Implementing Transnational Co-operation in the ESF, Programming Period Johannes Wikman ESF Managing Authority Sweden On Behalf of the working group with members and contributions from EQUAL Managing Authorities of: Belgium (Dutch speaking Community), Czech Republic Finland Greece Italy Poland Spain Sweden and the United Kingdom

Programming Transnational Cooperation Options for Implementation Transnationality as an eligible expenditure in all priorities: Pros Enables transnational exchanges on HR issues to take place in all priorities also between regions Allows for benchmarking outside traditional context Provides a flexible approach to programming Gives MS a chance to disseminate promising results also at EU level independent on funding priority. Cons Capacity to manage Transnational dimension at different levels may vary and affect results Transnationality as a special priority: Pros Gives a higher ESF intervention rate for that priority. Enables concentration of expertise in specific projects selected for transnational work and exchange Allows flexibility on types of transnational collaboration Opens for structured benchmarking and learning between MS Cons Risks creating a divide between national and european results

Programming Transnational Cooperation Flexible options for Implementation Prio 1 Prio 2 Prio 3 ESF Operational programme Prio TN Two decisions: National project decision 2007… …and a transnational project decision 2008… or at the same time, but financed from two priorities. or one decision… or specialised transnational activities for focus groups… Transnationality as a specific priority: Transnationality as an eligible expenditure in all priorities: or all of these options…

Programming Transnational Cooperation Levels of Implementation Levels of support Project level (between projects in different MS) (like DPs in Equal) Networks and/or Institutions at regional or national level. (National Thematic Networks for example) Inter-regional collaboration (between actors from a common regional area with other areas) (similar to regional partnerships in Equal) National level (Between Managing Authorities and between other National organisations in several MS) (Like MA meetings or MS led foras like the Baltic Sea meetings in EQUAL or the Technical Working group) Additional structural support for the transnational process (for example, the provision of a national coordinator for transnationality, who could subsume some of the functions of the current National Support Structures) (Like the Transnational network and clearing house used in Equals second round) Scope of Support Transnational activities at the levels listed above should be eligible under both a dedicated priority and as a crosscutting funding possibility in all other priorities. This approach is equal to the approach towards gender equality in the present Equal programme.

Programming Transnational Cooperation Conclusions Transnationality as a special priority and a cross-cutting possibility at programme level Transnationality as an option for projects early or later in their development work Providing sufficient support through Technical Assistance in MS Build in a self generating learning mechanism to facilitate improvement and problem solving handled by a network of MS It is a central part of the programme not only to go abroad but to establish joint transnational collaboration focused on results to benifit all participating partners. Final evaluation of Swedish independent national evaluators of EQUAL 2005.

Programming Transnational Cooperation The advantages we expect A more well functioning dynamic between development actors at several levels on employment and inclusion in the EU. A policy support to the Lisbon objectives based on tested and proven practice in reality in more than only one Member State. A catalyst to secure high quality in national activities through benchmarking and exchange of good practice. A flexible approach for MS to maintain a European dimension in the ESF implementation at every level from project to programme.