Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on "PRISM — Cross-border initiatives (Single Market Observatory)"
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, economic and social cohesion, economic survey, frontier region, single market

20.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/7

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘PRISM — Cross-border initiatives (Single
Market Observatory)’

(2001/C 116/02)

On 28 January 1999, the Economic and Social Committee decided, under Rule 23(3) of its Rules of
Procedure, to draw up an opinion on ‘PRISM — Cross-border initiatives (Single Market Observatory)’.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 27 September 2000. The rapporteur was
Mr Malosse.

At its 377th plenary session on 29 and 30 November 2000 (meeting of 29 November) the Economic
and Social Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion.

1.

The ESC Single Market Observatory’s PRISM Project

1.3.
In the view of the ESC Observatory, the measures
under consideration, which directly concern adjustment to the
European single market, would seem to fall into four categories:

1.1.
In 1999, the Economic and Social Committee’s Single
Market Observatory (SMO) embarked on a European survey
known as ‘PRISM’ (Progress Report ‘Initiatives in the single
market’) of the practical measures introduced by both national
and local authorities and socio-economic interest groups to
adjust
(e.g.
changeover to the euro, sharper competition, new areas of
cooperation, and obstacles to information and communi-
cation).

to the new challenges of

the single market

A.

Information and support

— operational information for users (publications, sympos-

ia, Internet, training, media);

— targeted assessment of the situation vis-à-vis the single

market (studies, opinion polls, media).

1.2.

The aims which the Observatory set for PRISM are:

B.

Problem-solving processes

— to foster an innovatory, bottom-up approach to the single
market to supplement the traditional Brussels ‘top-down’
approach;

— mediation to cope with obstacles and problems experi-
enced (approaches at national, cross-border, Brussels
levels; direct negotiation of solutions to specific prob-
lems).

— promote and publicise best practice ‘in the field’;

C.

Partnership

— on the basis of the above,

list the EU political and
regulatory measures needed to encourage, back up and
develop those initiatives;

— European partnerships to facilitate openness (twinning,

exchanges, partnerships, agreements, mergers);

— ensure an original and operational ESC contribution to
the debate on the single market and the Internet: this will
be the ESC’s own specific initiative;

— pooling of resources to sharpen competitive edge (centres,

sponsorships, SME clubs, linguistic back-up).

D. Agreements and codes of practice

— in this way, consolidate the ESC’s role as mediator
between the socio-economic players and the EC insti-
tutions.

— streamlining of administrative procedures
centres, mutual recognition, codes of practice);

(one-stop

C 116/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2001

— enhancement of image to cope with competition (qualifi-
cation, certification, designation of origin, label, diploma,
charter).

2. Work programme for the study group on PRISM —

Cross-border initiatives

2.1.
As a contribution to the PRISM project, an initiative
has been launched to identify the main features of best practice
in border areas, in tandem with a series of activities to identify
best practice at the national and regional levels. We therefore
need to determine precisely which type of initiative specific to
border areas can be put forward and, to do so, we had to
analyse the new issues confronting the border areas.

2.1.1. With this in mind the general hearing held in Brussels
on 21 April 1999 was followed by a hearing in Trieste on
15 November 1999. This hearing clearly highlighted both the
constraints of the exercise (difficulties in selecting the best
projects, conflicting views on project quality) and the existence
of many border obstacles in a region adjoining a non-EU
country. Following this hearing it was decided to focus on sets
of criteria making it possible to measure the impact of border
initiatives more accurately and to frame recommendations for
making best practice widely known. The aim of the hearing
organised in Luxembourg was therefore to test this new
approach in the field on the basis of carefully defined criteria.

2.1.2.
The Luxembourg hearing, organised on 21 July 2000
under the auspices of the Economic and Social Council of the
Saar-Lor-Lux region, was a huge success. A number of
completed, ongoing or planned projects were assessed accord-
ing to the set of criteria that had been defined and projects
that are examples of ‘good practice’ and likely to be transposed
and promoted as part of the Single Market Observatory’s work
were presented. Some of them inspired the proposals to be
found in this opinion. This hearing also provided an oppor-
tunity to test a methodology for identifying the factors on
which the success of the best projects depends, highlighting
possible causes of failure and proposing ways of publicising
best practices. On the basis of this, the study group will also
be able to draw up a series of suggestions for European
programmes to advance cross-border cooperation — such as
Interreg, which has been defined as the technical and financial
frame of reference — and thereby develop the European and
national legislative framework.

Indeed,

2.2.
The proposals already drawn up by the Committee in
its opinion on benchmarking (1), which advocated a regional
approach over a national one, are therefore also relevant in
this area.
the national approach adopted by the
Commission has to date had very limited results. Yet this
method was relaunched in spectacular fashion by the extraordi-
nary European Council meeting in Lisbon in March 2000
when it proclaimed ‘benchmarking’ to be the EU’s new working
method par excellence. The Single Market Observatory’s PRISM
initiative is consistent with this new climate of opinion in
advocating a new ‘benchmarking’ approach for the single
market. This approach will be based on identifying method-
ologies — rather than examples — that have produced
significant and lasting results.

3. Analysis of the issues confronting border areas

3.1. Historical factors affecting cross-border regions

3.1.1.
Today’s frontiers are the result of the rise of the
nation state from the 19th century onwards. Previously,
despite transport difficulties, border areas were essentially
areas of mobility and cultural, human and economic inter-
change. Hence a non-European visiting Europe will be struck
by the architectural and cultural similarities in the Provence/
Mediterranean and Rhine and Danube regions, Flanders, the
Balkans, etc. The erection of administrative frontiers and, in
particular,
‘self-centred’ states along
national lines have progressively broken the geographical and
cultural unity of these areas, which have now become, with
few exceptions, separate territories — often hostile to, and at
best ignorant of, their neighbours.

the organisation of

One of the contradictory issues facing us at the end
3.1.2.
of the 20th century is the problem of borders and their
continued existence: on the one hand, there is a universal trend
towards increasingly vigilant control of economic and trade
flows and on the other, the formation of a single vast economic
and political area and a concomitant suppression of thousands
of kilometres of borders. This raises the issue of the identity
and future of cross-border regions.

(1) Opinion on the ‘Communication from the Commission on
Benchmarking — Implementation of an instrument available to
economic actors and public authorities’ (COM(97) 153 final) (OJ
C 296, 29.9.1997, p. 8).

20.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/9

3.1.3.
Despite fifty years of European unification the splits
created by the rise of the nation state and the erection of
frontiers are still not totally repaired. There may be greater
freedom of movement of people, goods, services and capital
(albeit still far from perfect) but it has to be accepted that
national considerations still predominate over the idea of a
border zone. While borders may no longer exist in the sense
of physical barriers, they still exist in people’s minds and, in
particular, are reflected in behaviour and customs. The Euro-
pean Union therefore needs to reflect on the validity of
instruments developed to help re-establish a European area of
cooperation.

generally held to restrict economic development because of
their effect on the dynamics and cost of investments.

3.2.2.
From a purely economic angle, the retention of a
physical or ‘invisible’ border therefore acts as a brake on
economic development. Invisible barriers — language, behav-
iour, administrative practices, cultural problems, and so on —
are of key importance. These ‘invisible barriers’ are increasingly
invoked to explain the fact that border regions, within a
frontier-free European Union, continue to live ‘back to back’.

Borders arose/arise as a result of the breakdown
3.1.4.
into nation states, but isn’t geographical proximity a better
determinant of border areas’ identity? On the other hand, how
important is actual proximity to a border, now that the most
decisive advantage is often speed of delivery, which depends on
the flexibility of production facilities? In addition, geographical
proximity is undermined and complicated by the problem of
mutual recognition of national structures and procedures,
which creates obstacles which cannot be overcome without
specialist intervention.

3.2.3.
One of the major lessons learned from the hearing
in Trieste was that the European Union, through its pro-
grammes and funding, is the only true counterweight to splits
and divisions. Unfortunately, these programmes seem to have
encouraged an ‘appetite’ for cooperation which focuses on the
financial benefits rather than being the product of the genuine
will of local partners. Furthermore, Europe’s action, in this
case, seems minimal
in the face of de facto frontiers and
invisible barriers.

Another question which arises in the context of
3.1.4.1.
the single market is the relationship between regions and
borders. The old borders have left their mark on the economies
of the cross-border regions. For example, one such visible
distinguishing feature of border economies is the daily com-
muting of workers. In this context, it would seem that cross-
border trade helps improve the performance and competi-
tiveness of regions.

3.1.5.
Isolationist policies are now anachronistic. However,
if divisions are set to disappear, new forms of relationship
must be invented. This is the challenge now facing cross-
border regions in the context of the single market. On the
other hand, what is the point of devising procedures and
structures to boost cooperation if national structures and
practices boil down to preserving, and sometimes even
aggravating, divisions in day-to-day life.

3.2.4.
In a very different context, the Luxembourg hearing
highlighted above all the enthusiasm of local actors who have
often pre-empted European programmes and set up model
economic, social and cultural cooperation projects. While
European programmes are very welcome and have of course
widened the scope of these projects, they are often so wrapped
up in red tape that they can also be an obstacle to cooperation.
Indeed the European Commission waited until the end of the
1980s, when the Interreg programme was launched, before
turning its attention to the situation of border areas. The
Luxembourg hearing also stressed the importance of bodies in
a position to encourage cooperation, such as the Political
Summit of the Saar-Lor-Lux region, the region’s Economic and
Social Council, consular conferences, trade union groupings,
etc. These bodies act as bridges in overcoming ‘invisible
barriers’ and counterweights to pressures from national reflex-
es, which are completely natural but tend to hinder the
emergence of genuinely cross-border economic areas within
the single market.

3.2. Traditional hypotheses on the penalisation of cross-border

4. A new reference framework for analysis of border

areas

areas

3.2.1.
In economic texts, borders are often considered as
an artificial distorting factor within large markets and are

4.1.
A cross-border area is simultaneously part of a national
territory and, by its very nature, a zone of separation and

C 116/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2001

contact. Although there may be tensions, this area presages
another country and as such can be extremely attractive.

4.2.
In the current scenario for European integration, we
speak both of a ‘Europe without borders’ and a ‘Europe of the
regions’. The first concept clearly reflects a will to suppress
borders, as does the second, although its focus is on other types
of frontier, whether geographical, socio-cultural, linguistic or
structural.

We are seeing a shift from a conception of borders that
separate to one of borders as zones of contact and cooperation.

4.3.
In the light of this, the study group on cross-border
initiatives should draw on theories which move away from the
traditional emphasis on the problems caused by frontiers to
an emphasis on overcoming them, establishing contact zones
which encourage interregional cooperation and gradually
transforming border zones into cross-border zones.

influence, the new framework for analysis emphasises the
evolution of the border zone into a contact zone. The aim is
not to deny the national reality but to achieve a better balance.
The more the border area becomes aware of these barriers and
strives to overcome them, the more border zones will become
contact zones while in other regions, because of the political
context, lack of mobilisation on the part of the key players or
too great an economic gap, borders will remain barriers.

4.5.
To pinpoint the success and failure of cross-border
cooperation, it would seem useful to define it in terms of
structures, methodology and products.

4.5.1.
Structures are understood to mean the formal
arrangements giving practical expression to a cooperation
agreement of any kind (industrial, social, legal, institutional,
etc.). Here good and bad practices will refer to the problems
encountered and the way in which they are dealt with.

From a planning point of view,

4.3.1.
the long-term
challenge of cooperation is the emergence of cross-border
areas that generate joint initiatives and projects, vitality and
mutual support, and which have structures for exchanging
ideas on coordinating and managing projects. (It would seem
that projects of this scale still largely need to be defined and
set up, targeted on mutual support and joint strategies.)

4.5.2. Methodology denotes a project’s operational con-
ditions: existence of European funding, support from local,
regional and national authorities, partnership component and,
in particular, the involvement of local socio-economic players,
including women, young people and vulnerable social groups,
sound preparations in the shape of prior feasibility studies,
monitoring procedures and ongoing assessment, publicising
of results, and so on.

The hearings held reinforce the idea that this new
4.3.2.
approach must operate on the same operational scale as
the public authorities competent in the identified areas of
cooperation. This is achieved by setting up networks of
operators and joint projects. This dynamic relies on the
participation of economic and social actors, in both a consulta-
tive (e.g. the Grande Région’s ESC) and an operational (e.g.
consular cooperation) capacity.

Product covers, inter alia, the European added value
4.5.3.
contribution to projects, the project’s social dimension, effec-
tive targeting of needs and optimisation of results to ensure
that projects have a genuine mass impact and do not remain
at the pilot stage.

Based on the premise that invisible barriers are the
4.4.
most difficult to overcome and that the existence of ‘self-
centred’ States and regions continues to exert a negative

4.6.
In appraising the socio-economic impact, it would also
seem useful to assess the structural aspects of cross-border
cooperation in terms of spatial planning (consistency with
regional, local and national policies, cultural changes, etc.) as
well as their link-up with other European programmes.

20.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/11

4.7.
In this context, the existence or prospect of an open
area (open border) can, provided it is the focus of a proactive
strategy, provide an opportunity to reconstruct cooperation
networks and develop new forms of mutual support and
approaches to public services. In this way, contact zones will
become zones of exchange and perhaps a positive replacement
for borders, without compromising the rich diversity of the
national reality.

5.

Proposals for action

5.1. Classification and inventory of good practice

5.2. Optimisation and publicising of good practice

The hearings on cross-border operations revealed a huge
variety of influencing factors. The operational methods, the
intensity of cooperation initiatives and projects’ structure and
content vary significantly according to various parameters,
one of the most important of which seems to be the degree of
maturity of cooperation projects. As well as factors relating to
the historical context of relationships,
the variables that
determine this maturity are anchored in political will and the
existence of available legal and operational structures.

Cross-border regions must adapt operational methods combin-
ing joint strategies, operational efficiency and cross-border
integration to everyday operational needs.

This should follow a simple scheme based on the measures
introduced, the methods and products, and the structural
impact:

For purposes of optimising and publicising good practice, the
Committee recommends adopting a framework methodology
based on:

5.1.1.
when studying the cooperation measures (structure,
agreement), attention will focus primarily on the difficulties
encountered and the solutions which have — or have not —
been found, as well as on the management approach opted for
(administrative, financial, etc.);

the upgrading of the ‘PRISM’ data base in line with
5.2.1.
the four criteria selected for the study of cross-border projects,
on the understanding that the selected project will primarily
be presented on the basis of the methodology opted for and
the results obtained;

5.1.2.
analysis of the methodology will identify the partner-
ship (financial, operational, consultative) and the components
of the work programme (feasibility studies, monitoring, evalu-
ation criteria and methods and socio-economic impact assess-
ment);

the organisation of workshops for project managers,
5.2.2.
focusing on four key aspects: structures, methodology, prod-
ucts and structural impact;

5.1.3.
product appraisal will ascertain the project’s Euro-
pean added value contribution in terms of integration and
completion of the single market, the project’s social dimension,
lastly, the practical
effective targeting of stated needs and,
scope of its impact (selective or mass impact);

5.2.3.
a more in-depth study of the failures and problems
encountered, in the form of a ‘check list’ of bad experiences,
which can prove far more instructive than a prizelist for
successful projects.

5.1.4.
the project’s possible structural effects (breaking
down cultural barriers, change in attitudes, spatial organisation,
start-up of common projects, etc., common socio-economic
development strategy, common skills development training
and initiatives ...) will also be highlighted;

5.3. Progress in the operational and legislative framework

it would also be interesting to ascertain the link-
5.1.5.
up with other European policies: environment, enlargement,
cohesion policy, social policy etc.

On the basis of the above inventory of good practice and
check list of bad experiences, the Single Market Observatory
should be in a position to propose operational innovations
and recommendations to regional managers, the Member
States and the EU Institutions, in such areas as:

C 116/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2001

5.3.1.
arrangements (rules, accounting methods, tax aspects, etc.);

improving the efficiency of cross-border cooperation

the technical management of projects and relationships
with authorities: model agreements, explanations con-
cerning national administrative and legal constraints, etc.

5.3.2.
reinforcing cooperation structures at political, con-
sultative and operational level, thereby ensuring the effective
participation of local economic and social actors;

5.3.3.
appointing cooperation ‘facilitators’, whether these
are mediators (as in the Grande Région project) or offices
providing guidance and back-up, e.g.
info-centres for job
seekers (EURES network), companies (EICs) or artisans (BDTEs
— trans-frontier business development offices);

5.3.4.
creating tools for analysing and monitoring, above
all the employment situation, so as to guide political action
and work in the field;

The Interreg programme specifically, other technical
5.5.
and financial framework arrangements proposed by the Euro-
pean Commission, aim to — and really do — contribute, to
the cross-border dynamic in that they encourage projects by
lending financial support.

5.5.1.
Following regional hearings held in two very different
cooperation contexts, it would appear that the credit take-up
by European projects depends on a great variety of key factors,
such as whether cross-border relations previously existed and
the degree to which existing relations are complementary,
economically coherent and sustained. Arrangements seem to
be more effective in areas where the groundwork for cooper-
ation has already been done. It is regrettable that Commission
action looks at existing advantages rather than being more
pro-active and effective in situations where there is a greater
need for cooperation.

launching very specific projects — the only ones
5.3.5.
likely to mobilise people’s energy and have a real structural
impact;

5.5.2.
actions can be recommended to help improve this initiative:

On the basis of the projects presented, the following

5.3.6.
providing back-up to teams in the field. Research has
shown that for cooperation initiatives to lead to significant
projects, operators need to have the know-how and specific
skills. In short, they need to have a strong command of the
neighbouring country’s language and be very familiar with
its institutional and administrative framework, be good at
mobilising technical and financial resources and know how to
manage complex projects.

— reviewing the level at which the programme intervenes:
Interreg, for example, is planned at an administrative
level, but what projects really need is an operational
framework based on synchronised programming and
coordination on each side of the border. Administrative
organisation leading to unified programming should
improve cooperation significantly;

In terms of proposed actions, these observations refer

5.4.
to:

— the need to support this overall development dynamic
by helping to frame rules, providing a simplified and
transparent tax framework, and mobilising budgets for
financing teams and networks; and

— the need to provide instruments for information (guides,
databases) and dialogue (discussion groups, etc.) on
the best cross-border intervention methodologies and
arrangements, thus answering most questions concerning

— multi-annual programming, as occurs in cooperation

projects (but not in the case of Interreg);

— coordination between the management authorities of
different countries on project implementation, based on
common cross-border methods and consistent pro-
cedures (e.g. single proposed candidatures and instruc-
tions, joint timetable for implementation);

— giving more priority to human cooperation. At

the
moment, far too many programmes, especially in border
regions of third countries, only look at the physical
aspects
etc.). While undoubtedly
important, these have never prevented conflicts;

(roads, bridges,

20.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/13

— encouraging local officials and civil society organisations
to pay more attention to cooperation strategies prior to
any Community intervention.

5.6.
These factors, accompanied by the framing of product
quality standards, would help refocus the Interreg initiative as
a European Union tool for creating dynamic border areas
within the single market, far more effectively than any budget
appropriation or financial handout.

6.

Priority conclusions

Following the Brussels, Trieste and Luxembourg hearings, the
study group on PRISM — Cross-border initiatives recommends
the following:

6.1.
selecting a set of four criteria for identifying good
practice in border regions based on the concepts of cooper-
ation arrangements, the methodology chosen, the products
obtained and the long-term structural impact;

Brussels, 29 November 2000.

6.2.
ensuring that the best use is made of PRISM as a
platform for circulating good practices through discussion
groups focusing mainly on methodologies, problems encoun-
tered and the impact of results;

6.3.
calling on the European Union to pay more attention
to border regions in order to make them genuinely cross-
border areas, following the example of the efforts of local
actors in some areas of the EU (e.g. the Grande Région Saar-
Lor-Lux which was visited during the Luxembourg hearing).
To achieve this, the Interreg initiative must be refocused to
concentrate on effective cooperation strategies, by prioritising
partnerships of economic and social actors, work in the field,
specific projects conducive to exchanges, human relationships
and networks of teams;

urging the European Union to pay special attention to
6.4.
the situation in the most remote and peripheral border regions,
in particular border regions of third countries wishing to join
the EU, so as to actively encourage outward-reaching strategies,
primarily involving local officials and operators. The method-
ologies implemented by the most central regions and PRISM
initiative good practices could be easily circulated and applied
in these areas.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS