CONFÉRENCE DES RÉGIONS PÉRIPHÉRIQUES MARITIMES D’EUROPE
CONFERENCE OF PERIPHERAL MARITIME REGIONS OF EUROPE
6, rue Saint-Martin 35700 RENNES - F
Tel. : + 33 (0)2 99 35 40 50 - Fax : + 33 (0)2 99 35 09 19
e.mail : [email protected] – web : www.crpm.org
23 FEBRUARY 2005
DISCUSSION PAPER FROM THE CPMR GENERAL SECRETARIAT
EU INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL COOPERATION
ACTIONS
BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FACTORS OF CONSIDERATION FOR A CPMR POSITION
I. GENERAL BACKGROUND
1. In order to draw up a CPMR position on the European Commission’s proposals on cooperation, a seminar
on “European territorial cooperation after 2006: proposals from the regions” was organised by the CPMR
and AEBR in Taormina (Sicily) on 21 and 22 October 2004. To this end, the General Secretariat drew up a
paper entitled “Draft joint positions of the AEBR and CPMR on the proposals for regulations on territorial
cooperation dated July 2004”.
The seminar failed to result in a final position. This was because a certain number of remarks raised during
the seminar, mainly by the Mediterranean regions, were not able to be discussed. It was therefore decided to
put off the adoption of a position until the meeting of the Political Bureau in Santiago de Compostela on 14
January 2005.
2. The observations made by representatives from the Mediterranean regions mainly concerned the refusal
to restrict maritime cross-border cooperation to the 150 km limit proposed by the Commission. It was
suggested to allow this type of cooperation within the same sea basin without subjecting it to distancerelated criteria. This position was set out in an e-mail from Sicily Region on 12 January 2005 requesting that
the following wording be introduced into the CPMR position: “consider that the distance criterion should
not apply to cooperation actions within the same sea basin"(Mediterranean, Baltic).”
At the meeting of the Political Bureau in Santiago de Compostela, the General Secretariat proposed three
possibilities: i) maintain the 150 km criterion with a flexible interpretation; ii) remove the distance criterion
for cooperation between islands or between regions and islands situated in the same sea basin; iii) remove
the distance criterion for cooperation within the same sea basin. Discussions failed to reach a choice among
these three options. However, they highlighted the need to take into account not only the practical aspects of
cooperation, but also the various stakes involved – including cultural and political factors – and the
surrounding context. It was therefore decided to put off the decision until the next Political Bureau meeting
in Tulcea (RO) on 24 June 2005.
3. With a view to reaching a joint position – which remains the CPMR’s top priority as a regional
organisation – it was decided, in accordance with the conclusions of the Santiago de Compostela Political
Bureau meeting and in agreement with the General Secretariat, to hold a meeting between the interested
parties on the afternoon of 2nd March in Brussels, at the invitation of the Presidency of the InterMediterranean Commission. It was also agreed to draft a preparatory working document to serve as a basis
for discussions. The present paper constitutes this preparatory document.
Discussion Paper from the CPMR General Secretariat – EU internal and external cooperation actions - Background
information and factors of consideration for a CPMR position– p. 1
Ref: 05007-D – 23/02/05
4. With regard to the three previous points, it is clear that we are up against a two-sided problem:
- firstly, the need to establish a position on the European Commission’s “technical” proposal on
maritime cooperation under the cross-border strand (150 km distance criterion);
- secondly, the need to give full meaning to cooperation policy, which extends beyond technical
cooperation actions alone to include a political and cultural dimension, especially important in the
Mediterranean context.
This double-edged requirement leads us in turn to consider what position and working method the CPMR
should adopt: should its priority be to react to the European Commission’s proposals or should it first and
foremost act as a mouthpiece for regional positions even though they are in contradiction with the
Commission’s proposals? The organisation’s policy positions over the past years show that these two
approaches are related in practice, and that the positions expressed by the Regions are conveyed by the
organisation when there is a consensus between its members and when the adopted positions can be backed
by objective arguments.
There are therefore four major principles that should guide us in our discussions:
i) the need to establish a joint position based on the fair treatment of the different geographical areas that
make up the CPMR;
ii) the need to put forward well-founded and objective arguments that take on board the different
dimensions of the issues in question;
iii) a working method that aims to reach a consensus, which means listening to one another and adopting a
responsible attitude;
iv) the political and technical acceptability of our positions.
5. In order to establish a basis for discussions that is as comprehensive and objective as possible, point II
presents a summary of EU-led internal and external cooperation policies since 1989, together with the
Commission’s proposals for the forthcoming period
This information should help to clear up ambiguities and misunderstandings that have so far distorted the
discussion, and help the CPMR to establish a clear position.
Before taking things further, it is therefore important to take an objective look at recent developments
concerning the different cooperation instruments.
II. RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL TERRITORIAL
COOPERATION
1. Context of the analysis.
. Cooperation actions are subdivided into two types: “internal cooperation”, i.e. concerning EU Member
States; and “external cooperation” with neighbouring third countries;
. Three cooperation periods may be identified: the period from 1989-1993; the period from 1994-1999; and the
2000-2006 period. Prior to the Structural Funds Reform in 1989, all that existed besides the Structural Funds
as such were the 29 IMPs (Integrated Mediterranean Programmes) and the 14 IDOs (Integrated Development
Operations).
Discussion Paper from the CPMR General Secretariat – EU internal and external cooperation actions - Background
information and factors of consideration for a CPMR position– p. 2
Ref: 05007-D – 23/02/05
PERIOD
1989-1993
INTERNAL COOPERATION
. Interreg Community Initiative Programme
EXTERNAL COOPERATION
. MED Programmes “Med Urbs” for local
authorities
. Article 10 of the ERDF
1994-1999
2000-2006
. (“Europe 2000”, planning in border areas,
urban issues and interregional cooperation).
Interregional cooperation included exchanges of
experiences and regional networking.
. Interreg II
Strand A: cross-border
Strand B: transnational energy networks
Strand C (97-99): transnational cooperation
(spatial planning, flooding, drought).
. Article 10 of ERDF (Pilot actions)
Four actions, two of them in the
Mediterranean:
(“Mediterranean Gateway” between P/E/MA
and “South East Mediterranean” between
I/GR).
Interreg III
Strand A: Cross-border
Strand B: Transnational
Strand C: Interregional
. “Ouverture” network (cooperation between
EU regions and East European regions)
. “Ecos-Ouverture” Programme
. see below (*)
(*) Regarding external cooperation: MEDA initiative for the SEM (Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
countries) but without any direct involvement from regional and local authorities. This is in contrast with
PHARE CBC (Cross Border Cooperation) for pre-accession countries, and TACIS CBC for other Eastern
European countries (Russia, Ukraine, Moldavia, Caucasian countries).
2. Remarks concerning the three cooperation periods.
1. Internal cooperation policy has been significantly stepped up both financially speaking (cf. graphs below)
as well as in terms of its content. It has switched from supporting strategies/studies/pilot projects to
introducing fields for effective cooperation based on concrete projects.
Interreg CIP
€0.8 bn
Interreg II
€3.523 bn -Strand A = 75.5%; strand B = 12.8% ; strand C = 11.7% ;
Interreg III
€5.3 bn in total - Strand A 68%; strand B 26%; strand C 6%.
2. Resources allocated to external cooperation actions fluctuate significantly. In particular they have more or
less ceased in the Mediterranean area for the 2000-2006 period: (relative failure of the MEDA initiative – no
links between internal and external cooperation actions). Internal/external cooperation links have been
developed in the Baltic area with the joint management of ERDF/Phare CBC/Tacis CBC).
3. The actual amount of funding earmarked for the cross-border strand remains stable (but with a %
decrease) and the transnational strand has sharply increased as shown by the graphs on pages 4 and 5.
4. With regard to maritime cooperation actions, these have always been possible though never explicitly
considered as such:
- Under cross-border cooperation as of the first period, provided there is close geographical proximity
(e.g. Corsica/Sardinia, Nord Pas de Calais/Kent, or the Oresund Strait); these cooperation actions
have mainly been authorised for “local development” type projects corresponding to the core aim of
cross-border cooperation;
Discussion Paper from the CPMR General Secretariat – EU internal and external cooperation actions - Background
information and factors of consideration for a CPMR position– p. 3
Ref: 05007-D – 23/02/05
-
-
Under transnational cooperation, first during the 1997-1999 period and now for the 2000-2006
period, this type of cooperation is possible in the Mediterranean (as part of the MEDOCC and
ARCHIMED areas), as well as in the Baltic, North Sea and Atlantic areas.
Under interregional cooperation, it has always been possible to set up “maritime” networks in
RECITE 1 and 2, TERRA (e.g. “Coastal Zones” networks) and Interreg IIIc.
5. If one looks in detail at the programmes led during these programming periods, one can see that the
majority of projects are land-based cross-border projects. Out of a total of 59 projects led under Strand A of
Interreg II, only 14 concerned maritime borders and – as a consequence of this trend – only 7 out of the 59
projects concerned the Mediterranean area. This observation has to be offset by the financial breakdown
between the different areas, since the Mediterranean obtained 27% of the total funding for these 7 projects.
With regard to external border projects, the three Mediterranean projects – GR/external borders, E/MA and
I/SLO were neighbourhood projects.
It is therefore safe to say that cross-border cooperation policy, owing to its very nature, has mainly been
applied to land-based programmes. Maritime borders have been included on a case-by-case basis when
considered justified on account of their geographical proximity. What might be considered as maritime
cooperation really took off when the transnational strand was set up, since most of the areas concerned were
based around sea basins. Moreover, on a broader level, the increasing acknowledgement of the maritime
dimension has recently been illustrated by the Commission’s decision to draft a Green Paper on maritime
policy, given the European Union’s current general lack of interest in maritime affairs.
6. With regard to coordination between internal and external cooperation, in contrast to arrangements in the
Baltic between Interreg, Phare and Tacis (joint secretariat), no cooperation has been established between
Interreg and MEDA. This has resulted in external cooperation policies in the Mediterranean failing to
involve regional and local authorities, except only marginally as part of the Euro-Med Heritage programme
for example.
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Internal Cross-border
Internal Transnational
Internal Interregional
External
20
07
/2
01
3
00
/0
6
Total
94
/9
9
89
/9
3
funding in €M
Development of cooperation - funding in €M
periods
Discussion Paper from the CPMR General Secretariat – EU internal and external cooperation actions - Background
information and factors of consideration for a CPMR position– p. 4
Ref: 05007-D – 23/02/05
Development of cooperation - %
%
100%
80%
Internal Cross-border
60%
Internal Transnational
40%
Internal Interregional
20%
External
20
07
/2
01
3
00
/0
6
94
/9
9
89
/9
3
0%
period
III. PROPOSALS FOR 2007-2013.
These take into account a new context:
. Within the EU, the 2004 enlargement has significantly increased the Union’s internal borders.
. Outside the EU, a new neighbourhood policy has been introduced which takes into account the role and
place of regional and local authorities (Communication of September 2004).
. Maritime cooperation is recognised in its own right with regard to both internal cooperation (the concept of
maritime border has been automatically extended to approximately 150 km as a result of a strong rise in the
transnational strand) and external cooperation (cf. Article 8 point c) of the draft NEPI Regulation dated 29
September 2004).
Funding for cooperation actions will be significantly increased (from €5.3 bn for the 2000-2006 period to
€13.2 bn for the forthcoming period).
The Commission proposes that this amount be broken down as follows:
-
35.61% to fund ‘conventional’ cross-border cooperation, with the concept of maritime borders being
extended as separated by a distance of approximately 150 km (Article 7 of the General Regulations).
-
12.12% for the ERDF contribution to the cross-border strand of the European neighbourhood
instrument, which reflects the Commission’s intention to devote more resources per capita to the
EU’s external borders;
-
47.73% for transnational cooperation;
-
4.54% to fund cooperation networks.
This breakdown consolidates the importance of transnational cooperation, since 47.73% of the total amount
is earmarked for this strand, as compared with 26% for the current period and 3.4% for the spatial planning
strand in the 1997-1999 period (Interreg IIc).
¬ With regard to this breakdown, we feel that the core issue for the CPMR is how exactly the 12.12% will be
allocated. There are currently two possible interpretations which might be at the root of the differences in
opinion that have arisen since the Taormina seminar.
- On examining the texts (General Regulation on the Structural Funds, ERDF Regulation and COM
on the new neighbourhood instrument) we note a referral in the General ERDF Regulation to the
Commission’s latest communication on the neighbourhood instrument (cf. Article 18 a), 2nd paragraph),
Discussion Paper from the CPMR General Secretariat – EU internal and external cooperation actions - Background
information and factors of consideration for a CPMR position– p. 5
Ref: 05007-D – 23/02/05
whereby the aforementioned 12.12% will be used to fund the contribution of EU Regions towards crossborder cooperation projects led in partnership with the Neighbourhood Instrument, according to the
eligibility criteria set out in the neighbourhood policy. In this case, all regions bordering a sea shared by
Member States and partner countries are eligible (cf. Article 8 (1)(c)).
- If we refer to the current interpretation of DG Regio, the 12.12% would only be used to finance
NUTS 3 regions of EU 27 sharing a land or sea border with new neighbours (e.g. Finland for cooperation
with Russia, Poland for cooperation with Ukraine, etc.). With the new flexibility given to maritime borders,
this would also enable some funding to be granted to a number of Mediterranean maritime borders (e.g.
Andalusia with Morocco, Western Sicily with Tunisia). However, still according to DG Regio, this funding
would not be used for cooperation actions between regions bordering a sea shared by Member States and
neighbouring partner countries, although this is nevertheless what is stipulated in the Communication on
the neighbourhood instrument of September 2004.
IV. Factors of consideration for a CPMR position.
9 In the light of the 2004 enlargement which created new borders within the Union, it would seem
legitimate to maintain a cross-border strand in order to support internal cross-border cooperation. It is
therefore proposed not to question this line of policy.
9 The need to provide a response to problems arising at the EU’s outer borders fully justifies the
introduction of the neighbourhood instrument and the coordination – including the financial contribution –
between the ERDF and this new instrument.
9 The 150 km distance criterion, however arbitrary this may seem, nevertheless constitutes a certain
progress when applied to cross-border cooperation, which has until now been more restrictive.
Two questions still remain:
1.
2.
Through which channel can we legitimately aim to carry out cooperation actions between EU
regions located in the same sea basin?
Through which channel can we legitimately aim to carry out cooperation actions between EU and
non-EU regions located in the same sea basin?
. Regarding the first question, the following option might be considered:
-
Make use of the increased budget for the transnational strand and the possibility – much
more explicit than in the present period – to fund bilateral interregional cooperation actions
as provided for in the draft regulation on the ERDF, Article 6, point 2:
“the establishment and development of transnational cooperation, including bilateral cooperation between
maritime regions, through the financing of networks and of actions conducive to integrated territorial
development...”
. With regard to the second question, given the two-sided interpretation of how the 12.12% is to be
allocated, two options remain open:
-
-
uphold the interpretation related to the new neighbourhood instrument and therefore
consider that the 12.12% is used for cross-border cooperation taken to mean “NUTS II
regions bordering a sea shared by Member States and partner countries”; this means that the
distance criterion (150 km) does not apply to this type of cooperation. In this interpretation,
based on the existing texts, traditional cross-border cooperation would therefore be
allocated 35.61% of the total amount earmarked for the future Objective 3.
request that a part of the budget earmarked for transnational cooperation be specifically
allocated to the link with the new neighbourhood instrument.
Discussion Paper from the CPMR General Secretariat – EU internal and external cooperation actions - Background
information and factors of consideration for a CPMR position– p. 6
Ref: 05007-D – 23/02/05
It is to be understood that these two options are not incompatible with one another, and that it may be
possible to ask for these two aspects to be maintained in a complementary way.
Geographic eligibility is not the only issue to be examined however. A position also needs to be established
regarding the main lines of cooperation policy, notably to step up maritime-related fields, i.e. maritime
safety and transport, combating sea pollution, maritime economy and integrated coastal zones management.
Whatever the outcome of this debate, it appears highly unlikely that cooperation actions between EU
regions and new neighbours would be made impossible (or arbitrarily limited to just a few cases),
whether in the Mediterranean, Baltic or Black Sea. In any case, it will be necessary to lobby the European
Commission to urge it to rapidly clarify the consistency of its proposals. A disaster scenario would
consist in the final regulation on neighbourhood policy backtracking on the exact conditions for
eligibility.
Discussion Paper from the CPMR General Secretariat – EU internal and external cooperation actions - Background
information and factors of consideration for a CPMR position– p. 7
Ref: 05007-D – 23/02/05