the challenge of genuine territorial co-operation lessons from the interreg iiib north-west europe...
Post on 20-Jan-2018
218 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
THE CHALLENGE OF GENUINE TERRITORIAL CO-OPERATION
Lessons from the INTERREG IIIBNorth-West Europe experience
Philippe DOUCET
INTERREG IIIB NWE Programme Manager
DG REGIO OPEN DAYSTuesday 28 September 2004Workshop RG10 « Co-operation between regions »
INTERREG III GUIDELINES
Non complacent INTERREG II balance sheet
INTERREG III projects must be « clearly cross-border / transnational in nature »
Easier said than done !
How did NWE take the message on board?
Four Points
• The INTERREG IIIB NWE Programme in a nutshell
• « Genuine co-operation standards » defined at the Programme launch
• Four degrees of territorial co-operation intensity
• Genuine territorial co-operation in
practice
INTERREG IIIB NWE in a nutshell: The co-operation area
FranceGermany
United Kingdom
Ireland
BelgiumLuxembourg
Netherlands
Switzerland
FR : Alsace, Basse-Normandie, Bourgogne, Bretagne, Centre, Champagne-Ardennes, Franche-Comté, Haute-Normandie, Île de France, Lorraine, Nord-Pas de Calais, Pays de la Loire, Picardie
DE : Baden - Württemberg, part of Bayern (Ober-, Mittel-, Unterfranken and Schwaben), Hessen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Rheinland-Pfalz, Saarland
NL : Flevoland, Gelderland, Limburg, Noord-Brabant, Noord-Holland, Overijssel, Utrecht, Zeeland, Zuid-Holland
BE : Whole country
UK : Whole country
LU : Whole country
IR : Whole country
CH : Aargau, Basel-Landschaft, Basel-Stadt, Bern, Glarus, Jura, Luzern, Neuchâtel, Nidwalden, Obwalden, Schwyz, Solothurn, Uri, Zug, Zürich
787.400 km2 171 million inhab.
One of the highest population densities in Europe
Priority 1: An attractive and coherent system of cities, towns and regions
Priority 2: External and internal accessibility
Priority 3: Sustainable management of water resources and prevention of flood damages
Priority 4: Sustainable development, prudent management and protection of other natural resources and of cultural heritage
Priority 5: Promoting the maritime potential of NWE and its territorial integration across seas
INTERREG IIIB NWE in a nutshell:€315m. ERDF allocated to five Priorities
INTERREG IIIB NWE in a nutshell:76 Approved Projects (€275m. ERDF)
2002 2003 2004First call (Spring) :HST Platform (2.1)HST Platform (2.1)LIRA-II (2.1)LIRA-II (2.1)JAF (3.2)JAF (3.2)SAIL-II (5.2)SAIL-II (5.2)
Second call (Autumn)SCALDIT (3.1)SCALDIT (3.1)Hospital Cooperation (2.2)Hospital Cooperation (2.2)TESIS (2.2)TESIS (2.2)AMEWAM (3.1)AMEWAM (3.1)CFM (3.2)CFM (3.2)FOWARA (3.2)FOWARA (3.2)FAR (3.2)FAR (3.2)SAUL (1.1)SAUL (1.1)SOS II (4.2)SOS II (4.2)ReUrba II (1.1)ReUrba II (1.1)
Third call (Spring) :ProgressProgress (4.1)(4.1)LIIIFT (2.1)LIIIFT (2.1)Finesse (5.1)Finesse (5.1)HSTintegration (2.1)HSTintegration (2.1)Maya II (5.1)Maya II (5.1)Warela (3.1)Warela (3.1)Blue Links (2.1)Blue Links (2.1)Septentrion (4.2)Septentrion (4.2)WIHCC (1.2)WIHCC (1.2)EGHN (4.2)EGHN (4.2)Espace (3.1)Espace (3.1)Europolis (1.2)Europolis (1.2)CrobusParks (1.2)CrobusParks (1.2)Brain Drain (1.2)Brain Drain (1.2)Cross CutCross Cut (4.2) (4.2)Revit (1.1)Revit (1.1)NENSI (1.2)NENSI (1.2)Boundless Park (4.1)Boundless Park (4.1)Rhinenet (3.1) Rhinenet (3.1) Freude am Fluss (3.2)Freude am Fluss (3.2)SDF (3.2)SDF (3.2)Artery (1.2)Artery (1.2)ProHolz – ProBois (4.1)ProHolz – ProBois (4.1)Encourage (4.1) Encourage (4.1) SAFER (3.2)SAFER (3.2)NewTasc (1.2)NewTasc (1.2)
Fourth call (Autumn) :Polynet (1.2)Polynet (1.2)GeoparksGeoparks (4.1) (4.1)Trust (3.1)Trust (3.1)Optimum2 (2.1)Optimum2 (2.1)Planarch 2 (4.2)Planarch 2 (4.2)ERIH II (4.2)ERIH II (4.2)Urban Water (3.1)Urban Water (3.1)MESH (5.2)MESH (5.2)TIMIS (3.2)TIMIS (3.2)Eproc (2.2)Eproc (2.2)Dart (1.2)Dart (1.2)SPAN (1.2)SPAN (1.2)Noah (3.2)Noah (3.2)Minewater (4.1)Minewater (4.1)Crossing the Lines (4.2Crossing the Lines (4.2))Eurovéloroute (2.1)Eurovéloroute (2.1)Cycleau (5.2)Cycleau (5.2)Berisp (4.1)Berisp (4.1)NOFDP (3.1)NOFDP (3.1)
Fifth call (Spring) :NWE DELTA (5.2)NWE DELTA (5.2)HST CONNECT (2.1)HST CONNECT (2.1)CSI Creating a Setting for CSI Creating a Setting for Investment (1.1)Investment (1.1)Image (1.1)Image (1.1)COREPOINT (5.2)COREPOINT (5.2)Minewater (1.1)Minewater (1.1)CITIZEN FIRST (2.2)CITIZEN FIRST (2.2)REDUCE (4.1)REDUCE (4.1)SUSCIT (1.1)SUSCIT (1.1)IT IS (2.2)IT IS (2.2)Heath (4.1)Heath (4.1)Sand (3.2)Sand (3.2)VEPS (2.2)VEPS (2.2)BRANCH (4.1)BRANCH (4.1)ELFE (2.2)ELFE (2.2)IPPN InterPortsPromotioNet (5.1)IPPN InterPortsPromotioNet (5.1)ISLA (1.2)ISLA (1.2)EMDI (5.2)EMDI (5.2)
Examples:• short-sea shipping, interoperability of transport networks,• floods in a transnational river basin,• technology transfer between SMEs / Centres of R&TD excellence of various
countries
« Transnational » vs « Common » Issue
A “transnational issue” cannot be tackled satisfactorily without
transnational co-operation
A “common issue” is faced by several regions or cities, but can be tackled
at regional or local level: co-operation schemes may bring about an added
value (e.g. transfer of know-how), but are not essential to address the issue
itselfExamples:• redevelopment of brown-filed sites• urban public transport• open spaces, etc.
• A modest tentative outline of a joint transnational territorial strategy
• An interface between co-operation and the ESDP
• Strong emphasis on transnational issues
• Subsidiarity applied to the use of public funding ?
Genuine co-operation standards:
the NWE Spatial Vision ambitions
Genuine co-operation standards:NWE project eligibility criteria
• The project is “transnational”: in principle, it involves co-operating partners from at least two different countries of the NWE area;
• Geographic scope of the project renders it ineligible under INTERREG IIIA;
• Tangible and innovative results to thecommon benefit of all partners [1];
[1] This condition will not be considered fulfilled if the project consists of a mere exchange of experience, or a series of seminars/events, or the joint production of a working document (guide of good practice, drawing up of a joint strategy without implementation, etc.)
Four degrees of territorial co-operation intensity 1) Exchange of experience:
partners compare their respective practices
2) Transfer of know-how:partners change their practice by learning from other partners
3) Resource pooling:partners put human, technical, financial and other resources in common to increase their efficiency (generally to reach a critical mass that would remain inaccessible on an individual basis)
4) Tackling transnational issues
Genuine territorial co-operation
in practice: the reactive approach
Many project ideas spontaneously submitted consisted in an exchange of experience
Pivotal role of the “NWE project development network”
Interactive process significant upgrading of the initial draft application
No transnational issues addressed
Genuine territorial co-operation in practice: the proactive approach
To generate projects on transnational issues, the involvement of key-players is needed
Some of them have hardly or never heard of INTERREG!
A targeted and intense communication strategy is essential
Genuine territorial co-operation in practice: tangible results
Whatever the issue addressed,all the NWE projects implement a joint co-operation agenda, withclear common benefits.
A new way of building theEuropean house whiledeveloping a cross-culturalEuropean identity
Post-2006 co-operation: continue mobilising key
actors around key projects over the next two
years
The NWE Spatial Vision is being turned into a
strategic action framework
What next?
Thank you for your attention!
More information can be found on the NWE website:
http://www.nweurope.org
Binding North West Europe together
top related