Proceedings and insights from the workshop The potential of small and medium cities in cross-border polycentric regions 30 June 2015, Luxembourg Proceedings by EUKN on behalf of the Luxembourg Presidency of the Council of the European Union European Urban Knowledge Network EGTC Koningin Julianaplein 10 2495 AA The Hague Netherlands Tel. +31 703028484 www.eukn.eu Contact: Mart Grisel, Director of EUKN EGTC
Report commissioned by the Department of Spatial Planning and Development of the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Infrastructure of the Government of Luxembourg Alfons Fermin, EUKN, 07 October 2015 Proceedings and insights 30 June 2015 Workshop on CBPRs, Luxembourg page 2/12
1. Proceedings of the workshop The workshop on The potential of small and medium cities in cross-border polycentric metropolitan regions (30 June 2015, Luxembourg-City) was organised by the Department of Spatial Planning and Development in the context of the Luxembourgish Presidency of the Council of the European Union in the second half of 2015. The purpose of the workshop was to explore the challenges and potentials of small and medium cities in cross-border polycentric regions (CBPRs), by a presentation of a state of play report on CBPRs and by facilitating an exchange between relevant stakeholders and experts. As the workshop had the purpose of facilitating an exchange and open dialogue on CBPRs, a good mix of experts from all sectors at the European, transnational, national, and regional/local level were invited. The workshop was divided into three parts. After an opening session, the state of play report was presented (session 1), a panel discussion followed (session 2), next there were thematic workshops on three sectoral topics (session 3), followed by a concluding session and closure of the workshop. 1.1 State of Play and Panel Discussion (Sessions 1 and 2) Antoine Decoville of the Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER) presented the state of play report on Opportunities of cross-border cooperation between small and medium cities in Europe, a presentation and analysis of the findings from the analysis of 21 case studies of CBPRs from across Europe, followed by questions from the audience. This session was followed by a panel discussion on the potential and challenges of small and medium cities in CBPRs. The panellists were: - Lars Silverberg, cross-border region of Copenhagen (DK) Malmö (SE) - Petro Hermans and Reina Pasma, cross-border region of Aachen (DE) Liège (BE) Maastricht (NL) - Zoltán Póser, cross-border region of Oradea (RO) Debrecen (HU) - Thierry Baert: cross-border region of Lille (FR) Kortrijk (BE) Tournai (BE) - Martin Orth, Initiativkreis Metropolitane Grenzregionen (IMeG) - Judit Törökné Rózsa, Head of Unit, European Commission - DG Regio It was the intention to get a local and regional perspective on the issues, and therefore half of the panellists represented this level of government. They presented the experiences of cross-border cooperation in the regions of Copenhagen-Malmö, Aachen-Liège-Maastricht, Oradea-Debrecen, and Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai. The main insights from the first and second sessions can be summarised under a few headings. Contextualising the issue The border has stopped been an impediment for cities, because of developments including the debordering process of internal European borders, support from EU regional policy, and because cities have generally acquired more competencies over the past decades. It is in Proceedings and insights 30 June 2015 Workshop on CBPRs, Luxembourg page 3/12
this context that issues of cross-border cooperation (CBC) between cities have gained importance. CBC is not an end in itself, but a means to serve a general interest, for instance realising infrastructural projects. Cooperation in cross-border polycentric networks may help small and medium cities to reach a critical mass required for unlocking their development potential, a potential that often remains unlocked due to the less urbanised and compact settlement structure of many border areas. In addition, cooperation between larger cities (for example of Copenhagen and Malmö) may offer smaller cities in that region the opportunity to participate in the cooperation. Size does not always matter. Some quite small cities in cross-border regions are well-involved in this kind of cooperation. Some of the participants stated that cooperation across municipal borders (or across borders of federal states in, for example, Germany) may face comparable challenges and produce similar benefits to cross-border cooperation. Therefore, studies on cooperation between municipalities, for instance the study on Metropolitan areas in action by EUROCITIES (2013) and results of the JOINING FORCES URBACT Working Group, offer relevant insights for cross-border cooperation. Indicators of cross-border cooperation and integration The state of play report describes and analyses findings of 21 case studies of cross-border cooperation initiatives between small and medium cities all over Europe. Indicators of crossborder integration usually try to depict the cross-border integration process by looking at either interactions or convergence. An analysis of the case studies showed that there are some contradictory mechanisms between cross-border interactions and cross-border convergence: a high intensity of interactions does not always lead to convergence or more similarity concerning territorial characteristics. Cross-border integration can be analysed from different perspectives: in terms of interactions (functional approach), organisation of the process of cooperation (institutional approach), contextual characteristics of the cross-border area (structural approach), or the individual and collective representations of this area (ideational approach). The report remains close to the empirical findings, and thus abstains from evaluative conclusions on which CBC organisations are performing better or worse. A next step of the study could include the construction of a typology of cross-border cooperation patterns, based on an analysis of the case studies. Triggers for increased cooperation The presentation of cases by the panellists showed that cooperation is stimulated by various specific triggers, such as cross-border problems (drugs, human trafficking, gangs), opportunities (infrastructural ones, for instance the bridge between Malmö and Copenhagen and a planned high speed train connection), or a common identity (previously separated twin cities). For twin cities it appears as a logical step to cooperate, sometimes triggered by the lifting of borders between Eastern and Western Europe. This exemplifies the impact of geographical contexts. More in general, spatial configurations of small and medium cities involved in CBPRs and (not) belonging to political or economic transnational spaces, such as the EU, the Schengen area or the Eurozone, are factors that can promote or inhibit cooperation. Proceedings and insights 30 June 2015 Workshop on CBPRs, Luxembourg page 4/12
The themes or subjects of cooperation vary, both within and between the cross-border cooperating cities. Some themes that emerged from the workshop are: - Transport and infrastructure are regularly a first issue: improving cross-border connections and realising infrastructure projects that no city or border region could implement by itself (LISER 2015). The bridge between Malmö and Copenhagen has spurred cross-border cooperation. Cross-border cities may share airports and railways [for instance Haparanda (SE) and Tornio (FI)] or a public transport network linking universities and cities on both sides of the border. Malmö and Copenhagen are planning a high-speed connection with European destinations. - Employment issues are another recurrent theme, due to the development of crossborder labour markets. For instance, in the Trinational Eurodistrict of Basel (or Upper Rhine region) various cross-border labour market projects have been implemented, including cross-border apprenticeships, and information days for frontier workers, and a cross-border information centre called INFOBEST. Other examples are joint databases of available jobs and joint vocational training programmes for low-skilled youth. Developing such policies requires knowledge and monitoring of the crossborder labour market. - Sharing services: over time, (twin) cities will share more and more services. For smaller cities, cross-border cooperation offers opportunities to overcome problems of insufficient capacity and resources. For instance, the twin cities of Haparanda (SE) and Tornio (FI) share many services, including a sewage treatment plant, sports facilities and educational institutions. Several cities cooperate and share services in the field of education (for instance Frankfurt Oder and Słubice). But there are also several examples of sharing care and, more generally, healthcare services, for example the cross-border hospital in Cerdagne, along the Franco-Spanish border (LISER 2015) - Economic development is an important theme for some regions with a strong industrial sector, like the Upper Rhine region or the Centrope region. In the Centrope region of Vienna, Bratislava, Brno and Gyor, the importance of the knowledge sector (universities and research institutes) and automotive sector determine the cooperation. For instance, their common strategy (Strategy 2013+) aims at a coordinated immigration policy for highly skilled workers. And cooperation of educational institutions and universities constitutes a vital element of the cooperation in the Centrope region. To give another example, Frankfurt Oder and Słubice are cooperating in many areas, including the field of tourism and city marketing. - Environmental issues: examples are joint actions of flood protection along the Danube, for instance between Ruse (BG) and Giurgiu (RO) (LISER 2015). - Security issues: in the Aachen-Liege-Maastricht region, cooperation was partly triggered by problems with drugs, gangs and human smuggling, and so cooperation in this field resulted in common security conferences. Proceedings and insights 30 June 2015 Workshop on CBPRs, Luxembourg page 5/12
- If cooperation structures and networks are in place, they can be used for other purposes; for instance joining forces to become a candidate for the European Capital of Culture (Maastricht). Organising cooperation Building up cross-border cooperation is a long-term process. It takes considerable time to build connections at political and institutional level, and between businesses. The crossborder governance structures vary between cases and they develop over time. Development of networks is crucial for cross-border cooperation. The organisation of cross-border cooperation may be more or less institutionalised, ranging from personal networks, (annual) coordination between regional teams to joint city assemblies and an integrated cross-border team (e.g., the Öresundskomiteen). General principles to improve CB governance according to the state of play report are: define objectives shared by all; use the available legal instruments and means; and open the governance arena to non-institutional actors. However, the quality of interpersonal relations between policymakers remains crucial to ensure an efficient cooperation. In addition, it is important to involve stakeholders and the civil society, and to strengthen the feeling of sharing a common cross-border living area. Events and actions can allow the population to develop the sense of belonging to a crossborder community of interests. Challenges for cross-border cooperation The panellists indicated several challenges that cross-border cooperation has to overcome: of differences between countries in languages, laws and regulations, planning processes and allocation of competencies between government levels, as well as challenges of short-term versus long-term views, ambitions versus capacity, lack of knowledge of EU funding, and combining cooperation with competition. Antoine Decoville (LISER) distinguished three challenges in linking up small and medium cities: - Combining the means, know-how and resources to acquire a critical mass. This is possible by pooling resources, in view of the collective needs, to set up and operate large-scale infrastructure projects or events, and by fostering the networking of competencies in order to generate innovation. - Aiming at greater coherence between small and medium cities at the cross-border level, through the elaboration of common territorial strategies. - To provide an international image of the border region, through the promotion of the territory to foreign investors and through the development of a more attractive and welcoming image of the cross-border area. A cross-border territorial strategy has a clear added value by improving the knowledge of the territorial priorities on the other side of the border and by exploiting synergies to reinforce the competitiveness of the whole cross-border region. It will promote the process of converging toward a more coherent cross-border region. Coopetition may be the new dogma for crossborder regions. This concept, borrowed from the business world, combines the terms cooperation and competition : it refers to opportunistic collaborations that permit a win-win situation while keeping the spirit of competition alive at micro level (LISER 2015: 11). Proceedings and insights 30 June 2015 Workshop on CBPRs, Luxembourg page 6/12
However, cross-border territorial strategies have their limits as well: there is no restrictive framework, since competences in spatial planning remain the exclusive prerogative of the respective authorities on each side of the border. Institutional mismatches between the different stakeholders in charge of the cross-border cooperation are inevitable and the differences in planning cultures will complicate the implementation of the strategies. Furthermore, the strategic priorities can differ on both sides of the border. The many differences between national and regional systems requires flexibility, however flexibility has become more restricted due to formal procedures and processes of institutionalisation. Support from higher-level authorities Support in terms of capacity, resources and knowledge by higher-level authorities is essential for successful cross-border cooperation. Judit Törökné Rózsa (EC, DG REGIO) looked at the issue from the regional and urban dimension of EU policies. There are various EU tools and policies available or in development that may be used to support or strengthen cross-border cooperation. There is a huge variety of legal instruments (EGTCs for example) and funds available, including European Territorial Cooperation and INTERREG programmes. Cross-border cooperation is the biggest part of INTERREG. Tools for integrating funds, especially ITI and CLLD, can also be used in cross-border cooperation, although they are seldom used for it. DG REGIO will strengthen understanding and use of these tools. In September, DG REGIO will publish a report with scenarios for the use of ITIs and one of these four scenarios describes an ITI for cross-border cooperation of a twin city. The EC policies and tools recognise that functional urban areas might be more relevant than administrative borders of cities, and that cities are not isolated from rural areas. Therefore, CLLDs and ITIs are appropriate for CBPRs. The topic of CBPRs is linked to two great discussions at EU level: on the EU Urban Agenda and on the Territorial Agenda 2020. As was stated by Judit Törökné Rózsa, the EU tools of URBACT, INTERREG and Innovative Actions will be aligned to the EU Urban Agenda. A relevant question is how to include this theme on the EU Urban Agenda: as a separate priority or as a cross-cutting topic? Another issue is whether and how to include attention to CBPRS in the instrument of Territorial Impact Assessment (TIA): how to assess the urban or regional impact of actions proposed by the Commission? 1.2 Sectoral Perspectives (Session 3) Session 3 consisted of thematic workshops that took place simultaneously and addressed different sectors: (1) Common infrastructure projects, (2) Labour market and (3) Economic development, innovation and research. The discussion was launched by impulse statements (presentations). Common infrastructure projects The two presentations on cooperation of (1) twin cities by Petri Suopanki from Haparanda (Sweden) -Tornio (Finland) (since the 1960s) and (2) by Sören Bollman on Frankfurt-Oder (Germany) and Słubice (Poland) (since 1991), showcased two well-developed cases of CBC. Due to the differences in maturity, the level of CBC in the former example is higher. Both have developed strong forms of cross-border cooperation with extensive governance Proceedings and insights 30 June 2015 Workshop on CBPRs, Luxembourg page 7/12
structures for cooperation, including joint city council meetings. Both twin cities cooperate in many areas, including education, economic development, public services and infrastructure projects. Main challenges of cross-border cooperation in these areas are: - Lack of flexibility in national and EU rules and different national approaches; - Major challenges in building soft public consensus on the need for cross-border cooperation and governance. This is especially the case where there are economic differences and/or critical language barriers and net flows towards one side of the border; - A lack of appropriate, good quality data to inform cross-border cooperation policies. Possible ways of overcoming these challenges include common branding, cross-border spatial planning, cooperation agreements, and regular face-to-face meetings. However, strong political leadership and long-term commitment remain vital. Labour market perspectives Manuel Friesecke presented the collaboration of Basel (CH) Saint Louis (FR) Lörrach (DE) in the Trinational Eurodistrict Basel (TEB) and Hermann Hansy presented the crossborder collaboration in the region of the Vienna (AT) Bratislava (SK) Brno (CZ) Györ (HU) in Centrope (Central European). Both regions have developed cross-border cooperation in several areas, while simultaneously developing a governance structure for cooperation and a common strategy. The labour market of both dynamic, growing international regions is integrating in increasing measure, in first instance because of freedom of movement and dynamics of demand and supply of labour in the regions. Next, the agglomerations have developed cross-border strategies to facilitate labour mobility and avoid mismatches in supply and demand of labour, for instance to find and implement pragmatic solutions for problems with differences in languages, recognition of diplomas, taxes and social security systems. Cross-border labour market and human capital development projects are implemented within both the framework of the Agglo Programm Basel and the Centrope Strategy 2013+, including an information centre, cross-border tramway, monitoring of cross-border labour markets, policies for target groups and an immigration policy for highly-skilled workers. Each cross-border region will have to face its own challenges and utilise its specific opportunities. For instance, in the Centrope region, with 40 universities and 200 colleges and technical institutes, cooperation of educational institutions constitutes a backbone of the cross-border cooperation. Challenges include not only differences in legal and tax frameworks, and differences in languages and educational systems, but also differences in sense of urgency because of asymmetrical labour markets. Recommendations from the two cases are: - focus on pragmatic, area-based cross-border solutions, - take account of differences in the systems, - provide for cross-border vocational training and recognition of qualifications, - take account of future labour market implications of demographic change, - utilise the general and specific opportunities, including EU tools and funds and instruments (EGTCs), and - involve stakeholders including citizens, address media to report success stories. Proceedings and insights 30 June 2015 Workshop on CBPRs, Luxembourg page 8/12
Economic development, innovation and research Marjan van Herwijnen of ESPON started with a presentation on relevant knowledge from the targeted analysis ESPON project ULYSSES - Using applied research results from ESPON as a yardstick for cross-border spatial development planning (2010-2012). This constitutes a targeted analysis on specific request from stakeholders of 13 cross-border areas. Relevant insights on CBC include: differences among cross-border regions appear to be very much a consequence of their overall EU location and not so much of their border position; crossborder commuting levels are still relatively low; and all regions have to develop their own ways and mechanisms to exploit their cross-border potentials. A relevant output of the ULYSSES project is a practical guide for the elaboration of cross-border territorial development strategies. The discussion focused on three topics: EC instruments for CBC and economic development, innovation and the involvement of the private sector. Stef vande Meulebroucke, (at the time) in charge of the EGTC supporting Eurometropolis Lille-Kortrijk- Tournai, started the discussion by stating that there are many obstacles in using EU tools for CBC. EU funding instruments can be helpful for economic development policies of CBC, but there are many coordination problems: INTERREG is incompatible with the EGTC legal instrument, national governments are responsible for funding programmes while regional and local authorities have to develop and implement CBC strategies. Should other administrative structures become responsible for funding, should EU funding programmes get a crossborder focus, or should member states be triggered to use the relevant EU funds also for CBC? Another possible obstacle is co-financing; thus cross-border projects often need a national share. EU-funding should not be decisive for the development of CBC strategies; otherwise, there is the risk that cooperation could stumble from project to project. National and EU support for networking platforms is essential as well. Innovation strategies and smart specialisation are a key factor in the economic development of these regions. Such strategies are often the responsibility of regions; it is important that the local authorities are involved in developing these strategies. Innovation needs funding and in this context especially the INTERREG and Horizon 2020 programmes are relevant. Furthermore, businesses and research institutes are key actors for innovation. Universities and research institutes are key in innovation strategies, and they may take the lead. The involvement of the business sector in CBC economic development strategies is crucial. A good practice example is the one of the Nuremberg Metropolitan Region in Germany (presented by Frederick Richters). In this case, the business sector is closely involved in decision-making. The Managing Board of the Steering Committee is composed of an equal number of representatives from the Council of the Metropolitan Region and from the Business Association of the Nuremberg Metropolitan Region. The Eurométropole region offers a comparable example: the consultative body - the Forum of this organisation involves over 80 civil society organisations (of which about 25% are businesses). Another discussion took place about the need to develop a European network of crossborder polycentric urban regions, with the support of programmes such as URBACT and ESPON. Proceedings and insights 30 June 2015 Workshop on CBPRs, Luxembourg page 9/12
2. Conclusion: insights from the workshop To summarise the outcome of the workshop on The potential of small and medium cities in cross-border polycentric metropolitan regions, the central workshop questions will be answered on the basis of the workshop proceedings. 1 Do European, national and regional stakeholders sufficiently recognise the potential or added value of polycentric urban development across borders? At European level, especially DG Regio has developed many programmes and instruments to support cross-border cooperation that are relevant as well for CBPRs. The attention at national and regional level for the potentials of CBPRs varies. There are examples of national government policies that integrate cross-border cooperation in national strategies, for instance in Austria and Switzerland (Basel region as an example). However, in general there are tensions and mismatches between the dynamics of CBPRs and (national) administrative structures that hinder the development of cross-border cooperation. How can the EC encourage national authorities to pay more attention to CBPRs in EU funding programmes? One possibility is to give incentives to Managing Authorities to pay attention to CBPRs. What are good practices around Europe and which obstacles exist with reference to the cooperation between small and medium cities across borders? There are many good practices, presented in the state of play report and during the workshop. All CBPRs have to develop their own structures and mechanisms to exploit the potentials of cross-border cooperation, but they can learn from each other s experiences. The EC already supports this exchange, but there is a need for a more structured exchange of good practices on how to make use of specific EU tools. Cities cooperating across borders have to overcome many obstacles, including differences in languages, educational systems, cultures, and administrative, legal and fiscal systems. The cases presented during the workshop showed that even in case of many sharp differences, the advantages of cooperation may outweigh the costs and motivate local authorities to find solutions for such problems. How do the instruments and objectives of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) support the development of CBPRs? EU funds and financial instruments are an important source of funding for cooperation in many CBPRs, along national funding. However, during the workshop several problems were discussed with applying and using EU funding and financial instruments. The use of financial instruments as ITIs and CLLDs for CBPRs is still an unexplored area. INTERREG programs are important for many cross-border cooperation projects, but may encounter problems, for example for EGTCs. Other EU funding programs should have more attention for the potentials and specific problems of cooperation in CBPRs. Do small and medium cities in CBPRs raise particular governance issues and how can they be involved in effective multi-level governance? The workshop didn t focus on specific governance problems and opportunities of small and medium cities in CBPRs. They can benefit from the power and capacity of larger cities 1 These are the EUKN conclusions based on the proceedings presented in part 1 of this paper. Proceedings and insights 30 June 2015 Workshop on CBPRs, Luxembourg page 10/12
cooperating in cross-border agglomerations, for example in the regions of Basel and Vienna. The examples of cross-border cooperation of smaller cities were basically on twin cities. In this case, cooperation almost becomes obvious when internal European borders dissolve. Problems of lack of capacity and resources can be reduced by support from regional, national and EU authorities. How can we make sure that the role of small and medium cities also in the context of CBPRs - is taken into account and their potential is being recognised in the current debates on urban and territorial policies at the European level? The topic of CBPRs is linked the discussions on the EU Urban Agenda and on the Territorial Agenda for the EU. The challenges and opportunities of small and medium-sized cities will be considered within both frameworks during the Luxembourgish Presidency of the European Union. One question is how to include this theme on the EU urban agenda: as a separate priority or as a cross-cutting theme? Proceedings and insights 30 June 2015 Workshop on CBPRs, Luxembourg page 11/12
Proceedings and insights 30 June 2015 Workshop on CBPRs, Luxembourg page 12/12