1. Introduction
1. Transfrontier co-operation is a key aspect of the
Council of Europe’s work to promote democratic stability and mutual
understanding between states and populations, including people from
ethnic and national minorities, by strengthening public-private
partnership and dialogue between politicians and civil society.
This co-operation remains essential to Europe’s stability and continues
to play a central role in promoting the values on which the Council
of Europe is founded: democracy, the rule of law and respect for
human rights.
2. The European integration implemented by the Council of Europe
member states makes it possible for local and regional authorities
in border areas to play a part in this process by building real
“cross-border territories”.
3. Cross-border configurations vary: a good many European borders
are already “lived territories”, living and employment areas characterised
by the numerous flows and exchanges that pass through them.
4. These cross-border territories, which have a duty to meet
the needs of their populations, are confronted on a daily basis
with “border effects”, which, depending on the situation, represent:
- a source of imbalance due to
the fact that national political, administrative, legal and fiscal
frameworks are unsuited to the reality of cross-border functioning;
- opportunities arising from the new “economies of agglomeration”
related to the gradual opening of borders and the potential offered
by linguistic and cultural diversity.
5. Recent decades have been marked by the signing of a great
many co-operation agreements between states and local and regional
authorities.
Having appeared
initially in the form of twinnings between towns and villages, transfrontier
co-operation has spread to new areas (labour market, development
of cross-border transport, sharing of health facilities, formulation
of coherent spatial planning policies, protection of the environment,
etc.) and to new players (such as the regions). Integrated approaches
of the “euroregion” and “eurodistrict” type have emerged.
6. European integration has led to growing needs in the transfrontier
co-operation field: on the one hand, with the gradual disappearance
of intra-European borders, there is a need to support the emergence
of projects on borders that were closed for several decades and
to turn border regions that were once highly marginalised into genuine
protagonists of European integration.
On
the other hand, there is also a need to manage the new external
borders of the European Union in such a way as to allow transfrontier
co-operation players to face up to the challenges arising from the
new political, economic, social and cultural realities, while at
the same time guaranteeing sufficient controls at the borders of
the European Union.
7. To meet these needs, the Council of Europe, the European Union
and their member states have undertaken numerous initiatives to
foster the emergence and sustainability of cross-border projects
on all borders by establishing an appropriate framework for action.
With the enlargement of the European Union, closer co-operation
between the two institutions has proved appropriate, as the Council
of Europe can give these new border areas the benefit of its experience
in order to mitigate any adverse effects that enlargement might
have on transfrontier co-operation.
8. The Council of Europe took the first steps towards establishing
a specific legal framework for transfrontier co-operation by adopting
the 1980 Madrid Convention, then, in 1995, its Additional Protocol.
The Committee of Ministers subsequently adopted the 2002 Vilnius
Declaration on Regional Co-operation and the Consolidation of Democratic
Stability in Greater Europe and the 2003 Chişinău Political Declaration
on Transfrontier and Interterritorial Co-operation between States
in South-Eastern Europe.
9. The Council of Europe may be seen today as a pan-European
forum for dialogue and exchange of experience between transfrontier
co-operation players and a source of political impetus. In this
connection, we should point out the existence of a committee of
experts on transfrontier co-operation (LR-CT), composed of experts
from the governments of the Council of Europe member states, which
has published a transfrontier co-operation handbook and a practical
guide to transfrontier co-operation for local authorities in Europe.
The Committee of Advisers for the Development of Transfrontier Co-operation
in Central and Eastern Europe has also played a key role in the
process of ratification of the Madrid Convention and the setting-up
of euroregions in this part of Europe.
10. For their part, the Guiding Principles for Sustainable Spatial
Development of the European Continent, adopted by the European Conference
of Ministers responsible for Regional Planning (CEMAT), draw attention to
the territorial dimension of democracy and social cohesion policy
and acknowledge the role played by transfrontier co-operation between
the Council of Europe member states, their regions and their local authorities.
11. In the European Union, the European Spatial Development Perspective
(ESDP), approved in 1999, and the Territorial Agenda, approved in
Leipzig in May 2007 by the member states and the European Commission, echo
CEMAT’s guiding principles. Above and beyond the legal and spatial
planning aspects, emphasis should also be laid on the major role
played by the European Union in providing financial support for
transfrontier co-operation since the 1990s.
12. If all European territories – regions, metropolises, towns,
rural areas, natural areas – are invited to contribute to the sustainable
spatial development of the European continent, this applies even
more to cross-border territories: from the economic standpoint (through
wealth creation, via the development of competitiveness clusters,
cross-border research and innovation networks, etc.), the social
standpoint (through the emergence of dynamic cross-border labour
markets) and the environmental standpoint (through the development
of shared responsibility for the preservation of natural resources,
biodiversity and risk management).
13. The Council of Europe member states are engaging in transfrontier
co-operation on all borders. However, difficulties remain and political
will needs to be implemented in the field. All the politicians and
field workers concerned – Council of Europe, European Union, central
governments, regional and local authorities – must support the continued
existence of schemes and the emergence of innovatory forms of co-operation
by developing legal instruments (Part 1), financial instruments
(Part 2) and instruments of territorial expertise (Part 3).
2. Challenges of transfrontier co-operation:
difficulties and opportunities
How can transfrontier co-operation be strengthened at
European level?
14. The aim of achieving the sustainable integration
of European territory has led states to recognise the need for transfrontier
co-operation between local and regional authorities on both sides
of borders. The development of an action framework tailored to the
specific requirements of transfrontier co-operation helps to overcome
the cultural, institutional, administrative and financial obstacles
to the practical implementation of cross-border projects.
15. The emergence of innovative forms of co-operation and the
sustainability of cross-border projects must be viewed from three
related angles: first, a legal and institutional framework tailored
to cross-border projects must be formulated. Secondly, because local
and regional authorities are the leading players in transfrontier co-operation,
as well as being permitted to exercise their powers and responsibilities
in a transfrontier context, they must be given the financial capacity
needed for real freedom of action. Lastly, it is important to meet
the need for transfrontier expertise in order to give a structure
to cross-border territories.
2.1. Developing the legal and institutional framework
of transfrontier co-operation
16. After being faced initially with a legal vacuum,
transfrontier co-operation law has been gradually built up and fleshed
out in order to meet the need for legal certainty and structured
projects.
17. After reiterating the common principles of the legal framework
of transfrontier co-operation, we shall describe the substance of
transfrontier co-operation law as developed by the Council of Europe
and the European Union, and we shall then put forward some recommendations
for ways of meeting the new challenges.
2.1.1. Common principles of transfrontier co-operation
18. These principles apply to all cross-border projects
undertaken by the local and regional authorities of the Council
of Europe member states, irrespective of whether states have signed
the Madrid Convention.
19. The institutional capacity of local and regional authorities
to co-operate with authorities or other entities in neighbouring
countries depends on the existence of national legal provisions
or international agreements authorising them to do so.
20. Local authorities can only co-operate with authorities in
neighbouring countries to the extent that their national law permits.
Transfrontier co-operation is not an additional power but a way
of exercising the powers which authorities hold under their national
law. It is the national laws by which local authorities are governed and,
to a lesser extent, the international agreements relating to transfrontier
co-operation which will determine how much room for manoeuvre they
have.
21. Local and regional authorities co-operate within their common
areas of competence, excluding police and regulatory powers, in
accordance with the national legislation by which they are governed
and while complying with the international commitments entered into
by the states to which they belong.
22. In accordance with the principles established, local and regional
authorities may conclude co-operation agreements enabling them to
formalise co-operation schemes, conduct cross-border investment
projects or set up transfrontier co-operation bodies with or without
legal personality.
23. Conditioned by national legislation and confronted initially
with a lack of suitable structures for transfrontier co-operation,
local authorities borrowed the legal forms available in Community
law and in their respective national laws in order to establish
transfrontier co-operation bodies: European economic interest grouping
(EEIG), association, foundation, etc.
2.1.2. European legal framework
24. In adopting the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier
Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities in 1980,
the Council of Europe laid the cornerstone for transfrontier co-operation at
European level. Under this instrument, each state “undertakes to
facilitate and foster transfrontier co-operation between territorial
communities or authorities within its jurisdiction and territorial
communities or authorities within the jurisdiction of other Contracting
Parties”, by supporting the conclusion of agreements between local
authorities and, if necessary, inter-state agreements specifying
the co-operation arrangements.
Lacking
operational provisions, the Madrid Convention was supplemented by
an Additional Protocol.
The purpose
of this protocol is to strengthen the convention by explicitly recognising,
subject to certain conditions: the right of local and regional authorities
to conclude transfrontier co-operation agreements, a principle also
set forth in the Charter of Local Self-Government (ETS No. 122),
as
well as the legal force under national law of measures taken and
decisions adopted under a transfrontier co-operation agreement and
the legal entity status of any co-operation body set up under such
an agreement.
25. In the absence of any legal oversight by the Council of Europe
over the member states, due recognition should nevertheless be given
to its role in the political promotion of transfrontier co-operation
through the large number of inter-state agreements since 1980.
26. These inter-state agreements specify the co-operation arrangements
in the border areas concerned on the basis of the principles contained
in the Madrid Convention. The convention is the common legal instrument for
all these agreements. Some of them allow foreign authorities to
participate in bodies existing under national law
and
others also make it possible to set up original transfrontier co-operation
bodies, such as the local transfrontier co-operation grouping (GLCT)
established by the Karlsruhe Agreement.
27. These legal advances enabled many projects to be implemented.
However, the limited geographical scope of each agreement and the
different regulatory landscape on either side of the border called
for an innovatory approach.
28. In July 2006 the European Union adopted a Regulation on a
European Grouping of Territorial Co-operation (EGTC), the only instrument
available in the 27-member European Union. The regulation recognises the
“Council of Europe acquis”.
This transfrontier co-operation body vested with legal personality
may be composed of local authorities and public-law bodies, but
its real contribution lies in the participation of state authorities.
This will open up new areas of co-operation and allow states to
be protagonists in transfrontier co-operation and not merely its
regulators. These groupings will be open to entities from third
countries, including state authorities, but only under certain conditions.
So, for example, given that an EGTC must comprise at least two European
Union member states, bilateral co-operation arrangements involving
a member state and a third country will not be covered by this new
instrument. The EGTC should also contribute to a strengthening of
the principles of multilevel governance in that it will bring together
the protagonists of transfrontier co-operation at all levels.
29. The Council of Europe and the European Union are currently
discussing the drawing up of a new convention establishing Euro-regional
co-operation groupings. Among other things, this instrument could provide
the legal basis allowing European Union non-member countries to
participate in EGTCs. The Madrid Convention, which is the only Europe-wide
reference instrument in this sphere, needs to be supplemented by a
further protocol setting out rules applicable to all Council of
Europe member states in respect of transfrontier co-operation bodies.
30. The Assembly has noted that work is under way and that it
was approved by the European Ministers for Local and Regional Government
at the 15th Session of their conference, in Budapest in 2005. It
considers, given that Regulation 1082 has been in force since August
2007, that it is necessary to speed up completion of the work, while
taking care, of course, that the solutions adopted by the Council
of Europe are compatible with, and do not duplicate, the provisions
concerning EGCTs. The European Commission could, moreover, be involved
in the work, in the spirit of the Memorandum of Understanding between
the European Union and the Council of Europe.
2.2. Ensuring appropriate and sustainable financing
for transfrontier co-operation
31. It is not enough for local authorities to have the
legal capacity to implement transfrontier co-operation projects
effectively and sustainably. They must also have genuine financial
capacity. This principle is set forth in the Charter of Local Self-Government
(Article 9).
32. Transfrontier co-operation is usually funded from the own
resources of local authorities in border areas, whose means are
often limited and which therefore have to rely on co-financing,
which may be public (Community, national or regional) or private
(public-private partnership).
2.2.1. Community co-financing
33. Since the 1990s, the European Union has allocated
large sums to local and regional authorities in the member states
for transfrontier co-operation purposes. Community support for this
type of arrangement originally went to pilot projects, but it has
become more formalised and is henceforth intended to support more structuring
projects. This co-operation has now been raised to the status of
an objective of the European Union’s cohesion policy for the period
2007-13. Hitherto supported by the INTERREG programme (covering trans-European
co-operation), transfrontier co-operation will henceforth be covered
by the “Territorial co-operation” objective and will receive more
funding (80% of the funds earmarked for “territorial co-operation”, that
is to say €5.9 billion).
34. The European Union also provides for support for co-operation
projects on the EU’s external borders with entities in neighbouring
states: the old PHARE, TACIS and CARD programmes and the external component
of the INTERREG programme will be covered by two new instruments,
namely the pre-accession instrument (PAI) and the new European neighbourhood
and partnership instrument (ENPI).
Relations
with the Russian Federation are the subject of a specific strategic
partnership.
35. The PAI is designed to strengthen the stabilisation and association
process for these countries in preparation for entry into the European
Union. The transfrontier co-operation component is open to the candidate
countries (Croatia, Turkey, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”)
and the potential candidate countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Serbia and Montenegro), all of which are members of the Council
of Europe.
36. With the ENPI, the Union is offering its immediate neighbours
by land or sea, countries of eastern Europe, the Southern Caucasus
and the southern Mediterranean,
a
special relationship based on a mutual commitment to common values
(democracy and human rights, the rule of law, good governance, market economy
principles and sustainable development). These can be recognised
as values shared by the Council of Europe. The ENPI concerns five
Council of Europe member states: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and
Ukraine. The new ENPI has a component devoted to transfrontier co-operation
with the following four objectives: promoting economic and social
development in regions on both sides of common borders; addressing
common challenges, in fields such as the environment, public health
and the prevention of and the fight against organised crime; ensuring
efficient and secure borders; and promoting local cross-border “people-to-people”
action. The co-financing provided by the ENPI, amounting to a total
of €583.28 million for the period 2007-10, represents a lever for
transfrontier co-operation on the external borders of the European
Union and shows how the activities undertaken by the European Union
and the Council of Europe complement one another. Furthermore, while
the European Union offers its partners financial support, they undertake
to carry out reforms, particularly as regards democratisation and
the rule of law, leading, among other things, to recognition of
the institutional capacity of local and regional authorities in
the European Union’s partner countries to participate in transfrontier
co-operation.
2.2.2. National and regional co-financing
37. There are also co-financing arrangements at national
level. In Estonia, for example, a national programme has been set
up to co-finance cross-border activities and research. In France,
state-region project agreements can provide support for transfrontier
co-operation.
38. Above and beyond the implementation of this political will
through adoption of an appropriate legal framework and the deployment
of sufficient financial resources, some real operational challenges
arise. The major challenges to be addressed in the development of
transfrontier co-operation fall within a number of fields.
2.3. Structuring cross-border territories
39. Proper recognition should be given to the importance
of thematic and territorial engineering in providing essential support
for the development of sustainable and integrated transfrontier
co-operation schemes which require a whole range of tools depending
on the themes covered and the specific characteristics of cross-border
territories.
2.3.1. Territorial approach
40. Like all European territories, cross-border territories
exhibit a wide variety of configurations: urban, rural, natural
and maritime territories, which call for specific approaches.
– Cross-border conurbations
41. Integrated cross-border conurbations
(and,
more generally, cross-border urban networks), whose urban characteristics
are very distinctive, are the crucible of transfrontier co-operation.
These cross-border “living areas” have hitherto received little
attention as specific entities either from politicians or from European and
national legislation. These conurbations have specific problems
owing to the fact that their cross-border location adds to the complexity
of the problems with which “national” conurbations may be faced:
flow of workers towards cross-border industrial and business areas,
saturation of the road network, interaction in terms of pressures
on land and property, additional cost of nonconurbation areas (separate
management of services and provision of common facilities), and
cross-border institutional, administrative and legal disparities.
Examples of co-operation
42. However, some cross-border conurbations succeed in
managing these “border effects”. The Swiss city of Basle is an example
of a segmented trinational conurbation involving Swiss, French and
German authorities. It lies at the centre of an economic and cultural
area with a total population of over 600 000. This European metropolis
recently designated itself as the Basle Trinational Eurodistrict.
43. For their part, the border towns of Haparanda (Sweden) and
Tornio (Finland) have been working in synergy for many years thanks
to the strong political will shown by elected representatives. The
two municipalities have pooled their education and health services
and their municipal amenities and jointly organise cultural and
sports events. Residents also have a cross-border information centre
at their disposal.
44. Lastly, the border towns of Gorizia (Italy) and Nova Gorica
(Slovenia) have taken advantage of Slovenia’s recent accession to
the European Union to reconstitute a cross-border conurbation, symbolised
by the laying out of a square (United Europe Square) as a new physical
link between the two towns. Some of these conurbations or urban
networks have metropolis stature (Copenhagen-Malmö, Vienna-Bratislava,
Chernivtsi-Suceava, Lille, Basle, etc.); their cross-border nature
represents an asset both for themselves and for European integration.
– Cross-border rural and natural territories
45. Transfrontier co-operation also concerns rural areas,
which in fact outnumber all other types of territory on Europe’s
borders. These vast coastal, mountain or lowland areas, which are
often sparsely populated, are subject to specific constraints related
in particular to their limited financial, technical and human resources.
For these areas, transfrontier co-operation represents a path of
local development. This co-operation enables them not only to pool
certain local assets, amenities and public services, but also to
be identified more easily within a changing Europe.
46. At the cross-border level, protected areas, whose management
illustrates the increasing attention paid to sustainable development
(preservation of flora and fauna, but also of traditional landscapes
and the typical skills of these areas), are the vehicle for a new
type of economic development based on business, tourism projects
and concerted planning.
47. A special feature of the mountain area straddling the border
between Romania and Ukraine should be mentioned here, where communities
of different ethnic origins (Ukrainians, Hutsuls, Russians, Romanians, Poles,
Slovaks, Czechs and Hungarians), mostly small upland farmers, have
traditionally lived together in harmony. They are faced with the
same problems that are encountered in other mountain regions in
Europe: low soil fertility, sloping terrain, a harsh climate, few
jobs, low incomes, a high poverty rate among the rural population,
poor road infrastructure, isolation, transportation difficulties,
etc.
48. Farm producers in mountain regions are the most faithful custodians
of valuable economic and multicultural traditions: they alone are
able to ensure the continuity of economic, farming and forestry
activities, the preservation of biodiversity, the provision of high-quality
agri-food and tourism products and the utilisation of material and
cultural mountain resources, having real opportunities in this area
thanks to the development of rural tourism and mountain agritourism.
An effective special policy designed to stimulate the preservation and
motivation of this population category is becoming a prerequisite
for sustainable development.
Example of co-operation
49. The Mont-Blanc Space,
on
the borders between France, Italy and Switzerland, comprises 35
local authorities with a total area of 220 000 hectares and a population
of 100 000. The project has four main aims: to support upland farming,
preserve natural areas and landscapes, encourage soft tourism and
reduce the impact of transport. It represents an example for the
sustainable and integrated development of a cross-border territory.
50. A transfrontier co-operation project between Romania and Ukraine,
supported by the European Union and the Romanian Government under
the Phare 2004 CBC programme between Romania and Ukraine and focusing
on the theme of “Education for sustainable development of rural
and mountain areas through agritourism: ‘the kiss of the mountains’”,
has been running successfully since December 2006 and is due to end
in October 2008. The project has already yielded some practical
benefits through transfers of experience between the mountain regions
of the county of Suceava (Romania), in the Dorna River Basin, and
the Storozhynetskyi, Vyzhnystkyi and Putylskyi districts (Ukraine),
with prospects for continuation of the work and expansion in the
years ahead. The project represents a good example of how economic
and social development can be guided and encouraged and of how co-operative
relations can be established on a permanent basis and intensified
in such a unique multicultural area. The beneficiary of the project
is the National Association for Sustainable Development of Mountain
Areas (ROMONTANA), in partnership with the Forum Montan of Romania,
the Training and Innovation Centre for Development in the Carpathians
(CEFIDEC, Vatra Dornei), the Federation of Upland Farmers – Dorna,
Suceava County Council (Romania), the City of Chernivtsi Community
Organisation, the Bukovyna Partnership Agency (Chernivtsi), 15 associated
local authorities, and mountain areas of Storozhynetskyi, Vyzhnystkyi
and Putylskyi districts (Ukraine).
– Local maritime co-operation
51. Local maritime cross-border co-operation can be defined
as relations between local communities or authorities on maritime
borders, focusing on common activities. It comprises a strong “territorial”
dimension in contrast to co-operation projects in larger maritime
areas. There are many subjects of co-operation: maritime transport
links, improvement of port and urban areas, economic development,
tourism and co-operation on tourism and culture, conservation of
the marine environment, integrated management of coastal areas,
etc.
52. The sea represents at one and the same time a natural barrier
and a link. This has a profound impact on transfrontier co-operation.
The two main obstacles facing maritime areas concern accessibility
and the lack of crossborder culture.
Example of co-operation
53. The project for an international marine park between
Corsica (France) and Sardinia (Italy) seeks to make this site a
“protected” area in order to optimise environmental management and
the development of economic activities while complying with ecological
requirements. The parties involved in the project have undertaken joint
scientific monitoring assignments, joint cultural events based on
the common natural heritage, etc.
2.3.2. “Operational tools” approach
54. Cross-border territories, whether urban, rural or
maritime, have common needs in terms of territorial engineering:
observation, planning and training in co-operation.
– Observation and planning of cross-border territories
55. Whether they are living and employment areas, functional
urban areas, metropolitan areas or rural districts, these “lived
territories” challenge traditional political and administrative
arrangements.
56. Most cross-border territories currently lack relevant statistical
indicators adapted to their size and configuration. Yet such indicators
are essential for conducting a detailed and appropriate analysis
of their functioning and their strengths and weaknesses, and for
establishing diagnoses and shared sustainable development strategies
on which common policies might be based.
Example of co-operation
57. The European Development Pole (PED)based
in Longwy forms a cross-border conurbation straddling the borders
of France, Luxembourg and Germany. To put in place its development
policy, the PED’s cross-border association has relied since the
1990s on the territorial observation performed by the Urban Planning Observatory,
now known as “Agape”, the first trinational urban planning agency.
– Training in cross-border co-operation skills
58. The growing number of cross-border co-operation schemes
means new needs in terms of skills. It is important therefore to
identify the new practices involved in transfrontier co-operation
which are likely to lead to the emergence of new professions.
Example of co-operation
59. The Euro-Institut in Kehl
is
a Franco-German further training institution and a skills centre
in the field of transfrontier co-operation and in specific fields.
Its aim is to develop skills that can be transposed to other European
regions. Activities take the form of binational seminars, working
groups, staff exchanges, etc.
60. The Interform project,led by the
Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière,
seeks
to increase the professionalism of organisations and individuals
involved in transfrontier co-operation by networking training institutions
in border areas, setting up a documentation centre, conducting a
survey of training institutions and designing training provision.
2.3.3. Thematic approach
– The environment
61. As the environment has no borders, co-operation between
the organisations and individuals involved on either side of the
border and increased responsibility on their part are essential
to guarantee the preservation of cross-border areas, whether urban
or natural (rural areas, river or maritime basins, mountain ranges,
etc.).
This
co-operation covers different areas of work: management of natural
resources (fauna, flora, water, air, soil), including the prevention
of pollution, the promotion of renewable energy sources, maritime
safety, prevention and management of cross-border natural and technological
hazards,
waste
management, etc.
Example of co-operation
62. Faced with increased shipping on the Rhine, problems
of pollution, the risk of chemical spills, etc., restoring the quality
of the water of the Rhine and protecting flora and fauna emerged
as priorities for the countries concerned – Germany, France, Luxembourg,
the Netherlands and Switzerland – which set up the ICPR (International
Commission for the Protection of the Rhine).
– Economic development
63. Increased co-operation between local government players
and business, training and research players is a key factor in harmonious
and balanced territorial development. This co-operation need not
be exclusively national, but can develop across borders in order
to meet the needs of cross-border living areas. There are major
obstacles to this co-operation: wage, price and tax differentials
(which are matters of state sovereignty), linguistic, administrative
and cultural differences, visa requirements, etc., are as many constraints
or opportunities, depending on one’s point of view, facing cross-border
territories. The issue at stake is the need to move from a spirit
of competition between territories to one of complementarity. Some
Council of Europe member states are confronted with specific difficulties:
on some borders – for example, between Azerbaijan and the Russian
Federation or between Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova – the
recent introduction of international borders is perceived as a serious
hindrance to centuries-old commercial and economic co-operation
between neighbouring communities.
– Employment and training
64. Employment represents a major challenge for the development
of cross-border territories. Owing to the involvement of all the
players concerned (employers, trade unions, public employment service),
these territories are faced with specific difficulties due to the
existence of borders: language and cultural barriers, administrative
and regulatory problems, differences between employment systems
and difficulties of co-ordination, disparities between tax and welfare
systems, structural difficulties (infrastructure, mobility, etc.), socioeconomic
and demographic differences, mismatch between training provision
and needs, and differences in the systems for training and recognition
of qualifications.
Example of co-operation
65. EURES (European Employment Service)
aims
to facilitate the free movement of workers within the countries
of the European Economic Area. There are currently over 20 EURES
cross-border partnerships (EURES-T) spread geographically throughout
Europe and involving more than 13 countries. These partnerships
aim to meet the need for information and co-ordination connected
with labour mobility in border regions. The EURES crossborder partnerships
serve as valuable points of contact among employment administrations,
both regional and national, and the social partners.
– Culture
66. Heritage, architecture, museums, visual arts, books
and reading, live performance, cinema and audiovisual productions,
media, archives, etc. – cross-border cultural co-operation is characterised
by a wide variety of projects and players.
67. Cultural co-operation projects are a decisive factor in people’s
identification with the cross-border territory where they live and
in the emergence of a common crossborder identity. Such an identity
lived by the population is essential for any planned cross-border
territory to be established on a sound basis.
68. Furthermore, culture is an element in the cross-sectoral development
of a territory and contributes, directly or indirectly, to the territory’s
enhancement. It thus represents a potential lever for other areas
of co-operation such as tourism, economic development, the environment,
etc.
69. Also, a better understanding and knowledge of the cultural
references (history, heritage, artistic output, media, archives,
language,
etc.)
of the territories situated on the other side of the border facilitate
co-operation projects in all fields and contribute greatly to their
extension.
Example of co-operation
70. The Upper Rhine encounters project, on the borders
between France, Germany and Switzerland, forms part of the 8th Tripartite
Congress on Living Together in the Upper Rhine Area, whose aims
are to put people at the centre of transfrontier co-operation, carry
out joint projects to make everyday life easier in the cross-border
area, and bring people together from both sides of the border. The
project involves setting up a framework programme for funding micro-projects
initiated directly by and for the citizens.
– Public transport
71. Cross-border public transport is central to the everyday
life of cross-border living areas. It aids worker mobility in order
to reduce road congestion on many borders and the related pollution
and safety problems. However, the provision of cross-border transport,
and particularly the creation of intermodal networks, is still at a
low level in Europe. Its development comes up against major technical,
legal and organisational difficulties: different regulations on
either side of the border, technical differences between systems,
great diversity of skill levels, etc. Another problem is the shortcomings
in observation and knowledge of travel patterns in cross-border
territories, which are highly detrimental to the pursuit of a development
policy and effective planning of cross-border infrastructure.
Example of co-operation
72. The Egronet transport network is an integrated public
transport network (bus, train, tram), with standard fares, offering
an efficient and high-quality service to users in the
Länder of Bavaria, Saxony and Thüringen (Germany)
and the District of Karlovy Vary (Czech Republic).
– Health
73. Health issues are crucial to people living on European
borders. Access to health care is an essential part of people’s
lives and takes on its full significance in a crossborder territory
where local service provision is faced with obstacles related to
the existence of a border: great diversity in public health administration
and policies, in cultural approaches to health, in the players involved,
the services provided, etc. Despite the signing of interstate framework
agreements on cross-border health co-operation in the last few years,
a major effort is required in this area.
Example of co-operation
74. The Cerdagne cross-border hospital projectis
designed to provide this area between France and Spain with a medical
facility capable of meeting the needs of an isolated mountain region
with a population of around 30 000, rising to as much as 150 000
in the holiday season.
3. Conclusion
75. Transfrontier co-operation has grown significantly
in Europe in the last thirty years. This phenomenon is likely to
intensify in view of the increasing interest in such co-operation
as a means of overcoming “border effects” in a European integration
perspective, jointly managing shared problems and improving the
quality of life of the inhabitants of cross-border territories.
76. The development of transfrontier co-operation goes hand in
hand with a strengthening of the decentralisation process, reflecting
the principle of subsidiarity, and is impossible without a public-private partnership
between all politicians, socioeconomic players and civil society.
It is an open-ended process based on experimentation, which should
be addressed and embodied in concrete measures, as indicated in
the recommendations made.
77. The difficulty of building common solutions at European level
lies in the variety and complexity of transfrontier co-operation
in Europe, in view of the many different political, social and cultural
contexts. Nevertheless, territories that have been experimenting
with co-operation for only a short time should be given the benefit
of the experience of other cross-border territories at a more advanced
stage in their co-operation projects.
Reporting committee: Committee on the Environment, Agriculture
and Local and Regional Affairs.
Reference to committee: Doc. 10827 and
Reference No. 3232 of 29 May 2006.
Draft recommendation unanimously adopted by the committee
on 20 December 2007.
Members of the committee: Mr Walter Schmied (Chairperson),
Mr Alan Meale (1st Vice-Chairperson), Mr Pasquale
Nessa (2nd Vice-Chairperson), Mr Ruhi Açikgöz, Mr Milos Aligrudić,
Mr Gerolf Annemans, Mr Ivo Banac, Mr Tommaso Barbato, Mr Rony Bargetze,
Mr Paul Bradford (alternate: Mrs Cecilia Keaveney), Mr Ivan
Brajović, Mr Mauro Chiaruzzi, Mrs Pikria Chikhradze, Mr Valeriu
Cosarciuc, Mr Osman Coşkunoğlu, Mr Taulant Dedja, Mr Hubert Deittert, Mr Tomasz Dudziński Mr József
Ékes, Mr Savo Erić, Mr Bill Etherington,
Mr Nigel Evans, Mr Iván Farkas,
Mr Adolfo Fernández Aguilar,
Mr György Frunda, Ms Eva Garcia Pastor, Mr Konstantinos Gioulekas,
Mr Peter Götz, Mr Vladimir Grachev,
Mr Rafael Huseynov, Mr Stanisław Huskowski, Mr Jean Huss, Mr Fazail İbrahimlı, Mr Ilie Ilaşcu, Mr Mustafa Ilicali, Mrs Fatme
Ilyaz, Mr Ivan Ivanov, Mr Bjørn Jacobsen, Mr Gediminas Jakavonis, Mrs Danuta Jazłowiecka,
Mr Victor Kolesnikov, Mr Juha Korkeaoja, Mr Gerhard Kurzmann, Mr Dominique
Le Mèner, Mr François Loncle, Mr Aleksei Lotman, Ms Kerstin Lundgren,
Mr Theo Maissen (alternate: Mr John Dupraz),
Mrs Maria Manuela de Melo,
Mr José Mendes Bota, Mr Vladimir Mokry, Mr Stefano Morselli, Mr Tomislav
Nikolic, Mrs Carina Ohlsson,
Mr Pieter Omtzigt, Mr Germinal Peiro, Mr Ivan Popescu, Mr Cezar Florin Preda,
Mr Jakob Presečnik, Mr Lluís Maria de Puig,
Mr Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, Mrs Adoración Quesada Bravo (alternate:
Mr Gabino Puche), Mr Dario Rivolta,
Mr René Rouquet, Mrs Anta
Rugāte, Mr Fidias Sarikas, Mr Hermann Scheer, Mr Andreas Schieder, Mr Mher Shahgeldyan,
Mr Steingrímur J. Sigfússon, Mr Hans Kristian Skibby, Mr Ladislav
Skopal, Mr Christophe Spiliotis-Saquet, Mr Rainder Steenblock, Mr Vilmos
Szabó, Mr Bruno Tobback, Mr Nikolay Tulaev,
Mr Victor Tykhonov, Mr Tomáš Úlehla, Mr Rudolf Vis, Mr Harm Evert Waalkens, Mr Mykola Yankovskyi,
Mrs Maryam Yazdanfar, Mr Blagoj Zašov Ms Rodoula Zissi.
NB: The names of those members present at the meeting are
printed in bold.
See 9th Sitting, 25 January 2008 (adoption of the draft recommendation);
and Recommendation 1829.