TERCO - European Territorial Cooperation as a
Factor of Growth, Jobs and Quality of Life
Workshop Session1: Progress on New Territorial Evidence
30th November 2011, Kraków
Department of Planning and Regional
Developement University of Thessaly,
School of Engineering
TERCO hypothesis and objectives
TA2020: “Co-operation is key to fostering smart, inclusive and
sustainable growth and territorial cohesion in the EU”
TERCO main hypothesis: territorial cooperation (TC) is one of
the factors underpinning the socio-economic development
of territorial units.
TERCO main objective is to assess the relationship between
territorial cooperation (TC) and the socio-economic
development of EU and neighbouring regions
•
Subordinated objectives:
1. Estimate IMPACT of
various types of TC
• On economic and
social development as well as on
Quality of life
2. Asses ADEQUACY of
TC
• In terms of
geographic areas,
domains, scales,
etc.
3. Identify key
determinants of TC
success
4. Establish good
governance practices
• Which factors
decide whether cooperation brings
integration and
value added?
• Formal vs day-to day
practices
• Good governance and
synergies between t
programs, etc .
Key policy questions and types of TC
ADEQUACY of TC
Q1. Are existing territorial cooperation areas still adequate to meet current
challenges of territorial development (e.g. global competitiveness, etc. )?
Main TYPES of Territorial
Co-operation analysed
in TERCO
NEW AREAS, SCALES, DOMAINS of TC
Q2. What could be more meaningful new cooperation areas throughout
Europe on various levels?
Twinning City
Q3. What would be the right scale for territorial cooperation? Which
themes (domains) are appropriately dealt with in territorial cooperation
and on which scale?
Cross-border
(incl. Interreg A)
GOVERNANCE structures and GOOD practices of TC
Transnational
(incl. Interreg B)
Q4. What are favorable framework conditions and good governance
models for territorial cooperation to succeed?
Q5. What are existing governance experiences in territorial cooperation in
Europe and what can be learnt?
Q6. Can cases of best practices be translated to and applied in other
cooperation areas?
Interregional
(incl. Interreg C)
Transcontinental
INFRASTRUCUTRE
Q7. Should cooperation programmes include infrastructure investments?
3
Q8. What kind of infrastructure is needed where to enable fruitful
cooperation arrangements?
Q9. Is a different approach required in old and new MS?
Other
How different territories cooperate?
TA2020: “Territories with common potentials or challenges can collaborate in
finding common solutions and utilise their territorial potential by sharing
experience. Territories with complementary potentials, often neighbouring, can
join forces and explore their comparative advantages together creating
additional development potential”
6
Colomb's (2007) extended scale of co-operation
TERCO Case Studies evidence:
Regions with common potentials (PL and Cz):
Tourists potential of Sudety mountains
-Exchanging experience (#1) and jointly
implementing common actions (#4)
- Joint promotion of Sudety as a tourist product
Regions with common challenges (PL and DE):
Oder river challenge
-Sharing tools to tackle a common problem (#3)
- Sharing equipment and know-how to deal with
flood prevention,
Regions with complementary potentials (GR and
BL): health and social protection services
- Solving jointly cross-border problems (#6)
- Infrastructure, volunteer and national rescue
teams, insurance vouchers
5
4
3
2
1
Exchanging Advising each Sharing tools to
Jointly
Jointly
experience other on how to tackle a
implementing implementing a
solve similar
common
common spatial strategy
problems
problem actions/investm.
to solve
problems
BORDER/
MEMBER
STATE
INTERNAL
EXTERNAL
Solving jointly
cross-border
problems, e.g.
cross-border
health care, etc.
NewNew
New-Old
Old-Old
PL-CZ
PL-SK
PL-DE
CZ-DE
BUL-GR
UK-SWE
BE-FR
PL-UA
SK –UA
BUL-TUR
New
GR-TUR
UK-NO
FIN-RUS
SP-LAT. A.
SP-MOR
Old
Co-operation of cities
TA2020: “The cooperation and networking
of cities could contribute to smart development of city regions at varying scales in the
long run”
- Database of TwinningCities which have not
existed before
- Typology of co-operating cities is built
- Quantitative data complemented by qualitative
Aver. Nuber of TwinCities agreements per
commune
How adequate are domains/themes of TC?
Domains of TC most developed now vs. Domains of TC most desirable in the future
Governance models
Centralised - Locally driven
Bottom up - Top down
Centrally driven
100%
50%
Highly
institutionalised
0%
Norway Scotland Sweden
Closely
managed/regulated
Level of formality
Narrow
100%
involvement
50%
Joint structures
0%
Norway Scotland Sweden
Both
100%
Top
down
Bottom
up
0%
Locally driven Both
Centralis
Loosely organised ed
Locally
Driven
Norway Scotland Sweden
Open/flexible
arrangements
Level of regulation
Both
100%
Highly
institutio
nalised
Loosely
organised
Broad
partnership
50%
0%
Parallel
structures
Norway Scotland Sweden
Both
Closely
regulated
Open and
flexible
Should TC include
infrastructure
investment?
Infrastructure
What type of
infrastructure should be
supported via TC?
New EU Member States
Bulgaria
Poland
Slovakia
Czech
Old EU Member States
France
Spain
Belgium
Sweden
Germany
Scotland
Norway
Greece
Finland
Which type of TC should support
infrastructure?
YES
NO
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
nonEU Member States
40.0%
Russia
Ukraine
Turkey
Urugay
Argentine
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
8
0.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Twining Interreg Interreg Interreg Other
Cities
A
B
C
Experience of the TERCO
 The best TC projects seem to be those which focus on solving a specific
problem together and time of simple projects is coming to an end. Introduction
of more functional approach to territory seems to be important for future TC.
 In case of TC across external borders cultural cooperation and education
are perceived by actors from all sectors as the most important domains.
 TC programmes should neither be designed nor analysed in isolation from other
strategies/programmes at a given (sub)region. External policies do matter.
 Co-ordination matters if we think seriously about synergies. Governance
models: a) depend on the specific situation, b) top-down approaches are
unlikely to work when partners contribute large financial shares to the project.
 Good practices: a) their number increases with the growing complexity of
projects, (e.g. common database with compitibile procedures, regular
stakeholder forums, common involvement in certification for quality labels, etc.)
 Infrastructural investments: a) YES if have EU dimension, (e.g. missing link in
transport network), b) New MS - physical infrastr; Old MS social infrastr, c)
in short run small infrastructural project - long run importance of soft measures.
Thank you for your attention !
http://esponterco.wordpress.com/