Cross-border Public Services (CPS)

Transcription

1 Cross-border Public Services (CPS) Targeted Analysis Inception report Version 16/01/2018

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) Stumm, Thomas (EureConsult) Schürmann, Carsten (TCP international) Marques da Costa, Eduarda (IGOT) Marques da Costa, Nuno (IGOT) Peterlin, Marko (IPoP) Turunen, Eeva (Nordregio) Teräs, Jukka (Nordregio) Advisory Group ESPON EGTC Nicolas, Rossignol Technical Support 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 inception 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 a Cross-border Public Services (CPS)

4 Table of contents 1 Introduction Conceptual framework for analysing cross-border public services and for drawing conclusions on their effect and wider impact Understanding of cross-border public service provision in a wider context Functional characterisation of CPS: a meta-level working tool for establishing a sound analytical framework to this study The normative base for domestic and cross-border public service provision The "production base of domestic and cross-border public service provision Motivations and tasks for domestic and cross-border public service provision Organisation and delivery of domestic and cross-border public services Research questions to be explored by the analysis of CPSP From analysis to policy-level conclusions: nexus diagrams as instruments for mapping context conditions and impact of CPSP Methodological framework specific approaches used delivering tasks 1-3 of the targeted research Literature review Survey Set-up of the survey Analysis of survey results Case studies Recommendations Workshop Good practices Practical guide Nexus models First results Analysis of current cross-border public service provision Analysis of CPS in an EU-wide perspective Analysis of CPS at the level of the case study areas Major challenges at EU level and for case study areas First results on major challenges at EU level relevant for future CPSP Regional challenges relevant for future CPSP the example of Sønderjylland Tentative insights into CPSP, political objectives and needs for CPSP in the case study areas Region Sønderjylland-Schleswig (DE-DK) EuRegio Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein (AT-DE) Galicia North Portugal EGTC (ES-PT) Bothnian Arc (FI-SE) Pomurje Region (AT-HR-HU-SI) South Karelia (FI-RU) Euroregion Elbe/Labe (CZ-DE) Euregio Scheldemond (BE-NL) Alentejo (ES-PT) EUREGIO Bayerischer Wald Böhmerwald Unterer Inn (AT-CZ-DE) Annexes ESPON 2020 ii

5 A. Updated time table of the study B. Wider policy areas and related fields of intervention covered by CPSP C. Specific provisions in interstate agreements on cross-border cooperation, based upon the Madrid Outline Convention D. Infrastructure categories and related domestic public service provision E. Literature list F. Survey structure G. Calendar for regional stakeholder workshops H. Map templates for case study areas I. Case study template J. Template for good practice factsheets K. Proposed tentative structure for "Practical Guide" L. Preliminary EU-wide CPS analysis results ESPON 2020 iii

6 List of Figures Figure 2-1: Nexus elaborated for the GEOSPECS case study are Jura massif (FR-CH) Figure 2-2: Baseline model for a development of nexus diagrams Figure 3-1: Principle logic of survey structure Figure 4-1: Share of CPS by type of border Figure 4-2: Number of CPS established in a year Figure 4-3: Euregio Scheldemond - Tentative statistics on CPS provision Figure A- 1: Process of assigning CPS to national border segments List of Maps Map 3-1: Overview of case study regions according to different types of borders Map 4-1: Location of CPS service providers along European borders Map 4-2: Number of CPS per border segment Map 4-3: CPS - Types of services/fields of intervention Map 4-4: CPS in the Euregio Scheldemond Map 4-5: Euregio Scheldemond - Number of CPS per border segment Map 4-6: Region Sønderjylland-Schleswig: Road and rail networks Map 4-7: Region Sønderjylland-Schleswig - Car travel times to health care facilities Map 4-8: Region Sønderjylland-Schleswig - Total population (2015) Map 4-9: Region Sønderjylland-Schleswig - Population density (2015) Map A- 1: BothnianArc map template Map A- 2: South Karelia map template Map A- 3: Region Sønderjylland-Schleswig map template Map A- 4: Euregio Scheldemond map template Map A- 5: Euroregion Elbe/Laabe map template Map A- 6: EUREGIO Bayerischer Wald-Böhmerwald-Unterer Inn map template Map A- 7: EuRegio Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein map template Map A- 8: Pomurje Region map template Map A- 9: Galicia-Norte de Portugal EGTC map template Map A- 10: Alentejo-Central Extremadura_Algarve-Andaluzia map template Map A- 11: Location of CPS providers in the Benelux countries Map A- 12: CPS - Types of services/fields of intervention along the Benelux borders Map A- 13: CPS in health care and health care areas Map A- 14: Environment protection services and protected areas ESPON 2020 iv

7 List of Tables Table 2-1: Strategic frame-setting cooperation for CPSP... 7 Table 2-2: Multidimensional reality of borders and related border effects Table 2-3: CPS implementation models with related organisational structures and corresponding delivery / management modes Table 2-4: Process-related core elements and research questions for the CPSP analysis Table 4-1: Share of CPS by country borders Table 4-2: Number and share of CPS themes Table 4-3: CPS target groups Table 4-4: Preliminary list of CPS in Euregio Scheldemond Table 4-5: Policy fields, challenges and triggers for CPS Table 4-6: Evidence on existing CPS ESPON 2020 v

8 Abbreviations AEBR CESCI CoR CPS CPSP EC EGTC EEA ESPON EGTC 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 grouping of territorial cooperation European Environmental Agency European Territorial Observatory Network European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation European Union Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière ESPON 2020 vi

9 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 cross-border public services and to improve awareness about the added value of crossborder public services. A special focus is on the interests of the project's stakeholders: Where are cross-border public services (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 in an EU wide perspective and that a methodological concept for this is currently missing. This gap shall be filled by the ESPON CPS project. The inception report is the first deliverable of the project. According to the ToR the inception report shall detail the conceptual and methodological framework for analysing CPS at an EU-wide level and for the case study areas chapter 2 details the conceptual framework and chapter 3 outlines the methodological framework; this is complemented by several Annexes with more detailed templates for the next analytical steps; give an overview of qualitative and quantitative data and other documentary sources to be collected and used chapter 3 and Annex E provide a corresponding overview; tentatively identify existing CPS throughout the entire EU and map them (preferably on NUTS3 level) a tentative analysis including draft maps are subject of section 4.1; provide a first analysis of CPS identified in the case study areas by looking at their main features sections 4.1 and 4.2 include a tentative overview of CPS in the case study areas; indicate how to conduct the prospective analysis of needs and potentials for CPS provision in the case study areas the corresponding methodological aspects are mainly covered in chapter 3, the corresponding time frame is indicated in Annex A; first corresponding insights into the needs of the case study areas are also provided in sections 4.2 and 4.3 that further show how to access the prospective analysis. show how good practice examples of CPS provision shall be identified and illustrated the methodology outline in chapter 3 provides corresponding indications. ESPON

10 2 Conceptual framework for analysing cross-border public services and for drawing conclusions on their effect and wider impact The conceptual framework is one key element enabling a structured and focussed approach to analysing cross-border public services in the frame of the ESPON CPS project. Thus, following first provides the context for understanding what CPS are and then develops a conceptual model that differentiates the crucial elements to be considered when analysing CPS. 2.1 Understanding of cross-border public service provision in a wider context Early forerunners of today's public services existed in Europe already more than 2,000 years ago in those parts of the continent that were under Roman rule 1. With the fall of the Roman Empire, also a systematic provision of (local) public services disappeared for many centuries and only re-emerged in Europe in the wake of the development of modern nation-states. Since the mid-19 th century until the turn to the 20 th century, a more widespread provision of public services began in several developed European countries as well as in North America mostly at the local level: first public services were established for urban transportation 2, the urban production and supply of manufactured gas 3 and urban waste management 4, but later also for health care 5 and to some extent for drinking water provision. During the first half of the 20 th century, a local and also nation-wide provision of public services was further expanded to a wide range of other fields (e.g. electricity, drinking water supply, social welfare and public housing, urban public transport, postal services, public 1 Examples are the advanced public drinking water supply infrastructures in large and medium-sized cities (i.e. system of aqueducts and water pipes that terminated in homes and at public wells and fountains) as well as public hygiene facilities (e.g. public baths and large public spas, also with the function of physical and mental recreation) and buildings for organising major public events (e.g. amphitheatres, circuses). Other examples are the professional public municipal fire-brigades in Rome, Naples and Ostia, but also the publically organised voluntary fire-brigade associations of local crafts guilds that existed in many provincial towns. 2 The first public urban transport services for general use (i.e. the so-called omnibuses ) emerged in Nantes/France (1826), followed by similar services in London (1829) and New York (1829), and the first horse-drawn trams / streetcars emerged in Swansea/UK (1807) and New York City (1832). 3 The Gas Light and Coke Company founded in 1812 was the world's first public gas works that produced and supplied coal gas and coke in London, first for street lighting and gas lighting at home (i.e. as a substitute for candles and oil lamps) and then also for heat and cooking. In 1819, already 486 kilometres of gas pipelines existed in London that supplied over 50,000 burners. In 1821, no town in the UK with a population over 50,000 was without gaslight. In France, the first public company for gaslight was created 1818 to install / provide gaslight at a number of prestigious buildings in Paris (i.e. Opera, national library). In Germany, Hannover was the first city to use gas for street lighting in 1825 and a year later public gas supply also began in Berlin for lighting purposes. Both of these early services were provided by gas works that operated under a concessionary contract concluded with the Londonbased Imperial Continental Gas Association. Municipally-operated gas works emerged 1828 in Dresden, 1838 in Leipzig and 1845 also in Berlin. 4 As a consequence of industrialisation and the rapid population growth in larger cities, first urban waste disposal and waste management systems emerged in the United Kingdom (i.e. in London, following national public health legislation of 1842 and 1846) and North America (i.e. first in New York City, 1895). 5 Public health services started to develop in the UK after series of Public Health Acts (i.e. adopted in 1851, 1871, 1875, 1889), which also led to the establishment of Sanitary Districts in England and Wales (1875) as well as in Ireland (1878). The most comprehensive development took place in Germany, which has the oldest national health insurance system in Europe that originates from Bismarck's social legislation of 1883, 1884, and ESPON

11 broadcasting and telecommunications). Especially after World War II, a wave of nationalisation across Europe created publically-owned companies to provide services in all these fields (e.g. public utilities). This expansion has made public service provision a key task of modern European welfare states, which accounts for a large proportion of public budgets at different government levels (national, regional, local). The post-war pattern of domestic public service provision started to change in many Western European countries since the early 1980s under the growing influence of neoliberal policies and the European Union s internal market legislation adopted from the mid-1990s onwards, but also due to technological developments that eroded some of the natural monopoly aspects of traditional public utilities. Electricity generation and electricity retailing or telecommunication as well as some types of public transport and postal services have thus become increasingly competitive, but infrastructures used to distribute most of these public utility products and services have remained largely monopolistic in most countries. Although trends such as a further liberalisation, deregulation, full privatisation, out-sourcing or the establishment of public-private partnerships continue, also a counter-trend is sometimes observed that was partly driven by direct citizens' demands (e.g. re-municipalisation of water supply in Berlin or of energy networks in Hamburg). Changes of public service provision were clearly more radical in Central and Eastern European Countries since the fall of the Iron Curtain, because these countries had to undertake a profound re-definition of their former socialist public sector models in order to prepare for EU membership. When cross-border public services (CPS) are considered in this wider historical perspective, it becomes clear that cross-border public service provision (CPSP) is a very recent phenomenon. It developed and expanded in close relationship with the further intensification and widening of the European integration process. First CPS emerged on specific themes already at the end of the 1950s and punctually also during the following three decades (e.g. drinking water provision, sewage water treatment, nature parks, emergency service etc.). Yet, a more intense and also thematically widespread provision of CPS has only taken place during the past 25 years following the introduction of the Interreg Community Initiative back in This dynamic development of CPSP may have been influenced by a recently observable come-back of municipal public service provision in Europe that also gives rise to a need for better coordinating such service provision across national borders. 7 Nevertheless, there is still a wide range of factors inhibiting CPSP along EU borders. They can briefly be summarised as follows 8 : 6 INTERACT (2015a), INTERACT (2015b), European Commission, DG Regio (2016b), Ministère du Développement durable et des Infrastructures, Département de l Aménagement du territoire, Luxembourg (2015), European Commission, DG Regio (2010). 7 Jaansoo / Groenendijk (2014), p. 3 8 Bundesministerium des Innern / Land Baden-Württemberg / EURO-Institut Kehl-Strasbourg (2015), conference contribution of Prof. Dr. Joachim Beck ESPON

12 Socio-economic factors the problem of defining cross-border needs and crossborder public goods; Territorial factors different needs and interests of local cross-border sub-areas in relation to needs and interests of the wider national and/or cross-border region, and vice versa; Legal and administrative factors divergence between the spatial dimension of shared cross-border needs (i.e. problems and potentials) and of fragmented legal and administrative framework conditions; Political factors lack of control and decision-making mechanisms for a binding settlement of joint cross-border issues and problems especially regarding CPS; Cultural factors divergences with regard to the identification, definition and implementation of joint problem-solving approaches; Functional factors cross-border cooperation is a (governance) subsystem without own material competences and a "voluntary task" involving a rather large number of actors. Despite this, a first literature-based compilation of CPS examples from different EU borders shows (Annex B) that CPSP takes place in nearly all policy areas for which also domestic public services are provided (i.e. except public banks and military / defence). Along EUborders, however, the scope of CPSP (i.e. the range of themes addressed) and the intensity of CPSP (i.e. the number of services existing per border) is highly variable. CPSP is most wide-ranging and intense at the old internal EU-borders, especially at borders between countries in North-West Europe (NL, BE, FR, LU, Western Germany, CH) and between Nordic Countries (SE, FI, DK, NO). At the new internal land EU-borders between countries that joined the EU in 2004 or later (EE, LV, LT, PL, CZ, SK, HU, SI, HR, RO, BG) and also at the current external EU borders, however, CPSP is clearly less wide-ranging and intense. But what are cross-border public services exactly? There is no simple answer to this question, as no comprehensive EU-wide information and data is currently available on CPS. In addition, no analytical concept exists that allows to clearly define or delineate the exact nature and scope of these activities 9. It may indeed be argued that all cross-border cooperation activities run by regional and ( ) local authorities are still public services, whatever their legal form might be. 10 However, this broad definition is not suitable because it implies that the analysis would have to consider every publically-driven cross-border project, be it short-term (one-off) or durable. But also a transferred use of the EU-level definitions elaborated for different categories of Services of General Interest 11 is inadequate. This is due to the vagueness of the EU-level concept and its terminology 12, but also because the 9 Interact (2015a), pp. 158, Council of Europe (2012a), p i.e. Services of general economic interest (SGEI), Social services of general interest (SSGI) 12 The term SGI (and also the terms SGEI and SSGI) was coined within the EU-level policy process and is everything but clear-cut. On the contrary, it is vague and multifaceted and does also not reflect national terminologies or the conceptual world of the scientific literature. ESPON (2013), pp.27, 183 ESPON

13 narrow definitions would neglect CPSP that is covering aspects such as police, justice or statutory social security schemes. Our introduction has shown that the analysis of CPSP can only succeed if the empirically observable functional characteristics of CPSP are well understood and are systematically considered throughout all stages of the research process. For this to ensure, the following section develops an overall framework that shall guide the EU-wide and stakeholder-focussed analysis under this study project. 2.2 Functional characterisation of CPS: a meta-level working tool for establishing a sound analytical framework to this study The present section examines different core elements of the wider public service provision process with the aim to establish a sound framework for the analysis of CPS under the present study. 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. Within this context various border effects resulting from the multidimensionality of a border can either create needs for CPS or hampering factors for CPS. For each element, the general patterns of domestic public service provision 13 are compared to those of CPSP in order to identify basic similarities and differences between both service provisions. This double perspective is needed, as CPSP shares many features with a domestic provision of public services and also because the stakeholder-level analysis of CSP requires that researchers consider particularities of public service provision in each country. The following comparison will identify step-by-step the main functional characteristics of CPSP (sections ) and also related research questions that shall be explored by the analysis (section 2.2.5). This framework shall support the EU-wide analysis and will allow a more precise delineation of the nature and scope of CPSP at the end of the study process. More importantly, this framework shall guide the stakeholder-level analysis of CPSP which has to show how these general characteristics play out in specific territorial contexts and in particular service fields. In doing so, researchers will not just have to consider the functional CPS characteristics individually but also in combination. The results of this analysis will allow elaborating area-specific policy recommendations for the concerned territorial actors (whether policy-makers, service-organising authorities or service providers), on ground of which they can start reflections on how to develop or improve CPS The normative base for domestic and cross-border public service provision All public services ( ) have market failure characteristics, which essentially means that an unregulated market will either under-provide them or, as in the case of public goods, fail to 13 Only general patterns can be considered here, as an understanding of public services in Europe is still a dynamic process and because a general definition for domestic public services which fully reflects the complexity and evolution of the European reality does not yet exist. See on this: ESPON (2013), p.36 ESPON

14 provide them at all. 14 This generates the basic rationale for public service provision in any given sector, but what is considered public services and to which degree their provision should be a public concern differs greatly between European countries 15. The normative base for a provision of domestic public services are usually specific rules in the constitutions of European countries and other prescriptions in secondary legislation on relevant policy areas (e.g. social security, health care, education, labour market, transport, water and waste management, environment, mail delivery and telecommunication, spatial planning etc.). These highly country-specific provisions generally aim at ensuring a minimum level of service availability and an equal access of the national population to affordable and quality public services, often also with the objective to enhance a balanced development of the national territory. This legal anchorage also makes it possible for individuals or organisations to formally claim the provision of certain public services within a country via courts. Particularities of CPSP A normative base that creates a legally binding obligation for initiating and providing CPS does not exist in general. Exceptions are some policies for which the nationally applied EU-legislation has introduced an explicit cross-border 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). Although related issues have to be primarily addressed by an individual Member State and its concerned administrations within the relevant domestic policies / public services, also cooperative action may be taken that can involve the provision of a specific CPS. However, this latter option is never mentioned explicitly. This general lack of an explicit legal base makes CPSP in most policy fields a voluntary joint action that is initiated at the sole discretion of interested public authorities on both sides of a border. Before any concrete action can be taken by local or regional authorities on CPSP, however, often a general and/or theme-specific legal framework has to be established for decentralised cross-border cooperation that bridges obstacles resulting from legal and administrative differences between neighbouring governance systems which manifest at all EU borders. This kind of public action is not needed in a domestic context, because homogenous regulatory / procedural frameworks and standards are already in place and applied in the concerned territory(ies) to all types of public services. General legal frameworks for decentralised cross-border cooperation were already established at an early stage between the Nordic Countries (i.e. 1962: Treaty of Helsingfors; 1977: Nordic Agreement on Cross-border Co-operation) and later also between a number of other western European countries through bilateral or multilateral interstate agreements that 14 Batley, R. / Mcloughlin, C. (2015), p ESPON (2013), p.36 ESPON

15 apply the Council of Europe s Madrid Outline Convention of These treaties and agreements define, albeit at various levels of detail, the scope of themes and practices through which local or regional authorities are allowed to act across borders and also include in some cases specific legal tools that can be used for CPSP (Annex C). Very often, CPSP also requires the conclusion of additional thematic interstate agreements between national or regional authorities from both sides of a border that have regulatory powers and/or administrative supervisory functions in a given policy area 17, but sometimes also the establishment of an ongoing strategic cooperation among these authorities (Table 2-1). Table 2-1: Strategic frame-setting cooperation for CPSP Conclusion of thematic interstate agreements for specific policy areas Ongoing strategic cooperation among national / regional public authorities National or regional authorities bearing regulatory competence for specific policies frequently conclude In some policy areas, an ongoing strategic cooperation is established among different public authorities at thematic interstate agreements (e.g. framework national or regional levels from both sides of a border agreements, conventions, protocols, exchange of notes etc.) that allow for cross-border cooperation in this particular field. that are bearing a regulatory competence in relevant policy fields and /or specific administrative competences (e.g. administrative supervisory role, service-organising role). These agreements establish a basic framework that determines the general principles and scope of cooperation in a given policy as well as the legal / administrative context and the content of this cooperation. They often also stipulate specific conditions and organisational principles on ground of which regions or local authorities may develop and jointly provide CPS in a given policy area (i.e. What can be done and by whom? Which limitations do exist? etc.). Practical examples are the bilateral or multilateral interstate agreements concluded on mutual assistance in case of natural disasters, severe accidents and civil protection: BE-NL (1970), DE-FR (1977), DE-BE (1980), BE-FR (1981), DE-CH (1984), BE-NL (1984), DE-NL (1988), PL-DE (1997), AT-SK (1999); emergency and rescue services: Rheinland-Pfalz/DE- BE (2009), AT-CZ (2016), Bavaria/DE-CZ (2016); cross-border management of water and/or of border rivers: Rheinland-Pfalz/DE-LU (1974), DE-NL (1960), DE-AT (1987), DE-PL (1992), DE-CZ (1995); cooperation between police, justice, customs and / or tax authorities: BE-DE (2000), IT-CH (2000 and 2003), Benelux countries (1996, 2004); cross-border health care (BE-FR, 2011) and long-term care (Wallonia/BE-FR, 2013); cross-border vocational training: DE-FR (2013), BE- DE-FR-LU (2014); cross-border job placement: DE-FR (2013). Source: Service provider, 2018 Continuous intergovernmental cooperation (i.e. national / national or national / regional) usually takes place in specifically created cross-border commissions, committees or working groups. Related activities can aim at eliminating / alleviating problems that may emerge during the service provision practice (e.g. due to different administrative proceedings, quality standards / safety provisions / insurance rules or the ongoing change of national legislations etc.), at providing guidance and advice to lower-level public authorities that are active in CPSP or at ensuring the quality of CPSP in accordance with the respectively applicable national rules / standards in force. Practical examples for this intergovernmental cooperation are the International Water Protection Commission for Lake Constance created in 1959; the French-Belgian Mixed Commission on health care), the permanent Task Force Commuters in the Greater Region, in the Upper Rhine Area (Upper Rhine Conference working group on spatial planning); cross-border Water Commissions set up at various EU-borders; the Freedom of Movement Council in the Nordic Countries dealing with a wide-range of cross-border mobility-related issues. 16 e.g. BENELUX Convention between NL, BE and LU (1991); Isselburg-Anholt Agreement between DE and NL (1993); Rome Agreement between FR and IT (1994); Vienna Agreement between IT and AT (1995); Treaty of Bayonne between FR and ES (1997); Mainz-Agreement between the German Länder North Rhine-Westphalia and Rhineland-Palatinate and the Walloon region and the German-speaking Community in Belgium (1998); Karlsruhe Agreement between FR, DE, LU and CH (1997); Valencia Agreement between ES and PT (2004); Brussels Agreement between FR and BE (2005). 17 Theme-specific agreements are concluded between competent national authorities from both sides of a border as well as between national authorities and regional-level authorities of Federal states with law-setting powers in a concerned policy. These agreements are in general not establishing a CPS as such, because this is usually done through an agreement's subsequent application at the local / regional levels. ESPON

16 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. Overall, this shows that the launching, conceptualisation and delivery of CPS always takes place in a very heterogeneous legal, administrative and political cross-border context that is by far more complex than the respective country-internal context The "production base of domestic and cross-border public service provision In modern industrial countries infrastructures with a public supply function are the necessary production base. On their grounds public services' provision to the population is taking place. For example, health care services for a large population cannot be provided without hospitals and their specialised equipment; a discharge of cleaned household / surface runoff waters to a river require a sewage collection system and an adequate treatment plant. One can generally distinguish three basic infrastructure-categories, which cover thematically different domestic public services that are serving different overall societal goals (Annex D). The first two categories are hard and soft infrastructures covering the essential physical networks as well as the basic institutional and human capital potential of a country 18, on ground of which a wide range of traditional domestic public services is provided. A modern perception of public service provision should also consider green (or green-blue) infrastructures 19 as production base, because they deliver valuable ecosystem goods and services 20 to the population that are a sub-category of public goods. Green infrastructures are deliberately conceived through sustainable spatial planning policies and regional or local development policies are investing in developing green infrastructure 21. Public activities directly aimed at protecting, restoring and enhancing the functions of green infrastructures are therefore important public services that complement traditional public environmental services such as a collection and treatment of waste water or solid waste. 18 The labelling of both infrastructure categories follows the distinction made by the OECD (i.e. in studies or policy documents, but not in OECD statistical terminology). Alternatively, also the notions technical infrastructure and social infrastructure could be used. Hard and soft infrastructures, understood here in a systemic way, were often built up within countries during decades. They may include interrelated systems components such as fixed physical assets (e.g. large facilities or plants, accessory buildings etc.), specialised equipment (e.g. vehicle fleets, control and management systems) and immaterial aspects (e.g. rules and regulations governing an infrastructure system, training for the operating personnel and specialists etc.). These infrastructure systems need to maintained at a specified standard of service by the continuing replacement and refurbishment of its components. 19 The labelling follows the wider term used by EU environment policy and should not be confounded with the more narrow term of ecological infrastructure. The blue component refers to water-related infrastructure such as rivers, streams, ponds and lakes or estuaries. 20 Ecosystem goods and services are complex and occur over long periods of time, but humanity is losing them at an unsustainable rate. Many of these goods and services have always been freely available (i.e. with no markets and no prices) and their true long-term value is not included in society s economic estimates. See also: European Commission (2009) 21 See on all this in more detail: EEA (2011), EEA (2014) and EEA (2015). ESPON

17 Particularities of CPSP Hard, soft and green infrastructures can in principle also be considered as the production base for CPSP, since CPS cover most thematic fields for which also domestic public services are provided. However, there are two important particularities that clearly distinguish CPSP from domestic public service provision. A first particularity results from the fact that any fixed physical infrastructure used for public service provision is always located at a precise spot. 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 22. The situation is very similar in case of green infrastructure, because the related natural and semi-natural or man-made assets of different scales are conceived and managed according to different national and regional / local rules applicable on either side of a border. This spatial separation of physical hard/soft and also green infrastructures within the service area of a CPS does not exist in a country-internal context. The separation raises further issues, which have to be agreed and organised between the concerned actors from both sides of a border. They relate for instance to infrastructure ownership (e.g. one-sided or joint ownership), the ongoing maintenance of an infrastructure (e.g. responsibility for certain parts of the infrastructure and bearing of the costs), and the further development of an infrastructure (e.g. mobilisation of funds for infrastructureenlargement / for a necessary modernisation and location of enlargements). A second particularity is that CPS are often provided on ground of newly established system interface infrastructures, which are usually not found (or needed) in a domestic context. This infrastructure category and the related CPS aim at alleviating an existing crossborder information asymmetry 23, which creates a multitude of day-to-day problems that individuals and businesses or even public authorities are facing in their border-crossing interactions. 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. The related advisory, information and support services are either directed to the general public or to specific target 22 A major physical cross-border infrastructure for public service provision that is directly built on the border line does in reality not exist (e.g. a sewage water treatment plant, a water work for drinking water provision, an energy producing utility). What is existing immediately at the border line are smaller physical connection elements (e.g. a pipe, a power line etc.) that are as such not productive, because they form part of (and require) the wider infrastructure system which is needed for providing a CPS. 23 In economic theory, information asymmetry generally relates to decisions in transactions where one party has more or better information than the other. Information asymmetry leads to an imbalance of power in transactions, which can sometimes cause that economic transactions are stopped. Information asymmetry can in extreme cases become a kind of market failure that should be addressed in a democratic society by dedicated public services. ESPON

18 groups in society (esp. for increasing the mobility of cross-border workers, students / trainees, patients, enterprises). They can also address public regional or local authorities in the crossborder area (e.g. specialised support tools / information facilitating cross-border spatial planning or sector policy planning activities) Motivations and tasks for domestic and cross-border public service provision The general motivation for initiating and providing a public service are needs that can relate to current problems / development potentials and to already perceivable future challenges / opportunities. These needs are variable in scope and relevance in different territories and at different levels (national, regional, local). They result primarily out of a territory s humaninfluenced characteristics such as land-use and settlement patterns or socio-economic development features (e.g. areas with dense population and high levels of industrialisation / urbanisation, less populated rural areas / sparsely populated areas; natural and semi-natural areas etc.). Other characteristics that matter are specific disadvantages linked to a territory s specific topological and geographic features (e.g. coastal or island area, mountain area, ultraperipheral area) or its climatic conditions (e.g. arctic / sub-arctic, continental, Mediterranean or semiarid climate). This applies equally to domestic and CPS provision. Domestic and CPS provision can address such territorial needs by three basic tasks, either individually or in combination: Supply task a provision of essential public services to all persons at appropriate conditions, so that citizens have adequate access to affordable services in all parts of a territory and can enjoy acceptable levels of quality of life and societal participation at their places of living and working; Development task a delivery of specialised and high quality public services adapted to the special needs of a territory, so that the fundamental pre-conditions for economic development, competitiveness and innovation are secured and that available social energies, skills and resources can be best harnessed; Preservation task a delivery of specialised public services that protect, maintain and enhance the functions of green infrastructures to deliver ecosystem services, so that an ecological framework for the social, economic and environmental health of a territory is ensured. Domestic public service provision is generally conceived with an inward-looking perspective, because it only addresses needs that relate to the national population s living conditions and to specific circumstances or development conditions in a country s territory and/or specific parts of it. Domestic public services can in principle address all relevant needs in a given territory (national, regional, local) by the above-mentioned three service tasks, but this obviously depends upon a country s specific rules that are governing public service provision (e.g. division of powers, specification of fields of intervention etc.) and on the resources that are available to territorial authorities (e.g. material, human and financial resources). ESPON

19 Particularities of CPSP The situation is fundamentally different in a cross-border context, because CPSP can only be initiated for addressing specific cross-border needs that emerge from a variety of effects associated with the multidimensional reality of a given border (Table 2-2) 24. The nature and scope of these needs is strongly conditioned by the extent to which closure effects and opening effects are affecting all sorts of border-crossing economic, sociocultural, inter-administrative or inter-personal exchange relations within a given cross-border area 25. But also complex cross-relationships and cross-impacts among these border effects are important determinants that have to be considered in practice (i.e. effects of one dimension might be alleviated or further reinforced by effects of another dimension), because the multidimensional features of a border are always existing simultaneously. Table 2-2: Dimension (*) Political dimension of a land border Physical / geographical dimension of a border Economic dimension a border of Socio-cultural dimension of a border Multidimensional reality of borders and related border effects Features Associated border effects leading to different needs in cross-border areas The politically defined land borders separate Closure effects or opening effects for all sorts of as simple lines one sovereign state from border-crossing exchange relations can emerge another. They can have different statuses in from the different status of a political border (i.e. Europe, especially in case of countries being different degrees of openness for economic & members of the European Union (e.g. internal inter-personal exchange relations) and more or external EU-border, EEA-border or EU-CH generally from the difference of legal systems borders, border between Schengen & non- and governance structures (administrative units Schengen countries, border between Eurozone & powers, different policies) meeting at a & non-eurozone countries). border. Particular physical geographical or natural features (e.g. mountain ranges, large rivers or lakes, seas or large maritime separations) were in Europe often used for demarcating the territories of neighbouring states and thus also for formalising political borders (see above). Natural obstacles exist along most EU-borders, as the share of borders without an obstacle (i.e. green borders ) is relatively low. Economic discontinuities along borders are constituted by significant differences between neighbouring border areas with respect to their respective overall economic performance (e.g. GDP/per capita, employment or unemployment levels etc.) or in relation to more specific aspects of economic relevance (e.g. levels of taxation, wages, labour productivity or R&D / innovation capacity). Socio-cultural dividing lines are constituted by variations in the general ethno-cultural and especially linguistic settings on either side of a border, but also by different interpretations of the common historical legacy. The existence of dividing lines greatly depends on how neighbouring countries (and regions) are dealing with aspects related to ethnicity, culture and especially language in the context of their own domestic policies. Closure effects or opening effects can emerge from the existence / non-existence of a natural obstacle and the varying significance of the barrier effect that an existing obstacle has in practice (i.e. sufficient / insufficient availability and density of border-crossing possibilities by rail, road, ferry or ship). Closure effects or opening effects can emerge from the existence / non-existence of economic discontinuities between areas located along a common border, as significant differences are acting at the same time as potential push factors and pull factors (e.g. for labour flows and economic exchange relations or the location of enterprises). Closure effects or opening effects can emerge from the existence / non-existence of sociocultural dividing lines, as they strongly condition the possibilities for inter personal or official communication (i.e. language barrier versus linguistic overlapping) and the presence of positive or negative instinctive / mental attitudes (e.g. prejudices, lack of mutual knowledge or ignorance versus mutual trust, sense of belonging together and common identity). (*) The dimensions do not consider issues relating to maritime boundaries, which are a sub-feature of politically defined borders. Source: Service provider's adaptation of the GEOSPECS-approach (ESPON (2012a), pp , ), On this analytical concept see in particular the ESPON project GEOSPECS (ESPON, 2012a), but also Haselsberger (2014). 25 A general overview on different border effects is given by the ESPON project GEOSPECS: ESPON (2012a), pp , ESPON

20 Cross-border needs emerge from a broad variety of closure effects, which are creating problems in the present and will lead to new challenges in the foreseeable future. A recent EU-wide survey and online public consultation confirm that legal / administrative obstacles, language barriers, physical barriers, economic disparities, lacking cooperation interest and also socio-cultural differences are the most relevant obstacles that restrict or hamper individual citizens, businesses and other organisations or public authorities in their bordercrossing interactions 26. For many of these border obstacles CPSP can help to alleviate or even eliminate the associated adverse direct and indirect effects. This holds true especially for legal and administrative obstacles, as demonstrate the findings of a recent DG Regio study conducted on this matter 27 : out of the 239 identified obstacle cases, 77% exist in policy fields that are highly relevant for CPSP (185 cases 28 ). Most of these obstacles are rooted in the difference between national / regional laws of EU Member States or other non-eu countries (CH, NO, LI, AD) and in a lack of administrative coordination or cooperation across borders. This is also because the EU has in many of the concerned policy fields only a supporting competence or no competence at all. Other cross-border needs emerge from opening effects that ease or further stimulate border-crossing interaction in different domains and are therefore generating present-time potentials and future opportunities for CPSP. By adopting a widened cross-border territorial 360 perspective for a delivery of basic local / regional core tasks 29, CPSP can potentially address or tackle a wide range of issues such as improving sustainable mobility and lowering of travel times through the establishment of new cross-border public transport services or a better cross-border coordination of existing domestic services, improving the quality of sewage water treatment or the security of drinking water provision in border areas to reach service standards existing in their respective domestic hinterlands, combating environmental degradation due to border-crossing pollution sources or because of by intense, improvement of cross-border flood prevention and flooding management, joint management of specific externalities that emerge from an intensification of cross-border flows (e.g. increased congestion due to more intense car-based crossborder commuting; stronger demand for building land due to increasing residential movements across a border). However, relevant public stakeholders on both sides of a border must first develop a common understanding in relation to such cross-border needs and then have to 26 European Commission, DG Regio (2015b), European Commission, DG Regio (2016a) 27 European Commission, DG Regio (2017) 28 i.e. access to labour market and education (74), access to social security and health care systems or social integration measures (48), public transport and border crossing points (25), emergency / rescue services or public security and crime prevention / police cooperation (21), environment and natural resources management (10) or spatial planning and sector policy planning (7). 29 Bundesministerium des Innern / Land Baden-Württemberg / EURO-Institut Kehl-Strasbourg (2015), conference contribution of Prof. Dr. Joachim Beck ESPON

21 achieve consensus on whether and how these needs should be approached and actually tackled. This process is demanding and can be very time consuming. Many services can involve a prior collection of specific technical data on the cross-border situation because they do not yet exist. Further interpretation of such data and the establishment of a common view on particular problems or concrete potentials (or future challenges / opportunities) can be complicated by language-related and intercultural differences (e.g. different interpretation of facts; different political views or mind-sets). Once this initial preparation is finalised, there are still important joint decisions to be taken on how the CPS should intervene for tackling the cross-border need. There are three possible approaches for this, which are in practice often used in combination: (a) Quality-improving CPSP This is the case where a completely new CPS is developed for the general public or a specific target group, which fills a gap in the domestic provision of public services on both sides of a border. Practical examples are the newly created advisory / information / support services (i.e. systems interface infrastructure), the building of a new cross-border sewage water treatment plant for municipalities not yet connected to a treatment facility or the establishment of a new cross-border bus service between two locations on both sides of a border that were not yet connected. (b) Effectiveness-improving CPSP 30 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. Practical examples are the connection of not yet or inadequately serviced municipalities on one side of a border to an existing sewage water treatment plant or waterworks on the other side of a border, which leads to a lower pollution level in a border river receiving the discharged water or to more secure drinking water provision in the whole 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. A good example is public transport in highly urbanised cross-border areas with intense cross-border flows, where such activities can lead to multiple direct and indirect improvements. The coordination of local / regional service offers and a harmonisation / integration of timeschedules or tariff policies/fare systems can lead to a better cross-border connectivity (e.g. more seamless modal / intermodal change for passengers, shorter travel times), to more transparent and cheaper cross-border travelling (e.g. bilingual travel information for passengers, lower ticket prices or avoidance of extra payment due to double ticketing) and to a stronger use of the now more attractive public transport offer that also helps to reduce other negative externalities (e.g. congestion and pollution due to intense cross-border travelling / commuting by private cars). 30 Effectiveness is generally about doing the right things in order to yield a positive results and/or to achieve (predefined) goals. It is possible to deliver public services effectively, but not necessarily in an efficient way (e.g. in the fastest or the least expensive way). ESPON

22 (c) Efficiency-improving CPSP 31 This is generally the case where CPSP is used as an alternative to current domestic service provision for realising economies of scale and/or economies of scope. Economies of scale can be realised if a CPS covers a wider catchment area with a higher population on both sides of a border (in comparison to the reduced domestic service area), which then allows producing the joint service at a lower cost and for the benefit of both sides of a border. A cross-border increase of the critical population size needed for cost-efficient service provision may also help avoiding the closure (or privatisation) of a currently unprofitable local / regional public service, which is often a real threat in many rural or sparsely populated cross-border areas. Economies of scope can be realised through a cross-border functional division of labour, which establishes for the same service field only a single joint provider instead of two or more separate providers on both sides a border. A CPS can thus allow for a sharing of ongoing production cost (i.e. cross-border distribution of cost for infrastructure maintenance and modernisation or for public procurement etc.) and for a more efficient usage of the operating staff (e.g. less staff needed or more flexible use of staff). This division of labour may also enable the closing down of an outdated facility on one side of the border and very important in border areas avoid the establishment of costly "double infrastructures" (e.g. construction of two close-by sewage water treatment facilities on either side of the border instead of one joint facility serving both sides) Organisation and delivery of domestic and cross-border 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. 32 A number of basic organisation- and delivery-related features characterising domestic public service provision are also typical for many CPS, wherefore they should be considered by the analysis whenever necessary. The provision of domestic public services in any given sector is generally done by taking over service delivery directly or by controlling it through indirect roles (e.g. supporting, coordinating and regulating services, for example by setting policy objectives, enforcing standards, and ensuring universal take-up). 33 In case of natural monopolies 34, for 31 Efficiency is generally about doing things right (i.e. in an optimal way way). A task can be completed cheaper or faster, but it is possible that the wrong actions were taken. Public services are delivered efficiently when they are provided at a fair and reasonable price for all customers while allowing an operator to cover its costs and get a fair return on its investment. Efficiency is important in keeping costs down, reducing dependence on public subsidies and freeing resources for investment in expansion and maintenance. See: 32 ESPON (2013), pp.36, 90; European Parliament (2016b) 33 Batley, R. / Mcloughlin, C. (2015), p A natural monopoly exists in a particular market if a single firm can serve that market at lower cost than any combination of two or more firms. In essence natural monopolies exist because of economies of scale and economies of scope which are significant relative to market demand in some portions of industries such as electricity, ESPON

23 example, a public utility is often set up to maintain infrastructure for a public service and, by using this infrastructure, to provide a service that is consumed by the public (e.g. electricity, biogas, drinking water, sewage, telephone, transportation, broadband internet services both fixed-line and mobile etc.). Public utilities can be publicly owned, which implies that they are either directly or indirectly owned by government authorities (e.g. state, region or local authority) or by the customers they serve (i.e. cooperative utilities). Utility cooperatives are a relatively new phenomenon in Europe and have developed in some fields such as renewable energies or mobile telephony 35. Public utilities can also be privately owned (e.g. investorowned utilities), which implies that utilities operate for profit and are therefore often subject to public control and specific sector regulations. A country s public services are defined territorially, which means that services are organised, delivered and consumed within national state borders. Service provision can be homogenous across the entire national territory, but most often it is focussed on a much smaller area that corresponds to the administrative boundaries of a regional / local authority or to another specifically defined service zone (e.g. inter-municipal area, wider urban agglomeration, regional tariff zones etc.). Services that are consumed individually or collectively in a restricted geographic area are targetable, in the sense that providers can choose to focus their service on particular beneficiaries (i.e. targetable services) 36. This territoriality principle implies in areas that are located along a country s national borders that a delivery of country-wide or regional / local public services ends at the border and that domestic services do not take into account the situation immediately across a border. Other general demand- or task-related features of domestic public service provision are differences in regularity of use (i.e. frequency and predictability) and in the variability of service standardisation. A number of public services are characterised by a high frequency and predictability of use (e.g. solid waste collection & disposal, sewage water treatment, demand for & provision of drinking water, use of education services), while other services need to be permanently maintained although they are required only under specific circumstances (e.g. emergency or fire services, civil protection services). The provision of public services can also involve different forms of delivery, ranging from a uniform / standardised delivery to a highly variable delivery in case of services comprising tasks that railroads, natural gas, and telecommunications. Because productive efficiency requires that only one firm exist, natural monopolies are typically subject to government regulation that may include price, quality, and/or entry conditions (See: Drinking water supply is a classic example of a natural monopoly, resulting from high investment costs and enormous economies of scale, making it very difficult for alternative suppliers to compete. 35 A utility cooperative is tasked with the delivery of a public utility such as electricity, water or telecommunications to its members. Profits are either reinvested for infrastructure or distributed to members in the form of "patronage" or "capital credits", which are dividends paid on a member's investment in the cooperative. Examples are renewable energy cooperatives in seven European countries, for which the European federation of energy co-operatives REScoop was formally established in 2013 (see: and also utility cooperatives in the field of mobile telephony that exist in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Switzerland, Italy and the United Kingdom (see: 36 Batley, R. / Mcloughlin, C. (2015), p.277 ESPON

24 have to be customised to serve a high level of heterogeneity of user needs. Examples for services that might be described as highly variable are clinical services (i.e. health care and treatments are highly oriented towards the individual patients) or education (i.e. teaching has to consider different aptitudes, motivations, and learning styles of pupils), while sewage water treatment and drinking water provision correspond to uniform / standardised services 37. In European countries, public services are traditionally organised in a way that puts the public in a largely passive role (i.e. as a recipient of a standardised service). Yet, public services are at the same time providing the most common interface between people and the state. Their functioning thus shapes the citizen s sense of trust in and expectations of government, wherefore ( ) public services need to be delivered with integrity, centred around citizens, and responsive to their needs, particularly the needs of the most vulnerable person groups. 38 This also gives raise to further provision-related aspects such as the visibility, measurability and attributability of domestic public service provision. They are increasingly important in policy discussions that focus on issues such as a performance of public services or policy-level control and public accountability of public service provision. Public services can generally be distinguished by the difficulty of monitoring their outputs, which depends not only on the capacity of the competent government levels to do the monitoring, but also on the nature of the task being undertaken. A distinction is often made between types of process or output that are easily observed and therefore easily measured (e.g. waste collection, power supply, public transport), and those that are more difficult to observe (e.g. sewerage disposal). Imprecise objectives such as good education are much less easily measured than good power supply. When outcomes of public services are neither easily visible nor measurable, they present the problem that providers cannot easily claim that the benefits to users are attributable to their efforts. 39 Particularities of CPSP Beyond the above-described features, CPSP faces specific organisation- and delivery-related challenges that need to be highlighted. CPSP frequently requires some kind of further formalisation, but the establishment of adequate organisational structures and delivery processes for CPS is in general more complex than within a country where public actors conceive and operate services on ground of a well-known legal/institutional and policy-making context. The need for further formalisation of CPSP usually increases in proportion with the envisaged level of intensity of cooperation and also with the degree of complexity of the tasks that are allocated to a CPS. This can be understood by taking a look at the three basic CPS-implementation models that 37 Batley, R. / Mcloughlin, C. (2015), p.276ff Batley, R. / Mcloughlin, C. (2015), p.277 ESPON

25 Beck 40 has identified, which we have further elaborated with respect to related organisational structures and corresponding delivery / management modes (Table 2-3). Table 2-3: Basic model (*) Networking model Centralised model (or Shared Service Centre) Integration model CPS implementation models with related organisational structures and corresponding delivery / management modes Organisational Delivery and management modes structures (**) (**) Implementation features (*) Spatial-functional division of joint tasks between different administrations (local, regional, national) Spatial-functional concentration of the delivery of joint tasks in one administration (local, regional, national) Transfer of joint tasks to a "supramunicipal / supra-regional structure (1) Newly created informal network structure. (2) Newly created formal network structure (interinstitutional) with / without a joint coordination unit (1) Existing local / regional structure or body on one side of the border not including actors from the other side of the border. (2) Existing local / regional structure or body on one side of the border with membership of actors from the other side of the border. (1) New or existing cross-border body / structure with own legal personality, seconded staff and with / without an own budget. (2) New or existing cross-border body / structure with own legal personality, own material tasks, directly employed personnel and own New CPS, which is delivered and managed on a cooperative base by two or more structures / bodies existing on either side of a border (i.e. cooperative delivery & shared management). Mutual coordination or harmonisation of aspects linked to existing domestic public services on either side of a border in order to achieve a more effective / efficient border-crossing service offer (i.e. harmonised / coordinated delivery & one-sided management). New CPS, which is delivered and managed by an existing service provider on one side of the border for the benefit of both sides (i.e. unilateral delivery & onesided management). Border-crossing extension of an existing domestic public service, which is delivered and managed by a service provider on one side of the border for the benefit of both sides (unilateral delivery & one-sided management). Border-crossing extension of an existing domestic public service, which is delivered by a service provider on one side of the border for the benefit of both sides and which involves actors from the other side in the structure responsible for the management of the service (i.e. unilateral delivery & joint management). New CPS, which is jointly delivered and managed by a specifically established cross-border structure / body with own legal personality (i.e. delegated joint delivery & delegated joint management). New CPS, for which an already existing cross-border structure / body with own legal personality is entrusted with the joint delivery and management (i.e. commissioned joint delivery & commissioned joint management). budget. (*) According to J. Beck in: Bundesministerium des Innern / Land Baden-Württemberg / EURO-Institut Kehl- Strasbourg (2015) (**) Own elaboration on ground of already observable CPS practices. These options might not yet reflect the full scope of practices that exist at all EU borders. Source: Service provider based on mentioned sources, 2018 While a network-based CPS implementation may only require formalisation to some extent (e.g. informal declaration of intent or cooperation agreement), the need for formalisation tends to be higher under the centralised implementation model (e.g. formal inter-administrative cooperation agreements or specific contracts) and even indispensable in case of the 40 Bundesministerium des Innern / Land Baden-Württemberg / EURO-Institut Kehl-Strasbourg (2015), conference contribution of Prof. Dr. Joachim Beck ESPON

26 integrated implementation model (e.g. establishment of a cross-border structure / body with own legal personality based on public or private law). 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 (e.g. hospitals, social insurances or employment agencies, transport operators, educational institutions). Such agreements / conventions / contracts frequently relate to specific requirements and provisions in existing general or theme-specific interstate agreements on cross-border cooperation (Annex C), but they can also be concluded separately from such frame-setting agreements (if possible and allowed). The purpose of these documents is usually to define in more detail the organisational and operational aspects of a given CPS (e.g. organisational structure, tasks, procedures for management and service delivery, liability and public accountability, financial contributions or levels of fees / distribution of generate revenues where relevant). 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 (Annex C); 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) 41. As regards the latter option, however, it can be observed that the actual use of EGTCs ( ) seems to be largely limited to cross-border regional development, spatial planning and management issues rather than the concrete provision of public services. 42 Cross-border service-providing bodies with an own legal personality are generally governed by the law of the country where their headquarters are officially registered. Depending on the content of their statutes, these bodies are then performing all tasks linked to CPSP or to the joint management of public utility facilities, including cross-border governance. As regards the 41 intent 8, ( ) it should be possible to use EGTCs in the future to jointly manage public services with a particular focus on services of general economic interest or on infrastructure. Other private or public law actors should also be able, therefore, to become members of an EGTC. Consequently, 'public undertakings' ( ) and undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest, in fields such as education and training, medical care, social needs in relation to health care and long-term care, childcare, access to, and reintegration into, the labour market, social housing and the care and social inclusion of vulnerable groups, should be covered as well. ( ) intent 24, ( ) The convention should also list the applicable Union and national law directly relevant to the EGTC's activities carried out under the tasks specified in the convention, including where the EGTC is managing public services of general interest or infrastructure. 42 Jaansoo / Groenendijk (2014), p. 3 ESPON

27 latter aspect, it has to be noted that service-providing bodies are subject to a cross-border accountability that is much wider than in the domestic context. It includes the partner municipalities or regions on both sides of the border, both individually and collectively, and the supervisory government authorities of both countries (e.g. regional governor, auditors) as well as the final beneficiaries of service provision activities in each country (i.e. citizens). 43 Further challenges can emerge in case of revenue-generating CPSP, although many CPS are delivered free of charge to the final beneficiaries (esp. cross-border information / advice services). CPSP that involves a price payed by users (e.g. fare for cross-border public transport, fees or levies for a cross-border treatment of solid waste and sewage water treatment or cross-border fresh water provision) is generating revenues for a serviceproviding organism, which requires that involved stakeholders agree on a number of additional issues. This includes the determination of a fair level of price, fees or levies in a cross-border context (i.e. difficulties may exist at borders where strong income disparities exist) and an equal sharing of emerging revenues or potential operating deficits of a service between partners. Despite of these instruments / tools and approaches that are used for organising and delivering CPSP, there are still many blocking factors, which can substantially hamper CPS development. An important blocking factor are legal and administrative obstacles 44. Difficulties can emerge from incompatible domestic legislations in CPS-related policy areas where no EU competence does exist (i.e. domestic specialized laws and administrative regulations), but sometimes also from different national interpretations of transposed EU legislation (esp. environmental policy, water management). Of equally high importance are difficulties that emerge from different institutional / administrative settings in neighbouring countries. Municipalities or counties may, for example, not be allowed to perform CPS-related tasks jointly across a border that they deliver separately in a domestic context (i.e. problem of task congruence). 45 But also problems linked to strongly different domestic organisational or procedural patterns for specific policy areas (e.g. education, healthcare, emergency and fire services, police) and to institutional or task-related asymmetries between actors on both sides (e.g. public service-organising authorities, service providers) play an important role. These problems are frequent in cross-border areas where framework conditions for CPSP are still insufficiently developed (e.g. no thematic interstate agreements are concluded), but also in cross-border areas where frameworks do exist. Here, stakeholders are often discovering new legal or administrative obstacles because of yet unknown hurdles that only appear during the actual conceptualisation / set-up of a CPS or because the scope of potential 43 Council of Europe (2012a), pp. 83, European Commission, DG Regio (2017) 45 Bundesministerium des Innern / Land Baden-Württemberg / EURO-Institut Kehl-Strasbourg (2015), conference contribution of Prof. Dr. Joachim Beck ESPON

28 obstacles was not adequately assessed / anticipated by prior frame-setting cooperation activities. While bearing in mind that systems differences at EU borders will not disappear in the future 46, it thus becomes clear that legal / administrative obstacles continue to be an important impediment for CPS development in the medium and long term. But also the physical / geographical, economic and socio-cultural characteristics of a border can generate blocking factors: Existing natural obstacles and their barrier effect can make CPS in certain fields of intervention impossible (e.g. limited thematic scope for CPSP), restrict the catchment area for a CPS and thus reduce the critical population size that is needed for costefficient CPSP. Strong economic discontinuities can generate basic problems for service funding (e.g. due to scarce budgetary resources available to local/regional public authorities on one or both sides), but also induce specific cross-border flow patterns that strongly shape supply- or demand-side aspects of CPS (e.g. highly unilateral and time- or location-focussed commuter flows) and thereby make service conceptualisation more complicated or service provision less cost-efficient (e.g. time scheduling and frequency of cross-border public transport). Existing socio-cultural dividing lines can be an inhibiting factor, for example, if mental barriers / misunderstandings / mistrust lead to a lacking willingness for cooperating on CPS or if different linguistic settings on either side of a border require specific measures to overcome an existing language barrier that make CPSP more complex or costly (e.g. bi-lingual service design, specific promotional measures etc.). Moreover, cross-border practice shows that the existing tools (e.g. interstate agreements, EGTCs) are sometimes not suited for removing delivery-related problems that emerge for example from technical standards or matters related to damage and risk insurance (e.g. for vehicles or persons from one side of a border that operate on the other side). New and more flexible approaches are therefore needed. This is also one of the key thoughts behind an initiative launched by the 2015 Luxembourg Council Presidency that aims at creating a new EU-level legal instrument which allows setting out voluntarily applicable specific legal provisions for border regions to boost cross-border cooperation 47, on which the political debate is on-going Research questions to be explored by the analysis of CPSP Based upon the above-identified functional characteristics of CPSP, the following table summarises for each core element the most important research questions that shall be explored by the researchers during their analysis of existing and/or future CPS (Table 2-4). These question will mainly be addressed by the stakeholder-level analyses, because not every detail can be investigated for the EU-wide context. 46 i.e. due to lacking EU competences in several policy fields and to limitations of EU-wide harmonisation of national legislations through Community law in the EU28, but also due to the ongoing change of national legislations that leads to new differences. 47 Ministère du Développement durable et des Infrastructures Luxembourg (2015), Government of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (2015a), Government of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (2015b), Sinner (2015), MOT (2015a), MOT (2015b) ESPON

29 Table 2-4: Core elements Normative base Production base Motivations and tasks Organisation and delivery Process-related core elements and research questions for the CPSP analysis Research questions to be addressed (for existing and future CPS) Did the CPS require the prior establishment of a wider cross-border legal / administrative framework for cooperation on the policy theme at stake? If yes, how was this done (e.g. conclusion of thematic interstate agreements) and by whom? Is the CPS initiated in relation to a provision in policy-specific EU-legislation? Is the CPS initiated on ground of a provision in a thematic interstate agreement providing for cross-border cooperation in a particular policy area? Is a continuous strategic cooperation established among different service-organising public authorities (e.g. national, regional/local) for providing an operational backing to CPSP? If yes, for which purpose (e.g. elimination of legal / technical problems; guidance / advice to local authorities on CPSP; supervision of the quality of service provision)? Is the CPS initiated as a voluntary action of the concerned cross-border partners (i.e. without any legal reference framework)? Had there been any jointly defined policy objectives that were underpinning this initiative (e.g. a cross-border action plan, spatial plan or sector policy plan)? Is the current legal / administrative framework on cross-border cooperation adequate for CPSP? If not, what should be changed and by whom? Which elements of good practice can be recommended to other cross-border areas? Which infrastructure category is used as production base for a CPS (i.e. hard infrastructure, soft infrastructure, green infrastructure, system interface infrastructure)? Was the used infrastructure newly established or is the CPS provided on ground of an existing domestic infrastructure (e.g. via its cross-border extension)? Was the new establishment of a CPS infrastructure time- or resources consuming (financial)? Did this lead to a long preparation phase before the actual start of the CPS (i.e. how long)? What is the ownership status of the used infrastructure (e.g. one-sided or joint ownership)? Which arrangements exist for the ongoing maintenance of an infrastructure (e.g. responsibilities, territorial division of tasks and cost)? Which arrangements exist for a potential further development of an infrastructure (e.g. funding of infrastructure-enlargement or infrastructure-modernisation)? Which themes (i.e. policy areas / fields of intervention) are currently addressed by CPS along the internal / external EU borders and at the border(s) covered by each stakeholder area? Which levels of intensity of CPS are currently observed at the internal / external EU borders and at the borders of each stakeholder area? Which are the cross-border needs that motivated the establishment of an existing CPS? Had there been difficulties in developing a common view on cross-border needs or in reaching a consensus on how these needs should be addressed or tackled by the existing CPS? Which are current cross-border needs (i.e. problems or potentials) that are not yet addressed by CSPS in a stakeholder area? Are there difficulties in establishing a common view on identified problems / potentials or a consensus on way of delivering CPSP? If yes, what are the reasons? What are future cross-border needs (i.e. challenges or opportunities) stemming from the consequences of major societal changes (e.g. demographic change, environmental degradation and climate change) or country-wide developments (e.g. changes of economy, society and policy) that will require an adaptation of existing CPSP and/or the development of a new CPS? What are the main tasks of the CPS (i.e. supply task, development task, preservation task)? What is the main intervention rationale of the CPS for addressing / tackling cross-border needs (i.e. quality improvement, effectiveness improvement, efficiency improvement)? What is the outreach of the CPS (e.g. population connected to sewage water treatment / water provision / energy production; actual users of public transport or information services etc.)? In the past, had there been blocking factors that prevented the successful establishment of a CPS? If yes, which were these and in what way did they prevent the establishment? Are legal / administrative obstacles currently hindering / delaying the setting up of a CPS? If yes, which ones and in what way? Which solutions can overcome these obstacles? Are physical obstacles, economic disparities or socio-cultural dividing lines hindering or further complicating the setting up of a CPS? If yes, which ones and in what way? Which solutions can overcome these hindrances? Which solutions found for overcoming blocking factors can be considered good practices that may be recommended (or transferred) to stakeholders in other cross-border areas? Have new hurdles emerged during the ongoing provision of a CPS? If yes, what are their adverse effects? Can they be overcome by using existing legal instruments / tools or are new approaches needed to achieve this? What are the main features of CPS implementation (i.e. basic model, related organisational structures and corresponding delivery / management modes)? Did the CPS require the conclusion of a specific regional / local cooperation agreement or the establishment of a specific structure without a legal personality? What are the benefits or disadvantages associated with this formalisation? Did the CPS require the setting-up of a body with an own legal personality? If yes, which legal source was used for this institutionalisation (i.e. national law, interstate agreements or EU-law) and what advantage was seen in this choice (in comparison to other potential options)? Which organisation- or delivery-related elements of a CPS may be recommended as good practice to stakeholders in other cross-border areas? Source: Service provider, 2018 ESPON

30 2.3 From analysis to policy-level conclusions: nexus diagrams as instruments for mapping context conditions and impact of CPSP On ground of the findings that emerge from the framework-based analysis of CPSP, policy level conclusions and recommendations will be elaborated for both the EU-level and the different stakeholder areas. For supporting and streamlining this process especially at the level of the individual stakeholder-area analyses, so-called nexus diagrams will be drawn up. This approach has already helped in the context of the ESPON 2013 project GEOSPECS to identify territorial development policy issues for the examined case study areas and also allowed to highlight possible fields of action that were taken up by the recommendations 48. An example is shown below (Figure 2-1). Figure 2-1: Nexus elaborated for the GEOSPECS case study are Jura massif (FR-CH) Source: GEOSPECS, 2012a Under the present study, the GEOSPECS nexus approach is further elaborated and adjusted to the ESPON CPS needs, so that diagrams contribute to creating a good understanding of how the multidimensional border reality and the associated border effects (see section 2.2.3) are influencing the conceptualisation, set up and ongoing operation of existing and new CPS. This comprises the following aspects that will generate a number of advantages: 48 ESPON (2012b), pp.33-37; ESPON

31 Nexus diagrams will enable to demonstrate the multidimensional reality of a given border for different time horizons (with all non-border related factors being equal), by depicting either present-time problems and potentials or future challenges and opportunities for CPS development or a mix of both. Depending on the main interest of stakeholders, diagrams can thus be used for supporting short term policy conclusions on concrete CPS development as well as medium to long term policy conclusion on a prospective planning of future CPS. Nexus diagrams will depict a variety of border effects that influence on CPSP (i.e. both at the level of needs for and obstacles to CPS development), but also the complex interplay and cross-impacts that exist between these effects. Nexus diagrams will thus not be a linear representation of a border situation (e.g. similar to a logical framework), but rather a differentiated and web-like picture that tries to represent the complex processes in a specific stakeholder area or policy field. As nexus diagrams will illustrate at one glance the most relevant influencing factors and processes that are relevant for CPS development in a given cross-border region or policy field, they become also helpful tools for creating a shared understanding that is needed to prepare subsequent policy-level discussions and decision-making. For supporting the future elaboration of such nexus diagrams under the ESPON CPS project, a baseline model is developed below (Figure 2-2). This model is not specific to a certain cross-border area or to a particular policy field for CPSP. It only shows a number of general working hypotheses on key links that tend to exist between CPSP and specific border effects emerging from the multidimensional reality of European borders (i.e. cross-border context). Moreover, it includes a link for the contribution that CPSP is expected to make in relation to specific societal goals (i.e. a socially and economically balanced integration of the crossborder area and its long-term sustainable development). Exploring the impact of CPSP within diagrams is important, because future regional- or local-level policy debates on developing CPS need evidence-based arguments on ground of which the concrete benefit(s) of setting up or planning a CPS can be demonstrated. When developing a specific nexus diagram, researchers will have to select from the general working hypotheses those which are most relevant for their border context and complement or further develop these by taking into account the specific conditions of each area. Assumptions on inter-relations between these aspects have to be developed, for adequately considering cross-influences (e.g. alleviating or re-enforcing effects, other secondary effects) that may support or inhibit a CPS development. This set of provisional nexus elements will then be jointly discussed and validated (or adapted) with key stakeholders from each case study area during the regional workshops organised in the context of this study. Once finalised, one or more nexus diagrams (e.g. an area-wide nexus diagram on CPSP; diagrams for specific CPSP themes) will then be part of each final case study report. ESPON

32 Figure 2-2: Baseline model for a development of nexus diagrams ESPON

33 3 Methodological framework specific approaches used delivering tasks 1-3 of the targeted research Given the lack of data on CPS provision throughout the EU and the interests indicated by the project's stakeholders, triangulation of different data sources and analysis methods is central for achieving the project's objectives. For collecting EU wide CPS data specific focus is on literature review and a survey. For case study area analyses, apart from information gathered from literature and the survey, stakeholder interaction with the ESPON CPS stakeholders and other stakeholders in their regions will be crucial, including not only interviews but workshops. Results of the different analyses will feed into different types of recommendations required to answer varying needs of potential CPS providers across Europe and policy fields 3.1 Literature review Literature and documents are an important basis for obtaining a sound understanding of CPS, developing the conceptual framework and collecting a first overview of CPS provided in different regions of Europe. Whenever useful these sources will be complemented by internet sources, too. This review supports a first classification of CPS that needs to be further detailed during the study, especially after finalising the EU wide overview of CPS. It will furthermore support the case study specific analysis of the respective experts. The study team has access to comprehensive literature that can be differentiated according to general cross-border cooperation covering different policy fields and different aspects of cooperation including e.g. obstacles and benefits and the role of different governance and legal frameworks; cross-border cooperation for specific policy fields, including e.g. spatial planning, public transport, healthcare, social integration, education, labour market services, public security, environmental protection and climate change, disaster management; public service provision by specific regions, covering in particular the case study areas of ESPON CPS; other literature and online sources from and about the case study areas delivering information on framework conditions in these areas. ESPON projects also contribute to different categories of above groups of literature. The most prominent examples relevant for the ESPON CPS project are GEOSPECS, SeGI and ULYSSES. This may be complemented by findings from ongoing projects such as COMPASS and TCA, dealing especially with planning and governance aspects. Annex E contains the list of literature considered relevant for the project. The literature list will be updated whenever necessary. Most references listed have already been reviewed to prepare a tentative overview of EU wide CPS provision and a first understanding of the case study regions' needs. 3.2 Survey A European-wide online survey is under elaboration to collect coherent data on the implementation of cross-border public services (CPS) in Europe. The survey will serve to collect mostly qualitative data on rationales for implementing CPS and to identify good ESPON

34 practices that can be useful for the case study regions and for developing recommendations in the course of the project. In addition, data will collected on the place of CPS to further develop the mapping of the places where CPS takes place at European scale Set-up of the survey Providers of CPS or policy-makers and other stakeholders with sufficient knowledge on the implementation of CPS in their region are the survey s main target group. The notion sufficient knowledge implies that a given stakeholder has knowledge on the motives / rational underlying the provision of a CPS, on obstacles for introducing the CPS (solved or persisting ones) and on actual or potential solutions (e.g. changes in the legal or governance framework) as well as on the features characterising the actual service provision (e.g. delivery practices, scope of the CPS in terms of users etc., aspects related to the effectiveness and efficiency of the CPS, wider impact). Mostly, the service providers themselves will have the required knowledge. Thus, contact data of CPS providers is collected during the first phase of the project implementation. The survey addresses both the case study areas of this ESPON study as well as other European border regions. Particular focus will be on the case study areas. To maximise the response the following will be considered: The survey will address regional institutions and CPS providers through the AEBR, Steering Committee Members, CoR, MOT, CESCI since they are wellknown; a balanced system and approach for reminders which shall be agreed with the helpdesk and observers; continuous building of a data base with contacts retrieved from filled-in questionnaires; an easy to understand and not too long questionnaire; applying a technical solution that is easy to use for the respondents a clear definition of CPS by providing examples of what is and what is not a CPS, as it cannot be expected that all stakeholders in all parts of Europe have the same understanding of CPS, given their national or regional contexts. The survey will be conducted by using SurveyMonkey. This software has been tested in previous surveys and does not only allow easy access for respondents but useful download formats (excel) that are easy to apply for different analytical purposes. The survey structure, as detailed further below, will be translated into the software features. By comparing the obtained survey information with literature, documents, comparison with relevant Interreg programmes' activities etc. known by the study team, a rough (qualitative) assessment of the responses quality and quantity will be made to test for the robustness of the survey results. The survey will be implemented in English language as well as selected languages from the case study regions as required by the stakeholders. These additional languages comprise Danish, French, German, Portugese and Slovenian. ESPON

35 The following figure indicates the overall structure and logic of the survey after selecting the language. Survey questions will be allocated accordingly to the different parts of the survey to obtain technical feasibility. They will comprise open and closed questions, providing a limited set of choices wherever suitable. A tentative implementation of the survey is available at Figure 3-1: Principle logic of survey structure Landing page Objective survey Questions on the respondent Border region, institution, contact details CPS in your region CPS known in the region by policy field Separating question: Are you a provider of the CPS or do you have profound knowledge? Neither a provider nor profound knowledge Contact details for second step Provider or profound knowledge Detailed questions on the implementation of CPS Separating question: Do you wish to answer for more CPS? yes no Concluding questions across CPS Source: Service provider, 2018 The detailed survey with all questions and answers are outlined in Annex F Analysis of survey results The survey results will provide data on the existing CPS throughout Europe as well as more qualitative information on rationales and operational practices of introducing and implementing CPS. Both results form a framework for detailed analysis of CPS provision in the case study areas. For both the mapping and qualitative analyses of the survey results, in a first step the answers of the respondents must be filtered. Several respondents of a region may have entered information about the same CPS, however, the entered CPS names and service description may differ (for example, of one respondent from one side of the border and another one from the other side of the border referred to the same CPS). Therefore, a screening and cleaning of survey results is needed, by combining answer on same CPS, before they can be mapped or qualitatively analysed. ESPON

36 Mapping of CPS provided in different territories of Europe Survey results on the place and main characteristics of the CPS will be mapped. Maps will be produced at the European level and for the case study areas, as well as aggregated statistics. As far as the screening and cleaning process allows, the aim is to prepare first drafts of the maps for the inception delivery based on the survey results from the first step. Final maps will be produced for the interim delivery and will include the survey results from the second step as well. European level mapping Based on the survey European wide mapping of CPS provision shall differentiate total number of CPS offered in a border region; types of CPS the precise detail of differentiation will depend on the variety of CPS identified and may vary between service fields; individual types of CPS may be aggregated to broader types such as education services, health care services, transport, mobility & logistic services, legal services etc. in order to be able to characterise the regions according to their specialisation of services; year when first CPS were established This analysis will give interesting insights as to when the border regions started to think about and implement such services: locations of CPS depending on the level of detail of the survey results (detailed address information or at least information about the city/town, where the service is offered), we will georeference the location of CPS provision and will map these locations; service areas of CPS depending on the level of detail of the survey results (territory covered), we will map the (estimated) service areas of the CPS and analyse their (average) extents and sizes. We expect that, depending on the type of service, these service areas may be quite different. A comparison (overlay) of these results with the ESPON typology of border/non-border regions and with the extent of the case-study border regions will reveal whether the actual services areas correspond to these areas, or are smaller or even wider. The differentiation between location and service areas furthermore provides additional insights as these do not need to be homogeneous. This information will be generated by functionally specifying, georeferencing and mapping the raw survey data gathered on CPS provision. Functionally specifying the variety of information gathered by the survey on CPSP means that each detected CPS-case is allocated to one of the four different categories of infrastructure, which deliver specific public goods and services. Georeferencing includes different perspectives such as the location of the CPS provider, the service area covered or a specification of CPSP according to different types of EU borders to visualise differences of CPSP in relation to traditions of cross-border cooperation, EU-membership and other legal and institutional aspects impacting on cross-border service provision. The types of borders will at least differentiate between "old internal", "internal between old and new MS", "new internal between new MS" and "current external" borders. Internal EU borders may be further differentiated according to the existence of general or ESPON

37 theme-specific interstate agreements relevant for CPSP. Regarding external borders the special status of Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Andorra will be considered, too. Further combinations with ESPON typologies will be considered if feasible and appropriate. With regard to CPSP especially rural-urban divisions and demography related (e.g. regarding age structures) combinations may be starting points for mirroring the actual occurrence of cross-border public services in the EU. First drafts and suggestions for differentiated European wide mapping will be based on interim responses on the survey and shall be developed for the inception report. Case study area level mapping Case study area level mapping aims to be more specific than European level mapping by including e.g. operational features of CPSP in the case study areas. It aims, inter alia, at precise and detailed mapping of the territories covered by CPS provision rather than NUTS 3 level only. For case study areas, in addition, it is envisaged to develop maps indicating crucial qualitative features of CPS provision such as types of institutions providing CPS; types of agreements, organisational structures etc. applied; occurrence of challenges/obstacles by type of CPS; distance to the border, centrality of the location within the border region; population potential within the border region that (theoretically) could use the services (compared with actual usage). The mapping will make use of categories developed on basis of the survey results and further information obtained from the case study regions' stakeholders. Based on the quantifiable survey results, and as far as they allow given the actual feedback of the respondents, we will also prepare selected aggregated statistical analysis at the level of case study areas and at European level, such as: average years when CPS were implemented (and development over time); overall number of CPS in place over time (from the very first year until 2017); estimated average usages of services (number of people using the services); average frequency of usage of the services; average duration of the implementation process to offer CPS. Qualitative analysis on implementing CPS Survey results reflecting the rationales for implementing CPS, obstacles overcome when introducing the CPS and legal, institutional and governance changes introduce for the implementing and running the CPS will be analysed more in depth using qualitative methods rather than mapping only. Different frameworks support the analysis of the qualitative information collected through the survey. The frameworks focus on analysing different type of results. The frameworks proposed for analysis are as follows. ESPON

38 Rationale for the CPS Obstacles experienced developing, setting-up and running the CPS Institutional settings for CPS Main target groups of CPS Recommendations on implementing CPS Per framework analysis grids will be developed to structurally collect and analyse the survey results. The analysis grids allow to cross check different responses and support deducting commonalities and differences in a structured way. Furthermore, the analysis grids allow for cross-analysis against different type of infrastructure provided by the CPS, by different type of border region (old-new; internal-external; large or small economic / cultural / political differences) or other ESPON typology categories. These grids will be based on the detailed questions and answers as outlined in Annex F. 3.3 Case studies Ten case studies shall be conducted, The following map gives an overview of the territorial distribution of the case studies. This study deals with ten case study areas (Map 3-1), i.e. usually one per ESPON CPS stakeholder, in some cases one case study covers more than one cross-border relation. Six of these areas are located along old internal borders (BothnianArc, Region Sønderjylland- Schleswig, Euregio Scheldemond, EuRegio Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein, Galicia-Norte de Portugal EGTC, and Alentejo-Central Extremadura-Algarve-Andaluzia), two are located along borders between old and new EU Member States (Euroregion Elbe/Laabe, Pomurja Region), and one is located each between old and new member states (EUREGIO Bayerischer Wald-Böhmerwald-Unterer Inn) and along the external border (South Karelia), respectively. The case studies of the ten stakeholder regions are at the centre of the project's interest. They will be based on a triangulation of data sources and analyses. In line with the terms of reference, case studies shall include a comprehensive information on existing CPS; a structured overview of identified objectives & obstacles for existing CPS; a mapping of existing CPS in terms of their main features; an analysis of prospective CPS development potentials and long-term CPS needs; challenges to overcome current problems in establishing CPS; an identification of CPS that are currently missing in the areas; recommendations for further CPS development both for new or extended existing CPS. In-depth analyses at the level of case study areas will be conducted, as soon as we obtain the results of the online survey and have a more complete feedback from our stakeholders. In line with above themes and the structure foreseen by the conceptual framework, the detailed analyses case study level will consist of the following elements: ESPON

39 Geography: what is the spatial distribution of CPS within the case study area? Where are CPS offered or provided? Is the provision of services centralized at one or two places, or rather decentralized? Number and type of CPS offered. Themes and fields of intervention: what are the themes covered? Is there any focus on specific themes? This part will also include a complete listing of themes. To what extent comply the fields of interventions with policy objectives of the region (or at national level)? What are the specific goals and objectives of the offered CPS? Reasons: what were the actual reasons for implementing the CPS? Potential causes may be demographic developments, technical needs (for instance in the fields of fresh-water water supply or waste-water management), or geographical specificities (isolation, long distances, physical barriers, low population density, etc.). Temporal development: when were the CPS established? What is the spatiotemporal development within the case study area? How long did it take to establish a service? Administrative issues: who are the service providers? Who is involved (formally, informally) in the provision of services? What is the legal base or the administrative framework to provide the services? Obstacles: Which obstacles and border effects were faced and overcome? How were they overcome? Target groups: what are the direct and indirect target groups of the services? As far as possible, the above analyses shall be visualized in form of maps, charts, or tables. Map 3-1: Overview of case study regions according to different types of borders ESPON

40 For visualisation and comparison, existing CPS information i.a. shall be mapped. Findings will be presented in an aggregated way at European level by producing European-wide maps and statistics, but also in detail for each case study region by preparing zoom-in maps for each case study. Tentative map templates for the case study areas are provided in Annex H. These are subject to further development: The templates are based on a zoom-in map template recently developed in the ESPON PROFECY project. This map template has been accepted by ESPON EGTC. Although ESPON EGTC provides a zoom-in mapkit that is based on the Greater Luxembourg areas as an example, this cannot be used for our study. Even though the layout of this mapkit looks very appealing, its technical implementation is not suitable to change the map extent and map scale, for instance, to show the Bothnian Arc case study or any other area of Europe. The ESPON EGTC so far, only provides mapkits for visualizations, i.e. the boundaries are generalized and simplified. This is fine for mapping at European scale, however, this is not the best way to prepare zoom-in maps, which usually require high-resolution input layers. At the moment, case study areas' delineations are based upon the generalized NUTS-3 layers (with some necessary adaptations for LAU-2 units), which is fine to produce the European-wide overview map. For the zoom-in maps, this solution causes some problems when overlaying the generalized NUTS-3 boundaries with LAU-2 units or with national borders. Therefore, not all borders are precisely overlaid in the maps. After the Inception Report and towards the other reports alternative solutions need to be figured out in cooperation with the ESPON EGTC. The delineation of the case study areas is sometimes a bit difficult. Some areas correspond to NUTS-3 regions (like Galicia and Norte), other study areas used lower spatial delineations (LAU-2) (for instance, Bothnian Arc or Euregio Salzburg). Moreover, for some borders it is difficult to find exact delineations (for instance, the Russian part of Southern Karelia, or Südschleswig-Sonderjylland). Therefore, stakeholders are kindly asked to review the delineations of their case study regions. Some city names have been added to the case study area templates to allow the reader a better orientation. Stakeholders are kindly asked to give a feedback on the cities to be mentioned or not mentioned. In terms of recommendations case studies have a twofold purpose. On the one hand, for the case study regions recommendations shall be developed. On the other hand, findings from the case study regions shall feed into other recommendations and project outputs such as the practical guide. Furthermore, project stakeholders pointed out that they are mostly interested in obtaining recommendations for furthering their CPS rather than a comprehensive analysis of future CPS needs. Due to the different level of experience with CPS in the case study regions, the individual expectations vary however. Thus, the different case studies will require specified approaches not only with respect to types of CPS and their implementation modes but with regard to the type and detail of recommendations suitable. Information sources for the case studies are regional policy documents and documents on existing CPS; the survey; ESPON

41 interviews with regional stakeholders. These sources will be complemented by a regional workshop that shall be organised in cooperation with the respective stakeholder(s) and targets regional players involved in CPS provision or potential CPS provision. Thus, case studies require an intensive stakeholder dialogue. Each regional workshop shall last for days depending on number of types of services to be (further) developed. It is anticipated to discuss no more than 2-3 concrete CPS with local stakeholders of the respective region to allow sufficient in-depth analysis and discussions. These workshops shall each include a ½ day visit to a good practice CPS in the respective case study area or a neighbouring region. Stakeholders from other CPS case study areas may be invited depending on their needs to participate in the study visit and benefit from hands-on experience. Documentation of the workshops will consist of photodocumentation as well as a written summary to be used for the case study area reports. A tentative calendar of the regional workshops is provided in Annex G. We suggest to finalise this calendar at the 2 nd SC meeting (13 February 2018). Further specifications for the actual workshop dates shall be made bilaterally between the corresponding stakeholder(s) and partner from the study team. Due to the different needs of the ten case studies, it will be necessary to develop individual workshop schedules within the framework described in above box. The case study template is the central guiding document for conducting the case studies. It is outlined in Annex I. It contains a structure for the case study reports including all relevant questions to be covered. Answers to these questions can be partially drawn from survey responses and document studies but may also require additional inputs from interviews and the regional workshop. The foci within these templates will be adjusted to the individual needs of the different stakeholders and regions. 3.4 Recommendations The ESPON CPS project shall develop different types of recommendations that target the projects' stakeholders and other stakeholders involved in the development and/or provision of CPS in other European cross-border areas. For this purpose different deliverables will be developed including good practice descriptions and a practical guide. Case study specific recommendations will be developed in the frame of the case studies (see e.g. Annex I). For developing cross-cutting recommendations, inter alia, a workshop shall be conducted with all project stakeholders. Recommendations targeting European cross-border areas in general may, e.g. illustrate different options already chosen or describing possibly new solutions not yet found for certain policy fields or CPS. This requires a generalisation as compared to the recommendations for the case study areas. This generalisation will be necessary due to the very specific nature of relevant legal, administrative and other circumstances affecting the solutions for implementing CPSP. Rather than trying to cover all feasible and known types of CPS, recommendations ESPON

42 should focus on those CPS for which the different analyses indicated a relatively strong potential and need. General policy recommendations may be structured along certain policy fields and CPS; criteria for assessing the usefulness of implementing a CPS; an overview of a possible categorisation of border areas (if feasible and useful), which indicates which border regions may benefit most from which other border regions approaches and experiences. These recommendations will feed not only in the main final report but will also be used to drafting the "Practical Guide" Workshop Apart from the regional workshops, a common workshop shall be held with all ESPON CPS stakeholders and possibly additional representatives from the observers' institutions and other EU representatives. This workshop has a twofold aim: Firstly, and most importantly, it shall contribute to testing the robustness and verifying findings and recommendations of the study by bringing together stakeholders from different administrative levels and functions. General policy recommendations and the "Practical Guide" will be put forward for discussion to further refine them according to the needs of practitioners. Secondly, the workshop shall provide a learning platform by giving room for exchange between ESPON CPS (and possibly other) stakeholders to exchange their findings on their regionally individual future CPS needs and possible solutions. The groups for this exchange shall be aligned by relevant policy fields. After the draft final report this workshop will mirror the recommendations developed so far with experience from the stakeholders. In addition, this workshop will be designed so as to provide an additional opportunity for stakeholders to engage in 2-by-2 exchanges to enhance learning about CPS related experience. To maximise the stakeholders' benefit, the study team will based on the knowledge about different regional needs obtained organise these exchanges with targeted combinations of stakeholders Good practices Good practice examples shall highlight successful CPSP approaches that can inspire other stakeholders and give food for thought on alternative ways for addressing shared needs and problems. Thus, good practice descriptions can be an important source for transfer of knowledge. The ToR request to provide information of good practice examples in two ways: as summaries in the final main report and as full descriptions in the scientific report. The full descriptions will be the basis for developing the summaries and the synthesising analysis with other findings of the project. To make good practice examples a valuable contribution for knowledge transfer two aspects need to be considered: Usually, any good practice still needs adaptation to local, regional and national conditions and contexts. The actual approaches and solutions presented in a good ESPON

43 practice always do not depend only on the function of the CPS but also on other border-specific factors (esp. legal / institutional context). Thus, good practice examples can only highlight general approaches that may be useful, they cannot be transferred by copying but need possibly considerable adaptation and change. To be valuable for practitioners good practice descriptions need to be easy to read, guide the reader to the information needed and provide this information to the point. In addition, it is beneficial if the information about different good practice examples is prepared in a comparative way, which further helps the reader to find the information important for him or her. To achieve this easy to read and accessible overview of good practice examples, factsheet descriptions have proven to be a valuable tool. Annex J provides a tentative structure for a potential factsheet for the good practice descriptions. The good practice examples' collection should cover possibly all categories of services, at least at the level of infrastructure categories and policy themes, though not all sub-themes of policy fields; possibly different solutions for the same service, illustrating different options to achieve the provision of the CPS; different types of borders. Given the different levels of CPSP at different types of borders (see tentative results in chapter 4), it will not be feasible to cover all service categories for all types of borders. It will be more important to obtain the information most relevant and to select examples that are of high value for other regions. Obtaining good practice examples and descriptions that are useful for ESPON CPS stakeholders and other readers in terms of selected examples and information provided requires several working steps: Good practice information collection Throughout the project duration information on CPS based on the survey and literature/documents review will be collected and assessed in terms of their value for other regions by asking, inter alia, what are important topics? How were typical obstacles overcome? What needs to be taken into consideration for running CPS? What are success factors for implementing CPS? The aim is to obtain at least one good practice example per typical CPS identified. If the solutions found differ strongly, more than one example might be described for the same type of service. To keep track of the good practice collection and further information required an inventory will be established. Conduct complementing interviews and desktop studies For consistent descriptions of good practices containing valuable information it may be necessary to conduct additional interviews with selected CPS providers and to review additional documentation on these CPS. Refine structure for good practice descriptions Based on the examples collected the template for the good practice descriptions may be refined to ensure their consistent presentation in the scientific report and as kind of factsheets in the main project report. Drafting of good practice descriptions The findings of the good practices will be delivered in two ways, i.e. by a detailed description and by summarising factsheets. ESPON

44 3.4.3 Practical guide Another crucial outcome of the project is the "Practical Guide" which shall deliver hands-on support for practitioners in the EU when considering the implementation of CPS. Hands-on results will thus be recapitulated in a separate and dedicated document. Given the difficulty to transfer existing solutions by copying them to new border contexts, the "Practical Guide" can help structuring approaches to develop and implement new CPS and to reflect the critical questions in this process and describe alternative solutions rather than providing final and conclusive answers for each and every CPS to be delivered in any EU border region. Thus, for structuring and drafting the "Practical Guide" it is important to consider the following principles: develop a structure that allows the practitioner to use it as step-wise guidance, i.e. differentiate between different phases of service development and implementation; include examples that are helpful to understand abstract or complex aspects; provide answers on questions arising when developing a CPS implementation as short and simple as possible; draft the text in an easy to read way; make the guidance appealing by introducing suitable graphical elements. Annex K proposes a tentative structure for the "Practical Guide" Nexus models The nexus models introduced above (section 2.3) will support a the narrative and development of general policy recommendations. Based on the individual case study recommendations and other findings from desktop research and survey results the narrative for general policy recommendations will be developed. They may be structured along different categories and perspectives such as types of services, types of providers, functional categories, types of regions etc. These recommendations may, inter alia, review in how far the variety of CPS established in a certain area depends on the degree of formalised cooperation. Comparison of the specific nexus models for different policy fields and/or case study regions will allow identifying typical and/or frequent relations between current and future characteristics crucial for CPSP related decision-making, relevant border effects and regional impacts. ESPON

45 4 First results The ToR request tentative results to be provided in the inception report. These tentative results are expected both for the EU-wide and case study specific analysis. They shall refer to current CPS provision as well as giving first indications on future CPSP prospects, challenges and needs. In the following tentative analyses for the EU-level are provided in sections 4.1 (current CPSP) and 4.2 (major challenges). In both sections the EU-wide analysis is complemented by exemplary outlines for one case study region each. Additional tentative insights into the case study regions are summarised in section Analysis of current cross-border public service provision The analysis results presented on the following pages are based upon the first literature and document review conducted between November and December 2017 (see section 3.1), as well as very first feedback received from the case study regions before Christmas We are aware that this empirical base only represents a portion of the large number of CPSP in Europe. The online survey, to be conducted during January to March 2018, as well as additional stakeholder feedback over the next weeks will help to widen and enrich the empirical ground. Thus, the following analyses are considered as provisional results helping to highlight first key issues, and to demonstrate the analytical framework we are going to establish rather than to present final interpretations Analysis of CPS in an EU-wide perspective So far, a total of 349 CPS in Europe could be identified and localised (Map 4-1) 50. Geographically, most of these CPS are located along the borders of the Benelux countries, as well as between France, Germany and Switzerland, and in Scandinavia. Map A-11 (Annex L) zooms into the borders of the Benelux countries, providing further insights about their spatial distribution. Altogether, the German-France border accounts for approx. 17% of all CPS (Table 4-1), followed by the Belgium-France border with almost 12% and the Belgian-Dutch and German- Dutch borders with about 10.5% of all CPS. If borders to Luxembourg are added, more than 60% 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 non-eu country with the highest share of CPS is the German-Swiss border (5.4%), followed by the French- Swiss and Swedish-Norwegian borders Stakeholder feedback received in January 2018 could not be considered in this analysis, but of course will be included in the analyses at later stages of the project. 50 In Map 4-1, 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. 51 Figure A-1 in Annex L explains how CPS were assigned to border segments. ESPON

46 A further aggregation of this distribution reveals, that 69% of all CPS are located along borders between old EU Member States, 6% of all CPS along borders between old and new EU Member States, 8% between new EU Member States, and 17% between EU and non-eu countries (Figure 4-1). CPS between non-eu states have not been identified so far. Map 4-1: Location of CPS service providers along European borders. Table 4-1: Share of CPS by country borders Rank Border between Share (%) 1 Germany France Belgium France Belgium - Netherlands Germany Netherlands Germany Switzerland France Switzerland Sweden Norway Belgium Luxembourg Germany Luxembourg Belgium Germany Croatia Slovenia France Luxembourg Germany Poland Hungary Slovakia Czech Republic Slovakia 1.3 ESPON

47 16 Spain - Portugal Austria Slovakia Czech Republic Germany Germany Denmark Finland Sweden Poland - Slovakia 1.2./. Other borders 10.3 Source: Service provider, 2018 Figure 4-1: Share of CPS by type of border Source: Service provider, 2018 Summing up and mapping the number of CPS per border segment confirms these findings (Map 4-2). Border segments with more than five or ten CPS can only be found in Western Europe (Benelux countries, France, Germany, Switzerland) and in Scandinavia. Other borders offer room for only very few CPS (for instance, Slovak borders, border between Portugal and Spain). For some border no CPS have been identified at all (for example, Latvia- Lithuania, Hungary-Romania, Bulgaria-Romania and Bulgaria-Greece). Apart from the geographical distribution of the services, another interesting point to analyse are the fields of interventions (themes) they are dealing with (Table 4-2 and Map 4-3). More than 28% of all CPS are concerned with civil protection and disaster management, followed by 27% of those of environment protection. Further significant shares of 10% or more show healthcare and education CPS. Transport CPS account for more than 8%, and CPS on citizenship/justice/public security and spatial planning/tourism/culture have shares of more than 5% each. Labour market and employment CPS obviously have, in total, a low relevance (4.6%), while CPS on communication/broadband/information society are a rather new phenomenon and thus accounting for less than 1%. Even though for whole of Europe this ranking seems clear cut, the detailed spatial distribution of fields of interventions is still interesting to analyse. For example, CPS identified so far in ESPON

48 Scandinavia are only concerned with civil protection and disaster management on the one hand, and healthcare on the other. In contrast, CPS along the Spanish-Portuguese border are solely concerned with labour market and employment CPS. Most CPS along the Austrian border are concerned with environmental protection. Map 4-2: Number of CPS per border segment Table 4-2: Number and share of CPS themes Theme / Field of intervention Frequency Share (%) Civil protection and disaster management Environment protection Healthcare and social inclusion Education and training Transport Citizenship, justice and public security Spatial planning, tourism, and culture Labour market and employment Communication, broadband, and information society Sum Source: Service provider, 2018 ESPON

49 The Belgian-French border area is, interestingly, a forerunner in healthcare CPS 52. Other borders like the Irish-British border or the border between Germany and the Netherland cover a wide array of fields and interventions, reflecting various policy objectives and public needs. Map 4-3: CPS - Types of services/fields of intervention Another interesting topic are the target groups that are addressed by the CPS. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of CPS address the general public (68%, Table 4-3). Reflecting the large number of healthcare CPS, more than 7% of all CPS address ill people and people requiring medical care. Next, CPS addressing cross-border workers/job-seekers, students, school kids, and enterprises, with shares between 2.5 and almost 4%. At the other end of the spectrum of target groups, there are highly specified CPS addressing specific experts such as fire brigades, actors in the energy sector, or spatial planners. From 1970 to 1990, within the CPS identified so far, only very few initiatives were taken to establish new CPS, mainly in the field of environmental protection (cross-border nature parks etc.) (Figure 4-2). Since 1990, a jump in CPS establishments can be observed with peaks of 52 Map A-12 in Annex L provides a detailed zoom map into the Benelux countries. ESPON

50 16 (1998), 20 (2002) and 16 (2013). However, there are also years in between with only few initiatives (for example, 2004, 2009 or 2011). Table 4-3: CPS target groups Target groups Frequency Share (%) General public People of all ages requiring medical care Cross-border workers, job-seekers, trainees, and employers / companies Students, researchers and professors Children and young adults at school age Job-seekers Enterprises, SMEs, and entrepreneurs Actors in health care Appretices Political decision makers; other actors and stakeholders involved in employment policies Public authorities Elderly people Spatial planners, national and regional / local authorities, political decision-makers, Actors in the energy sector Fire brigades Not specified Sum Source: Service provider, 2018 Based on these very first findings, the following preliminary hypotheses can be drawn: The highest share of CPS in Europe can be observed between the six founding EU Member States, i.e. the Benelux States, France and Germany. The number and share of CPS is not a function of the length of a border. Instead, the number of CPS per border segment could rather be a function of the length of crossborder mutual cooperation at national level, and/or a function of population density 53. Geographical specificities (terrain and physical conditions, isolations and peripherality) may also raise the need to establish CPS, as the case of the northernmost Scandinavian regions show. Most CPS are concerned with civil protection and disaster management and environment protection, followed by healthcare and education. The spatial distribution of CPS themes are 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. The CPS themes reflect the policy objectives and cross-border needs of the border regions. 53 Population structure, density and future development (demographic change) are important determinants for CPS. In densely populated cross-border areas (e.g. twin cities), the more people live on both sides of the border, the sooner needs for cross-border cooperation and cross-border services arise, since one can assume that with increasing population the intensity of cross-border activities increase as well. In sparsely populated areas crossborder CPS needs may arise due to immigration and other population developments raising needs to increase domestic service provision efficiency (e.g. by enlarging the scope of users). ESPON

51 Most CPS are targeting the general public and people requiring medical care. However, there are also very specialized CPS that address specific professional groups such as fire brigades, police, energy sector and others. The number of CPS in Europe is slowly and steadily increasing, with an average of 5 to 10 new CPS per year. Figure 4-2: Number of CPS established in a year Source: Service provider, 2018 Once the results of the online survey and further feedback from the stakeholders is available, the above analyses will be complemented, trying to verify these hypotheses and trying to draw further hypotheses from the results. In addition, we would like to try to answer further questions, like: How long does it take on average to set up a new CPS? Is there a connection between the establishment year of a CPS and its thematic focus? For instance, it appears that most of the very first CPS were concerned with environmental protection, later on health care, transport and other fields of intervention were added. It would be interesting to see whether there is also some kind of thematic focus in certain years reflecting the urgent policy needs of that period of time. How is the relationship between prioritised policy objectives and themes addressed by the CPS? Do the CPS reflect policy needs? What are 'typical' providers of CPS (type of service providers)? How is their composition of cross-border partners? What is the duration or frequency of the service? For instance, ad-hoc and disaster services contrasted to permanent services. 54 Some CPS have been established already before 1970, which are excluded from this chart. From the total of 349 CPS identified in the literature review, information about the establishment year was given for 249; no or unclear information for 100 CPS. So, Figure 4-2 is based upon a total of 249 CPS. ESPON

52 What are the required legal tools for formalization for which kind of service? What degree of formalization is needed? Where are the services provided? Central places vs. decentralized approaches. We would also like to look more into detail into specific themes. For example, Annex L already presents two maps contrasting CPS in healthcare with so-called health care areas (Map A-13), as well as CPS in environment protection with natural protected areas (Map A- 14), representing two of the most prominent CPS fields of intervention Analysis of CPS at the level of the case study areas While section dealt with a comparative European-wide analysis, we will furthermore also conduct in-depth analyses at the level of case study areas. As we did not yet obtain a complete overview of CPS in the case study areas, in the following we just exemplify first elements of analysis at the Euregio Scheldemond case study. Note that the following materials are given just to demonstrate the way of analyses, and do not present the final analytical outcomes for this case study. Based on the current information, 17 CPS are provided in the Euregio Scheldemond (Table4-4) 55. As a specificity, this case study area is located along two borders, which are the Belgium-Dutch border towards the North, which is included in the case study area, and the Belgium-French border towards the south, where the French counterpart however is not part of the case study area. So, there are potentials for developing CPS towards two national borders. Out of the 17 CPS recorded so far, nine are located along the Belgian-Dutch border (i.e. entirely located within the case study area), while the remaining eight are located along the Belgian-France border (Map 4-4 and Figure 4-3), which means that only the Belgian part of the CPS are located within the case study area. While we can observe only a moderate increase in the total number of CPS until 2000 (totalling to six CPS in the entire area), a jump in such services can be observed in 2002 and 2003 resulting in a duplication of CPS in Scheldemond (12). Further increases took place in 2016 (13), 2008 (15) and finally in 2015 to reach the present number of 17 CPS (Figrue 4-3). The thematic composition of the CPS is quite diverse in terms of the range of interventions covered, but well balanced. Four CPS providing healthcare services, three are concerned with education and training, followed by two CPS in civil protection/disaster management, citizenship/justice/public security, spatial planning/tourism/culture and transport each. Eventually, one CPS has been established for environmental protection and another one for labour market/employment. 55 To be complemented in the coming months by results of the online survey, stakeholder feedback and further literature review during the project. ESPON

53 Map 4-4: CPS in the Euregio Scheldemond ESPON

54 Figure 4-3: Euregio Scheldemond - Tentative statistics on CPS provision Source: Service provider, 2018 While for the entire study area the thematic composition is balanced, the thematic geographical distribution is not (Map 4-4). All transport CPS and three out of four healthcare CPS are located along the Belgian-French border, while all education/training, labour market/employment and citizenship/justice CPS are located along the Belgian/Dutch border. More than 37% of all CPS are dedicated to the general public, approx. 19% to people requiring medical aid and to students and apprentices, another 12.5% for cross-border commuters and workers, and finally specific services are targeted to public authorities and elderly people (6.25% each). Eventually, the current analyses reveal that the number of CPS per segment of national border in the Euregio Scheldemond lies between 2 and 10 (Map 4-5), with on average higher numbers along the Belgian-Dutch border compared to the Belgian-French border. ESPON

55 Map 4-5: Euregio Scheldemond - Number of CPS per border segment ESPON

56 Table 4-4: # Map no 56 Preliminary list of CPS in Euregio Scheldemond. Name Theme Year Border Target group Description Bus services in the the Eurométropole Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai Transport n.a. Belgium-France General public Operation of 13 cross-border bus lines between the three cities VisitEuroMetropoli Spatial Planning, tourism, culture General public / tourists First joint website bringing together the complementary tourism and leisure offers in the Eurometropolis EURES Cross-border partnership Scheldemond Labour market, employment Belgium-Netherlands Border InfoPoint (grensinfopunt) Euregio Scheldemond Cross-border cooperation in case of disasters Collaboration of universities and research institutes (Gent I-V agreements) Collaboration in the fields of vocational education (Gent III Agreement) Cross-border body Well-being of the elderly Assenede-Sas van Gent Comines-Pureté wastewater treatment plant Citizenship, justice, public security Education, training Healthcare, social inclusion Environment protection Commuters, jobseekers, trainees, employees Entrepreneurs, students, workers and jobseekers Supporting labour market by organising job fairs, virtual, group and individual information and advice services, speed dates and training Network of border information points where people get information about working across the border, located in various municipalities on both sides of the border and staffed by the Dutch or Belgian partner organisations Belgium-France General public Special Agreement between the Prefect of the Nord Department and the Governor of the Province of West Flanders on mutual assistance in the event of disasters or serious accidents 1990 Belgium-Netherlands Students, professors, researchers Collaboration between teaching bodies, ICT, student mobility, quality and supervision Appretices Collaboration among institutions, quality and supervision 2002 Elderly people Provision of different services to improve the well-being of elderly people Belgium-France General public Treatment of waste waters for the municipalities of Comines-Waneton (BE) and Comines-Wervicq (FR) 56 These numbers correspond to the numbers indicated in Map 4-4. ESPON

57 Municipalities of Vaals and Kelmis fires and accidents assistance Mutual assistance in case of catastrophes Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie (NVAO) Civil protection, disaster management Education, training Belgium-Netherlands Agreement on mutual assistance in case of disasters, fires and accidents 2003 Agreement for mutual assistance in the case of disasters, fires and accidents, concluded between Provinces of Zeeland, West-Flanders, East-Flanders and the municipalities of the Euregio Scheldemond Students Improving quality of higher education by evaluating and testing courses, and by promoting harmonization and coherence Cooperation of VLM and DLG Spatial Planning, tourism, culture ZOAST MRTW-URSA Healthcare, social inclusion 2006 Public authorities Cooperation of both authorities in order to improve planning and development of rural areas and city outskirts 2008 Belgium-France People requiring medical care Rescue services People requiring emergency medical services ZOAST LITTORAL 2015 People requiring Rail services in the the Eurométropole Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai Provision of health services in the cities of Mouscron, Roubaix, Tourcoing, Wattrelos, Armentières, Bailleul, Hazebrouck, and Ieper Border-crossing operation of Franco- Belgian mobile emergency and resuscitation services Provision of health services in the cities of medical care Dunkirk (FR) and Veurne (BE) Transport General public Operation of 2 cross-border rail lines between the three cities ESPON

58 4.2 Major challenges at EU level and for case study areas EU-wide and also region-specific challenges play an ambivalent role in relation to the implementation of CPS in Europe, depending on the character and magnitude of the particular challenge. On the one hand, challenges can be considered as obstacles to the development and implementation of CPS. For instance, a lack of demand due to low population densities at both sides of a border may cause problems in the (long-term) provision of services, often causing actors to close services and to prevent them from opening new ones. On the other hand, challenges can also be considered as a trigger for developing joint CPS, as they often help generating a common problem understanding or require immediate and joint actions. For instance, challenges such as floods along border rivers raise immediate awareness among stakeholders, and also require joint actions to overcome, which supports CPS implementation. Chapter gives a first, tentative overview of EU-wide challenges which may be relevant, to a lesser or larger degree, for all our ten case studies, based upon literature review. For each challenge, the obstacles (i.e. negative factors preventing CPS development) will be confronted with the triggers (i.e. positive factors for initiating CPS) in a tabular format. To what extent the obstacles outweigh the triggers in each particular case study, is subject for further analyses during this study. In reality, this very much depends on the set up of stakeholders and actors in a border region and their experiences in cross-border cooperation and mutual trust in each other. As a starting point for this analysis, section exemplifies some of these challenges for the Region Sønderjylland-Schleswig case study First results on major challenges at EU level relevant for future CPSP The challenges presented in Table 4-5 are derived from determining drivers for the provision of services-of-general-interest (SGI) identified in the ESPON SGI project 57, and further developed. While the ESPON SGI project dealt with provision of services in general, but since we are particularly interested in cross-border services, we re-interpreted and extended the results of ESPON SGI with the view of cross-border dimensions. Table 4-5 so far does not claim to be comprehensive; rather it provides a starting point for our further stakeholder engagement processes and sets the scene for our further analyses at the case study level. Not all of these challenges are relevant for each cases study to the same degree, some of them may in a particular case even be irrelevant, in other cases some of these challenges may reinforce each other; however, from a general European perspective they can be considered as major current and future challenges. 57 ESPON SGI Final Report, Chapter 5.4, pp. 92. ESPON

59 Table 4-5: Policy fields, challenges and triggers for CPS. Policy fields Challenge Trigger Socio-demographic development Negative population Negative population trends lead, from a certain point, to problems of development maintaining services of general interest, as the necessary critical mass is undercut. There is risk that private service providers will withdraw from these areas and concentrate on few centres. Once being below the critical, it is extremely difficult to establish new services because of Ageing and overaging (increase of elderly people) Out-migration of young people in working age Increasing Immigration a lack of demand. The process of ageing and, in some parts of Europe, even overaging of societies will sooner or later lead to a shift of demand for services. Young people of course have other demands compared to elderly people. By way of consequence, demand for some kind of services may diminish (such as kindergartens, schools, or cinemas), while demand for other kinds of services (such as retirement homes, elderly and health care) may increase; often, this transition phase of service provision is difficult to handle by private and public services providers, sometimes reinforced by contrasting development (for instance, replacement of bank offices by internet services, which often cannot be used by elderly people). Sometimes the situation becomes even more complex if the speed and nature of these processes differ at either side of a national border. Often, the process of ageing of a society is accompanied by processes of out-migration of young people in working age, either because of a lack of jobs, low wages, lack of affordable flats or homes, or generally unattractive living conditions for young families in a region. The integration of an increasing number of immigrants is a challenge for many regions, especially for rural areas. Immigrants are often dependent on public transfer payments, thereby increasing the pressure on public services. Depending on the economic situation of a region, immigrants also increase labour market pressure and compete with local unemployed people and with locals on the housing market. In the light of concentration processes of private service providers, public authorities are called to maintain at least minimum levels of SGIs provision in such areas. Establish cross-border services may enable chances to (a) enlarge the demand (i.e. the critical mass), and (b) share costs so that If the speed and nature of the transition phase is different at both side of a border, CPS may be established where services for certain age groups will be offered for people from both sides of the border, that way widening the potential user base and securing a (more or less) profitable provision of services. Also, if newly required services for elderly people are available on one side of a border, CPS may offer them to people from the neighbouring country as well. In general, the process of ageing (often also accompanied by the dissolution of traditional family structures) gives room for the development of new, and innovative services for elderly people with respect to healthcare, leisure activities, shopping and mobility behaviour, the use of new technologies, and others. Main drivers for outmigration of course is unemployment or a lack of jobs, in particular for young people. However, many studies showed that for families a lack of attractive services (kindergartens and schools, culture and leisure activities) and affordable housing space is often another important factor for movement decisions. Here, CPS may be developed to fill the gap of lack of infrastructures. After careful analysis of missing services, attractive cross-border services may be established. Due to their age structure, immigrants contribute to a more balanced demographic composition (particularly in regions affected by high migration rates), thereby stabilising the demand for many services. In addition, the integration of immigrants often opens up options for establishing new CPS, e.g. in the field of education (language courses, education and training, etc.) or in the health or leisure sectors, which could ultimately also be offered to locals. Specific cross-border offers for jobseekers could be developed in view of ESPON

60 Education Differences in access to education Differences in education quality and incompatible degrees Labour markets Loss of jobs Uneven distribution of jobs at both sides of a border Different price levels, wages and incomes (i.e. affordable prices for services) As a consequence of the various demographic trends illustrated above, demand and need of education is also significantly changing. New forms of education and training such as lifelong-learning, vocational training, specific courses for immigrants and others increasingly appear, while traditional forms of education such as primary and secondary schools face problems due to decreasing number of pupils. Moreover, border regions in many countries often traditionally experience poor accessibilities to higher education facilities such as secondary schools or universities. Sometimes the quality of the education systems both sides of a border is different, and often the curricular or degrees are incompatible or are not accepted (even if formally it is the same level, such as secondary school degree). Such problems are obstacles for apprentices, students and workers, and hamper the development of joint cross-border labour markets. Due to concentration processes and the general economic development, border regions may lose jobs and work places, both in industries and services. A lack of jobs may then reinforce further outmigration processes. The number and spatial distribution of jobs may be uneven at either side of the border. Economic development may be prosperous in one country, compared to stagnation or even negative developments in the neighbouring country. Border regions may experience different price levels, wages or incomes either side of the border, due to different national (tax and other) regulations and due to the general state of the economy. This will have consequences for the price of services, and, also for the willingness to pay of people for services. Eventually, wages, income and prices will determine people s perception of affordability. Usually, people tend to use those services (wherever they are located) that are cheapest (or, more generally, most affordable), given the mobility efforts to reach them. finding jobs for immigrants as quickly as possible. Cross-border cooperation in the field of education may help to overcome these problems. CPS may be developed for lifelonglearning, vocational training or for better integration of immigrants, matching the needs of the regions. Sometimes CPS may even help implementing joint cross-border schools (such as secondary schools for pupils from both side of the border), including common curricular and common degrees. Stakeholders such as Chambers of Commerce, schools and training institutions within the region may develop services supporting the development of joint curricular or may initiate processes to overcome these problems. CPS may be considered a mean for creating new jobs; either new CPS may compensate job losses in private sector services, or CPS may be a mean to compensate for industry jobs (in combination with training or vocational education measures). CPS like information centres for job seekers or joint training centres may be established. Also, the location(s) of CPS provisions may be chosen in a way to compensate for the uneven economic development. As a matter of fact, regional authorities have only very limited options to influence general price or wage levels and thus incomes. But in order to (partially) compensate for that, regional public authorities may actively make use of these differences. For instance, when (a) Selecting location of CPS provision: either they may select a location with low price levels to provide the service at lowest cost, or they may offer comparatively higher wages in areas of on-average low wages (b) Pricing of services (c) Identification of suitable CPS (if prices of private service providers are too high at one side of the border, due to generally ESPON

61 higher price levels, joint cross-border CPS may be a mean to offer similar services at lower costs) High-speed access to internet and new technologies Maintenance of transport infrastructures Transport and new technologies Missing PT services Missing or inadequate cross-border rail or bus services lead to disconnections of the national PT networks, preventing people from cross-border travel and so preventing them to reach services beyond the border. Because of a lack of access, cross-border services may not be offered. High-quality road From a national perspective, border areas are often perceived as infrastructures peripheral areas and are thus often outside the scope of policies. By way of consequence, they often lack high-quality road infrastructures (exception: a TEN-T corridor crosses the area), leading not only to poor access to regional centres and agglomerations, but also to poor crossborder accessibility (lack of cross-border connections). Like other technologies previously, the development of high-speed internet connections started in major cities and metropolitan areas. Border areas, which in many countries represent peripheral areas, are lagging behind in overall development, but there is also a risk that a large number of stationary services will be replaced by internet services in the near future (e.g. bank offices, training centres, cultural institutions), once fast internet connections are available. At the same time, the lack of high-speed internet connections is also perceived as a disadvantage for the regional economy, which shows the often ambivalent character of new technologies. Over the last decade, maintenance costs for road, rail and other transport infrastructures has increased significantly. Unlike the construction of new infrastructures, which is often heavily supported by EU and national funds, in many cases regional and local authorities are solely responsible for the maintenance. This has meanwhile become a real burden for many of them. Nowadays, maintenance works involve several components, ranging from repair and rehabilitation works towards winter road clearance and safety measures to disaster removal measures. Many of these measures require large-scale construction vehicles and specialized vehicles, and also specialized experts (for instance, in case of railway infrastructures). Legislation, governance and policy frameworks Different levels of Local and regional authorities at either side of a border may have, by competences and law, different levels of competences and decision-making powers. Since efficient and high-quality cross-border transport connections and services can be considered as an enabler and a pre-condition to access services, a lack of such cross-border PT services may trigger stakeholders to implement such CPS, thereby also raising attractiveness of the region as a whole and of other services in particular. Being aware of its ambivalent nature, access to high-speed internet enables regional actors to develop new kind of CPS, some of which have even potential to compensate for other disadvantages (for instance, telemedicine may compensate for long-distances and low population densities) or to enable complete new services (such as cross-border vocational training services or online coordination of rescue services in case of disasters). In the light of demographic trends (such as overaging or an increasing number of migrants), there seems to be need for new kinds of CPS that enable elderly people or untaught foreigners to use such new technologies. The implementation of CPS in this field may be a mean to reduce costs for local and regional authorities while raising efficiency and thus cost-effectiveness of the services. Also, the supply of building machines and of experts would be much easier. If competences and responsibilities for a certain theme are allocated very unevenly at either side of a border, which usually also means ESPON

62 decision-making powers Different responsibilities for service provision Different regulations for setting-up and running business Quality levels for service provision Spatial planning Decisions taken at local level in one country may require involvement of regional or high-regional actors in the other country, which makes cross-border cooperation quite difficult. Responsibilities and obligations of public service provision of local and regional authorities may differ from country to country. For instance, municipalities in country A may be responsible for providing certain educational, cultural or technical services, which municipalities in country B may not. Often, it is already difficult to identify responsible authorities in the neighbouring country. Rules and procedures for establishing new businesses or for running and further developing existing businesses may differ a lot between the countries, depending on the national regulations in place. This often is hampering the development of integrated cross-border markets, since companies often lack the required legal or regulatory advice for crossborder activities (particular small companies, start-ups and entrepreneurs). On the other hand, companies planning to locate in border areas often want to make use of border locations in the sense that they see potentials for cross-border markets. The quality level of services accepted by people in different countries, and their perception thereof, may significantly vary beyond a border. What is acceptable in one country (based on long-time experiences, historical ties, norms and regulations) may be non-acceptable in the other. Different quality levels may play important roles in many services, ranging from healthcare, transport (for instance, acceptable frequency of bus services) towards technical services such as the thresholds to be adhered to in wastewater treatment. In densely populated areas, urban space often reaches up directly to borders. Often the middle of a road separates two states from each other (e.g. in some cities along the German-Dutch border). Uncoordinated urban development and urban planning often lead to a problem shifting to the other side of the border. Sometimes urban planning is still following the idea of a competition (that supermarket comes to my city so that it does not settle in the other, or "not in my backyard"). that staffing and budgeting is distributed unevenly as well, the EGTC instrument or bilateral agreements may be used to establish joint CPS. Different partners may team up to set up an EGTC on a specific theme (for example, environmental protection, disaster management, labour market etc.) and agree on all necessary rules of conduct to provide certain services. Public authorities such as Chambers of Commerce may support the economic development of border areas by offering specialized CPS targeted to small companies, start-ups and entrepreneurs, supporting knowledge transfer of required rules and legal procedures. When planning for CPS, usually agreements must be reached about the envisaged quality levels of the service. However, there could also be specific CPS established who are aiming at developing joint cross-border standards. For instance, CPS may be concerned with develop new standards, quality control mechanisms and quality assurance procedures in the fields of healthcare or care for elderly people (retirement homes, for instance). The development of cross-border formal and informal planning processes would not only lead to better mutual understanding, but also to better coordination of urban planning as a whole if the border were no longer seen as an obstacle but would be considered a unifying element. Nowadays, many problems of urban development can hardly be solved by a single municipality alone, but only cooperatively by neighbouring municipalities, so that the establishment of CPS could also be a useful instrument in spatial planning. It would be possible to start with selected technical planning (e.g. transport planning, PT, technical infrastructures), and then gradually extend the cooperation to other areas of spatial planning. For instance, recently, new CPS were established implementing spatial monitoring systems as an supporting ESPON

63 instrument to observe spatial developments to provide insights and input data for spatial planning processes. Geographical and physical conditions Difficult relief Border regions are often mountainous areas with massifs separating (mountains, hills) and disconnecting valleys, and constituting national borders. Transport arteries follow the paths of the valleys, leading to comparatively long distances and travel times; also, in many cases one road or railway track is the only connection making it prone to disconnections caused by avalanches, rockfalls and other kind of interruptions. Due to the massif ranges, there is often only little to no cooperation with and sometimes even knowledge about the problems and living conditions Isolation and long distances Common river basin High-quality protecting landscape beyond the border. Maintaining services in remote and isolated areas is difficult. Often the distances are far too long and at the same time too small a population base and extremely dispersed settlement patterns, which are characterized by missing or only very small centres. This increases the cost of delivery and thus the prices of services of all kinds. For these reasons, private providers rarely offer their services in these areas. Like other rivers, border rivers are prone to flooding and inundation. Often the valleys are quite narrow, with steep mountain flanks, so that there are limited areas and developmental potentials on both sides of the rivers. As a rule, the number of river crossings (bridges, ferries, underpaths) is limited, and traffic jams often occur in towns on both sides of the river. Border regions have always been out of scope of the national governments. In the past, only few development impulses were given to these areas by central governments. This led to a situation that nature has been able to develop largely undisturbed, so that nowadays many natural and protected habitats could develop along national borders. In many cases these areas are under nature conservation now. Often, nature and landscape parks have a significant size and extent, causing some stakeholders to believe that these areas are obstacles for growing together of countries and for further economic development. The provision of services is often only possible through cross-border cooperation. On the one hand due to the specific topographical conditions, on the other hand because otherwise there would be no sufficient demand base or the distances would be too long. Public authorities therefore have a special role to play in maintaining services of general interest. Of course, it is also affected by the high cost of deployment. However, these can also lead to the development of new, innovative concepts of cross-border services, whether in the fields of education or healthcare, civil protection (e.g. co-operation of fire brigades) or security (e.g. common police forces). CPS can thus help reduce costs while maintaining service quality. Many problems, such as precautions against flooding or the provision of technical infrastructures (drinking water supply, waste water treatment) can only be solved jointly by cross-border initiatives. Due to the lack of availability land, the provision of double infrastructure (e.g. sewage treatment plants, but also school centres, shopping centres, etc.) makes only limited sense, and could be improved by the establishment of suitable CPS. Cross-border initiatives are necessary in order to preserve these areas in the future and to protect them from external influences, while at the same time opening them up for soft and sustainable tourism. Interventions on one side of the border often have direct impacts on the areas beyond the border. In times of climate change, new tourism developments and technologies, new cooperative approaches to nature conservation and the sustainable management of nature parks are essential. ESPON

64 Climate Climate change Although the impacts of climate change on individual regions are difficult to predict at the moment, and individual regions will certainly be affected differently, there are more or less severe consequences for the provision of basic services to expect. This concerns, on the one hand, civil protection and safety (e.g. with regard to sea-level rise, floods, avalanches and rock falls), but on the other hand also direct services of general interest, such as drinking water supply (how can this be ensured in times of increasing numbers of drought or flooding?), energy production or even mobility services (e.g. breaking down of railway tracks as a result of floods) and spatial planning. It is undeniable that it will be difficult for individual regions to mitigate the effects of climate change on their own or to transform their services in such a way that they are operate more sustainable. Therefore, joint initiatives, including cross-border ones, are useful. This can, on the one hand, involve the reorganisation/improvement of existing SGIs (e.g. drinking water supply), but this may also require the establishment of new services for security or better coordination of rescue forces in emergency cases (e.g. floods). Services in the area of prevention and spatial planning would also be conceivable in order to create a more sustainable settlement structure in the border regions in the medium to long term. ESPON

65 4.2.2 Regional challenges relevant for future CPSP the example of Sønderjylland The following analysis is based upon a first response of the regional stakeholders. Further interviews with stakeholders in the region will be conducted during the course of the project. Therefore, the following statements should be considered provisional and mainly aim to illustrate the overall approach of the project team. After presenting the first stakeholder responses, an initial quantitative analysis of some of the raised aspects is undertaken in the second part of this section. The results there will be briefly described and intentionally not further interpreted. An interpretation of the results will be developed in close coordination with the regional stakeholders. Similar analyses will be carried out in the course of the project for the other case study regions as well. The actual types of quantitative analysis to be conducted for each case study depend on the future needs and on the actual challenges encountered by the particular case study. Stakeholder response In a first response, regional stakeholders from Region Sønderjylland-Schleswig addressed the following problems, questions and challenges in terms of future CPS needs: Legislation, governance and policy frameworks: there is a strong public sector on the Danish side with a lot of responsibilities (and thus also staff and budget allocated) in different fields, including, for example, cultural services. In contrast, German municipalities do not have as many responsibilities, resulting in a very asymmetric situation between the German and Danish counterparts. Health care: There is a strong perception on the German side about imbalances in the health care system with German municipalities facing bottlenecks, which could be removed by the establishment of cross-border health services. It is however unclear where these shortages actually geographically exist (see Map 4-7 for a first travel time analysis). Labour market: German employees in Denmark have the same rights and amenities (e.g. in relation to childcare) as their Danish colleagues. In contrary, this does not apply to Danes who work in Germany. In the interests of developing a single, crossborder labour market, the adjustment of workers' rights/amenities would be desirable. Transport: Even though there are only three major cross-border road connections between Germany and Denmark in the study area (E45 motorway, B200/170 between Flensburg and Kruså, and B5/N11 between Niebüll and Tønder) there are a number of small cross-border roads, which, however, have only local importance (Map 4-6). All of these connections need maintenance, and the idea being, to better coordinate maintenance works at either side of the border by implementing CPS. This service could cover all relevant repair, rehabilitation and maintenance works, so as winter road clearance and road safety measures, as well as the establishment of a joint workshop for the required vehicles, materials and spare parts, and staff. The above needs, together with further analysis findings for the case study, will be further discussed with the reginal stakeholder to precisely identify ideas and needs for future CPS in the region. ESPON

66 Initial analysis Apart from the cross-border roads mentioned above, two railway connections cross the Danish-German border in the study area, along the Eastern and Western coastlines (Map 4-6). At the Baltic Sea coast this is the railway mainline Hamburg-Flensburg-Odense (part of TEN-T Corridor V Scandinavia-Mediterranean) with various IC and regional train services operated by Deutsche Bahn and DSB/Banedanmark. Along this corridor, Flensburg serves as train hub for regional connecting trains. Towards the North Sea coast there is the a second railway line Niebüll-Tønder(-Esbjerg), operated by NEG (Norddeutsche Eisenbahngesellschaft) with ten train services per direction on each working day. Travel time from Niebüll to Tønder is about 17 minutes with two intermediate stops in the villages of Uphusen and Süderlügum. In between these two corridors along the coastlines, there are no cross-border railways in the hinterland. Cross-border bus lines are only available in the Easternmost parts of the case study area on relations Flensburg-Padborg-Kruså, operated by Busverkehr Flensburg (3 times an hour), and Sønderborg-Flensburg, operated by Sydbus. There are no bus services foreseen so far along the other parts of the border 58. The results of a raster-based travel time analysis of health care facilities (hospitals, general practitioners, pharmacies) conducted in the ESPON PROFECY project 59 (Map 4-7) that (a) for both the Danish and German case study parts coastal areas do have better access (i.e. shorter travel times) to such facilities compared to the hinterland areas, (b) most islands experience severe problems in access to health care services, (c) areas along the Baltic Sea coast on average enjoy shorter travel times compared to areas along the North Sea coast (because most of the large cities and the major transport corridor is located in the East), and (d) the access to hospitals and pharmacies is, on average, better in the German part of the case study area compared to the Danish counterpart. 58 Interestingly, even the integrated mobility concept for the county of Nordfriesland, which is part of the case study area, promoted by the German Federal Government (Bundesministerium für Verkehr und Digitale Infrastruktur, 2013), did not plan for any cross-border bus connections. 59 See ESPON PROFECY Final Report (Noguera et al., 2017) for further information. Furthermore, Annex 7 to ESPON PROFECY Final Report provides a complete analysis of accessibility to different SGIs in Europe (Schürmann, 2017). Travel time calculation in PROFECY was conducted by calculating the car travel time from each grid cell to the next facility. SGI locations were compiled from OpenStreetMap. ESPON

67 Map 4-6: Region Sønderjylland-Schleswig: Road and rail networks It is worth to mention that ESPON PROFECY just calculated the car travel times to the next facility. PROFECY did not analyse the quality and scope of services (such as kinds of department or kinds of treatments provided in hospitals) offered in each facility. ESPON

68 Map 4-7: Region Sønderjylland-Schleswig - Car travel times to health care facilities The large structural differences in the case study region between the areas along the Baltic Sea coast and those along the North Sea are also evident in the population distribution. Both the absolute population (Map 4-8) and the population density (Map 4-9) show that municipalities along the E45 axis and along the Baltic Sea coast have larger populations and, ultimately, also significantly higher population densities. For many services, an absolutely high demand is an indispensable requirement. If this demand is allocated in densified spatial structures, the provision of services is even more simplified and more likely. ESPON

69 Map 4-8: Region Sønderjylland-Schleswig - Total population (2015) ESPON

70 Map 4-9: Region Sønderjylland-Schleswig - Population density (2015) 4.3 Tentative insights into CPSP, political objectives and needs for CPSP in the case study areas The following sections give tentative insights into CPSP identified so far, relevant political objectives found in the literature and needs deducted from first reviews of relevant documents. At this stage of the project, i.e. delivering the inception report, extent and in-depth of these insights vary considerably between regions. This partly reflects different stages of CPS development and needs in the different regions as well as different interests of the ESPON CPS stakeholders. Case study presentation will be harmonised in the next steps when preparing the interim and draft final reports. Harmonisations will especially take into account the guidance provided in Annex I as well as further agreements with the stakeholders on the objectives of the case study research. Section gives an example for how a more ESPON

71 detailed background information on relevant regional characteristics may be presented in the case study reports Region Sønderjylland-Schleswig (DE-DK) Geographically, the Region Sønderjylland-Schleswig constitutes the Northernmost areas og Germany and the Southernmost parts of mainland Denmark, thus representing the gateway between North Europe (Scandinavia) and Central Europe. About 700,000 inhabitants live in this area, of which 450,000 reside in the German and 250,000 people reside in the Danish part. In total, this border area can be characterized as sparsely populated. Larger agglomerations can only be found along the Baltic Sea coast to the East, with the cities of Flensburg (85,000 inhabitants), Sønderborg (43,000 inhabitants), Haderslev (32,000), Schleswig (27,000) and Aabenraa (22,000). Towards the North Sea coast, there are only three towns of significant size (Ribe and Tønder on the Danish side with about 27,000 inhabitants each, and Husum on the German side with about 21,000 inhabitants). The areas between are rural areas with small villages and scattered settlements. The north-south oriented Jutland axis connecting Hamburg in the South with Aarhus in the North is the only main transport corridor in the area with motorway and IC train connections. This corridor is part of the TEN-T core networks. The formal cross-border cooperation among Danish and German stakeholders started in 1997, i.e. has now gained twenty years of experiences. Focus of this cooperation is given to the cross-border labour market, culture activities and improvements of mutual language skills. The region hosts a number of CPS that have been identified by the stakeholders and by a first literature review, focussing on the following fields of intervention: Health care (3 CPS): The Franziskus Hospital in Flensburg offers radiation treatments for Danish cancer patients. Moreover, in emergency cases helicopter services are available connecting Niebüll and Tønder municipalities, and rescue services of the Sønderjyllands Amt, Region Syddanmark, of the county Nordfriesland and Flensburg established cross-border services. Transport (3 CPS): There are two bus services connecting Flensburg with the Danish towns of Kruså and Sønderborg, in addition to the regional train services between Flensburg and Padborg. This rail link will also be used by IC trains connecting Hamburg with Odense via Flensburg. Citizenship, justice and public security (2 CPS): There is the cross-border info centre operated by Regionskontor to support and inform commuters, employees, job seekers and employers, as well as agreement about German-Danish police and custom cooperation. Education and training (1 CPS): The University of Southern Denmark in Sønderborg cooperates with the University of Flensburg by offering a joint crossborder study programme. Environment protection (1 CPS): The entire North Sea coast of the Region Sønderjylland-Schleswig is part of the Wadden Sea National Park. Technical services (1 CPS): Cooperation of Stadtwerke Flensburg with Aabenraa Kommune to provide district heating for Danish municipalities. ESPON

72 There are further cross-border initiatives like culture and music festivals (folkbaltica, German- Danish Music days, NordArt, Tønder Festival, Flensburger Kurzfilmtage, Flensburger Hofkultur, Schleswig-Holstein Musikfestival etc.), cooperation of fire brigades or specialized activities (for instance, German dentists caring Danish patients). However, further information need to be gathered whether these activities are based on formalized CPS or are projectbased or represent voluntary or informal activities. Major current and future challenges identified by the region are (i) the continued improvement of services for cross-border commuters and workers, with a view to further develop a common cross-border labour market, (ii) identification and closure of gaps in health care at either side of the border, and (iii) development of joint road maintenance services. The different formal and legal responsibilities of German and Danish municipalities are also considered as an obstacle, leading to a very powerful public sector on the Danish side, compared to the German counterparts, and thus to certain imbalances concerning public service provision. For instance, Danish municipalities are obliged to offer cultural events, which German municipalities are not EuRegio Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein (AT-DE) The area of the EuRegio Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein covers, on the Austrian side, the federal state of Salzburg (i.e. with the Nuts 3 areas Pinzgau-Pongau and Salzburg und Umgebung ) and, on the German side, two counties (i.e. Nuts 3 areas Berchtesgadener Land and Traunstein ) in the federal free state of Bayern. The Euregio extends on 9,530 km2 and has a total population of 823,884 inhabitants (December 2016/January 2017), resulting in an average population density of 86.5 inhabitants per km2. Population density is clearly higher in the two Bavarian counties (123.7 and inh/km2) than in the Land Salzburg (76.3 inh/km2)60. The multidimensional reality of the EuRegio border and its effects on CPSP The main dimensions that simultaneously characterise any border (i.e. political, physical / geographical, economic, socio-cultural) can have variable influences on CPSP. At the segment of the German-Austrian border that is covered by the EuRegio, these influences may be briefly summarised as follows: pronounced closure effects for CPSP emerged until recently from the political dimension of that border, whereas the other border dimensions tend mostly to facilitate CPSP (i.e. opening effects ). The Austrian-German state border was formerly an EEC-EFTA / EU-EEA border that became an internal EU border on 1st January 1995 with Austria s accession to the EU. Both countries are today members of the Schengen and Eurozone areas, wherefore the formal EU border 60 ESPON (2012), EuRegio Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein (2016) ESPON

73 status is under normal conditions 61 not expected to create significant difficulties for developing CPS. Until very recently, a development of CPS was hampered by substantial closure effects that emerged from the marked differences between the federal governance systems of Germany and Austria, although both countries are federal states that use German as official language in all their legal matters and administrative proceedings. These differences were for a long time rooted in the restrictive position of Austria s constitutional law on public-law based crossborder cooperation of territorial authorities (i.e. Länder, municipalities) and also in the parallel absence of an interstate agreement on decentralised cross-border cooperation for the German-Austrian border 62 (i.e. such an agreement does not exist until today). A substantial improvement of this situation was expected to emerge with the EU-wide introduction of EGTCs through Regulation (EC) 1082/2006, but these hopes did not fully materialise during the Structural Funds programming period. This was because an adoption of application provisions in the federal laws of Austria and Germany had not progressed until the end of , although regional-level provisions were already adopted and also in force in all concerned Länder of both countries (i.e. in Bavaria already since January 2008; in Salzburg since September 2009). For the amended EGTC Regulation (EU) 1302/2013 that applies in the programming period , changes to the previous regional implementing legislations entered into force in the Land Salzburg since 2014 and in Bavaria since 1 st of September EGTCs are therefore the sole instrument by which German and Austrian local or regional authorities are currently able to establish public-law based cross-border cooperation between them, but this tool has only recently become a secure option for developing and setting up CPS. The effects on CPSP in the EuRegio that are associated with other dimensions of the border are largely positive and can be summarised as follows: Physical / geographical dimension of the border: The physical / geographical and natural characteristics of the border tend to generate more opening than closing effects for CPSP in the Euregio. Despite the presence of high mountain ranges in the immediate border zone, it can be observed that the multimodal potential accessibility was in 2006 clearly above the ESPON average of 100 in most of the Nuts 3 areas 61 Potentially adverse effects on CPSP can emerge from a temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal EU and Schengen area borders, which occurred at several borders since the crisis of the Schengen Area that was induced by the very strong influx of migrants and asylum seekers during recent years as well as by a number of terrorist attacks on the European territory. See on this also: CoR (2017). 62 This is one of the main conclusions emerging from an extensive Area Specific Technical Report Germany- Austria, which was elaborated in 2004 by Viktor Frhr. von Malchus as a background document (non-public) for an earlier DG Regio study on public-law based cross-border cooperation in Europe. See on the latter study: European Commission, DG Regio (2004). 63 In Austria, Germany and Belgium, the country-wide processes have taken longer due to strong federal structures. In Austria and Germany, legal provisions for implementing EGTCs in the federal laws were still under discussion in 2011/2012 and no certainty did exist on whether these discussions would come to an end until 2013/2014. See: CoR (2012), CoR (2014). ESPON

74 covered by the Euregio 64. This also makes important regional labour market centres such as the Salzburg central area highly accessible for cross-border commuters. Present-time potentials and future opportunities for CPSP also emerge from the importance of valuable and protected natural assets in several parts of the EuRegio 65, but especially in the mountainous border zone where the Europe and Nature Reserve Kalkhochalpen (AT) and the national park Berchtesgadener Alpen (DE) exist. Economic dimension of the border: There are no major economic discontinuities along this segment of the German-Austrian border that tend to adversely influence on CPSP, although some differences do exist. The GDP per capita is clearly higher in the Land Salzburg than in the two Bavarian counties 66, while an inverse situation exists for unemployment where both sides have also experienced inverse long-term trend changes. 67 However, the structural prerequisites for economic development and an increased competitiveness of companies are generally positive in the EuRegio. This creates employment opportunities on both sides of the border, which also stimulates cross-border labour market commuting that has a long tradition along the entire Bavarian-Austrian border. Socio-cultural dimension of the border: There are no major socio-cultural dividing lines that tend to substantially hamper CPSP in the EuRegio. On the contrary, German is spoken on both sides of the border (i.e. no linguistic barriers) and it can be assumed that cultural closeness and a generally positive perception of the common long-term historical legacy are mostly generating opening effects. They tend to favour mutual trust and a general feeling of belonging together, enhance interpersonal contacts or cross-border labour mobility and also stimulate interinstitutional exchanges and cooperation, rather than the opposite. In the respective administrative cultures, however, very different technical languages and interpretations of technical terms have developed between both countries. This may at some extent also influence on the development of CPS, especially in those cases where CPS involve tasks with a high technical content or complex procedural aspects. Other territorial and/or sector-specific aspects relevant for CPS provision Positive aspects that might also reduce a cross-border need for launching substantial CPSP in the field of vocational education and training (VET) are the high similarity and common tradition of VET-systems in both countries as well as the already long-standing existence of specific interstate agreements in this policy area (i.e. not relating to cross-border cooperation) that strongly facilitate a mutual recognition of diploma and professional certificates. Already in 1989, the "German-Austrian Agreement on Cooperation in Vocational Education and the Mutual Recognition of the Equivalence of Vocational Certificates" was concluded 68 and in or more in the Nuts 3 areas Berchtesgadener Land, Traunstein and Salzburg und Umgebung, but only 93.9 in the area Pinzgau-Pongau. See: ESPON (2012), p The share of NATURA 2000 areas in the total territory covered by Nuts 3 areas is particularly relevant in the Bavarian county Berchtesgadener Land (37%) and in the area Pinzgau-Pongau (22%) on the Austrian side, as they stand out considerably in comparison to the other involved Nuts 3 areas. ESPON (2012), p GDP per capita at current market prices (2014/2015): Salzburg (EUR 46,300), Berchtesgadener Land (EUR 29,947) and Traunstein (EUR 36,438). 67 Rates for unemployment in 2016 and for the 10-years evolution ( ): Salzburg (5.6% and +40%), Berchtesgadener Land (4.1% and -31.7%) and Traunstein (3.0% and -41.2%). 68 On ground of this interstate agreement, a large number of Austrian and German final apprenticeship examinations as well as master craft examinations and further education certificates were mutually recognised. The holders of ESPON

75 2005 the "Joint Declaration on Vocational Education and Training on the Comparability of Vocational Qualifications" was adopted. 69 Existing cross-border structures and joint policy objectives on CPS The EuRegio Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein was founded on 22 May 1995 as a voluntary association of municipalities from the Land of Salzburg (AT) and the Bavarian counties Berchtesgadener Land and Traunstein. It currently includes 101 communities and 2 counties. The short and still valid strategy document on guiding concepts (Leitvorstellungen) adopted by the EuRegio Council back in 1997 does not include explicit joint objectives for CPS development. However, some indirect references are made on a joint steering of infrastructure-related measures for a potentials-oriented and differentiated socio-economic development of the predominantly rural and mountainous cross-border area as well as on a quality-oriented development of the environment and the quality of life. 70 Summary overview on currently existing CPS A first literature-base overview suggests that rather few CPS exist in the EuRegio (Table 4-5). Documentary evidence on CPS existing in many other relevant policy areas such as health care, solid waste and sewage water treatment, drinking water provision etc. was not found, which may also be explained by the long-lasting presence of legal obstacles for public law based cross-border cooperation. Table 4-6: CPS Information and counseling service for cross-border commuters and companies Cross-border coordination and further harmonisation / integration of public transport offers Evidence on existing CPS Content In the area of the EuRegio, information and counseling work for cross-border commuters and companies takes place via the employment agency Traunstein (DE) and the employment service Salzburg (AT) and is supported by EURES. EURES Advisers in Salzburg, Traunstein (and Altötting) advise commuters or employers on issues such as job search or working conditions in the respective neighbouring country. The service is primarily dedicated to workers who work in a country other than the one in which they live and who return daily or at least once a week to their place of residence. Also targeted job fairs for job seekers and companies in the field of tourism are regularly organised. Activities focus on better informing passengers about public transport services available in the EuRegio (i.e. regular publishing of an EuRegio public transport map, showing all lines of local and regional transport by bus and train including the night bus lines), which is a joint project involving various transport operators in the area (Salzburg AG, regional traffic Upper Bavaria RVO, Salzburg Transport Association SVV), the counties Berchtesgadener Land and Traunstein as well as the EuRegio itself. At the initiative of the EuRegio, also specific tourism destinations on the Austrian side were included into a regional bus / train ticket of the regional traffic association Upper Bavaria and the Berchtesgadener Land rail (BGL-TagesTicket Bus & Bahn). Furthermore, a series of smallscale Interreg projects is currently preparing a further cross-border harmonisation / integration of public transport offers with the view of establishing an integrated EuRegio Transport Network / Tariff Network (i.e. analysis of the current situation and of framework conditions; development of different practical solutions to create the foundations for a these certificates are thus placed as if they had taken the examination in accordance with the respective provisions applicable in Austria or Germany. 69 The Joint Declaration aimed at consolidating the confidence of companies and businesses in the quality of education in the respective neighbouring country in order to improve the possibilities for mobility of workers. It debureaucratised the work to determine an equivalence of German and Austrian educational qualifications and accelerated related procedures. Recommendations on the comparability of vocational qualifications were also extended to school education in Austria that is comparable to German apprenticeship in the field of specialised training. 70 EuRegio Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein (1997) ESPON

76 comprehensive implementation project). Intense and steady cooperation in the field of emergency and rescue services (incl.) Civil protection and disaster management On-going cooperation between the national park Berchtesgadener Alpen (DE) and the Europe and Nature Reserve Kalkhochalpen (AT) The establishment and further development of steady cross-border cooperation between emergency and rescue services was also supported by various Interreg projects (esp. through joint technical equipment for cross-border interventions). Radio devices were purchased for the Integrated Control Center in Traunstein (DE) to facilitate cooperation / communication with the control center in Salzburg. To ensure communication in support of operations of the Austrian Red Cross by those of the Bavarian Red Cross (and vice versa), specific communication equipment was purchased (i.e. 24 digital handheld radios) and also fixed stations were installed into 2 command vehicles. A data exchange platform was established between dispatching centers (Leitstellen) in Bavaria, Salzburg and Tyrol to ensure faster and more efficient cross-border assistance. Also arrangements were developed that define future tactical-organisational cooperation between dispatching centers for cross-border assistance and relief interventions as well as in case of disasters and major loss events. To explore synergies and promote sustainable development in the interest of all, first cross-border cooperation initiatives were started under Interreg IIIA (project: EuRegional recreation area Berchtesgaden National Park / Salzburger Kalkhochalpen). A joint monitoring system was developed that provides decision-makers in Austria and Germany with continuous information on the dynamic changes in landscape-related recreational uses and thus identifies the need for action and enables the development of measures that both sides take into account from the outset. Further cross-border projects between both parks were realised under Interreg IVA (e.g. Almregion Bayerisch-Salzburger Kalkalpen). Other thematic projects were also supported under the INTERREG IIIB Programme Alpine Space (ECONNECT, ALPENCOM). Source: ; ; Galicia North Portugal EGTC (ES-PT) The Euroregion comprises the European Grouping Territorial Cooperation Galicia-Norte de Portugal (GNP-EGTC), created in 2008, of which aims are to promote the regional cooperation among Xunta de Galicia and the Coordination Commission for Regional Development for Norte (CCDR Norte), namely in these topics: economic competitiveness, knowledge and innovation and basic public and private social equipment s to cohesion. The GNP-EGTC involves around 6.4 million inhabitants in a 51,000 km² area. In Galicia Autonomous Community are living 2,762,198 inhabitants, sparsely by 4 provinces: Corunha (93 municipalities), Lugo (67), Ourense (92) and Ponte Vedra (62), the two last ones bordered with the Portuguese territories of Terras de Trás-os-Montes and Alto Minho. The political capital of Xunta de Galicia is Santiago de Compostela, in the province of A Coruña, while Vigo, in the province of Pontevedra, is the most populous municipality, with 292,817 inhabitants (2016). On the Portuguese side, the North Region is the second most populous region in Portugal, with 3,689,173 inhabitants according to the 2011 census, distributed by 7 intermunicipal associations and one metropolitan region (Oporto Metropolitan Region) Internally, both, North Region and Galicia Autonomous Community are distinct, recording an opposition between coastal, more dense and with intense economic activities, and inland territories, with less population, a reduced urban network and less entrepreneurship. There is also an opposition in the level of services of general interest providing. ESPON

77 The region hosts CPS identified by the stakeholders in different sectors, including transportation, public equipment s and administrative services, at both levels, municipal and intermunicipal. At municipal level we can find: Tui and Valença, known as Eurocity, share equipment (a pool, a conservatory and a theater) and they built a common sportive agenda (that integrated more than 5000 athletes). They have also initiatives in tourism and a project of modernization of public services. Verin-Chaves municipalities, known by Eurocity of Verin-Chaves, is stabilized in the process of cross-border cooperation (cultural agenda, musical and traditional dance school, garbage collection, intercity bus services and euro-citizen card are examples). In the current cross-border programme they have a new project: Eurociudad Chaves-Verín como hierramienta de aproximación de Europa 2020 a los ciudadanos (The Euro-city Chaves-Verín as a tool for approaching Europe 2020 to citizens). This project is the continuity of previous ones. It has been a valuable support to cross-border economic activities (trade and private services) with a low density population and economic inland context of both countries. Tomiño and Vila Nova de Cerveira municipalities, share public equipment (Transfrontier Eco-Park, a municipal pool) and they are projecting a cross-border transport network. These municipalities are also preparing future projects at the level of administration services like a cross-border Participatory Budget. Salvaterra de Miño and Monção constitute another example of intermunicipal cooperation. At the level of public equipment they share an international bridge and at the level of administrative services, they have an information office for employment services. The touristic trains are another common project. Arbo, A Cañiza and Melgaço also share public sport equipment and civil protection services (fire department). At intermunicipal/sub-regional level we can find: Minho-Lima, Alto Trás-os-Montes, Cávado and Ourense, linked by the Transfronteir Park Gerês-Xurês Valorization, that besides environmental protection, promotes tourism development and eco-business initiatives Lugo, A Coruna and Minho Lima, supported in ICT, developed an inventory of historical and archaeological heritage among a large number of cities, contributing to tourism development. A Coruna and Minho Lima, share a cross-border road network, of which rehabilitation should be in cooperation. Galicia, Norte de Portugal and Castilla Y León develop ARIEM 112, a specific training related to emergency sector to specialists. Besides this established cooperation, some recent projects have been approved by the cross- border cooperation programme. We can highlight some ones: Red de Apoyo y Mantenimiento Comunitario de Personas Mayores en el Entorno Rural mediante la Tecnología y la Innovación (Community Support and Maintenance Network for the Elderly in the Rural Environment through Technology and Innovation). The main purpose of this project is to encourage research initiatives, innovation and improvement of social services in the area of cooperation Galicia-North of Portugal, for the establishment of new models of crossborder social intervention to meet the challenge of aging population. Pilot initiatives ESPON

78 will provide an opportunity to assess the relevance of their expanded effective application. A transboundary cooperation work will be developed, in order to articulate a territorial area with new models of efficient, integrating and accessible social intervention that create a dense network of support. Catalizador de oportunidades de empleo y emprendimiento joven transfronterizo (Catalyst of employment opportunities and young cross-border entrepreneurship). The general objective of this project is to promote cross-border economic development through the enhancement of the labor and entrepreneurship capacities of the young people of the territory. The actions will boost the cross-border business fabric as they will boost the start-up of new business initiatives and achieve the insertion of young people in the cross-border territory. Iacobus programme. The project integrates the Galician universities of Vigo, Santiago and Corunna with the Portuguese Catholic University of Oporto and those of Minho and Tras Os Montes and Alto Douro, as well as with the polytechnic institutes of Oporto, Viana do Castelo, Bragança, Cávado and Ave. It was similar to Erasmus, and according to data from the Xunta de Galicia [Galician regional government] in its initial phase 191 candidates were inscribed from Galicia and Portugal, of whom 62% 73 teachers, 30 researchers and 15 service workers, according to the data would receive funding. There would be 223 candidates 119 with grants for the second phase. The Jacobus programme was also a step forward for the development of cross-border innovation and R&D projects. All actions are guided by the CIP Galicia North Portugal , which has been elaborated following the Europe 2020 strategy. The big differences of how administration works on both sides of the border (central vs. decentral) are crucial for future CPS development. Nevertheless, the pressure for a more efficient service provision is visible on both sides of the border, too. This is also related to the regions' population and economic characteristics. Especially with respect to public social services a large development potential for CPS can be identified Bothnian Arc (FI-SE) Bothnian Arc is the cross-border region between Sweden and Finland. It is a coastal zone along the Gulf of Bothnia, at the northernmost end of the Baltic Sea. There are about people (2011) living in this km 2 area, of which about 65 percent is living on the Finnish side of the border. In a European context, it is a rather sparsely populated area, with only three cities that have a population over inhabitants (Oulu,Luleå, Skellefteå). Bothnian Arc is also the name of the cross-border organisation that works for regional cooperation and strategic development in the border area of six Swedish municipalities (Haparanda, Kalix, Luleå, Boden, Piteå and Skellefteå) and four Finnish sub-regions (Kemi- Tornio, Oulu Arc, Oulu, Ylivieska, city of Raahe and regional council of Central Ostrobothnia). The cross-border organisation is enhancing business and public networks across borders and it is aiming to create local innovative projects. Bothnian Arc is also one of the 12 cross-border committees funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers. Probably the strongest cooperation in public services within this region has been developed around the initiatives of two cities, Haparanda (SE) and Tornio (FI), which are located on ESPON

79 opposite sides of the border river Torne. This kind of cooperation has been developed due to their adjacent location. In fact, they are located so close that they function as one city. Many of the existing cross-border public services are located within these cities, but the Bothnian Arc organisation is aiming to foster and extend this cooperation into a larger area, to cover the whole region of the Bothnian Arc. Most of the cross-border cooperation projects in this region happens between the biggest cities Oulu and Luleå. One example of this close cooperation is the joint agreement of doctoral education between Luleå University of Technology and the University of Oulu, involving two important actors located on the farther ends of the region. There is also collaborative mining school between Oulu University and Luleå University of Technology. Other existing cross-border public services in the area are joint ambulance, fire and rescue services that have been made to strengthen the capacity of service suppliers in both sides of the border. As a cross-border organisation, Bothnian Arc lists high-quality social welfare as one of their main targets. Therefore, future scenarios for new CPS have been envisioned to be related to education, immigrant s integration and smoother recruiting instruments to balance the level of unemployment across the borders Pomurje Region (AT-HR-HU-SI) Pomurje is a region around the Mura/Mur river in the most northern and eastern corner of Slovenia, bordering three out of four neighbouring countries of Slovenia: Austria, Hungary and Croatia. Formally, it carries the names Pomurska statistična regija or Mura Statistical Region with a NUTS 3 code SI031. The case study area could be understood as an area comprising Pomurje and the neighbouring regions at the intersection of four countries: Međimurska županija in Croatia, Vas and Zala counties in Hungary as well as Südburgenland and Oststeiermark in Austria. Pomurje as well as neighbouring regions across all three borders have long been peripheral areas, but integration of the EU has brought new opportunities of cooperation across borders. A number of euroregions in the wider area demonstrates this: Euregio Steiermark - Northeast Slovenia (AT/SL), Euregio West/Nyugat Pannonia (AT/HU), Euroregio Drava-Mura (HU/SL). Some of the opportunities were already seized, but others remain a challenge. While collaboration in protection against disasters or in nature preservation is already well developed, collaboration in education and medical services could see an upgrade and crossborder public transport should be developed from scratch. This is reflected also by the needs in relation to CPS, expressed by the representative stakeholder, Development Centre Murska Sobota, Slovenia, which are listed and commented below. Cross-border public transport There are numerous cross-border daily commuters for work and school purposes between Pomurje and neighbouring regions, mostly across SI-AT border, but also across HU-SI ESPON

80 border. As sustainable mobility is one of the priority themes at the regional, national and EU level, diminishing car dependence of cross-border commuting by developing efficient crossborder public transport is a necessity. This is reflected also in Transport Development Strategy of the Republic of Slovenia until , which supports this need from the spatial development perspective: Public transport infrastructure may contribute to forming crossborder regions with neighbouring countries, which is important for the development of hilly and less accessible areas with numerous problems related to economic and demographic stagnation. Despite the obvious needs, this CPS has not been developed yet. Primary and secondary education Cooperation is relatively well developed in primary and secondary education. Two of the examples are: Bundes-Oberstufenrealgymnasium Bad Radkersburg (a secondary school in Bad Radkersburg, Austria, educating also approx. 50 Slovenian pupils from Gornja Radgona, Slovenia, where there is no secondary school. 72 Dvojezicna osnovna sola Prosenjakovci (bilingual elementary school in Prosenjakovci, Slovenia, educating also approx. 20 Hungarian pupils from villages across the border. 73 Nevertheless, trans-regional transfer of knowledge is still weak. Cross-border educational institutions could serve as a means to strengthen this dynamic. Furthermore, these CPS would strengthen foreign language proficiency and, indirectly, self-confidence and employment opportunities of youth. This is consistent with the main goals in education in the Republic of Slovenia as stated in Organisation and Financing of Education Act, which aims also to educate for mutual tolerance, promote gender equality awareness, respect for human diversity and mutual cooperation and to enable inclusion in European integration processes 74. Medical emergency In medical emergency time is of crucial importance and in some cases crossing the border would be the quickest way to offer medical assistance to people in need. In case of Pomurje this might be most relevant between Slovenia and Austria, but also between all other countries. So far there are no interstate agreements and no existing CPS. There is also no policy document, which would be directly addressing this CPS, but there are efforts in the field of harmonisation of information systems both at the national as well as at the regional level Transport Development Strategy of the Republic of Slovenia until 2030, Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Infrastructure, Ljubljana, October Slovenia, Education for All 2015 National Review, Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Education, Science and Sports, January ESPON

81 Labour mobility There is a growing trend in labour mobility across all four national borders, demonstrated also in increased cross-border commuting. Nevertheless, there is little information available at the trans-regional level, advising services are needed as well. At least one example of such CPS exists: Employment agency field office in Lendava, Slovenia, provides support for Hungarian job-seekers in Slovenia. 76 Nature preservation One of the most developed areas of cross-border cooperation in public services is in the field of nature preservation. As nature does not recognize national borders this also makes it one of the most obvious. There is an existing long-lasting cooperation in the framework of the Trilateral Nature Park Goričko-Raab-Őrség, a cooperation structure connecting natural areas in Slovenia, Hungary and Austria, aims at coordinating protection and management of natural areas across national borders. Besides the existing nature park there is also a need to further cooperation along the Mura/Mur river among all four countries (AT-SI-HR-HU) in the field of nature preservation. Also, there is a well-established cooperation in the field of protection against natural and other disasters. Bilateral agreements exist between Slovenia and all three neighbouring countries as well as on-going trilateral cooperation between Croatia, Hungary and Slovenia 77. An example of this cooperation is also a common response of the fire brigades of Murska Sobota, Slovenia, and Szombathely, Hungary (both sides receive the signal in case of emergency or natural disaster) South Karelia (FI-RU) South Karelia is a border region on the external border of the EU. It consists of nine Finnish local authorities and five border-crossing points to Russia - by road, rail and waterway. The region is at the easternmost area of the European Union. Crossing the border requires a visa. Exception are maximum 72 hours visa free boat cruises organised by a travel agency. South Karelia has 132,000 inhabitants. The capital city of the region, Lappeenranta, has over 70,000 inhabitants. Imatra is the second largest city in the region, and it is an important center for regional services and tourism. The region is known for its short distances to: the Leningrad region, the city of Vyborg., St. Petersburg and to the Karelian republic. Fastest way to travel across border is by train, which takes about one and half hours. Vyborg is also connected to Lappeenranta via Saimaa canal. The canal is an important waterway that connects the biggest lake in Finland, Lake Saimaa, to the Finnish Gulf and the Baltic Sea. It is also a historical example of cooperation between the bordering countries, Finland and Russia. In 2010, the Finnish and Russian governments signed a new lease treaty for the canal and its ESPON

82 service areas; to continue passenger traffic, icebreaking, pilotage and overnight stay for leisure. At regional level, South Karelia is one actor to maintain the functional usage of the canal. Due to the increase in cross-border traffic, many of the initiatives for CPS cooperation were done by focusing on the continuous development of crossing points by road, and ensuring well-designed traffic connections. E.g. joint investments to the new border crossing point Syväoro - Parikkala, which is expected to become the fifth busiest border-crossing point for international traffic in Finland. Efficient check points are expected to bring positive economic side-effects, such as trade and tourism, which will strengthen the regional economy and support other business activities near both border regions of Finland and Russia Euroregion Elbe/Labe (CZ-DE) The Euroregion Elbe/Labe covers on the German side of the border the NUTS 3 regions (districts) Saxon Switzerland-Eastern Ore Mountains and Dresden and the towns and municipalities of the districts Ústí nad Labem, Teplice and Litoměřice and partly Děčín along the German-Czech border region. Based on two municipal communities in both countries, the cooperation was institutionalised in 1992 through the foundation of the Euroregion. Representatives from the districts, cities and municipalities cooperate in seven sector groups, namely economy, science and education; culture and tourism; spatial development; social issues, youth and sports; civil protection; environmental protection as well as transport. The Euregion benefits in particular from the Interreg cross-border cooperation programme Saxony-Czech Republic but also from other funding programmes in the region financed by the free state of Saxony, the German-Czech future fund and other European funding sources. Within the cross-border cooperation programme Saxony-Czech Republic actions within the small project fund in the Elbe-Labe area are directly approved by the Euroregion. 78 The region was located at an external EU border until the EU accession of the Czech Republic in Although many obstacles for cross-border cooperation were dissolved with the Czech accession, cooperation has not developed as originally expected. This is, inter alia, due to the continuing disparities existing in economic terms. GDP, income and price levels still differ strongly between the German and the Czech part of the region. These and other disparities affect supply of and demand for public services on both sides of the border. The regional development concept from describes the main natural, demographic, economic, social and other regional challenges. Apart from these challenges, of which some may be translated into specific needs for developing CPS, the region is also challenged by different administrative and institutional frameworks. While competences for many public services are decentrally distributed at regional and local level on the German side of the border, the Czech system is characterised by centralised competences at national level Kowalke, Hartmut; König, Björn (2001) ESPON

83 The region hosts different CPS that have been tentatively identified by the study team. The following examples of CPS have different thematic foci 80, level of cooperation and maturity levels. Furthermore, the last two CPS listed below are not exclusively restricted to the Euroregion Elbe/Labe but have a larger implementation area. Transboundary National Parks Saxon-Bohemian Switzerland. Current crossborder cooperation between the conservation authorities of the two national parks is based on several formal documents, such as a ministerial agreement (1991), a joint vision (2012) and a joint strategy (2004) as well as the annual work plans elaborated in four joint working groups. A wide range of transboundary activities from joint scientific projects (digital terrain model, mapping of rare animal and plant species, reintroduction of Elbe salmon and peregrine falcon) to joint PR work (bilingual visitor centres, junior rangers, guided tours for the general public, transboundary corporate design) is implemented to provide services to the general public. 81 Regional bus line 398. Since 1994 a daily regional bus line has been operating between Dresden and Teplice. The frequency of buses between both cities has been increased over time and operating schedules allow now using the bus for transfer to schools and education facilities. Since 2017 the schedule offers trips at 2-hours frequency and is coordinated with other linking transport modes (e.g. inner city bus lines). Since May 2017 the CPS has been further developed by applying a new transfer tariff system between both transport networks. 82 Elbe-Labe-Tickets. The Elbe-Labe-Ticket allows travelling a whole day by train in the border region and has been introduced in November 2007 by different operators including e.g. the national railway companies, regional operators and the operators of touristic railways in the region. 83 Binational-bilingual German-Czech education at the Friedrich-Schiller- Gymnasium in Pirna. Since 1998 an equal share of German and Czech students can enter the bilingual class introduced in each year. Students do not need to have prior knowledge of the language of the other country. The degree (Abitur) is acknowledged in the Czech Republic. 84 Flood control and protection. The region has a strong tradition in activities supporting flood management of the Elbe-Labe river basin. So far, the measures are not institutionalised. Instead, since 2003, they have been carried out in the frame of various Interreg projects (cross-border & transnational) that complement each other regarding different flood risk and management aspects and ensure continuity over time. 85 Employment market partnership EURES-TriRegio. The CPS aims to integrate the employment and training markets in the three-country region (DE-PL-CZ). Its longterm objective is to promote the development of a common employment market while 80 In addition to below mentioned CPS a so-called 'Culture pass' has been introduced in the Euroregion Elbe/Labe. However, the reference refers to 2010, thus, it is not yet clarified whether the CPS is still in place and Boehmen-Elbe-Labe-Ticket.pdf ESPON

84 maintaining the existing employment and social standards of the respective countries. Activities are focused on information, advice and placement as well as ensuring broad public access to information on working and living conditions and developing the cross-border exchange of vacancies. 86 German-Czech Police and Customs Cooperation. Based on a Treaty of 19 September 2000 between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Czech Republic on police and border police cooperation in the border areas a joint centre of German- Czech Police and Customs Cooperation has been established. It is located in Petrovice (CZ) Schwandorf (DE). Although this is not a CPS located exclusively in the case study area, it is relevant through the Saxon police authorities ae involvement at the location in Petrovice. Apart from the fields, in which CPS have been developed, the regional development concept also raises the need for CPS, inter alia in the fields of social infrastructure development for cross-border uses; a cross-border organisation of water and waste water and waste management; the development of common business centres; cross-border tourism information and marketing activities; an intensified cooperation and exchange in tertiary education and research activities; a cross-border use of medical and social infrastructure. 87 The regional stakeholder prioritised the need for a CPS in the field of health care. Opening a hospital in a border city on the German side to residents of neighbouring Czech municipalities could create tangible effects, making the benefits of cross-border cooperation visible to the local population. Other ideas for possible future CPS are related to transport and childcare services. These may, however, not be suitable to clearly show the benefits to work in practice Euregio Scheldemond (BE-NL) The Euregio Scheldemond is a cross-border cooperation between the Belgian provinces of Oost-Vlaanderen and West-Vlaanderen with the neighbouring Dutch province of Zeeland. The cooperation is institutionalised through the Scheldemond council established in Representatives from three provinces as well as from its 142 municipalities cooperate on a variety of topics. The Euregion is supported through the Scheldemond fund and Interreg cross-border cooperation programme Netherlands-Flanders 89. In European comparison, the region is relatively densely populated and contains relatively large urban areas such as Gent, Bruges, Oostende, Vlissingen and Middelburg. In total, the region has about 3 million inhabitants. However there are large demographic difference in the region. Despite being centrally located in Europe, between Brussels, Antwerp, Rotterdam and Amsterdam, parts of the region are challenged by population decline. In particular the Dutch area along the border (Zeeuws-Vlaanderen) as well as smaller Belgian (rural) municipalities Kowalke, Hartmut; König, Björn (2001), pp ESPON

85 will face further decrease in population in the next years. Population decline is among others caused by relatively low service levels and job opportunities in less accessible regions. Furthermore, parts of the regions have the image as being the periphery in their respective country, which challenges population development due to migration from other regions in Belgium and the Netherlands. The peripheral image is among other due to the geographic characteristics of the region, i.e. the delta of the river Schelde and the North Sea coast. In particular the Schelde and its estuaries form natural barriers to connect the region to the neighbouring urban centres. The Euregio Scheldemond defines the main challenges in relation to a changing economy, climate change and demographic change in their most recent strategic document and action plan. In order to address these challenges, the region sees potential for cross-border cooperation in a variety of sectors. The region s strategy and action plan address the following policy field, of which some can be relevant for CPS development: Innovation, knowledge valorisation and cluster development; education; biobased economy; innovation in health care; logistics and topics related to the harbours in the area; agro-feed and aquaculture; creative industry; climate change and adaptation; labour market in particular in relation to demographic changes; tourism; and culture. The region hosts different CPS that have been identified by the stakeholders. The following examples of CPS illustrate different foci, level of cooperation and maturity level. Table 4-4 in section provides a more complete picture of CPS identified so far. Grensinfopunt Scheldemond (GIP). Grensinfopunt Scheldemond provides information and advice services to cross-border workers. The information point is part of a wider network of information centres along the Dutch and Belgium border as well as along the Dutch and German borders. Cross-border workers or enterprises in the Scheldemond region can go for advice to 12 different locations on both sides of the border. The services are provided by different labour unions in the region. Joint fire station Kieldrecht (B) and Nieuw-Namen (NL). Since December 2014, firefighters stationed in the Netherlands in Nieuw-Namen have been relocated to the fire department in Kieldrecht across the border in Belgium. Merging both fire stations was the most suitable solution to offer quick and adequate emergency services in the border area. The Scheldemond fund made available EUR 41,000 to support this cross-border service. In order to facilitate the merger different actions needed to be taken for instance training of the fire fighters, analysis of cross-border work contracts, hiring of the Dutch staff in Belgium and implementation of emergency procedures. Cross-border nature park Groot-Saeftinghe Hedwigepolder. The cross-border nature park is under development since ha of farm land is being transformed to a nature park along the Schelde estuary. The park protects neighbouring areas, including the city of Antwerp from flooding and includes the development of a new dyke on both sides of the border. North Sea Port. The harbours of Zeeland Seaport (Vlissingen and Terneuzen, Netherlands) and the Haven van Gent (Belgium) have formed a steady cooperation for a cross-border business zone. This cross-border cooperation supports stronger competitiveness as compared to other harbours in the region. In order to facilitate the ESPON

86 cooperation different contracts and concessions needed to be resigned including the redesigning of the working contracts of the harbour workers. BioBase Europe Training Center. Different public and private players in the Scheldemond region have joined forces to establish the first open innovation and training centre for the biobased economy in Europe. The cooperation included the establishment of the physical infrastructure as well providing the training. The establishment of the training centre has been supported by the ERDF from the Interreg cross-border cooperation programme Netherlands-Flanders. The BioBase Europe Training Center has been opened in 2012 and is situated in Terneuzen (NL). The Scheldemond region has a long history in cross-border cooperation and relatively limit number of border barriers such as language and culture. However, further diminishing the border would support to make better use of the possibilities on the other side of the border and reaching the region s full potential 90. The region identified two main initiatives for CPS that can be further explored in the course of the ESPON project. Cooperation between hospitals. Hospitals in the regions seek more stead cooperation to maintain specialised care in the region and for realising efficiency gains. This steady cooperation poses different challenges that would need to assessed and overcome. For instance, cross-border labour conditions and minimum working hours would need to be coordinated between Dutch and Belgian workers. Service facilities in rural bi-polar rural villages. Bi-polar villages are twin villages crossing a national border. Inhabitants of these villages cross the border for daily life activities. The villages in focus are part of the EGTC Linieland van Waas en Hulst. Public service provision in these villages could be further supported. Examples of CPS that could be further supported include home care and sport facilities. The needs for CPS in these villages will be further explored. Other, more general, needs for CPS have defined as well. These include advice and support services for SME s; energy distribution services; water provision and waste water treatment Alentejo (ES-PT) The Alentejo region is located in the south-central part of Portugal and is managed by the Coordination Commission for Regional Development for Alentejo (CCDR Alentejo). CCDR Alentejo is a regional entity decentralized from the central state of which competences comprises the coordination of sectorial policies developed in the region and the implementation of environmental and regional spatial planning strategies. In terms of politicaladministrative organization, the Alentejo Region integrates 4 intermunicipal administrative organizations, that 3 of them are located in border context: the Comunidade Intermunicipal 90 ESPON

87 do Alto Alentejo, the Comunidade Intermunicipal do Alentejo Central and the Comunidade Intermunicipal do Baixo Alentejo 91. The cross-border cooperation in that region had a long tradition but in the last 20 years due to INTERREG cross-border programmes become more and more institutionally recognised. Nevertheless, the distinct geographical delimitation of regions in Portuguese and Spanish context, reinforced by a distinct political-organizational of the two countries (in Portuguese context, we find national/local levels with regional decentralized powers; while in Spanish context, we find regions with power), determined a specific organization of Alentejo Region, with the spanish regions of Extremadura and Andaluzia in co-cooperation with Centro and Algarve Regional Commissions for Regional Development. In that context the CCDR Alentejo integrates two euroregions, Euroace (Alentejo/Centro 92 /Extremadura) and Euroaaa (Alentejo/Algarve 93 /Andalusia), supported by two Interreg cross-border cooperation programmes. In the Spanish context, the Euroace, the autonomous community of Extremadura whose capital city is Mérida), integrates the two largest provinces of Spain: the Province of Badajoz (with 165 municipalities and inhabitants) and the province of Caceres (divided into 219 municipalities with inhabitants). Concerning the Euroace, the Spanish partner is the autonomous community of Andalusia that is composed by eight provinces. One of them, Huelva (79 municipalities and inhabitants) 94 is in the geographical border with Algarve and Alentejo Portuguese regions and it is the most populated and the second largest area of the autonomous communities in the country. Looking at this cooperation territory we find common characteristics (low population and economic activities density and ageing demographic structures that constrains efficiency in public services providing level) but at the same there are distinct institutional, economic and social capital capacities in both sides of the border that could be an opportunity to promote cross-border cooperation and particularly, cross-border public services provision The region hosts some CPS identified by the stakeholders, supported by Cooperation OP, of which those are preliminary examples: Proyecto de cooperation transfronteriza de redes de alerta temprana en sistemas de vigilancia ambiental en protección civil (Project of cross-border cooperation of early warning networks in civil protection environmental monitoring systems) (Euroace). The aim of the project is to implement stable / sustainable 91 Comunidade Intermunicipal do Alto Alentejo corresponds to statistical NUT III Alto Alentejo with inhabitants and 15 municipalities, the Comunidade Intermunicipal do Alentejo Central corresponds to NUT III Alentejo Central, with 14 municipalities and inhabitants, and the Comunidade Intermunicipal do Baixo Alentejo corresponds to NUT III Baixo Alentejo with 13 municipalities, inhabitants. The fourth NUT III is Alentejo Litoral and is not in border context. It comprises the political-administrative unit: Comunidade Intermunicipal do Alentejo Litoral. 92 The Portuguese Centro Region, involves 8 intermunicipal communities, of which Beira Interior Sul it is bordered to the east and south by Spain and also with Alto Alentejo. 93 The Algarve Region border with Baixo Alentejo and Andaluzia Region. 94 Other provinces of Andalusia: Almería (102 municipalities), Cádiz (44 municipalities), Córdoba (75 municipalities), Granada (170 municipalities), Jaen (97 municipalities), Malaga (102 municipalities), Seville (105 municipalities). ESPON

88 response structures for the prevention of risks and emergencies through the design and development of environmental monitoring systems to optimize and shorten response times of Civil Protection Administrations. The main result is a common platform for the Euroregion for risk analysis, planning and emergencies on both sides of the border, with the cross-border interconnection of services for environmental risk analysis and planning and Civil Protection Services. Protocols of joint intervention in catastrophes, emergencies, emergencies, for simulated exercises and training of interveners, of a cross-border nature. Construyendo la Eurociudad Badajoz-Elvas-Campomayor (Building the Eurocity Badajoz-Elvas-Campomayor). The major objective of the project is to consolidate the process of creation of the Elvas-Badajoz-Campo Mayor Eurocity, providing a solid governance structure open to citizens that allow a multilevel governance of the territory focused on the demand for cooperation in the territory and in a shared vision. The Eurocity, is the largest one in Alentejo and inland Portugal, with a population of inhabitants (2014), and its functional urban area covers about 600 thousand inhabitants between the two sides of the border. Besides Cooperation programs there is a former cooperation in health and work mobility of workers, that involves national entity from Portuguese side and regional entity from Spanish side. An identification of these cases will be considered along the project. This has to take into account the considerable differences of the different administrative logics in Portugal and Spain (central vs. decentral). But the need for more efficient service provision, not least in the field of public social services, may be beneficial for CPS development in the fields mentioned (i.e. health and worker mobility) EUREGIO Bayerischer Wald Böhmerwald Unterer Inn (AT-CZ-DE) The trilateral Euregio was established in 1993 and consists of three sub-sections 95, which cover different territorial administrative units on either side of the German, Austrian and Czech borders 96. These districts account for around 1.2 million inhabitants (end 2010), of which two thirds live on the German side and the rest on the Czech and Austrian sides. 97 Euregio-specific documentary sources that explicitly or implicitly mention cross-border policy objectives for CPSP were not found. During the past four decades, the status of the politically defined borders within the trilateral Euregio has substantially changed 98. From their pre-1990 status as already open EEC-EFTA border (DE-AT) or largely closed Iron Curtain borders that divided political and economic 95 The Bavarian section the Euregio Bayerischer Wald Böhmerwald Unterer Inn e. V., the Austrian section is the Euregio Bayerischer Wald Böhmerwald/Regionalmanagement Mühlviertel and the Czech section is the Euroregion Šumava South West Bohemia (Euroregion Šumava jihozápadní Čechy. 96 On the German side in the federal free state of Bavaria it covers parts of the administrative districts Upper Palatinate and Lower Bavaria (Regierungsbezirke Oberpfalz und Niederbayern), namely the counties of Cham, Degendorf, Freyung-Grafenau, Passau, Regen and Rottal-Inn. In Austria, parts of the Euroregion belong to the federal state of Upper Austria and cover the political districts of Perg, Freistadt, Rohrbach and Urfahr-Umgebung (i.e. the part called Mühlviertel is not a territorial administrative unit). On the Czech side it covers the districts of Domažlice, Klatovy, Prachatice, Český Krumlov and Strakonice (i.e. the latter is not adjacent to the state border). Delineation according to Dokoupil J. et al (2014), p As of , a total of 262,598 inhabitants lived in the Czech part of the Euroregion, 901,507 in the German part and 187,632 in the Austrian part. Dokoupil J. et al (2014), p See on this process in further detail: Dokoupil J. et al (2014) ESPON

89 systems (DE-CZ, AT-CZ), they gradually evolved in the period to contact zone borders that in some parts allowed stronger integration due to EEA/EU and EU Membership (DE-AT), while in other parts a still important barrier effect existed (external EU-borders DE- CZ, AT-CZ). The current borders are internal EU borders either between old and old or new EU Member States that are all members of the Schengen area. With the lifting of last mobility restrictions for Czech citizens in 2011, the borders facilitate in principle all sorts of crossborder exchanges. However, a currency border that separates Eurozone Members (DE, AT) from a non-eurozone Member (CZ) persists. The main physical-geographical feature of the entire Euregio area is a medium mountain range that is called Bavarian Forest (Bayerischer Wald) and Bohemian Forest (Böhmerwald) in the German and Austrian parts and Šumava in the Czech part. The barrier effect linked to this medium mountain range leads to variable levels of (cross-border) accessibility, as the endowment with and quality of road and rail transport infrastructure strongly depends on the location of specific areas / municipalities within the Euregio. Along the main roads and railway lines in the south-western part of the Euregio, both infrastructure quality and accessibility are very positive. Low quality of road and railway networks and also low accessibility are found on the Czech side of the border, especially in higher elevated areas of the mountain range. Here, often only a network of inferior local roads (2nd and 3rd class) is found and also a reduced public transport service offer as well as threatened regional rail lines exit, mostly due to financial reasons. Overall, the mountain zone of the Bohemian Forest and Bavarian Forest is little permeable via road and rail transport especially in a north-south direction (i.e. from the Czech Republic to Bavaria and Austria). Further transport infrastructure development across the border is difficult given the fact that along the so-called green border very valuable landscape features and ecosystems have survived, which are currently among the most strictly protected areas (for example, in the 1 st zone of the NP). 99 However, cross-border needs and thus potentials do exist for further developing CPS in the field of public transport. This may concern a development of new cross-border bus service offers beyond the already existing ones 100, but especially the preservation / development of a number of regional crossborder rail connections and also a better coordination /integration of timetables in the entire Bohemian Forest region as well as the offer of attractive combined tickets for cross-border journeys 101. Cross-border needs in the field of vocational education and training (VET) tend to be reduced in the DE-AT context of the Euregio due to the high similarity and common tradition of VETsystems in both countries as well as the already long-standing practice of a mutual recognition of diploma and professional certificates (i.e. existing DE-AT interstate agreements 99 Dokoupil J. et al (2014), pp e.g. cross-border bus line Freyung Vimperk ( or bus round service Bayerischer Wald Šumava ( ESPON

90 in this field, see description for EuRegio Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein ). However, substantial needs and therefore also potentials / opportunities for CPSP tend to exist in relation to the Czech Republic (i.e. DE-CZ; AT-CZ), partly due to a less advanced mutual recognition of diploma / professional certificates and also because of the closure effect that results from the existing language barrier. Cooperation between police and border control authorities in areas along the DE-CZ part of the Euregional border exists already since 2002 and takes place on ground of a bilateral interstate agreement signed in Moreover, also local-level cooperation between emergency services will become more important in the future along the AT-CZ part of the Euregio because a framework agreement on cross-border cooperation in this field was signed in January 2016 between the Czech Republic and the Republic of Austria. 103 Present-time potentials and future opportunities for CPSP also exist in relation to the natural features that characterise the trilateral Euregio, because the area is densely wooded and extensively used for tourism especially in the zones covered by the Czech Šumava Mountain national park (ŠNP) and the Bavarian Forest National Park (BFNP). However, the forested areas also bear a high amount of deadwood especially on the Czech side, which was caused by the beetle infestation after the storm Kyrill. Large gaps were thus created in the closed forest cover, which let the forest floor dry out more quickly and leads especially in the summer months to a greatly increased cross-border forest fire risk. For both aspects, CPSP is already existing and/or further deepened: The Czech ŠNP and the BFNP constitute the nucleus of the largest cross-border protected area network in Central Europe and form the largest terrestrial Natura 2000 site in the respective countries. The two national park authorities established practical, though informal collaboration from the very beginning in Since 1999, cross-border cooperation has been based on a Memorandum on Cooperation between ŠNP and BFNP, which was signed by the State Ministers responsible for the respective national parks. In the meantime, several supplements were signed, e.g. regarding park management and new cross-border trails. In 2009, both parks agreed on common management guidelines for a transboundary wilderness area. Both parks have been official partners in several European funded projects (Interreg, Leader, and German-Czech Future Fund). After several decades of cooperation, there are many positive results indicating the strengths and bringing broad benefits for the cross-border area. These include Natura 2000 sites and their management, understanding of the importance of the cross border perspective of nature protection and research, joint work of rangers, junior ranger programme and environmental education. National park employees, local partners, NGOs, trainees, and volunteers 102 Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (2002) 103 The framework agreement stipulates that in the neighbouring regions of Lower Austria and Upper Austria and the border regions in the Czech Republic, it will now be possible to provide quick and un-bureaucratic mutual medical assistance in emergencies. The emergency service closest to the casualty is coordinated by the control centers of the involved regions implementing the mission. On ground of the framework agreement, detailed provisions on crossborder regional cooperation are laid down in cooperation agreements concluded between the Austrian Länder Lower Austria and Upper Austria with the neighbouring counties in the Czech Republic. See: Guten Tag Österreich (2016) and Republik Österreich, Parlament (2016). ESPON

91 of both countries are involved in many joint activities, including professional projects and various cultural events. The main weaknesses for cooperation are economic differences in the regions, language barriers, and different policies and laws. 104 Cross-border cooperation between rescue services and especially fire-fighting services exists and was very recently further intensified through a trilateral large-scale practical simulation exercise, the Austrian Bavarian Czech Forest Fire Drill Cost related to this exercise was co-funded through parallel joint applications to the Interreg VA programmes Bavaria-Austria and Bavaria-Czech Republic Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2015); IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (2011) 105 ABCFFD 2017(2017a), ABCFFD 2017(2017b) ESPON

92 Annexes A. Updated time table of the study B. Wider policy areas and related fields of intervention covered by CPSP C. Specific provisions in interstate agreements on cross-border cooperation, based upon the Madrid Outline Convention D. Infrastructure categories and related domestic public service provision E. Literature list F. Survey structure G. Calendar for regional stakeholder workshops H. Map templates for case study areas I. Case study template J. Template for good practice factsheets K. Proposed tentative structure for "Practical Guide" ESPON

93 A. Updated time table of the study months Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12 Nov.'1 Dec.'17 Jan.'18 Feb.'18 Mar.'18 Apr.'18 May'18 June'18 July'18 Aug.'18 Sept.'18 Oct. '18 Nov. '1 calender weeks project weeks Task Case study development Development of structure for good practices Literature & documents' collection and review Overview of stakeholder objectives & needs Case study map layout Survey development Implementation of survey (2 steps) Quality assessment of survey EU wide survey analysis EU wide mapping of CPS Complementing data collection in case study areas Structure objectives & obstacles for CPS in case study areas (Draft) mapping of CPS obstacles in case study areas Task Data collection on major challenges Regional data analysis & mapping Interviews in case study areas Identifying missing CPS in case study areas Development of CPS adaptation needs Identification of new CPS to close gaps Drafting of case study reports ESPON

94 months Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12 Nov.'1 Dec.'17 Jan.'18 Feb.'18 Mar.'18 Apr.'18 May'18 June'18 July'18 Aug.'18 Sept.'18 Oct. '18 Nov. '1 calender weeks project weeks Task Ongoing collection of information on potential good practices Interviews & desktop studies complementing good practice information Refine structure for good practice descriptions Drafting of good practice descriptions Preparing, conducting & documentation of 1 workshop per case study area Development of case study specific policy recommendations Updating of case study reports Development of narrative for general policy recommendations Development of structure & narrative for "Practical Guide" Preparing, conducting & follow-up of common stakeholder workshop Task Drafting & revision of inception report 4.2 Drafting & revision of interim report 4.3 Production of PowerPoint presentation for 2nd delivery 4.4 Drafting of draft main report & scientific annexes 4.5 Drafting & revision of "Practical Guide" 4.6 Drafting & revision of website content 4.7 Production of final versions of main report 4.8 Compilation of data according to ESPON metadata template 4.9 Delivery of maps and geodatabase 4.10 Production of PowerPoint presentation for 4th delivery 4.11 Attendance of 3 outreach activities / ESPON events indicative seminars depending on timing of the project and further events tbd Task Internal coordination 5.2 Coordination with the client 5.3 Meetings with project steering committee 5.4 Quality review and language check preparation phase preparation phase ESPON

95 B. Wider policy areas and related fields of intervention covered by CPSP Policy area Transport Spatial planning, economic development, tourism and culture Healthcare, long-term care and social inclusion Education training and Labour market and employment Communication public broadcasting and Information Society Environmental protection, natural resources management and climate change action Civil protection and disaster management Citizenship, justice and public security Fields of intervention (based on CPS examples found at different EU-borders) Cross-border public transport services by bus, rail (train, light rail / metro or tram) and ferries (e.g. across lakes / larger rivers or across straits) Steady cooperation between public transport organising authorities (regional/local) and transport operators for harmonising and/or integrating domestic public transport services on either side of the border (e.g. time schedules and interchange, ticket distribution and fare systems, adequate passenger information etc.) Steady cooperation among public authorities on border crossing points at external EU borders (e.g. on more efficient customs clearance and technical control / train handover processes etc.) Joint support services and tools (e.g. cross-border territorial observatories or statistical offices, joint GIS or mapping tools, guidance for cross-border participatory planning procedures etc.) that enhance cross-border spatial planning or sector policy planning activities of regional/local authorities. Cross-border business zones and joint public services enhancing cross-border business activities Steady cooperation between public museums or publically managed cultural heritage sites Cross-border tourism offices and permanent joint public services for tourism promotion (also e-services) Cross-border day-to-day healthcare (i.e. primary care ) Cross-border hospital care services (i.e. secondary, tertiary or quaternary care), steady cooperation between hospitals and public information services facilitating cross-border patient mobility Cross-border provision of medical services for hospitals (e.g. telemedicine services, remote diagnosis and prescription, laboratory services etc.) Cross-border non-hospital care services (or ambulatory care) and public services supporting a temporary presence of foreign health care professionals in the neighbouring country to provide patient care Cross-border emergency care / rescue services and steady cooperation between relevant public authorities and associative / private actors Cross-border long-term care services (medical and non-medical) for senior citizens and people with a chronic illness / disability / other functional limitations receiving care in institutions or at home Cross-border social assistance and integration services for specific target groups threatened by poverty, discrimination and social exclusion (e.g. underprivileged young people, long-term unemployed, ethnic minorities, migrants, refugees/asylum seekers) Cross-border childcare and early childhood education facilities or related services Cross-border schools and steady cooperation between schools (primary and secondary education) and public services facilitating the mobility of pupils and teachers Cross-border universities, steady cooperation between universities or other higher education institutions (e.g. joint curricula) and public services facilitating the mobility of students, researchers and professors Cross-border vocational education / training facilities or schemes and public services facilitating the mobility of trainees Steady cooperation between public authorities for facilitating the recognition of diploma or professional qualification certificates Cross-border information and advice services facilitating the mobility of workers on the cross-border labour market and their access to neighbouring social insurance systems Cross-border job placement services for unemployed persons Cross-border services facilitating the access of already employed cross-border workers to further qualification and life-long learning Cross-border mail delivery services Cross-border telephone / mobile phone network services and specific cross-border telephone services (i.e. free of charge emergency calls to the 112 European emergency number) Cross-border broadcasting services (radio, television) Cross-border digital service infrastructures and digital public services (e.g. e-government) Cross-border management of river basins, lakes or estuaries Cross-border management of nature parks / landscape parks / natural reserves Cross-border services enhancing the resilience of natural resources to climate change (i.e. climate change adaptation). Cross-border treatment of solid waste Cross-border treatment of sewage water Cross-border drinking water provision Cross-border support services for a greening of existing public services and cross-border public information / advice services for encouraging climate-relevant actions of individuals (climate change mitigation) Cross-border production and distribution of energy from renewable sources (climate change mitigation) Cross-border firefighting and prevention / fighting of forest fires Cross-border flood damage prevention and flooding management Cross-border services increasing the preparedness for / mitigating the effects of geo-hazards (e.g. earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides), meteorological hazards (e.g. storm surges, coastal floods, avalanches, droughts, extreme temperatures) or man-made technological hazards (i.e. major accidents at nuclear power plants or during oil handling / transportation and storage) Cross-border services facilitating the administrative handling and consideration of documents relating to life events of citizens (e.g. birth, marriage, registered partnership, divorce, adoption etc.). Steady cooperation between actors of the judicial system and/or between customs administrations. Cross-border crime prevention and criminal investigation (i.e. police cooperation) in the field of serious crime (e.g. organised crime, drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings, cybercrime) and terrorism. ESPON

96 C. Specific provisions in interstate agreements on cross-border cooperation, based upon the Madrid Outline Convention Agreement General instruments for formalising cooperation (*) Public law based crossborder structure / body (*) Benelux- Convention (BE-NL-LU), 1991 Anholt- Agreement (DE-NL), 1993 Mainz- Agreement (DE-BE), 1998 Karlsruhe- Agreement (DE-FR-LU- CH), 1997 Brussels Agreement (BE-FR), 2005 Treaty of Bayonne (FR-ES-AD), 1997, 2012 Administrative agreements based on public law (Article 2, Accords administratifs, administratieve afspraken). Joint cross-border structures without legal personality (Article 2, Organes communs, gemeenschappelijke organen). Public law-based agreement (Article 6, Öffentlich-rechtliche Vereinbarung, lichte regeling, Convention de droit public). Local Working Community on ground of a written agreement (Article 7, Kommunale Arbeitsgemeinschaft, gemeenschappelijke organen, Groupe de travail communal). General right to conclude cooperation agreements (Articles 3 and 4, Kooperationsvereinbarungen, Conventions de coopération). Cooperation agreement providing for a mandate/delegation/concession in the field of a provision of public services (Article 5, Übertragung und Überlassung von Aufgaben bei der Erbringung öffentlicher Dienstleistungen, Mandat, délégation et concession de service public). Cooperation agreement providing for public tendering (Article 6, Vergabe öffentlicher Aufträge, Passation de marchés publics). Joining / creating a body for decentralised cooperation with own legal personality based on the internal law of one of the contracting parties (Article 10, Einrichtung mit Rehtspersönlichkeit / Organismes dotes d une personalité juridique). Creation of cooperation structures without legal personality (Article 9, Einrichtungen ohne Rechtspersönlichkeit, Organismes sans personnalité juridique). Right to conclude cooperation agreements (Articles 3 and 4). Co-operation agreement providing for an adherence to / creation of a body for decentralised co-operation with own legal personality based on public law of one country (Article 5, 6): Spanish territorial authorities may adhere to / participate in the creation of the French Groupement d intérêt public de cooperation transfrontalier or the Société d économie mixte. French territorial authorities may adhere to / participate in the creation of the Spanish Consorcios. Public law-based crossborder body (Article 3, Organismes publics, openbare lichamen). Public law-based local purpose association (Articles 3-5, Zweckverband, openbare lichamen, Intercommunale) Cross-border local purpose associations (Articles 11-15, Grenzüberschreitender örtlicher Zweckverband, Groupement local de coopération transfrontalière) - Co-operation agreement providing for public tendering (Article 8, Passation de contrats publics). Creation of co-operation structures without legal personality (Article 7, Organes communs sans personnalité juridique). Valencia Agreement (ES-PT), 2004 Right to conclude cooperation agreements (Articles 4-7). Co-operation agreement providing for an adherence to / creation of a body for decentralised co-operation with own legal personality based on public law of one country (Article 11): Spanish territorial authorities may adhere to / participate in the creation of the Portuguese Associacao de Dreito Publico or Empresa Intermunicipal. - Vienna Agreement (AT-IT), 1995 Portuguese territorial authorities may adhere to / participate in the creation of the Spanish Consorcios. Creation of co-operation structures without legal personality such as Working Communities or Working Groups (Article 10). Right to conclude cooperation agreements (Article 4) in fields such as transport and communications, energy supply, nature and environmental protection, cross-border nature parks, craft and - ESPON

97 Rome Agreement (FR-IT), 1994 vocational training, health care, culture, sport, leisure, civil defense, tourism, cross-border problems (transport, housing, social security, job problems and unemployment) ), economic projects, promotion of trade, affairs of fairs and markets, improvement of agricultural structure, social institutions and applied scientific and technological research. Right to conclude cross-border cooperation agreements and arrangements (Article 3) in the following areas: urban and regional development; transport and communications; energy; Environmental protection ; waste treatment; the construction of sewage collection networks and treatment plants; teaching and applied scientific and technological research; vocational training, guidance and retraining; hygiene and health; culture and sport; mutual assistance in case of disaster and disaster; economic and social development; improvement of agrarian structures; tourism. - (*) The relevant agreement articles and the original names of the legal instrument are indicated in brackets in the respective fields below. Sources: European Commission, DG Regio (2004), MOT (2009), MOT (2013), Staatskanzlei Rheinland-Pfalz (2002), ESPON

98 D. Infrastructure categories and related domestic public service provision Category Hard infrastructure with a public supply function (i.e. essential physical networks of a country) Soft infrastructure with a public supply function (i.e. basic institutional and human capital potential of a country). Green (or (or greenblue) infrastructure delivering multiple ecosystem services to the population (i.e. essential natural features of a country, incl. rivers / streams, ponds, lakes and estuaries) Infrastructure features This infrastructure is owned by the public or is for public use, while being paid for from taxes, levies or metered user fees. It includes essential system elements (e.g. fixed assets, accessory buildings and plants), but also vehicle fleets operating according to fixed schedules or control systems / software required to operate / manage and monitor the respective systems. This infrastructure includes both physical assets (e.g. highly specialised buildings and large specialised facilities, fleets of specialised vehicles or equipment) and nonphysical assets (e.g. communication, the body of rules and regulations governing specific systems, the financing of these systems, and organisations by which professionals are trained etc.). Multifunctional and connected natural, semi-natural or manmade assets of different scales. They range from small linear features or broader green systems at urban and periurban scale (i.e. within and between urban and rural areas), to green infrastructure or entire functional ecosystems at regional, national and transnational scale, both inside and outside protected areas. Thematic focus of related domestic public service provision Hard infrastructure delivers basic public services to people in fields such as transportation (esp. public transport services by rail, tram, bus or ferry including related transport structures and terminal facilities etc.); energy (e.g. publically owned energy generation plants, grids or other distribution modes); water management (e.g. public production and distribution / maintenance of drinking water supply, public collection / disposal and treatment of wastewater, public drainage and irrigation systems, major flood control systems etc.); solid waste management (e.g. waste collection services and facilities for a disposal / recovery / recycling of waste); communications (i.e. postal services, telephone / mobile phone, broadcasting & digital services); monitoring and measurement (e.g. public fluviometric / tidal or meteorological monitoring networks). Soft infrastructure delivers specialised public services to people in fields such as public administration (e.g. urban / regional or sector policy planning; systems for collecting, storing and disseminating data, laws and regulation), law enforcement (e.g. justice, police) and emergency management (e.g. civil protection, emergency medical services, fire services etc.); economy (e.g. public banks, public organisations that enforce laws / regulations governing economic activity and that set technical standards etc.); education and research (e.g. elementary and secondary schools, universities and specialised tertiary educational institutions / research institutions, the systems for financing and accrediting educational institutions or professional / university degrees etc.); health care (e.g. hospitals & care institutions, the financing of health care including health insurance, the systems for regulation and testing of medications and medical procedures etc.); social protection (e.g. social insurance services, active and passive labour market interventions, social assistance services, public housing, community management services etc.); culture and recreation (e.g. public museums and libraries, public tourism promotion facilities, publicly run cultural attractions, public sports facilities etc.). Public services (e.g. planning, design, management) supporting green-blue infrastructure functions in a way that is sensitive to, and includes provision for, natural features. They maintain and enhance nature's ability to deliver ecosystem services in the following fields: Provisioning services are products obtained from ecosystems such as food, fresh water, wood, fibre, fuel, genetic resources and medicines. Regulating services are benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes. Examples are a maintenance of soil fertility, air quality regulation, erosion control, water flow regulation, coastal protection, moderation of extreme events, carbon storage/sequestration, pollination or biological control. Habitat services emerge from the importance of ecosystems for biodiversity. Examples are the maintenance of life cycles of migratory species including nursery services or the maintenance of genetic diversity, especially gene pool protection. Cultural services include non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems (e.g. spiritual enrichment, intellectual development, recreational experiences and opportunities for tourism or aesthetic qualities. Societal goal These public services ensure the effective functioning of a country, region or city / municipality and enable, sustain, or enhance living conditions. These public services maintain the economic, health, cultural and social standards of a society. These public services support the long-term sustainability of a society and also contribute to climate change mitigation / adaptation. ESPON

99 E. Literature list This section presents information sources on cross-border cooperation that also address issues which are relevant for the analysis of cross-border public service provision. Scientific literature and grey literature is only considered if it was published in 2010 or later. These information sources are grouped under 12 different sections: section 1 includes general literature sources and section 2 is about documentary sources on general cross-border cooperation (covering various policy fields at one specific border or various EU borders), sections 3 10 include documentary sources for specific cross-border policy areas that are related to public service provision, section 11 lists a number of general on-line data bases, inventories or overviews that are useful for this study and section 12 includes information sources for each of the CPS stakeholder areas (i.e. scientific literature, grey literature, on-line sources). (1) General literature sources Batley, R. / Mcloughlin, C. (2015): The Politics of Public Services: A Service Characteristics Approach. In: World Development, Vol. 74 /2015, pp EEA European Environment Agency (2011): Green infrastructure and territorial cohesion. The concept of green infrastructure and its integration into policies using monitoring systems. EEA Technical report No 18/2011. EEA European Environment Agency (2014): Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe. EEA Technical report No 2/2014. EEA European Environment Agency (2015): Exploring nature-based solutions. The role of green infrastructure in mitigating the impacts of weather- and climate change-related natural hazards. EEA Technical report No 12/2015. EPAN - European Anti-Poverty Network (2007): Services of General Interest: Glossary and Terms Explained. November ESPON (2013): SeGI-Indicators and perspectives for services of general interest in territorial cohesion and development. Applied Research 2013/1/16. Scientific Report (Version 25/5/2013). European Commission (2006): Communication from the Commission - Implementing the Community Lisbon programme: Social services of general interest in the European Union. COM (2006) 177 final, Brussels, 26 April European Commission (2009): Ecosystem Goods and Services. September Accessed at: European Commission (2011a): White Paper. Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system. COM (2011) 144 final. Brussels, European Commission (2011b): Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - A Quality Framework for Services of General Interest in Europe. COM(2011) 900 final. Brussels, European Commission, DG for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (2011): Study on social services of general interest. Final report. Brussels, October European Commission (2017): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Boosting growth and cohesion in EU border regions. COM(2017) 534 final. ESPON

100 Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (2017): A strategy for the provision of public services at the regional level. Practice guidance. BMVI-Online-Publikation, No.1/2017, dl.pdf;jsessionid=2f1d85f9920a601a7d5deb1022e60157.live21303? blob=publicationfil e&v=4 Ministry of Social Affairs and Health Finland (2014): The Application of EU-rules to Social Services of General Interest. Helsinki, Sauter, W. (2007): Services of general economic interest (SGEI) and universal service obligations (USO) as an EU law framework for curative health care. Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economics Centre (TILEC), TILEC DP ( World Bank (2014): Glossary for the body of knowledge on the regulation of utility infrastructure and services. 3rd updated version, December (2) General cross-border cooperation (various policy fields) Actieteam Economie en Arbeid Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (2015): Overzicht belemmeringen en oplossingen grensarbeid (op basis van inbreng van o.a. EUREGIO s, GROS, Kleefse agenda, position paper VNG, regionale plannen). Versie Commission Benelux pour la Coopération transfrontalière (2011) : Coopération transfrontalière. Almanach Bruxelles, Mai Berzi, M. (2013): Cross-border cooperation and local development in the Pyrenees. The case of Cerdanya. European Journal of Geography Volume 4, Number 4:47-60 December Berzi, M. (2016): Local Cross-Border Cooperation as a Territorial Strategy for Peripheral Borderlands? The Analysis of Two Study Cases along the Eastern French-Spanish Border Using the Territorialist Approach. Europa Regional 24, 2016 (2017) I 1-2. Bundesministerium des Innern / EURO-Institut Kehl-Strasbourg (2014): Grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit mit deutscher Beteiligung. Ein Erfahrungsaustausch. Dokumentation der Veranstaltungen 2012 und 2013 in der Vertretung des Landes Baden- Württemberg, Berlin. Bundesministerium des Innern / Land Baden-Württemberg / EURO-Institut Kehl-Strasbourg (2015): Internationale Konferenz "Grenzüberschreitende kommunale Daseinsvorsorge in den Grenzregionen mit deutscher Beteiligung - rechtliche und kulturelle Möglichkeiten und Hemmnisse" ( , Vertretung des Landes Baden-Württemberg beim Bund in Berlin). The different presentations covered legal matters for cross-border public service provision and also various concrete examples in the fields of health care and emergency care, waste and waste water treatment, flooding protection, public transport etc. (see: Berlin.php). o o Beck, J.: Grenzüberschreitende Daseinsvorsorge eine neue Qualität der kommunalen grenzüberschreitenden Zusammenarbeit mit deutscher Beteiligung? Philippi, J.: Die Zusammenarbeit des Entsorgungsverbandes Saar (EVS) und des Syndicat Mixte de Transport et de Traitement des Déchets Ménagers de Moselle-Est (SYDEME) im Bereich der Abfallentsorgung. o Feige, M.: Die Abwasserbehandlungsanlage Gubin Guben, ein Beispielprojekt von der deutsch - polnischen Grenze. o Finis, T.: Mobile Übungsanlage Binnengewässer (MÜB). Ein D-F- Beispielprojekt am Oberrhein. o o Hansen, P.: Strukturelle Unterschiede als Hemmnisse (oder Chancen?) für den Bereich der grenzüberschreitenden kommunalen Daseinsvorsorge. Hosten, N.: Telemedizin in der D-PL Euroregion POMERANIA: Das Pomerania- Netzwerk. o Indra, P.: Grenzüberschreitende Gesundheitsversorgung zwischen Deutschland und der Schweiz. ESPON

101 o Maes, M./Ziemann, A.: Deutsch-Niederländische Zusammenarbeit Notfallversorgung in der EUREGIO. o Sinner, J.-C.: Besondere Rechtsbestimmungen in Grenzräumen. Beitrag der Luxemburger Ratspräsidentschaft. o Stiren, M.: INTERREG-Projekt «Internationales Gruppenklärwerk Wallendorf- Reisdorf». o Uebler, A.: Braucht die grenzüberschreitende kommunale Daseinsvorsorge tatsächlich einen eigenständigen Rechtsrahmen? o Verschelde, N.: Cross-border Cooperation - 25 years of Interreg and beyond. o Warchol, M.: Öffentlicher Personennahverkehr der Doppelstadt Frankfurt (Oder) / Słubice. o Zardi, A.: The Council of Europe contribution to strong and effective crossborder cooperation Council of Europe (2011): Preparation of the conference on removing obstacles and promoting good practices on cross-border cooperation. Replies to the questionnaire. Secretariat Memorandum prepared by the Directorate General of Democracy and Political Affairs Directorate of Democratic Institutions. Strasbourg, 16 May Council of Europe (2012a): Cross-border co-operation toolkit. Strasbourg, June Council of Europe (2012b): Manual on removing obstacles to cross-border cooperation. Strasbourg, November Decoville, A., Durand. F., Sohn, Ch., Walther, O. (2010): Spatial integration in European cross-border metropolitan regions: A comparative approach. CEPS/INSTEAD Working Paper No , December Centre for Population, Poverty and Public Policy Studies (CEPS/INSTEAD), Differdange, ESPON (2012a): GEOSPECS European Perspective on Specific Types of Territories. Applied Research 2013/1/12, Final Scientific Report (Version 20/12/2012). ESPON (2012b): GEOSPECS European Perspective on Specific Types of Territories. Applied Research 2013/1/12, Final Report (Version 20/12/2012). EUGO Hungary (2017): Cross-border Provision of Services in Hungary. Accessed in 2017 at: European Commission, DG Regio (2004): Towards a new Community legal instrument facilitating public law based trans-european co-operation among territorial authorities in the European Union. Synthesis Report, March European Commission, DG Regio (2010): Ex-Post Evaluation of the INTERREG Community Initiative funded by the Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Final Report. PANTEIA, Zoetermeer European Commission, DG Regio (2011): European territorial cooperation: building bridges between people (September 2011). European Commission, DG Regio (2015a): Information campaign on Public Consultation as part of the CB Review, roundtable about border obstacles in SK/HU Region. Mission Report (Zsolt Szokolai), Directorate D - Unit D2. 6/10/2015. European Commission, DG Regio (2015b): Flash Eurobarometer Cross-border cooperation in the EU. Conducted by TNS Political & Social at the request of the European Commission, Directorate-General Regional and Urban Policy. Survey co-ordinated by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Communication (DG COMM Strategy, Corporate Communication Actions and Eurobarometer Unit). European Commission, DG Regio (2015c): Territorial Cooperation in Europe A historical perspective. June 2015 European Commission, DG Regio (2016a): Summary report on the online public consultation. Overcoming obstacles in border regions. 21 September - 21 December Luxembourg, April ESPON

102 European Commission, DG Regio (2016b): European Territorial Cooperation. Work Package 11. Ex-post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes , focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF). Contract: 2014CE16BAT047. Final report / Main report, July European Commission, DG Regio (2016c): Collecting solid evidence to assess the needs to be addressed by Interreg cross-border cooperation programmes. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, European Commission, DG Regio (2017): Easing legal and administrative obstacles in EU border regions. Final Report. March Annexes, 15 case studies: o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Healthcare - Obstacles arising from different national systems (Finland- Sweden) Healthcare - Obstacles arising from different national systems (Finland-Sweden) Labour mobility - Obstacles for cross-border commuters (Denmark-Sweden) Labour mobility - Obstacles for cross-border commuters (Denmark-Sweden) Labour mobility - Recognition of professional qualifications and educational diplomas (Spain-Portugal) Labour mobility - Recognition of professional qualifications and educational diplomas (Spain-Portugal) Business - Trade-related obstacles faced by businesses along the border (Ireland-United Kingdom) Business - Trade-related obstacles faced by businesses along the border (Ireland-United Kingdom) Rail transport - Technical interoperability and investment coordination between national railway systems (Austria-Slovenia) Rail transport - Technical interoperability and investment coordination between national railway systems (Austria-Slovenia) Emergency response - Obstacles linked different national management systems handling crises and disasters (Slovakia-Hungary) Emergency response - Obstacles linked different national management systems handling crises and disasters (Slovakia-Hungary) Transport infrastructure - Policy frameworks hampering development of regional transport infrastructure (Germany-Poland) Transport infrastructure - Policy frameworks hampering development of regional transport infrastructure (Germany-Poland) Police cooperation - Complexity of structures and rules on the border (Germany-Poland) Police cooperation - Complexity of structures and rules on the border (Germany-Poland) Labour mobility - Obstacles in the recognition of professional qualifications (Belgium-Germany-France-Luxembourg) Labour mobility - Obstacles in the recognition of professional qualifications (Belgium-Germany-France- Luxembourg) Social security - Difficult access to social security for frontier workers (Belgium-Germany-France-Luxembourg) Social security - Difficult access to social security for frontier workers (Belgium-Germany-France-Luxembourg) Education - Language requirements preventing VET students from studying abroad (Germany-The Netherlands) Education - Language requirements preventing VET students from studying abroad (Germany-The Netherlands) Spatial planning - Obstacles to cross-border public consultations (Belgium- France) Spatial planning - Obstacles to cross-border public consultations (Belgium-France) Urban transport - Non-harmonised ticket pricing systems (Germany-France) Urban transport - Non-harmonised ticket pricing systems (Germany-France) Business - Complex rules hampering cross-border activities (Bulgaria- Greece) Business - Complex rules hampering cross-border activities (Bulgaria-Greece) Healthcare - Obstacles to the efficiency and effectiveness of health systems (Estonia-Latvia) Healthcare - Obstacles to the efficiency and effectiveness of health systems (Estonia-Latvia) ESPON

103 European Parliament (2016a): Review of adopted European Territorial Cooperation Programmes. Study. Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies, Regional Development. Brussels, July European Parliament (2016b): Servicers of General Interest in the Funding Period Study. Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies, Regional Development. Brussels, January EUROGEO - European Association of Geographers (2013): European Journal of Geography - Special Issue on European Borders: Geographical Perspectives of Territorial Cooperation. Volume 4, Number 4, December Euroregion Neisse-Nisa-Nysa (2015): Strategische Handlungsempfehlungen der Euroregion Neisse-Nisa-Nysa. Government of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (2015a): The need for specific legal provisions to boost cross-border cooperation - Workshop preparing a political debate on voluntarily applicable specific legal provisions for border regions. Agenda of the workshop of 19 May 2015, Luxembourg City. Government of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (2015b): A tool for the attribution and application of specific provisions for the improvement of cross-border cooperation (Action 3 of the IT-LV-LU Trio Presidency). Input paper for the Informal Ministerial Meeting on Territorial Cohesion under the Luxembourg Presidency (Version 13 November 2015). Luxembourg, 26 November Haselsberger, B. (2014): Decoding borders. Appreciating border impacts on space and people. In: Planning Theory & Practice, 2014, London. INTERACT (2015a): Scoping Study - A thematic analysis of territorial developments and Interreg / ETC Investments in the period Volume 1b. Final Version. Vyborg, January INTERACT (2015b): Sector Study - Cross-border and transnational labour market integration. Final Version. Vyborg, January INTERREG-A Inner Scandinavia (2011): Cross-border development partnership. Priorities and Achievements ( ). Final Report December INTERREG-A Inner Scandinavia (2013): Territorial Perspectives in Inner Scandinavia ( ). Barrier effects, territorial capital valorisation, territorial impact assessment, crossborder development plan. Final Report, November Jaansoo, A. & Groenendijk, N. (2014): Cross-border delivery of public services: How useful are EGTCs? 54th ERSA Congress, St. Petersburg, August, McEwen, N. & Petersohn, B. (2014): Spotlight on Borders - Insights from the border between Sweden and Denmark. Scottish Centre on Constitutional Change. SCCC Briefing Paper, September 2014." Medeiros, E. (2014a): Barrier effect and cross-border cooperation. The Sweden-Norway Interreg A territorial effects. In: Revista Portuguesa de Geografia, Finisterra, XLIX, 97, 2014, pp Medeiros, E. (2014b): Cross-Border Cooperation and Territorial Impact Assessment in the EU. In: Evaluační teorie a praxe, No 2, Autumn 2014, Volume 2, pp ( Ministère du Développement durable et des Infrastructures, Département de l Aménagement du territoire, Luxembourg (2015): Looking back on 25 years of Interreg and preparing the future of territorial cooperation. Background Document, prepared by the Luxembourgish Presidency of the EU Council. MOT - Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière (2009): Textes de la coopération transfrontalière. Accord de Rome. Mise à jour juin ESPON

104 MOT - Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière (2013): Rechtlicher Rahmen der grenzüberschreitenden Zusammenarbeit. Rechtsinstrumente im Dienste der grenzüberschreitenden Projekte. Dezember MOT - Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière (2014): Projets transfrontaliers sur les frontières françaises. Dossier de presse. Elections européennes en mai MOT - Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière (2015a): Cross-border Cooperation: Obstacles to Overcome. Preparation of the Luxembourgish Presidency of the EU Council. 19th May MOT - Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière (2015b): Building Legal Provisions to Overcome Obstacles to Cross-border Cooperation. Luxembourgish Presidency of the EU Council. 9th September MOT - Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière (2015c): Processus d actualisation des travaux du Groupe de travail parlementaire franco-belge et suites à donner. Rapport final. MOT - Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière (2015d): Processus d actualisation des travaux du Groupe de travail parlementaire franco-belge et suites à donner. Annexes au rapport final. MOT - Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière (2015e): Processus d actualisation des travaux du Groupe de travail parlementaire franco-belge et suites à donner. Synthèse du rapport final. MOT - Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière (no date mentioned): GLCT créés aux frontières françaises. Niedobitek, M. (2001): Das Recht der grenzüberschreitenden Verträge: Bund, Länder und Gemeinden als Träger. Tübingen, Noguera, J.; Ortega-Reig, M.; del Alcázar, H.; Copus, A.; Berlina, A.; Moodie, J.; Mantino, F.; Forcina, B.; Weck, S.; Beißwenger, S.; Hans, N.; Tagai, G.; Koós, B.; Kovács, K.; Uzzoli, A.; Dax, Th.; Machold, I.; Schürmann, C.; Tobiasz-Lis, P.; Dmochowska-Dudek, K., Wójcik, M. (2017): PROFECY Processes, Features and Cycles of Inner Peripheries in Europe. Final Report. Luxembourg, Valencia: Nordregio (2010): Nordic Cross-border Cooperation - Committees and Cross-border Authority Integration. Nordic Working Group 2: Globalisation and Cross-border Cooperation. Nordregio Electronic Working Paper 2010:3. Oliveras González, X. (2013): Cross-border cooperation in Cerdanya (Spain-France border). Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles N.º Öresund Committee (2011): 33 obstacles, challenges and opportunities - the Øresund model Prefecture de la Region Midi-Pyrenees, SGAR (2011a): Etude sur la réalité des liens transfrontaliers entre la France, l Espagne et l Andorre. Rapport final. Version du 14 octobre Prefecture de la Region Midi-Pyrenees, SGAR (2011b): Etude sur la réalité des liens transfrontaliers entre la France, l Espagne et l Andorre. Synthèse. Octobre Rietveld, P. (2012): Barrier Effects of Borders: Implications for Border-Crossing Infrastructures. In: EJTIR, Issue 12(2), 2012, pp Sächsische Aufbaubank (2015): Grenzübergreifende Zusammenarbeit Sachsen-Polen Współpraca Transgraniczna Polska-Saksonia Dresden, November Schürmann, C. (2017): PROFECY Processes, Features and Cycles of Inner Peripheries in Europe. Delineation 3 Series of Maps illustrating the Delineation Process. Annex 7 to Final Report. Luxembourg, Valencia: Sereno, M.C. (2014): La politique transfrontalière, entre politique extérieure et politique régionale : le cas franco-italien. In: Cahiers de la Méditerranée, 88 / 2014, pp ESPON

105 Sinner, J-C. (2015): Besondere Rechtsbestimmungen in Grenzräumen. Beitrag der Luxemburger Ratspräsidentschaft. Präsentation, Ministerium für Nachhaltige Entwicklung und Infrastruktur, Abt. Landesplanung, Berlin, 1. Juli Staatskanzlei Rheinland-Pfalz (2002): Karlsruher und Mainzer Vertragswerke. Anwendungsbeispiele aus Rheinland-Pfalz. Schriftenreihe zur grenzüberschreitenden Zusammenarbeit, Band 20. Mainz, September UNEP-WCMC (2018): Protected planet Word database on protected areas. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC. Union Économique Benelux (2007): Cinquante-et-unième rapport commun des Gouvernements belge, néerlandais et luxembourgeois au Conseil interparlementaire consultatif de Benelux sur la réalisation et le fonctionnement de l Union économique entre les trois Etats 2006 & Rapport de la Commission spéciale pour la Circulation des Personnes Bruxelles, le 3 juillet M (2007) 104. Union Benelux (2011): Coopération transfrontalière. Almanach Bruxelles, Mai (3) Cross-border cooperation in the fields of spatial planning, sector-policy planning and public transport Association of European Border Regions & ESPON (2012): ULYSSES - Using applied research results from ESPON as a yardstick for cross-border spatial development planning. Targeted Analysis 2013/2/10. Practical Guide for the elaboration of cross-border territorial development strategies. Barth, E. (2014): How international borders affect local public transport: analyses and evaluations of cross-border agglomerations in Switzerland, France and Germany. Thesis submitted to attain the degree of doctor of sciences of ETH ZURICH. Zürich, City of Helsinki (2014): Benchmarking study of cross-border transport development in Helsinki-Tallinn versus Öresund. Final report, April Copenhagen Post (2015): Øresund train tickets - most expensive in Europe, (accessed in November 2016). Dörry, S. & Decoville, A. (2012): Transportation policy networks in cross-border regions. First results from a social network analysis in Luxembourg and the Greater Region. CEPS/INSTEAD Working Paper No , April Centre for Population, Poverty and Public Policy Studies (CEPS/INSTEAD), Differdange, Euregio Maas-Rhine (2010): Cross border public (rail) transport problems in North West Europe. Proposals for action on EU level on the basis of selected operating and project experiences. Submission to the EC in relation to the first draft of the 3rd framework programme (White Paper on European Transport Policy).Elaborated by the Public Transport Co-ordination Committee in the Euregio Maas-Rhine and the partners of the INTERREG-project RoCK Regions of Connected Knowledge. Eurodistrikt Strasbourg-Ortenau (2017): Mit der Tram nach Straßburg. Info-flyer. Accessed at: A6_Leporello_p1-2.pdf Großregion (2016): SIG-GR Système d information géographique de la Grande Région / Geografisches Informationssystem der Großregion GIS-GR. Novembre 2016 / November Hultén, J., Schantz, P., Andersson, B. (2011): VISÖ Visualization of Infrastructure and Sustainable development in Öresund. Proceedings from the Annual Transport Conference at Aalborg University. IBU-Öresund & Region Skåne (2011). Infrastructure and urban development in the Öresund region. March ESPON

106 INTER Regio-Rail (n.d.): Removing Barriers to Regional Rail Transport. Results and conclusions. Project finance by the CENTRAL EUROPE Programme and co-financed by the ERDF. Kanton Basel Stadt (2013): The development of public transport in the conurbation. Presentation of Dr. Hans-Peter Wessels, Member of the Executive Council at the Annual Conference 2013 of the European Passengers Federation. Mobility-euregio (2016): Idea and Information, (accessed in November 2016). MOT - Mission Opérationelle Transfrontalière (2016) : Transport. (accessed in November 2016) ØRIB Phase II (n.d.): The Øresund Region in Scenarios for Traffic and Urban Development. An Abridged Version. Prianon, I. (2013): Grenzüberschreitende Raumplanung: Herausforderungen im Eurodistrict SaarMoselle am Beispiel des grenzüberschreitenden ÖPNV. Deutsch-Französische Fachtagung: Grenzüberschreitende Infrastrukturerhaltung heute und morgen. SEETO - South East Europe Transport Observatory (2012): Report on Border Crossing Facilitation. Draft, June SETA South East Transport Axis (2013): Report on Development Potentials and Obstacles based on the Assessment of Organisational and Technical Constraints. Version: 0.1. Date: Project supported by the South East Europe transnational cooperation programme. (4) Cross-border cooperation in the fields of healthcare, long-term care and social integration Aaviksoo, A. & Priit Kruus, P. (2013): Cross-border potential of telemedicine solutions. In: EUROHEALTH - Quarterly of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Volume 19, Number 4/2013. AEBR Association of European Border Regions (2014): K.5. Workshop: Lessons from cross-border emergency care along the Western border of Germany. Organised by: Association of European Border Regions Task Force Cross-Border Health. Published in: European Journal of Public Health 2014; 24(Supplement 2): Berki, G. (2014): Cross-border patient mobility: The legal framework of obtaining healthcare abroad within the European Union a patients perspective. Research supported by the European Union and the State of Hungary, cofinanced by the European Social Fund in the framework of TÁMOP A/ National Excellence Program. Manuscript closed: 28 August European Commission (2014): Study on cross-border health services: potential obstacles for healthcare providers. Chafea/2014/Health/10 Final Report, provision_frep_en.pdf European Commission (2017): European Cross-Border Cooperation on Health: Theory and Practice. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies (2013): EU Cross-border health care collaboration. EUROHEALTH - Quarterly of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Volume 19, Number 4, Kostera, T. (2013): Towards European Integration II: EU Cross-border health care in practice. Institut d Etudes Européennes, Université libre de Bruxelles, Alpach, 15 August Latvian Ministry for Environmental Protection and Regional Development (2014): Report on the progress of the joint co-operation activities agreed by the intergovernmental commission s joint sessions in 2013/2014. ESPON

107 Nikolay Vasev, N. & Vrangbæk, K. (2014): Transposition and national level resources Introducing the Cross Border Health Care Directive in Eastern Europe. In: West European Politics (2014) 37: 4, pp Nordic Innovation (2012): Patient mobility in the Nordic Countries - Volume and obstacles. 7 June WHO - World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe (2011): Cross-border health care in the European Union. Mapping and analysing practices and policies. Eds. Matthias Wismar, Willy Palm, Josep Figueras, Kelly Ernst, Ewout van Ginneken. Observatory Studies Series 22. WHO - World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe (2013): Hospitals and Borders. Seven case studies on cross-border collaboration and health system interactions. Observatory Studies Series No. 31, Eds: Irene A. Glinos and Matthias Wismar. WHO - World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe (2014): Cross-border health care in Europe (authors: Katharine Footman, Cécile Knai, Rita Baeten, Ketevan Glonti, Martin McKee). (5) Cross-border cooperation in the fields of education and training Dorka, S. / Frisch, J. (2016): Transnationale Mobilität von Auszubildenden in der Grenzregion. Abschlussbericht des von der Arbeitskammer des Saarlandes geförderten Forschungsprojekts der Kooperationsstelle Wissenschaft und Arbeitswelt und des Lehrstuhls für Romanische Kulturwissenschaft und Interkulturelle Kommunikation der Universität des Saarlandes EUCOR The European Campus (2016): Short list of cross border obstacles in the field of research and higher education. Strasbourg, EURES Cross Border Partnership (2013): A study of obstacles to cross-border undergraduate education. European Commission / Council of Europe (2011): Mobility of young people Opportunities and obstacles for cross-border volunteering for young people, particularly with fewer opportunities. Research Seminar, final report. European Youth Centre, Strasbourg December Erklärung von Hambach zur deutsch-französischen Zusammenarbeit in den Grenzregionen ( ). Accessed at: Großregion (2016): Zweiter Bericht zur Umsetzung der Rahmenvereinbarung über grenzüberschreitende Berufsbildung in der Großregion Version du 21/10/2016. Klinikum Oldenburg (2012): KLIMA - Sonderausgabe des Klinikmagazins zur European Medical School, Juli NordForsk (2014): Crossing Borders Obstacles and incentives to researcher mobility. Policy Paper 3/2014. Nauwelaers, C., K. Maguire and G. Ajmone Marsan (2013): The case of Oresund (Denmark- Sweden) Regions and Innovation: Collaborating Across Borders, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2013/21, OECD Publishing. North South Inter-Parliamentary Association (2014): Access for students to third-level education in the respective jurisdictions (i.e. Northern Ireland and Ireland). 8 October Background briefing prepared by the Research and Information Service (RaISe) of the Northern Ireland Assembly and of the Library & Research Service of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Tithe an Oireachtais)." Van den Broek, J. & Smulders, H. (2013): The evolution of a cross-border regional innovation system: An institutional perspective. Paper submitted to the Regional Studies Association European Conference, Tampere 2013 Gateway theme: N. Borders, Border Regions and Cross-border Learning. ESPON

108 (6) Cross-border cooperation in the fields of labour market and employment AEBR - Association of European Border Regions (2012): Information services for crossborder workers in European border regions. Overall Report. Gronau. Centre for Cross Border Studies (2015a): Obstacles to cross-border mobility: Taxation. Revised 20 January Centre for Cross Border Studies (2015b): Cross-border Family Benefits. April Clément, F. (2013): The Interregional Observatory of Employment in Luxembourg and in the «Greater Region». In: LARSEN Christa, RAND Sigrid, SCHMID Alfons, ATIN Eugenia, SERRANO Raquel (Eds.) Shifting Roles and Functions of Regional and Local Labour Market Observatories Across Europe. Munich: Rainer Hampp Verlag, 2013, pp CRD EURES Lorraine (2011): Freins à la mobilité des travailleurs frontaliers dans l éspace Lorraine / Luxembourg / Rhénanie-Palatinat / Sarre. Centre de ressources et de documentation des EURES Transfrontaliers de Lorraine, Avril CRD EURES Lorraine (2012): Grenzgänger Deutschland, Frankreich Luxemburg: Die Anerkennung beruflicher Qualifikationen in der Großregion - Hindernisse für die Mobilität. European Commission (2010a): Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Reaffirming the free movement of workers: rights and major developments. COM(2010)373 final, Brussels, European Commission (2010b): Green Paper towards adequate, sustainable and safe European pension systems. SEC(2010)830, Brussels , COM(2010)365 final. European Commission (2014a): Removing cross-border tax obstacles - Organisation and practices in Member States tax administrations. Final Report EY November European Commission (2014b): Compliance Costs Related to Cross-Border Activity. Final report EY October European Commission (2017a): EURES Cross-Border Partnerships: State of Play. Final Report November European Commission (2017b): Implementation of EURES Regulation: Key issues at crossborder level. Final Report November European Commission (2017c): Increasing the impact of grants given to cross-border partnerships under the EaSI programme. Final Report November European Policy Centre (2013): Intra-EU mobility: the second building block of EU labour migration policy. Issue Paper No.74, May ETUC European Trade Union Confederation (2011): Guide for Mobile European Workers. Brussels. May INTERACT (2015): Sector Study: Cross-border and transnational labour market integration. Expert assignment to deliver a Scoping Study on European Territorial Cooperation. Final Version January 2015, Vyborg. LCGB (2010): Vivre et travailler dans la Grande Région. Conseil syndical 16 octobre Nordic Council of Ministers (2012): Freedom of Movement within the Social and Labourmarket Area in the Nordic Countries. Summary of obstacles and potential solutions. Expert Group under ÄK-A/ÄK-S. Copenhagen. South Baltic Professionals project (2012a): Case study: Cross-border labour mobility between Poland-Germany. The West Pomeranian Business School Szczecin (Poland), VIRTUS Institute for new teaching and learning methods (Germany). South Baltic Professionals project (2012b): Case study: Cross-border labour mobility between Poland-Lithuania. Maritime Institute in Gdansk, Poland. TRESS (2013): European report Authors: Jorens, Y. / Lhernould, J.Ph. Organisation and coordination of a network on the co-ordination of social security schemes within the ESPON

109 European Union. Lot 1: Expertise in social security coordination. Project DG EMPL/B/4 - VC/2012/1110 (7) Cross-border cooperation in the fields of communication and Information Society European Commission, DG CONNECT (2014): Build, Connect, Grow Hvordan EU arbeider med å etablere digitale offentlige tjenester på tvers av landegrenser. Oslo, 6. februar 2014 (Nils Ø. Gulbrandsen, European Commission, DG CONNECT, Unit H3 Public Services). European Commission (2015): Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe {SWD(2015) 100 final}. Brussels , COM(2015) 192 final. Justizministerium des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (n.d.): Digital Public Services Across Borders ( (8) Cross-border cooperation in the fields of environmental protection, natural resources management and climate action Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2015): Grenzüberschreitende und Bundesländer übergreifende Zusammenarbeit von Nationalen Naturlandschaften (Hrsg.: Scherfose, V./Gehrlein, U./Milz, E.). Bonn - Bad Godesberg CEframe (no date mentioned): 363 Current standards for flood protection. CEframe - Central European Flood Risk Assessment and Management in CENTROPE. Contrat de Rivière Moselle (2017): L inf eau, numéro 3, Décembre Accessed at : EGTC ZASNET (2015): New Ideas for the future INTERREG Projects.12 November Accessed at: %20Open%20Daus%202015/Videira%20%20ZASNET_New%20Ideas%20for%20the%20fut ure%20interreg%20projects.pdf Grenzüberschreitender örtlicher Zweckverband Wissembourg Bad Bergzabern, vertreten durch Verbandsgemeinde Bad Bergzabern Ville de Wissembourg (2012): Länderübergreifendes Wasserversorgungskonzept Südpfalz/Nordelsass Bad Bergzabern/ Wissembourg, Februar Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e das Florestas (2016): Man and Biosphere Programme, UNESCO. Portugal - National Report Lisbon, February IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (2011): Crossing Borders for Nature. European examples of transboundary conservation. (Eds. Vasilijević, M. / Tomasz Pezold, T.). Nationalpark Thaytal (2001): Nationalpark Thaytal The national park from A-Z. Brochure, Ed Accessed at: Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft / Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (2008) : Benefits from cross-border management of natural resources. Experiences and lessons learned from the SDC Balkan transboundary projects November 2008 Spyra, M. (2014): The feasibility of implementing cross-border land-use management strategies: a report from three Upper Silesian. Euroregions. Sekscinska, A. (2008): Grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit in IKZM relevanten Handlungsfeldern und deren institutionalisierte Formen in der Odermündungsregion. Forschung für ein Integriertes Küstenzonenmanagement in der Odermündungsregion. IKZM- Oder Berichte 47 (2008) SIDEN (2012): Offizielle Einweihung der internationalen biologischen Kläranlage Reisdorf Wallendorf mit Zulaufsammler. 29. Juni (Publishers : Syndicat Intercommunal de Dépollution des Eaux Résiduaires du Nord SIDEN, Gemeinde Reisdorf, Gemeinde Bettendorf, Verbandsgemeinde Irrel, Südeifelwerke Irrel AöR). ESPON

110 Yakusheva, N. (2017): Parks, Policies and People. Nature Conservation Governance in Post- Socialist EU Countries. Södertörn University, (9) Cross-border cooperation in the fields of civil protection and disaster management ENSOSP - Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Officiers de Sapeurs-Pompiers (2010): Compétence et coopération transfrontalières des services d incendie et de secours dans le cadre européen. Juin Finnish Red Cross (2014): Finland s legal preparedness for international disaster response Host Nation Support Guidelines. Project funded by the Civil Protection Financial Instrument of the European Union for , provided by the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO). GLCT Europa 1 (2011): Feuerlöschboot / Bateau Pompe Europa 1. Flyer, April/Avril Henrotte, P. (2017): Analysis of disaster management structures and cross-border collaboration in the Benelux and its bordering countries. Master thesis, Maastricht University, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences. Maastricht, 26th of July, Hollis, S. / Ekengren, M. (2013): Regional Organization Study: Barents Euro-Arctic Region. July Case study prepared for the ANVIL project, funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Framework Programme. Interreg IIIC project FLAPP (n.d.): Flood Awareness and Prevention Policy in border areas: Joint approach to cross-border flood management. Practical solutions to improve cooperation in border regions. Paper for the INBO 7th WORLD GENERAL ASSEMBLY. Interreg IVC project Floodwise (2012a): Towards cross-border flood risk management. Results of FLOOD-WISE: cooperation in six European border rivers. Maastricht Interreg IVC project Floodwise (2012b): Sub-Report Phase 3: Flood Risk Management Plans of the Elbe River Basin (Authors: Kristina Rieth, Kai Deutschmann). Junta de Castilla y Leon (2013): Conclusiones de los grupos de trabajo participantes en la jornada transfronteriza sobre protección civil y emergencias. (Salamanca, 5 de noviembre de 2013). Préfecture de la Haute-Savoie (no date mentioned): Les données de base - Généralités et alerte. Préfecture de la Haute-Savoie, Cabinet, D.I.D.P.C. Swedish institute of international affairs (2014): A survey of European civil security systems and the role of the EU in building shared crisis management capacities. Report by UI-papers, issue 2/2014, published by the Swedish institute of international affairs). Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (2010): Cross-border cooperation during forest and peat fires. Report on the seminar of May , Pskov, Russia. (10) Cross-border cooperation in the fields of citizenship, justice and public security Council of Europe (2015): European experience of citizens participation in cross-border governance. Strasbourg, European Commission (2013a): Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses by simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the European Union and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012. Brussels, , COM(2013) 228 final European Commission (2013b): Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. EU Citizenship Report EU citizens: your rights, your future. Brussels , COM(2013) 269 final. European Parliament (2013): Life in cross-border situations in the EU - A Comparative Study on Civil Status. Directorate-general for internal policies - policy department for citizens' rights and constitutional affairs, legal affairs. Brussels, ESPON

111 European Commission, DG Justice (2013): Discussion paper 1: EU Civil Law, produced for the Assises de la Justice conference (Brussels, November 2013). Ontanu & Pannebakker (2012): Tackling language obstacles in cross-border litigation: the European order for payment and the European small claims procedure approach. In: Erasmus Law Review, Volume 5, Issue 3 (2012). (11) Specific on-line databases, inventories or overviews on cross-border cooperation Council of Europe: EDEN, online platform for cross-border cooperation ( Euregio Maas Rhein, healthcare solutions ( European Commission (DG Regio), inventory of legal and administrative border obstacles ( Border People Project, on-line database of obstacles at the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland ( Greater Region, overview on cross-border public healthcare services ( Infrastrukturen-und-Dienste). INTERACT, on-line database KEEP which includes projects supported by Interreg, Interreg IPA CBC and ENI CBC ( MOT - Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière, Public Services ( Project Gränshinder för näringslivet, on-line database of border obstacles in Nordic countries. ( (12) Information sources for individual CPS partner areas 01 Region Sønderjylland Schleswig (DK-DE) Bundesministerium für Verkehr und Digitale Infrastruktur (Hrsg.) (2013): Langfristige Sicherung von Versorgung und Mobilität im ländlichen Raum. Demografische Herausforderungen, interkommunale Kooperation und Mobilitätsstrategien am Beispiel Nordfriesland. Berlin: BMVI. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (2015): Abkommen zwischen der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Regierung des Königreichs Dänemark über die Schaffung eines Rahmens für die teilweise Öffnung nationaler Fördersysteme zur Förderung der Energieerzeugung durch Photovoltaik-Anlagen und für die grenzüberschreitende Steuerung dieser Projekte im Rahmen eines einmaligen Pilotverfahrens im Jahr Eggert, A. (2014): Potentials and obstacles for cross-border knowledge interactions. Perception of local health business firms in the Southern-Denmark Northern Schleswig- Holstein region. Master Thesis, Lund University, Department of Human Geography, Spring Land Schleswig-Holstein (2015): Rahmenplan. Deutsch-Dänische Zusammenarbeit des Landes. Kiel Land Schleswig-Holstein (2017a): Gemeinsame Erklärung über die regionale Zusammenarbeit zwischen Schleswig-Holstein und der Region Seeland - deutsche Sprache. Land Schleswig-Holstein (2017b): On-line access to various documentary sources on German-Danish cooperation (Deutsch-dänische Zusammenarbeit mit der Region Syddanmark): beit_syddanmark.html ESPON

112 Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (2002): Abkommen zwischen der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Regierung des Königreiches Dänemark über die polizeiliche Zusammenarbeit in den Grenzgebieten vom 21. März Bundesgesetzblatt Jahrgang 2002 Teil II, Nr. 23, 25. Juni Region Sønderjylland Schleswig (2017a): Briefzustellung mit durchwachsener Qualität, ( Region Sønderjylland Schleswig (2017b), on-line access to annual reports (Jahresberichte): Region Sønderjylland Schleswig (2017c), on-line access to information on structures, assets and needs in the cross-border region: Regionskontor Sønderjylland - Schleswig & Infocenter (2012): Pontifex-Brückenbauer / Pontifex-Brobygger, Newsletter Nr. 12, Region Sonderjylland-Schleswig, Regionskontor & Infocenter (2012): Mobilitätsbarrieren auf dem deutsch-dänischen Arbeitsmarkt - 29 Lösungsvorschläge für den Abbau bestehender Freizügigkeitshemmnisse. Juli Region Sonderjylland-Schleswig, Regionskontor & Infocenter (2014): Mobilitätsbarrieren auf dem deutsch-dänischen Arbeitsmarkt - 29 Lösungsvorschläge für den Abbau bestehender Freizügigkeitshemmnisse. September Spoorendonk, A. (2008): Deutsch-dänisches Rahmenabkommen über die grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit im Gesundheitsbereich. Accessed at: Universität Flensburg (2013): Grenzüberschreitende Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung: Dänemark und Deutschland bündeln Kompetenzen. Pressemitteilung, : EuRegio Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein (DE-AT) EuRegio Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein (2017), on-line access to database of supported Interreg projects ( r= ) ESPON (2012): ULYSSES - Using applied research results from ESPON as a yardstick for cross-border spatial development planning. Targeted Analysis 2013/2/10. Scientific Report for the Final Report. Data Fact Sheets. Version 30/07/2012. Data Fact Sheet 3 EuRegio Salzburg Berchtesgadener Land Traunstein (pp ) 03 Galicia North Portugal EGTC (ES-PT) Galician Innovation Agency & Regional Coordination and Development Commission of the North (2015): Cross-border smart specialisation strategy of Galicia-Nothern Portugal (ris3t). Galicia Norte Portugal EGTC (no date mentioned): Galicia Norte Portugal European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation EGTC. Internationalization policies and strategies of the north Portugal region. Jerónimo, P. (2016): Faraway so close: cross-border migration in the Euro-region Galicia- North of Portugal and the unmet expectations of an easy socio-cultural integration. ICON-S 2016 International conference borders, otherness and public law. OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012): Public investment across levels of government: The Case of Galicia, Spain. OECD 28th Territorial Development Policy Committee. 4-5 December 2012, OECD Conference Centre. Oliveira, E. & Boisen, M. (2015): Geography and Planning of Europe. Zooming in Spain (Galicia) & Portugal (Northern region). Lecture at the Univerity of Groningen / Faculty of Spatial Science on March 12, 2015). Groningen, The Netherlands. ESPON

113 Vieira, E. & Liron Lago, J. (n.d.): The Consolidation of the Galicia Norte Portugal European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation in Euroregion. Galicia Norte Portugal European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation (GNP-EGTC) 2010/2011 Xunta de Galicia (2012a): Estudio sobre costes de contexto en la frontera hispano-lusa en las áreas sectoriales de servicios sociales y empleo. Informe final. Santiago de Compostela, 30 de julio de Bloque temático II, análisis normativo y competencial en el ámbito de los servicios sociales y de empleo. Xunta de Galicia (2012b): Estudio sobre costes de contexto en la frontera hispano-lusa en las áreas sectoriales de servicios sociales y empleo. Informe final. Santiago de Compostela, 30 de julio de Bloque temático III, definición de los problemas advertidos y análisis de las dificultades existentes en el proceso de implementación de un régimen de cooperación transfronteriza en las áreas objeto de estudio." 04 Bothnian Arc (SE-FI) Bothnian Arc Association (2013): Material for a seminar on Cross-Border Regional Innovation Policies. 19 February 2013 Bothnian Arc Association (2016): Material for a seminar on How to Integrate Immigrants in Bothnian Arc Area? 8. December Bothnian Arc Association (2017): Bothnian Arc brochure. 05/2017 (includes an overview on the development vision and on accomplished projects). Bothnian Arc Association (2017), on-line overview on finalised and ongoing cross-border projects. Nauwelaers, C., K. Maguire and G. Ajmone Marsan (2013): The Case of the Bothnian Arc (Finland-Sweden) Regions and Innovation: Collaborating Across Borders, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2013/17, OECD Publishing. Norrbotten County Council (2011): Cross-border Healthcare II-Tornedalen. 05 Pomurje Region (SI-AT, SI-HR, SI-HU) Banovec, P. & Domadenik P. (2016): Pricing approaches in the case of cross border water supply. Procedia engineering 162 (2016): Dešnik, S & Domanjko, G. (2011): Goričko-Raab-Őrség Developing with Nature in a Trilateral Park. In: M. Vasilijević and T. Pezold, eds (2014): Crossing Borders for Nature. European Examples of Transboundary Conservation. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Programme Office for South-Eastern Europe, Available from: [Accessed 15 November 2014]. Gabrovec, M. (2013): Open borders with uncoordinated public transport: The case of the Slovenian-Italian Border. In: European Journal of Geography, Volume 4, Number 4, December Hojnik, J. (2012): Pravice evropskih bolnikov na področju čezmejnega zdravstvenega varstva v EU : na poti k enotnemu zdravstvenemu območju. Zdravniški vestnik 81(12): Link: Pešelj, T. (2015): Čezmejno nudenje in dostop do zdravstvenih storitev. Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za upravo. Peterlin, M. / Simoneti, M. (2016): The Trilateral Nature Park Goričko-Raab-Örség: A Project- Based Mode of Territorial Governance. In: Schmitt, P. and Van Well, L., eds. Territorial Governance across Europe: Pathways, Practices and Prospects. Routledge, Oxford, pp Raab Nature Park, Goričko Nature Park and Őrség National Park (2006): Partnerstvo o sodelovanju, krepitvi in oblikovanju skupnega razvoja ob tromeji med Madžarsko, Avstrijo in Slovenijo na področju varstva narave, turizma, kulture, izobraževanja in regionalnega razvoja. Available from: [Accessed 5 January 2015]. Strban, G. (2009): Pravica do zdravljenja v drugi državi članici. Pravna praksa 11: ESPON

114 06 South Karelia (FI-RU) ESPON (2012): ULYSSES - Using applied research results from ESPON as a yardstick for cross-border spatial development planning. Targeted Analysis 2013/2/10. Scientific Report for the Final Report. Multi-Thematic Territorial Analysis of the Eastern and Northern Finland Russia Cross-Border Area (Euregio Karelia). Version 30/07/2012. Regional Council of South Karelia (2017): Development of Parikkala Syväoro border crossing point supports regional economy and cross border co-operation. February Teplov, R. & Väätänen, J. (2015): Cross-Border Tourism Impact on the Lappeenranta and the South Karelia Region's Service Infrastructure Euroregion Elbe/Labe (DE-CZ) Euroregion Elbe/Labe (2016): Öffentliche Erklärung der EUROREGION ELBE/LABE als Kritik an der Praxis der Förderung sächsisch-tschechischer Projekte. Pressemitteilung Nr.: Euroregion Elbe/Labe (2017a), on-line access to annual reports ( and to supported projects ( Euroregion Elbe/Labe (2017b), on-line access to information on the work of thematic working groups (Fachgruppen) e.g. on civil protection and disaster management, spatial planning, environmental protection, transport etc. ( Friedrich-Schiller-Gymnasium Pirna (2017), on-line information on the bi-national bilingual German-Czech education ( Kowalke, Hartmut; König, Björn (2001): Komplexes grenzüberschreitendes Regionalkonzept der Euroregion Elbe/Labe (EEL). Kowalke, H. & Schmidt, O. (2011). Auswirkungen der Grenzöffnung auf die Städte und Gemeinden der Euroregion Elbe/Labe. Säachsische Regionalplanertagung, Höckendorf 5. November Accessed at: Nationalpark Sächsische Schweiz (2017), on-line information on cross-border dimension ( and cooperation activities ( Regionalverkehr Dresden (2017): Internationale Buslinie 398 (Dresden-) Altenberg/ Erzgebirge - Teplice (CZ). Accessed at: Schröter, B., Kowalke, H., Thalheim, K. (2013): Geotourismus ohne Grenzen - Voraussetzungen und Umsetzungsvorschläge zur Erichtung eines grenzüberschreitenden Geoparks im südöstlichen Erzgebirge (Deutschland - Tschechische Republik). In: Geologica Saxonica, p Regionalverkehr Dresden (2017): Unsere Regionalbuslinie seit über 20 Jahren in der EUROREGION täglich zwischen Sachsen und Böhmen unterwegs. Accessed at: 08 Euregio Scheldemond (BE-NL) Euregio Scheldemond (n.d.): Strategische Visie Euregio Scheldemond. Euregio Scheldemond (n.d.): Euregio Scheldemond 2020: Actieplan - Van strategie naar actie (i.e. cross-border development perspective up to 2020). Euregio Scheldemond (n.d.): Twenty years crossing borders Zealand, East- and West- Flanders. ESPON

115 Euregio Scheldemond (2014a): Grenzeloze kansen voor werk - resultaten Mogelijkheden voor Scheldemond. Euregio Scheldemond (2014b): Analyse competenties knelpuntberoepen. December Ponds, R., van Woerkens, C., Marlet, G (2013): Atlas van kansen voor de Euregio Scheldemond. Atlas voor gemeenten, Utrecht, Alentejo (ES-PT) CCDR Centro - Comissão de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento da Região Centro (2011): EUROACE Uma estratégia para a Eurorregião Alentejo-Centro-Extremadura / Una estrategia para la Eurorregión Alentejo-Centro-Extremadura / A strategy for the Euroregion Alentejo-Centro-Extremadura. Dezembro de 2011 / Diciembre de ESPON (2012): ULYSSES - Using applied research results from ESPON as a yardstick for cross-border spatial development planning. Targeted Analysis 2013/2/10. Scientific Report for the Final Report. Multi-Thematic Territorial Analysis of the Extremadura-Alentejo Cross Border Area. Version 30/07/2012. EUROAAA Eurorgeion Alentejo, Algarve, Andaluzia (2013): The guadiana rive ras core of cooperation. Open days, Brussels, 9 October EUROAAA - Eurorgeion Alentejo, Algarve, Andaluzia (2015): Hacia la cooperación entre las estrategias regionals de especialización inteligente (RIS-3). EUROACE - Euroregion Alentejo, Centro, Extremadura (2013): Especialización y cooperación en eficiencia energética y energías renovables en el ámbito de la EUROACE (Workshop on energy efficiency and renewable energies, Badajoz, 25 September, 2013: various presentations accessible at: EUROACE - Euroregion Alentejo, Centro, Extremadura (2014): Los desafíos demográficos y el envejecimiento activo en la EUROACE (Workshop on demographic challenges, Badajoz, 26 September 2014: various presentations accessible at: EUROACE - Euroregion Alentejo, Centro, Extremadura (2017): Overview on objectives and cross-border action in different policy fields, accessed at: 10 EUREGIO Bayerischer Wald Böhmerwald Unterer Inn (DE-AT-CZ) Amt der NÖ Landesregierung (2011): Zusammen Wachsen - ETZ Kleinprojektefonds Niederösterreich-Tschechien. St. Pölten, Februar ABCFFD Austrian Bavarian Czech Forest Fire Drill 2017 (2017a): Bericht zur Ausgangssituation und dem derzeitigen Stand der Übungsvorbereitung. Veröffentlicht am 9. April Accessed at: ABCFFD Austrian Bavarian Czech Forest Fire Drill 2017 (2017b): Länderübergreifende Waldbrandübung im Dreiländereck Österreich Deutschland Tschechien. Information Pressekonferenz, 14. Juni Accessed at: Dokoupil J. et al (2014): Euroregion Böhmerwald / Bayerischer Wald-Unterer Inn / Mühlviertel. Plzen, EUREGIO Bayerischer Wald Böhmerwald Unterer Inn, on-line download of Euregio activity reports (EUREGIO-Geschäftsberichte) between Accessed at: Guten Tag Österreich (2016): Rettungsdienst: Grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit zwischen Österreich und Tschechien besiegelt. 24. Januar Accessed at: ESPON

116 Nationalpark Thayatal (2017): Leitbild Naturvermittlung und Umweltbildung im Nationalpark Thayatal. Accessed at: NOEGUS- Niederösterreichischer Gesundheits- und Sozialfonds (no date mentioned): Niederösterreichs grenzüberschreitende Aktivitäten in der Zusammenarbeit im Gesundheitswesen im Rahmen der EU-Förderperiode St. Pölten. Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (2002): Gesetz zu dem Vertrag vom 19. September 2000 zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Tschechischen Republik über die Zusammenarbeit der Polizeibehörden und der Grenzschutzbehörden in den Grenzgebieten. Bundesgesetzblatt Jahrgang 2002 Teil II, Nr. 14, 16. April Republik Österreich, Parlament (2016): Rahmenabkommen zwischen der Republik Österreich und der Tschechischen Republik über grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit im Rettungsdienst. Accessed at: Stepan, D. & Biffl. G. (2017): Projekte der grenzüberschreitenden Zusammenarbeit von Österreich und Tschechien im Gesundheitsbereich. In: Pfannstiel/Focke/Mehlich, Hrsg.: Management von Gesundheitsregionen II: Regionale Vernetzungsstrategien und Lösungsansätze zur Verbesserung der Gesundheitsversorgung, S ESPON

117 F. Survey structure The following details the questions as outlined in the survey after the selection of the language and the landing page which explains the objective of the survey and gives examples of what is and what is not considered a CPS. Possible answers are depicted in italics, simple open fields are not further specified. Questions on the respondent 1. In which European countries sharing a common border is(are) the cross-border service(s) is provided? Select up to 3 countries 2. What type of institution do you represent? Regional administration / Local administration / Publically owned enterprise (local/regional) / Public equivalent body (e.g. university, hospital etc.) / Private enterprise (with concession for public service provision) / Euroregion (or similar) / Other (please specify) 3. Please provide your contact details First name / Last name / Organisation / address CPS in your region 4. Which CPS are you aware off in your cross-border region that are provided already? Please select the policy field (a-g) and the type of CPS (i, ii, iii etc.). (multiple answers possible)? a. Transport i. New public transport services (e.g. bus, rail/tram, ferry etc.) ii. Harmonisation/integration of exisiting domestic public transport services iii. Steady cooperation among public authorities on border crossing points at external EU borders b. Spatial planning, economic development, tourism and culture i. Tourism offices and permanent joint public services for tourism promotion ii. Steady cooperation between publically managed cultural heritage or museums iii. Joint sports associations or sports facilities (with access granted the same way and at the same price for residents of each side of the border) iv. Cross-border business zones and joint public services enhancing business activities v. Facilities and support services / tools enhancing cross-border spatial planning c. Healthcare, long-term care and social inclusion ESPON

118 i. Administrative and financial access to health care and/or social care services across the border ii. Day-to-day primary healthcare, hospital care (secondary and tertiary care), information services facilitating patient mobility iii. Provision of medical services for hospitals iv. Non-hospital care services and public services supporting temporarily presence of foreign care professionals in the neighbouring country v. Medical emergency and rescue services vi. Long-term care services for senior citizens and people with chronic illness or disability vii. Social assistance and integration services for specific target groups threatened by poverty, discrimination or social exclusion d. Education and training i. Family allowance to access childcare and early childhood education facilities across the border ii. Joint Childcare and early childhood education facilities iii. Schools with joint educational schemes, steady cooperation between schools for the exchange / mobility of pupils and teachers iv. Universities with joint curricula, steady cooperation between universities for the exchange / mobility of students and professors v. Vocational training with joint educational schemes, steady cooperation between vocational training facilities for the mobility of trainees vi. Steady cooperation between public authorities for the recognition of diploma or professional qualification certificates e. Labour market and employment i. Information and advice services facilitating the mobility of cross-border workers and their access to neighbouring social insurance systems ii. Cross-border job placement services for unemployed persons iii. Services facilitating the access of cross-border workers for further qualification and life-long learning f. Communication broadcasting and information society i. Joint postal services and telecom services, including the 112 European emergency number ii. Joint broadcasting services (radio and television) iii. Digital service infrastructures and digital public services, including e- governance g. Environmental protection, natural resources management and climate change action i. Joint management of border rivers, river basins, lakes or estuaries (including flood damage prevention) ESPON

119 ii. Joint management of nature parks, landscape parks and natural reserves (including prevention of forest fires) iii. Service stimulation eco-services or enhancing resilience of natural resources to climate change iv. Treatment of solid waste and sewage water, drinking water provision v. Joint and steady support for a greening of existing public services and cross-border public information vi. Production and distribution of energy from renewable energy sources h. Civil protection and disaster management; i. Mutual assistance in case of accidents and for combating fires or forest fires ii. Joint flooding management iii. Services increasing the preparedness for / mitigating the effects of geohazards, extreme meteorological hazards or man-made technological hazards i. Citizens affairs, justice and public security i. Advice services for citizens on cross-border matters and services facilitating the cross-border administrative handling of documents relating to life events (e.g birth, marriage, death etc.) ii. Cooperation between actors of the judicial system and/or between customs administrations iii. Joint crime prevention and criminal investigation (police cooperation) 5. Are you representing the provider of the CPS or do you have profound knowledge available about the CPS delivery, obstacles etc.? Yes / No Contact details on actors with profound knowledge 6. If you are neither the provider of the CPS nor have detailed knowledge about the CPS provision, please enter the contact details of the providers you are aware of in your border region. Open field for (first name, last name, institution, address) per CPS ticked under question 4 OR: Provider of profound knowledge 6. Please indicate the CPS that is provided in your region and to which you are referring in the following 7. Name of CPS 8. Please describe shortly what the CPS is about. ESPON

120 9. What territory is covered? Please name the corresponding territorial unit by using the official name of the unit if applicable. 10. At which location is the service offered? Please enter the address. If the service is provided at more than one location, please enter these addresses as well. Open fields for different postal addresses Initial development and set-up of the CPS 11. Who are the bodies involved that are responsible for the CPSP? If relevant, add information of bodies on both sides of the border. Names of the institutions / Contact persons / addresses / Postal addresses 12. When was the CPS established and ready for use? Year to be selected 13. How long did it take to establish the CPS from the very first ideas to the opening of the service? Please enter either the number of years or months. 14. Please provide a short description of the grounds on which the CPS was introduced. What were the shared problems, needs or potentials etc.? 15. Was the CPS introduced on ground of a specific policy framework document (e.g. territorial development concept, sector-policy plan etc.)? If yes, please indicate the respective type of document. Existing general action plan agreed by a cross-border structure/partnership / Existing cross-border sectoral policy plan / Existing cross-border spatial plan / Others (please specify) / No specific document 16. What were the obstacles encountered when developing and setting-up the CPS? (multiple answers possible at both levels a and i )? a. Legal and administrative obstacles i. Incompatible domestic legislations ii. Asymmetric or unclear competences/responsibilities of policy actors iii. Different national interpretations of transposed EU legislation iv. A lack of counter-organizations /counter-authorities at the other side of the border v. Other legal and administrative obstacles: b. Physical / natural obstacles and barriers i. Missing transport infrastructures / services ii. Mountain range iii. Water bodies such as large rivers, lakes, or open sea iv. Other (please specify) c. Economic and demographic discontinuities ESPON

121 i. One-sided scarce budgetary resources ii. Cross-border flow patterns counteracting cost efficient CPS provision iii. Unbalanced demand for CPS at both side of the border (one side high demand, other side low or no demand) iv. Other obstacles due to discontinuities (please specify) d. Existing socio-cultural divides i. Mental barriers ii. Mistrust iii. Language barrier iv. Other obstacles due to socio-cultural divides (please specify) e. Other obstacles (please specify) 17. What are your main target groups for the CPS? (multiple answers possible) General public / Pupils and students and apprentices of all ages / Cross-border workers / People of all ages requiring medical or permanent care / Economic actors of various sectors / Public authorities at local and regional level / Other stakeholders and experts / Other person groups (please specify) 18. How large is the potential user group for the services in your region in total, and on either side of the border in terms of approx. number of people? Total number of people / Number of people in country 1 (please specify the country) / Number of people in country 2 (please specify the country) / Number of people in country 3 (please specify the country) Legal, administrative, political and governance framework relevant for the provision of the CPS 19. What modifications of the cross-border legal framework were necessary to implement the CPS? (multiple answers possible) Elaboration / conclusion of a new inter-state agreement for cross-border cooperation in a specific policy area (e.g. healthcare, rescue services, civil protection, police cooperation, environmental management etc.) // Adaptation of an already existing interstate agreement for cross-border cooperation in a specific policy area // Elaboration / conclusion of a new convention / protocol between regional or local authorities for cross-border cooperation in a specific policy area // Adaptation of an already existing regional or local convention / protocol for cross-border cooperation in a specific policy area // Conclusion of a specific local / regional cooperation agreement between the competent public service-organising authorities and / or the direct service providers (e.g. hospitals, social insurances or employment agencies, transport operators, educational institutions etc.) // Other (please specify) 20. What adaptations of the cross-border governance framework were necessary to implement the CPS? (multiple answers possible) ESPON

122 Establishment of an intergovernmental cross-border committee / working group / mixed commission in a specific policy area (esp. in connection to thematic inter-state agreements, see above) // Establishment of a new cross-border structure for the CPS without an own legal personality // Establishment of a new cross-border body for the CPS by making use of a country s domestic law (e.g. on associations, mixed economic companies or public companies) // Establishment of a new public-law based cross-border body for the CPS by making use of specific provisions in existing interstate agreements // Establishment of a new cross-border body for the CPS by making use of the EGTC Regulation (EU) No 1302/2013 (1082/2006 respectively) // Adaptation of an already existing cross-border structure / body (e.g. extension of responsibilities, change of legal status etc.) // Other (please specify) 21. What domestic adjustments (at national, regional or local level) were necessary on one or both sides of the border to implement the CPS? (multiple answers possible) New domestic sector policy law or change of existing sector policy law (national / regional) / Set-up of new administrative structures or departments in the concerned service-organising authorities (i.e. regional / local authorities) / Adaptation of administrative implementation provisions of the concerned service-organising authorities (i.e. regional / local authorities) / Adaptation of operating provisions of the concerned direct service providers / Other (please specify) Features of the actual service provision (e.g. delivery mode, scope of the CPS, use, perception, effects and wider impact, expected modifications etc.) 22. What is the delivery mode which characterises best the CPS? (one option only) 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, which continues to be managed unilaterally on one side of the border (i.e. delegated delivery) / Better cross-border coordination of specific aspects linked to existing domestic public service provision on both sides of the border / Other (please specify) 23. Would you consider the CPS as sufficient for addressing the needs originally identified? For each of the following category one of four options (Yes, more or less completely; Yes, at least partly; Rather not; Not at all): Adequate supply at the location of potential users / Adequate territorial accessibility / Adequate temporal accessibility / Adequate cultural/language accessibility / Adequate affordability / Adequate quality of service provision ESPON

123 24. How often are the services being used by local population? If none of the categories is appropriate for the CPS you are referring to, please add information in the open answer option (f). Frequently, on a daily basis / Often, several times per week / Rarely, one or two times per week / Very rarely, less than once a week / Other, above is not adequate (please specify) 25. What are the main benefits (i.e. positive effects, wider impact) that the existing CPS generates in terms of a stronger integration of the cross-border area? 26. Do you provide other CPS in your cross-border area or do you have detailed knowledge of another CPS? Yes / No same questions as before, if yes Concluding questions across CPS 27. Are there any plans to introduce new CPS in near future in your region? If yes, please indicate relevant CPS in the list (multiple answers possible) No, none & all categories as detailed in question Which other CPS would you consider useful for your cross-border region, which to your knowledge currently do not exist? 29. Why is the CPS not yet provided? What are the hampering factors? (multiple answers possible at both levels a and i ) Same categories as in question Do you have any general comments that may be helpful for other stakeholders in Europe to establish CPS? You may refer to selected CPS or CPS in general. ESPON

124 G. Calendar for regional stakeholder workshops Preferred planned weeks in Case study region Responsible partners period (calendar period (service Actual date weeks) provider partners) 01 Region Sønderjylland Schleswig (DE-DK) TCP / (S4S) 22 24? 02 EuRegio Salzburg- Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein (AT- DE) EureConsult / (S4S) 25 27? 03 Galicia North Portugal EGTC (ES- PT) 04 Bothnian Arc (FI- SE) IGOT Better 23-25? Nordregio 21 23? 05 Pomurje Region (AT-HR-HU-SI) IPoP (S4S) Weeks are preferred? 06 South Karelia (FI- RU) 07 Euroregion Elbe/Labe (CZ-DE) 08 Euregio Scheldemond (BE-NL) Nordregio 21 23? S4S 24 26? S4S 23 25? 09 Alentejo (ES-PT) IGOT Better 23-25? 10 EUREGIO Bayerischer Wald Böhmerwald Unterer Inn (AT-CZ-DE) EureConsult / (S4S) 24 26? ESPON

125 H. Map templates for case study areas Map templates have been produced for each case study. They will be used to map and to present the detailed analyses findings for each case. The map templates are based upon an earlier ESPON Zoom-in Mapkit, since the most recent ESPON Zoom-in Mapkit as of November 2017 does unfortunately not allow to change the map extent without destroying the overall layout elements. Following are map templates for zoom-in maps for all our ten case study areas. The map order is from the north to the south of Europe: - BothnianArc (Finnish-Swedish border, Map A-1) - South Karelia (Finnish-Russian border, Map A-2) - Region Sønderjylland-Schleswig (Danisch-German border, Map A-3) - Euregio Scheldemond (Belgian-Dutch border, Map A-4) - Euroregion Elbe/Laabe (Czech-German border, Map A-5) - EUREGIO Bayerischer Wald-Böhmerwald-Unterer Inn (Austrian-Czech-German border, Map A-6) - EuRegio Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein (Austrian-German border, Map A-7) - Pomurje Region (Austrian-Slovenian border, Map A-8) - Galicia-Norte de Portugal EGTC (Portuguese-Spanish border, Map A-9) - Alentejo-Central Extremadura-Algarva-Andaluzia (Portuguese-Spanish border, Map A-10) As far as possible, the delineation of the case study areas was done at NUTS-3 level by using the generalized NUTS-3 region layer obtained from ESPON as part of the ESPON Mapkits, with some necessary adaptations for LAU-2 units). The project team decided to use the generalized ESPON NUTS-3 region layer in order to ensure that case study boundaries coincide with region boundaries for the comparative European-wide maps. This decision however causes some problems when preparing zoom-in maps, where the boundaries of the generalized NUTS-3 regions do not coincide with LAU-2 unit boundaries. This is particularly true for those case studies who are, at least partially, using LAU-2 units as boundaries. For some case study areas we are still lacking precise information about their exact delineation (in particular for the Russian part of South Karelia case study). Here, we are hoping for feedback from the stakeholders. ESPON

126 Map A- 1: BothnianArc map template ESPON

127 Map A- 2: South Karelia map template ESPON

128 Map A- 3: Region Sønderjylland-Schleswig map template ESPON

129 Map A- 4: Euregio Scheldemond map template ESPON

130 Map A- 5: Euroregion Elbe/Laabe map template ESPON

131 Map A- 6: EUREGIO Bayerischer Wald-Böhmerwald-Unterer Inn map template ESPON

132 Map A- 7: EuRegio Salzburg-Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein map template ESPON

133 Map A- 8: Pomurje Region map template ESPON

134 Map A- 9: Galicia-Norte de Portugal EGTC map template ESPON

135 Map A- 10: Alentejo-Central Extremadura_Algarve-Andaluzia map template ESPON

136 I. Case study template 0 SUMMARY (1 page) Brief summary of the case study report, which highlights the main findings. Please, address briefly the most important aspects of the case study, incl. policy objectives of the case study, main CPS provided and missing and planned for the future, main results deriving from the analysis regarding needs for further action, key lessons learned / recommendations (that might be of interest for other regions, too), limitations of the case study report 1 METHODOLOGY (1/2 page) Brief summary of the applied methods and used information sources Please, give a brief account on the methods used for the case study incl. applied methods (e.g. desktop research, interviews etc.), sources of information (e.g. key documents, contact with stakeholders of the case study, interviewees, etc.). 2 THE CASE STUDY REGION AT A GLANCE (5 pages and maps) Brief summary of the relevant region incl. maps Please, give a brief account on the case study region regarding main features characterising the multidimensional reality of the border / borders in the cross-border area (i.e. political dimension, physical / geographical dimension, economic dimension, socio-cultural dimension) and potential border effects (i.e. closure & opening effects), with focus on their relevance for CPSP; other relevant territorial and/or sector-specific features relevant for CPS provision (i.e. those not considered in the previous point), existing cross-border structures / topical networks and common policy objectives (i.e. in joint action plans, spatial plans or sector plans) relevant for present-time and future CPS, a summary overview on all CPS currently provided in the case study area (incl. maps depicting the border situation). 3 CPS PROVIDED IN THE REGION (3-4 pages per CPS) Brief summary of the relevant CPS (max. 3-4 current CPS) What the relevant CPS are is to be decided jointly with the regional stakeholder. This may be e.g. existing CPS in the region linked thematically to future needs or other CPS of the region highlighting relevant regional characteristics/administrative obstacles etc. linked to future needs. Please, give a brief account on the individual CPS provided in the region regarding a short description what the CPS is about, the territory covered, locations of CPS provision, time of establishment of the CPS, type & size of target groups, frequency of CPS use ESPON

137 3.1 General and/or theme-specific legal framework conditions for CPS Did the CPS require the prior establishment of a wider cross-border legal / administrative framework for cooperation on the policy theme at stake? If yes, how was this done (e.g. conclusion of thematic interstate agreements) and by whom? Was the CPS initiated in relation to a provision in policy-specific EU-legislation? Was the CPS initiated on ground of a provision in a thematic interstate agreement providing for cross-border cooperation in a particular policy area? Is a continuous strategic cooperation established among different service-organising public authorities (e.g. national, regional/local) for providing an operational backing to CPSP? If yes, for which purpose (e.g. elimination of legal / technical problems; guidance / advice to local authorities on CPSP; supervision of the quality of service provision)? Was the CPS initiated as a voluntary action of the concerned cross-border partners (i.e. without any legal reference framework)? Had there been any jointly defined policy objectives that were underpinning this initiative (e.g. in a cross-border action plan, spatial plan or sector policy plan)? 3.2 The production base for CPSP Which infrastructure category is used as production base for a CPS (i.e. hard infrastructure, soft infrastructure, green infrastructure, system interface infrastructure)? Was the used infrastructure newly established or is the CPS provided on ground of an existing domestic infrastructure (e.g. via its cross-border extension)? Was the new establishment of a CPS infrastructure time- or resources consuming (financial)? Did this lead to a long preparation phase before the actual start of the CPS (i.e. how long)? What is the ownership status of the used infrastructure (e.g. one-sided or joint ownership)? Which arrangements exist for the ongoing maintenance of an infrastructure (e.g. responsibilities, territorial division of tasks and cost)? Which arrangements exist for a potential further development of an infrastructure (e.g. funding of infrastructure-enlargement or infrastructure-modernisation)? 3.3 Needs addressed and related tasks of the CPS Which are the cross-border needs that motivated the establishment of an existing CPS? Had there been difficulties in developing a common view on cross-border needs or in reaching a consensus on how these needs should be addressed or tackled by the existing CPS? What are the main tasks of the CPS (i.e. supply task, development task, preservation task)? What is the main intervention rationale of the CPS for addressing / tackling cross-border needs (i.e. quality improvement, effectiveness improvement, efficiency improvement)? What is the outreach of the CPS (e.g. population connected to sewage water treatment / water provision / energy production; actual users of public transport or information services etc.)? 3.3 Organisation and delivery of the CPS Had there been blocking factors that delayed the establishment of the CPS (i.e. legal / ESPON

138 administrative obstacles, physical obstacles, economic disparities or socio-cultural dividing lines)? If yes, which were these and in what way did they hinder the establishment? Which solutions were found to overcome obstacles? Have new hurdles emerged during the ongoing provision of the CPS? If yes, what are their adverse effects? Can they be overcome by using existing legal instruments / tools or are new approaches needed to achieve this? What are the main features of CPS implementation (i.e. basic model, related organisational structures and corresponding delivery / management modes)? Did the CPS require the conclusion of a specific regional / local cooperation agreement or the establishment of a specific structure without a legal personality? What are the benefits or disadvantages associated with this formalisation? Did the CPS require the setting-up of a body with an own legal personality? If yes, which legal source was used for this institutionalisation (i.e. national law, interstate agreements or EU-law) and what advantage was seen in this choice (in comparison to other potential options)? 3.3 Conclusions, outlook and elements of good practice Is the current legal / administrative framework on cross-border cooperation adequate for CPSP? If not, what should be changed and by whom? Which are elements of good practice of this CPS that can be recommended to stakeholders in other cross-border areas? 4 THE FUTURE OF CPS IN THE REGION (3 pages per future CPS development 4.1 to 4.3) Brief summary of the relevant region CPS Please, give a brief account on selected future CPS discussed in detail with the stakeholders: What are the needs identified for further CPS development (incl. especially needs raised by the stakeholder(s)? What is the rationale for the focus on the selected (potential) future CPS that are deepened in the case study?. 4.1 Possible further development and set-up of the CPS Which are current cross-border needs (i.e. problems or potentials) that are not yet addressed by CSPP in the stakeholder area? Are there difficulties in establishing a common view on identified problems / potentials or a consensus on way of delivering CPSP? If yes, what are the reasons? What are future cross-border needs (i.e. challenges or opportunities) stemming from the consequences of major societal changes (e.g. demographic change, environmental degradation and climate change) or country-wide developments (e.g. changes of economy, society and policy) that will require an adaptation of existing CPSP and/or the development of a new CPS? What are the relevant cross-border policy documents (e.g. a cross-border action plan, spatial plan or sector policy plan) and their corresponding policy objectives that support the CPS development? When was the idea for the service first developed? ESPON

139 Which blocking factors (i.e. legal / administrative obstacles, physical obstacles, economic disparities or socio-cultural dividing lines) may hamper the development and set-up process? What could be possible solutions to overcome the obstacles? 4.2 Legal, administrative, political and governance framework needed for the provision of the CPS What cross-border legal framework adaptations would be necessary / suitable to implement the CPS? What are possible advantages / disadvantages of different solutions? What cross-border governance framework adaptations would be necessary / suitable to implement the CPS? What are possible advantages / disadvantages of different solutions? What domestic adjustments (at national, regional or local level) would be necessary / suitable on one or both sides of the border to implement the CPS? What are possible advantages / disadvantages of different solutions? How could the cooperation be formalised? 4.3 Potential next steps Please provide a short outline of the next steps necessary to develop and implement the CPS What is the tentative schedule / timeline foreseen by the stakeholders? 4.4 Assessment of future CPS development in general (not per CPS) Please give a short assessment of the alternative development paths/steps/models across potential future CPS 5 LESSONS LEARNED, RECOMMENDATIONS & TRANSFERABILITY (2 pages) Lessons learned in relation to the successes and failures of the case study, focussing on aspects suitable for CPS development in the case study region and policy transfers What are particular lessons & recommendations for individual CPS to be developed in the region? What are general lessons & recommendations (nexus model) for developing CPS in the region? What are interesting findings and examples of good practice that may be useful for other cross-border regions? 6 REFERENCES & INTERVIEWS Overview of sources Please list the references and documents used, the interviews incl. information on the interviewee, his/her institution and date of interview. ESPON

140 J. Template for good practice factsheets Title of the good practice CPSP: Basic information Countries and regions covered Type of border Year of implementation Function and policy field of the CPSP Short summary of the service Further information (e.g. web-page if available, or contact details) Cross-border public service provision Needs to be answered by the CPSP Stakeholder providing the service Legal and administrative framework of the service - responsibilities of involved stakeholders - general & specific agreements for implementing the service Financing sources & schemes Types of target groups & frequency of use Challenges & obstacles Challenges & obstacles before the CPSP implementation Solutions for overcoming obstacles Further obstacles still relevant (e.g. affecting further service development) Results What has changed in terms of service accessibility since the introduction? ESPON

141 K. Proposed tentative structure for "Practical Guide" N. Section Content 1 Introduction Objective, target groups & structure of the guide 2 Methodological approach How to design the processes in principal: setting priorities, selecting methods for analysis, organise participation, ensuring implementation 3 Policy field 1 What is the need? What shall be achieved by developing a CPS? What is required to achieve the objective? What alternatives exist to implement the CPS in the field?. Y Policy field X What is the need? What shall be achieved by developing a CPS? What is required to achieve the objective? What alternatives exist to implement the CPS in the field? ESPON

142 L. Preliminary EU-wide CPS analysis results Method for assigning CPS to border segments Following Figure A-1 illustrates the process of assigning CPS to segments of national borders in order to count and analyse the number of CPS per border segment. The process of assigning CPS to border segments involves several steps, as follows: 1) Segmentation of national borders: All national borders in Europe are divided in a way that each segment between NUTS-3 boundaries is treated as an individual element. Each of these segments is be assigned a unique ID (1, 2, 3, 4, ). 2) First CPS: The locations of the service provision of the first CPS on either side of the border are georeferenced and are then linked by a straight virtual line (red dotted line in Step 2 in Figure A-1), crossing the national border. 3) National border count: The segment of the national border that is crossed by this virtual line is selected, and the number of assigned CPS is increased by one. 4) Next CPS: Then, the locations of service provision of the next CPS are georeferenced and also connected by straight virtual links (dotted light blue lines in Step 3 in Figure A- 1). 5) National border count: Again, the national border segments that are crossed by this virtual lines are selected, and the number of assigned CPS is increased by one for each of these segments. 6) Specific cases: Sometimes, a CPS is provided only at one place (for instance, a centralized training center), so that it is not possible to connect two or more locations on both sides of the border. In this case, the place of service provision is georeferenced, and the closest national border segment is selected and assigned accordingly (Step 4 in Figure A-1). 7) The last three steps will be repeated until all CPS in Europe have been assigned to national borders. As far as possible, these steps are automated by scripts in a GIS environment. It is worth to mention that the level of detail for georeferencing of CPS (i.e. the identification of the place of service provision) is the level of cities, towns and villages; detailed addresses are not used. The level of cities, towns and villages, however, is considered as sufficient level for our kind of analyses. ESPON

143 Figure A- 1: Process of assigning CPS to national border segments Source: Service provider, 2018 ESPON

144 First detailed analyses of CPS provision in Europe The following maps provide some detailed insights into the CPS provision in Europe, based upon the tentative information we received from the literature review and from the first stakeholder feedback. Therefore, these first results should be considered with caution, and may be subject to change once the entire results of the online survey are available. However, the maps may already demonstrate and underline our analytical framework. Map A-11 zooms into the borders of the Benelux countries, France, Germany and Northern Switzerland, highlighting the area in Europe with the highest current density of CPS. The French-German border is currently the border with the highest share of CPS in Europe (17%), followed by the Belgian-French, Belgium-Dutch and German-Dutch borders. Map A- 11: Location of CPS providers in the Benelux countries ESPON

145 Map A- 12: CPS - Types of services/fields of intervention along the Benelux borders Map A-12 is differentiating the CPS services for the Benelux area by illustrating the themes (fields of intervention). The Belgian-French border shows a strong focus on CPS in healthcare (different ZOASTs, see Map A-13); transport CPS can be found around Luxembourg and Lake Constance; furthermore, CPS for civil protection and disaster management (flood prevention) play a large role along all these borders, due to the high number of large rivers in that area (Rhine, Maas, Moselle, Saar etc.). But there are also CPS concerned with labour market/employment, education and training, or spatial planning and tourism in the area shown in the map extent, reflecting the rich array of themes and interventions. ESPON

146 Map A- 13: CPS in health care and health care areas Map A-13 shows that some healthcare CPS are connected with so-called health care areas (the different ZOASTs along the Belgian-French border) and other cooperations (for instance Telemedicine between Poland and Germany, TRISAN along the French-German border, and the IE-UK health partnership), while others are not. It thus would be interesting to analyse the relationship between both, i.e. whether health care areas are a prerequisite for establishing individual CPS services, or vice versa, whether and how they support and foster the implementation of CPS, for instance by providing necessary legal or administrative frameworks. ESPON

147 Map A- 14: Environment protection services and protected areas CPS in environment protection (Map A-14) belong to the very first cross-border services in Europe, establishing cooperation between nature parks, some of them dating back to the early 1960ies or even 1950ies. Thus, many of them are directly linked with the management of nature parks. Because many of these parks are crossing or at least touching national borders, there is immediate need to establish such cooperation. Still, as Map A-14 shows, there are still unused potentials to establish further CPS in environment protection along European borders. ESPON