Transcript EUROPEAN COMMISSION Objective 3 Territorial Co-operation 2007-2013 Workshop 1: Cross-border co-operation DG Regional Policy Brussels, 21 February 2005

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Objective 3
Territorial Co-operation
2007-2013
Workshop 1: Cross-border co-operation
DG Regional Policy
Brussels, 21 February 2005
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 → € 14.3 billion
Improved legal basis for co-operation
Regulations will simplify joint implementation

General Structural Funds regulation

ERDF regulation

European Grouping of Cross-border Cooperation
Main questions put by Member States








Financial framework
Geographical scope and eligible areas
Programme areas
Content and topics
Programme management bodies
Project management
Eligibility rules
Financial management and control
The new Objective 3

Cross border co-operation 47.7%
of which 12.1% to be transferred to the European Neighbourhood and
Partnership Instrument (ENPI) and the Instrument for Pre-Acession (IPA)

Transnational co-operation 47.7 %

Interregional co-operation and network
programmes 4.5%
In addition, interregional co-operation with at least one region in
another Member State will be encouraged in Objective 1 and 2
programmes
Flexibility for Member States of 10% between Strands
Co-financing rate of 75% in all Objective 3 co-operation
ERDF-funding
2000-2006
2007-2013
Cross-border
co-operation
programmes
€ 4 bn (69%)
€ 6.8 bn (47.73%)
Transnational
co-operation
programmes
€ 1.4 bn (24%)
€ 6.8 bn (47.73%)
of which:
- € 5.1 bn (35.61%) for mostly internal
borders
€ 1.7 bn (12.12%) for external borders
Interregional
€ 370 mio (6%)
co-operation and
network
programmes
€ 650 mio (4.54%)
Total
€ 14.25 bn (100%)
€ 5.75 bn(100%)
Allocation principles
Cross-border co-operation

Population in eligible NUTS III areas

Transfer of ERDF-funds to ENPI and IPA means that
the external borders are not eligible for cross-border
programmes under Objective 3 but under ENPI/IPA
Cross-border co-operation
Geographical scope and eligible areas
Similar to present cross-border areas:

Geographic eligibility defined at NUTS III level

20% may be used in adjacent NUTS III region
Novelties:

Definition of maritime borders eligible for cross-border
co-operation (up to 150 km)
Maritime border regions further apart are encouraged to
co-operate under the priority for bilateral co-operation
in Transnational programmes

Most external EU borders will not be covered by the
cross-border programmes under Objective 3
Most external borders will be eligible for ENPI or IPA
programmes
Flexibility concerning the location of
operations outside the EU

Expenditure paid for the implementation of
operations located on the territory of third
countries:
o for cross-border and transnational co-operation
o on condition that the operations are of benefit
to EU Regions
o ceiling: 10% of the ERDF contribution to the
programme
o the responsibility for this expenditure lies on
the EU lead beneficiary and the certifying
authority
Cross border co-operation
Programme areas
Programme for each border or group of borders

Small programmes to be merged in order to diminish
bureaucracy and administrative burden, possibly with
subprogrammes where necessary.
Subprogrammes may wish to set up separate Steering
committees.

Trilateral/quadrilateral programmes?
 Some new Member States have set up trilateral
programmes. Are they working in a satisfactory
manner and should they continue?
 Some of the earlier Member States may also wish to
try new models. One programme for "la Grande Région"
for example?
Co-operation programmes
Content
Cross-border programmes:
 improving
the economic and social
situation of those living on either side
of the border
 recognising the particular challenges of
border regions: geography, language,
legal aspects, administration
 essentially local in nature
Cross-border programmes
Available topics similar to present
cross-border co-operation topics






Entrepreneurship and SMEs, universities,
tourism 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
Should cross-border programmes be more focussed?
More emphasis on genuine co-operation
projects in all Objective 3 programmes
Cross-border co-operation:


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
Programme management bodies
Managing Authority (MA)

Normal responsibilities (except checking
regularity of operations and expenditure – done
by approved controllers)
Joint Technical Secretariat (JTS)

Located close to the MA
Monitoring Committee

Normally also responsible for project selection
Project management: the role
of the Lead Beneficiary
Lead Beneficiary:
 Concludes agreement with MA
 Concludes agreement with the
beneficiaries participating in the operation
(project partners)
 Is responsible for implementing the whole
project
 Ensures that expenditure corresponds to
activities agreed
Project management: the role
of the Lead Beneficiary
Lead Beneficiary:



Checks that expenditure presented by the
beneficiaries participating in the operation has
been validated by the agreed controllers
Is responsible for transferring the ERDF
contribution to the beneficiaries participating in
an operation
In case of irregularities, recovers funds from
the project partner in accordance with the
partnership agreement
Management of co-operation
programmes and projects
Joint eligibility rules for all Objective 3
programmes to be proposed by the
Commission in a Commission
implementing regulation
Normal n+2 rule applies
Financial management and control
1/4
Group of auditors (Art. 14 (2) ERDF)


Is chaired by the Audit Authority of the programme
(Art. 14 (2) ERDF).
Assists the Audit Authority (Art. 61 Gen. Reg.) e.g.
carrying out directly or outsourcing:
systems audit
 sample check of expenditure
Approves the final report (Art. 61 (1) g)) and assists for
the compliance assessment report (Art. 70 Gen. Reg.)


Financial management and control
2/4
Financial responsibility
 Certifying Authority (Art. 60 Gen. Reg. +Art.21 ERDF)
recovers from the lead partner any amount unduly paid
(Art. 17 (2) ERDF)
 The lead beneficiary shall lay down the arrangements
for recovering amounts unduly paid (Art 20 (1 a) ERDF).
 The beneficiaries shall repay the lead beneficiary the
amounts paid in error in accordance with the agreement
existing between them (Art 17 (2) ERDF).
 In case of failure, the Member States on whose
territory the relevant beneficiary is located shall
reimburse the certification authority (Art 17 (2) ERDF).
Financial management and control
3/4
Financial responsibility
 Improved legal security for the Lead Beneficiary as compared
to 2000-06:

The responsibility of the LB is limited to



checking that implementation of operation and expenditure
corresponds to agreed activities.
checking that declared expenditure is validated by
approved controller (especially compliance with national
and Community rules)
The Lead Beneficiary is not responsible for irregularities of
other Beneficiaries for non-compliance with national and
Community rules.
Financial management and control
4/4
Financial responsibility

Improved legal security for the Managing Authority as compared to
2000-06:

The responsibility of the MA is limited to
 check that implementation of operation and expenditure
corresponds to agreed activities.
 check that declared expenditure is validated by approved
controller

The Managing Authority is not responsible for irregularities of
Beneficiaries for non-compliance with national and Community rules.

Improved legal security for the Member State: not responsible for
irregularities of Beneficiaries in other Member States (Art. 17 (2)
ERDF)