Managing Authority Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration

3.2.3 Multi-criteria analysis

Each thematic objective was scored against all criteria and the overall score was calculated based on the weight each criterion was given. The overall results illustrate the hierarchy and priority level of the 10 objectives.

1. 
   Setting the five criteria used in analysis and agreeing on their relative weight- our analyses concentrated on the previous analyses and consultations in order to use trusted and documented information available.
   
2. 
   Definitions of the designated criteria:
   

1. 
   C1 - Cross-border impact refers to the impact of the potential initiatives to be promoted under the respective CBC Thematic Objective on both sides of the border. Given the specificity of ENI CBC interventions, the weighting of this criterion is set at 30%.
   
2. 
   
   
3. 
   C2 - Capacities for project management denotes the capabilities of potential beneficiaries active in different thematic areas to manage, co-finance and apply programme procedures (based on the legislation of the country in which the project is implemented and track record of the respective organizations in the eligible area). This criterion is allocated a 20% weight.
   
4. 
   
   
5. 
   C3 – Relevance for overall financial allocation of the Programme - Limitations of the financial allocation represent the capability of the financial allocation of the program to support costly/large scale interventions. (Even if such large interventions could be needed across the eligible area the limited budgetary allocation cannot support these under the CBC programme). The weight is set at 20%.
   
6. 
   
   
7. 
   C4 - Coherence with strategies & programmes represents the correspondence of the TOs with the relevant policy documents and other financing instruments available for the eligible area in the 2014-2020 programming period in order to identify those thematic objectives that can be best addressed through the Ro-Ua Programme. The weighting is, as in previous 2 criteria, is set at 20%.
   
8. 
   
   
9. 
   C5 – Current regional context - This criterion take into account the recent developments in the region that were not envisaged at the moment of preparation of the programming documents and intends to provide a priority for the TO that are of most urgency. Weighting is at 10%.
   
10. 
    
    

3. 
   Setting the hierarchy of the objectives – Overall calculation of scores and generating the Priority Objective List. Each criteria was scored on a scale from 1 (lowest score) to 5 (highest score) and weighted as explained above.
   

The Thematic Objectives with best rates (TO2, TO3, TO7, TO8, TO10) have the potential to ensure a stronger cross-border impact due to the fact that the projects and activities that could be financed under these TOs require better coordinated actions, joined planning of public administration beneficiaries from both countries, hence taking full advantage of the particularities and communalities of the regions on both sides of the border. These five thematic objectives (together with TO 4, 5 and 6) benefit also from better project management capacities developed in the EU Programming period 2007-2013 (for Romania) and during the Europeanization process of Republic of Moldova after 2009.