Kaisa Lähteenmäki-Smith Nordregio 1

Transcription

1 Regional policy and inter-regional strategic cooperation in the North-Calotte: Cross-border co-operation as an instrument of regional development Kaisa Lähteenmäki-Smith Nordregio 1 Nordkalottrådet Pohjoiskalotin neuvosto The North Calotte Council Nordkalottrådets publikationsserie, rapport nr 61 Pohjoiskalotin neuvoston julkaisusarja, raportti nro 61 ISSN Research director James Karlsen from Agderforskning worked as a consultant and interviewer for Nordregio on this project. His contribution to the project as a whole is gratefully acknowledged, though the author is solely responsible for the execution of the report and its conclusions.

2 2

3 Contents 1. Introduction: The political setting of the North Calotte at the beginning of the 21 st century Research questions On methodology and theoretical background: regional regimes National policy trends and on-going debates North Calotte as a cross-border region The historical background The North Calotte during the EU era The sub-national cases: Regions in the North Calotte area A brief outline of the regions Strategic processes and available policy instruments within regional policy The RUP as a regional policy instrument for development in Norway Regional Centre Development Programme urban policy for Finland? Regional Growth Agreements (RTA) focusing new regional policy in Sweden Cross-border co-operation as a regional development resource Conclusions and policy recommendations Appendix 1: List of interviewees Appendix 2: Interview guide

4 4

5 1. Introduction: The political setting of the North Calotte at the beginning of the 21st century 1.1 Research questions The point of departure of this report will be that of the vision of North calotte co-operation adhered to in the Interreg IIIA programme for the region: with the help of cross-border co-operation to build the region into a functional entity that can provide the people living in this region with the necessary conditions for living a good life and that can also attract people and businesses to locate in the region (Interreg IIIA Nord, Delprogram Nordkalotten, Programförslag). The project seeks to address two main goals: To develop a comparative framework for analysis in all three countries that can be utilised in a systematic fashion in order to evaluate and further develop the efficiency of the currently available strategic policy instruments, their efficiency and their utilisation, as part of the regional policy complex. To provide further points for public discussion within and between the regions as regards regional development, its objectives and the available policy instruments. During the 1990s a number of major transformations took place in the local and regional environment of the North Calotte region as a whole. First of all the economic recession of the 1990s saw the Nordic states in the novel situation of increasingly questioning the place of the welfare state in society. As the northern most regions of these countries have traditionally been highly dependent on public sector employment and support, new challenges had therefore to be met. For Finland and Sweden part of the answer to both internal and external pressures was formed in a new strategy of internationalisation, most importantly played out in the attainment of membership of the European union. These changes had both political and economic repercussions on the peripheral regions. Moreover international pressure was accompanied by domestic pressure also: The new public management approaches to governance resulted in a series of administrative reforms, which are still on going. The restructuring of the public sector has implied a centralisation of economic activities and a loss of job opportunities in the peripheral regions, as the reforms have not as yet been accompanied by the decentralisation of activities mooted at the time. The public policy choices of the three countries have differed to such an extent that one cannot any longer really speak of the Nordic 5

6 welfare state in generic terms. Though some of the policy measures and accompanying policy ideologies were similar (regional industrial policy with an increased emphasis on competence development, expertise and innovation, industrial and economic restructuring etc), policy objectives and measures have also had their specific national characteristics. What has been pointed out on a number of occasions is the increasing inefficiency of traditional regional policy. While the Nordic welfare states were built on notions of equality of opportunity in the geographical as well as an individual sense, and regional policy was developed on the basis of maintaining the vast areas of these countries populated (after WW II for defence policy purposes, and latterly for more esoteric regional policy purposes), the nature of post-industrial development familiar to most European countries now seems to have caught up with the Nordic policy aspirations in the recent years, as the shift in public policy has be towards centralisation, at least implicitly, while in most cases still professing to the same policy ideals. The centralising trends of the early 21 st century are clear illustrated in the migration statistics of all the Nordic countries, as has been apparent in recent research reports (e.g. Hanell, Aalbu and Neubauer 2002). From the point of view of the northern most regions of Finland, Norway and Sweden however one can identify two aspects that make this concentration problematic: The economic efficiency argument: While the post-war era has witnessed the construction (in some places, re-construction) process which aimed to provide equal access to services across all parts of the countries in question, the centralisation of the early 21 st century may however be seen as a waste of resources, as already built infrastructure and services are not utilised to the maximum effect in areas where out-migration has become a major problem. The equality of opportunity argument: As equal access to public services has traditionally been a central public policy goal, one of the main tasks of the public authorities in the remote areas has been to ensure the maintenance and availability of sufficient infrastructure. If the public authorities become unable or unwilling to provide and ensure such availability, citizens equal rights may become increasingly in effect infringed upon. 6

7 One of the goals of the research exercise at hand here is to identify how these two dimensions manifest themselves in the North-calotte region or rather, how the strategic instruments available for co-operation can seek to address such concerns: do the strategic policy tools in fact have any possibility of addressing such acutely felt problems? On the basis of the interviews carried out one can say that it seems justified to argue that a strong consensus exists for the maintenance of the services and for addressing the problems of out-migration, interesting questions however emerge with regard to national and regional differences in terms of the instruments by which these goals are strived for and achieved. The project at hand covers two thematic sections: 1. Regional economic and development strategies and the available policy instruments and their connection with North Calotte as a region: Against the backdrop of a comparative analysis of industrial development in the regions since the 1990s, there has remained a real need for increased levels of R&D investment in order to develop regionally based innovation policies and strategies, participation in the political activities and strategies located within the sphere of regional co-operation, and the role of the public sector in these activities. As argued earlier, the instruments utilised in the three countries have both similarities and differences, ranging from those utilised in the Norwegian model and the on-going discussion on adjusting such policy initiatives for implementation in the other Nordic countries and their northernmost regions, to regional innovation policies with their national models of implementation (Centres of Expertise in Finland, Regional Growth Agreements in Sweden etc.). What are the objectives addressed through these instruments, what level of financial and other resources are mobilised through the implementation process and what are the results achieved? The main research question is: What are the main strategic resources available for the regions in the North Calotte area, and what kind of strategic /policy alternatives are available in order to utilise these structures most efficiently? In order to address this main question, the following sub-questions need to be answered: 7

8 What are the most important instruments of regional development in the area and what are the national differences (and similarities) in their implementation what can be learnt from cross-border experiences? What are the main changes in regional development that have taken place in recent years and what further changes are likely to occur as part of the enlargement process of the European union? What other policy areas are important for regional development, what national and regional differences remain, and how should these policy areas be further developed? (R&D, employment, migration)? What regional strategies are available and how should interregional co-operation be utilised more effectively? Do differences remain between the internal and external view of strategic activities, and how can these be balanced in order to render such strategic activities more effective? (Streamlining strategies?) Is there a prevailing consensus that could be utilised in the cross-border sphere, and a corresponding co-operation potential that has thus far not been fully realised? (Partnership within the region, co-operation between them?) In terms of these strategic alternatives, are there lessons to be learnt in terms of influencing national decision-making? How could this be made more effective? These questions provide the comparative framework for the opportunity structure, built on the following dimensions: Structures = international, national and regional legal, regulative and financial (institutional differences and their impact upon the various opportunity structures). Actors = the participants in regional co-operation and decision-making. Similarities and differences, cleavages and commonalities in terms of regional development. Possibilities and needs in terms of developing a strategic consensus on the regional level (both in the individual regions and cross-border). 8

9 The report is intended to provide an overview of the national contexts as far as they are of relevance to the sub-regions concerned and their cross-border co-operation, as well as encompassing a strategic overview of the sub-national regional situation and how this relates to the North Calotte as a platform for co-operation: what are the relevant common interests and how should they be pursued? Is there in fact sufficient shared interest to justify the maintenance of North Calotte as a co-operative platform, taking into consideration the fact that there is now a plethora of such platforms in the northernmost parts of Finland, Norway and Sweden? A number of actions, priorities and measures are identified in the North Calotte Interreg IIIA programme all of which are in line with the idea of promoting regional opportunity structures, cross-border identity and co-operation across the region. These include for instance crossborder activities in regional and local competence development and resource-mobilisation, cross-border infrastructures, organisations and networks and identity-creating activities. How far such activities already exist, as a natural part of the regional opportunity structure is a question raised in the interviews. The study has also set out to evaluate the relevance of such activities in the wider cross-border community, as both the national and trans-national initiatives and policy instruments are viewed in a comparative light here. 1.2 On methodology and theoretical background: regional regimes The aim of the present study is thus to provide a comparative analysis of the regional development regimes in the North Calotte area and to consider the possible synergies and the common ground which the nationally and regionally specific circumstances allow for. Are the subnational entities within the North Calotte region bounded by their national policy environments and regimes, or can there in fact be a functioning cross-border regime with a policy dynamic of its own? What in fact is the value added of North Calotte for those regions which participate in it, and how could this be developed further in light of the on-going national reform processes currently impacting upon the regions in North Calotte, as well as those in their international environment (including EU enlargement and policy changes around the theme of territorial cohesion)? In terms of the theoretical background to the project, the analysis takes place predominantly within the spheres of regional economy or regional policy, which can themselves be brought together under the over-arching concept of regionalisation, itself embedded in mainstream political economy. Regionalisation refers here to both the macro- and 9

10 micro regional aspects of social and political organisation and mobilisation on the regional level, i.e. both European-wide processes and sub-national ones. In the case of the Nordic countries in question, the unit of analysis is therefore the län in Sweden, maakunta in Finland and fylkeskommune in Norway. Micro regionalisation in this sense can be understood, not only in terms of activation and the upgrading of regions, giving a more visible and formal role for the regions in policy relevance terms, but more importantly as a process implying the Europeanisation of the regions. This process becomes manifest in a greater awareness of European legislation, a growing willingness and ability to mobilise resources in the search for European finance, increasing co-operation with other European local and regional authorities and expert agencies, direct lobbying of EU institutions, and the influence of EU ideas on sub-national policy making (John 1994a and 1994b, Goldsmith 1997 and Kohler-Koch 1998). 2 The response to such a development may vary, but one of the most important ways in which it manifests itself is in the renaissance of cross-border co-operation, apparent in different parts of Europe. This is our focus in this study. While the attempt to achieve regional cohesion and balance has been a central theme in both European and national regional policy for some considerable time, regional convergence is still far from being accomplished. Political and economic measures are taken in order to achieve better cohesion in the Nordic countries, but, for various reasons, they often have limited effects. While regional policy instruments and strategies are only effective in the long-term, political change can be more sudden and infinitely less predictable. This has recently become apparent in Norway where the role of the regional level has been under scrutiny for some time, though the lines of debate are somewhat blurred as different actors hold differing views on how the debate itself should be framed. In terms of attempting to achieve cohesion the actual process of debate has itself become the source of endless speculation: While it is clear that the role of the state in regional terms has become more that of a guarantor of minimum standards for service provision and living standards, as well as that of the catalyst for regional development, it is 2 Such activity is more common in the northern most Nordic regions, which are increasingly represented by their own offices in Brussels. Nordland is in the process of setting up its own Brussels office in co-operation with the already existing representation of Northern Sweden (North Sweden European Office) Of the Finnish areas under analysis here Rovaniemi has its own business-promotion oriented office, and Lapland and Northern Ostrobothnia have recently established a shared office. 10

11 less clear how equal economic and educational opportunities for instance can be ensured, as allocating responsibility for this would undoubtedly require the deployment of considerably larger financial and human resources to the peripheral areas. Forms of cross-border co-operation and initiatives such as those connected to the activities of the North Calotte Council have been one way of trying to address this existing gap in these terms. Regions and their role in the national and international distribution of labour has increasingly become a functional question rather than merely a geographical one (as was the case with previous theories, e.g. Rokkan and Urwin 1983). Regionalisation can thus increasingly be seen as part of the wider process of globalisation and internationalisation; a process through which the relevance of geographical distance and proximity decreases, while inter-regional contacts and alliances, as well as the availability of human resources, expertise and new strategic capabilities become increasingly important. The awareness of such competences and resources has also increased accordingly, and the ability of regional actors to think increasingly in strategic terms is something that is actively promoted within public organisations in the regional sphere. Regional strategic agency requires both action and reaction, both active policy and pro-active capability. In addition to the ongoing need to plan for the long-term, regions are now expected to develop an ability to respond to the emergence of short-term opportunities, possibilities and initiatives and to use such opportunities to their advantage. 3 The cultivation of such an attitude squares with prevailing thinking that increasingly views regions as the level on which competitiveness and positive development can (and should) be created. This is part and parcel of the new philosophy of the learning regions, where regions are seen as the level best equipped to adapt to often fastchanging politico-economic circumstances. A key background concept utilised here is that of the regional regime, which is understood here in relation to its utilisation in political science. 4 Questions have emerged as to the nature of such regional 3 A typical example of such a short-term initiative with potential long-term impact for the regions is the Finnish Regional Centre Development Programme, itself one of the strategy processes under closer inspection in this study. 4 In International Relations theorising, regimes have often be viewed as the intervening variable constraining state action that otherwise was interpreted as 'without constraint', each state seeking to promote its interest without any immediate reason to restrain its egoism in doing so. (Kratochwil 1989, 47.) The 11

12 regimes as have already been constructed, a number of which are based on the philosophy of growth and of regional development. As the national policy regimes and policy instruments differ, it is thus to be expected that the regions analysed have different practices that they develop in order to pursue regional development, perhaps even different ways of defining what regional development in fact is. Yet many of the structural factors are similar, as the statistical material used here shows (population, unemployment, migration etc.) Thus the question becomes one of responding to international pressures by implementing national and cross-border policy instruments in a strategic framework, and how in fact this response can benefit from the existing of a cross-border region and the strategic, functional and financial resources it entails. One could also inquire as to the relationship between the cultural and institutional dimensions of regional formations, and what emergent regional practices can we view as responses to aspirations reflecting regional identities, as well as growth-oriented goals and functional needs? Are the citizens of such regions able to identify with the new institutional forms and practices? This last question is in fact beyond the bounds of this project, as the study is currently limited to focusing on the politicoadministrative elites in these regions. Yet questions as to what the region means to actors within it was one of the points elaborated on in the discussions. This will be elaborated on in the final sections of the report, where the reality and rhetoric of co-operation in North Calotte will be discussed. Regime-formation thus refers to a process by which a set of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors expectations converge in a given area emerges (Krasner 1983, 2). 5 Within the regional context, such regimes most commonly used definition of a regime in International relations views regimes as sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decisionmaking procedures around which actors expectations converge in a given area of international relations. (Krasner 1982, 186.) In the national context of politics the concept of a regime is usually utilised to depict the informal arrangements that surround and complement the formal workings of government authority in order to bring about co-ordinated action in a certain issue area (Stone 1989, 3-4). 5 See Lähteenmäki-Smith 2000 for a discussion on the theoretical premises of regime theory within International Relations. One particularly fruitful field of regime studies has been that associated with European integration, which has resulted in the emergence of a multitude of theoretical approaches to this particular type of co-operation and community-building, including regime-theory in its inter-governmental form. Here the European Union is simply viewed as a successful intergovernmental regime designed to manage economic 12

13 are strategic solutions or discursive instruments adopted in the case of regional or local conundrums, such as those posed by the economic problems of restructuring, out-migration, the lack of economic growth, and the low degree of regional attractiveness etc. In the positive sense, regional regimes can provide a framework within which institutional learning is accumulated and factors possibly hampering learning and straining the building of a positive institutional environment are minimised. In many cases regions approach such problems though the creation of a regional strategy instrument of some type, though it is expected that only in cases where a political space 6 exists can such strategic instruments be transformed into regimes, and thus reflected in permanent alterations of the regional identity and community, rather than in merely temporary ad hoc administrative arrangements. The permanency of shared decision-making and problem-solving contexts and methods is thus one of the prerequisites for regime-formation. The question therefore emerges, to what extent can permanent changes manifest themselves in the ways in which things are done, and in which problems are solved through this currently prevailing strategicinstrumentalist approach? Is there a regime, a problem-solving platform with shared notions of norms and principles within the North Calotte region, or does the cross-border co-operation in fact take place in an environment where (nationally and regionally specific) policy regimes meet? This would most likely then result in a situation where cooperation can be quite useful and fruitful in certain areas, but it is at the same time hampered by misunderstandings, divergent expectations and cultural differences. This seemed to be an interesting question to pose as so many of the discussions around the Nordic regional policy regimes appeared to depart from certain myths, and shared or divergent understandings of how things are done in the neighbouring country across the border. 7 How can the development of shared principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures within a region contribute to the restructuring of competitive regions? What are the conditions required for the emergence of such shared conceptions and values? How are they reflected in the competitiveness of the region in question? How is the interdependence through negotiated policy co-ordination. (Moravcsik, 1993, p. 30). 6 This problematic can be further elaborated in the direction of whether local authorities can pursue something akin to foreign policies. 7 The regime approach in regional studies has perhaps been most fully developed in urban studies, see for instance Dowding 2001, Stone 1989,

14 emergence of a regional regime influenced by the regions own attempts to balance the dynamic and traditional aspects of their character, i.e. seeking to promote their image as competitive and dynamic regions (or learning regions ), while at the same time seeking to balance traditional regional cultures and institutional arrangements? The changing environment for cross-border co-operation is also connected to a shift in regional development ideology. The frameworks within which regional learning and growth have been viewed in recent years have been predominately administrative and/or economic (e.g. Maskell and Törnqvist 1999, Hallin and Malmberg 1996, Eskelinen 1997), while political issues within these processes seem to have attracted less interest, or have been predominately viewed through the framework of the structural funds initiatives (cf. Aalbu, Hallin and Mariussen 1999). Though the administrative reforms have become a central focus (e.g. Stenvall & Harisalo 2000, Sandberg & Ståhlberg 2000, Ståhlberg 2000), their connection to the politics of regionalism and regionalisation (e.g. Keating 1998, Jeffery 2000) has remained distant at best. It is thus assumed for the purposes of this report that the concept of regime could therefore contribute to the solidification of this dialogue and to the development of more fertile ground for it to take root in a multidisciplinary context. 1.3 National policy trends and on-going debates Each of the Nordic countries have witnessed these centralising trends throughout the 1990s: i.e. the concentration of the population in the biggest growth centres, an ever aging population both in national and regional terms, and economic growth distributed increasingly unevenly. These trends accentuate the need to identify policy instruments that deal with the problems of the more peripheral, sparsely populated regions (the provision of welfare services and ensuring accessibility, building dynamic labour markets and educational environments), whilst also remaining cognizant of the potential problems of the ever-growing population in the largest urban centres (service provision, housing policy, the threat of social exclusion). A common policy thread across all the Nordic countries has been the centrality of functional economic regions and local labour markets. This was already identified in government reports and initiatives published in the 1990s, be it in terms of regional centres in Finland (based on the existing structure of 85 economic regions, and seeking to promote vitality within a larger group than was attempted in the late-1990s, when only 5 of these economic regions seemed to enjoy significant economic growth), robust communities in 14

15 Norway, or enlarging the regions (in local labour market terms) in Sweden. These regional policy trends have moreover been accompanied by the need to find optimal (or at least better functioning ) administrative solutions in which to implement the new policy goals. While forms of regional administration, as well as the connected pressures toward regional reforms and the debates within which these are further developed vary from one country to another, the existence of a core set of questions relating to the nature of regional organisation and its political and functional principles shared by most Nordic countries is indisputable. This becomes evident if one looks at the priorities for regional organisation set by the countries in question, as indeed becomes clear in the following examples from principles of administrative reform implemented in the different Nordic countries. It was proposed by the Division of responsibilities Commission appointed by the Norwegian government in its report of July 2000 that, in determining the ideal division of labour between the national government, the regions, and local authorities that the following principles should be followed: Responsibility should be assigned to the lowest possible level. Responsibilities which demand local political value judgements should rest with popularly elected bodies. Responsibility for questions requiring standardisation, rules and control, should be national. The state should be responsible for tasks which demand a national overview and central decision-making. Tasks which need to be co-ordinated should be assigned to the same administrative body. Tasks which need to be co-ordinated for the users should be assigned to the same administrative body. The decision-making authority in a question should also be responsible for financing the cost of the solution. The same principles were retained in the governmental proposal on the Division of Responsibilities, published in March 2001, where particular emphasis was placed on the principle that decisions should be taken as close as possible to those most affected by them. This line of approach however 15

16 seems somewhat at odds with the on-going debates on the possibly of doing away altogether with the democratically accountable regional level in Norway. What is interesting here is the extent to which regional concerns are shared, no matter how different their political and administrative contexts may be. This is a timely reminder of the fact that though structures and institutions may vary on the surface, while regional concerns are often universal, local circumstances and experiences are invariably unique. The political objectives outlined in the Norwegian case above come quite close to the principles outlined in the Finnish administrative reform statement, some of the key objectives of which can be outlined as follows 8 : Regional administration should be organised in ways that contribute to its coherence, efficiency and effectiveness. Responsibilities and division of labour between different levels should be organised in a way that clarifies the tasks of the different actors. Reform should support the development of regional administration and the formation of distinctive regions. Reform should contribute to the increased profile of regional administration. Reform should support municipal autonomy and enhance the opportunity for municipalities to participate in regional forms of co-operation. Reform should enhance the decentralisation of service functions from the counties to the local level. Reform should enhance the decentralisation of power from the central to the regional level. 8 These objectives have been compiled from a hierarchically organised set of materials, however one should note that such hierarchies or degrees of centrality have not always been taken into account here. Thus objectives that may in fact have been prioritised over others are not necessarily given the same centrality here. There may also be priorities of a more principal nature that lie behind the objectives outlined here becoming more pronounced only once the study delves deeper into the priorities and interests of the different regional actors. 16

17 Steering functions need to be organised in a clear and functional fashion, enhancing both the functional capacity (at the county level) and the coherence of economic and labour policy through the Employment and Economic Development Centres; and Service provision within the regional level units is to be taken as close to the citizen as possible. (Stenvall & Harisalo 2000, 28 and 31-38). The Swedish policy priorities regarding the optimal organisational structure of the regional level are outlined in the recent report by the parliamentary committee on the regions (PARK), which emphasised the need to enhance the level of democratisation in regional development work, as well as the need to clarify the division of responsibilities on the regional level (similar themes and priorities also emerge in a number of other policy-documents, such as for example SOU 2000:85, SOU 1999:103, SOU 1996:119 and SOU 2000:64). From these various sets of national policy priorities attached to the process of regional reform a clear agenda emerges, which can be defined as consisting of the following themes: Democracy ensuring that systems of administration and their institutional and organisational principles and practices are based on the decisions of actors who are themselves democratically accountable. Subsidiarity taking decision-making and service-provision as close to the citizen as possible. Legitimacy ensuring that regional level service-provision and administrative activities in fact respond to the needs and justified expectations of the citizens and that the division of power is justified in terms of democratic principles. Efficiency ensuring that the units and actors within the structures, as well as the practices implemented by them, pursue their goals and manage their tasks in a financially and functionally efficient fashion. Dynamism goals of growth and economic prosperity, ensuring the creation and maintenance of an environment that contributes to innovation and learning. The core of the issue seems to be the need to strike a balance between autonomy and interdependence. Regional and local units still strive for a 17

18 certain level of autonomy, but at the same time they are increasingly aware of the fact that such autonomy can in today s internationalised society only be relative. As Michael Keating has rather fittingly put it, in today s world there no longer exists independence, only strategies for managing dependencies (Keating 1998, 25). The formation and management of these strategies within the national and regional context is the crux of the matter here, as administrative borders and (potentially borderless) regimes are balanced together. How does a cross-border region then fit into this picture? In this light we will now turn out attention in what follows to the historical development and the presentday challenges of cross-border co-operation in the North Calotte region. 2. North Calotte as a cross-border region 2.1 The historical background The North Calotte region can be seen as a historical entity that has grown out of the linkages forged by geographic proximity, historical ties and functional and linguistic commonality. The institutional structure has always been minimal as co-operation was predominantly built around the existing structures and networks of Nordic co-operation. The North Calotte Committee was set up as a temporary co-operation structure in 1967, and was made permanent four years later. In 1977 co-operation became more institutionally grounded, as the North Calotte Committee was established as an independent organ in connection with the Nordic Council of Ministers. The main areas of co-operation had their own subinstitutions or offices, e.g. in education and research; trade and industry and tourism. These, together with those relating to culture and to sami issues have been the areas in which most activity has taken place. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1989 it soon became apparent that new co-operative structures and strategic initiatives for the far north were sorely needed, not least due to the level of perceived environmental threats to the region. It was also the case that the Soviet legacy had left North Eastern Russia with perhaps the largest concentration of nuclear and conventional weapons in the world. In 1993, the then Norwegian Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Thorvald Stoltenberg suggested a new initiative of cooperation among the Barents Euro-Arctic region countries, and since then the Kirkenes Declaration has become the epitome of the prevailing political consensus over the issue of cooperation in the region. This initiative resulted in the formal creation of Barents Co-operation involving the governments of Norway, Russia, Sweden, Finland, and the European Commission. A larger group of interested parties gained observer status (Germany, Italy, Poland, the 18

19 Netherlands, France, Great Britain, USA, Canada, and Japan). (On the history of the Barents co-operation, see Heikkilä 1998.) The initiative was more a less a direct consequence of the collapse of the Soviet Union, though one can also consider it a natural continuation of co-operative activities in the northern-most parts of Europe and hence also a continuation of previous forms of co-operation. Indeed, the possibility of enlarging the North Calotte region towards the east was first discussed as early as the late 1980 s, and thus the introduction of Barents co-operation was a natural step in regional cooperation in this area. While the core motivation of both Barents and North Calotte cooperation is very similar (the promotion of mutual understanding and functional ties across the border), the nature and the degree of formality differs, as much of the North Calotte co-operation stream is essentially, as was often referred to by the interviewees, people s diplomacy, based on an existing commonality of interests and historical ties, while Barents cooperation has from the beginning been more clearly grounded in high level diplomatic initiatives, though it does also have a sub-national level of activity in terms of student and cultural exchanges etc. The different emphasis is however apparent in the national strategies of the countries involved, as for instance Finland states quite clearly that its cooperation with the neighbouring areas is focussed on the area covered by the concept of the Northern Dimension, as articulated in the EU documents on this issue, with particular geographical focus around North-Western Russia and Kaliningrad, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, as well as t he other areas of former Soviet Union and Central Eastern Europe (see e.g. Finnish Strategy for the Neighbouring Areas of 26 May 2000). Similar priorities are echoed in the key foreign policy documents of Sweden and Norway, though in the case of Sweden the geographic priority areas have perhaps been more clearly articulated on the subnational level. 9 The initiative itself was however Norway s, and this national priority has also been reflected in sub-national priority setting, which also became clear in the discussions/interviews. The varying operational logic s are also reflected in the institutional / organisational structures of the two co-operative regions. While Barents co-operation is built on a two-tiered structure, with a 9 In its country strategy for Russia, dating from 1999 and valid for the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs put particular emphasis on North-West Russia (St. Petersburg, Kaliningrad, Pskov, Novgorod, Archangesl and Murmansk with their surrounding regions and Karelia) (Utrikesdepartement 1999, 19-20). 19

20 Council composed of the Foreign Ministers and a Committee of Senior Officials as the regional level executive body, North Calotte co-operation is organised around the sub-national regional level, i.e. the Council (until 1997 the Committee) is a co-operative organ between the regional authorities responsible for regional development in their respective countries (i.e. currently the maakunta represented by the Lapland regional council in Finland, the fylkeskommune represented by the Troms, Finnmark and Nordland counties in Norway, and the Norrbotten länsstyrelse or county government in Sweden, as well as the representatives of regional business life and other relevant actors and organisations (e.g. representatives of the municipalities and of the regional administrative organs). The fact that the chairmanship is a rotating one seeks to maintain dynamism and regional commitment to the organisation. In some cases co-operative solutions have emerged in terms of the way in which the chairmanship is organised, for instance in 2000 Finnmark region held the presidency, outsourcing the functions of the secretariat to Lapland regional council. A later entrant into the co-operative structure of the cross-border region is that of the so-called Bothian Arc, which was developed within the framework of Interreg II C between 1998 and Co-operation here has from the outset had a strong municipal focus and the participants have included both regional authorities as is the case with North Calotte and municipalities and inter-municipal entities, i.e. economic regions (Piteå, Luleå, Boden, Kalix and Haparanda from Sweden and the economic regions of Kemi-Torneå, Ii, Oulu, Lakeus, Raahe and Ylivieska from Finland, which in turn encompass a total of 35 individual municipalities). The county of Norrbotten (Länsstyrelse) and the regional councils of Lapland and Northern Ostrobothia were the regional actors involved. The Bothian Arc was designed as an umbrella project for promoting cross-border co-operation between Sweden and Finland in the region surrounding the Gulf of Bothnia and thus it has sought to contribute to the creation of a common vision for the region s future, and a development strategy that will strengthen both business and society. As such, the goals were very similar to those encompassed by North Calotte co-operation, and thus the question therefore emerges as to whether the relationship between these two programmes as strategic instruments has been sufficiently elaborated upon by those involved in the actual cooperation. This is a question that we shall address more closely in chapter 4 below. 20

21 2.2 The North Calotte during the EU era Traditional forms of co-operation, largely centring on the Nordic cooperation initiatives have gradually been accompanied (in some cases even replaced) by European initiatives. The Northern Dimension has become the key concept around which a significant amount of cooperation is concentrated, and this has had a further effect on the (rhetoric) surrounding North Calotte, as without the additional Barents thematic North Calotte has lost much of its visibility. While the North Calotte and Barents are the main axes of cooperation in this area, there are of course a multitude of other bi- and multilateral initiatives of direct relevance to the North Calotte area as a geographical whole. Though it is beyond the scope of the project here to expand upon their motivation, scope and nature, it is important to note in passing a few comments on the common thread to all of these initiatives, namely the umbrella concept that is the Northern Dimension, which in some sense is indicative of the gradual move from the North Calotte to the Barents approach, in terms of the mental maps of regional cooperation in this area. Finland has perhaps been most active in promoting the inclusion of the Northern Dimension onto the EU agenda. The Finnish government put a significant amount of energy and political capital into lobbying support for the Northern Dimension with indeed the Helsinki European Council of December 1999 including in its agenda the request for the Commission to prepare an Action Plan for the Northern Dimension, which was subsequently acted upon and resulted in the Action Plan being adopted at the Feira European Council of June 2000 thus eventually formalising the initiative. The emphasis on the Barents region was accompanied by a more comprehensive approach, encompassing under the umbrella concept a wider area ranging from Iceland in the west, to North West Russia in the east. Henceforth the initiative was to entail the whole gamut of external and cross-border policies of the European Union covering the Baltic Sea region, the Arctic Sea region and North West Russia. In terms of the institutional structure, the Northern Dimension became associated with the already existing framework of implementation instruments, i.e. the Europe Agreements reached with the Baltic States, the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement signed with Russia, as well as the existing European Economic Area regulations (visà-vis Iceland and Norway). The policy areas for co-operation under the Northern Dimension include a wide variety of themes ranging from the environment and nuclear safety to energy co-operation, infrastructure and 21

22 Justice and Home Affairs. Actions under the heading regional and crossborder co-operation are elaborated on in the later parts of the action programme, emphasising the need to enhance forms of regional and cross-border co-operation in order to achieve other over-arching goals. Much of the financial resources available for project activities in all of the policy areas are discussed in this section, with TACIS-CBC, PHARE- CEBC, as well as Structural Funds and Interreg receiving attention. The question as to whether the actions and policy goals specified in the Action Plan have actually been reached will be evaluated in The initiative, or the operational (and normative) concept of the Northern Dimension will probably outlive the Action Plan itself, though the international policy agenda may have now become rather crowded with other geopolitical concerns competing for diplomatic attention. Despite the multitude of policy initiatives and programmes, the similarity of methodology in cross-border co-operation has become ever clearer, as most of the previously unconnected initiatives have now become increasingly organised within the context of the Interreg Community Initiative. Moreover, this programme the aim of which is to reduce the structural disadvantages and the barriers to co-operation entailed by the existence of national borders fits nicely into the continuum of co-operative ties in the North Calotte region. 3. The sub-national cases: regions in the North Calotte area The following sections will outline the main characteristics of the cases studies included in this project. The statistical description of their political and economic structures is presented in the appendix. 3.1 A brief outline of the regions Norway: Nordland Troms Finnmark Sweden: Norrbotten Finland: Lapland Population Land area Density of population Urban centres Tromsø (57 000) Rana (25 000) Harstad (23 000) Narvik (18 000) Luleå (71 000) Piteå (41 000) Boden (29 000) Kiruna (25 000) Universities University of Tromsø Luleå Tekniska Universitet Rovaniemi (36 000) Kemi (25 000) University of Rovaniemi 22

23 Net migration between 1995 and 2000 (annual average) National regional support status EU regional support status Policyinstrument included in the case study (University colleges or regional universities in Bodø and Alta) -3.4 (Troms) -4.7 (Nordland) (Finnmark) A: all of Finnmark Kålfjord, Skjervøy, Nordreisa, Kvanangen in Troms B: Troms (except for the above mentioned 5 municipalities) C: Tromsø and Bodø A: except for Luleå, Piteå and Boden, which have B status - Objective 1 ( Norra Norrland total cost 1040 thousand euros) Regional development programme (RUP in Finnmark and Troms, Fylkesplan in Nordland) Regional Growth Agreement (RTA in Norrbotten) All of Lapland Status 1 Objective 1 ( Pohjois- Suomi total cost 1050 thousand euros) Regional Centre Programme (in Rovaniemi and Kemi-Tornio) In terms of the funding opportunities available through North Calotte cooperation (i.e. through the Interreg IIIA North Calotte, as part of the North -programme), total funding for the programming period is 62,04 million of which 23,80 million is EU-financing. Sweden and Finland account for 15,73 million each, with Norway accounting for 23

24 14,00 million (the rest being private financing, which thus amounts to a rather limited sum). The total financial input of the North calotte activities in the regions in question has thus been relatively limited. In terms of strategic visions and goals the regions have much in common, as becomes apparent in the following table, where the key policy priorities of regional strategy documents are outlined. It was the point of departure of this project that there was a close inter-connectedness between international, national, regional (cross-border) and sub-national priority-setting, and if any strategic activity is expected to bear fruit and be affective, it needs to take into account all of these politicoadministrative levels and to co-ordinate activities accordingly. As regional policy within the EU-framework (this comment is thus only of limited relevance for Norway which clearly retains a more nationallybased regional policy) has increasingly become a question of using international resources to achieve nationally set policy goals (which in themselves are increasingly internationally inspired) within the context of regional (sub-national) circumstances and by utilising (where applicable) cross-border co-operation as an additional resource, the actors and activities, as well as strategic priorities on different levels need to be carefully co-ordinated. In the best case scenario the various strategic instruments and priorities can work towards making such priorities more visible, better articulated and more widely known, in the worst case scenario the different policy priorities remain unconnected and lead to both confusion as to the regional priorities and wastefulness in utilising the often scarce resources allocated to regional development activities. Key priority areas of the regional strategies Nordland (fylkesplan): Competence development Economic Norrbotten: Rural and local development as the umbrella concept under 1. Kemi- Tornio: Economic development and employ- 10 As has been argued elsewhere, Northern Finland has seen the development of a number of co-operative networks that go beyond regional administrative borders. In this sense the programme activities of Pohjois-Pohjnmaa (e.g. Oulu and Kuusamo) and Kainuu (e.g. Kajaani) would also be interesting cases to analyse. Undoubtedly in terms of the goals and activities included in the programmes of Rovaniemi and Kemi-Tornio, a close connection can also be said to exist with the Koillismaa (Kuusamo) region and its programme for North- Eastern Finland. The priority areas here include Tourism; Service provision; Education and research; and Expertise in IT-industries 24