1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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:

5. 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.

6. 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