challenges of the cross-border cooperation programmes at the ...

CHALLENGES OF THE CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION
PROGRAMMES AT THE EASTERN BORDER OF THE EUROPEAN
UNION
Marcela ȘLUSARCIUC
University ”Ștefan cel Mare”, Romania
slusarciuc.marcela@usv.ro
Abstract: The Joint Operational Programmes, financed through the European Neighbourhood
Partnership Instrument, are the financial tool that put in practice the European Neighbourhood Policy with
potential Eastern candidate countries. The aim of the programmes is generous wishing to create bridges
between the partner states for sustaining the communities in the border areas in order to find common solutions
to similar problems they face. Through the programmes, the local authorities and the organizations from the
border area are encouraged to cooperate for the local economy development, common management of
environment issues or emergency situations preparedness and not the last for a good interaction between the
border communities. The paper aims to explore what are the main challenges that the applicants, beneficiaries
and the institutions involved face and how they affect reaching the aim of the programme.
Keywords: cross-border cooperation, Eastern border, European Union, European Neighbourhood
Partnership Instrument, Joint Operational Programme (JOP).
INTRODUCTION
For 2007-2013 programming period it is in place the European Neighbourhood Partnership
Instrument (ENPI) through which there are financed three programmes on the actual Eastern border of
EU and covering mainly Ukraine and Republic of Moldova: Joint Operational Programme Poland-
Belarus-Ukraine, Joint Operational Programme Hungary-Slovakia-Romania-Ukraine and Joint
Operational Programme Romania-Ukraine–Republic of Moldova. In the period 2007-2013 total
funding under the ENPI CBC programme is expected to amount to some 1,118 million Euro, with
around 527 million Euro coming from ENPI and the balance from ERDF funds.
The main priorities of the above mentioned programmes are built around economic and social
development, environment management and protection, increase of the security and efficiency of the
border by proper management and the “People to people” component (CBC Programme Pl-By-Ua,
2008; CBC Programme Hu-Sk-Ro-Ua, 2008; JOP Ro-Ua-Md, 2008). The main applicants for all three
programmes, with exceptions depending on the specificity of the participant countries in the
programme, are the public administration – regional and local authorities, non-governmental/ nonprofit
organizations or other institutions such as universities, chambers of commerce, business nonprofit
associations or others. One of the most important specificities of those programmes is that the
partnership across countries is mandatory and at least one partner from the Member State has to be
included in the project. This issue is the engine of the cross border partnership along the Eastern border
and it helps for the know-how transfer from the EU to the partner countries in the aspects of project
management.
In case of this ENPI programme, the Joint Managing Authority (JMA) shall bear the overall
responsibility for the management and implementation of the programme towards the European
Commission, while the beneficiary is responsible to the JMA and is directly accountable to the

authority for the operational and financial progress of activities. The legal basis for these programmes
implementation consists of Regulation 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24
October 2006 laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership
Instrument, Commission Regulation no 951/2007 laying down implementing rules for crossborder
cooperation programmes financed under Regulation no 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 24 October 2006 laying down general provisions establishing a European
Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, usually named Implementing Rules. The contractual
procedures used for implementation of the programmes shall be those applicable to external actions as
defined in Articles 162 to 170 of Council Regulation no 1605/2002 and Articles 231 to 256 of the
Commission Regulation no 2342/2002. The procedures and related standard documents and contract
templates to be used are those included in the Practical Guide to contract procedures for EC external
actions with annexes in force at the time of the launching of procurement procedures or call for
proposals.
1. THE EXPERIENCE OF THE JOINT TECHNICAL SECRETARIATS
Inhere I made a comparative qualitative research between three JOPs that are situated at the
Eastern border of EU and include Ukraine and/or Republic of Moldova. The tool used was the
interview applied to one of the programme structures, namely Joint Technical Secretariat, which is the
body that links the decisional bodies – Joint Managing Authority and Joint Monitoring Committee, and
the beneficiaries.
This section makes a summary of the research findings concerning the good features that actual
Joint Operational Programmes have and the lessons learned by the executive bodies involved in the
programmes implementation as a link between the Joint Managing Authorities and Joint Monitoring
Committees, as decisional and strategic structures, and the beneficiaries, as project implementers and
grant users. The findings are structured by relevant fields and combine the interviews with the Heads of
the JTSs from the three JOP from the Eastern border of the EU that includes Ukraine and Republic of
Moldova.
1.1. Challenges, solutions and starting points
1.1.1. Programming
Practical Guide (PRAG, yearly versions), in the form it is now, it is not fitting to this kind of
programmes and needs improvements. From legal perspective the most critical part of this programme
is the whole composition of the programmes that have 3 or more countries, the problem being the
regulation and the basic act, meaning PRAG that is outdated. The PRAG sets the rules between EC and
the countries, but in the frame of the trilateral or quadrilateral programme because the legal connection
between the partner and the beneficiary was never set. The proposal is that for a next programme not to
apply at all the PRAG rules. There is experience from ERDF, IPA that became ETC rules also there is
a base for creating new specific rules for crossborder programmes with partner countries.
Another issue linked to this is the situation of JMC that has to decide about the selected projects
after the recommendation of the Evaluation Committees. In case that JMC wants to make modifications
on the recommendation there is need the approval of EC, fact that creates the situation when the JMC

as the highest decisional body cannot decide alone on the matters that are in its area. This aspect should
be deleted from the system.
From the point of view of the programming process it is better to concentrate on the people living
on the territory and not to have a central guide because we need to know what is are interests of the
countries.
The programmes’ objectives are too wide also almost any kind of project can fit in it and as
consequence, if it would be drawn a line at the end of the programme with the purpose of measuring
impact or results, this cannot be realized. Proper would be a more specific approach, based on studies
about the programme area and the formulation of more targeted objectives as well as after seven years
of programme to be possible to conclude what needs were covered from the programme, entirely or
partially.
As far as concerns the consultation of the local actors, for the actual programme there is possible
that it was not systematic, respectively only 2-3 workshops, with low possibility of a clear analysis of
needs. The needs analysis should start from the analysis of the development strategies of the
communities across the borders and to identify the common points of interest.
ENPI allows the programmes to choose the type of projects, namely simple, integrated or
symmetric, but the simple projects are not relevant anymore in crossborder context. This is an issue that
should be analyzed and it should be established how much such projects are still necessary. A simple
project is easy to manage, being understood the applicants’ appetency for this kind of projects, but from
the point of view of partnership and crossborder impact it is not significant.
1.1.2. Calls for proposals
The actual frame is good, with project management training session and information sessions at
national level delivered by the JTS. There is welcomed the participation of Interact or RCBI in the
delivering of these sessions due to their horizontal information level, being involved in more
programmes and more countries. The BOs have a very limited role due to the implementing rules
provisions, having tasks about organization mainly. The number of events is less important than the
quality and consistency of the information delivered.
The positive aspects are referring to a higher clarity about the programme requirements as well as
the potential applicants to understand what the programme aims and what they have to do at each step
in order to apply. The first call for proposals had evasive and interpretable that generated frustrations
and appeals, but the second call tried to fix this making the guidelines more friendly and concise, with
clearer issues. Also, the clarity is an aspect to be considered in a following programme.
The evaluation process was better described in the second call for proposals in case of some
programmes and the applicants knew better the situations for rejecting a project and the appeal
procedure was established making the process more transparent compared with the first call for
proposals.
Some provisions of the guidelines are too strict because it turned out that in the end there were
many good projects that were rejected because of not complying with the administrative eligibility
check. This is 1-0 option, for example one of the annexes is not submitted.
What is missing in the programme but it cannot be solved during a call for proposals are the
projects for increasing the capacity of the potential applicants, mainly the ones from the partner
countries, about the project management frame (for example the principles, the concept of relevance,
the planning of the indicators and the activities, etc.). This type of training should be delivered all along
the programme period and not only during the call for proposals.

It would be more useful an application form with simpler format, easier to understand and fill by
the applicants. There are sections in the application form about relevance or coherence with the
programme objectives that are very summary described, the space available for these sections being
restrained while for other sections is more generous, even if in the implementation stage the details
from thee sections are not entirely useful. There is need for more space for issues like relevance,
crossborder impact, sustainability, internal monitoring and control mechanism and less pace for
methodology as example.
1.1.3. Assessment of the applications
The system of restricted call for proposals used in some calls for proposals is it one to be
considered in a next programme, namely the initial submission of a concept note, the selection and a
provisionally list of applicants, the preparing of a full application and the final selection of the projects.
The advantages of this system are about the shortening of time needed for applicants to prepare a preproposal,
in case of big projects the request for submission of the full application being expensive and
with a high volume of documents. In case of the restricted call these costs are occurring only after the
applicant is on a provisional short list. Another advantage is the decrease of the time needed for
evaluation especially in case of a significant high number of applications.
A good aspect is that the programme allows that the score awarded in the assessment of the
concept note for the relevance issue is considered in the assessment of the full application with no
changes.
Another positive aspect is that there is an appeal procedure that is allowed in any evaluation step
and due to its specificity eases a prompt answer from the programme management structures. The
clarity of the guidelines provisions in this matter lead to a lower number of appeals compared with the
previous evaluation process.
It is advisable to use the same evaluation system as in this programme, namely an evaluation
committee for each priority, committees with a lower number of evaluators, one representative per
country, this formula having good results and an easier consensus building process. There are voices
among the regional actors that propose that each country should assess its own applications but this
approach it is not a desired one considering the projects specificity, with partnership in the other
countries. Moreover, it is difficult to keep the crossborder character in the situation that each country
will receive a part of the budget and will assess separately the own applications. It is possible that
following the assessment to have a selection of relevant projects for the regions from that country but
not necessarily relevant for the partner from the other side of the border. Also there is the issue of
conflict of interests in the situation of national assessment, considering that it should be the certitude
that the ones involved in the evaluation process have no personal interest on the proposed projects.
Another aspect that should be transferred further is the award of incentives for the participation of
the partner countries, for example to encourage the trilateral partnerships or the allocation of the budget
in the partner countries from a certain percentage, aiming a higher involvement in the programme of
the partner countries.
It is good to catch up the setting up of more clear criteria for measuring the crossborder
partnership for ensuring its contain and the obligation of respecting at least two out of four criteria:
joint programming, joint implementing, joint financing and joint staffing. This improvement risen in
the second call for proposals due to the fact that in the first call for proposals there were many projects
with the budget managed by only one partner, the other partner being just formally involved, without a
significant contribution.

When about the quality assessment there are assessors, both internal and external JTS that were
approved within the open call for assessors and there are opinions about the work of external assessors
as not being satisfactory, especially about the quality or the comments they put in the evaluation grids.
Even if it was provided training for them still the work conducted by the external assessors was not
good enough. Often these comments were not in line with the project or with the assessment, so some
problems in this case were faced. There is a good point from transparency point of view to involve JTS
in the quality assessment of proposals, now the proposals being evaluated by independent assessors
selected by open call. There is difficult to check the harmonization of the comments of the assessors
with the points given having in mind the differences in cultures and fields.
1.1.4. Implementation
There are the procurements problem and the rule of origin problem in Poland because if there are
considered strictly the provisions in relation to the procurement rules it cannot be imposed in the Polish
tendering documentation that the goods must be bought only from the specified area. The national
legislation has not provisions about it and there are problems here also.
In the implementation many other problems occurred in terms of procurement in case of Ukraine
and Belarus where there is the Annex IV that says “the best international rules” meaning PRAG. The
NGOs in Ukraine can use PRAG without any problems but the public entities are obliged to apply their
national procurement rules. There is the matrix elaborated by Interact that compares national rules with
PRAG but still it is an advisory tool for beneficiaries that can be taken into consideration, there are not
provisions that the matrix must be followed.
There are more rules regarding the implementation – the description of the management and
control structure that is coming from ETC rules and involves national control structures in the three
member states enforced by national decrees, PRAG rules, horizontal regulations and the EC
regulations. The harmonization of those is impossible regarding the procurements or other
implementation issues and for example the EC never stated how the PRAG can be applied by the
bodies that are not government related. There is a matrix realized by Interact regarding the procurement
in the partner countries and it was the desire of approval of it but by now it is not an official document.
The problem is that between the national legislation in the partner countries and the PRAG there are
some gaps that should be somehow solved but there is no answer to it by now. Even if the Interact
matrix is not mandatory it is useful and guiding for the partner countries.
The specificity of the quadrilateral programmes is that there are three member states involved and
the national rules applied are different concerning the verification of expenditures but on the other side
there is the JTS that has to control everything. Moreover the JTS takes the final decision about the
eligibility of the expenditures but the opinion is formed based on reports of the national controllers or
independent auditors, for the partner country, without having the supporting documents as invoices or
other proofs. Also, the decision of the JTS concerning the eligibility of the expenditures incurred
implies mainly the acceptance of the findings of the national controllers or auditors and in case of
doubts to ask clarification or supplementary documents, aspect that makes the decision process longer.
The final level of control is JTS and that is why the ‘four eyes principle’ is applied very carefully and
the structure of JTS is using the operational part and the financial part of verification leading to a kind
of ‘ten eye principle’. Overall this means a huge amount of work and responsibility and, if it would be
an optimum structure, this should be based on an increased responsibility on the partner countries that
are signing a memorandum anyway with the JMA.

One of the biggest problems of the programme is LSPs, not the projects themselves but the direct
award procedure which is good for the countries and the JMA but from the management point of view
is a nightmare. It is critical because of the value of these projects, almost a third from the whole
programme, and because of the technical complex aspects of these projects, and in case that there are
late contracted there are risks concerning the financial and technical aspects. There is a much effort put
in the promotion of these projects but because there are cooperating public institutions with big
hierarchy from different countries there are delays because there are many steps from the first meeting
till the setup of the project and there are involved both kinds of people, the ones who make the
decisions and the ones who know the technical aspects and details for a better shape of the project and
not all the time they are available in the same time from all the partner countries.
The implementation step is not described at the programme level being presented only general
guiding lines and behind these being necessary a big and meticulous effort for establishing the details,
mainly the JTS sustaining this effort. The implementation rules for the project were set up long after
the programme launch and there will be a good aspect to be established an implementation strategy
right from the beginning of programming the JOP. It is good for the applicants also to know all these
details for a proper preparation of the applications.
An issue that should be analyzed and determined carefully is the share of responsibilities among
the programme structures to avoid the overlapping that would mean doubled activities and lack of
efficiency. An example is the one of the submitted beneficiaries’ reports that are checked by three
levels (FLC, JTS, JMA).
1.2. Institutional systems of Joint Operational Programmes
Compared with the beginning of the programme the things are different. Many decisions are
taken by written procedure, both on the JMC level and even at the Evaluation Committee also the
written procedures definitely improved the process of decision-making. The branch offices (BO) are
good, in the partner countries. In order to communicate with the National Authorities the JTS is
contacting directly or through JMA, it depends on the issue. The work of branch offices is appreciated
especially when there are the JMC meetings, in all the logistics, invitations, etc. They are set up just for
the information and communication purposes and the JOP has provisions about that they can help with
the evaluation of the projects.
At the actual moment in the JOP there are many responsibilities defined for the JMA and several
for the JTS and most of the tasks belonging to JMA are transferred to the JTS. From a point of view it
is a good thing as long as the people working in the JTS are qualified and highly professional. But on
the other side people working in other structures of the programme are civil servants and sometimes
they don’t have a very high level of expertise. A proposal would be to have in all the programme
structures people with a similar expertize in order to help to understand each other in a common
language and field. A good aspect is that the collaboration between the JTS and the NAs is good
mainly due to the fact that inside JTS are working people coming from all the programme countries
also the beneficiaries and the national structures of the programme can talk with the professional
people from JTS in their own language and the communication is better. Even if the language of the
programme is English it is not often in the real life that a person involved in a project, coming from a
smaller village, can be experienced in legal terms in English.
JMC has a strategic role in the programme but the direct intervention in the programme should be
clear about the selection and approval of the projects list recommended for grant, decisions related to
the financial allocations, decisions related to the conditions of the call for proposals, meaning

exclusively aspects of strategic level of decision. The main responsibility about the programme
implementation should be designated to JMA and the NAs should give a higher support to the JMA in
what supposes the implementation of the programme, namely providing information concerning some
specific national issues, for example the level of harmonization of the national legislation with the EU
legislation or the conditions of issuing a building permit in the partner countries. There is a need for
clearer distribution of responsibilities and tasks between the JMA as superior level and JTS as a level
near to the beneficiaries, JTS being mostly an executive body and in some situations is necessary to be
more involved in the management of the programme.
1.3. The decisional process of the programmes
In aspects concerning the institutional and decisional-making process, there is the aim of the
Commission of having the so called ‘shared management’ that should be implemented. During the
evaluation of the projects there were many problems in relation with the eligibility of the applicants, in
some cases not being clear the applicant eligibility because there were not clear in the guidelines the
conditions for eligibility and in this case the role of the National Authorities (NA) should be more
important. It should be put in the provisions of the programme that for example the NAs should be
responsible for some duties. As far as the communication between the BO and JTS and JMA and JMC
there are not issues for debate.
To have consensus for three or four countries it is not always an easy way, but considering that
all the countries contribute financially into the programme, the possibility of majority vote is not an
option because this would mean that one of the opinions would not be taken into consideration. Also
the consensus principle should remain as modality for taking the decisions.
In case of Hungary there is a problem because there are the institutions and same people who are
representing both, JMA and the national point of view, and from professional point of view the JMA
should represent the four countries together and to guide or direct the countries equally and the NA
should represent the national interest. Therefore it is difficult to be in the same time JMA and NA and
to have different interests and playing one of the parts would mean to break the mandate as the other
part. In this case for sure it should be a change.
At the project level there is a difference in flexibility about the decision among the programme
countries. For example in Ukraine the approval of a budget has many filters superior to the institution
that applied, issue that generates delays that can be months long in the implementation of the project.
Similar aspects can be found at the programme management level, NAs consulting the regions before
issuing a decision about a proposal that concerns the programme. On the other side, as far as the
management programme issue, in case of Romania it is observed that the regional actors are not
involving actively and constructively, their direct interest being more linked to punctual projects and
less to contribute to the improvement of the programme management.
1.4. The good partnership features
The partnership is a very crucial thing in the evaluation; there are special sections in the
evaluation grid related on the partnership. There is a correlation between the partnership and the cross
border effect. All the criteria taken from the ETC programme – joint preparation, joint implementation,
joint staff, should be taken into consideration, even the joint financing. For example if the partners cofinance
their own share they are more related to the project and they have commitment. The partnership
structure should start from the beginning, from the preparing of the proposal that should be made

jointly and some meetings should be carried out before the submission of the proposal and definitely
we should have joint implementation. It happened that the applicant participated together with the
partner in the trainings. There are strong partnerships established because the CBC cooperation started
earlier, for example the ones started in previous PHARE CBC programmes but still there are many
institutions that have the idea of the projects but they don’t have an idea with whom they can
implement the project.
From the point of view of long term partnership, there are good partnerships that can create new
projects and new ideas. But this is not general, also there are long term partnerships but because of the
crises or some changes in legislation or from other factors could not continue and run projects.
If the people inside the structures are cooperating then there is a perfect partnership and
cooperation but on the other side, at official level, between institutions there are different opinions and
the message sent is confusing.
The partnerships with a history or tradition behind usually are the most serious ones. A good
partnership firstly means a project jointly developed, that has joint ownership of all the partners. The
ownership issue is not found in the projects implemented following the first call for proposal but it will
be in the case of projects selected following the second call for proposals. It means also that all the
partners are involved in the project activities, including in budget sharing when it increases the
motivation of sustaining the implementation and good finalization of the project. Summing up, a good
partnership is the one that can have a happy end of the project, without undesired events along the
implementation. There are unhappy examples of projects when, after the project was submitted and
accepted to be financed, one of the partners decides to redraw or makes difficulties because he has not
direct financial gratification in the project. This kind of situation proves the fact that the named
partnership was constituted exclusively for getting the grant. A good partnership supposes that the
partners are together from the beginning till the end, effectively involved, and it means communication,
mutual support and co-financing. The same remarks are valid for the programme level as a replica of
what it happens in a project.
CONCLUSIONS
Considering the findings described above, there is a good start for improvement of the Joint
Operational Programmes at the Eastern border of EU. The lessons learned and the solution proposed
are possible to be implemented if there will be considered by the structures that will prepare the
programming of the next period 2012-2020.
The general programme structure should be retained, JMC, JMA, JTS, BOs and NAs. The
programme should include more duties carried out by the NAs to be more involved. The trilateral or
quadrilateral cooperation formula is good as long as there are strong partnerships between the
countries.
The direct award procedure for LSPs should not be allowed as it is now without having other
option. It should be analyzed separately the opportunity of open call or direct award.
From the structure point of view of a future programme there are not problems and there are not
big changes that should be considered, mainly speaking of the frame as JOP document. But from the
point of view of details concerning implementation and the quality and stability of people in the
programme structures and at the EC level should be some more attentive approaches.
As elements constituting lessons learned by now there are to be remembered keywords as
flexibility, transparency, the project as the core of the programme instead of easy life for programme

structures, focus regarding the programme action and intervention, clarity in the requirements for the
potential applicants, specificity in provisions and avoid of the exaggerations.
REFERENCES
Joint Operational Programme Romania-Ukraine-Republic of Moldova, www.ro-uamd.net/images/stories/File/Joint_Operational_Programme.pdf
Joint Operational Programme Hungary-Slovakia-Romania-Ukraine, www.huskrouacbc.net/en/file_download/1
Joint Operational Programme Poland-Belarus-Ukraine, http://pl-by-ua.eu/upload/en/PL-BY-
UA_ENG.pdf
PRAG - Practical Guide to contract procedures for European Union external actions,
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/prag/document.do