Background:
The first training for the potential beneficiaries of IPA cross-border programmes under the CBIB II was organised in Montenegro on 5th and 6th May in Podgorica.
The trainings for the potential applicants in Montenegro were originally planned in the agreed Work Plan between the first and the second round of Calls for proposals for the programmes on the internal WB borders. However, the Secretariat for European Integration felt the need to organize the additional trainings for potential applicants even before the first round of the Calls for Proposals. The possible dates and number of trainings were discussed during several meetings.
Participants and objectives:
In total, 18 representatives from municipalities, NGOs, employment services, public companies participated in this intermediate training. In addition representatives from Secretariat for European Integration, JTS for programme Croatia – Montenegro and Antenna for programme Serbia – Montenegro were also present.
Even though the level of previous experience and knowledge of the participants was not the same, this was not the obstacle for a good communication amon them, and active participation in plenary discussions and group execise.
The main objectives of the course were the following:
The objectives of the training indicate that the course was helping the potential grant beneficiaries to understand what is required in the grant preparation process, what does the cross–border partnerships mean, what are the main elements of a logical framework approach and how to fill in the application form.
The training was consisted of following sessions under the Preparation of the Grant Proposal:
Each day consisted of morning and afternoon session that were introduced in combination of theory with exercises/“learning by doing”, and due to the relatively short duration of the training, most of the topics were presented in plenary sessions and followed by “buzzing” – group discussions. Group exercises were organised on the following topics: problem analysis and development of the intervention logic.
Conclusion:
The participants followed the training with great dedication and interest. It could be said that all the participants took active part in the discussions and presented their own experiences, which is very important for this kind of training.
The group was heterogeneous, even though they have all participated in other similar trainings; still their experiences were at different levels. Nevertheless, this wasn’t an obstacle for a good communication among them, and active participation in plenary discussions and group exercises.
The participants evaluated the course extremely positively. The qualities of the lectures were considered very clear and interactive and the participants considered the course highly successful and useful.