Transcript Interreg and the meaning of “borders”

Questions about cross-border good practices
Some questions for cross-border good practices:
1) Relations between borders and practices
(hyphotesis: what is “good” depends from the
cross-borders relations);
2) Relation between the specific nature of the
Interreg projects and the general idea of good
practice.
3) Has the “good practice” the same meaning for
bottom-level practitioners, EU level and local
societies?
Interreg and the meaning of “borders”
• “National borders should not be a barrier to the balanced
development and integration” (EC Communication)
• How many kind of (idea of) border in the EU? Which is
the meaning and the use of “good practices” in different
border situations?
Meanings of “border”
• border as a problem in the
integration policy
• barrier, historically
defined, strongly divisive
• frontier: as extreme
border, unkown and
dangerous space. But also
as “advanced” border (as
frontier in science), plenty
of innovative possibility
• Italy-Austria; ItalyBalkans; inside Balkans;
Greece-Turkey; etc.
• border as an open space of
transition, as a line that
keep oppositions apart and
unites them.
• boundary weakened by
economic, cultural and
social cross-border
practices.
• Nordic countries; ItalyFrance.
Meanings of “borders”
• Interreg projects may include both kinds of
borders (ex.: many of Alpine Space
projects).
• Hybrid situations are interesting: will be
there sub-coalition formation? Or hybridity
may facilitate the interaction process?
ESPD and “borders”
• ESPD: experiment in
framing Europe as a
new (cognitive and
policy) frame for
many practices
(cultural, social, ideas
of local democracy
and governance)
• ESPD: frame and
guide for transnational
investment and
functional-spatial
organization policies
in a globalization
process
Good practices: they are different, depending on
the border situations
Difficult borders
• Frame reflections,
practices as symbolic
negotiation, construction
of a sense of
interdependency (ESPD
may be an element of
“contexts building and
enacting”). Paradoxically,
it is more activating (it’s a
challenge with a strong
symbolic stake);
differences may not be
obstacles but resources.
Loose boundaries
• Effective coordination in
order to assure more
functional transnational
integration. All obstacles
(political, cultural, social,
administrative) are seen as
more or less negative,
elements that must be
removed to achieve good
communication and
coordination.
Needs for good practices in Interreg (“An
Assessment of Need”, Vienna, 2004)
For local practitioners:
From EU perspective:
• There’s a need for
• It is a style of “soft law”
circulation of good
and “soft regulation”, like
practices. Why? In part for
the regulation via
some planning deficit, but
standards, in an ecology of
probably also in order to
regolatory forms
overcoming differences in
(directives, certifications
administrative settings and
like ISO, formal
professional practices.
Good practice works as a
negotiations, etc.)
recipe, as a frame of
• Good practice may be
certainty that rises
accepted or not at local
probability to get EU
level; incentives for
Funds, in a situation of
choice.
uncertainty and
complexity
What are practices in the dayly life
• Practice as a space of structured possibilities; kind of joint
activity socially constructed and institutionalized; forms of
actions (and cognition) that are stables during the time.
• Practices are not good, neither bad. They are simply what
people do, historically defined models of doing and
thinking.
• Practices are learned via interaction with other actors (ex.:
“communities of practice”).
• Practices usually change in the long term, but also in the
short one, by enactment of new context (different
interpretations of the situation) or new models of actions,
often exogeneous and locally experimented, when a
situation is seen as problematic one.
“Normative” good (bad) practices and social
practices: a link
• In a policy design perspective: in order to learn from good practices,
there is need for “good learning spaces”, where the complexity of
practice may be understood and explored. A good practice is always
local and context-dependent.
• Toward a definition of good practice as joint activity: some general
properties:
• Continuity-stability: practice that works is embedded in social and
political life, is an institution. This also means: stability of networks, of
cognitive frames, and a certain amount of social capital, mainly as
environmental and institutional trust.
• Learning capability (innovation): openess to the environment, openess
to the ecology of projects, pluralism, “bridging” social capital, no very
strong ties (Granovetter), presence or construction of (symbolic and
material) incentives, re-framing capabilities (in terms of new
perception of interdependences and so on)
The Interact definition of good practice
First proposition
• 1. A practice that obtain concrete results, in accordance
with its objectives (effectiveness and input-output models).
• But: it needs a perfect flow from policy formulation to
policy implementation. A definition that may be useful in
non-problematic cross-borders situations, where the
decision process may be similar to the problem-solving
process (even in multi-actor situations). Moreover:
objectives are often a strategic tools for getting consensus
and initiating an action, so they are (wisely) vague.
Implementation is in many cases a creative re-planning.
• Questions: history of the policy, structures of
implementation, cognitive frames, interaction models,
links formulation-implementation policy, etc.
The Interact definition of good practice
Second proposition
• A good project generates added value, outside its
declared objectives.
• This proposition is useful in general, because
interaction generates non-intentional outcomes. It
is even more important for the problematic crossborder situations, where the uncertainty
(cognitive, about role expectations, etc) is higher.
• Kinds of added values: networking, framing,
social capital, learning to work together, technical
learning, …
Examples of added values from “good” practices
In the case of nonproblematic boundaries
/projects of functional
integration:
• Structuration of epistemic
communities and policy
communities
• Growth of technical
competence
• Formation of transnational
advocacy or growth
coalitions linked to
European policies.
•
•
•
•
In the case of problematic
borders and frontiers:
A new idea of border
Legitimation of the
“others” (as resource)
Inter-cultural social capital
(bridging)
Growth of interactive
(dialogic, negotial,
deliberative) capabilities
The Interact definition of good practice
Third proposition
A good practice doesn’t suffer major administrative or
financial problem (efficiency criteria)
Nature of administrative problems in cross-border policy:
• complexity of European procedures;
• lack of local technical skills;
• differences in administrative and legislative systems;
• inadequate structures of implementation;
• etc.
Internal and external efficiency problems.
A tentative taxonomy of Interreg projects
• Strategic projects. Are “strategic” according to Lindblom’s
definition of strategic planning in poliarchic situations.
Strategic planning as process of social interaction, with a
mix of knowledge forms, that may produce networks,
social capital, usable knowledge, frames, model of
interaction. A strategic project is a project that try to trigger
and/or influence an interaction process in view of a policy
result.
• Methodological projects. These projects aim to experiment
tools (for ex.: GIS, management systems, etc) or models,
sometimes externally defined (such as the “best
practices”), sometimes locally produced (pilot projects)
Kinds of Strategic projects
Strategic projects may clustered in two groups:
• Networking projects: NP are constitutive policies. NP aim
to constitute stable networks of actors (more than the ad
hoc partnership) in few strategic fields, as political and
policy instrument for the cohesion objective.
• Framing projects: FP aim to build a common language and
common policy discourse, as a kind of constitutive policy.
• Links between NP and FP.
• Often, NP and FP are components of the same project.
Examples of networking projects (from Alpine
Space IIIB)
• ALPLAKES (France, Italy, Slovenia): creation of a
network of “lake managers” in the field of lake
management, in order to implement better transnational
sustainable policies.
• NEPROVALTER (Austria, Italy, Slovenia): networking
public institutions and farmers at transnational level, for
sustainable development in mountain rural areas.
• ALPCITY (Austria, France, Italy, Switzerland):
networking and exchange of experiences to create a
common knowledge and strategies for local development
in small alpine towns (NP+FP)
• SENTENDALP (Austria, France, Italy, Slovenia,
Switerzland): network of public institutions and sport
events organizers to plan and marketing sport events in
Alpine Area.
Examples of framing projects
• URBAL (IIIB North Sea Region – Belgium, Norway,
Sweden, UK): understanding and generating awareness
among local decision-makers on how managing urbanrural areas.
• EUROPOLIS (IIIB North West Europe – France, Belgium,
Germany, UK): to establish an action platform for
sustainable development in medium-size towns.
• REKULA (Cadses – Germany, Italy, Poland): defining
common criteria for cultural landscapes recovery.
• LEXALP (Alpine Space – France, Germany, Italy,
Switerzland): harmonizing terminology in normative
documents, in order to achieve a common language.
Another kind of strategic projects
Projects that build cross-border “practice spaces” and crossborder communities (framing by experiences and social
experiments).
Examples:
• Two Shores Gardens (IIIA – Germany-France): a common
garden along the Rhine, linking Kehl and Strasbourg along
a new footbridge.
• People to people (IIIA – Upper Rhine Centre – France,
Germany, Switzerland). Implementing a framework
programme for small scale project directly initiated by
citizens (cross-border active citizenship)
• DUO (IIIA France-Wallonie-Flandre): a common
transnational television space where schoolchildren
participate discussing important social issues.
Kind of methodological projects: tools
Technical integration projects: common tools and instruments
for planning, managing, monitoring and evaluating.
• Examples:
• KATER (Cadses – Italy, Croatia, Austria, Slovenia):
development of a GIS system in order to asses
environmental impacts.
• MARS (Alpine Space – Austria, France, Germany, Italy,
Slovenia): development of a database for monitoring
sustainable development at the NUTS2 level.
• DIAMONT (Alpine Space – France, Germany, Italy,
Slovenia, Switzerland). Development of SOIA, system for
observation and information on the Alps, in the field of
economic regional development.
Kind of methodological projects: experiments
Pilot projects, developed locally or esternally, to be
experimented in order to increase the learning capabilities
and the range of local opportunities.
• Examples:
• GO (Cadses – Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic,
Greece, Italy, Poland): new opportunities of investments
with innovative financial tools.
• Living Space Network (Alpine Space – Austria, Germany,
Italy, Switzerland): cross-border conservation policy and
pilot-project on water and bat populations.
• Safety for sustainable development in Hautes Vallées (IIIA
Italy-France (ALCOTRA). Experiments on risk prevention
and building of a diffuse risk culture.
Added value of Good practices: a preliminary
frame
Border as barrier
Boundary socially
trespassed
Neworking and
Framing Projects
Structuration of
deliberative processes;
social capital; a new ideas
of other identities;
development of a sense of
interdependence; a new
idea of the border.
Open and multilateral
coordination; “good”
governance; networks
stability; technical
advancements;
technical and
procedural innovations.
New cross-border
physical and social
spaces projects
Surprise as social learning
in cross-border
communities
Good cross-border
mobility and
integration
Methodological
Projects
Methods as common
language for cross-border
and inter-cultural dialogue
Performances of the
tools, learning from
trial-and-error
experiments