for proposals
• Clear information, efficient dissemination,
  detailed manual for applicants
• Educational seminars and workshops for applicants
  and LAGs administrators
• Prepare of projects and applications receipt
• 2) Application receipt
• Personal delivery by statutory body or person
  with delegation
• Strict keeping the rules (time, place)
• Minimally two persons with clear divided duties
• To follow the order of applicants coming
• To avoid evaluating notes
• To issue the delivery certificate (prepared
  forms)
• Administration checking (at once x after)
• Lock the door

7
Administration

• Formal corecteness check of applications and
  proposals
• What could be checked ?
• signatures and rubber stamps
• completness of application and annex
• annex validity (copy x original, date, right
  names, etc)
• How could be checked ?
• LAG,s secreteriate with minimally two persons
• protocol with finding of facts
• correction possibility to some date (how to
  announce it ?)
• Sufficient time for checking
• Supervision of LAG,s checking by SZIF/ZAPÚ

8
Administration

• Eligibility criteria evaluating
• What could be evaluated ?
• Project complies with the relevant Czech Republic
  and EU legislation
• Project will be implemented within the area of
  LAG
• On the basis of the submitted documents for the
  assessment of the applicants financial health,
  the result of the analysis of the applicants
  financial health is positive
• Project relates to the LAG Strategy programme
• The applicant claims financial aid only for
  eligible expenditure within the limits of the
  measure concerned
• How could be evaluated ?
• Evaluation Yes x No only
• No possibility for correction
• Evaluation could be done by secretariate and the
  result is approved by LAGs committee
• Necessity of protocol with finding of facts
• Proposals with all Yes answers can go on

9
Administration

• Selection criteria
• What could be evaluated ?
• The project contribution for fulfilling the LAG
  strategy
• The contribution must be characterized
• There could be evaluated known facts (documented
  past and present) and future effects or
  applicants promises
• Applicant experience in the field
• Quality and credibility of proposal
• How could be evaluated ?
• Evaluation committee
• Two persons minimally for evaluating one project
• They must follow evaluating criteria
• There must be unity of understanding of
  evaluating criteria
• All projects are scored and according to the
  score there is a long-list, which is the base of
  final selection. There is no other possibility to
  change the order of project.
• Evaluating could have one round or more.

10
Administration

• Checking the project implementation
• 1) Ex-ante check
• 2) Interim check
• 3) Ex post check
• Principles
• There is a need to keep the contact between LAG
  and beneficiaries
• Always two persons check
• Announcement several days before
• Prepared check list signed by both sides
• More then check try to help and consult

11
Risks and Threatens

• Area absorptions capacity
• Lack of money for co- and pre-financing projects
  
• Lack of understandable information
• Lack of project creating skills
• Psychological barriers and fear of bureaucracy
• There is no demand for supported themes
• There are mistakes in operational rules
• Insufficient publicity of the LAG Strategy
• Relying only on one information tool
• Lack of personal contact with potential
  applicants
• Tendency to limit competition
• Negative approach of LAG advisers

12
Risks and Threatens

• Projects selection
• Inexperience of Evaluation committee members
• Non-transparent operations
• Oversized subjectivity in selection criteria
• Conflict of interests
• Less satisfied, more disappointed (13)
• Project implementation
• Insufficient consultancy
• Absence of feedback
• Bad check mechanism in LAG

13
The Rose Association

• Thank you for your attention
• Mgr. Michal Jarolímek
• Tel [phone]
• E-mail novnos_at_tiscali.cz
• www.novnos.cz