terco - european territorial cooperation as a factor of growth, jobs and quality of life workshop...
TRANSCRIPT
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/