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

2. The new Objective 3: European Territorial Co-operation 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 5.8 billion 14.3 billion

3. Improved legal basis for co-operation Regulations will simplify joint implementation l General Structural Funds regulation l ERDF regulation l European Grouping of Cross-border Cooperation

4. Main questions put by Member States l Financial framework l Geographical scope and eligible areas l Programme areas l Content and topics l Programme management bodies l Project management l Eligibility rules l Financial management and control

5. The new Objective 3 The new Objective 3 l l 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) l l Transnational co-operation 47.7 % l l 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 programmes

6. ERDF-funding 2000-20062007-2013 Cross-border co-operation programmes 4 bn (69%) 6.8 bn (47.73%) of which: - 5.1 bn (35.61%) for mostly internal borders 1.7 bn (12.12%) for external borders Transnational co-operation programmes 1.4 bn (24%) 6.8 bn (47.73%) Interregional co-operation and network programmes 370 mio (6%) 650 mio (4.54%) Total 5.75 bn(100%) 14.25 bn (100%)

7. Cross-border co-operation l Population in eligible NUTS III areas l 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 Allocation principles

8. Similar to present cross-border areas: l l Geographic eligibility defined at NUTS III level l l 20% may be used in adjacent NUTS III region Novelties: l l 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 l l 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 Cross-border co-operation Geographical scope and eligible areas

9. Flexibility concerning the location of operations outside the EU l Expenditure paid for the implementation of operations located on the territory of third countries: ofor cross-border and transnational co-operation oon condition that the operations are of benefit to EU Regions oceiling: 10% of the ERDF contribution to the programme othe responsibility for this expenditure lies on the EU lead beneficiary and the certifying authority

12. Programme for each border or group of borders l l 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. l Trilateral/quadrilateral programmes? m mSome new Member States have set up trilateral programmes. Are they working in a satisfactory manner and should they continue? m mSome of the earlier Member States may also wish to try new models. One programme for "la Grande Région" for example? Programme areas Cross border co-operation Programme areas

13. Co-operation programmes Content Cross-border programmes: l l improving the economic and social situation of those living on either side of the border l l recognising the particular challenges of border regions: geography, language, legal aspects, administration l l essentially local in nature

14. Cross-border programmes Available topics similar to present cross-border co-operation topics l l Entrepreneurship and SMEs, universities, tourism and cross-border trade l l Protection and joint management of the environment l l Better access to transport l l Information and communication networks l l Water, waste management and energy management systems l l Health, culture and education Should cross-border programmes be more focussed?

15. More emphasis on genuine co-operation projects in all Objective 3 programmes Cross-border co-operation : l l Partners from at least two countries l l Fulfill at least 2 of the following 4 co-operation criteria: mjoint project development mjoint implementation mjoint project staff mjoint financing

16. Programme management bodies Managing Authority (MA) l Normal responsibilities (except checking regularity of operations and expenditure – done by approved controllers) Joint Technical Secretariat (JTS) l Located close to the MA Monitoring Committee l Normally also responsible for project selection

17. Project management: the role of the Lead Beneficiary Lead Beneficiary Lead Beneficiary: l l Concludes agreement with MA l l Concludes agreement with the beneficiaries participating in the operation (project partners) l l Is responsible for implementing the whole project l l Ensures that expenditure corresponds to activities agreed

18. Project management: the role of the Lead Beneficiary Lead Beneficiary Lead Beneficiary : l l Checks that expenditure presented by the beneficiaries participating in the operation has been validated by the agreed controllers l l Is responsible for transferring the ERDF contribution to the beneficiaries participating in an operation l l In case of irregularities, recovers funds from the project partner in accordance with the partnership agreement

19. Management of co-operation programmes and projects for all Objective 3 programmes to Joint eligibility rules for all Objective 3 programmes to be proposed by the Commission in a Commission implementing regulation Normal n+2 rule applies

20. Financial management and control 1/4 Group of auditors (Art. 14 (2) ERDF) l l Is chaired by the Audit Authority of the programme (Art. 14 (2) ERDF). l l Assists the Audit Authority (Art. 61 Gen. Reg.) e.g. carrying out directly or outsourcing: m m systems audit m m sample check of expenditure l l Approves the final report (Art. 61 (1) g)) and assists for the compliance assessment report (Art. 70 Gen. Reg.)

21. Financial management and control 2/4 Financial responsibility l (Art. 60 Gen. Reg. +Art.21 ERDF) l Certifying Authority (Art. 60 Gen. Reg. +Art.21 ERDF) recovers from the lead partner any amount unduly paid (Art. 17 (2) ERDF) l The lead beneficiary shall lay down the arrangements for recovering amounts unduly paid (Art 20 (1 a) ERDF). l The beneficiaries shall repay the lead beneficiary the amounts paid in error in accordance with the agreement existing between them (Art 17 (2) ERDF). l In case of failure, the Member States on whose territory the relevant beneficiary is located shall reimburse the certification authority (Art 17 (2) ERDF).

22. Financial management and control 3/4 Financial responsibility l Improved legal security for the Lead Beneficiary as compared to 2000-06: l The responsibility of the LB is limited to m checking that implementation of operation and expenditure corresponds to agreed activities. m checking that declared expenditure is validated by approved controller (especially compliance with national and Community rules) l The Lead Beneficiary is not responsible for irregularities of other Beneficiaries for non-compliance with national and Community rules.

23. Financial management and control 4/4 Financial responsibility l Improved legal security for the Managing Authority as compared to 2000-06: l The responsibility of the MA is limited to m check that implementation of operation and expenditure corresponds to agreed activities. m check that declared expenditure is validated by approved controller l The Managing Authority is not responsible for irregularities of Beneficiaries for non-compliance with national and Community rules. l Improved legal security for the Member State: not responsible for irregularities of Beneficiaries in other Member States (Art. 17 (2) ERDF)