EU INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL COOPERATION ACTIONS - BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FACTORS OF CONSIDERATION FOR A CPMR POSITION

Transcription

1 CONFÉRENCE DES RÉGIONS PÉRIPHÉRIQUES MARITIMES D EUROPE CONFERENCE OF PERIPHERAL MARITIME REGIONS OF EUROPE 6, rue Saint-Martin RENNES - F Tel. : + 33 (0) Fax : + 33 (0) e.mail : secretariat@crpm.org web : 23 FEBRUARY 2005 DISCUSSION PAPER FROM THE CPMR GENERAL SECRETARIAT EU INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL COOPERATION ACTIONS - BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FACTORS OF CONSIDERATION FOR A CPMR POSITION I. GENERAL BACKGROUND 1. In order to draw up a CPMR position on the European Commission s proposals on cooperation, a seminar on European territorial cooperation after 2006: proposals from the regions was organised by the CPMR and AEBR in Taormina (Sicily) on 21 and 22 October To this end, the General Secretariat drew up a paper entitled Draft joint positions of the AEBR and CPMR on the proposals for regulations on territorial cooperation dated July The seminar failed to result in a final position. This was because a certain number of remarks raised during the seminar, mainly by the Mediterranean regions, were not able to be discussed. It was therefore decided to put off the adoption of a position until the meeting of the Political Bureau in Santiago de Compostela on 14 January The observations made by representatives from the Mediterranean regions mainly concerned the refusal to restrict maritime cross-border cooperation to the 150 km limit proposed by the Commission. It was suggested to allow this type of cooperation within the same sea basin without subjecting it to distancerelated criteria. This position was set out in an from Sicily Region on 12 January 2005 requesting that the following wording be introduced into the CPMR position: consider that the distance criterion should not apply to cooperation actions within the same sea basin"(mediterranean, Baltic). At the meeting of the Political Bureau in Santiago de Compostela, the General Secretariat proposed three possibilities: i) maintain the 150 km criterion with a flexible interpretation; ii) remove the distance criterion for cooperation between islands or between regions and islands situated in the same sea basin; iii) remove the distance criterion for cooperation within the same sea basin. Discussions failed to reach a choice among these three options. However, they highlighted the need to take into account not only the practical aspects of cooperation, but also the various stakes involved including cultural and political factors and the surrounding context. It was therefore decided to put off the decision until the next Political Bureau meeting in Tulcea (RO) on 24 June With a view to reaching a joint position which remains the CPMR s top priority as a regional organisation it was decided, in accordance with the conclusions of the Santiago de Compostela Political Bureau meeting and in agreement with the General Secretariat, to hold a meeting between the interested parties on the afternoon of 2 nd March in Brussels, at the invitation of the Presidency of the Inter- Mediterranean Commission. It was also agreed to draft a preparatory working document to serve as a basis for discussions. The present paper constitutes this preparatory document. information and factors of consideration for a CPMR position p. 1

2 4. With regard to the three previous points, it is clear that we are up against a two-sided problem: - firstly, the need to establish a position on the European Commission s technical proposal on maritime cooperation under the cross-border strand (150 km distance criterion); - secondly, the need to give full meaning to cooperation policy, which extends beyond technical cooperation actions alone to include a political and cultural dimension, especially important in the Mediterranean context. This double-edged requirement leads us in turn to consider what position and working method the CPMR should adopt: should its priority be to react to the European Commission s proposals or should it first and foremost act as a mouthpiece for regional positions even though they are in contradiction with the Commission s proposals? The organisation s policy positions over the past years show that these two approaches are related in practice, and that the positions expressed by the Regions are conveyed by the organisation when there is a consensus between its members and when the adopted positions can be backed by objective arguments. There are therefore four major principles that should guide us in our discussions: i) the need to establish a joint position based on the fair treatment of the different geographical areas that make up the CPMR; ii) the need to put forward well-founded and objective arguments that take on board the different dimensions of the issues in question; iii) a working method that aims to reach a consensus, which means listening to one another and adopting a responsible attitude; iv) the political and technical acceptability of our positions. 5. In order to establish a basis for discussions that is as comprehensive and objective as possible, point II presents a summary of EU-led internal and external cooperation policies since 1989, together with the Commission s proposals for the forthcoming period This information should help to clear up ambiguities and misunderstandings that have so far distorted the discussion, and help the CPMR to establish a clear position. Before taking things further, it is therefore important to take an objective look at recent developments concerning the different cooperation instruments. II. RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL TERRITORIAL COOPERATION 1. Context of the analysis.. Cooperation actions are subdivided into two types: internal cooperation, i.e. concerning EU Member States; and external cooperation with neighbouring third countries;. Three cooperation periods may be identified: the period from ; the period from ; and the period. Prior to the Structural Funds Reform in 1989, all that existed besides the Structural Funds as such were the 29 IMPs (Integrated Mediterranean Programmes) and the 14 IDOs (Integrated Development Operations). information and factors of consideration for a CPMR position p. 2

3 PERIOD INTERNAL COOPERATION EXTERNAL COOPERATION Interreg Community Initiative Programme. Article 10 of the ERDF. ( Europe 2000, planning in border areas,. MED Programmes Med Urbs for local authorities. Ouverture network (cooperation between EU regions and East European regions) urban issues and interregional cooperation). Interregional cooperation included exchanges of experiences and regional networking Interreg II Strand A: cross-border Strand B: transnational energy networks Strand C (97-99): transnational cooperation (spatial planning, flooding, drought).. Ecos-Ouverture Programme. Article 10 of ERDF (Pilot actions) Four actions, two of them in the Mediterranean: ( Mediterranean Gateway between P/E/MA and South East Mediterranean between I/GR) Interreg III Strand A: Cross-border Strand B: Transnational Strand C: Interregional. see below (*) (*) Regarding external cooperation: MEDA initiative for the SEM (Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries) but without any direct involvement from regional and local authorities. This is in contrast with PHARE CBC (Cross Border Cooperation) for pre-accession countries, and TACIS CBC for other Eastern European countries (Russia, Ukraine, Moldavia, Caucasian countries). 2. Remarks concerning the three cooperation periods. 1. Internal cooperation policy has been significantly stepped up both financially speaking (cf. graphs below) as well as in terms of its content. It has switched from supporting strategies/studies/pilot projects to introducing fields for effective cooperation based on concrete projects. Interreg CIP 0.8 bn Interreg II bn -Strand A = 75.5%; strand B = 12.8% ; strand C = 11.7% ; Interreg III 5.3 bn in total - Strand A 68%; strand B 26%; strand C 6%. 2. Resources allocated to external cooperation actions fluctuate significantly. In particular they have more or less ceased in the Mediterranean area for the period: (relative failure of the MEDA initiative no links between internal and external cooperation actions). Internal/external cooperation links have been developed in the Baltic area with the joint management of ERDF/Phare CBC/Tacis CBC). 3. The actual amount of funding earmarked for the cross-border strand remains stable (but with a % decrease) and the transnational strand has sharply increased as shown by the graphs on pages 4 and With regard to maritime cooperation actions, these have always been possible though never explicitly considered as such: - Under cross-border cooperation as of the first period, provided there is close geographical proximity (e.g. Corsica/Sardinia, Nord Pas de Calais/Kent, or the Oresund Strait); these cooperation actions have mainly been authorised for local development type projects corresponding to the core aim of cross-border cooperation; information and factors of consideration for a CPMR position p. 3

4 - Under transnational cooperation, first during the period and now for the period, this type of cooperation is possible in the Mediterranean (as part of the MEDOCC and ARCHIMED areas), as well as in the Baltic, North Sea and Atlantic areas. - Under interregional cooperation, it has always been possible to set up maritime networks in RECITE 1 and 2, TERRA (e.g. Coastal Zones networks) and Interreg IIIc. 5. If one looks in detail at the programmes led during these programming periods, one can see that the majority of projects are land-based cross-border projects. Out of a total of 59 projects led under Strand A of Interreg II, only 14 concerned maritime borders and as a consequence of this trend only 7 out of the 59 projects concerned the Mediterranean area. This observation has to be offset by the financial breakdown between the different areas, since the Mediterranean obtained 27% of the total funding for these 7 projects. With regard to external border projects, the three Mediterranean projects GR/external borders, E/MA and I/SLO were neighbourhood projects. It is therefore safe to say that cross-border cooperation policy, owing to its very nature, has mainly been applied to land-based programmes. Maritime borders have been included on a case-by-case basis when considered justified on account of their geographical proximity. What might be considered as maritime cooperation really took off when the transnational strand was set up, since most of the areas concerned were based around sea basins. Moreover, on a broader level, the increasing acknowledgement of the maritime dimension has recently been illustrated by the Commission s decision to draft a Green Paper on maritime policy, given the European Union s current general lack of interest in maritime affairs. 6. With regard to coordination between internal and external cooperation, in contrast to arrangements in the Baltic between Interreg, Phare and Tacis (joint secretariat), no cooperation has been established between Interreg and MEDA. This has resulted in external cooperation policies in the Mediterranean failing to involve regional and local authorities, except only marginally as part of the Euro-Med Heritage programme for example. Development of cooperation - funding in M funding in M Internal Cross-border Internal Transnational Internal Interregional External Total 89/93 94/99 00/ /2013 periods information and factors of consideration for a CPMR position p. 4

5 Development of cooperation - % Internal Cross-border % Internal Transnational Internal Interregional External 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 89/93 94/99 00/ /2013 period III. PROPOSALS FOR These take into account a new context:. Within the EU, the 2004 enlargement has significantly increased the Union s internal borders.. Outside the EU, a new neighbourhood policy has been introduced which takes into account the role and place of regional and local authorities (Communication of September 2004).. Maritime cooperation is recognised in its own right with regard to both internal cooperation (the concept of maritime border has been automatically extended to approximately 150 km as a result of a strong rise in the transnational strand) and external cooperation (cf. Article 8 point c) of the draft NEPI Regulation dated 29 September 2004). Funding for cooperation actions will be significantly increased (from 5.3 bn for the period to 13.2 bn for the forthcoming period). The Commission proposes that this amount be broken down as follows: % to fund conventional cross-border cooperation, with the concept of maritime borders being extended as separated by a distance of approximately 150 km (Article 7 of the General Regulations) % for the ERDF contribution to the cross-border strand of the European neighbourhood instrument, which reflects the Commission s intention to devote more resources per capita to the EU s external borders; % for transnational cooperation; % to fund cooperation networks. This breakdown consolidates the importance of transnational cooperation, since 47.73% of the total amount is earmarked for this strand, as compared with 26% for the current period and 3.4% for the spatial planning strand in the period (Interreg IIc). With regard to this breakdown, we feel that the core issue for the CPMR is how exactly the 12.12% will be allocated. There are currently two possible interpretations which might be at the root of the differences in opinion that have arisen since the Taormina seminar. - On examining the texts (General Regulation on the Structural Funds, ERDF Regulation and COM on the new neighbourhood instrument) we note a referral in the General ERDF Regulation to the Commission s latest communication on the neighbourhood instrument (cf. Article 18 a), 2 nd paragraph), information and factors of consideration for a CPMR position p. 5

6 whereby the aforementioned 12.12% will be used to fund the contribution of EU Regions towards crossborder cooperation projects led in partnership with the Neighbourhood Instrument, according to the eligibility criteria set out in the neighbourhood policy. In this case, all regions bordering a sea shared by Member States and partner countries are eligible (cf. Article 8 (1)(c)). - If we refer to the current interpretation of DG Regio, the 12.12% would only be used to finance NUTS 3 regions of EU 27 sharing a land or sea border with new neighbours (e.g. Finland for cooperation with Russia, Poland for cooperation with Ukraine, etc.). With the new flexibility given to maritime borders, this would also enable some funding to be granted to a number of Mediterranean maritime borders (e.g. Andalusia with Morocco, Western Sicily with Tunisia). However, still according to DG Regio, this funding would not be used for cooperation actions between regions bordering a sea shared by Member States and neighbouring partner countries, although this is nevertheless what is stipulated in the Communication on the neighbourhood instrument of September IV. Factors of consideration for a CPMR position. In the light of the 2004 enlargement which created new borders within the Union, it would seem legitimate to maintain a cross-border strand in order to support internal cross-border cooperation. It is therefore proposed not to question this line of policy. The need to provide a response to problems arising at the EU s outer borders fully justifies the introduction of the neighbourhood instrument and the coordination including the financial contribution between the ERDF and this new instrument. The 150 km distance criterion, however arbitrary this may seem, nevertheless constitutes a certain progress when applied to cross-border cooperation, which has until now been more restrictive. Two questions still remain: 1. Through which channel can we legitimately aim to carry out cooperation actions between EU regions located in the same sea basin? 2. Through which channel can we legitimately aim to carry out cooperation actions between EU and non-eu regions located in the same sea basin?. Regarding the first question, the following option might be considered: - Make use of the increased budget for the transnational strand and the possibility much more explicit than in the present period to fund bilateral interregional cooperation actions as provided for in the draft regulation on the ERDF, Article 6, point 2: the establishment and development of transnational cooperation, including bilateral cooperation between maritime regions, through the financing of networks and of actions conducive to integrated territorial development.... With regard to the second question, given the two-sided interpretation of how the 12.12% is to be allocated, two options remain open: - uphold the interpretation related to the new neighbourhood instrument and therefore consider that the 12.12% is used for cross-border cooperation taken to mean NUTS II regions bordering a sea shared by Member States and partner countries ; this means that the distance criterion (150 km) does not apply to this type of cooperation. In this interpretation, based on the existing texts, traditional cross-border cooperation would therefore be allocated 35.61% of the total amount earmarked for the future Objective 3. - request that a part of the budget earmarked for transnational cooperation be specifically allocated to the link with the new neighbourhood instrument. information and factors of consideration for a CPMR position p. 6

7 It is to be understood that these two options are not incompatible with one another, and that it may be possible to ask for these two aspects to be maintained in a complementary way. Geographic eligibility is not the only issue to be examined however. A position also needs to be established regarding the main lines of cooperation policy, notably to step up maritime-related fields, i.e. maritime safety and transport, combating sea pollution, maritime economy and integrated coastal zones management. Whatever the outcome of this debate, it appears highly unlikely that cooperation actions between EU regions and new neighbours would be made impossible (or arbitrarily limited to just a few cases), whether in the Mediterranean, Baltic or Black Sea. In any case, it will be necessary to lobby the European Commission to urge it to rapidly clarify the consistency of its proposals. A disaster scenario would consist in the final regulation on neighbourhood policy backtracking on the exact conditions for eligibility. information and factors of consideration for a CPMR position p. 7