Interreg IIC North Sea Programme - Espace project

Interreg IIC North Sea Programme

- successful transnational planning?

Written by Michael Mollas Diploma Thesis at the University of Dortmund, Germany

in Germany and England 2002.

The satellite photo of the Interreg IIC North Sea Region on the title page is taken from the IIC NorthSea Programme website, and was produced by the VROM (Dutch Ministry of Housing, SpatialPlanning and the Environment).

The copyright of this document remains with theauthor, Michael Moll. To refer to / quote work, use as source: “Michael Moll (2002): Interreg IIC North SeaProgramme - Successful transnational planning?Diploma thesis. Dortmund: University of Dortmund.”

Feedback and comments about this work are welcome; please directthem to [email protected].

PREFACE

Spatial planning at the European level is something new, and, as it is with many newthings, this makes it exciting and yet unpredictable.

In the academic world of planning, the most discussed and promoted outcome of theEuropean undertakings in spatial planning has been the European SpatialDevelopment Perspective (ESDP), a non-binding document about concepts ofspatial planning in the European Union. The Interreg IIC Initiative has not, up tonow, been a focus of academic interest, although it was the first programme thattried to actually apply European spatial planning measures at the local and regionallevel.

There is a fascination with the Interreg IIC Initiative, as it is the first ever attempt tobring European regions together in large transnational areas. The aim of Interreg isto create new networks between regional and local authorities in these co-operationareas. The focus is on spatial planning, with the objective to create more cohesiveand harmonised planning strategies and structures in these transnational co-operation areas and, in the longer run, across Europe.

The inspiration for this thesis came from two months working at the Interreg IIC/IIIBNorth Sea Programme Secretariat in the Danish town of Viborg, in autumn 2000.With a spatial planning background, I was surprised about the lack of actual spatialplanning and the limited overview of the impact of the Interreg IIC North SeaProgramme. I started to ask myself what the transnational Interreg initiative actuallymeans for spatial planning in the regions.

At the end of 2001, all Interreg IIC projects needed to be concluded; in December2001, the Community Initiative Programme of the North Sea Programme for the newperiod IIIB was approved by the European Commission. This seemed to be aperfect time to evaluate the successes and shortcomings of the Interreg IIC NorthSea Programme.

At the time of writing, no comprehensive evaluation of any of the Interreg IICprogrammes is available, and the amount of literature about its impacts is verylimited. In this respect, the thesis did a lot of ground work. The evaluation of anInterreg IIC programme, as a new form of European funding initiative, required thedevelopment of appropriate criteria and indicators. These might provide inspirationto future evaluators of Interreg programmes.

The transnational Interreg Initiative touches many central issues of the currentacademic debates about the general role, organisation and future of spatialplanning. These issues include: the role and relevance of strategic planning,“perspective incrementalism” versus “rational comprehensive planning”, project-

SOURCE: Moll, Michael (2002): Interreg IIC North Sea Programme. Diploma Thesis. University of Dortmund. (c) Michael Moll iii

iv

based planning approaches with competitive selection of projects, the formation ofspatially relevant regions, and the basic question of what spatial planning actuallymeans. All these issues are to some extent discussed in this work.

The thesis concludes with recommendations, developed from a critical assessmentof the evaluation of the Interreg IIC North Sea Programme. Some of theserecommendations, especially those to project partners and local authorities, couldeasily be taken into account under the current Interreg IIIB period. Others, such as anew organisation model for the programme, might provide inspiration for thedevelopment of the Interreg period IVB - if that period will exist.

This work is the result of six months research, and forms the Diploma thesis of mystudies of Spatial Planning at the University of Dortmund in Germany. The decisionto write the thesis in English was based on the hope that its results might be morewidely disseminated and act as an inspiration for stakeholders involved in theInterreg process - be it programme administrators, project partners or regionalrepresentatives. As there is only very limited literature available, the report mightalso act as an introduction to transnational Interreg programmes, for local authoritiesas well as for students interested in this latest venture of European planning.

This document is available to download on the Internet, athttp://www.eurography.de/interreg/.

AcknowledgementsInspiration for this thesis stems from working at the North Sea ProgrammeSecretariat, and I would like to thank sincerely all its staff, in particular LorraineGeorge and Mark Overman, for their continued help and support, and for opening upunique opportunities.

I owe thanks to my university professors Klaus Kunzmann and Michael Wegener,for showing interest in the issue and for providing encouragement and advice duringthe writing of the thesis.

Many local and regional government officials in Germany and England havesupported me in my work. I want to thank all who supplied information andgenerously gave their time, in particular those who agreed to spare time for aninterview.

I would also like to acknowledge the Cologne-based company Globalpark(www.globalpark.de), for providing its excellent online questionnaire tools free ofcharge for my thesis work, and Globalpark’s Dorthe Lübbert, for offering valuabletechnical support.

As always, my family has supported me, taking a keen interest in my work, editingand commenting on a subject matter that takes some getting to grips with. Finally,special thanks are due to my fiancee, for her constant encouragement, professionaladvice and inspiration, and, most of all, for her love.

SOURCE: Moll, Michael (2002): Interreg IIC North Sea Programme. Diploma Thesis. University of Dortmund. (c) Michael Moll v

Table of Contents

vi

Table of ContentsLists of information boxes, tables & figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiiAbbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ixGlossary of English translations for German terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiDeutsche Zusammenfassung (German summary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

INTRODUCTION 1 Towards a Europeanisation of spatial planning?..................................... 1

PART I - BACKGROUND

THE CONTEXTS OF EUROPEAN SPATIAL PLANNING ...............................7

2 European Spatial Planning - strategy or land-use planning?.................. 7

3 Interreg IIC and the ESDP - origins and roles ........................................... 9

3.1 History of spatial planning in the European Communities .................................... 9

3.2 The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) ................................. 11

3.3 Interreg IIC Community Initiative - an initiative for spatial planning.................... 12

3.4 European Spatial Planning - Mixed Scanning in Planning theories? ................. 14

4 The Interreg IIC North Sea Programme.................................................... 17

Conclusions of Part I ...................................................................................... 20

PART II - THE EVALUATION

A SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMME? .................................................................23

5 Similarities across the North Sea: The case study areas...................... 24

5.1 Differences in administrative and planning structures ........................................ 25

5.2 Peripheries at the centre of Europe: Weser-Ems and East Anglia..................... 28

6 Evaluating spatial impacts of the IIC North Sea Programme ................ 32

6.1 Success and limitations of the evaluation .......................................................... 33

6.2 The project perspective: Generally content partners.......................................... 34String of Pearls - a bottom-up network project 34North Sea Cycle Route - a network project 37Water City International - a project with local focus 40Norcoast - a strategy for the North Sea Region 43The questionnaire: Overview of project opinions and impacts 45

6.3 The regional views ............................................................................................. 50Lower Saxony: Advantages through transnational synergy 50East of England: Opening up towards the European mainland 52

6.4 Views of the Interreg North Sea Programme Secretariat ................................... 53

Interview with Lorraine George: Interreg IIC as a transnational experiment 53Interview with Mark Overman: New attitudes through co-operation 54

Conclusions of Part II ..................................................................................... 56

SOURCE: Moll, Michael (2002): Interreg IIC North Sea Programme. Diploma Thesis. University of Dortmund. (c) Michael Moll

Table of Contents

PART III - THE ASSESSMENT

MORE TERRITORIAL COHESION THAN SPATIAL PLANNING .................57

7 Successful projects with limited programme perspective .................... 58

7.1 The projects - more than exchange of experience? ........................................... 58

7.2 The programme perspective: Limited success................................................... 61

7.3 A European planning perspective: Towards “Mixed Scanning”?........................ 63

8 Interreg IIIB - improvements? ................................................................... 65

Conclusions of Part III .................................................................................... 68

PART IV - RECOMMENDATIONS

TOWARDS A MORE INFLUENTIAL PROGRAMME ....................................71

9 Small steps towards an improved programme ....................................... 71

9.1 Local authorities and project partners: Towards more efficiency ....................... 71

9.2 The regional level: Towards a stronger strategic role ........................................ 73

9.3 The North Sea Programme: Towards a sophisticated North Sea strategy ........ 75

9.4 Recommendations to other bodies: Towards more spatial planning involvement77EU Commission 77North Sea Commission 77The planning profession 77

10 A new structure for the North Sea Programme....................................... 78

Conclusions of Part IV .................................................................................... 81

EPILOGUE 11 The future of transnational planning ....................................................... 83

REFERENCESPrint-based material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Internet sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Personal communications / interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

ANNEXSpecimen of the Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93The results of the questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98Main question areas of the semi-structured interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

SOURCE: Moll, Michael (2002): Interreg IIC North Sea Programme. Diploma Thesis. University of Dortmund. (c) Michael Moll vii

viii

Lists of Boxes, Tables and Figures

Lists of information boxes, tables & figures

Information Boxes

Box 5 What is a “Europeanisation of planning”? - Some principles ..................... 1Box 6 Spatial Planning - a different understanding in Germany and England..... 8Box 7 The rational idealist planning theory - three different approaches........... 15Box 8 The North Sea Commission - another North Sea institution................... 17Box 9 The state of art of EU programme evaluations: A doubtful truth.............. 23Box 10 Objectives and strands of the ESPON 2006 Programme...................... 66Box 11 Regional project pre-assessment in the East of England...................... 68

Tables

Table 1 The three key questions and their criteria................................................ 2 Table 2 Objectives of the Interreg IIC NSP from a planning perspective ........... 14 Table 3 Priorities and measures of the IIC North Sea Programme .................... 19 Table 4 Criteria and indicators for the evaluation ............................................... 25 Table 5 Administrative levels and their respective spatial responsibilities in Lower

Saxony and East Anglia ......................................................................... 27 Table 6 Comparison of key statistical data of Weser-Ems and East Anglia ....... 31 Table 7 Project partners in Weser-Ems and East Anglia.................................... 33 Table 8 a-d: Facts for the case study projects............................................... 35-44 Table 9 Lead and involvement of departments in the questionnaire projects..... 46 Table 10 Project influences locally/regionally; results from the questionnaire.... 47 Table 11 Results of the rating section of the questionnaire................................ 48 Table 12 Criteria and indicators for the evaluation of project websites............... 49 Table 13 SWOT analysis summary of the Interreg North Sea Programme........ 69

Figures

Figure 1 The seven Interreg IIC regions .............................................................. 13 Figure 2 Map of the eligible area of the Interreg IIC North Sea Programme....... 17 Figure 3 The Joint Management Structure of the North Sea Programme ........... 28 Figure 4 Map of the Administrative District Weser-Ems ...................................... 29 Figure 5 Map of East Anglia, with the East of England....................................... 30 Figure 6 The project box in the attic .................................................................... 62 Figure 7 An enhanced structure for the North Sea Programme .......................... 79


Abbreviations

AbbreviationsBR Bezirksregierung (government of an administrative district, Germany)CC County Council (England)CEC Commission of the European CommunitiesCEMAT Conference of European Ministers of Aménagement du Territoirescf. conferCPMR Conference of Peripheral Maritime RegionsCSD Committee of Spatial DevelopmentDC District CouncilDETR Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (in

England until 2001; see DTLR)DG REGIO Directorate General of the Regions (EC Commission). Formerly:

DGXIV.DTLR Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (until

May 2002; since then responsibilities for Local Government and theRegions lay with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister)

EC European CommunitiesEEDA East of England Development AgencyEELGC East of England Local Government ConferenceERDF European Regional Development FundESDP European Spatial Development PerspectiveESF European Social FundESPON European Spatial Planning Observatory Networket.al. and othersEU European Unionff and following (pages)GDP Gross Domestic ProductGIS Geographic Information SystemsGO / GOR Government Office for the Region (in England)GO-East Government Office for the East of Englandibid. in the same place (as the previous reference by that same author)ICZM Integrated Coastal Zone ManagementICT Information and Communication TechnologiesIMG International Monitoring GroupLK Landkreis (German county)loc.cit. in the same place (as the previous reference)NSC North Sea CommissionNSP North Sea ProgrammeNSR North Sea RegionNUTS Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics (statistical regions of Europe)p. pagePPG Planning Policy Guidance (England)R&D Research and DevelopmentRPG Regional Planning Guidance (England)

SOURCE: Moll, Michael (2002): Interreg IIC North Sea Programme. Diploma Thesis. University of Dortmund. (c) Michael Moll ix

Abbreviations

x

Country abbreviations

A Austria I ItalyB Belgium IRL IrelandD Germany L LuxembourgDK Denmark NL The NetherlandsE Spain P PortugalF France S SwedenFIN Finland UK United KingdomGR Greece


English-German Glossary

Glossary of English translations for German termsThis document generally uses English terms for German geographic terms,administrative structures and concepts. To avoid confusion, in this glossary the usedEnglish terms are defined with their German counterparts.

Administrative district (sub-regional) RegierungsbezirkCounter-current principle GegenstromprinzipCounty Kreis / LandkreisCounty-free city Kreisfreie StadtDistrict Government BezirksregierungEast Frisia OstfrieslandFederal / Federal Government Bundes- / BundesregierungFederal Spatial Planning BundesraumordnungFederal State BundeslandFederal Town Planning Act Baugesetzbuch (BauGB)Land-Use Plan (legally binding) Bebauungsplan (B-Plan)Land use planning BauleitplanungLower Saxony NiedersachsenMunicipality GemeindeNorthern German Flatlands Norddeutsches TieflandPreparatory Land-Use Plan Flächennutzungsplan (FNP)Regional (or sub-regional) Planning RegionalplanungReport on Spatial Organisation RaumordnungsberichtState /State Government Land / LandesregierungSpatial Organisation RaumordnungSpatial Planning RaumplanungState Development Programme LandesentwicklungsprogrammState Planning LandesplanungWaddensea Wattenmeer

SOURCE: Moll, Michael (2002): Interreg IIC North Sea Programme. Diploma Thesis. University of Dortmund. (c) Michael Moll xi

xii

German Summary

Deutsche Zusammenfassung(German summary)Die vorliegende Diplomarbeit untersucht, wie erfolgreich das Interreg IIC Nordsee-programm in Bezug auf transnationale Raumplanung war. Drei Schlüsselfragenstehen im Mittelpunkt: (1) Ist eine Ko-operation in der Raumplanung auftransnationaler Ebene sinnvoll? (2) Sind die Projektergebnisse dauerhaft? (3) HatInterreg IIC zu einer Nordseee-Perspektive für die Raumplanung geführt?

Der I. Teil der Arbeit setzt das Interreg IIC Nordseeprogramm in den Kontexteuropäischer Raumordnung (European Spatial Planning), einem Begriff, der imeuropäischen Kontext sehr weit interpretiert wird. Die wichtigsten Elemente derheutigen europäischen Raumordnungspolitik sind das EUREK (EuropäischesRaumordnungskonzept) und die Interreg IIC/IIIB Initiative. Das EUREK ist einunverbindliches, vage formuliertes Dokument, mit Richtlinien für die zukünftigeraumordnerische Entwicklung Europas. Interreg IIC förderte Projektetransnationaler Ko-operation im Bereich der Raumplanung, zur Anwendung desEUREK auf regionaler und lokaler Ebene. Interreg IIC wurde in siebengrenzüberschreitenden transnationalen Regionen implementiert; eine dieserRegionen war die Nordseeregion. Die IIC Initiative umfasste einen kurzen Zeitraum,von Dezember 1997 bis 1999; die Projekte mussten bis 2001 abgeschlossen sein.

Die empirischen Befunde der Evaluierung des IIC Nordseeprogramms werden im II.Teil präsentiert. Bisher liegt noch keine umfassende Evaluierung zu Interreg IICProgrammen vor; es war deswegen erforderlich, neue Kritierien und Indikatoren zuerarbeiten, die dem breiten Spektrum der Programme gerecht werden. Für dieEvaluierung wurden zwei Regionen im Nordseeraum als Fallstudien ausgewählt:Der Regierungsbezirk Weser-Ems in Niedersachsen und die NUTS 2 Region EastAnglia in England. Diese Regionen zeigen Potentiale und Probleme transnationalerKo-operation im Nordseeraum auf; beide haben ähnliche räumliche, wirtschaftlicheund kulturelle Charakteristiken, Probleme und Herausforderungen; dieHandlungsweisen in Politik und Raumplanung sind dabei recht unterschiedlich.

Die Evaluierung basiert auf Interviews sowie einem Fragebogen. Insgesamt sechsProjektpartner aus Deutschland und England sind interviewt worden, aus folgendenvier IIC Projekten: A String of Pearls around the North Sea, North Sea Cycle Route,Water City International und Norcoast. Zusätzlich wurden alle Projektpartner in denFallstudienregionen darum gebeten, einen umfassenden Fragebogen im Internetauszufüllen. Neben den Meinungen der Projektpartner wurden auch die Ansichtenübergeordneter Ebenen recherchiert, durch Gespräche mit den Interreg-Kontaktpunkten in Niedersachsen und East of England, sowie mit Mitarbeitern desNordseeprogramm-Sekretariats.

Interpretationen und Schlussfolgerungen aus den empirischen Befunden werden imIII. Teil erarbeitet. Wesentliche Ergebnisse der Evaluation sind:

• Die meisten Projekte basierten nicht auf Raumplanungs-, sondern sektoralen Themen, mit zum Teil sehr beschränkten räumlichen Auswirkungen. Das


German Summary

Programm gab demnach der Raumplanung nur sehr bedingt neue Impulse; tendenziell lag der Schwerpunkt mehr auf einer räumlichen Kohäsion als auf Raumplanung an sich.

• Die brauchbaren Ergebnisse vieler Projekte beweisen, dass transnationale Ko-operation in der Raumplanung sinnvoll sein kann, um Regionen international zu vernetzen, Denkprozesse anzuregen, und Ideen zu generieren. Projekte, die auf Erfahrungsaustausch basierten, waren jedoch zum Teil nicht kosteneffektiv.

• Viele Projekte haben oft keine langfristige Perspektive in ihrer Konzeption. Die Weiterführung und Vertiefung von Projektergebnissen und Ko-operationsnetzen ohne europäische Fördermittel ist oft finanziell und personell ungesichert. Die Informationsverbreitung der Projektergebnisse war häufig unzureichend.

• Das Nordseeprogramm hat kaum zu einer Entwicklung von Nordseestrategien und zur Ko-ordinierung und Entwicklung eines Programm-Gesamtergebnisses beigetragen. Die meisten Projekte blieben unvernetzt zu anderen Projekten, und ohne direkten Bezug auf ein Gesamtkonzept für den Nordseeraum.

• IIC Projekte arbeiteten selten über die Grenzen des Projekt-Netzes hinaus. Nur in Ausnahmefällen hatten Projekte Auswirkungen auf höhere Ebenen; das Ziel einer “Bottom-Up” Entwicklung von Projekten zu nationaler Politik sowie zum EUREK und zu raumrelevanter europäischer Politik ist weitgehend gescheitert.

Interreg IIIB zeigt keine wesentlichen Tendenzen, die zu einer Förderung der Ko-ordination von Projekten und Projektergebnissen auf Nordseeebene oder zu einerdirekteren Beziehung zur Raumplanung führen können. Einziges positives Signal inIIIB ist, dass regional und national ein grösseres Interesse an Interreg IIIB besteht.

Die Diplomarbeit erarbeitet in Teil IV Empfehlungen aus den Ergebnissen derEvaluierung, die sich an Projektpartner, die regionale Ebene sowie die Programm-Ebene richten. Aus den Empfehlungen wird ein neues Modell entwickelt, dasvorsieht, dass (a) das Nordseeprogramm-Sekretariat sein Projekt-Team personellaufstockt und dessen Aufgaben um die Aufbereitung von Projektergebnissenerweitert, (b) das Norvision Projekt fortgeführt wird und eine zentralere undstrategischere Rolle im Interreg-Prozess erhält, sowie (c) Regionale Interreg-Gruppen etabliert werden, die die Position der Regionen im Interreg-Prozess sowiedie Position Interregs in regionalen Strategien stärken sollen.

Ein abschliessender Ausblick in die Zukunft transnationaler Interreg-Programmelegt nahe, dass Interreg IIIB wesentlich mehr Erfolge als Interreg IIC vorweisenmuss. Falls Interreg IIIB nicht über die Experimentierphase von IIC hinauskommt, istnicht nur zweifelhaft, ob die Initiative Bestand haben wird, sondern auch, obRaumplanung insgesamt auf europäischer Ebene eine ruhmreiche Zukuft habenkann.

SOURCE: Moll, Michael (2002): Interreg IIC North Sea Programme. Diploma Thesis. University of Dortmund. (c) Michael Moll xiii

xiv

Introduction

INTRODUCTION

1 Towards a Europeanisation of spatial planning?

During the last decade, spatial development and planning finally found their wayonto the agenda of European policy. In the last few years, two important instrumentsfor transnational planning have been developed: The European SpatialDevelopment Perspective (ESDP), as an informal guideline for future spatialdevelopment in Europe, and the Interreg IIC Community Initiative. The first period oftransnational Interreg programmes finished at the end of 1999, with projects closingduring 2001.

Interreg IIC was the first EC funded initiative that specialised on spatial planning,allowing local and regional authorities to form transnational planning projects.Objectives were to encourage co-operation networks to link and strengthen theregions in Europe, and to link the ESDP with planning activities at a local andregional level. The Interreg definition of spatial planning is broad, and many projectsunder IIC have not emphasised traditional planning activities, but more sectoralactivities with at times limited impacts on the territory.

The transnational initiative undertook to play an active role in promoting what theESDP (CEC 1999a) calls an “increasingly evident requirement”: TheEuropeanisation of state, regional and urban planning. Neither the ESDP norInterreg define the phrase “Europeanisation of planning”. The ESDP only mentionsthat the Member States should take the European dimension of spatial development“into consideration” when adjusting national spatial development policies, plans andreports; and that local and regional authorities should “overcome any insular way oflooking at their territory and take into consideration European aspects and inter-dependencies right from the outset”. Some principles of a Europeanisation of localand regional planning are suggested in Box 1.

Box 1 What is a “Europeanisation of planning”? - Some principles

• Local and regional authorities take plans of neighbouring countries into account.

• Common problems are worked upon together by European regions.

• Local and regional authorities build up European networks, used for various purposes.

• Best practise is shared at a European level; it is disseminated via diverse media such as internet and print media.

• In the longer term, the national planning systems become harmonised. This can happen via Interreg projects developing common understanding and guidelines as well as exchanging best practise.

• There is a bottom-up approach to the ESDP; the regional/local authorities influence the future development and realisation of the Perspective, e.g. via Interreg projects.

SOURCE: Moll, Michael (2002): Interreg IIC North Sea Programme. Diploma Thesis. University of Dortmund. (c) Michael Moll 1

2

Interreg IIC North Sea Programme - Successful transnational planning?

The North Sea Programme, one of the seven Interreg IIC areas of generaltransnational co-operation, forms the basis of this work. Although the Interreg IICprogrammes incorporating the Central and Eastern European EU applicants (BalticSea and CADSES programmes) might have been politically more important forEuropean developments, the North Sea Programme is more useful for an evaluationof the effects of Interreg IIC programmes. Unlike the IIC programmes withAccession States, the NSP took place in an environment of well established regionalstructures. The participating regions already had the theoretical possibility to co-operate well before the Interreg Initiative.

The Interreg IIC North Sea projects can be divided into three categories, each withits own performance indicators:

a) “Local Projects” (or Umbrella Projects). Projects with a local focus. After the end of the project, each partners’ contribution to the project can be seen a separate entity. The project serves as an umbrella for local activities.

b) “Network Projects”, where the network between partners is the main project aim and result, e.g. tourist or ecological networks; and

c) “North Sea Region Strategic Projects”, with the North Sea Region as the target area to develop recommendations or strategies, e.g. for coastal management.

The evaluation of Interreg IIC programmes is rather complex, as the programmesallowed a broad range of project fields, with often less concrete project results, suchas knowledge. New indicators have needed to be developed, based uponperformance rather than direct results. Each project has its own performanceindicators. Three key questions, with different criteria, form the basis of theevaluation (cf. Table 1).

These three questions cover the main objectives of the Interreg IIC North SeaProgramme. Additionally, Interreg IIC had wider and more sophisticated targets,based on the “Europeanisation” of planning and the implementation of the ESDP.The success of these targets will be discussed in the thesis as well.

Table 1 The three key questions and their criteria

Key questions Criteria

1. Is co-operation in planning useful at the transnational level?

• Direct impact/effect of the project on planning/success• Added value from transnational working• Changes in thought processes• Relevance for planning

2. Are the project results sustain-able?

• Commitment to project results/networks after the funding period

• Project knowledge sustainable in the region

3. Has Interreg IIC lead to a North Sea perspective of planning?

• North Sea relevance of project• Dissemination of project results in North Sea Region• Bottom-up links: Impacts on national/European levels• Awareness of the North Sea area as a region


Introduction

Key question 1: Is co-operation in planning useful at the transnational level?

Co-operation in planning can be defined as useful if it has direct impacts or effects,and provides an added value from transnational working. Less measurable is thesuccess of a project to change the thought processes of the project partners.

• An indication for a successful project is the direct implementation of the project results, the incorporation of the results into local/regional strategies or changes in local structures. New or strengthened networks are relevant effects, too.

• If the project has an added value from transnational working, the project results can only be obtained in an international partnership, creating mutual understanding and providing new innovative ideas to the project partners.

• Even if the project has no direct impacts and effects, it could have been useful purely on a virtual level, by changing thought processes and perspectives. The project partners might change their attitude towards the relevance of Europe and international networking during the project.

Another evaluation criterion is in how far the co-operation is based on spatialplanning issues, indicated by the involvement of planning departments and theimpacts the project will have on spatial planning and spatial development.

Key question 2: Are the project results sustainable?

The sustainability of project results and/or networks is an important ingredient for asuccessful project. If both the project results and the network end up in a drawer, theproject cannot have been successful. A project can be called sustainable when theproject partner is committed to the project result and/or project network after thetermination of the funding period. Indicators to measure such a commitment areresources (both financial and personnel) dedicated to keep up, implement or furtherdevelop the project results. Further criteria are if the information, communication orinfrastructure networks will survive without European funding, and if the obtainedknowledge, attitude and contacts are, at the end of the project, firmly rooted in theinstitution.

Key question 3: Has Interreg IIC lead to a North Sea Perspective of planning?

One intention of Interreg IIC was to bring forward the Europeanisation of spatialplanning through large transnational co-operation areas. This key questionassesses the dissemination and wider impacts of the projects. It tries to establish inhow far the North Sea Programme has created a North Sea perspective of planning,if projects are promoted throughout the North Sea Region, and if there is a NorthSea Region identity developing.

Indicators to assess the achievement of a North Sea perspective are the linking upof projects and the establishment of an overall programme result. The disseminationof project results, with websites and reports, has to be assessed. The evaluationalso focuses on the impact of the project results at the North Sea, national andEuropean levels. Close contact and co-operation with stakeholders at a higher levelare key indicators.


4


Methods of evaluation

Two case study areas have been chosen in order to analyse the key questions: Theadministrative district (Regierungsbezirk) Weser-Ems in Germany and the NUTS 2region East Anglia in England. With two case study areas, the findings might betransferable to the whole Interreg IIC North Sea Programme area.

The results of a survey questionnaire give an overview of project impacts andopinions. Four case study projects are assessed in more detail, by interviewingrelevant project partners. For North Sea Programme and regional views, staff of theprogramme secretariat and regional Interreg IIC representatives in Germany andEngland have been interviewed.

The thesis critically assesses the success of the Interreg IIC North Sea Programmeand its role in the European Planning framework. Recommendations for projects,regions as well as the programme level are developed, to outline how the maximumbenefit could be derived from the North Sea Programme.

Structure of the document

The thesis is divided into four parts and eleven chapters. Part I presents backgroundinformation, Part II the empirical findings of the evaluation. Part III assesses theevaluative findings, and Part IV develops recommendations.

Part I starts with the role and history of spatial planning at the European level, toestablish an understanding of today’s instruments and challenges facing Europeanspatial planning. The two important instruments, the European Spatial DevelopmentPerspective (ESDP) and the Interreg IIC Initiative are comprehensively introduced,and fitted into the framework of planning theories. Part I closes with a presentationof the Interreg IIC North Sea Programme, with an overview of its evolution, structureand priorities.

The empirical section, Part II, starts with a presentation of the case study ares: Itintroduces the German and English administrative and planning systems, and thestructure and characteristics of the case study regions Weser-Ems and East Anglia.The following chapter then displays the actual evaluation, starting with an outline ofmethods, successes and shortcomings of the evaluation. The evaluation featuressummaries of the most important findings from interviews undertaken with sixproject partners in Weser-Ems and East Anglia, two regional contact points and twomembers of staff at the NSP Secretariat. The evaluation part is completed bysummarising the results of a survey questionnaire among project partners.

Part III concludes and analyses the findings of the evaluation. It first criticallyassesses the projects and the opinions of project partners. It elaborates projectsuccesses and shortcomings, their relevance to spatial planning and to the NorthSea Region, the sustainability of their impacts and networks, and disseminationstrategies. Then, successes and shortcomings are looked at from a programmeperspective, and Interreg IIC is discussed from a planning theory perspective. Thepart closes with an introduction to the changes made towards Interreg IIIB.


Introduction

Part IV elaborates recommendations, for all levels involved in the programme:Starting with the projects and the role of local authorities, it then offers suggestionsfor the regional governments involved in the programme and for the programmeadministrators and initiators. A new model for handling the North Sea Programmecombines most of the recommendations into one structure.

Finally, an epilogue looks to the future of European spatial planning, and concludesthe thoughts and ideas developed throughout the thesis.


6



The contexts of European Spatial Planning

PART I - BACKGROUND

The contexts of European spatial planning

The Interreg IIC Community Initiative is the result of a long on-going process andforms a part of the strategy of establishing a European level of planning. Togetherwith the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), it is the first attempt atan active role for the European Communities in spatial planning. This strategyinvolves transnational co-operation areas, such as the North Sea Region, as areaswhere local and regional authorities shall co-operate.

How have today’s understanding and instruments of European Planning beendeveloped? The central elements of today’s European Planning, ESDP and InterregIIC Initiative, are introduced. As the evaluation is based on the Interreg IIC NorthSea Programme, the last section of this part takes a closer look at this programme.

2 European Spatial Planning - strategy or land-use planning?

The first question to be answered is: What is spatial planning? Spatial planning isunderstood across Europe in many different ways. The thesis uses the definitionadopted by the European Union, as found in the “EU Compendium of SpatialSystems and Policies”. This “European sense” is also used for the application of theInterreg IIC programmes:

Spatial Planning: Public policy and actions intended to influence the distribution of activities inspace and the linkages between them. It will operate at EU, national and local levels andembraces land use planning and regional policy. (CEC 1997a, p. 156)

Spatial planning in the European sense co-ordinates and integrates sectoral policiesand their spatial dimension through a territory based strategy. Spatial planning“seeks to identify and address the contradictory effects of sectoral policies, and theopportunities for synergy through the territorial strategy” (Cullingworth & Nadin2002, p. 81). Traditional land use planning is only one of the sectoral policies.

This definition is much closer to the general usage of the term “Raumplanung” inGermany than it is to the term “town and country planning” in the UK (see Box 2 fora definition of spatial planning in the English and German contexts). It should beunderstood as a very broad term to describe any deliberate development with aspatial dimension.


8

Interreg IIC North Sea Programme - successful transnational planning?

European Spatial Planning is not a concept of land use regulation, rather it is aboutformulating strategy. A strategy “can develop coherence to policies, thereby makingthem transparent and easy to explain” (Faludi & Waterhout 2002). While the EUwould not have the competency for land use regulation, it has the competency todevelop strategies. European spatial planning can, in Faludi’s opinion, achieve co-ordination, and make Community Policy more accessible to local, regional andnational authorities.

Similar to the term “spatial planning”, the terms “regional” and “local” have differentmeanings in European literature. In general usage, the term “region” or “regional” isused for circumstances or processes that have wider concern than just local, but arelocated at a lower level than the State (Sinz 1995). The Collins Dictionary (1989)defines a region as

1. any large continuous part of a surface or space2. an area considered as a unit for geographical, social, or cultural reasons3. an administrative division of the country4. a sphere of activity or interest

The first three definitions refer to spatial regions, and all three are commonly used.The administrative division of a country is often based on geographical, social orcultural boundaries. Obviously, the regional structures in the Member States, withtheir diverse cultural, historical and geographical backgrounds, are rather different.

The thesis comes across different kinds of regions:

• The region Weser-Ems is a sub-regional administrative unit between the local and State level. East Anglia is historically a region comprising three counties, yet it does not form an administrative area. Both Weser-Ems and East Anglia are European Statistical Regions (NUTS 2), and form a cultural, social and geographical unit.

Box 2 Spatial Planning - a different understanding in Germany and England

In Germany and England, the two countries focused on in the case studies of this report,the traditional understanding of planning is quite different.

In Germany, spatial planning (Raumplanung) refers in general usage to the deliberateinfluence on spatial development of the society, the economy and the natural, built andsocial environment in an area. In planning law and administration, spatial planning is thecollective term for the three planning levels Federal Spatial Planning(Bundesraumordnung), State Planning (Landesplanung) including Regional Planning(Regionalplanung) and Land Use Planning (Bauleitplanung). The spatial planning systemhas an over-arching planning and co-ordination task for sectoral planning. (Turowski1995)

In Britain, planning is generally understood rather narrowly. The term “town and countryplanning” describes in essence the statutory planning process of development control anddevelopment plan preparation. It refers to the regulation of land use and developmentactivities of both public and private developers, largely separate from other sectoralplanning processes. (Tewdwr-Jones & Williams 2001; CEC 2000) However, currentprocesses and policy papers suggest that England will adopt the European definition ofspatial planning in future, widening the scope of planning considerably. (cf. PlanningGreen Paper of the DTLR 2001b)


The Contexts of European Spatial Planning

• Both Weser-Ems and East Anglia form part of a bigger region - Lower Saxony, a German State, and the East of England, an English Region, created in 1999.

• The North Sea Programme area has been termed as “North Sea Region”, a region considered as a unit out of mainly geographic, but also cultural reasons.

The term “local” refers to a characteristic “of or associated with a particular localityor area”, or “of or relating to a particular place or point in space” (Collins 1989). Inpolitical and planning contexts, “local” refers often to local governments, defined as:

government of the affairs of counties, towns, and districts by locally elected political bodies(loc.cit.)

The terms “region” and “local government” sometimes overlap. For example,English counties, as the upper-tier of local government, are in international literaturesometimes referred to as regional level, and have some regional tasks. This is dueto the size of the counties, being much bigger than, for instance, German counties(Kreise). Regional Planning in Lower Saxony is located at the county-level, i.e. atthe local government level. The term “local” refers in this work to local governments(as defined above). These are in Germany, Municipalities (Gemeinden) andCounties (Kreise), in England Districts or Boroughs and Counties.

3 Interreg IIC and the ESDP - origins and roles

Until recently it was unquestionable that competence over spatial planning restedsolely with the Member State governments (Cullingworth & Nadin 2002). Only in theearly 1990s did the development towards European planning gain momentum,resulting in the establishment of the Interreg IIC initiative and the publication of theEuropean Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). This chapter gives anoverview of the development of European Spatial Planning from the Treaty of Rometo today. It introduces the ESDP and the Interreg IIC Community Initiative, and fitsthem into a planning theory framework.

3.1 History of spatial planning in the European Communities

Spatial planning at a European level was discussed as early as the 1960s, eventhough the original Treaty of Rome (1957), establishing the European EconomicCommunity, contained no reference to planning and thus gave the EuropeanCommission and the Council of Ministers no mandate to develop spatial strategies.

Between the 1970s and 90s, various supranational planning study documents werepublished, either as national initiatives or commissioned by the Council of Europe,which are all today only of historical value (Kunzmann 1996; Bishop et al. 2000). In1970, an Informal Meeting of Ministers of Spatial Planning (CEMAT - Conference ofEuropean Ministers of Aménagement du Territoire) was established, meeting sincethen every two or three years. CEMAT encompasses not only EU Member States,but embraces all countries from the geographical Europe. CEMAT reached its peakin the early eighties, when it adopted the “European Regional/Spatial PlanningCharter” at Torremolinos (Faludi & Waterhout 2002).


10


Since the early 1990s there has been a stronger trend towards an institutionalisationof European planning, with a political acceptance of the need for strategic spatialdevelopment at a European level. This acceptance coincided with the introduction ofthe Single Market (Maastricht Treaty 1992), with all the effects it might have onspatial development. The European Commission (1997a) sees four factors asreasons for the need for a European planning strategy:

(1) An increasing functional interdependency of territories and economies in Europe, caused by the disappearance of borders within the Single Market and new communication and transport technologies.

(2) The challenges of a globalisation of the economy, making co-operation between partners with similar interests or problems even more important.

(3) The enlargement, calling for an overall strategic approach to the integration of the Applicant States.

(4) Budgetary constraints, calling for an effective use of resources by “tailoring interventions to territorial specificity”.

With the introduction of new regulations for the European Regional DevelopmentFund (ERDF) in the late 80s, the European Commission entered the field of spatial

planning1. In 1989, an informal Meeting of Ministers responsible for Spatial Planningagreed that the Commission should work on European spatial planning studies. Thisresulted in the production of the analytical study “Europe 2000” (CEC 1991) and itsfollow-up “Europe 2000+” (CEC 1994). These documents form the basis of both thedevelopment of the ESDP and the Interreg IIC Initiative. In fact, the ESDP could beregarded as simply the latest in this line of studies reviewing the spatial structure ofthe EU as a whole (Williams 2000).

The decision to develop the ESDP was taken in 1993. For the preparation anddevelopment of the ESDP, the Committee on Spatial Development (CSD) was setup, a regular intergovernmental meeting of senior national officials responsible forspatial planning in the EU Member States. The CSD co-operated with theCommission’s DGXVI (now DG REGIO) and the Dutch “Rijksplanologische Dienst”(Spatial Planning Agency). Between 1998 and 1999 nine transnational seminarswere organised by DGXVI as a form of Europe-wide participation (Williams 2000).The final ESDP was adopted in Potsdam in 1999.

While the Member States, in co-operation with the Commission, completed theESDP, the Commission set up Community Initiatives on Spatial Planning, “inrecognition of the need for the Member States to get involved in a more operationalway in co-operation on regional and spatial planning” (DG Regio website 2002). Themost important of these Initiatives was Interreg IIC, concerning “transnational co-operation on regional and spatial planning”.

1. Article 10 authorised studies aiming to identify the elements necessary to establish a prospec-tive outline of the utilisation of Community territory.



Additionally, various Initiatives under ERDF Article 10 were established: Four pilotaction areas with distinctive problems formed another set of transnational spatialdevelopment areas, similar to Interreg IIC programmes; TERRA promoted spatialplanning co-operation and exchange of experience between regions with similarproblems throughout Europe.

The Community Initiatives on Spatial Planning have been reorganised for the period2000 - 2006. Transnational Planning is now promoted under Interreg IIIB, while theprinciples of TERRA have been adopted on a wider scale, under Interreg IIIC. TheERDF Pilot Action Areas still exist.

A new Interreg programme has been established in 2002, related to the EuropeanSpatial Planning Observatory Network (ESPON). The ESPON 2006 Programmeaims to enhance co-ordination of spatial development research in the MemberStates, and supports the implementation and further development of the ESDP. ItsMonitoring and Steering Committees are based on the membership of theCommittee of Spatial Development (CSD) (ESPON 2002).

3.2 The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP)

The ESDP, adopted in 1999, consists of two parts: Part A, “The Contribution of theSpatial Development Policy”, contains policy options on spatial development; Part B“The territory of the EU: Trends, opportunities, challenges” features variousstatistics, as a direct follow-up to the Europe 2000 studies.

The policy aims and options are based upon three general objectives (CEC 1999a):

• Polycentric spatial development and a new urban-rural relationship• Parity of access to infrastructure and knowledge• Wise management of the natural and cultural heritage

As there is no community competence for spatial planning, the ESDP is an informaldocument, defining a strategic framework. Consequently, the ESDP does not referto its implementation, but to its application. This leads some people to refer to it as a“paper tiger”. Faludi (2002, p. 159) thinks that the application of the ESDPframework will have considerable impacts, even though it does not directly focus onshaping development: “[The ESDP] framework works indirectly, shaping the mindsof the players involved in spatial development”.

From a planning point of view, the document can be much criticised. The maincriticism is that the ESDP lacks an overall vision; the objectives are both too vagueand too complex. For political work, the document is seen as too broad andinsignificant, for planners it is insufficient. The steering concept is seen as out ofdate, and the ESDP does not visualise spatial policies in the form of maps. (cf.lecture on European spatial planning by Kunzmann 1998; Faludi 2000)

Nevertheless, the ESDP can be seen as a major achievement, and perhaps as thestart of an institutionalised process. All Member States agreed to general principlesof spatial planning. Some Interreg IIC Programmes, such as the North SeaProgramme with its “Norvision”, have elaborated spatial visions for their programme


12


areas, that are slightly more detailed and spatially specific. These visions might befurther elaborated, and provide more detailed input to an ESDP update.

Interreg IIC provided the opportunity to apply the ESDP, and implement it in regionaland local planning. The Interreg IIIB North Sea Community Initiative Programmegives Norvision and the ESDP a central role in providing a point of reference forfuture applications.

The ESDP and Norvision will need to be continuously developed, as strategicplanning can be seen as a continuous process. The future of Norvision is at themoment uncertain. For the ESDP, ESPON might provide the major input for anupdate. This update seems to be scheduled for the end of this decade. One of theESPON 2006 Programme targets is to propose, by 2006, ideas for the possibleorientation of the up-date of the ESDP and of the Cohesion Policy at the EU level.(ESPON 2002; see also p. 66 in Chapter 8, Interreg IIIB - improvements?)

3.3 Interreg IIC Community Initiative - an initiative for spatial planning

The Interreg I Community Initiative was adopted in 1990. The intention was toprepare border areas for a Community without internal frontiers. The aim of theREGEN Initiative launched in the same year was to help fill in some of the missinglinks in the trans-European networks for transport and energy distribution in theObjective 1 regions.

Interreg II combined the functions of Interreg I and REGEN. It had three distinctstrands, with a total budget allocation of ECU 3,519 million:

• Interreg II A (1994-1999): cross-border co-operation

• Interreg II B (1994-1999): completion of energy networks

• Interreg II C (1997-1999): co-operation in the area of regional planning

Interreg IIC ran from 1997 to 1999, and was the first Community Initiative especiallydesigned to promote action on spatial planning. It encouraged local authorities andother public bodies to take part in transnational planning projects. Interreg IIC alsocovered the fields “flood mitigation” and “drought prevention”, with its ownoperational programmes, yet for this work only the field of “general transnational co-operation” is of interest. Interreg IIC had a total budget of ECU 412.85 million, withECU 120.69 m being allocated to “general transnational co-operation”.

The EU Commission’s ambitious targets for the Interreg IIC Initiative included thepromotion of a harmonious and balanced development of the territory of theEuropean Union, fostering transnational co-operation in the field of spatial planning,contributing to improving the impact of Community policies on spatial developmentand the co-operation between Member States and their regions on a pro-activeapproach to common problems (Inforegio website 2002).

Seven transnational Interreg IIC regions, with their own separate programmes, weredefined for general transnational co-operation, shown in Figure 1. Thesetransnational groupings were first identified in Europe 2000 (CEC 1991), further



research took place in Europe 2000+ (CEC 1994). The final Interreg IIC regionswere changed and extended to the initial regions from the Europe 2000 studies.

The ESDP and Interreg IIC are closely linked. The ESDP set the framework foraction to be taken under Interreg IIC; the core thematic objectives of the ESDP havebeen transferred into the IIC programmes. While the ESDP process is usually seenas a top-down process, Interreg IIC was supposed to provide a bottom-up processto formulating transnational planning policy (Nadin & Shaw, 1998).

Tewdwr-Jones and Williams (2001, p. 30) divide the purposes of Interreg intohorizontal and vertical functions:

“The horizontal function attempts to promote European integration by creating a sense of theregions of Europe, providing them with greater identity and giving financial support for spatialplanning initiatives which may help achieve this by promoting greater interaction and practicalcooperation. [...] Interreg contributes to reducing the significance of national borders within theSingle Market, [...] helping to overcome the [..] barrier effect of different national planningsystems and promoting co-operation between local and regional authorities in different MemberStates. [...]

The vertical function attempts to provide the link between the European Spatial DevelopmentPerspective at the supranational scale and the planning activities of the local and regionalauthorities of the Member States. [...] [Interreg can] provide the stimulus for planners working atthese levels to think beyond their local boundaries”.

Table 2 lists some objectives that Interreg IIC had for the European field of planningin general.

IIC Regions of general trans-national co-operation and theparticipating countries:

North Sea Region:D, DK, NL, UK, S + Norway

Baltic Sea Region:D, DK, FIN, S + Baltic States

North West Metropolitan Area:B, D, F, IRL, L, NL, UK

Atlantic Area:E, F, IRL, P, UK

South-Western Europe:E, F, P

Western Mediterranean & Latin Alps:E, F, GR, I

Central, Adriatic, Danubian & SEEurope [CADSES]A, D, GR, I + Central & South EastEuropean Countries

Figure 1 The seven Interreg IIC regions (Source: Norvision, original from DG XVI)


14


In practice, many activities under Interreg IIC were accepted as “spatial planning”that are not in the range of traditional planning, such as support for innovation inindustry and research. The criterion of transnationality was broadly interpreted; thelevel of actual joint working across national boundaries on many projects was quitelow. (Cullingworth & Nadin, 2002, p. 84)

Academics indicate that Interreg will play a central role in the future of Europeanplanning. Faludi (2000) writes that “[n]ow that the ESDP is on the books, Interregseems the major route forward for European spatial planning”.

3.4 European Spatial Planning - Mixed Scanning in Planning theories?

To become aware of the status of the latest developments in European planning, itis interesting to fit the ESDP and Interreg into a planning theory framework. Planningtheories as well as European planning instruments are rather complex, so this

Table 2 Objectives of Interreg IIC NSP from a planning perspective

European Planning Strategy Interreg IIC Programme Interreg IIC Projects

Global Impact

• Europeanisation of planning in Europe of Regions

• Harmonised planning proce-dures

• Integrated spatial develop-ment policy transnationally

• Implementation of the ESDP; balanced and sustainable spatial development in the EU

• Implementation of the ESDP; balanced and sustainable spatial development in the North Sea Region

• A European / North Sea per-spective to regional / local planning

Inter-mediate impact

• Improvement of spatial ef-fects of EU policies

• bottom-up direction to Euro-pean Planning

• transnational co-operation• create a North Sea identity• strong networks across pro-

gramme area, used for vari-ous purposes

• sustained networks from the projects

• dissemination of best practise

• adoption of action plans in wide parts of programme area

• as result of exchange of experiences: change of structures/ways to do things in the regions

Results Networks, new attitudes, exchange of experience

Outputs Studies, pilot actions, plan-ning activities, project man-agement



paragraph tries to simplify both. Out of three categories of planning theories, definedby Mario Camhis (1979), only one is of interest for researching European planning,the “Rational Idealist Planning” approach. The other two, “Irrational IdealistTheories” (attempting a “disentanglement from the grip of objectivity and rationality”)and “Materialist Theories” (based on Marxist philosophy) have not played a role inpractical planning in Western Europe. It is customary in planning theory todistinguish between three approaches in “Rational Idealistic Theories”, explained inBox 3: “Rational Comprehensive Planning”, “Incrementalism” and “Mixed Scanning”.ESDP and Interreg IIC used two of these approaches.

The ESDP is characterised by its all-embracing approach, covering a broad range offields that influence spatial development, and covering the whole geographical areaof Europe. It is based on research and prognoses (especially Part B of the ESDP);

Box 3 The rational idealist planning theory - three different approaches

(1) Rational Comprehensive Planning: Future spatial developments are seen aspredictable for the long term, and comprehensively shape-able. A generally acceptedset of values expresses broad objectives; and a comprehensive plan provides a full-scale view of a future desired state of affairs. Rational comprehensive planningexamines all possible alternatives and their consequences, and selects the one which ismost in line with the chosen values and objectives (Camhis 1979). Planning is based onaction of public authorities.

This planning tradition, based on a belief of science and technology, was very popular inmany European countries, such as Germany, in the 1960s and 70s. In frustration at thelimited results of the ambitious plans, rational comprehensive planning became ratherunpopular in the 80s, yet it has never been fully abandoned.

(2) Incrementalism (disjointed and perspective): Lindblom dismissed rationalcomprehensive planning as an impractical idea; it would not be impossible to take allrelevant factors into account or to separate means from ends. His approach of“disjointed incrementalism”, titled also as a “science of muddling through”, replacesgrand plans by a modest step-by-step approach, aiming at realisable improvements ofan existing situation. Only the relevant aspects of the incremental decisions have to beevaluated; the focus is not on values and desired conditions, but on existing policies andtools. (loc.cit.; Cullingworth & Nadin 2002)

The theory of disjointed incrementalism was modified in the 1990s in Germany, in linewith the International Building Exhibition IBA Emscherpark, to a “perspective incremen-talism” or “perspectivism”. Unlike disjointed incrementalism, the many small steps arenot completely disjointed, but “follow together a perspective path”. The overall objectivesare basic values of society. Instead of abstract programmes, there are projects for con-crete single actions in a foresee-able time frame. Focal points are set instead of compre-hensive geographical realisation. (Ganser 1991). A scientifically based understanding ofplanning is less prominent; a non-binding future scenario is preferred to “secured prog-noses” (Albers 1993).

(3) Mixed Scanning: Forming a mixture of Comprehensive Rational Planning andDisjointed Incrementalism, Mixed Scanning combines a fundamental policy on a higherlevel and an incremental process. The fundamental policy provides the basic directions,values, objectives and fundamental decisions. The incremental process, at a highlydetailed level, prepares and develops the decisions and objectives, and takesincremental decisions. (Camhis 1979)


16


and defines generally accepted values and concrete objectives (called “policyoptions”). Compiled by the CSD and the EU Commission, the ESDP has a top-downapproach. The ESDP is set up for “government and administrative authorities” (CEC1999a) - planning is seen as a public authority activity. Even though the document israther vague in its content, the ESDP can be seen as steeped in the tradition ofrational comprehensive planning.

Interreg IIC took a different approach. It was project based; the projects werechosen in a competitive situation. Interreg IIC did not follow the objective to provideand implement plans for the whole transnational region covered by eachprogramme, and there was not even a territorial specification (in the form of maps).Instead, the focus was on projects with concrete outcomes, in a set time frame (theCommunity Initiative’s period). These projects, on a detailed (regional and local)level, were somewhat ad hoc, yet they all followed the same perspective - theOperational Programme. The main results of the programme are the project results,so basically, Interreg IIC followed a bottom-up approach. The understanding ofplanning was not scientifically based, and has a focus on economic integration.Interreg IIC can be seen as an example of the incrementalist tradition, in particularthe “perspective incrementalism” promoted by Ganser (1991), where many smallincremental steps “follow together a perspective path”.

This suggests that European planning has followed, up to now, two differentdirections in planning theory: While the ESDP revives the old tradition of rationalcomprehensive planning, taking up the technocratic belief in prognoses and all-embracing concepts from the 1960s and 70s, Interreg IIC reflects the trends of the1990s towards project-based planning and competition for funding through broadlydefined programmes that have no clear future perspective.

If Interreg IIC and the ESDP are seen as one process, European planning acts in acombination of perspective incrementalism and rational comprehensive planning.Interreg IIC was supposedly an implementation instrument for the ESDP, andpossibly, the results of Interreg IIC projects could be taken up by the ESDP in future.This means that the transnational Interreg initiative and the ESDP are, or will be,inter-linked, establishing a form of “Mixed Scanning”: There is a fundamental,comprehensive policy at a higher level, providing all-embracing directions, aims andvalues (in the form of the ESDP); and there is an incremental process (Interreg IIC).The fundamental and the incremental level are supposed to inter-act. Effectively,there might be both a top-down and a bottom-up direction (cf. also Nadin & Shaw1998, p. 281).

This new way of “Mixed Scanning” might shape the future European strategicplanning process. Time will show if this is a useful framework for Europe’s future ofspatial planning.



4 The Interreg IIC North Sea Programme

The Interreg IIC North Sea Programmewas one of seven Interreg IIC Regions. Itcovered parts of Denmark, Germany, theNetherlands, Norway, Sweden and the

United Kingdom1.

Already before the IIC NSP started, therehad been an institution for the regionsaround the North Sea: The North SeaCommission, a network of localauthorities with co-operativearrangements. This body played a rathersignificant role in the establishment anddefinition of the Interreg IIC programmearea, and, more importantly, its existingnetworks were a useful source to encourage projects under Interreg IIC. It isimportant to distinguish between the North Sea Commission and the Interreg IICNorth Sea Programme (see Box 4).

1. For Interreg IIIB, the eligible area has been extended, and includes now the whole of Den-mark, parts of Flanders and some additional regions in the other participating countries.

Box 4 The North Sea Commission - another North Sea institution

The North Sea Commission is one of seven Commissions under the umbrella of CPMR(the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions). It has member regions in all countriesaround the North Sea. Founded in 1989, its aims are:

• to facilitate and enhance partnerships between regions around the North Sea and

• to promote the North Sea Basin as a major economic entity within Europe, by encouraging joint development initiatives and political lobbying at European Union level.

The North Sea Commission has determined that its activities must be action orientated,involving co-operation programmes, research activities, funding applications, and jointpolicy statements. The activities are carried forward by a North Sea CommissionSecretariat in Viborg in Denmark and by seven Thematic Groups concentrating on issuesof common concern. These are: (1) Business Development (2) Communications, (3)Culture & Tourism, (4) Education & Research, (5) Environment, (6) Fisheries and (7)[currently dormant] Inter-Regional Networks.

Relation between the North Sea Commission and the Interreg North Sea Programme

Although both the North Sea Commission and the Interreg NSP are based in Viborg, theyare not directly related. The NSC has no direct influence on the Interreg Programme; andthe NSC’s membership is smaller than the area covered by the Interreg IIC Programme.

However, the existing networks from the NSC Thematic Groups were helpful to formInterreg IIC project networks. Some Thematic Groups, in particular the Culture & Tourismand the Environment Groups, have been actively involved in initiating and developingInterreg IIC projects. At the end of IIC, the North Sea Commission’s Thematic Groupswere often an important medium for project result dissemination.

(compare North Sea Commission website 2002)

Figure 2 Map of the eligible area of the Interreg IIC North Sea Programme (Source: Interreg IIC NSP website)


18


The demarcation of the transnational region for the Interreg North Sea Programmehas its origin in the definition of “transregional impact study areas” in the Europe2000 study (CEC 1991). Then still under the title “Northern Arc”, the area coveredmost of what became the Interreg IIC North Sea Programme, with two major

exceptions: The “Northern Arc” region covered only EC member countries1, and thedifferent study areas did not overlap. Negotiations on defining the area wereconducted by national representatives.

The Operational Programme for the NSP was prepared in 1996/97, by a draftingcommittee consisting of national and regional representatives. After its approval bythe European Commission, it was adopted in December 1997. The programmeperiod was very short, running from 1997 to 1999 only, with the latest possibletermination of the projects in 2001. The Interreg IIC North Sea Programme had afunding budget of € 14.2 m.

There were three bodies involved in implementing and controlling the Interreg IICNorth Sea Programme: The Secretariat, the Steering Committee and the MonitoringCommittee. The Monitoring and Steering Committees, assisted by the Secretariat,formed together a “Joint International Management Structure”, reflecting theinterests of both regional and national authorities from the programme area(compare Figure 3). The Monitoring Committee had the overall responsibility for theimplementation of the IIC North Sea Programme while the Steering Committee wascharged with the selection and approval of projects (Interreg IIC North SeaProgramme website 2002).

The Secretariat was in charge of the day to day implementation of the OperationalProgramme and worked on behalf of the Monitoring and Steering Committees. Itoffered assistance and guidance to applicants, which continued after projectapproval to the final evaluation report and payments. The monitoring done by theSecretariat together with the Monitoring Committee was focused on financial issues.The Secretariat was not involved in the dissemination of project results, the finalreports were only assessed on their adherence to the aspects outlined in the project

1. This means that Norway and Sweden were not covered. Sweden joined the EU in 1995.

Monitoring Committee

• 3 representatives from each country:2 from the national, 1 from the regional level

• 2 representatives from the European Commission

• Chairman and co-chairman of the Steering Committee

Steering Committee

• 3 representatives from each country:1 from the national, 2 from the regional level

North Sea Programme Secretariat in Viborg

Figure 3 The Joint Management Structure of the North Sea Programme (Source: Interreg IIC NSP Operational Programme 1997)



application, but not further elaborated (interview with Overman 2002). The onlyoverall documentation of the programme under Interreg IIC is a project book with ashort presentation of each of the projects, compiled by the Secretariat.

The co-operation at the committee level has been very successful, and the InterregIIC North Sea Programme is seen by the European Commission as a model of goodpractice.

In addition to these formal bodies of the IIC NSP, each of the participating countrieshad a National Contact Point, serving to inform and help applicants and projects, co-ordinate publicity and disseminate information on behalf of the Secretariat. (InterregIIIB North Sea Programme website 2002)

Interreg IIC projects: Priorities and criteria

To be eligible, each IIC North Sea Programme project had to relate to the objectivesset out in the Operational Programme and had to fulfil certain criteria. All projectshad to relate to at least one of nine measures under three priority headings, set inthe Operational Programme (see Table 3). These headings follow very closely thepriorities for action set out in the ESDP. Each measure had individual objectives,types of activities, target outputs and impact indicators.

Each project had to fulfil certain core criteria (Interreg IIC NSP Operational Programme

1997):

(1)To relate to spatial planning (with the “European” definition; cf. p. 7), in view ofa balanced and sustainable development of the North Sea Region.

(2)To be transnational in nature, involving at least two co-operating partners withan impact in at least three countries in the NSR. The transnationality had tocontribute to the effectiveness of the project.

(3)To provide added value to the NSR as a result of Structural Funds support.

(4)To be additional to on-going activities.

Table 3 Priorities and measures of the IIC North Sea Programme (Source: Interreg IIC NSP Operational Programme 1997)

Priority 1: Urban and Regional Systems

Measure 1.1: The development of the relationship between urban and rural areasMeasure 1.2: The development of towns and citiesMeasure 1.3: Urban networksPriority 2: Transport and Communication

Measure 2.1: Improvement of North Sea linksMeasure 2.2: Promotion of multi-modal transport centresMeasure 2.3: Information and communication technologies to enhance more regionally balanced developmentPriority 3: Natural Resources and Cultural Heritage

Measure 3.1: Promotion of Integrated Coastal Zone ManagementMeasure 3.2: Protection of valuable natural areas and wise management of natural resourcesMeasure 3.3: Promotion of cultural tourism


20


(5)To demonstrate cross-sectoral and vertical co-ordination.

(6)To contribute to the development of a broad long term vision for the NSR.

(7)To promote the transfer of knowledge.

(8)To complement other programmes.

Additionally, as usual with EU funds, the project partners had to co-finance theproject with at least 50% of the costs. Possible activities under Interreg IIC includedplanning activities through transnational networking, exchange of experience,feasibility studies, pilot projects and research.

In the period of the programme, between late 1997 and 1999, more than 250 projectideas reached the Programme Secretariat, of which 45 projects were approved (Moll& Overman 2001). Several projects submitted under the Interreg IIC NSP hadalready been under discussion before the programme started, through the existingco-operation network of the North Sea Commission (Nadin & Shaw 1998). The IICNorth Sea Programme was successful in spending the allocated resources: By May2002, over 80% of the funds for the IIC period were spent, much more thananticipated by most, and comparing favourably to other Interreg IIC programmeareas (Interview with George 2002).

Conclusions of Part I

As we have seen, today’s European spatial planning was established only duringthe last decade of the 20th century. As with most European political constructions,the European Union invented for the tasks of European spatial planning not onlynew instruments, but also a complete new set of European planning vocabulary.This vocabulary starts with the term “spatial planning” itself, a term created inEnglish as an attempt to translate continental European terms, such as the Dutch“ruimtelijke ordening”.

Spatial planning was seen for some time as ineligible for European policies,because it was understood as land use planning, giving the EU no competency dueto the subsidiarity system. As European spatial planning is now seen more as astrategic approach to guide spatial impacts of European policies, action has becomeeligible.

The two important elements of European spatial planning are, as shown, theEuropean Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) and the Interreg Initiative. TheESDP presents informal guidelines for spatial planning, at an abstract level. InterregIIC’s main aims were to allow transnational co-operation and the application of theESDP at a regional and local level. The targets of ESDP and the transnationalInterreg Initiative are to a large extent the same.

Interreg IIC was implemented in new transnational co-operation areas, created onthe basis of spatial studies. These regions are artificial constructs; their boundariesare to some extent arbitrary. The North Sea Programme Region is one of the morelogical “mega-regions”, with its partly common historical and cultural identity.



Interreg and the ESDP are supposed to interact. Reading between the lines of theInterreg targets, Interreg and ESDP are supposed to become one unit, similar to themodel of “Mixed Scanning” in planning theories: The ESDP forms the frameworkand provides long term spatial development objectives, while Interreg implementsits targets in a project-based step by step approach. The thesis discusses in itscritical assessment (Part III) if this model seems to be effective for European SpatialPlanning.

This part of the report has provided the contexts of spatial planning on a Europeanlevel, creating an understanding of the development and role of this new issuetackled by the European Union. This understanding provides a useful basis for thefollowing parts of the report.

As we will see in the following chapters, Interreg IIC has moved the definition ofEuropean Spatial Planning further away from the understanding of spatial planningfound in most EU countries. The evaluation will show that Interreg IIC has had itsbenefits, although these are different to what you might expect of the programmeafter reading the objectives set for this initiative for “transnational co-operation onregional and spatial planning”


22



A successful programme? - The Evaluation

PART II - THE EVALUATION

A successful programme?

Evaluation has played a stronger role, in recent years, in the implementationprocess of EU programmes. The associated regulations outline detailed standardsin tasks, objectives and functions of evaluations. The effectiveness of theserequirements and standards, with their quantitative approach, are much deputed inthe academic world. EU evaluations have been particularly criticised for seldomportraying a full and truthful picture (cf. Box 5).

Box 5 The state of art of EU programme evaluations: A doubtful truth

The EU Commission has set up concrete regulations for the required ex-ante, mid-termand ex-post evaluations of EU programmes. Although evaluations are seen as importantand necessary, the state of art of EU evaluations is fundamentally criticised (compareToepel 2000 and Kugler 2000):

• EU evaluations are usually based on hard and concrete quantitative indicators, even though many effects cannot be quantified, at least at the time of the evaluation. Qualified indicators are often more useful.

• Quantitative indicators require an estimation of the net effects of the programme, separating coincidental developments from the impacts of the programme. This is a widely unsolved problem. For example, if a structural funds programme is said to have created x-thousand jobs it is difficult to establish if these jobs would not have been created anyway. Although Kugler (2000) thinks that in ex-post evaluations an estimate might be partly possibly, it can never be very precise and usually remains questionable. There are two major problems: (1) The evaluation requires a substantial amount of empirical work. (2) With more time passed since the end of the programme, the evaluative information becomes more precise and comprehensive; at the same time, the relevance of the results diminishes as there are more possibilities for influences from outside the programme.

• The evaluation systematics of the Commission do not work for infrastructure funding, although this is one of the main funding areas. Temporary effects of infrastructure are usually only side effects (e.g. creation of jobs), and indirect effects are difficult to evaluate.

• Ex-post evaluations usually link directly back to the expected impacts from the ex-ante evaluation.This makes it difficult to question the ex-ante impact assumptions.

• General cross-sectional objectives (issues such as support of ICT, environment, equal opportunities) have to be taken into account in all EU programme evaluations. Weighting these often opposing objectives makes evaluations more complicated and subjective.

Criteria for a successful evaluation should be quality, independence and opportunity todevelop action-based recommendations out of its results. Only direct project objectivesshould be evaluated, with a free choice of methods and data sources.


24


Evaluations of transnational Interreg programmes are even more difficult than thoseof other EU programmes. The overall influence of the programmes is hard toestablish, as Interreg projects cover a broad range of thematic areas, and eachproject has its very own, often unique outputs. The direct project outputs are oftenless concrete and “softer” than the more usual products of structural fund activities -they can include knowledge, processes, working arrangements, plans. As Nadinand Shaw (1998, p. 288) conclude, “[t]he standard evaluation approach of theStructural Funds will be very difficult to apply to such projects”.

Interreg IIC programmes can, to some extent, be seen more as strategic plans thanas development programmes, one of their main strategies being to implement theESDP. As Faludi (Quote in DTLR 2002) puts it,

“... strategic plans must be evaluated, not primarily in the light of their material outcomes, butfor how they improve the understanding of decision makers of present and future problemsthey face. Where having such plans increases this understanding, they may be said to performtheir role, irrespective of outcomes. Plans perform their role if and when they help decisionmakers make sense of their situations, and so they need to be evaluated in this light.”

Ex-post evaluations of transnational Interreg projects are a new field; at the time ofwriting no ex-post evaluation was available. Considering the wide range of thematicareas, it is hardly possible to come to an overall evaluation result that indicates theoverall thematic impact. The focus of evaluating Interreg IIC programmes must betherefore in performance rather than conformance, the opposite of the mainstreamapproach promoted by the EU. Performance indicators can describe, for example,what impact (if at all) the project has; if the project will be implemented; if thenetworks form a basis for sustainable co-operation; and if the project results are welldisseminated. Table 4 lists the indicators used for this evaluation.

This part of the thesis presents the empirical results of the evaluation of the InterregIIC North Sea Programme. First, with the help of secondary data, the case studyregions and their respective national state and planning structures are brieflyintroduced. Then the scope and methods of the evaluation are defined andlimitations outlined. The actual evaluation presents the views and opinions from aproject perspective as well as from a regional and programme perspective.

5 Similarities across the North Sea: The case study areas

Northern Germany and the East coast of England have similar spatial, social andeconomic structures, yet administrative structures and the understanding ofplanning are different. Two areas of comparable size were chosen for theevaluation: the sub-regional administrative district (Regierungsbezirk) Weser-Ems inGermany and the region of East Anglia in England. These regions cover a similararea and population and have a comparable character and structure. Both havebeen rather active in the Interreg IIC programme period with 13 project partners inWeser-Ems and 17 in East Anglia (seven of these were as sub-partners).Thischapter gives an introduction to the administrative and planning systems in the twocountries and a short presentation of the case study regions.



5.1 Differences in administrative and planning structures

Germany: Three self-governing levels; strong spatial planning at the local level

Germany has a federal structure, based on a strict subsidiarity principle, with threestrong independent levels:

• Local authorities. Either divided into municipalities (Gemeinden) and counties (Landkreise), or, for “county-free” cities, in a unitary structure (kreisfreie Städte)

• The regional level. Governed by the Federal State (Bundesland) Government, comprising an intermediate level, the district governments (Bezirksregierungen).

• The Federal Government (Bundesregierung).

For spatial planning, the Federal Government defines only basic goals andprinciples of spatial organisation (Raumordnung), both in a law (Raumordnungs-gesetz) and in a Report of Spatial Organisation (Raumordnungsbericht). It enacts,

Table 4 Criteria and indicators for the evaluation

Criteria Indicators

Key Question 1. Usefulness of transnational co-operation in planning

Direct Impact/Effect of projects/Success

• Contentedness of project partners about results• Implementation of project results• Incorporation of project results in strategies• Development of North Sea strategies• New or strengthened networks• (Improved) cross-sectoral approach

Added value from tran-snational working

• Results not possible without international partners• Projects created mutual understanding• New innovative aspects learnt

Change in thoughtprocesses

• Change of viewing the relevance of Europe/of transnational links• Use of networks for other purposes

Relevance for spatial planning

• Involvement of planning department• Incorporation of results into spatial plans• Relevance of project for planning

Key Question 2. Sustainability of project results

Commitment after fund-ing period

• Keeping up project / network without funding• Personnel dedicated to project / network• Finances dedicated to project / network• Keeping up website

Project knowledge sus-tainable in region

• Involvement of other people in the department / in the region• Regional dissemination of project results in seminars• No. of locally distributed project reports

Key Question 3. North Sea Perspective of planning

North Sea relevance • Involvement of partners throughout the North Sea Region• Relevance of project for the North Sea Region• Linking up with other North Sea projects

Dissemination • Website availability and quality• Project report - quality and number of copies printed/distributed• Seminars for dissemination

Bottom-Up links • Contact/co-operation with national/EU level• Chance of implementing project results beyond project network

Awareness of the North Sea as a new region

• Relevance of the North Sea Region for planning• Opinions about the importance of transnational links


26


with the Federal Town Planning Act (Baugesetzbuch), all legal regulations affectinglocal planning.

Spatial planning is organised in three tiers: the State, the (sub-)regional and thelocal level. These tiers do not follow a hierarchical logic; the respective plans areestablished during a process of mutual agreement. This process, called countercurrent principle (Gegenstromprinzip) allows the respective lower tier to participatein the planning of the respective higher tier. (Kunzmann 2001)

The State level produces the State Development Programme (Landesentwicklungs-programm), which is concreted at the subregional level into Regional Plans. EachState decides which administrative tier is responsible for regional planning; forLower Saxony it is the county level. The local level is responsible for land-useplanning, producing a preparatory land use plan (Flächennutzungsplan) and alegally binding land-use plan (Bebauungsplan). (Albers 1999.)

Although State Planning is involved in most space related decision processes, itlacks implementation tools, and therefore its efficacy is much disputed. State andRegional Planning in most States is not entirely in line with mainstream economicdevelopment and regional policies (Kunzmann 2001). The economic departments ofState and regional administration are usually responsible for regional policy and EUfunding policy. Regional policy is much more influential than regional planning, as itadministers both national and European funding programmes.

England: Only two tiers in a centralised structure

The United Kingdom is traditionally a prime example of a centralised state focusingon top-down policies. Before recent major changes to the system, there wereeffectively only two independent government tiers:

• The Central Government at the national level, administering a regional level with the Government Offices for the Region (GORs).

• The local level, either with unitary authorities or two tier authorities. The two tier authorities comprise County Councils and District or Borough Councils.

GORs were created in 1994 to co-ordinate government functions regionally, such asplanning, inward investment, training and transport. They were encouraged todevelop better central-local relations and “can be seen as a limited attempt at betterregional co-ordination of central programmes”. (Herrschel and Newman 2000, p.1190 ff.) Regional Policy and European Funding were directed and prepared by theGORs, and implemented by the Counties. In certain areas, such as East Anglia, thecounties additionally co-ordinated policies through Standing Conferences.

Since 1998, when the New Labour government came into power, a process ofregionalisation of responsibilities has been initiated. Recent developments, towardsthe end of the Interreg IIC period, have seen the emergence of RegionalDevelopment Agencies (RDAs) in England, with the task to “build up the voice of theregions” giving a “sharper regional focus” (DETR 1997, quoted in Herrschel andNewman 2000). The nine RDAs, operational since 1999, promote competitiveness,innovation and investment, and develop comprehensive (economic) regional



development strategies, but with only limited control of resources. The tasks of theRDAs overlap with those of the GORs. New unelected Regional Assemblies of localcouncillors have a limited oversight role and give some local legitimacy to the RDAs,although the RDA’s main responsibility is to central government. (Herrschel andNewman 2000) This might change if the Regional Assemblies are elected, givingmore power and legitimacy at the regional level.

Planning - traditionally covering only land use planning - is conducted at the locallevel, with guidance from Central Government and under supervision of the GORs.In two-tier local authorities, there are also two tiers of local plans: The structure planat the county level with programme character, and the development plan at thedistrict level. Both the structure and development plans have to be in line with thePlanning Policy Guidance (PPG), published for England by Central Government,and the Regional Planning Guidance (RPG), published by the GORs. Unlike inGermany, there is no legally binding land use plan. The structure plan is to someextent comparable to a German regional plan. (Universität Dortmund 1999; CEC2000) Up to now, there is no real regional level of planning. The GORs’ RegionalPlanning Guidance tends to be close to Central Government policies and verygeneral in nature with limited regional distinctiveness.

The English planning structure might change in the near future considerably; aGreen Paper from the ministry responsible for planning suggests the replacement ofRegional Planning Guidance with a Regional Planning Strategy, the abandonmentof the Structure Plan at the County level, and the change of the Development Planinto a Local Development Framework (cf. DTLR 2001b)

Comparing Germany and England

The county levels in Germany and England are not particularly comparable, asGermany’s counties cover much smaller areas than England’s - for example,Weser-Ems consists of 17 counties and county-free cities, while East Anglia, with acomparable area and population, consists of only three counties.

Table 5 Administrative levels and their respective spatial responsibilities in Lower Saxony and East AngliaNote: The spatial responsibilities for Regional Planning are different in other German States;the administrative levels are different in unitary authorities in England.

Level Germany England NUTSNational Federal Government

Report on Spatial OrganisationCentral Government

Planning Policy Guidance-

Government Office for the RegionsRegional Planning Guidance

NUTS 1

Regional State GovernmentState Development Programme

Since’00: RDA & Regional Assembly

Sub-regional Administrative District NUTS 2

Local County(Sub-) Regional Plan

CountyStructure Plan

NUTS 3

MunicipalityPreparatory Land Use & Land Use Plan

District/BoroughDevelopment Plan

-


28


In spatial planning, Germany has a strong regional (State) as well as local planninglevel with an intermediate level in between, while England has up to now a veryweak regional level, directed by Central Government. In England, there are nospatial plans on a national and regional level; only the local level creates plans.German sub-regional plans are comparable to the Structure Plan in England.Regional Policy both in Germany and in England stands apart from spatial planning,generally organised from economic development departments at the regional level.

A comparison between Germany and England shows that there are still majordifferences in administrative and planning structures in the different countries of theEuropean Union. These differences prove at times difficult for comparisons, andeven more for co-operation on a transnational scale.

5.2 Peripheries at the centre of Europe: Weser-Ems and East Anglia

Administrative District Weser-Ems - peripheral from a German perspective

Weser-Ems is one of the four Administrative Districts of the State of Lower Saxonyin North-West Germany. It consists of 12 counties and 5 county free cities. Thelargest and most important cities are Oldenburg, Osnabrück and Wilhelmshaven.Weser-Ems covers 15.000 km², and has a population of 2.37 m (Statistische Ämterdes Bundes und der Länder website 2002). The population density of 158inhabitants per km² is, for Germany, comparably low.

Located in North Frisia, Weser-Ems borders the North Sea and its Waddensea tothe North, the Netherlands to the West, the river Weser to the East and themountain area Weserbergland to the South. Weser-Ems neighbours the major cityof Bremen, and is well connected with the South (Ruhr region) and West (Hanover,Hamburg, Berlin). However, from a German perspective it is slightly peripheral, asits Northern part forms a rural headland, and to the West it borders the ruralNorthern parts of the Netherlands. The region does not directly touch one of theimportant European transport routes, and no major airport is easily accessible.

Geographically, Weser-Ems is part of the Northern German Flatlands. The region isfor the most part rural; agriculture is the main land use. While there are only a fewwoods and forests, Weser-Ems has very important coastal nature and wetlandareas. Seven North Sea islands are part of the region. They are divided from themainland by the national park “Waddensea”, one of the most important nature areasof the North Sea region, covering 230.000 ha. Additionally there are wetlands andmoorlands of ecological significance in the coastal inland; 15% of the inland area islegally protected as a nature reserve. (Bezirksregierung Weser-Ems website 2002)

The manufacturing sector of the economy employs 40% of the working population,with the service sector taking up an increasing percentage, at the moment 57%(Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder website 2002). The most importanteconomic sectors are food industries, car manufacturing, plastic industries andagriculture. The Northern part of the region has a focus on maritime tourism andindustries (ship building, harbours). Weser-Ems has a GDP per capita of € 20,833



(EUROSTAT website 2002), which is slightly below the EU average. Due to thestrong manufacturing sector in the regional economy, unemployment is at 7,2%rather high, though still under the national average (loc.cit.).

There are two universities in Weser-Ems, in Oldenburg and Osnabrück, and theregion is well equipped with “soft infrastructure”; there is an abundance ofmuseums, theatres and cinemas. Weser-Ems has attracted, in recent years, morenew residents than most other areas in Germany. It is also one of the few Germanregions where the birth rate lies above the mortality rate. (Bezirksregierung Weser-Ems website 2002)

East Anglia - a rural region close to London

East Anglia comprises the counties of Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk.Although the three counties share a common heritage, they do not form anadministrative region. In the recent process of forming new English Regions, EastAnglia has become, together with Bedfordshire, Essex and Hertfordshire, the EastOf England Region. East Anglia forms a NUTS 2 region for the purpose of EUstatistics.

East Anglia is located on the East coast of England, forming a headland into theNorth Sea, with coasts to the North, East and South-East. Its four biggest cities areCambridge, Ipswich, Norwich and Peterborough. With two million inhabitants on15,500 km², East Anglia has one of the lowest population densities in England(Suffolk, Norfolk & Cambridgeshire County Council websites 2002).

Figure 4 Map of the Administrative District Weser-Ems

RB = Regierungsbezirk

The grey lines indicate motorways


30


East Anglia’s position in an (inter-) national network is divided. The West (aroundCambridge, with the M11/A1 North-South connection) and the South-East (Ipswich,with the A12 to London) are well connected by road and rail to London, as well asbeing close to the major international airport London-Stansted. The North and Eastof the region are more peripheral, and have a rather poor transport infrastructure.Felixstowe is the UK’s largest port for international container traffic, and along theEast and North coast there are several smaller ports and harbours.

Agriculture is the predominant land-use in East Anglia, particularly in the centre,North and East of the region. There are several forest areas in Suffolk. Ecologicallymost important are water areas: The Fens in Cambridgeshire and the Broads inNorfolk are internationally important wetlands, and the Suffolk coast with its tidalrivers, heaths and wetlands provides unique nature reserves. (GO-East website2002)

East Anglia has a healthy economy, and the unemployment rate stands at 4.1%,well below the national average. Nevertheless, there are pockets of economicdeprivation; three rural and coastal areas in Norfolk and Suffolk receive ERDFObjective 2 funding (loc.cit.). Cambridge, as one of the major university cities ofBritain, and the surrounding Southern Cambridgeshire have an economicconcentration in R&D, high-tech and knowledge based industries, some of themlocated in the reputed Cambridge Science Park. Ipswich in Suffolk also has asubstantial number of high tech industries, with an important R&D institution, BritishTelecom’s Communication Research Laboratory. It is especially this high tech andR&D sector that makes East Anglia’s GDP per capita at € 25,000, well above thenational and European average (EUROSTAT website 2002).

Figure 5 Map of East Anglia, with the East of England

The grey lines indicate motorways or similar major roads.



Most of the remaining parts of East Anglia are rural. Agriculture and relatedindustries as well as food processing provide a major contribution to the region’seconomy. Still, the service sector at 74% is the main employment sector in theregion. All four major cities have a strong base in the service economy, especially infinancial and business services and distribution. (GO-East website 2002)

During recent years, East Anglia has been increasingly influenced by its proximity toLondon. It has benefited from the additional economic income from companiessettling in the region. At the same time, people working in London increasinglydemand property in the region. This has resulted in considerable increases inproperty values, making the housing market unaffordable for many local, especiallyyoung, people.

Two similar regions

Weser-Ems and East Anglia are roughly the same size both in population and area,and are similar in structure. Both regions are close to major European economiccentres, while they are in their national context slightly peripheral, with a significantrural area in the coastal hinterland.

Both economies have a strong base in agriculture and related industries, as well asa concentration of maritime economies. East Anglia (as all of the UK) differs in that itis advanced in the transformation from a manufacturing to a service economy.Weser-Ems still has a strong manufacturing sector; but this sector has significantly

Table 6 Comparison of key statistical data of Weser-Ems and East Anglia

Weser-Ems Germany East Anglia UK

General Statistics

Area (km²) 15 000 a

a. Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder website 2002

15 500 b

b. Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire County Councils websites 2002

Population (m. inhabitants) 2,37 a 2,04 b

Population Density (inh./km²) 158 a 230 c

c. EUROSTAT website 2002

136 b 246 c

Age Structure (% of population)

under 15 years 18 a 16 a 19 b 19 b

15-64 years 64 a 65 a 64 b 63 b

over 65 years 15 a 16 a 16 b 17 b

Economic Statistics

GDP 1999 (million €) 50 179 c 54 988 c

GDP per capita 1999 (€) 20 833 c 22 712 c 25 068 c 21 598 c

Unemployment 2000 (%) 7,2 c 8,8 c 4,1 c 6,1 c

Employment in Sectors 1998 (% of economically active persons)

Primary Industries 3 a 3 a 5 d

d. NOMIS Website 2002

2 d

Manufacturing & Construction 40 a 37 a 21 d 22 d

Service Sector 57 a 60 a 74 d 76 d


32


contributed to a rising unemployment rate. The GDP per capita in Weser-Ems is wellbelow both national and European average, while East Anglia has an exceptionallyhigh GDP. The demographic structure in Weser-Ems and East Anglia is similar.Both regions claim to attract an above average influx of population, with a highproportion of young and middle aged persons. Both regions feature considerableareas of internationally important nature reserves; the coastal areas and inlandwetlands are unique ecological resources

Weser-Ems and East Anglia are comparable regions, both influenced by the NorthSea and its historical links, and facing the problems of peripheral coastal areas.Most of their characteristics are typical for the Southern North Sea Region. Thesetwo regions are proof of strong structural similarities in the North Sea Region.

6 Evaluating spatial impacts of the IIC North Sea Programme

Six countries participated in the Interreg IIC North Sea Programme; 45 projectswere approved in the programme period. The evaluation takes two countries and 13different projects into account. The evaluation is limited to two case study regions,Weser-Ems and East Anglia. It covers project partners of local and regional publicauthorities. Only the Interreg IIC period, from 1997 to 1999, is considered (theprojects needed to be completed by the end of 2001); the impacts of the projects areevaluated from today’s perspective, the first half of the year 2002. The evaluation isbased on primary data, acquired from interviews and a survey questionnaire.Secondary data is used mainly for the introduction to case study areas and projects.The impacts on planning in the North Sea Region are evaluated from a projectperspective as well as from a regional and programme perspective.

In Weser-Ems and East Anglia, there were altogether 17 different Interreg IICprojects, and 30 different project partners in regional and local authorities (cf.Table 7). All project partners in the case study regions were asked to fill out anEnglish survey questionnaire on the internet. Additionally, a sample of four projectshas been chosen as case study projects; for these, the project partners in Weser-Ems and/or East Anglia were interviewed. The case studies cover the three projectcategories developed in the first chapter of the thesis (cf. p .2): “Local Projects” (or“umbrella projects”), “Network Projects” and “North Sea Region Strategic Projects”.

An over-arching regional insight into the North Sea Programme was achieved byface to face interviews with regional Interreg contact points in Lower Saxony and theEast of England. Members of the Interreg North Sea Secretariat in Denmark wereinterviewed to find out the perspective of the administrators of the programme. Allinterviews were undertaken between the end of May and the beginning of July 2002.They were “semi-structured interviews”: Based on a list of questions, they allowedthe interviewee the flexibility to elaborate. (A specimen of the survey questionnairecan be found in Annex A; the interview structure in Annex C).



6.1 Success and limitations of the evaluation

As the evaluation only takes two case study regions in two different countries of theNorth Sea Programme into account, the results and conclusions can be transferredonly in part to the whole programme.

The sample of projects in the case studies shows what Interreg projects canachieve, and what the limitations are. However, the sample should not be seen aswholly representative. The opinions in the interviews should be seen indicatively,identifying common project issues for the programme. Among the interviewpartners, there was no project lead partner. The amount of four case study projectsmakes a 9% sample of all Interreg IIC North Sea projects. It covers two projects withpartners in both Weser-Ems and East Anglia, one only in Weser-Ems and one onlyin East Anglia.

The questionnaire survey served to put the results of the interviews into a widercontext. It has been successful: Of the 30 invitations sent out, one e-mail was

Table 7 Project partners in Weser-Ems and East Anglia (Q means that the project partner filled out the questionnaire; C means that the evaluationincludes a case study)

Project Type Project Name English partners Q/C German partners Q/C

Local Projects(Projects with local fo-cus; tailored to local needs. After project termination each part-ner can be seen as a separate entity. Project based mainly on exchange of experi-ence. Often also action based, with pilot projects)

Benefits of Pipelines Stadt Emden -

City Centres Managers Network

Norwich City Q

DITO LK Aurich -

Revitalisation of Harbour Towns and Cities

Stadt Nordenham Q

Rural Service Centres Suffolk CCNorfolk CCFenland DCE Cambr’shireDC

QQ--

Spatial Integration through linking Inland Waterways

LK AurichLK Emsland

-Q

Water City International Norwich City Q/C Stadt Emden Q/C

Network Projects(Network between partners is main project aim and result. Connects similar areas in the NSR.)

North Sea Cycle Route Suffolk CC Q/C BR Weser-Ems Q/C

North Sea Viking Legacy Norfolk CC Q

Regional Development Strategies

Suffolk CC Q LK Wilhelmshafen Q

String of Pearls LK Wesermarsch Q/C

TEN - transnational eco-logical networks

Suffolk CCNorfolk CC

QQ

BR Weser-Ems Q

WISP Fenland DCE Cambr’shire DCPeterborough

--Q

LK Wesermarsch Q

NSR Strategic Projects(Projects with NSR as target area, with stra-tegic dimension. Often projects with bottom-up direction)

Sustainable Development in coastal tourist areas

Norfolk CC -

Norcoast Suffolk CC Q/C

North European Trade Axis

Stadt EmdenStadt Osnabrück

Q-

Transport Study NSR Norfolk CC -


34


undeliverable; 20 of the remaining 29 partners filled out the questionnaire, which is areturn of 68%. This return rate is comparably high and provides a decent sample ofall projects from the case study areas. The returned questionnaires include 13different projects, which is nearly 30% of the 45 projects of the Interreg IIC NorthSea Programme. Both the good return rate and positive feedback from variouspartners confirmed that the medium of the Internet was a successful andappreciated tool for the survey. A similar return rate in percent of the invited Germanand English partners indicates that it was not a problem for the German partners tofill out an English questionnaire.

However, there might be various distortions in the assembled data from thequestionnaire: (1) Nine project partners did not fill out the questionnaire. The reasonfor this is unknown, but might result in distortions. (2) Project partners might havetaken the questionnaire as an opportunity to impress and to justify their involvement,which might make the results more positive. (3) Certain terms might be understoodin different ways in England and Germany, due to cultural differences, for instancethe term “spatial planning” itself.

All in all, the questionnaire seems to have been clear and correctly understood bythe participants. However, a shortcoming of the questionnaire was the requestasking for the departments that were involved in the project: In many authorities,departments embrace different areas; a better formulation would have been whichofficers were involved. A further improvement would have been to create a field foradditional comments.

The regional views from Lower Saxony (Friedhelm Budde) and the East of England(Graeme Law) are hardly comparable due to a different level of Interreg experience:Mr. Budde has been closely involved in the whole Interreg IIC process, while Mr.Law is still new to the subject. The interviews with members of the Interreg NorthSea Secretariat might have not presented a wholly neutral view, but one thatsupports to some degree the work of the Secretariat.

6.2 The project perspective: Generally content partners

6.2.1 String of Pearls - a bottom-up network project

The project “String of Pearls” aimed to create new income and employmentopportunities in tourism and leisure for rural agricultural enterprises. The “pearls”were numerous newly organised rural tourism initiatives, comprising farmers andsmall scale private rural entrepreneurs. The IIC project consisted of 17 pearls fromacross Germany, The Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. The aim was to connectthese pearls, establishing a “string of pearls along the North Sea”.

The project activities focused on exchange of ideas and experiences and thedevelopment of new activities, in the fields of rural sustainable tourism, nature,culture and regional products. The project attempted to strengthen the structure ofthe string, and to support communication between the pearls. It contributed tocreating a specific North Sea Region identity for these rural tourist destinations,



helping them to promote more effectively in wider tourism markets. The project triedto identify possibilities and restrictions for sustainable development of rural tourism.(cf. Interreg NSP Secretariat 2001, String of Pearls website 2002)

The international co-operation of the project worked on several levels. A steeringgroup, featuring mainly politicians, had the task to approve new “pearls”, while theproject group, with civil servants and officers, planned the project work in detail andevaluated the processes. On two occasions, at a first and final assembly, all projectmembers participated. Additionally, local tourist entrepreneurs undertook field tripsto partners in other countries, exchanging experience at the grass root level.

The German co-ordinator of the project was Martin Stein (MS), at the NatureConservation Department of the county Wesermarsch. The department has thepolicy to establish voluntary nature conservation in co-operation with farmers. TheString of Pearls project is in line with this policy, as it develops new opportunities forfarmers in the tourism sector, and makes nature conservation more acceptable forthe farmers. MS admits that the project was seen at times as something “exotic” bycolleagues in the department. MS found out about String of Pearls at a North SeaDirectoria (the North Sea Programme project market).

As project co-ordinator for Germany, MS’s main task was the national projectorganisation. This included gaining local political support for the project, maintainingthe budget, and co-ordinating with the international partners. Another major taskwas to establish new “pearls” in Germany, through “round tables”, bringing togetherrural entrepreneurs and other relevant actors from the region. The project required asubstantial amount of communication from the lead partners, mostly by e-mail whichproved to be an efficient and inexpensive medium.

Project relevance for spatial planning: Spatial planning was not a direct issue inString of Pearls, and the Spatial Planning Department was not involved in theproject. Working in a rural area with local small businesses does usually not have adirect impact on the spatial structure. Only in the long term, by strengthening ruralareas, can it influence spatial development.

Project benefits: Local tourist actors from Wesermarsch came together for the firsttime to discuss common strategies and marketing, and realised that a commonapproach might be beneficial. From international co-operation, the main addedvalue was the exchange of experience between local small tourism businessestransnationally. Rural tourism is organised quite differently in the partner countries,

Table 8.a Facts for the String of Pearls project

Partners • NL: Provinces of Drenthe (Lead), Groningen, Fryslan and Overijssel

• D: Landkreis Wesermarsch

• N: Fylkesmannen i Hordaland, Nyborg

• S: Uddevalla Kummun

Measure 1.1 The development of the relationships between urban and rural areas

Budget € 320,000


36


allowing for a fruitful exchange of ideas. The partners developed an internationalunderstanding, regarding marketing and running their businesses.

Project problems: The amount of co-ordination and organisation exceeded theexpectations of MS. While English as the project language was not a major problemfor the steering and project groups, the representatives of the pearls had somedifficulties with it.

Future/sustainability of the project: The project willapply again under Interreg IIIB, with the mainobjective to fill major gaps in the String of Pearls, toallow the string to link up all around the North Sea,and, as a new focus, to develop quality standards.The project has already gained a momentum of itsown, with the members showing initiative withoutproject and funding support. The String of Pearlsproject will therefore have a lasting impact on regionaldevelopment, especially in regard to new regional co-operation, but also as aninternational tourism promotion and co-operation network. There are already signsthat the international exchange will continue: A group of German rural businesseshave independently organised a trip to Swedish partners, and another German pearlis intending to start an exchange of artists with Swedish partners. However, the longterm future of the website, without funding, is uncertain - although the website willremain online, only time will show in how far the website can be kept up to date.

Dissemination of project results: Dissemination was focused on promoting thenetwork members, and the String of Pearls as a tourism product. The website (witha decent number of visitors) and the logo are up to now the only elements linking thepearls; it is planned that in future the single pearls also advertise for other pearls.String of Pearls as a model of best practise has not been well disseminated.

Co-operation with other projects: MS is aware that it would have been beneficial forall concerned to link up the String of Pearls project both with other North Seaprojects (such as WISP or the North Sea Cycle Route) and with higher levelinstitutions, to widen its appeal and its North Sea dimension. This did not happen,because the project workload was too substantial to allow space for the additionalwork of co-ordination with other transnational projects. MS is of the opinion thatfuture project applications should consider time planned in for co-ordination.

North Sea Relevance: String of Pearls has a direct relevance to the North SeaRegion, with partners in four countries around the North Sea and the objective toadd partners in the remaining countries. By linking the “pearls”, String of Pearls ispromoted as a North Sea product. MS sees the North Sea as a relevant spatialentity, as there are a lot of cultural and natural similarities between the regionsbordering the North Sea. Communication with the partners showed that people inWesermarsch seem to have a lot in common with, for instance, Danish or Dutchpeople. The project “String of Pearls” has helped to establish a North Sea identity.



6.2.2 North Sea Cycle Route - a network project

The North Sea Cycle Route is an international route, linking upand completing a network of well-established cycle routes inthe regions around the North Sea. With a length of about 6000km it is probably the world’s longest cycle route. The routeoffers visible evidence of co-operation around the North Sea,the reason why the North Sea Cycle Route has becomesomething like an icon for the Interreg North Sea Programme.

The main output of the project is obviously the North Sea Cycle Route itself, with itsmap and website, as well as a successful promotion strategy attracting broad mediainterest. Additionally, the project had a focus on establishing a monitoring system forcycle routes. (cf. Interreg NSP Secretariat 2001)

The project network comprised about 70 local and regional authorities in all the sixcountries participating in the IIC North Sea Programme. Each country had its leadpartner with the task to co-ordinate the route nationally, and to represent the countryat the International Monitoring Group (IMG). The IMG worked on developing theroute in those areas where it was not yet completed, working out the signing of theroute and organising a promotion strategy.

The English project lead partner was Giles Goyder (GG), Tourism Officer at theEconomic Development Department of Suffolk County Council. He heard of theproject through the North Sea Commission Culture & Tourism Technical Group.Suffolk had already been in the process of developing a section of the national cyclenetwork along the North Sea from Harwich to Hull, together with other CountyCouncils. When GG heard of the plans for a North Sea Cycle Route, he thought itwas a marvellous opportunity to fit the national route into a bigger framework, withwider promotion. The German project lead partner was Bernhard Heidrich (BH) inthe Spatial Planning Department of the administrative district Weser-Ems. Theproject was presented to Germany at a time when most international partners werefound, and Germany was easily convinced that they should come on board.

Both GG and BH have a personal interest in the project issues, which served tomotivate them to take the lead in their respective countries.

The main and most demanding task of the national lead partners was to link up thelocal partnerships. They helped to establish the overall policy and co-ordination. Atthe local level, they liaised about the local delivery of the project and made sure thatlocal authorities were willing to fund. Among their tasks was also promotion and theorganisation of opening events. The exact route was decided upon by the localauthorities themselves.

Table 8.b Facts for the North Sea Cycle Route project

Partners 70 local and regional authorities in all six participating countries

Measure 3.3 Development of cultural tourism

Budget € 1.091.710


38


Relevance for spatial planning: Spatial planning seems to be only indirectlyaddressed by the project, although planning departments have been involved. Themain spatial impact is, as GG remarks, that the route exists, yet it will not be animportant factor in guiding how development will take place.

Project benefits: One benefit was the strongsense of interdisciplinarity in the project; thenational as well as the internationalpartnership covered all sectors: Planning,tourism, transport, economic development andcycling institutions. German local authoritieswere mainly involved with tourism officers ofeconomic development departments. Themost important new input into their work forboth GG and BH is the transnationalexperience: to be involved in the North Seanetwork, to hear of other projects and see howothers approach problems. Cycling and cycletourism is handled very differently in theparticipating countries, providing scope to learn from each other. For BH, as aspatial planner, another new insight was working with tourism marketing.

It is unlikely that a North Sea Cycle Route could have been established withoutInterreg. The Cycle Route can be seen as a model project, working with a largenumber of counties and countries. The organisation of such a major project wouldnot have happened without Interreg or other funding.

Project problems: To convince the 17 local authorities along the route was quitecomplicated in England. Germany faced a different problem: Tourist organisationswere sceptical of the project, arguing that local accommodation facilities would notbe interested in one-day cycling guests, but in guests staying for a whole week.

BH found that English as the project language caused certain problems, especiallyin regard to a substantial amount of translations, essential to allow a smooth co-operation between the international partnership and local partners. Yet he seesEnglish as the only way forward in Interreg projects.

Future/sustainability of the project: The project network is applying again with asuccessor project under IIIB. The focus will be on consolidating what has been donein IIC, particularly the monitoring, the further development of the website and thedevelopment of cycling products to encourage people to use it. Additionally someimportant physical infrastructure improvements will be undertaken. The othersignificant aspect of a follow-up project would be to find a structure that can carry onafter the Interreg III period, where partners agree to continue to pay a small sum ofmoney to maintain the website, to monitor and to maintain a certain level ofpromotion.

Finding this structure will be rather difficult, as there are about 70 partners involved,some of them being very reluctant to support it financially, even with Interreg

Map of the North Sea Cycle Route



funding. If a project under IIIB is not approved, it would be a struggle to securefinance to keep up the network. Yet, in BH’s opinion, also without Interreg IIIB thenetwork of IIC should be intensified. The updating of the website and decisions uponreprints of the Cycle Route map would be essential to the maintenance of thenetwork. The most likely and easiest option for long term continuation of the networkwould be to transfer the national management of the route to central organisations.In Germany, this has happened: A State-owned tourism organisation for Germany’scoastal areas (Werbegemeinschaft Deutsches Küstenland) is now responsible forthe cycle route.

To some extent, the network created in the project has been used by projectpartners for purposes outside the project theme, such as trying to find internationalpartners for other Interreg IIIB projects.

Dissemination of project results: The North Sea Cycle Route has been very wellpromoted throughout the North Sea Region: The website has an impressive numberof visitors (3,323,547 visitors until May 2002); the map has been printed in an editionof 500,000, and is now available in many tourist information centres around theNorth Sea. The project has had a significant amount of press coverage, includingextensive articles in some of the most widely published magazines in Germany(Stern, Spiegel).

Other authorities outside the North Sea Region have shown a keen interest inlearning from the North Sea experiences; for instance, GG has been in touch with agroup wanting to develop a Celtic cycle route in the UK, Ireland and Brittany for theAtlantic Arc Interreg Region. Additionally, the small European cycle organisationEurocelo, is very interested, as they have outline plans for about 15 transnationalcycle routes throughout Europe, up to now all of them only on paper, with theexception of the North Sea Cycle Route

GG would welcome a body with greater resources to bring together and disseminateproject results. None of the project members is very powerful, and not even theNorth Sea Commission would have the budget for it. His impression is that a lot ofprojects do relate to each other in different ways, and it would be helpful if there wasan organisation working with the project partners, putting projects together andlinking them.

Co-operation with other projects: There was some discussion, but no significant co-operation with other projects that would link naturally with the cycle route, such asNortrail, the Viking Project or String of Pearls. GG sees the potential to broaden theappeal of the projects by combining and marketing them together. The tourismproducts would become more accessible if the scope of the network was widenedby linking up with other projects. It is only possible to develop tourism products forthemes where the North Sea Region has a strong identity, or at least something incommon. A North Sea Tourism Strategy does not seem, for GG, realistic orappropriate. The North Sea Region cannot compete against the substantial budgetsof national tourism authorities, commercial companies and regions, all of which havea different focus.


40


North Sea Relevance: The North Sea Cycle Route is clearly relevant to the NorthSea Region, as all countries of the NSP are involved, and the route physically linksup the coastal areas. In the opinion of GG, Interreg IIC has lead to a greaterawareness of the North Sea region, but only among the organisations involved. Ithas helped the local authorities to see that if they co-operate with internationalpartners, they can promote themselves effectively.

6.2.3 Water City International - a project with local focus

The aim of the project ‘Water City International’ was to establish a systematic andco-ordinated approach to water issues in cities of the North Sea Region. Theparticipating cities Emden in Germany, Norwich in England, Leeuwarden in theNetherlands and Göteborg in Sweden co-operated on drawing up integrated urbanwater plans, and establishing pilot projects based on these plans. The partnersattempted to share the know-how gained from the project by developing planningguidelines. These might motivate other European cities to pay more attention towater in the city.

Each city drew up its own water plan, with itsown specific targets and focuses. The projectpartners were linked through biannualmeetings in the various cities of the network. Atthese meetings, the local development of theprogramme, goals and steps of realisation were introduced and pilot projectlocations were visited. In the end, all partners presented their Water Plans. (cf.Interreg NSP Secretariat 2001, Water City International website 2002).

The city of Emden involved in this project the Urban Planning (represented in theinterview by Mr. Doktor [D]), Environment and Urban Drainage Departments, as wellas the European Officer from the Economic Development Department (Ms. Daesler-Lohmüller [DL]), who was involved in all Interreg projects in Emden. Emden foundout about the project through a list of Interreg IIC project ideas forwarded to Emdenby the administrative district Weser-Ems. Water in the city was a theme Emden wasworking on, so it seemed interesting to find out how other cities with similarstructures were tackling this subject.

The city of Norwich also involved several departments: Urban planning (interviewpartner: George Ishmael [GI]), Environment, Europe and Transport. It heard aboutthe project from an officer at Norfolk County Council. Norwich was at that time in theprocess of completing the “Norwich River Valley Strategy”, a water plan stretching

Table 8.c Facts for the Water City International project

Partners D: EmdenUK: NorwichNL: Leeuwarden, Province Fryslan, NEON WaterS: Göteborg

Measure 1.2 The development of towns and cities

Budget € 972,500



up- and downstream into the neighbouring authorities, trying to ensure coherence inthe planning of the river environment. Norwich saw the Water City Internationalproject as a way to acquire some additional input from international partners.

Each project partner provided a different aspect to the project. This aspect was, asGI explains, dependent on where the match funding was coming from. In thatrespect the partners were quite different, which at the same time allowed a widerange of issues to be encompassed in the project. The partners found out that theparticipating cities were rather similar in terms of the role of water in the city as wellas their structure and urban design, strongly influenced by historical Dutch planning.

In Norwich the water plan was community based, while Emden’s water plan featuredlarge scale civil engineering work. Emden focused on improvements to the waterquality, as well as urban design and the cultural use of water in the city. Norwichwas further ahead than the other partners, as water quality was good and nosubstantial infrastructural improvements were necessary. Norwich’s focus wastherefore on the recreational use of the river.

Relevance for spatial planning: Water City International was directly concerned withspatial planning; the focus was on urban planning with water. Both partners involvedSpatial Planning Departments in the project, and the actual outputs were theWaterplans.

Project benefits: Both Emden and Norwich see the exchange visits to discuss withother professionals as the most important input and inspiration of the Interregproject. It was interesting to see that all four cities have similar problems, yet thesolutions and approaches to these problems proved to be different. Many examplesand pilot projects were relevant to all cities.

Interreg has supported an increased interdisciplinarity in the authorities; forinstance, before Interreg IIC, European funding in Emden was a theme exclusivelyhandled in the Economic Development Department.

Project problems: The different project focus between the partners proved to be attimes difficult. An additional challenge was to make the pilot projects trulytransnational. English as the project language was not a problem for Emden,although challenging it was. Translation costs have to be taken into account inbudget considerations.

Future/Sustainability of the project: A follow-up project to Water City Internationalunder Interreg IIIB has been approved. One condition has been that each partnerhad to bring in a new partner, to widen the project network. While the focus of the IICproject was on developing plans, it will now be more on implementation. Most of thecities will continue working on water quality issues. Norwich, meanwhile, willconcentrate on recreational aspects of the river and environmental improvements tothe river banks, and hopes to gain valuable experience from partners who are ratheradvanced in these issues.

Emden sees European funding as essential for maintaining the project network, dueto limited financial and personnel capacities. GI meanwhile thinks that he would


42


have tried to continue exchanging experiences with project partners, even if theproject would not have been approved.

It seems that the knowledge and experiences gathered in the IIC project has beensustained in the authorities, as both Emden and Norwich have involved severaldepartments and numerous people.

Both partners used the project network for business outside the project field mainlywhen looking for partners for new Interreg IIIB and also IIIC projects. DL stressesthat European funding is usually essential to sustain the network and use it for otherpurposes. Without European funding, Emden has used the networks only forinformal issues; for instance to find international entries for an architecturalcompetition or to invite international guests to a cultural symposium.

Dissemination of project results: Dissemination has been central to the project andwas mainly organised by the Dutch lead partner. Although there is currently generalinterest internationally in the thematic issues around “Water in the City”, there wereno concrete links to cities outside the project network.

GI found that there was significant interest in the project from people wanting toknow how to get involved in Interreg funded projects. He therefore considers thatthere is a lack of dissemination concerning Interreg in general. It would be helpful tohave information, for instance, in professional magazines. Better dissemination ofproject ideas and project results would be desirable, perhaps at regional or countylevel. GI has observed that the world of Interreg is a small one: There appears to bea tendency that, once involved in an Interreg project, it is more likely to get involvedin other projects.

DL is opposed to more central dissemination of projects. In her opinion, theinformation is well disseminated, and there is no need for improvement.

Co-operation with other projects: Co-operation was limited and predominantly local,mainly due to limited resources. Emden did co-operate with the “Spatial Integrationthrough linking inland waterways” project, as it addresses similar issues, and withTEN. Norwich is now starting to make links with the City Centres Management

Norwich Water Plan, title page of the CD Rom.



Network project, lead by Norwich, as the city centre of Norwich is close to the river.GI is considering using the Water City International network for tourism links infuture. Beyond that there was no further co-operation.

North Sea relevance: Water City International can be seen as a North Sea project inso far that all four participating cities have an obvious similarity in structure and tosome degree also history, even though they are spread around the North Sea. Withthe exception of similar structures of the cities, the project did not have a directNorth Sea connection; there were no pilot projects bringing the cities closer togetheror linking them up.

GI sees the North Sea region as a definite cultural and spatial entity. All interviewpartners of Water City International think that there are many similarities in theregions along the boundaries of the North Sea. They have a common culturalbackground and have faced similar problems, related to water, the economy andmigration. The awareness of a North Sea identity has been strengthened among thepartners.

6.2.4 Norcoast - a strategy for the North Sea Region

Norcoast is a strategic project relevant for thewhole North Sea Region, with the aim toinvestigate and promote best practice in coastalzone planning through transnational studies andexchange of experience. The project developedcommon guidelines for Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement (ICZM) and Planning, taking amulti-sectoral, environmentally sustainableapproach. From these guidelines, a North SeaICZM strategy has been elaborated, focusing onimplementation and practical solutions at a regional level. A project objective wasthe wide dissemination of the results, in the North Sea Region and beyond.(Norcoast website 2002)

To start the project, each partner wrote a report about their area and the relevantcoastal zone issues, problems and possible solutions. Work then centred aroundexchange visits to each of the project partners, with organised field trips andpresentations of problems and possible solutions. After these visitsrecommendations were elaborated. There was an initial conference to raiseawareness of the project, and a final conference where ideas and recommendationswere disseminated. Both of these conferences were open to professionals outsidethe project network.

In Germany, Norcoast is one of the few Interreg IIC projects that will have a directinfluence on policies at regional and national levels. The project has given newimpetus to the discussions about ICZM in the responsible ministries. (Interview withBudde 2002).


44


Jerry Hindle (JH), the English Norcoast project partner, is Environmental Manager atSuffolk County Council, and has a spatial planning background. He becameinvolved in the Norcoast project through the North Sea Commission EnvironmentTechnical Group, where at that time coastal management issues were a centraltheme. JH was interested to see how other North Sea regions approach coastalmanagement issues. Most of the international partners involved in the project werespatial planners, some were environment managers, wind energy planners or waterengineers.

Benefits of the project: Norcoast developed recommendations and strategiesthrough exchange visits and studies; the main benefit was to discuss coastal zoneissues with international professionals. The project was influential in the productionof a new management strategy for the Suffolk coast; much of the thinking is basedon the project results. This strategy has recently been adopted.

Future/sustainability of the project: It is at the moment uncertain if there will befollow-up projects under Interreg IIIB. Follow-up projects might address coastal zonemanagement practise, each looking at a specific issue in the different countries.Such issues might be dealing with the management and designation of Nature 2000sites in estuaries and coastal zone areas, the planning and management of windenergy, how to replicate coastal habitats lost through e.g. sea level rise, or trying toestablish real integrated coastal planning in small areas.

The network has proved to be useful for JH independently of the Norcoast project.Although the main focus of using the newly established networks is to look forpartners for new Interreg projects, some informal exchange of experience hascontinued, mainly with the Danish partner. The Danes exchange experience withSuffolk on wind energy issues, problems related to high speed ferry boats and ruraleconomic issues.

Dissemination of project results: The dissemination beyond the project network wasan essential part of the Norcoast project. All coastal counties and many of themunicipalities, who were members of the North Sea Commission, as well as thenational governments were invited to the Norcoast conferences, and receivedinformation and the final project report. In England, there was very little responsethough, and only Norfolk and Scarborough joined the conferences. There was goodcommunication and feedback with Norfolk, and to a lesser extent with Essex (duringIIC still outside the North Sea Region). In Suffolk itself, many local organisationswere directly involved in the project: district councils, projects and agencies working

Table 8.d Facts for the Norcoast project

Partners UK: Suffolk County Council, Highland CouncilD: Innenministerium Lower SaxonyDK: Nordjyllands AmtNL: Province Noord-HollandN: Hordaland Fylkeskommune

Measure 3.1 Promotion of integrated Coastal Zone Management

Budget € 758,672



with coastal zone issues. This ensured a wide dissemination of the projectknowledge in the region.

JH thinks that more central dissemination of project results is not necessary. In hisopinion, you have to be involved in a wider network, not just in the projectsthemselves. An important wider network for him is the North Sea Commission andits working groups, especially the Environment Technical Group, whereenvironmental project results can be presented and discussed. Suffolk and itsEnvironment and Transport Department see the involvement in the North SeaCommission as beneficial, although there is, with the exception of Norfolk, not muchsupport from the rest of the UK.

Co-operation with other projects: Norcoast co-operated with the IIC projectNorvision, contributing coastal issues to the spatial vision for the North Sea Region.It also usefully worked together with SEAGIS, a project developing concepts for theuse of GIS in sea and coastal planning. Norcoast had some limited involvement inother projects. JH thinks that the integration of the individual projects should beimproved in future.

Bottom-up links: Although Norcoast’s recommendations on ICZM were directed tolocal, regional, national and European levels, the only definite impact of the projectwas in England at the local level. The results of the project have been forwarded tothe UK national government, but JH doubts that it has been considered to date. Asthe UK is debating ICZM issues, there is still the possibility that the project willbecome influential. The North Sea Commission Environment Technical Group hasdiscussed and welcomed the recommendations.

6.2.5 The questionnaire: Overview of project opinions and impacts

The survey questionnaire, with mainly closed questions, was filled out on theInternet. All project partners in Weser-Ems and East Anglia received by e-mail aninvitation to fill out the questionnaire; those who had not filled it out after a week,received a reminder. The e-mails were sent in German to the German partners, inEnglish to the English partners. The questionnaire itself was in English. A specimenof the questionnaire and the invitation e-mails can be found in Annex A.

The questionnaire was filled out by 20 of the 30 project partners (9 German and 11English partners) in the two case study regions. It featured partners from 13 of the17 different projects (cf. Table 7 on page 33). There were no clear differencesbetween German and English project partners. Important findings of thequestionnaire are listed here; full statistics of the results can be found in Annex B.

Involved departments/officers

• The majority of projects were locally led by either the Environment/Nature Conservation (40%) or Economic Development (30%) Departments [under the assumption that the contact addresses of the projects were the local lead]. Only 20% were led by the Spatial Planning Department.


46


• In 40% of the projects the planning department was not involved at all. The Economic Development Department was involved in 70% of all projects, Environment/Nature Conservation in 65% (cf. Table 9).

• The number of people involved in the project within each organisation varied significantly. While some were handling the project on their own, one project claimed an involvement of more than 40 people. Most projects involved two to four (50%) or five to seven (30%) people.

Benefits, results, impacts of the projects

• All in all, the project partners were content with the project results: 75% considered the project as successful, the remaining 25% as “quite successful”. For 90% of the partners, the project fulfilled their expectations (50% fully agreed, 40% agreed).

• Most partners see the one most important effect of the project to be the development of networks (75%); 20% considered it to be local strategies, only 5% the “development of strategies for the North Sea Region”.

• Exchange of experience is regarded by all partners as an outcome of their project; most (90%) also see the creation or development of a network as an outcome. Other reported outcomes were a locally or regionally relevant strategy (50%), the realisation of pilot projects (55%), the establishment of best practice (60%) and a strategy or recommendations relevant to the whole North Sea Region (35%).

• The most important local /regional impacts of projects were concrete local action plans (65%). Many project results will be incorporated either in economic (55%) or spatial (45%) plans or strategies; only every 5th project will influence neither economic nor spatial strategies (cf. Table 10).

• Although most project partners (70%) claim that international co-operation was essential to obtain the project results, 10% state that they could have achieved the results on their own (meaning that there was no added value from the co-operation). The remaining 20% think that they could have acquired the results partially on their own.

Table 9 Lead and involvement of departments in the questionnaire projects(each indicating:% of all project partners (number of project partners)

DepartmentDept. acting as local lead partner

Involvement of dept. by other depts.

Overall involvement of dept.

Spatial Planning 20% (4 partners) 40% (8 partners) 60% (12 partners)

Economic Development 30% (6 partners) 40% (8 partners) 70% (14 partners)

Environment/Nature Conservation 40% (8 partners) 25% (5 partners) 65% (13 partners)

Culture 5% (1 partner) - 5% (1 partner)

Tourism 5% (1 partner) 30% (6 partners) 35% (7 partners)

Europe - 30% (6 partners) 30% (6 partners)

Transport - 10% (2 partners) 10% (2 partners)

Others - 25% (5 partners) 25% (5 partners)



Future/sustainability of the projects

• 80% of the partners will apply with the same project network for a follow-up project under IIIB.

• Only 35% of the project partners claim to have financial resources available for the project without Interreg IIIB funding. Every fourth project partner (20%) relies on Interreg funding to support or implement IIC project results; an additional 40% state that there are no further financial resources allocated for the project.

• 65% of the partners indicate that they have some personnel capacity to work on the project results or networks, without Interreg funding.

• 70% of the project partners state that they use the project networks for business outside the project field, an additional 20% can perceive a need to use the network at some point.

• Every second partner linked, to some degree, with other IIC NSP projects.

Transnationality/project size

• On average, of the 13 different projects that took part in the questionnaire, each project involved 3.9 countries and 10 project partners. Each project had at least 3 project partners; 23% of the 13 projects had partners in all six countries. More than half of the projects involved more than 8 partners.

• Looking at the number of project partners in relation to the success of the project, large projects with nine partners or more have been on average less successful than smaller ones. Sub-partners in those projects were generally less content with the project results, and the results have had less local impact.

Bottom-up links

• The bottom-up links of Interreg IIC projects can be considered weak: 35% of the project partners think that the project will have an influence on regional policy, only 5% on national policy and none on EU policy.

• Only 5% (1 partner) of the project partners have been in touch with the EU, and 15% with their national government. 20% had contact with a national agency. 55% of the project partners had contact with their regional government (mainly in Germany), 10% with a regional agency.

Table 10 Project influences locally/regionally; results from the questionnaire

What influence will the project have locally/regionally? Chosen (%)The project was based on exchange of experience, but there were no direct impacts. 10%

The project results will lead to concrete local action plans and strategies. 65%

They will be incorporated in spatial plans/planning strategies. 45%

They will be incorporated in economic strategies or plans. 55%

The structure of the department will be changed because of exchange of experience. 0%

There will be more interdisciplinarity/cross-sectoral co-operation locally. 55%


48


The main results from the rating section of the questionnaire

• The overall impression gained is that the partners were positive about the project.

• 35% of the project partners do not think that their project has a direct relevance to spatial planning. The English partners see their projects more often as relevant to spatial planning than the German partners (45% of the English partners fully agree and another 27% agree that the project has direct relevance to spatial planning, while in Germany, 22% fully agree and 33% agree).

• The management of the project is at times a shortcoming, 25% of the partners are not completely content with it.

• 70% think that there should be more project dissemination at a central level.

Comparison between the department of the local lead partner and the success and planning relevance of the project

• 50% of the projects led locally by an Economic Development Department were rated only as “quite successful” (4 out of 8); 80% of all project partners who rated their project as “quite successful” were in an Economic Development Department. These projects tend to be less sustainable regarding personnel and financial resources, compared to the projects led by other departments: 62% (5 of 8) do not have financial resources available after the end of the project period; 50% (4 of 8) have no personnel capacity. Additionally, these projects have a supposedly lower relevance both to spatial planning and the North Sea Region as a whole (50% of the Economic Development-led projects do not completely agree about the relevance of each).

Table 11 Results of the rating section of the questionnaire

Please judge the following statements!I fully agree

I agree

I do not completely agree

I dis-agree

No reply

The project fulfilled our expectations. 50% 40% 10% - -

The project gave many new inputs into our work. 30% 60% 10% - -

The management of the project worked well. 35% 40% 25% - -

The projects were well disseminated. 20% 65% 10% - 5%

During the project phase, the project partners developed a mutual understanding, making future co-operation likely.

40% 50% 10% - -

The project has direct relevance to spatial planning. 35% 30% 30% 5% -

The project results have relevance to the North Sea Region as a whole.

35% 45% 20% - -

The North Sea Region is a relevant spatial entity, so it is important to strengthen North Sea links.

15% 65% 15% 5% -

Interreg partnerships are effective in helping to deliver local/regional priorities.

30% 55% 15% - -

It would be more effective to have some project dissemi-nation at a central level.

5% 65% 20% 5% 5%

I would consider joining a future Interreg project. 50% 50% - - -



• 7 out of 8 projects led by the Environment/Nature Conservation department receive financial resources only if there will be European funding available. Another typical characteristic of these projects is that they involve less departments than the average, i.e. they show less interdisciplinarity.

• The four projects led by Spatial Planning Departments seem to be, in the questionnaire, more successful than the average. All partners see their project as successful, and agree fully that the project fulfilled their expectations. Three of the four have both personnel and financial resources secured for working on the project results. Three partners had contact with their regional governments, one with the national governments, and three with national agencies.

• An additional finding is that “local projects” are incorporated more often into spatial plans (5 out of 7), while “network projects” are mostly incorporated into economic plans (7 out of 11).

Evaluation of the dissemination media: Reports and seminars

• All projects that took part in the questionnaire claim to have a project report for dissemination of the results. The number of copies printed varies considerably, between 50 and several thousand, the same applies to the number of copies distributed. It is difficult to reach any conclusion from these figures.

• Most project partners (85%) organised seminars during the project period. Of these partners, 88.2% invited local/regional organisations and 44.4% other North Sea organisations outside the project partnership.

Evaluation of the internet as a dissemination tool

This part of the evaluation went beyond the questionnaire, testing availability,accessability and quality of project websites, and taking all 17 projects in the casestudy regions into account (including those who did not participate in thequestionnaire). Research was done on the 12/7/2002; for criteria see Table 12.

Table 12 Criteria and indicators for the evaluation of project websites

Criteria Indicators RatingWebsite accessability

Obtainable with web directories Yahoo (www.yahoo.com):Listed / Not listed

Obtainable with web search engines Google (www.google.com):a

Found in first 5 entries / 5th-25th entry / Not found

a. Google results were based on a search for the project name as an exact phrase.

Website address Own domain / easy sub-domain / complicated address

Website content & appeal

Last update of website During the last 2 months / After the end of the project / during the project phase

Quality of content b

b. Subjective evaluation with criteria related to quality, comprehensiveness and presentation of infor-mation a) for the target group of the project results, b) about the Interreg project, c) about project partners and their contact addresses. Also the availability of comprehensive information in form of e.g. download versions of the project report were considered. Websites with poor content had only very basic information and could not act as a dissemination tool.

Good / satisfactory / poor

Web design & navigation c

c. Subjective evaluation, taking into account if the design of the web site ensure relevant information is found easily, and if the design indicates good web presentation.

Good / satisfactory / poor


50


• Availability: Three of the 17 projects do not have a website, another two once had a website, which is now either deleted, or not accessible. This means that currently 5 projects, nearly 30% of all projects, do not have a webpage.

• Accessability: - None of the remaining 12 project websites were listed in Yahoo, probably the

most popular web directory. - In the Google search, 8 websites were listed as one of the top 5 entries, 2

could be found in the 5th to 25th entry. 2 webpages could not be found withGoogle.

- Most of the projects have their own project web domain (9 of 12).

• Website content & appeal:

- The last update of 6 of the 12 project websites was long before projectcompletion, meaning that 50% of the websites had not been maintainedsince the end of the project. Only 4 websites were very recently updated.

- The content was in 50% of the cases good, in 25% poor.- The design and navigation was for 42% of the websites very good, 50%

satisfactory, and 8% poor.

• Overall evaluation result of web dissemination: More than half (65%) of the evaluated projects do not have satisfactory internet dissemination - 30% do not have a website at all, and another 35% have one, which does not present the final results of the project and has not been maintained. Half of the latter 35% have poor content, to the point of being useless. Only 35% of all 17 projects have good web presentation.

Project partners who did not fill out the questionnaire

Looking at the nine partners (of five different projects) who did not participate in thequestionnaire, eight out of nine were in projects who did not have satisfactoryinternet dissemination. Of these five projects, two do not have a website, one had awebsite which is now deleted, and one has the website with the lowest quality of allevaluated websites.

This can be interpreted in various ways - either these projects do not have thefacilities for Internet usage, or dissemination was not central in those projects, or theprojects were overall less successful, or the partners were less committed than inmost other projects.

6.3 The regional views

6.3.1 Lower Saxony: Advantages through transnational synergy

In Germany the responsibility for dissemination and advice under Interreg IIC laidwith the regional (State) authorities. Lower Saxony’s regional contact point for theNorth Sea Programme, Friedhelm Budde (FB), was also the National Contact Point.He acted as the German contact for the secretariat and for officers in the otherparticipating countries, and was responsible for initiating, steering and co-ordinating



projects in Germany. FB has been a member of the Steering and MonitoringCommittees of the IIC North Sea Programme. He leads the German sub-committee,responsible for the national preparation of Committee Meetings, elaboratingrecommendations for the German Committee members, as well as discussing anddeveloping projects. The sub-committee consists of local and regionalrepresentatives of the involved States, representatives of two Federal Ministries, aswell as economic and social partners. The administrative districts of Lower Saxonyplayed in IIC also a role, as local contact points, disseminating lists of project ideasto potential partners at the local authority level.

Successes and shortcomings: For FB, the most significant success of the IIC NorthSea Programme is that public authorities have developed an awareness forEuropean issues and networks. The programme was successful in effecting positivesynergies transnationally and across sectors, through exchange of experience.

A general drawback of Interreg is the amount of bureaucracy involved - potentialproject partners need to consider a significant number of weighty and complexdocuments, fill out several comprehensive application forms and deliver during theproject period a number of reports. For Germany, an additional problem has beenthe language; anybody considering involvement in a project needed to learnspecialist planning and European vocabulary, even if he/she already had a goodknowledge of English. Documents needed to be translated to attract attentionbeyond the project partners, in particular for councillors. A further problemassociated with EU programmes such as Interreg is that the programme for the nextfunding period is in preparation long before the results and shortcomings of thepreceding programme are evaluated. This has been the case with the North SeaProgramme, in transition from IIC to IIIB.

Bottom-up links: Few projects in Interreg IIC seem to have had an influence onregional or national policy in Germany. Norcoast, elaborating an issue that hasalready been on the agenda of both regional and national policy for a long time, willbe rather influential at higher levels (cf. case study p. 43). Norvision, an over archingNorth Sea project, has been influential to a certain extent as many professionalshave shown keen interest in it, even though it does not present many newconclusions. Yet Norvision will not be disseminated beyond professionals inGermany, because it is only available in English.

Apart from those two projects, FB does not think that other projects have had adirect influence on regional or national policy, although several projects will haveimportant impacts on regional development, such as TEN and String of Pearls.

Co-ordination and dissemination of project results: IIC project results andinformation concerning current projects have not been particularly welldisseminated. FB sees some need for improvement in this regard. Many Germanproject partners say they would have appreciated to be better informed about otherprojects.

North Sea relevance: In FB’s opinion, the North Sea Region is to some degree arelevant entity for spatial planning, especially with regard to issues concerning the


52


North Sea itself. The North Sea Region had already been shaped to some extentbefore Interreg IIC, with the creation of the North Sea Commission. The importanceof creating a North Sea identity should not be over estimated though.

The programme currently faces the problem that possibilities are limited to extent aproject network beyond the North Sea Region; it would be appreciated if asomewhat more flexible approach could be established.

Sustainability of programme and results: In FB’s opinion, there is still the need andinterest to continue the Interreg North Sea Programme beyond Interreg IIIB, as itplays an important role in encouraging co-operation. Without Interreg, co-operationwould not happen in the same intensity, even though networks and co-operationwould probably not completely stop.

6.3.2 East of England: Opening up towards the European mainland

In England the responsibility for dissemination and advice under Interreg IIC waswith central government, at the Department of Transport, Local Government and theRegions (DTLR); this service was rather limited. Under Interreg IIIB, the EnglishRegions will play a more prominent role, providing regional contact points at theGovernment Offices (GOs). It marks the beginning of an understanding that Interregought to be run between regions rather than between central governments. GraemeLaw (GL) is the contact point for Interreg IIIB in the East of England, acting as asource of information and helping to link potential project partners. He has workedfor Regional Government since spring 2001, catching only the end of the Interreg IICperiod, yet he has a good idea of what was happening from the experience ofcolleagues.

Successes and shortcomings: One of the successes of the Interreg IIC programmeis, in GL’s view, a significant opening up of Britain to mainland Europe both atcounty council and regional level. Previously it was common that English reportsand studies would stop at the channel, not taking the rest of Europe into account.Now it has become more common to make reference to European planning or theEuropean economy, or include parts of Europe in maps. In GL’s opinion a significantreason for this development is that with Interreg IIC many people in Britishinstitutions have become used to meeting colleagues from mainland Europe toexchange ideas and co-operate.

While the intangible results, in the forms of exchange of experience and change ofattitudes, were significant and will have a long term beneficial influence, GL thinksthat the tangible or concrete outputs were perhaps less than expected: Manyprojects did not have very clear or concrete outputs. Another problem was that theprojects were seen by many people outside the process as an opportunity fortravelling, which created a degree of cynicism.

Bottom-up links: There have not been many links between projects and GO Eastunder Interreg IIC. In future, the GO should become more involved in the Interregprocess.



North Sea relevance: Up to now, from an East of England planning perspective, theNorth Sea has been seen as an economic and cultural barrier; for instance, theRegional Planning Guidance for the East of England stops at the North Sea. GLthinks that the Interreg IIC North Sea Programme played an important role inchanging this perception. In GL’s view, part of the reason for the barrier perceptionis that the sea has been for a long time a physical, economic, cultural and linguisticboundary. The management of those resources linking the sea were located in othergovernmental departments than the one dealing with Spatial Planning, such asfisheries, oil and natural gas. Initiatives such as the ESDP and Interreg mightchange this. GL thinks that Interreg will help to facilitate European cohesion.

Sustainability of programme and results: GL thinks that the transnational Interregprogrammes will have a long lasting effect; the newly established links to mainlandEurope are now accepted as practical and helpful. These links will have a muchlonger life than the programmes.

6.4 Views of the Interreg North Sea Programme Secretariat

With interviews of members of the Interreg North Sea Programme secretariat inViborg, the views of the programme administrators on its successes, shortcomingsand future can be established. Lorraine George (LG) is programme manager of theInterreg North Sea Programme; Mark Overman (MO) is spatial planning officer atthe secretariat.

6.4.1 Interview with Lorraine George: Interreg IIC as a transnational experiment

Successes and shortcomings: For LG, the main success of the Interreg IIC NSP ismainly the fact that it existed and functioned, and that, as a result, a complexnetwork has developed. Although for her it is very hard to know how good theprojects were individually, the networks as a result of the projects should have alasting impact. She sees Interreg IIC as a big transnational experiment, where theexperiment itself is almost more important than the outcomes of the projects.

LG thinks that the main shortcoming of the IIC programme was the shortness of theprogramme period. It lost momentum due to the delay in the new programme beingapproved by the EC Commission, caused by complex EC structural fundnegotiations. This reduced the time for putting projects together, with the effect thatthe programme did not deliver as well as it could have done.

Co-ordination and dissemination of project results: LG does not think that thedisjointedness of the separate projects under IIC has been a shortcoming. In herview, spatial planning and spatial development cover too many different issues torelate to one another. For spatial development or creating a cohesiveness ofdifferent functions in an area, there would be no point in making the functions relateto each other in a way that they do not. This is the reason why LG is opposed to astronger co-ordination between all the projects and central dissemination; for her theamount of money required to bring the projects together would be wasteful.


54


LG thinks that the poor dissemination of project findings in some projects is partlycaused by the nature of European funding. Before a project is complete, the projectpartners are already preparing the next application.

Bottom-up links: From a secretariat perspective there are at the moment no signsthat some of the projects have influenced national or European levels ofgovernment, and neither are strategies likely to be adopted for the whole region. InLG’s view it is unlikely that there will be a North Sea government structure,transforming strategies into policies. Nevertheless, the North Sea Commission iscurrently trying to establish a North Sea Ministers Conference. Interreg IIIB couldprove to be more influential at higher levels, as central government organisationshave become more engaged in the process, due to the substantial increase in thebudget for the programme. LG thinks that Interreg would become much moreinfluential if it effectively combines the top-down and bottom-up approaches.

North Sea relevance: LG admits that only some of the projects have been relevantto the North Sea Region as a whole, but thinks that not all projects need to be clearlyNorth Sea Region specific. Interreg regions are artificial, and although the North SeaRegion has some common identity you cannot expect too much. Compared to thecross-border Interreg A programmes, the benefits of IIC co-operation are lesstangible; yet it will be increasingly important to think further beyond neighbouringborders. The IIC North Sea Programme managed, in LG’s opinion, to develop aNorth Sea identity, although this identity is still very much in its infancy.

Sustainability of programme and results: Looking at the future of Interreg, LG thinksthat there will be an Interreg IVB period after Interreg IIIB. If the North SeaProgramme was not to exist any more, funds for transnational co-operation mightstill be available, but perhaps organised differently.

No matter what happens to the North Sea Programme, LG thinks that the networksestablished under Interreg IIC will have a lasting impact

6.4.2 Interview with Mark Overman: New attitudes through co-operation

Successes and shortcomings: For MO the biggest success of the IIC NSP is thatpeople are working together transnationally on concrete issues relevant to theirenvironment and work. Those involved in projects seemed to have acquired aEuropean dimension and broader outlook to their work; starting to appreciate co-operating with and learning from people in other regions. This new attitude will havean impact on colleagues, and will probably have in the long term an effect on howspatial planning and related issues are conducted in the different regions.

Another important aspect of IIC has been the requirement for a cross-sectoralapproach. Together with the international perspective, this new approach brokedown barriers that have existed for a long time in public organisations.

A shortcoming of IIC was in MO’s opinion that the projects often did not go beyondexchange of experience; some projects were focused on transnational discussions,leaving the practical work for the future; however this might be a logical first step oftransnational co-operation.



Co-ordination and dissemination of project results: Project dissemination was ofteninsufficient; although a project might have produced interesting findings, theseresults were not always widely distributed. MO thinks that there are ways to improvethe dissemination of project results.

He stresses that this cannot be the task of the secretariat. The secretariat publisheda book “The projects”, listing short descriptions of all projects, and sent it out, withthe final reports of the projects, to the co-ordinating ministries of the six participatingcountries. For MO, the problem is that there is no organisation on a transnationallevel to further disseminate the project information. It is left to the projectsthemselves to present their findings to relevant conferences and networks. For theIIIB programme, it is important to emphasise the significance of a disseminationstrategy right from the start of new projects.

Another problem was that some projects did not link up with each other as much asthey could have done; although some projects did rather well in co-operating witheach other.

Bottom-up links: The participating countries have different attitudes towards theNorth Sea Programme. MO suggests that some countries try to use the opportunityof transnational co-operation for producing strategies, plans and policies at thenational level. These countries seem to think that it is very useful and strategic tohave this means of co-operation. Other countries do not emphasise its use fornational strategic purposes, seeing Interreg mainly as a practical way for co-operation at local authority level.

North Sea relevance: For MO, the North Sea Region has several relevant issues forcombined planning approaches, such as cultural heritage and coastal and maritimeissues. For some projects it will be difficult to say that the project contributes directlyto the development of the North Sea Region as a whole. From a programmeperspective, alone the fact that so many projects were working together, contributingand referring to the North Sea Region, served to strengthen the identity of the NorthSea Region.

Sustainability of the programme and results: Although there could be still some co-operation structures without EU funding for the Interreg NSP, MO sees EU fundingas an essential incentive. The funding gives local and regional authorities the feelingthat they need to take advantage of it. Without Interreg funding, the initiative wouldbe weaker and the developments slower.

MO thinks that even if Interreg was not to continue, the projects and its networkswould have, in many cases, a lasting effect on participants and participatingorganisations, in their attitude, knowledge and the way they work. The projects form,in his opinion, a good base for future co-operation without funding.

Looking into the crystal ball, MO could imagine that in future there could be differenttransnational co-operation regions for different issues - for example cultural heritageissues and coastal management could remain in the North Sea boundaries, whilefor instance environmental and traffic issues could be tackled in a wider co-operation area or in a different context. Without doubt it would be good to continue


56


opportunities for transnational co-operation, but those opportunities may becomemore flexible. A problem for the North Sea Programme has been and still is that itcan encourage co-operation within the area, but not beyond; it is very difficult towork in a project with partners outside the eligible area. This effectively forms newborders. A more flexible approach resolving these issues would be welcome.

Conclusions of Part II

This part has featured the empirical findings of the evaluation. It has shown that anew evaluative approach was necessary, to take the broad range of themes and theintangible results into account. The development of performance indicators wasessential.

The combination of interviews and questionnaire proved to be efficient; the projectinterviews provided specific findings, while the questionnaire provided an overallperspective. The interviews with regional representatives and members of staff fromthe North Sea Programme Secretariat on the one hand strengthen the findings ofthe project evaluations, on the other provide a different angle and a strategicprogramme perspective.

The presentation of the administrative and regional context of Weser-Ems and EastAnglia has shown that these regions demonstrate both the potential and draw backsof transnational co-operation in Interreg IIC: The two regions have similar spatial,economic and cultural characteristics and face similar problems and challenges, yetthe handling of planning and policies is rather different, as indicated in the planningand administrative structures. In this regard, the regions are typical for the NorthSea Programme area, proving that there are cultural and historical similarities, andadministrative differences.

The empirical evaluation indicates that there are no major differences in theopinions and the handling of Interreg IIC projects in the two countries. Only theregional/national organisation of Interreg differed considerably. This is an indicationthat the project results of this evaluation can to a large extent be transferred to thewhole North Sea Programme area. The following part of the thesis attempts tocombine and assess the findings of the empirical evaluation.


More territorial cohesion than spatial planning - The Assessment

PART III - THE ASSESSMENT

More territorial cohesion than spatial planning

The Interreg IIC North Sea Programme has been viewed as an experiment fortransnational co-operation. This chapter assesses the successes and impacts of theInterreg IIC North Sea Programme, and looks towards Interreg IIIB.

The assessment uses two sources of criteria. The key questions, set in theintroduction of this report, form the main criteria (for indicators, cf. Table 4 on p.25):

• Is co-operation in planning useful at the transnational level?• Are the project results sustainable?• Has Interreg IIC lead to a North Sea Perspective of planning?

Additionally, the assessment uses criteria that describe the more strategic targets ofthe Interreg IIC Initiative. These are developed from the Interreg IIC targets set bythe EU Commission (cf. p. 12) and the criteria for a Europeanisation of planning,developed in the introduction of this report (Tabl e1 on p.1), and include:

• The creation of common understanding and best practice in spatial planning, to harmonise, in the long term, the planning systems in Europe.

• The implementation of the ESDP.• The establishment of a bottom-up approach to the ESDP and higher level

policies in general.• The development of transnational networks, to provide local/regional authorities

with a European dimension to their work.

The assessment is based on the results from the evaluation of Part II. Not allconclusions might be valid for all countries participating in the North SeaProgramme, but most will be at least relevant for projects in Germany and England.The assessment takes into account the fact that Interreg IIC was a pioneeringprogramme and the programme period was short.

This Part starts with an assessment of the results of the project evaluation. Then itundertakes a broad assessment of the Interreg North Sea Programme as part of aEuropean planning strategy. Finally, it discusses the developments towards InterregIIIB.


58


7 Successful projects with limited programme perspective

7.1 The projects - more than exchange of experience?

Limited relationship to Spatial Planning

Although the Interreg IIC North Sea Programme was termed as a spatialdevelopment programme, spatial planning did not play the main role in theprogramme, from a project perspective. Many projects had only very limitedrelevance to spatial planning and will have little impact on spatial plans andstrategies. Spatial planners were often only indirectly, or sometimes not at all,involved in the projects. To some extent, this had to be expected, as theinterpretation of spatial planning in the Operational Programme goes well beyondspatial issues.

During Interreg IIC, results of “local projects” were more likely to have an impact onplanning, finding more often than average their way into spatial plans and strategies.Projects with a wider focus seem to have had more difficulty in establishing a clearspatial strategy.

The lack of spatial planning input to the programme has been somewhat counter-productive. The evaluation indicates that projects led by Spatial PlanningDepartments were on average the most successful and influential projects, whileprojects led by the Economic Development Department were the least successful.

Successes...

The main benefit of the IIC North Sea Programme was exchange of experience andthe development of a common understanding between regions. Networks havebeen another major output of the projects, although these networks often only seemto work as long as they are funded by Interreg. A further direct benefit from Interregis improved local cross-sectoral co-operation. Local partners started to understandthat an international network can gain much more attention locally or regionally thana purely local project; and they developed an awareness of the benefits ofinternational co-operation and the importance of looking beyond national borders.

The emphasis on pure exchange of experience and developing commonunderstanding could be criticised; Interreg projects could, on limited inspection, beseen as “travel and talk shows”. Yet the impact of the international exchange onattitudes and work practices should not be underestimated. Graeme Law of GOEast sees Interreg projects as the reason for a significant opening up of Britain andits authorities to mainland Europe (cf. p. 52); Friedhelm Budde of Lower Saxonywelcomes the new awareness of the European context in public authorities (cf.p. 51). From this perspective, the Interreg IIC North Sea Programme has beensuccessful. The contentedness of most project partners could be interpreted tomean that officers at local authorities embrace the idea of Interreg and of anopening up towards other regions. However, the contentedness could converselyimply that project partners were simply happy to draw down funds in support ofarchived projects.



Many projects had more material impacts too, although these were perhaps lesssignificant than expected. Only a minimal number of partners stated that the projecthad no direct impact on local or regional policies. For some projects, internationalco-operation only gave new inputs into the normal work of the authorities, which isan added value, but is not necessarily value for money.

... and problems

Several of the interviewed partners state that the amount of work for the co-ordination, organisation and EU bureaucracy was much more substantial thanexpected, leaving no space for additional contacts and activities. This is in line withthe various national assessments of Interreg projects.

Large project networks had additional problems; the management proved to bemore difficult, and sub-partners rated the project less successful. The organisationof funding for a large network often caused problems.

An unavoidable problem was the language. Although English as the projectlanguage was embraced by most, the non-British partners had to calculate theadditional costs for translations. Budde sees the language as one of the majorproblems for German project partners (cf. p. 51).

Transnational working has not in all cases had the added value required; in certaincases, it is doubtful if transnationality was essential for obtaining the project results.Especially with pilot projects, it seems to be difficult to obtain an added value fromtransnationality.

Is the end of the project the end of it all? - Sustainability of the projects

Even though there are obvious benefits and synergies from co-operating in projectstransnationally, on a local/regional basis the benefits seem not to be seen assubstantial enough to be worth the effort without EU funding. As soon as the fundingstops, the future of the project results and networks is in many cases very uncertain.Even in the case of the North Sea Cycle Route, with an obvious need for sustainingthe international network, the financial situation without funding remains uncertain. Itis also remarkable that four out of five project partners intend to apply with theirnetwork for a follow-up project under Interreg IIIB.

The argumentation of the authorities is usually that a small local or regional authoritycannot afford international exchange of experience without Interreg funding. AreInterreg projects value for money, if the authorities are not willing to fund networksand co-operation without EU funding? It could be argued that authorities are onlylooking for additional funding, and are not that much interested in project results.Equally, securing EU funding is often seen as the only way to justify international co-operation.

However, many Interreg projects have direct and lasting impacts. The projectnetworks are sometimes used for business outside the project field, without funding.This happens mostly on an informal basis, unless the objective is to find partners forother Interreg projects.


60


In some cases, due to the small number of people involved locally, the knowledgeobtained from the project is possessed by one person. If they leave the job, theproject knowledge leaves with them. In those cases, the project results are notparticularly sustainable in the region.

Dissemination - one of the major weaknesses

The dissemination of project results has been one of the major weaknesses forInterreg IIC projects. This view is shared by regional contact points and the NSPSecretariat. It can be seen as part of the nature of European funding, as the projectpartners, at the end of a project, are only interested in applying for the nextprogramme period, and do not spend much time on elaborating the results of thefinished project (cf. interview with George, p. 54). Project partners are often notambitious enough when it comes to promoting the ways of approaching and tacklingproblems i.e. “best practice” beyond the project network.

Although for most projects Internet and e-mail were the main modes ofcommunication, the Internet dissemination of project results was overall very poor.In times where the Internet is an accepted and easily available disseminationmedium, it can be taken as an indicator of the overall project dissemination. It isunsatisfactory that, from a sample of 17 projects, 30% do not have a website at alland another 35% have a website which has not been maintained, with mostly poorcontent. Several projects are aware of the limitations of project result dissemination,and would strongly support more central dissemination of project results.

The dissemination of information about projects and project ideas during theInterreg IIC period was seen by several project partners as unsatisfactory. In theEnglish case studies, the main dissemination of project ideas occurred through theNorth Sea Commission, an organisation which has a different membership and nodirect link to Interreg IIC. Germany seems to have had a more efficient system ofproject idea dissemination, with both State government and subregionaladministrative districts playing a major role, but even there the information aboutother projects was seen as unsatisfactory (cf. p. 51). Germany did quite well withpublicity and documentation work at the end of Interreg IIC, documenting in welldesigned brochures workshops about, for instance, Interreg IIC North Sea Projects,or an Interreg IIIB Forum.

Limited bottom-up approach

Although one of the aims of Interreg IIC was to provide a bottom-up direction to theESDP and national strategies, the IIC North Sea Programme only had a very limitedimpact on policies at higher levels. Norvision and Norcoast seem to be the only IICprojects in Germany and England that might have some influence on national andmaybe in the longer term on European policy. Apart from these two projects, the aimof engendering a bottom-up approach failed; only a very limited number of projectshad contact with national governments or EU organisations. Tim McNamara of theEU Commission admits that Interreg IIC has failed to deliver bottom-up development(e-mail from LGIB, 2001).



The North Sea Region - relevant for planning?

Opinions about the relevance of the North Sea Region for planning vary. Generally itcan be said that there is an awareness among project partners about a cultural andhistorical, partly also structural similarity between regions around the North Sea.Participation in Interreg projects seems to have supported this attitude.

Co-operation with other projects

A shortcoming of Interreg IIC has been that only a few projects linked up with eachother when working on similar issues. There is often the awareness of the potentialsynergies and opportunities for co-operations but there were two main reasons whyit only seldom happened: (1) Lack of time and financial resources, and (2)complicated organisational arrangements.

This, in combination with a limited strategic programme framework, leaves theprogramme with disjointed project results, unrelated to each other and lacking anoverall vision.

7.2 The programme perspective: Limited success

Little relation to spatial planning

The aim of Interreg IIC to be a programme for spatial planning should bequestioned, as many projects demonstrated very weak links to spatial planning andspatial development. The interpretative range of spatial planning in the Europeandefinition is wide (cf. p. 7), and includes all sectoral activities with territorial impact.Yet even this broad definition has, under Interreg IIC, often been stretched; asubstantial number of projects worked on issues without, or with very limited,territorial impacts. Only a few planners have been directly involved in the projectsand the programme. There are various possibilities to explain this lack of planningexpertise:

• EU funding is traditionally the domain of Economic Development Departments, not of spatial planners. Economic Development or European Officers usually do not have a planning background.

• There was a lack of promotion among spatial planners, e.g. through planning magazines or planning organisations.

• The North Sea Commission, with a solid influence in the creation of Interreg projects, does not have a Technical Group on Spatial Planning. The influence of the Environment and Culture & Tourism Technical Groups partly explains the dominance of projects in those areas.

• Spatial planners traditionally do not work on a transnational basis. Economic Development and Tourism officers are more used to international connections. Tewdwr-Jones and Williams (2001, p. 163) suggest that English planners do not think on a transnational scale; they cannot grasp the added value of Interreg projects. This is, at least partly, also applicable to German planners.


62


In Part II (p. 13) the report talks of a vertical and a horizontal function for Interreg:The horizontal function attempts to promote European integration and cohesion bypromoting spatial integration of the regions and promoting co-operation betweenlocal and regional authorities in different Member States. The vertical functionattempts to provide the link between the ESDP and the planning activities of localand regional authorities.

In general it can be said that the Interreg IIC North Sea Programme has beensuccessful in promoting cohesion at the regional and local levels, yet it has beenweak at promoting real spatial integration. There is a distinctive lack of promotion ofthe vertical function in order to provide a bottom-up link to the ESDP.

The impact of Interreg IIC on regional planning and national strategies can be seenas limited. Most project partners, local authorities and even some Interreg contactpoints had no real overview of what other projects were being delivered in theregion.

The project box in the attic - missing co-ordination of project results

The Interreg IIC North Sea Programme has not been as successful as it could havebeen. One of the major shortcomings is that the project results are fragmented; nooverall programme assessment, incorporating all projects results, has beenelaborated. The Secretariat only checked if the projects delivered the targets set outin their project applications. If the completed project with its results got approved, itended up in the files, or, to take an image, it was put into a project box, and this boxdisappeared in the attic (cf. Figure 6).

The potential of forming an overall picture by compiling the project results isdismissed. If the projects were combined, they would say much more than they canon their own. Shortcomings and missing links in the North Sea Region could moreeasily be identified. The programme and its project results would gain a morestrategic dimension and have a greater impact. Without mapping the projects toprovide an overview, it is very difficult to establish the overall impact of the NorthSea Programme.

Lorraine George disagrees with this view, arguing that spatial planning and spatialdevelopment cover too many different issues, making it infeasible to relate them to

P13P5

P2

P8

P20

P11

Completed projects

Box goes into the attic

If project does not

Only partial paymentfit into the hole:

Figure 6 The project box in the attic

At the end of the project:

NSP Secretariat checks if project “fits” into its self set targets

(the size of the hole)

Project ends up in a ”box”



one another (cf. p. 53). This view disregards one of the important functions of theconcept of spatial planning: Spatial planning in the European sense focuses on theco-ordination and integration of the spatial dimension of different sectoral policies(cf. p. 7).

At the project level, project results seem to often end up in the files too.

7.3 A European planning perspective: Towards “Mixed Scanning”?

As the report showed in Part I (p. 14 ff.), the Interreg IIC Programmes show manyparallels to “Perspective Incrementalism”. Interreg IIC can in this respect becriticised in a similar way as the International Building Exhibition (IBA) Emscherparkin Germany, which was the “prototype” of “perspective incrementalism” (cf.Universität Dortmund 1999):

• The overall strategy of Interreg IIC in the form of the Operational Programme is very basic.

• The projects under Interreg IIC stand separately; they fail to create synergies between each other. The projects form a piecemeal picture.

• There is no central attempt, at the North Sea level, to establish thematic gaps, and try to support and initiate strategic projects, important for the region from an overall perspective, to fill these gaps.

• The overall programme results are not well presented and are not mapped. The projects form small steps of North Sea strategies, spread unco-ordinated over the whole North Sea Region.

• Interreg IIC provided a competition among local and regional authorities for projects and funds. This has two major disadvantages: (a) it gives advantages to those regions with larger budgets, i.e. with for example more professional European advice or spare personnel capacity, and (b) those who fail with their project application have wasted resources, especially in regard to the fact that most authorities do not fund transnational activities without Interreg funding.

The idea in Part I was that, combined with the ESDP and perhaps Norvision, wemight approach a system of “Mixed Scanning”. ESDP and Norvision, in the traditionof rational comprehensive planning, might provide an overall strategy and directionto the separate projects, and embrace the project results for their own futurestrategies. At the moment, several doubts and uncertainties can be raised:

• Norvision and ESDP are too vague and spatially indistinct and cover too broad a range of themes to be productive strategic documents.

• The documents act only as a source of inspiration, but are not binding.

• An update of the ESDP will only be done in the distant future, probably only at the end of this decade. The ESPON 2006 Programme promises a “proposal of ideas” for the future of the ESDP by 2006 (cf. p .12), which is not a very ambitious target. The ESDP might lose momentum and relevance. Without an


64


earlier update, it cannot immediately take important developments, such as the enlargement, into account.

• As long as the future of Norvision (and to some extent the ESDP) remains unclear, the effectiveness from a planning point of view remains uncertain. Strategic planning is generally seen today as a continuous process, and - as also Faludi (2002) states regarding the ESDP, “strategy can only remain operative if it is regularly updated”.

The links between ESDP/Norvision and the Interreg IIC North Sea Programme havebeen limited. A positive sign for Interreg IIIB is that Norvision (and also the ESDP)should now be taken into account in all project applications (cf. p .65). This will givethe programme more spatial planning legitimacy, although even Norvision does notdeliver a concrete strategic spatial approach - best indicated by the weak objectivesand the lack of strategic maps.

With the introduction of an Interreg programme for the European Spatial PlanningObservatory Network, ESPON 2006, there is a hope that Interreg projects mightprovide a bottom-up input into the ESDP. The Programme intends to use projects ofInterreg IIC and IIIB as a “valuable source of information and data”, and seeks to“promote an active link and co-ordination with Interreg IIIB to ensure the circulationof information” (ESPON 2002, p. 14). As ESPON is also directly connected to theCommittee of Spatial Development (CSD) and the future of the ESDP, it mightprovide the missing link between Interreg IIC/IIIB and the ESDP.

We have not yet reached a planning structure in the North Sea Region based on a“Mixed Scanning” approach. With Norvision, the ESDP and ESPON, there is apotential of establishing such an approach. Although the Norvision document is atthe moment still too vague to provide a strategic guide, it has the potential to bedeveloped into an effective strategic document, providing the basis for initiatingstrategic projects in the North Sea Programme.

The structure of the Interreg North Sea Programme itself is partly working againstthe target of the ESDP to create a European planning approach across the nationalborders. The Interreg programme areas have effectively created new borders; thepossibilities to co-operate beyond the North Sea Region, now with IIIB funds are stillvery limited (the only option for this is the new strand, Interreg IIIC for interregionalco-operation).

Away from spatial planning, towards territorial cohesion

Most Interreg IIC projects can be seen as a success, at least in their very own field.Still it seems that they were only value for money as long as the benefits oftransnational networks and working with other European regions were realised andcontinued. Often the project results themselves were probably less valuable thanthe amount of money required to achieve them.

Transnational co-operation is generally seen by local authorities as a means ofobtaining EU funding; without funding it is not seen as worthwhile. Faludi (2002)states that Europeanisation is too often seen as “a zero-sum game, as if all that



matters is minimising the impact of European regulations [...] and maximising thereceipt of European funds”. He notes that there is always the added value of newperspectives, of being able to position oneself in European space. Overman thinksthat Interreg IIC broke down long existing barriers in local authorities, through theEuropeanisation and internationalisation of the authorities, and through the cross-sectoral approach required to deliver the projects (cf. p. 54). These should be seenas important and valuable impacts, though they are intangible.

The cohesion idea of Interreg IIC has been a main focus of the programme, and inthis it might have been successful. The success of providing a programme withprojects establishing a spatial development perspective and having impacts onspatial planning in the North Sea Region is meanwhile limited.

Faludi (2002) suggests in his book about the making of the ESDP, that the EUCommission now seems to regard “territorial cohesion” as a functional equivalent ofspatial planning. This is in line with what is happening through Interreg: Effectivelywe are no longer talking of a spatial planning programme but of various projectactivities that influence the cohesion of Europe.

8 Interreg IIIB - improvements?

Several changes have been made in the construction of Interreg IIIB. The majorchanges are: (1) The term “spatial planning” has changed to “spatial development”;(2) the programme allows projects to use funding for small infrastructure; (3) theprogramme has a fourth priority, water; and (4) project applications should link toNorvision and the ESDP.

The current list of project ideas for Interreg IIIB indicates that the interest amongspatial planners to get involved in the programme is still rather low. At the North SeaProgramme Directoria (the project market) in Norwich 2002 the interest for projectsunder Priority 1, which is the priority with the closest link to spatial planning, wasvery low, while there was considerable interest in cultural projects with only a minorrelationship to spatial planning. It is quite likely that the relationship between InterregIIIB and actual spatial planning or development will again be very limited.

Natalie Moss (interview 2002), European Officer at Suffolk County Council, findsthat there is often a lack of understanding about the concepts of spatial developmentand transnationality among project applicants. This problem already existed underInterreg IIC, with the difference that under IIIB these criteria are being viewed morestrictly by the secretariat.

Some Interreg IIC projects found it difficult to demonstrate the added value fromtransnationality. For Interreg IIIB, with its stronger focus on implementation projectsand the creation of small infrastructure, this will probably be an even more pertinentproblem.

Another problem Interreg IIIB seems to be facing, is even greater unco-ordinatedaction of project applicants. This is mainly due to a) the larger amount of availablefunds, and b) the longer programme period. Very similar project ideas are being


66


worked up at the same time by various independent partnerships; at times even inthe same region (interview with Moss 2002). It will be difficult to co-ordinate thedifferent actions around the North Sea. The result is inefficiency and wastedresources, as it is unlikely that several projects with similar themes will be accepted.

A tendency under IIIB is that the project partners have to a large extent already beeninvolved in Interreg IIC. As George Ishmael says (cf. p. 42), if you have beeninvolved in one project, it is much easier to get involved in another one. As theevaluation shows, most project networks intend to apply again under IIIB. Thenetworks created in the IIC period are being used to find partners for other projects.Lorraine George (interview 2002) does not think that Interreg is developing intosome kind of a club, mainly limited to the same persons being involved in differentprojects. Still there is every likelihood that many projects under IIIB will be emanatefrom the same people or authorities.

Two new Interreg programmes have been developed which might address theissues of linking the ESDP with Interreg, and allow more co-ordinated co-operationbetween the different Interreg programmes of all strands:

• The ESPON 2006 Programme (2002) aims to link national spatial planning research Europe-wide, to further develop the database for the ESDP, and to support links between the ESDP, Interreg programmes, sector policies and the EU structural policies. (For ESPON 2006 objectives and strands, see Box 6).

• INTERACT is a new Interreg Programme for network activities and support for the implementation of all three Interreg strands (A, B, C), which is scheduled to run from late 2002-2006. INTERACT’s targets include to enlarge the group of project applicants for all Interreg strands, through broad information activities

Box 6 Objectives and strands of the ESPON 2006 Programme

The ESPON 2006 Programme (2002, p. 8 ff.) follows seven objectives:

• To add value to existing national research by taking a clear European and transnational fo-cus. Actions include the analysis of territorial trends in Europe;

• To specify the implications of the ESDP policy orientations on transnational spaces (the ex-isting IIC/IIIB ones as well as those evolving with the enlargement of the EU);

• To develop orientations for instruments and institutions necessary for a better perception and application of ESDP policy options by policy actors at all levels;

• To contribute a better understanding of the enhancement of the spatial dimension of Com-munity policies and national sector policies;

• To make concrete contributions and proposals to improve co-ordination of territorially rele-vant decisions, taken at different levels and different sector policies;

• To bridge the gap between policy makers, administrators and scientists;

• To create a European scientific network in the “fragmented field” of spatial development.

Four strands of projects are targeted: (1) Thematic projects on major spatial developmenttrends; (2) Policy impact projects on the spatial impact of Community sector policies andMember States’ spatial development policy; (3) Co-ordinating and territorial cross-thematicprojects, working on indicator systems, territorial typologies, scenarios etc.; (4) Scientificbriefing and networking, to explore synergies between national and EU research sources.



and support for project development and implementation. Other objectives are to transfer experiences and good practice, and enhance the know-how, the technical and organisational capacity of institutions, organisations and persons involved in Interreg programmes and projects. The four priorities of INTERACT are: (1) Interreg management support; (2) Interreg development: local and regional initiatives; (3) co-operation and management of transition in border regions with Accession countries; and (4) technical assistance. Secretariats and other support initiatives, especially of IIIB and C, are a main target group for participation in INTERACT. (TECIS Information Service 2002)

There are also changes in the organisation of Interreg inside the Member States.This is partly due to the experiences gained under Interreg IIC, partly also to themore substantial budget of the IIIB period. In general, there is greater interestamong the national and regional governments in the Interreg programmes.

The German Federal Government has decided to get more involved in theprogramme, by providing co-financing as well as establishing a strategic nationalfocus for each Interreg programme. For the North Sea Programme, this focus will beCoastal Zone Management. The Federal Government is also encouraging a broaderinformation transfer and strengthened networking of the different Interreg IIIB co-operation areas where Germany is involved. One effort in this direction was theorganisation and documentation of a national workshop on IIIB, the “Interreg IIIBForum”. (BMVBW & BBR 2001) This stronger involvement makes a wider nationalimplementation of some project results more likely.

Also the German national sub-committee for the Interreg North Sea Programme isputting more effort into information transfers between projects. A first, professionallydocumented, seminar in June 2001, involving all German IIC North Sea projectpartners, discussed successes, shortcomings and good practice of Interreg IICprojects. The involved German States organise implementation seminars withproject partners on a regular base during the programme phase of IIIB. One of theaims of these seminars is to intensify the information transfer between experiencedproject partners and new project applicants. (Niedersächsische Staatskanzlei 2001)This will enhance co-ordination between project partners, and systems of adviceand co-operation. It might also help to strengthen the regional strategic approach toInterreg.

The UK Central Government has also decided to provide co-financing underInterreg IIIB. At the same time, in England, there is a stronger regionalisation of theprogramme organisation. The GOs have established Interreg Contact Points for theRegions (with limited personnel capacity though), and the East of England hasestablished an Interreg Operating group, for dissemination of information and aregional informal pre-assessment of project applications (see Box 7). This providesthe opportunity to establish a more strategic regional approach to Interreg.


68


Conclusions of Part III

Part III has shown that the Interreg IIC North Sea Programme has had successes,but is still far from being successful. The evaluation was based on the effects of theprogramme on spatial planning. As we have seen, these effects have been limited,due to too wide a programme focus. This focus went well beyond spatial planning orspatial development, even in the European definition of spatial planning. Thedirection taken by the programme was much more one of the promotion and supportof territorial cohesion than of spatial planning, and it seems that the EU Commissionsees those two different terms these days as equivalents. Table 13 sums up theevaluative findings in a SWOT (Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats).Taking the criteria from the introduction of this section, these conclusions try toanswer the key questions of the evaluation.

Is co-operation in planning useful at the transnational level?

Co-operation in spatial planning can be useful, as the projects with a planning focushave proved. Yet the programme did not manage to focus on co-operation inplanning; most projects were focused on other sectoral issues, with limited spatialimpact. General co-operation at a transnational level is useful for building upnetworks, and for changing attitudes. Exchange of experience can be fruitful,although it often does not provide the added value required to be value for money.

Are the project results sustainable?.

The sustainability of project results has been a critical issue. Many projects did notperform well in sustaining and disseminating project results. Most authorities rely on

Box 7 Regional project pre-assessment in the East of England

The East of England Interreg Operating Group, established in Winter 2001/02, consists ofrepresentatives from GO-East, EEDA, EELGC and the counties Bedfordshire,Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk. Two of its main tasks are toprovide a network for disseminating information and good practice on Interreg III, and topre-assess projects from a regional perspective.

Regional Appraisal of Interreg projects

GO-East has a “limited but significant” role in the appraisal of Interreg III applications. Theregional appraisal will provide specialist regional input to the appraisal of Interreg IIIprojects. The main appraisal and formulation of recommendations on each application willbe carried out by the relevant international programme secretariat; the regional appraisalwill merely provide a regional input. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (formerly partof the DTLR) will provide a national perspective for those elements of any bid affecting theUK.

For the regional appraisal, the following list of criteria has been drafted:

• Key elements in the project proposal affecting the Region

• Accordance with ESDP and National Planning Policy

• Accordance with Regional Planning Guidance, Regional Economic Strategy and other key strategic regional documents

• Accordance with local Development Plans, Local Transport Plans, etc.

(compare Law, 2002a and b)



Table 13. SWOT analysis summary of the Interreg North Sea Programme

Strength (IIC) Weaknesses (IIC) Opportunities (IIIB) Threats (IIIB)

Project level

+ Successful and useful IIC project results

+ Extensive networking between project partners

+ Development of an awareness of Europe/the North Sea Region for local/regional policies

+ Extended interdiscipli-narity in the authorities

- Limited tangible results

- Limited relation to spatial planning

- Limited added value from transnationality

- Limited co-operation with other projects

- Often poor project result dissemination

- Limited commitment after funding period

- Limited bottom-up influence

+ Experiences from IIC allows future projects to be improved

+ Established networks could strengthen local economies,

+ Networks can enhance co-operation without funding

+ More co-operation with other projects would enhance project results

+ More dissemination can support image of project partners

- Limited interest among spatial planners

- Allowed infrastructure funding: difficult for creating added value from transnationality

- Stronger competition and less co-ordination: More projects might not be approved; wasted resources

- Limited interest in transnational working without funding

- Limited impact and commitment to project results and networks

Programme level

+ North Sea Region as a relevant cultural and historical entity

+ Programme as a model of good practice

+ Efficient joint management structure

+ Successful administration of 45 projects

- No attempt to establish overall programme impact by combining project results

- No programme context in which to map completed projects

- No central project result dissemination

- Limited relation to spatial planning/development

+ More funding available under IIIB; longer programme period

+ Norvision acts as an “inspiration” for projects; more spatial relevance?

+ Norvision could provide valuable spatial strategy if elaborated

+ Connected project results could strengthen North Sea identity

+ Promotion strategy directed to spatial planners could improve spatial planning input

- Project partners from IIC apply again under IIIB; possibly a “club” of project partners?

- Spatial planning/development content of the programme might be reduced

- Larger budget and no. of projects makes administration difficult; possible staff shortage

- Future of Norvision (and ESDP) is uncertain

- Future of Interreg after IIIB is uncertain

Regional & national authorities

+ D: efficient Interreg administration and dissemination of project ideas with subsidiary system

- UK: poor dissemination of project ideas and advice through national governments

- D & UK: limited overview of projects in the country/region, among most actors.

- D & UK: No dissemination of project results via regions

- D & UK: Limited or no bottom-up development

+ Regions as important mediator between programme and projects

+ Regions could disseminate & promote project results and ideas

+ UK: creation of regions provides environment for improved administration

+ UK: Regional project pre-assessment could provide a valuable input

+ Greater interest from regional/national govern-ments might strengthen bottom-up development

- UK: Regional Operating Groups might not have enough staff

- co-ordination between different regional groups might be difficult


70


European funding to maintain project outcomes and networks. In most cases, onlythose project results that form part of or have been incorporated into local orregional strategies are sustainable.

Has Interreg IIC lead to a North Sea perspective of planning?

The North Sea Programme did not perform well in creating North Sea strategies andmapping overall programme results. Neither did many projects tackling similarissues link up to combine results. Although new networks throughout the North SeaRegion contributed to forging a stronger North Sea dimension, most opportunities towiden the appeal of project and programme results have been dismissed. Thedissemination of best practice approaches developed in projects was generallypoor. Most projects stood on their own, and did not create North Sea or evenregional strategies.

The realisation of strategic overall targets of Interreg programmes

Strategic Interreg approaches beyond project networks were very limited. Althoughprojects have developed common understanding and best practice, these have notbeen well disseminated, making it unlikely that they will have a long term effect onharmonising planning systems in Europe.

Co-ordination of projects at a programme level did not happen, making the appeal ofthe single strategies and guidelines of projects limited. Although the OperationalProgrammes of Interreg IIC were based on the ESDP, it is difficult to say thatInterreg IIC allowed an implementation of ESDP principles. It was more like pickingthe cherries from the ESDP - the projects only needed to be in line with parts of it.There was no method to fill thematic gaps not covered by projects. Bottom-updevelopments were nearly non existing; projects did not tend to influence regional,national or European policies.

The tendency is that under Interreg IIIB neither the co-ordination of projects andproject results nor the relationship to spatial planning will be significantly improvedduring the new period. A positive sign is a stronger regional and national interest inInterreg IIIB, making a strategic regional and national approach more likely, but thiswill only be successful if fully resourced. The reforms at the programme level shouldhave been more radical, to allow Interreg IIIB to become directly relevant for spatialdevelopment.

The conclusions developed from the evaluation lead towards recommendations, onhow the effectiveness and influence of the Interreg North Sea Programme might beimproved. These recommendations are presented in the following part.


Towards a more influential programme - Recommendations

PART IV - RECOMMENDATIONS

Towards a more influential programme

The recommendations suggested in this final part of the thesis are based upon theevaluative findings, and have been prepared for the Interreg North Sea Programme,but many suggestions might be transferred to other Interreg programme areas.Various steps are suggested to improve elements of the programme and projects,taking into account: local authorities and project partners, the regional level and theNorth Sea Programme level. Some improvements can be made with reasonableeffort at the various levels, other improvements require more substantial changes.Based on the suggestions, an enhanced model for the organisation of the North SeaProgramme is proposed.

9 Small steps towards an improved programme

Most Interreg IIC projects were successful, although each project had its specificproblems. Each evaluated project had a different focus, and each local authorityacted in a different way. It is therefore difficult to provide concrete generalrecommendations to projects, yet some suggestions are put forward in the firstsection of this chapter.

The second and third sections provide suggestions to improve the administration ofInterreg at regional and programme levels. For Interreg, regions are an importantlevel for co-ordination, dissemination and strategic purposes. The importance of thislevel was partly neglected during Interreg IIC. Furthermore, the evaluation showedthat the IIC North Sea Programme had several shortcomings at the programmelevel, decreasing the added value from the projects.

Various other institutions can be inspired by the findings of this report: The EUCommission and the North Sea Commission, as well as the planning profession inEurope. Recommendations for these close the chapter.

9.1 Local authorities and project partners: Towards more efficiency

The evaluation discovered that there were no major differences between theexperiences of German and English project partners, so the followingrecommendations are valid for both England and Germany, and probably to a largeextent for other countries participating in the Interreg North Sea Programme.


72


Give Interreg projects a more central role in local authorities

Local authorities seem to have seen Interreg projects in many cases as something“exotic”: Colleagues of project co-ordinators often thought that Interreg was mainly areason to travel; they did not value the new input brought through international co-operation. Local authorities should try to integrate Interreg into mainstream activityusing projects as an opportunity to widen the scope of their strategies. An internaldissemination of project experiences throughout the organisation would allowofficers to embrace elements of international thinking, and possibly use theestablished networks for other purposes. This would extend the value of Interregprojects in local authorities.

Local authorities and project partners should not see Interreg primarily as anopportunity to secure additional funding, but as a valuable tool to gain new inputs forimproving local issues. Project activity should not be limited to the funded projectperiod, but establish sustainable long-term activities.

Seek advice and make project ideas public at an early stage

Often, especially during the start of the IIIB period, similar project ideas are preparedin parallel. This unco-ordinated approach leads to inefficiency. It is recommendedthat project ideas are made public at an early stage, through the established mediafrom the NSP Secretariat as well as through regional co-ordinators.

Many people interested in projects do not have a comprehensive understanding ofwhat Interreg is about; they might not fully understand the concept of spatialplanning/development or the added value of transnationality. To avoid a waste ofresources by working up projects that are ineligible for Interreg, expert adviceshould be sought at an early stage of the project idea. This expert advise shouldideally be based in the organisation, maybe in the spatial planning departments (forthe spatial development dimension) or from European officers with Interregknowledge (especially with regard to transnationality). The evaluation showed that itwas beneficial to have spatial planning departments closely involved in projects. Ifthere are doubts about the Interreg relevance of project ideas, regional Interregbodies or the NSP Secretariat should be contacted at an early stage.

Plan in resources for dissemination and “important extras”

Many project partners say they underestimated the amount of time required forparticipating in an Interreg project. This resulted in limited attention being paid toimportant secondary issues, such as co-operation with other projects anddissemination.

Potential project partners should be aware that successful participation in anInterreg project can hardly be reached if the project is added onto normal day to dayresponsibilities. To make the most of a project, there must be personnel capacitysolely dedicated to the Interreg project. Project partners should take into account intheir application that additional time and resources are required to usefully co-operate with other related projects. These co-operations can help to considerablyincrease the impact of each project.



A cross-sectoral approach in the organisation might seem to be an additionalcomplication, yet the evaluation has shown that such an approach gives animportant added value to the project participation. For most projects it should bebeneficial to involve the planning department, to establish a direct relation to spatialplanning.

The project partners should develop a comprehensive dissemination strategy at theproject application stage. Dissemination should be seen as beneficial for the localauthority participating in the project, as a way to promote the region or organisation,and map it as a location of best practice approaches.

To make the project valuable beyond the borders of the local authority, close co-operation with the regional level can be beneficial to disseminate project informationbeyond the partner organisation.

Use appropriate indicators

As seen, an evaluation of Interreg projects requires the use of specific and flexibleindicators. Establishing guidelines for such indicators is a difficult task, due to verydifferent targets for each project. This paragraph lists a few issues to be kept in mindfor establishing indicators; further inspiration might be taken from the evaluation partof this thesis.

• A set of indicators should focus on good dissemination of project results. The dissemination strategy should extend for a period after the project has finished. A website with a final update, or alternatively the possibility to receive quickly and efficiently information by e-mail should be taken as minimum target, as dissemination via the Internet can be seen as essential in today’s society.

• A set of indicators could prove that the project will have some influence on local policies, strategies etc.

• It might be useful to acknowledge in indicators successful co-operation with other projects.

• The cross-sectoral approach should be taken into account in the choice of indicators.

9.2 The regional level: Towards a stronger strategic role

The evaluation has shown that there were distinct differences in the regionalorganisation of Interreg in Germany and England, yet in none of the two countrieshas it been completely satisfactory. The aim should be to establish more efficientregional co-ordination of Interreg projects. Regional authorities should take this taskvery seriously, and provide sufficient personnel capacity to be able to manageInterreg appropriately. The regional added value from this additional work should besignificant.

Develop a regional Interreg strategy

In both England and Germany the evaluation indicates that the regions only showedlimited strategic interest in the Interreg IIC NSP. A more strategic approach to the


74


co-ordination of Interreg projects would ensure more distinctive regional benefitsfrom Interreg, provide an overview of current project activities and identify thematicgaps.

In Germany, the regions acted as advisers and, to some extent, as co-ordinatorsbetween the Secretariat and the local authorities; Lower Saxony has been ratherefficient in disseminating project ideas to local authorities in the IIC period. InEngland, these responsibilities were, during IIC, at central government level, andhave only been regionalised for Interreg IIIB. Project idea dissemination was ratherpoor in England, and often the North Sea Commission was a more importantdisseminator than national or regional authorities. The new regional activities underIIIB can be welcomed - Germany organises regular seminars for project partners,while England has established Regional Interreg Operating Groups. A combinationof seminars and Regional Interreg Groups would be appreciated.

An important task of the regional level should be to keep an overview of all projectsin the region and beyond, and to advise project partners of similar projects withwhich to co-operate. This task could be easily fulfilled by a regular regional e-mailbulletin with short descriptions of all projects in the region and a list of approvedprojects for the North Sea Region. Also the organisation of seminars with all regionalproject partners, as has been done in Germany (cf. p. 67), presents goodopportunities for providing an overview of projects.

As shown in chapter 8 (cf. p. 67), some regions - such as the East of England - haveestablished Regional Committees, tasked to appraise project proposals from aregional perspective. This appraisal forms an input for the official appraisal of theInterreg North Sea Programme Secretariat, and compares projects with regionalplans and strategies, to establish if the projects support and enhance or counter-actthese strategies. The committees act as fora for dissemination, co-ordination anddiscussion of projects and project ideas. They allow for more efficient Interreg co-ordination in the region, as regional and local stakeholders are informed about theprojects and project proposals being developed in the region. The committeesshould also consider developing a regional Interreg strategy.

Support bottom-up links

The evaluation found out that Interreg IIC had very limited bottom-up links, both inEngland and in Germany. It is recommended that regional authorities play a majorrole in providing these bottom-up links.

Although regional authorities have shown an interest in local Interreg IIC projects,they rarely embraced project results, missing the opportunity to take them intoaccount in regional strategies. Some more enthusiasm to incorporate some projectresults in regional policies and strategies would be welcome and valuable.

The regional level could play a key role in helping to promote relevant results ofprojects of local authorities at national or even European levels. Regions, beingmore influential than local authorities, might be more successful in gaining attentionat those levels.



9.3 The North Sea Programme: Towards a sophisticated North Sea strategy

The North Sea Programme Secretariat was successful in administering andorganising the programme and its committees. Its major weaknesses lay in centralproject co-ordination, the relation to spatial planning and the amount of bureaucracyin project applications. Some recommendations might not be eligible under currentInterreg regulations.

Co-ordinate projects - towards North Sea strategies

Under the IIC NSP, there was no attempt to combine and co-ordinate projects andproject results at the North Sea Region level, although many projects would havenaturally linked with each other. A central and co-ordinated dissemination point forall finished projects would be helpful to provide an overview of North Sea projects, todisseminate best practise, and to support the creation of a North Sea identity.

Several projects or thematic areas would obviously benefit considerably from ajoined approach to dissemination and promotion. Examples for this would be:

• Tourist related projects, including cultural and, if relevant, ecological projects• Best practise in town planning and urban development• Cross-North Sea transport network projects• Coastal and maritime planning issues

Some projects cross several thematic areas, and should therefore be listed under allrelevant thematic areas. Lists based on similar thematic areas would be helpful tomake the results of the North Sea Programme more accessible and easier todisseminate.

To obtain the target of co-ordination and central dissemination of projects, severalactions are suggested:

• Umbrella projects (if eligible under the regulations): These projects would have the main target to create a combined North Sea strategy out of selected IIC and IIIB project results. These umbrella projects could work on comparably low budgets, yet their outcome might increase the value of the combined projects considerably. There could be several “umbrella projects” for different thematic areas, as elaborated above. For example, a project “North Sea Tourism” could aim to combine projects such as the North Sea Cycle Route, Nortrail, North Sea Viking Heritage and WISP, establishing a tourism strategy with a combined marketing concept. This concept would need to become sustainable after the project period.

• A website “North Sea Projects”: A possibility which is easy to realise. This website, at a web address such as www.northseaprojects.org, could list all projects in the various thematic combinations. Each project would be required to provide for this website (a) a short introduction to the project, its aim and, once completed, its results and (b) a link to the project website with full information, or a contact e-mail address where further project information can be obtained.


76


Additionally, the website could provide web space and a sub-domain address for projects without their own project web domain. The project could then pro-vide the content for the website.

• The Secretariat Projects Team: The projects team at the NSP Secretariat should be enhanced. The team’s tasks should include running the North Sea Projects website, and creating a common North Sea wide promotion and co-ordination strategy. It could develop North Sea perspectives, as input for the further development of Norvision. The team could try to co-ordinate similar projects during their funding period, and possibly suggest project ideas tackling important issues relevant to the North Sea Region.

In all cases of stronger central project organisation and dissemination, the projectpartners would need to be consulted on the use of their results, and work in co-operation with the projects team.

Towards more spatial planning

As the evaluation shows, there is a general lack of spatial planning in the InterregInitiative for Spatial Planning & Development, both at project and at programmelevel. At the programme level, this is to a large degree due to the Interreg guidelinesfrom the EU Commission.

It is a step in the right direction to take, under IIIB, Norvision as a spatial guidelinefor Interreg projects. It would be appreciated if Norvision became even more centralin the North Sea Programme, as it is the spatially most relevant overall strategy forthe North Sea Region. Norvision should be further developed during the Interregprogramme period, and incorporate results of relevant North Sea projects. It shouldprovide a direct link between the North Sea Programme with its projects and theEuropean level, to provide input for future developments of the ESDP and otherEuropean spatial planning initiatives.

The North Sea Programme should focus in the promotion of the programme onspatial planners in the participating countries. The evaluation has shown that theinvolvement of planning departments in projects is limited, although spatial planningand development are the central elements of the programme, and planning projectsare on average more successful than other projects. A promotion campaign targetedat spatial planners could involve, in co-operation with regions and projects, theprovision of articles and press releases for the established planning magazines inthe participating countries. The aim would be to advertise the programme for projectapplications as well as to disseminate project results. A stronger link to the majorplanning associations in the Member States and Norway would be beneficial.

Reduce bureaucracy

There is a significant amount of paper that a IIIB project applicant needs to take intoaccount, and the application forms are long and complicated. To attract moreinterest in Interreg, applications should be made easier. Applicants should be betterguided through the diverse papers to be considered, reducing the necessity to readeverything. Application forms should be simplified. The development of easier and



more standardised application packs could be done as part of the new INTERACTInterreg programme, aimed to enhance programme administration (cf. p. 66).

9.4 Recommendations to other bodies: Towards more spatial planning involvement

9.4.1 EU Commission

The Interreg IIC Programmes were designed in such a way as to make it difficult forprojects to co-operate beyond the boundaries of one co-operation area, effectivelycreating new borders. For the Interreg III period, the new strand IIIC for inter-regional co-operation, provides in part a solution to the problem, as it allows co-operation throughout Europe. It would be beneficial to strengthen co-operationbetween IIIB and IIIC programmes. This should serve to disseminate best practicebeyond the programme area borders by identifying similar projects from differingprogramme areas that could form a larger network.

The two new programmes under Interreg III might help to find solutions to theseissues. Under INTERACT, concepts for a better integration and co-operationbetween different Interreg programmes and strands could be elaborated. Both theINTERACT and ESPON 2006 programmes (cf. p. 66f.) could possibly providesupport for identifying similar projects, and to establish a European Best PractisePlatform, displaying successful Interreg projects with relevance for actorsthroughout Europe.

The EU guidelines for the transnational Interreg initiative should focus more clearlyon spatial development in the provision of targets. The focus of the programmes istoo wide to put it under the umbrella of spatial planning. The alternative would be, ofcourse, to leave the wide focus and skip the official spatial planning role of Interreg,and replace it, for instance, with “territorial cohesion”. The EU should also try, intheir guidelines, to reduce the bureaucracy for the application of the InterregInitiative.

9.4.2 North Sea Commission

Although the North Sea Commission is not directly related to the Interreg North SeaProgramme, it has been influential in the creation and dissemination of projects. Inthat respect, it is a shortcoming that the North Sea Commission does not have aTechnical Group for spatial planning issues. It would be beneficial for the North SeaProgramme if the NSC took the relevance of the NSP as a spatial developmentprogramme into account, and established a Technical Group for Spatial Planning.

Additionally, the NSC could take a more prominent role in trying to promote relevantproject results to national governments and EU organisations.

9.4.3 The planning profession

A common problem is that planners are not prepared from their education andexperience to work at an international level. Interreg, as well as the ESDP, are


78


young initiatives, so it is no surprise that the profession is not prepared for the newchallenges. It is likely that transnational and international co-operation will remainsubstantial elements of European planning, so it would be beneficial if the planningeducation adapts to the new challenges.

Universities should consider to offer, for example, more courses in foreign Europeanlanguages to prepare students to communicate planning matters in a languageother than their mother tongue. They should increase their support for foreignsemesters for students, allowing for an international exchange of experience.European planning and funding - especially Interreg and the ESDP - should becomestandard elements of the planning education. Finally, it would be helpful ifgovernance and diplomatic skills, i.e. communicating across administrative levels(regional, national, European), became common subjects in the curriculum.

For working planners, training on transnational co-operation and the Europeandimension of planning should be offered, for instance arranged by the nationalplanning organisations. Employers of spatial planners, in particular local authoritiesas the main actors in transnational Interreg projects, should support such trainingcourses, as well as language training.

10 A new structure for the North Sea Programme

Although the Joint Management Structure of the Interreg IIC North Sea Programmeworked considerably well, the programme failed to reach many spatial developmenttargets set for the Interreg Initiative. While the last chapter looked at the possibilitiesfor small-scale improvements, this section suggests a re-arranged overall structureat the programme level. The suggested model can be seen as a package of ideasthat would ensure the programme has greater impact on spatial planning anddevelopment.

The Joint Management Structure, involving the Secretariat and the Monitoring andSteering Committees, stays in this model the same as under Interreg IIC. TheSecretariat enhances its projects team. The Norvision project is further developedand strengthens its strategic objectives. At the regional level, the National ContactPoint liaises with new “Regional Interreg Groups”.

The North Sea Programme Secretariat and its Projects Team

The Secretariat stays at the centre of the North Sea Programme, being tasked toadminister the programme, to assist Steering and Monitoring Committees. TheSecretariat remains the main source of advice for project applicants and approvedprojects.

The Secretariat’s Projects Team, currently working mainly with the application andapproval of projects, has in this model a greater central co-ordination role. Its mainnew tasks include running the North Sea Projects website and creating a commonNorth Sea wide promotion and co-ordination strategy. It should work in close co-operation with the Norvision project, providing input into the North Sea spatialstrategy.



An enhanced continuation of the “Norvision” Project

The Norvision project, that elaborated the strategic document Norvision underInterreg IIC, is continued and receives a more important role in this model, workingclosely with the secretariat. Its main tasks are:

• To further develop “Norvision”, with input from the “Regional Groups” and from IIC and IIIB projects. Norvision, as a strategic document, should also form a direct part of the next Community Initiative Programme (CIP), if IIIB is continued under Interreg IV.

• To map project results.

• To reveal important issues and thematic gaps for the North Sea Region not tackled by Interreg projects, and to present these issues as project ideas to the “Regional Groups”.

• To provide a link between the Interreg NSP and European spatial planning concepts and initiatives, such as the ESDP and ESPON activities.

The “Regional Interreg Groups”

They consist of regional stakeholders relevant for the Interreg process. A “RegionalGroup” is set up for each NUTS 1 region (e.g. German States and English Regions).The “Regional Groups” have similar tasks to the Interreg Operating group in theEast of England (cf. p. 68), inspiring the regions and their stakeholders to establish astrategic view of Interreg. The tasks of the Regional Interreg Groups should include:

• To provide a network for spreading information and good practice on Interreg.

• To obtain and provide a regional overview of Interreg projects and project ideas.

• To develop a regional strategy for Interreg, and to assist and initiate projects of regional or North Sea interest.

National Contact Points

Regional Interreg Groups

Project suggestions

Secretariat

MonitoringCommittee

SteeringCommittee

“Norvision” (spatial North Sea strategy)

Regional dissemination & co-ordination of

projects

Regional Input

Contact with planning organisations

and universities

ESDP / ESPONEU Commission

NSP Management Structure

with enhancedProjects Team

Figure 7 An enhanced structure for the North Sea Programme


80


• To provide regional input into Norvision.

• To organise seminars with all project partners in the region

• To pre-assess projects from a regional strategic point of view, passing on the pre-assessment to the Secretariat and National Contact Point. This pre-assessment can not only help the NSP Secretariat, but reveal potential projects that may inform and assist in the development of regional policy.

• To disseminate project results at all levels.

• To provide a link to planning organisations and magazines, to promote Interreg among planning professionals.

“Regional Interreg Groups” should take all regional projects of the different relevantInterreg IIIB and IIIC programmes into account, helping to connect the differentprogrammes and strands regionally.

The National Contact Point remains the link between the Secretariat and the regionsand should help to build capacity among the regional groups and provide advice.

Each regional Interreg group has a representative on a national network for theprogramme. These representatives feedback nationally and advise regionalmembers of the Steering and Monitoring Committees.

Discussion of this model

The model is based on existing, or currently developing, working arrangements.Although it requires somewhat more personnel capacity, it does not make theprocess more bureaucratic, but simply more co-ordinated and transparent. Theadded value of the organisation structure would be worth the effort, especially inregard to the considerably larger budgets of Interreg IIIB, compared to the IICperiod.

• A project team already exists in the North Sea Programme Secretariat. The knowledge, experience and overview this team has, provides the potential to efficiently undertake the suggested tasks, which would serve to increase the impact of the programme. More personnel capacity in the project team can be justified for the sake of the value of the programme.

• Norvision was a successful project under Interreg IIC. It is too central to be neglected in the new programme period.

• Regional Committees already exist for various purposes. Regional meetings are nothing out of the ordinary, and are essential to compare and co-ordinate strategies of different actors. Sufficient but not substantial personnel capacity is required to establish and organise a Regional Interreg Group and its Interreg promotion activities. A regional project pre-assessment involves a realistic amount of resources, and might increase the benefit of Interreg for the regions.



The programme could achieve its target to be an initiative for spatial planning, ifstrategic planning is more central in the programme. Promotion of the programmewould be improved, probably resulting in higher numbers of quality projects, and inwidespread awareness of best practice.

Conclusions of Part IV

This final part of the report suggested smaller improvements as well as a newmodel, to extract the most benefit from transnational Interreg funding. The fullrealisation of the suggestions would require a higher budget for technical assistanceof the programme. This would be justified, as the overall benefit would providesubstantial added value.

If there shall be an Interreg IVB period, Interreg IIIB will need to prove its worth. Itmight not be enough to have successful projects; an overall strategy elaboratedfrom the project results might be required to showcase the success of theprogramme. Without doubt, all levels will need to effect improvements to produceresults beyond those of IIC.

Parts III and IV have taken the existence of the Interreg North Sea Programme forgranted. Questioning its continued existence, one could argument that the NorthSea Programme might soon become outdated, losing its innovative approach, and itwould be preferable to restructure Interreg. An indication that this might be thescenario is the emerging small circle of project partners that seem to apply againand again, and could have the effect of turning Interreg into a kind of “club”. Tomake the programme worth its while, the administrators will have to think ofinnovative measures to attract a wider and ever changing circle of project partners.

Should the Interreg North Sea Programme, transnational projects and networks,become self sufficient? One of the initiatives’ central aims is to provide funding forsustainable activity. Funding should perhaps be seen as the temporary pumppriming that it is; an incentive for change. Interreg programmes should be workingtowards the long-term objective of creating self-sustaining international co-operationnetworks. The alternative is that the Interreg programmes will keep supportingincremental project work and the reform of the Structural Funds will find better usefor the money.

At the moment it does not look like there will be significant changes in theadministration of Interreg IIIB at the programme level. This would mean that thestructures remain more or less in the “experiment” stage of Interreg IIC. If InterregIIIB is to be nothing more than another experimental period, it is questionable ifthere should be a third phase of the experiment. Fruitful results of the programmesare required to secure the survival of this European spatial planning venture.


82



Epilogue

EPILOGUE

11 The future of transnational planning

European spatial planning, with Interreg as one element, must be seen as a piece ofan uncompleted puzzle of European policies. Its position and relevance isdependent on the shape, form and position of various other puzzle pieces, indifferent political and strategic thematic areas. The future of European spatialplanning is dependent on the future of the EU as a whole, as well as on the separatesectoral policies.

As we have seen, during and after Interreg IIC, the European Commission hasmoved further away from the traditional understanding of spatial planning, and hasinvented an unofficial new definition of the term: spatial planning = territorialcohesion. It is an open question if this new understanding will lead Europeanpolicies away from the original attempt to establish a spatial planning structure, withESDP, Interreg and other initiatives, at the European level.

The future of European policies is about as predictable as the weather, dependenton the pressures from and negotiations between Member as well as ApplicantStates, with their ever changing governments, and the general political climate inEurope. This epilogue discusses the chances of the further establishment ofEuropean spatial planning, and determines some of the influencing factors.

The most important political and spatially relevant issues of the European Union atthe beginning of the 21st century are the enlargement process and the reform of theCommon Agricultural Policy (CAP). Along with these major developments, a reformof European Regional Policy is likely to happen.

The CAP reform will try to reduce the costs of the EU agricultural policy, andprobably change its direction to embrace environmental sustainability. Currentsuggestions from the European Commission include increased structural fundssupport for rural areas, to improve the diversification of rural economies,compensating possible losses through cuts in the agricultural funding.

The enlargement is without doubt the most challenging task that the EuropeanUnion has faced so far. The integration of the Central and Eastern EuropeanCountries into the European Union will be a long and difficult process. Funding willhave to concentrate on these new Member States, to achieve cohesion in anenlarged Union. Structural funds for infrastructure projects will play a key role in thisprocess.

A trend emerging across the EU, is the increasing dominance of conservativegovernments in EU Member States. Many of these parties are against strengthening


84


the role of the European Union. Additionally, conservative governments often have,with their belief in market lead economies, a more critical attitude towards spatialplanning.

What will all these trends mean for European spatial planning?

The CAP reform might mean that there will be more resources available for spatialdevelopment in rural areas. The enlargement might make spatial planning a keyfeature in the criteria for structural funds, and initiatives such as Interreg could serveto advance relations between the new and old Member States, which could beessential to the success of the enlargement process.

Another possible conclusion is that Interreg funds will be much more focused on theInterreg interregional co-operation strand, at the moment labelled IIIC, in particularfor co-operation between old and new Member States. This would effectively meana reduction of the tangible spatial impact of projects. Due to the geographic distancebetween participating regions in interregional projects, most projects will be basedon pure exchange of experience. The spatial planning relevance would be greatlydiminished.

Maybe the stronger dominance of conservative governments in the European Unionmight have - in the short term - an adverse impact on the state of spatial planning atthe European level. The conservative governments might be opposed tostrengthening spatial planning at the EU level, and to the further elaboration of theESDP. In times of constrained budgets, both at national and European levels, thetransnational Interreg Initiative might be seen as a luxury. It is hoped that thisperception is not shared by many, as it dismisses the opportunities that spatialplanning might provide for European integration.

There are though indications that European Spatial Planning might not havereached its heyday yet. For example, Adrian Healey (quoted in e-mail from LGIB2002) sees a strong indication that EU Regional Policy would change after 2006, sothat spatial development could become a major influence on future structural fundspolicy. In this case, the ESDP might play a more central role in European policies.New programmes under the umbrella of Interreg (ESPON, INTERACT) might helpto strengthen the strategic planning role of Europe and its transnational regions, andto decrease the shortcomings of Interreg programmes.

The future of transnational Interreg programmes is dependent upon the success oftheir IIIB period. IIC has been rated by the European Commission as a success,resulting in a significant increase in allocated resources. If Interreg IIIB showsdistinctive impacts for spatial planning and territorial cohesion, it is likely that thenext Interreg period will still have a transnational Interreg IVB strand. Hard workfrom the Programme Secretariats will be essential to make Interreg IIIB worth itswhile. It is quite likely that Interreg IIIB will turn into a territorial cohesion programme,with event less impact on spatial planning. Even then it will be important for theprogramme to elaborate cross-sectoral co-operation.

It took decades until there were tangible fruits from the lengthy process towards aEuropean level of spatial planning. Although the process gained momentum in the


Epilogue

90s, European planning currently seems to be on a break, in need of inspiration,especially in regard to the ESDP which seems to be shelved for the next few years.It is unlikely all the hard work of establishing the current state of European planningwill be undone, and perhaps successful Interreg IIIB programmes and elaboratedspatial strategies may provide the inspiration needed to regain momentum.Suggestions have been put forward in the thesis to improve the impact of the IIIBNorth Sea Programme, some of which are likely to be applicable to otherprogramme areas. Regions have a chance to demonstrate their worth too, theyshould take the opportunity that Interreg presents to influence European spatialplanning policy and future regional policy. Planners should confidently engage inInterreg, and use it as a testing ground for a new European dimension of theirprofession.

All involved in Interreg IIIB, and in related Interreg programmes such as ESPON2006, have to prove that the initiative is important for European developments, andthat it has the potential and power to become the centrepiece of European spatialplanning and cohesion. If Interreg IIIB is successful in improving spatialdevelopment, it can show Europe and its governments that spatial planning has itsuseful place in European policies. Interreg provides the opportunity to empowerthose levels with the strongest planning capacities - i.e. regional and localauthorities - to shape the future of European spatial strategies. It would be a shameif this opportunity is not taken.


86



References

REFERENCES

a) Print-based material

• Albers, Gerd (ed.) (1999): Planning in Germany. International Society of City and Regional Planners (ISoCaRP)

• Albers, Gerd (1993): Über den Wandel im Planungsverständnis. In: RaumPlanung 61, Juni 1993. Dortmund: Informationskreis für Raumplanung e.V. (IfR)

• BMVBW - Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen & BBR - Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung (2002): Interreg IIIB Forum - Transnationale Zusammenarbeit auf dem Gebiet der Raumordnung. Saarbrücken.

• Bishop, Tewdwr-Jones & Wilkinson (2000): From Spatial to Local: The Impact of the European Union on local authority planning in the UK. In: Journal of Planning and Environmental Management 43, pp. 309-334

• Camhis, Mario (1979): Planning Theory and Philosophy. London: Tavistock.

• CEC - Commission of the European Communities (2000): EU compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies: United Kingdom. Luxembourg: CEC.

• CEC - Commission of the European Communities (1999a): ESDP - European Spatial Development Perspective. Luxembourg: Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities.

• CEC - Commission of the European Communities (1999b): The MEANS Collection - Evaluating socio-economic programmes, Vol. I - VI. Luxembourg: Office for the Official Publications of the European Union.

• CEC - Commission of the European Communities (1997a): EU compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies. Luxembourg: CEC.

• CEC - Commission of the European Communities (1997b): EU compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies: Germany. Luxembourg: CEC.

• CEC - Commission of the European Communities (1994): Europe 2000 +: Co-operation for European Territorial Development, DGXVI, Brussels: CEC.

• CEC - Commission of the European Communities (1991): Europe 2000: Outlook for the development of the Community’s Territory. DGXVI, Brussels: CEC.

• Collins (1989): Collins pocket English dictionary. Glasgow: William Collins Sons &Co. ltd.

• Cullingworth, Barry & Vincent Nadin (2002): Town & Country Planning in the UK, 13th Edition. London: Routledge.

• DETR (2001a): A UK Practitioners’ Guide: Lessons Learnt from the Interreg IIC Experience, 2nd edition. London: DETR


88


• DTLR (2001b): Planning Green Paper: Delivering a Fundamental Change. London: DTLR

• DTLR (2002): Delivering the ESDP - papers from the seminar on 08.02.2002 (unpublished)

• ESPON (2002): ESPON 2006 Programme. Vienna.

• Faludi, Andreas & Bos Waterhout (2002): The Making of the European Spatial Development Perspective. No Masterplan. London: Routledge

• Faludi, Andreas (2001): Application of the European Spatial Development Perspective: Evidence from the North West Metropolitan Area. In: European Planning Studies, Vol. 9, No. 5

• Faludi, Andreas (2000): The European Spatial Development Perspective - what next? In: European Planning Studies 8: pp. 237-250

• Ganser, Karl (1991): Instrumente von gestern für die Städte von morgen? In: Ganser/Hesse/Zöpel: Die Zukunft der Städte. Baden-Baden.

• Herrschel, Tassilo & Newman, Peter (2000): New Regions in England and Germany. In: Urban Studies, Vol. 37, pp. 1185-1202

• Interreg North Sea Region Programme Secretariat (2001): Interreg IIC North Sea Region - The Projects. Viborg.

• Interreg North Sea Region Programme Secretariat (1997): Interreg IIC North Sea Region Operational Programme. Viborg.

• Kokkonen, Marja & Mariussen, Aage (2001): Ex-Ante Evaluation of Interreg IIIB NSP - Final Report. Stockholm: Nordregio

• Kugler, Ulrike (2000): Die Evaluation wirtschaftspolitischer Programme, in: Vierteljahreszeitschrift zur Wirtschaftsforschung, Vol. 69, No. 3/2000, p. 406-424.

• Kunzmann, Klaus R. (2001): State Planning: A German Success Story? In: International Planning Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, Page 153-166

• Kunzmann, Klaus R. (1996): Euro-Megalopolis or themepark Europe? Scenarios for European Spatial Development, in: International Planning Studies 1: 143-163

• Law, Graeme (2002a) (unpublished): Interreg III Operating Group (East of England) Terms of Reference.

• Law, Graeme (2002b) (unpublished): Interreg III Operating Group (East of England): Appraisal of Interreg III Applications (draft).

• Moll, Michael & Mark Overman (2001): Von Raumplanung zu Raumentwicklung: Das Interreg North Sea Programme. In: Planerin 1-01, p. 53 f. Berlin: SRL e.V.

• Nadin & Shaw (1998): Transnational Planning in Europe: The Role of Interreg IIC in the UK. In: Regional Studies 32, pp. 281-299

• Niedersächsische Staatskanzlei (2001): Interreg IIC: Transnationalität und regionale Impulse - Dokumentation eines Workshops. Hannover.

• Norvision (2000): A spatial perspective for the North Sea Region. Essen: PLANCO Consulting GmbH


References

• Sinz, Manfred (1995): Region, in: Handwörterbuch der Raumordnung, Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (Hrsg.), P. 805-808. Hannover: ARL

• TECIS (2002): InfoTECIS newsletter, Vol. 10, July 2002. Brussels: TECIS Helpdesk.

• Tewdwr-Jones, Mark & Richard H. Williams (2001): The European Dimension of British Planning. London: Sponpress.

• Toepel, Kathleen (2000): Evaluation in der Regionalpolitik, in: Vierteljahreszeitschrift zur Wirtschaftsforschung, Vol. 69, No. 3/2000, p. 395-405.

• Turowski, Gerd (1995): Raumplanung, in: Handwörterbuch der Raumordnung, Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (Hrsg.), P. 774-776. Hannover: ARL.

• Universität Dortmund (1999): Zukunft der Institutionen der Regionalpolitik im Ruhrgebiet und in Merseyside/GB (Project report F13 1998/99). Dortmund.

• Wilkinson, Bishop & Tewdwr-Jones (1998): The Impact of the EU on UK Planning Practise. London: DETR

• Williams, E.H. (2000): Constructing the European Spatial Development Perspective - for whom? In: European Planning Studies 8: 357-365

• Zetter, John (2001): Evaluation of Interreg IIC Projects in the United Kingdom. London: DTLR.

b) Internet sources

• Bezirksregierung Weser Ems. Available from http://www.weser-ems.de. Accessed 15.03.2002

• Cambridgeshire County Council. Available from http://www.camcnty.gov.uk. Accessed 15.03.2002

• City Centres Managers Network Project. Available fromhttp://www.citymanagement.org.uk. Accessed 12.07.2002.

• DITO - Implementation of Citizens Environment Information Systems Project. Available from http://www.gag-norden.de/dito/. Accessed 12.07.2002.

• DG Regio: Inforegio/Interreg IIC. Brussels. Available fromhttp://www.inforegio.org/wbpro/interregIII/inteII/inteII.htm. Accessed 01.03.2002.

• EUROSTAT. Available from http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/. Accessed 15.03.2002.

• Government Office East (GO East). Available from http://www.go-east.gov.uk. Accessed 15.03.2002.

• Interreg IIC North Sea Region Programme. Viborg. Available from http://www.northsea.org/interregiic/. Accessed 01.03.2002

• Interreg IIIB North Sea Programme. Viborg. Available from http://www.interregnorthsea.org. Accessed 01.03.2002


90


• LGIB - Local Government International Bureau (4 April 2001). LGIB news bulletin e-mail. Re: Spatial Development: the Final Frontier? Summary of the results of an LGIB/Bristol University School for Policy Studies seminar on 2 March 2001.

• NETA - North European Trade Axis Project. Available fromhttp://www.netaproject.org.uk. Accessed 12.07.2002.

• NOMIS online labour market statistics. Available fromhttp://www.nomisweb.co.uk. Accessed 15.03.2002

• Norcoast Project. Available from http://www.norcoast.dk. Accessed 12.07.2002.

• Norfolk County Council. Available from http://www.norfolk.gov.uk. Accessed 15.03.2002.

• North Sea Commission. Available from http://www.northsea.org. Accessed 31.07.2002

• North Sea Cycle Route Project. Available from http://www.northsea-cycle.com. Accessed 12.07.2002.

• North Sea Viking Legacy Project. Available from http://viking.hgo.se/legacy/Main.html. Accessed 12.07.2002.

• Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Interreg IIIB. Avaliable from http://www.interregiiib.gov.uk. Accessed 12.8.2002.

• Regional Development Strategies Project. Available from http://www.smb-telemark.org/english/project/. Accessed 12.07.2002.

• Revitalisation of Harbour Towns and Cities Project. Available from http://www.revit-harbours.org. Accessed 12.07.2002.

• Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder. Available from http://www.brandenburg.de/statreg/. Accessed 15.03.2002

• String of Pearls Project. Available from http://www.stringofpearls.nu. Accessed 12.07.2002.

• Suffolk County Council. Available from http://www.suffolkcc.gov.uk. Accessed 15.03.2002.

• TEN - Transnational Ecological Networks Project. Available from http://www.ten-project.net. Accessed 12.07.2002.

• Water City International Project. Available from http://www.watercity.org. Accessed 12.07.2002.

• WISP -Wetlands in Spatial Planning Project. Available from http://www.eurowetlands.com. Accessed 12.07.2002.


References

c) Personal communications / interviews

• Budde, Friedhelm (2002), Spatial Organisation Department at State Lower Saxony, German National Contact Point for the Interreg North Sea Programme. Interview in Hanover on 10.06.2002

• Daesler-Lohmüller, Christel (2002), European Officer at Stadt Emden, partner of the Water City International project. Interview in Emden on 10.06.2002

• Doktor (2002), Urban Planning Department at Stadt Emden, partner of the Water City International project. Interview in Emden on 10.06.2002

• George, Lorraine (2002), Programme Manager at the Interreg North Sea Programme Secretariat. Interview in Viborg, Denmark, on 15.05.2002

• Goyder, Giles (2002), Tourism Officer at Suffolk County Council, partner of the North Sea Cycle Route project. Interview in Ipswich, on 24.05.2002

• Heidrich, Bernhard (2002), Spatial Planning Department at Administrative District Weser-Ems, partner of the North Sea Cycle Route project. Interview in Oldenburg on 11.06.2002

• Hindle, Jerry (2002), Environment & Transport Department at Suffolk County Council, project partner of the Norcoast project. Interview in Ipswich, 03.07.2002

• Ishmael, George (2002), Urban Planning Department at Norwich City Council, partner of Water City International project. Interview in Norwich on 19.06.2002

• Kunzmann, Klaus (1998), European Planning lecturer at University of Dortmund, Faculty of Spatial Planning. Lecture in 10/1998.

• Law, Graeme (2002), Senior Planning Officer at Government Office East; regional contact point for Interreg IIIB programmes. Interview in Norwich on 19.06.2002

• Moss, Natalie (2002), European Officer at Suffolk County Council. Interview in Ipswich, 05.07.2002.

• Overman, Mark (2002), Spatial Planning Officer at the Interreg North Sea Programme Secretariat. Interview in Viborg, Denmark, on 15.05.2002

• Stein, Martin (2002), Nature Conservation Department at County Wesermarsch, partner of the String of Pearls project. Interview in Brake on 11.06.2002


92



Annex

ANNEX

Annex A Specimen of the Survey Questionnaire

The survey questionnaire has been Internet-based, located at a website of the survey provider Globalpark, at a sub-domain of www.umfragecenter.de. All project partners of public authorities in Weser-Ems and East Anglia were invited by e-mail to take part in the questionnaire; those who did not take part after two weeks received an additional e-mail reminder.

A.a The Internet QuestionnaireProject name: _____________________________

Contact Person (your name): _____________________________

Your e-mail address: _____________________________

Address of the project website: _____________________________

Project partners: ___________________________________________________________________

Which department are you in? (Choose the most appropriate)O EuropeO PlanningO Economic DevelopmentO TourismO Environment/nature conservation O TransportO Other; please name: _____________________________

How many people from you department were involved in the project?_______

Which other department(s) in your authority were involved in the project? (Choose all relevant answers)O EuropeO PlanningO Economic DevelopmentO TourismO Environment/nature conservation O TransportO Other; please name: _____________________________

How many people from other departments of your authority were involved?______

Has the project been, from your point of view:O successful O quite successful (but not as successful as expected)O not successful

What is the one most important effect of the project from your perspective? (Choose only one answer)O Local strategies/actionO New or strengthened networks O The development of strategies for the North Sea Region


94


(Questionnaire continued)

What was/were the outcome(s) of your project? (Choose all relevant answers)O A strategy relevant, in particular, locally or regionallyO A strategy or recommendations relevant to the whole North Sea RegionO The realisation of pilot projectsO Exchange of experienceO Establishing best practiseO Creation of a networkO Development of an existing network

What influence will the project results have locally/regionally? (Choose all relevant answers)O The project was based on exchange of experience, but there were no direct impacts.O The project results will lead to concrete local action plans and action.O They will be incorporated into spatial plans/planning strategies.O They will be incorporated in economic strategies or plans.O The structure of the department will be changed because of exchange of experience.O There will be more interdisciplinarity/cross-sectoral co-operation locally.O Other, please name: ______________________________

Would you have been able to realise the project results without Interreg partners?O Yes, probably.O Partially.O No; international co-operation was essential to obtain the project results

Do you have a final project report for dissemination of the results? O Yes. O No.

If you have a project report for dissemination, a) how many copies of the report have been printed? _____b) how many of these copies have been distributed up to now? _____c) how many stakeholders in your region have received the report? _____

Does your project have a website? O Yes. O No.

If you have a project website, can you say how many visitors or hits it had? _____________________

Seminars:a) Did you organise seminars during the project period? O Yes. O No.b) Did you invite local/regional organisations outside the project partnership? O Yes. O No.c) Did you invite other North Sea organisations outside the project partnership?O Yes. O No.

Has your institution made financial resources available in its budget for keeping up, strengthening or imple-menting the project results locally/regionally after the end of the project?

O Yes. O Yes, but not substantial.O Only if European funding is available.O The budget covered the project period; there are no further resources allocated.

Do you have personnel capacity to work on the project results or networks (without European funding)?O Yes.O Yes, but for a very limited time frame.O The budget covered the project period; there is officially no personnel capacity planned for working on the project.

What happened/is happening to the project network after Interreg IIC?O Network applies again as a project under Interreg IIIB.O Project network will be maintained, without Interreg funding.O The project theme was successfully finished, so there is no more need for the network

Will you, or did you already, use the network partners of the project for business outside the field of the project?

O Yes, probably. O Maybe.O No.


Annex

(Questionnaire continued)

Have you had contact with any of the following higher level stakeholders to promote your project results since the end of the project?

O Your regional governmentO Your national governmentO A national or regional agency, please name: _____________________________O The EU CommissionO The Committee of Spatial Development (CSD)O Any other EU institution; please name: _____________________________O Other; please name: _____________________________

Will your project results be taken into account in:

O Regional policy O National policyO EU policy

Did you co-operate or link up with other Interreg IIC North Sea projects?O No.O We met up during the project phase to exchange results and ideas.O We linked up after project termination to disseminate results together.O Any other form of co-operation; please name: ____________________

If you did, please name the project(s) you co-operated with: _______________________________

Did you, or will you, link up with projects from other Interreg programme areas? O Yes. O Maybe. O No.

Please judge the following statements!

I fully agree I agree

I do not com-pletely agree

I dis-agree

The project fulfilled our expectations.The project gave many new inputs into our work.The management of the project worked well.The project results were well disseminated.During the project phase, the project partners developed a mutual understanding, making future co-operation likely.The project has direct relevance to spatial planning.The project results have relevance to the North Sea Region as a whole.The North Sea Region is a relevant spatial entity, so it is important to strengthen North Sea links.Interreg partnerships are effective in helping to deliver local/regional priorities It would be more effective to have some project dissemination at a central level.I would consider joining future Interreg projects.


96


A.b Invitations and reminders to participate in the questionnaireEnglish invitation

Dear [personal addressing],

I am working on a diploma thesis about the Interreg IIC North Sea Programme, for the department of SpatialPlanning at the University of Dortmund, Germany. I am taking two case study regions, East Anglia and Weser-Ems in Germany, to assess how successful Interreg IIC has been.

You are in my files as a project partner in the IIC project “ [Project Name]”. I would like to ask you to fill out a littlesurvey questionnaire in the Internet. Filling it out won't take long (approximately 10 minutes). If any questioninvolves a search in your files, feel free to leave that question out.

Please access the questionnaire from the following web address, either by clicking on the link, or by copying thefull address into the “Address” field of your internet browser. The web address is:http://www.umfragecenter.de/uc/Moll/fc49/index.php3?code=[different code for each addressee]

Thank you very much for taking the time. If you have any questions, or if any problems occur when filling out thequestionnaire, please contact me. If you are interested in finding out more about my thesis, you can find anoutline at http://www.eurography.de/interreg/

Yours sincerely,

Michael Moll.

P.S. If you have received this message twice, you might be a partner in several Interreg IIC North Sea projects.Please then fill the relevant questions out for each project you have been involved in, using the different webaddresses provided in the e-mails.

English reminderDear [personal addressing],

I contacted you recently as a project partner of the Interreg IIC project “[Project Name]”, regarding a surveyquestionnaire for the North Sea Programme.

I would very much appreciate it if you could spare 10 minutes to complete the on-line form. If any question wouldinvolve a search in your files, feel free to leave that question out.

You can access the questionnaire at the following web address (either click on the link or copy the full addressinto the “Address” field of your internet browser):

http://www.umfragecenter.de/uc/Moll/fc49/index.php3?code=[different code for each addressee]

Thank you in advance,Yours sincerely,

Michael Moll.


Annex

German invitation[personal addressing],

Ich arbeite an einer Diplomarbeit über das Interreg IIC North Sea Programme, für die Fakultät Raumplanung ander Universität Dortmund. Anhand von zwei Fallbeispielregionen, Weser-Ems sowie East Anglia in England,möchte ich herausfinden, wie erfolgreich Interreg IIC war.

Sie waren nach meinen Unterlagen Projektpartner des Interreg IIC Projektes “[Project Name]”. Ich möchte Siefreundlich darum bitten, einen kleinen Fragebogen im Internet auszufüllen. Das Ausfüllen wird nicht langedauern (etwa 10 Minuten). Falls die Beantwortung einiger Fragen das Durchsuchen von Akten erfordert, könnenSie diese Fragen gerne auslassen.

Bitte verwenden Sie folgende, für Ihr Projekt spezifische, Internetadresse, um zum Fragebogen zu gelangen. Siekönnen entweder den Link anklicken, oder Sie kopieren die vollständige Adresse in Ihren Internetbrowser. DieAdresse ist:


Vielen Dank, dass Sie sich die Zeit für mich nehmen. Falls Sie Fragenhaben, oder Probleme beim Ausfüllen desFragebogens entstehen, kontaktieren Sie mich bitte. Bei Interesse können Sie ein wenig mehr über dieFragestellungen meiner Diplomarbeit im Internet finden, unter der Adresse http://www.eurography.de/interreg/

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Michael Moll.

P.S. Falls Sie diese E-mail zweimal erhalten, waren Sie wohl Partner in mehreren Interreg IIC North SeaProjekten. Bitte füllen Sie in diesem Falle die relevanten Fragen für jedes Ihrer Projekte aus. Verwenden Siebitte die unterschiedlichen Internetadressen der jeweiligen E-mails.

German reminder[personal addressing],

Ich habe Ihnen als Interreg IIC Projektpartner von “ [Project Name]” vor einigen Tagen eine Mail geschickt, in derich Sie darum gebeten habe, einen Fragebogen zum IIC Nordseeprogramm auszufuellen.

Ich wuerde mich sehr freuen, wenn Sie sich die 10 Minuten zum Ausfüllen des Fragebogens nehmen würden.Falls die Beantwortung einiger Fragen das Durchsuchen von Akten erfordert, können Sie diese Fragen gerneauslassen.

Hier ist die Internetadresse des Fragebogens (Sie koennen entweder den Link anklicken, oder Sie kopieren dievollstaendige Adresse in Ihren Internetbrowser):


Schon im voraus vielen Dank! Mit freundlichen Gruessen,

Michael Moll.


98


Annex B The results of the questionnaire

Annex B lists the full statistics of the results of the survey questionnaire. Most “open questions” are only listed, without answers.

Project name

Contact person (your name)

Your E-mail address

Address of project website

Project Partners

How many people from your department were involved in the project?

How many people from other departments of your authority were involved?

Question 1. Which department are you in?

Chosen (no.) Chosen (%)Europe (1) 0 0%Planning (2) 4 20,0%Economic Development (3) 7 35,0%Tourism (4) 0 0%Environment/Nature Conservation (5) 8 40,0%Transport (6) 0 0%Other: (7) - Culture

1(1)

5,0%(5%)

Sum of valid values 20

Question 2. Which other departments of your authority were involved?

Chosen (no.) Not chosen Sum of validvalues

Europe 30,0 % 14 20Planning 50,0 % 10 20Economic Development 35,0 % 13 20Tourism 30,0 % 14 20Environment/Nature Conservation 30,0 % 14 20Transport 10,0 % 18 20Other:- Urban Sewage Dept.- Harbour Development Agency- Community Development, Events & Communications- Urban Development- Audit

25,0 %(5%)(5%)(5%)(5%)(5%)

15 20

Other: 0 (0%) 0 20

Question 3. Has the project been, from your point of view:

Chosen (no.) Chosen (%)

Successful (1) 15 75,0%Quite successul (but not as successful as expected )(2) 5 25,0%Not successful (3) 0 0%Sum of valid values 20

Question 4. What is the most important effect of the project from your perspective?

Chosen (no.) Chosen (%)Local strategies/action (1) 4 20,0%New or strengthened network s(2) 15 75,0%The development of strategies for the North Sea Regio n(3) 1 5,0%Sum of valid values 20


Annex

If you have a project report for dissemination,a) how many copies of the report have been printed?b) how many copies have been distributed up to now?c) how many stakeholders in your region have received the report?I

If you have a project website, can you say how many a) visitors or b) hits it had?

Question 5. What was/were the outcome(s) of your project?

Chosen(%)

Notchosen

Sum of validvalues

A strategy relevant, in particular, locally or regionally 50,0 % 10 20A strategy or recommendations relevant to the whole North Sea Region 35,0 % 13 20The realisation of pilot projects 55,0 % 9 20Exchange of experience 100,0 % 0 20Establishing best practise 60,0 % 8 20Creation of a network 70,0 % 6 20Development of an existing network 20,0 % 16 20

Question 6. What influence will the project have locally/regionally?

Chosen(%)

Notchosen

Sum of validvalues

The project was based on exchange of experience, but there were no direct impacts.

10,0 % 18 20

The project results will lead to concrete local action plans and strategies. 65,0 % 7 20They will be incorporated in spatial plans/planning strategies. 45,0 % 11 20They will be incorporated in economic strategies or plans. 55,0 % 9 20The structure of the department will be changed because of exchange of experience.

0 (0%) 20 20

There will be more interdisciplinarity/cross-sectoral co-operation locally. 55,0 % 9 20Other, please name: 5,0 % 19 20

Question 7. Would you have been able to realise the project results without Interreg partners?

Chosen (no.) Chosen (%)Yes, probably. (1) 2 10,0%Partially. (2) 4 20,0%No; international co-operation was essential to obtain the project results .(3) 14 70,0%Sum of valid values 20

Question 8. Do you have a final project report for dissemination of the results?

Chosen (no.) Chosen (%)Yes. (1) 19 95,0%No. (2) 1 5,0%Sum of valid values 20

Question 9. Does your project have a website?

Chosen (no.) Chosen (%)Yes. (1) 17 85,0%No. (2) 3 15,0%Sum of valid values 20

Question 10. Seminars:

Yes. (1)% (no.)

No. (2)% (no.)

Sum of valid values

Missing

Did you organise seminars during the project period? 85,0% (17) 15,0% (3) 20 0If yes, did you invite local/regional organisations outside the project partnership?

88,2% (15) 11,8% (2) 17 3

Did you invite other North Sea organisations outside the project partnership?

44,4% (8) 55,6% (10) 18 2


100


Question 11. Has your institution made financial resources available in its budget for keeping up, strengthening or implementing the project results locally/regionally after the end of the project?

Chosen (no) Chosen (%)Yes. (1) 2 10,0%Yes, but not substantial. (2) 5 25,0%Only if European funding is available. (3) 5 25,0%The budget covered the project period; there are no further resources allocated. (4)

8 40,0%


Question 12. Do you have personnel capacity to work on the project results or networks (without European funding)?

Chosen (no.) Chosen (%)Yes. (1) 3 15,8%Yes, but for a very limited time frame. (2) 10 52,6%The budget covered the project period; there is officially no personnel capacity planned for working on the project .(3)

6 31,6%


Question 13. What happened/is happening to the project network after Interreg IIC?

Chosen (no.) Chosen (%)Network applies again as a project under Interreg III B.(1) 16 80,0%Project network will be kept up, without Interreg funding .(2) 2 10,0%The project theme has been finished, so there is no more need for the network. (3)

2 10,0%


Question 14. Will you, or did you already, use the network partners for business outside the field of the project?

Chosen (no.) Chosen (%)Yes / Probably. (1) 14 70,0%Maybe. (2) 4 20,0%No. (3) 2 10,0%Sum of valid values 20

Question 15. Have you had contact with any of the following to promote your project results at a higher level since the end of the project?

Chosen (no.) Not chosen Sum of validvalues

Your regional government 55,0 % 9 20Your national government 15,0 % 17 20A national or regional agency, please name:- Deutscher Tourismusverband e.V.- Port Promotion Agency (Germany)- Environment Agency (England)- English Nature- East of England Development Agency- The Countryside Agency (England)

30,0 %(5 %)(5 %)

(10 %)(5 %)(5 %)(5 %)

14 20

The EU Commission 5,0 % 19 20The Committee of Spatial Development (CSD) 0% 20 20Any other EU institution. 0% 20 20Other, please name 0% 20 20

Question 16. Will your project be taken into account in:

Chosen (%) Not chosen Sum of valid valuesRegional policy 35,0 % 13 20National policy 5,0 % 19 20EU policy 0% 20 20


Annex

If you did, please name the project(s) you co-operated with.

Question 17. Did you co-operate or link up with other Interreg IIC North Sea projects?

Chosen(%)

Notchosen

Sum of validvalues

No. 15,0 % 17 20We met up during the project phase to exchange results and ideas. 40,0 % 12 20We linked up after the end of the project to disseminate results together.

10,0 % 18 20

Any other form of co-operation; please name:- Informal Contacts- Participation in seminars organised by other projects; discussions with other UK lead partners- Some short contacts; too little time

15,0 %(5%)(5%)

(5%)

17 20

Question 18. Did you, or will you, link up with projects from other Interreg programme areas?

Chosen (no.) Chosen (%)Yes. (1) 7 35,0%Maybe. (2) 10 50,0%No. (3) 3 15,0%Sum of valid values 20

Question 19. Please judge the following statements!

I fullyagree

(1)

Iagree

(2)

I do notcompletely

agree (3)

I dis-agree

(4)

Sum ofvalid

values

Missing

The project fulfilled our expectations. 50,0%(10)

40,0%(8)

10,0%(2)

0%(0)

20 0

The project gave many new inputs into our work. 30,0%(6)

60,0%(12)

10,0%(2)

0%(0)

20 0

The management of the project worked well. 35,0%(7)

40,0%(8)

25,0%(5)

0%(0)

20 0

The project results were well disseminated. 21,1%(4)

68,4%(13)

10,5%(2)

0%(0)

19 1

During the project phase, the project partners developed a mutual understanding, making future co-operation likely.

40,0%(8)

50,0%(10)

10,0%(2)

0%(0)

20 0

The project has direct relevance to spatial planning. 35,0%(7)

30,0%(6)

30,0%(6)

5,0%(1)

20 0

The project results have relevance to the North Sea Region as a whole.

35,0%(7)

45,0%(9)

20,0%(4)

0%(0)

20 0

The North Sea Region is a relevant spatial entity, so it is important to strengthen North Sea links.

15,0%(3)

65,0%(13)

15,0%(3)

5,0%(1)

20 0

Interrg partnerships are effective in helping to deliver local/regional priorities.

30,0%(6)

55,0%(11)

15,0%(3)

0%(0)

20 0

It would be more effective to have some project dissemination at a central level.

5,6%(1)

66,7%(12)

22,2%(4)

5,6%(1)

18 2

I would consider joining a future Interreg project. 50,0%(9)

50,0%(9)

0%(0)

0%(0)

18 2


102


Annex C Main question areas of the semi-structured interviews

C.a Partners of the case study projects 1) Project background

• Details about the partner and his department• Reason for the involvement in the project• Tasks during project period, both in the international network and locally• Effects, both tangible and intangible• Relation to spatial planning• Problems during project phase

2) Future of the project, dissemination, use of networks

• Content of follow-up project under Interreg IIIB• Sustainability of project results and network if Interreg IIIB project is not approved• Influence of project on higher level institutions• Other purposes that the network has been used for, outside the project theme

3) North Sea dimension

• Content of co-operation with other projects (if applicable)• Opinions about more central dissemination of project results• Opinions about the relevance of the North Sea Region as a spatial entity• Opinions about the creation of a North Sea identity

C.b Regional Interreg representatives 1) General questions

• Institution and role of the representative under Interreg IIC and IIIB• Main successes and shortcomings of the IIC North Sea Programme• Bottom-up links of projects; influence on regional and national policy


• Opinions about linking up projects and central dissemination• Relevance of the North Sea Region for spatial planning/for the region• Development of a North Sea identity

3) Future/sustainability of Interreg IIC North Sea Programme and network

• Role of the North Sea Programme in regional/national policy• Sustainability of networks and programme without EU funding• Future role of the North Sea Programme

C.c Representatives of the Interreg NSP Secretariat in ViborgGeneral questions

• Main successes and shortcomings/problems of the IIC NSP• Bottom-up links of projects; influence on regional and national policy


• Opinions about linking up projects and central dissemination• Relevance of the projects for the North Sea Region• Development of a North Sea identity• Relevance and future of Norvision

3) Future/sustainability of Interreg IIC North Sea Programme and network

• Sustainability of networks and programme without EU funding• Future role of the North Sea Programme
