Transcript Rotterdam IIIC Forum

21 January 2005 - Brindisi (IT)
________
European Territorial Cooperation:
actual and future instruments
________
Michel LAMBLIN
Programme Manager
INTERREG IIIC West
Joint Technical Secretariat Lille
The new Objective 3:
European Territorial Co-operation
• Objective in its own right
• Considerably increased funding
2.5% in the current period →
3.9% of total Structural Funds
€ 5.8 billion
€ 13.2 billion
→
Legal basis for co-operation
Regulations will simplify joint implementation
• General Structural Funds regulation
• ERDF regulation
• European Grouping of Cross-border Cooperation
The new Objective 3
Cross border co-operation (47.7%) - previous INTERREG “A” strand
of which 12.1% will be transferred to the European Neighbourhood and
Partnership Instrument
Transnational co-operation (47.7%) - previous INTERREG “B” strand
Programmes for networks and exchange of experience (4.5%) – “C”?
Co-financing rate of up to 75% in all Objective 3 cooperation programmes
Co-operation also between
Objective 1 and 2
Programmes
•
Interregional co-operation with at least one region in another
Member State will be encouraged in all Objective 1 and 2
programmes (in addition to the Objective 3 co-operation
programmes)
•
Co-operation in Objective 1 and 2 programmes will increase
cofinancing rate by 10%
The new Objective 3:
geographical scope and
eligible areas
Cross border co-operation:
•
programme for each border or group of borders (except most
external borders)
•
appropriate grouping at NUTS III level
•
maritime borders separated by up to 150 km
•
20% may be used in adjacent NUTS III region
10% may be used outside the EU if of benefit for EU regions
The intention is to cover most external EU borders by the cross border
element of the European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument
to which funds will be transferred from ERDF
The new Objective 3:
geographical scope and eligible areas
Transnational co-operation:
•
Commission to adopt eligible transnational areas
•
Bilateral maritime cooperation explicitly foreseen for borders
separated by more than 150 km
•
20% may be used outside the programme area
10% may be used outside the EU if of benefit for EU regions
Programmes for networks and exchange of experience:
Whole EU-territory
Topics for cross-border
co-operation programmes
•
Entrepreneurship and SMEs, tourism, culture and cross-border trade
•
Protection and joint management of the environment
•
Better access to transport
•
Information and communication networks
•
Water, waste management and energy management systems
•
Health, culture and education infrastructures
…
Topics for transnational
co-operation programmes
• Focus on strategic projects concerning:
• Water and coastal management
• Accessibility
• Advanced communication and information technologies
• Risk prevention: maritime safety, flooding, water pollution…
• Research and technological development and networks
Projects in cross-border and
transnational programmes
• Partners from at least two countries
• Fulfill at least 2 of the following 4 co-operation criteria:
- joint project development
- joint implementation
- joint project staff
- joint financing
Programmes for networks and
exchange of experience to have a clearer focus
•
Innovation, research, technology
•
SMEs, entrepreneurship, business networks
•
Environment, biodiversity
•
Risk prevention
•
Urban issues
•
Studies, data collection, analysis of development trends in the Union
Projects in programmes for
networks and the exchange of experience
• At least 3 partners from at least
3 regions in at least 2 countries
• Fulfill all 4 of the following co-operation criteria:
- joint project development
- joint implementation
- joint project staff
- joint financing
Programme management
• Strengthening joint management structures
• Strengthening the Lead Partner principle
• Clarifying procedures for financial management and auditing
Regulation on
European Grouping of
Cross-border Cooperation
•
Will help solve difficulties related to differences in national laws and
procedures
•
Member States, regional and/or local authorities in different countries
may conclude an agreement on the basis of this regulation
•
Joint body with legal status to manage cross-border, transnational and
interregional programmes and projects on behalf of the members of the
grouping
•
The members remain financially liable
Tentative timetable
14.7.2004
Commission adopted the proposals for the Structural Fund
regulations
29.9.2004
Commission adopted the proposal for the European
Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument and the
Instrument for Pre-Accession
2004 – 05
Negotiations and decisions by Council and European
Parliament
2005-06
Preparation of programmes for period 2007- 2013
1 January
2007
Implementation begins
Discussions and negotiations continue
in the Council and the European Parliament
The case for co-operation programmes will be strengthened if:
•
Suggestions for how to improve programme and project
financing mechanisms to make programmes more efficient
would be welcome
•
INTERREG programmes and projects are seen to be useful,
produce concrete results on important topics and represent
good value for money
INTERREG IIIC – progress update
• interregional cooperation in the past
• interregional cooperation at present
- INTERREG IIIC important dates
- INTERREG IIIC general characteristics
- INTERREG IIIC facts and figures
• interregional cooperation in the future
- near future
- distant future
Interregional cooperation
the Past
Historical review
Structure of an operation
Duration of the operation: …
Theme: …
Lead Partner: …
Partners: …
Priorities:
-…
-…
Type of partnership: …
The Hanseatic League
Duration of the operation: 5 centuries (1200 - 1700)
Theme: economic and political cooperation
Lead Partner: Lübeck (free imperial city)
Partners: approx. 200 towns (such as Wismar, Rostock, Hambourg,
Ryga, Cologne...) and 4 main counters (foreign trading post) in
London, Bruges, Bergen and Novgorod.
Priorities:
- to secure shipping activities against pirates and brigands
- to protect common commercial interests
Type of partnership: each member contributed financially and
through military forces but there was neither a legal framework, nor
a common council
Results:
- 127 Hanse Diets or congresses between 1356 and 1669
- creating the innovative ship design – Baltic cog (average size of
100 lasts) and innovative facilities of harbours (piers, quays,
landing…)
- wide network of secure business and common interests
- origins of cohesion policy – economic cooperation contributed to
Northern European integration
Lessons learnt:
- Exchange of experience & Networking allow for
innovation
- An effective network expands its positive influence widely
in Europe
- A well-structured legal framework is often needed
(responsibilities, transparency and partner obligations)
- A budget for meetings is always preferable
Poverty assistance: cooperation
between Lille, Ieper and Antwerp
Duration: 2 centuries (1508-1700)
Theme: social affairs
Lead Partner: Lille
Partners: Ieper, Antwerp
Priorities: To cope with the problem of poverty assistance
Type of partnership: Lille used the solutions developed in Antwerp
and Ieper
Description of the Antwerp model: Supra-parish model
-4 chaplains in charge of poor people (receiving and redistributing
charity gifts, buying and lending basic products)
-2 or 3 people in each parish in charge of collecting for charity on
Sundays and holidays
Results: Visible results, but poverty continued because of insufficient
financial resources, and additional negatives factors (wars, economic
recession and plague)
Description of Ieper model:
-Prohibition of beggary, except for people recognised
to be in need (those were obliged to carry symbol of
red and yellow Lily flower on their sleeves).
-5 clerks (one per each parish) appointed to discuss the issues at the
municipal centralised level; and 4 other persons in each parish
appointed to collect and distribute the aid
-Placement of all the collected resources in a common fund.
Results: Very satisfactory.
In view of the success of the assistance model in Ieper and Antwerp,
Charles Quint decided to generalise this model for the whole
Netherlands
Lessons learned: Need for continuous monitoring
The Present
INTERREG IIIC important dates
• INTERREG IIIC Communication:
May 2001
• Set-up of the four programmes:
January / October 2002
• First Call:
January 2003
• Second Call:
September 2003
• Third Call:
April 2004
• Fourth Call:
October 2004
INTERREG IIIC – General Characteristics
• IIIC reduces the time span (years instead of centuries)
• IIIC professionalizes cooperation (helpdesk, database, indicators,
intensity, evaluation – outputs, results, impacts - )
• IIIC is visible and recognised by all public authorities
• IIIC is a tight-knit administration
• IIIC is close to the Regions
• IIIC is managed by liable and solvent public authorities
Member States + EC
INTERREG IIIC,
as a public devolution
system, …
ERDF + regulations
Managing Authority
ERDF + regulations
… is a modern
tool for
new governance
Lead Partner (public)
ERDF + regulations
Lead Participants (RFO only)
Facts and Figures
Number of applicants per application round
2347
2500
2026
2000
1649
1372
1500
1000
500
156
0
Number of applications
Number of applicants
251
295
200
First round
Second round
Third round
Fourth round
156
251
295
200
1372
2026
2347
1649
Number of applications
Number of applicants
Number of partners per application round
1888
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
762
726
800
600
400
400
200
0
34
77
68
179
First round
Second round
Third round
Total
Number of approved
operations
34
77
68
179
Number of partners
involved
400
726
762
1888
al
y
Sp
a
G in
r
G eec
er
e
m
U
a
ni
n
te Fr y
d
a
K i nc
ng e
d
Po om
rt
ug
Po al
la
Sw nd
ed
Fi en
nl
H and
un
ga
ry
A
N
et ust
he ri
rla a
Be nds
lg
iu
Es m
t
Li on
th ia
ua
n
Ir ia
el
Cz S an
ec lov d
h
e
Re nia
pu
b
D
en lic
m
Sl
ar
ov
k
ak La
t
Re via
pu
bl
ic
M
al
Cy ta
Lu
xe pru
m s
bu
rg
It
Number of applicants per EU Member State
1200
1034
1000
844
800
600
400
200
540 526
396 388
292 282
229
184 178 170
151
120 108 107 106
91 86 77
66 60
37 36
0
10
It
al
Sp y
G
er ain
m
U
ni
a
te F ny
d ra
Ki nc
ng e
do
G m
re
e
Po ce
H lan
un d
ga
N Fin ry
et
he lan
rla d
Sw nds
ed
Au en
st
Cz
ec Por ria
h tu
Re ga
p l
Li ub
th lic
u
Sl ani
ov a
e
Be ni
lg a
iu
Ir m
el
a
Es nd
D ton
en ia
m
Sl
a
ov
ak La rk
Re tvi
pu a
bl
i
M c
al
t
Lu Cy a
xe pru
m s
bu
rg
Partners per EU Member State
300
253
250
211
200
150
50
180
130
120
104100
100
69 65 62
61 60 58
39 34 33 32
29 26 23 23
21
13 9
3
0
ar
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
N
or
w
ay
Cr
oa
tia
Tu
rk
ey
R
Sw uss
ia
itz
er
la
nd
M
or
oc
co
Al
ba
ni
a
Tu
ni
si
a
Al
ge
Bo
ria
sn
Be
ia
-H
la
ru
er
ze
s
Se
g
ov
rb
ia
in
a
an
d
Is
M
on rae
l
te
ne
gr
o
U
kr
ai
ne
Ic
el
an
d
O
th
er
s
lg
Bu
Applicants from Third countries
80
70
60
30
20
10
68
62
54
50
40
26
24
22
22
27
15
11
10
9
6
5
5
5
5
4
0
Third country partners
25
23
22
20
15
10
5
14
12
8
6
6
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
l
ay nia ria atia and ria sia cco nia gro isia ine rus key ina ina nia nin ina gia and an ae ban
e
t
a
r
s o
w a
M sr Li
v
a a
e
a e n
l
e
l
h
r
I
or om ulg Cro zer Alg Ru or Alb en Tu kr Bel Tu go les rm B C eo Ice of
N R
t
U
G
a
e
B
M
A
e
it
z
P
on
sl
er
I
Sw
M
H
d
an
i
a
sn
a
o
i
B
rb
e
S
Which Regions / Institutions are interested in
cooperating under INTERREG IIIC?
 6 500 institutions
->
->
->
->
(6,491)
24 % are regional public authorities
28% are local public authorities
7 % are national public authorities
41 % are public equivalent bodies
 200 different EU Regions
(197)
-> 48 % are Objective 1 Regions
Which Regions/institutions co-operate under
INTERREG IIIC?
 2000 institutions (1888)
->
->
->
->
27 % are local public authorities
29 % are regional public authorities
7 % are national public authorities
37 % are public equivalent bodies
 200 different EU Regions (191)
-> 46 % are Objective 1 regions
Interregional?
Regions without joint
borders can work
together in common
projects
TOP 20 applicant Regions
TOP 20 Lead applicant Regions
TOP Lead partner Regions
TOP Regions
Which EU
Regions are
most active
in
INTERREG
IIIC ?
Number of partners per type of operation
Type of
operation
Number of
approved
operations
Number of
partners
In % of
total
partners
Ø number of
partners per
operation
RFO
25
165
9%
6
Individual
project
90
891
47 %
9
Network
64
832
44 %
13
Co-operation themes
Theme
Share of operations
in %
Research, Technology and Innovation
11.4 %
SME development and entrepreneurship
14.7 %
Information Society and e-Government
7.6 %
Employment, social inclusion, human resources and
7.1 %
education
Environment, risk prevention, energy and resource
16.8 %
management
Regional planning, territorial regeneration and urban
19.6 %
development
Tourism, Heritage and Culture
19.0 %
Accessibility, mobility and transport
3.8 %
FUTURE
• to mainstream interregional cooperation is feasible for existing
partnerships, but will it be sufficient to develop cooperation ?
• different ways and subsidy rates to support interregional
cooperation: simplification ?
• an integrated mechanism as IIIC can develop cooperation
between Regions and combine a top-down approach for the
promotion of cooperation and a bottom-up emergence of
operations
• interregional partnerships take time to develop; it is important
to maintain the trust developed
For more information:
www.interreg3c.net
or contact your JTS !
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.interreg3c.net
Thank you for your attention!
www.interreg3c.net