© Institute of International Relations and Area Studies, Ritsumeikan University
EU Cross-Border Cooperation Policy in Spain:
A Comparison of Interreg III A in the Two Frontiers
Lluis VALLS*
Abstract
One of the recent policies of the European Union is the Interreg
program, which has the aim to promote cross-border cooperation
between European regions and, with this, promote their economic
development, social cohesion, and cross-border integration. In this
paper I analyze the application of the Interreg program in Spain.
This program is being implemented in the regions in the SpanishFrench border and in the regions in the Spanish-Portuguese border.
Taking the operative program of each of these areas as a data, I compare the program in the two areas and in the Spanish side with the
French and Portuguese sides. I consider the participation of public
and private actors in the decision-making and execution processes,
and the contents of the policies. I conclude that, although the pressure for uniformity of the Interreg program, there are differences in
its development according to the area and to the country where it is
implemented.
Keywords:
regional policy, cross-border cooperation, European Union,
economic development, European integration
RITSUMEIKAN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Vol.2, pp.115-139 (2004).
* Lecturer, College of Business Administration, Ritsumeikan University
116
RITSUMEIKAN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
【Vol. 2
INTRODUCTION
One aim of the process of integration in the European Union (EU) is to
reach an harmonious development among its countries and regions and to
reduce the delay of the less developed ones, as the Treaty of the European
Community establishes in its Preamble. Because of this, among other measures, the European Regional Development Funds (ERDF) were established in
1977. Their principal objective “is to promote economic and social cohesion within the European Union through the reduction of imbalances between regions or
social groups” (European Commission (EC), 2003). These funds support regions
that lag behind in their development or that face high unemployment, by
financing infrastructures, measures for employment creation, local development projects, and support for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). In addition, due to the economic integration, and especially since the passing of the
Single European Act in 1986 establishing the European single market, less
competitive regions face competition from more economically efficient regions.
A particular case is that of border regions. Border regions in many cases
have a series of handicaps that have led them delayed in economic development respect their country. Geographic characteristics, insufficient communication ways, distance from economic centres, depopulation, and the lack of
relationship with the region at the other side of the frontier are obstacles to
their development. For this, besides the increase of the regional funds, a policy program called Interreg and targeting border regions was established in
1990. In order to reduce the delay of these regions, and to prevent the national borders to become barrier for the European integration, Interreg has the
aim to promote the development of neighbouring border-regions, by promoting cross-border cooperation between regional and local administrations and
economic actors of both sides of the border.
Cross-border cooperation between neighboring regions has been developed in Europe since the very establishment of the European Community.
Euregio, established in 1958 in the Dutch-German border, was the first
organization for cross-border cooperation. With the establishment of the
ERDF, and having Euregio as a model of best practice, the European
Commission has being promoting the constitution of similar cross-border
arrangements (Lambertz, 2003; Perkmann, 2002: 116-117) 1). Since then,
1) Lambertz (2003) (the president of the Euregio Maas-Rijn in the Belgium-Dutch-German
border), explains the process of constitution of this cross-border region taking as model the
2004】
EU Cross-Border Cooperation Policy in Spain（VALLS）
117
this kind of cross-border cooperation has been expanding, especially in the
Dutch-German border. However, in the South of Europe cross-border cooperation is underdeveloped, and Interreg has been the first policy targeting its
development since 1990. In order to know how the Interreg program is being
applied and what effects is having on the cross-border cooperation and economic development, it is of great interest the study of its application in Spain.
In addition, Interreg is being applied in both the Spanish-French border and
in the Spanish-Portuguese border. These two areas have huge differences in
their grade of development, economic structure, culture, and so on. How do
these differences affect the application of Interreg and its effects in each
area? This is the topic that this paper explores. For this, first I analyze the
general characteristics of the Interreg program. Then, I compare the operative programs of the two territorial areas, considering their actions, the
process of decision-making and the process of implementation in each area.
This analysis has lead to the conclusion that there are different patterns
and degrees of cross-border cooperation between the two areas.
Ⅰ. CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION and EU’s REGIONAL POLICY
1. Cross-border cooperation
The cooperation among different regions in the EU can be divided in crossborder cooperation and inter-regional cooperation. Cross-border cooperation
refers to the cooperation among regional or local authorities of neighbour
regions. Inter-regional cooperation refers to cooperation between regions
independently of their geographical distance (European Parliament, 1996).
While the former bases the cooperation on the territorial proximity, the
motive of the later is to promote development matching complementarities
among regions independently of their territorial situation.
The types of cooperation also can be divided according to the level of
administration that takes part in it. This can be regional governments
(NUTS-II) 2) of different countries, administrations of a level between the
region and the locality (NUTS-III), and localities (NUTS-IV and NUTS-V).
existing Dutch-German Euregio. In a more analytical fashion, Perkmann (2002) considers
the role of the European Commission and the European border regions and cross-border
regions in the expansion and institutionalization of cross-border cooperation.
2) NUTS means Nomenclature of Statistic Territorial Units, and were established by the institute
for statistical analysis (EUROSTAT) of the European Commission in 1988. I addition to NUTS
II, III, IV and V, NUTS I correspond to the national level or to large areas of the country.
118
RITSUMEIKAN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
【Vol. 2
The aims of the cooperation can be sectoral (to promote cooperation in a specific topic) or multisectoral (to promote cooperation in general in a specific
territory). And, cooperation can be developed by public administrations or
by private organizations like business associations, trade unions, companies, citizens groups, and so.
2. EU Regional policy
The countries members of the EU have different wealth levels. While
the per capita GDP in Greece, Portugal and Spain is less than 80% of the
EU’s average, in Luxemburg it is more than 60% above the EU’s average.
This difference is still much bigger if we compare the regions. While the
per capita GNP is less than 50% of the European average in Ipeiros
(Greece), Extremadura (Spain) and Alentejo (Portugal), it is more than
60% above the average in Bruxelles (Belgium), Hamburg (Germany), Illede-France (France), Wien (Austria) and Inner London (UK) (EC, 2000: 6).
The aim of the regional policy is to reduce the differences among the
European regions in their per capita GNP. The reduction of the economic
development differences between regions is an explicit aim of the Treaty of
the European Community, and has been reinforced as an objective of the EU
by the single Act (1986), the Treaty of the European Uinon (1992), and the
Treaty of Amsterdam (art. 158) in 1997.
Since the differences in GNP are the result of disparities in unemployment rates, competitiveness of companies, and technological innovation
capacity among the regions of different European countries, the European
regional policy aims structural changes. For this, in order to develop
regional policies the so-called structural funds have been established.
These are the European Social Fund (ESF), the European Agricultural
Guarantee and Guidance Fund-Guidance Section (EAGGF-G), the
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Financial
Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG).
The European regional policy began with the same EC in 1958, with
the establishment of the ESF and the EAGGF-Guidance.3) ESF is a fund for
3) The Guidance Section is oriented to Promote structural change. But the EAGGF-Guarantee
Section is oriented to the maintenance of farmers’ incomes. This sections represents not
only most of the funds for agriculture, but also it is the EU’s policy with a higher expenditure, and until recently it represented more than half of EU’s expenditure. In the budged of
the year 2003 it represents 44.9 of the expenditure.
2004】
EU Cross-Border Cooperation Policy in Spain（VALLS）
119
employment policy, and the EAGGF-Guidance is a fund oriented to measures for the restructuring of the agriculture sector and the development of
rural areas. In 1975 a fund specific for regional policy was established, the
ERDF, and the FIFG, oriented to the restructuring of the fishing sector, was
established in 1994. In addition, in 1992 the Cohesion Fund was created in
order to support measures for the environment and transports in the less
developed European countries* (EC, 2000; EC, 2003).
The volume of the structural funds increased since their creation, from
€8,000 million in 1989 to €32,000 million in 1999. The present regional
policy is established in a plan for the period 2000-6. In this period
€195,000 million4) (34.3% of EU’s budget) will be expended, thus €28,000
million per year. These funds are concentrated on measures for regions
with specific characteristics. These are regions that lag behind in their
development (regions objective 1), which get 70% of the funds, regions that
face high unemployment (regions objective 2), which get the 11%.
Besides the Objective 1 (helping regions that lag behind in their
development) and Objective 2 (economic and social conversion in areas facing structural difficulties), there are two other main structural policies.
One is the Objective 3, which consists on the modernization of training
systems and the promotion of employment in areas not included in the
objective 1 (13.2% of the funds). The other is the Community Initiatives,
which consist on the search of common solutions for specific problems.
Interreg is one of these Community Initiatives.5)
The use of the funds is programmed for which get the 11%, periods of
several years in a process of negotiation among the regional administrations, the national governments, and the European Commission. At present the structural funds are programmed for the period 2000-2006. Also
the distribution by countries and their regions is established in the program (Spain is the main recipient with 23.5% of the structural funds).
* This are those with a per capito GNP under the 90% of the EU’s average: Spain, Portugal,
Greece and Ireland.
4) € 213,000million including the Cohesion Fund.
5) At present, 4 programs compose the Community Initiatives: Interreg III (promotion of
cross-border cooperation), Urban II (recovering of urban areas in crisis), Leader+ (promotion of social agent meetings in rural areas for the promotion of local strategies for sustainable development), and Equal (promotion of equality in the access to the labor market). In addition to the Objective 1, Objective 2, Objective 3, and Community Initiatives,
Innovative Actions (0.51% of the funds) and support to the structural reform of the fisheries outside the Objective 1 complete the structural funds of the EU.
120
RITSUMEIKAN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
【Vol. 2
However, in order to receive the funds, the states have to present specific
projects to the Commission, and to provide at least 25% of the investment
in regions objective 1, and at least 50% of the investment in regions objective 2 (EC, 2000; EC, 2003).
The programming of the present structural funds has considered three
main challenges. The first is the enlargement of the EU to countries less
developed than the present members. For this reason candidate countries
can benefit from some funds. Second, due to the liberalization of the international trade companies move to the regions where can find better conditions in order to increase their competitiveness, which increases the competition on less developed European regions. For this, they need to improve
their infrastructures and services. And last, due to the technological revolution and the information society, societies need to adapt to fast change.
Thus, accesses to advanced know-how through telecommunication networks, innovation and high quality training have become decisive (EC,
2000). These challenges affect all the EU’s regions, but those less developed
are more affected.
3. The Interreg program
The Interreg program was initiated in 1990 with the aim of preventing
the national frontiers from being a difficulty for the balanced development
and the integration of the European territory. There have been three generations of this program: Interreg I (1990-1993), Interreg II (1994-1999) and
Interreg III (2000-2006). Interreg I had an allocation of 1,082 million
Euros, and its aims were the economic development and restructuring of
border areas. Thus, most of the aid went to Objective 1 regions (EC,
2000b). This was not a cross-border nor transnational program, but a program for the economic development of border regions (EC, 2002). Interreg
II had an allocation of 3,563 million Euros, 2,600 of which were for crossborder cooperation (the rest was for completion of energy networks and
regional planning on management of water resources). Its aims were the
economic development of border regions, the construction of cross-border
networks for cooperation, support for the adaptation of external border
regions to their new role as frontiers of the EU, and cooperation with
neighboring third countries. However, according to the Commission’s evaluation, Interreg II failed, especially in Southern Europe, to develop lasting
cross-border cooperation bodies due to the lack of cooperation experience
2004】
EU Cross-Border Cooperation Policy in Spain（VALLS）
121
and trust of administrative bodies. Also, many of the projects were not
cross-border, but the two countries developed parallel projects according to
their internal interests (EC, 2000b).
In order to overcome those shortcomings, Interreg III has some differences from the previous programs. The main aim of Interreg III is not the
economic development, but the establishment of cross-border cooperation
between regions. In order to be really cross-border and/or transnational,
regions must establish common organisms to prepare the program and
implement it, which are responsible for the whole process. And projects
selected have to be really cross-border projects, with the participation of at
least actors from two countries. Finally, the programs have to be elaborated and implemented with a bottom-up approach with the participation of
local and regional administrations, and socio-economic partners (EC,
2000b; EC 2002).
Interreg III has an allocation of €4,875 million for the period 20002006. Although this represents a small proportion of the structural funds
(2.5%), Spain is the country that gets the biggest volume, with €900 million (18.5% of the total).
The Interreg program is divided in three strands: Interreg A, Interreg B,
and Interreg C. Interreg III A promotes “cross-border cooperation.” The aim
is to promote the integrated regional development of neighbor regions of different countries, with the implementation of common development strategies. It is through the promotion of cooperation networks in the economic,
tourism and cultural areas, and exchange of experiences. This strand represents 66% of the funds for Interreg III. Interreg III B promotes “transnational cooperation.” Its objective is to promote a better integration through the
formation of large groups of regions that have a territorial continuity among
different countries (28% of Interreg’s budged). Interreg III C promotes “interregional cooperation.” The aim is to improve the efficiency of the regional
development programs, through experience exchanges between any regions
of the EU. While Interreg B and Interreg C promote cooperation between
regions that are not based in their territorial proximity, Interreg A is oriented to the promotion of cooperation between neighboring regions of neighboring countries. The next pages focus on the strand A of Interreg III, which is
the one established for the promotion of cross-border cooperation.
122
RITSUMEIKAN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
【Vol. 2
Ⅱ. THE INTERREG III A PROGRAM
1. The program
The aims of the program, the process for the elaboration of the programs, the specific border areas, the topics they can target and the form of
execution and evaluation are established in the Communication of the
European Commission on Interreg III (C(2000) 11-01). The objective of
Interreg III A is the “cooperation between the authorities of neighbor countries in order to develop cross-border economic and social centers by means
of common strategies for long-term development” (C(2000) 11-01).
The same Communication points the failure of Interreg II in promoting
projects that are really cross-border, since in many cases there were developed parallel projects in both sides of the frontiers. For this reason in
Interreg III only projects that include participants of at least the two countries can get finance from the project. In addition, the programs have to
involve the participation of local, regional and state administrations, and
also the participation of non institutional actors is encouraged.
The programming process has to be developed by cross-border committees that include local, regional and national authorities. In addition, when
it is considered convenient, non institutional actors should take part in the
programming process.
The Communication also establishes the structure of the operative programs that have to be elaborated in every border area. First, it has to have
an evaluation of the strong and weak points of the area, the expected
impacts and opportunities. Second, it has to describe the programming
process. Then, it has to describe the strategies and subprograms. Also, an
outline of the funding for different action axis, a description of the execution structures, and a description of the follow-up, control and evaluation
mechanisms has to be included.
The execution process is also specified by establishing the execution
organs. These are the Execution Authority, the Payment Authority, the
Technical Secretariat, the Follow-up Committee and the Directive
Committees. The Follow-up Committee has the responsibility of the general
supervision of the program. It approves the complement of the program, and
determines the selection criteria for projects in order to guarantee their
cross-border character. The membership is the regional and local authorities, national authorities if they wish to take part in, and also economic and
2004】
EU Cross-Border Cooperation Policy in Spain（VALLS）
123
other private actors should take part in them. With the same type of organization, the Directive Committees supervise each subprogram. The
Execution Authority prepares the decisions of the Follow-up Committee and
the Directive Committee, and is assisted by the Technical Secretariat.
The projects have to be on topics in a list provided in the Communication. These are the development of urban, rural and coastal territories; the
support to entrepreneurship, SMEs and local employment measures; environment protection, transport and telecommunication infrastructures and so
on; administrative cooperation; the sharing of human resources and facilities
for research, education, health, culture and the like, in order to increase activity and employment; labor market integration and social cohesion; and the
improvement of human and institutional resources in order to promote crossborder cooperation that promotes economic development and social cohesion.
2. Characteristics of Interreg III A
From the previous description of the Interreg III A program, it is possible to establish that it has the following characteristics.
1) Multi-level decision-making and implementation process: The elaboration and implementation of Interreg III A implies three steps. First,
there is a top-down process in which the European Commission and the
national governments negotiate the distribution of the structural funds,
and in which the Commission establishes the aims and procedures for
the operative programs in Interreg. Second, there is a bottom-up process
in which the local, regional and national administrations discuss the
contents of each operative program, and submit it to the Commission for
approvement. And third, there is a bottom-up execution process in
which local and regional administrations, semi-public and private organizations elaborate action projects and apply for finance from the program. It also may involve other actors in addition to institutional actors
in the structures for programming and execution. However, their inclusion and their grade of participation are left in the hands of the national
and regional administrations. This characteristic is defined by the
Commission as subsidiarity (local and regional administrations udertake the program), and partnership (different administrative levels and
socio-economic pertners cooperate with each other) (EC, 200b).
2) Knowledge based: A large part of the operative program has to be dedicated to the diagnostic of the territorial area, its strong and weak points,
124
RITSUMEIKAN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
【Vol. 2
expected impacts and opportunities. Also the elaboration of the program
requires the analysis of the possible effects of the actions and their relationship with the other European policies. All this implies the need to
collect and analyze a large amount of data.
3) Oriented to social networks construction: Except in the area of communications infrastructure construction, the other areas of action are related to
the realization of studies, seminaries and exchange experiences, which are
more oriented to the creation of networks, mutual knowledge, culture of
cooperation, and the like, than to the creation of material infrastructures.
4) Structuration of the interaction situation: The European Commission
establishes the thematic areas and the main structures in which actors
can interact, and gives them an economic incentive to actively elaborate
cooperation projects and to invest their own resources. Thus, local and
regional administrations, and private partners, develop cross-border
policies in the framework established by the Comission.
5) Orientation to European integration and trans-border regions construction: All the process (elaboration of the program, implementation,
and projects) has to have a real cross-border nature, with participation
of organizations of at least two countries. The promotion of cooperation
has the aim of producing stable cooperation institutions, thus creating
trans-border regions, which should produce by it an increase in the economic competitiveness and social cohesion of the region.
As consequences of all these characteristics, the actors involved in the
elaboration and implementation of Interreg III need to develop capacity,
and construct organizations, in order to negotiate and cooperate with each
other, collect and analyze information, and reach common strategies. And
this has to overcome the differences in administrative structures, social
structures, interests and so on existing between different regions. For this,
although Interreg III A is developed in the same framework established by
the Commission, there can be differences in the structures constructed to
undertake it and the finally implemented projects. In the next pages we
analyze this question in the Spanish case.
Ⅲ. Interreg III A in Spain
1. General vision of the program
There are three border areas targeted by Interreg III A in which
2004】
EU Cross-Border Cooperation Policy in Spain（VALLS）
125
Spanish regions participate (see Map 1). These areas are the SpanishFrench border, the Spanish-Portuguese border, and the southern part of the
peninsula in front of Morocco. There is an Interreg operative program for
each one of these areas. Here we discuss only on the Spain-France program
and the Spain-Portugal program.
The scale of the territories that can benefit from Interreg III A is that of
NUTS III. This means that they form part of larger regions (NUTS II), which
in the Spanish case have a high degree of autonomy (the so-called
Autonomous Communities). Thus, in Spain NUTS II are the Autonomous
Communities and NUTS III are the Provinces. In France, NUTS II are
–without much political autonomy— the Regions, and NUTS III are the
Departments.
The territories (NUTS II are in brackets) eligible by Interreg III A in the
Spanish side are, Girona and Lleida (Catalunya), Huesca (Aragon), Navarra
(Navarra) and Guipuzkoa (Pais Vasco). In the French side it involves
Pyrenees Atlantiques (Aquitaine), Hautes Pyreneees, Haute Garonne and
Ariege (Midi-Pyrenees), and Pyrenees Orientales (Languedoc Roussillon).
MAP 1: Border areas of Spain, France and Portugal
targeted by Interreg III A
Source: EC, 2003
126
RITSUMEIKAN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
【Vol. 2
In Portugal NUTS II are composed by the Comissaoes de coordenaçao
regional, and NUTS III by Grupos de Concelhos. The Spain-Portugal program is divided in 5 subprograms that correspond to 5 cross-border regions.
These and the territories that are eligible for Interreg III A are:
1) Galicia-Norte: In the Spanish side, Pontevedra and Orense (Galicia)
and in the Portuguese side Minho-Lima, Cavado, and Alto Tras-osMontes (northern sector) (Norte).
2) Castilla y Leon – Norte: In the Spanish side Zamora and Salamanca
(northern sector) (Castilla y Leon); in the Portuguese side Alto Tras-osMontes (southern sector), and Douro (Norte).
3) Castilla y Leon – Centro: In the Spanish side Salamanca (southern sector) (Castilla y Leon); in the Portuguese side Beira Interior Norte (Norte).
4) Extremadura – Centro – Alentejo: In the Spanish side Caceres and
Badajoz (Extremadura); in the Portuguese side Beira Interior Sul
(Centro), Alto Alentejo, Alentejo Central, and Baixo Alentejo (Alentejo).
5) Andalucia – Alentejo – Algarve: In the Spanish side Huelva (Andalucia),
in the Portuguese side Baixo Alentejo (Alentejo), and Algarve (Algarve).
2. Spain-France program
Here we analyze the contents of the operative program of Interreq III A
for the Spain – France border. We consider first the evaluation of Interreg II
establised in the program. And then, we consider the process of elaboration,
implementation, and objectives of Interreg III A for these regions.
(1) Evaluation of Interreg II
The two main aims of the program were the organization of the territory
and economic development. The first aim consisted on the promotion of the
central part of the region, in order to avoid its marginalization due to the
increase in the exchanges in the two extremes of the region, and in order to
insert the inter-valley relations in the international exchanges. The second
aim consisted on increase of technological exchanges between companies,
increase of workers’ know how, diversification of activities, qualification of
European products, employment linked to leisure and heritage exploitation,
and environment protection. Although the focus of the program was on the
economic activity, only 20% of the projects received funds from companies,
and only 18.6% of the projects were oriented to the economic activity. This is
considered as a failure of the project to achieve its economic aims.
2004】
EU Cross-Border Cooperation Policy in Spain（VALLS）
127
Interreg II A invested €30 million in 468 projects in the French regions,
and 67 million in 178 projects in the Spanish regions. Although respect
Interreg I it increased the types of actions and the number of actors taking
part in cross-border projects, it was still an institutional program, involving
basically public administrations at different regional levels, but only few
private agents. However, there is a big difference on this point between the
two countries. In the French regions private organizations developed 59% of
the projects, business associations undertaking 33% of the projects and companies 26%. However, in the Spanish regions the same agents developed
only the 0.6% and the 5.6% of the projects. Instead, public administrations
developed 83.7% of the projects, (Autonomous Communities 48.3%, and
municipalities and counties 35.4%). While in France the program was more
publicized and open to participation in Spain it was more monopolized by
the regional and local administrations. In addition, only 57 (8.8%) of the
646 projects developed were co-funded by the two national sides together.
This is another failure of the cross-border cooperation aim of the program.
According to the Program, the fruits of interreg II were the Promotion of
cross-border territory (in some green-tourism projects), innovation projects,
reinforcement of the mountain issues, recognization of the need of cross-border cooperation in health and communication in the two extreme areas, recognization of the importance of the EU’s finance (1/2 of the people thought
that without it they would have not developed the project, and the others
think they would have needed more time for the project), and agreements on
urban management Bidasoa-Txingudi (consortium and the agency for the
development of the euro city DONOSTIA-BAB) (See examples in Table 1).
TABLE 1: Examples of successful projects in Interreg II, according
to the European Commission
Urban continuity through the mountains
The Bidassoa river is no longer a border. It has finally
achieved its true purpose, as a means of communication
and integration for the residents of Hendaye, Irun and
Hondarribia, where around 600,000 people live. Since
1993, joint activities have brought together the people
living on both banks of the river, initially without any formal
structure. A land and water shuttle service was organized
to facilitate the mobility of people and goods within
the inhabited area. An annual trilingual publication sets
out cultural and sporting activates in the three towns.
There have been plenty of areas of cooperation, and, in
1995, the three municipalities decided to set up a common
legal structure to enable them to work in a real intercommunity
framework. In 1995, the signing of the
Bayonne Treaty made possible the creation of the
Source: EC, 2003
Bidassoa-Txingudi Euro district as a “consorcio”, a legal
structure under Spanish law. Projects have multiplied
since then and the INTERREG programme supports three
of them financially. The aim of the local housing plan is to
study and implement solutions to the property problems
on both sides of the Bidassoa: revitalizing the historic
centers of Hendaye and Hondarribia and restoring housing
at Irun. The transit area, which has been obsolete
since the abolition of the border, has been progressively
transformed into an industrial area, with French and
Spanish companies locating there. Lastly, a cross-border
Observatory has been created by the Diputacion foral de
Guipuzkoa and the Bayonne-Anglet-Biarritz district. Its
aim is to facilitate the redevelopment of an integrated
urban area covering 50km between Bayonne and San
Sebastian.
128
RITSUMEIKAN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
【Vol. 2
(2) The operative program of Interreg III A
The region of the Pyrenees is characterized by the difference of situations between the mountain areas and other close areas. The Spanish
regions are above the Spanish level of per capita productivity, and the
French regions just a little under the French level. They are not delayed
regions, they are included in the regions objective 2, and there are important industrial and technological centers, like Barcelona, Tolouse,
Hendaya, Irun, and so, near de area (Table 3). However, the distance
between the urban and industrial centers –except in the west coast—
makes the cooperation by proximity difficult. Thus, the type of cooperation
promoted by the program is cooperation by networks at different territorial
scales (cross-border space, mountain space, inter-city space, thematic networks, and research and technology transfer networks).
The areas that receive more funds are development of economic activities and promotion of employment, with 55% of the funds (Table 2). These
consist on innovations in the tourism industry, creation of networks
between research centers and economic actors, diversification of industries,
exchange of experiences for adapting better to economic change, and so on.
The second thematic area is the territorial development, with 26% of the
funds. The aim of this area is the promotion of communication infrastructures.
The operative program has been elaborated, according to the same program, by means of partnership. This consists on three levels. First, state
administrations of each country implied in previous programs met in thematic meetings. Second, thematic cross-border meetings were held in the
commissions of the Pyrenees Working Community (CTP), composed by the
regional governments of all the regions around the Pyrenees, and with the
participation of French Departments and the French Commissariat a
l’Amenagement des Pyrenees6). And third, meeting with external organisms were held. However, the committee in charge of elaborating the program decided not to enlarge the actors taking part in the programming
process beyond those who took part in Interreg II. Thus, the program of
Interreg III A was elaborated at an institutional level. For example, the
program registered 33 meetings in the programming process. Of these, 14
6) This is an association of French regions in the Pyrenees with the aim of promoting their
development.
2004】
129
EU Cross-Border Cooperation Policy in Spain（VALLS）
were working groups composed of representatives of administrations 8
meetings, were held in the commissions of the CTP, and 14 meetings were
held with external organizations. Of these 14, only 6 meetings included private economic actors and universities. Even more, in these 6 meetings all
the private actors were French except in two cases. Also trade unions representation is reduced to only one meeting –the Interregional Syndical
Committee—, and the role of private actors is only consultative.
The Work Community of the Pyrenees was founded in 1983. It has its
headquarters in Jaca, in the Spanish central Pyrenees. Their members are
the governments of all the Spanish and French regions in the Pyrenees and
Andorra. Its organization has 4 working committees: Commission of
Infrastructures and Communications, Commission of Training and
Technological Development, Commission of Culture, Youth and Sports, and
Commission for the Sustainable Development.
TABLE 2: Distribution of Spain-France Interreg III A funds according
to action axis (2000-2006), million euros
Total cost
Public (%)
ERDF
Axis 1: Structuration and reinforcement
of the trans-border areas
44.21
43.82
(25.99)
21.91
Axis 2: Development of activities and
employment
96.23
92.76
(55.02)
46.38
26.7
25.28
(14.99)
12.64
6.74
6.74
(4.00)
3.37
173.88
168.6
(100)
84.30
Axis 3: Open and solidarity societies
Axis 4: Technical support
TOTAL
Source: EC, 1999
130
RITSUMEIKAN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
【Vol. 2
TABLE 3: Characteristics of the regions involved in Interreg III A
TERRITORY AND POPULATION
Spain / France
Separation of the two countries by the Pyrenees
Dynamic urban connection between countries at the western side, but not at the eastern side
Difficult communications
Distinction between pre-Pyrenees (policultive) and Pyrenees (extensive livestock)
Imbalance between the urbanization in the two countries
Imbalance between the economic centers in the two countries
Agrarian sectors with high added value
Important economic centers near the area
High density in the metropolis, and depopulation and ageing in the mountain areas
High activity rates in the extremes, and low activity rates in the South of the French side and the center of
the Spanish side
Spain / Portugal
Easy extra-regional access, but difficult intra-regional communications. Telecommunications development
Young population in the coastal areas, but ageing in the internal areas
Pollution of rivers, and insufficient water treatment infrastructures
Galicia / Norte
Concentration of population
Good cross-border communications
Alentejo / Centro / Extremadura
Depopulation, ageing, low densities
Important natural resources
INDUSTRY AND R&D
Spain / France
At the Spanish side the extremes are very industrialized, but not the center. At the French side, only
Tolouse is an important industrial center, with its aircraft industry. There are areas under industrial
restructuring in the French side.
Importance of innovation in the metropolis of both sides
Services are the main activity in the French side
Tourism industry has a problem of massification in the eastern coast, and of ageing in the western coast.
Tourism is concentrated in space and time.
Productivity is higher than the national average in the Spanish sector, but lower in the French side, except
in Haute Garone
Spain / Portugal
Difficulties to reach large markets, and to attract external resources
Lack of supporting services for industry
Low work mobility, and high dependence o public employment
Lack of adaptation of qualifications to the economic modernization
Crisis of the agriculture sector
Traditional sectors are in crisis, but there is no restructuring. Lose of competitive capacity based on low
labor costs
Importance of tourism and traditional industry
Presence of universities
Galicia / Norte
Difficulty to develop certain revalorization of common projects, like milk and livestock
Imbalance between the two regions in the capacity to organize the tourism sector
Dependence of the private sector on the public sector
Low cross-border exchanges, but favorable to the Spanish side
Entrepreneurship culture
Services for companies
Importance of agriculture
Lower labor prices and productivity in the Portuguese side
2004】
EU Cross-Border Cooperation Policy in Spain（VALLS）
Alentejo / Centro / Extremadura
Deficient organization of the agrarian exploitations
Deficient organization structures and associations of producers
Deficient exploitation of the tourist resources
Low diversification of the economy. Dependence on agriculture, public sector and subsidies
Difficulty of the traditional sectors to restructure
Low capacity of business to invest and enter into new markets
Low capacity to attract external resources
Predominance of micro-company
Low innovation culture
Importance of agriculture and traditional industry
Importance of services in Badajoz
Food industry
EMPLOYMENT AND QUALIFICATIONS
Spain / France
Temporal concentration of certain jobs
Limitation of the high qualified work force
Lack of cross-border employment
Education and research centers in the area or near
Reduction of unemployment in the Spanish side
Spain / Portugal
Important part of the population dependent on social subsidies
Low educational levels
High unemployment and depopulation due to the closing of mines
Galicia / Norte
High unemployment, especially in the Spanish side.
Presence of industrial labor
Alentejo / Centro / Extremadura
Insufficiencies in the professional training
Low activity taxes, high unemployment and huge differences between men and women
Insufficient supply of low qualification work force
Importance of agrarian population
NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
Spain / France
Important natural and cultural heritage
Large protected natural spaces
Difficult access
The heritage is jeopardized at the two extremes
Spain / Portugal
Pollution due to the mining industry
Forest destruction
Important natural and cultural heritage
Large protected natural areas
Galicia / Norte
Well preserved natural environment
Good cross-border communications
Cultural facilities
Alentejo / Centro / Extremadura
Important natural and cultural heritage
Source: EC, 1999
131
132
RITSUMEIKAN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
【Vol. 2
In the executive structure the role of the Spanish Autonomous Communities is relevant, while in the French side it is a more pluralized range of institutions (Regions, Departments, Prefectures). The participation of private
actors is admited in the Follow-up Committee, but only when authorities of
both states agree and with just consultative character. The Work Community
does not take part in the execution organs. However the Commissariat a
l’Amenagement des Pyrenees is present in the Follow-up Committee and the
Programming Committee.
TABLE 4: Compsition of the execution organs of Interreg III A
Spain-France
Management Authority
Regional government of Aquitaine
Spain-Portugal
Management Authority
Spanish government
6 Technical Secretariats
Technical Secretariat
Contracted by the regional administrations
Contracted by the Management Authority
Follow-up Committee
Follow-up Committee
Representatives of the central governments,
17 members per country. 28 members are
representatives of each Management subfrom the regional administrations and 6
Committee. Private partners, the Management
from the central governments. Private
Authority and the Payment Authority can take
partners can take part with a consultapart with a consultative role
tive role
Common Management Committee
Programming Committee
Representatives of the central govern18 members per country. 34 members are
ments, representatives of the Management
from regional administrations and 2
sub-Committees, the Management
members from the central governments
Authority and the Payment Authority
3 Pre-programming Territorial Committees 6 Management sub-Committees
Representatives of the regional and local
Representatives of the regional and local
administrations, representatives of the
administrations. En each one there is one
central governments, representatives of
representative of each central governthe regionalized administration compement
tent in environment, representatives of
the Working Communities and the Crossborder Initiatives Cabinets
Payment Authority
Spanish government
Payment Authority
Portuguese government
3. Spain-Portugal program
(1) Evaluation of Interreg II
The “trans-border region” is characterized by cultural similarity, solidarity, marginalization by the respective capitals, spontaneous cross-border
2004】
EU Cross-Border Cooperation Policy in Spain（VALLS）
133
activities previous to the establishment of Interreg (commercial exchanges,
labor markets, etc.), and until the end of the 1970’s presence of authoritarian regimes that abandoned the border regions.
When Interreg I was established the main problems were the lack of
cooperation culture among the administrations, different political-administrative provisions in the two countries, and different juridical frames. The
aims of Interreg I were transnational integration (with the construction of
roads), which represented 76.3% of the program funds, and cross-border
cooperation/integration with the formalization of previous cross-border
cooperation activities, organization of different work communities and sectoral commissions, organization of seminaries, meetings and so, and cultural, sportive, environmental and tourism development. These activities represented 6.7% of the program funds, but are evaluated as having an important impact in the creation of a cooperative environment.
The strategic aims of Interreg II were the reinforcement of the institutional cooperation, support to the networks and organs of business and
socio-cultural cross-border cooperation, coordinated management of the
natural and architectonic resources, and permeability of the frontier (communications and telecommunications). With this aims, the program intended to accomplish 4 objectives: promotion of balanced economic and social
development, fixation of populations, territorial management, and to
encourage the creation of cooperation mechanisms. Respect Interreg I, the
weight of municipalities, associations and producers, and environmental
associations in the development of projects goes down. Academic and
research centers, and regional administrations go up (Table 5).
The immaterial cooperation reached by Interreg II is highly valuated, with
the establishment of permanent cross-border cooperation bodies like the GaliciaNorte Working Community and the Gabinetes the Iniciativas Transfronterizas
between Extremadura and Alentejo (see Table 6). At the level of local populations there remained the knowledge of common problems and this helped the
cooperation and its formalization. At institutional level the initial lack of cooperation culture and legal differences were difficulties for the cooperation and integration. The process of cooperation and integration consisted on establishment
of protocols, later the establishment of working communities and sectoral commissions. But, as the Spain-France program’s case, in the Portuguese side more
companies and business associations take part in the projects, while in the
Spanish side public administrations are the main actors (Table 5).
134
RITSUMEIKAN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
【Vol. 2
TABLE 5: Projects approved in Interreg I and Interreg II according to the type of actor in charge of the project (%)
Interreg I
Portugal
Spain
Local governments
30.8
1.4
Producers / business associations
23.0
0.0
Environment protection associations
7.8
55.4
Research and education centers
2.8
2.7
Regional administrations
14.0
37.8
Others
21.6
2.7
Total
100.0
100.0
Interreg II
Portugal
Spain
16.8
0.0
18.4
1.1
11.2
10.7
20.0
30.6
11.2
51.1
24.4
6.5
100.0
100.0
TABLE 6: Examples of successful projects in Interreg II, according
to the European Commission
Local employment and training:
from good ideas to good practice
Promoting employment and training in adjoining border
regions requires mutual understanding, practical solutions
and tangible benefits for the participants. In this
context, a series of 37 measures were selected under the
INTERREG programme for Extremadura and Alentejo in
1997. All are managed by the Gabinete de Iniciativas
Transfronteriz(c)a Merida-Evora, an administrative structure
comprising representatives of all partners from
Portugal and Spain. Activities include courses on the institutions
and the legal systems of both countries,
Portuguese language classes for businesses or private
associations involved in rural development issues or in
the promotion of cultural or commercial exchange, as well
as introductions to the Portuguese language and culture
for male and female Spanish police officers. A forum
organized in Merida (Spain) in late 1997 was one of the
milestones of this co-operation. This event provided local
administrations and associations from both sides of the
border with an opportunity to exchange know-how and
experience with regard to local employment.
Source: EC, 2003
Livestock unlimited
Building on a tradition which goes back to the XIIIth century,
INTERREG has been adding a cross-border dimension
to the cattle fairs in Zafra (Extremadura) and Beja
(Alentejo) since 1994. The aim is to intensify links in the
areas of agriculture and cattle breeding and promote
products from extensive farming methods. The fairs
involve a variety of activities, ranging from exhibitions of
products and livestock to technical workshops developing
common initiatives with regard to marketing, quality
labeling, and rural development. Gastronomic workshops
involving representatives of the catering and hotel industry
from both regions are a third strand. The fairs also provide
scope for cultural and leisure activities. On the
Spanish side, the fairs are organized by the DirectorateGeneral for agricultural production, research and training
and the Directorate-General for agricultural trade and
industry. The Portuguese contribution is organized by the
Directorate-General for Agriculture of Alentejo, the
Regional Co-ordination Commission for Alentejo and the
South Portuguese Sheep Breeders Association.
2004】
EU Cross-Border Cooperation Policy in Spain（VALLS）
135
(2) The operative program of Interreg III A
The regions in the Spanish-Portuguese border are all regions objective
1, thus they suffer a problem of delay in their development (Table 3). Two of
the regions (Extremadura and Alentejo) are among the three European
regions with lowest per capita GNP. They have the problem of high dependence on agriculture in recession, no diversified and little industry, low productivity and lack of investments from other regions, dependence on government subsidies, high unemployment, ageing and depopulation, and so on.
Because of this the main aim of the cross-border cooperation in this area is
to overcome the delay in development by associating territorial competitivity with sustainability. For this, it is necessary to use the historical and natural resources, while attracting new resources like innovation and knowledge. All this should be reached while preserving the environment.
Promotion and protection of the environment and the heritage and natural resources and Economic development and promotion of employment
together compose the 52% of the funds that the Spain-Portugal program can
get. Also infrastructures and development of rural trans-border space represents a large proportion, the 34% (Table 7). Considering the territorial distribution of the funds, we see that Galicia/Norte and Extremadura/
Centro/Alentejo get approximately the 50% of them (Table 8). For this reason we focus the analysis on these two regions.
Due to the largeness of the Spanish-Portuguese border, 5 operative subprograms compose the operative program. First a general operative program project was elaborated by representatives of the two central governments and the regional administrations. Then, every “cross-border” subregion elaborated its program. In the Galicia/Norte region, the Work
Community of Galicia/Norte had a main role in this elaboration. This Work
Community was founded in 1991. It has 10 thematic Commissions and 4
regional Commissions. The Commissions undertook a total 30 meetings for
the elaboration of the program. In addition the Commissions had 5 meetings
with external organizations. However, only one meeting included private
economic actors (the business associations of Galicia and Portugal).
In the case of Extremadura/ Centro/Alentejo a working group had a relevant role. Its Commissions held 11 meetings, but most of them were held
with administration organizations. Also the lack of trade unions perticipation is remarkable in both regions.
136
RITSUMEIKAN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
【Vol. 2
TABLE 7: Distribution of Spain-Portugal Interreg III A funds according
to action axis (2000-2006), million euros
Total cost
Public (%)
ERDF
Axis 1: Infrastructures, management and development
of the rural trans-border space
376.37
366.33
(34.1)
274.75
Axis 2: Promotion and protection of the environment
and the heritage and natural resources
329.48
320.69
(29.8)
240.52
Axis 3: Economic development and
promotion of employment
275.35
238.04
(22.1)
178.53
Axis 4: Promotion of the social and institutional
integration and cooperation
115.22
115.22
(10.7)
86.41
35.59
35.59
(3.3)
26.70
1,132.02
1,075.88
(100)
806.91
Operative axis: Technical assistance
TOTAL
Source: EC, 1999
The cross-border cooperation between these regions has been structured with the signature of Cooperation Protocols (one with each Portuguese
region) in 1992 and 1994, according to which thematic commissions composed by the regional administrations meet in order to promote cross-border
cooperation projects. These commissions are technically assisted by the
Cross-border Initiatives Cabinets (one in each region), and stimulated and
supervised by the Working Group, which is formed by a representative of
each regional government (Junta de Extremadura, 2004).
In the Spain-Portugal area, the execution bodies show some differences from those of the Spain-France program (see Table 4). The Working
Communities and the Cross-border Initiatives Cabinets take part in the
Management sub-Committees, while the Working Community of Pyrenees
does not take part in the execution bodies of Interreg. Also, in the SpainFrance program the regional governments have a direct participation in
the three types of committees. Contrasting with this, in the Spain-Portugal
program they have a direct participation only in the Management subCommittees, while in the other types of Committees the participation is
through the representatives of the Management sub-Committees. Finally,
in the Spain-France program, the projects are selected by the Territorial
Committees and approved by the Programming Committee. Differently, in
2004】
137
EU Cross-Border Cooperation Policy in Spain（VALLS）
the Spain-Portugal program, the Management sub-Committees select and
approve the projects by themselves. All this shows a more prominent intervention of the regional governments in the Spain-France program than in
the Spain-Portugal program.
TABLE 8: Distribution of Spain-Portugal Interreg III A funds
according to subprogram (2000-2006), million euros
Sub-programs
1. Galicia / Norte
2. Castilla-Leon / Norte
3. Castilla-Leon / Centro
4. Extremadura / Centro / Alentejo
5. Andalucia / Alentejo / Algarbe
6. National
TOTAL
Public funds
295.01
123.68
75.14
243.20
141.81
197.04
1,075.88
%
27.4
11.5
7.0
22.6
13.2
18.3
100
Source: EC, 1999
The subprogram for the region Galicia/Norte has the specific aims of
promoting entrepreneurial and economic cooperation, to reinforce the support to economic activity, and social integration and labor market. The subprogram for the region Extremadura/Alentejo/Centro has the specific aims
of economic activities diversification by means of improving the agrarian
structures, support to SMEs and micro companies, and support to the scientific and technological activities.
CONCLUSIONS
The European Commission, with the application of Interreg III tries to
create a framework in which regional and local authorities, and also private actors, feel motivation to mobilize themselves in order to establish
cross-border cooperation. But, this is within an institutional and political
framework established by the Commission. This cooperation should, in the
long term, lead to an increase of the social cohesion and economic development of those regions, and cross-border integration of public and private
actors. Interreg III is a new political orientation, which, instead of search-
138
RITSUMEIKAN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
【Vol. 2
ing for direct economic development, searches for cooperation relations.
The orientations for the application of Interreg given by the European
Commission create pressure for the elaboration of similar institutions and
policies in different border regions. For example, the regions at both
Spanish frontiers elaborated the operative program in a similar way, created similar execution organs, and the policies’ orientations are similar.
However, there are certain differences in the participation of the
regional governments in the decision and execution organs, which is more
remarkable in the Spanish side of the Spain-France program than in the
Spanish side of the Spain-Portugal program. In addition, the contents of
policies have certain variations. For example, in the area of innovation and
technology the Spain-France program is more oriented to the establishment of networks between existing organizations, while the Spain-Portugal
program is more oriented to the establishment of networks with external
organizations. Also, in the area of the promotion of economic activities, the
Spain-France program emphasizes more the maintenance and promotion of
already existing SMEs, while the Spain-Portugal program emphasizes
more the attraction of external capital and business.
In addition, except for the case of the Basgue-French border, cross-border cooperation is more developed in the Spain-Portugal area than in the
Spain-Portugal area than in the Spain-France area: Interreg II is better evaluated in the Spain-Portugal side, and the Galicia-Norte Work Community
and the Extremadura-Alentej-Centro Protocols show a greater organizational development (in the number and variety of Commissions and participation
in the Interreg execution bodies) rather than the Pyrenees Work Community.
One reason could be the presence of the Pyrenees and the separation of the
population centers in the Spain-France side, while in the Spain-Portugal side
there are proximity relations. In addition, in the Spain-Portugal side there is
a greater cultural and language proximity, and cooperation activities at citizen level already existed before the establishment of Interreg. This could be
an important factor to promote cross-border cooperation.
This poses the question of how different social factors (proximity, common culture, compatible interests an so) promote or prevent cooperation.
And also what organizational arrangements may be more efficient in different regions.
Finally, at least in the execution of Interreg II and the programming of
Interreg III, there is a difference in the degree of openness of the public
2004】
EU Cross-Border Cooperation Policy in Spain（VALLS）
139
institutions to the private participation (more closed in the Spanish side),
between the Spanish regions on the one hand and the Portuguese and
French regions on the other. And the lack of trade unions participation is
remarkable in all sides. In order to know the real participation of private
actors in the execution of Interreg III, and the possible differences between
regions and countries, it is necessary to analyze the projects that are actually taking place with Interreg’s support.
References
European Commission (EC) (1999) Interreg III Apartado A. España-Francia.
EC (1999) Interreg III Apartado A. España-Portugal.
EC Comunicacion EC(2000) 11-01.
EC (2000a) Al Servicio de las Regiones. Publication Office of the European
Communities.
EC (2000b) Community Initiative Interreg II (1994-1999): An Initial Evaluation, EC
EC (2002) Las Acciones Estructurales Comunitarias en España y sus Comunidades
Autonomas, EC
EC (2003) http://europa.eu.int/comm/index_es.htm
Comunidad de Trabajo de los Pirineos (2003) http://www.ctp.org/
Comunidad de Trabajo Galicia-Norte de Portugal lhttp://www.galicia-nortept.org/port/
index.asp
European Parliament – Directorate General for Research (1996) Cross-Border and InterRegional Cooperation in the European Union – Executive Summary. Luxembourg:
European Parliament.
Junta de Extremadura (2004) La Cooperacion Transfronteriza de Extremadura in
http://www.juntaex.es/prs/gp/2.htm
Lambertz, K.H. (2003) Interreg I/II: Cooperacion Transfronteriza in
http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/sources/docconf/nov1999brussels/lambertz_es.pdf
Perkmann, M. (2002) “Eurorregions: Institutional Entrepreneurship in the European
Union” in Perkmann, M. and Ngai-Ling, S. (Ed.) (2002)
Perkmann, M. and Ngai-Ling, S. (Ed.) (2002) Globalization, Regionalization and
Cross-Border Regions, Palgrave