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!
Tuesday, 28 October 2008
Thursday, 23 October 2008
How to start a cross-border morning
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.
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.
Thursday, 9 October 2008
Germany, Poland and tales of co-operation unfulfilled
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.
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.
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
It's Open Days time again
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.
...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.
Saturday, 27 September 2008
The Maputo Corridor
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.
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.
Monday, 15 September 2008
The Politics of Co-operation
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?
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?
Saturday, 30 August 2008
Project Record for South-East Europe
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)