In recent years, 'place-based' interventions have become influential in shaping economic development policy, especially at the European level. From the 2007 to 2013 programming period onwards, EU ...Cohesion policy, adopted a 'place-based' approach to encourage the competitiveness of all regions. Rather than spatially-blind interventions, the focus is on tackling territorial inequalities via a more sophisticated spatially-sensitive approach to stimulate economic change, at the local level. The challenge is that place-based policies are complex, risky and the performance indicators used to capture the achievements from EU Cohesion policy focus on direct results rather than expected policy change, making it hard to prove effectiveness and value for money. This paper contributes to ongoing academic and policy debates about how to capture the achievements of EU Cohesion policy, through an in-depth case study of 'place-based' interventions made via Interreg funding, to encourage cross-border cooperation between Spain and Portugal. The evidence illustrates that there is a need for novel approaches, which are conceptually informed and spatially sensitive to be able to capture not only the quantitative but also the qualitative achievements generated through EU 'place-based' interventions.
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.
Cross-border spatial planning is a means by which to enhance territorial continuities between border regions still hindered by differences and sometimes tensions, and thus to make more tangible the ...political paradigm of European integration. This article offers a systematic analysis of all the Interreg IV A projects related to cross-border spatial planning that were conducted along all Europe's internal borders between 2007 and 2013. It reveals the diversity of the initiatives that fall under this scope according to whether they aim to create or improve actors' networks, produce spatial observations, develop strategies or achieve tangible outputs at the cross-border scale.
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.
Decisions and measures in natural hazard risk management (NHRM) should be based on relevant current scientific information, developed within a high-quality scientific research process, to mitigate ...risks arising from natural hazards. Though the purportedly most advanced co-production models of knowledge transfer have been applied in many research projects dealing with NHRM, the resulting scientific information has seldom reached practitioners on the ground or political actors at the decision-making level. To overcome these limitations, this study strives first to identify additional factors beyond those factors for success that the co-production model claims. Such claims include “multi-stakeholder involvement”, assurance of actor participation, and enhancement of communication between actors, or maximisation of information sharing with them. Secondly, we want to identify concrete places where knowledge transfer indeed takes place. To do this, the novel Research-Integration-Utilisation (RIU) model for knowledge transfer was applied to the analysis of the case study of the EU Interreg Alpine Space project, GreenRisk4Alps (GR4A), which conducts research on ecosystem-based NHRM strategies. The RIU model assumes that the scientific information must be retrieved actively from practitioners or political actors and integrated into their practices, something which happens in a specific actor setting, namely, that of interest-driven actors in existing power relations. The study's first hypothesis is that the co-production model's intense focus on the multi-stakeholder aspect is inadequate for the integration of actors who are both interested and powerful, and who could implement science-based solutions effectively. It was checked against the GR4A project and its Working Plan, which originate in the co-production models of knowledge transfer. Our results clearly demonstrate that the interests and power of actors, as well as other indicators, were widely ignored by that knowledge transfer model. In contrast, the RIU model builds on these indicators and the related data to characterise actors. Actor settings can then be used to address actors selectively. This takes place in very specific places where practitioners and political actors meet to exchange science-based information. These places were identified in all the case study areas of the GR4A project, and called “integration forums” confirming our second hypothesis, i.e., that the bridges between scientific information and the powerful and interested actors are built upon these integration forums.
•The innovative RIU model uses integration forums to increase knowledge transfer.•Natural hazard risk management consists of more integration forums in Alpine countries than expected.•The EU co-production model for knowledge transfer widely ignores actors' power and relations.•The knowledge transfer capabilities of projects can be assessed in advance using reliable data on actors and actor settings.
This works aims to describe current perspectives for marine energy exploitation in the Mediterranean basin, highlighting challenges and opportunities as well as the factors that still limit its ...market deployment. Technologies for the conversion of Marine Energy (ME) into electricity are now ready for full-scale deployment in farms of devices, making the final step from demonstration to operability and commercial exploitation. Although marine energy is more abundant along the Atlantic and Nordic European coasts, significant resources are also available in the Mediterranean Sea, opening up new perspectives for sustainable energy production in sensitive coastal areas and for the economic development of Southern Europe. The implementation of ME converters in the Mediterranean is in fact liable to induce significant technological advancements leading to product innovation, due to the local low energy levels which impose more restrictive constraints on device efficiency and environmental compatibility. In addition, the milder climate allows the testing of concepts and prototypes in the natural environment at more affordable costs, lowering capital risks for new and innovative small and medium enterprises. Research institutions and industrial players in Mediterranean countries have already taken up the challenge, despite the numerous limiting factors that still need to be removed. In particular, the ME sector adds up to the many different traditional maritime activities and to the new ocean-related industries that are developing, potentially exacerbating the competition for the use of marine space in the Mediterranean region and threatening its environmental status. The ME sector needs therefore to design suitable instruments to involve all the relevant stakeholders in a participative public debate as to how to best manage the maritime space. As the prospective sea use patterns are rapidly changing, an adequate international legal and policy framework needs to be designed for the coherent management of sea space, and Marine Spatial Planning needs to be finally implemented by EU Member States also in the Mediterranean area. To this end, the creation of transnational clusters of stakeholders is expected be an effective catalyzer, especially as they can foster the exchange of knowledge and best practices both across European countries and between the North and the South shore of the Mediterranean basin.
Existing research suggests that regions can develop their long-term competitive advantage through well-functioning interregional innovation cooperation. In this article, we use the example of ...innovation in small and medium-sized agri-food enterprises (SMEs) to scrutinise and compare regional innovation approaches on each side of the Dutch-German border and explore how they can converge into a cross-border innovation space. Particular attention is paid to the role of academic institutions and innovation brokers in creating a common innovation space. We explore how differences between two cross-border regions can be harnessed to enhance the impact of innovation, and how this may lead to what we describe as hybridisation effects. In the empirical analysis, we apply the concept of hybridisation to a cross-border innovation space, something that, as far as we are aware, has not been done before. We empirically ground the concepts of a cross-border innovation space and hybridisation and illustrate how relative regional strengths can lead to hybridisation effects. We conclude that differences in economic structures, institutional set-ups, visions and identities inherent in cross-border spaces are not only hindrances, but also opportunities, and we highlight the importance of these complementary strengths and the potential for their strategic use by regional innovation actors. Our findings are highly relevant for the further development of the Interreg Europe programme and the implementation of the EU’s Territorial Agenda 2030.
Despite decades of spending, Cohesion Policy appears unable to fully address growing national disparities and increasing 'roll-out' nationalism. In the present study we discuss regional effects of ...'fuzzy' policy concepts, such as EU's policy for Territorial Cohesion, in Central European borderlands from a stakeholder perspective. Identifying how key policy documents have framed the discussion of Territorial Cohesion, we furthermore demonstrate the differing ways regional stakeholders have interpreted this vision. By showing how multiple translations have produced dynamics that create a circular process, we conclude that this process leads towards non-comparable outcomes, increased misunderstanding, while fuelling EU scepticism.
Cross-border tourism cooperation is a fruitful form of engagement between borderland destinations, helping them boost their profile and minimise problems arising from operating near a border. ...European cross-border tourism cooperation is often supported by a European Union project funding arm known as INTERREG. Our study explores the perceptions and experiences of stakeholders involved in three INTERREG projects between tourism destinations in the Scandinavian borderland region of Jämtland-Trøndelag. The aim of the study is to understand why tourism actors in the region decide to apply for INTERREG funds, what their perceptions are towards the project framework, and how their experiences of INTERREG influence their assessment of the programme as a tool for successful cross-border cooperation in tourism. Emerging from a qualitative approach based on in-depth semi-structured interviews, we reveal that the stakeholders involved in the projects see INTERREG as a valuable source of funding in an otherwise under-funded border region, but that they experience a number of problems within the INTERREG framework. The omnipresence of short-term, supranational funded projects is perceived as detrimental to the establishment of sustainable cross-border tourism development within the study region. We recommend that tourism practitioners be more cautious when thinking of (re)applying for INTERREG funding.
PDF
