Final Report Summary - HY-PA (Euro-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Partnership)
This final management report covered the period from 1 July 2005 to 31 December 2006 of the project HYPA, co-funded by the European Commission in the Sixth Framework Programme - Specific Measures in Support of International Cooperation.
The work that was performed during the project was divided into six work packages:
WP0: Coordination activities and meetings
WP1: Technical RTD Priorities and New Concepts
WP2: Socio-economic and Environmental Framework of RE and Hybrid Systems
WP3: Networking activities
WP4: Socio-economic and environmental Impact Assessment
WP5: Policy Agenda for Enhanced RE and Hybrid System Implementation.
Regarding the first consortium partner (WIP) the total costs for WP0 were: Personnel: 2,11 PM (support) + 0,7 PM (management); Travel costs:EUR 1605,26 ; Other costs: EUR 1145,88; Audit costs: EUR 800.
The total costs for WP3were: Personnel: 5,6 PM, Travel costs: EUR 1155,15;Other costs: EUR 1000.
The total cost for WP5 was: Personnel: 2,4 PM.
Regarding the second consortium partner (Clean Power L.P. Greece) the total costs for WP0 were: Personnel: 0,8 PM (support) + 0,3 PM (management); Travel costs: EUR 3682,13; Audit costs: EUR 1800,00.
The total cost for WP1 was: Personnel: 4,5 PM.
The total costs for WP3 were: Personnel: 2,3 PM; Travel costs: EUR 1170,40.
For WP4 the total cost was: Personnel: 3,54 PM.
For WP5 the total cost was: Personnel: 1,2 PM.
Regarding the third consortium partner (Obsérvatoire Mediterranéen de l'Energie (OME), France) the total costs for WP0 were: Travel costs: EUR 2797,68; Audit costs: EUR 1000.
For WP2 the total cost was: Personnel: 1,25 PM.
The total costs for WP3 were: Personnel: 0,4 PM; Travel costs: EUR 560,22.
The total cost for WP4 was: Personnel: 0,37 PM.
Regarding the fourth consortium partner (National Energy Research Center (NERC), Jordan), the total costs for WP0 were: Travel costs: EUR 2368,13; Audit costs: EUR 1000.
For WP1 the total cost was: Personnel: 1,75 PM.
For WP2 the total cost was: Personnel: 0,5 PM.
The total costs for WP3 were: Personnel: 0,65 PM; Travel costs: EUR 1336,24.
The total cost for WP4 was: Personnel: 0,35 PM.
For WP5 the total cost was: Personnel: 1,05 PM.
Regarding the fifth partner (The Lebanese Association for Energy Saving and for Environment (ALMEE)) the total costs for WP0 were: Travel costs: EUR 1391,05; Audit costs: EUR 500,00.
For WP1 the total cost was: Personnel: 2,5 PM.
For WP2 the total cost was: Personnel: 0,5 PM.
For WP3 the total costs were: Personnel: 0,9 PM; Travel costs: EUR 884.
For WP4 the total cost was: Personnel: 0,82 PM.
For WP5 the total cost was: Personnel: 1,0 PM.
Regarding the sixth partner (Fondation Marrakech 21 (FM21), Morocco) the total costs for WP0 were: Travel costs: EUR 3242,16; Audit costs: EUR 1121,43.
For WP1 the total cost was: Personnel: 1,5 PM.
For WP2 the total cost was: Personnel: 0,4 PM.
The total costs for WP3 were: Personnel: 1,7 PM; Other costs: EUR 3617,55.
For WP4 the total cost was: Personnel: 0,8 PM.
For WP5 the total cost was: Personnel: 0,8 PM.
Regarding the seventh partner (National Agency for Energy Conservation (ANME), Tunisia), the total costs for WP0 were: Travel costs: EUR 4684,96; Audit costs: EUR 1350.
For WP1 the total cost was: Personnel: 1,75 PM.
For WP2 the total cost was: Personnel: 0,5 PM.
The total costs for WP3 were: Personnel: 1,0 PM; Travel: EUR 1989,80.
For WP4 the total cost was: Personnel: 0,9 PM.
For WP5 the total cost was: Personnel: 1,35 PM.
Within the reporting period covered by this Final Management Report (1 July 2005 - 31 December 2006) the following deviations from cost budget and from person-month budget incurred for the project partners WIP, OME, NERC and ANME:
The deviation of actual indirect costs of partner WIP from the budgeted indirect costs (indicated in the tabular overview of budgeted costs and actual costs) was due to the fact that for the initial budget calculation a 20% flat overhead rate was used for this partner using the FC Cost Model.
The deviation of actual indirect costs of partner OME from the budgeted indirect costs was due to the fact that for the initial budget calculation a 20% flat overhead rate was used for this partner using the FC Cost Model.
The deviation of actual indirect costs of partner NERC from the budgeted indirect costs was due to the fact that for the initial budget calculation a 20% flat overhead rate was used for this partner using the FC Cost Model.
The actual Total Costs of the partner OME exceeded its budgeted Total Costs due to the indirect cost calculation addressed above, and the fact that OME dedicated more effort to the implementation of HYPA project tasks as were originally foreseen, such as major contributions to the organisation to the final synergy workshop in Marrakech (WP3) and contributions to the socio-economic impact assessments for MPC (WP4).
With respect to consortium partner ANME deviations from cost budget and from person-month budget occurred for the following reason:
- In the first Cost Statement covering the period 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2007 the consortium partner ANME did not include any personnel costs. This was due to the fact that at this time ANME was involved in an internal discussion how to deal with the costs of personnel involved in the implementation of projects co-financed by the European Commission. At the time of submission of the First Financial report of the HYPA project, ANME did not include personnel costs as it was decided to wait until this matter was clarified within ANME.
It was later clarified that ANME was allowed to include the costs of personnel in the cost statements of the HYPA project. Therefore the costs of ANME personnel working for the HYPA project during the first project period were included under adjustment in the second project period.
Furthermore, during the revision process of the financial reporting for the HYPA project it was discovered that there was a mistake in the first project period regarding the conversion rate. Instead of the conversion rate of 1 July 2006 the conversion rate of 1 July 2005 was used. This mistake was corrected and the correction included under adjustment of the second project period.
The work that was performed during the project was divided into six work packages:
WP0: Coordination activities and meetings
WP1: Technical RTD Priorities and New Concepts
WP2: Socio-economic and Environmental Framework of RE and Hybrid Systems
WP3: Networking activities
WP4: Socio-economic and environmental Impact Assessment
WP5: Policy Agenda for Enhanced RE and Hybrid System Implementation.
Regarding the first consortium partner (WIP) the total costs for WP0 were: Personnel: 2,11 PM (support) + 0,7 PM (management); Travel costs:EUR 1605,26 ; Other costs: EUR 1145,88; Audit costs: EUR 800.
The total costs for WP3were: Personnel: 5,6 PM, Travel costs: EUR 1155,15;Other costs: EUR 1000.
The total cost for WP5 was: Personnel: 2,4 PM.
Regarding the second consortium partner (Clean Power L.P. Greece) the total costs for WP0 were: Personnel: 0,8 PM (support) + 0,3 PM (management); Travel costs: EUR 3682,13; Audit costs: EUR 1800,00.
The total cost for WP1 was: Personnel: 4,5 PM.
The total costs for WP3 were: Personnel: 2,3 PM; Travel costs: EUR 1170,40.
For WP4 the total cost was: Personnel: 3,54 PM.
For WP5 the total cost was: Personnel: 1,2 PM.
Regarding the third consortium partner (Obsérvatoire Mediterranéen de l'Energie (OME), France) the total costs for WP0 were: Travel costs: EUR 2797,68; Audit costs: EUR 1000.
For WP2 the total cost was: Personnel: 1,25 PM.
The total costs for WP3 were: Personnel: 0,4 PM; Travel costs: EUR 560,22.
The total cost for WP4 was: Personnel: 0,37 PM.
Regarding the fourth consortium partner (National Energy Research Center (NERC), Jordan), the total costs for WP0 were: Travel costs: EUR 2368,13; Audit costs: EUR 1000.
For WP1 the total cost was: Personnel: 1,75 PM.
For WP2 the total cost was: Personnel: 0,5 PM.
The total costs for WP3 were: Personnel: 0,65 PM; Travel costs: EUR 1336,24.
The total cost for WP4 was: Personnel: 0,35 PM.
For WP5 the total cost was: Personnel: 1,05 PM.
Regarding the fifth partner (The Lebanese Association for Energy Saving and for Environment (ALMEE)) the total costs for WP0 were: Travel costs: EUR 1391,05; Audit costs: EUR 500,00.
For WP1 the total cost was: Personnel: 2,5 PM.
For WP2 the total cost was: Personnel: 0,5 PM.
For WP3 the total costs were: Personnel: 0,9 PM; Travel costs: EUR 884.
For WP4 the total cost was: Personnel: 0,82 PM.
For WP5 the total cost was: Personnel: 1,0 PM.
Regarding the sixth partner (Fondation Marrakech 21 (FM21), Morocco) the total costs for WP0 were: Travel costs: EUR 3242,16; Audit costs: EUR 1121,43.
For WP1 the total cost was: Personnel: 1,5 PM.
For WP2 the total cost was: Personnel: 0,4 PM.
The total costs for WP3 were: Personnel: 1,7 PM; Other costs: EUR 3617,55.
For WP4 the total cost was: Personnel: 0,8 PM.
For WP5 the total cost was: Personnel: 0,8 PM.
Regarding the seventh partner (National Agency for Energy Conservation (ANME), Tunisia), the total costs for WP0 were: Travel costs: EUR 4684,96; Audit costs: EUR 1350.
For WP1 the total cost was: Personnel: 1,75 PM.
For WP2 the total cost was: Personnel: 0,5 PM.
The total costs for WP3 were: Personnel: 1,0 PM; Travel: EUR 1989,80.
For WP4 the total cost was: Personnel: 0,9 PM.
For WP5 the total cost was: Personnel: 1,35 PM.
Within the reporting period covered by this Final Management Report (1 July 2005 - 31 December 2006) the following deviations from cost budget and from person-month budget incurred for the project partners WIP, OME, NERC and ANME:
The deviation of actual indirect costs of partner WIP from the budgeted indirect costs (indicated in the tabular overview of budgeted costs and actual costs) was due to the fact that for the initial budget calculation a 20% flat overhead rate was used for this partner using the FC Cost Model.
The deviation of actual indirect costs of partner OME from the budgeted indirect costs was due to the fact that for the initial budget calculation a 20% flat overhead rate was used for this partner using the FC Cost Model.
The deviation of actual indirect costs of partner NERC from the budgeted indirect costs was due to the fact that for the initial budget calculation a 20% flat overhead rate was used for this partner using the FC Cost Model.
The actual Total Costs of the partner OME exceeded its budgeted Total Costs due to the indirect cost calculation addressed above, and the fact that OME dedicated more effort to the implementation of HYPA project tasks as were originally foreseen, such as major contributions to the organisation to the final synergy workshop in Marrakech (WP3) and contributions to the socio-economic impact assessments for MPC (WP4).
With respect to consortium partner ANME deviations from cost budget and from person-month budget occurred for the following reason:
- In the first Cost Statement covering the period 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2007 the consortium partner ANME did not include any personnel costs. This was due to the fact that at this time ANME was involved in an internal discussion how to deal with the costs of personnel involved in the implementation of projects co-financed by the European Commission. At the time of submission of the First Financial report of the HYPA project, ANME did not include personnel costs as it was decided to wait until this matter was clarified within ANME.
It was later clarified that ANME was allowed to include the costs of personnel in the cost statements of the HYPA project. Therefore the costs of ANME personnel working for the HYPA project during the first project period were included under adjustment in the second project period.
Furthermore, during the revision process of the financial reporting for the HYPA project it was discovered that there was a mistake in the first project period regarding the conversion rate. Instead of the conversion rate of 1 July 2006 the conversion rate of 1 July 2005 was used. This mistake was corrected and the correction included under adjustment of the second project period.