Abstract The study deals with the issue of core–periphery relations in the European Union, investigating its patterns in relation to the participation of Central and Eastern European (CEE) member ...states in European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) programmes between 2007 and 2020. Core–periphery patterns do exist in the European space, where besides the North‐Western core (‘Core’), there are two distinct peripheries, CEE and Southern Europe. The peripheral position is reflected in the weak performance of CEE in European‐wide RDI networks subsidised by the EU. On the basis of the KEEP database, the study analyses the signs of core–periphery relations by identifying whether there is asymmetry in the participation of CEE and Core countries in cooperation projects under the transnational (INTERREG B) and interregional (INTERREG C) strands (together, TI) of ETC. The findings of the study show that there is a significant difference in the forms of involvement of actors from North‐Western Europe and CEE in the TI programmes. Actors from CEE countries are very motivated to become involved in TI projects. However, they are significantly underrepresented in lead partner positions, especially in funding. The study's results suggest that participation activity patterns are significantly asymmetric in TI programmes, showing signs of a core–periphery dynamic even in such place‐based, cohesion‐oriented programmes. The consequence is that the articulation of geographic characteristics, special needs and issues associated with CEE is limited as they play a rather adaptive and imitating role in those territorial cooperation programmes that are influential in discourses and policies about territorial development in the European arena.
Preparations for the EU's post-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework have brought increased interest to the functional approach as a major paradigm of the EU policies towards cross-border areas. This ...approach aims to focus cross-border programmes on territories where there is a high degree of cross-border interaction. Cross-border functional areas (CBFAs) can be a potential instrument for this, fostering further reduction of cross-border barriers and enhancing flows of people, goods, materials and knowledge. However, certain aspects of this notion are rather vague. This includes both the way how to turn the rather discursive concept of the CBFA into more material-institutional practices, and how CBFAs can be identified in practice to successfully implement the EU's cohesion policy. This paper debates the concept of the CBFA and proposes understanding CBFAs as spatially specific territorial complexes, located on two (or more) sides of a state border(s) that are not defined by administrative borders, but by cross-border functional linkages, a system of cooperative relationships and the existence of governance mechanisms. The paper proposes a novel approach for CBFA's identification based on a four-level model, taking into account the selected criteria. The proposed framework enabled to identify CBFAs and potential CBFAs at the borders of Poland.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
BFBNIB, DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Despite the positive contributions of several European Union (EU) policies to reduce border barriers, the EU Cross-Border Review (CBR) initiative reaffirmed their relevance and persistence. Since ...2018, the EU has supported the b-solutions initiative, specifically focused on tackling legal and administrative border obstacles, aiming to highlight replicable solutions which can contribute to reducing these obstacles. This article critically assesses the b-solutions and its contribution to reducing administrative and legal border obstacles, with an eye to promoting a more integrated European territory. It is concluded that b-solutions is a valid, yet insufficient, initiative to provide replicable solutions to mitigate cross-border barriers.
En près de trois décennies, la Coopération Territoriale Européenne (CTE), alias Interreg, s’est hissée du rang de programme d’initiative communautaire à celui d’objectif à part entière de la ...politique de cohésion. Cette reconnaissance est à mettre en lien avec la contribution des programmes Interreg à l’objectif de cohésion économique, sociale et territoriale. Le recentrage des différentes composantes de la politique de cohésion en deux objectifs prioritaires a également comme corollaire la volonté affichée d’harmoniser au maximum les règles de mise en œuvre des programmes et les modalités d’intervention des différents Fonds Européens Structurels et d’Investissement (FESI). Outre la recherche d’harmonisation en matière de mise en œuvre, la Commission européenne affiche également, dans sa communication, une ambition de simplification des règles et des procédures. Cet article s’interroge sur la prise en compte des spécificités d’Interreg dans cette dynamique et en particulier à l’aune des mesures prises en matière de simplification administrative. Codes JEL : H83, R58
Understood in some conceptual analysis as a pillar of territorial cohesion and due to its critical role in promoting territorial integration, territorial cooperation is often presented as one of the ...major positive achievements of European Union (EU) Cohesion Policy. In this context, this article proposes a conceptual framework to assess the contribution of the European Territorial Cooperation process, including the beyond-funding support from the Border Focal Point, to the ultimate goal of EU Cohesion Policy: territorial cohesion. For that, expertise from the leaders of European cross-border associations is used, as well as European Commission officials.
One of the two Goals of EU Cohesion Policy is dedicated to European Territorial Cooperation (ETC), also known as Interreg. Italy is involved in 19 European Territorial Cooperation Programmes. In this ...article we will firstly present the status of the implementation of these Programmes in the current programming period 2014-2020 and in particular of the projects involving Italian beneficiaries with the role of lead partner or project partner. Specifically, data refer both to the financial implementation (commitments assumed by Programmes, total resources assigned to the projects and expenses declared by beneficiaries) and to the concrete implementation, with reference to the calls, the approved/financed projects, the beneficiaries involved and data at the regional territory level (NUTS 2). Technical Assistance projects are not considered for analysis purposes. The main source of information comes from Italian Managing Authorities of the ETC, ENI and IPA II 2014-2020 Programmes and from competent Regional representatives for Programmes with a foreign Managing Authority, as part of the 2018 survey carried out by the two National Authorities, i.e. the Agency for Territorial Cohesion (ACT) and the Department for Cohesion Policy of the Presidency of Ministries Council (DPCoe) for the definition of the annual Report on Italian participation to ETC, IPA and ENI Programmes (2019). Data hereby presented are related to the projects funded until December 31st, 2017. For some data we will also provide an update at the end of 2018.These projects had been approved by the Monitoring Committees and, before the mentioned date, a financing agreement between the Managing Authority and the lead partner had already been signed. The list of 10 ETC Programmes with funded projects at December 31st, 2017 is composed of: Italy-Austria; Italy-France Maritime; Italy-Slovenia; France-Italy Alcotra; Adrion; Central Europe; Med; Alpine Space; Interreg Europe; Urbact III. With reference to the general level of implementation, although considerable differences remain in the performance of the different Programmes, during 2017 it was possible to witness a general significant progress. The spending commitments at December 31st, 2017 reached 48% of the total planned resources. All Programmes have launched at least one selection procedure thus bringing the number of cooperation projects approved to 771, 590 of which signed the agreement for the allocation of resources. In 2018, the number of approved projects raised up to 1.100 and the level of expenditure commitments grew to the percentage of 66%. What it is of absolute interest is the participation rate of Italian partners to ETC projects. In fact, all data presented confirm the great relevance of Italian presence within the cooperation partnerships equal to the 31% of the total number of partners. In addition, more than half of the funded projects with Italian participation have an Italian Lead Partner. After analyzing in detail information concerning Italian partners (typologies, NUTS, etc.), the first paragraph also highlights the financial overview of assigned resources and their thematic concentration on Cohesion Policy Thematic Objectives. The second part of the present article is focused on the principal critical aspects of the monitoring activities. Playing its role as national authority for the implementation of ETC Programmes and thanks to the experience gained in the last years in the fields of data collecting and of reporting at national level, the Agency for Territorial Cohesion puts in evidence some difficulties affecting nowadays monitoring and assessment processes. The negative elements concern: the lack of data, together with the delay for their updating and their low dissemination within the cohesion policy framework; the not adequate or not integrated tools (monitoring systems and open data platforms); the methodological approach too focused on quantitative and not qualitative measurement. The main result is the difficulty to verify the impact of these projects on the life of EU citizens. The conclusions remarks explore several recommendations for the upcoming programming period 2021-2027, suggesting some actions to be implemented immediately during the programming phase and others for the medium term. The next year represents a crucial moment to prepare and plan in a new way monitoring and evaluation tasks and it is fundamental to acknowledge their role since the beginning of the new programming period.
The concept of transnational territories for policy implementation (TTPI) is increasingly presented within the European Union (EU) as offering prospects for tackling common development issues ...affecting transnational spaces. Following on from the experiences of Interreg-B and the EU macro-regional strategies (MRS), this paper explores the advantages for a transnational territorial development approach and details concrete criteria to delimit those territories worldwide. These are divided into natural geographical elements and human-related geographical features. It concludes that natural elements will prevail when delimiting TTPI, but additional human development layers should be considered in this delimitation process.
European Territorial Cooperation programmes (also known as Interreg) are designed to promote integration by encouraging organizations in multiple regions to work together on projects to address ...shared challenges. While some key aspects of these programmes have been studied (territorial scope, thematic areas, types of initiatives), research into participant organizations and their logic within partnerships (groups of organizations working together on projects) and the reasons for their participation in multiple projects, individually or in clusters, has been less thorough. This article presents a quantitative analysis of programmes under Interreg B and C, investigating the variables that influence organizations' involvement in partnerships and the logic behind repeated collaborations. The aim is to supplement existing research, complementing it and supporting providing a better understanding of this framework to programme planners, enabling them to make more informed decisions when aiming to maximize the impact of their programmes when considering partners and partnerships.
EU cross-border cooperation programmes were formally established with the launching of the first INTERREG Community Initiative (1989-1993). Since then, these programmes have been expanding to ...Northern and Eastern Europe. At present, the INTERREG V-A (2014-2020), formally known as European Territorial Cooperation (strand A – crossborder cooperation), covers more than 60% of the EU territory and 40% of EU inhabitants, making it one of the most politically relevant EU financed programmes. For the most part, however, these programmes are still regarded by both the European Commission and national and regional authorities as a complementary financial tool to support growth and regional development strategies. In this context, this article analyses what have been the main strategic goals of the EU cross-border cooperation programmes, whilst supporting a new strategic paradigm for these programmes during the post-2020 EU policies programming phase focused on reducing the barrier-effects in all their main dimensions.
Differences in the legal and administrative frameworks of the member states of the European Union (EU) have been identified as presenting major challenges to achieving territorial cohesion. The ...policy debate culminated in 2018 with a Commission proposal for an EU Regulation on a ‘European Cross-Border Mechanism’ (ECBM). While the proposed legal instrument is still under negotiation, this paper analyses the experiences of stakeholders in Germany’s border regions on navigating obstacles in the provision of cross-border public services. The paper concludes that while more legal certainty for crossborder cooperation would generally be welcome, stakeholders in border regions do consider local and high-level political support; financial incentives to address complex border challenges; and dedicated local and regional ‘policy entrepreneurs’ to be at least as important for realising complex joint projects.
PDF
