MEETING OF THE TERRITORIAL COOPERATION WORKING GROUP 20 NOVEMBER BRUSSELS - REPORT -

Transcription

1 CRPMPRV A0 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) secretariat@crpm.org website: MEETING OF THE TERRITORIAL COOPERATION WORKING GROUP 20 NOVEMBER BRUSSELS Participants: - REPORT - ANVROIN Patrick, CPMR Director ARMSTRONG Michelle, East of England Regional Assembly Senior European Policy Officer ARRIVÉ Jean-Michel, Project leader for Interregional Cooperation Aquitaine Region AZEVEDO Rui, CPMR Consultant BARRIOS Isabel, Delegación del Gobierno de Canarias en Bruselas CATRYSSE Valentine, Project leader at the "European Institute for Territorial Cooperation" - Nord-Pas-de- Calais Region COMELLI Laura, Senior International Officer, Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia ENGELKE Thomas, Advisor for Maritime Policy, Fisheries, Environment & Energy Region Schleswig- Holstein GOURDEN Julie, CPMR Director JENSEN Henrik, Midtjylland Region LOFFREDO Alice, Intern at the CPMR MESCLIER Fabien, Executive Secretary, CPMR Atlantic Arc Commission MIR Bartomeu, Centre Balears Europa en Bruselas MORENO BOLARÍN Josefina, Executive Secretary, CPMR Interemediterranean Commission PERSSON Hans-Åke, Territorial Cooperation Expert - Region Västra Götaland RICHARD Marie-Pierre, Project leader Thinktank European Institute for Territorial Cooperation, Nord- Pas-de-Calais Region SIEMERS Haitze, DG MARE European Commission VENINEAUX Jean-Marc, Territorial Cooperation Unit, DG REGIO, European Commission Appendix: Minutes of the meeting After the two previous meetings on territorial cooperation tools and following the passing of a European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, this third working group meeting aimed to take a step back and reflect on the links between the following: - Macro-regional strategies and Integrated Maritime Strategy (IMS); - Macro-regional strategies and territorial cooperation. During the two morning sessions, the representatives of the Regions discussed these two topics, followed by afternoon talks with representatives of DG MARE and DG REGIO. This report summarises the discussions that took place during that day. Report Ref. CRPMPRV A0 page 1

2 Macro-regional strategies and Integrated Maritime Strategies Two Geographical Commissions of the CPMR are involved in the creation of a transnational strategy: the North Sea Commission and the Atlantic Arc Commission. However, both Commissions defend a relatively different view of the link between macro-regional strategy and integrated maritime policy. Indeed, the Atlantic Arc has chosen the most integrated approach for the themes discussed, whereas the North Sea has chosen to use the maritime theme as the backbone of its strategy, also including the relations between the area and its hinterland. In the European Strategy for the Baltic Region, both policies have been closely linked. The representative of Schleswig-Holstein region highlighted the fact that the added value of an approach such as this for the regionalised IMP lies in a maritime approach for each issue dealt with under the Strategy. During the discussion between participants, we were reminded of the leading role of the regions for maritime policy. In most instances, States do not consider this issue to be a priority and DG MARE has echoed this, calling for coastal regions to get more involved in the IMP. In addition to contact between the Regions, DG REGIO and DG MARE, other DGs can potentially be precious allies for regions, particularly DG TREN and DG Environment. The specificities of Maritime sub-basins: Speaking of maritime basins means we must distinguish between these basins and the sub-basins that compose them. This distinction is particularly relevant to the Atlantic, which, as opposed to the Baltic or Mediterranean, is an open basin. This is why the question of the relationship between the two scales will be essential for the Atlantic Arc Integrated Strategy. In terms of Regional policy, this makes us think beyond macro-regions, distinguishing specific meso-regions within each macro-region. Macro-regional strategies and territorial cooperation programmes The link between cross-border and transnational levels Opinions vary on the future relationships between the different levels of territorial cooperation. Although some believe that macro-regional strategies are a way to change the sometimes illegitimate distinction between cross-border and transnational cooperation, others believe that it s the reason why macro-regional strategies must be fought, cross-border cooperation remaining the main pillar of territorial cooperation. The middle ground, which has been voiced, is that macro-regional strategies can be used as a framework for thinking about cross-border cooperation, which should lead to an enlargement of areas that qualify, making them more receptive to strategic action. Should macro-regional strategies be the future of territorial cooperation? There are two fairly distinct positions on this topic. The first supports replacing territorial cooperation programmes with macro-regional strategies. Macroregional strategies would be set up to cover the entire European territory. Indeed, the European Commission can t justify its involvement in some strategies without being involved in others. However, using a pilot project system, it is possible to envisage experimental strategies in some areas before adapting them to other zones. Some participants have pointed out that the automatic extension of macro-regional strategies would lead to a fall in involvement and motivation of grassroots players whereas this aspect has been essential to the success of the Baltic Strategy. The second position rests upon the complementary aspects of macro-regional strategies and territorial cooperation programmes. Indeed, the proponents of this position highlight that many programmes have had good results, and several flagship projects of the Baltic Strategy are the result of a successful capitalisation of transnational cooperation. Even though the quality of projects must be increased, the aim is not to halt cooperation projects but to make better use of INTERREG and better coordinate objectives 1 and 2 with Report Ref. CRPMPRV A0 page 2

3 objective 3 of regional policy. In the same spirit, the Commission has insisted that macro-regional strategies must not be used to disguise the current dysfunctions of territorial cooperation; on the contrary, they should be an advanced stage of cooperation. What boundaries for territorial cooperation in the future? We were reminded that the Baltic Sea region is an exception, in that macro-regional strategy, maritime area policy and transnational cooperation programmes all apply to the same area. This would not necessarily be the case for future strategies. The proposal to deterritorialise territorial cooperation and set up a single programme that calls for cooperation territories made by the Provence-Alpes-Côte d Azur Region during the previous meeting has been unanimously rejected by all participants. Indeed, such a solution would lead to a restructuring of cooperation areas in each programming period, at a time when stability is needed. The representative of DG REGIO has taken note of the efforts made for cooperation by all thirteen transnational areas and the need to not break their momentum. Governance: a specific issue The question of governance was a major issue during the debates. In brief, relating to the setting up phase of a macro-regional strategy, several participants insisted on the necessary caution that must be shown by regions vis-à-vis piloting by the Commission, which could resemble recentralisation. Regions must remain in full control of the first phase. In terms of players involved, some highlight the presence of States as an absolute necessity to achieve strategic results, whereas others would rather see a regional or Region-Commission dual approach. Results This meeting has seen many interventions and has clarified the issues on which the working group will focus on in the coming months. Various opinions were expressed and we have seen that the differenced between them are relatively slim. During the discussions, the link between the mainstream of regional policy and territorial cooperation, and the link between the different levels of territorial cooperation were highlighted as issues that should be looked into further. The next meeting of the working group will take place in 13 January 2010 and will allow us to have a first discussion on these issues. Report Ref. CRPMPRV A0 page 3

4 APPENDIX NO 1: MINUTES INTRODUCTORY SESSION Julie GOURDEN (CPMR) welcomes all participants and opens the debate, reminding us of the topics of the two previous meetings, which examined tools for territorial cooperation. After adopting the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, the European Commission seems uncertain as to the future of macroregional strategies, whilst allowing other strategies to develop. The CPMR suggests that this third meeting allow a wide-ranging discussion on the future of territorial cooperation, based on three topics: - Macro-regional strategies; - The integrated maritime policy; - The INTERREG territorial cooperation tool. SESSION I: Macro-regional strategies or Integrated Maritime Policies? After a general presentation of macro-regional strategies and strategies by maritime basin, the Atlantic Arc and North Sea Commissions of the CPMR were invited to share their experience, as they both seek to develop transnational level strategies. Fabien MESCLIER (Atlantic Arc Commission) mentioned the Integrated Strategy as an answer to the issues that territorial cooperation cannot resolve alone, such as transport. He also brought us up to date on the development of the strategy through the various meetings that have been planned, with the 2010 Maritime Day on the horizon. The Atlantic Arc Commission is currently working on the following three fronts, in an integrated approach: macro-regional strategies, integrated maritime policy and INTERREG. Fabien MESCLIER spoke of the specificity of the Atlantic compared to the Mediterranean and Baltic Seas, as the ocean is an open basin, divided into sub-basins. The Atlantic strategy will therefore work on a multi-level geographical scale. Michelle ARMSTRONG (East of England Regional Assembly) then presented the Strategy for the North Sea, prepared in the framework of the CPMR Geographical Commission. In terms of governance, the North Sea Commission has set up a multi-level and multi-sector Stakeholder conference whose debates will lead to a Writing Group which will polish the maritime-focused Strategy to be presented on 13 April An ESPON project has also been handed in to gain detailed information on issues strategic to the North Sea: climate change, maritime planning, fishing, renewable energy, etc. The drafting of the Strategy should finally allow funding to be used efficiently, particularly in the framework of the INTERREG programme. The issue of the strategies pilotage was then raised. In both geographical commissions, the Regions play a major role and they see the Commission as an observer / organiser of a process that is first and foremost led by the Regions, even though Member States have been approached, particularly for funding purposes in the case of the North Sea Commission. Patrick ANVROIN (CPMR) thinks that a bottom-up approach should be privileged, but insists on the need for the Commissions to link with the future Intergroup Sea and Maritime Affairs in the European Parliament. He also mentioned that other DGs apart from REGIO and MARE can interest the Commissions: DG Environment and TREN particularly. Josefina MORENO (Intermediterranean Commission) mentioned the possibility of launching a macroregional strategy for the Mediterranean Region in 2010 and insists on the specificity of the Mediterranean macro-region in terms of neighbourhood policy. Rui AZEVEDO (CPMR) introduced the concept of meso-regions to describe the sub-basins of heterogeneous macro-regions. He also mentioned that the budget of transnational cooperation will be insufficient to fund macro-regional strategies; the mainstream of the regional policy will have to be asked to contribute. Report Ref. CRPMPRV A0 page 4

5 Thomas ENGELKE (Region Schleswig-Holstein) goes back to the Baltic Strategy and confirms the major role of the States in the drafting process, whilst insisting on the participation of the Regions during Stakeholder Conferences. He mentions the various transnational organisations that, according to him will serve as a framework for the Strategy in the implementation phase. According to him, the Baltic Strategy unites the two concepts discussed, since it is an integrated strategy, centred on maritime issues. He has called for a report on the successes and failures of the Strategy in a few years. Hans-Åke PERSSON (Västra-Götaland) agrees with Rui AZEVEDO s analysis, and mentions the situation of the Baltic Regions, who have been asked to finance the Baltic Strategy with Cohesion Policy funds. Following a question from the Secretariat General on the added value of the macro-regional strategy for the integrated maritime policy, Thomas ENGELKE insists that the added value is high, since in the case of the Baltic, all issues are addressed from a maritime angle. In Jean-Michel ARRIVE s (Aquitaine Region) opinion, questioning the budget in the debate over the future of territorial cooperation is very risky. On the contrary, territorial cooperation must be managed by primarily promoting a better coordination of existing funds. Jean-Michel ARRIVE is clearly in favour of a spread of regional strategies to all areas of transnational cooperation, even though upstream experiments could be permitted. It would indeed seem incongruous that the Commission support some strategies and not others, the issue of fairness would immediately be raised. If this occurs, macro-regional strategies will replace territorial cooperation as we know today. In terms of governance, Jean-Michel ARRIVE wishes to draw attention to a re-focussing of political decisions if the pilotage of strategies is taken over by the European Union directly. New modes of governance must be found. Rui AZEVEDO opposes a complete coverage of the territory as a prerequisite as it would curtail the responsibility of players to go further than transnational cooperation in its current form. It should not be a revolution but an evolution that allows what exists to be improved: the Baltic Strategy aims for more collective efficiency without any additional funding, demonstrating a more cooperative management model. Michelle ARMRSTRONG highlights the difference between cooperation programmes whose borders are fixed and the macro-regional strategies that allow a functional approach to territory. For instance, although the North Sea Strategy focuses on maritime issues, the possible consequences on the hinterland are not ignored. Henrik JENSEN (Midtjylland Region) has noticed the minimal role of the Regions in the drafting of the Baltic Strategy and wishes to learn the lessons of this experience. For future strategies, it is important that States do not dominate the whole process, even though they must be involved. Josefina MORENO insists on a paradigm shift brought about by the use of macro-regional strategies: for the first time, European decentralisation is really taken into account. Macro-regional strategies also lessen the difference between cross-border and transnational projects, which is not always legitimate. Laura COMELLI (Friuli-Venezia Region) opposes a merger of cross-border cooperation, which is very specific, in transnational cooperation, which is a risk in macro-regional strategies. However, macro-regions could be an answer to issues such as migration. SESSION II: Macro-regions: the future of territorial cooperation? As this session is held in the context of discussions hailing macro-regional strategies as the future of territorial cooperation, it seemed useful to compare both tools in the Baltic Sea Region. A general presentation has enlightened this debate. Marie-Pierre RICHARD (Nord-Pas-de-Calais Region) mentioned the difficulty in defining the borders, if macro-regional strategies are to replace territorial cooperation programmes. Report Ref. CRPMPRV A0 page 5

6 Jean-Michel ARRIVE answered that the problem of border delimitation would be no more of an issue than it is today. He considers macro-regions to be the next stage in transnational cooperation, which, unless it evolves, will be abandoned. A top-down approach is required for the large strategic projects and for these it will be necessary to get States involved. From a territorial point of view, the approach must be a functional one, as flexible as possible, with an adaptation of territories concerned depending on the various projects. Rui AZEVEDO notes that the coherence between macro-regional territory and territorial cooperation territory would not apply to most strategies. He agrees with a more flexible approach to territorial borders and re-introduces his concept of meso-regions as a space that allows the management of issues that go beyond the current INTERREG IVA programmes, without overtaking those of INTERREG IVB. He insists on the crucial role of Member States. Macro-regions appear to be territories where multi-level governance could be applied efficiently. Patrick ANVROIN drew our attention to the role of Regions, which cannot be put aside. Henrik JENSEN is for a new system of governance but the INTERREG programmes should not be depreciated. They have had results and several Baltic Strategy flagship projects are the result of a successful use of transnational cooperation projects. The INTERREG programme can function without the Strategy, but not the opposite. Even though the quality of projects must improve within INTERREG, we must not confuse the issues by campaigning for the removal of transnational cooperation programmes, but use INTERREG and better coordinate Objectives 1 and 2 with Objective 3 of regional policy. In terms of governance, the States were already included in the INTERREG projects of the Baltic Region so the Strategy has not completely changed the previous arrangement. Laura COMELLI confirms this analysis by adding that the involvement of States in INTERREG projects depends on the level of decentralisation in each country. The CPMR Secretariat has summarised both positions as follows: - Macro-regional strategies should replace transnational cooperation programmes; - Macro-regional strategies and transnational cooperation programmes should be complementary. Laura COMELLI understands that macro-regions would replace territorial cooperation and says that we must fight against this. Cross-border regions will lose out on a lot in the macro-region scenario. Jean-Michel ARRIVE does not agree with this analysis and believes that macro-regions will not kill off crossborder cooperation, whose eligible areas must be widened. The General Secretariat has taken on board the proposal made by PACA, to deterritorialise territorial cooperation, instituting a single programme that covers the whole European territory and calls for the constitution of ad hoc partnerships. Thus geographical areas that are relevant and motivated by territorial cooperation would come to light. On the contrary, Henrik JENSEN believes that we must retain the stable geographical areas, even though they must be more flexible. In the PACA proposal, each new programming period will deal a new set of cards to territorial cooperation, forcing all areas to start from nothing every five years. Rui AZEVEDO agrees. Jean-Michel ARRIVE also agrees with long term cooperation areas and notes that in a deterritorialisation scenario, States would definitely be absent, to the disadvantage of more strategic projects. Marie-Pierre RICHARD questions the fairness of such a situation, as some regions could be excluded from European Territorial cooperation simply because they did not reply to the call for partnerships on time. Julie GOURDEN summarised the debate and listed a few questions to submit to the representatives of the European Commission during the next session: - Will macro-regional strategies be limited or will they be designed to be extended to the whole European territory? Report Ref. CRPMPRV A0 page 6

7 - What is the added value of macro-regional strategies for the IMP? If macro-regional strategies are limited to a few areas, is it unfair to the areas in which maritime strategies will be developed? - How do the various DGs REGIO, MARE, Environment work together? - What about sectoral and territorial flexibility in the macro-regional strategies? SESSION III: Discussions with the representatives of the European Commission Jean-Marc VENINEAUX (DG REGIO) and Haitze SIEMERS (DG MARE) presented their vision of macroregional strategies before moving on to a debate with participants in the working group. Jean-Marc VENINEAUX went back to the model of the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region by highlighting the specificities of the Baltic area: experience of cooperation, homogenous culture, etc. This is why that process cannot necessarily be reproduced. Before starting a macro-regional strategy, it is essential to thoroughly analyse your territory. The representative of the Territorial Cooperation Unit of DG REGIO adds that macro-regional strategies are not the be all and end all of territorial cooperation, and are not intended to replace existing programmes. However, it is certain that the challenge for territorial cooperation is to adapt more to territories, using custom solutions. Finally, Jean-Marc VENINEAUX adds that the need for cooperation budgets per programme and not per Member State has been understood by DG Regio. Haitze SIEMERS reminds us of the request from the European Council to take into account the regional dimension of the integrated maritime policy, underlining the link between sectoral and regional policies. After the progress report on the integrated maritime policy published in October 2009, the future issues of the IMP are: multi-level maritime governance, the sustainability of resources and climate change, international aspects, regional aspects (i.e., every maritime area is different so the IMP cannot be the same everywhere), energy, maritime observation, fishing and tourism. DG MARE counts on coastal regions for the development of its regional policy as they are the most concerned by the IMP. DG MARE was actively involved in the creation of the Baltic Sea Strategy and intends to be involved in its implementation. For other maritime macro-regions, DG MARE is assessing the specificities of each maritime area. This stage is necessary before any decision is made on its future involvement in any strategy. To the question asked by the Secretariat General about the links between the various DGs of the Commission on the current macro-regional type strategy developments, Jean-Marc VENINEAUX and Haitze SIEMERS mentioned the interservices group set up for the development Baltic Sea Strategy and the one set up for the current Danube Strategy. For the implementation of the strategies, however, nothing has yet been decided. DG MARE has emphasised its links with DG Environment, links which were formed when the Maritime Strategy was considered an environmental pillar of the IMP. Jean-Michel ARRIVE has given participants a relatively critical overview of the workings of transnational cooperation. In his opinion, we must prepare for the end of cooperation as it currently exists, the issue being whether it will exit from the top, with macro-regions, or the bottom which would mean the definite end of transnational cooperation. DG MARE has insisted on the need to prove the added value of a strategy. Strategies must not develop by simply copying others; players must show exactly what they expect from these projects. Strategies must be built from a series of challenges to be fought, not the opposite. Jean-Marc VENINEAUX agrees with this analysis and adds that macro-regional strategies must not be developed because transnational cooperation is not working. On the contrary, they should be limited to areas that are mature to go beyond transnational cooperation. However, on the topic of the delimitation of the borders of macro-regional strategies, he is not in favour of a reworking of the 13 transnational cooperation areas as this may break the momentum of current cooperation projects. As for the solution consisting of asking Member States to suggest cooperation areas, we would be faced with areas without any experience of cooperation in which a strategy would therefore be useless. Report Ref. CRPMPRV A0 page 7

8 Henrik JENSEN expresses his surprise at the wait-and-see attitude of the European Commission regarding the development of macro-regional strategies and reminds us of a period when the Commission took the initiative more often. Regarding this, the Secretariat General of the CPMR asks the representatives of the two DGs on their possible role of alerting Member States on topics such as maritime questions, which often are not national priorities. DG REGIO has put this position into perspective underlining the need for the Commission s services to work with motivated people. Regarding this, the case of the Baltic is unusual as the Strategy was launched just after the adoption of various operational programmes of the Structural Fund. There is therefore a natural agreement between the Objectives 1 and 2 of the regional policy and the Strategy. On this topic, Jean-Marc VENINEAUX reminds us of the lesser requirements in terms of strategic documents for Objective 3 of the regional policy, compared to the other two targets (see Strategic Orientations, National Strategic Frameworks of Reference, ). DG REGIO must work towards harmonisation of the various Objectives in terms of strategic demands. The General Secretariat of the CPMR thanks all participants and a date has been set for the next working group: 13 January 2010, in the CPMR office in Brussels. NEXT MEETINGS 13/01/2010: next meeting of the territorial cooperation working group in the CPMR office in Brussels. Spring 2010: Conference in Valencia (Spain) on territorial cooperation and the neighbourhood instrument organised by the CPMR, chaired by Spain. Atlantic Arc: February 2010: Conference on transport in Galicia April 2010: Conference on energy in Cantabria 19-20/05/2010 : Maritime Day in Gijón, Asturias North Sea: 1/12/2009: Executive committee of the North Sea Commission 13/04/2010: Large event on the North Sea Strategy Report Ref. CRPMPRV A0 page 8