Parallel Workshop Session: Workshop 2.3 Territorial Cooperation at Different Scales ESPON Internal...

Parallel Workshop Session: Workshop 2.3

Territorial Cooperation at Different Scales

ESPON Internal Seminar 2012 “Territorial Development Opportunities in Europe and its

Neighbourhood to Foster Global Competitiveness”

Chair: Kieran Kearney, ESPON CU

Facilitator: Antti Roose, Estonia ECP

Reporter (to plenary): Cliff Hague

0945: Introduction

0950: Presentations by ESPON projects and MEDESS-4MS structured by key questions

1045: Coffee break

1115: Presentations (continued)

1135: Short policymaker interventions and plenary discussion

1250: Concluding statement by reporteur

1300: Close

Organisation and structure

2

Presenters:

• Lisa Van Well, Nordregio: ESPON TANGO – Territorial Approaches for New Governance

• Lynne McGowan, University of Liverpool: ESPON ESTADOR - European Seas and Territorial Development, Opportunities and Risks

• George Zodiatis, Mediterranean Decision Support System for Marine Safety

• Katarzyna Zawalinska, EUROREG: ESPON TERCO - European Territorial Cooperation as a Factor of Growth, Jobs and Quality of Life

• Jürgen Pucher, Metis: ESPON TerrEvi – Territorial Evidence Packs for Structural Funds

Short policy interventions:

• Odd Godal, Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Regional development

• Rune Rafaelsen, The Barents Co-Operation

Discussants

3

Workshop 2.1 – key questions for ESPON projects

4

1. What are the main observations or conclusions - for Europe, its regions and cities - in relation to “territorial cooperation, current challenges and opportunities for territorial development and good governance models”?

2. How do developments in Europe´s neighbourhood influence the territorial development in Europe and vice-versa?

3. What opportunities and challenges exists for Europe and its neighbourhood for increasing competitiveness through further cooperation and integration?

• As a whole, the share of the neighborhood in the total number of international bilateral treaties is pretty high: 46% in September 2011.

• But without NO, SW, IS, the number of treaties falls to 193, (24%): 7% for Mediterranean countries, 8% for Western Balkans, 10% for Eastern neighbors, include. Russia.

• When looking at the evolution of the importance of the neighborhood in bilateral treaties, the neighbor countries are more and more important. However, the trends are not the same for all the parts of the neighborhood.

• The intensification of political relations is clear in the East (Russia, Ukraine, Moldova), except for Belarus. Besides, the political cooperation with the Western Balkans countries is also getting stronger.

• On the contrary, the Mediterranean neighborhood is generally far behind as if the Mediterranean Sea was a strong political limit, hampering the regional integration.

• 5

A Map Snapshot

Bilateral Treaties

5

PART I

What are the main observations or conclusions – for Europe, its regions and cities - in

relation to “territorial cooperation, current challenges and opportunities for territorial

development and good governance models”?

Trends and observations

6

Lisa Van Well, Nordregio: ESPON TANGO – Territorial Approaches for New

Governance


7

TANGO: Territorial Trends (1)

8

• Governance matters and territorial governance matters for territorial cohesion…but how, why, under which circumstances?

• Three of 12 case studies deal with Territorial Cooperation:

1) Cross-border cooperation Rhine Basin

2) Governance of natural areas in the Alpine Adriatic area (transnational)

3) Territorial climate change governance in the Baltic Sea Region (macro- regional)

• A clear territorial, legal and administrative framework, that allows formulating general targets on a cross-border level or transnational level and provides enough flexibility for actions on the local level, can help to achieve territorial goals


9

• Macro-regions as new arenas to facilitate territorial cooperation: Establishing a climate change adaptation strategy within the EUSBSR with “no new legislation, institutions or instruments” needs to take place within existing governance constellations (BSR Programme: BaltCICA, BaltAdapt) projects)

• Climate change adaption strategy within EUSBSR needs:

1. Normative (informal) governing of the institutional complexity of the issue (visions and goals)

2. Coordination of actors and actions, existing EU instruments

3. Knowledge brokerage functions

4. Mobilising political commitment

5. Building institutional capacity


10

Lynne McGowan, University of Liverpool: ESPON ESTADOR - European Seas and

Territorial Development, Opportunities and Risks


11

• Conceptual Challenges: Territorial is not just terrestrial – the marine environment is an integral part of EU (ESPON) space and we have undervalued the importance of land-sea interactions in shaping territorial development

1. territorial cooperation, current challenges and opportunities for territorial development, good governance models (ESTADOR)

12

Very low intensity

Low intensity

Medium intensity

High intensity

Very high intensity

Sea (Enviromental Pressures and Flows) Land (Economic Significance)

No Data

Very low intensity

Low intensity

Medium intensity

High intensity

Very high intens

Land-Sea Interactions

13

• Opportunities: Integrated Maritime Policy, Blue Growth recognizing this agenda, supporting activities with high growth potential e.g. short sea shipping, wind energy, blue biotech

Abo

veM

ean

Un

der

Me

an

0

-8,643 to -6,001

-6,000 to -3,001

-3,000 to -1

1 to 3,000

3,001 to 9,000

9,001 to 18,768 No dat

GDP in coastal regions (2009) compared to national averages



14

Good Governance

• Emergence of marine planning parallel to terrestrial planning - how do they connect?

• Examples of governance are often based on national jurisdictions, maritime flows and environmental quality shaped by transnational activities.

• Some good examples of informal transnational co-operation as well as formal structures and processes (ESaTDOR case studies, e.g. Northern Dimension, Adriatic-Ionian Initiative, Wadden Sea)

Katarzyna Zawalinska, EUROREG:

ESPON TERCO - European Territorial Cooperation as a Factor of Growth, Jobs

and Quality of Life


15

* Different scales of TC in TERCO:

Territorial co-operation (TC) at different scales (TERCO)

16

* At program level TERCO investigated: Twinning cities, INTERREG A, B ,C, transcontinental co-operation and co-operation with Neighbourhood countries.

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

Acores

Guyane

Madeira

Réunion

Canarias

MartiniqueGuadeloupe

Valletta

Roma

Riga

Oslo

Bern

Wien

Kyiv

Vaduz

Paris

Praha

Minsk

Tounis

Lisboa

Athina

Skopje

Zagreb

Ankara

MadridTirana

Sofiya

London

Berlin

Dublin

Tallinn

Nicosia

Beograd

Vilnius

Kishinev

Sarajevo

Helsinki

Budapest

Warszawa

Podgorica

El-Jazair

Stockholm

Reykjavik

København

Bucuresti

Amsterdam

Luxembourg

Bruxelles/Brussel

Ljubljana

Bratislava

Regional level: NUTS 2, 2006; NUTS 0 for NO and CHSource: EUROREG, University of Warsaw, 2011

Origin of data: ESPON TERCO Project, 2012© EuroGeographics Association for administrative boundaries

This map does notnecessarily reflect theopinion of the ESPONMonitoring Committee

© EUROREG, ESPON TERCO Project, 2012

0214 748 364 107 374 1820 500250

km

Territorial cooperation in different types of regions

Type 1: Twinning city oriented territorial co-operation

Type 2: INTERREG oriented with high cooperation beyond the ESPON area

Type 3: Relatively low range and intensity of territorial cooperation

Type 4: Hubs of territorial cooperation (resulting from specific administrative divisions)

Type 5: Medium range and intensity of territorial co-operation (constituting the ESPON area average)

No data

* At regional level TERCO created typology of co-operation in different types of regions

* At individual project/beneficiaries level TERCO created model of successful territorial co-operation

Main programs of TC analysed in TERCO

Twinning City

Cross-border(incl. Interreg A)

Transnational(incl. Interreg B)

Interregional(incl. Interreg C)

Trans-continental

Other

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

Acores

Guyane

Madeira

Réunion

Canarias

MartiniqueGuadeloupe

Valletta

Roma

Riga

Oslo

Bern

Wien

Kyiv

Vaduz

Paris

Praha

Minsk

Tounis

Lisboa

Athina

Skopje

Zagreb

Ankara

MadridTirana

Sofiya

London

Berlin

Dublin

Tallinn

Nicosia

Beograd

Vilnius

Kishinev

Sarajevo

Helsinki

Budapest

Warszawa

Podgorica

El-Jazair

Stockholm

Reykjavik

København

Bucuresti

Amsterdam

Luxembourg

Bruxelles/Brussel

Ljubljana

Bratislava

Regional level: NUTS 2, 2006; NUTS 0 for NO and CHSource: EUROREG, University of Warsaw, 2011

Origin of data: ESPON TERCO Project, 2012© EuroGeographics Association for administrative boundaries

This map does notnecessarily reflect theopinion of the ESPONMonitoring Committee

© EUROREG, ESPON TERCO Project, 2012

0214 748 364 107 374 1820 500250

km

Territorial cooperation in different types of regions

Type 1: Twinning city oriented territorial co-operation

Type 2: INTERREG oriented with high cooperation beyond the ESPON area

Type 3: Relatively low range and intensity of territorial cooperation

Type 4: Hubs of territorial cooperation (resulting from specific administrative divisions)

Type 5: Medium range and intensity of territorial co-operation (constituting the ESPON area average)

No data

Higher probability of TC success if:

* initiated by NGOs, local or regional government (rather than Euroregions and other cross-border institutions)

* funding comes from own or EU sources (rather than public-private or foreign partners)

* co-operation is based on simple forms of collaboration (rather than jointly implementing common actions or investments),

*domain relates to economy, tourism, culture, natural environment or physical infrastructure.

• Challenge1: territorial co-operation as a means of territorial integration not often happens

Challenges of territorial co-operation (TERCO)

17

• Challenge 2: territorial co-operation fostering economic development and competitiveness yes, but more indirectly

• Challenge 3: territorial co-operation building good neighbourhood relations Finland-Russia, Poland-Ukraine, Spain-Morocco

• Challenge 4: territorial co-operation reducing negative border effects between stronger and weaker regions or OMS vs NMS

• Challenge 5: networking of cities via TC co-operation linking EU with Neighbourhood countries

• Challenge 6: Unification of natural ecsystems divided by borders

Territorial integration

Tota

l

Case Study / Border

Twin

ning

Citi

es

INTE

RREG

A

INTE

RREG

B

INTE

RREG

C

Tran

scon

tinen

tal

Row%

Belgium-France 0.0 11.1 18.5 0.0 7.4 100.0

Finland-Russia 11.1 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Poland-Slovakia-Ukraine

20 8.9 1.8 2 5 100.0

Poland-CzechR.-Germany

23.3 25.6 2 2.3 0.0 100.0

Greece-Turkey-Bulgaria

25.9 38.9 13.0 13.0 1.9 100.0

UK-Norway-Sweden 21.1 20 14.1 7.0 7.0 100.0

Spain-Morocco, Uruguay, Argentina

4.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 13.6 100.0

Quality of life

Quality of natural environment

Impact on Indicators

Job creation

Economic growth

56.8

70.4

66.2

58.8

48.1

0 20 40 60 80 100

57.3

68.0

75.4

68.6

53.7

% of cases with experience in ITC

69.8

78.1

81.5

74.5

53.7


55.8

71.0

73.8

68.6

50.0


33.6

13.4

18.6

16.7

34.6

22.1

12.6

11.6

13.3

26.9

27.4

39.5

44.2

46.7

23.1

12.4

29.4

23.3

20.0

15.4

4.4

5.0

2.3

3.3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Twinning Cities

INTERREG A

INTERREG B

INTERREG C

Transcontinental

35.1

14.8

22.4

14.3

27.6

23.7

20.0

30.6

22.9

17.2

27.2

30.4

24.5

14.3

44.8

10.5

29.6

18.4

42.9

10.3

3.5

5.2

4.1

5.7

Twinning Cities

INTERREG A

INTERREG B

INTERREG C

Transcontinental

18.7

6.8

5.7

13.2

20.7

16.5

13.6

26.4

18.4

10.3

42.4

50.8

41.5

42.1

51.7

17.3

25.8

22.6

23.7

13.8

5.0

3.0

3.8

2.6

3.4

Twinning Cities

INTERREG A

INTERREG B

INTERREG C

Transcontinental

55.0

23.3

43.8

40.0

29.6

26.1

37.5

33.3

34.3

25.9

14.4

30.0

12.5

17.1

33.3

2.7

8.3

10.4

5.7

11.1

1.8

0.8

2.9

Twinning Cities

INTERREG A

INTERREG B

INTERREG C

Transcontinental

41.0

13.9

31.4

19.4

27.6

28.7

21.3

31.4

41.7

20.7

21.3

43.4

21.6

33.3

44.8

8.2

21.3

15.7

5.6

3.4

0.8

3.4

Twinning Cities

INTERREG A

INTERREG B

INTERREG C

Transcontinental

minimal little moderate large very substancial

61.3

72.2

78.5

70.6

53.7

% of valid answers

• TC contributes to socio-economic development via institutional capacity-building, the professionalisation of staff, the circulation of innovative management ideas and strategies.

Territorial co-operation and territorial development (TERCO)

18

Impact on flows and exchanges

Educational exchange

Migration

Social commuting

Tourism

Commuting for work

FDI

International trade

51.8

57.4

56.9

47.1

51.9

59.3

64.5

58.5

47.1

55.6

26.8

31.8

43.2

32.1

26.5

22.8

19.6

15.9

17.9

14.7

26.0

33.6

31.8

32.1

38.2

15.4

13.1

9.1

17.9

14.7

8.9

1.9

5.9

0 20 40 60 80 100

Twinning Cities

INTERREG A

INTERREG B

INTERREG C

Transcontinental

49.5

52.6

64.9

58.3

42.9

29.1

18.6

13.5

20.8

25.0

12.6

22.7

10.8

12.5

25.0

4.9

6.2

8.1

4.2

7.1

3.9

2.7

4.2

Twinning Cities

INTERREG A

INTERREG B

INTERREG C

Transcontinental

23.7

18.3

39.5

37.5

43.3

20.3

11.9

28.9

37.5

16.7

28.0

42.2

21.1

12.5

26.7

22.0

21.1

7.9

8.3

13.3

5.9

6.4

2.6

4.2

Twinning Cities

INTERREG A

INTERREG B

INTERREG C

Transcontinental

11.5

8.4

17.3

6.5

33.3

17.3

8.4

13.5

35.5

15.2

31.7

34.4

46.2

35.5

21.2

27.3

37.4

15.4

16.1

27.3

12.2

11.5

7.7

6.5

3.0

Twinning Cities

INTERREG A

INTERREG B

INTERREG C

Transcontinental

54.5

30.7

52.8

45.8

57.1

26.3

24.8

27.8

37.5

14.3

13.1

29.7

16.7

8.3

17.9

4.0

12.9

2.8

8.3

10.7

2.0

2.0

Twinning Cities

INTERREG A

INTERREG B

INTERREG C

Transcontinental

54.1

44.7

63.9

54.2

44.8

21.4

23.3

16.7

25.0

20.7

20.4

21.4

11.1

12.5

24.1

3.1

7.8

5.6

4.2

10.3

1.0

2.9

2.8

4.2

Twinning Cities

INTERREG A

INTERREG B

INTERREG C

Transcontinental

51.0

34.6

51.2

56.5

40.6

18.3

33.6

22.0

26.1

15.6

21.2

20.6

22.0

17.4

28.1

7.7

8.4

4.9

9.4

1.9

2.8

6.3

Twinning Cities

INTERREG A

INTERREG B

INTERREG C

Transcontinental

minimal little moderate large very substancial

61.8

63.3

67.7

54.9

63.0

0 20 40 60 80 100

69.8

77.5

80.0

60.8

61.1

49.7

59.8

55.4

47.1

51.9

49.2

60.9

55.4

47.1

53.7

52.3

63.3

63.1

45.1

59.3

% of valid answers

• TC would translate more into territorial development if it fosters more flows across borders, e.g. trade, FDI, tourists, etc.

• Territorial co-operation is important for territorial development of poorer, peripheral and border regions

• There is no ideal, generic framework for ideal TC governance

• The best working governance is based on broad partnerships (involving the state, the private sector and foundations as well as civil society at large).

• Attracting business to the co-operation partnership would be beneficial

• Co-operation of sustainable partnerships, rather than mere projects, should be a target of multi-annual support.

• Continuity and consistency of co-operation in TC must be supported as key factors of its efficiency.

• Key element is a user-friendly delivery mechanisms.

• EGTC regulation is a good example of improvements in TC governance

• Good governance practices are many and their number increases with complexity of the programs. In new MS are usually ad-hoc, locally driven initiatives while in old MS they are more advanced structures and solutions

Good governance and good practices of territorial co-operation (TERCO)

19

Jürgen Pucher, Metis:

ESPON TerrEvi – Territorial Evidence Packs for Structural Funds


20

The TerrEvi case studies

21

The TerrEvi case studies

22

• In 2013 the Territorial Evidence Packs (TEP) for the TerrEvi project will be elaborated

• 5 TNC areas, 1 CBC area and 4 regional programmes will be receiving this detailed analysis aiming at supporting the programming activities for the next period

• Extended factsheets, workshop together with the programme and a coherent reporting will be the main steps on the path to the TEP

Territorial Evidence Packs (TerrEvi)

23

Territorial Evidence Packs – Overview cases (TerrEvi)

24

TNC (blue line) CBC (purple line) Regional (red filling)

Alpine Space Slovakia - Austria Molise

Atlantic Area Umbria

North West Europe Thessalia

North Sea Norte

South East Europe

How do developments in Europe´s neighbourhood influence the territorial development in Europe and vice-versa?

Neighbourhood influence

25


Governance


26

• Includes bottom-up regulatory governance and top-down normative governance

• Integrating Russia in

the strategy: During Russian

presidency of CBSS highlight macro-

regional CCA strategy.

• Russia involved through strong

Commitment to CBSS

TANGO: Developments in Europe’s Neighbourhood

27




28

• Some good established examples of cooperation between EU and neighbours on environmental protection, e.g. OSPAR, HELCOM – had positive impacts on their respective regions and in terms of facilitating more integrated approaches to planning.

• Shipping – increased flows of goods and people within/between EU and rest of world – opening up new markets. But – growing importance of non-EU ports affects position in global trade.

• Energy – Europe able to increase energy supplies from N Africa, Black Sea, Russia etc., but at same time need to increase self sufficiency – potential to export renewable energy expertise.

How do developments in Europe´s neighborhood influence the territorial development in Europe and vice-versa? (ESTADOR)

29



and Quality of Life


30

• Neighbourhood countries’ preferences towards thematic domains of TC include: infrastructural projects, cultural events, educational exchange, emigration issues.

Territorial co-operation (TC) with neighbourhood countries (TERCO)

31

• TC with Neighbourhood countries’ create opportunity for border

regions of ESPON territory

• Usually lower scope of territorial cooperation prevails in co-operation with Neighbourhood countries (e.g. exchange of experience). However it play an important introductory role to more advanced TC projects.

0,010,020,030,040,050,060,070,080,090,0

Fin

lan

d-Ru

ssia

Po

lan

d-Slo

vaki

a-

Ukr

ain

e

Gre

ece-

Turk

ey-

Bu

lgar

ia

UK-

No

rway-

Swe

de

n

% o

f an

swe

rs

Level/scope of TC with Neibourhood countries

1. Exchanging experience

2. Advising to solve similar problems

3. Sharing tools to tackle a common problem

4. Common actions to solve local problems

5. Implementing a spatial strategy

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ArgentineUrugayTurkey

UkraineRussia

FinlandGreece

NorwayScotlandGermany

SwedenBelgium

SpainFrance

CzechSlovakia

PolandBulgaria

YES

NO

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ArgentineUrugayTurkey

UkraineRussia

FinlandGreece

NorwayScotlandGermany

SwedenBelgium

SpainFrance

CzechSlovakia

PolandBulgaria

YES

NO

Should TC include infrastructure investment?




32

• Macro-Regions like the EUSDR or the EUSBSR are one of the cooperative links between the EU and its neighbours.

• Cooperation should always go beyond administrative borders. This is especially the case for fields like environment, traffic, transportation, mobility, security etc.

• Many CBC and TNC analysed in the TerrEvi factsheets are also part of a European Macro-Region (South East Europe – Danube Programme)

Macro-Regions connect Europe and its neighbours (TerrEvi)

33

PART III

What opportunities and challenges exists for Europe and its neighbourhood for increasing

competitiveness through further cooperation and integration?

Competitiveness through cooperation?

34


Governance


35

• Need to find a “home” for the strategy: Further need for coordination of policies, programmes and projects that contribute to it, including those with Russia

1. Common territorial rationale (added value of transnational level)

2. Long-term agenda (transcends ”project” level)

3. New modes of governance for territorial cohesion

4. Political resources (legitimacy) and institutional capacity

5. Concrete action and coordination among actors

• Reduce governance complexity rather than add to it!

TANGO: Opportunities and Challenges of EUSBSR - CCA

36




37

• Challenges – finding the most effective instruments to manage transboundary issues (appropriate scale, formal vs. informal cooperation, incentives) allowing for economic development but recognising differing degrees of environmental resilience in different sea regions.

• Opportunities - Cooperation through bilateral/transnational agreements, whether hard or “soft” law, can help to promote more sustainable resource use in areas where lack of appropriate governance/management has hindered development (e.g. Barents Treaty)

• Integrated Maritime Policy, Blue Growth etc. can stimulate integration between land and sea, but need to be properly embedded within spatial planning processes. Can sea basin strategies unlock the potential for Blue Growth?

3. What opportunities and challenges exists for Europe and its neighbourhood for increasing competitiveness through further cooperation and integration? (ESTADOR)

38



and Quality of Life


39

• The issue-based approach to TC and good governance practices need to be implemented.

• Re-thinking strategic thematic domains of territorial co-operation: - strategic concentration on territorial keys (accessibility, services

of general economic interest, territorial assets, urban networking, functional regions)

• Extension of geographical areas for co-operation:- covering functional areas not only administrative units

• Strengthening governance of territorial co-operation- more flexibility, incentives for partnership with business

• Possibly supporting other forms of co-operation (city networks, etc.) and special schemes for Neighbourhood countries

Conclusions on how to achieve competitiveness through co-operation and integration ? (TERCO)

40




41

• The EUSDR consists of 11 Priority Areas (PA) including certain topics coming along with indicators used for the TerrEvi factsheets

• Environment and climate change as well as the education and the employment situation number among these topics

• Both opportunities and challenges can also be identified for other EUSDR priorities like security (human trafficking or organised crime) as well as promoting culture and tourism etc.

Macro-Region priorities versus EU and its neighbours (TerrEvi)

42

Parallel Workshop Session: Workshop 2.3 Territorial Cooperation at Different Scales ESPON Internal...

Documents

Transcript of Parallel Workshop Session: Workshop 2.3 Territorial Cooperation at Different Scales ESPON Internal...