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.
Wednesday, 6 August 2008
Monday, 7 July 2008
Left hand, please meet right hand
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.
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.
Wednesday, 2 July 2008
Next call for projects under the North Sea Programme
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.
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.
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Where do we go from here?
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.
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.
Saturday, 28 June 2008
The Dutch West Indies
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.
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.
Friday, 27 June 2008
Down on the Spanish (or rather the French) Main
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.
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.
Sunday, 22 June 2008
The difficulties of blogging
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)