Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on 'Spatial planning in Europe` (97/C 116/01)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the European Commission's Communication on cooperation for European territorial development: Europe 2000 +;

having regard to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Commission Communication on cooperation for European territorial development: Europe 2000 + () and the organization by the Committee of the Regions and the European Commission of six seminars on spatial planning;

having regard to its decision of 18 October 1996, in accordance with Article 198c(4) of the EC Treaty, to issue an Opinion on Spatial planning in Europe and to entrust its preparation to Commission 5 (Land-use planning, environment and energy);

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 340/96 rev.) adopted by Commission 5 on 20 November 1996 (rapporteur: Mrs du Granrut),

adopted the following opinion at its 16th plenary session of 15 and 16 January 1997 (meeting of 15 January).

1. New avenues for European spatial planning and development

The wealth of ideas and experience expounded during the six regional seminars on cooperation for European territorial development, held between March and October 1996 (), has opened up new avenues for European spatial planning and development. A report on the seminars is appended to the present opinion.

1.1. Regional and local authorities affirm their commitment to inter-regional cooperation

1.1.1. Cooperation was a recurrent theme-word in the seminars. Regional and local policy-makers understand better than anyone the problems facing their areas and the solutions required. They are also aware that they cannot resolve all the problems alone. As neighbouring regional and local authorities have to address the same problems, they find that the most logical and effective action is to combine efforts in order to find common solutions and pool resources to implement them. They have no apprehension about jointly setting up operational projects, and focus rather on the potential extra benefit to be derived.

Regional and local authorities do not cooperate merely in order to resolve common problems. Through mutual support they can pool their individual strengths and capabilities in order to resolve any problem which either side perceives. Cooperation is thereby strengthened by mutual solidarity.

This will to cooperate is essentially dictated by efficiency. In addition to the desired material results, further beneficial effects are produced by the mutually cooperative approach and by the strengthening of relations between the respective communities.

1.1.2. Inter-regional cooperation programmes have given regional and local policy-makers the chance to set up organizational systems not present elsewhere. Such systems seek mainly to monitor the work undertaken by experts, facilitate the technical and financial implementation of the programmes, provide a permanent communication channel between the authorities concerned and, where appropriate, provide technical advice for the other territorial authorities: the national governments and the European Union. Decision-making processes must be flexible so as to enable particular issues to be determined at national, regional or local level as is most appropriate to each case.

1.1.3. The regional and local authorities consider that their representative body and policy mouthpiece at EU level is the Committee of the Regions. The COR is in a position to appreciate and articulate their demands before the European Commission, Council and Parliament.

1.2. Fuller consideration of grassroots requirements and enhancement of EU aid

EU spatial planning, because of the diversity and extent of the area covered, cannot be organized from a single decision-making level. The needs of the peoples concerned and, by implication, of local and regional decision-makers, must be taken into account.

1.2.1. EU regional policy and the programmes generated by the Structural Funds have helped to make regional and local authorities more attentive to the needs of their fellow citizens, encouraging their initiatives and using their capacities within the framework of local partnerships. The same stimulus has also spurred local players to lend their support to shared projects. As consultative partners, regional and local authorities have become involved in EU spatial planning and development first in a partnership capacity and then as active players.

1.2.2. Regional and local authorities are better placed than any other body to listen to grass-roots opinion and engage in a constructive dialogue with the people they represent. They are able to analyse problems and make a clear and comprehensive diagnosis of the action needed. Their technical expertise and speed of intervention mean that their effectiveness in terms of response is second to none. Their close proximity to the levels of decision-making and monitoring enables them to adjust their response to the changing situation.

Regional and local authorities are also the first point of reference in any spatial planning scheme since, on their own or jointly with other regional and local authorities, they have an overall perspective of the measures required to boost economic activity and employment, or to organize local housing and transport, or to protect or improve the environment.

1.2.3. By virtue of their quick response and analytical expertise, their ability to adapt and their concern to act in the most effective manner possible, regional and local authorities are the most effective partners in EU spatial planning projects and are crucial for injecting added value.

Regional and local authorities, along with those they represent, are well aware of the value of their contribution and are no longer prepared to be anything less than full partners in both the preparation and execution of any spatial planning programme.

The Committee of the Regions considers that inter-regional cooperation offers opportunities for European involvement on a day-to-day level. It considers that its particular role is to facilitate this contribution to the creation of a European identity, both by demonstrating this positive aspect of inter-regional cooperation and by encouraging the spread of such cooperation by regional and local authorities.

1.3. Significance of the operational framework for inter-regional areas

A spatial planning and development policy does not acknowledge frontiers, whether internal or external to the Member States and to the EU in its present configuration.

1.3.1. Europe 2000 + distinguished eleven territorial groups which are based on a number of determinants:

- geographical: each area corresponds to one geological and/or hydrographical system, or belongs to one maritime system,

- economic: studies showed large similarities in types of economic activity, living standards, existence of various sorts of pollution, in other words a set of factors determining the structural measures required,

- historical and cultural: over the centuries Europe has been sub-divided to such an extent, generally without consultation of the population affected and with no thought for their cultural ties, that it is high time to rediscover these ties and enable those who share them to express their opinions and their preferences.

1.3.2. These three determinants, individually or in combination, create a sense of belonging and common destiny. This helps to bolster the commitment of regional and local decision-makers and win grassroots support for large-scale measures.

The holding of six seminars made it necessary to regroup the North Sea and Baltic regions, the western Mediterranean and central Mediterranean and, under the heading of frontier regions of central Europe, the new Länder and the countries of central and eastern Europe. These groupings do not alter the validity of the exercise. On the contrary, they demonstrate the vital role of the Mediterranean as a cultural and economic catalyst, the complementary features shared by the North Sea and Baltic regions, and the determination of regional and local authorities in central Europe to break down the unnatural division of the European continent.

1.3.3. All the participants in the seminars recognized the significance of the regions for their spatial planning and development, even if specific affinities or problems within those regions may give rise to closer cooperation between certain regional and local authorities, or, along the boundaries of these regions, to cooperation between certain local and regional authorities belonging to different regions.

All recognized the value of territorial cohesion.

There was also unanimous recognition of the remarkable effect that cross-border and trans-national cooperation has on accessibility, and the dynamic momentum that springs from the desire to overcome the obstacle of historic frontiers.

In this respect, and without gainsaying national affiliations, the exercise has passed the point of no return.

1.4. Clarification of objectives in sectors of intervention

The same intervention sectors are found in inter-regional cooperation programmes for spatial planning and development. However, in order to meet specific regional needs and improve the effectiveness of measures undertaken, regional and local authorities have found it necessary to identify their objectives more clearly.

The importance of land transport is universally recognized, in particular by the regional and local authorities of the Continental Diagonal who wish to ensure links with the rest of the European Union. The emphasis is firstly on accessibility and linkage with secondary communication routes, and secondly on the need to give preference to the least polluting means of communication and organize intermodal links so as to improve transport supply and regulate its flow. Lastly, it would be helpful if the balance of the present cluster of North-South land transport infrastructure could be redressed by means of a complete East-West transport system.

1.4.1. In the case of sea transport, the main concerns are: i) intensifying traffic between the major ports and the medium-sized ports by developing coastal shipping and operational frequency on short routes and building up high-speed links; and ii) promoting the development of a common information system for all merchant fleets. The broader aim should be to optimize sea traffic between the various maritime ports of the EU.

With regard to air transport, improvements should concentrate on the development of regional airports and, in the case of the Mediterranean countries, variations in operational frequency to meet tourism demands.

1.4.2. The environmental protection priorities are: regulation and quality of water resources, air quality, coastal and seaboard management, waste minimalization and more sustainable use of natural resources, waste treatment and control and, in the case of inland regions, the setting-up of nature parks with a view to flora and fauna conservation. In certain regions of central and eastern Europe, the greater priority is for measures to combat pollution prior to the establishment of new economic activities.

Agriculture should be viewed as a strategic factor for rural areas as it forms a vital connective tissue that keeps a minimum level of population on the land, thereby helping to conserve the natural environment and providing the preconditions for consolidating and developing other economic activities.

1.4.3. Practical suggestions are also offered with a view to achieving a proper balance between urban and rural areas. Urban areas can become economically revitalized if the major towns and cities of the Centre Capitals regions join forces to combat social exclusion and its different causes, and if medium-sized towns, particularly those which have become centres of technology, form networks so as to ensure that businesses in each of them are offered the range of services which they require. The aim should be to create employment opportunities for the local population which may subsequently spread over to rural communities, thereby preserving jobs in rural areas too. However, it is clear that these measures will not be sufficient on their own and that measures will also continue to be needed specifically to target rural economic problems.

1.4.4. Regional and local authorities view innovation and research, together with the use of new information technology, as the key to economic development. Mastery of these three factors will enable them to respond at local level to the challenge of economic globalization, by virtue of technical excellence, quality, human resources and adaptability.

1.4.5. Most of the schemes involving tourism activities emphasize their cultural component. Regional and local authorities know that they share an outstanding range of cultural, historical and natural assets which it is their task jointly to promote and develop.

Concern for spatial development is buttressed by the desire to engage in cultural exchange, to improve one's acquaintance with people from other regions, to be able to speak the same language and to discover common points of reference.

Regional and local authorities, by acting creatively, energetically and collectively, stand the best chance of obtaining economic growth which will create jobs, genuine economic and social cohesion and greater stability.

1.5. Inter-regional cooperation as a tool of integration

Regional and local authorities are aware that their cooperation is not undertaken in isolation. On the contrary, their collective responsibility extends to all other parts of the EU, and to the countries of central and eastern Europe and the southern Mediterranean.

Each region has its own specific responsibility:

1.5.1. The Centre Capitals region must seek to remain the EU's active centre of gravity, at the forefront of technological progress and urban economic activity, and able to combat pollution and provide inter-modal solutions to the congestion of its roads and ports.

1.5.2. The Alpine Arc is another of Europe's motor regions, by virtue of its highly central location, the wealth generated within its outlying valleys, its millennial experience of migratory movements and its longstanding tradition of inter-regional cooperation which has so far enabled it to turn its weaknesses into strengths.

1.5.3. The regional and local authorities which border central and eastern Europe consider it their particular responsibility to accelerate the process of integration into the European Union.

This conviction has led them to reach out to their counterpart authorities across the national frontiers; irrespective of differences in status or spheres of competence, they seek to cooperate in areas directly affecting the daily lives of their respective peoples, particularly the young, in ways which highlight their shared cultural heritage.

Regarding the principal actions required, they categorically emphasize the absolute need to establish effective transport, energy and telecommunications networks. The regions thereby connected must become areas of development rather than transit zones.

This action is all important in that it opens the way for the construction of a new Europe, a citizens' Europe, a Europe of partnerships and a frontier-free internal market.

1.5.4. The regional and local authorities of the Mediterranean region seek to consolidate their own economic development in order to speed up the EU's dialogue with the southern Mediterranean regions for their mutual economic and cultural benefit. Europe cannot show indifference to the future of the south and east Mediterranean; this region has been a catalyst of culture and civilization, and could also play a part in future prosperity.

1.5.5. The North Sea and Baltic regions have historically been important centres of trade, and have a very solid tradition of local democracy and shared cultural values.

The regional and local authorities of the North Sea region can show the rest of Europe how an area with a prestigious economic past can now stimulate and improve the spread of its industrial and agricultural wealth and, in particular, its port facilities, and turn them again into a source of economic strength.

The replanning and development of the Baltic Sea region through the combined cooperation of the relevant national, regional and local authorities in the Baltic Sea Region Conference VASAB 2010 is an outstanding initiative that deserves to be emulated. It will demonstrate that this region can resume its traditionally important role in trade relations and cultural cooperation between western and eastern Europe, particularly with neighbouring countries such as Russia.

1.5.6. The Atlantic Arc region can look back to the time when, before it found itself on Europe's rim, it was the point of departure for Europe's conquest of the new world. The redeployment of its maritime sector has two objectives: firstly, to make itself once again the commercial outlet for EU products; and secondly, to boost port activity in the Atlantic Arc in order to bind the regions and localities closer together and facilitate their integrated development. In this way, other EU regions can contribute significantly to the further development of the Atlantic Arc so as to promote cohesion in Europe.

1.6. Practical implementation of the subsidiarity principle and changes in the institutional framework and financing procedures

The subsidiarity principle means that each territorial level of authority acts within the limits of the powers conferred upon it and the objectives assigned to it.

The practical effect is that all parties, wherever they may be and whatever their capacity or sphere of competence, can participate in the larger political process.

1.6.1. It is the natural role of regional and local authorities to be attentive to the needs of those they represent, and these authorities have demonstrated their ability to defend and balance their sometimes diverse interests in the preparation of an overall and effective planning strategy. They therefore feel entitled to demand that the Member States and the European Union involve them as partners in discussion and planning and as essential players in the implementation of an EU spatial planning policy. This is one possible example of the practical application of the subsidiarity principle.

1.6.2. A constant demand of local and regional authorities is that the subsidiarity principle must be observed. Application of the principle to EU spatial planning is based on criteria of effectiveness, notably in terms of economic development. It is a key tenet because it embodies the competence which these authorities derive from their electoral mandate and the notion that the individual citizen is at the centre of the European integration project.

1.6.3. For their part, the Länder and regional authorities which have responsibility for the organization of their territories demand specifically that the EU intervenes only when the issues at stake are of a European dimension.

1.6.4. Even though regional and local authorities do not have the same powers in all Member States, they consider it essential that the EU and national authorities give them scope to exploit their full potential in respect of inter-regional cooperation by giving them the legal and administrative means and the financing arrangements to carry out their tasks.

No legislation or general implementing provisions exist to give an institutional framework to inter-regional cooperation. Notwithstanding the existence of Euro-regions and the signing of several hundred inter-regional agreements concerning cross-border territorial organization, there is no proper legal recognition at either EU or international level.

1.6.5. There are no fixed rules for financial participation, and this does not facilitate complementarity or efficient investment. Regional and local authorities draw up programmes without knowing their budget, and find themselves obliged to participate in projects without having been involved in their preparation.

The intrinsic dynamism of local and regional authorities in the spatial planning field has highlighted untapped potential which could be exploited through formal application of the subsidiarity principle.

2. Proposals for action

2.1. Preliminary comments

Inter-regional cooperation has made a vital contribution to EU spatial planning for three main reasons: effectiveness and consistency, ability to adjust to economic globalization, and social cohesion and personal security.

2.1.1. Regional and local authorities, with their particular competence, experience and dynamism, have proved themselves a natural partner in the consideration of EU spatial planning initiated by the Commission as part of its regional policy. In this sphere, where involvement of local players is necessary at one stage or another, it has proved more effective to obtain their consensus 'upstream` in order to profit fully from their input; at the same time, the framing of coherent spatial planning programmes has improved the organization of cross-border areas.

At all events, the search for common solutions to common problems places obligations on regional and local authorities and provides an assurance of effectiveness and territorial cohesion; this fact should be recognized both by the Member States and the EU.

2.1.2. Furthermore, it is now accepted that economic globalization and the drive to create new jobs call for territorial solutions. A region which has acquired the tools of economic growth (a research centre, access to transport and telecommunications networks, skilled human resources and business services), is better equipped to attract small and medium-sized enterprises - whether independent or linked to multinationals - which will be able to adjust their production to world market demands.

The last few years have seen the emergence of flourishing economic regions that are able to compete on world markets because they accept a certain interdependence in order to obtain the most efficient information and innovation services.

2.1.3. This more consensual approach to people-based spatial development provides an assurance of social cohesion, economic stability and personal security.

2.2. Specific proposals vis-à-vis the Committee on Spatial Development (CSD) and the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP)

The findings of the seminars amply demonstrate that the European spatial development perspective is of very direct relevance to local and regional authorities.

2.2.1. The community is a collective entity in which several institutional partners are involved: the European Union itself, its Member States, and the regional and local authorities.

However, a mere statement of intent is insufficient. The notion must be given concrete form in a spirit of partnership, with due respect for the subsidiarity principle, with the support of inter-regional cooperation and its spin-off in terms of dynamism, efficiency, solidarity and local democracy.

This system of governance has several effects:

- spatial planning and territorial development follow a 'bottom-up` approach, and begin at a sub-national level;

- the creation of new forums in which local groups can defend and reconcile their own interests helps regions to maintain their identity while creating a sense of sharing in a wider European project;

- the use of an approach based on geographical regions makes it easier to ensure economic and institutional relevance; it also makes it possible to disregard political frontiers which have no meaning where spatial planning is concerned, and to assimilate policies which might otherwise prove to be conflicting.

2.2.2. Inter-regional cooperation enables regional and local authorities to widen their transport infrastructure objectives. They can pressurize elected city officials to resolve problems of traffic restrictions, pollution and congestion and act as economic catalysts, triggering synergies between medium-sized towns that will help them to attract businesses and in turn create jobs in their rural hinterland.

Through their expertise, responsibilities and concern for the environment and the protection of natural resources, regional and local authorities are the custodians of sustainable development.

2.2.3. Regional and local authorities help to further spatial planning policy not only in the EU but also in those countries which for the present remain outside, such as the countries of central and eastern Europe, the Baltic States, the CIS and the non-EU Mediterranean countries.

2.2.4. Regional and local authorities thus embody an approach to spatial planning which transcends national frontiers in its concern for spatial cohesion, efficiency and cost-effective investment in human and material resources.

It should also be possible for local and regional authorities to participate in planning at national level.

It is therefore vital that the Committee of the Regions, as the representative of regional authorities, be consulted and invited to participate in the informal councils of spatial planning ministers in connection with the European spatial development perspective.

Failure to involve regional and local authorities would be to forgo a unique storehouse of experience and to write off the hundreds of inter-regional cooperation schemes which have proved their effectiveness for spatial planning and development.

2.3. Vis-à-vis the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC)

All observers agree that the IGC is progressing too slowly. They also fear that it will produce only a minimalist reform proposal which could undermine the deepening of the European Union once it numbers 20 or more members.

2.3.1. The planned public information campaigns, useful as they undoubtedly are, will not make up for the shortcomings of the European institutions as regards legitimacy and transparency. Thought must also be given to the attainment of a representative, economic and political democracy at Union level.

This means guaranteeing the right of EU citizens to manage a substantial slice of public affairs through elected assemblies and executives wielding new powers at regional and local levels. These intermediaries will give them an input in the framing and implementation of Community policies, most specifically those relating to European spatial development.

2.3.2. For this reason it is suggested that the Treaty specifically provide for spatial planning policy to fall within Community competence, enshrining the concept of territorial cohesion and amplifying Article 130a as follows: '... and encourage, through its activities, inter-regional, cross-border and trans-national cooperation between regional and local authorities`. Lastly, provision should be made for the creation of a Community legal instrument to formalize and promote inter-regional cooperation.

2.3.3. In connection with recognition of its independence and an extension of its consultative powers, the Committee of the Regions must affirm its right to partner the Commission and the Council as guarantor of the entitlement of regional and local authorities to participate in the preparation, implementation and evaluation of spatial planning and development schemes.

2.3.4. The territorial pacts for employment are a practical illustration of the benefits to be gained from involving regional and local authorities in implementing the objectives of the European Union.

2.3.5. The EU authorities must recognize that the Union's democratic deficit will only disappear once the elected representatives closest to grassroots level are acknowledged as its active and responsible partners.

As Jean Monnet said 'The European Union seeks to unite its citizens and not its States`.

2.4. Vis-à-vis the European Parliament

2.4.1. The democratic deficit which still marks the EU's decision-making system can be reduced by means of better institutional cooperation between the European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions.

2.4.2. The COR considers it necessary that the Parliament be able to consult it, on the same footing as the European Commission and Council, on subjects which it deems to be of vital interest to the regional and local authorities, as requested in the Parliament's report on institutional reform.

2.4.3. Lastly, closer links between the COR's commissions and the EP committees are desirable so that when they are consulted on issues relating to EU sectoral or other policies which have a special bearing on local and regional authorities, they can take part in the framing of EU legislation and ensure that it takes account of the needs of their local communities and the special features of the regions concerned.

2.5. Vis-à-vis the European Commission

The European Commission was represented at each of the seminars. It was anxious that the options chosen in these meetings with regional and local authorities should be accommodated and fitted in with the rules governing EU aid.

The Commission does not rule out changes to the consultation procedures concerning the Structural Funds. It is intent on seeing proposals implemented to enable regional and local authorities to participate in EU spatial planning strategy.

2.5.1. On Community sectoral policies

Regional and local authorities hold to the principle that each sectoral policy must be examined from the point of view of its impact on spatial planning, in the interests of integrated development and territorial cohesion.

For example, in the case of transport or telecommunications infrastructure, it will be necessary to determine a proper linkage with secondary systems and their contribution to the local economy; in the case of environmental policy, it must be remembered that pollution, flooding and drought take no account of national frontiers and have to be tackled with reference to their impact on the spatial organization of the areas in question.

The future development of the common agricultural policy must consider the upkeep of arable land and place much greater emphasis on the maintenance of ecological balance, particularly - but not exclusively - in upland, mountain and coastal areas. As jobs and vocational training are increasingly determined by the attractiveness of the area and the activity of local players, Community policy must restrict itself to support for the action of regional and local authorities working alone or in combination. Lastly, as was stated in the COR opinion on Europe 2000 +, the EU's small number of 'islands of research` must not only cooperate with each other but also with smaller research centres in order to fully exploit the innovation capacity of the EU's landlocked or peripheral regions.

All measures taken in the context of Community policies must be closely scrutinized in terms of their impact on spatial planning. It is from this standpoint that the Committee of the Regions examines the documents submitted to it for an opinion. Regional and local authorities wish to see this approach adopted systematically by the Commission.

2.5.2. On the Structural Funds

Under the 1989 and 1993 reforms, steps have been taken to make the programmes more consistent and to evaluate their impact on the beneficiary regions.

Bearing in mind the lessons learned from inter-regional cooperation, regional and local authorities would like to see further progress in this direction.

Since regional and local authorities are grouped according to logical spatial planning criteria, the EU and its Member States must recognize the need to respect the special position of these wider regions as defined by the inter-regional structures, accept the priorities determined by them, and draw up a development programme for the entire region along with the corresponding budgets and allocation of financial contributions. In this manner, the majority of inter-regional cooperation measures will in practice be covered. This type of development which is based on geographical areas would be a step towards a more balanced, multi-centred development of large geographical areas with a European dimension.

This would require a number of changes in the rules of eligibility for Structural Fund aid:

- revision (or amalgamation) of the objectives of the Structural Funds, since one area of intervention may straddle several objectives;

- creation of a new preferential criterion relating to inter-regional cooperation;

- consideration of inter-regional cooperation measures where these further the objective of the overall programme;

- specific eligibility criteria for regional and local authorities in areas bordering central and eastern European countries.

Application of the new criteria will not in itself significantly increase recourse to Structural Fund aid, judging in particular by the effectiveness of regional and inter-regional measures. However, the areas of intervention may well be wider than at present, with a consequent increase in the number of eligible projects.

2.5.3. On Interreg II C

In its Opinion of 21 July 1995 on Europe 2000 +, the Committee of the Regions advocates 'a Community initiative for the implementation of inter-regional and transnational spatial planning projects`. This recommendation sets the scene for regional and local authorities to play a larger part in EU spatial planning strategy.

In its communication of 10 July 1996 on Interreg II C, the Commission states that the Member States and regional and local authorities should present a joint strategy related to the area in question ... each operational programme will have a joint management structure ... priority will be given to proposals made in cooperation with regional and local authorities ... eligible areas are not strictly defined in relation to the objectives of the Structural Funds but through belonging to a recognized region ... third countries may become involved through Phare and Tacis ... ECU 120 million will be allocated over a three-year period.

Programmes under Phare and Tacis should be linked more closely to Interreg programmes so that Interreg projects agreed with third countries can be implemented in accordance with the objectives set for the programmes. In addition, local and regional authorities in third countries should be given a greater say in the selection of Phare and Tacis projects.

Noting that the announcement of Interreg II C and its implementing procedures proved to be as expected, the regional and local authorities took the opportunity to voice their fears and express their hopes in the form of recommendations.

2.5.3.1. Although the regional groupings defined by Europe 2000 + did not formally include third countries, the seminars considered these groupings a sound base for inter-regional cooperation. There is concern about the use of different groupings for the pilot Interreg II C programme, as this could undermine and disrupt the action already being taken by the relevant local and regional authorities.

The Mediterranean regions in particular are concerned that the concept of a single pilot area for the Mediterranean has been dropped.

The proposed arrangements will isolate, fragment and marginalize the area, and are contradictory to the much-vaunted desire of the Member States and the EU institutions to implement a new Mediterranean policy which caters for the real needs of the area.

- The funds allocated to Interreg II C, even supplemented by those provided under ERDF Article 10, are not sufficient for launching large-scale, cogent operational programmes. This lack of funds is all the more keenly felt since no redistribution was carried out in respect of the funding allocated at national level, and the national governments have made no financial commitment.

- With a few exceptions, coordination between Member States and regions has not lived up to the promises made in the communication, and there has been no real prior consultation of regional and local authorities. They have not been given the basic (notably financial) means to determine their key priority or priorities and put together a comprehensive programme for their area. For example, account has not been taken of the preliminary work done by the regions for the Mediterranean pilot area.

2.5.3.2. To ensure the success of the Interreg II C experimental programme, any departure from the Europe 2000 + zoning should be endorsed by the regional and local authorities concerned.

Without underestimating its obligation to respect the powers of national governments, the Commission could further highlight the transnational and inter-regional aspects of Interreg II C, obliging the Member States to engage in a new type of partnership both with each other and with regional and local authorities in order to hammer out spatial planning priorities, the allocation of financial contributions, the preparation of the programme, and the establishment of the implementing and monitoring authority.

The Commission could also demand the setting-up, at the outset, of a joint body comprising representatives of the relevant national, regional and local authorities, like the one set up by the relevant Member States and regions to administer Interreg IIC in the North Sea regions. This body should draw on successes experienced by the regions and the European Commission during the previous period.

In this regard, and particularly in order to ensure observance of the criterion that priority be given to proposals made with local and regional authorities, the Committee of the Regions calls for local and regional authority representatives to be involved in project selection through representation on the management and monitoring committees in the various regions. The COR also reserves the right to be consulted in the final stage of adoption of the EU decision.

Measures should also be considered to examine collaborative projects between the macro-regions defined under Interreg II C. This is particularly important in the development of transport and communication corridors so that the links between EU peripheral regions and its core can be strengthened.

2.5.3.3. For regional and local authorities, the task of Interreg II C is to show that an EU spatial planning strategy, in which territorial authorities participate on an active and equal footing, can more effectively harness spatial and human resources, boost economic growth and jobs, and strengthen social and territorial cohesion.

Given the effectiveness of cooperation, regional and local authorities believe that if Interreg II C gives them the opportunity, its success will seal their role in EU spatial planning strategy.

As Commissioner Wulf-Mathies stated at the 3-4 July 1996 seminar on Interreg II C: 'There must be a clear division of responsibilities between the Commission, the Member States and the local and regional authorities, in a spirit of partnership and with due respect for the subsidiarity that is so vital in spatial planning.`

Brussels, 15 January 1997.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Regions

Pasqual MARAGALL i MIRA

() OJ No C 100, 2. 4. 1996, p. 65.

() Discarding a TABLE

>TABLE>

APPENDIX

Findings of the seminars

Each of the seminars provided ample evidence of the value and effectiveness of inter-regional cooperation. The cases presented demonstrate the capacity of regional and local authorities to respond to grassroots requirements and participate in European spatial planning projects.

1. Alpine Arc

1.1. The Alpine Arc, which comprises a population of 70 million and enjoys a high standard of living, has a tradition of inter-regional, cross-border and transnational cooperation which is the result of its central position within the European Union, straddling 26 regions and six countries including Switzerland and Liechtenstein; here, cooperation has been the natural way of solving problems which transcend political frontiers.

1.2. The Alpine Arc has a number of intrinsic advantages:

- its rich cultural heritage, which embraces the Germanic, Latin and Slav cultures;

- its dense and modern transport and communications network, which plays a key role in enabling the free circulation of goods, people, capital and services Europe-wide;

- its high living standards and excellent public image;

- its considerable economic, technical and scientific skills and potential, which make it one of Europe's most innovative and competitive regions.

1.3. The Alpine Arc has to contend with a number of problems on account of its geographical diversity and multiple borders ranging from the Mediterranean to the Rhine and Danube basins:

- the large number of 'regional capital` cities has acted as a magnet, resulting in worsening urban congestion and a general migration from rural and mountain areas;

- in certain semi-alpine areas there are very serious access and communication problems;

- the congestion affecting towns and infrastructure is due to the enormous increase in the volume of traffic. This must be controlled by ensuring the Alpine Arc's access to the major infrastructure networks, establishing new transport corridors and introducing multimodal transport systems;

- a particular vulnerability of the region lies in the tourist appeal of the mountains and, above all, the urban density in the valleys, posing a threat to water resources;

- the increase in competition in certain tourism products brings a need for a common policy of product labelling throughout the region;

- the rural exodus is jeopardizing the ecological balance of upland and mountain areas, which itself is highly dependent on the vigour of traditional agriculture as practised in the alpine pastures.

1.4. The regional and local authorities provide a model example of cooperation in tackling common problems and have declared their wish that such initiatives, in which they are the prime movers, should be supported at EU level. The following cases are illustrative:

- the Association of the Eastern Alps (ALP-ADRIA) comprises 22 regions of Italy, Germany, Austria and Slovenia. Its principal task is the coordination and joint handling of matters of concern to its members. The main transport questions concern the trans-alpine highway routes and river port traffic. Other questions under discussion include energy production and distribution, water management, protection of the environment, agriculture, spatial planning, culture and research and technology;

- the Association of the Central Alps (ARGE-ALP) comprises 11 regions and cantons in Switzerland, Germany and Austria. It prepares joint initiatives on cultural, economic, ecological and environmental protection issues. It is currently working on the preparation of a master plan for developing and safeguarding the alpine region;

- the Association of the Western Alps (COTRAO) comprises eight regions and cantons in Switzerland, France and Italy. Its principal task is to identify common problems experienced by its members in such spheres as research and technology, the economy, tourism and culture and to coordinate the solutions adopted in each case. The central objective is to ensure that the population of the region continues to enjoy high living standards and working conditions and a range of quality leisure activities;

- the Association for the Jura comprises four Swiss cantons and the region of Franche-Comté. It seeks to encourage cross-border cooperation with a view to promoting joint and convergent development and planning within the Jura region. An outline plan for the Jura region up to the year 2005 is in preparation.

1.5. The regional and local authorities of the Alpine Arc have called for recognition by the European Union of the special characteristics of their region.

They accordingly propose that:

- the implementation of Community policies should take full account of the spatial planning needs of the Alpine Arc;

- a strategic development plan for the Alpine Arc be drawn up at EU level in partnership with regional and local authorities in order to serve as a reference framework and support for cooperation measures undertaken in this geographical area.

They accordingly ask to:

- participate in the demarcation of areas and the determination of the selection criteria, budgets and aid provisions to which they will be subject under Community policies, and in particular under the Structural Funds;

- contribute to the preparation of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) and participate in drawing up inter-regional, cross-border and transnational cooperation initiatives at EU level on the basis of the evaluation of implementation of the new Community initiative Interreg II C.

2. Mediterranean Region - Latin Rim and Central Mediterranean

2.1. The Mediterranean is a region of extreme diversity, covering four countries of the European Union and two distinct geographical sub-regions: the Latin Rim and the central Mediterranean. Notwithstanding its many assets, the region risks becoming severed from the rest of Europe despite efforts made by the Union to promote its development, principally through the Structural Funds.

2.2. The Latin Rim's eight mainland regions, the Balearic Islands, Corsica and Sardinia and the central Mediterranean's seven regions and Greek and Italian islands, have in recent years, taken advantage of Community aid provisions in order to pursue inter-regional and cross-border cooperation, and they have plans to develop trade with countries on the southern flank of the Mediterranean.

2.3. The strength of the Mediterranean region lies in its capacity to refer to and draw upon its history, culture and civilization. For example:

- the archeological and architectural heritage evident throughout the Mediterranean region makes it an area of enormous opportunity for cultural exchange and the development of tourism;

- the Mediterranean, with its sea, islands and mountains, is a region of exceptionally varied environmental appeal;

- two factors contributing to the region's attractive image are its traditional agriculture and its high-quality regional products;

- people and goods can travel easily thanks to a good network of communications and diverse modes of transport;

- centres of science and technology have played an important part in the establishment of high-grade industries and a flourishing small business sector.

2.4. At the same time there are a great many challenges with which regional and local authorities have to contend:

- the growth of medium-sized towns and intermediate urbanization in general should help to even out imbalances between coastal and inland areas in terms of population, congestion and economic development;

- the distribution and volume of each mode of transport needs to be reassessed by analysing points of congestion and new requirements. Sea transport, which is best suited to integrated Euro-Mediterranean communications, should be strengthened by the introduction of high-speed vessels and the development of common information systems in the various ports. Air transport needs to concentrate more on East-West trans-Mediterranean links, with the opening-up of the markets to new companies and the creation of new regional airports. Lastly, there is a need to develop additional networks of main and secondary road and rail links;

- the combined input from centres of science and technology, and from the small businesses to which these are linked up, should help to ensure a better distribution of know-how and technology in the south of Europe;

- the opportunities provided by new information and communications technology should be used to break the isolation of islands and other peripheral areas and to develop new facilities for dealing with environmental problems (e.g. fires and pollution), boosting economic performance and improving transport safety.

2.5. Regional and local authorities are conscious of their role in the economic development of the Mediterranean region. This is why they have decided to work together on cooperation initiatives, where possible with the support of the European Union.

- Corsica and Sardinia are joining forces for the second time on a trial cross-border cooperation programme under Interreg. This has involved the two islands in joint projects for the development and environmental protection of their respective regions (notably the Straits of Bonifacio), high-level scientific contacts on maritime issues, and student exchanges;

- the Interreg programme has enabled the local authorities of Bastia and Livorno to undertake very fruitful exchanges in the spheres of urban policy, tourism, culture and transport;

- the MED Community programme, which seeks to establish decentralized cooperation initiatives between the EU and the Mediterranean countries, led to the setting-up, in December 1995, of the Euro-Mediterranean Centre for the Environment (CREA), a body charged principally with studying the use of resources, biotechnology, clean technologies, tourism and climatic change;

- independent of Community instruments, Corsica, Sardinia and the Balearic Islands jointly set up IMEDOC, a body intended to represent the interests of the western Mediterranean islands, on 21 March 1996. Their aim was to cooperate more closely on matters of common concern such as their island status, tourism, the environment, the economy and rural development, and to present joint projects to the Community institutions;

- the regional and local authorities welcome the EU policy of promoting a Euro-Mediterranean economic area and wish to participate actively in its implementation, counterbalancing measures taken on behalf of the countries of central and eastern Europe;

- these authorities endorse the creation of new Community instruments to facilitate decentralized, inter-regional and cross-border cooperation, such as MEDA, Ecos-Ouverture, Interreg II C and Article 10 of the ERDF, pursuant to the subsidiarity principle;

- they are conscious that their participation in this process should bring their communities closer together and help to maintain peace and prosperity throughout the Mediterranean region.

3. Central Europe: East-West frontier region

3.1. The East-West frontier region concerns 14 states bordering the external frontiers of the European Union, from the Baltic to the Mediterranean. This very extensive frontier forms the EU's interface with many of the present applicant countries. Every day, across this now permeable frontier, contacts are forged between individuals, associations, teaching establishments, local authorities and regions.

3.2. Given its economic history, this region has very considerable potential as a dynamic hub within the enlarged EU. Its cultural assets remain intact and the new economic growth factors are gradually being absorbed through the wide range of cooperation schemes pursued under programmes such as Phare, Interreg and Tacis. All this has been achieved despite the differences in the legal and administrative status of the regional and local authorities on either side of the frontier and the scarcity of budget resources.

3.3. The numerous and diverse examples of cooperation include measures undertaken with Hungary under the auspices of the ALP-ADRIA working group, and the local initiatives undertaken between Bohemia, Bavaria and Austria which have spawned joint projects in areas such as economic cooperation, tourism, culture, language training and youth exchanges.

The Finnish regional and local authorities have established cooperative links not only with their counterparts in the Baltic States but also with the Czech Republic. These have mainly involved the development of research centres and universities and the implementation of a training programme.

In the Czech Republic, cooperation has helped to improve road infrastructure and tourism and cultural facilities.

3.4. The regional and local authorities of this region are conscious of their role in securing the swift and lasting integration of the countries of central Europe within the European Union. The regions will play an important part in EU enlargement insofar as they represent the key bridging elements in the integration process. It is for the EU itself to establish a precise and firm timetable for its enlargement and to take account of the interests of the frontier regions.

3.5. Cross-border cooperation between the regional and local authorities of East and West can help to meet immediate needs in fields such as training, research, culture and language learning, as well as enhancing the security of persons and property.

Cross-border cooperation is also a basic component of spatial planning. The regional and local authorities responsible for cross-border cooperation adopt a 'bottom-up` approach to EU integration. Their initiatives are geared to the different regional and local situations, so they produce balanced results consistent with the subsidiarity principle.

This is why the EU and national authorities must keep in mind the objectives set at regional level and ensure that cross-border spatial planning considerations are fully accommodated.

In the environmental field, regional and local authorities show particular concern for preserving or restoring ecological balance, using natural resources in a manner compatible with this aim and showing environmental sensitivity where development issues arise. All projects are examined in terms of potential environmental damage to the site in question and the land adjacent to it.

The EU and the Member States must take steps to speed up economic, technical and trade development by adopting the measures recommended by the relevant regional and local authorities. Such measures would include the creation of efficient infrastructure and communications, energy and telecommunications networks connecting up with Europe's principal links, the expansion of research capacity with a view to creating new sectors of activity and exploring new markets, and compensatory measures for regions on either side of the frontier.

Special attention should be paid to the development of agriculture, for which the creation of an internal market is an urgent requirement.

The ultimate aim of this frontier region is to become a hub of cultural and industrial exchange and trade between East and West rather than, as at present, a mere transit region.

Cross-border cooperation is essential in order to achieve all these objectives. The aid provided for this purpose under Interreg, Phare and Tacis must be increased and streamlined. The trade protection accorded to Community products under the CAP reform and the GATT agreements needs to be extended to those of the central and eastern European countries as soon as is feasible.

Mindful of their work and responsibilities, regional and local authorities in the region call upon the Intergovernmental Conference to draw up plans for institutional reforms prior to the enlargement of the Union; they call upon the Community institutions to speed up the accession process for the countries of central and eastern Europe; they call upon the Committee of the Regions to defend the interests of regional and local authorities in the region; and they call upon the Member States and the European Union as such to legally recognize cross-border cooperation and promote it by means of specific aid.

4. The Centre Capitals

4.1. The Centre Capitals region comprises 25 % of the EU's population and accounts for 30 % of its GDP, making it one of the key focal areas for development in Europe.

4.2. This region was once the cradle of the industrial revolution. Its regional and local authorities, and those of the major city conurbations in particular, are now host to centres of decision-making, research, innovation and financial and banking services, and to the headquarters of large firms, the European institutions and international organizations.

- The rapid technical advance of infrastructure, communications and telecommunications networks and transport (TGV, motorways, the Channel Tunnel, major ports, international airports and cross-channel transport) has brought the major decision-making centres closer together, facilitated trade and economic links, and improved mobility as regards housing and employment.

- The rich cultural and natural heritage shared by the regional and local authorities of this region has instilled in them a special identity which they strive to preserve and foster.

4.3. The numerous inter-regional and cross-border cooperation initiatives undertaken by regional and local authorities concerned with the European dimension of their problems and objectives, have made this region a unique testbed for EU spatial planning.

- A number of cross-border cooperation initiatives involving the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, Belgium and the Netherlands have been undertaken by regional and local authorities with EU support. Attention is currently focused on harmonizing regulations and administrative procedures with a view to alleviating the problems caused by frontier restrictions, and on establishing joint services, infrastructure and communication lines. Under the Interreg programme, the cities of Maastricht, Aachen and Liège have begun work on a joint planning scheme. Regional and local authorities in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium are involved in a vocational training cooperation project using new information and communications technology.

- Five regions of Belgium, France and the United Kingdom, representing a total population of 16 million, have together set up a 'Euroregion` in an area that has come to form a crossroads of Europe. With the aim of stimulating the economy and consolidating economic and social ties, the regions of Brussels-Capital, Flanders, Wallonia, Nord-Pas-de-Calais and Kent are cooperating in economic, research, tourism, training, personnel exchange and spatial planning schemes. The European Commission is supporting this initiative as a model of regional integration.

- Further east, the Interreg programme has led to the setting-up of a SAR-LOR-LUX 'Euroregion`. By pooling their respective development objectives, Sarre, Lorraine and Luxembourg are working jointly to set up a true development zone. Specific measures include infrastructural modernization, a blueprint for the redevelopment of the coal-mining region, waste disposal, improved distribution of infrastructure, the promotion of bi-lingualism and the creation of a universities charter.

4.4. Regional and local authorities in the Centre Capitals area know that they face a number of common challenges. For example:

- the networking of research centres, universities and small businesses, and the improvement of the technology base, will help regional and local authorities to respond more incisively to the challenges of industrial restructuring and market globalization;

- the redeployment of communications, energy and transport infrastructure should secure a better geographical distribution of facilities and more balanced use of energy and transport resources, combining the different modes (roads, motorways, ports, airports, inland waterways and sea communications) in a complementary manner which is also respectful of the environment;

- a balanced urban policy geared to local needs will help regional and local authorities in the Centre Capitals region to tackle social exclusion, crime, congestion, pollution and inner-city decay and improve spatial balance between urban and rural areas. By pooling experiences, city networks can help to define and disseminate good practice in this sphere. The development of medium-sized towns situated between the large urban conurbations and rural areas should help to improve general geographical balance. More emphasis must be placed on rural redevelopment in order to stem the tide of rural migration, urban congestion and rising unemployment;

- the introduction of joint means of environmental surveillance will encourage regional and local authorities to take effective measures to combat river and marine flooding and pollution and to work out a rational policy of waste management for the entire region.

4.5. Regional and local authorities are convinced that cross-border, inter-regional and transnational cooperation helps to further the spatial development of the regions concerned. Accordingly:

- they call for the preparation at European level of a strategic policy framework tailored to the specific requirements of existing cooperation schemes in each major geographical area of the EU so that such cooperation can be developed in a consistent and complementary fashion;

- as participants in these cooperation schemes, they also wish to be involved in the preparation of this policy framework. They therefore intend to set up a joint steering body which will coordinate local cooperation initiatives and enable regional and local authorities to speak with one voice;

- lastly, they demand that Community policies be reshaped to take account of the new parameters introduced with the concept of economic, social and territorial cohesion.

5. North Sea and Baltic regions

5.1. Regional and local authorities in the North Sea and Baltic regions represent a huge swathe of northern Europe, stretching from Scotland to Finland. Following the enlargement of the EU on 1 January 1995, this area comprises seven EU Member States (the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Finland) and one European Economic Area country (Norway). The shared features of these countries and those adjoining its frontiers give this region enormous potential.

5.2. The economy of the North Sea and Baltic regions is dominated by the sea and the exploitation of energy resources:

- the major North Sea ports handle most of the EU's port traffic. Possessing the very best infrastructure and handling facilities, these ports are helping to expand the already highly intensive intra-European and international trade conducted from this region;

- fisheries and aquaculture are a major source of economic activity and jobs, especially in the coastal towns and villages of Denmark and Scotland;

- the region's energy resources account for over 50 % of the EU's energy requirements, consisting principally of oil, coal and natural gas;

- the regional and local authorities of the North Sea and Baltic regions consider it important to turn this region of northern Europe into an integrated growth centre capable of counterbalancing development forces in the southern regions of the EU. This is the reason for the numerous inter-regional, cross-border and transnational cooperation initiatives in the region. Cooperation with neighbouring third countries has been facilitated through agreements concluded between them and the EU.

5.3. Current cooperation in the Baltic Sea region involves 70 entities ranging from national governments and regional and local authorities to ports and universities. A Baltic Sea Spatial Development Committee was set up to pool experience. To date, 250 schemes of significance have been promoted. All areas are covered, ranging from music courses to electricity distribution networks. Cooperation acts as a launch pad for tackling problems of road traffic, energy resources, sea transport, ports, water pollution, training and technology. Efforts need to be pursued, notwithstanding the financial obstacles frequently encountered. This cooperation has governmental support (1994 Tallinn and 1996 Kalmar Conferences).

- The North Sea Commission is an association of regional and local authorities of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Norway representing a population of over 40 million, i.e. 12 % of the EU population. It comprises the regional authorities most directly concerned with the management of North Sea issues. Six working groups have produced a report entitled 'Europe 2000 + North Sea` which seeks to provide a common framework for sustainable development measures and effective resource management.

- The cooperation programmes to provide technical assistance to the countries of the former USSR (Tacis) and CEEC (Phare) have enabled Poland and Russia to participate in discussions on the establishment of vital corridors to the Baltic Sea region. These discussions should lead to the introduction of a multinational transport system.

5.4. The creation of an integrated focus of development centred on the North Sea and Baltic region means that the regional and local authorities, as the prime movers in cooperation measures, collectively draw up a spatial planning strategy capable of resolving common problems. The basic objective is to develop sea transport with a view to relieving congested roads and motorways, reducing pollution, and opening up communications with rural and under-populated peripheral areas:

- the promotion of coastal and inter-island sea transport between the North Sea and Baltic regions will help to promote more balanced economic activity, develop trading links and improve the quality of services;

- the renewal of port infrastructure, particularly using computerized technology, will improve traffic safety and prevent pollution;

- the creation of medium-sized ports in peripheral areas and the promotion of short-haul transport will encourage the emergence of integrated local development centres, thereby relieving congestion in urban areas and on continental communications links and opening up peripheral areas.

5.5. Regional and local authorities consider that Interreg II C and Article 10 of the ERDF represent an operational basis for the implementation of a development strategy for the North Sea and Baltic regions.

5.6. They hope that the work carried out by inter-regional cooperation bodies on behalf of the two regions concerned will lay the foundations for subsequent development policies.

5.7. They demand, in the name of subsidiarity, that regional and local authorities should be able to participate fully in the monitoring and management structures to be set up for each of the programmes.

6. Atlantic Arc

6.1. The Atlantic Arc is a very broad area encompassing Europe's western seaboard and stretching over 3 000 km. from Scotland to Gibraltar.

6.2. Although comprising regions of countries as diverse as Ireland, the United Kingdom, France, Spain and Portugal, the Atlantic Arc demonstrates a number of common features reflecting its peripheral location and high economic dependence on the sea:

- the economic development of the Atlantic Arc has relied heavily on the exploration and exploitation of the sea. It was from Europe's Atlantic seaboard that ships set sail to conquer the New World;

- a large number of well-equipped ports now handle shipping and trade, particularly inter-continental trade;

- the creation of centres of technology has attracted investors and paved the way for tertiary activities which have brought jobs and economic diversification;

- the modernization of communications infrastructure has helped to consolidate the main transport corridors and the development of urban conurbations;

- tourism and environmental protection have both been boosted by the greater profile given to the fine natural and cultural heritage of the region.

6.3. The regional and local authorities of the Atlantic Arc quickly became aware of the need to coordinate the development policies implemented locally, in particular through the Structural Funds, and to lay down guidelines for their closer integration within the EU.

Set up in 1992 within the framework of the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPMR), the Atlantic Arc Commission has sought principally to provide an economic impetus on the basis of a common spatial planning policy. The Atlantis I programme endorsed by the European Parliament laid down priority guidelines for: maritime, air and road infrastructure, the establishment of hubs of technology, tourism, urban and environmental policy, along with a common approach to rural development and the creation of the Arcantel network, an inter-port telematics system designed to lock the Atlantic Arc ports into international trade circuits.

A model example of cooperation involves the North of Portugal and Galicia. The authorities of these two regions set out to find a way to strengthen their respective economies, halt rural migration and exploit their strong trade links with Latin America, drawing on their shared natural, geographical and cultural and linguistic assets. Relations were formalized in 1991 with the establishment of a body charged with drawing up a development plan for the two regions. A company providing risk capital was placed at the disposal of SMEs in order to enable them to expand their markets and consolidate their product lines.

6.4. The regional and local authorities of the Atlantic Arc are conscious of the need to pursue their cooperation in order to allay both old and new handicaps:

- worsening of peripheral situation consequent on preparations for an eastward enlargement of the Union;

- consequences of the establishment of the single market, which benefits the economies of mainland Europe;

- accentuation of industrial restructuring problems, the further decline of shipbuilding and a worsening imbalance between coastal urban areas and rural areas.

The choice of the maritime economy as a development priority would seem a rational response to the majority of these problems, and the regional and local authorities call for this priority to be integrated within EU spatial planning strategy. The Union must rediscover and exploit the potential of its western seaboard. Possibly in conjunction with development of the region's airports, the Atlantic ports must expand in order to relieve congestion in the North Sea ports and provide commercial outlets for the products of Europe's inland regions. The Atlantic Ocean is not an enclosed space; it can once again become a development resource only if the economies of the other EU regions make more use of its ports. In local terms, an expansion of Atlantic port activity should improve links between the different parts of the Atlantic Arc, thereby facilitating the integrated development of each of them.

6.5. The new opportunities for inter-regional cooperation should boost the economic and social cohesion of the Atlantic Arc region and reverse its current dependence and isolation.

National governments must give their approval to transnational and inter-regional cooperation for the Atlantic Arc. This would be a sign of trust and would ensure continuity between past and future measures undertaken by the regional and local authorities.

The overall strategy and operational programmes must receive greater funding, but must also be more transparent and more widely publicized.

The regional and local authorities of the Atlantic Arc see Interreg II C as representing a great political opportunity, both for themselves and for the Member States concerned, to jointly hammer out a transnational spatial planning strategy. To this end, they need to know now the likely budget for such a programme and, in particular, the amount which the national governments would contribute.