Budapesti Gazdasági Főiskola KÜLKERESKEDELMI FŐISKOLAI KAR KÜLGAZDASÁGI SZAK ANGOL NAPPALI TAGOZAT EURÓPAI UNIÓS ÜZLETI TANULMÁNYOK SZAKIRÁNY

The Centre of Peripheries

3

BGF KKFK Elektronikus Könyvtár Az elektronikus könyvtár teljes szövegű dokumentumokat tartalmaz biztosítva a szabad információ-hozzáférést. A szerzői és egyéb jogok a dokumentum szerzőjét/tulajdonosát illeti. Az elektronikus könyvtár dokumentumai szabadon felhasználhatók változtatások nélkül a forrásra való megfelelő hivatkozással, de csak saját célra nem kereskedelmi jellegű alkalmazásokhoz.

Budapesti Gazdasági Főiskola KÜLKERESKEDELMI FŐISKOLAI KAR KÜLGAZDASÁGI SZAK ANGOL NAPPALI TAGOZAT EURÓPAI UNIÓS ÜZLETI TANULMÁNYOK SZAKIRÁNY

CENTRE OF PERIPHERIES – THE COMPARISON OF EUROREGIONS IN EASTERN AND WESTERN EUROPE

Készítette: Mátrai Katalin Budapest, 2003


4


Table of Contents 1 . I n t r o d u c t i o n ............................................................................................ 5 2 . S u m m a r y o f L i t e r a t u r e .................................................................. 8 2 . 1 . R e g i o n s , s u b - r e g i o n s , r e g i o n a l i s m i n E u r o p e ............ 8 2.2. The importance of borders, border-regions, c r o s s - b o r d e r c o - o p e r a t i o n s ........................................................ 12 2 . 3 . T h e n a t u r e o f c r o s s - b o r d e r c o - o p e r a t i o n s .................... 15 2 . 4 . E U l e v e l i n i t i a t i v e s ...................................................................... 18 2.4.1. INTERREG ........................................................................................ 18 2.4.2. PHARE CBC ...................................................................................... 19 2.4.3. Other instruments supporting CBCs ................................................. 19

3 . T h e D e s c r i p t i v e A n a l y s i s o f t h e T w o R e g i o n s ......... 22 3 . 1 . T e r m s o f r e s e a r c h ......................................................................... 22 3 . 2 . I n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e E u r e g i o M e u s e - R h i n e .................... 23 3.2.1. Territory.............................................................................................. 23 3.2.2. Development ....................................................................................... 25 3.2.3. Aims .................................................................................................... 26 3.2.4. Structure of operation ........................................................................ 26 3.2.5. Budget of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine................................................. 28 3.2.6. Operation hindering factors .............................................................. 29 3 . 3 . I n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e C a r p a t h i a n E u r o r e g i o n ................ 30 3.3.1. Territory.............................................................................................. 31 3.3.2. Development ....................................................................................... 33 3.3.3. Aims .................................................................................................... 34 3.3.4. Structure of operation ........................................................................ 35 3.3.5. Budget of the Carpathian Euroregion .............................................. 35 3.3.5.1. The Carpathian Foundation....................................................... 36 3.3.6. International partners ........................................................................ 37 3.3.7. Operation hindering factors .............................................................. 38


5


3.4. The relationship of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine and C a r p a t h i a n E u r o r e g i o n .................................................................. 41

4. Comparative Analysis of the Euregio M e u s e - R h i n e a n d t h e C a r p a t h i a n E u r o r e g i o n ......... 48 4.1. Similarities and differences of the Euregio M e u s e - R h i n e a n d t h e C a r p a t h i a n E u r o r e g i o n .............. 48 4 . 2 . E x p e r t s ’ v i e w ................................................................................... 50

5 . S u m m a r y ..................................................................................................... 53 6 . T a b l e o f i l l u s t r a t i o n s ..................................................................... 55 7 . B i b l i o g r a p h y ........................................................................................... 56 8 . A p p e n d i c e s ............................................................................................... 59


6


1. Introduction Hungary faces the challenge provided by the possibility to join the European Union (EU), which is a determinant economic area in not only the continent but also overall World. This fact has its advantages and disadvantages as well and the country should work on the elimination of drawbacks and to benefit from all the changing factors giving the chance to create better economic and living standards. To utilize all the positive effects of this action, Hungary and the other applicant countries should observe the EU member states that could benefit from their accession as examples. That is the reason for the emphasis of the cross-border regions, which have a significant role in the economic development of some Western-European areas. There is no doubt about the positive influential role of these formations in the EU in the field of economic development, political harmonisation, highlight and promotion of different cultures and aspects. Thanks to their positive effects, the development of them is also supported by initiatives and financial possibilities of the European Union. Cross- border co-operations similarly to the Western-European examples have already been existing along the borders of Hungary, but the number of them falls far behind the amount of such associations in the EU member states, which also raises the attention to their significance. In this thesis, the introduction of two cross-border co-operations is to be found which are situated in different conditions on the same continent and soon will be members of the same economic integration. The Euregio Meuse-Rhine (EMR) has a tradition of 27 years in the heart of Western Europe, while the Carpathian Euroregion (CE) had its tenth anniversary last year in the area of the Carpathian Mountains. The reason for the choice of these particular regions was that although they are very different in some aspects they have similarities and a co-operation has emerged between them. Due to that, they know each other’s possibilities, problems, future challenges and so can help each other’s work and can evaluate the other region by giving advice on how to work


7


more efficiently. Thanks to that, the opinions of a Western European cross-border cooperation became known and with the consideration of that a region involving nonEU member states can prepare itself for the future challenges on the same topics. This thesis is aimed to search for the differences between cross-border co-operations (CBC) in Western- and Eastern-Europe. I am interested in what differences exist between CBCs within the EU and outside the EU, how their lives are different. What challenges does for instance the Carpathian Euroregion have? What are the main tasks of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine? What are the differences in the daily life of CBCs with bigger and smaller territories? How can CBCs manage to solve their problems in different environmental, political and economic areas? The differences of these regions are shown in the thesis and perhaps through this, it can give an amount of idea, and examples of how to achieve all the advantages provided by the EU. In the second chapter of the assignment a summary of the scientific aspects about the importance of regions and cross-border co-operations is to be found, which is followed by chapters containing the presentation of the euroregions including their geographical situation, history, aims of establishment, working conditions, and the emphasis of the differences and similarities between them. In some sentences the basis of their relationship and co-operation is acquainted that has a significant role in the operation of the CE. The fourth chapter includes the comparison of the regions, and an important part presenting the opinions of two persons working for these regions. After a short summary of the thesis, in the appendices illustrations are to be found for better understanding and imaging of the written texts. There are already studies existing in this topic as several books, dissertations perform views and opinions about regionalism. Most of them introduce a specific region of the continent or examine it only from economic or ethnic view whereas others put an emphasis on political integrations. I believe that because it is quite a current topic in Europe nowadays, there are possibilities to search new viewpoints to examine regions in Europe. In my work, I would like to make a comparison between CBCs from different economic and political environment.


8


In the thesis the results, the consequences of the above-mentioned previous works are to be used through the application of secondary research. To reach the aims of the investigation, I contacted with experts on this topic, and also persons who work on this field. I am convinced that people working for such organisations could give me the most appropriate information about the operation of a euroregion. There are also scientists, whose field of research is the co-operation of regions and they can provide examples that are the main tools successfully used to promote the development of a region. In addition to that, I used the internet as a source of the latest information and as mentioned, the existing studies as well. I began my work with selecting two specific euroregions from the two areas. The second step was the examination of them, whether they are appropriate for my work or not, whether they have the different characteristics I need for the analysis. After that, I searched for information concerning the importance of these kinds of co-operations. The contingent support possibilities are also important in their lives. After collecting the required information, I began to analyse the differences in the operations of them. As resources, first I would like to use the information from the experts, with whom I am in connection. The scientific researches of Mr. Süli-Zakar, István are to be emphasised, on the field of the analysis of the geographical and economic investigations of the Carpathian Mountains’ area and the watershed area of the Tisza, and whose book, titled The Ten Years of the Carpathian Euroregion Interregional Co-operation had significant influence on my work. Another influential dissertation I used during the past months has been written by Jens Gabbe, Dr. Viktor von Malchus and Haris Martinos with the title of Practical Guide to Cross-Border Co-operation. This book introduces mainly the characteristics, motives, requirements of CBCs, different co-operation structures and shows examples of good practices. I will use the services of the library of the college, and the available internet sources. I will also use the information from the tutors. To write the dissertation I will need a


9


computer with the Microsoft Office software, to prepare an understandable, clearly arranged, formally attractive dissertation.

2. Summary of Literature

2.1. Regions, sub-regions, regionalism in Europe Regionalism is one of the determinant phenomena of the world economics, besides interdependence, globalization and transnationalism. Modern regionalism is based on the movement of the factors of production but also includes cultural, political, environmental, or might even involve security co-operation. It might gather up territories with different level of economic development. According to the literature, based on the number of participants, co-operation can be »

Intergovernmental

»

Supranational (over the level of nations), or

»

The co-operation of administrative units, which are under the level of national states, like independent cross-border co-operations (CBC) of counties.

In addition to that, regional economics distinguishes between »

“Regional co-operation of big areas”, which does not include only states, but smaller administrative units

»

“Border region co-operations” – being cross-border and a narrower and more traditional type of co-operation than the above- mentioned one.1

1

Nyusztay, László: Szubregionális kezdeményezések Európában: a magyar – olasz – szlovén háromoldalú együttműködés (Kiindulópontok egy eurorégió kutatáshoz), EU Working Papers, 1999/I., pp.


10


According to the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR), co-operations beyond borders can be different compliance with that there are three main types to distinguish between. These are:

» Cross-border co-operation » Interregional co-operation » Trans-national co-operation The table below shows the three main types of co-operation, and the differences among them:

Cross-border cooperation

Inter-regional cooperation Trans-national cooperation Cooperation

Directly neighbourly

Cooperation

cooperation in all areas of

regional

life between regional and

authorities)

local authorities along the

single sectors (not in all special

border and involving all

areas of life) and with example

actors

selected actors

between

(between countries and

local allowing

mostly

(sometimes regions

to

in participate) with regard to a subject

development)

(for regional

related

to

large, connected areas More organised because of As yet, organisation not a

longer

tradition advanced because of a

(regional/local)

short tradition

Interlinked

within

the Interlinked

framework

of

the Assembly

within of

Organisation usually still under development

the The interlinkage is rarely

European organised but there are

21-31, [Sub-regional movements in Europe, The Hungarian-Italian-Slovenian trilateral co-operation (Starting point for a research of euro-regions)]


11


Association of European Regions (AER)

certain approaches within

Border Regions (AEBR)

the

framework

of

international organisations (for example, Council of Europe, Nordic Council) Table adapted from: Gabbe, Jens; Dr. von Malchus, Viktor; Martinos, Haris: Practical Guide to Crossborder Co-operations, 2000, Gronau, pp. 15.

The criteria of the definitions of region can be different as they might be determined by historical, ethnical, religious, geographical, economic conditions, and the combination of that, or by political intentions and conditions. Some of the experts consider Europe as a region, including sub-regions, while others mention European regions. The PHARE and INTERREG programs of the European Union divide Europe into 9 regions. The relationship existing between them and supported by the EU, is called interregional co-operation.2 “From the point of view of the present research we consider European regional cooperation, all the organizations and networks expansive over the continent (The Council of Europe, EU) and some of the geographically and politically expansive forms (Central European Initiative, Nordic Council, South-European Economic Co-operation Initiative). All the forms including narrower areas, as the Carpathian Euroregion…” and the Hungarian-Italian-Slovenian trilateral co-operation are put among the subregional forms. 3 One of the main characteristics of the European regionalism is that sub-regional cooperations become conspicuous. Sub-regional co-operations existing in Europe- most of them connecting western and eastern territories of the continent - achieved significant results in the fields of culture, infrastructure, tourism and environmental protection. Due to these successes, they also managed to achieve a remarkable part of Europe, and play

2 3

Nyusztay, László; ibid, 21-31 Nyusztay, László; ibid, 21-31


12


an important role by connecting Eastern- and Western –Europe that could not be obtained with other tools. Experts on the other hand raise attention to the fact that these co-operations are only transitional ones that are revaluated between the period of the disintegration of the former system and the establishment of the new one. Some experts, for instance Alexander Naumenkov, based on the research of the active sub-regional co-operations believes that all these co-operations involve economically strong EU or EFTA participants, whose participation and effectiveness the whole co-operation is dependent of. These groups are politically significant but do not have economic power and are mostly unable to develop. On the other hand, Nyusztay, László and Gáspár, Tamás have the opinion that the sub-regional co-operations are going to exist in Europe for a long time. The arguments are as follows: (1) the integration processes will keep on and it takes long to expand across the whole continent, (2) presumably, the EU and its institutions will not be able to coordinate all the partial areas of the co-operations. As a consequence, there will be a need for smaller units to work effectively. 4 According to Inotai, András, the sub-regions cannot substitute the “big regions”, and the participation in a sub-region should not be a precondition of the participation of a bigger region. 5 The phrase euro-region is used for territories where cross-border or mutual interregional economic, social, cultural, or other types of co-operations are existing between two states or local municipalities. The referred countries envisage harmonising their activities for the effective development of border regions.6 The idea of the establishment of euro-regions was born in the post-war period to relieve the conflicts among nations. They were anxious to form friendly terms among neighbours and to extend it to the relationships of the citizens. When founding them, great attention was paid to the movements coming ground up.7 4

Nyusztay, László-Gáspár, Tamás: Európai Regionalizmus, Társadalmi Szemle, 1994/12 pp. 35-43. [European Regionalism] 5 Inotai, András: Az új regionalizmus a világgazdaságban, Külgazdaság, 1994/1 pp. 28-44. [The new regionalism in the world economy] 6 Corrigan, J., Béres, Csaba, and Süli-Zakar, István: Cross-border Cooperation in a Europe of Frontiers. In: Acta Geographica Debrecina. Tomus XXXIII., KLTE Debrecen, 1995. pp. 169-177 7 Pál Kovács, Ilona: Kistérségek, megyék, régiók és a közeljövő közigazgatása, In: Comitatus 1994/12. pp. 30 – 40. [Small areas, counties, regions and the distant future’s administration]


13


The “euro-regional view” strengthens in the continent, which means that the future’s Europe will not only be the Europe of nations, but the Europe of the areas with similar economic interests. Regions born this way are suitable for handling conflicts, which have different roots on the frontiers. The national, ethnical, religious discords or the difficulties grown from the disparity of economic conditions within the countries can be mentioned as examples. In relation to that shaping euro regions can play a stabilizing, compensating role. 8 The first regional alliances were established along borders, where - on the one hand - the population was mixed in the sense of nationalism, and – on the other hand - the area is often marginally located in a geographical sense, and has historically kindred features. Aiming to achieve the common use of the resources, the first euro-region established was the “Euroregion Basiliensis”, in 1971. The Institute for East-West Studies drew the attention of the East-Central European countries to this co-operation as an example to be followed on its anniversary conference in Basel in 1992.

2.2 The importance of borders, border regions, cross-border co-operations Throughout the history, borders have always played an important role. It used to close and separate territories, which usually belonged to a group of people, to an ethnic group or to an empire. Sometimes it divided regions, with a certain ethnic group that led to military aggression. Due to this, border regions were sparsely – populated areas. Not only the population migrated, but also the commerce and the economic activity tended to move towards the centre of the countries. The transport routes were often parallel with the frontier because of military considerations. However, not all the border regions had this type of history as those having raw materials had better chances to develop. Along these areas industrial centres could strengthen, therefore the population and 8

Horváth, Gyula- Hajdú, Zoltán (edit.): European Challenges and Hungarian Responses in Regional Policy. Centre for Regional Studies, 1994, Pécs, and Süli-Zakar, István: Regional Perceptions of Marginality in the Carpathian Euroregion, 28th International Geographical Congress The Hague August 4-10. Abstract Book, 1996, and Townroe, P. M., The spatial impact of European integration. In: Journal of Regional Policy, 1994/2. . pp. 185-204.


14


wealth increased, while they had to face the aggressive politics of the neighbouring countries. In Europe, the former case was typical, so these areas were pushed towards peripheral status in their own lands. The border was significant not only from geographical aspects, but also from political ones. Some of the policies a country used helped the transformation of borders to “actually noticeable barriers between national states.”9 These policies were, for instance, the administration, law, taxation, social affairs, and so on. Borders had the role to distinguish among people, as a kind of fence, which protected the inhabitants and kept outside those who were not welcome in the country. It generated fears and people were not likely to strengthen their relationship on either side of the borders or to co-operate. Borders protect not only people, land and wealth, but also the sovereignty of an area. They often defined the identity, and independence of the states. Friedrich Ratzel – the founder of political geography - believed that “a border is the peripheral organ of the state, an organic complementary part of the state life and its primary functions are to separate and protect.”10 According to Süli-Zakar, István, the notion border can be used in a mathematical, geometrical, historical, philosophical sense. There are no bad or good borders existing but the emotional content we connect to the borders is mostly based on the aspects the political view strengthens. 11,12 Europe is characterised by its borders. In the past decade, a strange phenomenon could be recognised. On the one hand, national borders started to lose their role in the western part of the continent; on the other hand, in the eastern districts of Europe the national borders became more and more influential. (This contrast might be the root of the 9

Gabbe, Jens; Dr. von Malchus, Viktor; Martinos, Haris: Practical Guide to Cross-border Co-operations, AEBR, 2000, Gronau, pp. 5. 10 Friedrich Ratzel: Allgemeine Eigenschaften den geografischen Grenzen und die politische Grenze, 1892, In: Süli-Zakar, István: The First Ten Years of the Carpathian Euroregion interregional Cooperation, Debreceni Egyetem Kossuth Egyetemi Kiadója, Debrecen, 2003, pp. 377. 11 Süli-Zakar, István: The First Ten Years of the Carpathian Euroregion Interregional Co-operation, Debreceni Egyetem Kossuth Egyetemi Kiadója, Debrecen, 2003, pp. 11 12 Gabbe, Dr. von Malchus, Martinos, ibid pp. 5.


15


existing differences on the field of regional co-operations.) There are only some states having long-existing borders, like Spain and Portugal, whose common border is the oldest one in Europe. The stability and steadiness of borders characterises and affects the daily life of the people living in the border regions. Border regions are territories along the national borders. There are advantages and disadvantages of living and working in the border regions. The thinking of the people in these areas also depends on the foreign policy of the state, the relationship with the neighbours and the role of the border. If the dividing role of the border remains strong, rather the peripheral status of the border region will be dominant. Nevertheless, the appearance of new opportunities along the borders is also possible. The regions might find the way to co-operate and to ease their life through the common solutions. They can develop their own infrastructure and can fight together for the same interests. Taking the Western European examples into consideration it can be seen that border regions can be advantageous as well. Cross – border co-operations do not have long traditions. In the Mediterranean states at the Spanish-Portugal border, these formations could develop only after the change of the political regime, after the 1980s, whereas in the eastern part of the continent, this procedure started after 1990. In the western territories of Europe the desire to eliminate the borders and all the negative effects it has, appeared right after World War II, in the 1950s. The reasons were not only the economic factors but also the intention to ensure the lasting peace on the continent. Due to this step, people living in these areas could experience the positive effects of this change as well. These were not only the increase of living standards but also the possibility to overcome restrictions that led to the separation of people and institutions. After the creation of cross-border regions, it was discovered that without a proper organizational system the advantages could not be achieved. That is why associations, institutions were formed on both sides of the borders for the same purposes. After a while, they united – often with the formation of umbrella associations - to reach the goals. It turned out quickly that the population desired the solution of the problems, which the national governments failed to solve. These were for example:


16


»

different administrative structures, public administration and planning

»

infrastructure, environment

»

education, language training and the acceptance of qualifications

»

social securities, traffic and utilities

In 1971, the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) was established. It has the task to help and coordinate the work of border regions, and to help to create such formations. This organization built a strong relationship with the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, the European Commission and the national governments. Due to this, cross-border co-operations had an important role in the integration of Europe. After 1980, with the introduction of the Single European Act numerous cross-border cooperations were established and became member of the AEBR. 13 According to the AEBR, the main motives for the establishment of cross-border cooperations are: »

“the transformation of the border from a line of separation into a place for communication between neighbours;

»

the overcoming of mutual animosities and prejudices between peoples of border regions which result from historical heritage

»

the strengthening of democracy and the development of operational regional/local administrative structures;

»

the overcoming of national peripherality and isolation;

»

the promotion of economic growth and development and the improvement of the standards of living;

»

the rapid assimilation into or approach towards an integrated Europe.”14

2.3 The nature of cross-border co-operations

13 14

Gabbe, Dr. von Malchus, Martinos, ibid pp. 6. Gabbe, Dr. von Malchus, Martinos, ibid pp. 7-8.


17


An effective cross-border co-operation should consider the following points: » the co-operation should take place on a daily regulation, and should involve all the partners from both sides of the frontier » it should be conducted on national, regional and local levels as well » it should contain all aspects of daily life of the people, as economy, housing, leisure, culture, and so on. The AEBR adapted the following principles that characterise a successful cross-border region: » Partnership; Consisting of two elements: ¾ Vertical partnership refers to the relationship to and between the EU level and regional/local levels on both sides of the frontier. The institutions and organisations established for these purposes should complement the existing local ones. ¾ Horizontal partnership means the relationship of these structures and institutions in the different countries and is the basis of the common work. It might be difficult to develop this partnership, as the administrative systems can be different in the participants’ countries. It is to be emphasised that all of the member states should participate in these relationships, irrespective their size, wealth, economy, and others. » Subsidiarity; According to subsidiarity, strengthening the regional and local bodies are also of great importance, as they are the most appropriate organisations for CBCs. They have the proper flexibility, the proper information – which are the basic requirements -. Most of the agreements were made on the level of national states or on European level. That is why the significance of regional or local organisations gives the real practice to these agreements. This administrative level is the one which effectively enables the foundation of relationships and consequently, co-operations. » Concept; without this, the region could not work effectively.


18


» Financial background should also be available. Regions should not develop their programs separately and only after that join and co-operate, which requires more financial support.15 The above-mentioned partnership and subsidiarity are of great importance in the process of forming the concepts and strategies of the cross-border co-operations to follow. The steps to be taken are (1) taking into account the national and EU plans and programs and according to these (2) developing the collective concepts and plans. To ease this procedure, the CBCs are examined in the terms of SWOT analysis. The development of the strategies has become a popular mechanism that at the same time acts as a main driving force of the economic and social development. Such a strategic framework provides a ‘vision’ of the future and defines the objectives and improvement priorities for the cross-border region. The formulation of operation strategies is a significant action in the life of a region, which in the case of a cross-border region is of vital importance as it should be a joint implementation. This significance originates from the differences of several factors like the economic conditions, the infrastructure, the administration and so on. These discords should be eliminated and the barrier effect of the borders should also be taken into consideration. The preparation of common cross-border strategies helps the participants to understand each other’s problems and opportunities. Thanks to that cross-border cooperations can strengthen.16 There are certain common features of the CBCs in the East Central European countries and in the Mediterranean. Some of them are the following: » Informal contacts among states are significant » These kinds of formations had been formally absent before the political changes 15

Gabbe, Dr. von Malchus, Martinos, ibid pp. 13-14.

16



19


» They practically face economic (wage, infrastructure, industries, etc.) differences within the CBC The AEBR created a list of characteristics specially for the East Central European CBCs with the main actions to be taken in these areas. The list includes: » The building up of new democracies » Improving environmental protection » Opening new border crossings » Economic development » Combining the EU resources with the PHARE CBC and TACIS CBC sources » Eliminating economic disparities » Development of communication and transport networks » Participation in INTERREG programs17 2.4 EU level initiatives

2.4.1 INTERREG Since 1990, the EU has supported the CBCs with different financial programs. The first program was the INTERREG, between 1990 and 1999. The two main periods within include the first one from 1991 to 1993 when among others transport, environment, tourism, rural development, business, and communication, were supported. As the INTERREG I was evaluated as successful, INTERREG II was launched in the period of 1994-1999. The three main strands of it were: 1. INTERREG II A: focusing on cross-border co-operations 2. INTERREG II B: to complete selected energy networks 17

Gabbe, Dr. von Malchus, Martinos, ibid pp. 23.


20


3. INTERREG II C: aiming at trans-national cooperation actions on spatial planning INTERREG III was launched in 2000 and will be continued until 2006. Similarly to its predecessor it has three strands. 1. Strand A: Cross-border co-operations – continuation of INTERREG I and INTERREG II A. 2. Strand B: transnational co-operation, an extension of INTERREG II C. 3. Strand C: interregional co-operation – a new program that tries to widen the former RECITE and Ecos-Overture programs For INTERREG III. there is now €4.9 billion available for projects throughout the European Union and this accounts for practically one-half of the total amount provided for all Community Initiatives. The most important area still remains to be the crossborder co-operation by the external borders of the EU within the framework of Strand A, for which, in compliance with the European Commission’s stipulations, the greatest part of the INTERREG funds available are to be used. Through the support given to cross-border, transnational and interregional co-operation, and to the balancing of regional development, the third phase of the INTERREG is targeted at strengthening the economic and social structure of the European Union as a whole.

2.4.2. PHARE CBC This program was established in 1994, to promote the regions between the Central European Countries and the EU. The main benefitors were the countries that have border regions with EU Member States. The aims were:


21


» To create and promote the cooperation networks on both sides of the border and to establish links between them » To promote the development of Central European Countries (applicant countries) to overcome specific development problems that may arise from the position of national economies.

2.4.3. Other instruments supporting CBCs 1. TACIS CBC: for some of the border regions of countries of the ex-Soviet Union 2. MEDA: for Mediterranean non-member states 3. CARDS: for the Western Balkan states The AEBR also had a project, called LACE, which was co-supported by the EU. The task LACE financed was the exchange of practices and experience with regard to networks in the CBCs. 18 The evaluation of the programs is a requirement in the cases of the Structural Funds of the European Union. Although the European Commission prepared general methodological advice for the evaluation of all types of programmes in the new programming period of 2000-2006, these general pieces of advice are not sufficient for cross-border co-operations. The need for other types of programmes arises from the specialities of these programmes, especially: » Differences in data availability » The transnationality of the institutional systems involved in the implementation of the programmes » The dualism of the aims, covering regional development and cross-border cooperation and integration 18



22


» In the cases of non- EU states the differences in the regulations. Under the general requirements of evaluation three main types are distinguished: 1. Ex ante evaluation. It is carried out before the start of the certain programme and assesses the relevance of the programme and its proposed activities. This type of evaluation appraises the quality of the strategy and objectives, defines the allocation of funds, impacts, resources and indicators. 2. Interim or mid-term evaluation. It is a sort of on-going evaluation analysis. It assesses during the implementation whether the planned outcomes will be achieved in the given time. During this phase corrective actions can be proposed. 3. Ex post evaluation. It is carried out after the programme has been completed. This evaluation should compare results achieved with the initiatives. In addition to the ‘standard’ requirements of the European Commission specific tasks are to be taken in the ex ante evaluation when examining cross-border co-operations. The special aspects are as follows: » Learning from past experience, including evaluation of predecessors » The context of the intervention is based on a common cross-border SWOT analysis and covers both dimensions of the cross-border programmes, which are the regional development and the cross-border regional integration. » Implementation system refers to the assessment of fulfilment of the EU’s regulations and guidelines, like common structures for the management, common monitoring and evaluation framework » The rationale and overall consistency of the strategy includes the relevance of the programme and the international consistency. » Quantification of objectives » Estimate of expected impacts


23


The ex ante evaluation is to establish appropriate indicators for monitoring the progress. Although there are no general features of the indicators used by the cross-border cooperations, it should follow the structure of the programmes. There should be indicators corresponding to the » Measure - level » Priority – level » Programme – level The definition and the use of indicators should not be a ‘mechanistic’ exercise. They should be used in a way that they provide a meaningful and fair picture about the programmes in their different phases.19 The context of this present chapter is partly to be presented in use in the next chapter, which introduces two euroregions with different operational conditions.

3. The Descriptive Analysis of the Two Regions 3.1 Terms of Research


24


According to the first chapter, this thesis includes a comparison of two euregions. I feel it significant to introduce the terms of research, the characteristics I examine by both of the regions, the factors I feel important to set forth. With regard to that, in this short chapter I am going to introduce the main points in relation to my findings about the Euregio Meuse-Rhine and the Carpathian Euroregion. Although there is a wide range of features that can be the basis of investigation, I was forced to select only some of them. In the following chapters the submission of the chosen euroregions is to be read. In the case of both, I begin with the introduction of the territory for better understanding of the present operation systems, problems and challenges. To reinforce the written material, the visual information in the form of charts and tables is enclosed in the appendices. As the second point, the development processes are described by introducing the main steps taken till the present working organizational framework of the regions came to being. The aims and the structure of the operation are announced, which is followed by the presentation of the financial resources available for the euroregions and last but not least, the elements that hinder the effective operation of the associations. The further analysis is aimed to find the most influential discords of the regions, where among other facts - I wish to highlight the differences in the fields of the operation hindering factors and the challenges for the future.

3.2. Introduction of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine

19



25


Borders were for a long time a “scar in the history”20, which often caused disadvantage for the border regions. In fact, these areas frequently had the role of play-balls for the given national states as they often belonged to different states during the past, although the area remained the same, only the lines and situation of the borders changed. This action also characterises the regions of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine. There were economic, social, cultural facts that influenced these changes. Factors like infrastructure, cultural dependence, economy, and so on weakened from the centre of the state towards the border regions. The emergence of the phenomenon of peripheries appeared in the first half of this century in Western - Europe. From those decades on, border regions developed as closed territories and people living there often had identity problems. Although nowadays the borders lose their parting role in Western - Europe, there are differences remaining among these areas that hinder the operation and co-operation of them. The diminishing of the economic, social and cultural barriers started at the beginning of the 1960s and lead to better chances of integration. Due to this fact, regions could free from isolation, develop and become a leading economic area of the developing Europe.21

3.2.1. Territory The Euregio Meuse-Rhine is one of the oldest cross-border co-operations in Europe. It is situated between the watershed areas of the river Meuse and Rhine. It also lies on the triple frontier of the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. The Euregio is ideally positioned within easy distance of a number of major economic poles (Ruhr, Randstad, Brussels, Paris and Luxemburg). It is also linked directly to the ports of Antwerp, Rotterdam and the international airports of Cologne, Düsseldorf, Brussels, Amsterdam and Luxembourg. The five partner regions of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine are:

20

http://www.euregio-mr.org/D/D3/D32/D323.htm, 2003-10-24; 14.23.


26


1)

South-Limburg + 5 Communes from Middle Limburg (Province of Limburg – The Netherlands)

2)

Province of Limburg (Belgium)

3)

French - speaking province of Liege (Province of Liege)

4)

German - speaking Community

5)

Aachen region

The territory of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine is illustrated in the Appendix 1. The area of the Euregio is of about 10.478 square-kilometres, with more than 3,7 millions inhabitants which makes it one of Europe’s most densely populated areas. Appendix 2 shows the population of the Euregio in accordance with its division into the five partner regions. The Aachen Region has the biggest number of inhabitants, with 1.245.379 people. It is followed by the French - speaking province of Liege, Province of Limburg, South - Limburg + 5 Communes from Middle Limburg, and the German – speaking Community. The numbers on the map in Appendix 3 indicate the territory of the partner regions in the order of the list above. The ethnic composition of the area is colourful as German, French, Dutch, and Belgian people live in the area, speaking Dutch, German and French. Although the Euregio Meuse-Rhine has been divided up politically between the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany since 19th century, the tides of history have forged a common artistic and cultural heritage. Already unified under Champagne, a large portion of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine’s territory was included in the Principality of Liege and then the Duchy of Limbourg, passing successively under Spanish, Austrian, French and Dutch rule. European integration is now stimulating a new sense of co-operation at Euregio Meuse-Rhine level. The history of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine is illustrated through a table in the Appendix 4. Situated at the crossing point of major North-South and East-West road and rail links, the region is served by major inland waterways as well (Liege is Europe’s third largest river port). Soon to be traversed by the High Speed Train (with stops at Liege and 21

http://www.euregio-mr.org/D/D3/D32/D323.htm, 2003-10-24; 14.23.


27


Aachen), the Euregio Meuse-Rhine also contains two regional airports (Liege and Maastricht) and a large number of civil airfields. A half-a-day long truck journey (4.30 hours) extends the catchments area to 55 million potential consumers, and one day’s journey to 196 million that is almost half of the population of the European Union, making the Euregio an ideal location for transport companies and consumer goods producers.

3.2.2. Development The Euregio Meuse-Rhine was established in 1976 by the regions of the Belgian Liege, Limburg, the Holland Limburg and the government district of Köln. At that time, it operated as a working community and had more than 3,7 million people living in the area. The motivation of the establishment was – as a matter of fact - the high number of inhabitants. These regions could not compete alone with the developed centres like Brussels-Antwerp, Randstad, Ruhr-area but a region like the Euregio Meuse-Rhine can be a greater counterbalance with its 3,7 million inhabitants, as for instance the Aachen region with 1,2 million people living there. From 1991 on the Euregio Meuse-Rhine has been operating as a foundation (according to the Holland laws), instead of the form of a working community. Although it is a civil law form of operation, it gives the character of stability and continuity for the cooperation. The opinions are different about the form of co-operation. Some say the civil law forms are not the most proper forms for this co-operation as they generally lack stable structure and continuity and one more important thing is the lack of democratic control. This latest criticism became so important at the beginning of the 1990s, that in 1995 the Council of the Euregio was established and became the directing organisation. 22

22

Novotny, Gábor; Az eurorégiós minta. A sikeres határmenti együttműködések kulcskérdései In Balogh A, Papp G. (Szerk.) Magyarország az európai regionális együttműködésben, MTA RKK Magyar Külügyi Intézet, 1998, Pécs-Budapest, pp. 77-101. [The Euro-regional Example, The Key Questions of the Successful Border Region Co-operation, In: Balogh, A; Papp, G; (Ed.) Hungary in the European Regional Co-operation]


28


3.2.3. Aims The Euregio Meuse-Rhine aimed to reach the elimination of the peripheral situation of the border regions – as it is a general aim of the cross-border co-operations - , and to create a central area. The partner regions tried to avoid making the region a transit area with the development of the infrastructure. After the elimination of the roles of borders the five partner regions of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine aimed to take advantage of these historical events, and created an association for better utilization of possibilities. The common use of resources and the stabilization of peace could also be reasons for the establishment of the cross-border co-operation.

3.2.4. Structure of Operation The main governor body of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine is the Executive committee of the EMR foundation. The members of this committee are: » Queen’s Commissioner for the Province of Limburg » Governor of the Belgian Province of Limburg » Governor of the Province of Liege » The Minister-President of the German-speaking Community of Belgium » The Region-President of Cologne Each member has the right to appoint three members in the committee. Consequently every partner region is represented by four persons in the Executive Committee. The Euregional Council has an advisory role within the structure of the Euregio and it has 81 members in two chambers. In the first chamber, there are 51 politicians while in the second chamber the civil societies are represented by 30 participants.


29


The administrative and executive board is the Secretariat having its centre in Maastricht in the building of the Regional Government of the Province of Limburg working with a group of ten members. Their two main tasks are the co-ordination of administration, and dealing with PR questions, and also managing the INTERREG program for the EMR. Out of the ten persons there are 5 from the civil servant level, 3 people work on the INTERREG program and their work is helped by 2 secretaries. As it is to be seen in Appendix 5, five regional managers are also linked to the secretariat. The Euregio Meuse-Rhine has four Commissions. Every commission has 29 members. Each commission is directed by a president who also participates in the work of the Council, and in addition to that two representatives are appointed from each of the partner regions, consequently ten representatives are from the regions. Besides these the 29 members include 11 politicians from the first Chamber of the Euregional Council and 7 representatives of civil society from the second Chamber. The four commissions include 190 communities. The area on which these commissions are working on involve:

1. Economy Technology

2. Nature Environment

3. Youth Culture

4. Health care Crisis management

Vocational education Labour market

Transport

Euregional identity

Social security

Education

Tradespeople Qualification Tourism

The decisions are made on the basis of consensus, so there is no majority voting used. This action - in a certain sense – seems to hinder the operation of the Euregio, so


30


provided one of the members rejects his support of a certain decision claiming that it would not fulfil the expectations of the represented inhabitants, the whole decisionmaking process is to be restarted.

3.2.5. Budget of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine At the beginning of the operation, the budget of the Euregio was guaranteed by the financial support of the partner regions. In 1986, an action plan was elaborated in which the economic and social conditions were summarised, and actual aims, development strategies and working plans were drafted. The action plan strengthened the position of the Euregio in the area, and not only the three member states, but also the European Commission acknowledged the Euregio Meuse-Rhine as a negotiating partner. Unfortunately, the available financial resources were not enough to accomplish the planned project so, as a consequence, to realize the actual programs the support of the EU’s INTERREG program was needed. Within the frame of the INTERREG I program, 22 million ECU arrived in the area and owing to that financial support, 125 programs were attained. In the second phase of the INTERREG program (INTERREG II.) the amount of aid was 35,7 million ECU. With the use of the INTERREG sources 100 programs were realized during the period of the second phase of this Community support. The use of the INTERREG is continuing in the period between 2000 and 2006. The Euregio Meuse-Rhine makes itself consciously ready for the welcome of the aid and in compliance with this, it prepared a programme plan for the spending of the financial support. As stated by the plan, the Euregio will have the possibility to apply for €105.411.708. This amount is divided among the six below listed topics to be promoted. » Spatial Structure » Trade and Commerce, Technology, Innovation » Environment, Nature, Landscape


31


» Qualification labour market » Social-cultural Integration » Technical Aid

3.2.6. Operation hindering Factors As every cross-border co-operation, the Euregio Meuse-Rhine also has problems in its daily operation. One of the biggest problems is the question of the labour market. which originated in this area from the crisis of the mining- and textile industry. To overcome the problems caused by these factors, the Euregio Meuse-Rhine emphasises the importance of educational programs and the promotion of the advantages and disadvantages of the border regions. The labour market conditions in the area even nowadays create a bottleneck in the operation process. Despite the reductions in the 1960s, 32% of the employees are working in the industrial sector. Because of the change of the industrial structure the rate of unemployed raised, and the establishment and operation of the Euregio could not help to solve this problem. In addition to that, the conditions of the labour market became worse. The industry in the surrounding of Liege, and the prosperous chemical industry in south Limburg in the Netherlands, act as a strong competitor to German employers and at the same time provide more possibility to the German employees. The biggest problems are the lack of language knowledge and that the German wages are higher. That is why Belgian and Holland people tend to commute to the German workplaces, or because of the cheaper costs of living, Germans move to Belgium or to the Netherlands and commute back to Germany to work. To prove this phenomenon, Novotny, Gábor (1998) reveals a figure. according to which 80% of the commuters - from Belgium to Germany - are German. From this example, it is easy to see that the free movement of labour did not solve the problem of the labour market in the area, but due to the cross-border co-operation many initiatives were born to decrease the weight of the trouble. Some of these are:


32


» The establishment of an advisory office to help the commuters » The role of the Working Commission dealing with education is highlighted » Programs ease the international mobility of unemployed people » Educational programs supported by computer technology » The development of the co-operation of universities (ALMA) Thanks to these programmes, 800 new workplaces were established within the period of 1990-1994.23 Another significant problem of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine is the differences in the systems of administration in the partner regions. Although the administrative systems are similar in the member states, the spheres of authority are different. The Holland Limburg Province has the greatest freedom. Although, the Belgian regions are moving towards federalism, according to the inhabitants, the most influential questions are still- solved in Brussels and the biggest amount of decisions are also made there. The Aachen Region has the smallest sphere of authority despite the fact that Germany is a federal state. As a third factor hindering operation, the suspicion, antitrust and the lack of information are to be considered. A certain proportion of the inhabitants do not even know about the Euregio Meuse-Rhine. The Belgian and Holland communities fear from the fact that they can became the outskirts of Aachen because of the high number of commuters and the increasing number of people moving to the Netherlands and Belgium or buying houses there. The problem originates not only in the local patriotism of the Belgian and Holland people but in the fact that German citizens - as the citizens of the European Union - can be elected to the local municipalities in spite of the fact that they pay tax in the neighbouring Aachen. Consequently, these people have the possibility to decide about factors they are not influenced by. The experts of the Euregio complain about the lack of competence and information from the side of the central decision-making bodies.24 23

Novotny, Gábor, ibid, 70-101


33


3.3. Introduction of the Carpathian Euroregion

By a eu(ro) region, a geographically well-defined territory is meant comprising bordering areas of two or more countries. Among their municipalities, there are agreements in terms of harmonising their activities in order to promote and develop more efficiently the above-mentioned bordering areas. According to the previous Western-European experience a euroregion of trans-border nature can be suitable for solving internal and intrastate conflicts having not been handled yet. The Carpathian Euroregion was established right after the political-social changes of the eastern, late socialist countries comprising regions situated in peripheral territories in their own countries, being less developed in terms of economy and social structure. This was the first euroregion with outstandingly significant importance in the time of national disorder in Europe, which embraced regions of the countries of the former eastern block where the inhabitants have similar past and traditions.

3.3.1. Territory The Carpathian Euroregion (CE) includes the territory of the north-eastern – Carpathian Mountains, the Tisza – Basin, and the hilly country surrounding these areas from south, east and north with a population of 15 948 468. The district of the Carpathian Euroregion is 161.135 square-kilometres – approximately the size of England and Wales. Established on 14th February 1993 in Debrecen, the Carpathian Euroregion includes the following administrative regions:

24

Novotny, Gábor, ibid, 70-101


34


Hungary: Borsod-Abauj-Zemplen, Hajdu-Bihar, Heves, Jasz-Nagykun-Szolnok, and Szabolcs-Szatmar-Bereg counties, and Miskolc, Debrecen, Eger, Szolnok, and Nyíregyháza cities of county rank Poland: Sub Carpathian region (Rzeszów, Przemysl, Krosno) Romania: Bihor, Botosani, Hargitha, Maramures, Salaj, Suceava and Satu Mare counties Slovakia: Presov and Kosice counties Ukraine: Chernivetska, Ivano-Frankivska, Lvivska and Zakarpatska regions.

The map of the Carpathian Euroregion is shown in the Appendix 6 while in the 7, 8 and 9 ones, some charts are to be seen reflecting the characteristics of the region. 25 As the charts show, Ukraine has the biggest territory within the CE, and Slovakia has only 10% of the total area. As far as the population of the area is concerned, also Ukraine has most inhabitants of the euroregion, and Slovakians are the fewest. The ethnic composition of the CE is more complex, as in addition to the national states, minorities make the picture more colourful. Besides the Ukrainian, Hungarian, Romanian, Polish, Slovak inhabitants Roma, Russian and other ethnic groups must be mentioned. The area of the Carpathian Euroregion belonged to the Polish Kingdom and the Hungarian Kingdom for centuries. After the 18th century – after the repartition of Poland – the whole territory was part of the Habsburg Empire. The area was also characterised by poverty at that time. During the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, the widespread achievement of the middle-class status began and the development of these areas started with the strengthening of the infrastructure and the economy being the most significant segments. The growing importance of the railway infrastructure is to be noted in this period. After World War I, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland shared the area whereas after World War II, the Soviet Union also got huge territories. (See the illustration in Appendix 10!) The history of these areas is strongly determined by the 25

Five nations, one community, Carpathian Foundation Annual Report 2001, Szeged, 2002, pp. 8-11


35


fact that all the regions included in the CE, were parts of the communist block in the past 50 years. This fact immensely influenced the history and development of these lands. Because of the political similarities, these regions always had almost identical problems, which contributed to the development of co-operations. The territory always faced the same economic and ethnic problems in the past and still does today. From the 1960s, these countries were linked together through military and commercial cooperations, where - most of the time - the conflicting interests became known. It is to be mentioned that in contrast to the similarities the present member states have different ways of development and as for instance Hungary suffered from the lack of industrial raw material, it had fewer problems in the food industry, while in Romania this sector was at a disadvantage. At this time sister town relations also existed, but they were rather formal and remained at the level of protocols. The characteristics of these kinds of relationships are still noticeable nowadays.

3.3.2. Development The Carpathian Euroregion was established by the co-operation of foreign ministers. One of the reasons could be the above mentioned formalities existing in the cross border relationships within the former socialist countries. As it was not established by the municipalities and people working together day by day, at the beginning of its operation, the Carpathian Euroregion had difficulties in the daily work because of the lack of cooperation. In the beginning only bilateral co-operations were formed, but soon after deeper relationships were born. The first bilateral co-operation was between the Polish Krosno region and the Slovak counties, and was called the Carpathian Association. One of the milestones of the establishment of the CE was the INTER RES International Fair in Poland that provided the possibility for the partners to introduce themselves. After this event, a seminar took place, where the Polish, the Hungarian, the Slovak and the Ukrainian partners negotiated about the possibilities and plans of the likely formation of co-operation. At the end of the meeting, the participants signed a declaration about the establishment of the Council of the Carpathian Euroregion Interregional Co-operation.


36


In July 1992, a group of experts was appointed who would prepare the basic documents of the Carpathian Euroregion. After this preparatory work, the representatives of the border regions of Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Ukraine signed the Convention of the establishment of the Carpathian Euroregion Interregional Co-operation in Debrecen on 14th February 1993. At the same time, the foreign ministers of these countries emphasising the support of the national governments also signed a declaration which included that the aims of the co-operation are the same as the countries’ own interests. Cathrine Lalumiere, the General Secretary of the Council of Europe, also attended the signature of the deed of foundation.26 3.3.3. Aims In accordance with the Article 106 of the Madrid Convention by the Council of Europe, by an EU-conform Statutes and articles of Operation the objectives of the euroregion were defined as follows: » Promotion of co-operation in the field of social, economic, scientific, ecological, educational, cultural and sports affairs; » Lobbying for the implementation of cross-border projects, mutual intention on co-operation with national institutions and organisations. The mission of the Carpathian Euroregion is: » “To improve the living standards of the people living in the area » to preserve peace » promotion of good relations between people on both sides of the borders » to decrease the isolating effect of the borders

26

Süli-Zakar István: A Kárpátok Eurorégió a régiók Európájában, Educatio, VI évfolyam, 1997/3, Oktatáskutató Inzézet, Budapest, pp. 438-452 [The Carpathian Euroregion in the Europe of Regions]


37


» to ensure the permeability of borders.”27

To summarise, the most important task is to handle the conflicts, which can rise from the ethnic differences in the border regions. Others are the creation of the friendly relationships that might be a prime mover of the co-operation for the economic development. The significance of the environmental protection is to be stressed as well. Partners highlight the importance of the experience and advice of experts from the partner regions. They are anxious to promote relationships with other regions in Europe and to co-operate in different topics such as environmental protection.

3.3.4. The Structure of Operation The main body of the interregional association is the Council, which makes decisions concerning the most important questions of general, personnel and membership relevance, on membership in international organisations, and so on. It also establishes working commissions, adopts project proposals raised by them, and ensures the conditions for the implementation. Members of the Council are delegated from the member countries, with three participants from each. The operative body of the Carpathian Euroregion is the International Secretariat. It fulfils operative and administrative tasks, co-ordinates daily activity, organises the meetings of the council and provides other administrative services. It also keeps contact with the National Offices, national representatives, co-ordinates the activity of the working commissions, establishes and keeps contact with international organisations and takes part in raising patrons.

27

A Kárpátok Eurorégió Nemzetközi Együttműködés, Működési Szabályzat, Alapító okirata, 1 függelék,/IV: Az együttműködés céljai és feladatai [Carpathian Euroregion Interregional Co-operation, Articles of Association, Deed of Foundation, Appendix 1/IV: The aims and tasks of co-operation]


38


The activity of the International Secretariat is supported by the National Offices in the member states with national representatives who also participate in organisational, translation and co-operation activities. Working Commissions established by the Council are responsible for the practical implementation of strategic plans adopted by the Council. The Working Commissions are dealing with Regional Development, Tourism, Environmental Protection, Trade, Prevention of Natural Disasters, Social Infrastructure, Audit, and Control.

3.3.5. The Budget of the Carpathian Euroregion The organisation has had its own budget since 1995. The main source of it is the membership fee paid by the participants, however, the supports of different foundations are also significant. With regard to the foundations supporting the Carpathian Euroregion are the Institute for East-West Studies, Soros Foundation or the Carpathian Foundation to be emphasised. The budget of the Carpathian Euroregion reaches $200.000 yearly, which gives the possibility to create a basic financial fund. Although, the national governments of Ukraine, Hungary and Poland also support the aims of the association, they could not provide financial aids. The European Union also supports the co-operation from the PHARE program, but the Carpathian Euroregion does not receive support from the - especially for interregional co-operations established – INTERREG program as it can be gained only by those regions that have EU member states. 3.3.5.1. The Carpathian Foundation One of the organisations supporting the Carpathian Euroregion is the Carpathian Foundation (CF), which is the most significant partner and which ensures the financial background of the programs of the Carpathian Euroregion.


39


“Carpathian Foundation’s mission is to promote good neighbourliness, social stability and suitable economic development in the Carpathian Euroregion. Carpathian Foundation addresses the multiple and complicated challenges facing the region through the framework of programs that support cross-border and inter-ethnic cooperation, and local community development. Carpathian Foundation believes that higher social, environmental and economic standards of living are a perquisite to peace and prosperity across the many political and cultural borders in the region.“28 The roles of the Carpathian Foundation: » Convener: uniting public, business and private interests to support peaceful future » Facilitator: promoting co-operation between ethnic and national groups » Innovator: identifying and communicating new approaches to community and regional development » Provider: supplying tools and technical assistance » Grantor: supporting regionally and locally developed initiatives » Mediator: serving as intermediator between local, regional, national and international interests.29 The operation of the foundation is acknowledged internationally that is significantly proved by the award the “Building of Peace” given by the Institute for East-West Studies for the encouragement of the inter-ethnic cross-border co-operations.

3.3.6. International Partners When establishing the Carpathian Euroregion the Institute for East-West Studies (IEWS) rendered great services providing funds for the interregional association in the course of the establishment, even by co-operating with it in the first period. 28 29

Five nations, one community, Carpathian Foundation Annual Report 2001, Szeged, 2002, pp. 12 Five nations, one community, Carpathian Foundation Annual Report 2001, Szeged, 2002, pp. 12


40


The eu(ro) regions played a distinct role in the integration of Europe and in this respect, an outstanding significance should be given to the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) that is an international organisation of euroregions. On 14-16 November 1996 in Rheine (Germany), the leaders of the AEBR adopted the CE as a full member registering it as the no. 56 member. The Executive Committee of the organisation decided to give the possibility to the CE for the active participation in the decision - making process of the AEBR at the Nice Summit in November 1998. The relationship between the Euregio Meuse-Rhine (EMR) and the Carpathian Euroregion emerged in July 1997, when the official delegation of the CE visited the office of the EMR. As a result of the discussions a joint project submitted to the Belgian Government was funded by the Flemish Government and the Province of Limburg – with a minimal subsidy of its own of the CE. During the implementation of the project between March 1998 and April 1999 the following activities were covered: » Exchange of experiences in defined fields and the elaboration of trans-border strategic framework of the euroregion » Infrastructural development of the International Secretariat » An action plan - titled Strategic Framework for the Development of the Carpathian Euroregion – with the assistance of the Working Commission on Regional Development The members of the official delegation got information about the INTERREG programs, the changes concerning the EU’s Structural Funds, co-operational experience of the EMR, about the implementation of the program by site visits, relations between the EMR and local organisations and the association of universities (ALMA). There are significant opportunities of co-operation relating to the Carpathian Foundation, whose area of operation and structural background are similar to those of the Carpathian Euroregion.


41


3.3.7. Operation Hindering Factors We have to look for the roots of these factors in the history and political life of the member states of the Carpathian Euroregion. According to this, the relationship of Slovakia, Romania and Hungary and the Ukrainian and Polish relationship are worth paying attention to. In the past these states had had conflicts because of the territorial changes due to the world wars. The contrasts, which used to exist among them are nowadays not to be recognised, although in some areas of operation strained relations are to be noticed. Among these fields the questions of minorities is to be highlighted. In addition to the “outer” conflicts, the different economical, infrastructural and social statuses of the participants also act as operation hindering factors. These basic problems are impossible to be solved by the association, but with an amount of advice, the CE can help to ease the problem-solving procedure. Within the national differences - with regard to the economic life - the most important fact is that no system or institution exists that could give financial support in forms of credit for the CE. A new operating structure would be needed to work more effectively, but the financial background is absent in this project. If the Carpathian Euroregion had been supported not only by the municipalities but also by the national governments, successes that are more spectacular could be seen.30 In addition to the above – mentioned facts Süli-Zakar, István highlights the unregulated minority questions. This topic was one of the most important hindering factors during the ten years of the CE. These components are the basis of the inter-governmental relationships in the recent years that can be characterised by an example that is the charge of irredentism of the Slovak government but unfortunately, also Romanian charges became known.31 30

Szaló, Péter: The Tasks of Regional Development, In: Comitatus, 1994/9, pp. 3-12 Süli-Zakar, István; Regional Perceptions of Marginality in the Carpathian Euroregion, 28th International Geographical Congress, The Hague, August 4-10, Abstract Book, 1996 and Süli-Zakar, István; The Role of the Carpathian Euroregion in the Strengthening the Cross-Border Relationships, In: Comitatus, 1997/6 pp. 30 - 43

31


42


Finally yet importantly, as an operation hindering factor, it is to be emphasised by SüliZakar that the state decentralisation has a strong negative influence on the development of cross-border co-operations. The perfect circumstances of the establishment must be acquainted to get a full picture about the role of the national governments in the crossborder co-operations in Eastern - Europe.32 The present area of the Carpathian Euroregion developed between the period of 14, February 1993 and 3, November 2000. The “original founders” of the CE were: » Borsod-Abauj-Zemplen, Hajdu-Bihar, Heves, and Szabolcs-Szatmar-Bereg counties, and Miskolc, Debrecen, Eger, and Nyíregyháza cities of county rank form Hungary » Zakarpatska region from Ukraine » Przemysl, Krosno from Poland » Presov and Kosice counties from Slovakia - in a status of associated members. After the political changes in Hungary the demand for the development of the international relationships increased. That is the reason for the establishment of the Carpathian – Tisza Working Commission. In this co-operation Hajdu-Bihar, SzabolcsSzatmár-Bereg counties and Zakarpatska region participated but the co-operation could not reach its aims, as Slovakia and Romania intervened and declared that the Commission is a tool for the Hungarian irredentism. However, the maps showing the territory of the Carpathian – Tisza Working Commission illustrated the watershed area of the Tisza and not the former Hungarian borders – as it was believed. It could not be justified that the charges were right; despite that the foundation of the Carpathian Euroregion had to face the antipathy of the Slovakian and Romanian governments. This is proved by the fact that the deed of foundation was signed only by three countries. Romania refused the participation whereas the newly formed Slovak state allowed the participation in the form of associated members only.

32

Süli-Zakar, István: The First Ten Years of the Carpathian Euroregion interregional Co-operation, Debreceni Egyetem Kossuth Kiadója, Debrecen, 2003.


43


The Hungarian and Polish regions always had an initiative role within the CE. They found the co-operation as a good chance of introducing themselves in Western – Europe.

Ukraine considers the co-operation of the greatest importance as it provided the chance to connect to Europe. The Foreign Minister of Ukraine appreciated the membership as the first step towards Europe, while the suspicion also arises in some fields of the relationships, as at the beginning of the co-operation it was not in the interests of the Ukrainian government that only Zakarpatska region is the member of the CE, which happens to be inhabited mainly by Hungarians so they forced the accession of the other regions as well, and consequently at present Ukraine has the biggest territory in the CE and the biggest number of inhabitants. In spite of these data, the dominance of Ukraine is not visible as the country fights against financial difficulties and structural changes. The maintenance of the Slovak charges was indicated by the associated status of the Slovak regions within the CE. The foreign minister of Slovakia was critical about the item that only the regional representatives were included in the preparatory works of the foundation but not the Slovak Government. Under all circumstances, the Carpathian Euroregion has the role of a bridge to Europe for Slovakia as well. The most sensitive state at the beginning of the co-operation was Romania where two regions Maramures and Satu Mare counties, who helped the preparatory works of establishment, made request for the membership of the CE, which they - as a matter of fact - got. After a few days the Romanian government invalidated the request arguing that Hungary might wish to intervene in the national matters of Romania through this co-operation. In addition to that it feared the strengthening of the Hungarian municipalities in the applicant counties. The reason for the Romanian suspicion could be that the areas signing the foundation for the first time all belonged to the historical territory of Hungary. Only after the accession of other Ukrainian regions did the political fears weaken.


44


As far as the future of the Carpathian Euroregion is concerned, the attitudes of the Romanian and Slovak governments are influential. Their approaches usually change after the change of the governments and so it involves the risk of isolation that may make the operation of the CE more difficult. 33

3.4 The Relationship of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine and the Carpathian Euroregion

The relationship of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine and the Carpathian Euroregion evolved right after the foundation of the East-Central European euroregion and operates on the basis of a global co-operation agreement since 1993. The connection of the euroregions was realized with the assistance of the Flemish Prime Minister, Luc van den Brande, who also had a status in the East-West Committee, where a found was established to support and give examples for applicant countries in projects that are parts of the Acquis Communitaire. In accordance with this aim, a relationship was developed with the Carpathian Euroregion that has four member states in applicant status of the European Union. The delegation of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine attended all the member states of the CE in 1994 when the visitors had the possibility to personally familiarize themselves with the problems of the euroregion, especially the difficulties of border crossing. The relationship is said to be strong, which is characterised not only by the organisation of instructional trips, but also by financial support given to the CE to promote its technical infrastructure. The financial background of this co-operation is insured by the support of the Assembly of European Regions. In 1999, a joint report was worked out – unfortunately without the co-operation of native experts – to outline a Strategic Framework for the Carpathian Euroregion, in which the EMR and the CE agreed to:

33

Süli-Zakar, István: The First Ten Years of the Carpathian Euroregion interregional Co-operation, Debreceni Egyetem Kossuth Kiadója, Debrecen, 2003.


45


» provide the appropriate technical assistance for a transfer of know-how, experience and good practice » concentrate co-operation on policy fields consistent with the Acquis Communitaire. Because of the mentioned lack of co-operation, the study did not come through. The first project of the co-operation was followed by other programmes, as the joint project in the field of environmental policy and water management is currently taking place between the Carpathian Region and the Dutch Province of Limburg as a member region of the EMR. The organisational framework of co-operation relies on two basic concepts:

Centres of Excellence: In this concept each of the partner regions of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine possesses proven know-how and capabilities in areas related to the Acquis Communitaire. The above table shows an example of the concept:

Partner region of EMR

Project

Partner region of CE

Limburg (NL)

Water Management

Partner A

Limburg (B)

Health Care

Partner B

Aachen Region

Life Sciences

Partner C

German-speaking

Initial and Continuing

Partner D


46


Community

Vocational Training

Liege (B)

SMEs

Partner E

In the first phase, centres of excellence - the partner regions of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine – transfer their specific expertise in one of these areas to a selected partner region of the CE. The table showing the concept involve the certain projects for illustration, with only the first project being realized, and the others are of planned nature. Leap - frog Approach This concept is used in the second phase of the projects to multiply the acquired expertise and competences across the partner regions of the CE. In this period, the original centre of excellence from the EMR has a diminishing role, while the teaching role of the partner from the CE is steadily increasing. The progressive impact of the leap – frog approach is shown in the next table:

EMR

A

B

C

D

E

1

1A

1AB

1ABC

1ABCD

1ABCDE

2

2A

2AB

2ABC

2ABCD

2ABCDE

3

3A

3AB

3ABC

3ABCD

3ABCDE

4

4A

4AB

4ABC

4ABCD

4ABCDE

5

5A

5AB

5ABC

5ABCD

5ABCDE

The partner shown in bold characters plays the leading role in cross-border transfer and co-operation in each case. To summarise the two concepts, the way of co-operation is like the following: One region from the EMR sends experts to a chosen region of the CE (region A) to share their knowledge and with the experience of the centre of excellence a project will


47


be outlined, where the EMR partner region has an influential leading role. The project will be fulfilled in the chosen member state of the CE (region A) and will be followed in another member of the Carpathian Euroregion (region B) by a similar co-operation. It is to be emphasised that in accordance with the leap – frog approach, the next partner of the CE (region B) will use the experience of region A gained in the first phase of the project. Region B will benefit from the know-how of the EMR region, and also from region A, who already has the project leading role. In the next period of the project – by its realization in region C – region B will have the dominance, while the participation of the centre of excellence and region A is diminishing. Because of the concept of the ‘Centres of Excellence’ every member region of the CE will have superior role in a certain topic in the second period of the projects. (Information from: Mr. Alfred Evers, Co-ordinator for Province of Limburg (NL) of the Euregio MeuseRhine)

One of the main joint programmes of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine and the Carpathian Euroregion ended in January 2003, which was basically an exchange of experience and support of technical assistance in the field of environmental protection and water management issues, where the local and regional authorities are explicitly responsible. The project was realized in the way as it was outlined in the previous pages and comprises four parts. 1. The organisation of the mission, where the needs of the Hungarian partners were identified. This part was executed in the spring of 2001 in Nyíregyháza and Debrecen, settling the items of interests for the Hungarian partners and the preparation for the next phase of the project. 2. About 20 experts were invited to the Netherlands, where lectures were held on selected items and related field visits. The majority of the experts came from the regional Inspectorates and Water Authorities for the programme on 13-16 November 2001. 3. Exchange program : » The deployment of three Dutch experts – one on water and two on environmental issues - in the Hungarian regions were involved, to ensure


48


exchange of experience and transfer of know how. Experts visited eastern Hungarian counties from 14-18 October. » Invitation to five Hungarian experts to carry out a period of work practice within one of the Limburg or Dutch local and/or regional institutes responsible for environmental or water management policy was realized from 14-19 January 2003. 4. The evaluation took place during the last week of January 2003 and was concluded during a common session with representatives of the Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water, of the Inspectorates and Water Boards involved in this project and a representative of the Euregio Meuse Rhine / province Limburg. During the meetings with national and regional environmental experts, the members of the Limburg delegation explained in detail the nature of Dutch environmental and water management activities at local and regional level. In these open deliberations, the responsibilities of the regional authorities and their relations with the national authorities responsible for these policy fields were first explained. The members of the delegation also informed their Hungarian partners of the relevance of their activities to EU environmental policy, and especially Dutch progress in translating EU directives into related national law. Another member of the delegation informed the Hungarian experts about environmental elements of importance for this pre-accession period and in particular the challenges (legislative, institutional and financial) they are to encounter in the coming period. Further information was given on available EU pre-accession funding (ISPA) and on institutional support provided by the European Union, e.g. the informal Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL). During these sessions, future project activities were also explained, and, in particular, the program for the study visit was discussed. The Hungarian experts were asked to comment on these suggestions and to add issues, which engage their special interest.


49


During the meetings in Nyíregyháza and Debrecen, the Hungarian experts showed their great interest in participating in this project and came up with suggestions for adapting the proposed program even more closely to their own needs and interests. The following issues were emphasized: » Hungarian experts want to discuss relevant developments in their country as they affect realization of the acquis communautair; » They would like to be informed about particular Dutch problems in introducing and translating EU directives into Dutch law; » Problems with the floods Eastern Hungary was confronted in the past: cyanide contamination and cleaning-up river beds; » More information on nature conservation; » Renewable energy resources: developments in alternative energy provision in the Netherlands (bio-gas); » Automatic

measuring

points

for

water

contamination

(operation

and

maintenance); » Cross-border water contamination: incidents, early warning systems and bilateral river management agreements; » Illegal refuse dumps and implementation of the “polluter pays” principle. The Hungarian experts expressed their wish to follow the content of the lectures when looking for field visits as much as possible. During the discussions, it became evident that a number of people had already visited the Netherlands and were very well informed about the issues related to the acquis communautair. It also became clear that there is a great need to upgrade the professional qualities of existing institutions responsible for implementing and enforcing environmental policy in Hungary. Staffing levels should also be increased in the coming years. (Information from: Mr. Pieter van Run, Euregio Meuse-Rhine)


50


Although not all the topics were given the same weight as for instance the issues on waste management were pushed into the background, Hungarian participants, especially the experts on environmental and water management issues evaluated the project as successful from a variety of aspects as relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability. Some problems arose from the fact that the Hungarian participants were from different organisations like Inspectorates, Water Boards, Cities and counties, due to which they have different tasks and interests. Dutch partners also greatly appreciated the programme and the inquiring participation of the partners. Hungarian experts delivered preparatory notes and had short overviews of their main learning objectives in advance. In addition to these, Dutch experts made the remarks, that there were deviations in the third stage of the project, during the visit of Dutch specialists in Hungary from the original project proposal, that is reasoned by the great pressure under which the Hungarian experts have to work.


51


4. Comparative Analysis of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine and the Carpathian Euroregion 4.1. Similarities and Differences of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine and the Carpathian Euroregion Although the two regions are very different in some aspects, there are factors in relation to the Carpathian Euroregion and the Euregio Meuse-Rhine that show considerable similarity. In the followings, the enumeration of these elements is to be listed. To return to the basis of the comparison, both co-operations are a cross-border cooperation which explains the existence of homogeneous elements in the operation of the associations. Both areas are in peripheral situation in the member countries, which provides principle for the affinities of problems, moreover difficulties originate by both of them in the dissimilarities of the administrative structures and both co-operations suffered from the suspicion of the neighbouring states as well. Despite the similarities there are large number of existing deviations. with the discord of the territories being one of the most unambiguous ones. While the Carpathian Euroregion has an area of 161.135 km

2

with 15 948 468 inhabitants, the Euregio

Meuse-Rhine includes a district of 10.478 km 2, where the number of citizens is 3 793 903. Comparing the given data, it is evident that the density of the regions also includes diversity. This basic dissimilarity reasons other features and disparities of the two regions as for instance the flow of information within the euroregion, the closeness of the operational boards, and so the speed of decision-making, the co-operation of the inhabitants, and so on. Due to the fact, that the Euregio Meuse-Rhine involves three nations whereas the Carpathian Euroregion contains regions form five states, conflicts might originate in a wider range of aspects depending on the national interests.


52


It is outstandingly significant that the Euregio Meuse-Rhine was established in 1976, while the Carpathian Euroregion had its 10th anniversary last year. Because of that the amount of experience on the fields of decision-making, problem solving and on operational fields is bigger in the case of the EMR. Another remarkably meaningful contrast is the economic development of the regions, which might have its roots in the fact, that the countries that have member regions in the Carpathian Euroregion were all socialist states before the changes at the end of the 1980s. Conversely, the partner regions of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine are situated in the middle of the traditionally democratic Western-Europe. This political diversity undoubtedly leads to the existence of the different ways of economic development as well. Although the Carpathian Euroregion has areas that will be members of the European Union, up to this point the two regions do not belong to the same integration form, which again seems to create economic discords. The economic situation is also dissimilar as the EMR is in the EU where the conditions of the economic improvement are of greater variance. In addition to these fundamental discrepancies, other changes are to be noticed, whereas these differences mainly refer back to the mentioned deviations. The reasons for the establishment are an influential point to mention. In the Euregio Meuse-Rhine the motivation was the better utilization of possibilities whilst the Carpathian Euroregion was founded to avoid political conflicts in the border regions. Differences in the operation hindering factors also exist as the Euregio Meuse-Rhine faces problems on the fields of the decision-making process, labour commuting, lack of language knowledge and proper information about the region, the differences of the sphere of autonomy in the administrative structure. The Carpathian Euroregion, on the other hand, suffers from financial difficulties, state decentralization, the ineffective operational system and – nowadays still – from the minority questions.


53


The challenges for the future in the cases of the two regions refer to dissimilarities as well. The most influential challenge of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine is the change of the operational structure. There are possible scenarios available but still further investigations are needed before the launch of these changes. Besides the transformation of the operating bodies, the Carpathian Euroregion should solve the possible problems arising from the EU-accession of three of its member states. As the European Union enlarges, the border - in relation to the Schengen Agreement - will divide the Euroregion so fears emerged because of the likely weakening relationships in the certain areas. With the accession of Poland, Slovakia and Hungary the presently existing differences will show greater unbalance between these states and Romania and the Ukraine. The aim is to hold on the convergence of the territories, to help the non-EU states in the development and to continue the present co-operation. Unfortunately, the conditions of the co-operation will fundamentally change, as the conditions of border crossing, investment, trade, and others will not be the same any longer.

4.2. Experts’ view To provide a full picture about the examined euroregions, I asked Mr. Alfred Evers coordinator for the Province of Limburg (NL) of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine and Mrs. Brigitta László Major, the Executive Director of the Carpathian Euroregion, to evaluate the achievements of the two regions and declare their opinions about the co-operation and about the possible methods to overcome questions. The short interview I made included questions about the biggest achievements of the regions, the hindering factors of operation, the main challenges, their view of the other region, how it could work more effectively, how the questioned interviewees evaluate the co-operation, for example. According to Evers, it is difficult to identify only one achievement and appoint it as the biggest one, that is why he mentioned more successes, as the harmonisation of policies with the assistance of the European Union within the partner regions, the better tax


54


conditions and the fact that politicians and people working for the Euregio start to know each other and co-operate also at higher level for the same aims. As the most significant hindering factor in the operation was the decision-making process mentioned, because of the consensus based decisions. Evers holds that the structural change of the operational bodies that is the planned increase of the council’s role, is the main challenge. One of the questions was aimed to highlight the biggest difference of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine and the Carpathian Euroregion. Evers believes the most significant discords are the living standard and the public structure. He also shared his opinion about the methods making the CE more effective. As maintained, the Carpathian Euroregion should promote the establishment of bilateral co-operations and act as an umbrella association by giving all the assistance needed for these formations. Thanks to the work and possible successes of these associations real questions emerging in the daily operation of the municipalities could be solved. Mrs. Brigitta László Major, who is the Executive Director of the Carpathian Euroregion and among others had to deal with the daily operational issues was asked the same questions. She holds the developed co-operation and confidence, which evolved among the member regions as the greatest achievement of the Carpathian Euroregion, while among the operation hindering factors the lack of available financial resources was mentioned in the first place. Another remarkable element making the operation difficult is the political election in every four years, due to which influential changes emerge in the operational bodies of the CE. Representatives should newly learn the present issues, problems, and working environment. If the representatives of the regions had not had political roles, the association could work on through the elections and would not have to face the replacement of the co-workers. The main challenge for the Carpathian Euroregion is the forthcoming accession of three of its member regions. This action carries the task of handling the problems of border crossing and the division of the euroregion and should have the utilization of the benefits originating from the fact that the region will have EU member states. As Mrs. Major believes, the basis of the more effective work would be the existence of a group


55


of experts providing the possibility of creating application and thanks to that the better utilization of future financial resources. As an example, the West-Pannonia Euroregion was mentioned, where the number of specialists working on such fields is 176. The Executive Director of the CE has the opinion that with the financial support of the national governments the chance of more effective operation could be realized. When answering the question about the urgent problems of the Carpathian Euroregion the lack of financial possibilities were highlighted with respect to the local water, environmental, natural disaster authorities that have not got their required own share to complete certain projects. The co-operation of the member regions of the CE was defined as uneven, as after the previously mentioned political elections, the chance of poorer activity appears because of changes on other fields of the representatives working areas’. The cooperation of the Carpathian Euroregion and the Euregio Meuse-Rhine is evaluated as an influential relationship by the CE, containing, for instance, real successful projects, and actual co-operations on the INTERREG III C, Water Management and Environmental Protection programs. The Carpathian Euroregion counts on the fact that this fruitful relationship remains as active in the future as it was in the near past, and the Euregio Meuse-Rhine will involve its Eastern – European partner in its applications and will share the available information in scientific and practical fields as well. Last but not least, she was asked what the most significant discords of the two regions were. Mrs. Major considers the aims of foundation and the conditions within the two regions operate as the most influential differences. She has the opinion that many of the other deviations in the daily work have their roots in this fundamental dissimilarity.


56


5. Summary The significance of border regions is proved by many Western – European examples as for instance the Regio Basiliensis, Piedmont Region or the Euregio Meuse-Rhine testifying the advantages originating from the closeness to the borders and the neighbouring countries. This view is also highlighted in the scientific works of experts on this field, as written in the second chapter of this assignment. Some of the specialists consider that the importance of the European regions will only be transitional on the continent and after the integration of Europe their role will diminish. Others, on the other hand, have the view that these formations are of great importance and this fact remains meaningful after the further development of the EU. With the elimination of the dividing role of borders, cross-border co-operations become conspicuous and are to solve problems that are not handled by the national governments. The operation of the CBCs is often hindered by the effects caused by their situation in the border regions, however, they are supported by the Association of European Border Regions, which has the task to promote the creation of these formations as well. The European Union also appreciates the successes of the CBCs, and because of that, EU level initiatives were founded. The most important among them is the INTERREG, whose third phase is supported by the EU with almost €5 billion. The thesis includes the introduction of two euroregions from different areas of the continent and also from different economic and operation conditions. The Euregio Meuse-Rhine is situated in the triple frontier of Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands and is one of the most densely inhabited areas of the continent. It was established 27 years ago, in relation to that it had a wide range of experience on the field


57


of operation. It is said to be successful and a miniature example of the European Union, where the free movement of the factors of production could be realized and the harmonisation of different policies was also fulfilled. Although it has factors that hinder its operation, it faces such fine challenges as for instance the formation of the cooperations of fire brigades on the area. The EMR is also supported by the EU and is the member of the AEBR. It developed a meaningful relationship with the Carpathian Euroregion, which is the biggest cross-border co-operation in Eastern- and Central Europe. The CE was established eleven years ago and after the difficulties of the first years, it works nowadays on the benefit of the opportunities provided by the accession to the European Union. The Carpathian Euroregion has partner regions in Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary and the Ukraine, which means that all member states were in the socialist block in the past fifty years. This fact determined their economic development and at the same time created basis for the co-operation. The beginning of the shared work was hindered by suspicion and fear about a kind of co-operation that has not got tradition in the area. Experts evaluated the past ten years of the CE as a period, where the fundamental elements of co-operation were established and now the real co-operation can begin. The two areas are very different in many elements such as the territory, its situation in Europe, the density of the area, the economic conditions, the number of financial possibilities, operation hindering factors and problems also show dissimilarities, while the general features of CBCs are the same. In spite of the deviations of the two regions, co-operation could evolve between them, that is realized in programs help to handle questions of the Carpathian Euroregion. The last common project was the joint co-operation on water management and environmental protection issues also including topics of waste management and the protection against nature disaster. Thanks to the successes of these programmes the whole co-operation is considered to be meaningfully important.


58


The personal opinions of the co-ordinator of the Province of Limburg (NL) of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine and the Executive Director of the Carpathian Euroregion are also included in the assignment providing practical views of the co-operations. They prove that the two regions have quite different problems and operational difficulties, and most of the regions’ discords are originated from their economic dissimilarities. Some factors in accordance with this are the financial difference, the operation hindering factors and for instance the challenges for the future.

6. Table of Illustrations 1. The Territory of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine ............................................. 59 2. Population of the Regions of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine ......................... 60 3. Linguistic Composition of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine ............................. 61 4. History of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine’s Territory .................................... 62 5. The Operational Structure of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine ........................ 63 6. The Territory of the Carpathian Euroregion .......................................... 64 7. Territorial Composition of the Carpathian Euroregion ......................... 65 8. The Population of the National Regions of Carpathia ........................... 66 9. Ethnic Composition of the Carpathian Euroregion................................ 67 10. History of the Carpathian Euroregion’s Territory ................................. 68 11. The Operational Structure of the Carpathian Euroregion ..................... 69


59


7. Bibliography Books and Articles:

1.

A Kárpátok Eurorégió Nemzetközi Együttműködés, Működési Szabályzat, Alapító okirata [Carpathian Euroregion Interregional Co-operation , Articles of Association, Deed of Foundation, Appendix 1, IV: The aims and tasks of cooperation]

2.

Corrigan, J., Béres Csaba, and Süli-Zakar István: Cross-border Cooperation in a Europe of Frontiers. In: Acta Geographica Debrecina. Tomus XXXIII., KLTE Debrecen, 1995.

3.

Five nations, one community, Carpathian Foundation Annual Report 2001, Szeged, 2002

4.

Friedrich Ratzel: Allgemeine Eigenschaften den geografischen Grenzen und die politische Grenze, 1892, In: Süli-Zakar, István: The First Ten Years of the Carpathian Euroregion interregional Co-operation, Debrecen, 2003, pp. 377.

5.

Gabbe, Jens; Dr. von Malchus, Viktor; Martinos, Haris: Practical Guide to Crossborder Co-operations, 2000, Gronau.


60


6.

Horváth, Gyula- Hajdú, Zoltán (edit.): European Challenges and Hungarian Responses in Regional Policy. Centre for Regional Studies, Pécs, 1994

7.

Inotai, András: Az új regionalizmus a világgazdaságban, Külgazdaság, 1994/1 pp. 28-44. [The new regionalism in the world economy]

8.

Ludvig, Zsolt: A Kárpátok Eurorégió Együttműködés, Külgazdaság, 1995/7-8, pp. 105-117 [The Carpathian Euroregion Co-operation]

9.

Majorné, László Brigitta (szerk.): Kárpátok Eurorégió, Kárpátok Eurorégió Nemzeti Iroda, Nyíregyháza, 2001

10. Novotny, Gábor; Az eurorégiós minta. A sikeres határmenti együttműködések kulcskérdései In: Balogh A, Papp G. (Szerk.) Magyarország az európai regionális együttműködésben – MTA RKK Magyar Külügyi Intézet, Pécs-Budapest, 1998, pp. 77-101. [The Euro-regional Example, The Key Questions of the Successful Border Region Co-operation, In: Balogh, A; Papp, G; (Ed.) Hungary in the European Regional Co-operation]

11. Nyusztay, László: Szubregionális kezdeményezések Európában: a magyar – olasz –

szlovén

háromoldalú

együttműködés

(Kiindulópontok

egy

eurorégió

kutatáshoz), EU Working Papers, 1999/I., pp. 21-31, [Sub-regional movements in Europe, The Hungarian-Italian-Slovenian trilateral co-operation (Starting point for a research of euro-regions

12. Nyusztay, László-Gáspár, Tamás: Európai Regionalizmus, Társadalmi Szemle, 1994/12 pp. 35-43. [European Regionalism]

13. Pál Kovács, Ilona: Kistérségek, megyék, régiók és a közeljövő közigazgatása, In: Comitatus 1994/12. pp. 30 – 40. [Small areas, counties, regions and the distant future’s administration]


61


14. Rechnitzer, János: Határ menti együttműködések Európában és Magyarországon, In: Nárai, M – Rechnitzer, J (szerk.): Elválaszt és összeköt - a határ, Győr-Pécs, MTA RKK, 1999, pp. 9-73 [Cross-border Co-operations in Europe and in Hungary]

15. Süli-Zakar István: A Kárpátok Eurorégió a régiók Európájában, Educatio, VI. évfolyam, 1997/3, Oktatáskutató Intézet, Budapest, pp. 438-452 [The Carpathian Euroregion in the Europe of Regions]

16. Süli-Zakar, István: The First Ten Years of the Carpathian Euroregion Interregional Co-operation, Debrecen, 2003.

17. Süli-Zakar, István; Regional Perceptions of Marginality in the Carpathian Euroregion, 28th International Geographical Congress, The Hague, August 4-10, Abstract Book, 1996

18. Süli-Zakar, István; The Role of the Carpathian Euroregion in the Strengthening the Cross-Border Relationships, In: Comitatus, 1997/6 pp. 30 - 43

19. Szaló, Péter: The Tasks of Regional Development, In: Comitatus, 1994/9, pp. 312, 1994

20. Townroe, P. M., The spatial impact of European integration. In: Journal of Regional Policy, 1994/2. pp. 185-204. Internet Sources:

1.

http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/g24204.htm, 2003. 10. 13.

2.

http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/g24205.htm, 2003.10.13


62


3.

http://www.euregio-mr.org/D/D3/D31/D312.htm, 2003.10.13

4.


5.


6.


7.


8.

http://www.euregio-mr.org/D/D3/D32/D323.htm, 2003.10.24 – Table 4

9.


10. http://www.euregio-mr.org/D/D3/D32/D324.htm, 2003.10.24 Other Sources:

1. 2.

Information from Mrs. Major Brigitta László the Executive Director of the Carpathian Euroregion in the form of an interview, 30.10.2003 Information from Mr. Alfred Evers Co-ordinator of the Province of Limburg (NL) of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine in the form of an interview, 20.11.2003

Budapesti Gazdasági Főiskola KÜLKERESKEDELMI FŐISKOLAI KAR KÜLGAZDASÁGI SZAK ANGOL NAPPALI TAGOZAT EURÓPAI UNIÓS ÜZLETI TANULMÁNYOK SZAKIRÁNY

Recommend Documents