Progress Reporting

Kirsti Mijnhijmer, Joint Secretariat

Lead Partner Seminar25th March 2015, Svolvær, Norway

RationaleYOUR project is monitored by:1. First Level Controllers

2. The Monitoring Committee (MA)3.The Manging Authority (MA)

4. The Joint Secretariat (JS)

5. European Commission WE want to

guarantee satisfactory project

implementation

Start to end measurement AND quantification of

project outputs.... YOUR products and

services

Activity Reports are cross checked with

the project application/ decision

throughout the project’s

implementation.

If you report in time, we will make a payment ideally within 3 months,

provided there are no serious errors.

Communication and publicity is vital the NPA 2014-2020; the public should know about your project

outputs

Overview of NPA claim system

Activity Report in the NPA claim system

Purpose of the Activity Report

To allow programme bodies to monitor the development of the project

To help guarantee a satisfactory achievement of the project results

To provide quantification and continuous quality assurance of project outputs (quality objectives)

To allow a cross-check between the implementation versus the project application or decision.

To collect information for the NPA’s Annual Implementation Report

To help disseminate information about the project to the wider public.

To identify best practices in project implementation and publicity

To approve minor project changes pre-approved by the Secretariat

To assess the project’s risk profile

Reporting Forms

An activity report consists of 2 parts:A. Partner Activity Report: activities carried out by

partnerB. Project Activity Report: progress of project

implementation+ Supporting documentation

Types of information asked: Achievements of the project objectives and results, highlights Development status of main project outputs, including output

indicators Status of work package activities, deliverables, and target groups

reached Measures addressing horizontal principles Synergies with other strategies and programmes Changes and other project implementation issues

A. Partner progress report in eMS

A. Partner progress report in eMS

B. Project progress report in eMS

B. Project progress report in eMS

Result indicators – Programme level

Specific Objective

Result Indicator

Priority axis 1 - Innovation1.1 Degree of collaborations between SMEs and R&D1.2 Awareness and attitudes among health professionals towards the use of eHealth

technologies. Priority axis 2 – Entrepreneurship2.1 Conditions for start-ups in remote, sparsely populated areas2.2 Awareness of business opportunities beyond local markets among SMEsPriority axis 3 – Renewables and energy efficiency3 Awareness of energy efficiency opportunities and renewable solutions in housing

sector and public infrastructures in remote and sparsely populated areasPriority axis 4 – Protecting, developing and promoting natural and cultural heritage 4 Preparedness of responsible authorities in remote and sparsely populated areas

for environmental management in relation to climate change and impacts of new investments in exploitation of natural resources

(Programme Manual section 2.4.1)

Output indicators – Project level

Type Output Indicator Measurement unit

Common indicators

Number of enterprises receiving support Enterprises

Number of enterprises cooperating with research institutions Enterprises

Specific indicators

Number of product and service opportunities to be developed, based on new or existing R&D

Products and services

Number of supported SMEs reporting productivity increase in %. (i.e. Increased sales, customer base and increased productivity)

SMEs

Number of innovative models/solutions addressing viability and low critical mass in public service provision

Collaborations

Number of innovative technology-driven solutions for public service provision in remote areas

Services

Example Priority Axis 1 (Programme Manual section 2.4.2)

Assessment of the Activity Report by JS

Completeness of the information Eligibility of activities carried out Coherence of activities with objectives set out in application/

decision Progress achieved of the implementation vs. the

application/decision Analysis of the efficiency and effectiveness of project

implementation Measurement of quality and quantity of project outputs and

results Analysis of project spending profile, value-for-money, etc. Quality of partnership and distribution of roles between the

partners Analysis of synergies with other strategies and programmes Concrete actions meeting the horizontal principles

Project changes – General Principles

Project managers are expected to manage issues within the project in cooperation with their partnership. However, it may become evident that the implementation plan or budget needs to be revised

Changes are divided into minor and major changes: The degree of the change will be determined by the

JS Generally, projects are expected to have only one

major change in their lifetime, and maximum one minor change request per reporting period.

Minor changes

Budget changes below 50 000 EUR/10% (tbc) per project budget line, accumulated since the latest decision.

Implementation changes with no major impact on work plan, the project outputs, or results.

Travel outside the programme area, if not part of the approved application.

Copenhagen = outside the area!

Minor administrative changes.

LP sends an e-mail to JS Desk Officer outlining the change together with a justification and assessment of the impact on implementation and outputs.

Once pre-approved, the changes should be listed in the Activity Report confirming the picture that the changes are minor

Formal approval when approving the Activity Report. Latest decision remains valid for future reporting.

Major changes

Budget changes above 50 000 EUR/10% (tbc) per project budget line, accumulated since the latest decision.

A change/withdrawal of partner

A change in the number/ character of main outputs

Implementation changes with a major impact on the work plan, the project outputs, or results.

An extension of eligibility period.

LP informs the JS Desk Officer asap, outlining the change together with a justification and assessment of the impact on implementation and outputs

The Desk Officer may ask the LP to submit a revised application + supporting docs

The Desk Officer will make a decision proposal for the MA or, if necessary, the Monitoring Committee.

The MA issues a new decision

Further guidance

JS Desk Officer and RCPs Programme Manual:

3.3.2. Changes in project implementation 3.5.1. Activity Reporting 3.5.3. Assessment of the Progress Report

More details about the online forms and training at next Lead Partner seminar in Autumn 2015

Thank you for listening!

Kirsti MijnhijmerSecretariatTel.: +45 3283 3784E-mail: kirsti.mijnhijmer@northernperiphery.eu

www.interreg-npa.eu