Orientations for the future of the VEV network were in the centre of the debate during the Monitoring Committee meeting at Linköping on 26 May 2000. Two months before the closing conference in Toulouse, a critical opportunity for definition of the partners' strategies, we propose a review of the positions put forward for discussion.

The 11 VEV partners wish to continue their transnational collaboration in favour of their waterways, but different strategies were put forward at Linköping. What importance is to be attached to the cofinancing of projects on the infrastructure, compared to actions qualified as "soft" in terms of exchange, training and promotion? The initial idea is to transform the experimental laboratory (as the TERRA programme was defined) into a permanent operational tool for spatial development. The ESDP and Interreg III clearly provide the context in which the partners will be able to continue working together.
A structure for coordination and among partners would be eligible under the strand IIIC, whereas specific partnerships could be developed to undertake projects identified under the new strands IIIA ("pure" cross-border projects such as the Deûle-Escaut Canal, see article) and IIIB (transnational projects within specific geographical areas).
This strand B, effective within these predefined zones, would allow certain structuring investments on the waterways to be co-financed by the Interreg funds. Thus, within the South-West Europe zone (Aquitaine, Midi-Pyrénées, Languedoc-Roussillon, Spain and Portugal) VNF could submit investment projects on the waterways and their corridors, with the three regions of the Canal des Deux Mers, opening up to partnerships with Spain.
The Atlantic zone could bring together Scottish and French projects, with new openings to Ireland and Portugal. The North-West Europe zone could see partnerships forged by the bilateral VEV axis between BW and the MET in Belgium, opening up to projects in the Netherlands and Germany. The Mediterranean zone would bring together the existing VEV partners Languedoc-Roussillon and Lombardy, again with potential openings to other regions. Finally, the Baltic zone allows the existing Swedish partnership to forge links with Finland, opening up to the other neighbouring countries aspiring to join the EU.

D.R

Extract from the first issue of the trilingual magazine ActuaPress Plus (French, Dutch, English) published by the Centre d'Animation en Langues. This issue features the Caledonian Canal in parallel with the Lombardy canals. The second issue, also now published, covers the Göta Canal and the Millennium Link in Scotland, while the last of the series, due out in September, pairs the two canals designated world heritage: the Canal du Centre and Canal du Midi. The work on terminology for these magazines contributes directly to production of the VEV multilingual glossary. The magazine is available on subscription from the CAL, Chaussée Houtart 2, B-7110 La Louvière, fax +32 64 23 75 85.

Towards a vev charter and label ?

There was a broad consensus in favour of a "living waterways" label, supported by a charter, to create a genuine network or even a transnational association, cofinanced under strand C of Interreg. This body could submit or at least support requests for subsidies for investment projects. The idea is to consolidate the current network by obtaining funding for new programmes, whereas the existing partnership would be maintained to continue exchanges of experience and to guarantee feedback of information from individual projects to the network. The following stages are envisaged:
a) create a partnership grouping, providing the overall context within which the partners will put forward their programmes in favour of the waterways and their territories,
b) implement with the European Community a programme of actions and investments concerning the infrastructures to be developed and protected (each project being negotiated with the member country concerned),
c) create a label "living waterways" (VEV), guaranteeing their sustainable development,
d) join forces when appropriate, with a view to granting this VEV label to individual waterways and to monitoring them accordingly,
e) develop new employment opportunities in the territories served by waterways,
f) implement a programme for development of the waterways as a means of education and raising public awareness.
These orientations prompted Francis Hambye, secretary general of the MET, to ask whether the emphasis placed on investments (point b) might not reduce the number of partners. In view of the specific character of waterways, vectors whose very survival is sometimes in doubt, would it not be preferable to maintain the group around fundamental issues which are evident in all "waterway territories", placing the emphasis on ongoing exchanges of experience?
"The available budgets would be smaller," Mr Hambye recognises, "but such action would meet the expectations of the EU: exchanges of information, know-how, training of personnel,... Investments could be handled in parallel, taking care to ensure that the group's members present projects that are eligible (under IIIA or IIIB), but without this being a prerequisite for setting up the network".

Technical support facility ?

The network should in any event be wide open, but the number of participants must not appear to be an inflationary threat to EU finances. Many waterways which share the criterion of former or current navigability would be liable to join, creating a genuine European lobby.
The label granted to member waterways, based on fulfilling the conditions in the Charter, would demonstrate recognition of a certain level of quality and targets regarding exchange, with all the associated impacts driven by the tourism and leisure sector.
A difficulty of waterways today is that they are outside the main stream of themes promoted by the EU and are therefore a minor budget item. The advantage of the future VEV network is that it will be able to supply additional information and technical support to individual project managers who might otherwise feel ill-equipped to assume the responsibilities involved.
The logic of interconnection developed by the Walloon partners in Linköping is in complete harmony with that put forward by Midi-Pyrenees Regional Council, leading partner. This was the reason for envisaging a wider participation at the Toulouse conference in October, inviting the canals and rivers of other countries such as Spain and Ireland, to preserve and consolidate all the benefits acquired by the VEV network.
Nicole Montamat-Marcheix (Regional Council Midi-Pyrenees), replying to Francis Hambye, asked whether it would not nevertheless be appropriate to present to the European Commission a programme of actions and investments on the infrastructure: bridges to be rebuilt, failed embankments to be repaired, water supply systems to be reinforced, etc. Without these works, all the accompanying efforts in areas that are more obviously eligible, such as interpretation, signage, training, etc, would make little sense.
In conclusion, and without anticipating the political decisions to be taken at the Toulouse conference, the partners have now agreed on the principle of mantaining the network, which will already have significant value through its lobbying effort. But under what form? under whose leadership? and opened to which other waterway networks, interested in a common approach? These are the questions to which the Toulouse meeting will seek to provide answers.