European Territorial Cooperation

Since the introduction of the INTERREG programmes in 1990, the European Commission has closely associated border regions with the project of European Integration and especially to the accomplishment of the Single European Market. Since then, an increasing number of cross-border, interregional and transnational projects have been cofinanced by the European Union (EU) during the different INTERREG periods. However, it took until 2007 for INTERREG to be incorporated as an objective of the EU’s regional and cohesion policy, under the term: “European Territorial Cooperation” (ETC). ETC has been associated first with a European Space Planning Policy and, since the 2000s with the objective to increase the EU’s economic position in a globalised world. Increasingly, ETC has been enlarged, intensified and become more complex, covering an ever larger territory following the EU enlargement and being associated with ever larger budgetary resources from the European Commission. Despite its obvious success, when taking into account the recent European crises, it seems essential for future ETC to build on coordination between stakeholders at all levels (local, regional, national, European) and for the European Commission to take into account not only economic criteria of wealth, but also the social and humanitarian surplus values of the programmes.

The historical background of European state borders is described, paying attention to the facts that have influenced their characterisation and diversity, as well as the role of Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC) to overcome historical barriers. Here, the main reasons for CBC are identified, along with a review of the main milestones since the creation of the first Euroregion in 1958, the constitution of the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) in 1971, the Madrid Outline Convention in 1980, the Interreg Initiative in 1990 and the creation of the EGTCs in 2006. Special attention is paid to the rapid development of CBC structures at the external borders of the European Union (EU) after the fall of the Iron Curtain, and the programmes and instruments addressing their specific needs. Then, the main principles of cooperation (partnership, subsidiarity, lead partner) are reviewed, as well as the typologies developed by AEBR, particularly in the nineties during the “explosion” of CBC across the whole continent and after Interreg III, probably the best period of European Territorial Cooperation (ETC). The process to establish decentralised cross-border strategies and programmes is explained, paying attention to their necessary evaluation. Finally, the added value of CBC is defined, highlighting its evidence through concrete examples regarding cross-border strategies, growth and economic development, business relationship, SMEs, entrepreneurial skills (particularly for the youth), research and innovation, the labour market, universities, vocational training, environment, transport, tourism, culture and media, and “new governance” (e-government).

In Inner Scandinavia, a vast urban–rural territory in the southern heartlands of the Scandinavian Peninsula, a number of local border committees were set up with the assistance of the Nordic Council of Ministers in the late 1960s, later supported by bilateral regional cooperation agreements. These provided a fertile seedbed for the first INTERREG A programme in these borderlands, established in 1996 following Sweden’s accession to the European Union (EU). With a substantial increase in funds made available for cross-border activities, and a structural framework introduced by EU regulations, the INTERREG Sweden–Norway programme instantly became an arena attracting talent and creativity from both sides of the border. The organising principles of partnership, multilevel governance, additionality and transparency cemented INTERREG as a small yet green branch among the mix of regional development tools within the EU/EEA (European Economic Area). In assessing the impacts of cross-border cooperation (CBC), attention should be paid to the extent to which the governance structures and the adherent investments of added-up funds contribute to the EU objective of territorial cohesion. Furthermore, it should be acknowledged that INTERREG A programmes alone cannot be expected to counteract larger trends of ongoing centralisation due to their limited economic leverage. However, CBC, as shown by the case of Inner Scandinavia, can perform well in its more targeted mission of reducing border barriers and in promoting long-term development via the effective utilisation of the border regions’ joint resources and capital. As regional and EU political and financial support for CBC have grown over time, the Norwegian Government funds have shown a declining trend since the very start of INTERREG in Scandinavia. In drafting future INTERREG programmes, close attention should be paid to basic partnership governance principles, pointing out exactly where and why CBC becomes part of the European idea, introducing cross-border planning and increasing the levels of transparency and accountability.

Acting on its own initiative, the European Commission has launched a series of Community Initiatives since 1988, to solve specific problems of significant interest to the European Union. Amongst these Initiatives were the INTERREG, launched in 1990, with the goal of preparing European border areas for a Community without internal borders. In 2007, this Initiative was formally named European Territorial Cooperation and became one of the major goals of EU Cohesion Policy. Even so, and despite supporting cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation processes since 2000, financial support for European Territorial Cooperation programmes has always been kept below the 3% of the total financial package dedicated to EU Cohesion Policy. In this context, this chapter synthetically discusses the role and main effects of the European Territorial Cooperation process over the last 27 years, and why it should be given a more important and central role for a post-2020 EU Cohesion Policy. More concretely, based on a long experience of evaluating both the INTERREG and EU Cohesion Policy, we suggest that the European Territorial Cooperation goal should be placed at the heart of EU Cohesion Policy, by highlighting the transnational level of policy intervention, and by increasing support to cross-border cooperation processes with more specific policy goals: reducing persisting barriers and implementing cross-border planning strategies.

The creation of trans-border regions, as a reality or as a symbol, has to overcome state territorial indoctrination, because the names given to areas are often defined by the extent of influence of each state. Border studies encompass a wide range of scholarship, ranging from legal studies of demarcations and territorial rights to the study of border narratives and symbols, formal cross-border cooperation, and the actual spatial behaviour of borderland inhabitants. Where territorial states are in juxtaposition, differences between the jurisdictions have led to a hierarchical asymmetry that produces discords. The period 1989–1991 marks a sudden and profound change in the political geography of Europe. The birth, rebirth, and disappearance of territorial states led to a totally new situation of borders, both in their demarcation and in their degree of openness, and the sudden transformation of boundaries into international borders had profound impacts on cross-border transactions. The present political map of Europe hides a palimpsest of earlier territorial divisions, some forgotten, and others brought to memory by irredentist interests or by nostalgic tourists. Even after the eradication of the “east” and “west” dichotomy (or the move eastwards of the divide), many border-related issues remain. The relaxation of border controls in the Schengen Area has led to new developments. “Sleeping abroad and working at home” is a tendency in several borderlands, reflecting differences in the availability of housing and job opportunities in the adjacent states, but this also creates problems with taxation and the right to social services and education, even in areas with a common language.

This chapter explores the various ways in which borders act as barriers and obstacles in the European Union, and why borders maintain this function even in a context of openness. While most formal barriers to the mobility of goods, capital, services, and labour (i.e. the “four freedoms”) have by now been removed within the European Union, the effects of borders persist. For people living close to borders, these function as obstacles that are related to communication and infrastructure, legal and administrative differences, as well as language and culture. Opinion polls and consultations with European stakeholders witness the importance of addressing regulatory (legal and administrative) obstacles, especially in the fields of labour and education, while language is an important obstacle where more could be done. The chapter finishes with policy recommendations to practitioners seeking to conduct and/or improve systematic policy work to remove border obstacles for enhanced territorial cohesion and regional development.

To speak of the role and rise of European cross-border entities, some remarks must first be made in relation to territorial governance as such, as well as the complexity of territory and borders. After some introductory remarks on these themes, the rise of new forms of territorial governance in Europe is debated, which then follows with the description of the institutionalisation of European cross-border entities, and the progress from the Euroregion to the EGTC. To reflect upon the role of cross-border entities in the twenty-first century, the example of binational cities is used, to then close with some future recommendations. While one of the best contributions cross-border entities have made so far and may continue to make is in lobbying for a continued interest in the territorial dimension of European policy in the future, they should be more proactive, defining their own agenda, based on their own challenges, and involving all the social actors in their cross-border communities. This would make their solutions more contextual and their identity more established—even if this takes a longer period of time to accomplish.

The term “macro-region” is a political construct, mainly discussed in EU policy documents. The definition of a macro-region is deliberately vague and fuzzy, allowing for a diverse set up of governance arrangements and topics to be addressed. We identify three main trajectories of the rise of macro-regions in Europe: the development of European integration and an increasing focus on Cohesion and Regional policies; the changed geopolitical situation following European enlargements in 2004 and 2007; and the pre-existence of different forms of cooperation within these perimeters. Macro-regional cooperation has not initially generated new EU institutions, new EU legislation or new EU funding, but despite or maybe because of these constraints, macro-regions have attained considerable political commitment. A committee of representatives of the partner countries steers the overall progress of the macro-regions and acts as the decision-making body to guide their general direction. The potential avenues for the future of macro-regions are not clear.

This chapter presents a summary of some important achievements and challenges of the implementation of the NWE INTERREG-B programme from 2000 until the present. In short, our analysis concludes that this programme was instrumental to improvements in issues where “soft” measures and “hard” investments met each other, like the adaptation of water management and its spatial planning to climate change. It also shows that the change of paradigm, in this case from Spatial Planning cooperation to Thematic Cooperation, constitutes an important challenge for an existing structure. The adaptation of stakeholders or target groups takes time, but with time it can be done successfully. Furthermore, the conclusions have led to some first thinking exercises about the post-2020 structuring of cooperation. This thinking must be considered as a personal contribution to the debate. Issues which in our view need attention in this debate are: the explicit agreement by the whole governance with the aim of such a financial cooperation tool; the prevention of overlaps, both thematic and geographic; the adaptation of the structure to the needs of border-crossing cooperation projects instead of projects adapting to (outdated) programme structures.

The European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) has become a central tool for (sub-) state authorities to organise territorial cooperation in the EU. To take stock of this rapid change, the present chapter suggests an analytical framework in two steps. Firstly, the EGTC instrument is symptomatic of a turn in how the European territorial cohesion policy relates to (sub-) state territorial cooperation (policy formulation). Before the publication of the EGTC regulation in 2006, the EU support for territorial cooperation was mainly financial (e.g. INTERREG) and regulatory (e.g. consolidation of the single market). No specific legal framework was provided. The contribution investigates this progressive turn in the cohesion policy. Secondly, the EGTC represents a tool for implementing territorial cooperation (policy implementation). The number of EGTCs created over about a decade demonstrates that this instrument fills a gap in the legislative framework of territorial cooperation. Our comparative assessment of the use of the tool reveals a dominant implementation pattern. Most of the existing EGTCs are territorially bound organisations, set up on adjacent borders by local and regional authorities, a minority being interregional or transregional. Although they mostly have collective action resources and instruments and have identifiable objectives shared by their respective members, they follow a rather traditional pattern of cooperation where each individual member’s core activities primarily relate to a (sub-) state authority and where the EGTC acts primarily as an agent relying on its members.

In the Lisbon Treaty signed in 2007, one of the objectives mentioned is not only to offer European citizens a space of freedom, security and justice without internal borders, but also to promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, as well as solidarity between the Member States . In theory, cross-border spatial planning is a means to regulate spatial dynamics and the effects induced by the cross-border integration process that impact on territories and the socio-spatial practices of border residents. However, spatial planning at the cross-border level, even though it is promoted by the European Union, remains a field of action that faces many obstacles and whose definition varies greatly depending on the context. So what are we really talking about when we use these terms, and to what does spatial planning correspond at a cross-border scale? The first part of this chapter aims to dissect the concept of cross-border spatial planning and to clarify the reasons why it constitutes an opportunity for supporting the cross-border integration process. In the second part, the various experiences of cross-border cooperation in spatial planning will be shown, and in the final part, the obstacles encountered by the actors to implement it will be exposed.

This chapter discusses the advantages of making use of Territorial Impact Assessment procedures on European Territorial Cooperation Programmes. In more detail, it underlines the advantages of Territorial Impact Assessment as a novel Project/Programme/Policy evaluation tool, when compared with other existing policy evaluation techniques, and discusses how it can be applied to assess European Territorial Cooperation Programmes. Additionally, it presents a concrete case study of applying a Territorial Impact Assessment tool (TARGET_TIA) in assessing the main territorial impacts of a European cross-border cooperation sub-programme: Inner Scandinavia from the Swedish-Norwegian INTERREG-A Programme. This chapter then proposes several main policy dimensions to be used when assessing territorial impacts of the three different types of European Territorial Cooperation Programmes: cross-border cooperation, transnational cooperation and interregional cooperation. Finally, it presents some advice, following the author’s previous experience, on how to produce relevant, and as rapidly as possible, territorial impact assessment studies, namely for evaluating European Territorial Cooperation Programmes.