kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

Europaudvalget 2017
KOM (2017) 0534
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 20.9.2017

SWD(2017) 307 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Accompanying the document

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

on Boosting Growth and Cohesion in EU Border Regions

{COM(2017) 534 final}

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

1.1

1.1.1

Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 4

Key concepts

.................................................................................................................... 5

Border region .......................................................................................................................... 5

1.1.2 Categorising of legal and administrative difficulties limiting interaction along EU land

borders .................................................................................................................................................. 7

1.2

1.2.1

1.2.2

1.2.3

Taking stock: The Cross-Border Review 2015-2017

...................................................... 8

Inventory and case studies ..................................................................................................... 9

Public consultation ................................................................................................................ 10

Workshops with stakeholders .............................................................................................. 10

2.1

2.1.1

2.1.2

2.1.3

2.1.4

2.1.5

Persisting difficulties and their impact........................................................... 12

Legal and administrative barriers - and ways to overcome them

................................... 12

An issue in all EU land border regions ............................................................................... 12

The nature and root-causes vary ......................................................................................... 13

Some policy areas are more concerned than others ........................................................... 14

Solutions exist - but take time, effort and commitment ..................................................... 16

The need for multi-level governance ................................................................................... 18

2.2

The economic impacts - or: the cost of border obstacles

............................................... 19

3.1

3.1.1

3.1.2

What happens and what should be done? ...................................................... 23

Deepening cooperation and exchanges

.......................................................................... 23

Establishing an on-line professional network on the Futurium platform ........................ 25

Implementing pilot projects to test new solutions .............................................................. 26

3.2

3.2.1

3.2.2

Improving the legislative process

.................................................................................. 26

Identifying cross-border aspects in impact assessments .................................................... 27

Providing more expertise and advice .................................................................................. 28

3.3

3.3.1

Enabling cross-border public administration

................................................................. 28

Using the advantages of eGovernment in a cross-border context..................................... 30

3.4

3.4.1

3.4.2

Providing reliable and understandable information and assistance

............................... 30

Better information through the "Single Digital Gateway" ............................................... 31

SOLVIT for a more harmonious Single Market across borders ...................................... 31

3.5

3.5.1

Supporting cross-border employment

............................................................................ 32

Reinforced cooperation of employment services ................................................................ 36

3.6

3.6.1

Promoting border multi-lingualism

................................................................................ 36

Promoting mobility across borders and language learning............................................... 39

3.7

3.7.1

3.7.2

Facilitating cross-border accessibility

............................................................................ 39

Analysing existing cross-border rail connections and identifying missing links: ............ 41

Encouraging better cross-border transport services ......................................................... 41

3.8

Promoting greater pooling of health care facilities

........................................................ 41

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

3.8.1

Mapping cross-border health cooperation in the EU ........................................................ 47

3.9

3.9.1

3.9.2

Considering the legal and financial framework for cross-border cooperation

............... 47

Following the preparations of a "European Cross-Border Convention" ........................ 50

Looking at possible contributions from future funding programmes .............................. 50

3.10

Building evidence of cross-border interaction to inform decision-making

................... 50

3.10.1 Implementing a pilot project on statistical evidence .......................................................... 52

3.10.2 Promoting border-related, territorial research .................................................................. 52

Annex ................................................................................................................. 53

Overview of case studies

........................................................................................................... 53

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Boosting growth and cohesion in EU border regions

The European Union (EU) has 40 internal land border

regions, which represent 40% of

the Union's territory and close to 30% of the EU population. However, border regions

generally perform less well economically than other regions within a Member State.

Access to public services such as hospitals and universities is generally lower in border

regions. Individuals, businesses and public authorities in border regions face specific

difficulties when navigating between different administrative and legal systems

According to Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

(TFEU), particular attention should be paid to border regions, when developing and

pursuing actions leading to the strengthening

of the Union’s economic, social and

territorial cohesion.

In its Communication 'Boosting growth and cohesion in EU border regions', the

Commission is proposing a set of actions to enhance the competitive and cohesive

situation of border regions, notably by addressing some of the legal and administrative

barriers currently hampering closer cooperation and interaction.

This Commission staff working document which accompanies the Communication shall

provide further insight into the issue by



Presenting key concepts and the elaboration process which started in 2015 ('cross-

border review');

Providing additional information on the legal and administrative difficulties faced

by EU border regions and their societal impact; and by

Underpinning the actions proposed by the Commission in the communication

with further analysis and concrete examples.

These examples are highlighted in grey boxes throughout the document.

For scope and definition see chapter 1.1.

‘Territories with specific geographical features’, Working Paper No: 02/2009, European

Commission, DG REGIO: p. 5:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/working-papers/2009/territories-

with-specific-geographical-features

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

NTRODUCTION

Since 1990, targeted cohesion policy funding through the Interreg programmes (also

known as European Territorial Cooperation programmes) has strived to address the

specificities of border regions including those with European Free Trade Association

(EFTA) countries. Over more than 25 years, thousands of projects and initiatives have

contributed to European integration in border regions. The work continues through the

further investment of just under EUR 6 billion from the EU budget for the period 2014-

2020.

Interreg and barriers in border regions

In the 2007-2013 funding period, Interreg cross-border cooperation programmes (EUR

5,574 bn EU budget) funded over 6,800 projects, with a particular focus on innovation

and entrepreneurship, environment, transport, tourism and culture. The ex-post

evaluation of Interreg (2016)

revealed that programmes also contributed to wider

effects, notably in terms of alleviating specific barriers to cooperation (mainly cultural

and distance barriers), and of better social integration. Interreg projects helped to reduce

physical distance, cultural and mental barriers or language barriers.

Whilst some barriers (mainly administrative and legal barriers) continue to hamper

further territorial cooperation and integration, the ex-post evaluation found that existing

borders were less and less seen as a barrier. Similarly, whilst the ex-post evaluation did

find that, to a small extent, technological barriers were reduced, it did not find evidence

that economic or legal/institutional barriers were reduced. This being said, it is

reasonable to consider that legal barriers (especially those related to health services,

labour regulation, taxes, business development), and barriers linked to differences in

administrative cultures and national legal frameworks, were difficult for the programmes

alone to address (as they required decisions beyond programme and project management

structures).

Both, programme evaluations and the Cross-Border Review process

conclude that

persisting negative effects of administrative and legal difficulties cannot be addressed

through financing and investments alone. For this reason, the Commission intends to

define paths along which the EU, its Member States and regions can reduce the

complexity, length and costs of cross-border interaction and promote the better alignment

of services along borders, where appropriate. In doing so, the EU can harness the full

potential of its internal land border regions and offer equal opportunities to border

citizens, thus contributing to the creation of growth and jobs across the Union.

European Commission, Ex-post evaluation 2007-2013 Work Package 11 Ex post evaluation of

Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund

(ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF) 11 ETC, 29 July 2016:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/evaluations/2016/european-

territorial-cooperation-work-package-11-ex-post-evaluation-of-cohesion-policy-programmes-2007-

2013-focusing-on-the-european-regional-development-fund-erdf-and-the-cohesion-fund-cf

See chapter 2.

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

1.1

1.1.1

Key concepts

Border region

In the context of this staff working document and the Communication which it

accompanies, a "land border region" is defined as a NUTS level 3 region

in the 28 EU

Member States, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland with a terrestrial border within a

width of 25 km at each side of the national border.

Not in the scope are:



Land border regions with non-EEA/EFTA countries including Andorra, Monaco

and San Marino as well as the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar, as they

have a fragmented legal relationship to the Union;

Maritime border regions, as natural (maritime) barriers create a territorial

separation of the cross-border region and thus hampers more frequent exchanges

Map 1 shows the geographical scope and location of EU land border regions.

For statistical reasons, data and information is based on NUTS level 3 regions under the European

Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics

–http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nuts

See e.g.:

http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/en/resources/topics-of-

cooperation/themes/theme/show/cross-border-maritime-cooperation /

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

Map 1: Terrestrial border regions along internal EU28 and EFTA borders.

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

1.1.2

Categorising of legal and administrative difficulties limiting interaction along EU

land borders

The difficulties faced by EU land border regions are usually caused by laws, rules or

administrative practices which limit the unhampered flow of goods, services, capital and

people and which obstruct the inherent potential of border regions when interacting

across the border. The political, geo-physical, economic and socio-cultural dimensions of

European borders create a variety of "closure effects" (obstacles

or barriers) and

"opening effects" that always exist in parallel

Closure effects, emerging from local, regional, national or EU legislation as well as from

different administrative practices can be observed in

three general categories

(which are

used in the context of this document):



Legal barriers caused by the absence of Union legislation in policy fields where a

Union competence exists or by shortcomings in a transposition of Union

legislation into national law;

Legal barriers caused by incoherent or inconsistent domestic laws of EU-Member

States in policy fields where no or only a partial Union competence does exist;

Administrative barriers caused by inadequate procedural and/or adverse

behavioural aspects at the local, regional or national levels.

As figure 1 illustrates, legal and administrative barriers can have both, direct negative

effects and potential adverse, secondary effects, leading to an overall limitation of cross-

border integration and interaction.

The European Court of Justice ruling of 28 April 2009 Case C-518/06 noted in relation to the term

'obstacle' or 'restriction' that "all

measures which prohibit, impede or render less attractive the

freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services are restrictions to the relevant

freedoms".

This holistic perception of the "multidimensional reality" of European borders was developed in the

context of the ESPON 2013 research project "GEOSPECS", Source: ESPON (2012): "GEOSPECS-

European Perspective on Specific Types of Territories", Applied Research 2013/1/12, Final

Scientific Report (Version 20/12/2012).

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

Figure 1: Legal and administrative barriers and their impacts on cross-border integration.

Source: Study 'Easing legal and administrative obstacles in EU border regions', Final Report, p. 47.

1.2

Taking stock: The Cross-Border Review 2015-2017

The 'Cross-Border Review' process was carried out by the Commission between 2015

and 2017. It was organised along three pillars:



The first pillar and the backbone of the exercise was a study providing an

inventory of over 200 well-documented cases of legal and/or administrative

barriers, illustrating the direct negative effects and potential adverse, secondary

effects on border regions. A selection of these was taken further through case-

studies describing how these obstacles were addressed on certain borders.

The second pillar was an extensive on-line public consultation to which 623

replies from border citizens, public authorities, organisations and businesses were

received.

Accompanying this process was a series of workshops with stakeholders, which

provided continuous feedback on the results of the review and also represented its

third pillar

More information is accessible under:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/cross-border/review/



kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

1.2.1

Inventory and case studies

As a basis for the review process, a first, Europe-wide

inventory

of legal and

administrative barriers

was established. Based on literature review and online research

of sources published after 2010, the inventory of the Cross-Border Review identified 239

cases of legal and administrative obstacles. Due to limited information, it covers 37 out

of the 40 land border regions. However, the number of obstacles identified for each of

these 37 internal Union land borders is highly variable.

The inventory showed that a multitude of legal and administrative obstacles exists on all

borders and in the timeframe covered by this study

. They all have an adverse effect on

the life of border citizens or deter them from fully harnessing the potential of their place

of residence or work. The obstacles described in the inventory differ in their nature, their

causes and impact on the border regions.

Their documentation also varies, with North-Western and Northern Europe having many

and well documented obstacles, while few obstacles are documented in Central and

South-Eastern

Europe. This difference between ‘existing’ and ‘documented’ obstacles

may suggest a lower level of awareness of legal and administrative obstacles at some

borders.

The observed barriers are clustered into the following eight wider policy areas: (1)

Industry & Trade, (2) Labour Market & Education, (3) Social Security & Health, (4)

Transport & Mobility, (5) Information & Society, (6) Environment, (7) Climate Change

and (8) Policy Planning & Public Services.

As a next step,

15 case studies

were carried out, covering the five policy areas most

affected (Labour Market & Education, Social Security & Health, Transport & Mobility,

Industry & Trade and Policy Planning and provision of Public Services).

Previously established inventories remained limited in their geographical scope or lacked the

necessary level of detail and documentation. In 2011, the Council of Europe (CoE) published the

EDEN-database, which presents the outcome of a survey among CoE-member countries on existing

border obstacles, as well as the subsequently elaborated "Manual on removing obstacles to cross-

border cooperation" (Council of Europe (2011): Preparation of the conference on removing obstacles

and promoting good practices on cross-border cooperation. Replies to the questionnaire. Strasbourg,

16 May 2011. Council of Europe (2012): Manual on removing obstacles to cross-border cooperation.

Strasbourg, November 2012. EDEN-Database: http://cbc.isig.it/search-the-database/). While it

contains valuable information, for a large number of countries the border-specific information on

obstacles was rather general (i.e. lacking description of legal or administrative sources, of the wider

policy background or of adverse effects) or even not existing at all. Regionally, good inventories

exist in a number of border regions, such as the Öresund region, within the Nordic Council of

Ministers, in border regions of the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium, and at the Franco-Belgian

border.

The inventory is accessible here:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/european-

territorial/cross-border/review

The study reviewed sources published between 2010 and 2015. Recent events in relation to the

European refugee crisis and the linked re-introduction of border controls along some internal border

sections in five Schengen states were not taken into account.

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

Each case study focused on a specific obstacle or exceptionally on a group of closely

related obstacles

. An important objective for the case studies was to elaborate a tool

that could provide interesting points of reference and/or lessons for a wider policy and

practice audience beyond the illustrative spatial examples used to illustrate each case

study. The research involved consultations with the Commission, regional and local

stakeholders.

The case study on the mobility of cross-border workers, illustrated by the Danish-

Swedish border (the Öresund region), was completed as pilot case to aid the process. In

general the availability of Union level contextual information has been strong and backed

up by consultations with key officials in the Commission and agencies. The level of

information on cross-border legal and administrative obstacles has been variable and

weak in relation to the impact of obstacles on cross-border cooperation. Documentation

is often quite limited both at the Union and cross-border level. Despite the difficulty of

identifying relevant actors, more than 200 people were consulted during the elaboration

time, either individually or via focus groups.

The list of case studies is set out in the Annex.

1.2.2

Public consultation

In 2015, the Commission launched a public consultation to gather the views of

individuals and stakeholders on the border obstacles. The public consultation was open

for three months and received

623 replies

from stakeholders from border citizens,

businesses and public authorities

. By listening to their opinions, it aimed to identify the

main obstacles encountered when interacting across borders, as well as the potential

solutions. Half of the respondents to the consultations were private individuals (48%),

followed by those responding on behalf of a public authority (23%), those on behalf of an

organisation (13%) and those on behalf of a business/private company (7%). The

remaining respondents were in the categories other (4%); self-employed individual (2%),

academic/research institution (2%) and pan-European interest group (1%).

1.2.3

Workshops with stakeholders

Accompanying the process was a series of workshops with stakeholders, organised by the

Commission. The

four workshops,

which took place in Brussels between September

2015 and December 2016, provided continuous feedback on the results of the review and

also represented its third pillar



The first workshop served as a presentation of the work ahead and the expert

consortium charged to produce the study, inventory and case-studies.

Although initially no specific policy area, and no specific cross-border region should have been

represented more than once, the weighting of the examples of the inventory (more in Northern and

Western Europe), led to the adoption of a more pragmatic approach.

It has to be noted that the amount of responses to the public consultation is below the threshold to be

considered statistically significant. Therefore the conclusions drawn are largely qualitative.

Further information, participants' lists, videos and summaries of outcomes are available under the

following webpage:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/cross-border/review

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel



The second workshop tried to identify a typology of obstacles and a methodology

for potential solutions. Experts discussed concrete examples of legal or

administrative border obstacles that were either recently solved or were to be

solved in a short term, and drew conclusions on their characteristics.

The third workshop focused on identifying the main conclusions from the case

studies presented by the expert consortium and, based upon this, to draw

recommendations that could relatively easily be transferred to different cross-

border regions (hence, not too border specific).

The fourth workshop focused on identifying possible solutions and suggestions to

overcome legal and administrative obstacles in three specific areas: engaging

citizens and stakeholders; better regulation and policy coordination; and the role

of Interreg.

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

2.1

ERSISTING DIFFICULTIES AND THEIR IMPACT

Legal and administrative barriers - and ways to overcome them

The Cross-Border Review process revealed a rather large number of difficulties and

barriers which hamper the development and interaction between land border regions. The

results from all three pillars widely coincide:

2.1.1

An issue in all EU land border regions

The inventory illustrates that around 64% of all obstacles (or 152 cases) affect

the entire

length of land borders.

These are most often obstacles related to Member State

legislation (67 cases) and also administrative obstacles (58 cases).

This is underpinned by the public perception: the public consultation

brought to light

that legal and administrative barriers were perceived as

the most relevant obstacle

53% of respondents, with language barriers coming second with 38% (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Relevance and frequency of obstacles.

Source: Summary Report on the online public consultation "Overcoming obstacles in border regions",

p. 12.

There is also a strong correlation between the

frequency of border crossing

and the

obstacles perceived when interacting across the border. The more often a person crosses

the border, the less likely he/she is to mention lack of trust as an obstacle. The same

applies for language barriers and sociocultural differences. On the contrary, the more

often a person crosses the border, the more likely he/she is to mention legal and

For detailed results of the public consultation, see: European Commission, Directorate-General for

Regional and Urban Policy: Overcoming obstacles in border regions. Summary report on the online

public consultation 21 September 2015 - 21 December 2015. Luxemburg 2016:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/newsroom/consultations/overcoming-obstacles-border-

regions/

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

administrative barriers as obstacles. One possible explanation is that the frequency of

travel multiplies the opportunity to encounter such obstacles; in other words, obstacles of

this nature are more strongly felt when mobility across the border is higher and more

frequent.

Language barriers

were viewed by 38% of respondents as a relevant problem in border

regions, making it the second most mentioned type of obstacle. Language is a cross-

cutting obstacle, transcending the defined categories of this public consultation. Various

groups are affected, ranging from restricted interaction in everyday life, to hampered

exchange of good practices between administrations.

2.1.2

The nature and root-causes vary

In terms of their nature, the most numerous obstacles are those related to

national

legislation (104 cases), followed by

administrative

obstacles (99 cases). Obstacles

related to the existence of

EU legislation

(or lack thereof) are much less frequent (36

cases). Depending on the nature of the obstacle, its removal or alleviation therefore

requires action within and between Member States at different governance levels, or at

the Union-level.

Figure 3: Legal and administrative barriers and their origins (239 cases in total).

National and

regional

administrative

practices

(99 cases)

National and

regional legislation

(104 cases)

EU legislation

(36 cases)

Two types

of source-problem-effect relationships were identified when assessing

obstacles, which in turn impact their solutions: straightforward and complex. A

'straightforward' relationship means that there is a clear relational link between (1) a

specific inadequate provision in a concrete piece of legislation or a certain inappropriate

administrative practice, (2) the difficulties or hindrances this provision or practice is

creating for cross-border interactions and (3) the negative direct effects or adverse

secondary effects which emerge for specific corporate actors or larger person groups or

individuals in the cross-border area. It is in principle quite easy to conceive and

implement a solution for this kind of obstacle, if the concerned and competent

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

stakeholders are willing to take action on the issue at stake. Once the source is

eliminated, also the problems and the adverse effects will disappear.

For obstacles characterised by a 'complex' relationship, there are (1) various and more or

less closely related legal or administrative aspects which together are creating (2)

difficulties or hindrances for cross-border interactions that again (3) are leading to

negative direct or indirect effects in the cross-border area. Because it is difficult to

disentangle exactly which aspects are primarily causing a given problem and which

aspects are additionally contributing to it, it is therefore also much more complicated to

conceive and implement a solution that is able to fully eliminate the problem and the

related adverse effects.

The inventory also attempted to appraise the

negative direct and secondary effects

obstacles, as well as their wider impact on cross-border integration (sum of all negative

direct effects and adverse secondary effects of an obstacle (see Figure 4 on page 15)

A large majority of legal and administrative obstacles in the inventory has documented

strong negative direct effects (182 cases), and 56 cases have moderate negative direct

effects

. Negative secondary effects were strong in 77 cases and moderate in 86 cases. In

sum, the wider negative impact of the border obstacles documented in the inventory is

either high (143 cases) or moderate (93 cases). These negative impacts lower the

intensity of cross-border interactions in virtually all dimensions of functional integration.

Many of these obstacles have a wider relevance for the entire Union and/or for many

other Union border regions, because very similar problems are observed at a large

number of other internal Union borders.

2.1.3

Some policy areas are more concerned than others

More than 90% of the legal and administrative obstacles documented in the inventory fall

into the following

five policy areas,

in order of decreasing significance:

1. Labour Market & Education

2. Social Security & Health

3. Transport & Mobility

4. Industry & Trade

5. Policy Planning & provision of Public Services.

In terms of

public perception,

employment and labour market has also emerged as a

major concern for respondents. Legal and administrative barriers make it more difficult

This is largely qualitative because the consulted sources rarely provide exact measurements or other

quantitative data, and some adverse aspects are of an intangible and thus non-measurable nature

(e.g. inadequate administrative action, lack of cooperation or coordination etc.).

The level of the impact of border obstacles on the border region (economically, socially,

environmentally and for citizens living along the border) was categorised according to a simple

scaling system (low/medium/high). For carrying out this assessment the following impact and

scoring thereof was used: The primary impact, with four scores: 4=very strong, 3=strong,

2=moderate, 1=weak. The secondary impact, with four scores: 4=very strong, 3=strong, 2=moderate,

1=weak. The aggregated total impact, with a scaling at three levels (i.e. high, medium, low) which

results from the previously achieved total score.

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

to be employed on one side of the border, while living on the other. One of the most cited

concerns is the lack of recognition of education and qualifications, followed by

differences in social security, pension and taxation systems. For businesses, differences

in technical standards and regulations for products as well as certain services act as de

facto barriers for entry to specific markets across the border. Specific issues of a legal

and administrative nature that came up most frequently, and posed problems to all

categories of respondents, were the different taxation and social security systems,

including health care and pension systems. In particular these were presented as major

obstacles to workers' mobility.

Figure 4: Types of legal and administrative barriers by policy area (absolute figures).

Source: Study 'Easing legal and administrative obstacles in EU border regions', Final Report, p. 35.

The public consultation confirmed that despite 25 years of Interreg funding for the

development of cross-border cooperation, many obstacles in border regions go beyond its

direct reach and pose a multitude of different challenges - across almost all parts of life

of citizens. These are sometimes

multidimensional,

which means, for example, that the

definition and origin of an obstacle differ in nature - for instance, in some cases

inadequate cross-border transport systems (falling under the difficult physical

accessibility category) are explained as originating in a lack of harmonisation of

technical standards (coming under legal and administrative barriers). Language barriers

and difficult physical access have been frequently mentioned as obstacles, which points

to the persisting need to invest on cross-border mobility in border regions, as well as

language and cultural learning. While lack of trust, as well as socio-cultural barriers, are

perceived as relatively less relevant, they form nevertheless the backbone of cross-border

cooperation.

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

2.1.4

Solutions exist - but take time, effort and commitment

Where legal and administrative obstacles were successfully overcome,

two basic

approaches

were observed: (a) better alignment or harmonisation of particular legal

provisions and/or their implementation practices in neighbouring countries, and (b) better

information and communication on cross-border issues. Better alignment aims at closing

the gaps or removing the contradictions between counterpart regulations on either side of

a border, while better information and communication is about coping with the gaps and

contradictions as long as they exist.

In the public consultation, several possible solutions to legal and administrative barriers

we reported - mostly about encouraging more convergence in regulatory frameworks,

more flexibility and more information provision to individuals. A significant number of

respondents pointed to differences in the implementation of EU rules (directives) as

creating legal and administrative obstacles, and pleaded therefore for better coordination

and harmonisation of the implementation of regulatory arrangements in border regions,

for example through more targeted impact assessments, with a view to promoting greater

convergence. At the same time respondents also asked for a greater flexibility in the

general implementation of national/regional legislation in border regions, "freeing" it up

from national legislation or adapting it to border regional conditions.

In practice,

several tools

exist to ease or solve legal and administrative obstacles, once

they were identified in a systematic way and placed on the political agenda:



Interstate agreements (bilateral or multilateral, at national or regional level) which

can address obstacles either in a preventive manner or in order to solve existing ones,

Informal cooperation, which is typically sector oriented (e.g. transport) or business

related (e.g. chambers of commerce),

Horizontal cooperation, (e.g. Euregions, Upper Rhine Conference, Greater

Copenhagen and Skåne Committee and others),

Cross-border legal entities and the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation

(EGTC)

'Innovative' instruments such as the 'mutual recognition principle' as developed by the

European Court of Justice (ECJ)

eGovernment

Although the border obstacles stem in most cases from incompatibilities between

national legislations, their

local manifestation is place-specific.

A major implication of

the territorial 'embeddedness' of cross-border obstacles is the key role that actors and

institutions from the border regions can play in the definition, assessment and solution of

obstacles relevant to their region. To this end a good cooperation climate, permanent

information exchange and a comprehensive survey of obstacles are necessary. Removing

Introduced by Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of

5 July 2006 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 19), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1302/2013 of

17 December 2013 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 303).

Beck, J. (2015),Cross-Border

Cooperation and the European Administrative Space

–

Prospects from

the Principle of Mutual Recognition,

International Public Administration Review, 13(2), p. 9-36.

European Commission 'EU

eGovernment

Action Plan 2016-2020 - Accelerating the digital

transformation of government', COM(2016) 179 of 19 April 2016:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1503566265012&uri=CELEX:52016DC0179 .

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

or easing legal and administrative obstacles to cross-border interaction is therefore not

primarily a matter of new or better legislation at Member State level but a matter of

effective multi-level governance.

Table: Summary of the main characteristics of possible tools for easing (legal/administrative) obstacles

Tool

State agreements

Informal cooperation

Horizontal cross-border

cooperation

EGTC

Mutual c-b recognition

eGovernment

measures

Simplicity

and time for

establishing

Flexibility

(versatility)

‘Binding-

ness’

Effective-

ness (result

potential)

Sustain-

ability

Source: Study 'Easing legal and administrative obstacles in EU border regions', Conclusions and

Recommendations paper, p. 18.

Legal and administrative obstacles are

recurrent phenomena,

which are difficult to be

solved once and for all. Long-term/sustainable institutions (at national, regional and local

levels) working systematically on identifying and resolving obstacles as well as

preventing new ones from arising are key for addressing successfully these phenomena.

During the stakeholder workshops, it was emphasized that removing border obstacles is a

dynamic process,

as often a removed obstacle leads to increased cooperation and

deepened integration, which in turn leads to the emergence of new obstacles. The

approach of the Nordic Council of Ministers was considered a best practice, in which the

inventory of obstacles is constantly updated and there is a work plan to eliminate at least

5-10 obstacles from the list each year.

Stakeholders also stressed that the

awareness-raising

of the benefits of cross-border

cooperation, both to decision-makers and the general public, should be an overarching

goal. This is often hampered by the lack of data on actual cross-border interactions,

which could be addressed at the European level (Eurostat), in close collaboration with

national statistical offices. Overall, effective multilevel governance was identified as a

key to solving border obstacles, and for involving stakeholders at all levels; fora are

needed to provide platforms for exchange. Information provision to individuals,

businesses and public administrations through one-stop-shops could be a solution to the

lack of information that has been identified as another common problem. Cross-border

The summary in the table rates the tools described above in terms of five criteria, namely 'Simplicity

and time for establishment': How easy can the tool be applied and how fast can it be established to

become operational? 'Flexibility (versatility)': How flexible, changeable is the tool during its use and

how easy can it be adapted to changing needs and circumstances? ‘Bindingness’ –

How much are the

actions and results of the application of the tool binding for the partners (and beyond)? 'Effectiveness

(result potential)': To what extend is the tool expected to be effective/to produce positive results?

'Sustainability': To what extent is the tool expected to operate for a long term? For each criterion a

simple and necessarily very general rating scale with four steps has been applied: ++ very high, +

high, - low, -- very low.

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

strategies were considered a potentially useful tool for a more coherent, long-term

development of the border region, also by giving a clearer mandate to solve border

obstacles to the actors involved. Harmonisation of legislation and better adapted impact

assessments with a strong border dimension when developing new legislation were

identified as crucial aspects. Finally, to better involve the general public in the process,

the 'people' dimension when working with border obstacles has to be strengthened

through people-to-people projects, language learning etc.

2.1.5

The need for multi-level governance

Due to the multitude and diversity of obstacles and the large number of Union citizens

potentially affected by them, the easing of legal and administrative obstacles remains a

European issue. These obstacles also have a substantial direct effect on the further

development of the

internal market.

Since the majority of obstacles originate in differences between national legislation and

administrative procedures/habits, the solutions are to be found at the level of

national

and sub-national governments and administrations.

A coordinated support from both

sides of the border is needed to improve the situation at the local level where the negative

effects of obstacles are most strongly felt.

One of the conclusions from the stakeholder workshops is that especially Interreg

programmes are important

platforms for engaging citizens and stakeholders,

and can

also contribute to the funding of cross-border statistics and data to demonstrate the costs

of cross-border obstacles. Overall, stakeholder emphasised the need for Interreg to focus

more strongly on citizens and improving their lives, hence also take administrative and

legal border obstacles better into account.

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

2.2

The economic impacts - or: the cost of border obstacles

Reliable data on the prevalence, costs and other dimensions of cross-border obstacles as

defined in 1.1 is hard to find. Academic research on the 'cost of non-Europe' has been

undertaken since the

Cecchini Report

in April 1988

, which estimated that the

completion of the Single Market would increase the GDP of the European Community

by around 4.5% and possibly up to 6.5%. More recent attempts to quantify the effect of

border obstacles by Ilzkovitz et al.

Boltho and Eichgreen

, Campos et al.

, Dunne

and Godel et al.

, estimate the losses due to the absence of integration between 2.2% and

12% of the Union's GDP.

In the run-up to the Communication which this Staff Working Document accompanies,

and in order to address the lack of quantitative data concerning border obstacles and their

related costs, the Commission contracted an expert study, conducted by

Politecnico di

Milano,

on the 'quantification of the effects of legal and administrative border obstacles

in land border regions'

. More detailed analysis of this study can be found in the Annex.

The study estimated that legal and administrative barriers had a high impact on land

border regions, leading to an overall GDP loss of around 458 billion euros. In relative

terms it corresponds to about 3 % of total Union GDP, or 8.8% of total GDP produced in

land border regions. These values correspond to the extreme situation where all legal and

administrative barriers would be removed. This scenario is of course neither attainable

nor desirable. However, if only 20% of the existing obstacles were removed, border

regions would gain 2% in GDP or around 91 billion EUR in GDP. The estimated impact

on job creation is equally important, with potentially over 1 million jobs to be created.

Map 2 shows the percentage GDP loss in European land border regions. Major losses

(dark brown) are incurred by areas located along borders in central EU+EFTA countries

(borders between Netherlands and Belgium, France and Germany, France and

Switzerland, Austria and Slovakia)

Cecchini, P.,

The European Challenge 1992: the benefits of a single market,

Aldershot: Wildwood

House, 1988.

Ilzkovitz F., Dierx A., Kovacs V., Sousa N. (2007), 'Steps towards a Deeper Economic Integration:

the Internal Market in the 21st Century', European Economics - Economic Paper 271, Directorate

General Economic and Monetary Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.

Boltho A. and Eichengreen B. (2008),

The Economic Impact of European Integration,

CEPR

Discussion paper, n. 6820.

Campos N., Corricelli F. and Moretti L. (2014), 'Economic growth and political integration: synthetic

counterfactual evidence from Europe', mimeo.

Dunne, J. (2015) (ed). 'Mapping the Cost of Non-Europe, 2014-19', European Added Value Unit,

Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value, Directorate-General for

Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS):

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=IPOL-

EAVA_ET%282014%29510983

Godel, M. I., Harms, A., Jones, S., and Mantovani, I. (2016). 'Reducing costs and barriers for

businesses in the Single Market', European Parliament's Committee on Internal Market and

Consumer Protection:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2016)578966

Study 'Quantification of the effects of legal and administrative border obstacles in land border

regions', Expert contract number 2016CE160AT091, Final Report 28 April 2017.

Some NUTS level 3 regions belong to two or more land border regions. In these cases, the color

prevailing is that of the land border regions that comes first in alphabetical order.

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

Map 2: Percentage GDP loss in EU land border regions.

Source: Study "Quantification of the effects of legal and administrative border obstacles in land border

regions", p. 11.

There is substantial economic research on the effect of borders on economic interaction

(the so-called "border effect", illustrated in figure 5 below).

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

Figure 5: Basic pattern of socio-economic relations existing in border areas and non-border areas.

Gil-Pareja

et al

(2006) define the border effect as the negative impact of national borders

on trade flows

. It can also be seen as how much less a given region trades with its

neighbour region on the other side of the border, compared with how much it would trade

if there were no borders. Several cases of border effect have been estimated in different

geographical scopes. Due to lack of regionalised data, in few cases is it possible to

estimate it at regional level. This is the case of the Spanish-Portuguese border, where

according to Ferreira and Mourato, the border seems to be decreasing a region's trade by

approximately 14 times

. Similarly, Gil-Pareja

et al

concluded that "Basque

Country

trades between 12 and 16 times more with the rest of Spain than it does with any other

country".

More frequently it is applied at national level. Vanagas found in 2013 that the

average border effect for EU countries is approximately 7.5, and that harmonization

through Union policies had a significant positive impact on trade among its Member

States, especially for the most recent members

. On the French and German case, Helbe

(2007) concludes that "France

trades about eight times more and Germany about three

times more with itself than with other EU countries compared to the predictions

. The

border effect is also noted outside the European context. The first major paper on border

Gil-Pareja, S., Llorca-Vivero R., and Martínez-Serrano J.,

The border effect in Spain: The Basque

Country case,

Regional Studies Vol. 40, Issue 4, 2006.

Ferreira, R. and Mourato J., 'Border Effect in Interregional Iberian Trade', Journal of Economics and

Business Research, Instituto Politécnico de Portalegre, Portugal, Year XVII, No. 1, 2011, pp. 35-50:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303494465_Border_Effect_in_Interregional_Iberian_Trade

Vanagas, M. (2013), 'Border Effects Among EU Countries: Do National Identity and Cultural

Differences Matter?', Reinvention: an International Journal of Undergraduate Research, Volume 6,

Issue 2:

https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/reinvention/issues/volume6issue2/vanagas .

Helble, M., 'Border Effect Estimates for France and Germany Combining International Trade and

Intranational Transport Flows', Review of World Economics, October 2007, Volume 143, Issue 3,

pp. 433-463:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10290-007-0116-x

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

effect pointed out that trade amongst Canadian provinces was 22 times higher than with

US states of similar size and distance

The reasons behind the border effect are diverse. The complexity and costs of doing

business across the border are part of them. Perceptions based on culture (reflected in

consumer choices), business traditions and business cycles, is also part of the

explanation. Ferreira and Mourato state that "fear

from the unknown, trading traditions

and lack of business networks are some of the factors which lead potential business

between actors on different sides of the border not to occur

. In a similar way Vanagas

presented consumer preferences as one of the potential causes of border effect. In

marketing literature this is presented as the domestic country bias in consumer

preferences. Analysing the border effect causes in the specific case of the EU, Chen has

highlighted technical barriers to trade (the complexity argument above) and informal

trade barriers as "product specific information costs"

. The later occurs for example "if

is more costly to obtain some information about the quality, or even the existence, of a

foreign product as compared to a domestic product, we would expect this higher cost to

reduce the quantities of foreign goods purchased"

McCallum, J., 'National Borders Matter: Canada-U.S. Regional Trade Patterns', The American

Economic Review, Vol. 85, No. 3 (Jun., 1995), pp. 615-623. The Results were later confirmed by

Helliwell (1996); Hillberry (1998) Anderson and Smith (1999).

Ferreira, R. and Mourato J.,

op. cit.

A similar argument is presented in Ferreira, R. (2016), "Iberian

major Regions Interregional Trade across the Border", in Journal of Economics and Business

Research XXII (2):2068-3537, December 2016, p. 28:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317000181_Iberian_major_Regions_Interregional_Trade_a

cross_the_Border

Chen, N. 'Intra-national versus international trade in the European Union: why do national borders

matter?', Journal of International Economics, Volume 63, Issue 1, May 2004, pp. 93-118:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022199603000424

Chen (2004), based on Rauch, J.E., 'Networks versus markets in international trade', Journal of

International Economics, 48(1) (1999), pp. 7–35.

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

HAT HAPPENS AND WHAT SHOULD BE DONE

This chapter highlights areas identified in the Commission's preparatory work with

stakeholders (study, consultation and workshops) as having great potentials to remove

further hurdles. It outlines the role of the Commission in taking positive steps both in its

own actions and in support of other key players.

Each section briefly describes the issues identified and uses examples and/or good

practices to illustrate them. It also offers a brief insight into ongoing measures by the

Commission or national institutions and finally, where possible, proposes new actions by

the Commission or recommends actions for Member States and other stakeholders.

The implementation of the 10 actions listed below will be facilitated by the creation of a

"Border Focal Point"

within the Commission. The functions of the "Border Focal

Point" will be (1) ensuring that key future actions by the Commission take due account of

a cross-border regional dimension, (2) providing Member States and other key players

with support to address legal and administrative border regional issues, notably relating

to the transposition of EU directives or coordination requirements, (3) making sure that

practical arrangements are in place for new actions as listed in the Communication, (4)

sharing experiences and good practices effectively and widely among relevant

stakeholders.

3.1

Deepening cooperation and exchanges

New initiatives by the Commission will not have the full desired positive impact in

border regions if effective mechanisms for cross-border cooperation are not deepened.

These mechanisms, whether institutionalised or not, need to reflect the multi-level

government dimension of policy-making in the EU.

A number of such cooperation mechanisms already exist. At inter-governmental level,

the Benelux Union and the Nordic Council of Ministers for example have established

processes to identify and address bi-lateral border barriers.

The

Nordic Council of Ministers,

regrouping the governments of Denmark, Norway,

Sweden, Finland and Iceland, as well as the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and

Åland

is the

official organisation for Nordic intergovernmental co-operation. Since 2008 there has

been a special body under this intergovernmental framework dealing with border

obstacles - today known under the name the "Freedom of Movement Council". This body

includes members from all the Nordic countries and autonomous regions, as well as the

Secretary General and a representative from the Nordic Council (the inter-parliamentary

organisation). The Freedom of Movement Council coordinates the Council of Ministers'

work on border obstacles, and also maintains a database of obstacles. The information in

the database is collected by the Nordic information services. Each member of the

Freedom of Movement Council prioritises a handful of obstacles each year, making sure

that it remains a priority until it is either resolved or that the relevant Government

department concludes that it cannot be resolved. In 2015, ten of the 36 prioritised border

obstacles were resolved (an additional two were written off because the relevant

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

Government departments did not see any possibilities to ever resolve them). In 2016,

seven prioritised obstacles were resolved. Hence, the institutionalised systematic

cooperation and prioritisation work shows concrete results. Outside of this framework,

Nordic governments also work on a purely bilateral basis to solve border obstacles.

The

Benelux Union

is a politico-economic union of three neighbouring states: Belgium,

Netherlands and Luxembourg, which started as a customs union in 1944 and became an

economic union in 1960. The Union is made up of several institutions, including the

Benelux Parliament, the Secretariat-General, the Council of the Union, and the

Committee of Ministers. The daily operations are managed by the Secretariat-General,

while the executive authority rests with the Committee of Ministers, which meets

quarterly. On 17 June 2008, a new Benelux Treaty was signed by which cooperation

focuses on three key themes: the internal market & economic union, sustainable

development and justice & home affairs. For instance, an expert group was recently set

up to examine issues linked to the mutual recognition of diplomas and certificates

–

it is

expected that the group will formulate recommendations to significantly improve

cooperation on this topic which will result in easier and faster procedures.

At regional level, the Upper Rhine Conference and the Greater Copenhagen and Skåne

Committee (previously known as the Öresund Committee) have developed effective

ways to identify local obstacles and organise a response. At local level, the InfoBest

network of information offices along the France-Germany border has had a real impact

for commuters. Individuals can also effectively organise themselves to represent their

common interests as can be seen from the

Groupement Transfrontalier Européen,

association which represents over 30,000 French daily commuters on the border with

Switzerland.

The

Upper Rhine Conference

is the institutional framework for cross-border

cooperation in the Upper Rhine region between France, Germany and Switzerland. It

originally derives from the 1975 Upper Rhine agreement and consists of several different

bodies. The Steering Committee is the coordinating decision-making body and consists

of a delegation from each participating country. Apart from this, twelve thematic

working groups with have been established which consists of experts in the different

fields,

e.g.

education and vocational training, transport, economic policy and regional

planning.

The Commission encourages Member States and regions to take action in order to

facilitate cross-border cooperation and to establish more systematic dialogues about

border issues, taking also into account that cross-border cooperation between Member

States can be an explicit requirement under the EU legislation. This is often the case for

example in the EU environmental legislation (e.g. the Marine Strategy Framework

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

Directive

, the Water Framework Directive

, the Noise Directive

, the Waste

Framework Directive

, and the Ambient Air Quality Directive

) as cooperation is

essential in order to face several environmental challenges. Furthermore, the "Action

Plan for nature, people and the economy"

aimed at improving the implementation of the

Birds

and Habitats

Directives includes a specific action to promote cooperation at

biogeographical region level to address common challenges, including on cross-border

issues.

The Commission calls upon Member States and regions to further develop regular

dialogues on border issues. Essential European integration notions such as mutual

recognition or alignment of rules and processes should receive more attention from

Member States and regions. They are invited to take full advantage of existing

opportunities to conclude agreements or conventions. For example, the four EU macro-

regional strategies

could provide an appropriate framework for cross-border institution

building, as the concerned Member States have already established cooperation structures

within the most relevant sectors. Furthermore, where cooperation is an explicit

requirement of EU legislation, as is the case for instance in many environmental legal

acts, this should be used to full effect

The following two actions will be implemented to deepen cooperation and foster

exchanges:

3.1.1

Establishing an on-line professional network on the Futurium platform

To support this process and to ensure that good practices are shared, the Commission will

establish an EU-wide online professional network where legal and administrative border

issues and solutions can be presented and discussed among border stakeholders. This

network will use

Futurium

- an already existing online platform created by the

Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a

framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy

Framework Directive) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19).

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000

establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000,

p. 1).

Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the

assessment and management of environmental noise (OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12).

Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste

and repealing certain Directives (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3).

Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air

quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ L 152, 11.6.2008, p. 1).

EU Action Plan for nature, people and the economy:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/action_plan/index_en.htm

Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the

conservation of wild birds (OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7).

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild

fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7).

The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, The EU Strategy for the Danube Region, The EU

Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region and The EU Strategy for the Alpine Region.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - The EU Environmental

Implementation Review: Common challenges and how to combine efforts to deliver better results

(COM(2017) 63 final of 3 February 2017).

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

Commission and will be moderated by the Commission via its Border Focal Point. The

Commission will ensure the network is regularly fed with recent information and

documentation and that good practices are well publicised and readily available via an

extensive library. Relevant events will be publicised. Dialogues among stakeholders will

be actively generated. The key objective of the network will be to create a strong

community at European level in order to overcome a certain isolation mentioned by

many stakeholders.

3.1.2

Implementing pilot projects to test new solutions

In addition, the Commission will announce an open call for pilot projects before the end

of 2017. It will target public authorities wishing to resolve one or more border-specific

legal or administrative problem(s). Projects could for example be focused on improving

compatibility of administrative systems, facilitating labour mobility through enhanced

opportunities for qualification recognition or ensuring harmonisation of legal standards.

These projects will serve as the basis for exploring innovative ways to address border

issues. Up to 20 pilot projects will be selected for their high demonstration value and

level of replicability. Their results will be summarised in a final compendium that will be

widely distributed and used to foster greater awareness and capacity among key players.

The call will be open to any public body willing to engage in identifying solutions to

border issues within their area of competence. Up to 20 pilot projects will be selected for

their high demonstration value and level of replicability.

3.2

Improving the legislative process

For a considerable share of the border difficulties identified, root causes have been

attributed to the existence side by side of different regulations in national legal and

administrative systems. Even where there is a European legal framework, Member States

sometimes have a degree of flexibility and discretion in the way they incorporate this

legislation in their national systems. Often certain levels of standards stipulated in EU

law are incorporated at varying degrees of stringency in various Member States. As a

result, when two different systems meet along internal borders, this may create

complexity - and sometimes even legal uncertainty - and generate additional costs.

Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February

2014 on public procurement

contains 19 instances where minimum standards apply, for

example a minimum number of days for certain applications or other actions, or a

minimum of information to be included in an application or in a tender or other

document. This creates 19 potential occasions where

cross-border public procurement

can be particularly difficult, as certain Member States will apply longer deadlines than

others.

OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 65.

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

In its Better Regulation package adopted in 2015

, the Commission has proposed

measures to ensure that territorial aspects are factored into policy options. This happens

mainly through the implementation of robust impact assessments of legislation that

include territorial elements. The Better Regulation Package already establishes that

impact assessments of legal or financial initiatives should consider not only socio-

economic factors but also territorial ones

When it comes to transposing, applying and implementing Union law, Member States

should be encouraged and helped to take into account the specificities of internal land

border regions, to coordinate and to exchange best practices in order to reduce the risk of

obstacles specific for such regions. Member States should consider introducing a

territorial dimension to the impact assessments foreseen in their legislative process. The

Commission will support these efforts by facilitating coordination where requested and

by sharing its methodological impact assessment tools.

Based at the University of Maastricht, the Institute for Transnational and Euregional

Cross-Border Cooperation and Mobility (ITEM) carries out

cross-border impact

assessments

of future national and EU legislation. The work is based on a work

programme developed together with national, regional and local border stakeholders

along the borders of the Netherlands with Germany and Belgium respectively

. Each

year, ITEM makes a selection of the most important subjects that are most suitable for

research and in-depth

analysis. This selection is made on the basis of input by ITEM’s

stakeholders via a survey. This input is collected by means of a survey. The survey is

only the first phase of the process. During the second phase, ITEM establishes a final

shortlist of dossiers. The third phase consists of carrying out the essential research for the

selected dossiers as conducted by various ITEM researchers and experts. The final phase

comprises the publication and dissemination of the results and exchanges with

stakeholders.

To increase the awareness for border issues in legislative processes, the following

two actions will be implemented:

3.2.1

Identifying cross-border aspects in impact assessments

The Commission will make further efforts to identify cross-border impacts whenever

significant through the application of existing methods and tools. Via its Border Focal

Point and the professional network described above, the Commission will seek greater

involvement by border stakeholders in this process.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 'Better regulation for better

results - An EU agenda', COM(2015) 215 final of 19 May 2015.

Tool #29: Territorial Impacts of the toolbox complementing the Commission Staff Working

Document Better Regulation Guidelines (SWD(2015) 111 of 19.5.2015).

Institute for Transnational and Euregional Cross-Border Cooperation and Mobility of Maastricht

University:

https://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/research/institute-transnational-and-euregional-

cross-border-cooperation-and-mobility-item .

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

3.2.2

Providing more expertise and advice

To support Member States with necessary coordination efforts during their national

transposition process, the Commission's Border Focal Point will organise expertise and

advice on cross-border regional aspects. This will build a.o. on the results of the pilot

projects mentioned above and on existing good practices.

3.3

Enabling cross-border public administration

EU Member States have different administrative cultures and systems. This diversity can

be a constraint when different systems meet. Most administrative procedures tend to be

of a national nature and cross-border procedures are less widespread. However, border

stakeholders may well require non-domestic procedures on a regular basis. The lack of

common approach or understanding, and the limited existence of mutually recognised

documents can lead to lengthy and costly procedures, even for key life events.

For example, some public authorities have embraced

eGovernment

faster than others -

this can lead to difficulties in border interaction especially when documents or forms are

needed. Where

eGovernment

solutions are being implemented, these apply more to the

domestic context than to a cross-border perspective.

Interoperability of public

authorities'

eSystems

is still limited.

One good example of obstacles is the digitisation of public administration and its

implications for cross-border commuters in the labour market at the Danish-German

border. Digitisation of the public administration is highly advanced in Denmark where all

communication with authorities has been digital by default since 2015. The majority of

commuters in the

Danish-German border region

lives in Germany and work in

Denmark and the digital administration can pose a challenge for these cross-border

commuters. The main obstacles are the cultural aspect, procedures, accessibility and

language. German citizens are not as used to, and comfortable with, using digital

channels as Danish citizens are. The procedures for communication with the public

administration and access to digital services are also quite rigid. In particular the

timeframe causes problems for German commuters. In some cases the systems are also

only available in Danish or English. These issues have been addressed by the Danish

authorities in a recent report where they propose several improvements which will

require in addition to the will, above all, expertise and resources, for example, to create

advisory and information services that can meet the challenges

European Commission 'EU

eGovernment

Report 2016' shows that online public services improved

unevenly, Digital Single Market, News, Digibytes, 3 October 2016:

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-

single-market/en/news/eu-egovernment-report-2016-shows-online-public-services-improved-

unevenly

Digitalisierung der öffentlichen Verwaltung und ihre Folgen für die Grenzpendler auf dem

Arbeitsmarkt im deutsch-dänischen Grenzland:

http://www.region.de/region/de/ueber_uns/publikationen/Publikationen_Arbeitsmarkt.php

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

In its

eGovernment

Action Plan 2016-2020

, the Commission sets out a long-term vision

for open, efficient and inclusive public administrations, providing borderless,

personalised end-to-end digital public services. Although of a general nature, the plan

proposes measures and tools which will be particularly relevant for border regions such

as the once-only principle (i.e. information is supplied to public authorities only once

regardless of country of origin)

and an automated translation tool for public

authorities

The Business Mobility benchmark in the

eGovernment

Benchmark Report

indicates

that cross-border services are lagging behind services offered to country nationals. 25%

of services required for foreign entrepreneurs to start their business in another country are

available only on paper, meaning that there is no information - let alone a service -

available online. In contrast, entrepreneurs starting a business in their own country face

such issues in only 2% of the cases. Foreign start-ups are also less able to find and access

information on services (33% vs 39%) and using services across border is only possible

in 27% of the cases (compared to 46% of services in the national context). A possible

solution for enabling entrepreneurs to access digital public services in other Union

countries is the implementation of the so-called 'Points of Single Contact'

In this respect the use of electronic identification mechanisms is very important. To

facilitate cross-border online services, the

eIDAS

Regulation (EC) No 910/2014 on

electronic identification and trust services was adopted in July 2014

. It ensures that

people and businesses can use their own national electronic identification schemes (eID)

to access public services in other Union countries where

eIDs

are available. It also

creates a European internal market for electronic signatures, electronic seals, time stamp,

electronic delivery service and website authentication, by ensuring that they will work

across borders and have the same legal status as traditional paper based processes.

Under the Connected European Facility (CEF), the Commission has deployed five

Digital Service Infrastructures (DSIs) Building Blocks, namely

eSignature, eID,

eDelivery, eTranslation, eInvoicing,

and also Cyber Security. The Building Blocks which

are reusable across sectors are to support the interoperable delivery of cross-border

services. Whenever Member States, regional and local administrations invest in digital

public services, they should make use of these building blocks established under the

CEF. The building blocks are expected to become de facto standards underpinning the

European Commission 'EU

eGovernment

Action Plan 2016-2020 - Accelerating the digital

transformation of government', COM(2016) 179 of 19 April 2016:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1503566265012&uri=CELEX:52016DC0179 .

European Commission 'The

“Once

Only” Principle (TOOP) Project launched in January 2017',

Digital Single Market, Project News and Results, 26/01/2017:

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-

market/en/news/once-only-principle-toop-project-launched-january-2017

Machine translation for public administrations - MT@EC:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/resources-

partners/machine-translation-public-administrations-mtec_en .

See note 52.

Points of Single Contact:

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/eu-go/index_en.htm

Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on

electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and

repealing Directive 1999/93/EC (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 73):

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2014.257.01.0073.01.ENG

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

delivery of digital public services across borders. The building blocks can be combined

with each other and integrated in more complex services such as

eHealth,

Electronic

Exchange of Social Security Information (EESSI) and eProcurement.

The strong evidence that

eGovernment

can provide a robust answer to questions linked to

cross-border public administration (e.g. data exchange between administrations) leads the

European Commission to recommend that concrete steps are taken to actively promote

existing digital solutions among border stakeholders and among administrations most

concerned by cross-border data exchanges. To this end, the Commission will urge its

ongoing and future

eGovernment

projects to engage the stakeholders of the border

regions in order to deliver cross-border public services that meet the needs of individuals

and businesses in border areas.

To help enabling cross-border public administration, the following action is

proposed:

3.3.1

Using the advantages of eGovernment in a cross-border context

Member States' and regional/local authorities need to

rise to the challenge of

eGovernment

and take concrete steps that will make a difference to border citizens. The

Commission will support this process by actively promoting existing e-solutions among

border stakeholders and among public authorities most concerned by cross-border data

exchanges. The Border Focal Point will establish stronger links with border regions'

administrations in order to support this process. The on-line professional network to be

established and moderated by the Commission will be used for this.

3.4

Providing reliable and understandable information and assistance

Resolving border obstacles will take time and sustained effort. In the meantime, access to

available and reliable information and problem-solving services on life or work on the

other side of the border is vital. Europe-wide services such as Your Europe or SOLVIT

are useful in this context even if they are not border specific. The Your Europe Advice

service, started in November 1996, is a free advice service for the general public

managed by 65 legal experts from the European Citizens Action Service (ECAS) under

contract with the European Commission. The service is available in all 24 official EU

languages, and in all EU Member States. In its 20 years of existence, tailor-made advice

has been provided in over 210,000 cases. Citizens access the service through the Your

Europe website, where they can find information about various aspects of living,

travelling or doing business within the EU. However, the advice provided covers only

domains relating to EU law. Your Europe Advice typically answers about 24,000

enquiries per year in an average reply time of 3 to 4 working days

. Another closely

related EU service is SOLVIT

, a problem-solving network, dealing more specifically

Citizens of the EU, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, or residing in an EU Member State.

Your Europe Advice:

http://europa.eu/youreurope/advice/

SOLVIT:

http://ec.europa.eu/solvit/index_en.htm

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

with cases of possible misapplication of EU law between companies or individuals and

national administrations. In such cases, the requests are forwarded to SOLVIT

Preparatory work for this Communication has highlighted concerns by individuals and

businesses at the lack of reliable information services which can lead to legal uncertainty

that hampers cross-border interaction or makes the implementation of cross-border

projects longer and more costly.

Initially financed by Interreg, the

Infobest

network of one-stop-shops in the Upper

Rhine tri-lateral border region between France, Germany and Switzerland currently

provides reliable information to individuals about all aspects of cross-border life,

including employment and education and supports cross-border interface with the

different public authorities. Infobest currently has four local focal points, covering the

entire Upper Rhine region. Bi-lingual staff helps citizens and businesses get in touch with

administrations "on the other side", to find the right contacts and to overcome potential

language barriers.

The following two actions are envisaged to provide more reliable and

understandable information and assistance:

3.4.1

Better information through the "Single Digital Gateway"

The Commission has recently proposed the "Single

Digital Gateway"

(SDG)

draft

regulation which once adopted will enable individuals and companies to have easier

access, through a single digital entry point, to high quality information, online

administrative procedures and assistance services. The SDG envisages the first

application of the once-only principle at the EU level by enabling the exchange of

evidence directly between competent authorities from different Member States for a set

of key procedures. It will also encourage feedback from its users to constantly evolve to

meet their needs and to collect information about single market barriers.

3.4.2

SOLVIT for a more harmonious Single Market across borders

In its recently adopted Communication "Action plan on the reinforcement of SOLVIT:

bringing the benefits of the Single Market to citizens and businesses"

, the Commission

commits to further reinforce SOLVIT with the Member States so that more individuals

and businesses have their cross-border issues addressed.

See note 62.

Infobest:

https://www.infobest.eu/

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a single

digital gateway to provide information, procedures, assistance and problem solving services and

amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 of 2 May 2017:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52017PC0256

European Commission Communication COM/2017/0255, of 2 May 2017 Action plan on the

reinforcement of SOLVIT: bringing the benefits of the Single Market to citizens and businesses:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0255

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

3.5

Supporting cross-border employment

Preparatory work has identified labour mobility as the single most important area directly

affected by border obstacles, in particular with regards to cross-border workers. In 2015,

the total number of Union-28 cross-border workers

active in another Union-28 country

was around 1.3 million, making up 0.6% of all employed across the EU-28. Of these,

93% were working in an EU-15 Member State, with the remaining 7% working in EU-13

countries. Around 0.7 million (51%) were residing in an EU-15 Member State and

around 0.6 million (49%) were residing in an EU-13 Member State. This shows that

while cross border workers nearly all work in an EU-15 Member State, they reside

roughly equally in EU-15 and EU-13 Member States. In 2014, the total number of EU-28

cross-border workers was around 1.2 million, thus showing an increase of 8% in 2015

Higher shares of cross-border workers in relation to the overall domestic workforce were

recorded in Slovakia for instance, where 5.6 % of workers cross the border for their job

or in Estonia where the figure stands at 3.1%

Labour mobility in border regions depends on a series of factors and policies beyond the

concrete situation of the labour market (vacancies available, economic activity,

employment rate, etc.) such as education and skills, transport and infrastructure,

administrative procedures, language, cultural and socio-economic links, awareness of

opportunities, access to specific information, etc.

A number of tools and coordination mechanisms exist at European level to facilitate

cross-border work such as the European network of employment services (EURES), rules

for the coordination of social security systems, the European Qualifications Framework

which supports understanding and comparison of qualifications, the Europass Framework

which enables individuals to communicate their skills and qualifications, the European

classification of skills, competences, qualifications and occupations and the European

Professional Card, an EU-wide digital procedure for the recognition of professional

qualifications. In terms of financing, both the EU programme for Employment and Social

Innovation (EaSI) and the European Social Fund provide support for labour mobility in

border regions. The EURES axis of the EaSI programme supports cross-border

partnerships that provide cross-border workers and their employers with information and

placement services.

Cross-border workers are defined as EU/EFTA citizens who live in one EU or EFTA country and

work in another, regardless of their precise citizenship (provided they are EU-28/EFTA citizens).

Cross-border workers, also called frontier workers, move across borders regularly on a daily or at

least weekly basis.

Fries-Tersch, E. Tugran, T., Bradley, H., (2017),

The 2016 annual report on intra-EU labour

mobility of the European Commission,

Second edition:

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=7981&furtherPubs=yes

In absolute terms, the highest number of cross-border workers reside in France (364,000), Germany

(229,000), Poland (138,000), Slovakia (132,000) and Belgium (100,000). Source: The 2015 Annual

Report on Labour Mobility.

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

EURES (European Employment Services)

is a cooperation network formed by public

employment services. Trade unions and employers’

organisations also participate as

partners. The objective of the EURES network is to facilitate the free movement of

workers within the Union and EFTA countries

. Regulation (EU) No 2016/589 'on a

European network of employment services (EURES), workers' access to mobility

services and the further integration of labour markets' was adopted on 13 April 2016

. It

provides for a sound basis to develop the EURES network expanding it to stakeholders

outside the public employment services and improving the quantity and quality of

services. The regulation gives particular attention to facilitating mobility in cross-border

regions and to providing services to frontier workers. It also includes a definition of

"frontier worker" and of "EURES cross-border partnerships", which are structures within

the framework of EURES that address the specific needs for information and guidance to

frontier workers as well as placement and recruitment services. Moreover, Article 27

establishes the support services to be provided in cross-border regions. Through the

EURES axis of the Union programme for employment and social innovation (EaSI) on

average EUR 4 million a year is devoted to support cross-border partnerships through

calls for proposals.

In the context of EURES, several best practices have been identified such as the

promotion of language training in the language of the neighbouring border region in

schools, joint public employment services teams with case handlers from all the countries

involved providing multilingual support to frontier workers, one-stop-shop solutions for

information and guidance to frontier workers and their employers with dedicated staff

that can guide customers to the right service and right information, in dual systems for

vocational and education training, pupils following the theoretical part of the training in

their home town and the practical part of the training across the border. This can be

supported through framework agreements on cross-border dual vocational educational

training between the relevant authorities and with the cooperation of employers.

Another example in the context of EURES is the joint monitoring of the cross-border

labour market resulting in cooperation agreements between employment services to work

together on hard to fill vacancies and provide tailor made services such as coaching for

job seekers. The coaching prepares them to understand the requirements of the vacancy,

the preferred way of presenting job applications and any useful information

(administrative, cultural) that ensures good integration of the frontier worker in the

working environment of the neighbouring country.

The Social Security and Labour Inspections of

Galicia and that of North Portugal

have created a network supported by the local EURES cross-border partnership, which

EURES:

https://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?catId=2547&acro=faq&lang=en

Regulation (EU) 2016/589 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2016 on a

European network of employment services (EURES), workers' access to mobility services and the

further integration of labour markets, and amending Regulations (EU) No 492/2011 and (EU)

No 1296/2013 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 107, 22.4.2016, p. 1).

EURES Norte Portugal Galicia:

http://www.eures-norteportugal-galicia.org

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

allows a faster resolution of obstacles to cross-border mobility of employers and workers.

They have developed effective collaboration bridges between Social Security organisms

and Labour Inspections in the cross-border region. The offer of the EURES partnership

includes the posting of job offers from across the cross-border region, the counselling

concerning labour, social and taxation regulations in both countries as well as training

opportunities.

The reason for establishing the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) is that

differences between education and training systems in the Union make it difficult to

assess what someone holding a qualification from another country knows, understands

and is capable of doing in learning or work contexts. To lift these obstacles the EQF

helps to compare national qualifications frameworks or systems, ensuring that the

learning outcomes of each qualification can be easily understood and compared.

The recently adopted revision of the EQF Recommendation ensures continuity as the

referencing of national qualifications frameworks to the eight European referencing

levels of the EQF remains at the heart of the EQF process. It seeks to further developing

the EQF, making it more effective in facilitating understanding of national, international

and third-country qualifications by employers, workers and learners. The aim is to

contribute to a better use of available skills and qualifications for the benefit of

individuals, the labour market and the economy.

Europass consists of a portfolio of five standard documents (Europass Curriculum Vitae,

Europass Language Passport, Europass Mobility, Europass Certificate Supplement,

Europass Diploma Supplement) used by people who wish to communicate their skills

and qualifications in a clear and easy way. Europass is especially helpful when people

move between countries to learn or work. The documents makes it easier for employers,

education and training providers and guidance practitioners to understand the skills and

qualifications from other Union Member States as information is presented in a

consistent, standard layout in every country.

Europass has played an important role in supporting mobility within and between

countries. Since 2005, Europass has had more than 127 million website visits; over 39

million document templates have been downloaded while more than 80 million Europass

CVs have been created online. Public consultations have shown that the Europass

framework is appreciated for its closeness to individuals as it has in particular become a

well-known tool for supporting individuals to communicate their skills.

The European Skills/Competences, qualifications and Occupations (ESCO) project is

part of Europe 2020 strategy. ESCO is a multilingual classification describing and

categorising skills, competences and qualifications needed for thousands of occupations

in all economic sectors. It is a common reference language that can be used by job

seekers, employers, employment services, education and training providers and others in

their professional and academic exchanges and introduces more transparency in

occupations and qualification profiles across Europe.

To reduce language barriers the classification will be available in 26 languages and

accessible by everyone through an online portal. One of the aims of ESCO is to allow

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

employment services to exchange relevant labour market information across borders and

facilitate communication between labour market and education and training on issues

such as skills mismatching and better employability.

Cross-border commuting in the

Öresund Region

between Denmark and Sweden

characterised by a set of interlinked obstacles which are part of the current programme to

address all legal and administrative obstacles in the region. These include: taxation of

pensions, unemployment benefit affiliation and restrictions on work placements across

the border.

The case highlights in particular two good practice examples for handling these

obstacles: (1) The role of cross-border organisations, such as the Freedom of Movement

Council within the Nordic Council of Ministers, and the interregional cooperation

through the Greater Copenhagen and Skåne Committee (previously known as the

Öresund Committee) who identify obstacles and facilitate the process to resolve them. (2)

Targeted and continuous information services, which can help improve cross-border

commuters' knowledge.

However, the positive effects of those measures/tools have not achieved their full

potential in border regions. Among the most commonly identified difficulties for labour

mobility across the border are: completing an apprenticeship, having one's skills and

competences fully recognised, accessing job vacancies, identifying workers, obtaining

legal certainty on fiscal issues, obtaining professional insurance for medical staff, unduly

complicated procedures to obtain professional certificates. Information provision,

including to individuals and employers, as well as data collection for decision-making are

other areas to be improved.

Another central topic revealed by the Cross-Border Review relates to social security, in

particular for cross-border workers. The Union has a system of rules to coordinate social

security systems in order to protect citizens’ social security rights in cross-border

situations. These Union rules provide criteria to determine which system a mobile citizen

is subject to. For instance, they ensure that an individual can only be insured in one

country at any one time, that his or her insurance periods can be added up to insurance

periods fulfilled in another country and that benefits can be paid in another Union

country. These rules have existed since 1959 and have been regularly modernised to

ensure that they are fit-for-purpose and respond to the social and economic reality in the

Union. The Union has no power to harmonise national systems. Member States retain the

prerogative to regulate who is to be insured under national provisions or which benefits

are granted. As a result, differences remain in national social security systems, and are

however frequently cited as placing a heavy burden on cross-border workers, putting

them at a disadvantage because of

e.g.

difficulties in claiming benefits, leading to a high

level of insecurity. Furthermore, cross-border workers underline a general lack of

knowledge about the rules that apply. This is why coordination and cooperation on social

security is crucial in a cross-border context.

Case study in policy area 2 (Labour Market and Education):

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/cross-border/review

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

To further support cross-border employment and labour mobility, the following

action is planned:

3.5.1

Reinforced cooperation of employment services

Member States and regional authorities are encouraged to reinforce cooperation between

public employment services in border regions including joint cross-border employment

services to improve access to information and to jobs in the cross-border labour market.

Existing practices will be made more widely available to all using the proposed

professional network mentioned above and cooperation among stakeholders will be

actively promoted.

3.6

Promoting border multi-lingualism

The wealth of cultures and traditions across Europe is a great asset. Multilingualism is a

European integration goal. The ability to speak foreign languages is also increasingly

important to boost employability, mobility and competitiveness, which is of particular

relevance in border regions.

Yet, language has been highlighted as a source of difficulty by many during the public

consultation carried out under the Cross-Border Review. The experience of border

stakeholders often points to cases where the inflexible use of different languages on both

sides of a border increases the administrative burden and hampers meaningful exchanges

between public administrations and individuals.

The Commission is pursuing a strategy endorsed by the Council and based on the

objective defined by the EU Heads of State and Government that all citizens should have

the opportunity to learn two foreign languages from an early age

. In border regions one

of these languages can ideally be the language of the neighbours. There are good

examples of such strategies at regional level, for example the "France" strategy of the

Saarland

region in Germany

The "France-strategy", adopted by the German

Bundesland of Saarland

in 2014, aims at

making the region "multi-lingual" with one generation - by 2043. The regional

government's ambitious plan is to make French its

lingua franca

in addition to German.

With the strategy, the region actively promotes a bilingual approach at all levels of

administration. It is supported by a curriculum including compulsory French, starting in

preschool. As a result, more than half of all kindergartens in the area are already

bilingual. Multi-lingualism is also considered an economic success factor for the future,

European Union

–

Council of the EU, Council conclusions on multilingualism and the development

of language competences, May 2014:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52014XG0614(06)

School education Gateway,

'Border regions: learning the neighbour’s language',

News, 7 September

2009:

https://www.schooleducationgateway.eu/en/pub/latest/news/border-regions-learning-the-n.htm

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

ensuring better access to markets in the French-speaking community across 57

countries

Language learning is also an over-arching priority of the European funding programme

for education, training, youth and sport: Erasmus+

. The programme can support

regional strategies for comprehensive language learning through the funding of mobility

for purposes of learning, training or volunteering as well as innovation and good

practices in the form of strategic partnerships between stakeholders in both the private

and the public sectors. For example, the

Saarland

strategy mentioned above, has led to

the implementation of a series of Erasmus+ financed learning mobility actions for

preschool staff, facilitated through an exchange with the University of Lorraine in

Metz/Nancy

. The region also benefits from a grant for a larger strategic partnership

with Luxembourg and Wallonia in Belgium. The aim is to create a joint regional area for

vocational education and training

. A youth partnership in the same border region has

the objective to stimulate awareness for environmental challenges among the citizens of

the future

. Other youth projects in border regions include trilingual approaches in the

Basque region in France and Spain

Language learning at an early stage is key to better integration and cross-cultural

understanding, notably in border regions. For this reason, the region of

Lower Austria

launched an initiative for

bi-lingual kindergartens and schools

along its borders with

Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Financed from the respective Interreg

programmes (2007-2013), the initiative promoted the neighbouring countries' languages

in kindergartens and schools on the borders. For this purpose, a specific methodological-

didactic concept was developed. Furthermore, excursions to kindergartens "on the other

side" were held, thus providing the contacts and foundations for more intense

cooperation. Through joint activities of kindergartens, the project enabled Slovak, Czech,

Hungarian and Austrian children to get to know each other's language and customs and to

gain intercultural competence. In addition, the parents' and the kindergarten teachers'

knowledge about their neighbouring country was expanded which helped abolish mental

barriers. The successful initiative is continued in the 2014-2020 programming period

through Interreg.

France Saarland Strategy October 2016:

https://www.saarland.de/dokumente/ressort_finanzen/MFE_Frankreich_Startegie_LangDIn4S_UK_

Lay2.pdf

European Commission, Erasmus+:

https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/

European Commission, Erasmus+, Project results:

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus

plus/projects/eplus-project-details-page/?nodeRef=workspace://SpacesStore/a45d9f22-00f1-4121-

b67a-9fc3a653e54d

European Commission, Erasmus+, Project results:

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-

plus/projects/eplus-project-details-page/?nodeRef=workspace://SpacesStore/6b7b9d11-fcb6-40e4-

bf27-68f534ef98f1

European Commission, Erasmus+, Project results:

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-

plus/projects/eplus-project-details-page/?nodeRef=workspace://SpacesStore/6b444dbc-fd32-452c-

afbf-908907da0356

European Commission, Erasmus+, Project results:

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-

plus/projects/eplus-project-details-page/?nodeRef=workspace://SpacesStore/3acbf064-2949-425a-

b30b-8034b2050a99

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

In France and its border regions, good practices

that have been funded by Interreg

programmes include the "Trilingua " project, putting in place an arrangement for

German-language teaching in the

Moselle-Est

region.

Another one is the "Sesam'GR"

project, providing training for youth to work in a cross-border context

and the "Lycée

Germano-Luxembourgeois",

hosting 267 pupils from the regions of Saarland, Rhineland-

Palatinate, Lorraine and Luxembourg.

In the Upper Rhine region, among others a

bilingual nursery,

and European campus (EUCOR), grouping together the five

universities of Basel, Freiburg, Haute-Alsace, Karlsruhe and Strasbourg with

approximately 15,000 scientists, 11,000 doctoral students and 115,000 overall students,

promote language learning and multilingualism.

On the French-Spanish border, there

are two such institutions, the primary school of Perthus

and the "Campus

Eurorégional".

Espaces Transfrontaliers, Education, formation, langues:

http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/ressources/themes/themes/theme/show/education-formation-

langues

and

http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/ressources/themes/education-formation-langues/education-

formation-langues-3/

Espace Transfrontaliers, Projects, Trilingua:

http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/ressources/projets/projects/project/show/trilingua-reseau-

dechange-dassistants-educatifslocuteurs-natifs-entre-les-ecoles-elementaires-e/ .

Projet SESAM’GR:

http://www.moselle.fr/SiteCollectionDocuments/VivrelaMoselle/EducationJeunesse/SESAMGR_fic

he.pdf

Espace Transfrontaliers, Projects, Création d’un lycée germano

-luxembourgeois:

http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/ressources/projets/projects/project/show/creation-dun-lycee-

germano-luxembourgeois/

Espace Transfrontaliers, Projects, La maison de la petite enfance transfrontalière:

http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/actualites/des-projets-transfrontaliers-au-service-de-la-

population-locale/la-maison-de-la-petite-enfance-transfrontaliere-a-strasbourg-

kehl/?print=y&cHash=7234bcf88a166bb1fad6768a53255626

http://www.interreg-rhin-sup.eu/projet/eucor-le-campus-europeen-structures-

transfrontalieres/?cat=233-207

and

http://www.eucor-uni.org/fr

Espace Transfrontaliers, Projects, Ecole Transfrontalière du Perthus:

http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/ressources/projets/projects/project/show/ecole-

transfrontaliere-du-perthus/

Ehubaq:

http://www.ehubaq.eu/

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

To promote multi-lingualism in border regions, the following action is foreseen:

3.6.1

Promoting mobility across borders and language learning

Member States, regions and municipalities are urged to use life-long learning

opportunities to step up efforts to

promote bilingualism

in border regions. Existing good

practices should be a source of inspiration and will be further promoted by the

Commission. Existing funding instruments such as Erasmus+ or the Interreg cross-

border cooperation programmes will be used to support this where appropriate.

3.7

Facilitating cross-border accessibility

Transport is a key enabler of economic, social and cultural exchanges between regions

across national borders. Especially public transport services will not only help tapping

potentials for integration but also for enhancing the sustainability of cross-border

connectivity. Lacking, insufficient or low-quality public transport services still are a

reality for many individuals in border regions. This concerns three levels:

1) infrastructure connections, 2) service provision 3) services quality. Especially smaller

scale railway connections are lacking or inoperative in a number of cases along internal

Union borders; owing to a range of difficulties (e. g. diverging priorities and/or

infrastructural

standards,

budgetary

constraints

different

legal/

procedural/organisational approaches).

Given the trans-national dimension of transport, specific legislation (e.g. on TEN-T,

which specifically aims at bridging missing links and removing bottlenecks, particularly

in cross-border sections

and which - with regard to the implementation of the core

network - builds on a coordinated development of infrastructure, in particular in cross-

border sections)

includes provisions for the Commission to stimulate and facilitate

cooperation between Member States. This may serve as an example for other policy

fields beyond transport.

TEN-T infrastructure cross-border projects seem to be particularly impacted by complex

regulatory and administrative arrangements. A study

has been recently conducted to

identify barriers in the regulatory and administrative procedures to effective and efficient

planning and implementation of TEN-T core network projects.

Currently, the Commission is looking for ways of streamlining the implementation of the

TEN-T core network projects. This will concern the organisation of different procedures

Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of

11 December 2013 on Union Guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport

network (OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 1).

Article 42(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013.

Study on permitting and facilitating the preparation of TEN-T core network

projects,˚MOVE/B3/2014-751, Final report including Annex 1 and the Annex on waterborne,

December 2016:

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2016-12-permitting-facilitating-

ten-t.pdf

and:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2016-12-permitting-facilitating-ten-t-

annexes-1-to-6.pdf

and:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2016-12-permitting-

facilitating-ten-t-annex-on-waterborne.pdf

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

as well as providing clarification where needed, while sticking to the objectives of the

different EU policies. The need of simplifying the regulatory framework has been

recalled in the recent Staff Working Document

accompanying the 'Mobility Package'

adopted on 31 May 2017

. It underlines the fact that investment in transport

infrastructure is largely dependent on regulatory framework and administrative

procedures necessary for authorising infrastructure projects. These are key elements

enabling swift project implementation, in particular in a cross-border context.

Co-funding of infrastructure projects has been made available in the framework of TEN-

T policy. The 4

Railway Package (adopted in 2016) foresees the increased role of the

European Union Agency for Railways

in removing national technical and safety rules

and thereby facilitating regional cross-border rail connections. It also establishes the legal

basis for a common approach to the award of cross-border railway services, to become

binding in 2019.

Uncertainties regarding the economic viability may also be an important obstacle - for

public authorities, infrastructure managers and transport operators - to the provision of

cross-border infrastructure and services. This, however, is also interrelated with other

issues addressed in the Communication this Staff Working Documents accompanies. The

award of public service contracts in the railway sector calls for a common approach on

both sides of the border and is unlike public transport services in general, still subject to

derogation. More attractive and up-to-date public transport service offers, both between

regions across borders or services within cross-border conurbations, could also be

boosted: e.g. enhanced cross-border connectivity, information and route planning as well

as integrated ticketing.

To make cross-border transport services more attractive and abreast of new technological

and societal developments, multi-modal travel information services shall therefore be

stimulated: For example, the Delegated Regulation supplementing Directive 2010/40/EU

of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the provision of EU-wide

multimodal travel information services, intends to provide appropriate framework

conditions enabling the co-operation of all the relevant stakeholders along the travel

information value chain. It establishes the specifications necessary to ensure the

accessibility, exchange and update of standardised travel and traffic data and distributed

journey planning for the provision of multimodal travel information services in the EU.

In the tri-lateral border region between Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium

(Euroregio

Meuse-Rhine)

public transport providers have developed a common platform

with integrated, combined timetables, joint pricing and a modernised ticketing system.

With 'euroticket' for 18 euros (for a day) all the bus and train lines in the Euroregio can

SWD(2017) 177 final of 31 May 2017.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 'Europe on the move an agenda

for a socially fair transition towards clean, competitive and connected mobility for all',

COM(2017) 283 final of 31 May 2017:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0283

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

be used. On the National days of Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany one ticket can

be used by two persons.

However, the organisation and implementation of cross-border public transport services

is a competence that lies at national, regional and local level. From market research to

information provision and integrated ticketing, much still needs to be done. The

European Commission supports a number of initiatives in this field through the Interreg

cross-border cooperation programmes (see: KEEP database of projects

The following two actions will be implemented to create favourable conditions for

better cross-border mobility and accessibility:

3.7.1

Analysing existing cross-border rail connections and identifying missing links:

The Commission undertakes a study of missing rail links along internal EU borders. The

study will be available and disseminated in 2018. The overall objective of this study is to

conduct a comprehensive analysis of all cross-border rail transport connections, which

assesses the current situation for all internal EU land border regions and identifies

missing links that could be considered for investment in the future. As part of this study,

an inventory of existing and missing cross-border rail connections is being established.

Finally, policy recommendations for future developments as well as investment estimates

will be presented. The results of the study and the associated recommendations will be

widely publicised via the Border Focal Point. Relevant dialogues with transport

stakeholders will be fostered.

3.7.2

Encouraging better cross-border transport services

The organisation and implementation of cross-border public transport services is a

competence that lies at national, regional and local level. Member States, regions and

municipalities are therefore urged to step up their efforts to provide individuals with

better quality, more integrated public transport services. The Border Focal Point will

make good practices available and provide expert advice where possible.

3.8

Promoting greater pooling of health care facilities

Encouraging cooperation between the Member States to improve complementarity of

their health services in border regions is a priority for the EU

. This general mandate has

been spelled out in the Cross-Border Healthcare Directive (2011/24/EU)

, while Union

https://www.keep.eu/keep/

Besides provisions mentioned in the Treaty itself, one can highlight the Directive on the application

of patients’ rights in cross-border

healthcare (2011/24/EU) and the EU-Regulation on coordination of

social security systems (883/2004), see complete references in footnotes 98 and 99.

Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the

application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare (OJ L 88, 4.4.2011, p. 45).

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

rules on the coordination of social security systems (Regulation (EC) No 883/2004)

also enhance cooperation between Member States' authorities as regards healthcare. The

Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 is based on the mandate to adopt measures in the field of

social security necessary to provide freedom of movement for workers (Article 48

TFEU).

The Cross-Border Healthcare Directive establishes rules to facilitate access to safe and

high quality cross-border healthcare and promotes cooperation in healthcare between

Member States, which is of particular relevance for border regions. While there is no

obligation for Member States to engage in cross-border collaboration, the Commission is

entrusted with the mandate to

“encourage cooperation between Member States in the

areas set out in Chapter IV of this Directive and […], in accordance with Article 1

68(2)

TFEU, take, in close contact with the Member States, any useful initiative to facilitate

and promote such a cooperation”

(Recital 51 of Directive 2011/24/EU). In accordance

with Article 10(3) of that Directive the Commission

“shall encourage Member S

tates,

particularly neighbouring countries, to conclude agreements among themselves”,

and

also, in particular,

"to cooperate in cross-border healthcare provision in border regions".

One way for the Commission to do so is

“by identifying major obstacles to

collaboration

between healthcare providers in border regions, and by making recommendations and

disseminating information and best practices on how to overcome such obstacles”

(Recital 51 of that Directive).

Under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, a person wishing to get planned healthcare in

another Union Member State should apply to the competent institution for prior

authorisation. Under the Cross-Border Healthcare Directive, if a patient is entitled to a

given treatment in their home system then they may claim reimbursement for that

treatment when they receive it in another Member State. They are entitled to be

reimbursed up to the amount that their home system would have paid had that treatment

been received at home.

These two legal instruments provide the Union's legal framework on patients' mobility

and the coordination of social security rules when it comes to healthcare benefits in

cross-border situations. However, they follow different structures and principles on

providing reimbursement of cross-border healthcare. Therefore, in their practical

implementation at national and regional levels, certain difficulties tend to arise from a

cross-border regional context. These include e.g. different and complex procedures of

prior authorisation of healthcare services and their payments/reimbursements;

administrative burden for patients in dealing with cross-border consultations with

specialists; incompatibilities in the use of technology and in the sharing of patients' data;

lack of unified accessible information, which also includes a lack of information in the

patients' language

100

. Thus, the limited accessibility from both sides of the border

100

Regulation (EC) 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the

coordination of social security systems (OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1).

Gesundheit Österreich Forschungs- und Planungs GmbH,

Study on better cross-border Cooperation

for high-cost Capital investments in health,

November 2016, e.g. pp. 97-108:

https://ec.europa.eu/health//sites/health/files/cross_border_care/docs/hci_frep_en.pdf

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

hampers the full use of the health care facility. Emergency and rescue services are also

sometimes impeded in carrying out their cross-border interventions.

Apart from the inconvenience caused for the border patient, investing in health

infrastructure risks becoming partially a lost investment, because of the limited

accessibility from both sides of the border that hampers the full use of the health care

facility.

For residents of the twin city of

Valga-Valka

between Estonia and Latvia

101

, the nearest

hospital on the Latvian side is 50 km away, while the nearest hospital on the Estonian

side is just 3 km away. However, access to hospital services in Estonia for Latvian

residents remains unduly complicated. Obstacles include the lack of accessible

information, cumbersome procedures for consultation with specialists and complex

healthcare service payment procedures. There are as yet no agreements in place at either

the national or municipality level to facilitate guaranteed medical assistance between the

twin-towns, despite attempts to do so.

The two existing Union legal frameworks mentioned above do provide the opportunity

for Member States to conclude bilateral agreement on patients' mobility and coordination

of social security rules when it comes to healthcare benefits in cross-border situations,

using tools from one or both legislation to get easier access to patients to cross-border

healthcare. Examples of this already exist:

Starting as an Interreg project, the nowadays institutionalised agreement establishing

seven organised cross-border health care zones on the Franco-Belgian border

102

has

been used by more than 20,000 patients who have received health care closer to home in

the neighbouring country. This is a good practice in dealing with the issue of different

and complex procedures of healthcare service payments/reimbursements. In these areas

(referred to as Zones Organisées d'Accès aux Soins Transfrontaliers- ZOAST) residents

of six border territories can receive health care on both sides of the border in designated

health care institutions without any administrative or financial barriers. Since 2008

emergency medical services on both sides of the border are working together to reduce

response time. In late 2011 another framework agreement was signed between the French

government and the regional government of Wallonia to accommodate mainly French

people with disabilities in Walloon facilities. Many of the health care cooperation

projects were supported by the Interreg programmes

103

Map 3 shows the ZOAST along the Franco-Belgian border.

101

102

103

Case study in policy area 3 (Social Security Systems), Obstacle N.82 in the inventory:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/cross-border/review/

Espace Transfrontaliers, La Communauté de santé transfrontalière:

http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/ressources/themes/sante/sante-4/

Expert Panel on Effective Ways of Investing in Health (EXPH) opinion on Cross-border

Cooperation, 29 July 2015 p. 30:

http://ec.europa.eu/health/expert_panel/sites/expertpanel/files/009_crossborder_cooperation_en.pdf

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

Map 3: Map of the ZOAST.

Another good practice of cross-border health cooperation is the European Regional

Development Fund co-financed cross-border hospital in Cerdanya on the border between

France and Spain:

The

Cerdanya hospital

forms part of a wider cross-border health care project seeking to

ensure the availability of health care to the local population. It serves not only as a setting

for the treatment of acute medical problems, but also as the core of a network of cross-

border health services. Co-financed under Interreg by the European Regional

Development Fund, the hospital has been equipped with 64 beds, 32 rooms, 3 operating

rooms, 1 birthing room and additional multi-purpose facilities. Launched in September

2008, the cross-border hospital project is the result of a successful partnership between

the European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation of the cross-border Hospital of

Cerdanya and the Health Department of the Generalitat de Catalunya (Spain). The project

led to the creation of a separate cross-border organisation for the construction and

management of this establishment. The area of Cerdanya is inhabited by approximately

30,000 people, a number which rises to 150,000 during peak tourist periods

104

. In

104

See footnote 101.

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

practical terms, the hospital resolved a number of secondary issues, such as the

recognition of birth and death certificates on both sides of the border.

Other existing best practices co-financed under Interreg and the European Regional

Development Fund, which could serve as models for emulation more broadly in the EU

are the Integrated Approach to Improve Emergency Medical Assistance in Cross-Border

between Italy and Slovenia (IntegrAid), the International Academy for Health

Professionals (EEIG), also known as Sanicademia - a euroregional academy for health

professionals of the Italian Regions of Friuli Venezia Giulia and the Veneto, and the

Austrian Land, Carinthia - and the cooperation between the Children's Hospital in

Helsinki University and Estonia.

A bilateral agreement between

Denmark and Germany

105

has extended the use of the

Danish reporting system at an operational level, as it was previously impossible to

navigate between the two IT-systems. The incidence of malignant neoplasms in Denmark

has risen during the last decades. However the treatment capacity in Denmark was

limited when it came to radiotherapy. Before 2006, in Denmark only six hospitals were

equipped with radiotherapy departments which caused long travelling times and waiting

lists for Danish cancer patients. As the administrative region of Southern Denmark is

adjacent to the German border, treatment in Germany can noticeably decrease travelling

times. Against this background the cooperation between the German Malteser St.

Franziskus hospital in Flensburg and the Region of Southern Denmark was started as a

pilot programme in 1998. In 2001 a cooperation contract was signed which includes

radiotherapy for diverse cancer for up to 300 Danish patients per year. Although the

cooperation was planned to be an interim solution it is still ongoing, primarily due to the

advantage of shorter travelling times for Danish patients. In 2007, the cooperation was

extended via co-financing through Interreg towards the provision of chemotherapy for

Danish patients and the development of a CB mammography screening was also planned.

The incentives for the cooperation include the compensation of non-existing resources in

Denmark, faster supply of radiotherapy for Danish cancer patients and reduction of the

travelling time for Danish cancer patients, a competitive advantage for the Flensburg

hospital, and financial incentives as the collaboration contributed to the expansion of the

radio-therapy station in Flensburg due to enlarged group of patients.

105

This cooperation exists between “The Malteser Hospital” in Flensburg (Germany)

and the Region of

Southern Denmark. The cooperation focuses on cost-intensive medical equipment necessary for

radiotherapy, e.g. linear accelerators and the presence of radiotherapy stations.

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

To further promote the pooling of health care facilities and to facilitate cross-border

health care, the following action is envisaged:

3.8.1

Mapping cross-border health cooperation in the EU

A comprehensive

mapping of cross-border health cooperation

across the EU by the

Commission will identify good practices and analyse future challenges

106

. It will be

available in 2018 and shared with stakeholders via the Border Focal Point. The European

Commission will during 2018 also organise a strategic event with health care and border

stakeholders to highlight good practices of cross-border health cooperation and explore

ways in which this can be further developed throughout the Union.

3.8.2

Report on cross-border Healthcare Directive

In 2018 the Commission will publish an implementation report on the operation of

Cross-Border Healthcare Directive which will include elements linked to the situation in

border regions.

3.9

Considering the legal and financial framework for cross-border cooperation

The EU has introduced a number of legal and financial tools to facilitate cooperation

across European borders.

In terms of funding, many EU-funded programmes make important contributions to

cross-border cooperation. Interreg, also known as European Territorial Cooperation

(ETC), is one of the two goals of the Union's Cohesion Policy and provides a framework

for the implementation of joint actions and policy exchanges between national, regional

and local actors from different Member States. In the current and fifth programming

period stretching between 2014-2020, Interreg has a total budget of EUR 10.1 billion, of

which EUR 6.6 billion are invested for 60 cross-border cooperation programmes along

38 internal Union borders

107

Besides Interreg, LIFE, Horizon 2020

108

, and EURES are important drivers of horizontal

cooperation among border regions. For example, within the LIFE Programme (the

Financial Instrument for the Environment and Climate Action) 2014-2020, the Integrated

project (IP) 'PREPAIR'

109

, which concerns air quality, a field where cross-border

cooperation is particularly important, and which, among others, aims at strengthening the

106

107

108

109

See request for Specific Services No CHAFEA/2016/Health/22 for the implementation of

Framework Contract No EAHC/2013/Health/01

–

lot 2- health economics– Study on cross-border

cooperation: capitalising on existing initiatives for cooperation in cross-border regions.

Interreg : European Territorial Co-operation:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/

Horizon 2020, the biggest programme of the Union dedicated entirely to Research and Innovation

(R&I), promotes advances in science with nearly EUR 80 billion of funding over 7 years (2014-

2020):

https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/what-horizon-2020

PREPAIR - Po regions engaged to policies of air:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_i

d=6102

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

coordination and cooperation among regional authorities in Italy and Slovenia in this

sector.

The Investment Plan for Europe will equally contribute to the development of border

regions. The Plan's European Fund for Strategic Investments, recently re-enforced and

extended, further incentivises the support for cross-border investment projects in view of

their importance for Europe by defining such projects as additional

per se.

Also, as part

of the second pillar of the Plan, the European Investment Advisory Hub

110

provides

advice and technical assistance for investment projects, including specifically cross-

border projects, while the European Investment Project Portal

111

helps projects meet

potential investors. Finally, the Plan's third pillar dedicated to removing barriers to

investment will help provide a more favourable environment for cross-border investment

projects

112

In terms of labour market policy, the European Social Fund (ESF) can support the

transnational mobility of job seekers from 2014 onwards through financing for example

language and orientation trainings, the costs of the transnational mobility itself (travel

costs), their integration in the host country etc. Transnational mobility activities can be

programmed under the specific investment priority (8)(vii), where they concern EURES

(financing the activities of the EURES national networks), or under any different

investment priority depending on the specific objective to which they contribute.

As far as legal instruments are concerned, Euroregions, Eurodistricts and EGTCs are

good practices involving partners from both sides of the border to solve obstacles locally

–

and creating frameworks for improved cross-border cooperation. Often these local

solutions are sector specific and rely mostly on better and more reliable information

provision to citizens. Good examples include the INFOBEST offices on the French-

German border, and the

'Groupement Transfrontalier Européen'

, an association of

French commuters to Switzerland. The first Euroregion was set up in 1958 at the

German-Dutch border. Due to the active promotion by the Council of Europe and the

Commission, more than 160 Euroregional-type structures have been created between

member regions and territories since then. Their legal set-up ranges from associations

and foundations to EGTCs or other formalised agreements

113

. Eurodistricts are most

often created in cross-border conurbations, like the Strasbourg-Orthenau Eurodistrict

114

An EGTC is a legal instrument created on the basis of the Regulation (EU)

No 1082/2006

115

, and allows public entities from both sides of the border to come

together under a new single entity with full legal personality

116

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

The European Investment Advisory Hub:

http://www.eib.org/eiah/

European Investment Project Portal (EIPP):

https://ec.europa.eu/eipp/desktop/en/index.html

Investment plan:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/jobs-growth-and-investment/investment-

plan_en

Espaces Transfrontaliers, Eurorégions:

http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/en/resources/territories/euroregions/

Eurodistrict:

http://www.eurodistrict.eu/fr

See complete reference in footnote 19.

EGTC Platform:

https://portal.cor.europa.eu/egtc/Pages/welcome.aspx

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

The

Eurometropolis Lille - Kortrijk

–

Tournai

117

is the largest cross-border metropole

in Europe. The 3,500 km² large, bi-lingual region embraces the Lille metropolis, the

southern and central parts of West Flanders, and Western Hainaut. The Eurometropolis

was the first EGTC established in Europe, following a long tradition of cross-border

cooperation. It brings together all French and Belgian government levels via 14

institutions, working together to erase the "border effect" and make day-to-day life easier

for its 2.1 million inhabitants. Today, the EGTC acts as a hub for all cross-border

information, activities and services, supporting their exploitation and development and

sometimes even adapting them. Institutions, companies, artists, associations and clubs,

various organisations, etc. are all invited to coordinate and pool their projects, allowing

them to speak with one voice.

To create legal certainty and joint frameworks, the EGTC or the European Economic

Interest Group (EEIG)

118

are important tools. However they are not necessarily always

suitable to resolve legal and administrative obstacles. Despite their existence,

implementing cross-border projects still remains a real challenge, as the time it took to

successfully extend the tram line from Strasbourg (F) to Kehl (DE) illustrates

119

A number of Member States are considering the merit of a new instrument which would

make it possible, on a voluntary basis and agreed by the competent authorities in charge,

for the rules of one Member State to apply in the neighbouring Member State for a

specific project or action limited in time, located within a border region and initiated by

local and/or regional public authorities.

From July 2016 to July 2017, the Working Group on Innovative Solutions to Cross-

Border Obstacles, co-chaired by France and Luxembourg, with the support of the

Transfrontier Operational Mission (La

MOT)

investigated the feasibility and design of a

new legal tool, which was first presented under the Luxembourg Presidency in 2015

120

The working group brought together Member States and partner countries, local and

regional stakeholders as well as representatives of EU institutions to discuss a systematic

approach to overcoming border obstacles. The aim of the process is to prepare a new

tool, the so-called European Cross-Border Convention (ECBC).

The ECBC would be a voluntarily applicable, bottom-up legal tool, available to local and

regional authorities and stakeholders to initiate a procedure for solving administrative

and legal obstacles. In practice it would allow, after validation by the competent national

authority (and if necessary transposition into national law) to apply the administrative or

legal rules and provisions of another country in a defined area of application along the

border. The ECBC would have the following advantages over existing tools: it would be

117

118

119

120

Eurometropolis:

http://www.eurometropolis.eu/

European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG), introduced by the Council Regulation (EEC)

No 2137/85 of 25 July 1985.

Strasbourg Eurométropole/

http://www.strasbourg.eu/en/grands-projets/projets-deplacements-urbains/extension-tram-kehl

Input paper for the Informal Ministerial Meeting on Territorial Cohesion under the Luxembourg

Presidency/

http://www.amenagement-territoire.public.lu/fr/eu-presidency/Informal-Ministerial-

Meetings-on-Territorial-Cohesion-and-Urban-Policy-_26-27-November-2015_-Luxembourg-

City_.html#

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

quicker and more efficient compared to intergovernmental agreements, it would provide

a higher administrative and legal certainty to stakeholders involved, compared to the

bottom-up approach of many initiatives in cross-border areas. The tool would also limit

the administrative burden to the Member States as existing mechanisms, structures and

institutions could be integrated into the tool’s procedure. These existing mechanisms,

structures and institutions could be used at every step of the procedure to facilitate the

process of finding a solution. The instrument would not compete with existing

instruments or solutions, and it goes beyond the scope of the EGTC Regulation, which

specifies that the regulatory and policy-making powers of legal/regional authorities

cannot be subject of an EGTC convention. The ECBC on the other hand would offer the

concerned authorities a solution for the limited application of foreign rules and

provisions in a domestic context.

To further enhance the legal and financial framework for cross-border cooperation,

the following two actions are envisaged:

3.9.1

Following the preparations of a "European Cross-Border Convention"

The Commission services closely follow the work undertaken by Member States as

described above. Taking into account the evidence provided by the pilot projects

mentioned above in section 3.1, the Commission will consider options to take this

instrument forward.

3.9.2

Looking at possible contributions from future funding programmes

Member States and the European institutions will engage early in a dialogue to explore

how future funding programmes can make a more strategic contribution to the prevention

and resolution of border obstacles and the development of cross-border public services.

3.10 Building evidence of cross-border interaction to inform decision-making

Collecting data and evidence on border obstacles is the first necessary step towards

resolving them but only limited resources are invested in collecting and analysing

information on border difficulties and complexities. Excellent examples exist in France

(see the

Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière

121

) and in Hungary (see the Central

European Service for Cross-Border Initiatives

122

). Regional observatories can be found

for instance in the Upper Rhine or the Grande Region. More such types of initiatives are

needed across Europe.

The

data portal for the Greater Region

–

in and around Luxembourg

–

collects data

from national and regional statistical offices to provide policy-makers with evidence of

cross-border flows and territorial trends in an area characterised by high levels of

121

122

Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière:

www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org

Central European Service for Cross-Border Initiatives:

www.cesci-net.eu

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

interaction (e.g. 200,000 cross-border workers). Since 1995, a political "summit" brings

together political leaders of all involved regions in Germany, France, Belgium and

Luxembourg. The basis for joint decisions in the Greater Region is provided through

statistical data from five statistical offices. The information is also publicly available

123

Statistical and geospatial data describing cross-border flows and phenomena is not

always sufficiently available or standardised to allow policy-makers to take informed

decisions. Member States, under the coordination of the European Statistical Office

should explore innovative data collection methodologies (e.g. geo-referencing or

geocoding) ready for cross-border analysis such as grid-based data.

The European Commission has launched a one-year pilot project in 2017 with a group of

8 statistical offices to test the potential use of labour force survey data, administrative and

census data, and mobile phone data

124

The Commission also works with the Monitoring Committee of the European

Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion (ESPON) Interreg

programme (part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund) to further

promote territorial research linked to border regions.

The Commission is also building upon successful territorial research activities funded by

the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7)

and Horizon 2020. Moreover, the Knowledge Centre on Territorial Policies (KC TP) set

up by DG Joint Research Centre and DG Regional and Urban Policy develops

meaningful and territorially relevant information and analytical tools.

Financed under the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological

Development (FP7), the

KTIECBR (Knowledge Transfer and Innovations in

European Cross Border Regions)

125

project focused on the cultural and cognitive

differences between managers and customers (shoppers and tourists) from both sides in

border regions between Finland and Sweden as well as on the special characteristics of

tourism innovation and knowledge transfer between cross border small tourism

businesses in two cross-border regions. There were perceived differences between

customers and managers from Tornio-Haparanda (i.e. between customers and managers,

self-identified as belonging to Finnish or Swedish culture). Surprisingly, customers'

perceived differences were found to be similar to those of visitors (non-residents), which

could indicate that cross-border regions could represent other mainland regions in

Sweden and Finland. The project also concluded that a more fine-grained approach is

needed for understanding and improving knowledge transfer between neighbouring

national cultures in cross-border regions.

123

124

125

Grande Région:

http://www.grande-region.lu/portal/de/

European Commission, Study, 'Collecting solid evidence to assess the needs to be addressed by

Interreg cross-border cooperation programmes', Study, Luxembourg, November 2016:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/studies/2016/collecting-solid-

evidence-to-assess-the-needs-to-be-addressed-by-interreg-cross-border-cooperation-programmes

KTIECBR (Knowledge Transfer and Innovations in European Cross Border Regions):

http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/59915_en.html

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

The following two actions will be implemented to broaden the evidence base for

better informed decision-making:

3.10.1 Implementing a pilot project on statistical evidence

The Commission is financing a one-year pilot project with statistical offices to test the

potential use of labour force survey data, administrative and census data, and mobile

phone data. This collaborative work with Member States should be pursued and re-

enforced based on the outcome of the pilot project available in 2018. The Border Focal

Point will ensure that the project results are widely disseminated and that identified good

practices are made available to all border stakeholders via the online professional

network to be set up.

3.10.2 Promoting border-related, territorial research

The Commission is working with the European Observation Network for Territorial

Development and Cohesion (ESPON) cooperation programme to further promote

territorial research linked to border regions.

The Commission will continue to develop meaningful and territorially relevant

information and analytical tools in the framework of the Knowledge Centre on Territorial

Policies (KC TP). Based upon the support of two key analytical tools (namely: the

Regional Economic model RHOMOLO and the LUISA Territorial Modelling Platform)

the KC TP will contribute to increase the availability of indicators at high spatial and

thematic granularity to evaluate and foster positive impacts of cross-border issues such as

spill-overs, proximities, technological contaminations and labour market dynamics. The

KC TP Territorial Dashboard will be the main instrument for the dissemination and

analysis of territorial features. This work will be used by the Border Focal Point to

promote informed decision-making in response to challenges faced by border

communities.

kom (2017) 0534 - Ingen titel

NNEX

Overview of case studies

Case study

number

Policy Area

Industry/trade: Exportation of goods and cross-border provision

of commercial services, including e-commerce

Industry/trade: Border-regional business activities and cross-

border development of entrepreneurship

Labour market/education: Mobility of cross-border workers

(commuter flows)

Labour market/education: Mobility of trainees, students and

teachers

Labour market/education: Recognition of diploma or

professional qualification certificates

Social security systems: Access to social insurance system (e.g.

retirement pensions, disability insurance, survivor benefits,

unemployment insurance etc.)

Social security systems: Access to health care services (i.e.

primary, secondary and tertiary care) and medical treatment

Social security systems: Access to health care services (i.e.

primary, secondary and tertiary care) and medical treatment

Transport: Scope and quality of regional/local and cross-border

transport infrastructures and of related maintenance services

(e.g. snow removal on roads and rail tracks etc.)

Transport: Public transport by bus, rail, light rail or metro (e.g.

quality service offer, density of connections, harmonisation of

tariffs & schedules etc.)

Transport: Scope and quality of regional/local and cross-border

transport infrastructures and of related maintenance services

(e.g. snow removal on roads and rail tracks etc.)

Policy planning/public services: Spatial planning and cross-

border territorial development planning

Policy planning/public services: Emergency and rescue services

Policy planning/public services: Public security and crime

prevention (police cooperation)

Specific cross-border

illustration

Ireland - United

Kingdom

Bulgaria - Greece

Denmark - Sweden

Germany - The

Netherlands

Spain - Portugal

Belgium - Germany

–

France - Luxembourg

(Grande Region)

Belgium - Germany

–

France - Luxembourg

(Grande Region)

Estonia - Latvia

Finland - Sweden

Germany - Poland

Germany - France

Austria - Slovenia

Belgium - France

Slovakia - Hungary

Germany - Poland