1. Harmonised Implementation Tools - HIT Towards simplification and streamlining of programme implementation 23 October 2013 | Stockholm

2. 2 Why harmonise? Less administration for programmes and beneficiaries!  More emphasis on results  More strategic monitoring of (the quality of) project’s outputs and results  Attracting new (desired) project partners

3. Analysis of current practice 3 ToolsNumber of Programmes analysed Number of Programmes involved Budget lines and eligibility criteria 3 Interregional Programmes 6 TN Programmes 2 CBC Programmes 11 Programmes 3 Interregional Programmes 9 TN Programmes 26 CBC Programmes 6 IPA Programmes 44 Programmes

4. 44 Administrative and Eligibility Criteria Quality Assessment Criteria Strategic and Operational Assessment Criteria Project Application Form Project Progress Report Progress Report Monitoring Checklist YES Project selectionProject implementation PART A – Project Summary PART B – Project Partnership PART C – Project Description PART D – Project Budget PART E – Annexes PART A – Activity report PART B – Finance report Administrative criteria Project progress Problems, deviations, changes Financial monitoring Performance framework Analysis of current good practice Legal package Fact sheets BL ETC- spec. Indica- tors FLC certifi- cate FLC report FLC check- list

5. Joint activities, ETC/INTERREG programmes and ETC + Commission Almost 20 templates / fact sheest been drafted until now The complete list is available on INTERACT webINTERACT web More to come, e.g. HIT tool for Communication being developed this winter, presented in the EU-wide ETC Communication meeting in March 2014 in Finland Ambition is that 75 % would use / get inspired by HIT HIT tools 5

6. 6 Reasonable harmonisation! Common foundation on which to build programme- specific elements 6 Harmonisation does not mean ’identical’!

7. 7 Why harmonise? Simplification and harmonisation of rules and procedures!  Reduction of errors and irregularities  Efficient programme management  Transparency and accountability Q: Would you agree that the system needs to be simplified in order to avoid errors? Would you agree that harmonisation brings more legal certainty?

8. 8 Project budget – 5 budget lines 1. Staff costs 2. Office and administration 3. External services and experts 4. Travel and accommodation 5. Equipment and investment  5 budget lines in the Application Form and Project Progress Report  Coherence between budget lines and categories of costs eligible under each line LOOK: Fact sheets on Budget Lines  Guidance on what costs are eligible: definitions of eligible costs

9. 9 Harmonised approach to cost calculation LOOK: Fact sheets on Budget Lines  Guidance on how to calculate the eligible cost: rules Example: Staff costs (calculation of hourly rate)  Staff working full time on the project Eligible: total personnel cost  Staff working part time on the project Eligible: hours worked on the project * hourly rate Proposal by the Council: Hourly rate = total personnel cost hours worked overall Hourly rate = annual gross employment cost 1720 hours

10. 10 Simplified cost options Flat rate as defined in the Regulations (no justification required)  Staff costs: up to 20% of direct costs other than staff costs (Art. 18 of the ETC Reg.)  Office and administration (indirect costs): up to 15% of direct staff costs (Art. 58 of CPR) Standard scale of unit costs defined by individual programmes  Staff costs: method required to define fixed rates  Travel and accommodation (daily allowance): max. rates based on Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 337/2007 LOOK: Guidance on simplified cost options in ETC

11. 11 ”In my programme monitoring system we use different fields and a different language. How do the HITs relate to existing monitoring systems?”

12. 12 ”In my programme, we are currently not asking for a project summary in English/project beneficiary/target group classification. Why would we need to ask for that?”

13. 13 Collecting harmonised data  Necessary to demonstrate the benefit of territorial cooperation  Necessary to make sure that projects capitalise on available knowledge and past results

14. European Territorial Cooperation European Territorial Cooperation Branding 2007-2013 Status quo of transnational cooperation in a few pictures…

15. European Territorial Cooperation European Territorial Cooperation Branding 2007-2013 The result is… … a rather low visibility of European territorial cooperation programmes on all governance levels. At the same time the principles of harmonisation, simplification, result-orientation and better spending as introduced in the new legislation are hardly met when communicating the programmes.

16. European Territorial Cooperation European Territorial Cooperation Branding 2014-2020 Technical opinion expressed by ETC Programmes over summer: 32 out of 35 programmes responding support the initiative of harmonising branding Next steps Decision on common branding in all ETC technical programme bodies – by mid-December 2013 Development of common INTERREG logo by a working group made up of Programme representatives and EC (coordinated by INTERACT) – early January 2014 Consultation of and decision on INTERREG logo (ETC Programmes, process coordinated by INTERACT) – mid-January to mid-March 2014 Programme variations of common INTERREG logo (coordinated by INTERACT) – Spring 2014

17. INTERACT Point TurkuINTERACT Point Valencia INTERACT Point Viborg ip.turku@interact-eu.netip.valencia@interact-eu.net ip.viborg@interact-eu.net INTERACT Point ViennaINTERACT Programme Secretariat ip.vienna@interact-eu.net interact@interact-eu.net INTERACT is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) | European Territorial Cooperation Thank you for your attention Please do not hesitate to contact us for any further information or visit www.interact-eu.net