Transcript Ccross-border cooperation

Local/regional planning and cross-border
cooperation – incorporation of global threats
Košice 7 – 11 March 2016
Sigrid Skålnes
• Senior researcher
• Department for regional studies
• [email protected]
Border-regions in Europe






More than one third of EU citizens live and work in
Europe's border regions. Those borders have a
direct and indirect impact on their lives
Long history of cross-border cooperation in
different places in Europe
European Territorial Cooperation (the Interreg
programmes) plays an important role in removing
border obstacles and fostering cross-border
cooperation (25 years last year). Relatively small in
budget, the Interreg projects have achieved many
concrete outcomes for the citizens – whether in the
area of cross-border security, transport, education,
energy, health care, training or job creation.
For 2014-2020, more than EUR 10 billion will be
invested in cooperation between regions, of which
around €6.6 billion will go to cross-border regions.
This should ensure maximum impact and even
more effective use of the investments.
However, a significant economic potential remains
untapped in the border areas due to a lack of trust
or even the existence of negative attitudes among
neighbouring countries
EEA – reducing economic and social disparities and
strengthening bilateral relations with 16 EU
countries in Central and Southern Europe.
Cross-border cooperation
•
•
More or less institutionalised collaboration between contiguous subnational authorities across national
borders
The history of cross-border co-operation: In the Nordic countries – long
•
•
•
•
The Nordic Council -formed after the Second World War in 1952 to promote co-operation between the five
Nordic countries. Its first concrete result was the introduction in 1952 of a common labour market and free
movement across borders without passports for the countries' citizens.
Different organizations for border regions established
The Interreg programs (in the 90thies)
Different border regions and forms of co-operation
•
Two different forms of border regions in the Nordic countries
•
•
•
The national borders – barriers
•
•
•
Formal (Schengen), but also (minor) barriers connected to taxes, social security
Distances, lack of good communication lines, expensive transport
EU membership (Sweden and Finland 1995) – cross-border regional development took a more
prominent role in more sparsely populated territories, some of them with a meagre tradition of
ecoomic, social and cultural trans-national exchanges in several Nordic countries
•
•
•
Huge regions, sparsely populated, long distances, different languages
«Neighbouring-regions» – smaller regions, the cross-border traffic pretty intense. Language – understand each other
Howevever, some area had experiences from Nordic Council (e.g. North Calotte Region)
Interreg II – Interreg VI (2014-2020) – dfferent programs (also Norway)
Nordic regions: Interreg programmes constructed as an additional formalisation of more informal
trans-national coordination endeavours
Cross-border cooperation – results from a recent
Eurobarometer survey (DG Regio)
 A fifth of all citizens (including those not living in border regions) were aware that EU
regional funding is invested in this field. More work to be done to promote the Interreg
programmes.
 Awareness of EU funded cross-border cooperation activities

31% of people living in the border regions are aware of EU funded cross-border
cooperation activities in their region
 Reasons for crossing the border to a neighbouring country


76% of respondents have travelled to another country. Respondents living in the border
regions in the Northern and Central countries are generally more likely to travel abroad
Leisure activities and tourist visits: 76%, shopping (goods and services): 35%. Work or
business purposes: 14%
 Level of trust of people living in the border regions

61%: most people can be trusted
 Perceived obstacles to cross-border cooperation between border regions




Living in a border regions an opportunity (37%9 or an obstacle (4%). No impact (55%)
Language-problem (55%)
Socio-economic differences, legal and administrative differences – problems (40%)
Cultural differences
EU programs and Norway
• INTERREG
The programs under Interreg provide funding for interregional cooperation
across Europe, including for cooperation in the Nordic/ North-Sea region. The
overall objective is to improve the effectiveness of regional policies and
instruments. The program aims as capitalizing on the exchange of experiences
among partners who are ideally responsible for the development of their local and
regional policies.
• THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS
The EEA and Norway Grants are available to the 13 EU member countries that
joined the EU and the EEA in 2004, 2007 and 2013 as well as Greece, Spain and
Portugal. The grants are jointly financed by Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, but
Norway is the main contributor in both programs.
THE SECTORAL PROGRAMS
Norwegian acess to these programs fund is regulated in the EEA-Agreement. The
funding opportunities includes a variety and sectoral issues and does also include
the EU’s research and development programs, like Horizon 2020.
The overall objective is to reduce social and economic disparities in Europe
through international cooperation in order to realize EU’s overall policy goals
within different social sectors.
Promoting cooperation – the EEA Grants
Norwegian participation in EU programs
(2007-2013)
 Participation is distributed unevenly
between the three types of programmes,
only 28 municipalities and nine counties
participated in the programmes under
the EEA and Norway Grantsprogamme.
 Participation in Interreg and Sectoral
Programs higher.
 All counties and 236 (62%) individual
municipalities took part in an EUprogram in the period (20017-2013
 Geographical distribution of projects
under the Interreg-programme – tend to
be concentrated in municipalities that
are bordering the border between
Norway and Sweden
 Participation in the Sector Programs –
mostly in two programs
 Larger municipalities (populations) have
greater propensity than other to
partivipate in Eu-programs.
What did Norway learn from participating i crossborder programmes?

Policy development


Competance - the regional projects became more professional





The content of municipal activities and policies
Knowledge about other ways to work and solve problems
Experices from project work, international cooperation
Planning for a longer period and often for bigger projects
New partners
Another way of working, sometimes more buraucracy
 Capacity-building
 Skills development
• Individual level : professional input, inspiration, new ideas and self-affirmation. International contacts and networks that
often persist after the project period is over. Participation has significance for human resource development.
• Organizational level - Increased competence can result in new knowledge about initiatives and new opportunities that
directly affect the content of a service or a policy area. Participation also provides insight into how to organize a service
or business differently, leading to organizational changes.
• Knowledge building and awareness-building. Getting partners, building networks, learning from others, good practises


Influence on the regional policy – minor. Interreg cooperation often used as a part of the
implementation of existing goals. Meaning the counties’ political preferences and
strategies decide the Interreg-participation
However – also challenges: applications, bureaucracy, takes time…
Planning a project
 Has the idea something to do with the cohesion policy?
 Why cross-border cooperation? What will we gain from cooperation? (both/all
partners). Will each partner gain something from cooperation?
 Analyse the current situation in the project target region (development planning
analysis). Survey? Why – and to whom? Has this been done? Results? What did it
tell the project?
 The EU (cohesion policy) and EEA’s goals – the goals of the region?
 Local development cross-border strategy or stratgies? Do the regions on eithter
side of the border have the same goals? Same problems?
 Institutions and level - county or municipality? Planning for how many years?
Funding? Who will be involved?
 Common cross-border proposals – what kind of projects? Lead partner?
 Recommondation for regional and local self government – later
 Dissemination of results – later
 In short: where do we stand? What strategy to choose? And how to realise this
strategy (what input/projects to choose?)
Regional planning and global challenges
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Global trends, cohesion policy, national policy, regional policy
• Creating growth and jobs. Tackling climate change and energy dependence, and reducing
poverty and social exclusion
Climate change ( «the green city/the walking city/the engaged city/the compact city/the diverse city/the
including city»
Demografic changes
increasing or decreasing population – reasons?
sex – the gender pattern, how and why? And what does this mean for the society/for the future?
ages – need for care, education, work, etc?
migration - immigration/emigration – diverstity? Challenging the local culture?
refugees, asylum seekers
Labour market
• Common labor market across the border?
• Barriers/challenges (the border, tax systems, social security system)
Education and competence
• Language
• Access to education
• Cooperation between different institutions (e.g. universities)
Health and care
• Public health
Infrastructure
• Communication and transportation – easy to cross the border(s)?
• Near/far from a market?
Global trends, cohesion
policy, regional polircy
Climate
Bio-gas (Nord: Lappland, Tornedalen)
Labour and
employment
Creating new jobs, developing the local society
Communication,
transportation and
infrastructure
ROADEX-network set up to guarantee the reliability of roads,
ensuring local residents have access to these community
lifelines and to indigenous industries such as fishing, farming
and forestry ( Finland, Scotland, Norway and Sweden and all of
Greenland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands)
Education and
competence
Acess to education
Health and care
Children, older people
Public security and
protection
Preparing for Future Crisis Management
(Sverige-Norge, Karlstad University: Hedmark, Värmland,
Dalarne)
Nordland county: Local food as engine for local business
(Innovation and the knowledge economy) The partnership consists of 13
partners from 9 countries (NO, SE, UK, CH, IT, ES, EH, SI and BG).
Research and innovation, entrepreneurship
Development, Evaluation and Optimization of Measures to Reduce the
Impact on the Environment from Mining Activities in Northern Regions
(NORD: Lappland, Norrbotten, Troms)
NORPÅ –Adapting the vocational traing in the North Calotte (Nord:
Finnmark, Troms, Nordland, Norrbotten)
Climate canges, resources
Natural and tecnological
changes