Please select only one option, e.g. location of the headquarter of the organisation

Please select only one of these options provided in art. 8 of the CPR (EU) 2021/1060, and the bodies governed by public law, which are also eligible in our Programme. Private profit companies are not eligible for the programme.

Considering that the Programme MC has pre-allocated the 38,3 M. € budget of the Call for Standard Project Proposals in the percentage of 24,52% to P.A. 1 Smarter SA, 41,33% to P.A. 2 Greener SA, 13,52% to P.A. 3 More connected SA, 20,64% to P.A. 4 and 0% to P.A. 5, and considering that P.A. 1 and 3 have only one specific objective (S.O.), which S.O.s within P.A. 2 and 4 should be focused on?

Please select maximum two options

Within its priority axes, the Programme intends to finance a wide variety of actions, addressing specific common needs, challenges and opportunities of the Programme area. Please enter 3 key words indicating the most pressuring common needs for action in the programme area.

Use Max. 60 characters (NO sentences, only words e.g. cyber-security,  pandemics, ICZM/MSP, litter, CO2, ports, NEETs, museums, etc.)

The Programme intends to encourage the capitalisation of relevant results, achieved in previous projects, other programmes or other contexts. This was the focus of the first call for small-scale projects. At the same time, the Programme intends to encourage innovative actions, solutions or experimental / pilot applications.

In your experience, what is the most suitable proportion between capitalisation and innovation for our standard projects (expressed in quality criteria points)?

Please select only one option 

The EUSAIR may provide for strategic orientation to all our projects. Up to 8 additional points are foreseen for projects, which most contribute to the EUSAIR objectives.

In your view, how can our project partners best contribute to the EUSAIR objectives and thus which actions shall receive additional points?

Please select only one option

The project partners in the IPA countries often struggle to pre-finance their expenditures, therefore the Programme provides a first pre-financing, which is limited and it shall be offset before project closure. At the same time, the project implementation always exceeds the planned timetable, which increases the risk of automatic de-commitment for both projects and programme and therefore a huge pressure is made on project partners at the end of every year to reach the financial targets. Moreover, the MA may decide to propose to the MC to de-commit projects, which have extraordinary delays in their implementation.

In your view, are the pre-financing and de-commitment mechanisms in place in previous calls sufficiently effective to ensure cash flow and to avoid de-commitment at the same time?

Please select only one option, if you select "other" you may suggest other mechanisms or improvements of the existing mechanisms 

In compliance with article 23 (1) of the Interreg Regulation the projects shall involve partners from at least two participating countries, at least one of which shall be from Italy. However, the programme shall encourage the participation of partners from all three participating countries and from the two Italian Regions Puglia and Molise.

In view of a smooth project development and to reduce error risks for applicants, what are the most effective requirements the programme should set for partnerships?

Please select only one option.

In order to encourage organisations to strategically plan their participation and to ensure capacity to manage the projects, a limitation per organisation is set, i.e. projects are rejected if partners apply exceeding the maximum number of projects allowed.

What are in your opinion the most effective arrangement to avoid excessive numbers of projects for the same organisation?

Please select only one option

The programme intends to encourage the participation of new project partners (who have not participated in our Programme before), bringing in new knowledge and ideas in the Interreg context. At the same time, a project needs capable and experienced partners (especially lead partners) in order to succeed in managing complex multi-national Interreg projects of this programme area, i.e. those who had 2014-2020 experience and demonstrated their capacity.

In your experience, what is the most suitable proportion between new and knowledgeable partners for our programme area (expressed in quality criteria points)?

Please select only one option

Small-scale projects were most suitable for small organisations, especially non-profit, therefore their participation in the first call was encouraged. 

Is it suitable in the standard call to encourage non-profit organisations or it is not necessary?

Please select only one option

The Programme calls shall set the budget size of the projects. Based from the first and targeted calls for this type of projects in 2014-2020 period, we propose a maximum amount (EU contribution + national co-financing) of EUR 900.000 for all P.A.s and a minimum amount (EU contribution + national co-financing) of EUR 400.000.  No fixed minimum budget per partner is required, but participating project partners shall demonstrate a balanced distribution of tasks and budget among partners.

The project maximum duration may be for 24 months from the project start date, with possibility to request extensions if duly justified.

In your opinion is this budget size and duration balanced?

Please select only one option, if you select "other", please specify what is a balanced size and duration 

For the next call for standard projects, what is the aspect, which Programme needs really take into consideration?

Please enter a short answer, summarise your suggestion