Cross-border Public Services (CPS)

Transcription

1 Cross-border Public Services (CPS) Targeted Analysis Interim report Version 13/06/2018

2 This targeted analysis is conducted within the framework of the ESPON 2020 Cooperation Programme, partly financed by the European Regional Development Fund. The ESPON EGTC is the Single Beneficiary of the ESPON 2020 Cooperation Programme. The Single Operation within the programme is implemented by the ESPON EGTC and co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund, the EU Member States and the Partner States, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. This delivery does not necessarily reflect the opinions of members of the ESPON 2020 Monitoring Committee. Authors Zillmer, Sabine (Spatial Foresight) Holstein, Frank (Spatial Foresight) Lüer, Christian (Spatial Foresight) Stumm, Thomas (EureConsult) Schürmann, Carsten (TCP international) Marques da Costa, Eduarda (IGOT) Da Costa, Nuno (IGOT) Očkerl, Petra, (IPoP) Peterlin, Marko (IPoP) Berlina, Anna (Nordregio) Turunen, Eeva (Nordregio) Teräs, Jukka (Nordregio) Advisory Group ESPON EGTC Nicolas Rossignol Technical Support Hans, Sebastian (Spatial Foresight) Acknowledgements (optional) Information on ESPON and its projects can be found on The web site provides the possibility to download and examine the most recent documents produced by finalised and ongoing ESPON projects. This delivery exists only in an electronic version. ESPON, 2018 Printing, reproduction or quotation is authorised provided the source is acknowledged and a copy is forwarded to the ESPON EGTC in Luxembourg. Contact: info@espon.eu Disclaimer: This document is an interim report. The information contained herein is subject to change and does not commit the ESPON EGTC and the countries participating in the ESPON 2020 Cooperation Programme. The final version of the report will be published as soon as approved.

3 Cross-border Public Services (CPS) Interim report

4 Table of contents 1 Introduction CPS throughout Europe Understanding of CPS Possible rationales for initiating and establishing CPS Functional characterisation of CPS Working criteria for CPS Empirical evidence of CPS throughout Europe Presence of CPS in Europe Establishment of cross-border public services Legal, administrative and governance frameworks for implementing CPS Benefits and impacts of cross-border service delivery Tentative results of CPS in the case study regions General CPS findings in the case study regions Tentative overview of potentials and needs for CPS in the case study areas Tentative suggestions for good practice examples Selection criteria Short list of good practice examples Workplan and next steps ESPON 2020 ii

5 List of Figures Figure 2.1: Share of CPS by type of border Figure 2.2: Plans for future CPS across Europe Figure 2.3: Number of CPS established in a year Figure 2.4: Box plot of the time needed for establishing a CPS Figure 2.5: Obstacles encountered when setting-up CPS Figure 2.6: Delivery modes per policy area Figure 2.7: Adaptations made to implement the governance frameworks of CPS Figure 2.8: Frequency in use of the CPS per policy area List of Maps Map 2.1: Location of CPS service providers along European borders Map 2.2: Number of CPS per border segment Map 2.3: CPS by policy areas Map 2.4: Development of CPS provision in Europe List of Tables Table 2.1: Share of CPS by country borders Table 2.2 Number and share of CPS themes Table 2.3: CPS target groups Table 3.1: Overview of proposed CPS needs to further develop in the case study areas Table 4.1: Short list of good practice examples ESPON 2020 iii

6 Abbreviations AEBR CESCI CoR CPS CPSP EC EEA EGTC ESPON EU MOT Association of European Border Regions Central European Service for Cross-Border Initiatives European Committee of the Regions Cross-border public services Cross-border public service provision European Commission European Environmental Agency European grouping of territorial cooperation European Territorial Observatory Network European Union Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière ESPON 2020 iv

7 1 Introduction The ESPON Cross-border Public Services (ESPON CPS) project is implemented under the 'targeted analyses' priority. The key objective of the project is to support a better delivery of cross-border public services and to improve awareness about the added value of crossborder public services (CPS). A special focus is on the interests of the project's stakeholders: Where are CPS provided along EU borders? What services are provided in the case study areas of the study and what is missing in relation to the stakeholders objectives and needs? What are blocking factors hampering the development of CPS in the case study areas? What are the development potentials and future needs for CPS in the case study areas? And what are possible access points to exploit these potentials? What main policy recommendations can be derived for improving CPS provision? A key challenge for the study is that CPS were not yet comprehensively analysed at a European level and that previously no methodological concept for this is currently has been developed. This ESPON project makes a contribution to fill this gap. The interim report presents the overview of CPS throughout Europe (Chapter 2). The analysis of current CPS provision in Europe presented in the inception report has been enriched with additional literature and document reviews, inputs from case study regions and the results from an online survey. The overview of CPS throughout Europe includes a discussion on different border obstacles and challenges to be overcome for the establishment of CPS as well as different solutions found for the provision of services. Chapter 3 presents the state-of-play of the case studies, including an overview of missing CPS in the case study regions. They have been identified by combining analytical findings and exchanges with the study's stakeholders and their political needs. These CPS will be the focus of the case study reports and the workshops supporting further development of CPS in the case study regions. Chapter 4 provides a tentative overview of good practice examples. It includes a short list for good practice examples, including the justification of their selection. In addition, a few factsheets of good practice examples have been drafted and annexed. They serve as examples for further elaboration towards the final report and shall support the preparation of regional workshops. Chapter 5 shortly reviews the state of the study, next working steps and deliveries. The results and first overviews presented in this report are based on various inputs. A full description of the methodology is presented in the inception report. The final report will include a scientific report with the full description of the methods and approaches. ESPON

8 2 CPS throughout Europe This chapter presents the overview of CPS throughout Europe. First results presented in the inception report have been enriched and amended by additional literature and document reviews, input from the case study regions and results from the online survey (see Annex G for an overview of all results). The first section introduces the main characteristics of CPS and introduces working criteria for the definition of CPS. The second section presents the empirical findings on cross-border public service provision throughout Europe. 2.1 Understanding of CPS In order to assess the main challenges and opportunities of CPS, the concept has been further framed and defined, following up on the conceptualisation of CPS presented in the inception report. This section briefly introduces the rationale for cross-border public service provision, the framework of functional characterisation of CPS and working criteria to define CPS Possible rationales for initiating and establishing CPS Different border effects may create a need or added value for a CPS compared to domestic public service provision. The ESPON project GEOSPECS identified four dimensions that simultaneously characterise any border (i.e. political, physical / geographical, economic, socio-cultural) and generate various closure effects and opening effects for all kinds of cross-border exchange relations. These border effects may become visible when comparing four dimensions in a nexus models. The Nexus diagrams developed for the ESPON GEOSPECS project have been further developed. They map different current problems and futures challenges as well as current potentials and future opportunities for CPS against different types of border effects. The basic model with initial working hypotheses on CPS is presented in the inception report. Individual models will be developed for the case studies to support the discussions for future CPS development in their regions. Four types of opening and closure border effects can be distinguished: Effects associated with political borders. CPS may be introduced to address administrative or technical obstacles at the border. CPS can also emerge as result of existing cross-border cooperation and (bilateral) agreements. Effects associated with natural or physical obstacles. CPS may be introduced to create a critical mass for qualitative service delivery in areas with low population density. Effects associated with economic discontinuities. CPS may be introduced to ensure economies of scale and making better use of scarce resources for public service delivery. CPS may also support further integration of functional cross-border areas for example areas with frequent cross-border commuting. Effects associated with socio-cultural dividing lines. CPS may be introduced to support further territorial integration and addressing misunderstandings or creating mutual trust on both sides of the border. ESPON

9 2.1.2 Functional characterisation of CPS CPS can be distinguished from domestic public services by four types of characteristics. Due to the lack of a uniform definition of CPS at European level, four core elements have been distinguished to frame to concept and distinguish CPS from domestic public service provision. These core elements are (1) the normative base, (2) the production base, (3) the motivations and tasks as well as (4) the organisation and delivery of public services. (1) Normative base. The normative base provides the legal and administrative context for CPS. Domestic public services are usually subject to highly country-specific provisions ensuring a minimum level of service availability and equal access of the national population to affordable public services of a certain quality, often also with the objective to enhance a balanced development of the national territory. Unlike for domestic service provision, a legally binding obligation for initiating and providing CPS does not exists in general. Exceptions are some policies for which the nationally applied EU-legislation has introduced an explicit crossborder dimension (e.g. cross-border workers and their access to neighbouring social security systems; cross-border health care, water management, flood risk and river basin management). Therefore, CPS are in most policy fields based on voluntary actions" that is initiated at the sole discretion of interested public authorities on both sides of a border. Legal frameworks have to be established or adapted to bridge political border effects. This strategic frame-setting cooperation is an already long-standing and still on-going practice that can be observed in CPS-relevant policy fields such as civil protection and disaster management, water management, health care or long-term care, emergency / rescue services, job-placement and vocational training or police cooperation. In other fields this normative base is more specific to the border situation. Overall, this makes the normative base for CPS very heterogeneous and far more complex than the respective country-internal context. (2) Production base. The production based describes the different tools and infrastructures needed to be in place for the CPS. Three basic infrastructure-categories can be distinguished that cover thematically different domestic public services, namely hard infrastructures, soft infrastructures and green-blue infrastructures. These infrastructures can in principle also be considered as the production base for CPS. However, there are two important particularities that clearly distinguish CPS from domestic public service provision. For CPS there is a spatial separation of the infrastructure and service area. A CPS can be provided on ground of a newly established physical infrastructure or on ground of a shared use / pooling of various physical infrastructures, but the used infrastructures always lie in the territory of a specific municipality / region on one or the other side of a state border. CPS are often provided on ground of system interface infrastructures. This fourth type of infrastructure addresses the border effect of information asymmetry and distinguishes CPS ESPON

10 from domestic services. System interface infrastructures are publically financed and continuously operated by specific cross-border networks or by already existing permanent cross-border cooperation structures. They can be tangible (e.g. a staffed information point where support is provided face-to-face) or virtual (e.g. an internet portal with practical information on different subjects; an IT-based policy support tool or a combination of both. (3) Motivations and tasks. Motivations for initiating and establishing CPS are related to the aforementioned opening and closure effects of borders. Relevant public stakeholders on both sides of a border must first develop a common understanding in relation to their cross-border needs and then have to achieve consensus on whether and how these needs should be approached. This process is demanding and can be very time consuming, in particular compared to domestic service provision where the needs are often defined more clearly or pre-established. Once the need is clearly formulated, there are still important joint decisions to be taken on what shall be achieved with the CPS. There are three possible approaches for this, which are in practice often used in combination. Quality improving CPS. These are generally completely new CPS developed for the general public or a specific target group. These CPS fill a gap in the domestic provision of public services on both sides of a border. Effectiveness improving CPS. CPS may be provided in two different ways to enhance effective delivery. A first option is the extension of an existing domestic public service to the other side of a border, which then creates benefits for the entire cross-border area. Another option is the coordination and harmonisation / integration of domestic public services that already exist on both sides of a common border. Efficiency improving CPS. This is generally the case where CPS provision (CPSP) is used as an alternative to current domestic service provision for realising economies of scale and/or economies of scope. (4) Organisation and delivery of public services. Each European country has its own national rules for organising and delivering public services that stipulate the division of responsibilities between public, private or voluntary stakeholders at different levels. Within each country, however, the availability, accessibility, affordability, quality and variety of a specific domestic public service in a specific context is reflected by the user demand and provided by different modes of organisation. CPS frequently require some kind of further formalisation compared to domestic services. Different organisational and management structures can be adopted for the delivery and management of the CPS. These can be networking models, centralised models or integrated models. These different models imply different cooperation agreements and management structures. ESPON

11 Informal agreements and especially formal cooperation agreements, conventions or contracts for a CPS are usually concluded between the competent local or regional public service organising authorities and/or the directly concerned service providers. Stakeholders sometimes have to set up a specific cross-border structure or body for managing and delivering a CPS. This may be a cooperation structure without an own legal personality (esp. for network-based implementation) or a cross-border structure / body with an own legal personality (esp. for integrated implementation). The latter can be set up by making use either of one country s private law (e.g. on non-profit associations) or public law (e.g. mixed economic companies or types of public companies); specific provisions in some far-reaching interstate agreements that are based upon the Council of Europe s Madrid Outline Convention; Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 as amended with Regulation (EU) No 1302/2013 on the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) which explicitly foresees a cooperative provision of public services (i.e. intents no. 8 and 24) Working criteria for CPS The large variety of possible CPS in different policy fields and according to their functional differentiation of the normative base, production base, motivations and tasks as well as delivery and organisation structures requires a systematic approach to determine whether a service could be considered as CPS. Working criteria rather than a formal definition for CPS have been developed in order remain flexible and adhere to large variety of possible CPS in Europe. These working criteria, in turn, require a case-by-case assessment. Eleven working criteria support distinguishing CPS from non-cps. Based on internal discussions on typical characteristics of CPS eleven working criteria have been developed to allow assessing whether a service should be considered a CPS or not. These working criteria may be further defined toward the end of the project. In general all criteria have to comply. Only for services at EU external borders it is suggested to apply the criteria less strictly, to illustrate how first steps towards CPS in the stricter sense can develop along these borders. The following working criteria have been defined. 1. The CPS covers a specified cross-border area and must have already materialised in the cross-border area. 2. A CPS addresses a joint problem or development opportunity in the cross-border area. 3. A CPS shall have a target group on both sides of the border, even if it is targeted in quite different ways. 4. Within the target group there is no access restriction for using the CPS. 5. A CPS includes actors from both sides of the border who are involved in initiation, establishment/financing and/or provision. The degree of involvement can vary however. 6. A CPS is publicly organised, either directly provided by a public body or a private/ nonprofit organisation via a concession. ESPON

12 7. A CPS can be provided in any of the policy fields listed in the Annex B. The sub-fields are not exhausting. 8. A CPS is publicly financed. 9. A CPS is a service which means that the mere existence of a (hard) infrastructure does not represent a service (e.g. a cross-border bridge, road or pipeline). 10. A CPS offers a long-term service provision, i.e. there is no limited timeframe as in case of one-off projects. 11. A CPS delivers which means that the service is existing and running at the time of analysis. 2.2 Empirical evidence of CPS throughout Europe The following section presents an overview of current CPSP at European level. The analysis of CPSP of the European wide perspective from the inception report has been enriched with additional literature and document studies, new CPS found in the case study regions and via the completed online survey. In particular the latter allows to present more findings regarding the main functional characteristics of CPSP as well as perceived challenges and obstacles (an analysis of survey results is presented in Annex G). Following the tentative results presented in the inception report an advanced overview has been developed for all themes, fields and sectors, and considering all border regions in Europe. Cut-off date for the collection of CPS analysed for the interim report was 15 March The survey was open until 31 March 2018 to allow for some late answers to be collected. These additional answers will be included in the draft final report. Thus, the following analyses do not represent the final but a draft final overview on existing CPSP in the EU Presence of CPS in Europe Until 15 March 2018, a total of 473 CPS in Europe could be identified and localised (Map 2.1). 1 The European overview of CPS shows a rather imbalanced picture of CPSP. The following analyses highlight the strong geographical and thematic differences (or foci) that can be observed. The highest share of CPSP in Europe can be observed along the borders between the six founding EU Member States (i.e. the Benelux countries, France and Germany) and Scandinavian countries. Most of these CPS are located along the borders of the Benelux countries, as well as between France, Germany and Switzerland, and in the Nordic countries (Map 2.1). A high density of CPSP can also be observed along the German-Czech and (partially) German-Austrian borders, and along the German-Danish border. The relatively high share of CPSP along the southern part of the Finnish-Russian border can be explained by more flexible interpretation of the working criteria in this case study region. Representing the 1 After including the late survey answers, the total CPS number will be about 510. ESPON

13 borders with the highest number of provided CPS, Map F-1 (Annex F) zooms into the Benelux countries, providing further insights about their spatial distribution. Map 2.1: Location of CPS service providers along European borders 2 A long-standing tradition of general decentralised cross-border cooperation, or mutual cooperation at national levels as well as population density determine largely the number and share of CPS per border segment. Border segments with more than five or ten CPS can only be found in Western Europe (Benelux countries, France, Germany, Switzerland) and in Scandinavia (Swedish-Norwegian and Swedish-Finnish borders, as well as Finnish-Norwegian and along the southern Finnish-Russian borders), with two exceptions along the German-Czech (Elbe-Labe region) and German-Austrian (Salzburg area) borders (Map 2.2). Other borders show only very few CPS (for instance, Slovak borders, border between Portugal and Spain). For some borders no or only one or two CPS have been identified (for example, Latvia-Lithuania, Hungary-Romania, Bulgaria-Romania and Bulgaria- Greece). 2 In Map 2.1, dots represent CPS that are either provided at certain locations (such as education services), or CPS whose service area cannot be delineated exactly. Lines represent CPS that are provided by a network of two or more partners at either side of a border. The line endpoints then represent the locations of the partners. Often, two partners (one partner on each side of the border) provide the service; however, sometimes three or more partners are involved. ESPON

14 It appears that the CPS instrument is primarily used along borders that either (i) have a long tradition of cross-border cooperation in areas with high population densities, i.e. high demand for services of any kind, or in contrary in areas (ii) with extremely low population densities and long distances between towns and villages, i.e. in areas with difficulties and high pressures for maintaining public services. Related to (i), another hypothesis that could be drawn from the geographical distribution of CPS is that there is a negative relation between the size of a country and the number of CPS, i.e. the smaller a country is (like Luxembourg) the higher the need for CPS. Due to the closeness of national borders CPS is vital in many policy areas such as water management, natural assets, urban development and public transport. Furthermore CPS provide a good solution to make best use of limited resources for smaller countries. Map 2.2: Number of CPS per border segment The German-French border accounts for approx. 16% of all CPS (Table 2.1), followed by the Belgium-French border with 9.6% and the German-Dutch border with 9.5% of all CPS. The Belgian-Dutch border hosts 7.5% of all CPS in Europe. If borders to Luxembourg are added, more than 50% of all CPS are located along borders of the Benelux countries and its neighbours (i.e. Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, France and Germany). The border to a ESPON

15 non-eu country with the highest share of CPS is the German-Swiss border (4.6%), remarkably ranked 6, followed by the French-Swiss and Swedish-Norwegian borders, both ranked 8 with approx. 3.8 % of all CPS each. Figure E-1 in Annex E explains how CPS were assigned to border segments. Table 2.1: Share of CPS by country borders Rank Border between Share (%) 1 France - Germany Belgium France Germany Netherlands Belgium Netherlands Czech Republic - Germany Germany Switzerland Austria - Germany France Switzerland Norway Sweden Belgium Luxembourg Germany Luxembourg Belgium Germany Denmark - Germany Finland Sweden Finland Russia France Luxembourg Croatia - Slovenia Germany Poland Hungary Slovakia 20 Portugal Spain Finland Norway Austria Slovakia Czech Republic Slovakia Poland Slovakia Austria Hungary 0.8./. Other borders 7.7 Source: Service provider CPS database, Figure 2.1: Share of CPS by type of border Source: Service provider CPS database, 2018 A further aggregation of this distribution reveals, that 66% of all CPS are located along borders between old EU Member States, almost 10% of all CPS along borders between old ESPON

16 and new EU Member States, 8% between new EU Member States, and 16% between EU and non-eu countries (Source: Service provider CPS database, 2018 Figure 2.1). Most CPS are concerned with environment protection, civil protection and disaster management and transport, followed by education and healthcare. Almost 25% of all CPS are dealing with environment protection including sewage water treatment, due to the substantial presence of borders crossing natural areas and the existence of many border rivers. This is followed by almost 23% of CPS that concern civil protection and disaster management (Table 2.2 and Map 2.3). Further significant shares of 13% are transport CPS, while CPS for education and training account for slightly less than 10%, which is similar to the share of healthcare and social inclusion CPS (9.5%). CPS on spatial planning, tourism and culture have a share of 8%. Labour market and employment CPS obviously have, in total, a rather low relevance (5.5%), so have CPS on citizenship, justice and public security (4.9%), while CPS on communication/broadband/information society seem to become less relevant and thus account for less than 1%. Table 2.2 Number and share of CPS themes 3 Theme / Field of intervention Frequency Share (%) Environment protection Civil protection and disaster management Transport Education and training Healthcare and social inclusion Spatial planning, tourism, and culture Labour market and employment Citizenship, justice and public security Communication, broadband, and information society Sum Source: Service provider CPS database, 2018 The spatial distribution of CPS themes is quite uneven across Europe, with borders that show a clear focus on one or two themes, contrasted with borders showing a mixture of a wide array of fields of interventions. For example, CPS in Scandinavia have a strong foci on civil protection and disaster management on the one hand, and healthcare on the other. In contrast, CPS along the Spanish-Portuguese border are generally concerned with labour market and employment related CPS. CPS along the German-Czech and German-Austrian borders are concerned with either environmental protection (including sewage water treatment) or with transport services. 3 It is worth mentioning that even though for this analysis each CPS has been assigned to just one theme, in reality some specific CPS have a multifaceted character, touching different fields of intervention. For example, a crossborder bus service which was originally implemented for transporting school kids may now also carry other citizens. So the service may be assigned to transport, but also to education. ESPON

17 The Belgian-French border area is, interestingly, a forerunner in healthcare CPS 4. Other borders like the Irish-British border or the border between Germany and the Netherland cover a wide array of fields and interventions, thus reflecting various policy objectives and public needs. Map 2.3: CPS by policy areas A further look into the detailed spatial distribution of CPS by poly area reveals some interesting insights (see Annex F for a series of maps). In the health sector, emphasis was given to establish CPS on primary care and on medical emergency or rescue services. The types of services found in this field range from small-scale solutions (e.g. bilateral hospital cooperation) to territorially more wide-ranging and integrated solutions (e.g. integrated health care zones at the BE-FR border). Traditionally, there are many CPS on joint sewage water treatment and drinking water provision (often being the CPS established first), a management of border rivers and other water bodies (i.e. lakes), and on nature parks, all across Europe. Meanwhile there are also a number of CPS on solid waste treatment and renewable energy related matters. As regards education, there is a strong focus on university cooperation, but between the old and new EU Member States there are also some interesting CPS on school 4 Map F-2 in Annex F provides a detailed zoom map into the Benelux countries. ESPON

18 cooperation. CPS supporting cross-border spatial planning were established between Germany and the Netherlands, in the Greater Region, between France and Germany as well as between France and Switzerland. This is similar for CPS related to cross-border business development. The large majority of CPS have a broad or unspecific defined target group. The vast majority of CPS address the general public (58.6%, Table 2.3). Reflecting the large number of healthcare CPS, more than 6% of all CPS address ill people and people requiring medical care. CPS addressing public authorities, tourists, job seekers, children and school kids, crossborder workers/job-seekers, students, and actors in health sector range between 2.6 and almost 5%. At the other end of the spectrum of target groups, there are highly specified CPS addressing specific experts such as staff of fire brigades / rescue services, medical care personnel, actors in the energy sector, police and customs authorities, or spatial planners. Table 2.3: CPS target groups Target groups Frequency Share (%) General public People of all ages requiring medical care Public authorities Tourists Job-seekers Children and young adults at school age Cross-border workers, job-seekers, trainees, and employers / companies Students, researchers and professors Actors in health care Public transport users, travellers Enterprises, SMEs, and entrepreneurs Fire brigades Political decision makers; other actors and stakeholders involved in employment policies NGOs Elderly people Police and customs Spatial planners, national and regional / local authorities, political decision-makers, Actors in the energy sector Sum Source: Service provider CPS database, 2018 The territorial extent of the potential target group differs largely per CPS. The majority of CPS have a fairly equal distribution of the target group on both sides of the border. Whereas some other CPS primarily target inhabitants on one side of the border, i.e. 70% of the target group is represented in one country. Based on the survey results, there is no pattern according to the type of CPS with a more imbalanced territorial scope of the target group. For most CPS the target group is variable (i.e. in terms of the actual use of a service), while in ESPON

19 Spatial planning, economic development tourism and culture No, none Education and training Health care, long-term care and social inclusion Environmental protection, natural resources management and climate change action Transport Labour market and employment Civil protection and disaster management Communication broadcasting and information society Citizens affairs, justice and public security some other cases the target group is fixed and the CPS is steadily used on a day-to-day basis (e.g. cross-border sewage water treatment or cross-border drinking water provision). Steady cooperation between publicly managed cultural heritage sites or museums are among the fields of intervention where CPS may emerge most likely in the near future. Spatial planning and tourism is the policy area in which most new CPS may be expected in the near future, according to the survey results (Figure 2.2). Within this policy area, in particular CPS for cooperation on joint management of cultural heritage or museums are envisaged. Other CPS that may be established in the near future can be expected in the policy areas of education and training, health care and environment protection. Within these policy areas the following fields of interventions have been most frequently mentioned by the survey respondents: other new public transport services, tourism offices and permanent joint public services for tourism promotion, schools with joint educational schemes, steady cooperation between schools for the exchange / mobility of pupils and teachers, and healthcare long-term care and social inclusion. Another large share of the survey respondents does not expect any new CPS in their region in the near future. For all these findings, no distinctive spatial distribution can be identified across Europe. Figure 2.2: 70 Plans for future CPS across Europe Plans for future CPS across Europe Source: Online survey on CPS 2018; n=211 Most of the CPS envisaged for the future have not yet been established due to legal and administrative obstacles. Approximately 40% of the survey respondents mentioned that legal and administrative obstacles are hindering the establishment of CPS. More precisely, asymmetric or unclear competences/responsibilities of policy actors as well as incompatible domestic legislations are perceived as obstacle. Also economic and demographic discontinuities are frequently mentioned as an obstacle, often related to onesided scarce budgetary resources. Geographic specificities, such as mountain ranges or ESPON

20 rivers do not seem to be an issue. Rather missing transport linkages and low accessibility are mentioned as obstacles. Other obstacles mentioned by the survey respondents are the lack of a common strategy, or the political will or interest to engage in cross-border activities Establishment of cross-border public services This section provides evidence on the processes for establishing CPS, the time needed to establish CPS, different rationales for introducing CPS and different obstacles encountered and overcome when establishing CPS. After 2000 more CPS have been established than during previous decades. Among others this is due to more frequent introduction of CPS involving Eastern European countries. From 1970 to 1990, only very few initiatives were initiated to establish new CPS, mainly in the field of environment protection (cross-border nature parks, cross-border sewage water treatment etc.) (Figure 2.3). A maximum of five CPS implemented per year can be observed (1986). Since 1990, a jump in CPS establishments can be observed with peaks of 20 (1998), 21 (2002) and 18 (2013) new CPS per year. However, there are also years with only few new CPS (for example 2004, 2009 or 2011), but these remain the exception between the years with more new CPS provided. This strong increase clearly coincides with the introduction of the Interreg Community Initiative back in 1990 and its continuing implementation during the following decades. Figure 2.3: Number of CPS established in a year Source: Service provider CPS database, 2018 The number of CPS in Europe is slowly and steadily increasing, with an average of 5 to 10 new CPS per year. The steady increase in new CPS per year is also reflected by the 5 Some CPS have been established already before 1970, which are excluded from this chart. From the total of 473 CPS identified, information about the establishment year was given for 303. So, Figure 2.3 is based upon a total of 303 CPS. ESPON

21 moving average. In 1992, this average jumped to 2.0, followed by next jumps to 2.58 in 1995 and to 3.52 in Since then the averages increased steadily with further jumps in 2002 (from 4.06 to 4.58) and in 2012 (from 5.24 to 5.49). In 2017, the average reached its temporary peak of Map 2.4 illustrates the temporal development of CPSP in Europe. Until 1989, when only few CPS services were implemented each year, this happened mainly between France and Germany. Increasing dynamics in the coming ten years still focussed on Western Europe. Only after the year 2000, Eastern European countries recognised the CPS instrument and started to use it widely. In the first years, German-Czech cooperation were initiated, later CPS along the Austrian-Hungarian and Slovenian borders started. One of the reasons why only few CPS per year are implemented may be linked to difficulties in the design and administrative implementation. Subject to the type of service envisaged and the local and regional conditions, the implementation may take years. First, actors on either side of the border need to develop a common problem understanding, followed by identifying possible solutions and by shaping the service in question (see section 2.1). Establishing a CPS takes generally a few years. Survey findings show a large variability of the time needed to establish a CPS. The range in the survey was from six months to 20 years. Figure 2.4 illustrates the variety of answers collected via the online survey. Most CPS have been established between 1.5 and five years. The time that it takes to establish a CPS seems to be very case specific. Previous experience, or a long standing cooperation in the area does not always guarantee that a CPS can be established faster than in other border areas or policy fields with less experience. Figure 2.4: Box plot of the time needed for establishing a CPS 50% of the CPS take between 1,5 and 5 years to establish x The average time to establish a CPS is 4 years and 3 months A few CPS take considerably longer to establish The medium time it takes to establish a CPS is 3 years Source: Online survey ESPON CPS n=98 ESPON

22 Map 2.4: Development of CPS provision in Europe. ESPON

23 A large share of CPS aims to improve the quality of public service provision in border regions. The grounds on which the services were introduced differ largely, but some needs and motivations appear frequently in the survey responses and may be common to many CPS establishments. Differentiating the reasons provided by the motivations introduced in the conceptual framework shows that 47% of the CPS aim at quality-improvements, 28% on improving effectiveness and 25% on improving the efficiency of service provision. Typical motivations for quality-improving CPS are to address needs related to cross-border flows. Examples are the support of cross-border commuting, contribute to decreasing congestion between cross-border towns, support the development of increasingly international school and education systems and support the flow of tourists. address a specific gap in service delivery or a shared problem in the border region. Examples are the recognition of documents and diplomas or the lack of support to specific cross-border issues related to flows, language, or administration. Effectiveness-improving CPS are often motivated by increasing coordination, for example through joining forces in case of a shared issue or common interest such as decreasing pollution or ensuring comparable service levels in health care or education both sides of the border, increasing the job chances of pupils and students, or supporting players in the region to overcome border barriers. increasing the scope of the service. This holds, for instance, for rescue services from the neighbouring country that may be faster than domestic rescue services. The establishment of a CPS may also emerge from efficiency related motivations: Increasing the scope matters if the market for the public service may be increased due cross-border cooperation. This may also increase the accessibility of public services in less densely populated areas. The relatively high share of CPS in the Nordic countries as depicted in Map 2.3 may result from this. Cost savings may be possible by joining forces when offering a service together. At the same time public authorities have a larger pool of resources to ensure a better quality of the service as compared to a separate provision. Most CPS have been introduced outside the scope of existing cross-border policy documents or territorial and sector policy planning documents. 51% of the CPS in the survey have been introduced without any specific policy document, followed by existing general action plans (35%). Existing general action plans have been relatively more frequently noted for CPS related to citizens affairs, justice and public security as well as labour market and employment and education and training. Spatial plans have only been mentioned for CPS related to environment protection, education, health care and transport. Sector policy plans have only been mentioned for two CPS. ESPON

24 CPS providers have encountered mainly legal and administrative obstacles when establishing the CPS. Almost three-quarter of survey respondents indicated to have encountered legal and administrative obstacles during the establishment of the CPS (Figure 2.5). In particular asymmetric or unclear competences or responsibilities of policy actors and incompatible domestic legislation have been indicated as obstacles that needed to be overcome. Other obstacles mentioned frequently are language barriers (cultural divides), onesided scarce budgetary resources (economic discontinuity), and mental barriers (sociocultural divides). Comparing the obstacles by policy area of the CPS illustrates some small differences. Legal and administrative obstacles are relatively frequently mentioned for CPS related to civil protection and disaster management and citizens affairs, justice and public security. Economic and demographic discontinuities are relatively more frequently mentioned for education and training CPS and for CPS related to labour market and employment. Physical and natural obstacles and barriers are relatively more frequently mentioned for CPS in the policy areas of health care, long-term care and social inclusion, environmental protection and transport. Figure 2.5: Obstacles encountered when setting-up CPS Obstacles encountered when setting-up CPS Legal and administrative obstacles Existing socio-cultural divides Economic and demographic discontinuities Physical / natural obstacles and barriers 74 Source: Online survey ESPON CPS 2018; n= Legal, administrative and governance frameworks for implementing CPS Since CPS lack the legally binding obligation that domestic service provision usually frame, the provisions of CPS is based on voluntary actions, specific legal frameworks and cooperation agreements. This lack of a specific normative base results in a heterogeneous legal, administrative and political cross-border context in which CPS operate. In addition, the complex legal context also shapes the production base of the CPS (i.e. various types of ESPON

25 hard/soft and green infrastructures), which often requires additional clarifications on ownership, maintenance and development. The following highlights the key findings at European level on these aspects. Delivery modes characterising the actual provision of CPS differ largely between policy areas. Across CPS of all policy areas the share of completely new CPS, cross-border extensions of domestic services and better coordination between domestic services on both sides of the border is fairly even. This illustrates the variety of solutions found to actually provide a CPS. Comparing the delivery mode of CPS per policy area shows some variation (Figure 2.6). This variation has to be interpreted with caution, given the low number of survey responses for some policy areas (see Table G-1 in Annex G). New CPS seem to be more often established in the policy areas of education and training as well as labour market and employment. CPS in the policy areas of natural resources management and spatial planning are more often delivered by better coordination of existing domestic services. CPS for sewage water treatment, drinking water provision, citizens affairs, civil protection and health care tend to be more often provided as a cross-border extension of an existing domestic service to the benefit of both sides. Figure 2.6: Delivery modes per policy area Delivery modes per policy area Citizens affairs, justice and public security Civil protection and disaster management Environmental protection, natural resources management and climate change action Labour market and employment Education and training Health care, long-term care and social inclusion Spatial planning, economic development tourism and culture Transport 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Completely new CPS filling a gap in the domestic public service offer on either side, which is jointly delivered and managed Border-crossing extension of an existing domestic public service for the benefit of both sides Better cross-border coordination of existing domestic public service provision on both sides of the border Source: Online survey ESPON CPS 2018; n=98 Frequently, multiple modifications of cross-border legal frameworks are necessary to implement a CPS. Most survey respondents indicated to have modified more than one aspect of cross-border legal frameworks to allow implementing a certain CPS. Most frequently mentioned is the conclusion of a specific local or regional cooperation agreement between the competent entities organising the public service, followed by the elaboration of a new convention between local and regional authorities. The differences per policy area are minor. ESPON

26 Only in the policy areas of environment protection and citizens affairs existing regional and local conventions or protocols have more frequently been adapted to support the implementation of the CPS. For most CPS included in the online survey a new cross-border structure or body has been established that provides the service. CPS around Europe show a large variety of governance solutions for the day-to-day operation of the CPS. In most cases a new crossborder structure without own legal personality has been established, followed by an adaptation of an already existing cross-border structure or body and the establishment of a new intergovernmental cross-border body. The establishment of an EGTC or a new crossborder body making use of domestic law was less frequently applied by the respondents of the survey, although other cases of CPS provision through an EGTC are known (e.g. Hospital of Cerdanya). The variety of the governance frameworks and the necessary adaptation applied for the implementation of the CPS is large across policy areas (Figure 2.7). However, for some policy areas, such as transport, fewer governance frameworks seem to be a suitable option than for other areas. Figure 2.7: Adaptations made to implement the governance frameworks of CPS Source: Online survey ESPON CPS 2018; n=98 Different administrative or regulatory adaptations are required in the domestic context to implement CPS. In most cases, an adaptation of operating provisions of the concerned direct service providers was necessary, prior to the implementation of the CPS. Survey respondents mentioned frequently also the requirement to adapt administrative ESPON

27 implementation provisions of concerned service-organising authorities. Only in a few cases new domestic law or a change of existing sector policies at national, regional or local level was needed before the implementation of the CPS. This domestic adjustment has only been mentioned for CPS in the policy areas of citizens affairs and education and training Benefits and impacts of cross-border service delivery As aforementioned, CPS may contribute to increasing the quality of service provision, make service delivery more effective or efficient. Beyond these main benefits of CPS, the services have often other positive effects and impact more widely in the cross-border area. The following presents some of the more frequently mentioned benefits of CPS. CPS contribute to reducing negative border effects, for example by enhanced cultural integration, increased understanding of the neighbours or a common understanding on shared issues or needs. CPS contribute to better connections, not only between people but also by increasing the accessibility to services, provision of missing resources, or by offering a one-stop-shop and thus a simplification in dealing with a variety of border challenges. By increasing the accessibility and the scope of service, the quality of the services can be improved as knowledge and resources from both sides of the border can be better exploited. CPS can support the promotion of cross-border flows of people, for examples by offering better information on the different complementarities of two bordering regions or by better matching of labour markets. CPS may also support cross-border flows of commuters, tourists and students by providing them better information on both countries or by being more visible. CPS may contribute to raising awareness of cross-border possibilities in terms of work, health care, recreation, education etc. This promotion may have a positive effect on the image of the cross-border region and can support regional economic development. CPS may create support for a shared political need by addressing shared challenges, for examples by providing environmental protection. Existing CPS are regularly used, but the frequency of use depends on the type of CPS. The large majority (67%) of existing CPS are frequently use and addresses the needs for which the CPS has been established (Figure 2.8). CPS that are less frequently used offer a general quality improvement to the cross-border region. These are typically 'stand-by' services such as emergency services for civil protection and health care. ESPON