jaspers stakeholders meeting how to improve the quality of submissions and streamline the...
TRANSCRIPT
JASPERS STAKEHOLDERS MEETING
How to improve the quality of submissions and streamline the application process
Budapest, 7-8 April 2011
2
Session 1: JASPERS Strategy 2011-2013
Opening remarks: Rudolf Niessler, Director for Policy Co-ordination, Directorate General for Regional Policy, European Commission
Chair: Rudolf Niessler
Briefing on new JASPERS Strategy 2011-2013 Overview of 2011 JASPERS Action Plans Examples of new actions – information sharing, preparation of projects for next programming period, strategic support, implementation, capacity building
3
2007-2013 DG REGIO and JASPERS Pipeline
EU Grant (EUR bn) No. of Projects
Total Approved & Submitted 28.7 262
Total to be Submitted 34.3 353
% Submitted or approved so far 46% 43%
JASPERS Pipeline 316
March 2011 Snapshot: Projects Submitted/Approved, and new projects to be submitted 2011-2013
020406080
100120140160180200
No
. o
f P
roje
cts
Submitted & approved To be submitted 2011-13
4
JASPERS Strategy 2011-2013
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Action Plan Year
JA
SP
ER
S S
taff
Project Preparation for 2007-13 Programme Project Preparation for 2014-20 Programme
Capacity building / implementation support
Source: JASPERS DatabaseNote: Data is actual to mid September 2010, and forecast based on JASPERS assumptions thereafter
1. Continued preparation of projects for 2007-2013 programming period
2. Preparation of projects now for next programming period.3. Strategy work and horizontal assignments 4. Capacity building5. Selectively increasing implementation support beyond the pilot
phase
5
JASPERS Strategy – Building Continuity in Project Preparation across Programming Periods
Project preparation advanced 2 years
Wasted Opportunity
Year 7
777177Opportunity
Year 1 Opportunity
2020
Year 15
1511Opportunity
2007 Opportunity
2013
Opportunity
JASPERS
Project preparation activity
Project preparation capacity
•Horizontal Support•Strategy Support•Setting up TA•Developing national guidelines
•Project Preparation Support
•Setting up TA•Developing national guidelines
Setting up TADeveloping national guidelines
6
Overview of Action Plans 2011
- 2 Action Plans are signed only, BUT
- In other countries the Management Authorities and JASPERS, in consultation with DG REGIO desks have agreed on the assignments, and signature of Action Plans is awaited.
→ takes longer this year as partly shift to “new wave” projects:
- Capacity building/implementation support- Projects for next programming period- In total some 50 projects in this areas
- In addition, new “normal” projects for 2007-13 period are still being introduced- Number of active assignments as at 31/3/2011 is 368→ pay attention to absorption
JASPERS STAKEHOLDERS MEETING
How to improve the quality of submissions and streamline the application process
Budapest, 7-8 April 2011
8
Preparations for the next programming period
in the Environment sector in Romania
DOINA FRANŢ, General DirectorMinistry of Environment and Forests
Managing Authority for SOP Environment - 7th of April 2011 -
9
Water/wastewater
Waste management
Contaminated sites
Nature protection
Floods
Coastal erosion
Areas of intervention proposed for post 2014
10
Arrangements already initiated for the preparation of the project portfolio in the water/wastewater and waste management sectors:
call for projects in the water sector to be launched shortly; study that includes contaminated sites inventory, risk evaluation and
historical pollution investigation (+ 10-15 project applications) – to be launched soon.
revision/update of Master Plans in the water and waste sectors;
Changes expected:
Contract management to be brought closer to the beneficiaries to enhance project ownership in an initial phase of the preparation;
Increase the MA and the IBs role in coordination of project preparation;
Current/planned initiatives
11
Good cooperation so far with Jaspers and DG Regio during the entire process of project preparation: informal appraisal of major projects with a considerable reduction of the approval period
Important JASPERS contribution in approval of major projects for the 2007-2013 programming period; efforts to be continued in 2011;
JASPERS involvement sought in the implementation of approved projects.
Reflections on JASPERS contribution and further expectations
JASPERS STAKEHOLDERS MEETING
How to improve the quality of submissions and streamline the application process
Budapest, 7-8 April 2011
14
JASPERS involvement in strategic issues - 1
Project preparation:• Preparation of projects for the 2007-2013 programming period,• Preparation of reserve projects,• Preparation of projects for the 2014-2020 programming period.
Tools for full absorption of OP resources:• EU financing of project costs previously financed from the national budget,• Applying ’bridge project’ concept,• Fulfillment of n+2, n+3 rules.
15
JASPERS involvement in strategic issues - 2
Preparation of strategies for the 2014-2020 programming period:• Sub-sectoral transport strategies (road, railway, suburban railway, etc.)
- Rolling stock strategies,
- New road tolling system,• National integrated transport strategy,• Strategies for specific horizontal issues:
- Public Governance,
- Intelligent Transport Systems,
- Road safety measures.
16
JASPERS in Bulgaria
Cooperation with JASPERS dating from 2006 Assistance for preparation of projects for 3
operational programmes OP Transport OP Environment OP Regional Development
33 completed tasks, including 9 applications for major project (4 approved so far)
Action Plan for 2010 contained 50 tasks, out of which 14 were completed at the end of the year
17
Main trends in JASPERS assistance
Providing technical assistance on critical path for project development, including review and support for the preparation of high quality projects in the field of road, rail and urban transport, as well as in the waste and water sectors;
Introducing Jaspers input in project management i.e involvement of Jaspers in the implementation phase (environment sector);
Long-term institutional support for strengthening the capacity of the structures authorized to implement the reform in the transport and water sectors, including setting up appropriate PIUs;
Providing assistance on conceptual development and project structuring for the new programming period 2014-2020 (development of strategies and prioritization of the projects)
18
JASPERS Action Plan 2011
The preparation of the Action plan for 2011 is in its final stage;
AP includes 39 projects in the following sectors: Water and wastewater (9) Waste (11) Roads (4) Railways (3) Ports (1) Urban transport (3) Horizontal tasks (8)
JASPERS STAKEHOLDERS MEETINGThank you very much for your attention !
Nadia GUENOVACouncil of Minister, [email protected]
www.eufunds.bg
Budapest, 7-8 April 2011
Project co-financed from the European Regional Development Fund within the Innovative Economy Operational Programme
Involvement of JASPERS in the Implementation Phase of Knowledge
Economy RI Projects
Marcin Szumowski
Issues Beyond the tradition of curiosity driven research
Leveraging the new RI for stimulating innovation
Overcoming barriers to effective TT in Poland and CE
Verifying and validating CePT Technology Transfer model
– organisational, financial, legal aspects
Why get involved? - benefits of JASPERS intervention
Budapest EIB/JASPERS meeting April 7, 2011
Circle of curiosity driven research Circle of innovation
This circle can take months to decades
but also relies on high quality research !
Tax Payer
Results
Products Science
Budapest EIB/JASPERS meeting April 7, 2011
Main barriers to effective TT in Poland Scarce (0.6 GDP) and dispersed financing of research
Inefficient use of EU Funds to stimulate innovation
Political (short-term) approach to stimulate innovation
Legal and tax barriers + lack of proper incentives
University and research institute culture
Incorrect approach to TT – lack of accountability
Low awareness & lack of motivation among the research community
Unwillingness to cooperate in TT areaBudapest EIB/JASPERS meeting April 7, 2011
Themapharm
Adamed
DrIrenaEris
VC Inovo(100M)
Gedeon Richter Polska
ORENORESeed capital
(40M)
SPIN OFFUNIVERSITYINVENTORSINVESTORS
TTPBTM Sp. z o.o.
20 %
PAS WTU WMU UW HSE
VC Round ICERTIFICATION
EST. VALUE 10M
ERDF or National
VC Round 2
EXIT
TTP COMPETENCY AREAS
1. SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION2. SCIENTIFIC BASE3. INTERDISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT4. PRELIM. MARKET EVALUATION5. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS6. RECOMM. TO INVESTMENT TEAM7. INDUSTRY LIASON (NEGOT. / LEGAL)
AT ESTIMATED VALUATION 10MLN
20% GUARANTEE FOR RESEARCH / ACADEMIC PARTNERS & INVENTORS
RETAINING CORE TEAM MEMBERS
Industry Partners
UP TO 20/80
Research Partners
Bioton
Celon Pharma
MTZ Clinical
Medic-algorithmics
WTS Patent
CITY OF WARSAW
Private2M
Benefits of JASPERS intervention General (shared support)
RI management models – access to expertise, benchmarking, training Market creation, procurement models, bottom-up strategy development International networking, linking to ESFRI and pan-European RI
Specific (individual support) Implementation of best-practice commercialisation models Legal (FTO vs. public procurement), Financial (State Aid, Income) Evaluation of CePT model (Cluster formula, external entity, IP management) BTM Mazowsze legal structure (private, PPP, academic) – access to IPR?
Specialist: legal, finance, human resource / recruitment To get RoI guidance and specialist support is necessary
Budapest EIB/JASPERS meeting April 7, 2011
Budapest EIB/JASPERS meeting April 7, 2011
Science Business
Bussiness
Support Institut.
We need EIB & JASPERS knowledge to build a knowledge based economy
in Poland
Bringing Business to Science
and Life Science to Life
JASPERS STAKEHOLDERS MEETING
How to improve the quality of submissions and streamline the application process
Budapest, 7-8 April 2011
29
Session 2: Improving the quality and timingfor the application process
Chair: Agustin Auria, Head of JASPERS
Analysis of interruption letters Handling interruptions Guidelines for common issues: Lithuanian example New Completion Note format Bilateral/Tripartite cooperation – sharing experience and areas to improve Key remaining horizontal issues
30
Analysis of Interruption letters by Sector (1)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
B. PROJE
CT DETAIL
S
C. RESULT
S OF F
EASIBIL
ITY S
TUDIES
D. TIM
ETABLE
E. COST B
ENEFIT A
NALYSIS
F. ANALY
SIS O
F THE E
NVIRONM
ENTAL IM
PACT
G. JUSTIF
ICATIO
N FOR T
HE PUBLIC
CONTRIB
UTION
H. FIN
ANCING P
LAN
I. COM
PATIBIL
ITY W
ITH C
OMM
UNITY P
OLICIE
S AND L
AW
J. ENDORSEM
ENT OF C
OMPETENT N
ATIONAL A
UTHORITY
MUNSWEKEWATRODRAL
31
Analysis of Interruption lettersby Sector (2)
Criteria RAL ROD WAT KE SWE MUN Grand Total %
B. PROJECT DETAILS 18 22 17 4 6 14 81 14%
C. RESULTS OF FEASIBILITY STUDIES 8 20 4 0 4 12 48 8%
D. TIMETABLE 6 15 2 0 2 5 30 5%
E. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS 32 38 23 7 14 20 134 23%
F. ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 44 48 37 2 22 12 165 29%
G. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 1%
H. FINANCING PLAN 13 24 7 1 8 7 60 10%
I. COMPATIBILITY WITH COMMUNITY POLICIES AND LAW 13 16 6 2 10 9 56 10%
J. ENDORSEMENT OF COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITY 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0%
StatisticsTotal number of interruption reasons 136 185 96 16 66 79 578Number of interruption letters 16 27 20 3 8 9 83Average number of reasons per interruption letter 8.50 6.85 4.80 5.33 8.25 8.78 6.96
Number of Interruption Reasons / Sector
32
Interruption Letters (1)
A snapshot
F. ANALYSIS OFTHE
ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT
E. COST-BENEFITANALYSIS
B. PROJECTDETAILS
H. FINANCINGPLAN
I. COMPATIBILITYWITH
COMMUNITYPOLICIES AND
LAW
C. RESULTS OFFEASIBILITY
STUDIES
D. TIMETABLE G. JUSTIFICATIONFOR THE PUBLICCONTRIBUTION
33
Interruption Letters (2)
70% of interruption letters contain issues on: EIA and Natura 2000 CBA and socio-economic analysis Project details/Description
Interruption letters in EC12 EC 1590% 80%
Days to approval in EC 12 (JASPERS supported) 2010 257Days to approval in EC 12(NOT JASPERS supported) 2010 445Days to approval in EC 15 , 2010 264
Scope for improvement?Before appraisalAfter appraisal
Typical comments
NATURA2000Maps, justifications
EIA public consultations, permitting authority’ procedures and
declarationsOperation issues
competition, no undue profit, operational costsReasoning for geograghical project scope
Delineation of agglomerations, grouping of settlementsOption analysis, CBA
Special comments by sectors:
Waste water sector:Capacity (treatment plant, sewage network, industrial – public
waste)Tertiary treatmentSludge treatment/disposal (long-term contracts, operational costs,
option analysis)
Solid waste sector:Waste transportation routesUse of compost (long term contract)
Flood protection:Landscape management
Comments look BACK and AHEAD
BACKdefinition of project, justification of geographical and technical scope
HU municipalities have a wide-range autonomy concerning with whom they want to co-operate
AHEADsustainability, operational phase, environment friendliness, country-scope concerns
HU adaptation/application of EIA directives forced to get improved (+ infringement )Force project promoters to look at the project in its full complexity (throughout project cycle + beyond)
+ Serves as a basis for project appraisals in full national responsibility (not MPs)
Thank You for Your kind attention.
SZABÓ SzilviaDep. Head of Managing Authority for Environmental Programmes
www.nfu.hu
JASPERS STAKEHOLDERS MEETING
How to improve the quality of submissions and streamline the application process
Budapest, 7-8 April 2011
JASPERSStakeholder Meeting
Guidelines for Preparing/Reviewing Applications
Pasquale Staffini
7-8 April 2011Budapest
41
JASPERS Guidelines for Preparing/Reviewing Applications
Initially prepared for evaluators Then developed as guidelines for
preparing / reviewing the Application Form
NOT a checklist Rather a guide/reminder Composed of evaluation sheet and
guidance for evaluators
42
JASPERS Guidelines for Preparing/Reviewing Applications
B.5.2 Socio-economic objectives (and targets)(1) The requested information to be provided in this section is twofold: (i) definition of project’s
socio-economic objectives; (ii) definition of targets.(2) An objective is an outcome that we want to achieve. Objectives should be in a clear relation to
the needs, presented in B.5.1. Objectives are relevant if they are solving the stated problems.
Available on JASPERS Web Site
Suggestions on the content, details and examples for each point in the application
Focus on links across sections in the application
43
JASPERS New Completion Note (1)
Aim To highlight significant issues critical to project approval To present separately JASPERS conclusions and
recommendations To make the Completion Note more useful for Beneficiaries, MAs
and Desk Officers To present clearly which issues are most relevant to raise during
project appraisal and approval
Timing Format agreed between JASPERS
and DG REGIO Presentation at REGIO-JASPERS
and Stakeholders Meeting Roll-out for new Completion Notes
from April 2011
Focus on the big issues
44
JASPERS New Completion Note (2)
3.2.2 Engineering feasibility
Project Measures
JASPERS CommentsComments should be grouped under sub-headings, or otherwise highlighted, to distinguish and draw attention to, where relevant, (1) Conclusions and (2) Significant outstanding issues.There should be full consistency with points made also under section 5 (Recommendations).
6. Additional JASPERS considerations (if any)
JASPERS CommentsJASPERS additional considerations that are not material to the approval of the project for EU co-financing (e.g. do not affect the project feasibility and/or economic desirability) but which are relevant to the preparation of similar projects in the pipeline, or should be addressed during the project implementation.
5. Recommendations
Draw together recommendations made under the different sections and summarise.Recommendations should primarily target steps which may be taken by the Management Authority (eg. points which should be taken into account in drafting the project agreement with the beneficiary) and the Beneficiary (eg. points which the beneficiary should consider to mitigate risks).This section must be clear and unambiguous and where a draft major project application is being reviewed identify clearly the sections to which comments relateThis section should be consistent with JASPERS Comments in sections3 and 4.
45
Implications for Member States
MA s should proactively review draft applications Focus attention on the Significant Outstanding Issues in the
Completion Note Do not submit application until all Significant Issues resolved Find other ways to handle additional considerations eg.
commitments to measures during implementation, clauses in national financing agreements, resolving sector-wide issues.
DG REGIO will expect the JASPERS section of the Application Form to explain how Significant Issues were addressed
Confirm sharing of Completion Notes with DG REGIO prior to submission
Better applications, fewer interruptions, faster approval
46
JASPERS Part of the Application Form
I.4. Involvement of JASPERS in project preparation
I.4.1. Has JASPERS technical assistance contributed to any part of the preparation of this project? Yes/No.
I.4.2. Describe the elements of the project where JASPERS had an input (e.g. environmental compliance, procurement, review of technical description).
I.4.3. What were the principal conclusions and recommendations of the JASPERS contribution and were these taken into account in the finalisation of the project?
What are JASPERS Progress Meetings?• The ‘tri-partite’ Progress Meetings were intended as a
forum for reviewing the entire JASPERS project portfolio in
the Member State.
• The meetings were scheduled on a systematic, quarterly
basis, covering all sectors over a 1- or 2-day series of
meetings.
•The Progress Meetings have evolved, and are now held
every-other quarter (2-3 times per year), with a series of
sector-specific meetings in the other quarters (also 2-3
times per year).
JASPERS STAKEHOLDERS MEETING -- Budapest, 7 April 2011
Particpants in JASPERS Progress Meetings
A ‘tri-partite’ meeting is typically among, and co-organized by:
•DG Regio (and other Comission services),
•JASPERS experts and managers,
•Managing Authority (Ministry of Regional
Development),
•Line Ministries,
•Intermediate Review Bodies, and
•Key Beneficiaries
‘A small, social gathering with your closest acquaintances’ !
JASPERS STAKEHOLDERS MEETING -- Budapest, 7 April 2011
Purpose of JASPERS Progress Meetings
•Discuss the status of projects and preparation
•Discuss the timetables for project review and submission to
the EC
•Address specific problems that arise in certain projects
•Resolve and harmonize approaches with the expectations of
DG Regio, practices in the Member State, and best practices
suggested by JASPERS
•Address Horizontal Issues that affect entire sectors (i.e.
Guidelines, assumptions, unit values, legislation and
compliance with Directives)
As you see, all topics that trigger no emotions !
JASPERS STAKEHOLDERS MEETING -- Budapest, 7 April 2011
Example of Progress Meeting Agenda Typical Day of a Two-Day Progress Meeting:
JASPERS STAKEHOLDERS MEETING -- Budapest, 7 April 2011
No. Time Topic 1. 9.30 - 9.35 Agenda 2. 9.35 - 9.45 Minutes of last meeting. 3. 9.45 - 10.50 1) Water Sector - 2010 Action Plan – Schedule and tasks –
Environment
4. 10.50 - 10.55 Coffee break
10.55 - 12.00 2) Solid Waste Sector - 2010 Action Plan – Schedule and tasks – Environment
4. 12.00 - 12.15 Coffee break 5. 12.15 - 13.00 3) Energy Sector - 2010 Action Plan – Schedule and tasks
– 7. 13.00 – 15.00 4) Knowledge Economy/R&D/ICT/Culture- 2010 Action Plan
– Schedule and tasks
8. 15.00 – 15.15 Any other business, Conclusions. 9. 15.15 -16.30 Lunch (Discussions during)
51
Session 2 continued:Discussion, Summary, Conclusions
Opening remarks: Matthias Kollatz-Ahnen,
Vice-President, European Investment Bank;
Dirk Ahner, Director General, DG Regional Policy
Chair: Matthias Kollatz-Ahnen
Continuation of Session 2 Discussion of outstanding points Summary and conclusions
JASPERS STAKEHOLDERS MEETING
How to improve the quality of submissions and streamline the application process
Budapest, 7-8 April 2011
53
Session 3: Future Perspectives
Chair: Dirk Ahner
Timetable and process for the preparation of new Regulations Member States views on future demand for JASPERS