Territorial cohesion and cooperation

1. Territorial cohesionand cooperation 25.09.2009. Bruxelles Jean Peyrony DG REGIO, Unit C2 (Urban development, territorial cohesion)

2. State of the art until the Green paper General overview of the contributions concerning cooperation Cross border cooperation Transnational cooperation Interregional cooperation External borders EGTC First lessons Territorial cooperation and cohesion: Presentation outline

3. 2 convergent stories with interactions: EU support for cooperation through Interreg since 1989 Debate on territorial cohesion started in the 1990s, led to TC in Lisbon treaty (article 174) Green paper on territorial cohesion, 2008 The 3 Cs, including cooperation, to overcome division Questions about co-operation: role of EC, need to develop new forms, legal and management tools? Other questions (scale and scope, coordination, partnership, understanding) are also relevant State of the art until the Green paper

4. Cooperation is central to territorial cohesion Overwhelming demand to reinforce it: more strategy, more ressources ? The 3 strands of ETC seem to be relevant for a territorial approach: Cross border: proximity cooperation in cross border regions Transnational: wider cooperation in macro-regions Interregional: pan-european networks General overview of the contributions, concerning cooperation

5. Cross border cooperation contributing to territorial cohesion Scale and scope of territorial action in CB regions Tools for CB cooperation Coordination of policies in CB regions Partnership in CB regions Understanding territorial cohesion in CB regions Cross border cooperation:outline

6. 32% of EU population, 40% of the territory (AEBR) Cross border regions: « severe and permanent handicap » (Lisbon treaty), and/or « biggest untapped territorial potential » (LU)? Completion of internal market=main aim of 2nd generation CBC (PT) CB regions: trailblazers of EU integration, model areas for territorial cohesion (Upper Rhine), Laboratories, place of convergence of policies (MOT)  New model of European citizenship (Eixo Atlantico) Cross border cooperation contributing to territorial cohesion

7. Contributions show different types and scales of CB areas: Cross border agglomerations, urban regions, metropoles Cross border territories, rural, natural areas… Regional co-operation areas, at the scale of a border between 2 or more countries Maritime co-operation areas Need to develop a functional approach (SE); CB agglomerations as an example (Eurodistrict Basel) Questions: NUTS 3 (AEBR), or NUTS 2 (Eurorégion Alpes Méditerranée)? maritime borders =150 km ? Scale and scope of territorial action in CB regions

8. Consensus that EU should go on providing support …through a separate cross-border strand with increased funding (AEBR) multi annual strategic and programmatic approach should be kept, but quality of programmes should be improved in substance and effectiveness (AEBR) Common allocations of EU funds by programme (AEBR, CoR,…) Articulation between OPs and territories: through sub-programmes (AEBR); global grants (MOT); Integrated Territorial Projects (IT)? Programme governance: OPs should be managed by specific cross border organizations (CTP), EGTCs (Grande région) Technical assistance for projects (and not only programmes) needed, to finance transfer of experience, training, networking at EU level (AEBR, MOT, Eixo Atlantico) Tools for cross border co-operation

9. Need of horizontal coordination and integrated approach: Laws relevant for every day mobility (labour, social, taxes, …) not harmonised, so need for CB coordination Problem of EU laws implemented differently across the borders Need that EU sectoral policies consider CB regions: SGI (health, transport…) (MOT), Natura 2000, competition, TEN T, CAP (Mont Blanc, Eurorégion Alpes Méditerranée), education, culture (Upper Rhine) EU should support local experimentation in CB areas (Eurometropole) Coordination of policies in CB regions

10. A way to coordinate sectoral policies: Spatial strategies should be coordinated between border countries (UK, IE), with the support of EU (Irish Border, Midland and Western regional assembly) CB Integrated spatial development strategies (AEBR, Upper Rhine, etc…); CB planning documents (Grande région) BUT Joint spatial planning doesn’t mean to change existing competences or create transnational competences (AEBR) No need of institutionalisation, rather networking of relevant players (Upper Rhine) Coordination of policies in CB regions

11. Need of vertical coordination : Assymetries of competence as barrier to cooperation (Eixo Atlantico) Multi level governance is the only way (AEBR, MOT, E.Meuse Rhin); decentralization needed (AEBR) but need to cooperate with regions and states (MOT) Upper Rhine: Need for vertical division of functions : local: Eurodistricts (such as Strasbourg Ortenau) for everyday mobility,…; regional (Upper Rhine) for large scale infrastucture, R&D, education,… Espace Mont Blanc: need to combine different scales: local: Mont blanc area for integrated local development; regional: FR/IT border; transnational: Alpine space, for strategy Contracts: Eixo Atlantico proposes « contract programmes » between Commission and CB cooperation structures with legal personality, political control, technical competence Coordination of policies in CB regions

12. CB governance should involve all regional and local, public and private actors, on both sides of the border; role of citizens and elected representatives is central But EU programmes favour public players (Upper Rhine; Business Europe) CB governance requires to develop networks of private actors and civil society; in particular: universities, actors in charge of public services (AEBR, MOT) Need to surpass barrier of knowledge (different languages, cultures…) through CB tools in the field of information, education, training (Eixo Atlantico): EURES, Euro institutes…(MOT) How to involve population: citizen forums, P to P, culture,…(Upper Rhine) Partnership in CB context

13. Observation needed to understand CB territories and design policies for them Indicators requested in the fields of: accessibility and mobility; (shared) equipments and services; demography; labour market; housing markets; risks; governance; CB integration (MOT, AEBR, Eixo A., ETB) Need to develop monitoring and observation systems (Channel Arc Manche) Need to coordinate national sources, with the aid of the EU (harmonisation of methods): Eurostat, Espon, Urban audit Understanding territorial cohesion in CB regions

14. Transnational cooperation contributing to territorial cohesion: the rationale Scale and scope of territorial action in transnational areas: territories concerned Tools for cooperation Coordination of policies in transnational areas Partnership in transnational areas Understanding territorial cohesion in transnational areas Transnational cooperation:outline

15. Territorial cohesion and transnational cooperation have been linked from the beginning (Europe 2000+, Interreg 2c and ESDP…): macro regions would allow horizontal and vertical coordination EU strategy for the Baltic sea region, prepared by the Commission at the request of the Council: presented as an example of TC in the macro-regional context Many contributions confirm that the role of macro regions should be reinforced (FI, EE, SE, FR,..), and would allow regions to better develop and combine their potentials (EE) But the feasibility of macroregions is not everywhere the same; thematical as well as geographical cooperation, or combination of both, should be possible (NWE) Transnational cooperation contributing to territorial cohesion

16. Transnational cooperation should be promoted in relevant territories (sea and river basins,….); sea basins as frameworks of governance for EU integrated maritime policy (CoR, EP) Cooperation between areas with similar features allow to develop shared solutions to common problems (CPMR North and Baltic sea) Mountain areas as EU added value, European interest zones  to be recognized by EU: to keep them inhabited; to compensate cost of tourist pressure... (Eurorégion Alpes Méditerranée) Alpine space covers an area wider than mountains: not an area with specific geographical features, but a functional region Scale and scope of territorial action in transnational areas

17. More synergy should be developed between transnational OPs and existing macro-regional co-operation platforms: intergovernmental conventions (request to have an OP dedicated to Carpathian area) regional organisations (CPMR Atlantic arc) Classical subdivision between 3 strands of ETC not always adapted to projects: need for flexibility (LU) Changes in transnational areas: should be not significant, based on evidence (UK) Transnational co-operation budgets: different options: increased funding (proposal of DG REGIO for 2007/2013); EU BSR strategy: alignement of strategies and funding Baltic as a test case Tools for transnational co-operation

18. Need of coordination between territorial and sectoral policies: EU BSR strategy as an answer Need to coordinate national regulations (even coming from EU) along borders (SE) Sectoral policies to be coordinated at transnational scale: transport; TEN T; motorways of the sea ; state aids (CPMR North and Baltic seas); safety; environment; energy; CAP; competition (NWE) Transnational programmes: intermediate levels where different scales can cooperate; allow to cross reference regional, national and EU level policies (NWE) Transnational cooperation: coordination of policies

19. Macro-regions: the right level to understand impact of EU policies, define strategies that cover sectoral and territorial policies, and integrate various governance levels (Alpine space) Role of transnational maritime and land based spatial planning in coordinating public intervention (Vasab); eg « Atlantic spatial development perspective » (Atlantic arc) Transnational co-operation serving European level spatial planning, for which EU has no mandate yet (HU) Transnational cooperation:coordination of policies

20. Need to involve local authorities (Arc latin, about ARLEM: assembly of local and regional authorities in the context of Union for Mediterranean) In particular, the role of cities, as engines of the macro regions, should be given more emphasis (Cities for cohesion) Need of a polycentric development: to optimise each city’s functional profile in transnational/national/regional urban systems (SE) Need to include private bodies and SMEs, to strenghten PPPs (NWE) Partnership in transnational context

21. Need to develop indicators to monitor macro-regional changes and progress at political level (Vasab) EU strategy for the BSR; Action plan, horizontal actions: action «land-based spatial planning »: a clear picture of the region (sensitive areas, population and economic pressures), is necessary for sustainable development action « EMODNET »; European maritime observation data network at the scale of Baltic sea-basin Understanding territorial cohesion in transnational areas

22. Inter-regional cooperation has not been adressed by the Green paper 3 out of 4 networks have provided contributions But many contributions underlined need to reinforce it as an instrument for Territorial Cohesion (EESC, CoR, LU, CH,…): Exchange of experience and good practice between non adjacent regions sharing the same objectives Encourage less affluent territories to construct projects through access to networks for innovation Benchmark between regions (Lisbon regions network) Major role for EU in providing evidence base: research (Espon), pilot actions (Interreg, Urbact, Interact) (UK) Need to better adapt inter-regional co-operation to the needs of local and regional authorities (CoR) Need to enlarge themes and include territorial, social and political innovation (EESC) Inter-regional co-operation

23. CBC changes the role of external borders (joint approach, development of border areas), and transform them in internal borders for acceding countries (CoR) Cohesion should be included in bilateral negociations between EU and neighbouring states, so as to harmonise cohesion policies across the borders (Upper Rhine, for CH) Need to strengthen CBC ENPI Need to better co-ordinate ETC and external co-operation (CoR, EP, EESC, IT, GR, FR), or even integrate them Need to facilitate co-operation between ENPI, IPA and EU countries; allocate an amount of ENPI/IPA budget to interregional co-operation and allow non MS to participate in programme structures (Interreg 4C) External borders

24. Outermost regions Isolated in their geographical space: local market is limited in terms of population or GDP; aim is better integration with both proximity area (non EU MS), and EU (which is far remote) TC means exploitation of globalisation: enormous potential for cooperation, resulting from their location (Carribean, Indian Ocean, Western Africa); they are platforms for EU to develop external actions Need to adopt an approach similar to ENPI; specific instrument, or need to coordinate ERDF, EDF (regulations, timeframes) Need to organize regional governance, including neighbouring states; EC should play a stimulation role Request to be present on EU maps External borders

25. EGTC: welcomed by many contributions as a relevant tool for multi level governance of programme or projects EGTC promotes effective cooperation in a broad range of activities, brings people closer together, and promotes knowledge transfer and exchange of good practice (CoR) Several MS have not yet implemented EGTC into their national legislation system; other have not allowed inclusion of partners with limited reponsability (Euroregion baltic) Regulation to be adapted to allow EGTCs between one or several partners located in one MS and in one third country (AEBR, MOT, CH) Outermost regions : allow EGTC to support co-operation with non EU MS through common management bodies EGTC

26. It should be possible to delegate public services to EGTCs (MOT); to transfer functions subject to national jurisdiction to legal instruments (EGTCs, …) (Upper Rhine, Strasbourg Ortenau) Several contributions signal that they are in the process to create an EGTC: Eurorégion Alpes Méditerrannée; Grande région (one to manage CBC OP, one as execution platform to co-operation); Eurodistrict Strasbourg Ortenau…; Need to disseminate good examples of EGTCs (HU), to facilitate networking of EGTCs (MOT), to develop support from MS and EC Need for mobility and training in the field of cross border governance for elected people and technicians (Eurométropole) EGTC

27. Territorial cohesion within territorial cooperation : means integrated approach at the scale of functional cooperation areas requires on going support from EU through funding cooperation programmes, also requires alignment of regulations (through coordination); local, regional, national and European strategies (through common planning); and funding and improved multi level governance: EGTC appropriate tool First lessons to be tested in the discussion

28. Need of balance between top down and bottom up approaches, strategic focus and adaptation to different territorial contexts EU needed to improve strategy, coordination, facilitation, monitoring, capitalization and transfer. Differentiation of EC role: formal for EU legislation and funding; less formal for coordination and information (AT) But it doesn't necessarily mean additional competences, institutions or regulations. First lessons to be tested in the discussion

29. Thank you for your attention!