Okrepitev trajnega in učinkovitega čezmejnega sodelovanja z našimi sosedami
Opinion factsheet
Na tej strani
- Kohezijska politika
- čezmejno in teritorialno sodelovanje
- teritorialna kohezija
- zunanji odnosi, širitev in sosedska politika
- vzhodno partnerstvo
- širitev
- Ukrajina
- Union for the Mediterranean
- Združeno kraljestvo
- Zahodni Balkan
Opinion number:
CDR-3418-2023
Status:
Sprejeta mnenja
Objective
stresses that cross-border cooperation with neighbouring countries, whether at land or sea borders, is a key part of EU policy; helps meet the cohesion, neighbourhood and enlargement objectives in a cross-cutting way;
stresses that, due to the current geopolitical situation, LRAs must be considered key players in European cross-border cooperation with neighbouring and/or candidate countries and calls for them to be given greater administrative and financial support;
strongly believes that the Interreg IPA CBC programmes and NEXT (Global Europe) are also essential for developing the expertise of officials in neighbouring LRAs as their countries prepare to join the EU;
welcomes the increase in the overall budget for IPA III and calls for the overall budget for cross-border territorial cooperation to be increased;
commends the Commission's decision to suspend cooperation with Russia and Belarus under the European Neighbourhood Instrument cross-border cooperation (ENI CBC) programmes following Russia's military aggression against Ukraine and to redirect the funds to Ukraine and Moldova. Notes however that this has had negative repercussions for EU regions that previously benefited from these programmes, and calls for the implementation of a mechanism to compensate for the drop in access to funding in these border regions;
is convinced that permanent cross-border organisations could help make cross-border cooperation more efficient and sustainable and calls on the Commission to work on simplifying existing mechanisms;
calls for further simplification of Interreg projects and stresses that the corresponding funding should be flexible enough to meet the actual needs of cross-border areas in line with a bottom-up approach;
emphasises the need to promote synergies and complementarities between cross-border cooperation actions and EU funding programmes;
stresses the importance of ensuring that stakeholders have easy access to information on and training in project engineering to stimulate participation in cross-border cooperation;
stresses the need for maritime cross-border cooperation to be better structured, given that many of the EU's neighbouring countries share borders with it in both the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean.
Impact
In the process of drafting the opinion, the CoR rapporteur Maupertuis worked closely with MEP Daniel Buda (EPP/RO) on his Report "on the current and future challenges regarding cross-border cooperation with neighbouring countries" and has presented her opinion on the same topic at he 20 September EP REGI Committee meeting.
Consequently, the CoR rapporteur actively contributed the REGI Committee work, proposing concrete compromise amendments with MEP Buda, and in this way directly influencing the content of the Report and reflecting the messages and conclusions made by the CoR member in the process of adoption the above mentioned CoR opinion.
The European Commission answered the following :
On IPA programmes: The Commission acknowledges that territorial cooperation can play an important role in the context of the enlargement process and for good neighbourly relations, overall. As such, the IPA III programming framework dedicates one of the five thematic windows to cross-border, transnational, and interregional cooperation programmes to strengthen cooperation by means of actions conducive to integrated territorial development linked to the Union's priorities. As a result, the allocation of funds for territorial cooperation under IPA III has significantly increased, compared to IPA II (2014-2020)
On simplification: Current Interreg programmes benefit from significantly more simplified and flexible rules compared to their 2014-2020 predecessors. For example, the regulation now makes it simpler to implement small projects via the Small Project Funds. Furthermore, the extended use of simplified cost options clearly reduces the administrative and control burden for project partners programme management bodies. The Commission will continue supporting the responsible managing authorities in Member States to further simplify arrangements for the Interreg partners.All Interreg programmes are designed by public authorities that are aware of regional and local
needs. The association of socio-economic environmental and civil society partners in this process make it all the more relevant and bottomup. In addition, the implementation mode, which is largely based on calls for projects, ensures a high degree of relevance to local needs.
On indicators: The IPA III Regulation calls for a reinforced monitoring and reporting with a focus on results, covering outputs, outcomes and impacts, with the aim of both providing effective accountability and transparency in implementing the Union budget and ensuring effective assessment of progress towards the achievement of the objectives of the Instrument. Building on this legal requirement (‘policy first’principle) and on lessons learnt from previous practice under IPA II and the IPA Performance Framework, DG NEAR has set up the IPA III Results Framework. The framework allows for consistency and a harmonisation of approaches among the different stakeholders and interventions, when it comes to reporting on results. The IPA III Programming framework has 5 windows, with Territorial and Cross Border Cooperation covered by Window 5.Additionally, all Interreg cooperation programmes along the EU external borders, covering the 2021-27 period, fall under the legal framework of cohesion policy. In accordance with the Common Provision Regulation4, relevant, clear and realistic programme indicators are core requirement for the programme cycle management, notably measurement of impact under structural funds. Several indicators are cooperation-specific and measure the impact of projects and programmes on interaction between neighbours. The experience gained during the implementation of 2021-27 programmes will be considered when
etting up indicators for post 2027 programmes.
Consequently, the CoR rapporteur actively contributed the REGI Committee work, proposing concrete compromise amendments with MEP Buda, and in this way directly influencing the content of the Report and reflecting the messages and conclusions made by the CoR member in the process of adoption the above mentioned CoR opinion.
The European Commission answered the following :
On IPA programmes: The Commission acknowledges that territorial cooperation can play an important role in the context of the enlargement process and for good neighbourly relations, overall. As such, the IPA III programming framework dedicates one of the five thematic windows to cross-border, transnational, and interregional cooperation programmes to strengthen cooperation by means of actions conducive to integrated territorial development linked to the Union's priorities. As a result, the allocation of funds for territorial cooperation under IPA III has significantly increased, compared to IPA II (2014-2020)
On simplification: Current Interreg programmes benefit from significantly more simplified and flexible rules compared to their 2014-2020 predecessors. For example, the regulation now makes it simpler to implement small projects via the Small Project Funds. Furthermore, the extended use of simplified cost options clearly reduces the administrative and control burden for project partners programme management bodies. The Commission will continue supporting the responsible managing authorities in Member States to further simplify arrangements for the Interreg partners.All Interreg programmes are designed by public authorities that are aware of regional and local
needs. The association of socio-economic environmental and civil society partners in this process make it all the more relevant and bottomup. In addition, the implementation mode, which is largely based on calls for projects, ensures a high degree of relevance to local needs.
On indicators: The IPA III Regulation calls for a reinforced monitoring and reporting with a focus on results, covering outputs, outcomes and impacts, with the aim of both providing effective accountability and transparency in implementing the Union budget and ensuring effective assessment of progress towards the achievement of the objectives of the Instrument. Building on this legal requirement (‘policy first’principle) and on lessons learnt from previous practice under IPA II and the IPA Performance Framework, DG NEAR has set up the IPA III Results Framework. The framework allows for consistency and a harmonisation of approaches among the different stakeholders and interventions, when it comes to reporting on results. The IPA III Programming framework has 5 windows, with Territorial and Cross Border Cooperation covered by Window 5.Additionally, all Interreg cooperation programmes along the EU external borders, covering the 2021-27 period, fall under the legal framework of cohesion policy. In accordance with the Common Provision Regulation4, relevant, clear and realistic programme indicators are core requirement for the programme cycle management, notably measurement of impact under structural funds. Several indicators are cooperation-specific and measure the impact of projects and programmes on interaction between neighbours. The experience gained during the implementation of 2021-27 programmes will be considered when
etting up indicators for post 2027 programmes.
Essential points
THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
- stresses that cross-border cooperation with neighbouring countries, whether at land or sea borders, is a key part of EU policy; helps meet the cohesion, neighbourhood and enlargement objectives in a cross-cutting way;
- stresses that, due to the current geopolitical situation, LRAs must be considered key players in European cross-border cooperation with neighbouring and/or candidate countries and calls for them to be given greater administrative and financial support;
- strongly believes that the Interreg IPA CBC programmes and NEXT (Global Europe) are also essential for developing the expertise of officials in neighbouring LRAs as their countries prepare to join the EU;
- welcomes the increase in the overall budget for IPA III and calls for the overall budget for cross-border territorial cooperation to be increased;
- commends the Commission's decision to suspend cooperation with Russia and Belarus under the European Neighbourhood Instrument cross-border cooperation (ENI CBC) programmes following Russia's military aggression against Ukraine and to redirect the funds to Ukraine and Moldova. Notes however that this has had negative repercussions for EU regions that previously benefited from these programmes, and calls for the implementation of a mechanism to compensate for the drop in access to funding in these border regions;
- is convinced that permanent cross-border organisations could help make cross-border cooperation more efficient and sustainable and calls on the Commission to work on simplifying existing mechanisms;
- calls for further simplification of Interreg projects and stresses that the corresponding funding should be flexible enough to meet the actual needs of cross-border areas in line with a bottom-up approach;
- emphasises the need to promote synergies and complementarities between cross-border cooperation actions and EU funding programmes;
- stresses the importance of ensuring that stakeholders have easy access to information on and training in project engineering to stimulate participation in cross-border cooperation;
- stresses the need for maritime cross-border cooperation to be better structured, given that many of the EU's neighbouring countries share borders with it in both the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean.