1. Local/regional planning and cross-border cooperation – incorporation of global threats Sigrid Skålnes Košice 7 – 11 March 2016 Senior researcher Department for regional studies Sigrid.Skalnes@nbr.hioa.no

2. Border-regions in Europe  More than one third of EU citizens live and work in Europe's border regions. Those borders have a direct and indirect impact on their lives  Long history of cross-border cooperation in different places in Europe  European Territorial Cooperation (the Interreg programmes) plays an important role in removing border obstacles and fostering cross-border cooperation (25 years last year). Relatively small in budget, the Interreg projects have achieved many concrete outcomes for the citizens – whether in the area of cross-border security, transport, education, energy, health care, training or job creation.the Interreg programmes)  For 2014-2020, more than EUR 10 billion will be invested in cooperation between regions, of which around €6.6 billion will go to cross-border regions. This should ensure maximum impact and even more effective use of the investments.  However, a significant economic potential remains untapped in the border areas due to a lack of trust or even the existence of negative attitudes among neighbouring countries  EEA – reducing economic and social disparities and strengthening bilateral relations with 16 EU countries in Central and Southern Europe.

3. Cross-border cooperation More or less institutionalised collaboration between contiguous subnational authorities across national borders The history of cross-border co-operation: In the Nordic countries – long The Nordic Council -formed after the Second World War in 1952 to promote co-operation between the five Nordic countries. Its first concrete result was the introduction in 1952 of a common labour market and free movement across borders without passports for the countries' citizens.Second World War Different organizations for border regions established The Interreg programs (in the 90thies) Different border regions and forms of co-operation Two different forms of border regions in the Nordic countries Huge regions, sparsely populated, long distances, different languages «Neighbouring-regions» – smaller regions, the cross-border traffic pretty intense. Language – understand each other The national borders – barriers Formal (Schengen), but also (minor) barriers connected to taxes, social security Distances, lack of good communication lines, expensive transport EU membership (Sweden and Finland 1995) – cross-border regional development took a more prominent role in more sparsely populated territories, some of them with a meagre tradition of ecoomic, social and cultural trans-national exchanges in several Nordic countries Howevever, some area had experiences from Nordic Council (e.g. North Calotte Region) Interreg II – Interreg VI (2014-2020) – dfferent programs (also Norway) Nordic regions: Interreg programmes constructed as an additional formalisation of more informal trans-national coordination endeavours

5. Cross-border cooperation – results from a recent Eurobarometer survey (DG Regio)  A fifth of all citizens (including those not living in border regions) were aware that EU regional funding is invested in this field. More work to be done to promote the Interreg programmes.  Awareness of EU funded cross-border cooperation activities  31% of people living in the border regions are aware of EU funded cross-border cooperation activities in their region  Reasons for crossing the border to a neighbouring country  76% of respondents have travelled to another country. Respondents living in the border regions in the Northern and Central countries are generally more likely to travel abroad  Leisure activities and tourist visits: 76%, shopping (goods and services): 35%. Work or business purposes: 14%  Level of trust of people living in the border regions  61%: most people can be trusted  Perceived obstacles to cross-border cooperation between border regions  Living in a border regions an opportunity (37%9 or an obstacle (4%). No impact (55%)  Language-problem (55%)  Socio-economic differences, legal and administrative differences – problems (40%)  Cultural differences

6. EU programs and Norway INTERREG The programs under Interreg provide funding for interregional cooperation across Europe, including for cooperation in the Nordic/ North-Sea region. The overall objective is to improve the effectiveness of regional policies and instruments. The program aims as capitalizing on the exchange of experiences among partners who are ideally responsible for the development of their local and regional policies. THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS The EEA and Norway Grants are available to the 13 EU member countries that joined the EU and the EEA in 2004, 2007 and 2013 as well as Greece, Spain and Portugal. The grants are jointly financed by Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, but Norway is the main contributor in both programs. THE SECTORAL PROGRAMS Norwegian acess to these programs fund is regulated in the EEA-Agreement. The funding opportunities includes a variety and sectoral issues and does also include the EU’s research and development programs, like Horizon 2020. The overall objective is to reduce social and economic disparities in Europe through international cooperation in order to realize EU’s overall policy goals within different social sectors.

7. Promoting cooperation – the EEA Grants

8. Norwegian participation in EU programs (2007-2013)  Participation is distributed unevenly between the three types of programmes, only 28 municipalities and nine counties participated in the programmes under the EEA and Norway Grants- progamme.  Participation in Interreg and Sectoral Programs higher.  All counties and 236 (62%) individual municipalities took part in an EU- program in the period (20017-2013  Geographical distribution of projects under the Interreg-programme – tend to be concentrated in municipalities that are bordering the border between Norway and Sweden  Participation in the Sector Programs – mostly in two programs  Larger municipalities (populations) have greater propensity than other to partivipate in Eu-programs.

9. What did Norway learn from participating i cross- border programmes?  Policy development  The content of municipal activities and policies  Competance - the regional projects became more professional  Knowledge about other ways to work and solve problems  Experices from project work, international cooperation  Planning for a longer period and often for bigger projects  New partners  Another way of working, sometimes more buraucracy  Capacity-building  Skills development Individual level : professional input, inspiration, new ideas and self-affirmation. International contacts and networks that often persist after the project period is over. Participation has significance for human resource development. Organizational level - Increased competence can result in new knowledge about initiatives and new opportunities that directly affect the content of a service or a policy area. Participation also provides insight into how to organize a service or business differently, leading to organizational changes. Knowledge building and awareness-building. Getting partners, building networks, learning from others, good practises  Influence on the regional policy – minor. Interreg cooperation often used as a part of the implementation of existing goals. Meaning the counties’ political preferences and strategies decide the Interreg-participation  However – also challenges: applications, bureaucracy, takes time…

10. Planning a project  Has the idea something to do with the cohesion policy?  Why cross-border cooperation? What will we gain from cooperation? (both/all partners). Will each partner gain something from cooperation?  Analyse the current situation in the project target region (development planning analysis). Survey? Why – and to whom? Has this been done? Results? What did it tell the project?  The EU (cohesion policy) and EEA’s goals – the goals of the region?  Local development cross-border strategy or stratgies? Do the regions on eithter side of the border have the same goals? Same problems?  Institutions and level - county or municipality? Planning for how many years? Funding? Who will be involved?  Common cross-border proposals – what kind of projects? Lead partner?  Recommondation for regional and local self government – later  Dissemination of results – later  In short: where do we stand? What strategy to choose? And how to realise this strategy (what input/projects to choose?)

11. Regional planning and global challenges Global trends, cohesion policy, national policy, regional policy Creating growth and jobs. Tackling climate change and energy dependence, and reducing poverty and social exclusion Climate change ( «the green city/the walking city/the engaged city/the compact city/the diverse city/the including city» Demografic changes increasing or decreasing population – reasons? sex – the gender pattern, how and why? And what does this mean for the society/for the future? ages – need for care, education, work, etc? migration - immigration/emigration – diverstity? Challenging the local culture? refugees, asylum seekers Labour market Common labor market across the border? Barriers/challenges (the border, tax systems, social security system) Education and competence Language Access to education Cooperation between different institutions (e.g. universities) Health and care Public health Infrastructure Communication and transportation – easy to cross the border(s)? Near/far from a market?

12. Local/regionalGlobal Global trends, cohesion policy, regional polircy ClimateBio-gas (Nord: Lappland, Tornedalen)Climate canges, resources Natural and tecnological changes Labour and employment Creating new jobs, developing the local society Nordland county: Local food as engine for local business (Innovation and the knowledge economy) The partnership consists of 13 partners from 9 countries (NO, SE, UK, CH, IT, ES, EH, SI and BG). Research and innovation, entrepreneurship Development, Evaluation and Optimization of Measures to Reduce the Impact on the Environment from Mining Activities in Northern Regions (NORD: Lappland, Norrbotten, Troms) Communication, transportation and infrastructure ROADEX-network set up to guarantee the reliability of roads, ensuring local residents have access to these community lifelines and to indigenous industries such as fishing, farming and forestry ( Finland, Scotland, Norway and Sweden and all of Greenland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands) Education and competence Acess to education NORPÅ –Adapting the vocational traing in the North Calotte (Nord: Finnmark, Troms, Nordland, Norrbotten) Health and careChildren, older people Public security and protection Preparing for Future Crisis Management (Sverige-Norge, Karlstad University: Hedmark, Värmland, Dalarne)