Workshop Lessons learnt from project implementation

1
INTERREG IIIA Conference "United by Borders"
24-25 September 2007 Reval Hotel Latvia, Riga

• Workshop Lessons learnt from project
  implementation
• Positive and negative experience of
• implementation INTERREG IIIA North priority
• project Remote Access
• by Inese Kursite, Project Co-ordinator
• Latgale Region Development Agency, Latvia

2
Content

• Project presentation (1-4)
• Project positive experience
• Problems with implementation of project (1-3)
• Contact information

3
Project presentation - 1

• Title New spatial development zone for border
  regions of Latvia and Russia connecting
  potentials of two countries
• Acronym Remote Access
• ID NIV-093
• Logo

4
Project presentation - 2

• Project Partners Latgale Region Development
  Agency (Latvia), LRDA
• Vidzeme Region Development Agency
  (Latvia), VDA
• JSC Region-Expo (St.Petersburg, Russia),
• Administration of Pskov Oblast (Russia),
• ILOT (St.Petersburg, Russia)
• Project Period 14 months
• (01.12.06 till 31.12.07 for ERDF, 29.02.08 for
  Tacis)
• Project Budget ERDF (LRDA, VDA), 377 164 EUR
• Tacis (LRDA, Region-Expo, Pskov, ILOT), 202 225
  EUR
• Total 579 389 EUR

5
Project presentation - 3

• Project Objective Promote sustainable spatial
  development of project area and introduce new
  ideas for development of remote border regions on
  both sides BSR/EU border via analysis of current
  situation in transport/logistics, elaboration of
  common Strategy, justification for further
  development, networking
• Project Work PackagesWP 1 Management and
  CoordinationWP 2 Developing justification for
  investments in transport/logisticsWP 3
  Developing joint spatial development strategy
  (SDS) and networks WP 4 Publicity and information

6
Project presentation - 4

• Project Outputs (mainly soft)Studies,
  strategy etc
• Analysis of Potential of Latgale, Vidzeme,
  Leningrad, Pskov regions in the filed of
  Transport and Logistics services. Current trends
  and opportunities
• Development of technological parks and
  distribution centers in Latgale region /
  Leningrad and Pskov Oblasts
• Development of transport and supporting services
  in LV-RU border area
• Joint spatial development strategy for entire
  project area for 20 years 2 conferences
  opening and closing Study tour to RU-FIN border
  (logistic centers, technological parks etc) 1
  set of maps, GIS equipment, 24 consultations, 56
  plans, 28 pre-releases, etc

7
(No Transcript)
8
Project Positive Experience

• New cooperation ideas identified
• - joint territorial marketing and seeking for
  investments, Kaliningrad corridor
• - LV-RU competence centers to balance labor
  migration
• - traveling workshops (students, producers etc)
• - complex tourism routes (sacral, championship
  on mushrooming etc)
• - town (rural) twinning milk, birds,
  eco-products, sports etc.
• Partnership developed and functional
• - all partners are equal and unique it is
  critical point
• - different backgrounds joint understanding
• Project delivery capacity strengthened at partner
  and project level
• - built capacity for project management,
  implementation, reporting, evaluation
• - built capacity to develop further common ideas

9
1 - Implementation of activities, partnership,
changes of project activities and outputs

• What to do if partners have different legal
  status, professional experience, project
  experience, local traditions, legislation etc
  how to develop joint approach?
• What to do if partners have no sufficient human
  resources (i.e. initially planned 3 staff
  members, have only 1)?
• What to do if the activities are behind the time
  plan and how efficiently agree on activity plan?
• What to do if some partners do not attend project
  activities (i.e.seminars, work groups)?
• How to reach attention and support from national
  level institutions to project activities? What
  would you do?
• Decision for approval of project changes takes
  much time (i.e.change of project manager took 3
  months) time lost

10
2 - Absorption of project budget, changes of
budget

• How to ensure proper financial management, not
  just accountancy (i.e.for Tacis, ERDF partners)?
  Can you propose a unique financial management
  system that works?
• What is better for project money in cash or
  bank transfer?
• What to do if the ERDF partner has no funds for
  pre-financing the project? This principle may
  apply to business companies for their development
  projects but is problematic for i.e. NGOs
• What to do if Tacis partner has no funds for
  co-financing the project?
• Is VAT an eligible expenditure?
• When procurement procedures have to be applied?
  Should we use procurement procedures for Tacis?

11
3 - Reporting and auditing

• What information is essential for activity
  reporting?
• What information is essential for financial
  reporting?
• Should partners report to Lead Partner and how to
  better ensure partners involvement in reporting?
• No clear and simple auditing system - Auditors
  change requirements change (i.e. auditor DID
  NOT accept a list of participants without
  personal codes ??)
• Auditing as another project, takes much time,
  energy, paper
• Human factor i.e. auditors twice require
  certain supporting documents even if they have
  been submitted (did not notice)
• Staff costs too complicated calculation and
  many papers to submit (perhaps, unified hourly
  rates could be defined by the programme)
• Administration costs too detailed (report on
  each pencil, cartridge etc)
• Too much bureaucracy

12
Thank You for Your attention!

• Contact information
• Latgale Region Development Agency
• Rigas iela 2, Daugavpils LV-5401, LATVIA
• Phone / Fax [phone]
• E-mail latgale_at_latgale.lv
• www. latgale.lv / transport and logistics