So, just what is Territorial Cohesion?

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)

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!

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

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

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

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

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.