2019-10-28 Dnr 304-9267-19
Dagordning/ Päiväjärjestys
Övervakningskommitténs möte/ Seurantakomitean kokous
Plats/ Tila: Quality Hotel, Luleå
Tid/ Aika: Den 12 - 13 november 2019/ 12.-13. Marraskuuta 2019
Den 12 november kl. 13-17 (Lunch kl. 12) / 12. marraskuuta klo 13 - 17 (Lounas klo 12)
1. Mötets öppnande/ Kokouksen avaaminen
2. Godkännande av dagordning /Päiväjärjestyksen hyväksyminen
3. Val av två justeringspersoner/Kahden pöytäkirjan tarkastajan valinta
4. Protokoll föregående möte/ Edellisen kokouksen pöytäkirja Bilaga/Liite 1
5. Information från Förvaltande myndighet och norsk förvaltande organisation/ Hallintoviranomaisen ja Norjan hallinto-organisaation informaatio
- Aktuellt läge i programmet/ Ohjelman ajankohtainen tilanne - Aktuellt från delområde Sápmi/ Sápmin osa-alueen tilanne - Aktuellt från finsk Infopoint/ Suomen Infopointin tilanne - Aktuellt från norsk förvaltande organisation/ Norjan hallinto-organisaation tilanne Bilaga/Liite 2
6. Kommunikation samt Informationsplan 2020 /Viestintä ja Tiedotus- suunnitelma 2020 Bilaga /Liite 3
7. Projektpresentation / Hanke-esittely ”SEAmBOTH”
Essi Keskinen, Metsähallitus
8. Projektportföljs - analys / Hankesalkku-analyysi Bilaga/Liite 4
Kl. 18.30 Middag på Restaurang Cook´s Krog/ Klo 18.30 Illallinen Cook´s Krog ravintolassa
Den 13 november kl 09-12/ 13. marraskuuta klo 09 - 12
9. Strategisk diskussion Post2020/ Strateeginen keskustelu Post2020
- Border Orientation Paper Sweden-Finland-Norway (Nord) och inspel från de andra nordliga Interreg-programmen / Border Orientation Paper Sweden- Finland-Norway (Nord) sekä muut pohjoisia Interreg-ohjelmia koskevat näkemykset Bilaga/ Liite 5 - Inspel från Kommissionen/ Komission näkemykset - Inspel från respektive departement/ Ministeriöiden näkemykset - Inspel från regionerna och övriga ledamöter/ Alueiden ja seurantakomitean jäsenten näkemykset - Gemensam diskussion/ Yhteinen keskustelu
10. Övriga frågor/Muut asiat
11. Nästa möte/Seuraava kokous
12. Mötets avslutande/Kokouksen päättäminen
Lunch kl 12/ Lounas klo 12
2019-04-29 Dnr 304-3231-19
Dagordning/ Päiväjärjestys
Övervakningskommitténs möte/ Seurantakomitean kokous
Plats/ Tila: Korundi House of Culture, Rovaniemi, Finland
Tid/ Aika: Den 14 - 15 maj 2019/ 14.-15. toukokuuta 2019
Den 14 maj kl. 13-17 (Lunch kl. 12), lokal tid / 14. Toukokuuta klo 13 - 17 (Lounas klo 12)
1. Mötets öppnande/ Kokouksen avaaminen
2. Information Rovaniemi stad/ Rovaniemen kaupungin informaatio
Esko Lotvonen, stadsdirektör/ kaupunginjohtaja
3. Godkännande av dagordning /Päiväjärjestyksen hyväksyminen
4. Val av två justeringspersoner/Kahden pöytäkirjan tarkastajan valinta
5. Protokoll föregående möte/ Edellisen kokouksen pöytäkirja, Bilaga/Liite 1
6. Information från Förvaltande myndighet/ Hallintoviranomaisen informaatio
- Aktuellt läge i programmet/ Ohjelman ajankohtainen tilanne - Information från delområde Sápmi/ Sápmin osa-alueen informaatio - Information från finsk Infopoint/ Suomen Infopointin informaatio
7. Information från norsk Förvaltande organisation/ Norjan Hallinto-organisaation informaatio
8. Projektpresentation/ Hanke-esittely
Jonna Häkkilä, Digital access to the Sámi heritage archives
Kl. 18.30 Middag på Arctic Light Hotel/ Klo 18.30 Illallinen Arctic Light Hotellilla
Den 15 maj kl 09- 12/ 15. Toukokuuta klo 09 – 12
9. Beslut om TA-budget/ Päätös TA-budgetti, Bilaga/Liite 2
10. Godkännande av Årsrapport 2018/ 2018-vuosiraportin hyväksyminen Bilaga/Liite 3
11. Information från Kommissionen/ Komission informaatio
12. Information från respektive departement/ Ministeriöiden informaatio
13. Projektpresentation / Hanke-esittely
Rauno Posio, Visit Arctic Europé
14. Övriga frågor/Muut kysymykset
15. Nästa möte/Seuraava kokous
16. Mötets avslutande/Kokouksen päättäminen
Lunch kl 12/ Lounas klo 12
2019‐10‐28
Interreg Nord 2014-2020
Programme area Nord and Sápmi
1 2019‐10‐28
Priority areas
Research and innovation
Culture and environment Common labour market
Budget ERDF
Priority area Budget Allocated funds (MEUR) Allocated Available funds CALL 11 – applied (MEUR) (Number of projects funds (%) (MEUR) (MEUR) Nord/Sápmi) (Number of projects Nord/Sápmi) 1.R&I 18,72 18,77 (37/0) 100% 0 0,41 (3/0) 2.Entrepr. 16,67 13,87 (19/1) 83% 2,80 5,8 (9/1) 3.Culture& 16,88 13,06 (18/8) 77% 3,82 17,3 (12/3) Environm. 4.Labour 4,52 2,58 (9/3) 57% 1,94 2,3 (3/1) Market Total 56,79 48,28 (83/12) 85% 8,51 4,8 (27/5) Paid so far – 36,5% of the Call 11 – SC Jan 2020. Call 12 – spring 2020? ERDF-budgetERDF budget
2 2019‐10‐28
Budget IR-midler Priority area Budget Allocated funds Allocated Available funds CALL 11 – applied (MEUR) (MEUR) funds (%) (MEUR) (MEUR) (Number of projects (Number of Nord/Sápmi) projects Nord/Sápmi) 1.R&I 2,34 2,59 (19/0) 110% -0,25 0,081 (1/0) 2.Entrepr. 2,68 2,54 (14/3) 95% 0,14 0,726 (4/0) 3.Culture.& 2,34 2,42 (10/9) 104% -0,08 1,378 (6/3) Environm. 4.Labour 0,69 0,56 (5/3) 81% 0,13 0,00 (0/0) Market Totalt 8,05 8,11 (48/15) 101% -0,06 2,103 (11/3) + Remainder 2014 +1,67 +1,67 = 9,72 = 1,59 Paid so far - 39% of the IR- budget
Applications Call 1-11 and pre-studies
ERDF ERDF IR IR Totalt / Yhteensänumber = 222 / 146% number % Applications = 78 277/ 49 100% 174 100% Recalled 65 23% 68 39% = 68 / 16 Rejected 85 31% 44 25% Approved 95 34% 62 36% Under 32 9% 14 8% preparation
3 2019‐10‐28
Project partners 1(2)
Lead partners Cooperation in approved projects
Finland‐Sweden‐ Norway
37% 41% 40% Finland‐Norway Finland Sweden Sweden‐Norway 63% Finland‐Sweden 8% 11%
Number of partners in approved projects
9% 2 partners 9% 26% 3 partners 4 partners 20% 5 partners >5 partners 35%
Project partners 2 (2)
. 10 partners participates in 3 projects Participation in . 25 partners participates in 2 projects number of Partner organization Country projects . 91 partners particpates in 1 project Luleå University of Technology SV 41 University of Oulu FI 25 Lapland University of Applied Sciences FI 16 141 unique partners The Arctic University of Norway NO 14 Centria University of Applied Sciences FI 10 1 City of Oulu FI 9 Sweden Oulu University of Applied Sciences FI 8 40 Natural resources institute in Finland (LUKE) FI 7 51 Finland County Administrative Board of Norrbotten SV 5 Norway Norrbotten Chamber of Commerce SV 5 Denmark Northern Research Institute, Narvik NO 5 Center of Economic Development, Transport and Environment (ELY) FI 4 49 Regional Council of Lapland FI 4 Metsähallitus/ Forststyrelsen FI 4 County Council of Norrbotten SV 4
4 2019‐10‐28
Number of projects affecting the region 80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 Datum Sida: Informationsplan 2020 2019-10-28 1 (2)
Informationsplan Interreg Nord - 2020
Aktivitet Syfte Tidpunkt Facebook och Att göra programmet känt Löpande Interregnord.com och tillhandahålla viktig och aktuell information. - Uppdateringar av sidornas information Informera och - Nyheter uppmärksamma allmänhet - Projektexempel och stödmottagare om - Kontakter programmets framsteg och - FAQ resultat - Projekthandbok - Länkar till relevant Informera om villkor för information ansökningsomgång, hur - Månadens projekt många ansökningar som inkommit, nya projekt som beviljats
Möjlighet att söka beviljade projekt, regler, riktlinjer, råd m.m. Information till Information om Vid kommittéernas styrkommittéernas och programmets framsteg och möten övervakningskommitténs resultat ledamöter Arctic Frontiers i Tromsö Ansökan om att arrangera Januari ett side event: Interreg Nord - for Sustainable Business development and Innovation in the Arctic Årlig konferens, Information om Mars - Tema Sápmi i programmets resultat Jokkmokk EU-flaggning Uppmärksamma Europaveckan i maj allmänheten om EU och och andra tillfällen sammanhållningspolitiken Mitt Europa Information om att April - maj - Nyhet till Interreg- programmet deltar webben och Facebook kampanjen Mitt Europa.
Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens län Tel: + 46 (0)10 225 50 00 www.interregnord.com Stationsgatan 5, 971 86 Luleå Fax: +46 (0)920-22 84 11 [email protected] Datum Sida: Informationsplan 2020 2019-10-28 2 (2)
- Öppet hus/aktivitet För att uppmärksamma hos projekt i allmänheten att EU finns i samband med vår närhet Europaveckan Europeiska samarbetsdagen För att uppmärksamma September (European Cooperation Day) allmänheten om programmet. Arctic Project Clustering Forum for projects to meet November Event each other, share experiences and find synergies, new partnerships and possibilities for cooperation Interreg 30 år Synliggöra hur det Januari-December gränsöverskridande samarbetet bidrar till Europas olika utmaningar Informationsinsatser, även Att synliggöra programmets Löpande deltagande vid andra och EU:s roller samt vilka aktörers konferenser, möten utvecklingsmöjligheter och seminarier. dessa ger Projektbanken För att offentliggöra Löpande - uppdateras deltagande i EU-program. automatiskt när nya beslut fattats i handläggarstödet NYPS2020 Etablera kontakter och Synliggöra Löpande informera informellt till Nordprogrammet genom att media. sprida budskap och nyheter - Pressmeddelande vid till allmänheten större/specifika projekt och riktade insatser. Internutbildning för personal För att personalen ska ha Löpande vid relevant och uppdaterad genomförandeorganisationen information samt utbildning. Utbildning för projektägare För att hålla projektägare Löpande kring information, regler och uppdaterade om vad som riktlinjer för grafisk profil m gäller vid genomförande av fl. projekt. En kommunikationsguide är framtagen för projekten. Samarbete med EU Direkt- För att informera Löpande verksamheten allmänheten om hur programmet bidrar till sammanhållningspolitiken.
Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens län Tel: + 46 (0)10 225 50 00 www.interregnord.com Stationsgatan 5, 971 86 Luleå Fax: +46 (0)920-22 84 11 [email protected] 2019‐10‐28
Project portfolio analysis
95 projects 20 projects 37 projects Entrepreneurship 83 Nord 3 pre‐studies (Nord) 12 Sápmi Research and innovation 1 pre‐study (Sápmi)
4 pre‐studies (Nord) 16 main projects (Nord) 33 main projects (Nord) 12 projects Common labor 26 projects market
Culture and environment 4 pre‐studies (Nord)
2 pre‐studies (Nord) 5 main projects (Nord) 1 pre‐study (Sápmi) 3 main projects (Sápmi)
16 main projects (Nord) 7 main projects (Sápmi)
1 2019‐10‐28
Allocation of projects based on specific goals 1.1 Companies’ ability to commercialize innovation has been enhanced within the region’s priority areas (9,44 MEUR)
1.2 Actors in the innovation system have enhanced their ability to participate in the European research arena aligned with the region’s priority areas (9,80 MEUR) 2.1 Increased proportion of SMEs with cross-border business models (7,25 MEUR)
2.2 Increased export among SMEs in the region (7,21 MEUR) 3 9 18 3.1 The region’s culture and heritage have become stronger and more vital 4 (4,77 MEUR)
3.2 Strengthened Sami language within the Sami population (1,08 MEUR) 7
2 3.3 Improved conservation status of natural environments (6,57 MEUR)
19 3.4 The knowledge and expertise about green growth and resource 13 efficiency in the region has increased in the public sector (1,38 MEUR)
4.1 Cross-border mobility in the labour market has increased (1,42 MEUR) 5 15 4.2 Strengthened skills and knowledge development in Sami enterprises (1,28 MEUR)
Focus areas 14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 Digital service Energy and Cultural and Business Collaboration Testing Service Other industries environmental creative development between basic activities businesses in technology / industries in Sápmi industries and the service Clean Tech SMEs sector
Research and innovation Entrepreneurship Culture and environment Common labor market
2 2019‐10‐28
Outcomes from pre-studies
• Total: 22 (7 Norwegian pre-studies included) - Priority Area 1 = 4 - Priority Area 2 = 7 - Priority Area 3 = 5 - Priority Area 4 = 6
• Of which 13 has resulted in at least one application for main project. (2, 3, 4, 4)
• Number of main projects granted: 7 (1, 2, 2, 2)
Activity indicator Priority area 1
3 2019‐10‐28
Applications to Horizon 2020 - finished projects
Project name Countries Expected Actual outcome Granted projects outcome
NorFaST- HT Fi, Sv 2 1 RESEM Fi, Sv, No 2 2
RENEPRO Fi, Sv 1 1
SusMinNor Fi, Sv 2 4 MineFacts, MIREU
CMT Fi, Sv, No 3 2 TRINITY Nya möjligheter för Sv, Fi 1 1 CLT Total 13 11 3
Applications to Horizon 2020 – Ongoing projects
Project name Countries Expected outcome Actual outcome
AMCA Fi, Sv 2 - Arctic eco-create Fi, Sv, No 3 1 Flexibla Transparenta Sv, Fi 1 - Ledande Filmer som Electroder WIRMA Fi, Sv, No 1 - ON-SITE Fi, Sv 2 - Less-PFAS Sv, Fi, No 1 - Compact Sv, Fi 1 - InTeMP Fi, Sv 1 - TallWood Fi, Sv, No 2 - RoboSol Fi, Sv 6 - NUVE Fi, Sv, No 1 - Total 21 1
4 2019‐10‐28
Enterprises participation in Priority area 1
Private investments in priority area 1 & 2
5 2019‐10‐28
Partipicipating in activities in priority area 2
Sami participation in priority area 3
6 2019‐10‐28
Participation in priority area 3
Surface area of habitats supported
7 2019‐10‐28
Participation in activities in priority area 4
Summary Activity Indicators
Priority Goal/Target Outcome as a % area Activity Indicators 2023 Expected Outcome of goals 1 Number of applications to Horizon 2020 within the region’s focus area 10 36 12 120% 1 Number of enterprises participating in cross-border, transnational or interregional research projects 200 384 221 111% 1 Number of enterprises receiving support 200 383 210 105% 1 Number of enterprises supported to introduce new to the firm products 48 89 50 104% 1 Number of enterprises supported to introduce new to the market products 15 88 38 253% 1 Number of participating actors in initiatives leading to new products, services or methods 250 449 232 93% 1 Private investment matching public support in innovation or R&D projects 860 000 1 024 717 321 287 37% 2 Number of enterprises receiving nonfinancial support 200 621 357 179% 2 Number of enterprises receiving support 200 732 549 275% 2 Participating companies in cross-border marketing efforts for internationally oriented companies 200 428 298 149% 2 Participation in business development initiatives 1 600 2 022 1 596 100% 2 Participation in competence development initiatives for SMEs’ internationalization 2 000 1 586 2 448 122% 2 Private investment matching public support to enterprises 1 200 000 2 821 221 1 429 264 119% 3 Participation in activities contributing to increased use of the Sami language 10 000 9 685 10 549 105% 3 Participation in initiatives to highlight the region’s cultural heritage 9 000 8 057 9 561 106% Participation in measures developing knowledge or competence that contribute to green growth and 3 resource efficiency 250 468 64 26% 3 Participation in initiatives to promote development of Sami culture and Sami conditions 8 500 5 358 8 216 97% 3 Surface area of habitats supported in order to attain a better conservation status 2 500 000 2 965 017 2 303 565 92% 4 Number of participants in cross-border mobility initiatives 1 300 1 231 1 975 152% 4 Number of participants in cross-border competence initiatives in Sami enterprises 80 146 444 555%
8 Border Orientation Paper
Sweden-Finland-Norway (Nord)
1. INTRODUCTION
This document sets out key characteristics of the cross-border region between Sweden, Finland and Norway and outlines options and orientations for the programming of the next Interreg programme along that border. It is part of a series of similar papers prepared by DG REGIO for all EU land borders (and borders with Norway and Switzerland). The objective of this paper is to serve as a basis for a constructive dialogue both within each cross-border region and with the European Commission for the 2021-2017 Nord Interreg cross-border cooperation programme. The paper is based for a large part on objective information stemming from three studies
commissioned by DG REGIO:
“Border needs study” (“Collecting solid evidence to assess the needs to be addressed by Interreg cross-border cooperation programmes”) conducted in 2016;
“Easing legal and administrative obstacles in EU border regions” conducted in 2015- 16; and
“Comprehensive analysis of the existing cross-border transport connections and missing links on the internal EU borders” conducted in 2017-18.
In addition, many data sources available at European level were also used to describe certain aspects socio-economic and territorial development. A full list of information sources is provided in annex.
Cross-border cooperation is much broader than Interreg programmes. The objective is to facilitate cross-border cooperation by reducing remaining persisting obstacles to cross-border activities and linkages as outlined in the 2017 Communication on Boosting Growth and Cohesion in EU Border Regions. The instruments available are not only the funds (in particular Interreg and other European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) programmes which may invest in cooperation), but also European and national legal instruments (European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation (EGTC), regional agreements (e.g. in the Benelux and the Nordic countries), bi-lateral agreements, etc.) as well as a number of policies e.g. on labour mobility, transport, health, etc. The Interreg programmes should therefore not only aim to fund projects but should also seek to reduce cross-border obstacles. To do so, the legislative proposal on Interreg foresees that part of the budget is dedicated to cross-border governance (including capacity building and contribution to the macro-regional/sea-basin strategies).
That is why this paper goes beyond the traditional activities of Interreg programmes (funding projects) and also covers governance issues (reducing cross-border obstacles). On this, the roles of the programmes are: (a) to initiate the work on the obstacles (e.g. the members of the Monitoring Committee could contact the relevant public authorities and stakeholders); (b) to facilitate the work (by funding working groups as well as possible studies and pilot projects); and (c) to contribute to this work (providing input from the wide knowledge gained in past programming periods). Whilst the budget is limited, the impact can be important as the actions concerned will have a limited cost (meetings, studies, pilot projects, etc.) but structural effects.
Page 1 of 33
2. ANALYSIS OF THE BORDER AREA
1. The geographical coverage of this paper includes the following NUTS 3 regions: Norrbotten in Sweden, Lapland, North Ostrobothnia and Central Ostrobothnia in Finland and Finnmark, Troms and Nordland in Norway unless something else is stated. For some cooperation themes a wider geographical area is covered and includes Västerbotten, Västernorrland, Jämtland and parts of Dalarna in Sweden as well as Nord-Trøndelag, Sør- Trøndelag and parts of Hedmark in Norway.
Top characteristics
The cross-border region has three borders which are mainly covered by mountains (Sweden-Norway) and rivers (Sweden-Finland). The whole territory belongs to the Northern Sparsely Populated Areas (NSPA) and is located in the Arctic and sub-Arctic. Much of the hinterland is covered by forests. The entire NSPA counts 5 persons per square kilometre with a total of 2.6 million people spread over an area of 532 000 square kilometres. The core cross- border region has a population above 1.6 million.1 Out of the 1.6 million inhabitants 40% live in Finland. The remaining population is quite evenly distributed between Sweden and Norway with slightly higher numbers on the Norwegian side. The indigenous Sami population which counts about 80,000-100,000 persons also live in the NSPA which is part of their traditional homeland called Sápmi. Over 60% of the Sami live in Norway, one fourth in Sweden, one tenth in Finland and 2% on the Russian Kola Peninsula. Population numbers have increased in Norway and Sweden while being stable in Finland over the 2007-2017 period. Migration to the cross-border area is mainly of foreign origin. The population is mostly concentrated in the larger urban areas, primarily the university cities of Oulu and Rovaniemi (Finland), Luleå and Umeå (Sweden) and Tromsø and Bodø (Norway) but also the border twin city of Haparanda- Tornio, Kemi, Vasa and Kokkola in Finland, Piteå, Boden and Skellefteå in Sweden and Narvik in Norway. The languages spoken are Finnish, Norwegian, Swedish, several Sami languages as well as Meankeli (in the Torne valley) and Kven in Norway. In terms of GDP per capita the Swedish and the Norwegian regions all rank above the EU average while the Finnish regions are at EU average and North Ostrobothnia is at 88% of EU average.
2. There is a long tradition of cross-border cooperation in the region. Relations have developed through family ties, common history, trade and labour migration. The population in the three countries has enjoyed freedom of movement since the 1950’s.
1 The core cross-border region corresponds to the 2014-2020 Interreg Nord programme. The numbers are based on 2012 data.
Page 2 of 33
3. The level of trust between the Finns, the Swedes and the Norwegians is high, well above the EU average. However, language differences are considered an obstacle.
4. The Nordic countries have a long history of cooperation at national level, in particular since the creation of the Nordic Council for inter-parliamentary collaboration and the Nordic Councils of Ministers for inter-governmental, thematic collaboration, including a Freedom of Movement Council which tackles border obstacles to labour mobility.
5. At local level the Torne Valley Council (Tornedalsrådet) actively promotes cross-border cooperation facilitating everyday life of the cross-border population. The border twin city of Torneå-Haparanda has a long-standing cooperation which has deepened over the last 30 years. This has resulted in the sharing of infrastructure and services, e.g. a waste water treatment plant, a travel centre, a tourist information centre and sports facilities. Other achievements include a common comprehensive school with bilingual teachers and the common Provincial Museum of the Torneo Valley. Cooperation in the field of town planning has resulted in the physical merger of the two city centres with the common Victoria Square in the centre.
6. Formal cooperation in the cross-border region has become more intensive since 1995 when Finland and Sweden joined the EU. EU programmes and Interreg in particular have contributed to the development of new cooperation themes and a deepening of cooperation in general.
7. Cooperation under Interreg evolved from a “getting to know each other” phase in 1995- 1999 to a “working together to achieve concrete results” phase in 2007-2013. The 2007- 2013 Interreg Nord programme was already very strategic, both in its intervention logic and in its implementation. Beneficiaries also clearly identified the added value of cross- border cooperation in terms of building critical mass and exploiting complementarity. During the Interreg III phase 2000-2006 Interreg Nord had a sub-programme for cooperation with Russia, Kolarctic. In 2007 the programme was split in two: Interreg Nord under ERDF and Kolarctic under the European Neighbourhood Instrument.
8. The four generations of Interreg programmes have supported mainly the same set of themes, namely research and innovation; entrepreneurship; environment, natural and cultural heritage and community cooperation including health care. Among other things, the programmes have been successful in stimulating collaboration between enterprises and developing cooperation between research institutions and enterprises of different sizes. Despite the positive development many SMEs and micro-enterprises that could benefit from cross-border cooperation are still reluctant to participate in Interreg projects for various reasons. In the current programme the development of a cross-border labour market has been introduced as a largely new theme which has been quite successful but needs to be developed further.
9. The Sami have lived in the cross-border area for at least 2000 years. Being originally a nomadic people the Sami have a long tradition of crossing national borders. Out of the 80,000-100,000 Sami some 10,000 make a living from reindeer herding. Due to this
Page 3 of 33
activity and other aspects of Sami culture, wild nature over vast areas is indispensable for the survival and development of Sami culture and lifestyle.
10. The economy of the cross-border region is dependent on extraction of natural resources (minerals and forests). There are also local hunting interests competing for natural resources. There are recurrent tensions between these interests and Sami interests. The pressure on Arctic nature together with international competition for minerals that have become more accessible due to climate change, have further aggravated the situation.
11. Interreg has made an important contribution to developing structured cooperation between the Sami populations living in the three countries and Russia. It has strengthened the cross-border Sami community, Sami languages and culture. Moreover, the Sami enjoy a certain autonomy within the programme with regard to project generation and selection with an ear-marked budget for Sami projects.2 The Interreg programme process is also a rare forum of common decision-making where the Sami work together with local, regional and national representatives towards common goals. These factors have been important for integration and trust-building between the different partners.
12. The large majority of Sami projects have been dedicated to language and culture, with a few exceptions in entrepreneurship. The Sami have also encountered difficulties to obtain national co-financing as their needs and the specific characteristics of the Sami community have not been sufficiently taken into account in regional development plans. At the same time Sami institutions have limited resources to co-finance projects. Consequently, over the years there has been a lower absorption of funds in relation to the potential and the expectations. Sami enterprises are mostly micro-companies, often working with multiple activities. There are no intermediary Sami business organisations who could play the role of Interreg project partners. For these reasons, Sami entrepreneurship projects have been very few. Attempts to attract Sami applicants to research and innovation projects have been unsuccessful, probably partly for similar reasons. On the other hand, there have been some mixed projects with Sami and other Swedish, Finnish or Norwegian partners in entrepreneurship, environment and culture.
2 The 2007-2013 programme had a priority axis dedicated to the Sápmi geography whereas the 2014-2020 programme has specific objectives and output indicators for Sápmi.
Page 4 of 33
3. TERRITORIAL DIMENSION
Typology of regions 13. Life in the NSPA is much more dependent on the natural environment than in other parts of Europe. Main features include enormous natural resources, a harsh climate with long winters and short summers, (which explains a relative lack of agriculture), long distances between agglomerations to major national and international markets as well as a high cost of land transport. 14. The Swedish and Norwegian regions share GDP per capita levels above the EU average whereas the Finnish regions are at EU average or below. However, the three border regions (Finland-Sweden, Finland-Norway and Sweden-Norway) all have a GDP per capita which is higher than the average EU border region. All the regions are growing slower than the rest of their respective countries. There is a general trend of economic convergence as the economies in the cross-border region are becoming more similar. This may increase the scope for cooperation to address shared challenges. The Border Needs Study identifies only the Finland-Norway border as having high socio-economic disparities. It should be noted that socio-economic disparities might operate both as an obstacle and an opportunity. It can for instance be an encouraging factor for cross-border labour mobility. 15. Another on-going trend is the concentration of population and economic growth into fewer places. The impact will be mainly local and national as the main agglomerations are far from the borders. Nevertheless, larger labour markets, lower costs of public services and larger urban areas in general should attract more people and resources to stay in or move to the cross-border region. Such a development should be positive also for cross-border innovation, entrepreneurship and other cross-border processes
Functional areas 16. The cross-border region is not strictly limited to the administrative borders of the Interreg programme but has a flexible geography depending on the topic concerned. This is a functional area. 17. For some topics, the solution can only be found if partners outside the programme area are involved. To have a good research project on a certain theme you may need to involve a university which is in the capital of one of the countries. To facilitate cross-border health care services or to develop a cross-border labour market you may have to develop a project with neighbouring regions and with national authorities. To establish cross- border rail links you may need to involve national train companies and ministries and encourage them to cooperate across borders and connect with other lines further away. 18. For some other topics the solution is purely local, corresponding to an area much smaller than the traditional programme area: For instance establishing a cross-border kindergarten in an urban area which is on both sides of a border. 19. This shows that the problem-solving should be based on the functional areas rather than on the administrative scale defining the programme area (which is only used to define ERDF allocations). What matters is that the projects benefit the cross-border area. The location of the project or the location of the partners does not matter.
Page 5 of 33
20. Precisely, the ex-post evaluation of 2007-2013 Cohesion Policy programmes highlighted the limited attention paid to the notion of functional area when identifying the border regions to support. This is essential when considering the potential benefits of cross- border cooperation. It might be difficult to identify functional areas in practice, but attempting the exercise at least focuses attention on relevant aspects for development of the cross-border area. 21. The functional area is a new approach in the post-2020 regulations and has three main benefits: (1) It enables the projects to be more effective as they can build on the experience of a wider range of relevant partners and as they can be located where the impact is bigger; (2) It clearly shows that Interreg is a policy tool supporting projects to improve the situation and not a mere funding tool for the benefit of local authorities sharing a budget; and (3) It avoids that programmes re-create new borders outside the programme geography. 22. One example of a functional area is the twin city of Tornio-Haparanda and its surroundings. The proximity and the population concentration create opportunities and needs for common solutions for instance on the labour market and in public and private services including health care and education. The map below shows the agglomerations situated within 30, 60 and 90 minutes driving time from the borders in the cross-border region. On the assumption that driving time and access to services in the home district determines citizens’ readiness to travel across the border for different services it is easier to foresee the functional area for specific cross-border services.For certain themes like research and innovation or connectivity it could be beneficial to cooperate in a larger geography including neighbouring regions with similar potential and challenges, for instance Västerbotten with the University of Umeå and Ostrobothnia with the University of Vasa.
Page 6 of 33
23. The Interreg Nord programme already works according to two distinct areas called partial programmes: The geographically more limited Nord where all programme priorities are implemented and the wider Sápmi which is intended for Sami projects. It more or less corresponds to the cultural region traditionally inhabited by the Sami.3 The map below shows the Interreg Nord Sápmi programme area.
Macro-regional strategies, sea-basin strategies
24. The Nord cross-border region is part of the macro-regional strategy for the Baltic Sea.
EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR)
25. Macro-regional strategies are supported by the highest political levels of the EU, the Member States and the regions concerned and have become an integral part of EU regional policy. Macro-regional strategies require trust and confidence among their partners (Member States, regions and other stakeholders) in order to share a common vision, which will bring concrete actions and projects. The same applies to cross-border cooperation. Hence, the two levels of cooperation are very much interlinked by nature.
3 Sami partners from Russia cannot be regular project beneficiaries but may participate in projects and be reimbursed for certain costs.
Page 7 of 33
26. Therefore, the 2021-2027 Interreg Nord programme located in a Baltic Sea macro-region, must set out the actions expected to contribute - where relevant – to the EU Baltic Sea 27. Region Strategy (EUSBSR), provided it also contributes to the specific objectives of the cross-border region. This requires a good and pro-active coordination with the macro- regional strategy and relevant stakeholders (i.e. following the developments within the EUSBSR, being in contact with the National Contact Points etc). Different types of projects could be funded by Interreg Nord 2021-2027, for example (i) "coordinated projects", which are part of a set of coordinated action(s) and/or project(s) located in several countries participating in a macro-regional strategy (two or more countries), and are part of a joint macro-regional action creating a cumulative effect; several programmes can contribute to the funding of these projects; or (ii) single projects, where one programme is funding one project, the impact of which is relevant for the entire macro- region and therefore creates synergies. In addition, cross-border programmes may consider one of these mechanisms: Specific selection criteria for projects contributing to the strategy (this is already applied in the current Interreg Nord programme); earmarking of a budget; specific calls; or labelling (e.g. ex-post identification of projects that could be replicated).
27. The alignment of cross-border programmes to macro-regional strategies is a ‘win-win’ approach. Clearly, macro-regional strategies will benefit from the experience, the partners and the funds of cross-border programmes. However, cross-border programmes will also benefit from such an alignment: a) their impact will be greater, when they participate in a structured development policy as set by a macro-regional strategy framework across a wider territory which they are part of, b) the project pipeline will be improved as project ideas will have political support, c) they will gain visibility among political leaders, decision-makers and citizens, as well as the various Commission services and other EU institutions and of course, d) they will improve the social and economic development in the macro-region they are located in, and the actions of the relevant strategy will also have a positive impact on the cross-border area. In particular, the contribution to macro-regional strategies does not mean a reduction of the budget available for the programme as it is clear that every project should also benefit the cross-border area.
EU Arctic Policy
28. The contribution of EU programmes to the goals of the EU integrated policy on the Arctic builds on the 2016 joint communication on the EU Arctic Policy that sets out mechanisms for enhancing the collaboration and coordination between different EU funding programmes. One concrete mechanism is a network of managing authorities and stakeholders of the regional development programmes in the Arctic. In practice, the network consists of the managing authorities of the EU cooperation programmes which are active in the Arctic or sub-Arctic: Interreg Nord, Northern Periphery and Arctic, Botnia-Atlantica and the European Neighbourhood Instrument cross-border cooperation programmes Kolarctic and Karelia. The network functions with coordinated websites, joint project development events, dedicated annual seminars in conjunction with programme events, joint presence at large Arctic and European conferences and an award for Arctic projects. It is also planning joint publications focused on results and the post- 2020 period. The Nord programme is highly dedicated to and participates actively in the
Page 8 of 33
network. In addition, it has embedded EU Arctic policy objectives into its project selection criteria. The impact of the network would become even more effective if other EU funding programmes would get involved, in particular the regional programmes for investment for growth and jobs. Moreover, cooperation could also involve other relevant Nordic and national funding programmes.
Tourism and cultural heritage
29. The Nord cross-border area has a rich and unique natural and cultural heritage. These are great assets for developing tourism. At the same time, the tourism sector offers mainly seasonal jobs. Consequently, tourism jobs often have to be combined with other economic activities. Efforts to develop a common integrated tourism offer have already been supported under the Interreg Nord programme. A good practice example is the project Visit Arctic Europe which has established Arctic Europe as a single tourism destination at the global stage. The project covers the whole programme area involving hundreds of companies and organisations and has developed a great number of cross-border travel packages. A follow-up project is on-going. One of its aims is to extend the tourism season. Much more can still be done to develop and strengthen the concept and attract more tourists to the Arctic region.
30. Projects in the area of tourism, cultural and natural heritage would gain in effect if built on a strategy and implemented within a framework which involves local and other relevant stakeholders.
Territorial tools
31. Due to the large size of the border region and the special need for cooperation among the Sami, the Nord programme has been working with the two partial programmes; Nord and Sápmi. Attention could also be given to certain targeted sub-regional geographical areas underpinned by common challenges, development needs and growth potentials, such as the twin city of Tornio-Haparanda or some areas which could benefit from developing a common region for tourism at a smaller scale than the entire current programme area. Different territories and communities require differentiated and tailor-made policy mixes. It is important to reinforce the local and territorial dimension and the involvement of local actors which normally know better the real needs of the territories. The establishment of territorial instruments such as an Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) or a community- led local development (CLLD) can be considered. In Sweden and Finland a cross-border CLLD could be built on already existing Local Action Groups.
Page 9 of 33
ORIENTATIONS: - Continue and develop further the cooperation with other funding programmes in the Arctic region, taking into account EU Arctic Policy objectives. - Assess how the Interreg Nord programme could further contribute to and gain from the EUSBSR. - Develop a common competitive and sustainable tourist region based on natural and cultural heritage products and services, with a strong focus on tying together existing assets, involving the whole range of stakeholders such as public authorities and small enterprises including Sami businesses and organisations. - Support common brands and labelling of tourism products and services, including copyrights of Sami and other local labels. - Consider the establishment of territorial tools such as ITI or CLLD to serve identified needs in functional areas.
Page 10 of 33
4. GROWTH, COMPETITIVENESS AND CONNECTIVITY
Innovation
32. The level of innovation potential of the cross-border region is medium-high to high with some regional differences. According to the European Commission’s Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2017 the Swedish regions are classified as “innovation leaders” whereas the Finnish and the Norwegian regions are classified as “strong innovators”.
33. The ESPON Territorial Review undertook a Knowledge-Economy (KE) cluster analysis at NUTS 2 level to provide a categorisation of the type of competitive knowledge economies at regional level. On this basis most of the Sweden-Finland- Norway border area was categorised as a “Less competitive economy with potential in KE” (Upper Norrland, North and East Finland) while North Norway and Middle Norrland are classified as “competitive and KE related economies” and Trøndelag in the south is considered a “highly competitive and KE-based economy”.4
34. As for the share of human resources employed in science and technology (HRST, measured as a percentage of the economically active population) the border regions are situated around or slightly above the EU average of 46%.
35. According to the Regional Competitiveness Index (RCI) the Finnish and the Swedish regions perform highly above the EU average on most pillar scores (institutions, macroeconomic stability, health and basic education) while ranking significantly lower than the EU average on the infrastructure score. On the higher education and lifelong learning indicator the performance of the Finnish and Swedish regions is also significantly above the EU average. Values for the RCI indicators are not available for Norway.
36. The level of patent applications has been used as one indicator of innovation activity and of innovation potential. In this respect Finnish North Ostrobothnia rates around three times the EU average while Swedish Norrbotten is slightly higher than the EU average and the remaining regions in the three countries rank lower or far lower than the EU average.
37. In terms of cognitive proximity indicated by the sectors where patent applications are made the following conclusion can be drawn for regions where the number of patent applications is more than half of the EU average: In Norrbotten and in North Ostrobothnia half to two thirds of patent applications relate to electricity. It can be noted that the regions are not adjacent to each other.
38. Market size is also a framework condition for successful innovation. Market size in the two Swedish and one Finnish NUTS 2 region is very low compared with the EU (unweighted) average of 34.5. The values of the indicator are around 10 in these regions. Data is not available for the Norwegian regions. Taken together with the peripheral location of the regions this condition should provide an incentive to cooperate in order to gain critical mass for the relatively small research and innovation assets.
4 Middle Norrland and Trøndelag are relevant for the wider Sápmi area.
Page 11 of 33
39. Within the cross-border region growth occurs in a small number of places and is generally linked to the service sector, including services linked to the natural resources based activities located in rural areas, such as energy production, forestry, mining, tourism, fisheries and aquaculture. Demographic change and fiscal consolidation is expected to continue to put pressure on local infrastructure and services. Therefore, an increased use of e-technologies and innovative partnerships with the private and community sectors are needed. 40. Another growing sector in which the cross-border region has comparative advantage is cold climate technology in areas such as transport, energy and environment. Identifying and developing activities based on overlaps in the regional smart specialisation strategies should be beneficial. The smart specialisation strategies of Norrbotten, Västerbotten, Finnmark, North Ostrobothnia and Central Ostrobothnia include energy. 41. The common denominator in the smart specialisation strategies of all the northernmost regions is tourism and experience-based creative industries. Other overlaps occur in space technology and remote sensing and earth observation (Norrbotten, Lapland and Troms), utilisation of natural resources, mainly mining industry (Lapland, Norrbotten, North Ostrobothnia and Central Ostrobothnia) and e-health (North Ostrobothnia, Central Ostrobothnia and Västerbotten). In some cases, the fields mentioned play an important role in the economies of specific regions although they are not prioritised in their smart specialisation strategies, for instance minerals in Troms and Nordland. On the whole, there is a high level of convergence of priorities across the regions and thus lots of scope for cross-border cooperation. Not all Norwegian regions have a smart specialisation strategy but all regions work with smart specialisation, in particular with a view to the on- going regional reform in Norway. 42. There is high convergence related to research between the border regions in the three countries. Some of the main themes are energy, biotechnology, environment, IT, mining technology, creative industries, health and wellbeing. Common areas of excellence include e-health, materials, space and geophysics, product development, customer- oriented construction, polar research and use of natural resources. Despite the small size of research environments several have achieved a global leading position in specific areas. There are research environments all over the cross-border area, also in small places and they are important for the development of these areas. Networks are more common than clusters, due to the large distances. The main obstacles to further expansion are not the distances between places nor the distance to cities but rather differences in language (along the Finnish borders), cultural differences, limited institutional capacity (due to low population density) and a low number of enterprises.
Entrepreneurship/enterprises 43. Most enterprises are micro-enterprises with less than 10 employees. This combined with the large distances result in a need for enterprises to cooperate across borders to gain knowledge and resources to strengthen their competitiveness. As local markets are small, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) also need to become more international and reach out to new markets, despite the distance to international markets which is significant both physically and in terms of various border obstacles. Cooperation across the nearest borders is therefore an important first step for many SMEs. In this respect, companies need language training and information on how to do business on the other side of the border.
Page 12 of 33
44. Enterprises in the cross-border region are generally positive to investing, developing and recruiting. An important problem however, is the lack of qualified labour in some sectors. This concerns professions such as engineers, mining professionals, electricians and healthcare workers.
45. Data on enterprise birth rates, death rates and the share of high growth enterprises is only available at national level for Sweden and Norway. These are probably not relevant to the eligible border regions as there may be significant variation between regions. The enterprise birth rate in Sweden and North and East Finland is below 8%. The value is between 8-10% in Norway. The enterprise death rate is between 9-12% in both Sweden and Norway and below 6% in North and East Finland. The share of high growth enterprises is among the highest in the EU, with a value above 10% in North and East Finland, Sweden and Norway.
46. The same framework conditions are relevant for entrepreneurship as for innovation, as outlined in the innovation chapter. In addition, the RCI indicators show that business sophistication5 is below the EU average in both Middle Norrland and Upper Norrland and slightly below the EU average in North and East Finland. The values for the technological readiness indicator are significantly above the EU average for both Swedish regions and North and East Finland. As indicated previously, RCI data is not available for Norway. The Sami play a role in regional economies due to their use of land (reindeer husbandry), involvement in agriculture and food production as well as with the tourism offer of the cross-border region. However, the connections with regional and rural development strategies are often inconsistent and weak.6
47. Sami economic sectors (reindeer husbandry, agriculture, food production, Sami crafts, tourism, music and media production) are mainly performed by micro-enterprises. While they are of great importance to the growing tourism sector they lack well-developed branch organisations or business structures.
48. One way to develop branch organisations could be to build on the structures of the existing reindeer districts, the historically based Sami settlement areas where the residents enjoy legal rights to practice raindeer herding, hunting and fishing. 7, However, enabling the reindeer districts to be structured as companies or engage in other economic activities would require the alleviation of legal obstacles, in the Swedish case for instance the Raindeer Husbandry Act. It should also be noted that the land-related rights of the reindeer districts are restricted to the Sami living in these settlements, a condition that does not help to increase cooperation between the inhabitants of the settlements and other Sami. A good practice example of an intermediary support function for Sami businesses is the Economic Agency and Development Company in Swedish Gällivare (Ávkí), a small organisation born out of an EU project in 2009, co-financed by the region, the municipalities and a financial institution. It currently supports accounting practices, is involved in several projects and runs the Gällivare tourist information office. It is financed by the municipalities. Similar support functions could be established at cross- border level. Another possibility would be to set up a cross-border community locally-led
5 The indicator reflects NUTS 2 level data (Eurostat and RIS) on employment in specific sectors, GVA in specific sectors and innovative SMEs collaborating with each other. 6 The main information source on the Sami is the report Linking the Indigenous Sami People with Regional Development in Sweden, OECD Rural Policy Reviews, 2019. 7 Samebyar (Sami villages) in Sweden, reinbeiteområder in Norway, paliskunta in Finland.
Page 13 of 33
development (CLLD) as a bottom-up process which could support many projects and initiatives in rural areas. It could be based on already existing Local Action Groups if their membership is relevant. 49. An important tool for developing regional priorities in entrepreneurship is the Entrepreneurial Discovery Process (EDP). It is in the framework of the regional EDPs that smart specialisation strategies are developed. In the end it has a significant impact on the priorities of the regional programmes. The EDP is an interactive bottom-up process open to different regional actors. Sami representatives would need to be involved in the EDP from the very beginning in order to gain recognition for their economic activities and increase their potential for receiving EU-funding for entrepreneurship projects.
Digitisation 50. Fostering digitisation as an innovation enabler is another key challenge for boosting innovation and productivity and increasing internationalisation and competitiveness of enterprises. In this field most information is available only at national level. Therefore, it is not possible to make any informed observations with regard to the situation at the regional level in the border region. 51. On “digital in the private sector” both Sweden and Finland are rated as high in relation to the EU average, performing high on both indicators “digital in the private sector” and “penetration”. 52. Sweden and Finland both perform better than the EU average on the Digital Technology Integration Index and are both among the highest performers in the EU on the Digital Transformation Enablers’ Index. 53. In terms of the e-commerce index (taking into account enterprises selling online, receiving/serving orders via computer mediated networks, electronic sales both domestically and to other EU countries) Sweden ranks second among EU countries while Finland is just above the EU average. In terms of web sales, Sweden is second in the EU and Finland ranks eighth. However, there is a large discrepancy between web sales to own country and web sales to other countries in both Sweden and Finland. 54. Regarding levels of R&D expenditure in the ICT sector Finland is ranked first in the EU and Sweden third. Sweden also ranks third in the EU with respect to the ICT sector share of GDP while Finland ranks eighth. 55. For digitisation and government, only national level information is available for Sweden and no information is available for Norway. Therefore, it is not possible to make any informed observations with regard to the Sweden-Norway and Finland-Norway borders. On the basis of the available data, the following general points can be stated: Overall, eGovernment in both Sweden and Finland is assessed as fruitful, scoring high on both digitisation and penetration. In terms of user characteristics, both Sweden and Finland are ranked as high on both digital skills and on ICT usage. On the overall Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), Finland ranks first and Sweden fifth in the EU. In terms of Digital Public Services for Businesses, Sweden rates better than the EU average while Finland rates slightly below the EU average. In terms of eHealth services, Finland ranks first and Sweden ranks fourth in the EU.
Page 14 of 33
56. E-government is one of the priorities of the European Commission. Even in a highly digitalised cross-border region such as Finland-Sweden-Norway, e-government - and particularly the development of inter-operable systems - could be developed further and coordinated to facilitate the daily life of citizens in their cross-border activities.
Connectivity
57. The low level of connectivity in the cross-border region is a major challenge. This concerns east-west transport connections in particular and has a negative impact on travel times and the capacity to participate in national and international markets.
58. With respect to road connectivity - measured as access to regional centres by car - there are several areas of poor access along the length of the Sweden-Norway border in the northern part of Norwegian Nordland, the southern end of Norrbotten close to the border, on both sides along Västerbotten - Nordland and Jämtland - Nord-Trøndelag.
59. The percentage of the population having access to cross-border rail services is very low along all three borders compared to other border regions.
60. Plans exist to improve the railway network connecting Stockholm and Helsinki via Haparanda/Tornio along the Bothnian corridor and link it with the Norwegian network in the north.
61. The border obstacle “Hindered freight transport at Haparanda and Tornio terminals” has a high negative impact on cross-border integration along the Sweden- Finland border. The operation of the cross-border freight terminals in Haparanda and Tornio are negatively affected by railway gauge differences and different electrification types between Sweden and Finland, which also cause problems and limitations for cross- border rail freight transport. The neighbouring border cities of Haparanda (SE) and Tornio (FI) are the only point where Sweden and Finland´s railroads are anchored over land, thus tying four countries together in an east-westerly direction (Russia, Finland, Sweden and Norway).
62. Together Haparanda and Tornio constitute a major hub in the Arctic and in the Barents Sea regions where large industrial and natural resources exist (especially in industrial sectors such as forestry, timber, steel, paper and pulp, and minerals). The major commodity-producing industries, being also more and more transnationally owned, are increasing their demand for effective cross-border and integrated transport. The heavy transports in these industries are dominated by sea and rail transport. Especially the importance of railways to the Arctic region´s industry is very large. However, there is a railway gauge difference between Western Europe (incl. Sweden) and Finland/Russia: The Swedish railway network has a westerly track width of 1435 mm, while the Finnish network has an easterly track width of 1524 mm. This gauge difference constitutes a missing link in the border-crossing transport chain that prevents railway transport from increasing its market share.
Page 15 of 33
63. There is a large degree of consensus between transport agencies of Sweden and Finland over the shortcomings identified at the Haparanda and Tornio terminals and about the negative impacts this has on the competitiveness of rail freight transport. Potential solutions include the implementation of measures proposed in a recent analysis to improve and develop the capacity, management and operation of the Haparanda and Tornio terminals (e.g. improved on-site infrastructures; development of logistics in a more businesslike manner).
ORIENTATIONS: - Focus cooperation in innovation on core areas of comparative advantage such as utilisation and added value of natural resources, cold climate technology, tourism and creative industries and e-health, using the regional specialisation strategies as a point of departure. - Support an increased use of e-technologies and innovative partnerships with the private and community sectors to drive service delivery innovation. - Continue to promote greater involvement of SMEs and micro-enterprises in cross-border cooperation in order to increase their competitiveness and internationalisation. This might involve addressing legal and administrative obstacles. - Establish Sami business organisations and networks across the borders and involve Sami representatives in the regional Entrepreneurial Discovery Processes in order to increase the competitiveness and internationalisation of Sami companies. - Explore the needs to develop cross-border e-government services. - Support efforts to influence decision-making to improve transport infrastructure and connectivity, in particular the east-west transport dimension, including the freight transport over Haparanda-Tornio.
Page 16 of 33
5. GREENER, LOW CARBON ECONOMY
Energy transition
64. There is high potential for low carbon energy production in the cross-border region, especially in wood biomass between Sweden and Finland. From an EU comparative perspective the economic conditions are also favourable as the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) is medium in Sweden and low in Finland.8 Data for Norway is not available but secondary sources indicate a strong potential for renewable energy also in Norway.9 Cross-border cooperation in this field would be beneficial provided the actions are in line with the EU criteria for bioenergy sustainability.
Circular economy
65. In terms of recycling and waste, data occurs only at national level and is not available for Norway. The recycling rates of municipal waste are 49% in Sweden and 42% in Finland, which is around the EU average of 47%. The landfill rates are below the EU average of 25% in both countries: 9% in Sweden and 17 % in Finland.10 On the assumption that the border regions are in line with national levels of performance on recycling and counting in the pollution involved in long transport over long distances between urban areas, cross border measures such as pooling or sharing resources to lower the costs of recycling might not be adequate.
Climate adaptation and risk management
66. Sensitivity to climate change is high to very high in different parts of the cross-border area and the regions will face some common challenges: a much higher temperature rise than the global average, a decrease in glacier extent and volume, a decrease in mountain permafrost areas, an upward shift of plant and animal species and high risk of extinction, an increasing risk of soil erosion, threats to biodiversity, aggravated conditions for reindeer-herding and decreased ski tourism. Some of these trends are already on-going.
67. Climate change might also bring about other effects such as an increase in crop yields, decreased energy demand for heating and an increase in tourism due to a longer summer season.
68. Although the roots of these trends come from external sources the border regions can pool resources to tackle some of the threats, for instance by collaborating to maintain and restore biodiversity and by developing and promoting a common sustainable cross-border region for tourism.
8 WACC is a statement of the cost of capital for investments and it reflects conditions in a specific national and/or sectoral market for assessing capital (availability, expected rates of return, interest rates etc.) 9 Northern Sparsely Populated Areas, OECD Territorial Reviews. 10 The landfill rate indicator is defined as the volume of waste landfilled (directly or indirectly) in a country per year divided by the volume of the waste treated in the same year. The data reflect the treatment of national waste and exclude waste that is imported from non-EU countries.
Page 17 of 33
Natural areas and biodiversity
69. The cross-border region situated in the sensitive Arctic and sub-Arctic regions is home to many Natura 2000 sites, including sites directly adjacent to each other across the border.
70. There are several Ramsar sites (internationally important wetland sites) of which some are located directly along the border.
71. There are high shares of habitats and species with favourable assessment. Large parts of the cross-border area belong to the 10% wildest areas in the world.
72. Forest connectivity is high in comparison with other EU regions in most of the cross- border area.
73. Green infrastructure networks occur mainly on the Swedish and Finnish sides of the border in the urban areas along the Bothnian Bay. The relevant indicator is not available for Norway. The Commission adopted an EU strategy on green infrastructure in 2013 to enhance economic benefits by attracting greater investment in Europe’s natural capital. Green infrastructures are strategically planned networks of natural and semi-natural areas with environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services. They incorporate green spaces (or blue if aquatic ecosystems are concerned) and other physical features. In certain sectors, in particular climate change mitigation and adaptation, green infrastructure approaches can offer complementary or more sustainable alternatives than those provided through conventional civil engineering. As green infrastructures do not know borders and as they require a good planning with many stakeholders, they could be supported through Interreg programmes where appropriate (e.g. cross-border flood plains to prevent flood risks).
74. Earlier Interreg cooperation has focused on cooperation between authorities in mapping the status of natural areas in order to preserve and restore them. The focus has been on the common rivers. The current Interreg Nord programme supports the harmonisation of working methods, resource-efficient and environmentally friendly solutions and promotes environmental knowledge and competence among decision-makers and public authorities. In terms of nature protection the focus should continue to be primarily on preservation of current levels of natural habitat and on increasing resilience to climate change.
ORIENTATIONS: - Support cross-border actions strengthening low-carbon energy production, in particular based on wood biomass, provided the actions are in line with the EU criteria for bioenergy sustainability. - Continue the already established cooperation on maintenance and restoration of biodiversity, especially through cross-border exchanges and harmonisation of working methods. - Continue the development of an integrated cross-border market for nature, among others targeting tourism with common tourist products and services including an integrated information system for visitors.
Page 18 of 33
6. EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, HEALTH AND INCLUSION
Employment
75. Employment rates vary among the border regions from above 80% in Upper Norrland, Middle Norrland and Trøndelag to 75-80% in North Norway and 60-70% in North and East Finland. Trøndelag is relevant for the wider Sápmi cooperation area.
76. Unemployment is relatively low in Sweden and Norway, below 5% in Norway and between 5-10% in both Swedish regions. However, it is between 10-15% on the Finnish side in North and East Finland.
77. Long-term unemployment at NUTS 2 level is 1% in the Swedish border regions and 1- 0.6% in the Norwegian border regions. This is significantly lower than the (unweighted) EU average of 3.9%. and, (). The rate is 2.3% in North and East Finland , thus below the EU average but high within the cross-border area. At the same time, there are high job vacancy rates in North and East Finland in some sectors. This seems to indicate a structural issue, where despite unfilled positions in some sectors, generally high unemployment levels persist.
78. Youth unemployment is high in the cross-border area, ranging between 15 and above 20% depending on the region.
79. In terms of employment the most important sectors are healthcare, care and other social services. Other important sectors are industry in Finland, manufacturing and extraction industry in Sweden and trade in Norway.
80. At NUTS 2 level wages are more than 60% higher in Norway than in Sweden and Finland where wage levels are similar. Overall labour costs in the industry, construction and services sector are around 30% higher in Norway than in Sweden and about 55% higher in Norway than in Finland. Overall labour costs are around 17% higher in Sweden than in Finland.
81. Despite this difference in salaries Eurobarometer data indicate no major asymmetries in flows of people across the Norwegian borders for work or business. Along the Sweden-Norway border 16% of the Swedish population living in the border region has travelled to Norway for work or business, and 17% of Norwegians have travelled to Sweden for the same purpose. Along the Finland-Norway border the figures are 9% for the Finnish population and 10% for the Norwegian population living in the cross-border area. The EU average for the share of people who have travelled across the border for work or business is 14%.
82. On the other hand, there are asymmetries in cross-border flows along the Sweden- Finland border, with 7% of Swedes having travelled to Finland for work or business, and 17% of Finns having travelled in the opposite direction. This is probably due to the higher unemployment levels in Finland, as wage differences are small.
83. The two NUTS 3 border regions Finnish Lapland and Swedish Jämtland (the latter relevant for the wider Sápmi cooperation area) have for some years faced increasing unemployment rates which are 25% higher than in the neighbouring regions.
Page 19 of 33
84. The cross-border area has potential for cross-border labour mobility. Such a mobility has many benefits (reducing unemployment, increasing activity in enterprises, keeping people in the region etc). It has many dimensions; recognition of skills/ qualifications/ diplomas, social security, pensions, taxation, transport, schools/ kindergarten, etc.
85. In terms of border obstacles to labour mobility there are low barriers in general with respect to culture, administrative and legal obstacles. Nevertheless, much still needs to be done to harmonise the education and qualification standards in regulated professions. This is particularly important for professions like engineers, mining professionals, electricians and healthcare workers which are deficient in Sweden and Norway while unemployment is high in Finland. Other specific obstacles, including language, are higher than the EU average along both Finnish borders.
86. The following specific legal and administrative obstacles with relevance to the labour market have been assessed by the Border Needs Study in relation to the three borders.
87. Sweden-Finland: Medium to minor obstacles have been identified with respect to differences in tax systems. There are minor obstacles in relation to recognition of diplomas and pension rights. Labour market obstacles to cross-border mobility are rated 2.17, which is lower than the (unweighted) EU average value of 2.60.
88. Sweden-Norway: There are medium to minor obstacles in social insurance rights.
89. Sweden-Finland-Norway: The border obstacle “Restricted access to vocational rehabilitation benefits for cross-border workers” has been assessed for multiple Nordic country borders and its conclusions might not be equally applicable to each border. Cross-border workers who are injured or become otherwise incapable of work for a longer time period face difficulties in taking part in vocational rehabilitation in their country of residence. According to EU rules, if an individual who lives in (or returns to) a country other than the country whose legislation applies to him/her, the country of work is responsible for cash benefits (i.e. rehabilitation benefits, sickness benefits, etc.) while the country of residence is responsible for benefits in kind such as rehabilitation measures, vocational training and retraining. In practice, it is difficult to apply these provisions because of the variations in national legislation and the need to coordinate between different legislations of countries in such cases. As a result, cross-border workers who are injured may need to travel regularly to the country of work to undergo rehabilitation, which can be a heavy burden. The proposal for a new Nordic Convention on Social Security, and the associated administration has been debated and the work of preparing proposals for agreements has begun. There is a cross-border information service, the North Calotte Cross-Border Advice Service which facilitates cross-border mobility for workers, students and companies across the northern borders of the three countries.
Page 20 of 33
Education
90. As regards basic education as well as higher education and lifelong learning the Swedish regions perform around the EU average for basic education, but significantly above the average for higher education and lifelong learning. North and East Finland perform significantly above the EU average with respect to both education indicators.
91. Lack of knowledge of the other languages in the cross-border region has been identified as an important obstacle to labour mobility. Especially in Finland where unemployment is higher, good knowledge of Swedish would open up the Swedish and Norwegian labour markets to many professionals.11 For the Sami languages the main challenge lies in ensuring the use of Sami by the younger generations.
92. In terms of access to secondary schools there is poor access in some parts of Jämtland and Nord-Trøndelag. Both regions are relevant for the Sápmi cooperation area.
Health
93. According to the Border Needs Study the awareness of cross-border health rights and health services is higher in Sweden-Finland than in the average EU border region. A lot has been achieved and several obstacles have been identified. Corresponding information is not available for the other two borders.
94. The border obstacle “Different health care systems in the Torne Valley area” has a high negative impact on cross-border integration along the Sweden-Finland border. Despite an already long-standing (three decades) and well-developed healthcare cooperation differences between systems create obstacles in the fields of cross-border primary and emergency care. In the cross-border area of Torne Valley people travel daily across the border to work and study. Ambulances and x-rays already cross the border on a regular basis and the health centres in Övertorneå (Sweden) and Ylitornio and Pello (Finland) have been sharing responsibility for emergency care. However, due to recent restructuring in northern Finland the emergency care cooperation between the health centres has been negatively affected as the health centres in Ylitornio and Pello are now interacting with Rovaniemi in Finland. The public dental clinic in Karesuando treats both Swedish and Finnish patients. Still, there are a number of obstacles which hinder cross- border cooperation. a) Finnish municipalities are not reimbursed for care services provided to cross-border workers. b) Uncertainty exists about who is insured in some cross-border cases, for example when an ambulance is required to cross the border. c) Current legislation only applies to cross-border workers for emergency treatments or planned specialist health services, but does not cover planned primary care services. Moreover, other citizens do not have rights for receiving cross-border treatments that are similar to those of cross-border workers (i.e. other citizens only receive services which they normally would have access to in their own country). Finally, there are also different interpretations of the applicable law among experts in the neighbouring countries.
11 Growth From the North: How can Norway, Sweden and Finland achieve sustainable growth in the Scandinavian Arctic?, Prime Ministers’s Office Publications, Finland, 2015.
Page 21 of 33
d) Different rules for care services covered and also different levels of co-payment represent hindrances for a borderless access of patients to healthcare. e) Plans for emergency situations are different on each side and also communication systems are not always compatible. f) Working methods and arrangements are different between both countries, which means that patients are treated differently on each side of the border.
95. The Torne Valley Council (Tornedalsrådet) actively promotes cross-border health care cooperation and has already identified future needs. Ensuring and further developing the quality and competence in primary care is particularly important, mainly due to the long distances and small population involved and also because this aspect is important for cross-border workers. However, further cooperation on emergency care is also important, as each municipality in the area is very small.
96. To achieve further progress, a number of projects were already implemented under the 2007-2013 Interreg IVA programme (e.g. “Free choice of care in the Torne Valley region”; “Cross-border Healthcare II-Tornedalen”). The latter project achieved – as one concrete result – the conclusion of an agreement on cooperation in emergency medical care across the national borders of Sweden, Finland and Norway. Through the agreement, ambulances and helicopters can cross the border. The agreement is valid from 1 January 2012 and covers insurance and costs for patients in the different regions. However, cooperation needs to continue with a view to eliminate or alleviate other problems and obstacles that emerge from the still lacking integration at the system level.
97. The border obstacle ‘Hindrances for cross-border eHealth between Sweden and Finland’ has a high negative impact on cross-border integration at the Sweden-Finland border. From a legal point of view, it is unclear who would bear the responsibility in the event of negligence / malpractice (insurance) and which country’s medical insurance covers the patient’s treatment by video consultation (fees) or which law is applied for the cross-border transfer of patient records. Video consultation also faces administrative problems because there are different systems for patient records in Finnish Tornedalen, while there is only one single system on the Swedish side.
98. There are also technical problems emerging from a use of different video consultation systems which are not fully compatible (i.e. communication problems from Sweden to Finland; no problems from Finland to Sweden) and in the fax-based transfer of data from patient records between facilities (i.e. loss of quality; no access to the complete patient medical history).
99. The border obstacle “Difficult assistance of personal carers across borders” was assessed for all three borders as having a high negative impact on cross-border integration. However, the conclusions of the assessment may not be equally applicable to all borders. People with serious disabilities who have personal carers encounter difficulties in bringing their care persons with them when they move across borders as a result of the different assessments in Nordic countries related to the right to have a personal carer and employment terms and conditions for personal carers. The right to an individual carer is linked to the country in which the individual resides and countries have different terms and conditions for personal carers, the extent of assistance provided and how it should be managed. As a consequence, a seriously disabled person in need of personal care may face problems due to an interruption of care provision if they move
Page 22 of 33
across the border. Opportunities could be introduced into national legislations to apply for short-term care provision during a cross-border move, or for prior approval of personal care ahead of a move. 100. The border obstacle “Different national rules on disability vehicles across Nordic countries” was assessed for all three borders as well. The obstacle has a moderate negative impact on cross-border integration. Also in this case the conclusions might differ somewhat between the borders. People with disability face problems when moving to another Nordic country with their disability vehicle. National rules on disability vehicles differ greatly in terms of who is responsible for acquisition, terms and conditions for funding, the support provided and the proportion of the cost covered. This means that an individual who has the right to support for the acquisition, upgrading and maintenance of a disability vehicle in one country will not necessarily have the same right in another country. Terms and conditions relating to payment for the vehicle, or to paying off loans made for its purchase, can make it difficult to export the vehicle, particularly from Norway. The levels of charges for importing, testing and registering vehicles vary between the countries. This can significantly affect whether it is worthwhile in financial terms to bring a vehicle from another country or whether it would be advantageous to apply for support for a new one after making the move. The length of the application processing times can mean that moving becomes impossible for people who have a heavy day-to-day dependence on this type of transport. As a solution, amendments should be considered to national rules that prevent or complicate the export of disability vehicles. The option of using the vehicle for a fixed period post-relocation, combined with shorter processing times for applications for support for the purchase of a vehicle in the new country of residence, should facilitate the process in cases where it is neither possible nor desirable to export the vehicle when moving. 101. Good access to quality healthcare is a significant well-being factor for attracting people to move to and stay in the sparsely populated cross-border region. A way to improve the situation could be to establish one common cooperation area for healthcare allowing patients to go to the nearest hospital with the adequate specialisation regardless of borders. For instance, the university hospitals in Umeå, Oulu and Tromsø could serve the entire cross-border population and develop highly qualified specialised healthcare which requires larger catchment areas.
Inclusion 102. With regard to social factors, data is of relatively limited value in understanding the specific issues in the Sweden-Finland-Norway cross-border area. Although confirmed data is available at the level of NUTS 2 regions, there are several potential social issues (data on minorities, discrimination against different groups, etc) for which data is not available from EU statistical sources or studies. 103. However, one general trend for many years is the large foreign migration to the cross- border region. As most people moving into the cross-border region are foreign migrants, taking advantage of their skills and matching them with the needs of the labour market is crucial for economic development. 104. The Sami and the Sami businesses face a number of challenges and often lack visibility both nationwide and internationally. Over the past 40 years, the Swedish, Norwegian and Finnish states have made advances in their relationship with the Sami, for example by
Page 23 of 33
recognising their status as indigenous people, by establishing the Sami Parliaments and providing economic and other support to help the Sami build their own institutions to strengthen self-determination at local, national and international levels. 105. However, several conditions negatively impact Sami economic development and well- being: A history of discrimination, dependency on state institutions, disadvantageous laws and administrative practices, lack of knowledge about the culture and living conditions of Sami in Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish societies, a changing Arctic climate as well as conflicts and uncertainties about land use. Furthermore, the Sami are not statistically identifiable.12 Thus their economic contributions are less visible and it is difficult to present a comprehensive picture of living conditions. Some efforts to improve the collection of Sami statistics have been made in Norway but the data only captures a portion of the Sami population as it is limited to selected Sami settlement areas qualifying for national development support. 106. The political weight of the Sami parliaments vary between the three countries but in general they are mainly advisory bodies with limited autonomy and decision-making power. The limited resources of Sami organisations is an important obstacle to increased involvement in different political, economic and administrative processes at regional level. Furthermore, there are differences between the countries which might limit cross- border cooperation even in the traditional cooperation fields. For instance, while there are 30 Norwegian organisations promoting Sami culture there are only 3 such organisations in Sweden. Furthermore, Norway provides financing to the Sami cultural sector with 15,6 million Euro whereas the Swedish equivalent is 1,7 million Euro.
ORIENTATIONS: - Support efforts to harmonise certification and skills requirements for similar occupations with a focus on competences of specific importance to the cross-border region, for instance healthcare workers, engineers, mining professionals and electricians. - Cooperate on successful integration of foreign migrants and youth into the labour market through sharing of best practice across borders, developing common methods and supporting educational and professional exchanges including internships. - Facilitate cross-border cooperation between educational institutions, especially in higher education and research but also between schools at secondary and primary levels. - Support initiatives to further alleviate the multiple administrative and legal obstacles to cross-border healthcare, including increased cooperation between hospitals, in order to facilitate the daily life of citizens and cross-border workers. - Support greater visibility of the Sami and their contribution to the economy and culture of the cross-border area. This could be done through educational and promotion projects targeted at schools, higher education institutions, visitors and the general public. - Promote multilingualism (Finnish, Swedish, Norwegian and Sami languages) in a structured manner throughout the whole education system starting with basic education. This might require engaging institutions with education competence at national level.
12 Data on populations groups is not collected for ethical reasons.
Page 24 of 33
7. GOVERNANCE
Section 1: Cross-Border Governance in a wider context (and use of the new "Interreg Governance" specific objective)
107. Cross-border cooperation is not limited to Interreg programmes. It also builds on policies (e.g. cross-border mobility), on legal instruments (e.g. bi-lateral agreements, treaties, European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation) and on funding (including but not limited to Interreg). 108. Actions and orientations set out in this section may be supported by using the programme’s budget as proposed in the ETC (Interreg) Regulation for improving governance issues.
Working on border obstacles and potential 109. As illustrated in the Commission Communication "Boosting Growth and Cohesion in EU Border Regions", there are many different types of obstacles to cross-border cooperation. There is also scope for greater sharing of services and resources in cross-border regions and to intensify the cooperation between citizens and institutions. Among the obstacles, legal, administrative and institutional differences are a major source of bottlenecks. Other issues include the use of different languages or lack of public transport for instance. When it comes to unused potential, the shared use of health care or educational facilities could contribute greatly to improving the quality of life in border regions. As the Interreg programmes are instrumental to effective cross-border cooperation, they should seek to address these particular obstacles and tap the common potential to facilitate cooperation in this wider context. 110. Therefore, one very important objective of the 2021-2027 Nord Interreg programme should be: - to identify precisely key obstacles and unused potential (e.g. cross-border labour market hindrances, health care, cooperation of micro-companies, transport connections, use of languages, etc.; the Cross-Border Review should be used as a starting point), - bring the relevant actors together (e.g. authorities at national/ regional/ local levels, enterprises, users, etc), - and facilitate the process of finding ways to reduce these obstacles or exploit the potential (e.g. by funding meetings, experts, pilot projects, etc).
Links with existing strategies 111. Cross-border cooperation cannot be done in isolation. It has to be framed in the existing strategies (e.g. macro-regional, national, regional or sectoral). Ideally, there should be a dedicated cross-border strategy which is based on reliable data for cross-border regions, which is politically supported and which has undergone a wide consultation with relevant stakeholders. It is a useful exchange forum and a necessary step for sustainable and structural cooperation. Whilst many borders have such strategies, it is not always the case. When there are such strategies, they are often only partly implemented with the Interreg programmes.
Page 25 of 33
112. Therefore, if such cross-border strategies exist, the Interreg programmes should be embedded in these strategies with clear actions and results (e.g. through an appropriate intervention logic and indicators). If however, such strategies do not exist yet, the authorities along the border could consider establishing them. In addition, programmes should be well coordinated with existing macro-regional, national, regional or sectoral strategies (e.g. with an analysis on how to translate these in a cross-border context). This requires a coherent overview of all existing strategies (i.e. have a mapping of the strategies affecting the border area).
Role of existing cross-border organisations
113. Several regions have cross-border entities which can be established under EU law (e.g. European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation – EGTC), national law (e.g. private law associations or public law bodies) or international law (e.g. under bilateral agreements). One example of this are the Euroregions under national law, which cover many of the borders in the EU. Many of these entities have a legitimacy (established by public authorities), an experience (many exist for years) and expertise (through their past work and staff) that should be put to good use. In the cross-border area there are no EGTCs but several cross-border organisations: The North Calotte cross-border advice service, the Torne Valley Council, the Sami Council and the Barents Euro-Arctic Council. Further down south there is also the Kvarken Council which among other things supports alleviation of border obstacles along the Swedish-Finnish maritime border.
114. Therefore, the 2021-2027 Interreg programmes should build on the legitimacy, experience and expertise of these cross-border organisations. Where they are a legal body, they could play a role e.g. by managing a Small Projects Fund or by managing strategic projects (as sole beneficiary) or in case of an EGTC even Interreg programmes. Where appropriate, cross-border programmes should also build on the legitimacy, experience, and expertise of International, Inter-regional and Transnational Initiatives as any other programme.
Links with other Cohesion policy programmes
115. The proposed Common Provisions Regulation stipulates that “each programme shall set out, for each specific objective the interregional and transnational actions with beneficiaries located in at least one other Member State”. Whilst a similar provision is already present in the current Regulation, it is now proposed to become compulsory for the mainstream programmes to describe the possibilities for cooperation for each specific objective. They could also explore opportunities to contribute together with other programmes to a larger macro-regional project, where appropriate.
116. It means that if mainstream programmes do not plan such cooperation actions, they will have to justify the reason. Cooperation may have many benefits for cross-border areas: more ambitious projects (e.g. development of new value chains), involvement of new players (e.g. the national authorities such as ministries) and overall more ambitious policies (e.g. cooperation in innovation in prioritised fields).
Page 26 of 33
117. Therefore, the 2021-2027 Interreg programmes should establish or participate in an already existing coordination mechanism with the authorities responsible for mainstream programmes. This coordination implies exchange of information and cooperation and should happen at all stages: planning (e.g. designing complementary actions, including identifying smart specialisation areas on the basis of national and regional needs and potential), implementation (e.g. building on synergies) and communication (showing the benefits for the citizens and the region).
Cross-border data
118. In order to have good public policies (e.g. spatial planning), these should be based on evidence (i.e. data, studies, mapping). Whilst this is generally available at national level, it is not always the case at regional/local level and even less at cross-border local level. Some of this evidence is particularly important: economic flows, transport flows and trends, labour mobility and mapping of competences, health of the citizens, mapping of important infrastructures and services (such as energy, waste treatment, hospitals, emergency services, universities), mapping of risky areas (to floods, fires, etc.), mapping of natural areas (e.g. Natura 2000, sites under the Ramsar convention of wetlands, etc.) and mapping of the main inclusion difficulties (poverty, marginalised communities, etc.). Therefore, the 2021-2027 Interreg programmes should identify the areas where important cross-border data is missing and support projects that would fill the gap at the latest by 2027 (e.g. in cooperation with national statistical offices, by supporting regional data portals etc.).
Page 27 of 33
Section 2: Governance of programme
Partnership principle
119. The principle of partnership is a key feature covering the whole programme cycle (including preparation, implementation and participation in monitoring committees), building on the multi-level governance approach and ensuring the involvement of economic, social and environmental partners. Examples of good practice include involving representatives of different interests in the programming process; involving them in programme evaluation or other strategic long-term tasks for instance by setting up temporary working groups; consulting all members on key documents also between meetings. An active involvement of economic, social and environmental partners should be ensured by their participation in key steps. Technical Assistance can be made available to facilitate their full involvement in the process.
Role of the monitoring committee:
120. The monitoring committee is the strategic decision-making body of the programme. In 2021-2027 the monitoring committee will be given a more prominent role in supervising programme performance.
121. The composition of the monitoring committee must be representative for the respective cross-border area which includes key stakeholders for successful work on alleviating border obstacles. When the programme is relevant for the development of a macro-regional strategy or as in the case of the Nord programme also the EU Arctic policy, relevant key stakeholders should also be invited to attend the monitoring committee of the programme.
122. Project selection shall take place in the monitoring committee or in steering committee(s) established under the monitoring committee in full respect of the partnership principle. Larger strategic projects / flagship projects (i.e. designed and implemented by public authorities without a call) may be pre-defined in the programme document or selected via a transparent and agreed procedure. It is up to each programme partnership to decide on the optimal balance between different types of projects required to achieve the overall programme objectives, such as flagship projects, projects embedded in the relevant macro-regional strategy, regular projects, projects selected through bottom-up or top-down procedures, small projects, etc.
123. Decision-making must also be non-discriminatory and transparent. The procedure should also be inclusive. Each monitoring (or steering) committee member shall have a vote. Voting by delegation should not be encouraged unless it is transparent and puts weaker partners at equal footing with "institutional" partners.
Role of the managing authority 124. The managing authority shall ensure effective implementation of the programme. The managing authority is also at the service of the programme and its monitoring committee. It acts as the programme authority representing all countries participating in the programme.
Page 28 of 33
Role of the Joint Secretariat 125. The Joint Secretariat (JS) should ideally be the cross-border executive body of the programme at the service of the managing authority. It should consist of professional and independent staff from the participating countries. The JS should possess representative linguistic competence and relevant border country knowledge. Its procedures should be efficient and transparent. Communication with beneficiaries, potential applicants and the general public should be ensured mainly by the JS. Regional contact points/antennas operating directly under the JS' responsibility may be useful in border areas characterised by large distances and/or difficult accessibility.
Functional areas
126. According to different sectors, an Interreg programme may cover several overlapping functional areas (e.g. for access to health facilities, it may be larger or smaller than for research and innovation).
127. The proposal to address the issues through a functional area offers some flexibility in planning and implementation and linkages with other projects can be easier established. The Monitoring Committee shall have the competence to decide on projects outside the eligible area, but with clear benefit for the cross-border region, and the macro-region, if relevant.
128. The twin city of Tornio-Haparanda is an example of a functional area within the larger cross-border region. Targeted action to facilitate life of its citizens might require involving key actors in the preparation and the decision-making of the programme.
129. The partial programme Sápmi can be considered a functional area which is wider than the Nord cross-border area. To fully use the potential of the Sami contributions to the nature, the culture and the economy of the Sápmi area it is necessary to involve all relevant actors at national, regional and local level and better integrate Sami objectives in different development strategies and action plans. Involving Sami representatives in such processes would also contribute to trust-building between the Sami and other Swedish, Finnish and Norwegian partners.
Trust-building measures
130. Effective cross-border cooperation requires a good level of trust between partners. Trust needs to be built and maintained. This is a long-term investment which aims at fostering cooperation-minded future generations. The Interreg programmes can make a substantial contribution by providing financial support for trust-building activities such as linking up schools, sports clubs, cultural organisations, etc. The beneficiaries of such activities are often not equipped to manage full-blown Interreg projects.
131. Therefore, it is highly recommended to put in place mechanisms to finance smaller projects or people-to-people projects that make a strong contribution to the social and civil cohesion of the cross-border region. This can be done using a CLLD or the new tool proposed by the Commission (the Small Projects Fund) or via specific calls managed by the Managing Authority itself. Small Project Funds can have different objectives and target groups. In the case of the Nord programme it is worth considering
Page 29 of 33
establishing a Small Project Fund or other micro-project facility for trust-building in general and inclusion of under-represented target groups like associations, schools and civil society in particular. Another relevant target group could be micro-enterprises and/or SMEs which could benefit from cross-border cooperation in a simplified manner. A Small Project Fund could also help develop the potential of Sami research and entrepreneurship through small grants.
Conflict of interest
132. Conflict of interest between decision-making bodies and applicants and beneficiaries shall be avoided at any moment, including project generation, project preparation, project selection and project implementation. One way to avoid this is to ensure a proper segregation of duties between institutions and persons.
Communication and publicity
133. Appropriate actions and measures in line with the Communication Guidelines need to be taken by all involved authorities and beneficiaries, such as the identification of a communication officer per programme, the establishment of a website per programme and use of the term ‘Interreg’ next to the emblem of the EU. Responsible authorities are encouraged to explore the possibilities to receive targeted funding under the Interreg Volunteers Youth Initiative, by which budget has been made available for citizens engagement activities. In case the programme is financing the implementation of a macro-regional project, the logo of the respective macro-region should be added. Thereby, opportunities will be created for further promotion of the project through the macro-regional platforms and networks, where relevant.
Cooperation with the “cooperation world”
134. There are many initiatives to support cooperation: the Interreg Volunteer Youth (IVY) is an action to offer the possibility to young EU citizens aged 18-30 to serve as volunteers in Interreg programmes and related projects); the B-solutions (pilot projects to collect concrete and replicable actions which aim at identifying and testing solutions to cross- border obstacles of a legal and administrative nature in 5 fields: employment, health, public passenger transport, multi-lingualism and institutional cooperation); ESPON (which carries out studies on territorial development).
ORIENTATIONS: - Involve all relevant actors at national, regional and local level in a dialogue to better integrate Sami objectives in development strategies and actions plans. - Consider setting up one or several small project funds for trust-building, for increased cooperation between micro-enterprises and SMEs, for inclusion of under- represented target groups such as associations and schools and for Sami research. - Develop a sustainable way to finance cross-border data collection. The Interreg specific objective could be used for this purpose to set up a structure.
Page 30 of 33
Existing sources of information
Border needs study (Commission, 2016) – Collecting solid evidence to assess the needs to be addressed by Interreg cross-border cooperation programmes - Regional Policy - European Commission
EC ex-post evaluation of ETC 2007- 2013http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/evaluations/ec/2007-2013/#11
European Territorial Cooperation - best practices and innovative measures, European Parliament, 2016 REPORT on European Territorial Cooperation - best practices and innovative measures - A8-0202/2016
Quantification of the effects of legal and administrative border obstacles in land border regions (Commission, 2016) – quantification of the effects of legal and administrative obstacles in land border regions - Bing
Easing legal and administrative obstacles (Commission, 2017) – Easing legal and administrative obstacles in EU border regions - Regional Policy - European Commission
10 pilot projects selected under b-solutions – b-solutions: the 10 successful cases announced | FUTURIUM | European Commission
Comprehensive analysis of the existing cross-border transport connections and missing links on the internal EU borders (Commission, 2017-2018) – https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/cb_rail_connections_e n.pdf
DG SANTE's study on cross-border health care Building Cooperation in Cross-border Healthcare: new study published! | FUTURIUM | European Commission
ESPON's Targeted Analysis on Cross-Border Public Services CPS - Cross-border Public Services | ESPON
Smart Specialisation Strategies in Lapland, North Ostrobothnia, Central Ostrobothnia, Norrbotten, Västerbotten, Finnmark, Nordland and Troms – http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
Smart Specialisation in Sparsely Populated European Arctic Regions, JRC Technical Reports, 2018.
Northern Sparsely Populated Areas, OECD Territorial Reviews, 2016.
Linking the Indigenous Sami People with Regional Development in Sweden, OECD Rural Policy Reviews, 2019.
SWOT analysis of Interreg Nord programme area, 2014.
Page 31 of 33
Evaluation of Interreg Nord 2014-2020, Kontigo, 2018.
Evaluation of Interreg Nord and Öresund-Kattegat-Skagerrak, 2012.
Summary report of the Arctic Stakeholder Forum consultation to identify key investment priorities in the Arctic and ways to better streamline future EU funding programmes for the region, European Commission, 2017.
Sustainable Society Development in Arctic Cities Report, Ramböll, 2013.
Growth from the North: How can Norway, Sweden and Finland achieve sustainable growth in the Scandinavian Arctic? Report of an independent expert group, Primi Minister’s Office Publications, Finland, 2015.
Page 32 of 33