Supported by:

Report from the workshop on early IPARD II calls

Date: 10-11 April 2019 Venue: Bečići, Montenegro

Ref. Ares(2019)3555487 - 03/06/2019

2/17

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3

2. LESSONS LEARNT FROM EARLY IPARD CALLS – BOTTLENECKS

AND SOLUTIONS ......................................................................................... 3

2.1. Overview of the state-of-play ................................................................ 3

2.2. Discussion on the bottlenecks and possible solutions ........................... 4

2.2.1. Low quality of the applications / incomplete .......................... 4

2.2.2. Insufficient capacity to assess the applications ....................... 5

2.2.3. Many more applications than expected ................................... 6

2.2.4. Inefficient evaluation system for checking reasonableness of

the costs proposed .................................................................... 6

3. PRESENTATION ON SOME OPEN IPARD-RELATED ISSUES .............. 7

4. IPARD III – PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION .................................... 7

4.1. IPARD III measures .............................................................................. 7

4.2. Financial instruments measure .............................................................. 8

5. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 9

Annex 1. List of participants

Annex 2. Agenda

3/17

1. INTRODUCTION

The workshop took place in Bečići (Montenegro), on 10 and 11 April . It was organized

jointly by the Regional Rural Development Standing Working Group in South Eastern Europe (SWG) and the European Commission, DG for Agriculture and Rural

Development (AGRI.E5 team, including AGRI colleagues from the respective EU

Delegations), and supported by the German International Cooperation (GIZ).

It gathered approximately 50 representatives of IPARD operating structures – Managing Authorities and IPARD Agencies from Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia

and Turkey as well as representatives from Kosovo* and Bosnia and Herzegovina (list of

participants is provided in Annex 1).

The aim of this two days’ workshop was to serve as a follow-up to the workshop on IPARD calls implementation organised in Ohrid on 7 and 8 February 2018 and to look at the

successes, remaining challenges and lessons learnt from the first calls under IPARD II (Agenda of the meeting can be found in Annex 2). It largely focused on implementation of

the first IPARD II calls, which have been held by now in all IPARD countries.

Mr Milutin Simovic, the deputy PM of Montenegro opened the workshop and gave his views of IPARD in Montenegro. The participants and two recipients of IPARD identified

a number of bottlenecks and came up with workable solutions to these bottlenecks1.

In this summary document we list the four main bottlenecks, which were identified by the participants, and list possible solutions which emerged during the discussion. Not all

solutions may be possible to implement immediately. However, we invite all participants and those concerned in the IPARD operating structures to carefully study the list of

solutions and to consider what could be adopted in their respective situations. Many of the approaches listed are not new – they are already being applied in one or the other country.

Where possible, we have listed a name of the country, which is already applying one or another successful approach. Therefore, we encourage the reader concerned to contact your

respective colleagues and follow up with further details. IPARD should not be implemented in isolation – it is also about regional collaboration and joint learning.

There were also initial discussions on IPARD III, including on Financial Instruments,

which gave some very useful feedback for the future.

2. LESSONS LEARNT FROM EARLY IPARD CALLS – BOTTLENECKS AND SOLUTIONS

2.1. Overview of the state-of-play

The workshop was kicked-off by Dick van Dijk who provided an overview of the

entrustments granted and IPARD II calls opened. He presented also some basic statistics

concerning IPARD II.

1 All presentations can be found here: seerural.org/news/workshop-on-ipard-ii-calls-implementation-10th-

11th-april-2019-becici-montenegro/

4/17

After this introduction, each IPARD country gave a short presentation, covering the

following aspects:

- some statistics, the response to the calls, etc.,

- the time-lines (planned vs realised),

- what caused delays,

- bottlenecks and challenges encountered,

- lessons learned from early calls.

In addition, two IPARD II applicants/recipients addressed the participants of the workshop,

by sharing their experiences with the IPARD II application and award process:

- Ms. Jovanka Biljan, for the meat processing Industry Biljanovi from North Macedonia through the project “Technological modernization – to cool, to warm,

to measure”, a measure 3 project;

- Mr. Milos Golubovic, for the production of apples in the Miolje Polje - Župa Nikšićka, Montenegro through the project – “Expansion of plantation of apples”, a

measure 1 project.

2.2. Discussion on the bottlenecks and possible solutions

The following main bottlenecks were identified in the above presentations as being the

source of delays:

a) Low quality of the applications / incomplete, b) Insufficient capacity to assess the applications,

c) Many more applications than expected,

d) Inefficient evaluation system for checking reasonableness of the costs proposed.

Participants were divided into three groups and discussed these main bottlenecks encountered and possible solutions. This format proved very useful for discussing and

reaching some workable conclusions, which were later shared with all participants in the plenary. Identified solutions and approaches are summarised below. Some of the solutions

come from current practices in one or another country. Where possible, we identified which country is already practicing a particular approach. Therefore, should the others be

interested, this particular country can be approached.

2.2.1. Low quality of the applications / incomplete

- Simply reject incomplete applications (North Macedonia);

- Change to largely online applications, with only the minimum necessary documents to be provided in paper format;

- Provide near perfect proposals/applications as examples;

- Spot frequent errors and mistakes and share them online;

- Improve the quality of advisory/extension services (and relevant unions and associations) and encourage them to play a greater role in preparing the farmers applications;

- Provide simple guidelines for the applicants;

- Split guidelines into two parts: guidelines for applicants and guidelines for payments (Turkey);

- Organise effective information campaigns, allow time for questions and discussion after formal presentations during information events;

5/17

- Use Technical Assistance measure for provision of information and overall communication on the IPARD II programme;

- Strengthen and educate the advisory services to provide training to potential applicants;

- Improve motivation of advisory services and consultants – reward for successful applications;

- Train and certify private consultants to ensure good quality applications (certification in Turkey);

- Communicate with agricultural chambers, producer organisations, cooperatives to keep them informed and improve their knowledge;

- Shorten the time for answering/completing, in case of incomplete applications;

- Pre-checking of applications by the advisory/extension services (or another appropriate body) (Turkey);

- Involve Technical Bodies from the beginning, not only at the payment stage (Montenegro);

- Simplify requirements for environmental impact assessments;

- Planning calls far in advance and making this information public;

- Plan, advertise and launch more public calls within a year, so that the applicants do not have to submit low quality application because of time pressure;

- Finding solutions in the national law as to be able to reject applications that are incomplete2, e.g. indicating a minimum number of compulsory documents to be

submitted at the moment of applying.

2.2.2. Insufficient capacity to assess the applications

- Recruit more staff, the political support is there in most countries;

- Create financial incentives, for example a bonus system or salary top-ups for the whole IPARD structure (either with national money or Technical Assistance money) (Montenegro, with national budget);

- Work over-time hours, for example every other Saturday (compensated by additional payment), but over-time hours are not a solution for the longer term;

- Recruitment process should be shortened and more flexible;

- In Turkey, the IPARD Agency staff has not the civil servant status and their salaries

are higher;

- Find a way to more easily recruit specific experts, like engineers;

- Cooperation with the education system in order to increase the capacities;

- Move from a paper-based system to electronic applications or use both in a transition process;

- Combine modern agricultural information systems with document management systems, do not request documents which can be verified by the IPARD Agency by accessing respective databases;

- Look for IT solutions for some stages of the control process;

- Use other incentives to retain staff (better office infrastructure, working environment/ work trips/per diems/new experiences/ better inspection vehicles);

2 In the countries of former Yugoslavia, the national law requires the public institutions to receive

applications although they are incomplete, and then the institutions have to contact the applicant to request the missing information/documents. This is in conflict with establishing efficient IPARD procedures.

6/17

- Use temporarily staff from other units, for assessing the applications (while respecting the initial division of tasks);

- Agree a retention and motivation policy;

- Need to change some internal regulations, which limits promotion of staff into higher

positions.

2.2.3. Many more applications than expected

- Simply limit the number of applications to x applications while ensuring that every

applicant has an equal chance (first come first served);

- Reconsider the allocation of points in the case of ranking;

- Do ranking before the start of the administrative check and start processing and contracting based on ranking scores;

- Better focus the call – to have more applications which create better added value for the sector;

- Limit the scope of a call to have better quality of applications (and the overall number of applications goes down);

- Increase the national budget per country for IPARD, reducing the share of EU contribution;

- Change the lower limit of the eligibility criteria (excluding smaller applicants who

could be funded by national measures);

- Use stricter criteria in order to deal only with experienced and genuine farmers/ recipients;

- Have a reasonable time period between calls, to ease pressure on the IPARD agency staff;

- DG AGRI may define criteria for the announcements of the calls – discuss planning of calls ahead of time;

- Pre-announce the public call, but limit then the opening time of these calls;

- Reject all applications that are not (100%) complete (North Macedonia);

- Also strengthen and grow Managing Authorities, not just IPARD Agencies.

2.2.4. Inefficient evaluation system for checking reasonableness of the costs proposed

- For constructions works use ‘one offer’ combined with a national database (with construction items) (Turkey, agreed with AGRI);

- Use one offer for items up to EUR 20 000 (Turkey, agreed with AGRI);

- Use the ‘comparison of different offers’ method only for more expensive items, for low value items a single offer may be sufficient;

- To publicize the procurement procedure on a dedicated website of the IPARD Agency, and if less than three offers are coming, you process those (Montenegro will propose

this to DG AGRI);

- The reasonableness of the general costs linked to (investment) expenditure could be checked with one offer only, as the IPARD programmes already foresee ceilings that

limit this type of expenditure3;

- Use only one out of the four options for checking the reasonableness of the project costs, as prescribed in the Sectoral Agreement and not two methods;

3 See Article 33(5)(c) of the Sectoral Agreement

7/17

- Regarding the issue of a mandatory 3 offers, the solution might be to make a division in categories and specify which ones should be on 2 offers and which ones on 3 offers;

- Transparent procurement process (announcement of tender on a website);

- Strengthening of price reference database;

- Introducing ‘standard unit cost’ method and professional expertise through an

evaluation committee method where applicable.

3. PRESENTATION ON SOME OPEN IPARD-RELATED ISSUES

Three smaller topics were covered in the morning of the second day:

1) Follow-up to the 14 December 2018 meeting on the Implementation of IPARD II

measure 9 Technical Assistance 2) UPDATED Guidance on renewable energy projects and the concept of self-

consumption4

3) Guidance - explanatory letter on SME issue for IPARD II countries5

Concerning (1), the information was provided that Albania will send the request for

entrustment in Q2 2019 to Brussels, Montenegro confirmed submission for Q4 2019 and Serbia indicated September 2019 as the likely month of submission to the Commission

services.

Concerning (2), the element of self-consumption was (once again) explained during the

meeting. The national authorities were asked to ensure that ‘renewable energy’ projects

and 'renewable energy' elements of projects are being promoted.

Concerning (3), the broad definition of ‘enterprise’ was shared with the audience together

with a further explanation of the concept of an autonomous enterprise.

4. IPARD III – PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION

4.1. IPARD III measures

In the afternoon of the second day, an initial discussion on IPARD III took place. Marius Lazdinis delivered a short presentation on the state-of-play on IPA III. Participants again

split into three groups of the same composition as in the previous day to discuss possible

future measures for IPARD III. Overall, the three groups made the following suggestions:

- “Producer groups” measure was identified as the only measure which could be dropped or re-written, for example, with the possibility to involve cooperatives,

and provide support for short-value chains;

- The issue was raised on whether to keep “forestry” measure or not. Even though majority said that they are unlikely to use this measure, some participants

advocated for keeping it;

- Join into one “technical assistance”, “improvement of training”, and “advisory services” measures;

- Possible new measure(s) to support young farmers and start-ups;

4 Ares(2018)6385137 - 12/12/2018

5 Ares(2018)1564433 - 21/03/2018

8/17

- Introduce support for short value chains, adding value and integrating production and processing locally;

- Focus on “investment” measures, others – difficult to entrust, also – politically less visible;

- Under agro-environment measure to move towards “area-based payments”. However, would be difficult to use without LPISs being in place. Administrative costs are very high;

- Support for agro-biodiversity could become a separate measure, or considered more explicitly under “agro-environment” measure, as well as compensation for

loss and protection of genetic resources in agriculture;

- Under diversification measure we should try to avoid big energy projects which consume big part of the budget, unless additional funds are earmarked for this type

of investments;

- Simple types of support for smallholders, e.g. equipment (milk cooling tanks), there could be no economic viability requirements, derogations from standards could be

introduced;

- To provide more information on how to design improvement of training measure. To explain better how this measure complements “advisory services” measure;

- “Infrastructure” measure – better define what administrative capacities would be needed and where in order to implement this measure, provide more guidance;

- Agricultural research, education infrastructure, innovation and introduction of new technologies – support for agricultural research and knowledge transfer capacities;

- Agro-tourism as a separate measure?

4.2. Financial instruments measure

Marius Lazdinis also delivered an overview of the Financial Instruments (FI) measure –

summarising the situation in the Western Balkans countries and providing some examples of application of this measure in the EU member states. Participants again split up into

groups – this time by country – to discuss the situation in their respective countries and to consider whether a FI measure would be needed and useful. A list of questions on access

to finance in each of the countries, availability of credit lines, guarantee mechanisms, size of the interest rates, levels of investments in the sector and etc. was provided in order to

structure the discussion. After reflections, all groups reported to the plenary. The

discussion could be summarised as follows:

- There was no big enthusiasm to introduce the Financial Instruments measure, access to finances is not perceived as such a large problem, even though some

participants reported that successful applicants sometimes cannot complete their planned investments due to the inability to get a loan from the bank. Limited

interest in the measure could also be due to the lack of understanding on what this measure would entail.

- Also concerns were expressed that this new measure would “take away” the funds

from investment support;

- There may be an interest for the credit guarantee facility, a separate credit line or a subsidy for the guarantee facility may be too expensive considering limited IPARD

funds in each of the countries;

- Access to loan for young farmers may be particularly facilitated;

- In Albania, interest rates are around 7-11%, collateral requirements of 120-150% of the loan value, grace period could be 15 months;

- Albania has two credit guarantee facilities;

9/17

- In North Macedonia, interest rates are around 4-5% for agricultural sector and 5-6% for processing;

- Serbia – total investment in agriculture – 1 billion EUR, 300 million from loans;

- In Serbia, interest rates are from 3-9%, no liquidity problems, lack of collateral not an issue;

- In Serbia – a programme subsidizing interest rates of 4-5 million EUR;

- Montenegro has an Investment Development Fund, which is also used for agriculture, as a guarantee facility;

- Turkey – agricultural bank, credit to cooperatives provided, credit guarantee fund exists;

- In Turkey, interest rates for agricultural sector are lower than market rates for other

sectors, sometimes even 0%.

5. CONCLUSIONS

This was a unique opportunity to bring Managing Authorities and IPARD Agencies of all

the IPARD countries together, to share experiences and find common practical solutions to more efficient implementation. Key staff involved in IPARD, from all countries, were

present and seemed to enjoy discussing with other countries. Also very worthwhile that 3 IPARD staff from Brussels and the 3 AGRI staff from the EU Delegations were present.

In the margins of the event, many side meetings took place to discuss bilateral IPARD

issues.

It was very useful that experienced experts from Turkey were present. They have the most

experience and were able to give good advice to the others.

Overall, there was an open sharing of experiences and very good discussions. All countries had now the first calls behind them and could share their combined approaches. Breakout

sessions, moderated by AGRI staff and using rapporteurs to report back was efficient and

gave everyone a chance to contribute, which they did.

As regards bottlenecks and solutions, some countries already indicated they would test some of the proposed solution in the next calls. A number of “quick-fix” solutions were

identified.

SWG played a pivotal role in organising this event (with DG AGRI) and signalled that

they would be open to organise two further workshops on IPARD in the near future. One on LEADER (entrustment) and one on training of advisory/extension services for IPARD

application preparation. Location in Montenegro was very cost efficient. Many country delegations travelled in groups, by car, thus keeping costs low. SWG organisation was very

good and they funded travel and accommodation costs very efficiently. The presence of the Deputy PM of Montenegro for the opening of the workshop showed his commitment

to IPARD and gave a good political signal.

Discussions on IPARD III and Financial Instruments gathered all countries and gave very

useful signals for the future. This will serve as a basis once preparations for IPARD III will intensify. However, this is still a subject to IPA Regulation being adopted and budget for

IPA and IPARD being allocated by the EU member states and the European Parliament.

10/17

Enclosure: Annex 1. List of participants

Annex 2. Agenda

Annex 1. List of participants

First name Surname Institution Position Country

1 Mr. Grigor Gjeci Managing Authority Director Albania 2 Ms. Teuta Topi Managing Authority Chief of Sector Albania 3 Ms. Anjeza Cecja Managing Authority Chief of Sector Albania 4 Ms. Melisa Cahani Managing Authority Chief of Sector Albania 5 Ms. Frida Krifca IPARD Agency General Director Albania 6 Mr. Mirgen Dobruna IPARD Agency Director of Project Selection and Approval

Department Albania

7 Mr. Erand Saliaj IPARD Agency Director of Payment Authorization Department

Albania

8 Ms. Eranda Mulla IPARD Agency Head of Internal Audit Albania 9 Mr. Ilir Pajenga IPARD Agency Director of Control Depeartment Albania

10 Ms. Jolanda Shtini IPARD Agency Director of Payment Execution Department Albania 11 Mr. Dusan Neskovic Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic

Relations Assistant Minister Bosnia and

Herzegovina 12 Mr. Hamdija Civic Office for Harmonization and

Coordination of Payments Systems in Agriculture

Director Bosnia and Herzegovina

13 Ms. Shqipe Dema Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development

Director of Rural Development Plicy / Head of Manging Authority

Kosovo*

14 Mr. Ekrem Gjokaj MAFRD/ ADA/ IPARD PAYING AGENCY Acting CEO Kosovo* 15 Mr. Zhivko Brajkovski Managing Authority Head of Managing Authority North Macedonia 16 Mr. Kiril Ristovski Managing Authority Head of IPARD Technical Assistance North Macedonia 17 Mr. Aleksandar Anteski Managing Authority Head of IPARD Programming Unit North Macedonia 18 Ms. Aleksandra Dika Managing Authority Head of IPARD Monitoring Unit North Macedonia

12/17

First name Surname Institution Position Country

19 Mr. Nikolce Babovski IPARD Agency Head of IPARD Agency North Macedonia 20 Mr. Vangel Nanevski IPARD Agency Head of Department for Project Approval North Macedonia 21 Mr. Zarko Kocevski IPARD Agency Head of Unit for Reference Price Data Base North Macedonia 22 Mr. Darko Konjevic Managing Authority Director Genera/Head of Managing

Authority Montenegro

23 Ms. Ana Cabarkapa Managing Authority Senior Advisor for coordination and public relations of rural development

Montenegro

24 Ms. Irina Vukcevic Managing Authority Head of Department for Programming Montenegro 25 Mr. Milos Kusovac Managing Authority Senior Advisor for Programming Montenegro 26 Mr. Blagota Radulovic IPARD Agency Director General Montenegro 27 Ms. Milena Vukotic IPARD Agency Head of Sector for Structural Support Montenegro 28 Ms. Danka Perovic IPARD Agency Head of Department for Authorization of

Payments Montenegro

29 Ms. Vesna Korovic IPARD Agency Advisor for Irregularities, Risks and Reporting Montenegro 30 Ms. Jasmina Miljkovic Managing Authority Head of Managing Authority Serbia 31 Ms. Bojana Perovic Managing Authority Head of Group for Monitoring, Evaluation

and Reporting Serbia

32 Mr. Slobodan Zivanovic Managing Authority Head of Group for Programmng Serbia 33 Ms. Biljana Petrovic IPARD Agency Acting Director Serbia 34 Mr. Bojan Zivkovic IPARD Agency Acting Assistant

Director Serbia

35 Ms. Marina Zivanovic IPARD Agency Acting Assistant Director

Serbia

36 Mr. Hakan Efendi

Özat IPARD Agency Expert Turkey

37 Ms. Ilhan Demirkan IPARD Agency Expert Turkey 38 Mr. Liam Breslin European Commission Head of Unit, E.5 - Pre-accession assistance,

DG AGRI Belgium

13/17

First name Surname Institution Position Country

39 Mr. Marius Lazdinis European Commission Deputy Head of Unit, Unit E.5 - Pre-accession assistance, DG AGRI

Belgium

40 Mr. Dick Van Dijk European Commission External Auditor Belgium 41 Ms. Nadia Kyuchukova Delegation of EU to Montenegro Program Manager Montenegro 42 Mr. Filip

Razvan Ghitescu Delegation of the EU to Albania Program Manager Albania

43 Mr. Laszlo Arendas Delegation of the EU to Serbia Program Manager Serbia 44 Ms. Irena Djimrevska GIZ SEDRA Advisor North Macedonia 47 Mr. Boban Ilic SWG Secretariat Secretary General North Macedonia 48 Mr. Oliver Pop Arsov SWG Secretariat Project Assistant North Macedonia 49 Ms. Maja Kostovska SWG Secretariat Technical Secretary North Macedonia 50 Mr. Bojan Petkovski SWG Secretariat Logistic Officer North Macedonia

Annex 2. Agenda

Workshop on early IPARD II calls successes// challenges// lessons learnt

organized in co-operation with

The Regional Rural Development Standing Working Group in South Eastern Europe

Venue:

”Hotel Montenegro Beach Resort”,

Becici, Montenegro

date:

10th – 11th April 2019

Aim of the meeting:

This meeting is a follow-up of the workshop on IPARD calls implementation organised in Ohrid on 7 and 8 February 2018.

This workshop will look at the successes, the remaining challenges and the lessons learnt from the first calls under IPARD II.

15/17

Wednesday 10 April 2019

Time Topic

09:00-09:15 Welcoming address by H.E. Milutin Simovic, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Montenegro

09:15-09:30 Opening by Mr. Liam Breslin and Mr. Boban Ilic

09:30-09:40 Status of IPARD II entrustment and calls by Mr. Dick van Dijk

09:40-11:20 Chair: Mr. Dick van Dijk

Albania (09:40-10:00)

AL - Mrs. Frida Krifca, General Director of the Agency for Agricultural and Rural Development and Mr. Grigor Gjeci, Head of the Managing Authority

Montenegro (10:00-10:20)

ME - Mr. Blagota Radulovic, Director General of the Directorate for Payments and Mr. Darko Konjevic, Director General/Head of the Managing Authority

North Macedonia (10:20-10:40)

MK - Mr. Nikolce Babovski, Head of the IPARD Agency and Mr. Zhivko Brajkovski, Head of the Managing Authority

Serbia (10:40-11:00)

RS - Mrs. Biljana Petrovic, Acting Director at Directorate for Agrarian Payments and Mrs. Jasmina Miljković, Head of the Managing Authority

Turkey (11:00-11:20)

TR – Mr. Hakan Efendi Özat, Expert at the IPARD Agency; Mr. Ilhan Demirkan, Expert at the IPARD Agency

National authorities should cover in their presentations: the response to the calls, the time-lines (planned vs realised), what caused delays and lessons learnt…

11:20-11:45 Coffee break

11:45-12:15

Chair: Mr. Boban Ilic

Presentation of the IPARD II applicants/recipients and their experience with the IPARD II process

Ms. Jovanka Biljanova, the case of the meat processing Industry Biljanovi from North Macedonia through the project “Technological modernization – to cool, to warm, to measure”, in the frame of Measure 3 - Investments in physical assets concerning processing and marketing of agricultural and fishery products;

16/17

12:15-12:45

Mr. Milos Golubovic, the case of the production of fruit – apples in the Miolje Polje - Župa Nikšićka, Montenegro through the project – “Expansion of plantation of apples” in the frame of Measure 1 - Investments in physical assets of agricultural holdings.

12:45-14:15 Lunch break

14:15-14:30 Presenter: Mr. Dick van Dijk

Wrap-up of bottlenecks (and solutions) — what were the main common bottlenecks identified?

15:15-15:45 Coffee break

14:30-17:30 Chair: Mr. Marius Lazdinis

Session on each of the bottlenecks and possible solutions… Split in 3 groups, with 1 moderator and 1 rapporteur per group

Thursday 11 April 2019

Time Topic

09:00-11:00 Chair: Mr. Boban Ilic

Summary of day 1- solutions - 1 rapporteur per bottleneck

Presentation/discussion per bottleneck Conclusion per bottleneck on a slide

11:00-11:30 Coffee break

11:30-12:00 Follow-up to the 14 December 2018 meeting on the Implementation of IPARD II measure 9 Technical Assistance

12:00-12:30 Short explanation and questions and answers concerning

IPARD II – UPDATED Guidance on renewable energy projects and the concept of self-consumption (Ares(2018)6385137 - 12/12/2018)

IPARD II - Guidance - explanatory letter on SME issue for IPARD II countries (Ares(2018)1564433 - 21/03/2018)

12:30-14:00 Lunch break

14:00-17:00 Chair: Mr. Marius Lazdinis

Initial discussion on IPARD III

• Short presentation on state-of-play on IPA III • Discussion on measures for IPARD III

17/17

• Discussion in the groups on financial instruments

Split in 3 groups, with 1 moderator and 1 rapporteur per group

15:00 -15:30 Coffee break

17:00-17:15 Closing by Mr. Liam Breslin and Mr. Boban Ilic