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