Strasbourg, 17 May 2011 LR-IC(2011)6
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON LOCAL AND REGIONAL DEMOCRACY
(CDLR)
COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS AND COOPERATION
(LR-IC)
PREPARATION OF THE CONFERENCE ON REMOVING OBSTACLES
AND PROMOTING GOOD PRACTICES
ON CROSSBORDER COOPERATION
Secretariat Memorandum
prepared by the
Directorate General of Democracy and Political Affairs
Directorate of Democratic Institutions
 |
Introduction
The document contains (Appendix I) the summary of the replies to the Questionnaire on removing obstacles to and promoting good practices on cross-border co-operation. The replies used for the summary are those listed in footnote 2, page 2. All replies are reproduced in extenso in document LR-IC(2011)6 Addendum.
The summary gives a systematic overview of the information provided by member states with a view to highlighting widespread issues, generally adopted solutions and interesting examples of practices that could widely adopted.
This document could serve as a reference for the conference of the removal of obstacles to transfrontier co-operation.
The conference could have two more items on its agenda. The first one would be Protocol No 3 to the Madrid Outline Convention, the signing of which by as many member states as possible should be encouraged. Another topic would be the presentation of the reports drawn up by the Institute of International Sociology of Gorizia (ISIG) on ”strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats” (SWOT) with regard to co-operation between member states. These reports describe and assess the situation in border areas in Northern, Central and South-eastern Europe. A fourth report, which is being finalised, presents the methodological tools and gives an overview of the current situation.
Finally, the conference should draw up some conclusions and suggestions for the ministers responsible for Local and Regional Government to consider and possibly adopt at the 17th session of their Council of Europe conference in Kyiv.
Proposals for the conference programme are given in Appendix II.
Action required
The Committee is invited to:
a) have an exchange of views on the summary of replies (Appendix I), supplement it as the case may be with additional examples and agree to make it the reference document for the conference on the removal of obstacles;
b) review the proposal for the conference programme (Appendix II);
c) agree on the final programme, dates and other modalities of the conference.
APPENDIX I
Summary of the replies to the questionnaire on removing obstacles to and promoting good practices on cross-border co-operation
Introduction
At the 16th session of their Conference (Utrecht, 16-17 November 2009), the European Ministers responsible for Local and Regional Government discussed, inter alia, transfrontier co-operation (Declaration on government action to overcome obstacles to transfrontier co-operation, including Protocol No. 3 to the Madrid Outline Convention – Utrecht Declaration, I.B). They decided to “pursue and develop further at domestic level policies and actions that enable local and regional authorities to co-operate across the borders in their respective fields of responsibility” and to “take stock of any practical and legal obstacles to cross-border co-operation at domestic level”, having regard to two relevant Committee of Ministers Recommendations[1].
At the end of the conference, the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations of the Netherlands, who co-chaired the 16th session, proposed that before the 17th session an international conference should discuss the obstacles to cross-border co-operation and ways of overcoming them.
With the aim of preparing this international conference, which would be held under the joint auspices of Ukraine (Chairmanship of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers) and Hungary (Presidency of the European Union), a questionnaire was launched in January 2011 and sent to member states to collect experience in this area.
The Secretariat received twenty replies[2]. Three states – Iceland, Malta and San Marino – said they were not involved in cross-border co-operation with neighbouring states so that the questionnaire did not apply to them. Monaco replied but stated that “while there is no particular obstacle to cross-border co-operation, the Communes, which are our only local authorities, are limited with regard to their size, number and technical powers and simply cannot expand their activities – since the areas mentioned in the questionnaire you have sent us correspond to state powers in our case”.
States like Austria, Germany or Switzerland have sent replies from federal states or cross-border co-operation bodies in which these states (cantons) are involved by virtue of their powers under the respective constitutions. It is therefore important to take account of the fact that these replies reflect the viewpoint and experience of these frontier regions without this necessarily implying that the central government authorities take on board or share that viewpoint[3].
The advantage of cross-border co-operation lies in co-ordination of the policies of local, national and European authorities for the development of action programmes that meet the needs of the inhabitants of transfrontier regions. These regions are common living, development and employment areas characterised both by differences in national systems separated by a frontier and by a considerable potential for the creation of economic, social and cultural wealth for their inhabitants and their businesses.
In order to meet the needs of the inhabitants of transfrontier areas and take internal borders into account, it is necessary to implement appropriate political governance by establishing sustainable development projects for the regions and involving the relevant higher institutional levels in managing them, making use of the technical and legal tools available and engaging in democratic dialogue with the inhabitants, civil society and economic players. Transfrontier areas will thus be a proving ground for the convergence of national policies and laws.
The following is a brief analysis of the replies, divided into three parts according to the structure of the questionnaire (areas / obstacles / solutions). The aim is to provide an overview of the current situation of transfrontier co-operation and the obstacles to it, as well as to highlight the most interesting examples of solutions implemented.
A. AREAS FOR CROSSBORDER CO-OPERATION
A.1 Mobility and transport (interoperability of transport systems, cross-border bus or rail lines, cross-border roads with cross-border facilities, integrated cross-border ticketing systems, etc)
Mobility and transport constitute a key area of cross-border co-operation, the main objective of which is to permit the free movement of people and goods and improve traffic flow. Cross-border travel is mainly undertaken for work, studies, trade or leisure. Considering the efforts made to increase and modernise the range of cross-border public transport available, it might be thought that a large number of frontier workers regularly use it, but if the statistics on France’s neighbours are to be believed this only applies to about 7% of the workers concerned as the private car is still the most common means of travel.
Whatever the case may be, cross-border connections by different modes of transport – buses, trains and, more rarely, ferries or trams – have been established.
The measures most frequently employed to improve cross-border traffic are:
- extending lines and building new connections, for example from Basle to Weil am Rhein in Germany and from Basle to St-Louis in France. Following the example of the Danish-Swedish construction of the 17 km long Øresund Bridge linking Copenhagen to Malmö, Denmark concluded an agreement with Germany to link Belt to Fehmarn. Another project with Germany is in progress to make Sønderborg airport binational;
- combining modes of transport (co-modality): a tram-train line links Saarbrücken to Sarreguemines;
- promoting ecological travel: the Czech Republic provides an example of the construction of cycleways that link the country to Poland; the Jurassian Arc is studying a car-sharing project that may be effective but requires the establishment of specific facilities (car parks, signposting, etc);
- improving the attractiveness of public transport by introducing a single fare system, for example in Austria, in the Grande Région, between Estonia and Latvia, on the Upper Rhine, and between Flanders and the Netherlands;
- co-ordinating the transport available: by setting up a common search system for routes and timetables. For example, the Saarland-Rhineland-Palatinate and Luxembourg are already covered and it is planned to extend the system to Lorraine and Wallonia; to the Netherlands and Portugal as well as between the Jurassian Arc in Switzerland and Franche-Comté in France, Flanders and Nord-Pas de Calais and Haparanda in Sweden and Tornio in Finland.
Two examples of the co-management of ports are the Upper Rhine, where the ports of Basle, Mulhouse and Weil officially merged in 2009 under the new joint name “RheinPorts”, and the International Port of Antwerp, whose navigation system is common to the Netherlands and Flanders.
As regards cross-border “institutions” for joint management of cross-border public transport, mention might be made of the Franco-Swiss Transfrontier Grouping, which groups together the General Councils of Ain and Haute Savoie; Annemasse urban district; the Communautés de communes (federations of municipalities) of the Pays de Gex and Geneva; and the Cantons of Geneva and Vaud.
In some cases, the absence of cross-border connections, however useful they might be, is criticised. Ukraine draws attention to the need to improve the technical condition of roads to Poland, while in Estonia the complaint is that there is no rail link between the capital cities Tallinn and Riga. Portugal provides examples of existing cross-border routes but considers it necessary to increase the availability of cross-border public transport serving coastal and rural areas.
A.2 Healthcare (co-operation between hospitals, recognition of diplomas, mobility of patients: access to health practitioners, access to hospitals, nursing homes; patients’ rights, emergency care or rescue services etc.)
Cross-borderco-operation on health matters has developed in the last ten years in almost all the countries that replied. It is based on bilateral agreements concluded with the aim of providing better access to quality care in border areas. The co-operation is on matters relating to health monitoring and preventive healthcare, looking after people living in border areas, vocational training, research and sharing experience.
An interesting example that illustrates the sharing of human and material resources and of knowledge and practices is provided by France and Belgium. Since the year 2000, a number of cross-border health communities and “Organised Cross-Border Areas for Access to Care” have been set up with arrangements for simplifying access to healthcare from an administrative and financial standpoint (care being provided on presentation of the insurance sticker). On the Franco-Spanish border, the Cerdagne transfrontier hospital is being built at Puigcerdá. On the Franco-Italian border, a local perinatal centre has been set up at Menton.
Co-operation on health matters also mainly concerns ambulance transport and the provision of emergency care by ensuring that the closest medical team is able to provide the initial care and the patient can, if necessary, be admitted to the closest hospital facility. A number of countries reported on their co-operation with regard to ambulance transport: Estonia with Latvia; the Netherlands with Belgium; Slovenia and Croatia with several of their neighbours, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”; the Czech Republic with Poland; and France with Monaco.
Hospitals also co-operate on dealing with major traumas: Austria-Germany-Switzerland (cardiac disorders), Rhineland-Palatinate-Alsace (serious burns), Luxembourg-Rhineland-Palatinate (trauma network), Portugal-Spain (cancer diagnosis and treatment). In other instances not involving serious or urgent cases, an agreement on “Organised Cross-Border Areas for Access to Care” enables the population of a specific area in France and Belgium to use the services of a number of hospitals (such as Tourcoing, Roubaix and Wattrelos) as if they were French patients. This also applies to the Monaco’s hospital.
European countries also want to enhance the practices and attractiveness of the health professions by mutually recognising medical skills, sharing experience and organising joint training. There have been and continue to be many exchanges of experience and know-how between health professionals in Denmark and Sweden.
To add to these examples of co-operation, mention might also be made of the scheme between Switzerland and Germany to facilitate free movement of patients and improve the cross-border contagious disease warning system in the Upper Rhine area and the system for ascertaining the availability of hospital beds.
For the member statesof the European Union, the new Directive on patients' rights in cross-border healthcare was adopted on 19 January 2011. It provides that, as a general principle, all cross-border healthcare must be reimbursed provided that it is included among the benefits to which the insured person is entitled in the member state of affiliation. Two exceptions are made to this principle: the directive authorises the member state of affiliation to impose the conditions and formalities applied to care provided in its territory and lists the types of healthcare that may be subject to prior authorisation.
Generally speaking (but this does not always emerge from the replies), cross-border healthcare must be distinguished from care provided occasionally abroad, whether the patient is in a border area or in the interior of the country.
A.3 Education and training (mobility of pupils/students/researchers/workers etc. (access to schools/institutions on both sides of the border), recognition/validation of curricula and diplomas, learning of the neighbouring language(s) in border areas, co-operation between institutions, common curricula / common financing, cross-border mobility of teachers, teaching in more than one language in schools in border areas, vocational training for workers and job seekers etc.)
Teacher and student mobility and recognition of qualifications are important areas of co-operation in Europe. An ambitious political initiative – the Bologna Process – was launched in 1999 with the aim of carrying out harmonisation reforms to establish a European Higher Education Space in 2010. Forty-seven states are currently participating in it, in co-operation with a number of international organisations, including the Council of Europe. The aims of the process are to facilitate free movement of students and teachers, to make European higher education attractive and to provide Europe with high-quality education.
Schemes to promote the mobility of students, teachers, job-seekers and workers can be found in all the countries that replied. Various schemes for international contacts and co-operation in the field of higher education and training have been devised.
Two prime examples of co-operation on mobility, education and skill-sharing in the fields of research, technology and innovation are the Upper Rhine area and the Nordic countries.
The Upper Rhine, which is multilingual and draws strength from its universities, schools and research institutes, is one of the most high-powered areas in Europe as far as scientific activity is concerned. An “Education and Training” working group set up in 1993 is engaged in bringing about the convergence of school systems and vocational training curricula and co-ordinates the sharing of informationand experience between France, Switzerland and Germany. Regular conferences of Upper Rhine area teachers are held, a Euregio certificate for apprentices and vocational training students is awarded and an Upper Rhine school textbook is distributed in schools.
Many students, researchers and workers cross the borders of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The Nordic countries also focus on adults in order to give them an opportunity for lifelong learning. These three countries have also established a joint initiative in the research field to meet the challenges of climate change. This initiative is underpinned by three institutions (NordForsk, Nordic Innovation Centre and Nordic Energy Research).
In order to engage in proper dialogue and co-operate with a neighbouring country, it is necessary to speak its language and promote its culture. Some countries have introduced the teaching of the neighbour’s language in frontier areas: Portugal and Spain, Slovenia and Italy, Slovenia and Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland, and Denmark (Sjælland Region) and Germany. In the case of France, teaching the neighbour’s language is given priority at primary schools in all school districts adjoining a frontier. There are also joint diplomas between France and Germany, France and Luxembourg, France and Italy and the Netherlands and Flanders.
Vocational training is another area of co-operation. France has implemented a number of joint projects with its neighbours on vocational training, job market analysis and employment opportunities for young people and apprentices (for example, “Zéro distance” between Champagne-Ardenne and Wallonia, “Opti-Match” with Luxembourg, “Modularisation” with Switzerland and “Tranversalis” with Spain and Andorra).
Ukraine and Poland jointly organise vocational training courses and exchange skilled professionals. Portugal emphasises its considerable co-operation on research and student exchanges between the universities in the north of the country and those in Galicia. In the Doubs urban agglomeration, which groups together a number of Swiss and French municipalities, a project has been drawn up to establish a platform facilitating the vocational training of frontier workers in five different occupations (jeweller, polisher, production mechanic, watchmaker, socio-educational assistant).
Co-operation also involves the creation of joint bodies, such as educational establishments or research institutes: the Institute for Transfrontier Co-operation (Kehl/Strasbourg), the Catalan Transfrontier Institute (Perpignan/Girona), the Livonia Institute of Research on the Common Historical Heritage and Culture (Estonia/Latvia), the Franco-German nursery school in Lorraine, the German-Luxembourg High School (Schengen-Perl) and the school run jointly by Sweden and Finland in Haparanda.
A.4 Labour market (job posting in the neighbouring country, conditions for responding to job offers in the neighbouring country, recognition of vocational qualifications, social security, pension, taxation, healthcare and labour rights, transport, access to job-related facilities across the border, administrative co-operation, information and counselling services etc)
Transfrontier co-operationon matters to do with the labour market has become a natural part of European integration. Occupational mobility benefits both workers and their employers. The number of frontier workers is constantly rising. The authorities working in the employment sector in European countries are working together more and more with the aim of removing administrative and legal obstacles and improving the provision of information on offers of employment and on social security and tax issues. The aim of most of these measures is to foster worker mobility in general and to eliminate distinctions based on origin or nationality. However, specific measures exist to facilitate access to the labour market on the other side of the border or to create genuine cross-border catchment areas.
Cross-border EURES Partnerships, which bring together employment and vocational training services, employers’ and trade union organisations and other bodies, have been set up with the task of providing information, advice and recruitment and placement services for workers and employers. The replies mention the examples of Rhône-Alpes and Piedmont, the Upper Rhine area and the Grande Région, Copenhagen and Malmö, and Sønderjylland and Schleswig. There are around twenty such partnerships in all.
Other co-operation bodies have emerged to safeguard workers’ interests and health and safety and to develop good economic relations as a result:
- the European Transfrontier Grouping (Groupement Transfrontalier Européen), set up in 1963 between France and Switzerland, provides legal, social and tax-advice services for frontier workers;
- the Joint Working Group between Brandenburg and the Lubuskie voivodship, which has since May 2011 had the task of intensifying dialogue and establishing strategies for ensuring free movement of skilled workers;
- the “Frontier Workers” Task Force in the Grande Région, the aim of which is to reduce legal and tax disparities in the systems of the region’s members by establishing links between employment bodies and policymakers.
With regard to geographical and occupational mobility, the European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET), mentioned by France, facilitates recognition of prior skills.
Information bureaux dealing with social security and tax matters have been established between Denmark and Germany (Infocenter Grænse), Denmark and Sweden (ØresundDirekt) and Sweden and Norway (Grensetjänsten).
The aim of co-operation is also to protect the particular characteristics of industry or production in specific areas by improving vocational training and access to traditionaloccupations, such as the watchmaking industry in the Swiss Jura. The Flemish city of Ghent is co-operating with the town of Terneuzen in the Netherlands on access to the job market in the specific area of horticulture.
It is sometimes considered necessary to pay particular attention to groups that may experience more difficulty in obtaining employment. Although it is hard to draw a distinction between education in general and education with a specific occupation in mind, mention might be made of efforts (in Austria) to promote appropriate linguistic education of children of immigrant workers.
The joint publication of job offers is an interesting measure employed by Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary, Austria and Italy.
Estonia, Portugal and the Netherlands mentioned the presence of legal, administrative and tax obstacles to occupational mobility and the disparity with regard to insurance and healthcare systems. Ukraine pointed out that all job market measures were implemented by the state and no specific co-operation was in place. An interesting experiment was mentioned by Germany: at workplaces with a large proportion of workers of Polish origin, safety warnings and technical instructions are written in German and Polish.
A.5 Crisis and disaster/emergency management
Crisis and disaster management is based on structures and mechanisms of which the key requirement is to ensure emergency preparedness and protect the environment. Management begins upstream with risk prevention and then involves the provision of information and warnings to population, followed by mutual assistance and the implementation of measures the moment an incident takes place, with the aim of returning to a stable situation as quickly as possible.
Denmark is involved in international co-operation on crisis and disaster managementthrough its Emergencies Management Agency. In 2001, Lower Saxony and the Netherlands set up a working group on cross-border co-operation on disaster management, which meets every six months and holds symposiums every two years or so to raise awareness and intensify co-operation.
Brandenburg and Poland have set up a special commission with the task of drawing up a joint disaster management and fire prevention plan. Since February 2011, a Special Commissioner has been in office to prepare plans for transfrontier alert procedures in the case of major disasters, to organise joint exercises and to participate in the implementation and assessment of co-operation in this area.
France and Germany work together in the Local Cross-Border Co-operation Group, which was set up in 2007 for the management and operation of the first Franco-German fireboat available to provide emergency assistance on the Rhine. In response to an environmental disaster in Basle in 1999, a “Mutual disaster assistance” working group involving France, Germany and Switzerland was formed and training exercises are organised (in spring 2012, a new earthquake simulation exercise will be held). A bilingual dictionary for response units has been produced and procedures for contacts between liaison officers in the event of an accident or disaster have been put in place.
Some countries have concluded bilateral agreements on mutual assistance and the provision of emergency services in the event of a crisis or disaster: Estonia and Latvia, Flanders and the Netherlands, and Sweden and Finland.
Germany and the Netherlands have embarked together on a fire protection and water purification scheme in the Ems estuary and around the ports of Delfzijl and Eemshaven. Luxembourg has focused on emergency preparedness by improving co-ordination between crisis management bodies and warning centres and stepping up co-operation on firefighter training.
A.6 Crime prevention and criminal investigation (juridical and police co-operation, exchange of information, administrative co-operation, common units)
With the opening up of the borders between the EU states and, more generally, the increase in the number of people crossing borders, there was a perceived need to improve police and customs co-operation in border areas. Institutions, procedures and concrete measures give effect to this co-operation: the introduction of joint patrols and joint investigation teams, transmission of data at major events, exchange of information and fingerprints, joint surveillance measures and joint information-gathering operations for the purpose of crime prevention and the maintenance of order and security.
Multilateral co-operation agreements seek to facilitate effective information sharing in connection with criminal investigations and to intensify co-operation between police forces. As examples, mention might be made of the Treaty of Prüm concluded in 2005 between Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Austria (in particular, this aims to strengthen cross-border co-operation to combat terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal migration) and the agreement concluded between the police forces of the Nordic states in 2003 providing for the establishment of contact points, the processing of requests between authorities, the conduct of interrogations, the keeping of criminal records, the collection of fines, search and extradition, and joint investigation teams.
Other agreements are bilateral, for example the Danish-Swedish and the Danish-German border police cooperation based respectively on the 1999 and the 2001 agreements under which provisions the competent police authorities exchange information about cases, persons and in relation to criminal activities, also cooperate in connection with crime prevention, control, surveillance and search activities. If necessary due to traffic reasons, police officers can travel on the territory of the other party until the point where it is possible for them to turn around and return to their own territory (“hot pursuit”). And, between Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, the Memorandum of Understanding concerning cooperation in the fields of police, justice and immigration and Treaty on cross-border police interventions.
Fully fledged bodies are also set up to carry out the actual management of these co-operation activities. They may be bilateral centres for police and customs co-operation, such as the Centres for Police and Customs Co-operation (CCPDs) created from 1997 onwards on the borders of France and Belgium (Tournai), France and Luxembourg, France and Germany (Offenburg), France and Italy (Ventimiglia and Modane) and France and Spain. The task of these centres is to enable police and customs services to co-operate directly with one another through joint patrols, information sharing and response co-ordination.
These bodies may be also be regional centres, such as the regional centre for co-operation on combating cross-border crimes in South East Europe (SECI Centre), which is an organisation that involves the police and customs authorities of thirteen countries in South East Europe (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Turkey). The Centre is a platform for sharing experience and expertise, carrying out training and providing mutual assistance.
The Baltic Sea Region Border Control Cooperation is a cooperation body established in 1996, focusing on security issues concerning border control in the Baltic Sea region (Estonia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Russian Federation and Sweden, while Iceland holds an observer status). Among the most important issues on its agenda are: developing of practical forms of cooperation, simplifying communication routines between the parties (e.g. the development of the data transmission system COASTNET), and cooperating with FRONTEX; sea exercises and operations; exchanging information about the tasks and authorities of border services in the area of security controls at sea ports, marinas and sea areas; counteracting terrorism; and exchanging experiences and evaluations of existing standards of security controls.
Training is an integral part of co-operation between police authorities, especially at the transfrontier level, where needs are more specific: first of all the question of language, followed by a knowledge of the rules according to which the police or the neighbouring country’s investigators operate – all of which is necessary for co-operation and to avoid misunderstandings and mistakes.
The three-year “In tandem – transfrontier police co-operation” project enables 30 Polish and 36 German police officers to take part in advanced training each year. The participants are police officers from the voivodships of Szczecin, Gorzów, Wrocław and the Polish Police Academy as well as from Brandenburg.
A three-day seminar enables a network of young police officers in the Grande Région to acquire and improve technical co-operation skills. In 2005, the “Police protection for victims in the Grande Région” project was launched and a bilingual “Safety and security guide” was produced.
A.7 Environment (natural protected areas, mountain, coastal and rural areas), prevention of pollution and water management (sanitation, water collection and distribution, crisis management, management of border rivers and lakes)
The environment is an area where it is easy to see that thinking and acting together across borders is not only wise but also necessary. Transfrontier areas are places of joint responsibility and management with regard to pollution control, prevention and management of natural and technological risks, and management of waste, energy, natural areas and biodiversity.
Since 1978, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands have been working together to protect and conserve the Wadden Sea coast through a political body (Governmental Council) assisted by a management body (Board). Since 2009, the Dutch and German areas have been a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
The Upper Rhine Conference deals with environmental issues, and an “Environment” Working Group was set up in 1975. In 2007, the Climate Protection Committee addressed the new climate challenges, turning its attention to policies on energy, the environment, transport, forestry and agriculture. The creation of a trinational energy network has been underway since 2010. A joint multilingual transfrontier website with air quality data is available and well-visited: http://www.atmo-rhinsuperieur.net. A guide to procedures entitled “Transfrontier consultations of the authorities and the public on projects with a significant environmental impact in the Upper Rhine area” is currently being updated (http://www.oberrheinkonferenz.de/media/documents/42-GuideF.pdf). In the Jurassian Arc, a plan for the integrated management of wooded pastures to protect the common heritage has been set up.
Portugal has provided the example of the Parque natural do Tejo Internacional, which is located between the mountains of the Centro de Portugal region and the Alentejo Plains. The park was the first international regional planning experiment relating to water resources. The diversity of its natural heritage is due to its harmonious co-existence with human activities, such as agriculture.
In the Grande Région, the Natura 2000 map of transfrontier areas was finalised and presented at the first event organised for the establishment of a transfrontier geographical information system. A Group of Experts is working on a project entitled “Nature without frontiers in the Grande Région”, the aim being to set up a database in the form of an ecological network. It is planned to produce an overview of the current production and distribution of energy and to develop a joint strategy for the use of renewable energy sources (wind, solar, biomass, hydroelectricity, geothermal power).
France and Italy have set up the Eurobassin project for joint management of the natural resources of the river Roya, which is a very important source of drinking water for the Province of Imperia and for part of the French coast as far as Monaco.
France is also co-operating with the United Kingdom and Germany on the treatment of waste (Rouen-East Sussex, Strasbourg-Kahlenberg). In 1976, it concluded the RAMOGE agreement with Monaco and Italy to make the maritime areas of the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur Region, the Principality of Monaco and the Liguria Region a pilot area for preventing and combating pollution of the marine environment.
A.8 Co-financing from EU Funds (Interreg, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, Neighbourhood programmes) (accession to funding, national co-financing)
All the countries that replied receive co-funding for various transfrontier co-operation projects. The projects approved are partly financed by the European Regional Development Fund, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance or the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), as well as national funds. There are three areas of co-funded co-operation:
– the economy: the aim of the co-operation is the development of infrastructure, employment, innovation and tourism;
– land and the environment: the aim of the co-operation is regional planning, promoting mobility and protecting the environment;
– human activity: the aim of the co-operation is the promotion of education, training, healthcare and culture.
In their replies, many countries listed co-financed projects covering contiguous border areas of three or more states. Each scheme has its own funding and management arrangements. In many cases, several schemes cover the same geographical area, which sometimes causes complications.
Luxembourg stated that in the Grande Région a single scheme had replaced the three previous schemes.
However, it does not appear that states are implementing cross-border economic or social development schemes or other schemes that are funded and supported other than by the EU funds.
Spain and Portugal have adopted an Operational Programme for Cross-Border Co-operation (POCTEP), which comprises several projects. Switzerland is participating in 200 cross-border projects in many different fields.
B. OBSTACLES TO CROSS-BORDER CO-OPERATION
B.1 In the domains listed above, and shortlisted hereunder, what are, in your opinion and according to your experience, the most significant obstacles that you have identified?
a) Mobility and (public) transport
Several obstacles are impeding the development of cross-border co-operation in the field of transport.
In spite of the increase in cross-border travel, France and Estonia point out that users and those involved in co-operation are not very well aware of the travel opportunities and the range of intermodal transport in cross-border areas.
Cross-border public transport is not sufficiently taken into account in local, national and European policies. At the domestic level there is a lack of cohesion between urban planning policies and cross-border transport policies (France, Portugal). Accordingly, as it does not constitute a policy priority the sector is suffering from a lack of funding (Denmark, France, Portugal, Switzerland), one consequence of which is the limited number of cross-border links (Estonia-Russian Federation) or the poor technical state of the existing links (Ukraine). For Sweden, the cross-border fare system poses a problem. At the European level, local cross-border transport should be given more recognition in order to ease congestion in international corridors.
The development of cross-border public transport also comes up against serious technical difficulties on one or both sides of a border, such as environmental constraints and different electrical supply and safety systems.
There is considerable diversity with regard to the powers of the authorities involved in transport matters. In France, the local authorities, which organise local transport, cannot conclude an agreement with a neighbouring state, which may itself have this power. The same applies to co-operation between Rhineland-Palatinate and Luxembourg or Spain and Portugal. Accordingly, in the case of some states the powers necessary to set up an integrated cross-border transport network are held by several authorities, while in the case of other states only one authority is responsible.
b) Health
The most prominent obstacles to the development of cross-border co-operation on healthcare are legislative and regulatory in nature and are either only partially regulated by agreements or not all. The organisation of healthcare systems differs from one country to another, as do the rules for reimbursing the costs of the care and medicines provided. These different social security choices make it difficult to harmonise the healthcare systems of two countries.
Owing to the Swedish regulations requiring the possession of a special licence, it is difficult to transport medicines across the border with Denmark. Co-operation with Finland on health matters has not yet come into effect. The Netherlands mentions differences in the responsibilities of ambulance staff and in their equipment compared with Germany. In Ukraine, only private medical establishments may admit foreign patients and their network is very under-developed. Portugal states that the Portuguese and Spanish healthcare systems are not sufficiently geared to meeting the needs of the residents of border areas.
Other obstacles are linked to the increased mobility of patients or health professionals, which may adversely affect the ability of healthcare services to take in patients or staff or lead to shortages in some areas. The Swiss Jurassian Arc points to a shortage of hospital staff.
c) Education and training
In the field of education and training, course organisation and curricular content remain the responsibility of the national authorities and thus constitute an obstacle to joint projects for the sharing of knowledge and expertise. The national education authorities do not provide sufficient support for facilitating the establishment of school or vocational education pathways between neighbouring countries. Accordingly, the lack of a common frame of reference on occupations and training causes difficulties in obtaining validation of experience acquired or recognition of diplomas and other qualifications. Insufficient familiarity with the neighbouring country’s language combined with a lack of teaching in that language is also a shortcoming.
The recognition of qualifications often depends on the occupation in question since educational programmes are based on different structures and content. This applies to Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Rhineland-Palatinate, Switzerland and Ukraine.
Administrative approaches to the implementation of co-operation are sometimes complex. Denmark cites the example of two joint initiatives in the Nordic countries in the research field, the funding and implementation of which are complicated by the cumbersome and bureaucratic procedures of the Nordic systems (Top-Level Research Initiative and Eurocores).
d) Access to the labour market
Cross-border mobility is inhibited by domestic mechanisms established according to the national approach and objectives. A cross-border job-seeker or apprentice will find that access to the neighbouring country’s job market and social insurance system depends on criteria imposed by national regulations.
The fact that the socio-economic partners have no cross-border network means that job-seekers have difficulty in accessing information on the labour market situation on the other side of the border and find it hard to register with employment agencies. It also results in the employment services on both sides of the border being unable to offer a suitable job.
Ukraine and Estonia mention the absence of official information on job offers and the language barrier, which prevents integration into the cross-border job market. Denmark regrets that it is impossible to compare the Danish and Swedish tax systems, which constitutes an obstacle to setting up businesses on the other side of the border. On the border between Spain and Portugal, mobility is still reduced owing to pay and benefit differentials.
Access to the job market is also inhibited because diplomas and occupational certifications acquired on either side of the border do not correspond to one another and are hard to interpret owing to the different curricula and assessment criteria. Moreover, some occupations where the work, required skills and rules governing them differ from one country to another (for example, in the health and electricity sectors) lack common frames of reference.
e) Crisis and disaster/emergency management
In most countries, language problems and differences with regard to the powers and responsibilities of the emergency services on both sides of the border make it hard to co-ordinate and manage crisis and disaster/emergency situations. Technologies, equipment and terminology are not all the same. This emerges from the replies from France, Germany and Switzerland.
Joint risk management can also be affected by: unilateral decisions (the British government has decided to withdraw funding from a deep-sea tug jointly chartered for the safety of the Straits of Dover), the many different interlocutors (Spain says it is hard to identify who its interlocutors on the French border are), legal difficulties (Swedish legislation is an obstacle to the establishment of cross-border emergency services, which is felt to be a problem in the cross-border urban area of Haparanda and Tornio) and liability issues (damage caused by rescuers, damage sustained by emergency response teams).
f) Crime prevention and criminal investigation (policing)
The strict limitation of police operations to border areas and the restrictions placed on authorised (police) action (law enforcement, border patrols and customs offices) are identified as obstacles by Germany, which suggests in this connectioninvolving public prosecutors and extending the scope of the existing agreements. The replies once again highlight the language barrier and the differences in the legal systems.
g) Environment and water management
Co-operation on environmental matters is limited if there is no enabling legal framework, joint planning machinery or a joint mechanism for managing measures concerning the natural environment, water management and nature conservation.
Switzerland referred to the difficulty in linking biotopes and landscapes across national borders because of the differences in planning requirements, the difficulty in carrying out pest control across borders owing to the different methods employed, and the differences in the measures taken to deal with the surplus of nitrates in the soil.
Estonia raised the question of co-operation (with Latvia) on the transport of waste (the waste from southern Estonia must be treated by an Estonian plant 80 km away despite the fact that there is a similar plant close by in Latvia).
Croatia pointed to the lack of co-ordinated environmental protection despite the existing agreements with Bosnia and Herzegovina (failure to protect and promote conservation areas and protected areas), with Montenegro (no system for monitoring air pollution and soil contamination, action to deal with fire damage) and with Serbia (lack of a waste treatment system given the existence of hazardous waste storage sites).
h) Co-financing from EU Funds (Interreg, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, Neighbourhood programmes)
The replies revealed the main obstacles to transfrontier co-operation connected with co-financing from Community funds.
First of all, the procedures established since the introduction of INTERREG A (in the 1990s) have become increasingly complex and costly for project promoters. The administrative procedures are especially cumbersome both with regard to the examination of projects, including small-scale projects, and to monitoring their execution. The rules of eligibility differ according to the programmes that the project promoters sign up to.
Secondly, a long time elapses between the moment a project is approved and the conclusion of the agreements between the partners to implement it. Long periods also elapse before funds are transferred to the project promoters, which make it necessary for them to advance the expenditure and puts a strain both on them and on the project.
Finally, there is a lack of information on the possibilities of co-operation on the other side of the border, the priorities are different, the financial situations differ, the partnerships are not always stable and the administrative capacities on both sides of the border are not always sufficient.
B.2 If these obstacles are known and identified, what are the main reasons why they are still in place?
As Switzerland (Regio Basiliensis) explained, seen from a national perspective the border areas are remote peripheral regions in transition. Any problems that may exist in border areas necessarily call for discussions and co-operation with the neighbouring country.
The countries that replied all agree on the reasons why the obstacles to cross-border co-operation continue to exist: the national tier of government is not sufficiently involved in co-operation projects, the needs of cross-border areas are not sufficiently taken into account in the various programmes and national and European policies, national legislative systems differ and the principal players do not all have the same powers; and considerable efforts in terms of time, planning, co-ordination and financing are necessary.
According to Germany (Rhineland-Palatinate), a major obstacle is the mismatch between the partners. For example, the Grande Région is made up of a state, two German Länder, three local authorities in Lorraine, the Region of Lorraine and three Belgian local authorities.
In order to carry out effective cross-border co-operation, countries consider it essential to involve all levels of governance, including the national level, and all the players concerned. The removal of obstacles is a matter of being able to bring the “right people” together and for them to have the necessary powers in the area concerned and the ability to conclude agreements (Austria, Estonia, Ukraine, Jurassian Arc). Spain believes it is necessary to strengthen political commitment at the bilateral level.
In the Netherlands, no particular attention is given to cross-border co-operation at the national level. Co-operation between Ukraine and Poland is hampered despite their mutual commitment in a joint strategy (2007-2015) as the two countries act separately on the two sides of the border.
A revision of national legislation to make it more flexible or the harmonisation of legislation is often essential (Denmark). Ukraine mentioned the need for a large-scale territorial reform to ensure effective co-operation.
B.3 What (types of) obstacles could be removed thanks to action by state/regional authorities alone (prior impact assessment of new laws and regulations on border regions or the co-operation with neighbouring countries, simplification of procedures, cutting red tape, removing administrative constraints or regulations, possibility of experimentation in cross-border areas etc.)?
The replies provide a wide variety of thoughts on the subject. On the one hand, these are of a general nature, for example the need for a systematic advance assessment of the impact of new national and European laws and regulations on cross-border areas (France) or for national and regional policies to take account of co-operation in cross-border regions (Jurassian Arc). Territorial reform, and therefore the granting of greater self-government powers to the local and regional authorities, would be a measure likely to facilitate cross-border co-operation (Ukraine).
More specifically, there is a desire for the competent authorities to share information and promote common values, to draw up strategic documents together covering a common area, to identify similar priorities, with harmonised eligibility, planning and financing procedures (Switzerland). The local authorities should be encouraged to provide an operational breakdown of tasks and facilitate the transfer of powers to cross-border institutions in line with the principle of horizontal subsidiarity. The obligation for the local authorities to hold prior consultations with the national authorities is one requirement that should be abolished (Ukraine), while the complexity of administrative procedures could be reduced by introducing measures to help and advise the local authorities (Croatia).
With regard to public co-funding, when this comes from different sources, ways and means should be developed to permit the joint use of funding by project promoters (France-Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière).
Other replies referred specifically to difficult situations that could be resolved through unilateral measures by the state (or the higher-level authority). The same applies to measures relating to the employment field, access to funding for community projects (Switzerland), admission to hospitals or co-operation between healthcare establishments (the Netherlands), and taxation (Ukraine), the rules of which are laid down by the state, which is thus in a position to change them.
Finally, some replies emphasised structural problems associated with border crossings, such as the insufficient number of them, their poor distribution, difficulties of access to them or the quality of the roads. Some respondents said border areas should be allowed freedom to pilot solutions that could then be generally applied if they proved successful (Portugal).
B.4 What types of obstacles would require joint action by both state and regional/local authorities (interdepartmental co-ordination of political action and policy planning, sharing of financial resources, funds, etc, changing the attribution of competences and responsibilities, etc)?
As most of the replies came from the central government authorities, they mainly contain their viewpoint. In countries with local and regional authorities, the need for dialogue and consultation between the different tiers of government is more readily admitted. For example, in the case of France the principal challenge is the interministerial character of matters concerning cross-border co-operation, which call for consistency of governance and approach between the state and local authorities (the French Foreign Ministry is in charge of the country’s transfrontier policy; each ministry is also tasked with dealing with the transfrontier matters that fall within its sphere of responsibility; when the local authorities are involved, cross-border co-operation is monitored by the Local Authorities Directorate of the Interior Ministry and by the Foreign Ministry’s Department for the External Activities of Local and Regional Authorities; the Department of Spatial Planning and Regional Attractiveness participates in the interministerial dialogue).
Other states (Estonia, Ukraine) acknowledge that removing obstacles is the central government’s responsibility, and say that intergovernmental solutions are necessary if national laws differ.
It is, however, generally admitted that territorial cohesion can only be achieved if all players involved at all levels work with one another in a spirit of complementarity and without losing sight of the aim in mind.
Co-ordinated action on regional planning and land use could solve some problems. The creation of joint bodies, such as a European Grouping for Territorial Co-operation, and a reduction in administrative burdens can increase the efficiency and effectiveness of cross-border activities.
Vocational training, recognition of qualifications, language teaching, transport and healthcare are the areas most affected by the need for joint action (Denmark, Estonia, Spain).
B.5 What types of obstacles would require bilateral co-operation and action by the state/region and a neighbouring state/region, or even actions at EU level (issues of responsibility/liability, investment and infrastructural projects, issues affecting individual rights and freedoms, issues coming under state responsibilities on one side and regional/local authorities’ responsibilities on the other side, need for a global approach etc)?
The replies to this question generally relate to specific technical issues that indicate priority action areas for the state concerned in their relations with a specific neighbour: Denmark believes that bilateral action with Sweden will enable it to remove the obstacle to the establishment of businesses on either side of the border by providing them with more information on taxation matters; Estonia expressed the wish to remove, together with Latvia, the obstacles to the provision of medical care and emergency services, to the transport of passengers between the two capitals and to the treatment of waste in the south of the country. Ukraine considers it necessary to co-operate with Poland on dealing with issues relating to the development of border infrastructure, to the energy supply network and to dealing with cross-border pollution. The Netherlands suggests the conclusion of bilateral agreements to facilitate access to cross-border employment opportunities (taxation, administrative procedures, validation of professional experience and qualifications). Switzerland says that an agreement on taxation at source applied to frontier workers will simplify co-operation on job market access.
The replies mostly fail to mention more general aspects, such as the difference in the powers held by local or regional authorities on either side of the same border or the existence in one country of a system of basic guarantees and rights that differs from the neighbour’s system, thus preventing cross-border co-operation from extending beyond a few individual projects (in the context of the Grande Région or between Sweden and Finland) unless substantial changes are made to the constitutional organisation of the state or complex bilateral treaties are negotiated.
C. REMOVING OBSTACLES TO AND GOOD PRACTICES IN CROSS-BORDER CO-OPERATION
C.1 Cross-border co-operation is developed along the borders of your country. Can you give a few examples of effective (successful) co-operation?
Most replies provide examples of successful co-operation (in the eyes of the respondents, at least) in a very large number of areas and regions. Quoting them all would be impossible but the following – allowing for a certain degree of subjectivity in the choice – are chosen because they show how ad hoc co-operation on specific issues can develop into broader co-operation involving related areas.
For Denmark, in issues like regional development, transport, business development, water management, environment, rural development, the Øresund Committee is the most obvious example of successful cooperation. Moreover, the lessons learned from the Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation are mainly that the cooperation has developed and broadened its scope gradually from genuine protection of the Wadden Sea to management of the coastal zone.
Portugal mentions, in the Euroregion of Alentejo, Centro and Extremadura, permanent structures of cross border cooperation on mobility, innovation and research (Working Community, Centre for Iberian Studies), in the Euroregion of Alentejo, Algarve and Andalucia, projects such as an Office of Transfrotier Initiatives, a Radiotherapy Unit, musical groups and various cultural events, mobility-road network and navigability on the Guadiana River.
The Upper Rhine Conference is an excellent example of the implementation of integrated governance. It co-ordinates the co-operation of 600 experts in thirteen thematic working groups and forty expert committees. The Basle Trinational Eurodistrict (BTE) seeks to strengthen the Basle trinational agglomeration and its urban centres as a living environment and an attractive transfrontier economic area. The BTE launches, supports and monitors trinational or binational projects in the fields of urban development, transport network development and landscape protection.
Another example of bottom-up approach is provided by the agreement concluded between the German Federal Land of Lower Saxony and officials of the border regions (Euroregions, security regions, EDR) in order to intensify and improve the dismantling of obstacles in the area of cross-border cooperation. The aim is to group concrete problems in the border regions and develop structural solutions in order to give cross-border cooperation greater importance at national level. The agenda was drawn up with the involvement of the border regions, mentioning key problem areas as well as the support requested from the state. The agenda is divided into three parts: problem areas for all border regions, items relating to the individual border regions and items where the role played by the state still needs to be elaborated in more detail. An evaluation has revealed that cross-border cooperation should be developed from a problem-oriented approach into a long-term strategic orientation. The first draft of a cornerstone paper is currently being prepared and is expected to be discussed in the Dutch Council of Ministers at the end of March 2011.
For Spain, the Initiative Cooperation Office Andalusia-Algrave-Alentejo is an example of satisfactory development of joint planning between asymmetric institutional structures; the Working Community between Castilla y Léon and the Northern and Central regions of Portugal is a catalyst for the development of the cross-border cooperation over the last ten years; the Common Fund between the Basque Country and the French Région Aquitaine has raised the profile of cross-border cooperation not only at institutional level but also within the civil society.
In Sweden, the Medicon Valley is a cluster cooperation in the Öresund region across the Danish-Swedish border that constitutes one of the most potent and successful medtech clusters in the world.
In Ukraine, the successful cooperation on pesticides removal from the river San has led to a similar “Clean Buh” river project.
C.2 Can you explain why this co-operation is working well (follow-up of the cross-border question at national level, existing co-operation structures, common purpose, consultation and/or mutual arrangements between the players, exact identification and implication of the partners, regular review of implementation, feed-back from the persons concerned , etc.)?
The replies highlight the aspects that states believe necessary to ensure that cross-border co-operation works well. These aspects are in particular:
– mutual trust and a common socio-cultural heritage, or at least a tradition of co-operation that enables the partners to identify their common interests and benefits (Estonia, Croatia, Portugal, Ukraine, Sweden);
– a legal framework conducive to co-operation at both the bilateral and multilateral levels (strategy/agreement/convention) and the national level (appropriate legislation) (Denmark);
– one or more co-operation bodies that possess transferred powers and human resources and remain in place to enable projects to be carried out (Austria, Switzerland);
– bringing together the authorities that are involved in the sectors and administrative levels concerned and possess the necessary powers (Germany);
– long-term funding, perhaps secured by annual contributions (Denmark, Ukraine);
– the political will and support at the national level (the Netherlands) and an intention on the part of everyone concerned to co-operate (France);
– monitoring and the sharing of information and good practices through regular meetings and setting up networks (the Netherlands, Switzerland).
What emerges from this is a set of subjective elements (strong motivation among policymakers, constant support from year to year, creation of a public consensus) and objective elements (legal framework, human and financial resources) serving a project and a vision (clarity regarding the desired outcome, flexibility in the choice of the most appropriate administrative or bureaucratic solutions, equal treatment of all partners, willingness to learn from others).
C.3 Can you recommend one or more practices/solutions – also at the institutional level – that have proved to be effective in identifying/removing obstacles or difficulties in the implementation of cross-border initiatives (appointment of high-level joint committees with strong political leadership, general consultation, ad hoc instance/person to deal with cross-border issues at state level / doing the link between the national and decentralized level, well-identified cross-border referents at different levels, etc.)?
Many of the replies to the previous questions contain elements that relate to this question. They mention the existence of cross-border working groups, bilateral committees (inter-state or joint), bodies for the purpose of dialogue, consultation or management, such as the Euroregions, or even actual legal entities like the EGTCs set up pursuant to Regulation EC 1082/2006.
All these practices or solutions can be found in all the border areas and countries covered by the questionnaire, with specific characteristics depending on the law applicable in each case.
By contrast, only a few countries have adopted more original solutions that have not (yet) been copied elsewhere. It is worth mentioning them below.
In France, the Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière (MOT) set up in 1997 is a voluntary and interministerial body with around sixty members representing local and regional authorities, states, associations, cross-border organisations, companies, federations, etc. Its objectives are based on three areas of action: operational assistance, networking, and assistance in defining overall strategies. It thus assists with project structuring and monitors cross-border activities.
The Frenchlegislature has also provided a legal basis for all co-operation activities carried out by local and regional authorities by enshrining in law the principles set out in the Madrid Outline Convention and its protocols, in particular: (i) the possibility for local authorities and associations of local authorities to sign cross-border agreements with authorities and associations of authorities in other countries for the purpose of engaging in co-operation in territories that are either geographically contiguous or not; (ii) the possibility of participating in co-operation bodies with legal personality together with foreign local and regional authorities or associations of those authorities.
In the Netherlands, the position of Grensmakelaar (border ombudsman) has been established to solve cross-border problems. He/She is appointed for three years and is responsible for identifying obstacles by consulting with neighbouring countries and for seeking solutions at the national level. A cross-border task force made up of representatives of the border areas and regions has been set up to support this work, as have working groups on such issues as employment, education, health, security, the environment , public transport and regional planning.
As far as co-operation between Galicia and North Portugal is concerned, at the central government level a reference person for cross-border matters is present in each side’s Foreign Ministry and a Joint Committee on Cross-Border Co-operation is chaired by those two ministries. At the devolved government level, there is a Committee for Co-ordination and Regional Development of the North on the Portuguese side and a reference person for cross-border matters on the Galician side. This arrangement is supported by a number of cross-border bodies: an EGTC, a Working Community and a Euroregion.
In Hungary, the CESCI (Central European Service for Cross-Border Initiatives), modelled on the French MOT, was set up in November 2009. This is an instrument designed to assist local and regional authorities in Hungary’s border areas. It enables them to network and provides an upward flow of information on border obstacles from local to central government.
These schemes have been brought together under the umbrella of the European platform of support structures for cross-border co-operation at national level (Budapest, 10 December 2010). Its members are MOT (France), CESCI (Hungary), the Grensmakelaar (Netherlands) and, for the Spain/Portugal border, the Galicia/North Portugal and Castille and León/North Portugal Working Communities.
Ukraine said another solution consisted in extending up to 50 kilometres from the border the area covered by the special “local border traffic” regime, which mainly benefits the region’s small and medium enterprises.
The German Federal Land of Brandenburg and Poland agreed in early 2011 to appoint a “Commissioner for cooperation with Eastern European countries in the area of fire protection and disaster management”. The task of the Commissioner is above all to develop a national concept for cross-border fire protection and disaster management as well as a danger prevention plan for the immediate border region between Brandenburg and Poland in cooperation with the neighbouring Polish Voivodships. Another task of the Commissioner is to expedite the development of cross-border alert plans for major catastrophes and disasters as well as joint training and exercises. In addition, the Commissioner will participate in the evaluation, coordination, planning and implementation of EU cross-border fire protection and disaster management projects with local authorities.
C.4 Has your country/region adopted proactive measure and initiatives with a view to – for example – identifying cross-border territories as suitable areas for spatial planning, infrastructures, provision of services, etc. to populations on both sides of the border?
The replies show that in a number of states there is an emerging perception of border areas as places for possible multi-tier or multi-territory governance. Although this wording is not explicitly employed in the national replies, it seems permissible to use it here to mention certain interesting developments, such as those described below.
In December 2009, three French parliamentarians were tasked by Prime Minister François Fillon with drawing up a report on France’s transfrontier policy. The report presented on 23 June 2010 contains nineteen proposals to develop “a genuine policy in favour of frontier areas”. Some of these proposals concern legislative changes, while others could be met by means of institutionalised interministerial co-ordination and the establishment of a Strategic Observatory for Frontier Regions.
The Upper Rhine area has established a Geographical Information System, which contains over 90 maps produced in the trinational region on the subjects of administration, the environment, transport, land use, statistics and health. These maps are the result of an analysis of cross-border data. A Development Strategy for the Basle Eurodistrict has been adopted and serves as a common basis for urban development and the development of transport in the Basle trinational agglomeration up to 2020.
In relation to the Spanish-Portuguese cooperation, between Castilla y León and the Central Region of Portugal, within the framework of the relevant Working Community, there is a Mobility, Innovation and Territory Cooperation Strategy in force, the purpose of which is the identification of territories benefitting from cross-border cooperation projects and the implementation of such projects. A Cross-border Initiative Cooperation Office has been created in this framework.
Ukraine has identified the Carpathian Euroregion as an area where living conditions ought to be improved, possibly by reconsidering the many different financing instruments and priorities for 2014-2020 in a unified strategy for the entire region, by analogy with the Strategies for the Danube or the Alps.
Estonia and Latvia, Ukraine and Poland and Ukraine and Russian Federation have adopted joint spatial planning measures. Estonian legislation obliges the municipalities involved in planning to consult with their neighbouring municipalities.
Three countries – Austria, Hungary and Croatia – have developed cultural and economic activities together in the Western Pannonia Euroregion and maintain good relations of co-operation.
C.5 Have the state/regional authorities pertaining to that territory developed forms (in an institutionalised manner or not) of dialogue, co-operation, joint decision-making, common strategies?
The process of co-operation developed in border areas has made it possible to transcend administrative compartmentalisation and the limits to the powers of existing private or public bodies. There are countless working groups, steering committees for projects co-funded by the EU, Euroregions of all descriptions, etc and mentioning them all would be something of a challenge.
Here are some examples of the wide-ranging nature of these bodies: there are several bilateral and trilateral commissions and a number of sector-based intergovernmental commissions (IGCs) on the French borders (the Lyon Turin IGC, the Mont Blanc Tunnel IGC, the Fréjus Tunnel IGC, the Southern Alps IGC and the International Pyrenees Commission). Several dialogues have been launched, for example the Franco-German dialogue on cross-border policy (2009), the Franco-Spanish High-Level Meetings on cross-border co-operation (2008-2010), and numerous co-operation agreements exist between local authorities. There are a large number of cross-border bodies, some of which have given themselves legal personality, such as the European Grouping for Territorial Co-operation (EGTC).
On the Danish borders, the Øresund Committee established the Øresund Regional Development Strategy in 2010. On the Portuguese borders, a Working Community and an EGTC between Galicia and North Portugal have been set up. There are also sector-based committees in EuroACE that meet for one plenary session a year to take stock of cross-border co-operation.
On the borders of the Netherlands, dialogue and the joint decision-making process are maintained within the Task Force, which brings together ministries and regions.
A joint strategy on cross-border co-operation has been adopted between Ukraine and Poland and clusters are being set up in the fields of tourism, ecology and the information technologies.
With the signing of its Charter on 9 December 2010, the Upper Rhine Trinational Metropolitan Region was set up with the aim of bringing about harmonious, solidarity-based development of European regions by enhancing territorial cohesion. In the Jurassian Arc, the Conférence TransJurassienne holds a Council meeting each year which focuses on a specific issue and brings together politicians and economic and institutional players.
The Franco-Genevan Regional Committee set up in 1973 operates in the areas of regional planning, mobility, the economy, vocational training, prevention, health, security, culture, education and sport. These subjects are dealt with in six thematic commissions and the steering committee of the France-Vaud-Geneva metropolitan area project.
D. ANY OTHER INFORMATION
All the replies are available in full and in the original language in a separate “rainbow paper”. Among the information that may be of general interest, given the aim of the questionnaire and the conference on removing obstacles, the reader is referred to the two documents attached to the replies from the MOT and the Netherlands.
The first of these documents is the Manifesto for Cross-Border Co-operation in Europe, which is based on discussions held in Lille 8-9 November 2007 in the context of the European Encounters (see http.//www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/EUROMOT/MANIFESTE_fr.pdf). The second is the detailed description of the functions of the Grensmakelaar in the Netherlands (see below).
Extract from the reply of the Netherland to the questionnaire on removing obstacles to crossborder co-operation.
Task Force Cross-border Co-operation
Motive
In the policy notion “Internal Governance and Europe” (31, 200, nr. 4) dating from September 2007 and addressed to the Dutch Lower House, an agenda was announced for the first time that intended to solve bottlenecks in border regions. The Public Governance Council (ROB) was asked subsequently in 2008 for advice relating to cross-border cooperation.
The ROB insisted in its advice (Cross-border Governance, a task for all layers of governance) on the creation of a Task Force to solve cross-border bottlenecks. The chairperson assigned to this Task Force is the so-called “Cross-border Ambassador”, who among other things accelerates the operations and meets with the officials of the neighbouring countries.
The Dutch Government consequently followed up on the ROB’s advice and so the Task Force (including the assigned Cross-border Ambassador) started on June 22nd 2009. The Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs and the State Secretary of the Interior and Kingdom Relations shared their ideas for the future of the Cross-border co-operation project with the Dutch Lower House in a letter dating April 23 2010. They decided to prolong the mandate of the project and the Cross-border Ambassador in the short-term up till December 31, 2010.
For the long term (after December 31, 2010) however, they agreed to leave the decision to their successors in office. In December 2010, the ROB published an evaluation of the Task Force and its Cross-Border Ambassador. In April 2011, at the time of completing this questionnaire, the Dutch government is considering the structure of cross-border co-operation in the near future.
Until Parliament formally decides on the future of Task Force and Cross-border Ambassador, they will continue to do their current work.
Tasks
The Task Force and the Cross-border Ambassador were instructed to achieve considerable improvements in dissolving cross-border bottlenecks in the short-term. The bottlenecks have been divided in the following seven domains: education, health care, cross-border labour, safety, water, spatial planning and transport. The Task Force and the Dutch border regions together finally composed the agenda. The Task Force is expected to perform the following tasks under the guidance of the Cross-border Ambassador:
Designing the general process and monitoring the progress.
Formulating possible solutions to enhance cross-border co-operation, creating support for these solutions, initiating/assisting in actually solving the problems.
Preparing and implementing the shared agenda with the neighbouring districts in Germany and the involved governments in Belgium.
The Task Force consults frequently with the regional and local authorities in the border regions. The Task Force identifies and solves the bottlenecks in close co-operation with German and Belgian counterparts. Provinces and municipalities involved play an important role in this process.
Preparing international top-level consultations on governmental level.
The Task Force prepares these international consultations with the neighbouring countries, which facilitate the necessary decision-making concerning possible solutions to bottlenecks and the removal of barriers.
The composition and procedure of the Task Force
The regions, neighbouring countries and departments ought to work closely together in order to solve the bottlenecks.
The Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are the co-ordinating ministries in the Task Force, where the former focuses especially on the internal organising of affairs, at the same time the Ministry of Foreign Affairs concentrates on the cross-border connections (embassy’s, governments, etc.) and the link with “Europe” (guidelines, rules and programs). The Task Force focuses on the basic outlines.
In order to pay proper attention to the diversity of the bottlenecks, different working groups have been created for each specific bottleneck; simultaneously taking into account the already existing national and international consultative structures.
The working groups submit proposals to the Task Force regarding the solutions of bottlenecks. They also involve their counterparts of the neighbouring countries in the process. The Task Force’s role is to co-ordinate, inform and initiate in the interest of the project. This leads to intensive contact with decentralised governments (i.e. municipalities and provinces), institutions, and ministries in domestic- and cross-border regions, as well as the job of bringing together interested parties and providing information through seminars, workshops and the like.
The Benelux General Secretariat (among other things) also addresses certain cross-border problems and, for overlapping issues, the Task Force and the General Secretariat work together. For this reason, a representative of the Benelux General Secretariat is also member of the Task Force.
The proceedings of the Cross-border Ambassador / Chairperson
A brief overview
The Chairperson establishes working groups, consisting of representatives of border regions and ministries.
The Chairperson monitors the progress and realisation of the agenda in the different working groups.
The Chairperson establishes and maintains the relationships with the neighbouring countries regarding the progress and realisation of the agenda of cross-border co-operation.
The Chairperson periodically meets with the Minister and State Secretary of Interior and Kingdom Relations to discuss the progress and development of the project.
Assistance
A joined secretariat of the Ministry of Interior and Kingdom Relations and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs supports the Cross-border Ambassador and the Task Force in their activities.
Results
In close co-operation with neighbouring countries, the Task Force has set up mutual lists describing bottlenecks and together the parties involved try to find solutions for the problems.
There has been considerable progress on numerous issues. The Cross-border Ambassador meets periodically with the State Chancelleries (Prime Minister’s Offices) of the German Länder of North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony. Meanwhile, the relationships with the Belgian- and Flemish Governments are intensifying.
A brief overview of some of the successes as of the beginning of 2011
The introduction of an on-line portal for cross-border workers between The Netherlands and North Rhine-Westphalia on March 31, 2010 makes it easier to find the right information and improves their employment opportunities.
Non-European knowledge migrants, who are eligible for a special arrangement for knowledge migrants, now have the opportunity to work across the border.
The Dutch Ministry of Education, Cultural Affairs and Science started a pilot (January 1, 2010 until December 31, 2012) of 15 primary schools that tries to improve the knowledge of the pupils concerning the neighbouring countries’ languages. The knowledge of the German, English and the French language is declining, and this hampers the cross-border labour market in the long term.
To improve public transportation in the Euroregion Maas-Rhine, a cross-border public transportation plan is currently active.
The absence of a proper model for comparing domestic secondary school diplomas with foreign secondary school diplomas makes it difficult for German schools to prematurely acknowledge secondary school diplomas of Dutch pupils moving to Germany (or the other way around). Dutch State Secretary Van Bijsterveld and the German State Secretary of North Rhine-Westphalia signed a common declaration to solve this bottleneck.
The provinces of Zeeland (NL), East and West Flanders (BE) signed a protocol concerning their fire departments on 6 November 2009 in Ghent. It contains agreements about the joining of efforts of fire fighters across-borders and about improving cross-border communications.
The Dutch Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of North Rhine-Westphalia exchange knowledge about their integration policies.
Cross-border co-operation in the field of technology could create a “Top Technology Region” of the area where the Dutch provinces of Limburg and North Brabant (NL), the Belgian provinces of Flemish Brabant, Limburg and Liège as well as the German Land of North Rhine-Westphalia are part of. The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs confers with the Walloon provinces in Belgium to check whether a bilateral agreement in this specific field is possible.
The province of Limburg (NL) started a number of cross-border innovative projects, such as EURON (cross-border cooperation between numerous universities) and cooperation between the hospitals MUMC+ (Maastricht) and UKA (Aken) to achieve synergy.
APPENDIX II
Programme
After an introduction – by a Minister (Mr A Tykhonov, Ukraine) and a representative of regional authorities (Mr K-H Lambertz, Congress) – the conference could develop along the following lines:
Introduction to major challenges by the General Rapporteur
Working session A – Overview of lessons learned and experience gathered in crossborder co-operation, around three case studies (Germany-France, Netherlands-Germany, Germany-Poland…)
Working session B – Protocol No 3 to the Madrid Outline convention as a practical tool to overcome obstacles to transfrontier co-operation
Working session C – SWOT methodology applied to crossborder co-operation: the experience of ISIG reports
Summing up and conclusions by the General Rapporteur.
Discussion and adoption by the conference.
Working languages: English, French, Ukrainian
Duration: one day or one-and-a-half days
Venue: to be decided upon proposal by Ukrainian authorities
Participants: CDLR and LR-IC members, Congress members, representatives of crossborder co-operation bodies (Euroregions) and associations. Costs will not be covered by the Council Europe.
[1] Recommendations Rec(2005)2 on good practices in, and reducing obstacles to, transfrontier and interterritorial co-operation between territorial communities or authorities and Rec(2005)on the teaching of neighbouring languages.
[2] Austria (Voralrberg), Belgium (Flanders), Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia (Ministry of the Interior, Pskvov-Livonia Euroregion and Pärnu and Valga), Denmark (Ministry of the Interior, and the Hovedstaden, Sjælland, Syddanmark and Midtjylland regions), Germany (Baden-Württemberg, Brandenburg, Rhineland-Palatinate and Lower Saxony), Iceland, Luxembourg, France (Ministry of the Interior and Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière), Malta, Monaco, Netherlands , Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland (Arc Jurassien and Regio Basiliensis) and Ukraine (Institute of Regional Research at the National Academy of Sciences).
[3] Here is the full text of the preliminary remarks made by Switzerland: “In response to the questionnaire which you sent us and which we have forwarded to the various Swiss cross-border bodies, we attach the replies that two of those bodies have sent us. Those bodies are Regio Basiliensis and Arcjurassien.ch and both represent the regions they cover, each with its own specific characteristics. Regio Basiliensis looks after the interests of the five cantons of North-West Switzerland in the Upper Rhine Trinational Metropolitan Region. This region, which is highly urbanised and industrialised in high-tech fields, is considered one of the European regions that are at the forefront of cross-border co-operation. Arcjurassien.ch looks after the interests of the four cantons that make up Switzerland’s Jurassian Arc, a region characterised by the lack of a really large metropolitan area and by geographic features that do not naturally help communication. The challenges here are to facilitate communication and overcome this natural frontier, to co-ordinate activities and to give a boost to the entire region, whose know-how in micro-technology and watchmaking is world-famous.
While it is not possible to apply all the comments made by these two bodies to all Swiss borders, they do broadly speaking characterise the Swiss “border landscape” and express the concerns of the border regions.
The Confederation is aware of some of the obstacles mentioned by the two regions and has set itself the goal of ensuring their removal, within the limits of the powers vested in each particular entity and specific to the Swiss federal system. In many fields, federal legislation gives the cantons a high degree of autonomy and not only provides for considerable freedom of action but also conceptual and financial responsibilities. In these fields, the Confederation no longer has any decision-making powers and accordingly limits the funding it provides. The cantons have their own funds, which are supplemented by the Confederation in the context of the Federal Financial Equalisation System, to support projects and activities in their areas of responsibility.
It is in this context that it is necessary to analyse, for example, Switzerland’s New Regional Policy (NRP) and the country’s participation in the INTERREG programmes. This policy, the aim of which is to improve the competitiveness of the regions and generate added value in them through regional projects, thus contributing to the creation and protection of jobs in these regions, is supported jointly by the Confederation and the cantons, whereas its implementation is solely the responsibility of the cantons. Their contribution is therefore crucial when it comes to finding solutions to existing obstacles. They are, incidentally, free to use their own funds to support projects outside the scope of the NRP.”