87 / 132
Cross-border
economic
development
87
Cross-cutting themes in cross-border economic development
Neighbouring territories are very rarely consulted when it comes
to the adoption of regional innovation and smart specialisation
strategies and are even less likely to be involved in strategic and
operational governance systems.
This situation is not unique to France. Other border regions are no
better in this regard, even where they too see a benefit in developing
innovative sectors and fostering technology transfer and clusters at
cross-border level. This finding inevitably raises questions regarding
the coherence of regional innovation practices and points to a risk of
a lack of synergies between the approaches adopted and the strategic
priorities recommended in the context of the innovation component of
INTERREG programmes in these territories.
Nevertheless, encouraging initiatives can be observed:
Ì
Ì
The Pyrenees-Mediterranean Euroregion
(Midi-Pyrénées,
Languedoc-Roussillon, Catalonia and the Balearic Islands) has
drawn up a Euroregional Innovation Strategy
132
following the
establishment of a Euroregional Innovation Partnership in January
2013 and a territorial assessment of the strategic sectors and
innovative potential of the four partner regions. The identification
of common ground in the four SRI-SIs, in consultation with the
relevant institutional and economic players, has enabled the
targeting of the three shared development pillars in the Euroregional
strategy: e-health, water and agri-food (which are bundled together
under the title “Innovation for a healthy life and active ageing”).
Thus, this strategy acts as a complement to the SRI-SIs of the
member regions.
Ì
Ì
It should also be noted that the
Aquitaine-Euskadi Euroregion
initiated a similar process in the context of the drawing-up of its
2014-2020 Strategic Plan.
The example of the Euroregional Innovation Strategy is thus
revealing as regards the nature of the strategic reflection process
that takes place within cross-border structures. Rather than devising
ad hoc approaches, common ground needs to be found in the
strategies of the various partner entities, highlighting shared interests
in the cross-border territory.
132
The Project Factsheet on page 121.
This methodology stems from various constraints. First of all, drawing
up an economic strategy is a very costly business, given all the studies
required (SWOT analyses, territorial and forward-looking assessments,
different scenarios, etc.). And once the strategy has been drawn up,
it then needs to be implemented and monitored by means of various
bodies and tools (political and technical committees, sets of indicators,
observation, communication, etc.). Capitalising on what is already in
place is inevitably quicker – and, above all, more desirable in the current
context of reductions in budgets for public spending. It can also be
regarded as a way of improving coordination between the structures
involved, thereby limiting any duplication or competition. Thus, combining
the various strategic frameworks can be seen as a means of ensuring
that there is no overlapping or inconsistency.
This approach is, however, coloured by the perception that the general
interest (i.e. that of the crossborder territory as a whole) is the sum of
the interests of the individual parts (i.e. those of the various partner
entities). Yet, innovative potential at the level of a territory is generally
identified, as indicated above, on the basis of analysis that looks at
only half the picture (without truly taking account of the neighbouring
economic system), as well as tools and processes that use inconsistent
data and analytical frameworks for the two sides of the border. Thus,
a change of territorial level when determining strategic orientations
involves far more than simply aggregating and combining existing
strategies. It requires the repositioning of analysis in order to take full
account of the crossborder ecosystem from both an economic and a
statistical perspective.