22 November 2017, CoR, Rue Van Marlant 2, Brussels, Room VMA 1 Simplification of the European Territorial Cooperation (project management perspective) 22 November 2017, CoR, Rue Van Marlant 2, Brussels, Room VMA 1

Project Perspective: Key findings from the questionnaires, I There is a lack of clarity in terminology This creates an uneven application of rules in MS The uneven application of rules and project requirements lead to too much disproportionate bureaucracy There are burdensome demands in all areas of reporting Proportionality and relevance are under scrutiny by participants

Project Perspective: Key findings from the questionnaires, II What do stakeholders want? Fewer rules, regulations and requirements What remains should be clearer, more concise and more harmonious (harmonious for cross-border and between authorities) Systems of more flexibility when it comes to areas such as FLC More training and guidance from the EC Participants want social media scope and more user-friendly online content from the EC

Topics of the Questionnaire Managing authority Support from the Managing Authority Support in case of unforeseen events First level control Preparation of the projects Finding reliable partners Language and cultural barrier Application procedure Questions of eligibility Priority axes Documents required for application Timing of selection procedure Awarding projects Information provided to rejected projects Transparency on the project selection Management of projects Co-financing Bureaucracy related to project management VAT rules Procurement rules and procedures Eligibility of costs Exchange rate Payment of reported costs Stare aid rules Simplified costs options Cooperation with national authorities / local authorities Link between national/regional and EU regulations and legislation Rules set by the programme Gold plating by Member States Reporting and follow-up Online reporting systems Visibility of the projects Share of time dedicated to administrative requirements Reporting procedure Other complexity issues Others:

Problems administrative load for public authorities and final beneficiaries "gold plating“ CBC specific problems National regulations should not play any role in cross-border programmes EU and member states more experienced in programmes than in regular projects A too strong need of security may lead to mistrust and fear Too slow implementation Changes / suggestions for improvement create uncertainty Too much time goes by until the project leader can begin, and until the beneficiary receives the EU money (up to one year). With geographically larger Interreg A programmes, there is a growing influence of the national level With the partnership agreements, a new problem arose because cross-border programmes were not explicitly excluded. Improvable decentralization of tasks cross-border regions with a multilateral tradition : bilateral programmes impede trilateral projects.

Answers Regulations and requirements adopted before the start of the programmes Regulation to include all important rules EU should not provide maximum, but minimum standars. In several programmes, there is still a need for a better and clearer distribution and division/separation of tasks the link between Monitoring Committee and Joint Technical Secretariat (bilingual) has to be improved. Reduction of time and costs by simplification A selection of projects should be done in two stages: 1. Submission of a project outline, which assesses whether the project is eligible and can be elaborated. 2. On the basis of the evaluation in stage 1, elaboration of the final application with all the necessary details for a final approval. Less obligation to provide evidence in the application Greater use of lump-sums or simplified statement of costs Only one audit and approval (audit pact!). Less documents, Less and harmonised reporting. Clear rules and procedures for volunteer work. Stronger evaluation of the results. Flexibility Clear deadlines for audit and certifying Territorial cooperation should be either excluded from the partnership agreements es or only mentioned without obligation Geographically large Interreg A programmes should allow a wider thematic choice and/or sub- programmes In areas with traditional multilateral cooperation, multilateral programmes might be submitted and multilateral projects should be possible The role of EGTCs or similar cross-border structures should be strengthened Use of the "best practice" of Interreg agreements at the DE / NL border, signed by all partners, including the Euregios. future allocation of EU-funds and national funds to the same single bank account