An Operative Framework to Support Implementation Plan Design Applied in Transnational Cooperation Project

Territorial cooperation across national borders has the task to bring a real European added value [1, 2] in pursuing the goal of territorial cohesion and in balancing spatial development of the EU territory [3] through common development strategies. Although INTERREG programs do not constitute a big share of the Structural Fund budget (only 2.5% of the total Structural Funds Budget for 2007–2013 and the 2.8% of the total of the European Cohesion Policy budget for 2014–2020 [4], they play a key role in the main stream policies development. One of the innovations promoted in the 2014–2020 programming period is to reinforce the operational dimension of INTERREG measures and projects. In fact, INTERREG Projects not only required to demonstrate a positive impact on the development of transnational approaches and solutions to targeted issues but their concrete actions design and, possibly, consequent implementation must be carried out on a common cross-border basis. Such procedural schema is based on the design of an Implementation Plan (IP) at project partners level and its implementation within project timeframe. Hence the need for a detailed and organized methodological schema which could support and enable the effectiveness application of IPs delivered by transnational cooperation projects. This paper provides contributions to support and improve the IPs design practices according to several techniques and recommendations also retrieved in previous relevant transnational cooperation experiences.

[1]  J. Blom‐Hansen.  Principals, agents, and the implementation of EU cohesion policy , 2005 .

[2]  Francesco Scorza,et al.  Sustainable Planning: A Methodological Toolkit , 2016, ICCSA.

[3]  Francesco Scorza,et al.  A Transnational Cooperation Perspective for "Low Carbon Economy" , 2016, ICCSA.

[4]  A. Faludi.  European Territorial Cooperation and Learning , 2008 .

[5]  Andrea Mairate.  The ‘added value’ of European Union Cohesion policy , 2006 .

[6]  D. Stead,et al.  European Spatial Planning Systems, Social Models and Learning , 2008 .

[7]  Beniamino Murgante,et al.  Regional Local Development Strategies Benefiting from Open Data and Open Tools and an Outlook on the Renewable Energy Sources Contribution , 2016 .

[8]  Takako Ueta.  The Internal and External Security Nexus of the European Union , 2017 .

[9]  Ernest R. Alexander,et al.  Approaches to Planning: Introducing Current Planning Theories, Concepts and Issues , 1992 .

[10]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning , 1994 .

[11]  J. Bryson.  What to do when Stakeholders matter , 2004 .

[12]  A. Dubois,et al.  Collective learning through transnational co-operation – the case of Interreg IIIB , 2006 .

[13]  Franco Archibugi,et al.  Planning theory: reconstruction or requiem for planning? , 2004 .

[14]  C. Colomb.  The added value of transnational cooperation: Towards a new framework for evaluating learning and policy change , 2007 .

[15]  P. Butelli,et al.  Environmental performance, indicators and measurement uncertainty in EMS context: a case study , 2008 .