tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-82369093333765537212024-02-08T14:22:15.649+01:00Tales from the BorderlandsA cross-border, transnational blogThe Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-76836261569892675072011-09-08T09:46:00.001+02:002011-09-08T09:46:33.794+02:00Co-operation programmes co-operating about co-operatingThe 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 <a href="https://registration.livegroup.co.uk/transnational-cooperation/">here</a> at the impressive website of the event.<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://www.northsearegion.eu/ivb/home/">North Sea</a> and <a href="http://www.northernperiphery.eu/en/home/">Northern Periphery</a> programmes have worked very well together on the <a href="http://www.northernmaritimecorridor.no/ir/public/openIndex/view/list_nmc2006.html?ARTICLE_ID=1140187268312&_exp=0">Northern Maritime Corridor</a> project. However, these examples stand out to some extent because they are the exception rather than the rule. <br />
<br />
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.The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-33194806919229831762011-09-01T12:02:00.000+02:002011-09-01T12:06:30.030+02:00How lies the land?<div>
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?<br />
<br />
Well, the big news to start with is that the Commission's financial proposals for the 2014-2020 are out (click <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/budget/biblio/documents/fin_fwk1420/fin_fwk1420_en.cfm">here</a>). 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).</div>
<br />
<div>
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. </div>
<br />
<div>
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.<br />
<br />
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.</div>
The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-14904361338286593792010-02-18T11:09:00.002+01:002011-09-01T12:04:31.106+02:00Just what is to be done with the Mediterranean?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?)<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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 (<a href="http://www.programmemed.eu/">http://www.programmemed.eu/</a>) which supports co-operation mainly among the EU Member States along the north of the Mediterranean, and the ENPI Mediterranean cross-border programme (<a href="http://www.enpicbcmed.eu/">http://www.enpicbcmed.eu/</a>) 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. <br />
<br />
But I'm not holding my breath.The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-25036058150415327242010-02-16T10:45:00.001+01:002011-09-01T12:05:00.348+02:00Baltic Sea excitementIt'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 (<a href="http://www.bsas.fi/">http://www.bsas.fi/</a>) 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-87414966305789036742010-02-03T15:00:00.000+01:002011-09-01T12:05:13.006+02:00Danube Strategy daysThe 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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-53707659786462462322010-01-20T16:15:00.002+01:002011-09-01T12:05:26.325+02:00People make the differenceThe 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. <br />
<br />
And what better way to start than with a good news story, this time from Ireland. The Irish Times reports (<a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0118/1224262564584.html">http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0118/1224262564584.html</a>) 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. <br />
<br />
Small steps...The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-39922918145292447652009-09-03T10:15:00.001+02:002009-09-03T10:18:50.869+02:00To Hell in a Cross-Border Handbasket<span style="font-size:85%;">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.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">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. </span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">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.</span>The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-84189455176402895342009-07-17T09:20:00.001+02:002009-07-17T09:31:56.107+02:00Unusual outbreak of common sense in the UK<span style="font-size:85%;">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 (<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8150930.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8150930.stm</a>). 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. </span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">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.</span>The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-87466103706006486492009-07-14T09:17:00.002+02:002009-07-14T09:33:29.186+02:00Cross-border libraries<span style="font-size:85%;">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.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">The report (<a href="http://borderireland.info/discuss/?p=98">http://borderireland.info/discuss/?p=98</a>) 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.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">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): <a href="http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Canada,_U.S._to_tighten_security_between_">http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Canada,_U.S._to_tighten_security_between_'cross-border'_library</a></span>The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-19922765726613161742009-07-13T09:12:00.000+02:002009-07-14T09:33:48.146+02:00The Onion skewers US wall building<span style="font-size:85%;">The Border-Crosser has a preference for </span><a href="http://www.thedailymash.com/"><span style="font-size:85%;">www.thedailymash.com</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> for a good dose of news-related humour in the morning. However, sometimes </span><a href="http://www.theonion.com/"><span style="font-size:85%;">www.theonion.com</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> manages to hit the nail 100% on the head. This is its brilliant take on the the US-Mexico border barrier: </span><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/mexico_builds_border_wall_to_keep?utm_source=a-section"><span style="font-size:85%;">http://www.theonion.com/content/video/mexico_builds_border_wall_to_keep?utm_source=a-section</span></a>The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-41746140901050644592009-07-03T09:10:00.002+02:002009-07-03T09:20:15.359+02:00Positive news from the Baltic<span style="font-size:85%;">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: </span><a href="http://eu.baltic.net/redaktion/download.php?id=845&type=file"><span style="font-size:85%;">http://eu.baltic.net/redaktion/download.php?id=845&type=file</span></a><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">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.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">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.</span>The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-2367406436158400652009-07-01T08:38:00.004+02:002009-07-01T08:44:03.234+02:00Wrong direction<span style="font-size:85%;">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 - </span><a href="http://border-blog.com/welcome-to-juarez.html"><span style="font-size:85%;">Welcome to Juarez</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> - 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.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">This is not how things are supposed to be.</span>The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-17993175217045757222009-06-10T09:38:00.006+02:002009-06-10T13:24:49.134+02:00A Baltic Strategy<span style="font-size:85%;">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">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?</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">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.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">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. </span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">B</span><span style="font-size:85%;">oiled 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.</span>The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-37191646791363313982009-06-03T09:21:00.003+02:002009-06-03T09:50:18.136+02:00Plus ça change...<span style="font-size:85%;">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. </span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">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 </span><a href="http://www.javno.com/en-world/mp-zmago-calls-serbia-bosnia-against-croatia_262530"><span style="font-size:85%;">http://www.javno.com/en-world/mp-zmago-calls-serbia-bosnia-against-croatia_262530</span></a><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">"Then weapons will fire"?? Have we learned nothing? The answer, apparently, is no.</span>The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-22856065116840145782009-06-02T23:34:00.003+02:002009-06-03T00:07:32.856+02:00A great leap backwards<span style="font-size:85%;">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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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: <a href="http://newsminer.com/news/2009/jun/02/island-effect/">http://newsminer.com/news/2009/jun/02/island-effect/</a></span>The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-27497018122033726522009-02-25T09:24:00.003+01:002009-02-25T12:26:11.512+01:00Squabbling in the Balkans<span style="font-size:85%;">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.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">The argument is over the Gulf of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Piran</span> (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 (<a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bay-of-Piran_maritime-boundary-dispute.jpg">http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bay-of-Piran_maritime-boundary-dispute.jpg</a>) 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.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">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 "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">exclave</span>" 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.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">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.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">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.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"> 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.</span>The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-4895545768155863212009-02-22T22:35:00.000+01:002009-02-22T22:37:36.740+01:00Headless chickens?<div><span style="font-size:85%;">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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /></span></div>The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-53517979271104693032009-02-11T10:26:00.003+01:002009-02-11T13:37:40.166+01:00Progress in the Black Sea<span style="font-size:85%;">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.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">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.</span>The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-15293440836422536692009-01-28T16:24:00.005+01:002009-01-29T18:50:00.492+01:00Naughty Irish cross-border drivers<span style="font-size:85%;">I quite enjoyed t</span><span style="font-size:85%;">his story on the BBC this week about drivers from Ireland running up thousands of pounds in driving fines in Northern Ireland (<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7852597.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7852597.stm</a>). In fact, it's a bit cruel really - the UK economy needs every penny it can get at the moment. </span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">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" (<a href="http://preview.tinyurl.com/chf7uj">http://preview.tinyurl.com/chf7uj</a>). In fact, the proposed Directive only covers the following at present: <em>(a) speeding; (b) drink-driving; (c) non-use of a seat-belt; (d) failing to stop at a red traffic light</em> </span><span style="font-size:85%;">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.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">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.</span>The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-76280301373754148542009-01-16T15:43:00.003+01:002009-01-16T15:52:51.585+01:00Happy New Year - and a late Christmas present<span style="font-size:85%;">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.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">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.)</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">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.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Next time though, a little more warning would be nice.</span>The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-32655707530334741512008-11-12T15:30:00.000+01:002008-11-12T17:00:31.318+01:00So, just what is Territorial Cohesion?<span style="font-size:85%;">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".<br /><br />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 (<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/consultation/terco/consultation_en.htm">ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/consultation/terco/consultation_en.htm</a>). 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.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">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.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">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.</span>The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-46042181970176753592008-11-04T16:32:00.003+01:002008-11-04T16:48:43.744+01:00Mexico invades USA (sort of)<span style="font-size:85%;">With the US distracted by the general election, Mexico took the opportunity to surprise its northern neighbour and has launched an invasion of Arizona.<br /><br />Of course, I may have exaggerated this story slightly - see <a href="http://media.www.clarksonintegrator.com/media/storage/paper280/news/2008/11/03/News/Mexican.Troops.Illegally.Cross.Border-3521894.shtml">media.www.clarksonintegrator.com/media/storage/paper280/news/2008/11/03/News/Mexican.Troops.Illegally.Cross.Border-3521894.shtml</a> </span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">for the accurate picture. Mind you, 42 illegal border crossings in a couple of years is quite impressive.<br /><br />This reminds me of previous incidents involving the UK and Spain (<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/feb/19/gibraltar.world">www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/feb/19/gibraltar.world</a>) and Liechtenstein and Switzerland (<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/02/markoliver">www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/02/markoliver</a>).<br /><br />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.<br /></span>The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-6844598997916656482008-10-28T21:15:00.002+01:002008-10-28T21:38:54.998+01:00Interregional Clanjamfry!<span style="font-size:85%;">The Border-Crosser has been visiting the INTERREG IV C Forum in Lille (<a href="http://www.interreg4c.eu/">www.interreg4c.eu</a>), 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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />The fight for more recognition for interregional co-operation goes on, but things are looking brighter.<br /><br />And if you don't understand the title, Google it! </span>The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-30371332387061326642008-10-23T09:34:00.002+02:002008-10-23T09:47:31.035+02:00How to start a cross-border morning<span style="font-size:85%;">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.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">And then you get a story like this: <a href="http://www.imt.ie/news/2008/10/crossborder_renal_project_wins.html">http://www.imt.ie/news/2008/10/crossborder_renal_project_wins.html</a> - which gladdens the heart. Exactly the type of good news story needed to demonstrate the benefits that cross-border co-operation can bring. </span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Makes it all worthwhile, really.</span>The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236909333376553721.post-25335977596390132562008-10-09T08:50:00.000+02:002008-10-09T09:47:23.345+02:00Germany, Poland and tales of co-operation unfulfilled<span style="font-size:85%;">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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /></span>The Border-Crosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16983691007440824317noreply@blogger.com0