1 / 23

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Objective 3 Territorial Co-operation 2007-2013 Workshop 1: Cross-border co-operation DG Regional Policy Brussels, 21 February 2005. The new Objective 3: European Territorial Co-operation. Objective in its own right Considerably increased funding

ronaldthompson
Download Presentation

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EUROPEAN COMMISSION Objective 3 Territorial Co-operation2007-2013 Workshop 1: Cross-border co-operationDG Regional PolicyBrussels, 21 February 2005

  2. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Related