Issue 1.1
The first projects were approved by the MC in Mid April. The initial six month phase for networks formally began on 21 April. However, contracts for lead city authorities have not been finalised. This has made it difficult for lead partners to start the work as they require to have some documentation before they can start incurring expenses for their respective projects. In effect the first month has passed by , given the fact that the first six month phase also includes the summer holidays, this in effect means that the real timescale has been reduced to 4 months.
Issue 1.2
Lead Thematic experts were identified by lead partners when the expression of interest applications were submitted. These experts have been approved by the Urbact Secretariat prior to the decision of the MC. To date none of the experts has received any form of contract. Again the issue of loss of time is critical. In deed the forms for the lead partners to initiate the contract process for lead partners were only posted on the Urbact website on 23 May. What this means is that experts will only receive their contracts in Mid June at the earliest.
Issue 1.3
The MC has approved to set a fixed budget for thematic networks of €670,000. Of this amount at least €70,000 is for the Local Support Groups which are obligatory for each partner in each network to establish. The question that needs to be posed from the outset is whether this budget construction is feasible to deliver the objectives of each thematic network. Experience from Urbact I and other transnational programmes suggests that the setting of a budget BEFORE detailing the tasks to be undertaken by each thematic network will lead to problems. In particular, with such a budget the issue of interpretation costs and the need to produce some materials in the languages of partner organisations will cause difficulties. If Local Support Groups bring together local actors then the chances are they will be excluded from effective involvement as there will not be sufficient resources for address this issue.
It would be good for lead partners to post their experiences and reflections in this respect.
The first projects were approved by the MC in Mid April. The initial six month phase for networks formally began on 21 April. However, contracts for lead city authorities have not been finalised. This has made it difficult for lead partners to start the work as they require to have some documentation before they can start incurring expenses for their respective projects. In effect the first month has passed by , given the fact that the first six month phase also includes the summer holidays, this in effect means that the real timescale has been reduced to 4 months.
Issue 1.2
Lead Thematic experts were identified by lead partners when the expression of interest applications were submitted. These experts have been approved by the Urbact Secretariat prior to the decision of the MC. To date none of the experts has received any form of contract. Again the issue of loss of time is critical. In deed the forms for the lead partners to initiate the contract process for lead partners were only posted on the Urbact website on 23 May. What this means is that experts will only receive their contracts in Mid June at the earliest.
Issue 1.3
The MC has approved to set a fixed budget for thematic networks of €670,000. Of this amount at least €70,000 is for the Local Support Groups which are obligatory for each partner in each network to establish. The question that needs to be posed from the outset is whether this budget construction is feasible to deliver the objectives of each thematic network. Experience from Urbact I and other transnational programmes suggests that the setting of a budget BEFORE detailing the tasks to be undertaken by each thematic network will lead to problems. In particular, with such a budget the issue of interpretation costs and the need to produce some materials in the languages of partner organisations will cause difficulties. If Local Support Groups bring together local actors then the chances are they will be excluded from effective involvement as there will not be sufficient resources for address this issue.
It would be good for lead partners to post their experiences and reflections in this respect.
No comments:
Post a Comment