A big thank you to those of you who have contributed to our first blog – I hope we will have a lot more comments over the coming months. Some of you have asked how you will be consulted about the development of the new programme and how you can become involved.
This blog is just the start of our engagement with you all and it would be good to hear your views on how would you like to be involved or consulted as negotiations continue and we start to think about the future programmes.
As you may now be aware the Common Strategic Framework has now been published and I have summarised some of the main points below;
Multi-fund Approach – better co-ordination and alignment between funds (ESF, ERDF, EAFRD and EMFF) – to ensure a more joined up approach to achieving the thematic objectives.
An integrated approach and partnership working - done at a strategic level through the Partnership Contract/Agreement – but also at a local/regional level through community led local developments, Joint Action Plans and Integrated Territorial Investments.
Simplification through common provisions covering the four funds , particularly around the management and control systems.
Harmonisation of eligibility rules and an extension of simplified cost options
Having read through the Common Strategic Framework and all the fund specific regulations!! I have my own views on the points above. But I am more interested in what your views are on the Framework.
Do the proposals go far enough?
What aspects do you like or not like?
Do you think that there are projects which would have worked better if the funds had been better co-ordinated?
March 22, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Thankyou for the latest blog. It would be exciting if, through this medium, you/we got to be listened to by the EC in this consultation because there is no doubt that the CSF 2014 to 2020 would benefit greatly from a strong injection of common sense approach.
On behalf of my company Nautilus Associates Limited, I will be pleased to contribute to the process.
As an aside, here are a few examples of how we’ve been and still are, involved in EC funding – by way of justifying why we are qualified to make comment:
We established UK Assist for DTI & Scottish Enterprise as the UK FP6 Expert Help org for the oil & gas industry and managed thisservice from 1999 to 2004.
We represented UK on the Board of EUROGIF (European Oil & Gas Innovation Forum) from 2000 to 2004.
We acted as proposal consultants then project administrators for Talisman/SSE to apply for then manage the DOWNVInD / Beatrice Deepwater Offshore Windfarm Project from 2003 to 2011 with responsibility for all aspects of dealing with and reporting to; EC FP7 (€6M contribution), UK DTI (£3 contribution) and Scottish Gov (£3M contribution).
We are currently Project Managers of two large ERDF projects for clients.
Best Regards
April 6, 2012 at 10:20 pm
There are some very good practices that have emerged from this programme. Without exception, all could be improved! There is a lot of scope to embed simplifications but it would mean setting up a working group of representatives from CPPs, SDS, SE and so on to genuinely look at how the simplifications could be introduced and how they would be operationalised.
CPPs working to develop a single model whereby most of the delivery was contracted; reducing admin costs; engaging with the lottery to examine the potential for bringing additional clean match to the projects;
Examining the potential for wider use of unit costing; investigating the potential for using lump sum pricing – particularly for voluntary sector partners; wider use of SDBs with more flexible arrangements.