Home >  advice European grants >  List of interviews on European grants >  The opinion of the MOT on the future of cross-border cooperation

The opinion of the MOT on the future of cross-border cooperation

Silvia Gobert-Keckeis and Françoise Schneider-Français, Project Director, MOT, Operational Cross-border mission

The cross-border operational mission (MOT) aims to facilitate the emergence of cross-border projects by fostering links between the territories of either side of the French borders. The MOT gives us its particular opinion on the evolution of the EGTC, European cross-border cooperation groupings, a community legal instrument which aims to facilitate the management of cross-border cooperation projects. The EGTC should be reviewed as part of the cohesion policy programming post-2013.
1) The MOT has taken part in the Consultation by the Committee of the Regions on the revision of the EGTC Regulation. Why do you think this tool is intended to become the legal reference for Cross-border Cooperation?

“I identify three important elements that make the EGTC a reference point for cross-border cooperation:
- The EGTC is primarily a permanent structure that meets a need of sustainable cooperation actions. This allows partners, local communities which create an EGTC to project themselves beyond the programming of structural funds or to go beyond the programming of European funding programs.
- The EGTC is a tool to formalize and provide a stable framework of partnerships and cooperative approaches. It is a tool that is extremely flexible.
Indeed, the criteria to create an EGTC are very easy:
- First, it requires contracting authorities (communities, public administrations, groups of communities etc.). It is also necessary that these structures belong to two different Member States from the European Union and the cooperation project they lead jointly should be part of their jurisdictions. So we potentially have dozens and dozens of possible partnerships. The EGTC is also a very flexible tool of formalization and that’s why we see EGTC at different levels: it is the case for Euro regions, for example, the Euro region “Pyrénées –Méditerranée” which is the first euro region created along French borders as an EGTC. There is also EGTC composed by inter-communal partnerships; for example the Euro district Saar-Moselle.

Furthermore, all the partners from a territory can be associated. The Euro-metropolis Lille - Kortrijk –Tournai is composed by 14 partners, from the inter-municipal structure to the French and Belgian States.

The third strength of the EGTC is that this tool is essentially from a European juridical nature, it is not a tool managed under the national level or created by a bilateral agreement. It is a real pan-European tool that will overcome the national frameworks since its EU regulation has defined a number of common operating principles.

Of course, regarding practical aspects, in terms of accounting, control of acts or of daily administrative functioning we will have to deal again with the obstacle of the head office location. But the label is common to all EGTCs, whether it is Hungarian, Slovak or Belgian.


2) What are the suggestions of the MOT to give the EGTC more efficiency?


One of the main challenges of the EGTC evolution is to change the EU agreements architecture concerning the EGTC. It also means to question the existing EGTC and the arrangements taken in each Member State to adapt the Community law. In addition, several Member States have taken more than two years to insert the measures necessary to ensure that it will be applicable. The amendment of this Regulation should therefore be reviewed with great caution.

For the MOT, two aspects of the EGTC could be improved. The first concerns the participation of States members from third countries, outside the European Union. Currently, it is not possible for a Member State which is outside the European Union to establish an EGTC and this situation is absurd.

Indeed, the creation of an EGTC presupposes a partnership which consists at least from two EU member states. It is therefore possible to create an EGTC between France, Italy and Switzerland but it is not the case for a Franco –Swiss EGTC. We find the same situation at the border between Guyana and Brazil. A cooperation program exists between the EU and Brazil but it is not possible to create a Franco-Brazilian EGTC. It would be therefore necessary to allow the creation of the EGTC between EU Member States and a member state outside the EU when there is a physical continuity between the territorities across EU borders.

The second aspect concerns the networks. EGTC composed by interregional cooperation networks (strand C of the program INTERREG) have two main problems. A network requires a large number of states involved but also often an important physical distance between partners. We could then consider, as part of the revision, to allow the implementation of a system of written consultation for the members. When a network is stretching from France to Greece, it is often difficult to gather all the partners. It would be interesting to put in place specific provisions allowing EGTC related to networks to facilitate the physical distance between members.

3) France is currently seeking a national strategy for cross-border cooperation. Do you think that certain measures of the report from the parliamentary commission for cross-border cooperation, recently published, could be taken up at European level?


Two aspects from this report could be promoted at the EU level:

Firstly, a coordination approach would be very interesting to organise at the community level. The coordination issue is a crosscutting issue and we could create a commissionership for cross-border issues that would have a central interlocutor and a referent in each DGs. The report of the parliamentary mission advocates for an Interministerial coordination at the national level and this coordination could be regarded in the same way at the European level. The theme of cross-border cooperation affects all levels of cooperation, and more and more services and projects are becoming difficult to achieve without the national level skills. The national level has thus a part to play in cross-border cooperation both to find solutions to local problems and to build a better organization at the national level. The Council of Europe, in November 2009, in its Declaration of Utrecht, was especially keen to emphasize the role of central government in removing obstacles to cross-border cooperation. Moreover, France is not the first country to establish a coordination to better organize the cross-border cooperation. There are approaches elsewhere in Europe which are currently underway and really encouraging.

It is the case in the Netherlands through the introduction of a person in charge of solving cross-border issues, the \"Grensmakelaar\". This person closely works with the “GROS” Task Force. Structures of cooperation are also underway between the north of Portugal and Spain. In Hungary, the CESC - Central European Service for Cross - Border Initiatives has been created.

These approaches highlight the importance for cross-border cooperation to contact relays at different scales. The MOT was set up with a key operational role. MOT plays an intermediary role between central and local actors and provides a technical assistance. The MOT, in direct link with local stakeholders, transmits requests at the central level. This interface role is essential for the proper functioning of cross-border cooperation.


4) What changes would simplify the management of cross-border projects under the next programming?


The MOT advocates systematic involvement of communities and stakeholders in the development of CBC programs. This involvement is also important in the programming committees. Our approach remains a comprehensive approach: we work through a territorial projects approach. Compared to the themes addressed, this territorial approach should also be highlighted in the context of the programming with the introduction of territorial axes. This more holistic approach will allow a larger collaboration between the territory and the programs and avoid that the projects are segmented.