Tales from the Borderlands

Co-operation programmes co-operating about co-operating

2011-09-08T09:46:00.001+02:00

The 13 transnational co-operation programmes have got together to organise a massive joint conference in Katowice next week (15-16 Sept) on what transnational co-operation has achieved so far and what the future might hold. Details are available here at the impressive website of the event.

The Border-crosser thinks this is an excellent initiative. By its nature, co-operation is evidently much more geared towards working across boundaries and looking at what others are doing than other types of programme. And yet, getting even co-operation programmes to work more effectively with other co-operation programmes is not always so easy. There are certainly good examples out there: the cross-border programmes on the French-Belgian border involve each other in their programme meetings; the North Sea and Northern Periphery programmes have worked very well together on the Northern Maritime Corridor project. However, these examples stand out to some extent because they are the exception rather than the rule.

So, anything that gets programmes talking to each other can only be a good thing. And an event like this, with almost 700 people taking part, and backed strongly by the Polish Presidency, is a very good thing indeed. And with proceedings being broadcast on the web, even those who can't make it Katowice can follow what's going on.

How lies the land?

2011-09-01T12:02:00.000+02:00

As the Border-Crosser wakes from a very extended period of hibernation, he looks around and asks himself "how lies the land?" Where does co-operation sit in autumn 2011? What has happened since the last time the Border-Crosser put fingers to keyboard?

Well, the big news to start with is that the Commission's financial proposals for the 2014-2020 are out (click here). They were issued in June, and will be followed by all the draft sectoral regulations before the end of 2011. Then the fun starts, as the whole process gets pulled apart in the Council and the Parliament until some time in 2013 (springtime, if you want the Border-Crosser's best guess).

So how did co-operation do from a funding point of view? All told, pretty well it must be said. A proposed allocation of EUR 11.7 billion, equivalent to an almost 40% increase on the current figure (when you put them into comparable prices.) Certainly not as much as some in the co-operation world were hoping for, but in the overall economic context, and in the general EU budget squeeze, not to be sniffed at.

Certainly, it's not as much as the Commission proposed last time, but we know what happened when that proposal reached the Council (slashed, for those that don't know.) This time round, the proposal looks a more realistic starting point. In addition, the much stronger role of the Parliament is likely to help, as there are a lot of friends of co-operation in the Parliament, especially on the REGI Committee. That should mitigate Council (and some Commission) tendencies to cut away at the co-operation budget when savings are required. Finally, the development of the macro-regional strategy approach provides a stronger justification than has existed before for increasing the transnational co-operation funding in particular.

So, grounds for optimism. However, there needs to be proof that co-operation is delivering now, otherwise there will undoubtedly be pressure to squeeze the budget during the negotiation phase. Therefore, over the coming weeks, the Border-Crosser will be looking at what has been happening in the ETC programmes over the last year or so to assess progress. Feel free to chip in and comment on what you have seen as well.

Just what is to be done with the Mediterranean?

2010-02-18T11:09:00.002+01:00

As promised a couple of posts ago, we return to the subject of co-operation in the Mediterranean. Or perhaps we should say "non-co-operation" as it is not a pretty story. 15 years on from the start of the Barcelona Process, any hopes for real co-operation are bogged down in undiplomatic squabbling about who will be Secretary-General or Deputy Secretary-General or head tea lady of the successor structure, the "Union for the Mediterranean" (UfM). There has been no real progress on delivering actual content on the ground, and the UfM looks like a talking shop with not much talking going on. (They do, according to Wikipedia, have a flag - how on earth did they agree on that?)

So what has gone wrong? Well, I suspect there are two basic problems. Firstly, there is an insufficient history of co-operation among the countries of the Mediterranean. Of course, if you go far enough back in history, you can find much co-operation and many shifting borders, but among the states that exist today, there are simply not enough close linkages to form a solid base for co-operation. The gold standard here is the Baltic Sea, and the huge network of international organsiations established over the last 20 years.

The second problem is that, in the Med, the countries have mixed the political level with the practical level. The UfM is trying to be all things to everyone, and is only succeeding in being nothing to no-one. Looking again at the Baltic, the political dimensions are separated off into the Council of Baltic Sea States or the Nordic Council, while delivery is left to other groups. Have a giant political grouping of all countries if you want (43 members!), but have a delivery system for content which focuses on the countries around the Mediterranean.

Of course, Sarkozy's original plan was to have the political level involving Mediterranean countries only, but Merkel and others didn't like that idea. However, very quietly, the French are looking at recovering some of this lost ground. They have suddenly become extremely interested in the European Commission's current work on macroregional strategies in the Baltic and Danube regions, and are beginning to encourage the Commission to consider a Mediterranean strategy next.

Based on the assessment above, on first glance this looks a reasonable proposition. On second glance, it is less attractive. Firstly, the amount of work involved in creating these strategies is huge. It seems doubtful that the Commission could prepare two at the same time - the Danube is going to prove enough of a challenge as it is.

Secondly, while a Mediterranean Strategy would provide a more focussed delivery system for results, it cannot overcome by itself the first problem identified above - the lack of a real history of co-operation. For a strategy to have any chance of success, there must be something solid to build on.

So, what to do? Quite simply, let's focus on building trust, on building real, long-term partnerships with good results. And here the EU has already provided the tools. There are two Mediterranean co-operation programmes operating - the cohesion policy MED programme (http://www.programmemed.eu/) which supports co-operation mainly among the EU Member States along the north of the Mediterranean, and the ENPI Mediterranean cross-border programme (http://www.enpicbcmed.eu/) which focuses more on north-south links. Both programmes have around EU 200 million between 2007 and 2013, which offers huge opportunities to start working together effectively. If all that funding can actually be put to good use, maybe - just maybe - there will be a case to be made for a more strategic approach in future.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Baltic Sea excitement

2010-02-16T10:45:00.001+01:00

It's evidently Strategy time on the Tales from the Borderlands blog, as today the Baltic Sea takes centre stage. The Finns, in their usual quiet, effective way, put together the Baltic Sea Action Summit (http://www.bsas.fi/) which took place last Wednesday. The guest list was truly impressive, with at least 3 Presidents, 5 Prime Ministers (including Putin), not to mention the Swedish King, accompanied by his environment minister.

Also taking part was the new European Commissioner for Regional Policy, Johannes Hahn. I can't help thinking that President Barroso should really have been there as well. Yes, there is the very good explanation that 10 February was the first day of work for the new Commission, but - if the event had been covering the south of Europe, do we still think Barroso would not have been present?

On content, there were strong messages from all participants, demonstrating a genuine commitment to cleaning up the Baltic. The Border-crosser is not often considered an idealist, so here's hoping that my feeling - that a lot of what was said went further than is normally the case - is accurate. There will be a need to link up many of the individual commitments to the EU's Baltic Sea Strategy, and also to the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, but that looks doable.

The one off-note of the day came from Putin, who delivered a longish lecture about how wonderful the Nordstream gas pipeline is going to be for the Baltic environment. He was a little short on proof for backing that up, unsurprisingly, but his very presence was still a positive signal, and he had a whole series of bilateral meetings in the margins which can only have helped as well.

Danube Strategy days

2010-02-03T15:00:00.000+01:00

The Border-crosser has been in Ulm for the launch of the consultation phase of the EU's new, all-singing, all-dancing Danube Strategy. At least you would think it was going to be all-singing, all-dancing, when you heard some of the speeches. Most of them included wishlists that were significantly longer than seems sensible and a reality check will need to be introduced at some point. A serious discussion on what can actually be done, and when, will need to happen at some point. The Serbian Deputy Prime Minister, Bozidar Djelic, made this point better than most of the Member State politicians.

Nevertheless, the Danube is an interesting case for such a macro-regional strategy. It is not the most obvious choice for such a strategy (if you had asked me a year or so ago which region would follow the Baltic, I would have guessed the Alps, or maybe the North Sea). It does not have a great history of co-operation, barring very specific examples like the Danube Commission on navigation. Certainly, it cannot offer anything to compare with the multiplicity of networks which exist in the Baltic.

However, it is not an inherently hopeless case, like the Union for the Mediterranean (more on this in a future post.) The effective lobbying at national and regional level which led the European Council to ask for a Danube Strategy last June has built up much good will and commitment. Getting 450 people to Ulm in the middle of the German winter certainly points to enthusiasm, if nothing else. Current EU co-operation programmes in the region have improved a lot compared to the past, and there is a lot of interesting, if as yet rather unco-ordinated, work going on.

Next up for the Danube is the Budapest Summit at the end of February, where prime ministers are going to turn up, wax lyrical about the river, and give an added political boost to the Strategy's preparations. Should be fun.

People make the difference

2010-01-20T16:15:00.002+01:00

The Border-crosser has been rather distracted of late, and the blog has fallen into disuse. However, we have entered a new year, and so greater effort can, should and will be made to communicate.

And what better way to start than with a good news story, this time from Ireland. The Irish Times reports (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0118/1224262564584.html) on the friendship between the husband of the Irish President and the brigadier-general of the UDA. Now, one single relationship might not make or break cross-border co-operation by itself, but no relationships at all means no co-operation at all. And this particular partnership gives off more politically positive messages than most.

Small steps...

To Hell in a Cross-Border Handbasket

2009-09-03T10:15:00.001+02:00

Sometimes you just have to turn your back for a metaphorical minute, and the whole place goes completely crazy. After a very well-earned summer break, the Border-Crosser returned to business to find cross-border co-operation appears to have given up and gone into hiding over August. Outbreaks of "we hate the neighbours" have popped up all over Europe. It's all very strange.

As a quick summary, the Danes are unhappy with the Swedes about setting low expectations from the Copenhagen climate talks in December; the Slovaks refused entry to the Hungarian President because he was going to unveil a statue in a mainly Hungarian speaking town; the Slovenes have fallen out with the Italians about a new LNG terminal on the Adriatic; and Flanders is shouting at the Netherlands because the Dutch won't dredge the Scheldt as they promised in 2005 as a result of environmental protests. All of this, of course, is in addition to the on-going sniping on the Greece-Macedonia and Slovenia-Croatia borders.

Is this just the silly season kicking in? Or is there a wider trend here? Probably, we are somewhere in between. Most of the squabbling should settle down, although the Dutch will have to find some clever compromise between treaty obligations and court decisions. The situation in Slovakia is perhaps most worrying, especially when the recent law apparently restricting the use of the Hungarian language is taken into account.

Unusual outbreak of common sense in the UK

2009-07-17T09:20:00.001+02:00

In search of better border news, I noticed this refreshing story from London, where the Government has been prevailed upon by Parliament to drop the frankly ludicrous idea of introducing passport checks between the UK and Ireland (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8150930.stm). I know that we are in an era of "increased security concerns" [(c) anyone wanting to introduced greater restrictions on civil liberties], but if the UK never introduced passport checks for visitors from Ireland during the Troubles, then they have absolutely no excuse whatsoever for doing it now.

Of course, the Government evidently feels very uncomfortable about the Common Travel Area, which is essentially a mini-Schengen for the British Isles. They must feel it runs counter to their emphasis on the need for increased security and "fortress UK" [(c) the Border Crosser]. However, Parliament has fortunately seen how much of a backward step this would have been, and have squashed it.

Cross-border libraries

2009-07-14T09:17:00.002+02:00

A short report from last September from the Centre for Cross Border Studies was missed here at Borderlands HQ. The CCBS is one of the biggest hitters in cross-border co-operation research and has produced a huge amount of material on the Ireland-Northern Ireland border situation. At least, that's my excuse for missing this briefing paper first time round.

The report (http://borderireland.info/discuss/?p=98) focuses on co-operation among public libraries on the island of Ireland, where formal co-operation goes back over 30 years. There are lots of good cross-border project examples included in the report, with the key conclusion being why has this been possible for libraries, but not for other public services.

From a wider perspective, it would certainly be worth looking at whether any of the lessons could be transferable elsewhere in Europe - or indeed whether there are good practices out there waiting to be discovered. Evidently, where there is a common language on both sides of a border, it would make library co-operation more desirable, but it would not be a pre-requisite. This Canadian-US example is probably quite unusual, but is very positive (until the Department for Homeland Security builds fence through the middle of the building): http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Canada,_U.S._to_tighten_security_between_'cross-border'_library

The Onion skewers US wall building

2009-07-13T09:12:00.000+02:00

The Border-Crosser has a preference for www.thedailymash.com for a good dose of news-related humour in the morning. However, sometimes www.theonion.com manages to hit the nail 100% on the head. This is its brilliant take on the the US-Mexico border barrier: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/mexico_builds_border_wall_to_keep?utm_source=a-section

Positive news from the Baltic

2009-07-03T09:10:00.002+02:00

This blog seems to have been mostly about negatives recently, what with the Slovenes and Croats, and Americans and Mexicans, all increasing border tensions rather than easing them. So, to add a more positive light on events, check out the excellent new project brochure from the Baltic Sea Region transnational programme here: http://eu.baltic.net/redaktion/download.php?id=845&type=file

As usual with the BSR programme, you get a good, clear description of what the project is about and what it intends to achieve. The Border-crosser particularly likes the extra info about how each project links to the Baltic Sea Region Strategy and the extra stamp that Strategy flagship projects receive.

I also have the impression that the projects seem a little more "concrete" than in the past, especially the innovation-related ones. Maybe the Strategy is already beginning to have an impact on funding.

Wrong direction

2009-07-01T08:38:00.004+02:00

Not sure how many of you have taken a closer look at Bruce Berman's border-blog, a photo blog on the border cities of El Paso, Texas and Juarez, Mexico - the link is in the interesting blog list on the right. The Border-crosser was especially struck by this entry - Welcome to Juarez - showing the "reinforced pathways" of bars that people have to follow to cross the border between two parts of what is essentially the same city.

This is not how things are supposed to be.

A Baltic Strategy

2009-06-10T09:38:00.006+02:00

The Commission will today publish its Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region which is aimed at providing the region with a policy framework delivering better results for the EU citizen.

Why the Baltic? Well, on one level it's an obvious choice. The institutional system in the region is packed with international and interregional organisations, like the Nordic Council, the CBSS, HELCOM, the BSSSC, the UBC, the BEAC and a whole host of other acronyms. Indeed, you might ask, if the Baltic is so good at being organised across national borders, why does it need a strategy at all?

The answer is twofold. Firstly, having so many organisations in one region can be a disadvantage when it comes to agreeing on actual action. All these organisations have slightly different focuses, subtly different priorities. Getting them all pulling in the same direction at the same time is none too easy.

The second issue is often a consequence of the first. Since it is difficult to get everyone to agree on a joint approach, it is all too common that the discussions do not lead to sufficient action on the ground. And this is what has been seen in the Baltic. For all the talk and broad, political agreement, the environmental state of the Baltic Sea itself keeps worsening, the transport links do not improve sufficiently quickly, and economic development is still divergent.

The Baltic Sea Strategy offers the chance to better co-ordinate what is already in place and to guide future co-operation work more effectively - in short, to provide the overall framework into which actions and projects can be fitted and organised coherently.

Boiled down to these basics, it's a remarkably straightforward and sensible idea. The uncharitable might ask why it took so long to get around to it, but the role of the Commission in the process provides the response to that. The Member States were unable to come up with this together and needed the Commission as an impartial player to take the lead role in co-ordinating the work. In this, it can be seen as an expansion of the role the Commission often plays in the cross-border programmes in the region. And it could be the start of something much bigger - other regions in Europe are watching with much interest.

Plus ça change...

2009-06-03T09:21:00.003+02:00

Regular readers will notice that the Border-crosser has been on an extended break recently, but, in some areas at least, it is as if he hasn't been away at all. Slovenia and Croatia continue to drift along in mutual incomprehension, despite a fairly determined effort by the Commission to haul them back to their senses.

The post below (25 Feb) sets out the background to this dispute, but it is the on-going intransigence which is perhaps the saddest part of the story. We all know the recent history of the Western Balkans and the dangers involved in inflaming nationalist sentiments. If ever there was a need for cool heads and a dedramatising of the situation, then this is it. And yet, we get the exact opposite: consider this scary article http://www.javno.com/en-world/mp-zmago-calls-serbia-bosnia-against-croatia_262530

"Then weapons will fire"?? Have we learned nothing? The answer, apparently, is no.

A great leap backwards

2009-06-02T23:34:00.003+02:00

As of yesterday, Americans and Canadians crossing the longest continuous land border on the world require a passport or equivalent document before being allowed to actually cross. The usual arguments on security, control of national borders, the post 9/11 world have all been trotted out to justify this development. Yet, to the Border-crosser at least, this seems, sadly, another step backwards for cross-border co-operation.

How can the introduction of such travel restrictions on a border long regarded as one of the most fluid in the world be necessary, when Europe is moving rapidly in the other direction? Is Europe less safe as a result of Schengen? Is being able to travel from the south of Portugal to the north of Finland without the need for a passport a fundamental danger to our continent? And, since the answer to both questions is no, what is going on?

It seems that North America, essentially driven by the USA of course, is over-reacting to the events of recent years. As a result, North America has become a little bit more closed, a little bit more divided, and a little bit less co-operative than it was. This piece, on Alaska-Yukon border crossings makes the point rather well: http://newsminer.com/news/2009/jun/02/island-effect/

Squabbling in the Balkans

2009-02-25T09:24:00.003+01:00

Another year, another bout of unedifying squealing and squabbling about borders in the Western Balkans. This time it is two supposedly better-behaved children, Slovenia and Croatia, that are in dispute. While they have not come to blows (yet), there is much unpleasantness in the air, and the Slovenes are holding Croatian accession negotiations to the EU hostage as a result.

The argument is over the Gulf of Piran (of course, the name has now become controversial as well, with both sides arguing about what the real name should be) and the consequences of the break-up of Yugoslavia. This very clear map (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bay-of-Piran_maritime-boundary-dispute.jpg) illustrates things better than I can describe, but essentially, in Yugoslav days, ships could sail from Slovenia through Yugoslav waters and reach international waters directly. With the break up of Yugoslavia, Slovenian ships would have to sail through another country's waters in order to reach international waters.

Both sides' positions appear to have oscillated back and forth since 1990, but currently Slovenia is insisting on having about 3/4 of the bay and a corridor to international waters, while Croatia would have an "exclave" of national waters on the other side of the corridor to maintain a maritime boundary with Italy (which is apparently not allowed under international law). This is the scenario depicted in the map link above.

Even if this situation appears highly favourable to Slovenia, the two governments initialled an agreement along these lines in 2001. However, the Croatian government was unable to obtain parliamentary support for the agreement, and the process has foundered since. As often happens, positions have hardened, with Slovenia insisting on the agreement being adhered to, and Croatia going back to the 50:50 option combined with the offer of unfettered access through Croatian waters for Slovenian ships.

Looking at this objectively, and from normal international law principles, I would say that Croatia has the more reasonable case here. The fact that Slovenia does not want to take this to legal arbitration suggests that they know this.

However, the Croatian position is weakened by the fact that their Prime Minister initialled the agreement in 2001 to hand over most of the bay to Slovenia. More fundamentally, the realpolitik means that Slovenia holds the upper hand as they are already in the EU and NATO and can block Croatian accession. Maybe one compromise option would be to go back to a 50:50 split of the bay but to combine that with a corridor for Slovenian shipping. Unfortunately, at the moment, compromise is not a word that is in wide circulation.

Headless chickens?

2009-02-22T22:35:00.000+01:00

A very short, minor modifying decision was quietly eased out by the European Commission on Wednesday. Nothing so unusual about that, you might think. Happens all the time. However, this decision was unusual, by anyone's standards.

The decision increased the amount of closure flexibility for 2000-2006 Structural Funds programmes from 2% to 10%. To explain a little: Structural Fund programmes are divided into priorities and the amount of money available in each priority is fixed. It could be modified up to 2006 but not after. The closure flexibility allows programmes which have slightly overspent in one priority to be able to claim that overspend from the Commission, provided it is balanced with an underspend in another priority.

Of course, the word "slightly" was only appropriate when the flexibility was 2%. With the new decision allowing five times that amount, the correct adverb is now " massively". The 2% flexibility was fair - projects inside priorities often underspend, and well managed programmes will budget for this by slightly (that word again) overcommitting funds per priority. A 10% flexibility basically allows extremely poorly managed programmes to cover huge spending gaps in their finances and drives a coach and horses through any kind of attempt to ensure sound financial management.

More worryingly, the whole saga seems to suggest that the Commission has lost a degree of its independence vis-a-vis the Member States. The Commission is supposed to be the guardian of the treaties - not the bender of rules to assist incompetent Member States to recover funds. It fits into a wider pattern, with the current comprehensive revision exercise on the Structural Funds regulations being carried out in the name of the world financial crisis when it has nothing to do with that at all - as can be seen by some of the proposed changes being pushed by the Member States. Someone, somewhere needs to lift their head up from the short-term and look at the medium- and long-term damage being done to cohesion policy through incessant tinkering with rules and kow-towing to Member State demands.

Progress in the Black Sea

2009-02-11T10:26:00.003+01:00

Last week, the International Court of Justice fixed the Romania-Ukraine maritime border in the Black Sea. The dispute had festered for almost 20 years over a rocky outcrop called "Serpent Island" which, depending on whether it was designated an island or a "cliff" would impact upon where the maritime boundary would lie. It appears that the Court has leaned towards the Romanian position, although not all the way. The issue of the actual sovereignty of the island was not presented to the Court, although there are still some in Romania who want the island back from Ukraine, on the basis that it was appropriated by the Soviet Union in 1948. However, both governments seem willing to accept the ICJ decision and to consider the situation finalised.

This is good news for on-going Romania-Ukraine cross-border co-operation, but there are still issues to be addressed. The most serious would appear to be the spat about the Danube Delta and which of the channels through the delta can be used for shipping. This is often presented as an environmental argument, but there are evidently economic undertones - i.e. who gets paid for allowing ships to go through the delta. In any event, progress is required here if future co-operation on Danube issues is not to be impeded.

Naughty Irish cross-border drivers

2009-01-28T16:24:00.005+01:00

I quite enjoyed this story on the BBC this week about drivers from Ireland running up thousands of pounds in driving fines in Northern Ireland (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7852597.stm). In fact, it's a bit cruel really - the UK economy needs every penny it can get at the moment.

Actually, the EU is trying to address this issue through the snappily-titled proposal for a "Directive facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety" (http://preview.tinyurl.com/chf7uj). In fact, the proposed Directive only covers the following at present: (a) speeding; (b) drink-driving; (c) non-use of a seat-belt; (d) failing to stop at a red traffic light and not parking fines - it's more difficult to justify bad parking as a road safety issue perhaps, although when you see the idiots that park on pedestrian crossings or in bus lanes, I think a case could be made. I am certainly surprised that using a mobile phone while driving is not on the list: that is clearly a safety issue.

I can see the road lobby moaning vociferously about this, but the Border-Crosser has very little sympathy - why should you be allowed to drive badly with impunity just because you live across the border? After all, there's an even easier way of avoiding a fine - don't break the law.

Happy New Year - and a late Christmas present

2009-01-16T15:43:00.003+01:00

A bit late I know, but it's been a hectic couple of months in the cross-border world. Not content with trying to get the late starters among the new 2007-2013 co-operation programmes moving, the Commission suddenly sprang a big surprise by offering 6 month extensions for the old 2000-2006 programmes which were meant to close down at the end of 2008.

This last-minute knee-jerk reaction approach is, unfortunately, too often the case with the Commission. Programmes were caught unprepared; even those that could react had mostly closed down projects anyway, so an extra 6 months does not really help project spending very much (apart from amongst those real laggards who still had projects running up to 31 December, of which there were a few.)

However, there is one key positive element to come out of all this. Programmes will now get some help in paying their closure costs. It has always seemed bizarre that expenditure eligibility finished at the end of 2008, but the deadline for closure documents was 15 months later. Certainly, it takes time for such documentation to be compiled and prepared, but who was meant to pay for the 15 months work? The Commission's answer (up to last month) of "the Member States" might be okay for national programmes, but was never a fair response for multi-country programmes. So the programme extensions should be seen as allowing some of the closure costs to be an eligible expense, and programmes should still aim to submit documents by March 2010.

Next time though, a little more warning would be nice.

So, just what is Territorial Cohesion?

2008-11-12T15:30:00.000+01:00

Nope, that's not a trick question. Not content with having rebranded INTERREG as "Territorial Co-operation" for the 2007-2013 period, the EU has also come up with a concept similar in name, and not a million kilometres away in content, with "Territorial Cohesion".

Well, we think it's close in content. It's a bit difficult to tell, as the Commission has managed to issue a Green Paper on the subject without actually defining what it is (ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/consultation/terco/consultation_en.htm). In fact, the Commission seems quite proud of the fact that there is no definition and stresses that this will depend on reactions to the Green Paper.

Now there may be some twisted logic in there somewhere, but it looks an awful lot like ceding any advantage that you might have from holding the pen. If you put a definition down, no matter how weak, you force people to react to it, and comment on it. Without that framework, reactions could (and probably will) fly off in all directions.

This is especially true with this kind of topic, where every possible regional interest group sees the concept of territorial cohesion in its own narrow perspective. Expect bodies dealing with mountains, cities, rivers, rural, peripheral, island areas and others to have very different ideas about TC (as it should not be called). I suspect the Commission is going to have a tricky time prepare a cohesive summary of the public consultation.

Mexico invades USA (sort of)

2008-11-04T16:32:00.003+01:00

With the US distracted by the general election, Mexico took the opportunity to surprise its northern neighbour and has launched an invasion of Arizona.

Of course, I may have exaggerated this story slightly - see media.www.clarksonintegrator.com/media/storage/paper280/news/2008/11/03/News/Mexican.Troops.Illegally.Cross.Border-3521894.shtml
for the accurate picture. Mind you, 42 illegal border crossings in a couple of years is quite impressive.

This reminds me of previous incidents involving the UK and Spain (www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/feb/19/gibraltar.world) and Liechtenstein and Switzerland (www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/02/markoliver).

It's good to know that there are so many armies wandering the globe who are fans of INTERREG and co-operation. After all, we don't like the artificial restrictions borders create either.

Interregional Clanjamfry!

2008-10-28T21:15:00.002+01:00

The Border-Crosser has been visiting the INTERREG IV C Forum in Lille (www.interreg4c.eu), and what a scary experience it has been. If anyone tries to tell you that co-operation is not very popular, then you should send them to one of these events. 1200 people networking like fury, with lots of techy briefings on application forms and programme manuals thrown in for good measure (the Border-Crosser gave these a miss, it must be admitted).

Some interesting political elements were tossed into the mix as well, with the key message that, to be and to remain relevant, interregional co-operation needs to link itself much more closely to national and regional programmes. This may seem self-evident - after all, what's the point of exchanging experience and best practice, if the new information gleaned is not put to good use? - but because co-operation has for too long been seen as a parallel and distinct element of Cohesion Policy, this link has not been made successfully, and many good lessons learned have never been fully implemented in the regions concerned.

It seems that this message is finally getting through, which is important for lots of reasons: not least in making a case for getting a much bigger allocation for interregional co-operation than the pitifully small amount of funds allocated this time round. € 300 million for a programme covering the whole EU (which could have been used three times over in the first call alone!) is pretty poor.

The fight for more recognition for interregional co-operation goes on, but things are looking brighter.

And if you don't understand the title, Google it!

How to start a cross-border morning

2008-10-23T09:34:00.002+02:00

You haul yourself into the office, get the coffee on as fast as you can, and then open the several dozen emails that have drifted in overnight. Another day stretches ahead.

And then you get a story like this: http://www.imt.ie/news/2008/10/crossborder_renal_project_wins.html - which gladdens the heart. Exactly the type of good news story needed to demonstrate the benefits that cross-border co-operation can bring.

Makes it all worthwhile, really.

Germany, Poland and tales of co-operation unfulfilled

2008-10-09T08:50:00.000+02:00

Not everything works well, and not every example of co-operation is a shining example of cross-border harmony. The German-Polish border shows us what can go wrong and it's worth taking a closer look to try and figure out why.

History is the short answer, but more recent history than you might think. There have been cross-border co-operation programmes along the German-Polish border since the mid-nineties, but it was only with Poland joining the Union in 2004 that the programmes became fully integrated from a financial and implementation point of view. The situation was exacerbated by the fact that there were three programmes along the border, because the three German Laender refused to co-operate with each other in a single programme. Nice.

The real difficulties within the programme appear to have arisen because the German Laender have been basically able to run the programmes as they liked up to 2004. Before then, there was Structural Fund money on the German side, managed by the Laender, and pre-accession funding for the Polish side, managed by the Commission Delegation in Warsaw. Thus, it came as a nasty surprise to the Germans after 2004 when the Poles suddenly started behaving like a - shock, horror - Member State and asking difficult implementation questions and raising doubts about some of the projects the Germans wanted to fund.

Essentially, the three programmes need to operate as fully joint programmes, and, unfortunately, the impression that is given is that both sides of the border are pretty separated from each other. Much work needs to be done.

It's Open Days time again

2008-10-08T11:33:00.001+02:00

This way, that way, up, down, round about. It can only be the Open Days - that regions and cities meeting mega-event in Brussels. 4 days, 7,500 participants (from the EU, from the rest of Europe, Russia, China, Brazil...), goodness knows how many meetings and seminars scattered across around 30 venues. It's networking heaven.

...but it has its downside. If the Border-Crosser has to listen to one more presenter who has clearly never followed a presenting course in his life... well, let's just say it won't be pretty.

Check out all the details on www.opendays.europa.eu.

The Maputo Corridor

2008-09-27T22:33:00.004+02:00

I often hear the complaint that one of the main difficulties for strategic development projects is converting plans and studies into concrete action. One of the best examples that I have seen of a project being able to do exactly that is one from a perhaps surprising part of the world - the Maputo Corridor between South Africa, Mozambique and Swaziland (www.mcli.co.za).

Here, they have married the public and private sectors into an effective, forward-looking organisation which has delivered real results in improvement the flow of border traffic and goods along the route. I can't claim to have carried out an in-depth assessment of the whole process, but even a cursory knowledge of the MCLI points to one factor which is common across all such co-operation actions - people. A dynamic CEO, fully committed to the project, has clearly driven the project forward, selling the concept, making the contacts, and lobbying for change and investment.

Time and again, we see the people principle at the very heart of cross-border and transnational co-operation. Without committed, dedicated people, co-operation cannot work, no matter what funding or paper agreements might be in place. With such people, impossible is nothing, to pirate a current advertising phrase.

The Politics of Co-operation

2008-09-15T22:07:00.002+02:00

I have been reflecting lately on the importance of political level support in co-operation actions, and in a spooky coincidence (either that, or they've been reading my mind), those North Sea people have just produced a perceptive little leaflet on exactly this topic (see www.northsearegion.eu/ivb/news/show/&tid=243).

Politics matters because it is not always immediately obvious to the political level (or to others) that co-operation matters. In comparison to a nice solid road or waste-water treatment plant in your area, the idea of local officials exchanging information or ideas with someone from the other side of the border - or even from the other side of Europe - can sound a bit wishy-washy, a bit suspicious, a bit, dare I say it, like tourism at taxpayers' expense.

These are easy accusations to throw, but, of course, they miss the whole point of co-operation. It is about sharing ideas, learning from one another, building links and better working relationships, all of which help to deliver better results for economic and social development. We achieve nothing without co-operation in any walk of life, and the EU's co-operation policy is only one, positive, demonstration of this.

But to make co-operation work effectively, it needs that political support mentioned above. It needs politicians to recognise the benefits and to stand up for such actions. It needs politicians to say that "okay, this project may not provide you with a new road, but, in a few years time, it may help provide you with a better, cheaper road, as a result of what we learn from other partners in the project now." After all, isn't that what we elect them to do?

Project Record for South-East Europe

2008-08-30T02:03:00.006+02:00

A number of the new co-operation programmes have evidently been worried about receiving very high numbers of project applications, causing much work for programme staff, and much disappointment for applicants, with all programmes having limited budgets. This has resulted in some programmes adopting a two stage process, with expressions of interest as a first step, and then full applications being invited from a limited number of projects only.

This is a good strategy on paper, but it does run a major risk - as expressions of interest (EoIs) are easier to write, there could be a lot more of them, as applicants think that there is nothing to lose at that stage. And so it seems to have proved.

First up was the new Mediterranean programme, which received a massive 531 EoIs in response to its first call. A month or so later, this was smashed by the South-East Europe programme, which set a new record of a frankly quite terrifying 821 EoIs. The Border Crosser is very glad not to be working in the programme secretariat.

All of this is, of course, good news. There is clearly enormous interest in co-operation across most of Europe. The South-East figures were especially good if you consider 1 in 4 of the 5,400 partners in the submissions came from outside the Union, and 1 in 3 of those came from Serbia. They really are so co-operative down there.

Of course, the real test will be on project quality and how relevant the content actually proves to be. But that is for later on. Now, anyone going to beat 821?

North Sea Environmentalists

2008-08-30T01:51:00.002+02:00

I may have said this before, but those North Sea people are very clever. Not only do they have an excellent website, but they give the impression of having really thought things through. Their upcoming energy seminar in Aberdeen (see conference list on the right) is just the type of thing that Europe should be encouraging at the moment.

However, what caught my eye was the little link at the bottom of their conference page on Travel Compensation. Basically, this is a nice piece of moral blackmail about offsetting your carbon costs of getting to the conference - I say offsetting, because the other option - changing your transport type - is unlikely to be possible, unless your planning to swim Aberdeen. They even helpfully provide a form with a list of offsetting organisations and their websites.

Now, how do we get everyone doing this?

The borders of the United States

2008-08-21T16:25:00.000+02:00

The USA may have only 2 land borders, but what it lacks in numbers, it more than makes up for in length. The border with Canada, at 8, 891 km is the longest in the world, while the Mexican border is certainly not the smallest at 3,169 km.

The American approach to these borders has always been very different, although the differences have narrowed somewhat since 11 September 2001. On the Canadian border they have the International Boundary Commission (http://www.internationalboundarycommission.org/) responsible for keeping the border demarcated; they also have the delightful Meet Me At the Border site (http://www.meetmeattheborder.com/) which is a very good information source for those living and working at or near the border. This would be quite a good idea for some of the larger European borders too.

It is interesting to note the increasing restrictions being introduced along this border from the point of view of travel documents and the evident concern being created, especially on the Canadian side about the impact of cross-border business. Contrast this with the advances brought about by Schengen in Europe and ask yourself which continent is heading in the right direction and which isn't...

In contrast, down south, we have sites like this - http://www.americanborderpatrol.com/ - which, scarily, seems to be one of the milder sites about border control issues with Mexico. Despite this, a bit of Internet digging threw up the "Agreement for Regional Progress" (www.sos.state.tx.us/border/arr.shtml) between Texas and 4 north-east Mexican states which is as close to a Euroregion-type declaration that I have seen in North America. Admittedly, the site was a little short on info since the signing in 2004, but I count any such agreement as grounds for optimism.

I do get the feeling that this is only scratching the surface on border issues across the Atlantic, and we may return to this topic in later posts.

Fun and games in the Arctic

2008-08-06T18:51:00.004+02:00

The Border-Crosser has always been a bit sceptical about maritime cross-border co-operation. After all, how can it be truly cross-border if you cannot even see the other side of the border, never mind walk there?

Maritime border issues and disputes are another matter altogether, as this BBC story from yesterday shows(http://tinyurl.com/67foms). Evidently, this all links in with the oil and mineral resources that are beginning to be found up north, and it can cause some interesting clashes. Global warming is also having an impact, with some potential sea routes now much more attractive than in the past.

The tensions being created by Russia's current aggressiveness will not surprise most observers, but there are also disputes between the USA and most of Europe on the one hand and Canada on the other over access to the North-West passage (or Canadian internal waters as it is known north of the 49th parallel). There is also the example of a classic border disagreement between Canada and Denmark over Hans Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Island). When you get ministers flying in to bury bottles of alcohol on specific pieces of territory, you know this world is going slightly loopy.

Left hand, please meet right hand

2008-07-07T00:05:00.003+02:00

Now, given the amount of money that the EU pumps into cross-border co-operation, you will not be surprised to learn that the Border Crosser thinks that the EU is a pretty decent type of organisation. However, sometimes the overwhelming bureaucracy and the sheer lack of connections between its policies drives you absolutely mad.

Here's the latest example. The Commission has just announced a "Renewed Social Agenda" which sounds very worthy indeed. Didn't know there was an old social agenda which needed renewing, but there you go. Anyway, among the list of items related to this announcement is a recommendation called "Cross-border Interoperability of Electronic Health Records".

Firstly, let us set aside the fact that it is almost impossible to find this document on the Commission's website - it's not linked from the press release or the main social agenda page, or from DG Health (but I like you, so you can find it here: http://tinyurl.com/5agnnl). Secondly, let us ignore the very misleading use of the word "cross-border", as the document helpfully informs us that here cross-border means with neighbouring and non-neighbouring Member States. How can non-neighbouring Member States be cross-border? Is it that difficult to harmonise terminology?

Sorry, I was meant to be ignoring that. The recommendation relates how worthy it is to ensure this interoperability of health records to facilitate people getting treatment in other countries. Very true.
But is it not strange that there is no particular mention of the fact that this is already being done - in the true sense of the word cross-border - under INTERREG? To take but one example, the France-Wallonie-Vlaanderen programme has been working for many years on the co-ordination and integration of health services for their border population - see http://tinyurl.com/5fdeul and http://tinyurl.com/6ma3st for a couple of very impressive examples.

So why no mention? Are these not impressive enough? Do they not form a sufficient base for building a Europe-wide approach? Is there inter-DG rivalry about such projects? Or is it simply the case that whoever wrote the recommendation had never heard about what France and Belgium were doing with EU funds and never thought to ask? Hmmm, tricky, but I know which one my money's on.

Next call for projects under the North Sea Programme

2008-07-02T13:11:00.004+02:00

The North Sea Programme seems such a well run programme, don't you think? Browsing their website today (www.northsearegion.eu), I notice that the next two calls for projects are already announced - from 1 Sept - 29 Sept and from 2 Feb - 02 Mar.

I am not so sure about their predeliction for short call times: one month seems very short for putting a co-operation project together. I imagine the response would be that is why they announce the calls so far in advance. Anyway, only 17 projects have been approved so far, so there is plenty of funding left if you're interested.

Where do we go from here?

2008-07-01T23:41:00.002+02:00

It's a little strange - given that we are only in 2008 - that Europe is already in the early stages of preparing for Cohesion Policy after 2013. Actually, it's very strange, if we consider the speed Europe normally moves at. Who says the Lisbon Treaty is needed to avoid everything bogging down?

Of course, the reason for starting so early is that the whole process is going to be an almighty ding-dong, and is going to take most of the next 6 years. Cohesion Policy is only one (big) piece of the overall puzzle, and the upcoming "budget review" is likely to see the first shots fired in a pretty bitter round of in-fighting. There'll be the French, defending agriculture spending for all they are worth; the new Member States trying to ramp up Cohesion spending as high as possible; Spain trying to explain why she should still qualify for huge amounts of infrastructure spending despite being much richer than the new Member States; and of course the UK, trying to cut spending on everything at every opportunity. and consequently making no friends and gaining no influence whatsoever (from this perspective, it's almost like having John Major back in number 10.)

But enough of this big picture nonsense - what does it all mean for Co-operation policy? Well, it's all rather positive so far. The Commission's 5th Cohesion progress report, released in June (see http://tinyurl.com/67cecf) was rather effusive about the future of co-operation, stressing the positive reactions to the recent public consultation and noting the need for strengthening the policy (which is basic EU code for "give it more money").

The report also notes the need for more interregional co-operation (given the current enormous mismatch in the EU funding for INTERREG IV C and the level of interest in the programme, this is a no-brainer); and also points to the need to bolster co-operation across the EU's external borders. This is an important point, since the EU has been making a pig's ear of this co-operation recently - long-standing and carefully crafted co-operation on borders like Finland-Russia has simply stopped in the last year or so, as the countries try to get to grips with the complexities created by the EU's new ENPI cross-border instrument for such borders.

We have to remember that things looked quite promising for co-operation back in 2003 as well, but Member States ended up slashing the planned budget back to its current total of EUR 9 billion over 7 years (you would simply not believe how many Member States still moan about this reduction in funding, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it was their finance ministries who did the deed.) Nevertheless, co-operation seems to have more friends in high places than ever before - when I read the positive comments by Germany on co-operation in their reply to the public consultation on the future, I nearly fell off my chair (see http://tinyurl.com/6sbykw).

Watch this space.

The Dutch West Indies

2008-06-28T18:25:00.001+02:00

If the French bits of the Caribbean are a little confusing (see previous post), at least all are an integral part of France, and all are in the European Union. The Dutch situation is another story.

The Dutch bits of the Caribbean number six in total, with Aruba having a separate status and the other 5 forming part of the Netherlands Antilles - at least at present. All are part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, but none of them are part of the EU.

Over the last few years, there has been a fairly tortuous process of discussions and voting, with a view to breaking up the Netherlands Antilles and giving the islands a new status. The trouble has been that they all want something different. Aruba was happy as it was; Sint Maarten and Curacao wanted autonomy within the Netherlands; Saba and Bonaire voted for closer ties to the Netherlands, and Sint Eustatius voted to stay within the Netherlands Antilles - which was going to prove difficult, since no-one else did.

Anyway, there appears to be the makings of a deal, although its implementation has been postponed again from the end of this year to a, as yet, undefined date. Sint Maarten and Curacao would get autonomy, and the other 3 would get the status of special municipalities.

What particularly interests us here is that the Dutch government is keen for some or all of the islands to become part of the EU and qualify as "outermost regions" like the 5 French territories mentioned in the previous post. This opens up the possibility of Cohesion Policy funding, and especially co-operation funding. This can only be good news, as it would mean the EU's "Caraibes" co-operation programme would have 2 Member States involved, and it would be much less of a Franco-French shouting match.

Down on the Spanish (or rather the French) Main

2008-06-27T18:17:00.005+02:00

The Border-Crosser is drifting through the Caribbean at present. There are 5 integral parts of Europe out here: Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, St Martin and St Barthelemy. All 5 are part of France: the first 3 are overseas departments, and the last two are overseas collectivities.

St Martin is the most westerly part of the European Union (good quiz tip here). Its status as a collectivity (or COM) is very new - previously it was considered a commune of Guadeloupe. The French St Martin is also unique as it shares the island of St Martin with the Dutch "island area" of Sint Maarten and therefore has a land border with the Netherlands (therein lies another good quiz question about walking from France to the Netherlands without going through Belgium).

The 5 parts of France are all part of the Caraibes co-operation programme (see www.interreg-caraibes.org). This is one of those strange co-operation programmes involving only one Member State, but with a myriad of non-Member States also taking part to some extent. Cohesion funding is only available for the Member State territory (although there is now a 10% flexibility for spending outside the Union), so there are some complicated manoeuvrings to get some degree of access to European Development Funds (EDF - not to be confused with ERDF, which is a Structural Fund for regional development) for the non-Member State islands.

It is a pity that the co-ordination issues are so challenging, as there is a real need for some basic level co-operation on transport (air and maritime), communications, disaster management and environmental issues. It would be nice to think that a fully integrated Caribbean fund could be set up to address these points - but don't hold your breath.

The difficulties of blogging

2008-06-22T21:28:00.002+02:00

It's not that I don't have anything to say. I might not have anything interesting to say - that's for you to judge more. But I do have things to say. I just don't find the time to write. However, there is not much point of a blog if the writer doesn't blog. So, I'll try and find the time from now. Let's see how we do.

Into the Baltic

2008-03-26T00:13:00.003+01:00

The South Baltic cross-border programme is having its launch event today in Gdansk, which is a good a reason as any to take a closer look. It's a brand new programme, created as a result of the expanded approach to maritime cross-border co-operation (anything up to 150km). Even then, the programme wouldn't exist if the island of Bornholm was not conveniently located just under 150km from almost everywhere.

This results in a five country cross-border programme, which is almost a contradiction in terms in itself, stretching across the whole southern Baltic Sea. It involves Sweden, Poland, Denmark, Lithuania and Germany (in roughly that order of enthusiasm). The Swedes were so delighted to get support for the programme that they were happy to let the Poles manage it: the Poles seem to want to manage every co-operation programmes they are involved in.

To be fair, the programme has made a good start. To be even fairer, the advantage of Poland managing so many co-operation programmes is that they are actually rather good at it, and have put in plenty of resources to get this programme moving forward. Consequently, despite the complexity of the partnership, and the fact that it is completely new, the programme is at the same stage of implementation as many more experienced programmes.

Having said all that, I still have my doubts. Maritime co-operation, by its nature, is not the same as land-based cross-border co-operation. Even close maritime co-operation is different, although it has sufficient similarities with terrestrial co-operation that it can be justified (and has been shown to work in some places). But cross-border co-operation across the southern Baltic? This is most of the way towards transnational co-operation, which is a very different kettle of fish.

It will be interesting to see the results that come from the South Baltic and how cross-border they truly are. On one level, it may not seem to matter much - once eligibility for cross-border co-operation is achieved, it is unlikely to be taken away at a programme level, no matter what the results (witness Greece-Cyprus for an example). But, on a higher level, too many poor or uninspiring results in too many programmes, and people could start to question the whole cross-border co-operation policy. And that would be a heavy price to pay for allowing long-distance maritime co-operation as a political compromise.

A Serbian Paradox

2008-03-06T11:29:00.001+01:00

What with everything that is happening at the moment (the Border-Crosser drafts neutrally), you might imagine that Serbia would be feeling less than enamoured with the European Union and all its constituent parts at the moment. And in general, you would be right. Lots of bellicose noise is coming out of Prime Minister Kostunica and company, and there are threats of refusing to work with the EU at all.

Any yet, next week will see a cross-border conference in the middle of Belgrade, organised by the Serbian government, celebrating the Neighbourhood Programmes (“Serbia’s Success Stories”) and looking forward to the new cross-border programmes for 2007-2013. So what’s going on?

In all probability, a number of things. Firstly, a majority of Serbs realise that they do need to keep working with Europe and that they do need to get on with their neighbours, regardless of their disagreements over the future of Kosovo. Secondly, the EU considers that engagement with Serbia remains vital for the region as a whole, and all good news stories must be encouraged (see the EU’s latest Western Balkans Communication from 5 March: ec.europa.eu/enlargement/balkans_communication/index_en.htm); and thirdly, there is a key team of Serbian officials who have been driving the cross-border agenda forward in recent years since they have recognised the potential and added value of this co-operation for their country.

This group of people have a difficult task in the current climate. I wish them well.

The hidden borders of Europe

2008-03-03T10:14:00.002+01:00

Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence has sparked off further tensions elsewhere is Europe. Kosovo's supporters claim that Kosovo is a unique case, that the attempted genocide by Serbia in the late 1990s meant Serbia had lost all moral authority, and that Kosovan independence has no impact on frozen conflicts elsewhere in Europe. Russia and Serbia argue the opposite, and even have support from within the European Union, with countries like Spain, Cyprus, Romania and Slovakia all concerned about the precedent being established in Pristina.

In truth, both sides are being disingenuous. A unilateral declaration by a region or province of a country, without that country's consent, could obviously trigger parallel declarations (in fact, other declarations have been made years ago, without the level of recognition that Kosovo has already achieved). Equally, however, the only way something similar could happen in Abkhazia or South Ossetia, for example, is with full Russian backing – so the only way it becomes a precedent in these cases is if Russia wants it to become a precedent.

There are 6 principal areas of concern across Europe where the Kosovo situation is being watched very closely: the already mentioned Abhkazia and South Ossetia; Transnistria; Nagorno Karabakh; Republika Srpska; and northern Cyprus. (For a perspective from further away, see the Sri Lanka news story on the right-hand side.)

The first three cases are linked directly to Moscow – no-one is going to recognise these countries as independent unless Moscow does. Moscow is perfectly happy to keep all three territories hanging since it keeps them dependent, and gives Moscow leverage against Georgia and Moldova.

Nagorno Karabakh is occupied by Armenia; Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh are in positions of power in Yerevan – yet, even Armenia has not recognised Nagorno-Karabakh's declaration of independence. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan have been spending very large sums on defence equipment (or, rather, attack equipment) and this is one area where the conflict could unfreeze rapidly.

Northern Cyprus has also declared its independence many years ago, but is recognised only by Turkey. The recent Cypriot presidential elections seem to have opened a possibility of resuming talks on the future of the island, and there are some hopes here. The Cypriot government's strong reaction on Kosovo's declaration is evidently directly linked to concerns that it strengthens the UDI of northern Cyprus. Again, this seems overblown, as no-one else is planning to recognise the UDI.

Republika Srpska is, of course, particularly problematic given the Serbian ethnic links. Demonstrations have already taken place in Banja Luka against Kosovan independence. If Srpska wants to declare independence on the basis of a referendum, how and why would this be different from Kosovo? Territorial integrity must apply to Bosnia, but must not apply to Serbia? This is a fundamental weak link in the argument of those who recognise Kosovan independence.

Of course, one further area where the Kosovan situation has an immediate impact is – northern Kosovo. If the majority population around Mitrovica says that it wants to be part of Serbia, why should Kosovan territorial integrity count for any more than the Serbian equivalent has done? Here, I think, we will actually see something happening in the short term, for the simple reason that Pristina’s writ will be unenforceable north of the Ibar, and Mitrovica et al will continue, de facto, to be linked to Belgrade.

New borders, no borders

2008-02-26T21:23:00.001+01:00

One of the results of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence is the creation of a number of new borders in the Western Balkans – or so say some. On the other hand, Serbia and Russia claim that no new borders have been created, since the declaration was illegal and does not create a new state.

Of course, the debate is not being presented in terms of the number of borders created or not, but that is one of the effects, and it is worth looking at the impact this could have. Macedonia's northern border is split in two, half Kosovar, half Serbian. The Serbian border with Albania becomes a Kosovo-Albania border entirely; and even the border with Montenegro is affected, with a short stretch now being between Kosovo and Montenegro. All of this is without even mentioning the long Serbia-Kosovo border which is now in de facto existence – not withstanding the rapid Serbian efforts to burn down some of the border posts.

Given this blog's focus on cross-border co-operation issues, what are the possibilities of encouraging such activity on these "new" borders? Well, it is clear that the very opposite of co-operation is going to happen along the Serbia-Kosovo border for the foreseeable future. But what of the others? It is likely that Albania and Kosovo will be keen to work together fairly quickly, but perhaps the most complicated case of all could be the Macedonian border. Macedonia, already suffering political issues on its southern border (this blog considers a country can call itself what it wants, so we will not be using the "former Yugoslav Republic…" terminology), will now face real problems on its northern borders. It will be keen to work with Serbia on the one hand, while especially the ethnic Albanian population will want to work with Kosovo. However, working with Kosovo could well lead to sanctions or boycotts from Serbia, thus undermining both possible co-operations.

Evidently, cross-border co-operation is not the first thing in peoples' minds at the moment. Nevertheless, the benefits of such contacts should not be underestimated in helping to reduce tensions in such difficult situations. Therefore, it is probably worth watching how events develop in the short to medium-term, and then taking careful steps to start cross-border links where possible.

A new era in cross-border integration

2008-02-05T11:14:00.000+01:00

A major step forward in cross-border co-operation was achieved last week, with the creation of the first European Grouping of Territorial Co-operation (EGTC). This unwieldy name disguises a new legal instrument for smoothing the running of cross-border programmes and projects. It gives cross-border groupings a formal identity and solid legal base for their work. The Committee of the Regions has a very good overview webpage on EGTCs - http://www.cor.europa.eu/en/activities/egtc.htm. Indeed, the CoR has been very active in EGTCs issues, even setting up an Expert Group to assist the setting up and operation of EGTCs.

The front runners are the Eurometropole on the French-Belgian border (see tinyurl.com/2r2dhe). There is a long history of co-operation here, and it is not surprising that they have taken the lead here.

Equally unsurprising is that the Member States have been very slow in setting up their national rules for EGTCs. Only about 6 or 7 have put these in place, despite a deadline of 1 August 2007. Commissioner Hübner, in the European Parliament last week, issued some veiled warnings to the slackers about the need to speed up implementation.

Raising the profile

2008-02-04T12:21:00.001+01:00

We often complain that cross-border co-operation work does not get enough attention. We should recognise that the sometimes technical nature of the work can make it difficult to grab some positive publicity, so it was very good to see the attached video talking so positively about a really concrete example of health co-operation on the French-Belgian border (http://www.publicsenat.fr/cms/video-a-la-demande/vod.html?idE=56050 - in French).

This is a good example of the extra level of "sophistication" that can be sought in cross-border co-operation: health co-operation involves national responsibility, along with legal and administrative elements that can often only be solved by bringing together different layers of government. This can be complex, but when results can be demonstrated clearly and well like this, it is ultimately rewarding.

A Happy (Co-operative) New Year to one and all!

2008-01-10T15:34:00.000+01:00

So 2008 is underway, and already we are seeing changes in the border situations of Europe. The extension of the Schengen system last month means that you can drive from Lisbon to Tallinn without showing your passport, and this can only be good news for improving cross-border co-operation possibilities - especially for divided border towns such as Gorizia/Nova Gorica, Valka/Valga (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=35818&sectionid=351020605), Komárno/Komárom and Slubice/Frankfurt-an-der-Oder to name but a few.

But what of those twin towns along the outside edge of the Union? What of Narva/Ivangorod? What of Imatra/Svetogorsk (http://tinyurl.com/yomn9k)? Here visas and border checks will remain the norm and these added complications and hindrances to co-operation are likely to be in place for the foreseeable future. This should always be borne in mind when assessing the success of co-operation activities in these areas.

Programme of the week: Oresund-Kattegat-Skagerrak

2007-12-14T13:19:00.001+01:00

I haven't had a programme of the week for a while (programme of the season might be more accurate), so it is good to designate the new Oresund-Kattegat-Skagerrak for this week: www.interreg-oks.eu. The name is a bit of a mouthful for non-Scandinavians, so the abbreviation OKS is very welcome.

This is an particularly interesting programme, as it is made up two distinct areas. One area has long experience of co-operation and INTERREG - the Oresund area, while the other - Kattegat-Skagerrak - is newly eligible for EU funding. Oresund, with its bridge and the Copenhagen-Malmo axis, evidently has a significant urban dimension, along with aspects linked to the cross-border labour market. Kattegat-Skagerrak is a larger, more rural and maritime area (although with Gothenburg and Oslo is has a urban element too), and will be building from a more basic starting point.

The website is well designed and already contains much background information. It is in Danish/Swedish only at the moment, but I am sure that English language info will be added to demonstrate successes!

Latest cross-border news from Africa

2007-12-01T13:32:00.000+01:00

Early on in this blog, I noted some cross-border initiatives on-going in Africa. I am pleased to report that the African Union's Border Programme has taken several steps forward. Indeed, as I type there is a seminar taking place in Djibouti where a team of experts are finalising the Action Plan for the Border Programme.

The Programme is particularly interesting, as it combines several elements. In addition to the aim of encouraging the classic "INTERREG"-style programmes and projects, it also aims to build exchanges of experiences, not only across Africa, but also with other continents. Last but not least, it aims to deal with the continuing issue of delimitation and demarcation of African borders. A poisoned chalice left by the colonial powers, many African borders are poorly defined, uncertain and most are not marked out on the ground.

This is going to provide a series of challenges, not least in co-ordinating the different elements. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to see such ambition. The scale of borders in Africa is astonishing: the number of borders which exceed 1,000km (some even exceed 2,000km) is far greater than the figures for Europe. Ambition is a requirement - as is optimism.

The Programme is certainly needed (as is the funding!) Good luck to them.

Still still here

2007-12-01T13:29:00.000+01:00

I know that the idea of a blog is to keep it fairly up-to-date, but a series of unfortunate events has prevented this happening recently. I will try to improve, although a full relaunch may need to wait until the New Year. As a minimum, the news links will be updated, as there is an awful lot of CBC activity at the moment.

Transnational rapidity

2007-10-03T12:24:00.001+02:00

It has been interesting to see that the transnational programmes - normally considered more complicated than cross-border programmes - have made much quicker progress towards approval. Already more than half the transnational programmes are already approved.

Check out the following programmes: Alpine Space (www.alpinespace.org/2007-20130.html), Atlantic Space (www.coop-atlantico.com/fr/programa.php - new website!), North-West Europe (www.nweurope.org/), South-West Europe (www.interreg-sudoe.org/castellano/index.asp), North Sea (www.northsearegion.eu/ivb/home/), Northern Periphery (www.northernperiphery.net/2007/) and Madeira-Azores-Canaries (www.interreg-mac.org/es/znuevomacweb.jsp).

To note that North-West Europe and the North Sea have already launched calls for projects. Time to get busy.

Latest news on cross-border programmes

2007-10-03T12:09:00.000+02:00

There has been a lot of action in the last few weeks, so it's time for a quick update. Actually, the programme approval process has moved faster than some of the programmes have been able to, as most of the new websites are not yet up and running.

On the cross-border side of things, Euregio Maas-Rijn (www.interregemr.eu/site_fr/interreg_emr/interreg_emr.php), Ireland-Wales, Italy-Austria, Bodensee (www.interreg.org/) and Austria-Bavaria (www.interreg-bayaut.net/interreg_iv/sitemap.html are all up and running already.

Let's hope that the calls for projects are launched soon. Comments welcome if anyone has information on these.

Still here!

2007-10-03T12:04:00.000+02:00

It's been a while, but this blog is still running, I promise. It's a very busy period, and finding the time to write something pertinent and interesting (always a difficult task at the best of times) has been particularly challenging.

Coming soon - an update on new programmes!

We have a winner!

2007-09-11T22:43:00.000+02:00

The INTERREG IV C interregional programme was approved today (11 September). It is thus the first of the new territorial co-operation programmes to be approved - congratulations to those who chose "other programme" in this blog's poll to predict the first programme approved.

The IV C programme has very sensibly kept the "INTERREG" brand in the programme title as it's much better known and much easier to say than European Territorial Co-operation. They do not appear to have a website set up yet, although there is some info on the preceding programme's website (www.interreg3c.net/web/fic_en). The website www.interreg4c.eu is "reserved" which might be worth watching.

Watch out for the programme's big launch conference in Lisbon next week and for a rapid launch of the call for projects. The new funding period is up and running!

PEACE lessons learnt and shared

2007-09-10T09:14:00.000+02:00

I have found a link to the above seminar on lessons from the PEACE process in Northern Ireland, which I have mentioned in previous postings. It will be held on 10 October in Brussels, as part of the Open Days series of events. It should be worth attending, especially for those facing similar challenges in their regions. You can find more information here: tinyurl.com/2eqe9d

Programme of the week

2007-09-06T10:55:00.001+02:00

The Ireland-Northern Ireland cross-border programme is managed by the Special EU Programmes Body (www.seupb.org), which is a joint cross-border body set up by the British-Irish agreement of 1999 especially to run this type of co-operation programme. They also run the Peace and Reconciliation programme, which runs parallel to the cross-border programme and is focussed on bringing the different communities in Northern Ireland and the border counties of Ireland together.

Both programmes are undergoing changes with the new programming period. The cross-border programme will now include areas of South-West Scotland, as a result of the widening of the definition of "maritime cross-border". This offers extra opportunities for co-operation on tourism, transport and environmental issues and is causing much excitement in Scotland (see declaration of the Irish Taoiseach and the (previous) Scottish first Minister here - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2006/11/13165243). Meanwhile, the PEACE programme will now be a cross-border programme, legally speaking, rather than a regional development programme. This will offer some extra challenges for co-ordination between the two programmes, as well as meaning that project partnerships will have to be constructed quite carefully.

The SEUPB website is well presented and laid out, although navigation at times could be more straightforward. There is evidently so much experience to glean from the two programmes, but extracting it from the web is sometimes problematic. An example of this is the rumours I have heard about a conference in early October to publicise the success of the PEACE programme for other parts of the world facing similar challenges (Cyprus, the Balkans, the Middle East). A great idea, I hope all will agree, but it is impossible to find anything on the website at present. I will keep watching.

Crossing African borders

2007-09-04T09:34:00.000+02:00

The complexity and challenges facing Africa's borders make the problems in Europe seem relatively minor in comparison. It is encouraging to see, therefore, that efforts are being made to address these issues.

The impressive West African Borders and Integration website (www.afriquefrontieres.org) gives much useful information about some pilot actions being carried out in the region on cross-border co-operation. They have a cross-border diaries and podcast section - well ahead of the EU in this respect. On the other side of the continent, there appears to have been a "Cross Border Initiative" of the World Bank a few years back (www.worldbank.org/afr/findings/infobeng/infob58.htm) but there does not seem to have been much since. It also seems to have been less focussed on getting local people working together and more on trade and competition issues, which is all well and good, but will not bring the local populations together as effectively.

At the continental level, the African Union has begun to set up a pilot cross-border programme as well. It is very difficult to find any information on the web, but a Google search provides this: www.africa-union.org/root/au/Conferences/2007/june/PSC/7/Final_draft_Declaration.doc. Fine words, and a decent amount of focus on the local level, but this is clearly very early days.

Finally, to see what might be possible, have a look at this site (maloti.opencms.co.za) dealing with South Africa-Lesotho nature conservation. I am not sure why they need two national sites for a co-operation project, but the project demonstrates the potential that exists for environmental protection, tourism and managed economic development. Time for an African INTERREG, perhaps?

Co-operation keeps you fit

2007-08-31T22:42:00.000+02:00

A fine example of a transnational co-operation project is the North Sea Cycle Route (www.northsea-cycle.com), funded, logically enough, through the North Sea programme. Essentially, this is a marketing exercise, selling a group of national cycle routes as a single North Sea trail. The beauty of this is twofold. Firstly, it has been done extremely well, with excellent visibility (the Guinness World Record for the longest cycle route is genius). Secondly, it seems to me that most cyclists are slightly deranged and view the 6000km length of the Route as a total challenge (witness the list of people who have completed the whole route in around 60 days! Mind you, they'll have trouble doing that now since the ferry connection to Shetland from Norway is being stopped).

At the project level, there appears to have been a genuine North Sea partnership created and there is no doubt that the whole exercise has been extremely professional. There are plenty of lessons here for project managers elsewhere.

Taking a broader view, how much impact does such a project actually have on the local populations? It might improve tourism takings marginally; it might make locals more aware of their own cycle routes; but what else? More generally, is this really what is meant by transnational co-operation? Does this provide the added value everyone seems to be looking for?

Even if the answers to these questions are unclear, looking at the overall impact of the project, it can only be considered a major success. Very few co-operation projects ever achieve this level of visibility at the European level and this can only be applauded.

Now, where's my bicycle pump?

Programme of the week - Central Europe

2007-08-30T08:56:00.000+02:00

Rising from the ashes of the, shall we say underperforming, CADSES programme are two new transnational programmes in the form of "Central Europe" and "South-East Europe". The former of these has been quick off the mark with its website design, even if programme approval is not likely before the end of the year, I am told.

The website (http://www.central2013.eu/) is extremely well presented, easy to navigate and packed full of information for project partners. It already contains a long list of project ideas from people desperate to talk to interested partners. I particularly liked the idea of the "Regional eHealth Innovation Network" and "Green building in/and rehabilitation of large housing estates" proposals.

So what are you all waiting for? Go network!

A missed opportunity in the Middle East

2007-08-29T12:29:00.000+02:00

I did promise to blog a bit on non-European cross-border issues, and I'll start with a sad example. Several years back now, Jenin, Gilboa and Beit Shein in northern Israel and the northern West Bank came together and created "Cooperation North", a cross-border venture based on the organisation of the same name in Ireland (now called "Cooperation Ireland - see here: http://www.cooperationireland.org/). There were co-ordinators in place on both sides of the border* (this word is used deliberately, notwithstanding the fact this is not an international border), and there were ambitious plans for waste treatment and industrial collaboration, as well as economic and social actions.

This was an enormously important, political step forward, and there were grounds for real optimism. There was already a relatively high level of interdependence economically. The number of Palestinians crossing the border to work in Israel was huge, and the Israeli participants freely agreed that the Palestinians were a vital part of their economy. Then the second Intifada started, and co-operation became impossible. The border was closed and the economic co-operation dried up. It became extremely difficult for the partners to meet, and almost impossible for the Palestinian partners to get out of the West Bank to meet potential funding organisations.

It seems that the process has ground to a halt. Only fragments remain on the web about this whole exercise - see here for a brief mention http://www.shalomarchav.be/article.php3?id_article=255. Indeed, this article, though 5 years old, appears to offer some small hope, noting the progress of key actors in the original co-operation. However, nothing seems to have happened since.

I have heard that the authorities in charge of the Ireland-Northern Ireland Peace programme are keen to make their experiences known to a wider audience and are planning some events to publicise their success. Perhaps that could provide some catalytic impulse for other regions around the world.

If anyone has any information or views on this topic, comments are more than welcome.

The Association of European Border Regions

2007-08-29T09:12:00.000+02:00

The AEBR (www.aebr.net) was set up in 1971 to provide a voice for the border regions of Europe. With the advent of EU regional policy, the AEBR's role has developed rapidly and it is one of the main regional organisations in Europe. Its role tends to be a cross between a lobbying organisation and a grouping applying for grants. This can cause tensions from time to time, since it tends to end up lobbying and asking for cash from the same body - the European Commission.

However, the lobbying element seems to work well, as there is often a clear AEBR influence on EU cross-border policy. The AEBR's connections with the European Parliament seem to be especially valuable with the last two AEBR President both being members of the EP.

Equally, the funding side of the business is apparently doing well, with the AEBR leading a major consortium in the Change on Borders project (www.change-on-borders.net) funded by INTERREG IIIC. There is a closing conference coming up for this project later in the autumn (see the events tab on the right). Also, for members, there is the AEBR annual conference in mid-September in Eastern Finland.

In my view, the AEBR is a valuable part of the cross-border lobby in Europe and an effective reminder that, with border regions containing over 1/3 of the EU's population, this is not a marginal or minority constituency, but a major player in European regional policy.

Looking ahead

2007-08-27T00:13:00.000+02:00

September seems likely to be a busy month in the world of cross-border co-operation. I hear the Commission is very close to approving the first of the new programmes for 2007-2013. Who will be first, I wonder? Ireland-Wales is very well placed according to my sources, as is Spain-Portugal. Whoever it is will be a new champion, as the Finnish-Swedish programmes that were adopted 3 months before anyone else in 2001 are not quite in the first wave this time.

One point that I have heard several times recently is the importance of getting the programmes up and running quickly. There is momentum to build and and eager project partners waiting for contracts to get started. So maybe the prize should really be for the programme which can get projects selected first? In this case, keep a watch on the Ireland-Northern Ireland-Western Scotland (www.seupb.ie) programme. They appear to have done an awful lot of pre-development work and could well have projects in place later this year.

Interesting times

Measuring cross-border success

2007-08-24T13:44:00.000+02:00

One of the great challenges facing cross-border co-operation is proving that it actually works. This is sometimes a difficult problem to explain, as anyone involved in such co-operation is usually pretty convinced that it is a good thing. After all, how can it not be positive to bring people together and improve the living conditions on each side of the border?

Well, of course, that is positive, and the Border Crosser is not going to disagree. But there is a specific difference between knowing in your gut that co-operation works and proving that it does. The INTERREG programmes frequently come under pressure to demonstrate that they are delivering "added value" (such a great phrase - as opposed to subtracted value, I suppose?)

The EU's traditional approach to this question has been to throw indicators at programmes and hope that some stick in a positive manner. The problem with this approach is that successful indicators for regional programmes do not often help in a cross-border context. Numbers of jobs created, improvement in GDP, or increase in tourist numbers, for example, do not really address the issue of whether the co-operation as a whole is working.

There are some ideas out there which have some potential: some of the Nordic programmes have been counting the number of cross-border networks created; this could be combined with the number of such networks which outlast the funding from the programme perhaps. There must be more project level measurements that could be developed along these lines.

Another direction that should be explored is measuring the mechanics of the programmes themselves: number of split decisions in programme committees; length of committee meetings; number of projects which are delayed by more than x months; number of projects with changed partnerships. These are all factors which could be used in measuring the overall success of the cross-border programmes. Any results would probably have to be calculated into a single weighted score, whch would allow comparisons from programme to programme. Such a comparative aspect could be the best way to assess co-operation as a whole.

It's unlikely that there is a perfect system out there. If a programme scored very highly on co-operation, someone would claim that they are so good that they would not any more funding. However, indicators are here to stay and programmes need to start looking at them as an opportunity to demonstrate success, rather than seeing them as an adminstrative burden.

Well, that's far too serious and long a post for a Friday afternoon! Let me know what you think.

Hidden Europe

2007-08-24T12:56:00.000+02:00

I have just discovered the marvellous magazine "Hidden Europe" (www.hiddeneurope.co.uk), the title of which is, I hope, fairly self-explanatory. They travel to the corners and out of the way regions of Europe and report back every two months. The quality of the writing is extremely high, as is the quality of the insights that they provide on the places they visit. One recent set of articles on Nagorno-Karabakh was especially fascinating.

As our favourite subject on this blog, cross-border regions, are very often off the beaten track, they feature pretty regularly in the magazine. The latest issue features the Narva river between Estonia and Russia, the Saimaa Canal between Finland and Russia, and the Slovenian-Croatian border, to name but 3 articles.

Highly recommended.

Silence is golden...

2007-08-23T12:45:00.001+02:00

but it's good to talk. Please feel free to add comments to any of the blog entries here - whether it is to agree, disagree, explain, expand, question, or any other verb that you wish to use. There's no need to register in order to leave a comment, and it would at least convince me that somebody out there somewhere is actually reading this.

Crazy, crazy cross-border maps

2007-08-23T09:27:00.000+02:00

I have been browsing the back entries on the excellent Strange Maps blog (already mentioned below), and found this entry (http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2006/09/11/6-market-reef/#more-16) on an island jointly shared by Sweden and Finland, with a surreal border running across the island. Of course, being in the Nordic region, there is a perfectly sensible and pragmatic reason for the border. The island is also the westernmost point of Finland, which is pretty useless - but nevertheless strangely compelling - information.

Another cross-border blog!

2007-08-22T14:23:00.000+02:00

When this blog started earlier this month, it seemed pretty clear that it would be fairly unique - there couldn't be that many cross-border blogs out there, could there?

Well, there may not be many, but there are some. Your attention is drawn to the Centre for Cross-Border Studies website (http://www.crossborder.ie/home/ndn/index.php) where there is an excellent monthly blog looking at cross-border issues from an Irish perspective. I am not sure about the Ireland-Scotland bridge, I must admit (see August 2007 entry), but at least it should stimulate some discussion!

Incidentally, make sure you have a good browse around the CCBS site. It's packed with useful information and reports on Irish-Northern Irish cross-border issues and there are many good ideas that could be borrowed for other regions.

Getting Balkan with it

2007-08-22T09:51:00.000+02:00

I noticed that, when the forest fires were threatening Dubrovnik a week or so back (see 9 August news story opposite), the Croatian government was moaning that they had not received enough assistance from their neighbours. Hmm, I thought to myself, do they mean cross-border assistance? What a good idea!

Indeed, co-operation among emergency services is a particularly appropriate issue for cross-border actions. The mechanics of it are perhaps more complicated than first appears (e.g. drive a fire engine over the border, put out the fire, go home). There are issues related to insurance, accident protection, health coverage which cause potential problems (not to mention the minefields still in place along some borders).

The Council of Europe has been taking forward a regional agreement between the South-East Europe countries on mutual assistance in the event of disasters occurring in border areas which should create a solid framework for enabling this co-operation. However, as is often the case, only close long-term contacts, built up over a period of time, will enable organisations and people to work together effectively. For this, regular meetings, planning events, co-ordination seminars will need to be organised. Cross-border co-operation is occasionally criticised for being a talking shop - but how else do we learn from each other and share knowledge and ideas?

Sometimes, it's good to talk.

Programme of the week - Atlantic Area

2007-08-21T09:58:00.000+02:00

The Atlantic Area has just obtained a spiffy new website (http://www.coop-atlantico.com/en/programa.php) and sources tell me that it is on its way to being the first of the new transnational programmes to be approved by the Commission. This is a far cry from previous periods, when the programme was pretty much last at everything.

The new managing authority in Portugal seems to be doing an excellent job, and the programme document is very well written. However, the real challenge starts now. Can the programme partners actually work effectively together to make the new programme a success? In the past, it seemed sometimes as if they were all working at cross-purposes. Also, looking at the website, some of the previous projects seem a bit wishy-washy - time for some more concrete activities, methinks.

Jobs in Budapest with the new South-East Europe Co-operation Programme

2007-08-20T11:26:00.000+02:00

Anybody interested? Several opportunities in this programme, which has lots of potential, with the Danube, other transport links, co-operation with the Western Balkans etc. See here for post descriptions: http://www.cadses.net/en/news.html?news_id=311

Lies, damned lies, and Daily Mail Journalists

2007-08-20T08:59:00.000+02:00

Now, this is an old Daily Mail story from last autumn about evil EU plots to redraw the map of Europe , but the intriguing Strange Maps blog has just deconstructed the story rather nicely here: http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/08/05/163-europe-wipes-britain-off-the-map/ , so I thought I'd add my views.

Now, I could deconstruct the story some more - even without referring to the fundamental point that INTERREG is all about helping neighbours work together. I could point out that the Daily Mail made the map up themselves; I could point out that they've mixed up cross-border and transnational areas (which is a bit like mixing football and rugby teams); and they patently don't know what they're talking about. Is it worth it, however? Never let the truth get in the way of a bad story, as they say at Mail HQ.

While you browse Strange Maps (and you should), you might come across his thoughts on Euroregions: http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/03/06/85-a-map-of-germanys-euroregions/ An interesting piece, but even here, there are worrying inaccuracies. Euroregions are nothing to do with the EU - it doesn't create them, it certainly doesn't name them, although it might give them a bit of money through an INTERREG programme from time to time, but only if they have a decent project to be supported. Just to be clear - Euroregions are very much a creation of the Council of Europe (http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/local_and_regional_democracy/documentation/library/default.asp#TopOfPage) and are supported by the Association of European Border Regions (www.aebr.net). They are created by regions and districts on each side of a border who want to work together, and who think that they might have more in common with their neighbour across the border than with regions in their own country. Not such a bad thing, surely?

The end of one-way co-operation?

2007-08-17T10:01:00.000+02:00

Over on the right in the news section is a link to a Romanian story about the relaunch of a PHARE CBC call between Romania and Bulgaria (17 Aug). Why in Romanian, you ask? Well, aside from the fact that we should all learn a foreign language (Buna Ziua to my Romanian readers), the story seems to be available only in Romanian.

Not very useful for the Bulgarian partners, you might say - and you'd be right. This is symptomatic of the old way of doing cross-border co-operation: you do your projects, and I'll do mine. I should add that it is not entirely the countries' fault - PHARE CBC was never the most user-friendly programme in the world. And I hear very good things about Romania and Bulgaria's preparations for the new round of programmes starting later this year. However, it's still a bit depressing to see such blatant national approaches to co-operation in 2007. Let's make it the last time...

The influence of blogs

2007-08-16T09:14:00.001+02:00

Well, well, well, how influential am I? There I was, banging on about the importance of information and publicity and websites, and the next day I find that the Commission is organising a major conference on Communicating Cohesion Policy (see http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/country/commu/conferences/november07/index_en.cfm). Now, of course, it is just possible that these two issues were not directly connected (perish the thought), but nevertheless, it is good to see such an emphasis on selling the policy at this early stage of the new programmes. And it is very good to see such a visible element dealing with co-operation being included.

Now, I must go and bask in the power of blogging for a while. Normal service will be resumed later.

How good is your Scandinavian?

2007-08-15T23:16:00.000+02:00

Why do I ask? Well, some of the best cross-border co-operation programmes are in the Nordic countries, and they also have some of the best websites as well - mainly in the local language, of course. So, if you can read Scandic, I can heartily recommend http://www.interreg.no/, which is the national INTERREG site in Norway. Yes, I know Norway is not in the EU, but they are hugely enthusiastic about all things INTERREG (more than some Member States if truth be told).

Another top site is http://www.interreg-sverige-norge.com/ for the Sweden-Norway programme. Both sites are well-designed, clearly laid-out, and contain lots of information for potential project partners. Admittedly, the lack of English information makes them less interesting outside the North to some extent, but they do demonstrate a positive use of the Internet that other programmes should aspire to.

There are many good, interesting sites out there - too many to mention in one blog entry (www.ctc.ee is another I have just discovered). Has anyone any favourite co-operation websites they would like to share? Let me know in the comments section.

A (not so) calm and peaceful August

2007-08-13T15:50:00.000+02:00

The traditional peace and tranquility of the European summer has descended on the cross-border world - or has it? In fact, there is much frenzied activity going on: finishing touches are being put to most new programmes, some of the laggards are desperately trying to catch up, and the Commission is trying to zip through the first of the new decisions.

Admittedly there are a few people who have taken holidays (disgraceful behaviour) and there is the occasional sound of running feet as people try to find someone who can sign off on a text, but most people seem to be working right through this year.

It appears that cross-border co-operation is pretty non-stop these days. So if anyone out there is reading this on a beach (and, if you are, you really need to get a life), hurry up and get back to the office. There's programmes to implement!

France-England: New programme public consultation launched

2007-08-13T15:46:00.000+02:00

After a slow start ("for reasons outwith the regions' control", shall we say), the new France-England cross-border programme is running to catch up, and has just launched its major public consultation exercise, which will run for 3 months - from 9 August to 2 November. There will be series of public consultations on both sides of the Channel, so get reading, and get contributing!

See here for more info: http://www.interreg3.com/EN/i4_consult.asp

Cross-border news stories on the increase

2007-08-10T13:08:00.000+02:00

Very interesting... while starting to set up this blog, I did quite some trawling through the web, and there are a lot more stories on cross-border issues that one might think. There are quite a few stories on INTERREG projects in particular, which is good news - projects seem to be taking publicity seriously nowadays. I'll keep the news elements updated on the right-hand side regularly and I might put a few in the main blog if they are of special interest.

Welcome to the cross-border party

2007-08-10T12:15:00.000+02:00

Thanks for joining me on this blog which keeps an eye on all things to do with cross-border co-operation. This is a fascinating subject, with lots of programmes and projects on-going - in Europe and throughout the world - helping people living on either side of national dividing lines to come together and to work to meet common challenges and to defeat common problems.
The idea of the blog is to try and give a flavour of what is happening out there, with stories, links and examples from the cross-border world.
All feedback is gratefully received!