Transnational collaborative projects a) Selection Transnational collaborative projects accounted for the lion‟s share of funding in both 2009 and 2010, a trend that is set to continue in 2011 and, most likely, beyond. This makes clear the need for effective and efficient systems for selecting and managing the projects. This is no simple task for established programmes; for Preparatory Actions, which are experimental by nature and seek to xxxxxx links between previously unconnected organisations, this task is even more difficult. Prospective coordinating organisations need to be alerted to the possibility for funding through a Call for Proposals. Award criteria must be clearly articulated and comprehensible. Commission officials must be prepared to answer questions in a clear and unbiased fashion. Coordinating organisations require a sufficient amount of time to assemble a group of network partners with which they are potentially making first contact. Financial guarantees and other requirements must be sufficiently stringent as to protect the Commission from unforeseen circumstances, while allowing the flexibility to encourage applicants which may not have received EU funding previously. Applicants sometimes need the scope to amend their proposals for budgetary or other reasons. Once proposals have been received, they must be evaluated robustly by an evaluation committee against objective award criteria. While the best proposals should be chosen, the experimental nature of the Preparatory Actions must also be taken into account; the Preparatory Actions are intended to xxxxxx new and / or expanding networks across Member States and sectors. Project coordinators and partners expressed overall satisfaction with the level application process. While they voiced a number of minor complaints relating to tight deadlines (e.g. difficulty in submitting a proposal at the end of August, insufficient time allocated to amend a proposal after the first submission, etc.), the majority of interviewees were satisfied with the responsiveness of DG EAC officials and raised no concerns with the award criteria or other aspects of the application. It is almost needless to point out that all interviewees had submitted successful applications. The favourable results could be expected to predispose positive opinions and should, therefore, be received with some caution. Perhaps more importantly, the satisfaction of successful applicants offers no evidence as to the adequacy of the content and communication of the calls ...
Transnational collaborative projects. During 2009 and 2010, the years under review, 30 transnational networking projects have been supporting through the Preparatory Actions under seven themes: Theme Projects funded 2009 Promoting HEPA 9 Promoting education and training in sport 4 Promoting gender equality in sport 3 Promoting European sport for persons with disabilities 2 2010 Promoting social inclusion in and through sport 5 Promoting volunteering in sport 4 Fight against doping 3 Aside from the active pursuit of their specific objectives, the effectiveness of which has been discussed above, the networking projects were intended to develop the European dimension in sport. Despite the short duration (one year) of the projects, evidence suggests that they have made considerable progress on several fronts. The network projects kick-started cooperation between a wide spectrum of national, regional and local sport and other organisations from around Europe. Networks were formed with members from a minimum of four Member States, while some projects brought together organisations from all 27. While many of the organisations had received European funding in the past (particularly among coordinating organisations), for others the project represented a first foray into cooperation on a European level. According to the online survey of project coordinators and partners, about three in ten respondents working on a 2009 project had neither received EU funding previously nor worked with sport organisations in other countries. Nearly 80% of the networks did not exist prior to submission of the project proposal. Through their network, about two in three respondents worked with a type of organisation they had not worked with before (most often in academia). Figure 12: New connections, 2009 network projects Network of partners existed before the project proposal submitted 9 23 18 Cooperated with new types of organisations 31 15 Worked with sport organisations in other countries before Yes Yes, part of the network No Received EU funding before Source: TEP online survey Moreover, the survey data indicate that collaboration between the network partners is sustainable: two in three respondents claimed that they would continue working with either all or most of the partners, while nearly all the rest felt they would continue working with some of the partners. Reinforcing this, it is telling that several of the 2010 projects brought together organisations with experience from working together in 2009. During interv...
