Trends in cross-border governance in Europe: From space to flows?

1. Trends in cross-border governance in Europe: From space to flows? Martin Klatt, PhD. Associate Professor of Contemporary History Dept. of Border Region Studies Sønderborg

2. Four dimensions of borders (Anderson)* • Instruments of state policy • Policies and practices of governments are controlled by the degree of de facto control which they have over the state frontier • Borders are markers of identity • Border is a term of discourse *Malcolm Anderson: Frontiers, Territory and State Formation in the Modern World, Oxford 1996

3. A borderless Europe? • Fourfreedoms: goods, capital, services, people • Art. 13 SEA (1986): ”the internalmarketshallcomprise an areawithoutinternalfrontiers” • 1985 (impl. 1995): Schengen agreement • No regularpassportcontrol • No permanent border guard installations • No reduced speed or othertrafficimpediments at the border • No permanent video surveillance/electronicregistration of licenseplates etc.

4. Schengen area

5. In the border regions • Euroregions, Eurodistricts, European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) • Idea: institutionalisedcross-border region • Structure (usual) • Some kind of agreement (no bilateral treaty) • Public-private • Secretariat • Assembly • Budget (membership dues, Interreg)

6. Institutionalised Cross-border regions in 2011 Source: Association of European Border Regions

7. Interreg (Territorial CooperationInitiative) • EU program, since 1991, at present in its 4th fundingperiod (2007-13) • Funds long-term projects (up to 75 %) • Partners have to becross-border • Integrated project management • Integrativeeffect • Priorities re-negotiatedeveryfundingperiod, between EU Commission (DG Regio), regions (Committee of Regions)

8. Interreg A-regions: Euroregions = Interreg regions?

9. Europe of (Cross-Border) Regions? • Keating: regionalization of power is not the aim of EU Regional Policies, nor in the interest of nation states* • Schmitt-Egner: Transnational Regionalism – regions develop cross-border action space§ • Multi-level governance: Regions and Cross-border Regions have become important players in the EU’s system of multilevel governance • Cross-border regions as Players within the system of multi-levelgovernance (Perkmann, Schmitt-Egner) • Or the nation statesmaking the final decisions? *M. Keating: (2008) A Quarter Century of the Europe of Regions, Regional and Federal Studies 18 (5), 629-635 §P- Schmitt-Egner: TransnationalerRegionalismus als Gegenstand der Politikwissenschaft, in: Bellers/Rosenthal (eds.): Die Gesellschaftliche Basis von Aussenpolitik…, Münster 2001

10. Why should border regions cooperate? • Blatter/Clement:* • 2 starting points for cross-border cooperation • - material interdependencies and spillovers across international borders that must be jointly addressed (possible synergies/avoid negative externalities • - Intrastate tensions/cleavages that motivate regional actors to look for allies across the border *J. Blatter/N. Clement: Transborder Collaboration in Europe and North America: Explaining Similarities and Differences, in: van Houtum/van der Velde (eds): Borders, Regions and People, London 2000

11. Why engage in cross-border cooperation (simplified)?

12. E. Brunet-Jailly: Theorizing Borders: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Geopolitics 10, 2005, p. 645

13. Blatter: Spaces of Place and Spaces of Flow* • Two types of MLG • Type I: Federal, jurisdictionsaroundcommunities • Type II: Functional, jurisdictionsaround policy problems • RQ: Multiplication of gov’tlevels→ extended version of Federalism? Or a process of deterritorialisation, whereinst. of governanceareunbundledinto a functionallydifferentiated system with variable geographicscales *Joachim Blatter: From 'Spaces of Place' to 'Spaces of Flow'? Territorial and Functional Governance in Cross-border Regions in Europe and North America, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28 (2004)

14. ”Governance” • Encyclopedia Britannica refers to medieval instruments of royal governance • Wikipedia: ”governance is what government does” • Hooghe and Marks: governance dispersed across multiple centres of authority • Blatter: • territorial – federal principle • functional governance – policy oriented

15. Policy entrepreneurship* • Special EU system: weak formal powers, no policy implementation center • CBRs: policy driven rather than market driven cases of local cross-border integration • CBRs as implementer of EU policies (Interreg) Markus Perkmann (2007): Policy entrepreneurship and multilevel governance: a comparative study of European cross-border regions, Environment and Planning C, Vol. 25, 861-897

21. Øresund – regional cross-border statistics

22. ”Sleepingcustoms officers” – art project in the Euregio (DE-NL)

23. Information services

25. An example: Region Sønderjylland-Schleswig – re-enacting a region?

26. Forms of cooperation • Phase: informal, informative contacts at political level phase • Phase: Concrete cooperation on specific cross-border issues • Cultural events 1950’s • Pollution in Flensborg Fjord 1971 • Phase: establishment of cross-border institutions – euroregion 1997 • Phase – multiplying of coop. (post 2000)

27. Cooperation • ManyInterreg-projects • Cross-border express bus (discontinued) • Cross-border cycle route • Cross-border children’s theatre • Cross-border culturalprojects • Cross-border universityeducations • Cross-border business cooperation • Etc.etc.etc. • Info centre Border

29. New cross-border territories? • Euroregions as a new type of region spanning national borders? • Patchy record regarding institution-building and impact on the cross-border environment • EU commission assesses its difficult to induce genuine cross-border projects (Interreg) • Multilevel governance? • Independent political actors? • Or just ”policy entrepreneurs”?

30. Conclusion • Cross-border governanceremains a diffuse term • Aspects: • CBRs as facilitator for cross-border projects and cross-border networks • CBRs as information aggregator • CBRs as lobbyists for themselves at national and EU level • But nolevel in a federal hierarchy • CBRs as a non-territorial, but functionalspace • Risk: from multilevelgovernance to multilevelconfusion!

31. Conclusion II: Cross-border networks • Cross-border governance does not exist in the traditional form of governance by authority • Clear identification of ‘us’ and ‘them’, divided by the border • Regional partners can define common interests and lobby for them at national level • Flexible networks of demand characterize the cooperation • Public and private actors intertwine • Cross-border institutions function as a mediator and/or think tank • Not so different from the US-Canada case