TERCO - European Territorial Cooperation as a Factor of Growth, Jobs and Quality of Life

Workshop Session1: Progress on New Territorial Evidence

30th November 2011, Kraków

Department of Planning and Regional Developement University of Thessaly, School of Engineering

TERCO hypothesis and objectivesTA2020: “Co-operation is key to fostering smart, inclusive and

sustainable growth and territorial cohesion in the EU”

TERCO main hypothesis: territorial cooperation (TC) is one of the factors underpinning the socio-economic development of territorial units.

TERCO main objective is to assess the relationship between territorial cooperation (TC) and the socio-economic development of EU and neighbouring regions

• Subordinated objectives:

1. Estimate IMPACT of various types of TC

• On economic and social develop-ment as well as on Quality of life

2. Asses ADEQUACY of TC

• In terms of geographic areas, domains, scales, etc.

3. Identify key determinants of TC

success

• Which factors decide whether co-operation brings integration and value added?

4. Establish good governance practices

• Formal vs day-to day practices

• Good governance and synergies between t programs, etc .

Key policy questions and types of TC

3

ADEQUACY of TCQ1. Are existing territorial cooperation areas still adequate to meet current challenges of territorial development (e.g. global competitiveness, etc. )?

NEW AREAS, SCALES, DOMAINS of TCQ2. What could be more meaningful new cooperation areas throughout Europe on various levels? Q3. What would be the right scale for territorial cooperation? Which themes (domains) are appropriately dealt with in territorial cooperation and on which scale?

GOVERNANCE structures and GOOD practices of TC

Q4. What are favorable framework conditions and good governance models for territorial cooperation to succeed? Q5. What are existing governance experiences in territorial cooperation in Europe and what can be learnt?Q6. Can cases of best practices be translated to and applied in other cooperation areas?

INFRASTRUCUTREQ7. Should cooperation programmes include infrastructure investments? Q8. What kind of infrastructure is needed where to enable fruitful cooperation arrangements? Q9. Is a different approach required in old and new MS?

Main TYPES of Territorial Co-operation analysed in

TERCO

Twinning City

Cross-border (incl. Interreg A)

Transnational (incl. Interreg B)

Interregional (incl. Interreg C)

Trans-continental

Other

How different territories cooperate?TA2020: “Territories with common potentials or challenges can collaborate in finding common solutions and utilise their territorial potential by sharing experience. Territories with complementary potentials, often neighbouring, can join forces and explore their comparative advantages together creating additional development potential”TERCO Case Studies evidence:Regions with common potentials (PL and Cz): Tourists potential of Sudety mountains- Exchanging experience (#1) and jointly

implementing common actions (#4)- Joint promotion of Sudety as a tourist product

Regions with common challenges (PL and DE): Oder river challenge- Sharing tools to tackle a common problem (#3)- Sharing equipment and know-how to deal with

flood prevention, Regions with complementary potentials (GR and BL): health and social protection services - Solving jointly cross-border problems (#6)- Infrastructure, volunteer and national rescue teams, insurance vouchers

12

34

56

Exchanging experience

Advising each other on how to

solve similar problems

Sharing tools to tackle a

common problem

Jointly implementing

common actions/investm.

to solve problems

Jointly implementing a spatial strategy

Solving jointly cross-border

problems, e.g. cross-border

health care, etc.

Colomb's (2007) extended scale of co-operation

BORDER/ MEMBER STATE

New-New

New-Old Old-Old

I NTERNAL

PL-CZ PL-SK

PL-DE CZ-DE

BUL-GR

UK-SWE BE-FR

EXTERNAL

PL-UA SK –UA

BUL-TUR

GR-TUR UK-NO

FIN-RUS SP-LAT. A.

SP-MOR New Old

Co-operation of citiesAver. Nuber of TwinCities agreements per commune

TA2020: “The cooperation and networking of cities could contribute to smart develop-ment of city regions at varying scales in the long run” - Database of TwinningCities which have not

existed before

- Typology of co-operating cities is built

- Quantitative data complemented by qualitative

Domains of TC most developed now vs. Domains of TC most desirable in the future

How adequate are domains/themes of TC?

Governance models

0%

50%

100%

Norway Scotland Sweden

Bott om up - Top down

Both

Top downBottom up 0%

100%

Norway Scotland Sweden

Centralised - Locally driven

Both

CentralisedLocally Driven

0%

50%

100%

Norway Scotland Sweden

Level of formalityBoth

Highly institutionalised Loosely organised

0%

50%

100%

Norway Scotland Sweden

Level of regulationBoth

Closely regulated

Open and flexible

Centrally driven

Open/ flexible arrangements

Broad partnership

Loosely organised

Locally driven

J oint structures

Narrow involvement

Highly institutionalised

Closely managed/ regulated

Parallel structures

Infrastructure

8

What type of infrastructure should be

supported via TC?

Which type of TC should support infrastructure?

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

ArgentineUrugayTurkey

UkraineRussia

FinlandGreece

NorwayScotlandGermany

SwedenBelgium

SpainFrance

CzechSlovakia

PolandBulgaria

YES

NO

New EU Member States

Old EU Member States

nonEU Member States

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Twining Cities

Interreg A

Interreg B

Interreg C

Other

Should TC include infrastructure investment?

The best TC projects seem to be those which focus on solving a specific problem together and time of simple projects is coming to an end. Introduction of more functional approach to territory seems to be important for future TC.

In case of TC across external borders cultural cooperation and education are perceived by actors from all sectors as the most important domains.

TC programmes should neither be designed nor analysed in isolation from other strategies/programmes at a given (sub)region. External policies do matter.

Co-ordination matters if we think seriously about synergies. Governance models: a) depend on the specific situation, b) top-down approaches are unlikely to work when partners contribute large financial shares to the project.

Good practices: a) their number increases with the growing complexity of projects, (e.g. common database with compitibile procedures, regular stakeholder forums, common involvement in certification for quality labels, etc.)

Infrastructural investments: a) YES if have EU dimension, (e.g. missing link in transport network), b) New MS - physical infrastr; Old MS social infrastr, c) in short run small infrastructural project - long run importance of soft measures.

Experience of the TERCO

Thank you for your attention !

http://esponterco.wordpress.com/