Thematic Area: Regional Development

EU Programme: INTERREG IIIA Italia-Slovenia 2004-2006 (Call for proposals: 30 November 2004)

Title of the project: Sentieri di Pace/Poti Miru

Lead institution/Consortium of partners: Provincia di Udine, Associazione don Eugenio Blanchini, Associazione sportiva "Saltainbici", Click Idea Snc, Planinska Družina Bene?ije, Associazione per il turismo equestre nel Nordest, Comunità montana del Torre, del Natisone e del Collio, Fogolar Viaggi Srl, Ustanova Fundacija Poti Miru v Poso?iju.

Selection of possible EU programmes; finding, collecting and analysing calls for proposals

This project involves developing materials for tourism and uses two minority languages: Slovenian in Italy and Italian in Slovenia. At the time of writing the project is still being implemented.
The main organization responsible for the proposal has a person whose specific task it is to monitor the relevant EU calls for proposals, and this project was the first to be devised in response to the 2004 EU Call for proposals under the Interreg programme.
The drafters did not use all the available information on the EU website announcing the call for proposals. In fact, only information found on the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Regional Governmental website was used. They did, however, use other bibliographic sources to reinforce the proposal.

Other sources of funding

Funding for this project came from the following sources:
EU, 50%
Self-funding, 5%
Other sources, 45%

The fact that EU funding was obtained did open up other sources of funding. It has been a stimulus and a good opportunity for putting investment proposals to private economic operators.

Partners

The consortium of partners was set up by convening all the associations of the territory of Valli del Natisone that are involved in areas covered by the proposal. The following had wide experience in working together as a group: Provincia di Udine (Udine), Comunità montana del Torre, del Natisone e del Collio (S. Pietro al Natisone), Ustanova Fundacija Poti Miru v Poso?iju (Kobarid-Slovenija). Planinska Družina Bene?ije (San Pietro al Natisone) had some experience in this field. Finally, for the following the experience was new: Associazione don Eugenio Blanchini (Cividale), Associazione sportiva "Saltainbici" (Ronchi dei Legionari), Click Idea Snc (S. Pietro al Natisone), Associazione per il turismo equestre nel Nordest (Cividale del Friuli), Fogolar Viaggi Srl (Cividale del Friuli).
Complete levels of implication, responsibility and participation were offered to each partner. All could contribute at all levels to the drawing up of the proposal. The final responsibility, obviously, belonged to the proposer, Pro Loco Nediške Doline/Valli del Natisone.
Special channels for internal communication were set up between partners. In particular, at joint meetings drafting assignments of single aspects of the projects were given to individual partners according to their area of competence, with simultaneous approval of all partners through consultation using an Internet network.
To achieve a balanced, well distributed and well-equipped team the level of participation was optimal with the exception of the institutional partners (the Mountain Community - an institution at district level, between the province and the municipalities - and the Provincial authority); they actually played just a formal role, partly because of the difficulty of having a delegate with propositional and decisional powers.

Aims/purposes of the project

The idea of putting a proposal to the EU first arose from the fact that they had before them the problem of protecting and promoting an historic-environmental site right along the border.

Collecting and taking into account experiences of other projects

The lead organisation did not search for similar experiences which could help to design or define the project. There was not enough time to do so. The leading partner worked in close contact with the "Poti Miru" Foundation of Caporetto (another partner), and had developed in the same period a similar "mirror plan" to put to the Slovenian authorities. Unfortunately the different deadlines for the same call in Friuli-Venezia-Giulia and in Slovenia prevented the former, in practice, from developing a more effective combined plan. This penalized above all the Slovenian partner, whose own project was rejected.
The organisation did not contact those responsible for projects which had already been funded under earlier calls for proposals in the same programme or budget line, and sees no need for other organisations to take this step as being a necessary part of the EU proposal designing procedure.

What problems/difficulties did you have (if any) when you designed the proposal?

Analysis of stakeholders

Only a short and quick survey was carried out to identify the potential beneficiaries of the project: The list of local associations was scanned to identify associations and groups who could make a contribution to this specific project, and those were invited.
The specific problem the drafters aimed to address affected the following: Cultural operators interested in the subject of the Great War, tourist operators, environmental operators, cycle-tourist and riding associations, institutional bodies interested in the socio-economic development of the area, publishing companies interested in the area of tourism.
The impressions of the various people or organisations, with regard to the problem or challenge, were gathered thanks to plenary meetings and consultation via the Internet of various drafts of the proposal as they were developed. Direct contacts and discussions were held, and agreements reached, to meet the interests of the various people and organisations involved.
Each group perceived the problem or challenge according to its field of competence and interest. The resources to be committed by each group to discuss the proposal basically entailed no more than the direct participation of some members to meetings and consultations.
None of the stakeholders had any significant conflict in regard to any particular strategy built into the project, other than the relative shortage of resources available to each partner to meet the needs.

Analysis of the present situation (problem tree):

The main challenge faced was the need to safeguard and promote endangered cultural and environmental sites in the region. There was a need to support new economic activities in order to halt depopulation of the mountain areas. There was also a need to overcome the lack of institutional coordination in economic development and in tourist promotion policies in the Italian-Slovenian borderlands. These problems were very clear and evident, so no classification proved necessary nor was any priority given.
All the same, the inclusion of Italian and Slovenian across the border from each kin-state was not primarily due to the fact that they are, in these areas, lesser-used languages.

Choosing the topic

To identify the general and specific objectives and aims, plenary meetings of the partners offered (through brainstorming) the opportunity of selecting the topics, which were then examined in depth in order to state general and specific objectives and aims.
Fortunately, the general and specific aims of the project fitted neatly and easily into the priorities laid down in the EU call for proposals. No patent difficulty was found.

Setting up a team to devise and design the proposal

The drawing up of the proposal (the contents of which were the outcome of plenary sessions of the partners) was drafted by a member of the steering committee. The text was then submitted to the partners for amendments as it was developed. Only a few of the partners already had experience in developing similar proposals. But no help was requested from other organisations with experience in European projects. Tasks were distributed among the team members according to the specific know-how of each partner.
Several problems were encountered in trying to coordinate or integrate those involved in designing the proposal, in particular two: time was short, and the project application form was both repetitive and too rigid.

Self-evaluation systems (ante, ex, post)
Risk Analysis

The potential risks on the success of the project were taken into account, and this was mentioned in the proposal in order to leave open further changes in the EU contract. The plan is still in the initial implementation phase so it is too soon to see whether the steps taken were correct.

Working language(s)

There were problems in relation to the working language(s) between the partners involved at the project and for writing the proposal. Not all the partners are bilingual (Italian-Slovenian). There was no need, however, to resort to external translators. The staff has enough language skills as well as international projects experience.

Literature review/relevant documentation selection

The documentation used for supporting your EU proposal came from each partner's own resources. Letters of support for the proposal were collected from relevant institutions or experts in the field.

Determining the work plan and time

As already explained, the work plan during the writing proposal process, was decided at plenary sessions of the partners. The respondent drafted the proposal, submitting it to the partners for amendments while it was being developed.

Budget issues

The EU financial statements of the call for proposals was not read, but careful attention was devoted to follow the EU standards related to travel and accommodation expenses, honoraria, fees, salaries by category and per day, etc.
There have been no problems in relation to the distribution of the budget by partner. The partners decided to commit the administration of the whole EU budget to the lead partner, so as to ensure good coordination.
The chief problem encountered when filling in the EU forms was that they often require detailed evaluation, yet give limited space, so that one can only make general statements. Nevertheless, the proposal was completed in time.
It proved straightforward to include the European principles and criteria (such as the multiplier effect, dissemination of results, evaluation criteria, European add value, European dimension, etc.) in the proposal, for such criteria, including quantitative ones, were specifically requested on the project proposal form itself.

Other problems and issues/Comments or recommendations

The deadline for Slovenia was one month later than the Italian one. As a consequence a joint proposal could not be presented. There was also insufficient information and support from the regional offices. The Slovenian proposal was probably rejected partly on account of this double presentation of two separate projects on the same topic.
There are some absurd limitations in the proposal requirements: on the face of it the aim is to promote the economic development of a region but at the same time remunerative economic activities are not allowed in the project under threat of the funding being cut off, even if the proposing organization is a non-profit-making organisation with extremely clear and transparent social aims to the advantage of the local community as a whole, as is a Pro Loco organisation.

Contact:
Roberto Pensa, member of Steering Committee
Pro Loco NEDIŠKE DOLINE, Valli del Natisone
Via Arengo della Slavia,1
33049 San Pietro al Natisone
e-mail: info@nediskedoline.it
Personal address:
via Brazzacco 14 I-33100 Udine
tel. 335/8420069;roberto.pensa@libero.it