MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS · Illustrations related to the paper by S. Cetkovsky et al. Vol. 5, /2007 MoraVian geographical reports CMYK EDITORIAL BOARD Bryn GREER-WOOTTEN, York

MORAVIANGEOGRAPHICALREPORTS

VOLUME 15 NUMBER ISSN 1210 - 8812

12007

Fig. 3: Czech and Bavarian landscapes of Šumava in the surroundings of the Všerubský mountain pass (orthophoto 2003)

Source: (www.mapy.cz)

Fig. 4: Czech and Bavarian landscapes of Šumava in the surroundings of border villages Fleky and Hofberg (orthophoto 2003)


Illustrations related to the paper by S. Cetkovský et al.

Fig. 2: Euroregional cooperation of the counties

I.: Interregio; II. The Hajdú-Bihar–Bihor Euroregion; III. The Miskolc–Kosice Euroregion; IV.: The Mura–Drava Euroregion; V.: The Triple-Danube-area Euroregion; VI.: The Neogradiensis Euroregion.

Source: Own work. Map: GFK Macon

Fig. 3: The organisations of municipalities and micro-regions

I.: The Zemplén Euroregion; II.: BiharBihor; III.: The Sajó–Rima Euroregion; IV.: The Drava–Mura Euroregion; V.: The Danube Euroregion; VI.: The Ister-Granum Euroregion; VII.: The Ipel Euroregion.


Illustration(s) related to the paper by T. Hardi

Fig. 2: Extensively exploited landscape of the Czech part of Šumava Mts. in the surroudings of Železná Ruda.

(Photo: S. Martinát)

Fig. 6: A view of the castle and the Vltava River in Český Krumlov – the second most visited tourist destination after Prague in the Czech Republic

(Photo: E. Kallabová)

Illustrations related to the paper by S. Cetkovsky et al.

�

Vol. �5, �/2007 MoraVian geographical reports

C M Y K

EDITORIAL BOARDBryn GREER-WOOTTEN, York University, TorontoAndrzej T. JANKOWSKI, Silesian University, SosnowiecPetr KONEČNÝ, Institute of Geonics, OstravaIvan KUPČÍK, University of MunichHenrik LIGMAJER, GöteborgSebastian LENTZ, Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography, LeipzigPetr MARTINEC, Institute of Geonics, OstravaOldřich MIKULÍK, Institute of Geonics, BrnoJozef MLÁDEK, Comenius University, BratislavaJan MUNZAR, Institute of Geonics, BrnoMetka ŠPES, University of LjubljanaMilan TRIZNA, Comenius University, Bratislava Pavel TRNKA, Mendel University, Brno Antonín VAISHAR, Institute of Geonics, BrnoMiroslav VYSOUDIL, Palacký University, OlomoucArnošt WAHLA, University of OstravaJana ZAPLETALOVÁ (editor-in chief), Institute of Geonics, BrnoGeorgette ZRINSCAK, University Sorbonne, Paris

EDITORIAL STAFFBohumil FRANTÁL, technical editorZdeněk NOVOTNÝ, technical arrangementMartina Z. SVOBODOVÁ, linguistic editor

PRICE280 CZK (excluding VAT) per copy plus the postage800 CZK (excluding VAT)per volume (four numbers per year)plus the postage

PUBLISHERCzech Academy of SciencesInstitute of Geonics, v. v. i., Branch BrnoDrobného 28, CZ-602 00 BrnoIdentifical number: 68145535

MAILING ADDRESSMGR, Institute of Geonics, ASCR, v. v. i.Drobného 28, 602 00 BrnoCzech Republic(fax) 420 545 422 710(e-mail) [email protected](home page) http://www.geonika.cz

Brno, February, 2007

PRINTIng. Jan Kunčík, Úvoz 82, 602 00 Brno© INSTITUTE OF GEONICS, v. v. i. 2007

issn �2�0-88�2

MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS

Articles:

Milan BUFONBORDER REGIONS IN A RE-INTEGRATED EUROPE .... 2(Příhraniční regiony v evropském integračním procesu)

Waldemar GORZYM-WILKOWSKIEUROREGIONS IN POLAND ............................................... 14(Euroregiony v Polsku)

Marián HALÁSDEVELOPMENT OF CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION AND CREATION OF EUROREGIONS IN THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC................................................................................. 21(Vývoj přeshraniční spolupráce a formování euroregionů na území Slovenské republiky)

Tamás HARDIEUROREGIONS IN HUNGARY ........................................... 32(Euroregiony v Maďarsku)

Stanislav CETKOVSKÝ, Petr KLUSÁČEK, Stanislav MARTINÁT, Jana ZAPLETALOVÁSOME ASPECTS OF CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION IN EUROREGIONS OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON EXAMPLE OF THE ŠUMAVA REGION .............................. 43(Některé aspekty přeshraniční spolupráce v euroregionech České republiky na příkladu území Šumavy)

2

MoraVian geographical reports �/2007, Vol. �5

C M Y K


C M Y K

BORDER REGIONS IN A RE-INTEGRATED EUROPE

MilanBUFON

Abstract

The role of borderlands in the European integration process is discussed in this paper. The actual political geographic issues of the continent are considered at the outset, based on three fundamental elements: territoriality, borders and integration. The argument continues with a presentation of the different levels of “borderness” in the EU member countries and the structure of different types of European borderlands, together with the main factors of differentiation. Subsequently, an examination of the institutional and functional aspects of cross-border cooperation in Europe is presented, with special emphasis on the organization of the so-called Euroregions, and on European cross-border initiatives and policies. In conclusion, there is a brief summary of several case studies in Slovenia, most typical of the European border countries, and the final discussion concerns the changeable status of borderlands in the context of a re-integrated Europe.

Shrnutí

Příhraniční regiony v evropském integračním procesu

Příspěvek se zabývá úlohou příhraničních regionů v evropském integračním procesu. V úvodu pojednává o aktuálních politicko-geografických problémech evropského kontinentu spočívajících ve třech základních prvcích: územnosti, hranicích a integraci. Poté pokračuje pojednáním o různých úrovních „hraničnosti“ u členských zemí Evropské unie, struktuře různých typů evropských příhraničních regionů a o hlavních faktorech jejich rozlišování. Uvádí rovněž úvahy o institucionálních a funkčních aspektech přeshraniční spolupráce v Evropě se zvláštním důrazem na organizaci tzv. euroregionů i na evropské přeshraniční iniciativy a strategie. V závěru článku se stručně uvádějí různé případové studie ze Slovinska – jedné z nejtypičtějších evropských pohraničních zemí – a příspěvek končí závěrečnou diskusí o proměnlivém statutu pohraničí v kontextu znovu sjednocené Evropy.

Key words: political geography, border areas, cross-border cooperation, European re-integration, Slovenia.

1. Introduction

In my opinion, the European political geography isbased on three basic elements: territoriality, borders,andintegration,whichinturnaretheresultsofbothconvergenceanddivergencesocialandspatialprocesses.AsPoulantzaspointedout,space-timematricesinthepre-capitalistperiodwereopen;therewasonlyasingleknown space based on acommon civilisation andacommon religion with all the rest being perceivedas ano-land inhabited by barbarians (Poulantzas,1978). Conversely, acapitalist space differs in theappearanceofborderswithspaceterritorializationbeingapreconditionformodernity.Therefore,thereisafixingof different borders and thus different insides andoutsides,andcitizenship,segregationofaliensandtheirexclusionfromtheirfullinvolvementinthenationallife,asfeaturesofthisspatialpowermatrixwhichacquiresinPoulantzas’opinionitspurestformintheinventionoftheconcentrationcamp.Themaincharacteristicofthepost-warEuropeanintegrationprocess,asthereversemodel of nation-state exclusivism, is represented by

the fact that it first ploughed its way gradually andnotwithoutdifficultieswithinpoliticallystablestates,wheretheprocessofnationalemancipation,orratherofnation-buildingwaslongoverandhadresultedintheformationofsolidterritorialstates.WiththeincreaseofinternationalintegrationinWesternEurope,especiallyafter the 1960s, the previous non-flexible model ofindustrialization, characterized by capital and jobconcentrationaswellasbythedepopulationofperipheralareasandbytheforcedintroductionofinternalsocialstandardizationandculturalhomogenization,begantodisintegrate.Thefosteringofamorebalancedregionaldevelopment resulted also in the strengthening ofregional characteristics, which the new regionaldevelopmentmodelcouldnolongerignore.TheregionalcharacteristicshaveinturnalwaysbeenpreservedinEuropebypersistenthistoricalandculturalelementsof ethnic and linguistic variety.Therefore it is notsurprisingthattheprocessofEuropeanintegrationwasaccompaniedbyaparallelprocessofethnicorregionalawakeningofminoritiesandother localcommunities(Bufon,1996a).

�


C M Y K


C M Y K

ThemajorquestionthatEuropefacingatpresentistheeffectofthecollapsedbipolarsystemofthenewworldorder.Thereareatleasttwocontradictoryprocessesatwork.ThefirstistheopeningupofEuropetodemocraticideals and representative politics, which follows theadvance of social democratic capitalism eastwardanditscreationofnewmarkets,resourcesandsocialorganisations. New inter-regional trade and activityhaveacceleratedsincethedemiseofcentrallyplannedeconomiesinCentralandEasternEurope,especiallyinterms of cross-border cooperation.Previously suspectorfragilestrategicregionshavebeentransformedintopivotal nodes in an expanded European network ofcommunicationandtrade.Suchachangeemphasiseshowgeographyandplaceareperiodicallyreinterpretedandtransformed.

Alongsidetheborderasamarkedlylinearspatialandsocio-political phenomenon that in the past playedarole of the political and strategic isoline, anewgeographictermborderareasgraduallyenteredpoliticalgeography; it became clear that attention of politicalgeographersshouldbe turnedtowardtheresearchofbroadergeopolitical aspects of political decisionsandinterventionsinanareaofwhichtheestablishmentandchangingofpoliticalbordersissoemblematic,aswellastowardsocialandspatialeffectsthatthebordersinagivenregionalrealityhave.Thusfromaspatialpointof view, modern political geography studies bordersbecause they indicate the territorial dimension ofpoliticalorganisationsandsystems,whilealsoaffectingtheformationofspecialborderareasthatdonotonlydiffer according to the nature of political border, butalsocontinuetransformingaccordingtothechangesinborderlocationandthefunctionalborderdynamics(e.g.theborder’shighorlowpermeability).Thesignificanceof the geography of border landscapes lies thereforeparticularly in the fact that it does not only analyseborders in the framework of political-strategic andpolitical-historicalstudies,butsetstheminaframeworkoftheresearchofprocesseswithinborderregionsandsocialspacesdefinedtherein.

Severalauthorshavetriedtodefineinmoredetailthenewtasksofpoliticalgeography in thisfieldandthemethodology of research in the geography of border landscapes, but most of the papers dealing withregionalaspectsofborderareasorwitheffectsofthebordersinasocialspace,remainfairlyheterogeneousboth from the theoretical and methodological pointsof view.There are only afew comparative studiesthat could contribute to the discovery and definitionofbasicprocessesinborderregions; infact,themoreresearchershavedelvedintoanalysesoftheseregions,themorecomplexandintricatehasbecomethenetworkoffactors,effectsandprocessesmarkingthestructureandthedynamicsofthedevelopmentofborderareas.

Thesenotonlyresultfromtheinteractionofdifferentcultural, social, economic and political factors andelementsonaninterstatelevel,buttheyalsoexpresstherelationshipbetweenthelocalcommunityandtherespectivecentre,aswellastherelationshipbetweentheactualtwolocalbordercommunities.Finally,itshouldbementionedthatpreciselythedifferencesbroughtbytheborderintheorganisationofborderareasmakeitvery difficult to carry out ahomogeneous analysis ofborder areas, since the typology and methodology ofstatisticdatagatheringononesideoftheborderareusuallyquitedifferentfromthoseontheotherside.Buteventhisfacthascontributedtothephenomenonthattheliteraturewrittenuptillnowonthegeographyofborderlandscapesmainlycomprisesworksdealingwithborderareasaspartofindividualcountriesonly,whilerarelyextendingoverthepoliticalbordertodiscoveranddefinetheso-calledcross-borderregions.

2. Theory and research experiences of the geography of border landscapes

Numerousstudieshavepointedoutthatitispreciselytheborderregions–inwhichthepopulationfrombothsidesoftheborderoftendisplaysjointregionalallegianceoracognateethnicandlinguisticstructure–thatarethelinkingelementthatinthemostnaturalformandmosteffectivelycontributestothedevelopmentofcross-borderrelationsandinternational integration;theindividualborderareaswithintheseregionsareontheonehandconnectedtothehomecountry,whileontheother,dueto many affinities with the neighbouring area, theyrepresent agenuine zone of transition.These aspectsandfunctionsofborderregionshavecometotheforeoftheEuropeanpoliticalinterestthroughtheconsolidationofintegrationprocessesonthecontinent,althoughwecouldhardlymaintainthatanyexplicitregionalizationof the European political life occurred concurrently.Thus,many researchprojectswere carried out in thelast decades with the purpose of defining the basicelementsandprocessesincross-borderinterconnection,and theeffect exertedon such interconnectionby thecircumstancesofmoreorlessopenborders.Propulsive and rejecting factors in cross-border cooperation wereascertained,forexample:• thesame(high)degreeofdevelopmentofindustrial

societiesinborderareas• ajointsystemofinformation,andknowledgeofthe

languageoftheneighbouringcountry• apositive attitude towards neighbours and cross-

bordercooperation• lack of cross-border connections in transport

infrastructureandcommunication• incongruentplanningofcross-borderareas• adjustment of the population to aclosed-border

situation

�


C M Y K


C M Y K

In addition to these, several other spatial and socialprocesses in the transformation of border areas andtheiradjustmenttothe frontierregimeweretackled,as well as elements of functional interconnection ofborderareasandtheirspatialextent.Alltheseempiricalfindings obtainedon the example of different centralEuropean border areas undoubtedly participated inthe development of relatively early and consolidatedconceptsinsettingupfunctionalandregional-planningformsofcross-borderintegration,inwhichgeographyplayedanimportantrole.Onthebasisofsuchconceptsthe border areas were defined as aspecial type ofperipheralregions inwhichbotheconomicandsociallives are directly influenced by the proximity of aninternationalborder.

This framework provided aground for developmentof that section of geography of border landscapeswhichmainly concentratedonresearching individualborder areas, and contributed to the completion ofamore empirical methodology that would be betteradjustedtoconcreteregionalrealities,andwhosemaincharacteristicwasaboveallthefactthatitperceivedtheborderinanexplicitlyspatial–ormoreprecisely–zonalsense.Theborderisnotsomethingseparatefromtheterritorysurroundingit,butratherrepresentswithitaconstituentpartofaspecificborderarea.Theveryborderarea,ontheotherhand,isarelativelycomplexspace,whichmaybe–incaseofasufficientdegreeofconnectednesswiththeneighbouringareaoramanifestfunctional complementariness and integration withit–definedbyacommontermasaborderoracross-border region. Naturally, within such frameworksother kinds of interpretation are possible, too: someresearchersemphasisebroaderregionalinfrastructuralormacroeconomicaspectsof cross-bordercooperationaboveall, othersstress the importanceof small-scalecross-border exchange in microeconomic, social andculturalspheres.Intheformercase,standardresearchmethods of economic and regional analysis are mostfrequentlyemployed,whileinthelatterwecanoftenfindqualitative-orientedworksdrawingespeciallyonthefindingsofmodernsocialandculturalgeography.One study conducted (Strassoldo, 1982) pointed outthree main effects that the borders have on space:direct (e.g., doubling of the functions of both borderareas),indirect(e.g.,economicbenefitscreatedbythecontact between two different systems) and induced(e.g.,developmentofinfrastructure).Further,accordingtotheirdegreeofopennesstheborderswereclassifiedintopermeable,rejectingand impermeable.Ofcourse,there are no completely closed or completely openborders;rather,nearlyeachborderareasdevelopwithagreaterorsmallerdegreeofopenness.Onthebasisofthe‘openness’-‘closeness’relationandthedynamic/staticcharacterwithregardtoborderareas,Strassoldodefinedfourtypesofbordersituation:situation of border

areaalonganopenanddynamicborderline,a border-bridge situation along an open yet static borderline,a“no-man’s-land”situationalongadynamicandclosedborderline,andasituationofperipheryalongastaticandclosedborderline(Strassoldo,1973).

From the mid-sixties, Prescott began laying agreatemphasis particularly on four problem groups thatpolitical geographers should take into account intheirresearchintoborderlandscapes(Prescott,1965,1987):• border as an element of cultural landscape, its

character,courseandtransformations• characteristics and structure of border areas,

regionaldifferencesandsimilaritiesbetween thetwopartsofborderlandscape;influenceofpoliticalfactors and the border on the development ofseparate regional forms in an originally uniformnaturalorculturallandscape

• impactoftheborderonspatialandsocialorganizationof the border area population, directions of itsspatial mobility in everyday life, perception andappraisaloftheneighbouringenvironmentaswellasone’sown

• relationship between the countries’ centres andborder areas, political decisions affecting theborder’scharacter,borderregimeandcross-borderrelationships.

In the same period, Minghi (1963) stressed the needfor the political-geographic interest to be transferredfrombordersinconflictto“ordinary”borderareas,andto concentrateonan in-depthstudyof thenumerousaspects bearing influence on aharmonic co-existenceofborderpopulations.HelaterappliedthisconcepttoHouse’s modelofcross-borderinteractions(House,1981),whichputagreatemphasisoncontactsandexchangesbetween the two determinate border areas, and ontoRokkan’s model of relationshipsbetweencentresandperipheriesintheprocessofpoliticaltransformationsof modern societies (Rokkan and Urwin, 1983).Thefirst model established that while local cross-borderexchangescannotdevelopinasituationofborders inconflictorincountrieswithcentralisedstatesystems,theyrepresentagreaterpartofcross-borderinteractionsin“normal”internationalanddomesticpolicysituations.The second model ascribed particular importance toregionalmovementsinperipheralandmostoftenalsoborderareas,aswellastotheroleplayedbyperipherallocal communities and minorities in preserving theirautochthonoussettlementterritory(culturallandscape),establishingcross-bordercontactsandlimitingconflictsincaseofdivisionofthisterritorythroughtheprocessofdrawingborders.Inshort,modernresearchofborderareas(Gallusser,1994;RumleyandMinghi,1991)hasbeen dedicating much more attention to the cultural

5


C M Y K


C M Y K

aspects of border areas, and consequently to thelocal spatial behaviour of the border population andissues related to their regional, ethnic and linguisticidentities.

3. Definitions of border areas and determining their extent

Paralleltothedevelopmentoftheoreticalandmethodologicalconcepts, aneed emerged in the geography of borderlandscapesforamoreaccuratedefinitionoftheveryspacealongtheborder.Namely,thetermborder areaisusuallyunderstoodastheareawithinadeterminatestateinwhichinfluencesoftheproximityofapoliticalbordercanbefelt,whilethetermborderorcross-border regiondenotesaspacecomprisingtheborderareasonbothsidesofaborder.AsPerpilloualreadyascertainedinthemid-sixties(Perpillou,1966), some borders represent ageographic boundarybetweentwocountries,whilearoundotherborderssmallterritorialunits formwithin theneighbouringcountries.Suchaborderregion is thusnot justalandscape,apartof which happens to be aborder, nor is it the sum oftwoseparateborderareas.Andneither is itanentirelyhomogeneous unit, as the presence of aborder itselftranslatesasafundamentaldiscontinuityforsuchaspace.The interconnectionofsucharegionshouldthereforebesoughtparticularly in functional relationshipsbetweenthe twoborderareas inquestion,whichcandeveloponthebasisofordinarygravitationaltrendsbetweenurbanandemploymentcentresandtheirhinterlandsduetotheexistenceof certaindisparities –mostlyofaneconomic nature–orduetotheexistingaffinities–mostlyofacultural character–betweenonesideoftheborderandtheother(Guichonnet,Raffestin,1974;Ricq,1970).Therefore,aborderregionassuchisassertingitselfasacombinationoftheprinciple of functionality,whichoriginatesintheadjustmentoftheborderpopulationandbordereconomytothegivencircumstances,and theprinciple of homogeneity,whichderivesfromthefactthatbothborderareasoftensharetheaffiliationtothesameculturallandscape,whiletheborderpopulationischaracterizedbythesameculturalfeatures.

Asidefromtheseterminologicalproblemsthereisalsothequestionoftheverydelimitationofborderregions.Althoughvarious internationalactsuponadoptionofbilateralagreementsontheregulationofcross-bordermovementofgoodsandpeopleusuallydeterminetheborderareas–forwhichspecialallowancesareprovided–asanareaextendingtoawidthofupto25kmfromtheborderline,theactualextentofaborderregioncanbequitedifferentfromtheadministrativeorinstitutionalone,andmostofallmuchmoredifferentiated(Biucchi,Godard, 1981; Ercmann, 1987).Wherever there isaculturalaffinitybetweentwoborderareas,thetotalextentofthisspacemostoftenrepresentsthebasiccoreofacross-borderregion.However,thebordersofsuchregions differ greatly from one another according totheindicatorofcross-borderintegrationused,asthese

can be influenced by different factors ranging fromtheveryadministrativedivisionoftheborderareastothetransportandotherinfrastructural,demographic,economic, and also cultural, historical and physicalfactors.Incircumstancesofeconomicdisparitybetweenthetwoborderareas,forinstance,small-scaleexchangesinthefieldsofsupply,workandleisuretimeactivitiesare more apt to follow the current differences inexchangerates,inflationrateandpurchasingpower,andthereforehardlyrepresentpermanentpredispositionsofindividualborderareasforsatisfyinganddevelopingvarioussocial,economicandspatialactivities.Allthesecross-bordertransactionsareratherunstableandcanlead the subjects interested now to this, now to thatsideoftheborder.Anentirelydifferentsituationexistsregardingculturalandotherbasicsocialcontactsthatoriginate from the need of the border population tomaintain traditional links within the framework ofacommonculturalspace,andarethereforecharacterizedmostlybystabilityandpersistenceevenincaseoflessopenborderregimes(Bufon,1998a).

There are only afew cases of complete liberalizationof border regimes in the world, but based on theintegrationprocessessofar,occurringmostintensivelyon the European continent, it can be seen that themoretheborderareaisintegratedandthelesserthebarriereffectofpoliticalborders,themoretheborderregionsbegintoactaccordingtoordinary functional-gravitational principles.This type of development isespecially noticeable in border cities that had beenseveredbytheborderfromtheirtraditionalhinterlandsandarenowregainingtheirformerfunctionwithintheborderarea,whiletwincitiesaremergingintonewandwiderurbancentres.Ontheotherhand,inmanyareaswhere the border’s function as abarrier has alreadybeeneliminated(e.g.,amongthesignatorystatesoftheSchengenAgreement)nodistinctcross-borderlinkscanbeobserved,notevenininstitutionalisedcross-borderregions, where the persistence of political borderscontributedtotheformationofseparatesocialspaces.

4. Border areas and cross-border regions in Europe

Beingthecradleofmodernnationalismandconsequentlythepartoftheworldwherethemostnumerouspolitical-territorialdivisionstookplace, it isonlynaturalthatEuropeshouldalsobethecontinentwiththehighest“bordercharacterdegree,”andwithasuitablygreatneedforcross-bordercooperationandintegration.Ifwedefineborderareasorareaswheretheeffectsoftheproximityofapoliticalborderarequitestrong,asa25km-widestrip of land extending alongside the borderline, wediscoverthatinEurope,wherethereareover10,000kmofborders,borderareasmeasureapproximately500,000squarekilometresintotalandareinhabitedbymorethan50millionpeople,whichequalsthedemographic

�


C M Y K


C M Y K

and territorial potential of alarge European country,suchas,forexample,France.

Intermsoftypology(Bufon,1998b),borderareasandborderregionsinEuropefallintothreebasicgroups:thewestern European,thecentral Europeanandtheeastern European.Typical of the western European group isthepresenceof“old”borders,whicheitherbelongtotheantecedenttypeordevelopedparalleltothehistoricalregionsinthisarea.Inthisenvironmentrelativelyearlyformsofcross-bordercooperationemergedasearlyasthesixtiesandseventies,and inthesameperiodthefirstcross-borderregionsformedoninstitutionalbasesas well.These include individual regions and otheradministrativeunitsfrombothsidesoftheborderandendeavourtosolvedeterminatefunctionalandplanningproblemswithinthese limits,whileat thesametimeencouraging the cross-border cooperation on asocio-culturallevel,whichisintheseborderregionsusuallyunderdeveloped.Alsocharacteristicofthistypeofborderregionistheexistenceofindividualadministrativeunitsofdifferentrankconjoiningintoacross-borderinterestnetworkthatcouldbedefinedasa“region of regions.”

Thesecondtypologicalgroupofborderareasandregionsis most characteristic of central Europe. In this areahistoricalregionsoftendonotmatchtheactualspaceregionalisation in the frameworkof individual statesbecausenumerous subsequentdelimitationprocessestookplace–especiallyfollowingthetwoworldwarsinthelastcentury–thuspoliticallydividingtheoriginallyhomogeneoushistoricalregionsintoseveralunits.Thepersistence of socio-cultural links among the borderpopulationswithinsuchhistoricalregionsinmostcasesledtothespontaneousformationofcross-borderregions.Consequently,thesecross-borderregionsdonotfittheadministrative spaces, rather match the existing orhistoricalculturalregions;also,theydonotenjoyanyspecialsupportfromthelocalorstateauthorities,whichattimesevenresentcross-bordercooperationbecauseofunresolvedissuesbetweenthetwostatesthatwerecausedbythedelimitationprocesses.Nevertheless,asidefrom interstatecooperationandopenness, suchtypesofborderregionalsodisplayaremarkablyhighlevelofsocialintegration,whichusuallyleadstotheformationof special cross-border spatial systems that could bedefinedas“regions within regions.”

ThethirdandlasttypegroupistypicalofeasternEurope,wherewehavetodealwithacombinationofoldandnewbordersinaspacethathasbeentraditionallylessdevelopedand sparselypopulated.Most significantly,thecommunistregimeafterWorldWarIImagnifiedthisoriginallyunfavourablesituationintheborderareasofeasternEuropebyencouragingorcausingtheemigrationofautochthonouspopulationsandhinderingthesocialandeconomicdevelopmentofborderareasingeneral.

Theareasmarkedbysuchcharacteristicshave,duetotheirownpoorpotentials,eveninnewcircumstances–withthepowerfulideologicalmodificationinfluenceseliminated – very limited possibilities of creatingadvanced forms of cross-border cooperation andintegration.Suchborderareasandtheexisting,oftenonlynominal,cross-borderregions,couldthereforebedefinedas“regions under reconstruction.”

Atthemomenttherearearound55cross-border regions of the institutional typeandover 30 cross-border spatial associations of the informal typeinEurope.Intheformertypetherearegenuine internationalorganisationsofregional character, such as the working communitiesof theAlpine arc (Guichonnet, 1988).The Arge-Alp(ArbeitsgemeinschaftAlpländer) working community,which comprises the Swiss cantons of Graubünden,TessinandSt.Gallen,theItalianregionsofLombardyandTrentino-AltoAdige,theAustrianlandsofSalzburg,TyrolandVorarlberg,andtheGermanlandsofBavariaandBaden-Württemberg,wasfoundedin1972withitsseatinInnsbruckandhadaninfluenceontheformationof the COTRAO (Communauté de travail desAlpesOccidentales)andtheAlps-Adriaworkingcommunities.Thelatterwasfoundedin1978inVenice,onthebasisofpreviouscontactsbetweentheFriuli-VeneziaGiuliaregioninItaly,CarinthiainAustriaandtheRepublicofSloveniainformerYugoslavia;thisinitialcorewaslater joined by other Italian andAustrian regions,border administrative units of Hungary, as well asBavariaandCroatia.Ofspecialimportanceisthatthisworkingcommunitywasthefirstandmostfruitfulformof international cooperation between countries withvery different socio-political systems; although afterthefallofthecommunistregimesintheEastandwithSlovenia and Croatia gaining their independence, itlostsomeofitsinitialélanandpartofitsfoundationalintentwithSloveniaandCroatiaholdinginthisworkingcommunity simultaneously the status of region andcountry.TheCOTRAOworkingcommunity,whichwasformallyestablishedinMarseilles in1982andwhichcomprisestheregionsofAosta,PiedmontandLiguriainItaly,Provence-Alpes-Côted’AzurandRhône-AlpesinFrance,andthecantonsofValais,VaudandGenevainSwitzerlandremainedslightlymoreactive.TheeightiesalsosawtheemergenceofkindredworkingcommunitiesintheJuraandthePyrenees.

Outside theAlpine arc locally focused cross-borderassociationsaremorecommon.ThefirstsuchcommunitiesformedwithintheScandinaviancross-borderregionthatdevelopedonthebasisofaninternationalagreementbetween Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland andIceland, signed in 1962 and amended several timessince.Within the framework of this agreement 10different regional cross-border associations now act;one of the first to emerge was“Nordkalotten” (Cape

7


C M Y K


C M Y K

North), encompassing the Norwegian counties ofNordland,TromsandFinnmark,theSwedishcountyofNorrbotten, andFinnishLapland.Averywell-knowncross-border association in Europe is the Beneluxinterstateassociation,withinwhichaspecialcommitteeforjointspatialplanningwithfoursectorsubcommitteeshasbeenactivesince1969.Similarplanning/territorialassociationswereformedsometimelaterintheborderareabetweenGermanyandneighbouringcountries.Anepitomeofthiskindofcross-borderregionis“Regio,”intheareawherethestatebordersofSwitzerland,FranceandGermanymeet,withitsseatinBasel.Therudimentsof today’s association of“Regio” is“Regio Basiliensis”(Gallusser,1981),foundedin1963asalocalliaisonbodybetweenrepresentativesofeconomy,scienceandpolitics,withregardtotheproblemsthatBaselwasexperiencingdue to its border position, and its potential to bepromotedtoawiderinternationalregionalcontextforthesamereason.Todaythisassociationhasaround400individualand200collectivemembers,amongwhicharedifferentcompaniesandthecantonsofBasel-CityandBasel-District.In1965,the“Regio Basiliensis”examplewasfollowedbytheFrenchandGermansides,whichfoundedsimilarassociations:“Regio du Haut-Rhin,”withitsseatinMulhouse,and“Regio Friburgensis,”coveringthe area of the city of Freiburg.Thus, the differentaspectsofthedevelopmentofborderareasandcross-bordercooperation,andespeciallytheissuesconcerningregional planning, preservation of environment,transportandcommunications,employmentanddailycross-bordermigration,education,research,andsocialcare have since been discussed and realised bothseparately,withintheframeworksofeachofthethreesubregions,aswellasjointly,withintheframeworkofthe body comprising the representatives of all threeareas.Inaddition,“Regio” isalsooneofthefoundingmembersoftheWorkingCommunityofBorderRegionsestablishedinStrasbourgin1971.

Another well-known local institutional cross-borderassociation is “Euregio” (Gabbe, 1983), which beganformingasearlyasthefifties inthenorthernbordersector between Germany and the Netherlands inthe area of the Dutch provinces of Overijssel andGelderland and the German states of North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony. This cross-borderassociationconsistsofthreedifferentandautonomousmunicipalityassociations,twoDutchandoneGerman,whichincludeintotal104municipalities.Theseselectamong themselvesbyvote the representatives of thecross-bordercouncilandtheexecutingbody,theEuregiosecretariat located in Gronau, which employs bothDutch and German staff, presiding. One of the mostimportanttasksofthisassociationiscoordinationandjoint implementation of socio-economic and spatialplans in the given border area, which is marked byaconsiderabledifferencebetweenthebetterdeveloped

andmoredenselypopulatedDutchpartandthemoreperipheralanddemographicallyweakerGermanpart.InthefirstphasetheyworkedonattractingnewcompaniesandeconomicactivitiestotheEuregioareainordertostrengthen their own economic potential, while sincethe mid-eighties they have been especially active inpromotingandextendingcross-bordercommunication,decreasingoperationalcostsinthisfieldandencouragingthecross-borderflowoftechnology.

Thekindoforientation–verypragmaticanddirectedtowardstheplanning/functionalaspectsofcross-bordercooperation and integration – that distinguishes theabove-described“Regio”and“Euregio,”andingeneraltheGermanborderareasthatformedalongthePolishand Czech borders under the name of “Euroregion”in 1992, is areference point for various Europeancommissions and especially theWorking Communityof European Border Regions (with the originalabbreviationAGEG[Arbeitsgemeinschaft Europäischer Grenzregionen]).Itisthereforenocoincidencethatthesecretariat of this community, whose unofficial seatsareotherwiselocatedinStrasbourgandBonn,anditsofficesofrepresentationinBarcelonaandTrento,shouldbesituated inGronau– theseatof“Euregio.”AGEGhastodatecontributedtotheadoptionofanimportantEuropeanconventiononcross-bordercooperationthatwassignedinMadridin1981,andhasintheframeworkoftheEuropean“Interreg”programmeformedaprojectcalled“Lace”(Linkage Assistance and Cooperation for the European Border Regions),whichrepresentsasortofobservatoryofcross-bordercooperationthatvariousEuropeanborderregionscanturntofortechnicalandorganisational support.This institution, too, is basedinGronauandhasonthebasisoftheexperiencefromEuregiopreparedseveralschemesandrecommendationsontheeconomiccross-bordercooperationandplanninginborderregions.

Further development in the creation of the so-calledEuroregions, which are particularly numerous alongthe western German border, was accelerated by thereunification of Germany and the establishment ofparliamentary democratic socio-political systems inthe formercommunistcountriesof theeasternblock.ManyEuropeaninitiativesdesignedtobenefitthelessdevelopedandperipheralareasoftheEUmemberstateswereexpandedorintroducedanewfortheborderareasintheEastaswell(Maier,Dittmeir,1997).OneoftheprogrammestobeexpandedandtransformedwithinthisframeworkwasInterreg,whichhaduntil1990providedfinancialstimulationforthelessdevelopedborderareasofIreland,Spain,PortugalandGreece(Hansen,1983).ThenewInterregprogrammehassincededicated itsattention also to the eastern border areas of the EUmember states, such as Germany,Austria and Italy,while its mirror programme Phare was later created

8


C M Y K


C M Y K

expresslywiththeobjectiveofinternationalcooperationand modernisation of central European and easternEuropeancountriesoutsidetheEU(Ferrara,Pasi,2000).ThisfoundationhasalreadyenabledtheformationofthenewEuroregionsbetweenGermanyandPoland,andGermanyandtheCzechRepublic,whileregionalcross-borderinitiativesintheborderareasbetweenAustria,theCzechRepublic,Slovakia,HungaryandSlovenia,andinthosebetweenItalyandSloveniaremainintheirearlystages.

5. Contribution of the Slovene geography of border landscapes in cross-border cooperation study

Themostin-depthstudyconductedintheframeworkoftheresearchofindividualborderareasinSloveniaanditsneighbouringcountrieswasthatfortheNova Gorica/Gorizia border regiononbothsidesoftheItalo-Sloveneborder,whichalsointroducedarenewedmethodologyofresearchintospecificborderareas(Bufon,1994,1996b).Thisincludesfirstananalysisoftheexistingbordersintheareaandtheirmutualdependence,continuanceintime,andspatialcoursewithaspecialemphasisontheimpactsthatthenewpoliticaldelimitationhadonthe traditionally uniform regional reality and on thegradualdevelopmentofmodelsofcross-borderexchangeandcooperation.Thepermeabilityofthepoliticalborderisofgreatsignificanceandcanbemeasuredbymeansoftypologyandnumberofbordercrossings,aswellasbythemovementofcross-borderpassengertransportandpossiblyalsofreighttransportbybordersectionsand time periods. Further, it is important to analysetheregional structureoftheborderareaanddeterminethedegreeofsocio-economicaccordanceonregionalandmicroregionallevels,aswellastoevaluatetheprocessesofregionaltransformationsinrelationtothepresenceofapoliticalborder.Here,quantitativeresearchmethodsofregionalanalysisareused;however,incaseofborderregionstudiestheanalysiscoverstheborderareaonthebothsidesoftheborder,forwhichpurposethestatisticaldatausedmustfirstbeaccordinglyuniform,and theanalysismustincludeastatisticaltestoftheborderlineimpactonregionaldifferentiationandtransformation.Research of socio-cultural interconnection of borderpopulationsanddifferencesintheevaluationofone’sownaswellastheneighbouringborderarea,instead,are rather qualitative and will eventually reveal themotivationsforcross-bordermovement,itsdirectionandintensity,aswellastheextentofdifferentfunctionalandcultural cross-border areas in everyday and ordinaryperformanceofspatially-relevantsocialactivitiesoftheborder populations (Bufon, 1995). Such methodologyenablesatypologicalclassificationofaborderareaandeventuallyalsoacomparisonbetweendifferentborderareas in Slovenia and Europe.The use of analogousmethodology in the analysis of socio-cultural aspectsofborderlandscapesindicatedahighdegreeofaffinity

between the border populations of the Nova Gorica/Gorizia border region in comparison to the borderareasinnorthernandsouthernSwitzerland,whichisevidentlycausedbytherelative“newness”oftheNovaGorica/Goriziaborderregion,butalsobythepresenceofaspatiallyandsociallyactiveaswellasethnicallyhomogeneous population in its strict border zone.Analysestodatehaveshownthattheseborderareasofferaverygoodfoundationforthecreationofmutuallyintegrated social spaces and for the development ofadvancedformsofcross-bordercooperation.

Thedevelopmentofborderareasdependsonaseriesof factors, such as broad geopolitical circumstancesandadifferenthistoryofdeterminate sectionsof theborder,interstatepoliticalandeconomicrelations,borderpermeability,regionalcircumstancesandthedynamicsof socio-economic development in border areas, butalso the predisposition of the border area populationto maintain and strengthen cross-border links. Fromthisangle thedifferent sections of theborder canbeclassified by their permeability, dominant functionalelementsandothertypologicalelements.TheresearchconductedsofarinvolvingSlovenia(Bufon,1996c,2002a;Klemenčič,1976)hasshownthatinternationalfactors,suchastheincreaseofeconomicexchange,touristflowandtransittransport,combinedwithregional factorsprimarily referring to themovement ofpeople, goodsand communications within border areas, encourageall-arounddevelopmentnotonlyofindividualtransportcorridorsorbordercentres,butalsoofawiderborderarea. Different border areas along Slovene bordershaveinthiswaygrownintoveritableborderregions,althoughunlikeotherEuroregionstheyarenotbasedon institutional but rather on spontaneous forms ofcross-border integration, which are also of smallerterritorialextent.Oneof their characteristic traits isaconsiderableinfluenceoflocalfactors,whichoriginatemorefromacommonterritorialattachmentthanfromcurrentinternational-politicalandeconomicdemands.In this sense Slovene geography has discovered newdimensions of research in the application of socio-geographicmethodsinthestudyofspatialfunctionsofbordercommunities,especiallyethnicandotherregionalcommunities(Klemenčič,Bufon,1994).

Indeed, it is inexploring thespatial extentof certainrelevantsocialactivitiesnearandovertheborder,andindefiningspatialfunctionsofbordersocialgroupsthatwerecognizethemaincontributionofSlovenegeographytotheresearchofborderareas.Ithasbeenstressedthatborderareasandthecross-borderrelationshipstakingplace therein have great significance not only in thesphereofsocialandeconomicintegrationoninterstateandinterregionallevels,butalsointhepreservationofcultural featuresandthestrengtheningof interethniccoexistence and integration (Bufon, Minghi, 2000;

�


C M Y K


C M Y K

Bufon,2002b).Theelementofborderareaisespeciallypresent where there are national minorities, and inEuropeborderareaswithsuchcharacteristicsaremorethe rule thanexceptions.This iswhy it ispossible toobserveamarkedpredispositionforgreatercross-borderintegration in all those Slovene border areas wheremembers of autochthonous minorities or immigrantcommunitiesfromtheneighbouringareaspopulateatleastonesideoftheborder.Thispotentialcanthenmoreor less effectively be modified by different territorialandregionalorientationsofthesecommunities,whichoriginateinthepersistenceandpermeabilityofindividualborder sections, and also by the different degree ofprotectionanddevelopmentofminoritycommunitiesintherespectivestatesystems.AllthisisopeningaseriesofnewaspectsinborderareasthataregainingincreasinglymoreimportanceintheprocessofEuropeanintegration,eliminatingtraditionalfunctionsofpoliticalbordersandlayingthegroundsformutualunderstandingwithintheculturallydiverseEuropeanspace.

6. European regions and borderlands: where unity and diversity may coexist

Thesignificanceofplace isusuallyrelatedto individualsubjects,drawing together the realmsofnature, societyand culture. On that basis becomes evident that placecontributes not only to the understanding of self andidentity,butalsototheconstitutionofcollectiveidentitythroughterritorialitybasedcommunities.Mostoftentherelationshipsofselfandcommunitytoplaceareassociatedwith difference, particularism, and localism.Thus theassociationofplacewithparticularismandethnos, andspacewithuniversalismanddemosreflectsthecombinationoftwoquitedistinctphilosophies(Casey,1997).

These two views are also evident in discussions ofbuilding political community in the EU, in whichbothsupportersandcriticshavebeenconcernedwithits apparent lack of astrong sense of identity andpolitical community.Analysts have noted the EU’s“democratic deficit”, referring in part to the commonview of its bureaucratic or rather Eurocratic originsand its relatively weak connections to the generalpopulaceofEurope.TheEUhassoughtvariouswaystoovercomethisdeficit,suchastheimplementationofthe subsidiarity principle, which involves averticallydistributed sovereignty matching functions with theappropriate spatial scale of political community, butpublicindifferenceremainsaconcern.OftenthedebateonEuropeanpoliticalcommunityfollowsacontinuumformedbytwopoles:liberalismandcommunitarianism(Entrikin,2003).Thefirstpositionemphasizesrationalplanningandmodernization,thesecondstressessocialattachmentsandbelonging.Ontheonehandthereisspaceeconomyandconcernswithlocationandbarrierstomovementasreportedinseveralpublicationsofthe

EuropeanCommission,seekingalandofthefreeflowof people and goods, which will necessarly produceaEuropean citizenry with changeable and flexibleidentities and thin connections to place and regionalcultures.Ontheotherhandwefindculturalpluralistmodels that consider ethnic, regional, and nationalcommunities to be the locus of personal and groupattachmentsandpoliticalidentity.

The differences among these geographic conceptionsbecomemoreapparentintheconsiderationofborders.In the market model, the internal borders of Europedisappear,butanexternalborderiserectedinstead.Intheculturalpluralistmodel,thezonesofinclusionandexclusionremainclearandmarkedbyplacesofthickculturalattachments.TheborderswithinEuropechangebut overall are strengthened or made increasinglyimpermeable, and since internal borders providesan instrument for diversity, external borders becomeredundant.Onceagainonefacesthedilemmaimpliedintheoppositionofethnosanddemos:boundarieshelpto create diversity and common identity, and theireliminationrisks tocreateauniform,placelessworldwith weakly attached citizens.Apossible solution issoughtintheemergenceofoverlapping,differentiatedplaces of attachment with relatively permeableboundaries:theregions.

Of course, the process of European integration alsoconsists in creating asupranational common spaceor asort of macro-region. In away, the same processcouldbefoundduringthenationalintegrationperiod,wheninternalregionsofEuropeancountrieswereoftenmorediversethanthewholecountrieswerefromoneanother.The problem is that aEU seeking commonidentitywillhavetoprovidebothinternalcoherenceandexternalclosure,projectingthusnationalistideologyinEuropeanpubliclifeandintegration(Calhoun,2003).The alternative is not astrictly unitary but ratheroverlappingsocialandpoliticalorganizationonvariousscales,notnecessarilyboundedattheedgesofnationsornation-states.Wemustalsonotneglectthatstatesspatiality remains amajor actor, and that nationalgovernmentshavenotonlytransferredpowerdownwardbut have attempted to institutionalise competitiverelations between major subnational administrativeunitsasameanstopositionlocalandregionaleconomiesstrategicallywithinsupranational(Europeanandglobal)circuitsofcapital. Inthissense,centralgovernmentshaveattemptedtoretaincontrolovermajorsubnationalpolitical-economicspacesthroughtheproductionofnewregionalscalesofstatespatialregulation.

AsKeatingarguedinoneofhispapers(Keating,1996),newtypesofregionalismandofregionaretheproductofbothdecompositionandrecompositionoftheterritorialframeworkofpubliclife,consequentonchangesinthe

�0


C M Y K


C M Y K

state, the market and the international context. Henotedhowregionsarenotnaturalentities,butrathersocialconstructions,inagivenspace,representingtheconfluence of various economic, social and politicalprocessesinterritory.Inthisperspective,theregionalspace could be simultaneously aterritorial space,afunctionalspace,andapoliticalspace.ButitshouldbealsoclearthatthereisnoregionallevelofgovernmentinEuropeandthatregionsremaininmanypartsofEuropean“invented”categorywhichplaysonlyasporadicandpartialroleinthecontinentalarchitectureofpolitics.Insomecases,thereemergepowerfulregions,inother,large cities may constitute themselves as social andspatialactors.

Nevertheless, the European integration process hasdeeply challenged the Westphalian system as an“organizationof theworld intoterritoriallyexclusive,sovereignnation-states,eachwithaninternalmonopolyoflegitimateviolence”(Caporaso,1996).Eventhoughsuchanidealizedmodelhasneverbeencompletelyrealizedinpractice,itcontinuestodominateourthinkingaboutpolitiesandinstitutionalchangeinthenewmillennium.Infact,themostfar-reachingtransformationsbeyondtheWestphalian system have occurred in Europe,where integration is becoming embedded in awiderdiscourse on globalization and regionalization.Thedebatehasbeencenteredontwoquestions:first,doesthe EU still represent an inter-governmental regimedominated by the executives of the nation states orhas it evolved beyond such astate-centered system,openingupthequestionofstate-centricversusmulti-levelgovernance–aconceptwhichisstillinclinedtothenotionofterritoriality.Thisisparticularlythecaseofborderlandsandcross-borderregions,the“frontlines”ofterritoriallydemarcatedmodernstates(Blatter,2003).Theseareasarebeingshapedbyintensivesocioeconomicandsocioculturalinterdependenciesandarenolongeratthe“periphery”,butarequiteoftenwitnessingeconomicprosperity above the national average. Cross-bordercooperationhasbeenhelpfulnotonlyinrespecttonewandconcreteintegrationformsbetweenneighbouringstatesbutalsoinremovingtheproblemofthe“other”withintheEUspace.

Current processes in European “contact” areas areincreasingly influencing the shaping of people’spersonalities, making them“multi-lingual” and“multi-cultural”, despite the opposition of traditional “uni-national” political structures.With the abandonmentof the old demands for boundary revision, pursued byvariousnationalisticmyths,modernEuropeansocietiesareintensifyingtheireffortstoincreaseborderorrathercross-border cooperation and in this framework thespatialfunctionofnationalminoritiesisacquiringgreaterimportance.Thus,ifontheonehanditistruethatthemajorityordominantgroup,independentlyofitspolitical

attitude towards the minority, cannot deprive it of itspotentialregionalrole,thenontheotherhandtheactualimplementationofthisrolestillverymuchdependsonitsinstitutionalizationandwidersocialpromotion.Researchinvestigations in Central European border areas haveshown that the intensity of cross-border cooperationdependsaboveallon thepresenceonbothsidesof theborderofurbanizedareasandalsoofnationalminorities,togetherwithtraditionalculturalandsocialtiesonthebasis of consolidated former territorial units (Bufon,1998c).Thissituationcouldbeexplainedbytheneedforthe localpopulationtomaintainthehistoricalregionalstructure,which thevariousborder changesdestroyed,especially in the gravitational, economic, social andculturalsenses.Paradoxically,thegreatertheproblemsinthepoliticaldivisionofahomogeneousadministrative,culturalandeconomicregion,thegreateristheprobabilityfor such apolitically divided area to develop into anintegratedborderregion.Thesenewformsofcross-borderregionalismsareofparticularinterestinCentralEurope,wheretheyhavenotonlyanimportantfunctionalroleintheimplementationofsocialandeconomicintegrationattheinter-stateandinter-regionallevels,butalsointhepreservationofculturalfeaturesandthestrengtheningofinter-ethniccoexistenceandcooperation.Thisisespeciallythecaseinthoseareaswheretherearenationalminoritiesor historic cross-border regional communities present,andsuchareasaremorearulethanexceptionsnotonlyinCentralEurope.

7. Conclusion

The geography of border landscapes with its social,culturalandpoliticalaspectshasbeengainingincreasingimportanceintheprocessofthe“humanization”ofthetraditionalgeographicapproachtotheissueofpoliticaland other social and cultural borders. In addition tothe cross-border“macro” transactions between bordercommunities, “micro” transactions on the level ofborder populations and border areas in providing foreveryday vital necessities and for the transition fromconflictingtoharmoniousformsofbordercharacterarenowcomingtothefore.Sincemanysocialandeconomic“micro”transactionsarerelatedtoculturallinksamongthe border populations, and since such links remainrelativelystableevenincasesofinternationalpoliticaltransformations,itispossibletoobservetheapparentlyparadoxicalfactthattheborderareaswiththegreatestpossibilities for development into aborder region arethosewhichhaveintherecentpastovercomethegreatestproblems during the process of division of formerlyunifiedadministrative,culturalandfunctionalspaces.Asecondparadoxisthatdemandformoreintenseandinstitutionalised cross-border cooperation is actuallygreaterin“old”andperipheralborderlandscapesthaninthe“new”andurbanizedoneswhere“spontaneous”functional cross-border relations are already well

��


C M Y K


C M Y K

developed.Athirdparadoxisfoundintherelationshipbetweencross-bordercooperationandinter-communitycommunication.Ontheonehandtheincreasingcross-border cooperation helps to increase communicationbetweenbordercommunitiesandthustoreducesocialdistances, providing greater opportunities for bothsocio-economic and socio-cultural integration. On theotherhandcross-bordercooperationandintegrationarechallenging both the traditional peripheral conditionof some border areas and the established coexistencepracticesbetweenlocalandregionalgroups,whichweretypified by infrequent communication.As areaction,newformsofmicro-nationalismandotherconservativeattitudes of“self-preservation” may develop, typicallyconnected with the peripheral status of these areas(Bufon,2003).

Theseareadditionalaspectsofthestudyofcross-bordercooperationcontributedbythepost-moderngeographyofborderlandscapes.Still,thesearejuststartingpointsthat political geography should work in the effort toeventually tackle the issue of territorial behaviour ofregionalandlocalcommunitiesalongsidetheborderandtheirculturalandspatialidentitiesingreaterdepth;toextendtheresearchinterestfromthefunctionallybetterconnected areas to other border areas, and discoverthe reasons for weaker cross-border integration; tosystemizeandcorrespondresearchworkonthenewestandincreasinglyimportant‘outer’bordersectorsoftheenlarged EU, as well as on other border sections; toverifytherelationshipsbetweenthesocialandspatialsituationsnearpoliticalandvariousinternalbordersofEUmembercountries;tocarefullyreflectonthenewroleofEuropeanborderareasfromthestandpointoftheirpoliticalandeconomicgeopoliticalintegrationandthelatter’seffectoninternalregionaldevelopment.

Thus it seemsthatSlovenia–due to its sizeand theabove-mentioned research topics – might be averysuitableandconvenient“lab”forstudiesonandanalysesof border landscapes, border relationships and cross-borderintegrationincircumstancesofthepreservationofculturaldiversity,aswellasoftheirspatialimpactson“new”and“old”borderareaswithinthenewEuropanpoliticalsetting.TheexperienceofbothSlovenianandEuropean geography of borderlands shows, in fact,howimportantit is fortheEuropeanintegrationthatapracticable form to its“unity in diversity” policy befound, not only in the EU core areas but also in theoutpostsofitsenlargementstrategies,andparticularlyinperipherieswhicharecontactzonesbetweenculturalor historical environments and may represent spacesofpotentialsocialandpoliticalconflict (Bufon,1996a,2001).

Infact,thesechallengesandthenewEuropeanmodelwillbetestedandeventuallybecomeoperativeinmanyEuropean“contact”areas.Itisnotthatmuchaquestionofinternationalcontactandoforganisationoffunctionaleconomic, social, and administration hindrances incross-bordertraffic,asitisaquestionofcontactbetweendifferent nations, ethnic, and linguistic communities,and of creation of actual rules for coexistence andpreservation of cultural peculiarities.The eliminationoftheselast“borders”willimplyadefinitelynewideaofthetraditional,ethnocentricconceitandsocialbehaviourbasedontheexclusionof“others”and“different”onesrepresentedby theclassicalnationalism.Weare thusturningbackto“borders”and“territoriality”,twotermswhichreflectandclaimagainconcreteobservationsofthe„localspatialbehaviour“.Andthesearealltermsforwhich geographers in the re-integrated continent areexpectedtoprovidenewassessments.

References:BIUCCHI,B.,GAUDARD,G.(eds)(1981):Regionsfrontalieres–Grenzregionen–RegionidifrontieraSaint-Saphorin:Editions

Georgi.

BLATTER,J.K.(2003):Deborderingtheworldofstates:towardamulti-levelsysteminEuropeandamulti-politysysteminNorth

America?Insightsfromborderregions.In:BrennerN.etal.(eds):State/Space–AReader.Oxford,Blackwell,p.185-207.

BUFON,M.(1994):Perunageografiadelleareediconfine:ilcasodellaregionetransconfinariaitalo-slovenanelgoriziano.

RivistaGeograficaItaliana101,p.577-605.

BUFON,M.(1995):Metodidianalisidelleareediconfineedellerelazionitransfrontaliere–problemieprospettive.In:Quaderni

deldottoratodiricercainGeografiaPolitica5.Trieste,UniversitàdiTrieste,p.1-14.

BUFON,M.(1996a):Somepolitical-geographicalproblemsoftransitioninCentralEurope:thecaseofSlovenia.In:Carter,F.W.

etal.(eds):CentralEuropeaftertheFalloftheIronCourtain.Frankfurt,PeterLang,p.73-89.

BUFON, M. (1996b): Social integration in the Italo-Slovene border landscape – the Gorizia transborder region.TESG 3,

p.247-258.

BUFON,M.(1996c):Slovenia–aCentralEuropeanbordercountry.In:Slovenia–AGatewaytoCentralEurope.Ljubljana,

SloveneGeographicalSociety,p.42-51.

BUFON,M.(1998a):Bordersandborderlandscapes–atheoreticalassessment.In:Koter,M.,Heffner,K.(eds):Borderlandsor

TransborderRegions–Geographical,SocialandPoliticalProblems.Opole/Lodz,p.7-14.

�2


C M Y K


C M Y K

BUFON,M.(1998b):Leregionitransfrontalierenelprocessodiunificazioneeuropea.In:Bonavero,P.,Dansero,E.(eds):L‘Europa

delleregioniedellereti.Torino,Utet,p.126-142.

BUFON,M.(1998c):Nationalismandglobalization:aCentralEuropeanperspective.Annales12,Koper,p.7-14.

BUFON,M.(2001):Fromgeopoliticstopoliticalgeography:thenewEuropeanchallenge.In:Antonsich,M.,Kolossov,V.,Pagnini,

M.P.(eds):EuropebetweenPoliticalGeographyandGeopolitics.Roma,SocietàGeograficaItaliana,p.335-346.

BUFON,M.(2002a):Slovenia–aEuropeancontactandborderarea.Annales11,Koper,p.445-472.

BUFON,M.(2002b):Confini,identitàedintegrazione–nuoveprospettiveperl’AltoAdriatico.Trieste,SLORI,261pp.

BUFON,M.(2003):Cross-bordercooperationintheUpperAdriatic.In:Anderson,J.,O’Dowd,L.,Wilson,T.M.(eds):NewBorders

foraNewEurope.London,FrankCass,p.177-196.

BUFON,M.,MINGHI,J.(2000):TheUpperAdriaticborderland–fromconflicttoharmony.GeoJournalVol.52,p.119-127.

CALHOUN,C.(2003):ThedemocraticintegrationofEurope.In:Berezin,M.,Schain,M.(eds):EuropewithoutBorders.Baltimore,

TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,p.243-274.

CAPORASO,J.A.(1996):TheEuropeanUnionandformsofstate:Westphalian,regulatoryorpost-modern?JournalofCommon

MarketStudiesVol.34,p.29-51.

CASEY,E.S.(1997):TheFateofPlace:APhilosophicalHistory.Berkeley,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,495pp.

ENTRIKIN,J.N.(2003):Politicalcommunity,identity,andcosmopolitanplace.In:Berezin,M.,Schain,M.(eds):Europewithout

Borders.Baltimore,TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,p.51-85.

ERCMANN,S. (ed.) (1987):Cross-BorderRelations–EuropeanandNorthAmericanPerspectives.SchweizerStudienzum

InternationalerRecht–EtudesSuissesdeDroitInternationale49,Zürich.

FERRARA,W.,PASI,P.(2000):Comefunzionanoleeuroregioni–esplorazioneinsettecasi.Gorizia,ISIG.

GABBE,J.(1983):DieEUREGIO–deutsch-niederländischeZusammenarbeitaufkommunalerEbene.In:Regionalismusin

Europa.München.

GALLUSSER,W.A.(1981):GrenzeundKulturlandschaft.Basel,RegioBasiliensis22/23.

GALLUSSER,W.A.(ed.)(1994):PoliticalBoundariesandCoexistence.Bern,PeterLang,449pp.

GUICHONNET,P.,RAFFESTIN,C.(1974):Geographiedesfrontieres.Paris.

GUICHONNET,P.(1988):LafrontieredanslesAlpes.In:L‘EffetfrontieredanslesAlpesI.Valléed‘Aoste,p.8-27.

HANSEN,N.(1983):Internationalcooperationinborderregions–anoverviewandresearchagenda.In:InternationalRegional

ScienceReview3,London.

HOUSE,J.W.(1981):Frontierstudies–anappliedapproach.In:Burnett,A.D.,Taylor,P.J.(eds):PoliticalStudiesfromSpatial

Perspectives.NewYork,Wiley,p.291-312.

KEATING,M.(1996):Theinventionofregions:politicalrestructuringandterritorialgovernmentinWesternEurope.In:Working

paperforARENA(AdvancedResearchontheEuropeanisationoftheNation-state).

KLEMENČIČ,V.(1976):Theopenborderandborderregionsasanewregional-geographicalphenomenon.In:Regionalnaja

Geografija.Moscow.

KLEMENČIČ,V.,BUFON,M. (1994):Culturalelementsof integrationandtransformationofborderregions– thecaseof

Slovenia.PoliticalGeographyVol.13,p.73-83.

MAIER, J., DITTMEIR,V. (1997): Strukturwandel oder Strukturbruch im Grenzraum – Bevölkerungs- undWirtschafts-

veraenderungenimBayerischenundBöhmischenGrenzland.In:Socialnogeografskiproblemi:posvečeno70.letniciprofesorja

VladimirjaKlemenčiča.Dela12.Ljubljana,UniversityofLjubljana.

MINGHI,J.V.(1963):Boundarystudiesinpoliticalgeography.Annals53.Washington,p.407-428.

PERPILLOU,A.V.(1966):HumanGeography.London,522pp.

POULANTZAS,N.(1978):State,Power,Socialism.London,NewLeftBooks,265pp.

PRESCOTT,J.R.V.(1965):TheGeographyofFrontiersandBoundaries.London,Hutchinson,192pp.

PRESCOTT,J.R.V.(1987):PoliticalFrontiersandBoundaries.London,AllenandUnwin,p.58-135.

RICQ,C.(1970):Lesrégionsfrontalièresàl‘heureduMarchécommun.Bruxelles.

ROKKAN,S.,URWIN,D.W.(1983):Economy,Territory,Identity.BeverlyHills,Sage,217pp.

RUMLEY,D.,MINGHI,J.V.(1991):TheGeographyofBorderLandscapes(eds).London,Routledge,352pp.

STRASSOLDO,R.(ed.)(1973):ConfinieregioniTrieste,Lint.

STRASSOLDO,R.,DELLIZOTTI,G.(eds)(1982):CooperationandConflictinBorderAreasMilano,Angeli.

��


C M Y K


C M Y K

Author´s address:

Prof.Dr.MilanBUFONUniversityofPrimorska,DepartmentofGeography,FacultyofHumanities,Gariabaldijeva1,6000Koper,Sloveniae-mail:[email protected]

Reviewer:

Prof.Ing.ZdeněkŠREIN,DrSc.

��


C M Y K


C M Y K

EUROREGIONS IN POLAND

WaldemarGORZYM-WILKOWSKI

Abstract

Euroregions along the Polish borders have been formed since the early 1990s. At present there are seventeen of them, formed along the whole Polish land border. As far as the Polish side is concerned, Euroregions usually consist of council unions. The activity of the Euroregions involves cross-border integration, as well as socioeconomic development in the broadest sense of the word. Main barriers to the efficient activity of Euroregions are financial restrictions. Additionally, in the east of Poland there are difficulties with passing the border, as it is simultaneously the eastern border of the European Union.

Shrnutí

Euroregiony v Polsku

Euroregiony podél polských hranic se vytvářely od počátku devadesátých let minulého století. V současnosti činí jejich celkový počet sedmnáct a nacházejí se podél celé státní hranice Polska. V případě polské strany se euroregiony obvykle skládají ze svazů obcí. Činnost euroregionů se týká přeshraniční integrace i socio-ekonomického vývoje v nejširším slova smyslu. Hlavními překážkami pro efektivní činnost euroregionů jsou finanční omezení. Kromě toho se na východě Polska objevují problémy s přechodem hranice, neboť se současně jedná o východní hranici Evropské Unie.

Key words: Poland, euroregions, cross-border regions, cross-border integration

1. Theoretical background

The end of the 20th century brought numerous signsoftheprogressingtransnationalintegrationonsocial,economicandpoliticallevels.Theintegrationwasofbothnational,regionalandevenlocalcharacterandextent.Most of phenomena connected with the integrationwerespontaneous(automatic).Theyrepresentedoneoftheeffectsofchangesoccurringwithinthestructureofworldeconomy,evokedbythetechnologicalrevolutionand by the accompanying changes in the value anddistributionofgoodsandservicesaswellaslabourandcapital resources.Theabovementionedprocessesareoftendescribedasglobalization.Thepoliticalliberation,and the resulting socio-economic liberation occurringin theEasternandCentralEurope in the1980sand1990s were essential impulses for the multi-aspectintegrationtakingplaceonvariousspatialscales.Duetotheincreasedlevelofliberty,thesocialandeconomiclifeofcountriesinthispartofEuropecouldfollowthestepsmadebythesocietiesofWesternEurope,wherethemechanismsofinternationalintegrationhavebeentakingdozensofyears.Moreover,anumberofsignsoftheinternationalintegrationresultedfromtheconsciousstimulation on the part of public authorities.Thestimulationwasconductedbytheadministrativeunitsofparticularcountries(central,regionalandevenlocal)andbytheEUinstitutions.

Thestructuresdefinedas“euroregions”playanimportantroleintheintegrationatregionalandlocallevels.Thetermof“Euroregion”isusedinterchangeablywithothertermssuchas“trans-borderregion”or“borderregion”.IthasbeenusedintheEuropean(alsoinPolish)geographicliterature for along time. However, it is mainly usedin political and commentary publications, especiallywith reference to concrete spatial and organizationalstructures. In their general sense, the concepts of“euro-region”or“trans-borderregion”arestilldefinedambiguously. It is striking that abasic documentconcerningthetrans-borderintegrationinEurope–“theMadridCard”,i.e.theEuropeanFrameworkConventionaboutthetrans–bordercooperationadoptedundertheauspices of the Council of Europe in Madrid in 1980(Europejska Konwencja…, 1993) – does not provideadirect and clear definition of the above mentionedconcepts.Thus,itmeansthatthetermsof“euro-region”and“trans-borderregion”canbeunderstoodasdiversestructures, even if they do not constitute economicregionsintheirstrictsense.

Themostreliable,atleastinpoliticalterms,publicationsoftheCouncilofEurope(e.g.HandbookonTransfrontierCooperation…, 1995) use arather broad definitionof atrans-boundary region (formulated by D. deRougemont,1978).Accordingtothisdefinition,atrans-

�5


C M Y K


C M Y K

boundary region is apotential region which canbe treated as awhole geographically, historically,ecologically, nationally, economically, etc.The region,however,issimultaneouslydividedbyapoliticalborderintoareassubordinatedtodifferentstateauthorities.TheabovedefinitionisclearlybroaderthanthepreviousdefinitionbyN.M.Hansen(1977),accordingtowhichatrans-boundaryregionisahubregionwhosecenteristobeaborderlinecityspreadingitsinfluencetobothsides of the border.Thus, atrans-boundary region ismainly understood as a“region of intervention” (seee.g.B.Kayser,1966),whosefunctioningisstillmeanttoleadtothepossibleriseofanintegratedspatialsocio-economicstructurecomprisingtheareasdividedbythepoliticalborder.Suchanunderstandingofeuroregionhastocauseanecessityofestablishingbothanentitywhichwouldstimulatethecross-borderintegrationandthe structure that would beatool of the integration.Therefore,euroregionsarecommonlyunderstoodtobeonly formal structures (e.g. unions of municipalities)created for the needs of trans-boundary cooperationbylocalandregionalauthorities,sometimesalsowiththehelpofeconomicandsocialinstitutions(Gabbe,v.Malchus,1995).

In the Polish geographic literature there are clearlyreflected two (obviously closely interconnected) waysoftrans-boundaryregionunderstanding.Oneofthesetrends, being of arather geographic character (e. g.Mazurkiewicz,1993),considersaregionofthistypetobeastructurallynewkindofeconomicregion,namelyan integrated or integrating group of hub regions,whichformsaroundasmanyregionalcentersastherearecountriesinwhoseterritoriesthetrans-boundaryregion spreads.The other trend emphasizes ratherthe institutional aspects of trans-boundary regions–describedinthisrespectmoreoftenas“Euroregions”(e.g.Eberhardt,1996).

2. Premises of forming Euroregions along Polish borders

Thebeginnings of the cross-border cooperationwiththe participation of Poland date back to the turnof the 1980s and 1990s. It became possible mainlythanks to transformations takingplaceat that timein Poland and in the whole Central and EasternEurope.These transformations brought social andeconomic liberties and permeable political borders.The fact that Poland increasingly aspired to enterthesupranationalstructuresofWesternEuropewasacontributing factor in the establishment of trans-boundarystructures.On16thDecember1991PolandsignedaEuropeanAgreement–abouttheassociationwith European Communities. One of the resultsof signing this agreement was Poland’s joining theEuropean Charter onTerritorial Self-Government,which obliged the countries-signatories to respect

amongothertherightofself-governingcommunitiesto international cooperation. On 19th January 1993Poland also joined the above mentioned EuropeanFrameworkConventionofCross-BorderCooperationbetween Communities and Territorial Authorities(“the Madrid Charter”). Simultaneously, the Polishgovernmentsignedanumberofagreementswiththeauthoritiesofneighbouringcountriesoninterregionalandcross-bordercooperation.Therealsoaroseunitswithin the central administration which were tosupportandcoordinatelowerrankinitiativesintermsof trans-boundary contacts. The above mentionedpolitical activities createdalegal framework for theactivity of local and regional authorities in relationto trans-boundary contacts.They also allowed theparticipantsofsuchcontactstousetheEuropeanUnionresourcesdesignedforinvestmentsandotherformsofactivitiesasrealizedbythePolishparticipantsofthecooperationtogetherwiththepartnersfromtheothersideoftheborder.

Poland,againstthebackgroundofothercountriesofthispartofEurope,hasexceptionallystronghistoricalmotivation towards the development of cross-bordercooperation.Mostof its current3,050km longstateborderwasestablishedinthe20thcentury.Attheturnof the 19th and 20th centuries only alittle above thecurrent700kmlongPolishstateborderwasapoliticalfrontier(betweenGermanyandAustria-Hungary).Asmanyasover1,700kmofstateborderweremarkedout after World War II – the whole border withGermany,Russia,BelorussiaandUkraine.Thesearestatebordersofasubsequentcharacter.Theircurrentshapecutsthroughspatialstructuresexistingforages:hubregions,transportationnetworksandsometimesevensingleurbancentres.Asaresult,(mainlyattheeastern border) the Polish population settlementsfunctionbeyondthePolishbordersandminoritiesofneighbouring nationals live within the borderline ofPoland.

Such adistribution of state borders and the factthatformanyyearstheyweretotallyregionallyandlocally impenetrable had to result in the fact thatareas situated near the borderline were affected byanumberofaspectsconnectedwithsocialandeconomicnegligence.Mostofborderlineareashavealowerindexof gross domestic product per capita and ahigherunemployment rate. Almost all these regions areaffectedbythenegativemigrationbalance.Itmeansundoubtedlythatinhabitantsoftheseregionsdonotperceive them as places ensuring appropriate livingconditions.Insuchasituationitisobviousthatregionalpublicauthoritiestriedtousethisfactasafactorwhichcouldstimulatesocialandeconomicdevelopmentfromthemomentwhenthestateborderpermeabilitystarted

��


C M Y K


C M Y K

toincrease.Establishingeuroregionswastobeoneoftoolsstimulatingthedevelopment.

3. Character and structure of euroregions

Thefirsteuroregion(Nysa)wasestablishedwithPoland’sparticipation at the end of 1991. Its establishmentwasoneof the consequences of theabsorptionof theGermanDemocraticRepublicbytheFederalGermanRepublic.The newly created structures of the unioncounties(lands)ofEastGermanysubmittedproposalsconcerning the management, the rearrangement andtheputtingintoorderofthelowerOdraRiverregion,severely affected by adozens-of-years long hermeticborderdivision.Othereuroregionsbegantorisein1993.Duringthenext6years(upto1998)therewerecreatedasmanyas12Euroregions,i.e.themajorityofcurrentlyfunctioningstructuresofthiskind.

Fromtheverybeginning,euroregionsestablishedalongtheeasternborderdifferedsignificantlyfromthosealongthesouthernborderline,andespeciallyfromthoseatthewesternborder.Thesignatoriesofwesternandsoutherneuroregions were mostly town or gmina (commune)authorities(atthattime–i.e.until1998–constitutingthe only level of self-government in Poland).At theeastern border the signatories of the agreements onestablishingeuroregionsweregenerallytheauthoritiesof the then government voyevodships (similarly thepublicadministrationwasrepresentedbysignatoriesonthepartofUkraineandBelorussia).ItlargelyresultedfromhistoricaldifferencesintheshapeofthesettlementpatternbetweenparticularpartsofPoland.ThenetworkoftownsintheeasternpartofPolandisquitescarce.Besides, very few large citiesare situated inadirectvicinityofthestateborderline.Therefore,cross-bordercontactsintheEasthadtobeundertakenonaregionallevel(voyevodshiplevel).Asaconsequence,thespatialshapeandtheareasizeofeuroregionsdevelopingalongthe eastern borderline were from the very beginningsignificantly larger than structures of the same typecreatedalongotherborders.

Since the beginning of 1999, there has been anewadministrativedivisioninPoland,connectedwiththefunctioningofthenexttwo(apartfromgminas)levelsoflocalself-governmentofcountiesandvoyevodships.Instead of the previous 49 small voyevodships ofagovernment character, there are currently 16large voyevodships of amixed government and self-government status.They are divided into over 300counties (and several dozens of cities excluded fromcounties), and the counties are in turn divided intogminas(someofwhichhaveastatusofcities).Thenewterritorialandpoliticalorderhasinfluencedtheareasandorganizationalcharacterofanumberofpreviouslyestablishedeuroregions.Fromamongtheirsignatories

the voyevodship governors withdrew and becamereplacedbythenewlycreatedvoyevodshipandcounty(Polish“powiat”–asecondaryleveloftheadministrativedivision)self-governments.Inrelationtothis,boundariesofthePolishpartsofeuroregionswereadjustedtotheboudariesofthenewvoyevodshipsorcounties.

After1998,afewmoreeuroregionswerecreated.Besides,quiteauniformpoliticalandorganizationalstructureofthemajorityofthemwasformed.Euroregionsastheinstitutionsfunctioninginacoupleofstatelegalareasdonothavelegalautonomy.Theirgovernmentalstructuresarecreatedaccordingtotheprincipleofparity,bytheentitiesfunctioningwithinthelegalsystemsofparticularstates.InmosteuroregionscommunalunionsfunctionastheentitiesofPolishlawappointedbyself-govermentswhich declared their participation in aparticulareuroregion.These communal unions in turn appointtheirrepresentativestocommonunitsofaeuroregion.Only inacouple of small euroregions (e.g.Tatry) theself-governmentsdirectlydelegatetheirrepresentativestocommonunits.Theunitsareofthesametypeinmostoftheeuroregions.Themostimportantbodyisasarule,thecouncil(consistingoftoprankrepresentativesofthesignatories)whosetaskistodeterminethedirectionsofthedevelopmentofaeuroregionandtocoordinatethework of all its units.The council supervises workinggroups (commissions) which are of an expert andconsultingcharacter.Thegroupsdealwiththeissueswhichareofprimeimportanceforthedevelopmentofaparticulareuroregionand for theprogressof cross-borderintegration.Theissuesmainlyconcerneconomy,transportationandbordercheckpoints,environmentalprotection,youthandspatialplanning.Inmostoftheeuroregionstherearealsoauditingcommissionswhosetaskistocontroltheadequacyoffinancialmanagementandeconomy.Boththecouncilandtheabovementionedbodies are units that meet only every certain time.Normallyitisthesecretariatsthatmanagetheworkof most euroregions.As arule, every domestic part(thereforealsothePolishpart)hasitsownsecretariat.

Thereiscurrentlyatotalof17euroregionsfunctioningatthePolishborder,asshowninTab.1andFig.1below.Mostofthemshowsignificantactivities.However,someofthemrunonlyverylimitedactivitiesorarestillattheirorganizationalstage(e.g.theDobravaeuroregion,thestatusofwhichhasnotbeenformalizedyet).

4. Subject and rules of cross-border cooperation

The circumstances behind the rise of particulareuroregions were (at least in the sphere of politicaldeclarations)quitesimilar.Soare,asdeclaredbythem,their activity aims and trans-boundary cooperationareas.Themostfrequentlymentionedaimsareaboveall:

�7


C M Y K


C M Y K

- eliminating or lessening the problems connectedwith the functioning of state borders (openingnew border checkouts, developing borderlineinfrastructure, simplifying procedures for thepopulationofborderlandareas,etc.),

- alleviating barriers between the populations ofparticular nationalities inaeuroregion, resultingfromhistorical,culturalandlanguageconditions,

- protectingandimprovingvirtuesoftheenvironment– especially its components which can cause thetouristattractivenessofaeuroregiontogrow,

- overcomingthesocialandeconomicnegligenceoftheareasofeuroregions,mainlythroughtheireconomicandtouristpromotion,

- forming awareness and attitudes of children andyouth towards their integration with their peersfromtheothersideoftheborder,

- fightingnaturaldisastersortheirconsequences.

Rising external resources for financing mutualundertakings is aspecific aim of the activity of theeuroregionsoperatingat thePolishborders,and it iscommonpracticallyforallthestructuresofthistype.TheabovementionedresourcescomefromthebudgetoftheEuropeanUnionthattreatseuroregionsasoneofkeymechanismscreatingneweconomicandpoliticalrealitiesinEurope.

So far the practical forms of euroregions’ activitieshave varied quite significantly. Dominating activitieswere rather of a“soft” character. In the second halfofthe1990sandatthebeginninigofthe21stcentury,theeuroregions realizede.g. joint touristoreconomicpromotional activities.The structures of euroregionsworked out or coordinated thepreparation ofmutualprogramsorstrategiesofsocialandeconomic(sometimesalso spatial) development. They issued numerouscommon multi-language materials promoting thetouristvirtuesofparticulareuroregions.At the sametime, systems (networks)were createdwhichwere toensure the cooperation of tourist agencies and firmsoperatingonbothsidesoftheborder.Someeuroregionsjointlyorganisedeconomicfairsandexhibitions–bothwithintheirterritoriesandoutsidethem.Therewasalsoanumberofcross-borderculturalevents–mainlytakingadvantageoffolktraditionsinaparticulareuroregion.Theworkwithyoungpeopleconsistedmainlyinholidaystudentexchangeprogramsandmeetingsofstudentsfromschoolsofdifferentlevels.Evenafewkindergartensandschoolswereestablishedtobeattendedbychildrenfromtheborderlinegminasattend.Thefunctioningofeuroregions facilitates thecooperationofuniversities,which(aswasinthecaseoftheEuroregionofNysa)leadtocommoncurriculaofsomeMAmajors.

Name (in Polish)Date of estabilish-

ment

Memebership coun-tries

(except Poland)

Area (thousand km2)Population (millions)

31.12.2003

totalPolish part

totalPolish part

Pomerania 15.12.1995 Germany,Sweden 44.0 21.6 3.6 1.7

ProEuropaViadrina 21.12.1993 Germany 10.6 6.1 0.8 0.4

Sprewa-Nysa-Bóbr 21.09.1993 Germany 10.7 8.9 0.9 0.7

Nysa 21.12.1991Germany,CzechRepublic

11.4 5.6 1.5 0.6

Dobrawa 25.01.2001 CzechRepublic • • • •

Glacensis 05.12.1996 CzechRepublic 5.0 2.9 1.0 0.5

Pradziad 02.07.1997 CzechRepublic 5.0 3.2 0.7 0.5

Silesia 20.09.1998 CzechRepublic 2.7 1.5 0.5 0.3

ŚląskCieszyński 22.04.1998 CzechRepublic 1.6 1.0 0.6 0.3

Beskidy 09.06.2000 CzechRepublic,Slovakia 5.1 2.4 1.0 0.6

Tatry 26.08.1994 Slovakia 10.1 4.6 1.1 0.6

Karpacki 14.02.1993Slovakia,Hungary,Romania,Ukraine

161.2 17.9 15.7 2.1

Bug 29.09.1995 Belorussia,Ukraine 80.9 25.1 4.9 2.2

PuszczaBiałowieska 25.05.2002 Belorussia 8.0 2.1 0.2 0.1

Niemen 06.06.1997Belorussia,Lithuania,Russia

89.3 20.7 4.8 1.2

Bałtyk 22.02.1998Lithuania,Russia,Latvia,Denmark,Sweden

101.0 42.5 5.9 3.6

Łyna-Ława 04.09.2003 Russia • • • •

Table 1: Euroregions at the Polish borderlineSource: Euroregiony na granicach Polski....2004, and own information of the author

�8


C M Y K


C M Y K

Concrete investment activities connected with thetransformation of the management and developmentconditionsconstitutedonlyasmallpartoftheactivitiesofeuroregionalstructures.Itwasgenerallycausedbyahighcostof thiskindofundertakings.At thesametime,theeuroregionsandtheself-governmentsastheirparticipantshadusuallyaverypoorfinancialpotential.Hence,mostofinvestmentswererealizedusingexternalresources.Therefore, euroregions often lobbed thegovernmentsofparticularcountriestoallocatecertainfundsforinvestmentsessentialforthedevelopmentandintegrationoftheborderlineareas.Inrecentyears,thislobbyingcontributedtomodernesomebordercrossings,creating afew new ones, improving the technologicalconditionandcapacityofroadsleadingtotheborders.

Theeffectivenessoftheactivitiesofparticulareuroregionsand their influence on the factual developing of theborderlandareaandonlesseningthenegativeeffectsofstatebordersvariessignificantly.Theimprovementof the condition of the borderline transportationinfrastructureundoubtedlybroughtaboutsomeresultsforthefunctioningandintegrationoftheregionalsocialandeconomicspace.Activitiesofapromotionalorsocialcharactercanbeeffectiveonlyafteralongerperiodoftime.Insomecasesthestructuresofeuroregionswerehelpfulinfightingnaturaldisasters–e.g.in1997atthePolish-CzechborderandatthePolish-Germanborder.However,itisgenerallyobservedthatthefunctioningof euroregions does not have adefinite influence onthe rateand trendsof thedevelopmentof thePolishborderland areas.Today practically almost all Polish

Ľvov

Fig. 1: Euroregions with Polish participationSource: Euroregiony na granicach Polski....2004, and own information of the author

��


C M Y K


C M Y K

gminas situated in the neighbourhood or vicinity ofthe state border are within the area of aeuroregion(sometimes even two of them). Despite that, alargerpartofthesegminashaveasignificantlylowerlevelandrateofdevelopmentthancentresandareasatamorefavourablegeographicallocation.

5. Barriers to the development of Euroregions

There is anumber of factors limiting the influence oftrans-boundarystructuresontothelifeintheborderlandarea. Financial limitations are the basic problem.As aconsequence, anumber of euroregions and self-governmentsastheirparticipantsconsideritobviousthatmostoftheactivityshouldbefinancedfromgovernmentorEuropeanresources.Thisideawasoftenreflectedinfacts.InthewesternborderlandareaalleuroregionsusedtheEUfundsanumberoftimes.Amongotherthings,theyparticipatedinthesubsequenteditionsofINTERREG,PHARECBCprogramsand,tillthelatenineties,alsoofPHARECREDO.Intheotherborderlandareas,especiallyattheeasternborder,theuseofEUfundswasofasmallerextent. It reflected negatively in the effectiveness ofactivities of the already existing here euroregions. Italso has abad influence on the very possibility of thefunctioningofsuchstructures.ForexampletheKarpackiEuroregionpracticallysuspendeditsactivityintheperiodwhenitdidnothavefinancefromoutside.

ThedependenceonresourcesfromoutsideaffectsalsothecontinuouschangeabilityoftheterritorialstructureofthePolishpartoftheeuroregionsandtheirmembership.Alotof Polish gminas, and especially counties (particularlyfinanciallyweakself-governmnents)entereuroregionsinhopetoobtainadditionalfinancialmeans.Inasituationwhensuchmeansdonotappear(itisalsonecessarytopaythemembershipfees),anumberofself-governmentsdropoutoftheassociationswhichconstitutethePolishpartsofeuroregions.

There isaconsiderableproblemhamperingtheproperfunctioning of euroregions. It consists in the fact thatterritorialdivisions,politicalsystemsandtherightsoftherespectiveadministrativeunitsofvariouslevelsintheneighbouringcountriesaredifferentthaninPoland.Moreover, those countrieshavealsodifferentfinancialabilities. It isafactorwhich limits theperspectives ofundertakingmutualactivities.

Inthecaseofeuroregionslargerinsize,therearespatialbarriers of cooperation.These barriers are of naturalcharacter(relief,patternoflargerivers)andantropogenic(especiallytheinsufficientnumberofproperroadsorthelack of asufficient number of bridges over borderlinerivers).Theseproblemsaffectanumberofeuroregionsinadifferentway.However,theyconcernmainlythose

thataresituatedalongtheeasternPolishstateborder(Karpacki,Bug,Niemen).

TheprocessesofEuropeanintegrationaffectinadifferentway the functioning of euroregions situated alongdifferent borders.Poland entered theEuropeanUnionon 1st May 2004.At the same time, EU was joinedby the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Lithuania.Themembershipofthesecountries(togetherwiththeolderoneofGermany)significantlyeasedthecontactbetweentheir institutionsandinhabitants–especiallyon localandregionallevels.Thus,itbecameafactorundoubtedlystimulatingthetrans-boundaryintegration.Atthesametime,however, togetherwithPoland’s enteringEU, itseasternstateborderbecametheouterborderofEU.ItforcedthePolishgovernmenttocreateanumberofformalandlegalbarrierspreventinganuncontrolledinflowofpeopleandgoods.Amongotherthings,Polandintroduced,notobligatorybefore,visasforthecitizensofBelorussiaandUkrainewhowanted to come toPoland.Visas forPolishcitizenswerealsointroducedbyBelorussia.ThesedecisionssignificantlylimitedthecrossingofthePolisheastern border and greatly decreased the intensity ofeverydaycontactsamongtheinhabitantsoftheborderlineareas of all neighbouring countries.As aresult, theintensityofactivitiesdevelopedbyexistinghereeuregionsdecreased,too.

In the case of euroregions situated at the Polish-Belorussianborder(Bug,PuszczaBialowieska,Niemen)anotherfactorlimitingtheiractivityconsistsinconflictsbetweenthegovernmentsofthetwocountries,concernthetreatmentofPolishnationalminorityinBelorussia.

Itisprobablynotpossibletodeterminetheperspectivesof development of euroregions existing at the Polishborders.ItseemsthattheeuroregionsattheborderwithGermany,theCzechRepublicandtosomeextentwithSlovakiahavethegreatestchanceofplayinganimportantandpositiveroleinthefuture.Firstofall,theyfunctioninacontributingpoliticalenvironmentfacilitatingtrans-boundarycontactsandpromisingtosupporttheiractivityfromtheoutside.Moreover,theycompriserelativelysmallareas.Therefore, they concentrate their activities onlocalproblemswhichareofkeyimportanceforthelifeoftheirinhabitants.Besides,thesmallterritoriesofaveryoften common historical and geographic backgroundmakeitpossibletorelativelyquicklyfosterthefeelingofcommunityamongtheinhabitantsofthedomesticpartsoftheseeuroregions.

Most of the above possibilities do not concern theeuroregionssituatedintheEast,mostlyattheborderswithcountriesnotbelongingintheEuropeanUnionandofalowlevelofeconomicdevelopment.Theirsituationandabilitytooperateareandwillprobablybelessfavourable.Moreover,asignificantgeographicdifferentiationandpoor

20


C M Y K


C M Y K

domestictransportationconnectionsoftheeuroregionsdo not promise rapid economic and social integrationprocesses.However,realmechanismsofthefunctioningofeuroregionsaresocomplicatedanddependentonsomanyfactorsthatyoucannotevenintheleastnegatethelegitimacyoftheexistenceofsuchstructures.Moreover,itseemsthatitisbecauseofthenumerousbarriersthattheeuroregionsoperatingattheeasternbordershouldbeespeciallysupported.Theareastheyaresituatedin,mainlyduetotheirlocationonthemapofEurope,theirhistoryandeconomicsignificance,deservetodevelopandovercomethefrontierswhichdividethem.

6. Conclusion

EuroregionsatPolishbordersareoneoftheeffectsofthepoliticalandeconomictransformationfromtheturnofthe1980sand1990s.Since1991,therehavebeenestablished17EuroregionswhoseareaslinethewholestateborderofPoland.Theeuroregionsdonotpossesalegalpersonality.Therefore,localgovernmentunitsoperatethemontheirbehalf.Theyconsistofrepresentativesfromtheconcernedgminas, countiesandvoyevodshipself-governments.As

theeuroregionsdeclarethem,theaimsoftheiractivitiesareusuallyconnectedwiththetrans-boundaryintegrationandwiththesocialandeconomicdevelopmentofborderlineareas.Their concerns comprise the issues of economy,tourism, environmentalprotection, culture, education,bordercheckoutsandtransportationinfrastructureaswellasspatialplanning.Therangeofeuroregions’activitiesis limitedby insufficientfinancialmeans.Anumberofundertakingsrealizedbytheeuroregions isfinancedbythegovernmentsorbytheEuropeanUnion.Thebarrierstotheireffectiveactivityarealsolegalandpoliticaldifferencesamong the respective countries, poor transportationconnections,andattheeasternborder–alsoalargesizeoftheareasconstitutingtherespectiveeuroregionsandthefactthattheeasternstateborderofPolandisalsotheoutsideboundaryof theEuropeanUnion.Itseemsthateuroregionsat theeasternand southernbordershavebetterchancesofplayingapositiveroleinthefuture.Theyareofasmallersizeandatthesametimetheyhavebetterchancesof rising funds for theiractivities.Euroregionssituatedattheeasternbordershouldbeactivelysupportedsothattheycouldcomeuptotheeconomicandpoliticalneedsofthearea.

References:EBERHARDT,P.(1996):ProblematykaregionówtransgranicznychnawschodnimpograniczuPolski.PrzeglądGeograficzny.

Vol.68,No.1-2,p.41-55.

Europejskakonwencjaramowaowspółpracytransgranicznejmiędzywspólnotamiiwładzamiterytorialnymi.DziennikUstaw

1993,No.61,pos.287.

EuroregionynagranicachPolski2003,2004.WojewódzkiUrządStatystyczny.Wrocław,354pp.

GABBE,J.,MALCHUS,V.FRHRVON(1995):EuropeanModelsofInter-regionalandCross-borderCooperation.BiuroStudiów

iAnalizSenatu,14pp.

Handbookontransfrontierco-operationforlocalandregionalauthoritiesinEurope.1995.CouncilofEurope.Strasbourg,160pp.

HANSEN,N.M.(1977):Bordersregions:acritiqueofspatialtheoryandanEuropeancasestudy.AnnalsofRegionalScience,

No.11,p.1-14.

KAYSER, B. (1966): Les divisions de l’espace géographique dans les pays sous-développés.Annales de Géographie. Paris,

Vol.42,p.686-697.

MAZURKIEWICZ,L.(1993):Regiontransgraniczny-nowepojęcieteoriiregionugeograficznego.In:BiuletynNo.2programu

„PodstawyrozwojuzachodnichiwschodnichobszarówprzygranicznychPolski”.IGiPZPAN,Warszawa,p.227-240.

ROUGEMONT,D.de(1978):L’AvenirestNotreAffaire.Stock,Paris,375.pp.

Authors’ addresses:

Dr.WaldemarGORZYM-WILKOWSKIMariaCurie-SkłodowskaUniversityinLublinDepartmentofSocialgeographyDept.ofGeographyAl.Kraśnicka2cd.20-718Lublin,Polande-mail:[email protected]

Rewiewer:

RNDr.JaroslavMARYÁŠ,CSc.

2�


C M Y K


C M Y K

DEVELOPMENT OF CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION

AND CREATION OF EUROREGIONS

IN THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

MariánHALÁS

Abstract

Cross-border cooperation, which has existed in Western Europe since the 1950s, has developed in Central and Eastern Europe only after 1990. This paper provides basic information about the development of cross-border cooperation and the formation of Euroregions in the Slovak Republic. This process is at the stage of formation and institutionalisation, due to legislative obstacles. The stage of realising concrete forms of cooperation can begin only after the stabilization of new regional self-government. The spatial differentiation and regionalization of Slovak border regions is accounted for, in this study, primarily by the relations between the given territory to that on the other side of the State border.

Shrnutí

Vývoj přeshraniční spolupráce a formování euroregionů na území Slovenské republiky

Přeshraniční spolupráce, která v příhraničních regionech států západní Evropy funguje už od 50. let 20. století, se ve střední a východní Evropě začala rozvíjet až po roce 1990. Cílem příspěvku je poskytnout základní informace o vývoji přeshraniční spolupráce a o vzniku a formování euroregionů zasahujících na území Slovenské republiky. Kvůli legislativním překážkám je tento proces v přechodu mezi institucionalizační a realizační fází; plnohodnotá realizační fáze v pravém slova smyslu se může naplňovat až po stabilizaci funkcí a pozic nově vytvořených regionálních samospráv. Příspěvek se zároveň pokouší přiblížit stručnou prostorovou diferenciaci a regionalizaci příhraničních regionů Slovenska, která vychází především ze vztahu příslušných příhraničních regionů s územím z druhé strany státní hranice.

Key words: Cross-border cooperation (CBC), euroregion, Slovak Republic, regional self-government, Phare CBC, Interreg

Introduction

The position of border regions is one of the mostsignificant limiting elements in their development.This development is substantially conditioned bytheir position in a wider geographic frameworkand by the development of interactions with thesurrounding territorial units. The state borderrepresentsanimportantphenomenonthatactsinspaceasa greater or smaller barrier and its permeabilityconsiderably affects the socio-economic developmentoftheborderland.Thefunctionoftheborderpassedthrough relatively dynamic changes in the history.Sincethesecondhalfofthe20thcentury,theinfluenceoftheborderhasbeengraduallydiminishinginwesternEurope.Asaresult,borderregionscandevelopinalldirections of geographic space, while in centralised

political systems these regions have converselya limited possibility for developing only inland (i.e.towardscentresoftherespectivecountry).Thisoftenmakes the borderland a socially and economicallymarginalisedarea.

In our contribution we aim at evaluating thedevelopmentofborderregionsintheSlovakRepublicduringthetransformationperiod.Fromthebeginningweprovide theirbasic characterisation issuing fromhithertoresearchesonthesingleborderlandsectionsconductedby:Jeřábek,Dokoupil,Havlíček(2004)andHalás (2005) – the Czech section; Rechnitzer (2000)–theHungarianone;Drgoňa(2001)–thePolishone;Rajčáková(2005)–theAustrianone;Popjaková(1995)and Ivanička (1999) – the Ukrainian section.Themainattentionwillbepaidtothestateofcross-border

22


C M Y K


C M Y K

cooperation with the neighbouring countries, to theissueofformingeuroregionsandtotheiractivitiessincethebirthofindependentSlovakiauntilnow.

1. Basic characterisation of Slovak border regions

Geomorphologicconditionsandthebrokenreliefresultin a rather specific regional structure of the SlovakRepublic.ItisthereforeveryproblematictodividetheterritoryofSlovakiaintothe“borderland”and“inland”.(This fact ismanifested toahighextentalso in theformationanddelimitationofeuroregionsinthegiventerritory–seethefollowingchapters.)

Substantial differences may also be found in theindividual sections of the state border.The brokenrelief along the borderline is one of reasons for theuneven distribution of border crossings.They (withsomeexceptions)haveremainedsofartheonlypossiblepointstocrossthestateborder.Thebordercrossingsdeterminethecharacteroftheborderlineasabarrierand a possibility of contacts and cooperation amongborder regions.The best road accessibility is on theborderwiththeCzechRepublicwhereoneroadbordercrossing is – on the average – situated per a bordersegment15.7km long.According to this indicator, itwouldappearthattheinterconnectionwithAustriaissatisfactoryaswell(oneroadbordercrossingper21.2km).Thisborderis,however,markedlydifferent.ThreeroadbordercrossingsoutofallfiveareconcentratedintheareaofBratislava.IntheZáhorieregion,thepassagethrough the Morava River is provided by a ferry inZáhorskáVesandapontoonbridgeinMoravskýSvätýJán;bothmuchaffectedbytheheightofwaterlevel.TheinterconnectionswithUkraine(oneroadbordercrossingper49.3km)andPoland(oneroadbordercrossingper49.7km)areinsufficientforthemoment.Inaddition,the crossings with Poland are unevenly distributed;an inadequate network of road border crossings isevidentespeciallyintheeasternpartoftheborder.Onthecontrary,roadbordercrossingsontheHungarianborderarespreadmoreevenly.Here,inacontradictionto the other Slovak border sections through whichmountain ridges run, the Danube River representsagreatobstacle.Sectionsbetweenbridgesovertheriverarerelativelylong.Thus,thebridgesfulfilthefunctionof“funnels” for themovementof inhabitants (mostlythose of Hungarian nationality) from the DanubianLowland to the territory of Hungaria.There are notmanytrafficlimitsattheroadbordercrossings.But,besides the existing standard border crossings, alsotheestablishmentofahighernumberofnon-standardpossibilitiestocrossthestateborderwouldbewelcome.Amongthem,for instance,bikingtrails,hikingtrailsandaccessroadstoobjectsfromtheothersideoftheborderwouldbeofalocalsignificance(suchascottages,privatelands,smallgardens,etc.).

1.1 The Slovak-Czech borderland

ThehistoryoftheSlovak-Czechborderistheshortest,butatthesametimeoneofthelongest.Explanationforthisisrelativelysimple.DespitethefactthattheborderasadividinglinebetweenthetwosovereigncountriesofficiallycametoexistenceonlyonJanuary1st,1993,theterritoriesofSlovakiaandCzechlandshadbeendivided from each other by approximately the samelineforaverylongtime;basicallysincethebeginningofthe11thcentury.Fromthegeographicalviewpoint,the north-eastern part of the border is formed byridgesofthewesternarchoftheOuterCarpathians(theJablunkovIntermontane,theMoravian-SilesianBeskids,theTurzovkaHighlands,theJavorníkyMts.andtheWhiteCarpathiansinthelongercentralpart),thesouth-westernpartisconstitutedbytheMoravaRiver up to its confluence with the Dyje River.TheborderareaintheCzechRepublicismadeupoftheseadministrativeregions(fromthenorthtothesouth):Moravian-Silesian,ZlínandSouth-Moravianwiththecentres in Ostrava, Zlín and Brno, respectively.TheborderareainSlovakiaisrepresentedbytheŽilina,TrenčínandTrnavaregions.

Inthenationalcomparison,theborderregionsontheSlovaksideoftheborderbelongtothemostadvanced.Itisabsolutelynotthecaseofthenorthernmostsegment(Kysuceregion)whereweregisteran increasedout-commutingorientationtowardsthelabourmarketofNorth-Moravianregionalcentres.Thecentralsectionoftheborder(StrednéPovažieregion)hasacentraltrafficposition with a less pronounced orientation towardstheMoravianside.BestpossibilitiestointegrateareintheSouth:aregioneconomicallydevelopedabovethe average within a wider range of Bratislava’sinfluence, good transport interconnection and thelocationofregionalcentresindirectcontactwiththeborder.FromtheMoravianside,regionaldifferencesamong the individual sections are not fundamental.However,whenevaluatingthemcomprehensively,wehave to state that these regions economically rankbelow thenationalaverage.Theweakest settlementhinterlandontheMoraviansideisinthecentralpartoftheSlovak-Czechborder.

1.2 The Slovak-Hungarian borderland

The Slovak-Hungarian border is the longest Slovakborder.ItisdefinedmainlybythecoursesoftheDanubeand Ipeľ Rivers.The western and eastern parts ofthe border lie in lowlands – northern extremities ofthePannonianBasin.Thecentralpartoftheborderis moderately dissected and lined with the highestHungarianmountainrangesalongitontheHungarianside. The territory of six zhupas (megye) on theHungariansideistraditionallyconsideredtorepresent

2�


C M Y K


C M Y K

thenorthernborderregions.Starting fromtheWesttotheEast,theyarezhupasasfollows:Győr–Moson–Sopron,Komárom-Esztergom,Pest,Nógrád,Heves,andBorsód–Abaúj–Zemplén.TheborderareainSlovakiaisdelimitedbysouthernpartsoftheBratislava,Trnava,Nitra,BanskáBystrica,andKošiceregions.

Economicdevelopment in theborderregionsofbothcountries ismarkedlydifferentwhencomparing thewesternandeasternparts.AnexceptionintheEastismerelymadebyterritoriesoflargecities–Košiceand Miskolc with their immediate hinterlands,being considerably developed above the average incomparisonwithbothsidesof theeasternsectionofthe border.The western part of the borderland hasverygoodprerequisitesfordevelopment.ThetriangleofVienna–Bratislava–Győrisoneofthemostpromising(not only) border regions in the post-communistcountries.

1.3 The Slovak-Polish borderland

The Slovak-Polish border is formed by mountainridges of the Carpathians along most of its length.Only inasmallpartof thehistoricalregionofSpiš,theborderisconstitutedbythePopradR.andDunajecR.The borderland is mountainous on both sides ofthe line, with smaller plain segments in basins. Inthe central section of the border (Tatra Mts.), therelief represents a greatest barrier with elevationsexceeding 2,500 m above sea-level.This is the areawith the highest mountains of the two countries.The connection (aerial tramways, etc.) between theSlovak and Polish parts of theTatra Mts. has notbeen sufficiently realised so far. The border areain Poland is constituted by southern parts of thesevoivodeships (województwo): Silesian, Lesser PolandandSubcarpathian,withcentresinKatowice,CracowandRzeszów,respectively.InSlovakia,theborderlandis formed by the northern parts of the Žilina andPrešov regions.The economic situation, similarly totheSlovak-Hungarianborderland,isinbothcountriesmorefavourableinthewesternsectionoftheborder.AsforPoland,theareasaroundKatowiceandCracowtraditionallybelongtotheeconomicallymoredevelopedregionsinthecountry.Moreover,CracowitselfisonethemostimportantculturalandhistoricalcentresofPoland.As forSlovakia,mostsignificantcentresareŽilina,UpperPovažie,PopradandPrešov.

1.4 The Slovak-Austrian borderland

The Slovak-Austrian border is the second shortestonebutextremelysignificantfromtheeconomicandpoliticalviewpoints.UntilMay1st,2004,i.e.untiltheaccession of the Slovak Republic and neighbouringcountries into the European Union, it was the only

bordersectionlinkingSlovakiawiththeEU.TheborderisalmostalongitsentirelengthmadeupoftheMoravaRiver,justinarathershortsectionitistheDanubeRiver.Finally,theSlovak-Austrianborderisdelimitedon agricultural lands too but only in a very shortsegmentinthevicinityofBratislava.TheborderlandinSlovakiaisconstitutedbythewesternpartoftheTrnavaandBratislavaregions(ordirectlybythecityofBratislava),whiletheAustrianborderlandincludesthreefederallands(dieBundesländer):Burgendland,LowerAustriaandVienna.

Animportantfactconsiderablyinfluencingthecross-border cooperation is the proximity of both capitals–BratislavaandVienna.However,fromtheeconomicaspect, the situation is different on each side of theborder. InAustria, the region directly adjacent totheborder (i.e.not theViennaarea) rankswith theleastdevelopedregionsofthecountry.Conversely,inSlovakia,Bratislavaismatchlesslythemostadvancedregionfromtheeconomicpointofview.Spatially, itsdevelopmentisgraduallyproceedingalsotootherpartsoftheSlovak-Austrianborderland–i.e.tothenorthernhinterland/catchmentareaofBratislava(thesouthernpartoftheZáhorieregion).

1.5 The Slovak-Ukrainian borderland

The Slovak-Ukrainian border is the shortest Slovakborder.Thenorthernpartoftheborderlandisformedby a sparsely populated area with well preservednaturalconditions.Thesouthernpart lies inaplainareaofanextremityfromthePannonianBasinandischaracterisedbyorientationtowardsagriculture.Thisborderland in Slovakia comprises the eastern partsofthePrešovandKošiceregions,inUkraineitistheTranscarpathianregionwiththecentreinUzhgorod.

The regions along both sides of the border belongto economically least developed areas in the givencountries.Theyare–particularlyinthenorthernparts–sparselypopulatedandwithoutimportantindustries.Ontheotherhand,thisprovidesspaceforapotentialdevelopmentoftourism,butitsunderdevelopedlocalinfrastructureisamainobstacle.Negativeisalsothefactthatthereisastrictersecurityregimeandlimitedcapacity on the Slovak-Ukrainian border due to thetransitiontotheSchengenacquis.

2. Development of cross-border cooperation and activities of Euroregions in the territory of Slovakia

ThefirsteuroregionsintheterritoryofWesternEuropebegantobecreatedalreadyinthelate1950’s,namelyontheDutch-Germanborder.In1958,thetermEuregiowasappliedforthefirsttime(itwasforaconcretearea,later this term was replaced by the generally used

2�


C M Y K


C M Y K

nameEuroregion).Then,inthe1960’s,manyproblemspertainingtoregionaldevelopment,educationincludinglanguage,commutingmatters,transportandtechnicalinfrastructuresortheenvironmentstartedtobesolvedin a cross-border way.The principal goal of newlyestablishing cross-border structures was to supportregional development in often neglected marginalareas being quite remote from metropolitan centresof single countries and to overcome cultural, societalandeconomicdifferencesonboth sidesof theborder.A significant motivation for cross-border cooperationwas also to bring together people who thus learnedto understand each other and to overcome ingrainedstereotypes of perceiving the neighbouring nationthroughcommonworkforthebenefitoftheregion.Asregardsthepost-communistcountries,thecross-borderintegrationataregionallevelstartedtobediscussedintheearly1990’s.Thismaybedeemedacontinuousadapting to the situation in the democratic Europe.However, this process did not progress evenly in theentire former communist block; we register severalradicalspatio-temporaldisparitiesinit.

2.1 Institutional-legal framework for cross-border cooperation

Cross-bordercooperationisthemosteffectiveinstrumenttograduallyreducetheimpactoftheborder.Atthesametime,cross-bordercooperationisanimportantpartofintegrationprocessesinEurope.Thiscooperationissupportedthroughseveral international agreements and documents. Itsdevelopmentwasmost substantially influencedby theEuropeanOutlineConventiononTransfrontierCooperationbetweenTerritorialCommunitiesorAuthoritiessignedinMadridonMay21st,1980,effectivefromDecember22nd,1981.Inthisdocument,allactivitiesaimedatstrengtheningandpromotingneighbourlyrelationsbetweeninhabitantsofborderlandsonbothsidesofthecommonStateborderareconsideredtobecross-bordercooperation.AccordingtotheCouncilofEurope,thegivenactivitiesmakeabasisfor meeting its main objective – the unification to thegreatestdegreepossibleofEuropeancountriesandtheirpopulations(Marhulíková,2005).

TheSlovakRepublictoograduallycreatedlegalconditionsfor cross-border cooperation and ratified Europeandocuments. The European Outline Convention onTransfrontierCooperationbetweenTerritorialCommunitiesorAuthoritiesanditsAdditionalProtocol(definitionoftherightsofrespectiveterritorialcommunitiesorauthoritiestoconcludeagreementsoncross-bordercooperation)cameinto force on May 2nd, 2000.The Protocol No. 2 to theEuropeanOutlineConvention,concerninginter-territorialcooperation,cameintoeffectinSlovakiaonFebruary1st,2001,andtheEuropeanCharterofLocalSelf-governmentcameintoforceinthecountryonJune1st,2000.Slovakiasignedbilateralintergovernmentalagreementsoncross-

border cooperationwithPoland in1994,withboth theCzechRepublicandUkraine in2000,withHungary in2001andwithAustriain2004.

OnthebasisofWeinberger’stheory(1995),wemaydividethe institutions entering the process of cross-bordercooperationintonormativeandrealones.Theformerdefinetheoverallframeworkandrules,primarilyexpressedinlegalnormsanddirectivesthatspecifytheconditionsandformsofrealisationtoalargeextent.Thelatterincludetheexistingsubjects,organisationsandassociationsdirectlycarryingoutthecross-bordercooperation.ThesystemsofneithertypeofinstitutionsweresufficientlydevelopedinSlovakiaforalongtime;morecorrectly,theircompetencieswerenotunambiguouslydefined (Zemko,Buček,2000).Stillin2001,theOfficeofthePrimeoftheSlovakRepublicandeightotherMinistriespartook,directlyorindirectly,incross-bordercooperation.TheregistrationofeuroregionswasmadeinaparallelwayattheMinistryofInterior,theMinistryofConstructionandRegionalDevelopmentandtheMinistry ofForeignAffairs of theSlovakRepublic,anduniformcriteriafortheestablishmentofeuroregionsdidnotexist.Owingtothat,theprocessbecameratheruntransparent.Atthesametime,thesocietalperceptionof the term euroregion was thus deteriorating. Onlysince2002thesituationinthisfieldhasgraduallybeenstabilising–associationsthatarenationalrepresentativesofEuroregionshavebeen registeredat theMinistryofInterior, the other competencies and project activitiesfall under the Ministry of Construction and RegionalDevelopmentoftheSlovakRepublic.

In 1999, the Programme Implementation Unit (PIU)PHARECBCbecameapartoftheOfficeofthePrimeoftheSlovakRepublic,whileuntilthenitwasadministeredbytheOfficefortheStrategyandDevelopmentofSociety.Thus, the Office of the Prime became chronologicallythe already 5th institution assuming the respectivecompetenciesinthe1990’s.Itmeansthat–incontrasttoneighbouringcountries–Slovakiahasatalltimesnewrepresentativesparticipatinginmeetingsandpreparingrelevantdocuments,whonaturallycouldnotbeadequatelycompetent, adapted and oriented in the given issue.Unclear and chaotic rules simultaneously generatedasystemopenlyencouragingcorruption;itisnowonderthatascandalregardingthemisuseoffinancialmeansfromthePHAREfundbyemployeesoftheOfficeofthePrimebrokeout.

Theprocessofformingtherealinstitutionswasinasimilarsituationaswell.Alllegaldocumentscoordinatingcross-bordercooperationbegantobeadoptedonlyattheendofthe1990’s.Untilthen,severalimportantinstrumentscreatingthelegalframeworkforcross-bordercooperationand especially for establishing euregional structureswere absent in the Slovak legal system. Initially, theSlovaksidewasrepresentedbyheadsoflocalauthorities

25


C M Y K


C M Y K

andrepresentativesoflocalStateadministrationduringthe meetings/negotiations on cross-border cooperation.But later itwas shown thatno legalnorm inSlovakiamentionedtheinvolvementoflocalStateadministrationauthoritiesintheprocess.Therefore,theirparticipationwasnotbackedupby lawandgot in conflictwith theConstitutionoftheSlovakRepublic.

As Slovakia lacked a legal basis for the cross-bordercooperationofcitiesandcommunesnortheself-governmentofregionsanditsorganswasestablishedbylaw,theonlyself-government territorial units became cities andcommunes.Thatiswhy,whentheproblemofrepresentingtheSlovakpartyatthelevelofregionscorrespondingtoregionalself-governmentsintheneighbouringcountriesarose,citiesandcommunesbegantounitetogether.Theycreatedinterestassociationsoflegalentitiessubstitutingto a certain degree the non-existing self-governmentregions.These special interestassociationswerenot inanequivalentpositionwithforeignpartners(zhupasinHungary,voivodeshipsinPoland,etc.)because–contrarytothem–theydidnothaveanypossessions/moneyandhadnorequiredcompetencies.

From the beginning of the 21st century, the situationhas been resolved and gradually stabilised. Slovakiahas already created the elementary institutional-legal framework for cross-border cooperation,which iscomparablewithneighbouringcountries.Withregardtotheapproximately5-yearperiodofdelayinthisprocess,however,SlovakiaisalittlelessexperiencedinthisfieldinconfrontationwiththeotherV4countries.

2.2 Formation, development and spatial distribution of euroregions

The above-mentioned institutional-legal delay in thecomparisonwiththeneighbouringcountrieshastoberelatedtotheoverallpoliticaldevelopmentofSlovakiabefore 1998. Efforts to maintain the centralised

power and not to disturb the still remaining strongposition of the State brought about the suppressionof all processes that resulted spontaneously fromlocalorregionalinitiatives,includingthecross-bordercooperation.When the Carpathian Euroregion wasestablishedinFebruary1993,Slovakiacouldevennotbecomeitsregularmember.Incontradictiontoregionsin Hungary, Poland and Ukraine (Romania joined inDecember 1993) Slovakia became just an associatemember.Officialreasonwastheincompletenessofanewterritorial-administrativeorganisationof the country.Apparently,itwouldnothavebeenaproblemtoresolvethis fact in detail within the signed agreement, butaccordingtoinformationfromlobbiestherewerealsofearsfromapotentialthreattotheterritorialintegrityandSlovakbordersbytheHungarianpartyandothersimilarinadequatearguments.Asaresult,theKošiceand Prešov regions became regular members of theCarpathian Euroregion only in 1999.Therefore, theonlyeuroregioncoveringtheterritoryofSlovakiaandofficiallyfunctioninginthecountrybefore1999wastheTatraEuroregion.Itwasestablishedin1994anditisthereforetheoldestofSlovakeuroregions.ItsmembersarecitiesandcommuneslyingintheOrava,LiptovandSpišregionsaswellasgminaslyinginthePodhaleandGorceregions.

Amore intensive acceleration in the formation ofeuroregionsinSlovakiatookplaceaslateasin1999-2000, which was associated with the ratification ofthealreadymentionedEuropeanOutlineConventionon Transfrontier Cooperation between TerritorialCommunitiesorAuthoritieswithitsAdditionalProtocolandwiththeaccessionofthecountrytotheEuropeanCharterofLocalSelf-government.Inthiscontext,foureuroregionswereestablished(includingtheacceptationof the Carpathian Euroregion) in Slovakia in 1999;in 2000 even another five (Tab.1).The process wasgradually stabilised in 2001 with the creation of the

Euroregion Partners Estabilishment Centre (in Slovakia)

Pomoravie–Weinviertel–JižníMorava A,CZ 23.06.1999 Holíč

WhiteCarpathians CZ 30.07.2000 Trenčín

BeskidMountains CZ,PL 09.06.2000 Žilina

Tatra PL 26.08.1994 Kežmarok

Carpathian H,PL,RO,UA 25.11.1999 Prešov

Košice–Miskolc H 01.12.2000 Košice

Slaná–Rimava H 10.10.2000 RimavskáSobota

Kras H 01.03.2001 Jablonovn/Turňou

Neogradiensis H 25.03.2000 Lučenec

Ipeľ H 06.08.1999 Šahy

Váh–Dunaj–Ipeľ H 03.07.1999 Nitra

Triple-Danube H 25.01.2001 DunajskáStreda

Table 1: Euroregions situated in the territory of Slovakia

2�


C M Y K


C M Y K

Triple-DanubeEuroregionandtheKrasEuroregiontocompletethelist.

TheTatra Euroregion was established at least fiveyearsbeforetheotherSlovakeuroregions.Since1999,euroregions were formed primarily in marginal andeconomicallyunderdevelopedareas(thisdevelopmentisshowninFig.1).Morespecifically,inSouthernandEastern Slovakia – i.e. in territories that need moreinternalandexternalstimulifordevelopment.Atthisstage,alargerpartoftheSlovak-Hungarianborderland

wasincorporatedintheprocess.Itisthatpartoftheborderlandwhichhaslessnaturalobstaclesandbarriersforapotentialcooperation;moreover,withethnicallyandlinguisticallyrelatedpopulationslivingonbothsidesoftheborder.Likewise,thePomoravie–Weinviertel–SouthMoraviaEuroregionwasamongthefirst.Atthattime,AustriawastheonlyneighbourofSlovakia,whichwastheMemberStateoftheEU.Owingtothat,thegreaterexperienceoftheAustriansidecouldbeused.Austriahad an interest to cooperate because theWeinviertelis one of underdevelopedAustrian regions and its

Fig. 1: Spatial development of euroregions in the territory of Slovakia

development was spatially limited by the Schengenborderwhichwasdifficult topass inthesectionwithSlovakia.

Thereformofpublicadministrationdelegatedmostofcompetenciesinthefieldofcross-bordercooperationtoregionalself-governmentauthorities,i.e.totheso-calledhigherterritorialunits(HTU)establishedonJanuary1st,2002.Inthisconnection,onehastolookatthelocationofHTUcentrestowardsthestateborder.Forinstance,thecityofBanskáBystrica–locatedalmostintheveryheartofSlovakia–doesabsolutelynotcorrespondtoattributesofacitythatshouldadministercross-bordercooperation.It is imminent that thehitherto centralisationmightbe replaced by another centralisation, but at a lower

hierarchical level.Therefore, the proposed divisionof the Banská Bystrica HTU and the creation ofGemer–NovohradHTUwiththecentreinLučenec(orRimavská Sobota) would certainly be well-grounded.Thisisthemostacutecasebut,e.g.theTrnavaHTUisdefinedinalittleadvantageouswaytoo.Itscentre–thetownofTrnava–islocatedquiteclosetotheAustrianborder,buttheregionasawholeneighboursonlywithHungaryandtheCzechRepublicasforcommunications.The implementationofanalternativemadeupby12HTUsinSlovakiawouldentailthatalsocitiessuchasLučenec,Michalovce,Popradwithbetterprerequisitesto fulfil thetasksofcross-bordercooperation–wouldappearascentres.

27


C M Y K


C M Y K

Bythenumberofparticipatingcountries,thebilateralcross-border cooperation dominates (9 of 12 cases)especially on the Slovak-Hungarian border – 7euroregions.Most of the euroregionsare representedbymoreorlesscompactterritories.TheKošice–MiskolcEuroregionhasaspecialcharacter,practicallyshowinginthecollaborationonlybetweenthesetwocities.TheKošice–MiskolcinterconnectionoriginallyarosewithintheCarpathianEuroregionbysigningtheagreementon the cross-border cooperation. It is planned to begraduallyextendedtothesurroundingareathatshouldbedefinedlater(thecontemporaneousKošiceregionfortheSlovakpartyandtheBorsód–Abauj–ZemplénzhupafortheHungarianparty).

TheCarpathianEuroregionisanuntypicalcaseoftheeuroregion with an obvious supra-regional charactercontrary to the others.Total population living in thisterritory (141,485km2)amounts to14.8millionwhichis2.9 timesmore than inwholeSlovakia.Thismakesthepositionof theCarpathianEuroregion specificnotonly inSlovakiabutalso in theEuropeancomparison.TheSlovakpart of theCarpathianEuroregion covers10,459 km2 (21.3% of the Slovak territory) with 1.1millioninhabitants(20.5%oftheSlovakpopulation).Theothereuroregionshavearegionalcharacter.Thisshould,however,beabsolutelynoobstacletosuccessfullydevelopinthemcooperationatthelocallevel,too.IfnottakingintoaccounttheoneofKošice–Miskolc,thesmallesteuroregionisthatofTriple-DanubelyinginSlovakiainthedistrictsofDunajskáStredaandGalantaandhavingaltogether1,716km2(3.5%ofSlovakia’sterritory)with205thousandinhabitants(3.8%ofthecountry’spopulation).

Some Euroregions in Slovakia have alreadyaccommodatedinadvanceandreflecttheexactlimitsofadministrativeregionsandself-governmentHTUs.Forexample, theWhiteCarpathiansEuroregionoccupiestheterritoryoftheTrenčínregion,theVáh–Dunaj–IpeľEuroregioncoverstheterritoryoftheNitraregionandtheCarpathianEuroregionlieswithinthelimitsofthePrešov and Košice regions. Other euroregions do notrespectthelimitsofHTUsandareevenoverlappingincertaincases.Weregister17districtsintotal(ofthesefoururbanones–KošiceI,II,IIIandIV)whoseterritoriesfall under two different euroregions, the Rožňavadistrictevenunderthreeeuroregions.ParticularlytheexistenceoftheKrasEuroregionandtheSlaná–RimavaEuroregionmaybeconsideredparadoxicalastheycoverapproximatelythesameterritory.

Conversely, the territories of19districts (includingallfive inBratislava)arenot included inanyeuroregionexistinginthecountryuptonow.Theseterritoriesformtwo continuousareas on themapofSlovakia. Inbothcasestheyarebasicallycentralareas.Itcanbesaidingeneralthatoneofthemistheareawhichiscentralfrom

thegeographicalpoint of view (thealreadymentionedproblemoftheBanskáBystricaHTUandtheproposed,butfinallynotapprovedGemer–NovohradHTU);theotheristheareathatisconsideredcentralfromtheeconomicalpointofview(theterritoryalongtheBratislava–TrnavaaxisasaneconomiccoreofSlovakia).

As to the starting position and natural prerequisitesfor regional development, differences between themarerelativelyhigh.ItisBratislavathatunambiguouslydominates, with the greatest potential and the mostprogressive trends of development.These are basedon a favourable geoeconomic position and economicpotentialaswellasontheaccessibilityandpotentialonthepartofAustrianandHungarianpartners.AlthoughthecooperationoftheVienna–Bratislava–Győrtrianglehaspracticallybeendiscussedsince1989,itisstillbeingimplementedinaspontaneouswayandhasnotbeenofficiallydeclaredandsealedthroughtheformationofaeuroregionuntilnow.However,incomparisonwithotherregions,Bratislavahashadahithertolegaladvantagetobeabletoactasthecapitalasaself-governmentregion.Therearealsosomeprojectsatanationallevelthathavebeensupportedinthisspace.Ontheotherhand,thisprovesthefactthattheeconomicallyadvancedregionsdo not need any institutionalisation to cooperate; intheircasethecooperationtakesplaceonthebasisofnaturalrelations.

Analogically to the situation in the neighbouringcountries,arepresentativeorganisationofeuroregions– the Association of Euroregions in Slovakia (AES)exists also in Slovakia. It was established in the cityof Žilina on May 5th, 2001, and currently it has eightmembersofwhichthreefoundingmemberscanbefound–thePomoravie–Weinviertel–JižníMoravaEuroregion(represented in Slovakia by the Záhorie RegionalAssociation), the Beskids Mountains Euroregion (theBeskids RegionAssociation) and the Slaná–RimavaEuroregion(theUnionofSlanáandRimava).LatertheTriple-DanubeEuroregion(representedbytheDanubian-LowerVáhRiverRegionalAssociation),theCarpathianEuroregion (the Carpathian RegionAssociation), theTatra Euroregion (theTatra RegionAssociation), theVáh–Dunaj–Ipeľ Euroregion (the Váh–Dunaj–IpeľRegionalAssociation)andtheKrasEuroregion(theKrasEuroregionAssociation)joinedtheAES.

MerelythreeeuroregionsinSlovakiaaremembersofthepan-EuropeanAssociation of European Border Regionsand,atthesametime,thesehavebeenevidentlymostactivesofaringeneral.TheTatraEuroregionbecameamemberofthisAssociationin1996tobefollowedbytheCarpathianEuroregion(atthattimewithouttheSlovakparty)andbytheWhiteCarpathiansEuroregionwhich joined theAssociation of European BorderRegionsin2000.

28


C M Y K


C M Y K

2.3 Activities and funding of euroregions

The primary objective of the created euroregionsshouldbetosupporttheactivitiesaimingataspatiallyunlimiteddevelopment,naturallyinterconnectingtheseeuroregionswithneighbouringregionsinalldirectionsofthegeographicalspace.Suchadevelopmentshouldaspire to minimise the influence of the border andits barrier effects. Šindler andWahla (1999) see thecardinal purpose of euroregions in getting to knowandunderstandingneighbours,inbuildingconfidence,reducing the disadvantages of borders, suppressingthe negatives resulting from marginal positionsof borderlands, and improving living conditions ofinhabitants.Thefulfilmentofthesegoalsisnotsimple;it should include cooperation in several sphereswith regard to specificities of a given space. Therepresentatives of euroregions in Slovakia considerthefollowingdomains/aimstobethemostsignificant:improvement of the communication connections ofaconcreteregionwiththeterritoryontheothersideofthestateborder(e.g.bridges,roads,railways,bikingtrails,bordercrossingsandtheirequipment);promotionoftheregionandenhancementofitsattractivenessfortourismandrecreation(presentationsatexhibitionsandfairs, info-centres, informational brochures and otherpublicitymaterials,internetsites);amendmentoflegalnormsandconditionssupporting theentrepreneurialsphere,facilitatingthetradeortheaccessofeconomicalsubjects to the territoryof theneighbouring country;jointproceedinginthefieldofenvironmentprotection

and creation; involvement in and coordinatationof participation in support programmes of the EU(accordingtoaninquiryconductedwithrepresentativesofindividualeuroregionsinJulyandAugust2001).

Besidestheabove-mentionedfact(thenon-existenceofregionalself-governmentauthoritiesinSlovakiabefore2002),wealsoobservedapoorcoordinationofcentralbodies responsible for the cross-border cooperation,inadequate competencies at a regional level, theabsence of common funds and co-financed activities,differences incustomsregulations,and limitationsofcross-bordercontacts.Otherrestrictingelementsincludean insufficientnetworkofborder crossings, their lowcapacity, or the impossibility of easy border crossingoutside the official border crossings. Some of theseproblemsbegantobesolvedafter2001orfollowingthecountry’s integration intheEU.However, thebiggestproblem–financing–stillpersists.

Attheinitialstage,theeuroregionsinSlovakiawerefinanced mainly from the state budget that largelysupported the launch of their activities (establishingsecretariats,currentexpenses,publicity).In2000,theeuroregions of Beskids Mountains,Váh–Dunaj–IpeľandCarpathiansthusreceivedasumof1.66mil.Slovakcrowns.In2001,eightothereuroregions(allremainingexcept for the Kras Euroregion) were given a totalaidof2.55mil.Slovakcrowns.Itwasalumpstartingfinancialinjectioninallcases;theeuroregionsdidnotneedtoshowtheirownactivities.Thefinancialsupport

Fig. 2: Euroregions situated in the territory of Slovakia

Euroregion Pomoravie – Weinviertel – Jižní MoravaEuroregion White CarpathiansEuroregion Beskid MountainsEuroregion TatraCarpathian Euroregion

Euroregion Košice – MiskolcEuroregion Slaná – Rimava / KrasEuroregion NeogradiensisIpeľ EuroregionEuroregion Váh – Dunaj – IpeľEuroregion Triple – Danube

2�


C M Y K


C M Y K

foreuroregionsin2001wasapprovedinApril2000and,asamatteroffact,itwasoneofthekeyreasonsfortheemergenceofalargepartofthem.Itfollowsthattheeuroregionswereestablishedmostlytousetheallocationofthestatesubsidywithoutanypreviousactivecross-bordercooperationcarriedoutinthecountry.

Since 2002, all competencies in this sphere weretransferredtotheMinistryofConstructionandRegionalDevelopment of the Slovak Republic and also thestrategyoffinancingtheeuroregionswaschanged.Itispossibletoapplyforandtoreceivefinancialmeansonly for the implementation of concrete projects.Atthe first stage, projects within the system meant tosupport euroregional activities were classified intofiveareas–humanresources,preparationofplanninganddevelopmentstudies,environmentprotectionandcreation,development of tourism,public relations. In2003, the areas of support were reclassified into twobasiccategories:preparationofsupportingdocumentsforinvestmentprojectstobeimplementedineuroregionterritories and financed from domestic and foreignfunds (category I); activities aimed at the promotionandreinforcementofdevelopmentalpotentialinborderregions(categoryII).

In2002,thenumberofprojectssupportedinthiswaywas16withatotalsubsidyreaching17.6mil.Slovakcrowns(with11euroregionsparticipating)andin2003itwas28projectssubsidisedwith6.4mil.Slovakcrowns(with10euroregionsparticipating).Inthelatteryear,the totalamountof subsidywas reduced,namely fortworeasons:ineffectivemanagementofresourcesintheprecedingyearandeffortstoallocatesubsidiesonlyinthecaseofco-financingaproject.Fortheperiodof2004-2006,thesupportofeuroregionsfromthestatebudgetwastostabilisewithagradualreductionofsubsidiesand their transfer to category I. In 2004, it was 38projectsthatwereaidedwithatotalsubsidyof11.6mil.Slovakcrowns(andwith11euroregionsparticipating);for2005-2006theplannedsubsidyamountedtoabout6mil.Slovakcrownsperyear.Ingeneral,therewere82euroregionalprojectssupportedin2002-2004withasumof35.6mil.Slovakcrowns.After2003,whenthefinancingwasdividedintotwoabovespecifiedcategories,atotalof12.1mil.SlovakcrownswereinvestedintheprojectsofcategoryI,and5.9mil.crownsintheprojectsofcategoryII.

Cross-bordercooperationispromotedbytheEUthroughseveral programmes and initiatives. It is apart ofthe INTERREG Programme (this including also thetransnationalandinterregionalcooperation)whichisregulatedbydirectivesforthestructuralfundsoftheUnion.Ithasbeeninoperationsince1990(in1990-1993asInterregI,in1994-1999asInterregIIA,in2000-2006as Interreg IIIA).The INTERREG Programme was

originallyaimedattheinternalbordersofEUcountriesonly,lateritincludedalsotheexternalbordersbetweentheoldmemberandaccessionstates.Indoingso,ithelpedtopreparethelatterforintegrationeffectedin2004.OneoftheessentialtasksofthecurrentlyrunningInterregIIIAProgrammeistoenhancethestandardofborderregionswithrespecttocommercial,economic,tourist,social and cultural relations with the neighbouringregions.TheNUTSIIIregionslocatedalongthebordersaretheareasofpreference.In1994,thePHARECBC(cross-border cooperation) Programme was launchedcovering the borderlands of member states with thethencandidatecountries.Since1998,thisProgrammehasbeenenlargedtoincludetheinternalbordersamongthecandidatecountries(withintheadditionalPHARECredo Programme).The INTERREG as well as thePHARECredoProgrammeshavetheirpriorityspheresof activities which however overlap in many aspects.InsufficientcommunicationandcoordinationbetweenthemhavebeenmuchcriticisedinSlovakia.

In reality, theEuroregionshavenopolitical and justaminimum economic power. They are not officialterritorialunits,beinginprinciplemerelytheinterestregions.Certainly,theirprimaryobjectivewastoresolveurgent problems in border and marginal regions ofcountries. Jirousek (2005) argues that new memberstatesoftheEUdisseminate–bymeansofeuroregions– aEuropean influence in their environment.Thus,theeuroregionscanbeanexcellentplatformtobuildrelations from below and adriving force for citizeninitiatives.Forthisreason,itissometimesproblematicto identify distinct spatial contexts in the detailedanalyticalevaluationoftheeuroregions’activities.Theimpactofeuroregionsonthespaceisseldomofalarger-scalecharacter,butratherofamosaicnature.Itdependsupon the activities of regional (or local) leaders andpersonalitiesortheirgroupings,whichthuscontributetothedevelopmentofsomemicro-regionsusingalsotheframeworkofcross-bordercooperationforthepurpose.

3. Conclusion

The development of cross-border cooperation andcross-border integration processes at the regional (orlocal) level– i.e. the formationofregionssituatedonboth sides of the state border (called euroregions inEurope)–wasrelativelycomplicatedintheterritoryoftheSlovakRepublicduringthetransformationperiod.In comparison with the neighbouring countries, thisdevelopmentshowedseveraldifferentfeatures.Wetrytoidentifytheminasyntheticformattheendofthepaper.

ThepoliticalsituationexistinginSlovakiauntil1998causedthatfavourableconditionsforthedevelopmentof cross-bordercooperationwerenotcreatedthere. It

�0


C M Y K


C M Y K

maybeevensaidthatitwasdeliberatelyhinderedinsomecases.Effortstomaintainthecentralisedpowerandnottodisturbthestillremainingstrongpositionof the state brought about the suppression of allprocessesresultingspontaneouslyfromlocalorregionalinitiatives, including the cross-border cooperation.Therefore, the first euroregions in Slovakia began toarisewithapproximatelyafive-yeardelayascomparedtotheotherV4countries.

The institutional stageof cross-border cooperation inSlovakia faced considerable problems. Competencieswere not made clear enough, moreover – they werechanging.Itwaspossibletouseexperience(relativelygoodinstitutionalframeworks)fromsuchneighbouringcountries as Hungary and the Czech Republic.Asfor Poland, its experience from the Polish-Germancooperationcouldbeusedbetter;theSlovakborderwithAustriaisquiteshort.AlthoughitwastheonlyborderwiththeEuropeanUnionuntil2004,thecooperationwithAustria was insufficient.A long section of thisborder is difficult to cross; in addition, theAustrianpartnerwaslessactive.

Inmostcases,theeuroregionsinSlovakiawereformednotasaproduct,butonlyasapotentialgeneratorofcross-bordercooperation(intheoppositewaythananaturalprocessshouldgo).Theyusedresourcesallocatedfromthestatebudget,butsomeofthemthenreducedtheirfurtheractivities.Atpresent,theeuroregionsinthecountryareintransitionbetweentheinstitutionalandimplementationstagesandthereforetheirqualitativeselectionhastocome

inevitably.Itwillbenecessarytosearchother(especiallyexternal)sourcesforfinancinginthefuture.

Afterimprovementofthesituationduring1999-2001,agreatnumberofeuroregionsemergedinthecountry.MostofthemwereestablishedontheSlovak-Hungarianborder.TheeuroregionsarespreadacrossmostoftheSlovakterritory(notonlyinborderregions).FormallyonlyasmallerareainthecentralpartofSlovakia(thecityofBanskáBystricawithitswidersurroundings)andthe economically most advanced Slovak region alongtheaxisofBratislava–Trnavaarenotincludedinthecross-bordercooperation.

Itwasnevera case thatSlovakiahad in the foreignpartnerastrongleadermovingcross-bordercooperationwithintheeuroregionforward,toahigherqualitativelevel.Thiswouldberequiredparticularlyinmarginalregions of eastern and south-eastern Slovakia.Developmentattheregionalandnamelylocallevelislargelyconditionedbyactivitiesofindividualsandsmallinterestgroups–regionalandlocalpersonalities.Theseactorscontributemosttothedevelopmentofmarginalandborderregionsandthecross-bordercooperationmaybeoneofinstrumentstohelptheminthisfield.

Acknowledgement:

This work was supported by Slovak Research andDevelopmentAgencyunderthecontractNo.APVT-20-016704.

References:DRGOŇA,V.(2001):TransformačnýprocesajehovplyvnaregionálnuštruktúruSlovenska.UniverzitaKonštantínaFilozofa

Nitra,138pp.

HALÁS,M.(2005):Cezhraničnéväzby,cezhraničnáspolupráca(napríkladeslovensko-českéhopohraničiasdôrazomnajeho

slovenskúčasť).UniverzitaKomenskéhovBratislave,152pp.

IVANIČKA,K.(1999):Slovensko–Géniusloci.Eurostav,Bratislava,157pp.

JEŘÁBEK, M. (2000): Pohraničí, přeshraniční spolupráce aeuroregiony – evropský pohled asituace vČesku. Geografické

rozhledy,Vol.10,No.1,p.6–7.

JEŘÁBEK,M.,DOKOUPIL,J.,HAVLÍČEK,T. (2004):Česképohraničí–bariéraneboprostorzprostředkování?Academia,

Praha,304pp.

JIROUSEK,J.(2004):EuroregionynaSlovensku.Institutproevropskoupolitiku.Online[Cite12.4.2004].Getatableininternet:

<http://www.europeum.org>.

MARHULÍKOVÁ,O.(2005):InštitucionálneaspektycezhraničnejspoluprácevSlovenskejrepublike.RadaEurópy,Ministerstvo

vnútraSR,Bratislava,182pp.

POPJAKOVÁ,D.(1995):Institutionalizationandorganizationalshapesoftransfrontiercooperation.In:ActaUMB;Geographical

StudiesNo.1.TheBoundariesandTheirImpactontheTerritorialStructureofRegionandState.BanskáBystrica,p.46-

49.

RAJČÁKOVÁ,E.(2005):Regionálnyrozvojaregionálnapolitika.UniverzitaKomenskéhovBratislave,120pp.

RECHNITZER,J.(2000):ThefeaturesofthetransitionofHungary´regionalsystem.Centreforregionalstudies,Pécs,74pp.

ŠINDLER,P.,WAHLA,A. (1999):EvropskáUnievgeografickémvzdělávání.Přírodovědecká fakultaOstravskéuniverzity,

105pp.

��


C M Y K


C M Y K

WEINBERGER,O.(1995):Inštitucionalizmus.Nováteóriakonania,právaademokracie.Archa,Bratislava,240pp.

ZEMKO,I.,BUČEK,J.(2000):ProblémycezhraničnejspolupráceajejinštitucionálnehorámcanapríkladeregiónuBratislavy.

In:Geographicalspectrum2.Geo-grafika,UniverzitaKomenskéhovBratislave,p.43–54.

Author´s address:

RNDr.MariánHALÁS,PhD.ComeniusUniversityinBratislava,FacultyofNaturalSciencesDepartmentofhumangeographyanddemogeographyMlynskádolina,84215Bratislava,[email protected]

Reviewer:

Assoc.Prof.Ing.JitkaPEKOVÁ,CSc.

�2


C M Y K


C M Y K

EUROREGIONS IN HUNGARY

TamásHARDI

Abstract

Hungary is bordered by seven countries, and its location in the middle of a basin makes cross-border cooperation really important. Many Euroregions were and are established with Hungarian participation. The number of participants is large and there are many kinds of them, but the activity of these institutions is blocked by many factors. Besides characterizing the border regions, this study presents a typification of these organisations, their tasks and the scope of their activities.

Shrnutí

Euroregiony v Maďarsku

Maďarsko sousedí se sedmi zeměmi a tato jeho poloha ve středu kotliny činí přeshraniční spolupráci vskutku velmi důležitou. Mnohé euroregiony byly a jsou zakládány s maďarskou účastí. Počet zúčastněných je vysoký a účastníci jsou různého druhu, činnost těchto institucí je však blokována mnoha faktory. Kromě charakteristiky těchto pří-hraničních regionů přináší tato studie i typizaci těchto organizací, jejich úkoly a oblast činnosti.

Keywords:Euroregion, Hungary, Carpathian Basin, cross-border cooperation

1. Introduction

HungaryissituatedinthemiddleoftheCarpathianBasinand is borderedby seven countries:Austria,Slovakia,Ukraine,Romania,Serbia,CroatiaandSlovenia.

OurcommonbordersstartedupmainlyattheendofWorldWarI.Thesebordershadaroleofdividingfordecades,disconnecting river basins, settlement structures andinfrastructurelines.

Due to theabove facts, the cross-border cooperation isreally important forHungarytohelpthe livesof thoselivinginborderlandregions.

With the growing permeability of borders, the cross-bordercooperationstartedtogrowsincethesecondhalfofthe1990stogetherwiththeparticipatingHungarianeuroregions. Participating organisations are of manykinds: state participation, settlement level, and alsocivil organisations takeplace indifferent cooperations.(Sometimes just the name reminds on the originaloperational form of „euroregion”.) The number oforganisationsisgrowingfast,butmanyofthemcannotreallyshowupwithrealoperation.Itisworththinkingabouttheirlackofoperation,anddifficulties,aswellastopointupgoodexamples.

2. Spatial problems caused by state borders in the Carpathian basin

Borders in this region are relatively recent, withtheir functions frequently changing.A fundamentalgeographicalproblemoftheCarpathianbasin,therefore,is how the borders drawn inside an organic spatialunity impact the existing relationships.The problemsignificanceishighlightedbythefactthat,usually,thebordersdonotfollowestablished,organicallyintegratedgeographical structures: conversely, they often reachbeyond the former public administration boundaries,transportationnetworksandeconomicconnections.

Hence,actualbordersweresetprimarilyonthebasisof geopolitical considerations prevailing at the timeof ‘delimitation’ rather than by any kind of spatiallogics–afactorwhichmakesthestudyofcross-borderrelationships in this part of the world extremelyimportant.Inadditiontosimplereports,thereisaneedforacontinuoussearchforsolutionstoproblemscausedbydiscontinuityinspace-withoutdisturbingcurrentnationalborders(Hajdú,1997).Onealsoneedstoaskhowtorestorethefreedomofmovementandrelationshipnetworks for inhabitants living in the proximity ofborders.

Theproblemisverycomplex,andtheopeningofbordersand the liberalisationof trafficarenot in themselvesadequatesolutions.

��


C M Y K


C M Y K

• Numerous connectionswere severedandbecameone-sided-whichrelegatedmanyborderareastoaperipheralsituation.Thisistypicalofareaswherethecentreoftheareawasdetachedfromatleastapartoftheorganicallyintegratedareaaroundit–andespeciallywhenthenewcentreisdifficulttoaccessforthepopulation.

• Many towns lost their access to their naturalagglomerations and so these were hindered intheirsubsequentdevelopment.Interestingly,withfewexceptions,all ofHungary’smajor townsaresituated in the close vicinity of today’s nationalborders.

• Inconsequence,certaineconomicactivitiesdeclinedwherebusinessconnections,economicinputs,accesstolabour,transportationfacilitiesormarketswerelost.

• Therailwaynetworkwaspracticallycompletedbythebeginningofthe20thcenturyintheCarpathianbasin,butsincethennomajornewlineshavebeenconstructed.Theroadnetworkalsorunsinparallelwiththerailwaynetwork.Thenewborderssimplycut off vital elements of these networks.WhenlookingatthegeographicalstructuresofHungary,itisclearthatthenewbordersleftHungarywithonlyradiallinesoftransportation,whilsttheadjoiningpartswithsub-centres(thatis,majortowns)werelefttoneighbouringcountries.Thishadasignificant(negative)impactonthetransportationnetworkinHungaryandcausedamultitudeofproblems.

• Throughout past decades, local government,infrastructural and sectoral developments werepursued independently fromoneanother,and, inconsequence, the results of these developmentsare often incompatible. In addition, paralleldevelopmentstookplaceonbothsidesofthebordertoreplacethelostconnections.Theproductofsuchdevelopments is now potentially an increasedcompetitionbetweentheneighbouringareasuponthe re-opening of borders, and sowemayexpectarenewedrivalryamongtownsaswellasamongvariouseconomicsectors.

• Inadditiontotheproblemsinduceddirectlybythecreationofnewborders,thedevelopmentstrategiesof state socialism discriminated against severalareas in border areas, and especially againstthose close to theAustrian-Hungarian border.Thishas simply exacerbatednegativeperipheraltendencies.

In the1990s, thegeneral situationofborders changedfundamentally. In western – and especially in north-western areas – proximity to the border increased invalueduetotheearlyinfluxofforeigndirectinvestment

andanincreaseinthemigrationoflabour.Incontrasttothis,inthemoreperipheralborderareas(andespeciallyattheUkrainian-Hungarian,Romanian-Hungarian,andsomeeasternsectionsoftheSlovak-Hungarianborders)theeffectsoftheirunfavourablepositioncontinuetobepalpable,anditmightbesaid,infact,thattheirsituationhasevenworsenedwithan increase in theproportionofdisadvantagedpopulationgroupsanddiscriminationagainsttheminthejobmarket.

Bywayof summary,differences indevelopment levelsanddirectionsamongtheborderareasgrewinthe1990s,although,owingto its favourablegeographical locationbetweenthreecentresoftheregion(Vienna,BratislavaandBudapest),thedevelopmentofthenorth-westernpartoftheCarpathianbasinaccelerated.Atthesametime,areasontheperipheryareunderdevelopedonbothsides.Theywere–eitherpartlyortotally–unabletorecoverinthe1990sfromthedamagecausedbytheearlierlossofgrowthpotential,andsotherestorationofcross-borderconnectionsisakeyrequirementforthefuturegrowthandforthedecreasingisolationofperipheralareas.

3. Euroregions with the Hungarian participation

For Hungary, the establishment of cooperativerelationships is of strategic importance. Relative tothe surfaceareaofHungary, the lengthofborders isconsiderable,andascomparedwiththeEuropeanUnionasignificant population share lives in border-zones.Indeed,fourteenoutofnineteencountieshavecommonborderswithsomeoftheneighbouringstates(Enyedi,Horváth,2003).

AlongtheHungarianstateborders,numerouseuroregionsoreuroregionalinitiativeswereimplementedduringthelasttenyearswithmostofthembeinglaunchedafterthe Madrid Convention in 19971.Another incentivefor launching joint initiatives was the emergenceof programmes specially developed to improve thecollaboration between the borderland regions.ThePhare Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC) programmehasbeenfunctioningontheAustrian-Hungarianbordersince 1995, aprogramme which, first limited to thisspecific border, was subsequently extended to everyother border of Hungary.With the exception of theAustrian-Hungarian border, the financial support isrelativelysmall(2-3million/year/border).Nevertheless,theavailabilityoffundshaspromptedvariousactors,especiallylocalauthorities,toasserttheirdeterminationtoparticipate.Accordingtocurrentfigures,therewerefifteen euroregional organisations formed by 2004(Tab.1,Figs1-3)withawiderangeofcontributorsanddifferentregionalscopes.

1) EuropeanOutlineConventiononTransfrontierCooperationbetweenTerritorialCommunitiesorAuthorities.

��


C M Y K


C M Y K

Tab. 1: Major characteristics of euroregional cooperation along the borders of HungarySource: Ownwork

Cooperation Year launchedParticipants Surface

area km2 PopulationHungarian Neighbouring

CarpathianEuroregion 1993 countiestown+district(SK),

voivodship(PL),county(UKRandRO)

160,000 16million

Danube–Kris–Mures–TisaRegionalCoopera-tion

1997 countiesCounties(RO),federal

province(YU)77,243 5.9million

Danube–Drava–SavaEuroregionalCooperation

1998county,town,

chamber

county,town,chamber(CRO),canton,town,

chamber(BIH)20,000 1.5million

West/NyugatPannóniaEuroregion

1995 county province 15,168 1.2million

Vag–Danube–IpelEuroregion

1999 counties district 24,000 2.8million

IpelEuroregion 1999 municipalities municipalities,NGOs N/A 440,000

NeogradiensisEuroregion 2000 countydistrictsandcounties

(SK)20,521 1.7million

Miskolc–KosiceEuroregion

2000 county,town district,town 14,000 1.47million

Drava–MuraEuroregion 2000 towns towns X 120,000

Sajó–RimaEuroregion 2000 micro-regions districts 6,000 1million

ZemplénEuroregion 2000 micro-regions districts

Interregio 2000 counties county(ROandUK) 23,142 2.25million

Triple-Danube-areaEuroregion

2001 county districts 7,500 780,000

Hajdú-Bihar–BihorEuroregion

2002 county county

Bihar¬BihorEuroregion 2003 municipalities municipalities 2,000 197,000

DanubeEuroregion 2003 municipalities municipalities

Ister-GranumEuroregion 2003 municipalities municipalities

Mura-DravaEuroregion 2004 counties counties

Development and typology of the Euroregions

As one can see from the above table, euroregionalorganisations are rather heterogeneous in terms ofbothstructureandsurfacearea.Infact,thereareonlyafew definitive euroregions among them, but, if weconsiderhowfreelythebasicconceptofa“euroregion”is interpreted, thenwemustaccept the fact thatanyinstitution founded with the purpose of cross-bordercooperation is termed a“euroregion” by its foundingorganisations.

In any case, in Hungary we have deviated from thetraditional conceptof euroregion,andperhaps this istheresultofthespecialfeaturesofourborders.Thereareevermoreandmoresuccessfulsmallorganisationsin operation which have been established to satisfylocalneeds,whilsttheoperationofseverallarge,moreconventionalorganisationsisdifficult.Intypifyingtheorganisations,weshouldtaketwofactorsintoaccount.

In one respect, the main founding members areimportant.Inmostcasesthesearemeso-levelterritorialunits (counties, districts, provinces), although ridingsandmicro-regionsequivalenttoNUTS4(NomenclatureofTerritorialUnitsforStatistics4)levelalsoparticipate– and in increasing numbers. The efforts of thesettlements to establish euroregions are the latestdevelopment.Earliertheyrepresentedthemselveseitheras amember-unit of amicro-region or, alternatively,suchorganisationswereonlyformedbylargertowns(ofcountyrank)togetherwiththecountyitself.ChambersandNGOs(non-governmentalorganizations)withsomedegreeoflocalcompetenceare,inmanycases,involvedwithlocalauthoritiesatthatlevel.

Anotherimportantfactordistinguishingtheeuroregionsfromoneanotherisabasicpurposeoftheirestablishment.Here,wecanobservetwomajorgroups:

a)Organisationsformedwithapoliticalpurpose;thesewereestablishedasaresultofdiplomaticeffortsbylocalmeso-orlowerlevels;

�5


C M Y K


C M Y K

b) Organisations created in spatial structural unitsdue to their basic mutual dependence; these havecometoacceptthepressurestocooperate,whichwereearlierfragmentedorevennon-existent,butwhicharenowadaysinevitable.

WeproposetogroupthoseorganisationsoperatingwiththeHungarianparticipationaccordingtothelocallevelofparticipant,butletusfirstnote,thatthetwomajorfoundingprinciplesdescribedaboveexist inallcases,althoughtheymayvaryintermsoftheirimportance.

Consulting organisations covering a large area

The main characteristic of the first generation ofeuroregionsinHungarywasthatmeso-levelorganisationsestablishedinstitutionalrelationshipswithoneanother(Fig.1).Theirformationwasaccompaniedbyaconsiderableenthusiasm, and so it was difficult to control theirexpansion. It could, therefore, happen that areas fardistant from one another became members of ajointorganisation(e.g.theCarpathianEuroregion,theDanube-Drava-SavaEuroregion).Inthisway,theseorganisationsarecomingtoresembleatrans-nationalarea.

Fig.1.:LargeeuroregionswithHungarianparticipantsin2006I.: Carpathian Euroregion; II.: Danube–Kris–Mures–Tisa Regional Cooperation; III.: Danube–Drava–SavaEuroregionalCooperation;IV.:West/NyugatPannóniaEuroregion;V.:Vag–Danube–IpelEuroregion.Source:Ownwork.Map:GFKMacon1–Podkarpackie;2–Prešovskýkraj;3–Košickýkraj;4–Borsod-Abauj-Zemplen;5–Heves;6–Hajdu-Bihar;7–Jasz-Nagykun-Szolnok;8–Szabolcs-Szatmar-Bereg;9–Botosani;10–Suceava;11–Bihor;12–Maramures;13–SatuMare;14–Salaj;15–Harghita;16–Zakarpatskajao.;17–Ivano-Frankovskajao.;18–L‘vovskajao.;19–Chernovitskajao.;20–Bacs-Kiskun;21–Bekes;22–Csongrad;23–Arad;24–Caras-Severin;25–Hunedoara;26–Timis;27–Vojvodina;28–Tuzlanski;29–Koprivnicko-krizevackazupanija;30–Viroviticko-podravskazupanija;31–Osjecko-baranjskazupanija;32–Brodsko-posavskazupanija;33–Pozesko-slavonskazupanija;34–Baranya;35–Somogy;36–Posavski;37–BrckoDistrict;38–Szekszard;39–Gyor-Moson-Sopron;40–Vas;41–Zala;42–Burgenland;43–Pest;44–Fejer;45–Komarom-Esztergom;46–Veszprem;47–Nitrianskykraj

Basically, after along period of centralised socialism,these organisations created a“meso-level” diplomacywhoseparticipantsarecountyandprovincialpoliticians.Fromtimetotime,however,thestatemayalsojoininasanequalpartner.Theirestablishmentwaspossible

evenintheerainwhichlowerlevelterritorialunitswerebanned from undertaking cross-border activities, andso,evenifincidentally,theseorganisationswereactiveprimarilyduringthenationalistgovernmenteraofthe1990sandkeptcross-borderrelationshipsalive.Inthis

��


C M Y K


C M Y K

way, formal relations with Romanian counties whichofficiallycouldnotexistintheCarpathianEuroregionin the first part of the 1990s survived. Similarly, the“Danube-Kris-Mures-Tisa”EuroregioncouldmaintainitsrelationshipwiththeVoivodina’sprovincialgovernmentduringthewartimeblockadeofSerbia.

In addition to the para-diplomatic function, macro-regional planning is also an important responsibilityoftheseorganisations.Duetotheirspatialdimensions,they form cross-border planning frame-works whichcanshapeorreshapethemacro-regionalscaleofcross-bordernetworksandinfrastructurallines,andtheyhaveastronglinkagetothedevelopmentprogrammes(Phare,Interreg,NeighbourhoodProgrammes)alongthebordersoftheEuropeanUnion.However,itisonlypossibletoharmonisethedevelopmentconceptoftheeuroregionsandthedevelopmentobjectivesoftheUnionprogrammesto alimited extent, since their territory far exceedsthatqualifyingforprojectsupportfromtheEuropeanUnion.Inaddition,theyimpingeupontheterritoryofseveralEUprogrammes,and,inthisway,partsoftheirprogrammes which relate to several border-regionsaredifficulttoadjusttotheobjectivesofInterregandNeighbourhoodProgrammes.

ForthisreasonthenationalgovernmentsandtheUniontrans-national programmes (e.g. CADSES – Central,Adriatic, Danubian and South-Eastern EuropeanSpaceCommunityInitiativeInterregIIIB)mayplayasignificantroleinachievingtheirpurpose.

Intermsofborders,theDKMT(Danube–Kris–Mures–TisaRegionalCooperation)andWest-Pannoniaareinafortunate situation.Although the participants arecounties(sincetheyaretheentitiesofmunicipallevel)their territoriescomplywiththeNUTS2regionsnotonlyinHungary,butalsoinRomaniaandAustria.Wherethe Carpathian Euroregion and theVag-Danube-IpelEuroregion are concerned, it is true only to acertainextent, whilst the DDS cooperation (Danube–Drava–Sava Euroregional Cooperation) has set up atotallydifferent territorial structure – all of which suggestsdifferentpossibilitiesforbothterritorialplanningandparticipationinUnionprogrammes.

The earliest of these initiative is the Carpathian Euroregion.The area in which it is situated may bereferredtoasoneofmajor“losers”ofthe20thcentury.Ithadcomeundertheruleofseveraldifferentsovereignpowersbothintermsoftimeandspace.ThisleavesitsmarkalsoontheorganisationoftheEuroregion,sinceitisverydifficulttodrawthelinesofafunctionaldistrictinwhichtheorganisationcouldoperatesuccessfully.Duetothispartition,thecross-borderorganisationstartedat the beginning of the 1990s.An antecedent of theEuroregionwastheestablishmentofeconomicrelations

-theCooperationofCarpathianChamberswhichwasformedin1993andinwhichtheheadsoftheUkrainian,Slovak,RomanianandHungarianChambersofIndustryandCommerceexpressedtheirwillingnesstoco-operate.TheCarpathianBorderRegionEconomicDevelopmentAssociation,foundedin1994,becamethemostimportantforumofeconomicrelationships.Itgatheredtheeconomicandenterprisedevelopmentorganisationswhichwereactivealongsidethethree-andfour-borderareas.Fromthe outset the association expanded in Slovakia: thedistrictofficeheadsandtheheadsoftheKosiceChamberof Industry and Commerce also became members oftheCounciloftheAssociation,andontheheelsoftheeconomicorganisations,theadministrativelevelsalsojoined the cooperation.As aresult, the CarpathianEuroregion was formed in 1993. Its organisationalstructureischaracterisedbytheeuroregionalsystem:this comprises aRegional Council, made up of thePresident, Managing Director and Secretary of thisbodyandofworkingcommittees(Baranyi(ed.),2005).During the ‘90s its territory continuously expanded.Regionsremotefromthebordersalsobecamemembers(e.g.HarghitaCountyinRomania).However,thehugesizeoftheEuroregion(itsterritoryissignificantlylargerthanthatofHungary)hindersitsdailyoperation.Thisregioncanbecharacterisedbyweakeconomyand,atthesametime,byextremelytightborderswhichmakemovementdifficulteventoday,duetotheexistingvisasystems(betweentheUkraineandSlovakia)andduetothelowcapacityborder-crossings.LifewillbeevenmoredifficultsincetheexternalSchengenborderswillsoonsplittheEuroregionintoseveralsegments,whichwillentailfurthervisacomplications.

TheDanube-Kris-Mures-Tisa Euroregion was formedin the Romanian-Serbian-Hungarian tri-border areain1997and includes fourHungarian, fourRomaniancounties,andtheautonomousdistrictofVoivodina(Nagy,Todorovih,ТTosih,2005).Itsestablishmentwasprecededbybilateralcooperation.DifficultiessimilartothoseoftheCarpathianEuroregionemergedthereatthebeginningdue to the centralised character of Romanian localgovernment,butsanctionsimposedagainstYugoslaviaalsohinderedaneffectivecooperation.However,duringrecent years the operation of the Euroregion hasbeen revived, and it has been able to elaborate ownregional development concept and programme.ThespatialexpansionoftheEuroregionisalso,inthiscase,significantly larger than that of anarrowly definedborderregion,butthefunctionalrelationshipsaremuchstronger than those of the Carpathian Euroregion,primarily in terms of transportation, food industryand agriculture. One has to see that the area of theorganisation is akey gateway area betweenWesternEurope and the Balkan. Promoting this geographicaladvantageisonlypossiblethroughjointefforts,and,ifwestudytheparticipatingregionswithinthecountries,we

�7


C M Y K


C M Y K

willseethatRomanianandSerbianregionsconsideredto be developed can work together with Hungariancounties which are regarded as being of averagedevelopment.Inotherwords,motivationandinterestwhichpromotecooperationalreadyexist.

Following the above, the West-Pannonia Euroregionwas formed in 1998. It is true that, specificallyas aeuroregion, it was formed only in 1998, butcooperationistraditionallygoodinthisregion.Therewere conciliation forums even before the regimechanges,andtheRegionalCouncilof theHungarian-Austrian Borderland region was formed in 1992, itsmembers being the Burgenland province (Land), thecountiesofVasandGyőr-Moson-SopronandthecitiesofSzombathely,GyőrandSopron,all of county rank.Afteralongpreparatoryphase,membersoftheRegionalCouncil formedtheWest-PannoniaEuroregion in theautumnof1998.Initially,theEuroregionconsistedoftheBurgenlandandVasandGyőr-Moson-Soproncounties;later,ZalaCountyjoinedtheregion,sincethespatialcoverageoftheEuroregionwas,inthisway,broughtintolinewiththeNUTS2regionsformedin1996inHungary(Kampschulte, 1999; Nárai, Rechnitzer, 1999; Hardi,Nárai,2000).ThisHungarianregionisregardedasthesecondmost-developedregioninthecountry(followingtheCentralRegion)whilsttheBurgenlandistheleastdevelopedprovinceofAustria.

Thetwosidesoftheborderarecloselylinkedbyseveralfactors.Asignificant number of workers commutefrom Hungary toAustria, whilst many people comefromAustria topurchaseservices, realestatesetc. Itisveryinterestingthat, intermsofspatialstructure,theBurgenlandprovince(Land)wasformedfromtheterritoryawardedtoAustriaafterWorldWarIwhichwas carvedoutof the countieswhich todaymakeuptheHungariansideoftheEuroregion.Urbancentres(Sopron,KőszegandSzombathely)remainedinHungary,whilstnomajortownbecameapartofBurgenland.Theinstitutionalcooperationwasfurtherreinforcedbythefact that, among our border regions, this region hasreceivedmostUnionfundsattheearlieststage.PhareCBCfunds,whichwereintroducedaftertheaccessionofAustriatotheEU,weresubstantiallylargerthanthosealong other borders.Through the spatial coverage oftheEuregion,throughitspersonalandorganisationalrelationstotheregionandthecounties,ithasastrongvoiceintheplanningphaseoftheUnionprogrammes.

The Danube-Drava-Sava Euroregional Cooperationwas the fourth large-scale unit to be formed amongthe euroregions, being established in the autumn of1998.Thecooperationcoversthreecountries:Hungary,Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was establishedby signing theArticles ofAssociation on the 28th ofNovember, 1998.The founding members were, from

Hungary: the City Council of Pécs (with its countyrank), the GeneralAssembly of Baranya County, thePécs-BaranyaChamberofIndustryandCommerce;fromCroatia:theCityofOsijek,Osijek-BaranjskaCounty,theCroatianEconomicChamberofOsijek,andtheOsijekEconomic Chamber, and, from Bosnia-Herzegovina:theTuzla-Drina Canton, the Chamber of CommerceofTuzla and theTuzla region. In 1999 the Croatiancounties along the Hungarian border, together withtheir centresandChambersofCommerce, joined thecooperation.FromtheHungarianside,SomogyCounty,together with Barcs and Szekszárd (towns of countyrank)alsobecamemembers.ThefactthattheareaoftheEuroregionisnotcontiguouspresentedaproblemforalongtime,althoughtoday,withtheaccessionofthemissingCroatiancountyandoftheBrckodistrictfromBosnia-Herzegovina,thisproblemhasbeensolved.Duetopolitico-geographical,ethnicandhistoricalfeatures,theareacoveredbytheEuroregionisverycolourful,but,atthesametime,itisburdenedwithmanydifficulties.Hungarian,CroatianandBosniannationalsliveinallthreecountriesandinallof thesmallerregions.Theethnicconflictswhichledtothewarsoftheninetiesstillpersist.Theeconomyoftheregionisweakandaunifyingcommon interest is rarely found. Member regions ineach country are prejudged as peripheral; they werecondemnedtoafuturewithlittlehopebythewars,byinternationalgovernments,bytheborderswhichwerelongclosed–andevenmined–duringthenineties.Inthisway,theoperationoftheEuroregionwashinderedbymanyfactorsandforalongtimeitcouldbethoughtofasnomorethanaformality.Asamatteroffact,thetwocentralinitiativecities(PécsandOsijek)withtheirmutual relationships were the prime movers in thecooperation.Inaddition,however,thereisasignificantconnectinglink–theNorth-South(Vc)Trans-Europeantraffic corridor. Its current economic significance isnegligible,butitisbecominginceasinglyimportantittermsoftourism.

The Vag-Danube-Ipel Euroregion in the Hungarian-Slovak borderland region was the last large-scaleeuroregiontobeformed.ItismadeupofoneHungariancountyandaSlovakdistrictwhichsignedtheeuroregionalcooperationinthesummerof1999.

An interesting factor relating to its establishment isthatthegovernmentsofbothcountriestookamajorpartinit.InHungarytheestablishmentoftheEuroregionwassupportedbytheCountyAdministrativeOffice,thePrimeMinister’sOffice,andbytheMinistryofInterior.Atthattime,therewasnosuchinstitutionasa“countymunicipality”, but only districts with appointed(unelected)representatives.InthiswaytheDzurinda-government gave its blessing to the euroregionalcooperationbyasingleprimeministerialdecision.

�8


C M Y K


C M Y K

The operations centre of the Euroregion is locatedinTatabánya, Hungary and has the title of theVag-Danube-IpelDevelopmentKht(public-interestcompany)registeredasanautonomouslegalentity.ItsdutyistoachievetheobjectivesoftheEuroregion,andthisistoberealizedthroughtenderssincetheEuroregionhasnootherresourcesatitsdisposal.TherearetwosecretariesactiveintheEuroregion,oneinTatabányaandtheotherinNitra,andthecoreactivitiesoftheEuroregionaremostlyconcernedwithculturalandtourismprojects.

Euroregional cooperation of counties in the borderland region

Theinstitutionalcooperationbetweenthecountiesintheborderregion(Fig.2–seecoverp.3)startedattheendof the1990s.Theirestablishmentwasmotivatedby many factors. In one respect, the county regionaldevelopment councils which understood the need ofcross-borderrelationshipsstartedtooperateandbegantheirplanningwork.ThiswasstrengthenedbythefactthatthefirstPhareCBCprogrammeswerelaunched,nolongerexclusivelyinvolvingtheAustrian-Hungarianborder region, but also the border regions betweenthe other countries awaitingAccession. In addition,operatingproblemsoflarge-scaleEuroregionsbecamevisible by that time, and smaller cooperations weretherefore formed in their area. However, in contrasttothelarge-scaleEuroregions,externalforces(foreigninvestments and government favour) motivating theestablishmentofEuroregionswerenolongerevident.Due to this,and taking intoaccount futureavailablefunds, the counties established independent contactswithterritorialadministrativeunitsontheothersideoftheborder.Thiswaseasywhenthepublicadministrationintheneighbouringcountrywassimilar–thatis,whenitwaspossibletofindco-operatingpartnersatsimilarlevelsandwithsimilarcompetences.

Theneed torestorerelationshipsofearlierhistoricalcounties emerged when establishing severalorganisations of the kind. It was necessary namelybecausethosepartsoftheformer,dividedcountieswhichlieintheborderregionshavebecomeperipheries,and,in general, impoverished.This is especially so in theNorth-andNorth-EasternHungary.Theaim,therefore,wastoattempttoextricateoneselffromthis“peripheryof the periphery” situation and to repair the severedconnections(e.g.thetransportinfrastructure).

In Romanian-Hungarian relations the Hajdú-Bihar-Bihor Euroregionwasformedin2002,linkingtheregionsoftheformerBiharCountyandestablishinganewtypeofrelationshipbetweentheOradea-centredRomanianregionsandtheDebrecen-centredHungariancounty.In2000,InterregiowasformedintheRomanian-Ukrainian-Hungarian tri-border region with the participationof the Hungarian Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County,

the Romanian Satu Mare County and the UkrainianZakarpatska oblast. Its aim is to promote alliancesin thesepoor regionsand to initiate thedevelopmentof across-border infrastructure. Asimilar kind ofEuroregionwasformedin2004betweentheZalaCountyandtheCroatianMedimurskazupanija(county),namedthe Mura-Drava Euroregion. Its establishment wasratherdelayedincomparisonwiththeearlierexamples,andthereasonforthisisthatthestronglycentralisedsystemofCroatiancounties(zupanijas)hasonlyrecentlybeguntoloosen,whilstearliertheywerenotempoweredtoparticipateinsuchcooperations.Cooperationcanbedifficult, however, since the Hungarian counties aresubstantiallylargerintermsofbothsurfaceareaandpopulation.

OntheSlovak-Hungarianbordertheestablishmentofdirect county contactswashinderedby the fact that,intermsofareasizeandcompetences,thelocalSlovakmeso-leveldidnotcomplywiththeHungariancounties-evenaftertheirtransformationintolocalauthorities.Inthiscase,therefore,theHungariancountiesformedeuroregionswiththeSlovakdistrictsbysupportingthegiven Slovak regions.The Neogradiensis EuroregionandtheTriple-Danube-areaEuroregionareeachmadeupofoneHungariancountyandthreeSlovakdistricts.Thiskindofterritorialandadministrativecombinationhasgeneratedalargenumberofpracticalproblemsinoperation,and, in thecaseof theTriple-Danube-areaEuroregion,itledtototalinoperability.

ThefirstorganisationofthisscaleistheNeogradiensis Euroregion, formed in Spring 2000, after alongpreparatoryphaseandonthebasisofwillexpressions.TheHungarianNógrádCountyestablishedtheEuroregiontogetherwiththeSlovakpartnerorganisationinordertobeabletoutilizethesupportavailableundertheSmallProjectFundofthePhareCBCprogramme.ThenotionofthenamewasderivedfromthefactthattheoldLatinnameofthecountydoesnothurtthenationalsensitivityofeitherparty.

The Nógrád County and the three Slovak districtsinvolvedareallsituatedintheperipheralareasoftheircountries.Theireconomicsituationisunfavourableandtheunemploymentrate is ratherhigh,oftenreaching30-35%ontheSlovakside.TheEuroregiondeliberatelystrives to reshape the relationships of the historicalNógrádCounty,aunifiedhistorical-geographicalcategory.Thecentreoftheformercounty,whichwasdividedbyanew border afterWordWar I, was Balassagyarmat,whilst theotherhighlydevelopedcity,Lučenec, founditself on the Czechoslovak side of the border.Thesedays,theEuroregiondeliberatelystrivesforrevivalanddynamicsalongtheformerdevelopmentaxesandaspirestomakepossiblesomedivisionoffunctionbetweenthecities.Despitetheexistingborders,therefore,theregion

��


C M Y K


C M Y K

ismakingeffortstoextricateitselffromtheperipheralisolation,andsowemayconclude that, fromtheverybeginning,central issuesofthecooperationhavebeenregionalorganisationandregionaldevelopment.

In themirrororganisation, theNeogradiensisRegionAssociation became apartner organisation to theSlovakNeogradiensisEuroregion(inwhatistermedanAssociationofLegalEntities),sincetheEuroregioncanbeoperatedinthislegalform.AccordingtotheArticlesofAssociation,thesupremebodyoftheEuroregionistheGeneralAssembly,whosestructureconsistsoftheelectedpresident,asupervisorycommitteeandworkingcommittees. Secretarial responsibilities (day-to-daymanagement) are performed by the Nógrád CountyRegionalDevelopmentAgencyKht.

The founding members of the Triple-Danube-area EuroregionaretheGeneralAssemblyofGyőr-Moson-SopronCountyandtheCsallóköz–MátyusföldiRegionalAssociation.TheArticlesofAssociationweresignedonthe25thofJanuary,2001.ItsregisteredofficeislocatedinGyőr,intheofficeoftheCountyGeneralAssembly,while the organisational duties are undertaken inDunahelyenbytheOfficeoftheRegionalDevelopmentAgency.TheEuroregionitselfisnot,infact,alegalentity;andrepresentationrightsarevestedintheorganisationinwhichthechairmanisbased.

The area of the Euroregion covers the Győr-Moson-SopronCounty,andthreedistrictsinSlovakia,althoughthe Euroregion has not operated in fact since it wasestablished.TheSlovakpartnerdid,infact,elaborateadevelopment plan concerning its own territory, butcommon planning and development has never beenrealised,and the commonorganisationdoesnot evenoperateformally.

This is especially interesting since the day-to-dayrelations between the Hungarian county seat (Győr)and the Slovak districts (whose population is largelyofHungariannationality)areextremelyactive.Labourandeconomiccooperation,etc.issignificant.However,theinstitutionalisedrelationshipsimplydoesnotwork,presumablyduetoorganisationalproblems.

Organisations of municipalities and micro-regions

Municipalities,orassociationofmunicipalities,participateineuroregionsorganisedatamunicipalitylevel(Fig.3– see cover p. 3).Their establishment was instigatedby the fact that the borders had split numerousmunicipality – relations in the Carpathian-Basin.The national similarity of both sides of the border isafurtherincentive,whichistosaythattheformationofeuroregionsrestsonterritorial,structural,functionalandnationalfoundations.Therearenumerousexamples

formunicipalitycooperationsalongsideourborderlines,butonlysixorganisationswereformedwhichembracealargerareaand call themselves euroregions.Five ofthesearetobefoundintheSlovak-Hungarianborderlandregion.

Itwasevidentthatthesecooperationswereestablishedatthebeginningwiththetraditionalpurposevisiblealsoinothereuroregions-tosetupgoalsofculturalcooperation,regional development etc. Later, however, initiativesemergedwhichfocusedonthedivisionofurbanfunctions,performingdutiesappropriatetoagglomerations,andonthejointorganisationofpublicservices(Košice-MiskolcandIster-GranumEuroregion).

TheveryfirstorganisationestablishedatamunicipalitylevelwastheIpel Euroregion,whichwasformedin1999.ItsancestorwasanNGOcooperation(non-governmentalorganisations)dealingwithculturalandenvironmentalissues. The Cooperation Agreement names twoorganizations:theIpelEuroregioninHungary(itsseatbeing Balassagyarmat), and the Ipelsky Euroregionin Slovakia (its seat being Šahy). Chairmen of theseregionswerethesignatoryparties,andtheorganisationoperateswithtwocentres-oneinBalassagyarmatandtheotherinŠahy.ThedocumentdeclarestheestablishedorganisationtobeanAssociation,thepurposesofwhichare: preparing for European integration processes,promoting sustainable development in the region,overcoming backwardness, preserving the existing(mainlyenvironmental)valuesandelaboratingregionaldevelopmentprogrammes.InHungarythecooperationaffects105localauthorities,230thousandinhabitantsand,inSlovakia,232localauthoritiesand210thousandinhabitants.

The Zemplén Euroregion, formed in 2004, is across-borderorganisationestablishedatamicro-regionlevel.TheEuroregion’sArticlesofAssociationweresignedinSátoraljaújhely,intheformerZemplénCountyHallby9Slovakand5Hungarianmicro-regionsintheZemplén,bytheregionalorganisationsofbothcountriesandbyother17co-operatingpartners.TheEuroregionbasicallycovers the territory of the formerhistorical ZemplénComitat, and, according to the draft of the strategicprogramme,theaimoftheAssociationistheelaborationandrealisationofthecommon,concerteddevelopmentprogrammeoftheregion.

TheSajó-Rima (Slaná–Rimava) Euroregionisasimilarorganisation and 336 settlements belong in thisEuroregion,211and125ofthembeingsituatedintheSlovakandHungarianterritory,resp.Nearly1millioninhabitantsliveintheareawhosesizeis6,000km2.Itbasicallyexistsasavehicleforthecooperationoftwoorganisations: the Hungarian Sajó–Rima EuroregioAssociationandtheSlaná–RimavaEuroregion.

�0


C M Y K


C M Y K

Their objectives are focused on practical work anddevelopment,andtheyrepresentacourseofdevelopment.Atinitialstagestheywerecharacterisedbymethodsofoperationsimilartothoseoftheirlargercounterparts,but functional relations, the organisation of publicservices and tourism etc. have recently come intoprominence.

TheDrava-Mura Euroregionisalsoanorganisationofmicro-regionsandtowns.Inrespectofitsobjectives,itwaswishedtobecomeanorganisationoftheCroatian-Slovenian-Hungariantri-borderregion,buttheCroatianparticipationhasneverbeenrealized.TheDrava-MuraEuroregional outline agreement was signed by theHungarian parties and by the representative of thetownofLendavaonthe14thSeptember,andtheeventsorganised to celebrate the signing ceremony wereattended by representatives from several Croatianborder-regioncountiesandtownsandbyrepresentativesfrom the Chambers of Commerce, but finally theEuroregionremainedbilateral.

However, the Ister-Granum Euroregion representsasignificantly different model compared to thosedescribed above. It was formed in the central regionof the Slovak-Hungarian border in 2003, and theorganisation was basically established to restore thehistorical agglomeration of the Hungarian city ofEsztergom.FromboththeHungarianandSlovaksidesof theborder, the surroundingvillages,atotal of133settlements,joinedtheEuroregion.Thecommonfeatureofthesesettlements isthattheirnewcentresarefarremote,andsoitispracticaltousetheinstitutionsofthehistoricalregionalcentre.ThefactthattheDanubeR.andtheIpelR.dividethecityanditssuburbsintothreesectionsisanotherfeature.Inaddition,thestateborderalsoseparatesthesettlementslocatedinHungarybutontheeasternsideoftheDanubeR.andoftheIpelR.fromEsztergom.The rebuilding of theMariaValeriaBridgein2002-blownupduringWorldWarII-gaveagreatmomentumtoSlovakiaandtotheeasternsectorof the Euroregion.The aim is to realize the rationalorganisationofpublicservices,e.g.toshortentheroutesoffire-fighters,ambulancesetc.EsztergomisalreadyanimportantcentreoftheSlovakpartoftheEuroregioninthatthenumberofcommutingworkersandstudentsissignificant,andtheirnumberhasincreasedsincethereopeningofthebridgeandEUAccession.Thisregionhas,infact,createdaprecedentforthecommonusageofacityhospital.

The Danube Euroregion is linked in spatial terms,anditisnoaccidentthatthisrelationshipestablishedacontiguous industrial agglomeration north ofEsztergom along the Danube, whose environmental,tourist and employment influences are visible onboth sides of the border river. Even though this is

onlyaminoraspectofthecooperation,and,duetoitsmicro-settlementparticipants,onewhichdoesnotreallycorrespondtotheconceptofaeuroregion,therecanbenodoubtaboutthecross-borderregion-shapingroleoftheorganisation.Thisisshownbythefactthat,sinceitsestablishmentin2003,acommontourismdevelopmentconcepthasbeendrawnup.

4. Experiences and problems

Unfortunately, it has to be said that the activities ofthese organisations are subject to much controversy.Few operate in accordance with their declared aims,and,instead,aslowingdownofactivityinmostcasesfollows the initial enthusiasm, and, more often thannot, beyond signatures and initial meetings, no realprogresshasbeenmade.However,asalreadyindicated,theseorganisationsarefartooyoungtobejudgedtooswiftly,and,infact,ourtaskistohighlightcausesofthesetbacks.This canalso stimulate ideasand thoughtsregardingtheprospectsoffurtherdevelopment.

It is important to note that promoting cross-borderinteraction is not amandatory task for any localauthorityoractor,and,infact,mostparticipantsworkon avoluntary basis.Accordingly, participating inaeuroregionisadifferentkindofmissionthanworkingasamember of asimilar committee of, say, aCountyCouncil,andsotheexistenceofsharedinterestsisthekeytothesuccessofsuchorganisations.

Many organisations are established by political fiatwhenpoliticians(atcountyorlocalgovernmentlevel)oftendecideontheterritorialscopeandinfluenceofsuchorganisations,and,consequently,itisnottherationaleorlogicofgeographicalspacebutsimplyachancethatdeterminesthecircleofparticipants.

Particularly in the early years, apriority was givento the size. For instance, both the surface area andthe population of the Carpathian Euroregion exceedthe figures for Hungary.This Euroregion resemblesanAlpine-Adriatic type of macro-region rather thanapropereuroregion.Thedisproportionatedimensionsproducedtwomainproblems.Firstofall,itishardtofind interests common to themembers.Two countiesseveralhundredkilometresapartareunlikelytofindcommon issues which can be handled appropriatelywithin their own competence. In addition, in theselargeeuroregionstheorganisationofameeting,evenof smaller committees, entails an enormous effort intermsof time,money,andorganisationskills -whichclearlyhinderstheiroperation.Therecanbenodoubtthatthesimpleterritorialexpansiondoesnot leadtoacorresponding expansion of competence levels, and

��


C M Y K


C M Y K

synergies among the opportunities of members arenot sufficient to provide an adequate solution to theproblems of such large territorial units.Therefore, itwouldbeoptimaltoadjustthesizeofanorganisationto thecompetence levelsofmembers.Thequestion isnot whether municipalities, micro-regions, countiesor rather regions should establish the institutionalcooperation;sincetheyallhavestakesincross-borderrelationships.However,aterritorialexpansionneedstobeinharmonywiththerealpotentialinordertoprotectmutualinterestsoftheparticipants.

Thelackofcommoninterestamongthepartiesisduenotonlytotheunsatisfactoryterritorialscale:italsohastodowithinsufficientattentionpaidtothequestion:dotheparticipants(largerandsmallerorganisations)invitedtoconstitutivesessionsreallyneedtocooperate?

Therehasbeenagrowingrecognitionofthesedeficiencies,with the result that organisers have begun to prefersmaller,functionallyinterrelatedareas.Unfortunately,however,furtherpitfallshavebecomevisibleinadditiontotheproblemofterritorialscale.Firstly,thecompetenciesofparticipantsareoftennoticeablydifferent,and thepowers enjoyed by decision-makers of Hungarian,Romanian,Croatian,etc.municipalitiesorcountiesarealsooftenquitedifferent.Thisproblemisusuallybeyondtheinfluenceofsuchorganisationsasitdependsonthenationallegislation.Progresshasbeenmade,however,withtheharmonisationofcompetencies,aprerequisitefortheaccessionintheEuropeanUnion.

Another source of collision for competencies is whenthelevelsofparticipantsonthetwosidesoftheborder,joiningtheorganisation,donotcorrespond.Forinstance,inthecaseofthe“Triple-DanubeEuroregion”,theentityrepresenting Hungary is acounty, whilst the Slovakparty is represented by districts – and there are, of

course,moreexamples. Itgoeswithoutsaying that itis difficult to manage abilateral committee in whichoneofthepartiesisrepresentedbyaSecretaryoftheState,whiletheotherpartyisledbyaspecialcommitteememberfromavillagecouncil.

Itisalsopoliticalcyclesthatleavetheirmarkonbilateralormultilateralorganisations.Asthereareelectionsatsomelevelalmosteveryyearinatleastonerepresentedcountry,thereisabacklogofconsiderabletimeduringwhichthewholeorganisationmustsitandwaitforresults,sinceanyactivitytofollowwill,ofcourse,dependonthem.

Finally, thereareproblemsconcerningthe fundingofsuchorganisations.Relativetothegoals,areasandthesize of the population affected by these cooperations,the resources available are generally scarce.Amongtheneighbouringcountries,onlySlovakiahasaspecialreservefundaccessibletoSlovakpartnersforrelevantundertakingsininternationalcooperativeorganisations,andthesefundsaresufficientforminorobjectivessuchas the preparation of strategy blueprints. In general,however, the funding comes from the participantsthemselves.Theamountscanatbestcovertheoperatingexpenses, but they rarely permit for instance thepreparation of ajoint development plan. In any case,severaldevelopmentplanshavebeenalreadycompletedon both sides of the Euroregion depending on whohappenedtohaveaccesstotherequiredresources.Thisis unfortunate since the general requirement of jointregionalmanagementcallsforthejointplanningandforthesubsequentrealisationofasinglecommonplan.However, most euroregions do not have independent,self-sustainingorganisations.Itisonlyincaseswheresuchanorganisationwasinplacetogetherwithpeopleinchargewhocanbeheldaccountableforitsoperationthatsignificantachievementsinrecentyearscouldbeobserved.

References: BARANYI,B.,BALCSóK,I.,DANCS,L.,MEZő,B.(1999):BorderlandSituationandPeripheralityintheNorth-EasternPart

oftheGreatHungarianPlain.DiscussionPapers.No.31.Pécs,MTARKK,85pp.

BARANYI,B.(ed.)(2005):Hungarian–RomanianandHungarian–UkrainianBorderRegionsasAreasofCo-operationAlong

theExternalBordersofEurope.Pécs:CentreforRegionalStudies,169pp.(DiscussionPapers.Special).

BAUMGARTNER,G.,KOVÁCSÉ.,VÁRI,A.(2001):Paradoxofborderregions:BesenyőantalandAlbrechtsdorf1990–2000.

TelekiLászlóIntézet,Közép-EurópaTanulmányokKözpontja,InstitutFürDonauraum.(manuscript).

DANCS,L.(2000):Ukranian–Hungarianborderrelations.In:Hardi,T.(ed.):Ahatármentiregionálisegyüttműködésekmint

aterületfejlesztésújirányai.Győr,MTARKKNYUTI.Kutatásijelentés.TheNewWaysoftheRegionalDevelopmentwith

theTransborderCo-operations.Finalresearchreport,279pp.

ENYEDI,G.,HORVÁTH,G.(eds)(2003):Country,settlement,region.MTATársadalomkutatóKözpont–Kossuth,Budapest,

511pp.

HAJDú,Z. (1997):EmergingConflictorDeepeningCooperation?TheCaseoftheHungarianBorderRegions.In:Paul,G.,

Swedler,A.,Scott,J.,Eberwein,W.D.(eds):BordresandBorderRegionsinEuropeandNorthAmerica.SanDiego,San

DiegoStateUniversityandInstituteforRegionalStudiesCalifornia,193–212pp.

�2


C M Y K


C M Y K

HARDI,T.,NÁRAI,M.(2000):ChangeofborderregioncharacteristicsinWestern–HungaryattheendofXXthcentury.Térés

Társadalom.No2,p.107–130.

KAMPSCHULTE,A.(1999):GrenzraumundSysteme–VongeschlossenenzuoffenenGrenzen?GeographischenInstitutsder

UniversitätTübingen,Tübingen,375pp.

KOVÁCS,Z.(1990):Developmentofborderregion’scentrenetworksinceWorldWarItillnowadays.–FöldrajziKözlemények.

No.1–2,p.3–16.

NAGY,I.,TODOROVIH,M.,TOSIH,B.(2005):Geografszkeosznoveevroregiona„Dunav-Keres-Mures-Tisa“.Bulletindela

SocietéSerbedeGeography,No.2,p.67–78.

NÁRAI,M.,RECHNITZER,J.(eds)(1999):Devidesandconnects–theborder.Pécs–Győr,MTARKK,307pp.

PÁL,Á.,SZóNOKYNÉ,A.G.(eds)(1996):Off–andabovetheborder.Szeged,JATE,JGYTF,453pp.

RECHNITZER,J.(1999):Cross-borderco-operationsinEuropeandinHungary.InNárai,M.,Rechnitzer,J.(eds):Elválasztés

összeköt–Ahatár.Győr–Pécs,MTARKK,p.9–72.

SüLI-ZAKAR,I.(1997):RoleofCarpathianEuroregioninstrengheningcrossborderrelations.Comitatus.Június,p.30–44.

SZöRÉNYINÉ,K.I.,DANCS,L.,HAJDú,Z.,KUGLER,J.,NAGY,I.(2000):Hungary’SevenBorderRegions.JournalofBorder

Studies,p.221–254.

Author´s address:

TamásHARDI,PhD.HungarianAcademyofSciencesCentreforRegionalStudiesWest-HungarianResearchInstituteH-9022Győr,LisztF.út10.,HungaryTel.:+3696516576,Fax:+3696516579E-mail:[email protected]

Reviewer:

Dr.GyulaHORVÁTH

��


C M Y K


C M Y K

SOME ASPECTS OF CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION

IN EUROREGIONS OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC

ON EXAMPLE OF THE ŠUMAVA REGION

StanislavCETKOVSKÝ,PetrKLUSÁČEK,StanislavMARTINÁT,JanaZAPLETALOVÁ

Abstract

The complexity of the issues of cross-border cooperation in the Czech Republic is explained in this study, and it makes use of the Šumava region as an example. At the outset, a brief description of some major milestones in a relatively complicated (and sometimes not idyllic) historical development is presented: these milestones had an essential influence on the formation of the initial situation in this region in 1989. A detailed description and analysis of the subsequent (from 1989 to present) types of cooperation within the Šumava Euroregion is then presented. In the third section, the focus is turned to those functional arrangements in which mechanisms of cross-border cooperation have not been fully implemented, yet which might constitute some potential for future cross-border cooperation. The final section of the paper outlines, in a tentative fashion, possible conclusions and recommendations resulting from the case study.

Shrnutí

Některé aspekty přeshraniční spolupráce v euroregionech České republiky na příkladu území Šumavy

Předkládaný příspěvek přibližuje složitost problematiky přeshraniční spolupráce v České republice na příkladu území Šumavy. Nejprve jsou zde stručně popsány některé základní milníky poměrně komplikovaného a někdy nepříliš idylického historického vývoje, které však měly ve studované oblasti podstatný vliv na formování výchozí situace v roce 1989. Poté následuje detailní rozbor a analýza dosavadních podob spolupráce v rámci euroregionu Šumava. V následující části je pozornost zaměřena na oblasti, ve kterých se mechanizmy přeshraniční spolupráce dosud plně neprosadily, a které mohou být pro budoucí přeshraniční spolupráci perspektivní. Závěrečná část nastiňuje možné závěry a doporučení, jež vyplynuly ze studované problematiky.

Key words: euroregions, cross-border cooperation, Šumava, Czech Republic, regional development, environment protection

Motto:

„Bridges among people with no regard of state boundaries can be built only by people themselves, from below and despite of language barriers. Bridges among nations can never be built by an official resolution….“ (Sedlářová, 2006)

1. Introduction

Before 1989, many border regions in the territory oftoday’sCzechRepublicexperiencedanimpactofeithernon-existingcross-bordercooperation(inborderregionsneighbouringwithAustriaandWestGermany)orthecooperation was poorly developed (in border regionsneighbouringwithPolandandformerEastGermany).ThestateborderwithSlovakiadidnotexistyetatthattime.The situation dramatically changed with thefall of iron curtain, and the 1990s witnessed–partlyalso thanks to generous financial aid from the

European Union–agradual development of cross-bordercooperationwhichbegantobeunderstoodinthegeneralawarenessofprofessionalandgeneralpublicasauseful instrument for the improvementof situationinthesofardeprivedperipheralregions.Duetotheserevolutionary changes the cross-border cooperationandtherelatedissueofeuroregionsbecamerelativelyoftendiscussedtopicsstudiedatpresentbyarangeofscientificdisciplines.Cross-border cooperationwas inpost-socialist countries tackledwithin the frameworkofgeographicalresearchforexamplebyE.EckartandH. Kowalke (1997),V. Drgoňa (1999, 2001), I. Zemko

��


C M Y K


C M Y K

andJ.Buček(2000),P.Spišiak(2001),M.HalásandV.Slavík(2001),M.Bufon(2002),P.JurzcekandB.Köppen(2001),M.Halás(2005),intheCzechRepublicbye.g.J.Dokoupil(1999,2001a,2001b,2002,2004a,2004b,2005),M.Jeřábek(1999,2002,2004),M.Novotná(1993,2001,2002a,2002b),J.Zapletalová(2003),J.Zapletalováetal.(2005)andP.Klusáček(2004).TheregionofŠumavadidnotbelonginthepastseveraltensofyearsinthegroup of territories rising aconcentrated attentionof scientific and research institutions.The situationchangedafter1989.Sincethebeginningofthe1990stheŠumavaregionhasbeenpaidattentionbyresearchteamsfromuniversitiesinPlzeňandČeskéBudějovice(e.g.Dokoupil,1991,2001,2002,2004,2005;Novotná,1993,1998,2000,2001,2002).TheissueisalsostudiedattheInstituteofSystemBiologyandEcologyASCRinČeskéBudějovice(e.g.Bartošetal.,2004,Cudlínováetal.,1999,Kušováetal.,1999a,2001;Těšiteletal.,2003,2005).

Theobjectiveofthepresentedcontributionistoelucidateon example of the Šumava region the complexity ofthe issue of cross-border cooperation in the CzechRepublic.

Thearea ofŠumavawas chosen intentionallydue tofollowingreasons:

• The territory constitutes – namely from thephysico-geographical point of view–arelativelyhomogeneous complex with us maintaining thatthe homogeneity could be the best prerequisiteforapplyingsimilarprinciplesondifferentbordersides.Itistobeaddedinthisconnexionthatthehigh homogeneity relates to the Šumava regionas awhole and can be in no case related to theŠumava Euroregion which conversely exhibitsrelativelyconsiderableterritorialheterogeneity.ThisterritorialdisparatenessoftheŠumavaEuroregionisespeciallygivenbythefactthattheEuroregionisavoluntaryassociationofmunicipalities,townsand other legal entities with the Euroregion’smembershipdynamicallydevelopingintime(incasethatamunicipalitydoesnotpaythemembershipfeeforaperiodoftime,itwouldceasetobeamember).Takingintoaccounttheabovedescribedvariabilityof Šumava Euroregion members namely at themunicipality level the authors had to somewhatsimplify the studied issue.The below text willtherefore concern the level of districts with theŠumavaregionof interest including thedistrictslistedinTab.1.ItshouldbepointedoutthatnotallmunicipalitiesofthesedistrictsaremembersoftheŠumavaEuroregion.

• ThetrilateralŠumavaEuroregionhasbeenactinginthestudiedareasince20September1993withothertrilateraleuroregionsintheCzechRepublic

(Nisa, South Moravia and Beskids) having beenestablished on 21 December 1991, 23 June 1999and9June2000,respectively.

• TheŠumavaEuroregionissituatedinterritorythatwasmorethan40yearshermeticallypartitionedby iron curtain which practically eliminated anycontactsbetweenpopulationsonthetwosidesoftheborder. It canbe thereforeassumed that thedevelopment of cross-border cooperation in theŠumava territory had amore difficult startingposition than for example in the Nisa or ElbeEuroregions.

• The Šumava Euroregion is situated in territorywhere relations between populations may bestill stigmatized by certain conflicts of politicalnature.AcertaintensionontheCzecho-Bavarianborder may stem from the fact that agreaterpartofGermanpopulationdisplacedafterWorldWarII fromthethenCzechoslovakia foundtheirhomesinthefederallandofBavariainwhichtheassociation of deportees has arelatively greatestinfluence on local politicians. Similarly, theCzecho-Austrian border was affected after 1989byconflictsconcerningconstructionofthenuclearpowerplantinTemelín(e.g.blockadesofthebordercrossingsgivenagreatpublicitybymedia)whoseaccomplishmentandputting intooperationrisedconsiderablynegativefeelingsinagreaterpartofgeneralpublicinUpperAustria.InthissituationtheEuroregion’sactivitynaturallyacquiredanevengreater degree of importance as all cross-bordercooperation activities such as mutual meetings,jointprojectsetc.mayefficientlyhelpinsmoothingdowntheconflictingedgesontheCzech,GermanandAustriansidesoftheborder.

• The Šumava Euroregion area was subject toarelativelyextensivefieldinquirycarriedoutbytheresearchteamfromtheInstituteofGeonicsASCRwithintheprojectofEuroregionsandtheirrelationtoterritorialadministrationandself-governmentintheCzechRepublic,concernednotonlywiththeCzechpartoftheareaunderstudybutalsowiththeremainingtwopartsinAustriaandGermany.

The paper is divided into several organicallyinterconnected and linked sections. The openingintroductionintotheissueisfollowedbyasecondpartwithabriefdescriptionofsomecardinalmilestonesofarather complicated and not at all idyllic historicaldevelopment, which nevertheless had an essentialinfluence in the area of interest on the formation ofinitial situation in 1989.The third part of the paperbringsabriefanalysisoflandscapechangesoccurringin the area of interest during the 2ndhalf of the 20thcentury.The fourth section deals with the hithertoformsofcooperationwithintheŠumavaEuroregion.Thefifthsectionshowsonexampleofnatureconservation

�5


C M Y K


C M Y K

issuethatthemechanismsofcross-bordercooperationhavenotbeenunfortunatelyfullyassertedyetinsomespheresof life. (This iswhythespheresmaybevery

prospectivewithrespecttothefuturedevelopmentofvariousformsofcross-bordercooperation).

2. The influence of historical events on the current shape of investigated territory

Two main historical events in the 20th century thathad amajor impact on the current appearance of theinvestigated area were undoubtedly the evacuationof Germans and the subsequent existence of the ironcurtain.ThedisplacementofGermanpopulationshowedinadramaticpopulationdecreaseontheCzechsideoftheborder.This iswhy theCzechpart of theŠumavaEuroregionhasonlyanapproximatelyhalfpopulationdensity as compared with the German andAustrianparts(Tab.1).ThefactthattheautochthonousGermanpopulationhasneverbeen replenisheddespite severaladditionalwavesofresettlementisclearlydemonstratedinTab.2(whilethedistrictsofČeskýKrumlov,Prachatice,KlatovyandDomažlicehadatotalpopulationof418,404residents in1930, thesame territoryhadonly257,647inhabitants in 2001, i.e. only 61.6% of the originalpopulationin1930).

Theabovehistoricaleventsundoubtedlyaffectedalsotheintensityandqualityofthecross-bordercooperationafter1989.HerewehavetorealizethattheCzechpartof the investigated area was after 1945 resettled bynewsettlerswhocouldnotdevelopcontactswiththeirneighboursontheothersideoftheborderduetotheexistence of the iron curtain (1948-1989).After 1989,mutual cooperation was undoubtedly impacted alsoby the language barrier (poor knowledge of GermanlanguageontheCzechsideoftheborder).

It may be added that the displacement of Germanpopulation and the subsequent existence of the ironcurtainhadalsosomepositiveeffects,mostlikelynotintended by the then ruling regime. J. Chum (2003)

maintains that ... „the period from 1946-1989 wasimmenselybeneficial fornatureoftheCzechŠumavabecausethedisplacementradicallyreducedinhabitants,enforcing only extensive forestry and farming, withthe borderline zone and military training grounds inPrášilyandBoleticeclosingagreaterpartofŠumavatocivilization.Apart fromthis,natureprotectionwasalso contributed to by the declaration of the ŠumavaProtected Landscape Area in 1963, later also theŠumavaNationalPark(1991),theUNESCObiospherereserve(1990)andtheProtectedAreaofNaturalWaterAccumulation (1978). Intensive tourism in the regiondevelopedpracticallyonlynearŽeleznáRudaandonthenorthernbankoftheLipnodamlake.TheintroductionoflynxinŠumavadatesbackto1988.TheintentionofintroducingbearwasmadeimpossibleduetothelackofinterestonthepartofBavariaandAustria(astablebearpopulationwouldneedapossibilityof freemovementacrosstheentireŠumavaterritorywithnorespectofstate borders and also aconsistent protection).Thus,although being relatively little affected in 1989, thenatureofŠumavawashoweverhighlyvulnerable“...

3. Changes in the Šumava landscape in the 2nd half of the 20th century

TherapidpopulationlossontheCzechsideofŠumava(seeTab. 2) necessarily had to reflect in land usestructure development. Although the enclosure ofŠumavaborderlinezoneintheperiodoftotalitycouldhavehadabeneficialeffectonthenature(liquidationofvillages,afforestation...),itrepresentedwithrespecttotheculturallandscapeoriginallysimilaronbothsidesof the border an undeniable hindrance to apotentialcross-bordercooperation.

Fig. 1: Area under studySource: http:// www.euregio.cz

��


C M Y K


C M Y K

Districts Population in 2001 Surface area (km2)Population density (inhabitants/km2)

Czech part

ČeskýKrumlov 59,500 1,615 37

Prachatice 51,380 1,375 37

Klatovy 87,991 1,939 45

Domažlice 58,776 1,140 52

Czech part - Total 257,647 6,070 42

German part

Freyung-Grafenau 75,096 894 84

Passau 186,660 1,530 122

Cham 131,544 1,512 87

Regen 82,875 975 85

Deggendorf 116,235 861 135

Straubing-Bogen 96,160 1,202 80

German part - Total 688,570 6,974 99

Austrian part

Freistadt 64,008 994 64

Perg 63,955 614 104

Rohrbach 57,909 828 70

Urfahr-Umgebung 77,742 649 120

Austrian part - Total 263,614 3,085 85

Euroregion by districts - total 1,209,831 16,128 75Tab. 1: Population of the Šumava EuroregionSource: Statistik Austria. Die Informationsmanager (www.statistik.at). Bayerisches Landesamt für Statistik und Datenverarbeitung (www.statistik.bayern.de). Czech Statistical Office (www.czso.cz ).

Surface areaPopulation

1930 1950 1961 1970 1980 1991 2001

ČR 10,673,491 8,896,102 9,571,531 9,807,696 10,291,927 10,302,215 10,230,060

ČeskýKrumlov 93,979 46,830 48,620 49,940 55,395 57,388 59,500

Prachatice 86,301 47,785 48,239 47,925 50,119 50,985 51,380

Klatovy 143,210 100,098 99,219 94,133 92,327 89,767 87,991

Domažlice 95,003 60,613 59,745 58,925 60,043 58,729 58,776

Czech part - Total 418,404 255,326 255,823 250,923 257,884 256,869 257,647

Tab. 2: Population development in the Czech part of the Šumava Euroregion in 1930-2001Source: Retrospective lexicon of municipalities in CSSR 1850-1970. Statistical lexicon of municipalities in CSSR 1982. Statistical lexicon of municipalities in CSFR 1992. Statistical lexicon of municipalities in the Czech Republic 2005.

Acomparisonwasmadeofdatafor1959,1994and2005.Being aware of the fact that the starting year for thecomparison(1959)doesnotcorrespondwiththeperiodofGermanpopulationdisplacementandthattheinitialdatahavetobethereforediscounted,theauthorsmaintainthatlandusechangesdonotoccurinstantlybutratheratanoffset.ForexamplethatthehighshareoffarmlandintheŠumavalandscapeinthe1960swasareminiscenceofthelong-termcolonizationbyfarmingpopulation.Thisiswhytheperiodcanbeusedasastartingone.Amoreprosaic

reasonforusingtheperiodishoweveravailabilityofdataconvertedaccordingtothenewterritorialadministrativedivisionin1960andhencetheircomparability1.Anothertimepointforthecomparisonistheperiodafterthefalloftheironcurtainwiththeyear19942chosenforsimilarreasonsastheyear1959.Actualdataapplytoyear20053.Data included in the comparison concern the share offarmlandinsurfaceareaofthedistricts,theshareofarablelandinfarmland,forestlandintotalsurfacearea,andthe

1Landusedataoriginatefromthepublication:Surveyofthemostimportantselectedindicesforregionsanddistrictsaccordingtothenewterritorialadministrativedivision.Československástatistika,skupinaB,sv.41,Státníúřadstatistický,Praha,1960,107pp.2StatisticalYearbookofLandResourcesoftheCzechRepublic1994.Českýúřadkatastrálníazeměměřičský,Praha,1994,32pp.3StatisticalYearbookofLandResourcesoftheCzechRepublic2005.Českýúřadkatastrálníazeměměřičský,Praha,2006,48pp.

�7


C M Y K


C M Y K

shareofpermanentgrasslandsinfarmland(withthelastcharacteristiconlyforyears1994and2005).

The first period under study (1959-1994, seeTab. 3)clearlyshowstrendtomassivereductionofcultivatedfarmlandintheŠumavaregionduringthecommunisttotality,whichapparentlyrelatestotheabovementionedpopulation loss in the region.The greatest losses offarmlandarerecordedinthedistrictsofČeskýKrumlovandPrachatice,i.e.inareaswithmostdifficultnaturalconditionsforfarming(over7%).Neithernewsettlersfrominlandnorstatefarmsorganizedfromthecentrewere able to link up with the tradition of mountainagriculture (Klapka, Martinát, 2005).The farmland

structureexperiencedsomechanges,too.Althoughthesurface area of arable land was logically decreasing,itsrelativeshareincreasedthussuggestingafocusofagricultural activities on growing crops (esp. cerealsevenathigheraltitudes)atthecostofthetraditionalextensive rearing of farm animals (pasturage).TheintensiveuseofpiedmontareasforagriculturalpurposeswithnorespectofnaturalconditionswasintrinsictothethenagriculturalpolicyandthepiedmontofŠumavawasnoexception.AsomewhatdifferentsolutionwasfoundinthePrachaticedistrictwheretheperiodwitnessedaprofound afforestation (from 45% to 63% of totaldistrictsurfaceareain1994).

District Farmland/Total area Arable land/Farmland Forest land/Total area

ČeskýKrumlov -7.22 +7.89 -1.98

Prachatice -7.89 +1.70 +12.68

Klatovy -4.46 +2.53 -1.30

Domažlice -2.31 +2.08 +2.84

Total -5.56 +4.00 +2.46

Tab. 3: Changes in land use shares in districts of the Czech part of the Šumava Euroregion in the period 1959-1994 (in per cent)Source: Survey of the most important selected indices for regions and districts according to the new territorial administrative division 1960. Statistical Yearbook of Land Resources of the Czech Republic 1994.

AfterthefalloftheironcurtainthelanduseinŠumavareturns at least partly to its more natural structure.Arable land is in unfavourable natural conditionsreplacedbypermanentgrasslands.AnextremecaseisthedistrictofČeskýKrumlovwithnearlyafifthofarablelandreductionin1994-2005(seeTab.4).TheextensivehusbandryoffarmanimalscomesbacktoŠumava,too

(Fig.2–seecoverp.2).ThetracesofsocialistagricultureareneverthelessfeltuntiltodayintheŠumavalandscape–apartfromtheabovementionedarablelandoccurringathigherelevationsandfarmlandconsolidatedintolargecomplexesthisalsoappliestothelarge-scalefacilitiesofpartlyunusedanddevastatedstatefarmsandrelatedenvironmentalrisks.

District Farmland/Total area Arable land/FarmlandPermanent grassland/

FamrlandsForest land/Total area

ČeskýKrumlov +0.04 -18.20 +18.23 +0.74

Prachatice -0.03 -8.20 +8.12 +0.22

Klatovy -0.09 -5.22 +5.13 +0.18

Domažlice -0.29 -2.67 +2.65 +0.28

Total -0.08 +8.10 +8.05 +0.36

Tab. 4: Changes in land use shares in districts of the Czech part of the Šumava Euroregion in the period 1994-2005 (in per cent)Source: Statistical Yearbook of Land Resources of the Czech Republic 1994. Statistical Yearbook of Land Resources of the Czech republic 2005.

Generalviewoflandusechangesintheperiodunderstudy is presented in Tab. 5. The relatively leastprofoundchangescanbeseeninthenorthernsectionof Klatovy district and in the district of Domažlicewithrelativelymostfavourablenaturalconditionsforfarming.Conversely,themostprofoundchangesinthe2ndhalfofthe20thcenturyarerecordedinthemountainpart ofŠumava.Farming landareawas reducedandtheshareof forest landmarkedly increased inapartoftheterritory.

AninterestingviewisofferedinFigs3and4withaerialphotographs (2003 – see cover p. 4) of landscapes ontheCzechsideoftheborderandinBavariawherethesettlementcontinuityremainedpreserved (inspiteofarelatively significantpopulation lossdue tonaturalreductionbutmainlybymigrationintheGermanandAustrianpartsoftheregioninthe2ndhalfofthe20thcentury).

Anew and unambiguously positive element in thelandscapeofmountainandpiedmontregionsisinthe

�8


C M Y K


C M Y K

District Farmland/Total area Arable land/Farmland Forest land/Total area

ČeskýKrumlov -7.19 -10.32 -1.23

Prachatice -7.92 -6.51 +12.90

Klatovy -4.54 -2.70 -1.12

Domažlice -2.60 -0.60 +3.12

Total -5.65 -4.10 +2.82

Tab. 5: Changes in land use shares in districts of the Czech part of the Šumava Euroregion in the period 1959-2005 (in per cent)Source: Survey of the most important selected indices for regions and districts according to the new territorial administrative division 1960. Statistical Yearbook of Land Resources of the Czech Republic 2005.

periodafter1990thephenomenonoforganicfarming(Klapka,Martinát,2005).Environment-friendlymethodsof farming are applied in Šumava on approximately13%offarmland(2003)withthegreatestshare(uptoathird) in the eastern section of the studied region4.Itisparticularlyintheseactivitiescombinedwiththesoft forms of tourism where afuture can be seen fortheŠumavaculturallandscape.Spreadofknowledge,innovations, experience and awareness of land useopportunities and limitations on the Czech side ofŠumavashouldbepaidmoreattentioninEuroregion’sactivities.

4. Development of cross-border cooperation within the Šumava Euroregion

According to the proclamation of its representativesthe Šumava Euroregion aims at gradually becomingaguarantor for the preservation and enhancementof livingconditions in theentireregion,developmentof economy, strengtheningofmutual cooperationandcoordinationofactivitieswithotherregions,buildingofinfrastructurereachingbeyondtheregionboundariesand integration of the region into activities of theEuropeanUnion(StatuteoftheŠumavaEuroregion).Activitiesof theŠumavaEuroregionassociation is tolead to the enforcement of opinions and concerns ofmunicipalitiesandtownsintheregionandtofacilitatedevelopmentaltrendsintheregion.Theyarefocusedon cross-border cooperation in the field of economy,agriculture and forestry, labour and social affairs,tourism, environment protection and infrastructuredevelopment.

Active cross-border cooperation between Czechcommunes situated within the Šumava EuroregionwithpartnerentitiesinAustriaandGermanybegantodevelopin1993immediatelyaftertheestablishmentoftheeuroregionalassociation,andwasfurtherintensifiedafter the establishment of the Šumava RegionalDevelopmentAgency (Regionální rozvojová agenturaRRA)in1996.

Cross-bordercooperationfollowsoutfromthepartnercooperationofindividualCzechmunicipalities,regional

associationsandotherlegalentitieswithpartnersontheAustrianorGermansideoftheborder.Developmentof this cooperation is considerably supported bypossibilities of withdrawing resources for individualprojectsthatcanbesubmittednotonlybymunicipalitiesandtownsbutalsobyotheractorsoflegalsubjectivity(microregional associations of municipalities, schools,sports organizations and arange of other entities).It does not matter whether the individual actors aremembersof theŠumavaEuroregionorwhether theyhavethecross-bordercooperationbasedonagreementsoutsidetheeuroregionalassociation.

Thispaperdoesnotaimatadetailedanalysisof thecross-bordercooperationofindividualactors.Itisrathertopresentageneralviewofthedifferentgroupsofcross-bordercooperationprojects.(Adetailedpictureofcross-bordercooperationamongmunicipalitiesintheŠumavaEuroregion was studied in theVimperk microregionwithinthegrantprojectresolvedbytheDepartmentofGeographyattheWest-BohemianUniversityinPilsen–seeNovotná,2001).

During the Euroregion’s existence it was possible towithdrawresourcesforcross-bordercooperationprojectsfromthePHARECBCfund5andlaterfromfundsoftheInterregIIIAprogramme.

ThestructureofsubsidywithdrawalsbyindividualtypesofPHARECBCprojectsisshowninFig.5.

Therewerebothlargeandsmallprojectsimplementedwithin the PHARE CBC programmes such as theCommonfundofsmallprojects,small infrastructuralprojects,projects to support tourism,enhancementofenvironmentquality,etc.Projectswithinthesocalledsmallprojectsarefocusedonthepreparationofpublicitybrochures toadvertise theŠumavaEuroregion or itsindividualparts,ontheconstructionofcyclingtracks,naturetrails,bordercrossingsforhikers.Therearealsosomeprojectsfocusedonenvironmentimprovement.

LargeprojectsaidedfromtheresourcesofPHARECBCto be mentioned for example are projects focused onenvironmentenhancement(e.g.sewagewatertreatmentplants in Bělá pod Radbuzou-Železná and for 16

4DataprovidedbyKontrolaekologickéhozemědělství,o.p.s.(www.kez.cz).5PHARECBC–PHARECrossBorderCooperation

��


C M Y K


C M Y K

Fig. 5: Withdrawal of subsidies from the PHARE programmes in the Šumava Euroregion in the period 1996-2003Source: RRA Šumava

municipalitiesformingtheChodskáLeagueassociation,oracross-borderprojectforthereconstructionofrailwaystation in Železná Ruda6).Another of large projectsfundedfromPHARECBCwasinthefieldoftourismthe project „Šumava – Promotion of tourism“ withinthe frameworkofwhichaEurocampwasconstructedin Běšiny (CR) in 2001. Funded from the SAPARDprogramme, one of the most modern educational,training and information centres in Šumava wasestablishedontheEurocamppremises.OtherprojectstobementionedaretheconstructionofbackbonecyclingtrackintheareaofLipnodamlake,therefurbishmentof infrastructure in the village of Borová Lada, theconstruction of the Schwarzenberg floating channelmuseum in the village of Chvalšiny, etc.An exampleof internationalcooperation inbuildingcivic (tourist)infrastructure(thistimewithoutanysupportfromEU)canbethereconstructionofindoorswimmingpoolintheGermantownofBayerischEisenstein(nexttothestateborder)whichwascontributedtobythePilsenRegionat50thousandEURandbythetownofŽeleznáRudaat10thousandEUR.Unfortunately,theswimmingpooldidnotservethepubliclongandwassoldbytheowner(town Bayerisch Eisenstein) due to its unprofitableoperationandlaterclosedbythenewowner.Thus,theinvestmentwasinvainanditmaybeexpectedthattheexample will reflect adversely in the interest of bothCzechandGermanpartiestoinvestintojointprojectsofcommoninfrastructure.

The whole territory of the Euroregion has the bestprerequisites for tourism, which can be documentedby the fact that there are several important tourist

centres there of supra-regional character (Fig. 6–seecoverp.2).

Individual legal entities can apply at present forafinancialsupportofcross-bordercooperationgrantsfromtheIterregIIIaDispositionFund.Fundadministratorfor Czech-Bavarian and Czech-Austrian borderlandsis the Šumava Regional DevelopmentAgency. In theperiod (2004-2006) of possible withdrawals from thisfundthereweremorethan200projectsaidedbymorethan600thousandEUR.ThestructureofwithdrawalsisillustratedinFig.7.

MostprojectsfinancedfromtheDispositionFundarefocusedoncultureandsports(forallforexamplevariousmeetingsofnativesinChrastavice,NezdicenaŠumavě,BorováLada, etc.), cooperation of partner towns (e.g.Dobřany and Obertraubling in cultural events andBěšiny and Lalling in sports events).These projectsarevery important for themutual learningofpeople„ontheothersideoftheborder“.Animportantgroupconsists of projects concerned with activities focusedonthedevelopmentoftourismanditsadvertising.Foralle.g.theTopographicGuideinŠumavaandBavarianborder landscapes (project implemented by ŠumavaRegionalAssociation), the map of cycling tracks intheKlatovy-Chamborderlandarea (publishedby thetown of Klatovy), preparation and publicity of traveltradefair(organizedbythetownofPlzeň)orprojectsfocused on young people (e.g. Cooperation of younggenerationforaBorder-FreeEurope–withgrantholderbeing the primary school in Prachatice). BeneficialaftertheaccessionofCzechRepublicintheEuropean

6ThebuildingofrailwaystationinŽeleznáRudaiscutthroughbythestateborderwithoneportionofthebuildingstandingintheGermanterritoryandtheotherintheCzechRepublic(Opravil2006).

50


C M Y K


C M Y K

Fig. 7: Projects in the Šumava Euroregion aided from the Disposition Fund in 2005-2006Source: RRA Šumava

Unionarealsoprojectsfocusedonthedevelopmentofhuman resources (educational projects – e.g. Border-FreeAccountingorganizedbytheŠumavaEuroregion,Developmentofeducationforhealthworkers–projectorganizedbytheKlatovyHospital).

TheEuroregionmakesuseofpossibilitiestowithdrawresourcesalsofromotherEUfundssuchasthefundoftransportinfrastructure,thefundofenvironment,thefundforthedevelopmentofruralareas,etc.Decisionsonthefinancialsupportforindividualprojectsofthistype have to be however issued by respective statedepartments (e.g. Ministry of Environment, MinistryofLocalDevelopment,etc.).

Itmaybeconcludedthatcross-bordercooperationintheŠumavaEuroregionhasbeengainingon intensity. Itshouldberealizedhoweverthatcross-bordercooperationintheŠumavaEuroregionstartedtodeveloplaterthanforexampleintheEgrensis,ElbeorNisaEuroregions.Cross-borderactivitiesoftheŠumavaEuroregionareatpresentcomparablewiththeintensityofcross-bordercooperation of the above mentioned euroregions.TheEuroregion participates in publicizing an internetperiodicalnamedMessengertopresentcrucialeventsheld within the Euroregion. In 2007, the ŠumavaEuroregionwillactivelyparticipateinthepreparationof the Bavarian Regional Exhibition 2007 to be heldinthetownofZwiesel.OneofcurrentactivitiesoftheEuroregionalassociationisintermediationbetweentheGermanhealthinsurancecompanyAOKandtheCzechhealth insurance companyVZP about possibilities ofcross-bordercooperationinhealthservices.

5. Cooperation in the field of nature protection

With respect to the marginality of the Euroregionunder studyand thehighdegreeof forestation therearerelativelyvaluablenatureareastobefoundthere

ofwhichmostprofoundisasystemofnationalparkswithadjacentprotectedlandscapeareas(PLA)Šumava-BayerischerWald.TheCzechpartoftheEuroregionisalsoreachedbythePLABlanskýlesForest.Proposedhas been also the PLA Novohradské hory Mts.TheNaturparkNordwald-GroßpertholzhasbeendecreedontheAustriansideoftheNovohradskéhoryMts.

Asfarbackas31August1999asocalledMemorandumwasceremoniallysignedatministeriallevelonmutualcooperation of the Šumava National Park and theBayerischerWaldNationalParkputtingbothsignatorypowersunderobligationofjointimplementationofthetargetmissionofthetwonationalparksconsistingintheestablishmentofmonitoringplotstostudythenaturaldevelopment of unmanaged forest, the spontaneousevolution of unaffected nature, in the introduction ofautochthonousplantandanimalspecies,andenhancedcommunicationwithlocalpopulation.TheMemorandumwasinfactrealizedonlyatalimitedextent.Areasonbeing the fact that nature protection opinions andviews were entirely different on the two sides of theborder.The administration of the neighbouring parkconsideredtheBayerischerWaldNationalParkaplacewhereconcernsofnatureshouldbepreferredwhiletheŠumava National Park administration enforced asocalled active forest protection. Contacts between thetwoparkswerethereforeoftenonlyformal.Abreakingpointinthemutualcooperationwasyear2004whenthemanagementoftheŠumavaNPexperiencedpersonalchanges.The German and Czech parties appointedanew steering group (gremium) for cooperation andagreedthatthegoalofeffortsforbothpartnersshouldbe agradual harmonization of management on bothsidesoftheborderandperhapseventheestablishmentof across-border biosphere reserve in the future.AccordingtothepressspokesmanoftheŠumavaNPAdministration the „main sense of the cross-border

5�


C M Y K


C M Y K

cooperationshouldbecomewildlifeprotectioninbothparks, scientific research and creation of qualitativeinfrastructureforvisitorssuchasnaturetrails,touristguides or information centres“.The main source offinanceforjointprojectsshouldbeEUfundscombinedwiththebudgetsofthetwoparks.

Unfortunatelyitisnotalwaysthatacooperationinthefieldofnatureconservationand landscapeprotectionfunctionswell.Themainreasonislikelytobeseenindifferentviewsofregionaldevelopmentinrelationtonatureconservation.WhiletheGermanandAustrianparties of the Euroregion have arelatively strong

Fig. 8: Cableway to the highest peak of Šumava – the Gross Arber (1,457 m a.s.l.) is a frequently used argument for the construction of similar facilities on the Czech side of the border (Photo: S. Martinát)

„greenfeeling“oflocalpoliticiansandafurtherregionaldevelopmentissubordinatedtotheconcernsofnatureconservation, the Czech party often struggles withaquite oppositeattitude (when regionaldevelopmentisgivenpreferenceatthecostofnatureconservation).Reasonstothesituationshouldbesoughtinthepast.Anydevelopmentwasblockedatthetimeofironcurtainand alogical consequence after the opening of stateborders and border regions from the Czech side wasastart of turbulent economic development, namelyin tourism, which was considerably slowed down bydecreeingtheŠumavaNationalPark.TheGermanandAustrianpartieswentthroughnaturaldevelopmentwithalotofprojectscomingtoexistence,criticizedtodaysuchascablewaytothehighestŠumavamountainpeak–theGrossArberetc.Lateronthedevelopmentoftourismbuiltratheronthesavingprinciplesanditcanbehardlyexpectedthatprojectsofthatkindcouldfindassertion

invaluablepartsofthenationalparktoday.TheCzechpartyhoweverdidnotpassthroughthedevelopmentandanumberoflocalpoliticianscallforareductionofthenationalparkareasizeinordertofacilitateintensivecommercial use of forests and a„mass“ developmentoftourism(constructionofskislopes, lifts,hotelsandroads,parkinglotsetc.).Themainargumentiscreationofnewjobsforlocalpeopleandhencepreventiontotheoutflowofyoungpeoplefromtheregion.Ontheonehanditisnecessarytoprovideforeconomicdevelopmentandsufficient supply of jobs for the local community, andontheotherhanditisessentialthatvaluablenaturallocalitiesarepreservedforfuturegenerations.Economicgrowthisneededanddesirablebutdevelopmentplansorprojectsappearingeconomicallyfavourableatfirstsightarenotalwaysprofitable.Therefore,abasicprerequisiteforsustainabledevelopmentintheregionistoassureasocalledinternalizationofexternalcostsandbenefits

52


C M Y K


C M Y K

(Primack,Kindlman,Jersáková,2001).Althoughanewsawmillmaybringincreasedloggingactivitiesandanewskiareamaybringinstantprofittostakeholders,thecostsdonotincludeadditionalexpenditureincurredbythedestructionofenvironment.Thisiswhyalllargerinterventions in the landscape should be subject toacost/benefit analysis, i.e. to acomplex comparisonofvaluestobecreatedbytheprojectandvaluestobelostduetotheprojectimplementation(Perrings,1995).And it should be exactly the Euroregion that shouldplaytheroleofintermediaryinthemutualexchangeofexperienceforsustainablecross-bordercooperationinnatureconservationandlandscapeprotection.

6. Conclusion

TheŠumavaEuroregionisoneofeuroregionsinwhichconsiderableeffortandgoodwillareneededformutualunderstanding between people living on the oppositesides of the border. The displacement of Germanpopulation from Czechoslovakia afterWorldWar II,theadditionalsettlementofborderlandscapefromtheinlandoftheformerCzechoslovakiaandoftenalsobyCzech expellees from various corners of Eastern andSouthern Europe, the centrally planned economy inCzechoslovakiawithnopossibilityofdevelopingprivatebusinesses, collectivization of agriculture, creation ofiron curtain and irreconsilable political propagandawerethecauseofpracticallyabsolutediscontinuationofsocialandeconomiccontactsbetweenthelocalworldsbeforeandbehindtheironcurtain.

It follows that due to the above reasons there werehardlyanypreviouscontactstolinkwithafter1990andcross-borderpartnercontactshadtobebuiltonceagainfromtheverybeginning.NaturalconditionsbeingverysimilarintheCzech,GermanandAustrianpartsoftheEuroregion,standardoflivingandbusinessexperienceare considerably different until now.While economicconditionsarerelativelystable foralong time in theAustrian and German parts of the Euroregion, thepopulationoftheCzechpartoftheEuroregionhastolearnhowtodobusiness,howtofaceunemployment,bankruptcies of some industrial enterprises, changesin the character and intensity of agricultural and

forest production. Remoteness of the Czech part ofthe Euroregion from the main traffic arteries, pooraccessabilityofcentres,variousrestrictionsofeconomicactivitiesduetotheexistenceoftheŠumavaNationalPark and the Šumava Protected Landscape Areaundoubtedly represent certain objective hindrancesstanding in the way to some other developmentalplansandactivities.Theseobjectivefactorsarelikelyto be overcome with the assistance of developmentalstrategiesatalllevels(CzechRepublic,cohesionregionsNUTSII,localauthorities–namelymunicipalitiesandbusinessentities)andtherationaluseoffinancialfundsandsubsidiedfromtheEuropeanUnion,inordertofindacertain compromise between the needs of regionaldevelopment(regionalsustainability)ontheonehandandtheenvironmentprotectionontheotherhand.

Fromthispointofview,theexistenceoftheEuroregionandtheEuroregion’sactivitiesfocusedonthecooperationwithpartnersontheothersideoftheborder(natureconservation, contacts of institutional, business andsocialcharacter)andthebuildingoffunctioningworkcontacts(startingfromtheleveloflocalself-governmentauthoritiesandpublicadmnistrationuptothelevelofcentralgovernmentauthoritiesoftheCzechRepublic)arecrucial for its furtherdevelopment.Theactivitieshelp todoawaywith the long-timehandicap ofnon-existing local cross-border cooperation in 1948-1989,similarly as with the language and mental barriers.InterviewsmadeintheEuroregionshowthataconcretecross-bordercooperationofcommunes,schools,culturalandsportsorganizationshasbeenbringingfirstresultsin the mutual breaking of animosities accumulatedin the course of history. Forms of cooperation andtheir intensity will always depend on a„personalcommitment“ofindividualactors.Agreatemphasisisputonthecooperationofschools(exchangeofstudents,lectures,scholarships,jointresearchprojectsetc.)andonjointculturalandsportsactivities.Itshouldbeadmittedthat not all promising plans have been successfullyrealized.Nevertheless,goodneighbourlyrelationsaretobesupportednotonlybylocalactorsbutalsobythegeneral economic and political strategy of country inwhichthecross-bordercooperationisimplemented.

References:BayerischesLandesamtfürStatistikundDatenverarbeitung(www.statistik.bayern.de).

BARTOŠ,M.,KUŠOVÁ,D.,TĚŠITEL,J.(2004):VýzkumintegrovanéhoturismunaŠumavěvevropskémkontextu.In:Dvořák,

L.(ed.):AktualityšumavskéhovýzkumuII.SprávaNárodníhoparkuaCHKOŠumava,p.301-305.

BUFON,M.(2002):Cross-bordercooperationintheUpperAdriatic.In:Regional&FederalStudies,Vol.12,No.4,p.177-196.

CUDLÍNOVÁ,E.,BARTOŠ,M.,KUŠOVÁ,D.,TĚŠITEL,J.(1999):Sustainabledevelopmentofborderareas(Casestudyfrom

ŠumavaMts.intheCzechRepublic).In:Sumieň,T.(ed.):Transborderco-operatioonforsustainabledevelopment.Institute

ofphysicalplanningandmunicipalekonomy.Warszawa,p.195-202.

Českýstatistickýúřad(www.czso.cz).

5�


C M Y K


C M Y K

DOKOUPIL,J.(1999):Evropsképříhraničníprostory–euroregiony.In:Jeřábek,M.(ed.):GeografickáanalýzapohraničíČeské

republiky.SociologickýústavAVČR,ústínadLabem,str.159-165.

DOKOUPIL,J. (2001a):Přeshraniční spolupráce jako součást regionálního rozvoje česko-bavorskéhopohraničí.Geografie-

SborníkČSG,Vol.106,No.4,p.270-279.

DOKOUPIL, J. (2001b): Specifika jednotlivých úseků pohraničí ČR. Česko-bavorský úsek. In.: Jeřábek, M. (ed.): Reflexe

regionálníhorozvojepohraničíČeskérepubliky.SoúAVČR,ústín.L.,p.12-14.

DOKOUPIL,J.(2002):ApproachestothetypologyofCzechborderland.Proceedingsoftheinternationalcolloquy.Stateborder

reflection by border region population ofV4 states. Nitra: Constantine the Philosopher University and International

VisegradFund.22-32.

DOKOUPIL,J.(2004a):Specificképřístupykregionálnímurozvojipříhraničníchregionů.MiscelaneaGeographicaUniversitatis

BohemiaeOccidentalis10.Plzeň,ZČU,p.25-33.

DOKOUPIL,J.(2004b):Typologiečeskéhopohraničí.In:Jeřábek,M.,Dokoupil,J.,Havlíček,T.akol.:Česképohraničíbariéra

neboprostorzprostředkování?Praha,Academia,p.137-147.

DOKOUPIL,J.(2005):Srovnánívývojevčeskýchabavorskýchpříhraničníchregionech.MiscellaneaGeographicaUniversitatis

BohemiaeOccidentalis11.Plzeň,ZČU,p.103-112.

DOKOUPIL,J.,JEŘÁBEK,M.(2004):HraničníregionyEvropskéunie.In:Jeřábek,M.,Dokoupil,J.,Havlíček,T.akol.České

pohraničíbariéraneboprostorzprostředkování?Praha,Academia,p.163-177.

DRGOŇA,V. (1999): Pohraničné územia Slovenska a regionálna komparácia. Geografia XI, časťA, KG PF MU, Brno, p.

36–42.

DRGOŇA,V. (2001): Euroregióny – nový pokrok regionálnej štruktrúry Slovenskej republiky. In: Geografické aspekty

středoevropskéhoprostoru.PředpokladyvstupuČRaSRdoEU.Masarykovauniverzita,Brno,p.26–30.

ECKART, E., KOWALKE, H. (eds) (1997): Die Euroregionen im Osten Deutschlands. Schiftenreihe der Gesellschaft für

Deutschladforsuchung,Vol.55,Berlin,114pp.

EuregioBayerischerWald,Böhmerwald,Mühlviertel,UntererInn(www.euregio.cz).

HALÁS,M.(2005):Cezhraničnéväzby,cezhraničnáspoluprácanapríkladeslovensko-českéhopohraničiasdôrazomnajeho

slovenskúčasť.UniverzitaKomenského,Bratislava,152pp.

HALÁS,M.,SLAVÍK,V.(2001):CezhraničnáspoluprácaaeuroregiónyvSR.In:Miscellaneageographica,Vol.9,Západočeská

UniverzitaPlzeň,p.171-180.

HARDI,T.(2000):TheurbannetworkalongtheDanube,asthebasisofregionalandcrossborderco-operation.In:Janos,I.,

Pumain,D.,Racine,J.B.(eds).IntegratedUrbanSystemsandSustainabilityofUrbanLife.Bucharest,EdituraTechnica,

p.513-518.

CHÁBERA,S.etal.(1987):PřírodanaŠumavě.ČeskéBudějovice,Jihočeskénakladatelství,181pp.

CHUM,J.(2003):ŠumavaodAdoŽ.In:Veřejnáspráva,Vol.14,No.32,p.26-30.(http://www.mvcr.cz//casopisy/s/2003/0032/tema.

html).

JEŘÁBEK,M.(ed.)(1999):GeografickáanalýzapohraničíČeskérepubliky.SociologickýústavAVČR,ústínadLabem,180

pp.

JEŘÁBEK,M.(2002):Cross-bordercooperationanddevelopmentinCzechBorderland.ActaUniversitatisCarolinae,Geographica,

Vol.37,No.1,p.45-60.

JEŘÁBEK,M.,DOKOUPIL,J.,HAVLÍČEK,T.etal.(2004):Česképohraničí–bariéraneboprostorzprostředkování?Academia,

Praha,296pp.

JURCZEK,P.,KöPPEN,B.(2001):CooperationbetweenGermanyandCzechRepublicintheEgrensisRegion.In:Kommunal-

undRegionalwissenschaftlicheArbeiten,No.4,Chemnitz.

KLAPKA,P.,MARTINÁT,S.(2005):EkologickéformyzemědělstvívKrkonoších:krajina,ekoturismus,udržitelnost.In:Opera

Corcontica,Vol.42,p.127-137.

KLAPKA,P.,KŘEMENOVÁ,G.,MARTINÁT,S.(2005):Selectedsocioeconomicfactorsaffectinglandscapestructure:analysis,

consequences,sustainability(VrchlabíandVimperkregions).In:MoravianGeographicalReports,Vol.13,No.1,Brno,p.

49-61.

KLUSÁČEK,P.(2004):PřeshraničnítrojstrannáspolupráceveuroregionechNisaaŠumavaajejívztahksamosprávěaveřejné

správě. In: Dubcová,A. (ed.): Stredoeurópsky priestor. Geografia vkontexte nového regionálneho rozvoja. Univerzita

Konštantínafilozofa,Nitra,p.452-457.

Kontrolaekologickéhozemědělství,o.p.s.(www.kez.cz).

5�


C M Y K


C M Y K

KUŠOVÁ,D.,BARTOŠ,M.,TĚŠITEL,J.(1999):PotentialdevelopmentoftherightshoreofLipnoLakearea-comparisonof

landscapeandurbanplanningdocumentationwithideasoflocalinhabitants.SilvaGabreta.Vol.3,No.3,p.217-227.

KUŠOVÁ,D.,TĚŠITEL,J.,BARTOŠ,M.(2001):Krajinajakoprostředíkrekreaci-napříkladuŠumavy.Životnéprostredie,

Vol.35,No.5,p.253-256.

LACOVÁ,A.,POPJAKOVÁ,D. (1993):Karpatskýeuroregión. In:Mirvald,S. (ed.):MiscellaneaGeographica.Universitatis

BohemiaeOccidentalis,Plzeň,p.37-44.

Mapovýserver(www.mapy.cz).

MateriályRRAŠumavaonline.URL:http://www.risy.cz/index.php?pid=202&sid=120&mid=5015.

NárodníparkŠumava(www.npsumava.cz).

NOVOTNÁ, M. (1993): Euroregion Šumava – Böhmerwald – Mühlviertel. In: Mirvald, S. (ed.): Miscellanea Geographica.

UniversitatisBohemiaeOccidentalis,Plzeň,p.51-57.

NOVOTNÁ,M. (1996):Hodnocenízemědělskéhovyužíváníkrajinyvregionu „Pošumaví“. In:SilvaGabreta,Vol.1,p.257-

270.

NOVOTNÁ,M.(1998):CestovníruchnaúzemíNPaCHKOŠumava.In:MiscellaneaGeographicaUniversitatisBohemiae

Occidentalis6.ZČU,Plzeň1998,p.194-200.

NOVOTNÁ,M.(2000):HodnocenízemědělskéhovyužíváníkrajinyvpohraničnímregionuPošumaví.Geografie.SborníkČGS,

Vol.105,No.1.Českágeografickáspolečnost,Praha,p.34-40.

NOVOTNÁ,M.(2001):Vimpersko.Geografickáanalýzapříhraničníhomikroregionu.Plzeň,ZČU,121pp.

NOVOTNÁ,M.(2002a):GeographicanalysisoftheborderregionofVimperk.In:ActaUniversitatisCarolinae,Geographica,

Vol.37,No.1,p.79-101.

NOVOTNÁ,M.(2002b):Vimperskogeographicalanalysisofborderregion.In:ProceedingsoftheInternationalColloquy:state

borderreflectionbyborderregionpopulationofV4states:Nitra,12-13September2002.Nitra,ConstantinethePhilosopher

University,InternationalVisegradFund,2002,p.46-57.

OPRAVIL,J. (2006):ŽeleznáRudaajejí složitáhistorie.Železničář– týdenníkčeskýchdrahonline.URL:http://www.risy.

cz/index.php?pid=202&sid=119&mid=5014.

PERRINGS,C.(1995):Economicvaluesofbiodiversity.In:Heywood,V.H.(ed.):GlobalBiodiversityAssessment.Cambridge

Press,Cambridge,p.823-914.

Portálregionálníchinformačníchservisů.URL:(www.risy.cz).

PRIMACK,R.B.,KINDLMANN,P.,JERSÁKOVÁ,J.(2001):Biologicképrincipyochranypřírody.Portál,Praha.349pp.

Přehlednejdůležitějšíchvybranýchukazatelůzakrajeaokresypodlenovéhoúzemněsprávníhočlenění(1960):Československá

statistika,skupinaB,sv.41,Státníúřadstatistický,Praha,107pp.

RetrospektivnílexikonobcíČSSR1850-1970.DílI/1.Českýstatistickýúřad,Praha,1978.

RegionálnírozvojováagenturaŠumava.URL:http://www.rras.cz/.

SEDLÁČKOVÁ,I.(2006)Mostprospolečnoubudoucnost.InternetovýmagazínŠumavyabavorskéhopříhraničí.Občanské

sdružení Šumavská renesance aagentura Czechpoint Bayern. URL: http://www.in-iner-internet.cz/Kasperskehory/OS

-Renesance.

SLAVÍK,V. (2001)EuroregionsinSlovakiawithspecificfeaturestoEuroregionPomoravie–Weinviertel–JižníMorava.In:

Regionandregionalism,No.5,Lodż-Opołe.

SPIŠIAK,P.(2001):GeografickéaspektyeuroregiónovSlovenska.In:Miscellaneageographica,Vol.9.ZápadočeskáUniverzita,

Plzeň,p.243-253.

StanovyeuroregionuŠumava.EuroregionŠumavaonline.URL:http://www.euregio.cz/index_cz.php.

StatistickáročenkapůdníhofonduČeskérepubliky1994:Českýúřadkatastrálníazeměměřičský,Praha1994,32pp.

StatistickáročenkapůdníhofonduČeskérepubliky2005:Českýúřadkatastrálníazeměměřičský,Praha2006,48pp.

StatistickýlexikonobcíČSSR1982.Díl1,Českýstatistickýúřad,Praha,1984.

StatistickýlexikonobcíČSFR1991.Českýstatistickýúřad,Praha,1994.

StatistickýlexikonobcíČeskérepubliky2001.Českýstatistickýúřad,Praha,2005.

StatistikAustria,DieInformationsmanagerRUL:(www.statistik.at).

ŠINDLER,P.,WAHLA,A.,LEDNICKÝ,V.(2001):Euroregionyasdruženíobcíaměstnačesko-polskémpříhraničí.Ostravská

Univerzita,Ostrava,60pp.

55


C M Y K


C M Y K

TĚŠITEL,J.,KUŠOVÁ,D.,BARTOŠ,M.(2003):Roleoftourismindevelopmentofruralmarginalareas(regionofŠumavaMts.

inCzechRepublic).In:Bański,J.(ed.).AlternativesforEuropeanRuralAreas.InstituteofAgriculturalandFoodEconomics,

Warszawa,p.10.

TĚŠITEL,J.,KUŠOVÁ,D.,MATĚJKA,K.,BARTOŠ,M.(2005):Lidévbiosférickýchrezervacích.ústavsystémovébiologie

aekologieAVČR,ČeskéBudějovice,54pp.

TĚŠITEL, J., KUŠOVÁ, D., MATĚJKA, K., BOHÁČ, J. BARTOŠ, M., KOPÁČKOVÁ, M., MORAVCOVÁ, J., ŠRUBAŘ,V.

(2005):Participativnímanagementchráněnýchúzemí–klíčkminimalizacikonfliktůmeziochranoubiodiversityasocio-

ekonomickýmrozvojemmístníchkomunit.ústavsystémovébiologieaekologieAVČR,ČeskéBudějovice,52pp.

WAHLA,A.,ŠINDLER,P.,LEDNICKÝ,V.(2001):Euroregionyasdruženíobcíaměstnačesko-polskémpříhraničí.Ostrava,

Ostravskáuniverzita,89p.

ZAPLETALOVÁ,J.(2003):EuroregionsintheCzechRepublic.In:Vaishar,A.,Zapletalová,J.,Munzar,J.(eds):RegionalGeography

anditsApplications.Regiograph,Brno,p.194–197.

ZAPLETALOVÁ,J.etal.(2005):EuroregionynaúzemíČeskérepublikyajejichparciálnígeografickáanalýza.In:Peková,J.,

Zapletalová,J.(eds):EuroregionyajejichvztahkúzemnísprávěasamosprávěČR.Vysokáškolaekonomická/ústavgeoniky

AVČR,Brno,p.96-125.

ZAPLETALOVÁ,J.,CETKOVSKÝ,S.,KLUSÁČEK,P.,MARTINÁT,S.(2005):EuroregionŠumava/BayerischeWald(geografická

charakteristika).ústavgeonikyAVČR,Brno,50pp.VýstupgrantovéhoprojektuGAAVČRč.IAA7118301„Euroregiony

ajejichvztahkúzemnísprávěasamosprávěvČR“.

ZEMKO,I.,BUČEK,J.(2000):ProblémycezhraničnejspolupráceajejinstitucionálnehorámcanapríkladuregiónuBratisavy.

Geografickéspektrum2,UKBratislava,p.43-53.

Acknowledgement:

ThepaperwaspreparedwithinthegrantprojectEuroregionsandtheirrelationshiptotheterritorialself-governmentintheCzechRepublic(No.IAA7118301)andthesub-projectofthescientificplanoftheInstituteofGeonicsASCRNo.AVOZ30860518EnvironmentandlandscapeinurbanandruralregionsinconditionsofEuropeanintegratingprocesses.

Authors´addresses:

Mgr.StanislavCetkovský,e-mail:[email protected]áček,e-mail:[email protected]át,e-mail:[email protected]á,e-mail:zapletalova@geonika.czAcademyofScienciesoftheCzechRepublicInstituteofGeonics,v.v.i.,BranchBrnoDrobného28,60200Brno,CzechRepublic

Reviewer:

RNDr.MarieNOVOTNÁ,CSc.

5�


C M Y K

EDITORIAL

Dearreader,

theeditorialboardoftheMoravianGeographicalReportswouldliketoinformyouthatthelegalandeconomicformoftheInstituteofGeonicswasinJanuary2007transformedfromallowanceorganisationengagedinresearchtoPublicResearchInstitution(inCzech:veřejnávýzkumnáinstituce–v.v.i.)pursuanttoActoftheCzechRepublicno.341of28July2005onpublicresearchinstitutions.

FullnameandaddressesoftheInstitutearetherefore:In Czech: In English:ústavgeonikyAVČR,v.v.i. InstituteofGeonicsASCR,v.v.i.Studentská1768 Studentská176870800Ostrava-Poruba 70800Ostrava-PorubaČeskárepublika CzechRepublic

BranchBrno:ústavgeonikyAVČR,v.v.i. InstituteofGeonicsASCR,v.v.i.Střediskoenviromentálnígeografie Dept.ofEnvironmentalGeographyDrobného28 Drobného28602000Brno 602000BrnoČeskárepublika CzechRepublic

Fig. 2: Euroregional cooperation of the counties

I.: Interregio; II. The Hajdú-Bihar–Bihor Euroregion; III. The Miskolc–Kosice Euroregion; IV.: The Mura–Drava Euroregion; V.: The Triple-Danube-area Euroregion; VI.: The Neogradiensis Euroregion.


Fig. 3: The organisations of municipalities and micro-regions

I.: The Zemplén Euroregion; II.: BiharBihor; III.: The Sajó–Rima Euroregion; IV.: The Drava–Mura Euroregion; V.: The Danube Euroregion; VI.: The Ister-Granum Euroregion; VII.: The Ipel Euroregion.


Illustration(s) related to the paper by T. Hardi

Fig. 2: Extensively exploited landscape of the Czech part of Šumava Mts. in the surroudings of Železná Ruda.

(Photo: S. Martinát)

Fig. 6: A view of the castle and the Vltava River in Český Krumlov – the second most visited tourist destination after Prague in the Czech Republic

(Photo: E. Kallabová)

Illustrations related to the paper by S. Cetkovsky et al.

MORAVIANGEOGRAPHICALREPORTS

VOLUME 15 NUMBER ISSN 1210 - 8812

12007

Fig. 3: Czech and Bavarian landscapes of Šumava in the surroundings of the Všerubský mountain pass (orthophoto 2003)


Fig. 4: Czech and Bavarian landscapes of Šumava in the surroundings of border villages Fleky and Hofberg (orthophoto 2003)


Illustrations related to the paper by S. Cetkovský et al.

Documents

MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS · Illustrations related to the paper by S. Cetkovsky et al. Vol. 5, /2007 MoraVian geographical reports CMYK EDITORIAL BOARD Bryn GREER-WOOTTEN, York