SUMMARY CONTENTS

01. Programme Area (2)

02. Smarter (3)

03. Greener (9)

04. Connected (15)

05. Social (21)

06. Governance (28)

07. Diagnosis (33)

08. Key Pointers (35)

09. Programme Vision (37) 01. Programme Area

The territorial coverage of the analysis The border between Romania and Bulgaria includes the 15 counties and districts that are accounts for over 630 km, and for its largest currently part of the eligible area of Interreg part (470 km) it unfolds along the Danube V-A Romania-Bulgaria Programme (2014-2020), River. Only one district in Bulgaria (Dobrich) namely: and one in Romania (Constanta) are connected • Romania: Mehedinți, Dolj, Olt, Teleorman, by land, the rest being separated by the Giurgiu, Călărași and Constanţa; Danube. The cross-border area is • Bulgaria: Vidin, Vratsa, Montana, Veliko predominantly rural, and large areas of land Tarnovo, Pleven, Ruse, Dobrich and Silistra. are used for agriculture. There are also significant surfaces covered by forests and The programme area has a total surface of water bodies. The cross-border area also 69,285 km2, with 2/3 located in Romania and encompasses many natural sites on both sides 1/3 in Bulgaria (based on the current of the border, with a rich biodiversity (many geography of the cross-border cooperation Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites). Programme). It area covers 19.8 % of the total area of the two countries and counts more than 4 million inhabitants. 02. SMARTER Photo source: Facebook Giurgiu CityHall General information

23% 37% 40% 51%

GDP Turnover Total employees Active enterprises Romania Romania Romania Romania Bulgaria Bulgaria Bulgaria Bulgaria

60% 77% 63% 49%

120,400 active 28,135.7 MIL. 42.5 BN. EUR 959,000 employees enterprises in EUR in the cross- in the cross-border in the cross-border the cross-border border area (2017) area (2018) area (2017) area (2017)

Employment structure

2017 5.8% 27.2% 40.5% 26.5%

2016 5.9% 27.0% 40.3% 26.9%

2015 5.6% 27.2% 40.8% 26.5%

2014 5.4% 27.4% 40.8% 26.4%

2013 5.2% 27.3% 41.3% 26.2%

2012 5.2% 27.9% 40.3% 26.6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

agriculture industry services other sectors

Main economic sectors Tourism All year round occupancy rate (%) Agriculture Manufacturing 30 Mehedinți, Olt, Mehedinți, Olt, Mehedinți Ruse Călărași Giurgiu 25 . . Vidin, Montana, Vratsa 20 Vratsa 15 Silistra Productivity Competitiveness 10 Teleorman GVA/HOUR - EUR Global Competitive Index 4.0 5

20.0 Bulgaria 0 ✓ICT adoption, Romania Bulgaria Macro-economic 15.0 49/ stability highest occupancy rate 11.9 141 X Health, Financial lowest occupancy rate 9.3 10.0 2012 system 7.7 7.5 5.9 6.4 2015 Tourism services Romania 5.0 2018 ✓ICT adoption, Constanța Market size 125 beds/1000 inhabitants 51/ . - 141 X Health, Financial Dobrich BG RO system 175 beds/1000 inhabitants

4 02. Smarter

Main challenge regarding economic development: Unbalanced and lagging economic landscape, determined by weak labour market conditions (high and growing disparities, outmigration, low employee mobility, high unemployment, high level of informal economic activities and low productivity), while having as main impact the low capital endowment (modest flows of information and knowledge, low level of collaboration between researchers and companies, low R&D expenditure, limited critical mass of researchers and innovators, high share of SMEs and microenterprises, declining manufacturing and low level of entrepreneurship).

In spite of the positive economic evolution, the respective increase in GDP over 2012-2017), Romania-Bulgaria cross-border area still ranks while Romanian counties experienced higher among the least developed territories in the EU, growth rates, with GDP even doubling in some with four out of the six regions covering the cases, such as Giurgiu. Wealth is mainly cross-border area in the top ten poorest at EU concentrated in two main centres, on each side level. of the border: Constanța and Dolj in Romania Between 2012 and 2017, both sides of the and Ruse and Veliko Tarnovo in Bulgaria. Pockets Danube experienced a positive trend in terms of of poverty are still present, as some of the least economic growth, with an average 33.7% developed NUTS3 counties and districts in the increase in GDP. Nonetheless, the cross-border EU are also located in the cross-border area. area contribution to their respective national GDPs remains low (only about 12% for both Similar patterns of disparity are shown by the Bulgaria and Romania), especially considering evolution of the GDP per inhabitant (PPS). the weight of the population and surface in the The value of GDP per capita amounted to an national total (about one third of each country's average of 6.61 th. EUR in 2017, 40.7% higher population and territory). In nominal terms, the than in 2012. Within the cross-border area, GDP combined GDP of the Romanian counties is per inhabitant in Romanian counties has almost three times that of the Bulgarian experienced higher levels of growth (45.4%), districts (21.6 bn euros, compared to 6.5 bn compared to the Bulgarian districts (26.3%). In euros, in 2017). 2017, the GDP per inhabitant in the Bulgarian cross-border territory was reaching 4.69 th. At the same time, the area is confronted with EUR, while the Romanian cross-border territory significant social and economic disparities, had a 7.54 th. EUR GDP in the same year. At manifested on two dimensions: between the county and district level, the GDP per Northern and Southern sides of the Danube and inhabitant displays increasing disparities, as between the various counties and districts. well. Constanta, which is currently the most The Northern half of the territory, located in developed county in the entire cross-border Romania, is more developed than the Southern area, reaches a value almost four times higher one, located in Bulgaria. Recent development than Silistra, the least developed district (11.8 trends were also uneven, with Romanian th. EUR compared to 3.4 th. EUR, in 2017). At counties experiencing an increase in GDP almost the same time, Constanta also maintains a double than that of the Bulgarian districts considerable difference compared to Dolj (7.2 (39.3% and 18%, respectively). In general, th. EUR), the second most developed county in Bulgarian districts had a slower development, the programme area and to Dobrich (4.6 th. except for Ruse and Montana (24% and 27% EUR), the neighbouring district located on the

5 coastal area. In addition, Ruse and Giurgiu, the agricultural profile, with over 20% of the local two counties/districts where there are the most GVA stemming from this sector. On the other numerous commercial relations, display similar hand, the industrial sector is predominant in values of GDP/capita, around 5.7-6.2 th. EUR, Constanța and Olt counties, as well as in as do Olt and Vratsa, with 5.8-6.0 th. EUR in Montana, Vratsa and Ruse districts, with over 2017, even though economic ties are not strong 30% of the local GVA. Trade activities are between the latter two. predictably more developed in Ruse, Veliko Tarnovo and Constanța, with over 20% The economic activity in the cross-border area contribution to the local GVA. has a limited contribution to the national Gross Value Added (GVA), with only about 11% in 2017. As regards tourism, the Romania-Bulgaria cross- Agriculture is better represented in the cross- border area is split between the Black Sea border area compared to this sector's coast, with a more developed tourist activity, contribution to each of the two national albeit seasonal, in Constanța and Dobrich, and economies, reaching an average of 12% in the rest of the territory. Romania and 13% in Bulgaria, compared to In the other counties and districts of the area, approximately 4.6-4.7% at national level. the tourist attractions are not valorised at their Industrial activities (except constructions) real potential and the touristic offer is contribute with about 26% to the national GVA, fragmented. While the seaside counties are both for Bulgaria and Romania, comparable with registering longer duration for tourist stays, the the national average (2017 data). The other counties/districts rely more on business or “wholesale and retail trade, transport, transit tourism, which implies shorter stays, accommodation and food service activities” with less overnights. Vidin and Silistra register sector contributes with 16.6% -18.4% to the very short stays, with an average of 1.46 national GVA (Bulgaria and Romania, nights/stay, as well as Teleorman on the respectively), which is below the national Romanian side, with 1.76 nights/stay. The average for both countries. rather low average duration of the stay in the Romania-Bulgaria cross-border territory could Notable differences can be observed in the also be caused by the weekend/ city-break type economic profile at county and district level, on of tourism, favoured by the different touristic both sides of the border. attractions in the territory and by the overall The county of Călărași in Romania and the fragmented touristic offer, which offers few district of Silistra in Bulgaria have a strong opportunities for longer stays.

RESULTS OF THE STAKEHOLDERS’ SURVEY: Top problems in the field of tourism and heritage

Other 1.5% State of natural heritage objectives (pollution, amenities 11.6% etc.) Uncoordinated touristic offer across the borders 16.0%

Low diversity of the touristic offer 16.0% Poor quality of tourism infrastructure (i.e. accommodation 16.5% and related amenities) State of built heritage objectives (rehabilitation needs) 18.6% Poor access/ shortage of tourism infrastructure (i.e. 19.8% accommodation and related amenities) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

The cross-border area accounts for about 120.4 account for the largest share of active thousand active companies, representing 11% of enterprises in all counties and districts, similar all active companies in Romania, and around to the national level situation. Although 14.5% of the total in Bulgaria. Slightly more microenterprises can provide employment than half (51.2%) of these are located on the opportunities in a large variety of economic Romanian side of the border. sectors and in different types of regions, they Since 2013, the number of enterprises has still indicate a reduced ability of regional increased, by 9.1% in the Romanian and by 3.2% economies to support the growth and in the Bulgarian area of the programme. With development of these types of companies in only 28.2 enterprises / 1000 inhabitants in 2017, order to become more competitive and the cross-border area performs well below the resilient.At county/district level, enterprises EU average of 54 active enterprises per 1000 tend to be located in the Eastern part of the inhabitants (as of 2017). Microenterprises area, especially on the Bulgarian side, or in

6 more developed counties, as it is the case of The more economically developed counties and Dolj, which accommodates a large urban area districts usually ensure the largest number of and economic centre – Craiova. With the jobs. exception of Vidin, there has been a positive Constanta and Dolj employ the largest number evolution in the number of enterprises in all of persons, followed at a relatively large counties and districts, most notably in the distance by Ruse and Veliko Tarnovo. The lowest Romanian counties of Dolj, Olt and Giurgiu. number of employees is found in Vidin and Dobrich and Ruse are the only local units over Silistra, on the Bulgarian side and Giurgiu on the 50 enterprises /1000 inhabitants, while Romanian side. The total number of employees Mehedinți, Olt, Teleorman, Giurgiu and Călărași has registered a slight increase compared to all have below 20 enterprises/ 1000 inhabitants. 2012 in Romania (6.6%), while on the Bulgarian side, the number of employees decreased Against the overall low level of economic constantly (by 5.2%). This issue can point development, SMEs are faced with significant towards (un)attractiveness and increasing challenges, on both sides of the border. polarization in terms of workforce availability, The migration of the more qualified and but at the same time, it can be a supporting productive workforce, the increasing cost of fact for the encouragement of employee labour (by 65.9% in Romania and 58.8% in mobility and for the existing human resource Bulgaria, between 2012-2017), the low physical capital to be better exploited by improving accessibility and connectivity, because of poor skills and competences. In this way, people infrastructure and low levels of support for could better use the knowledge-intensive innovation and entrepreneurship, are among the products and services in those sectors and most important. This leads to low levels of specific areas where complementarities are productivity, specialisation on low-technology identified. and low knowledge intensity activities, as well as an overall low economic competitiveness. The modest flow of information and knowledge between the two regions of the cross-border There were almost one million employees in the area is enlarging the differences in research and cross-border area in 2017. innovation activities. The services sector employs about 40% of the Therefore, efforts should be made to create workforce, while other economic sectors, such functional and efficient communication as retail and construction, make up around 26- channels. The increased flow of knowledge and 27% on both sides of the Danube. Although still information through transnational channels may relatively low, the share of agriculture in total generate positive results in terms of employment has increased slightly, from 5.2% in strengthening the institutional cooperation and 2012, to 5.8% in 2017. Employment in Industry is of elaborating governance instruments in order closely related to electricity production and to foster these activities. This is added to the distribution in both Romania and Bulgaria cross- need to develop skills and competences in order border area, as it is the case in Dolj and Ruse, to make possible the generation and use of the or petroleum and chemical industry, in results of research and innovation activities, Constanta, Ruse and Olt. In most counties and and their transfer into economy to tackle districts, employment in the industry sector has societal challenges. declined.

Top problems in the field of innovation, enterprises RESULTS OF THE STAKEHOLDERS’ SURVEY: and human capital

Other 2.2% Low overall emplyment rate 2.9% Low level of basic education 3.6% Low employment rate of recent graduates 4.1% Low level of higher education 3.6% Population ageing 6.7% Low level of lifelong learning 6.7% Very limited labour mobility in cross-border area 7.4% Decline of traditional economic sectors 7.2% Low research and development intensity 8.9% Brain drain 9.8% Low collaboration between research institutions and… 9.8% Population migration 12.0% Low innovation level 14.1%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%

7

Photo source: Facebook Областен управител Veliko Tarnovo

03. GREENER General information

33% 57% 42% 38%

Danube length Agricultural Tree cover from total land Protected areas loss Romania Romania Romania Romania Bulgaria Bulgaria Bulgaria Bulgaria

43% 58% 62%

5362.561 HA of 940 KM of the 38 protected areas 32143 ha of tree agricultural land Danube on RO/BG in the cross-border cover loss in the in the cross-border territory area cross-border area area

Romanian Plain low degree of low* NO2, SO2 recycling (2017) and CO emissions . no recycling in compared to Vidin, Silistra, other EU regions Călărași, Giurgiu Danubian Plain *emissions don’t exceed the admitted limit

Natural and technological risks Energy Production (GWH) Energy Consumption (2017) Romania Bulgaria all settlements located in the floodplain of the Danube 7679 floods . Mehedinți - the most affected 1840 47232 48840 44925 44786 47059 43516 6149 Vrancea epicentre and Dobrogea 2318 1199 earth- seismogenic area 3325 quakes . 6390 high seismic risk 54793 52368 59581 58889 57978 57283 2721 Romania Bulgaria 2013 2015 2012 2016 2014 2017 high risk: Dolj, Constanța, Pleven and Industry Transport Households landslides Dobrich Commercial and public services 20% out of total 35% out of country’s national production national production of the of the Kzloduy Nuclear Power Plant and 33,7% 9,6% Cernavodă Nuclear Power Plant population could population could techno- Romania Bulgaria not warm their not warm their logical affected: Dolj, Olt, Giurgiu, Constanța home in Bulgaria home in Romania Călărași, Ruse and Silistra in 2018 in 2018

Climate change

hotspot for GHG Mitigation measures emissions due to the o agriculture sector GREEN CORRIDOR +3.6 C increase Percentage of national GHG DANUBE of the average emissions caused by the agriculture sector (2018) annual Lower Danube Green Corridor Agreement Romania 30.6% temperature on Bulgaria, Romania,Ukraine and Moldova Bulgaria 21.2% both banks of the Danube extreme weather 134736.12 ha exposed conditions to coastal erosion due tornadoes in SE to rising sea water level Romania

10 03. Greener

Main challenge regarding the environment: Insufficient environmental management, determined by industrial risks, intense pollution, inefficient waste management and Pm10 and PM2,5 pollution in large urban areas, while having as main impacts the population exposure to technological risks, water pollution, as well as air pollution.

Main challenge regarding climate change: Global warming, affected by low adaptive capacity, intense pollution and low mitigation capacity, while having as main impacts the elevation of sea level, higher precipitation deficit and higher temperatures

The main element in the region, shaping the Reserves of Chuprene and Srebena (Ramsar site) entire territory's economic and social profile, is in Bulgaria, covering a total area of 2.3 ha. the river Danube, separating the Romania- Natura 2000 areas cover a surface of 2.21 Bulgaria cross-border area into two distinctive million ha, out of which 46.70% in Romania and parts. 53.29% in Bulgaria. Constanța is by far the Between Gura Văii (North of Drobeta Turnu county with most of the Natura 2000 sites in the Severin) and Călărași, covering a 566 km long area (50), especially due to the large area (the border between Romania and Bulgaria biodiversity in the proximity of the Danube has 470 km in length), the Danube is collecting Delta and in the coastal area. The tributary streams from Bulgaria (Timok, Ogosta, counties/districts with the least number of Iskăr, Vit, Iantra) and Romania (Jiu, Olt, Argeş). Natura 2000 sites are Giurgiu (11), Ruse (14) and These tributary streams contribute to the Dolj (14). increase of the river flow by approximately 600 m3/s between Defileul Dunării and Olteniţa. The main natural risks in the cross-border area There are also three important Bulgarian islands are floods, earthquakes and landslides. All the in this area: Belene (41.1 km2), Kozlodui (6.1 localities in the floodplain of the Danube are km2) and Vardim (5.0 km2). The Călăraşi- exposed to the incidence of floods. Pătlăgeanca Danube segment has a length of Outside the Danube floodplain, the largest areas 374 km where both riverbanks belong to affected by flood risk in Romania are located in Romania. Along this section, the Dobrogea Mehedinți County, followed by several areas in Plateau is situated between the Danube valley Giurgiu and Constanta. In Bulgaria, the flooding in the west and the Black Sea in the North and risk is present in the river basins of Ogosia and East. Tsibritsa in Montana and in the river basin of Vit in Pleven. Veliko Tarnovo district includes areas While nearly all landscape forms are present in of the Yantro river basin, with its affluent the cross-border territory, the scenery is Rositsa. In addition, the Vrancea epicentric area dominated by the Romanian Plain in the has a predominant influence over the Romanian Northern part and by the Danubian Plain, in the sector and it also has impact over the north of South. the Bulgarian sector (Dobrogea, Veliko Tarnovo The area comprises several natural parks and and Shabla-Kaliakra Cape). The Black Sea coast protected areas along with three national (near Cape Kaliakra) and the Veliko Tarnovo biosphere reserves: the Southern part of the province constitute areas with relatively intense Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve – marine area seismic activity. Lastly, the counties of Dolj, (located in the eligible area), with a total area Constanţa, Pleven şi Dobrich experience the of 32.5 hectares in Romania, and the Biosphere highest risk of landslides.

11 The entire Romania-Bulgaria cross-border area tornados. Furthermore, erosion, together with is facing significant challenges in relation to storm events and rivers draining in low-lying maintaining and protecting the quality of its coastal areas, are and will be furthermore the environment and mitigating the negative effects main factors triggering coastal flood-risk. of human activities. Coastal erosion also represents a threat not only As the agricultural activities are the primary to households or economic activities, but also to economic sector and the main food source the biodiversity conservation policy promoted at within this area, the entire area is a major EU level. contributor to the overall Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in both countries. In 2018, For both countries, droughts represent an agricultural activities were responsible for important issue. 30.6% of Romania's total GHG emission, and the Romania reported a higher number of droughts hotspot region for agricultural activities is the than Bulgaria in territories from the cross- southern part of the country. For the same year, border area. The droughts will have serious in Bulgaria, agricultural activities generated consequences in the agricultural sector, not just around 21.2% of the country's total GHG for the current period, but also for the next emissions, most of the crops being also located decades. This phenomenon will not have in the proximity of the Danube. singular effects, but it will also result in a desertification process, with significant impact Protected areas, including Natura 2000 sites, on the south-western part of Romania and the are exposed to great risks because of illegal district of Dobrich in Bulgaria. logging, tourism, constructions and illegal hunting. The programme area also has a number of sites These problems are aggravated by exposed to technology risks, which put a administrative issues, such as the lack of significant pressure on the control of the floods management plans. Specific efforts should be and of the protection measures that need to be directed towards Natura 2000 sites and the taken in order to avoid major accidents with existing conflicts in the areas, especially on serious consequences on the urbanised areas. designating more Natura 2000 sites, on These sites are located in Craiova-Slatina, implementing viable management plans and on Giurgiu-Ruse, Silistra-Călărași-Tămădău Mare finding the best way of stopping the logging and and Mangalia-Constanţa-Năvodari and are either destruction phenomena. related to harbour activities or are developed on former communist industrial sites and use All Romanian counties and Bulgarian districts in the proximity of the water resource as an asset the cross-border area are considered to have a for their activity. A special situation is high degree of vulnerability to climate change. represented by the location of establishments in The Romania-Bulgaria cross-border region settlements from areas at risk of floods, such displays an increase of the average annual as: Bâcu village in Giurgiu county, Isalniţa and temperature by more than 3.6oC on both banks Podari communes in Dolj County, Kozloduy from of the Danube. Also, the region encountered Vratsa district or Svishtov locality from Veliko various extreme weather events, mostly Tarnovo district. Two major industrial tornados, sever winds, large hail and heavy infrastructures in the area present a high level rains, atypical meteorological phenomena for of risk – Kzloduy Nuclear Power Plant and this area. The Romanian side is more exposed, Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant. especially Constanța County in the case of

RESULTS OF THE STAKEHOLDERS’ SURVEY: Top problems in the field of environment and risk

Other 1.8%

Pollution and other risk factors due to climate change 3.8%

Floods risk along the Danube 29.4% Industrial/ technological risks due to nuclear/ chemical/ 32.4% industrial activities along the border Significant increase in drought episodes, issues of erosion, 32.6% esp. on the banks of the Danube and along the Black Sea… 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%

12 Waste management is one of the most nuclear power plant generates about 35% of important issues in the cross-border area, as Bulgaria's electricity. Further extensions of well as a major challenge for both countries, Cernavodă nuclear power plant are planned and despite formal progress due to the adoption of it is estimated that by using nuclear power, the national waste management plans. Romania will able to reduce its greenhouse gas The counties with the largest waste production emissions by over 10 million tonnes each year. in 2017 are Constanța, Ruse and Dolj, having Nevertheless, the presence of the nuclear also the lowest recycling rate (under 3%) while plants implies significant technological risks. the highest recycling rate was registered in Olt county (13.79%), which is still low considering There are also major energy production sites the European target of 50%. Another issue that using renewable energy sources in the vicinity can be observed is linked to the fact that many of the Romania-Bulgaria cross-border region. counties/districts do not report any recycling The main hydroelectric power station (Iron Gate activity (e.g. Vidin, Silistra, Călărași, and I and II) along the Danube is located in the Giurgiu). In this context, circular economy is cross-border region on the Serbian-Romanian severely underdeveloped. border. While other sources of renewable energy are currently used on a limited basis, the The Romania-Bulgaria cross-border area is Romania- Bulgaria cross-border area can offer a important for the production of electricity. great potential for renewable sources of energy, Each country has one nuclear power plant given its micro-climate and environmental located along the Danube. In Romania, the features. This is applicable especially for the Cernavodă (Constanța County) nuclear power solar energy and biomass, considering the highly plant, with its two active reactors, produces agricultural development of the region. Hydro approximately 20% of the country's electricity, power seems to have, as well, a great potential. while in Bulgaria, the Kozloduy (Vratsa district)

13 Data Source: European Environmental Agency

22

Photo source: ruse-bg.eu

04.

CONNECTED General information

2 TEN-T Rhine-Danube 2 international airports 12 crossing points Corridors Orient East-Med (Craiova and Constanța) along the border

max. 60 min reach 12 ports along the 60 min. 2 EuroVelo EuroVelo 6 to any crossing Danube Routes Euro Velo 13 point

Road transport Passenger transport Road length by type of road Modal share (2017)

1200 2.1% 13.1% 1000

800

600 Bulgaria

400

200 84.8% 0

use idin Olt ratsa R Dolj V V 4.7% Silistra Pleven Giurgiu 15% Dobrich Târnovo Montana Călărași Constanța Teleorman Mehedinți eliko V National roads County roads Romania General good quality Several cities lack a beltway (Silistra, of roads on both sides Giurgiu, Slatina, Turnu Măgurele)

80.3% Number of road accidents (2018) Trains* Passenger cars 1400 Motor coaches, buses and trolley buses

1200 *trains follow the road routes,but imply longer travelling times 1000 only few cross-border trains because of 800 Romania poor infrastructure 96 road fatalities/1 mil. inhabitants 600 Bulgaria Craiova - Sofia 400 88 road fatalities/1 mil. inhabitants around 9 hours Bucharest - Sofia 200 EU average around 9 hours 0 49 road fatalities/1 mil. inhabitants Craiova - Sofia idin use Olt ratsa R Dolj V V 5 hours Pleven Silistra Giurgiu Târnovo DobrichMontana Călărași Mehedinți Teleorman Constanța Cross-border area Bucharest - Sofia eliko V 12.9% decrease between 2012-2018 5 hours 30 min.

Digital connectivity Fixed broadband access (2018) Ultrafast broadband access (2018) NGA (Next Generation Access) coverage (2018)

rural Romania Romania only 40% Romania Bulgaria Romania Bulgaria Bulgaria

rural Bulgaria only 30% acces for 80% of acces for 92% of acces for 45% of acces for 10% of 75% coverage for the total population the total population the total population the total population both countries 24 16 04. Connected

Main challenge regarding physical and digital connectivity: Reduced connectivity (physical and digital) - especially north-south / cross-border, determined by reduced road safety, degraded rail network, low broadband coverage (especially in rural areas) and reduced performance of the Danube as a transport corridor, while having as main impacts the low economic potential, the unsustainable travel patterns and the reduced quality of living.

Both sides of the Danube borders are framework in both countries as regards the characterized by a strong East – West direction signposting of the routes, which is the pre- of flows and development of settlements. requisite condition for any financing granting During the last years, North-South links lost decision. their priority status as investments focused in completing the road and rail segments of the The transport of goods and passengers on the Rhine Danube and Orient East Med corridors. Danube has increased and the trend is expected The cross-border territory is therefore still to continue. disconnected from the main transport networks The amount of freight carried on various of the European Union and the Danube remains sections of the Danube is 10 times lower than on the only strong and continuous link to Central Europe's most performant inland waterways. Europe. The main issues that reduce the performance of the Danube in terms of waterborne transport Most of the Eurovelo 6 route is completed or at are related to the river depth and the capacity least signalised, just the part between Romania of ports (including their hinterland and Bulgaria is not developed yet. connections). Most critical points in terms of Therefore, further developing the Eurovelo 6 river depth are on the Romania-Bulgaria border, route within the cross-border region would especially in the sections between Turnu ensure a complete cycling route of 3,653 km Măgurele and Călărași. In these places, during linking important tourist attractions within the drought periods, the height of the Danube Europe. This could greatly boost tourist activity, goes beyond the 2.5m mark. In addition, ports strengthen the local economy, while also on both sides lack performant transport providing a sustainable transport corridor infrastructure to serve a larger hinterland. Ports between settlements along the Danube. Silistra or Lom lack a road belt which makes it Nevertheless, it is important to mention that difficult for freight to reach or leave the ports. the development of the Eurovelo 6 route in None of the ports along the Danube in the cross- Romania and Bulgaria needs important border areas is served by a motorway (except investments, taking into consideration its very Constanţa) and although they may be linked to low level of development, which the Programme railways, most of them are degraded. The most cannot support entirely, because of its low developed Danube ports in terms of freight budget. Another important aspect to take into handles are still on the Romanian part. They are consideration is related to the lack of the legal linked to larger cities within the regions.

17 Within the cross-border territory, the quality of where the border is land based. The territory roads has greatly increased in the last years between Călărași / Silistra and Giurgiu / Ruse (especially on the Bulgarian side), but the (including Oltenița) has the poorest access to motorway network is far from being completed. border crossings. Various national transport The only motorway segment in the cross-border corridors are rerouted to the few border area is the A2 motorway between Constanţa and crossings available at the moment as there are Bucharest. North South links are still served by just two bridges crossing the Danube within a national, county or even local roads. However, distance of 470 km (one at the Giurgiu – Ruse road infrastructure is still better performing border point and one at the Calafat – Vidin than rail in the cross-border territory. The only border point). There are various proposals for high-speed rail (up to 160 km/h) is in Romania, the construction of additional bridges. between Constanţa and Bucharest. The Bulgarian side is missing high-speed rails but has Currently, there is no concrete, functional most of the rail infrastructure electrified. intermodal transport system in the Unfortunately, this is not the case for the Romanian—Bulgarian border region. Romanian railways, where most lines going The only identifiable multimodal facility is the towards the Danube are end of lines and not one located in the Port of Constanţa, Romania. electrified. The most important bottlenecks in One of the main impediments for having the cross-border rail network are the Craiova – intermodality in the region is the fact that the Calafat 912 line and the Bucharest-Giurgiu 902 rail infrastructure associated to the ports is line which is unusable because of a either inoperable or lacks direct connections to collapsedbridge at Grădiștea. Rail and road the water-based transport infrastructure. This infrastructure need to be improved to ensure a calls for a better optimization of the existing better cross-border flow of passengers and to infrastructure to ensure stronger hinterland provide strong links to the major east-west connections for the ports in the study area. First transport corridors which are still under steps in improving intermodal and multimodal development. transport have been made through the development of a strategy targeting the The “hard border” between the two countries consolidation of the TEN-T network by (non-Schengen) and the low amount of border improving the intermodal capacity of transport crossings reduce the cooperation possibilities nodes in the cross-border region financed by between the two countries. Interreg V-A Romania-Bulgaria Programme. This is valid for long distance freight and passenger transport, but also in the case of twin Due to the lack of connectivity and a less dense cities such as Giurgiu-Ruse, Calafat-Vidin or network of settlements, the territory along the Călărași-Silistra where cross-border commuting Danube within the cross-border area has poor remains difficult. The most important border access to services of general interest. crossing for freight remains the Giurgiu-Ruse This is why most counties and districts in the Bridge, while the Vidin-Calafat Bridge and Vama analysed territory are considered “inner Veche-Durankulak crossing are secondary links. peripheries” in terms of accessibility, territories The network of border crossings ensures a that face specific challenges. The only maximum of 60 minutes to reach a given exception is the cross-border urban system of crossing anywhere along the Danube. The best Giurgiu and Ruse, together with the Black Sea conditions in terms of cross-border connectivity coast. can be seen in the Eastern part of the regions

RESULTS OF THE STAKEHOLDERS’ SURVEY: Top problems in the field of connectivity

Other 2.1% Administrative barriers in cross-border Danube 7.0% navigation Ferry connections that need improvement 9.8% Low levels of digitalisation in the public administration 10.9% (internal systems and procedures of the public… Insufficient capacity of the existing bridges 11.1%

Poor rail transport passenger services 13.0% Low level of digitalisation of public services (digital public 13.2% services for citizens and companies) Low levels of digital connections/ networking between 15.0% public institutions, business support entities, education… Poor accessibility due to the Danube River and 17.9% insufficient crossing points 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

18 Unfortunately, there is still a great gap between and are a prerequisite for improving the level of urban and rural areas regarding internet speed digitisation. Both countries are preparing for and coverage. the launch of 5G. Progress has been made in the last years in terms of digital connectivity in both Romanian In terms of digital connectivity, none of the two and Bulgarian parts of the cross-border region. countries managed to reach the target of 100% While fixed broadband coverage is still slightly coverage with broadband. below the 2020 targets, ultrafast broadband, Silistra is the only district which manged to mostly accessible in major cities, is advancing reach this target, while other districts still fast. Unfortunately, rural areas, with a low remain between 70 and 75% coverage. On the density of population, still face issues in terms other hand, Romania is between the few of broadband coverage. Investments in better, countries that has over 45% of households with a more reliable and faster connectivity would subscription to ultrafast broadband (over help to attract higher value-added businesses 100Mbps).

Data Source: Own representaon based on NIS /INS populaon data Data Source: Calculaons made with DaOpenta Sour routce:e CFR.r serviceo / Bdz.bg

Photo source: Facebook Constanta Cityhall

05.

SOCIAL General information Total population by county (2018) Active population (2018)

700000 Romania 600000 1,139,700 in the cross-border area 500000 (13,1% of the national total)

400000 Bulgaria 300000 601,100 in the cross-border area 200000 (18,1% of the national total)

100000 Employment rate (2018) 0 RO (cross- BG (cross- idin use Olt Dolj V ratsa R V Pleven Târnovo Silistra Giurgiu border border Montana Dobrich Călărași 61.3% 44.6% Teleorman Constanța Mehedinți eliko area) area) V

Floor space available 25 universities and/ 120 hospitals 21,09 m/inhabitant or university branches in the cross-border Romanian side in the cross-border area area 35,16 m/inhabitant Bulgarian side

Migration Emigration Immigration

2015 2017 Constanța (low net migration) Bulgaria most attractive on the Romanian side 2017 Romania

stronger internal migration stronger international Vratsa migration (negative net migration)

most attractive on the Bulgarian side, but strong emigration

Human capital and community development Population enrolled in education (2014-2017)

Romania - cross-border area Bulgaria - cross-border area

49378 48545 48310 39286 48072 35504 32722 29631 123088 114959 Primary 109062 100368 53957 Secondary 51784 51823 54913 High school 118747 116522 113639 110180 University 45560 44524 43523 36066

131925 132774 133064 131650 49531 48311 47700 46884

2014 2015 2016 2017 2014 2015 2016 2017

People at risk of poverty or social exclusion (2018) Access to utilities

32.8% 32.5% Highest Lowest General RO Constanța Teleorman

Pleven, Ruse,

public sewage BG Montana 21.7% Silistra

RO Constanța Teleorman average net income: water waste- BG Ruse Vidin

RO - 555.79 EUR treatment BG - 453.925 EUR

omania RO Constanța Teleorman Bulgaria EU 28 R

lowest: Teleorman, Vidin water BG Ruse Silistra highest: Vratsa drinking

22 05. SOCIAL

Main challenge regarding demographic change: Population decline, determined by the negative net migration and the ageing population, while having as main impacts the labour force shortage, the brain drain and the rise in dependency ratio.

Main challenge regarding human capital and community development: Unattractiveness for living, determined by high poverty rates, social exclusion, minimal development of local universities and low development of public services, while having as main impacts the untapped potential of human capital and the population decrease.

The Romania-Bulgaria cross-border area counts values for population decline in Europe, with 4,2 million people (1,35 millions in Bulgaria and many areas that are turning into so-called 2,85 millions in Romania) and includes 13,6% “ghost-towns”. The “best” performing district young people aged below 24, 64% aged between on the Bulgarian side is the district of Ruse, 25-64 and 22,4% people aged over 65. with a value of -5.62%. On the Romanian side, In Romania, the most populated counties are the county with the highest rate of Constanţa and Dolj and the least populated are depopulation is Teleorman (-9.68%) and the Mehedinți, Giurgiu and Teleorman. On the lowest is Constanţa (-1.12%). Bulgarian side, the most populated districts are Pleven, Veliko Tarnovo and Ruse and the least Rural depopulation is registering alarming levels populated is Vidin. Romanian counties are in all the Bulgarian districts, with a maximum of generally more densely populated than the ones -15.19% in Vidin. on the Bulgarian side, mostly Constanţa (95.63 On the Romanian side, the values are lower, but inh/km2) and Dolj (85.12 inh/km2), both having still significantly high. The county of Constanţa, important major cities (Constanţa and Craiova), however, has registered a slight increase in the growth poles that attract people and represent rural population, by 2.81%. The fact can be development engines from an educational, explained especially by the population that social and economic point of view. On the moves from the major cities to rural bordering Bulgarian side, the maximum density is areas but continues to commute daily to the registered in Ruse (77.96 inh/km2) and the urban areas in the county, especially the minimum in Vidin (27.98 inh/km2), municipalities of Constanţa and of Mangalia. On approximately half of the lowest value the Bulgarian side, the major cities do not registered on the Romanian border, in the manage to attract enough people to stop the county of Mehedinți). depopulation of the area.

Outward migration, population ageing and low The most serious issue of the Romania-Bulgaria fertility rates have led to a constant population cross-border territory in terms of population decrease, especially along the Danube River. evolution remains migration. The most affected district between 2012-2018 There is a significant population migration has been Vidin, with a rate of -13.01%, followed either to the more developed urban areas in the by Montana, with a rate of -10.48%. These two country or abroad (with specific differences for areas have registered some of the highest the two countries, Bulgaria mostly internal

23 migration and Romania mostly international Employment rates reach an average of about migration, both qualified and unqualified 52-54% of the active population, well below the workforce emigration to western EU countries). EU average of 73.1%. The trend of migration from rural to urban At the county/district level, the employment areas is also present in most of the cross-border rate incurs high differences, with Teleorman, area. In this context, counties with low levels of Constanţa and Mehedinți maintaining their negative net migration, such as Giurgiu (- values over 60%, while Montana has the lowest 0.79‰), Dolj (-1.03‰), Constanţa (-1.15‰) and employment rate, of 37.6% in 2018. Six out of Ruse (-2.89‰) show better perspectives for the fifteen NUTS3 areas covered by the improving their attractiveness for future programme area have an employment rate residents. below 50%.

Beside population decline, the cross-border Despite the continuous decline, the cross- area is also affected by population ageing and border area still holds important shares of negative natural growth rate. unemployed persons. In Bulgaria, the highest rates are in Vidin with Each of the two sides of the cross-border area more than 245 old people for 100 young ones, hold over 21% (in the case of Romania) and over while in Romania the highest rate is in 30% (in the case of Bulgaria) of the total Teleorman, with more than 195 old people for unemployed population in the respective 100 young ones. At the same time, life country. The highest unemployment rate was expectancy is generally under the EU average. found in Vidin, where the unemployed Ruse (74.52 years), Veliko Tarnovo (74.20 years) accounted for 19.7% of the active population. At and Pleven (73.47 years) recorded life the opposite end, Constanţa has the lowest expectancy levels that were close or even unemployment rate, of 2.3%, which has above the national values, but under the decreased over time. Overall, the cross-border European average. For the Romanian counties, area has an unemployment rate of 6.7% in 2018, Constanţa (75.29 years) Mehedinți (74.95 lower than 10.4% in 2013. However, this values years), Dolj (74.84 years) and Teleorman (74.58 are expected to increase as a result of the years) reached the highest values, but are still economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and under the EU average values. additional measures will be needed for the reintegration and training in new fields of the Negative demographic trends have led to a new unemployed population. decrease of the labour resources in all counties and districts in the programme area. Based on the low level of economic The most severe decline rates are registered on development, more than a third of the the Romanian side of the border, in Mehedinți (- population in the programme area is at risk of 19.2%), Teleorman (-17.9%), and Olt (-16.9%). In poverty or social exclusion. the Bulgarian districts the decrease was lower The situation is particularly concerning in than in the Romanian counties – in Montana, the respect to in-work at-risk of poverty, district with the highest decline, the rate was - manifested widely, given the low salaries in the 9.3%, and for Vratsa -8.7%, while Ruse was the region, up to five times smaller than the EU only district in the cross-border area where the average and well below the national averages. labour resources increased (by 2.5% between 2013 and 2018). The highest number of labour The education level of the population in the resources are found in the Romanian counties of area is low. Constanţa and Dolj, despite the general decline The illiteracy rate is worrying, especially in the (around 10-11% decrease). Romanian area of the cross-border region. According to the 2011 National Population and Poor participation in the labour market affects Household Census, the 1st, 2nd and 4th counties both the Romanian and the Bulgarian area, but in term of highest rate of illiteracy in Romania the phenomenon is more pronounced on the are located in the cross-border region (Călărași Romanian side. – 3.61% of the total population, Giurgiu – 3.19% The active population is highest in Constanţa and Teleorman – 2.43%, compared to a national and Dolj, the counties with the largest cities in illiteracy rate of 1,36%.). In Bulgaria, two of the the area. The most abrupt decline of the active districts (Dobrich and Silistra) are above the population in Romania took place in Teleorman national percentage of illiterate population (-17%), Călărași (-15.6%), and Giurgiu (-13.2%), (1.17%). between 2013 and 2018. On the Bulgarian side, the decrease rates are more stable, ranging between -3% to -13%. Two districts had a positive evolution of the active population – Silistra (0.8%) and Ruse (1.7%).

24 The development of faculties/universities registered in the western part of the Romanian seems to have stopped in recent years. cross-border area, namely in Teleorman, Constanta, Dolj, Pleven, Ruse and Veliko Mehedinți and Olt. In the Bulgarian cross-border Tarnovo as regional urban centres, still area, in the 2018 – 2019 academic year, there concentrate higher education infrastructure. were 207,372 pupils, 5.43% fewer than in 2012 – The proximity of capital cities - Bucharest and 2013. Per NUTS 3 level, higher decrease rates – Sofia - is also a strong factor that discourages between 7% and 8.5% were registered in Vratsa, the development of local higher education Montana and Silistra. structures. Nevertheless, their presence is an indication of the local demand. Because only The availability of medical services differs in Constanta, Craiova (Dolj), Pleven, Ruse and terms of territorial distribution or available Veliko Tarnovo have self-standing universities facilities. that have their seat there, it is obvious that the In terms of hospital accessibility, the Romanian most common answer to the demand is that territory is better equipped due to the fact that universities based outside the area open local the health institutions have a wider distribution subsidiaries/faculties in the other cross-border throughout the territory, and more dwellings counties in order to be closer to the students are situated within a 60 minutes range of a and to tap additional student resources. hospital. On the other hand, the infrastructure and the personnel are crowded when analysed In the Romania-Bulgaria cross-border area, only “in per population” ratios. In Bulgaria, the 2.11% of the population was enrolled in tertiary health infrastructure is concentrated in several education, compared to 38.5% average in the urban centres, therefore it is less accessible in EU (2017 data). a 60 minutes timeframe. However, there are While some cities have developed as university more hospital beds available per 1000 centres, their student community is not an inhabitants, while physicians have less patients important part of the county population as on their portfolio. Despite these challenges, youth prefer to study in capital cities which are both health systems have also been affected by close to the cross-border areas and have a the COVID-19 pandemic which emphasized the wider range of specialisation as well as higher reduced level of development and equipment of performance rates. Most students were the medical infrastructure and services both in registered in Constanţa, Dolj and Veliko Romania and Bulgaria. In this context, Tarnovo. However, when calculating the significant efforts are required in the percentage of students out of the total number foreseeable future and in the long term in order of inhabitants, the highest value was registered for the public health systems to be able to cope in Veliko Tarnovo (7%), while Constanţa, Dolj with such medical crises. and Ruse all register around 3%. Giurgiu, Montana and Dobrich do not benefit from such Emergency medical services are facing multiple infrastructure and therefore have no enrolled challenges. students. In both Romania and Bulgaria the emergency medical care is confronted on one hand with The school population and the number of infrastructure problems such an insufficiency of students have been decreasing in the 2012 – such establishments, a shortage of equipment 2018 period. and medical staff because of low wages and The academic enrolled population in the hard working conditions especially in remote Romanian cross-border area dropped by 10.6% areas, and, on the other hand, with between 2012 and 2018, thus continuing the overcrowding due to the lack of information decrease tendency from the 2008 – 2012 period. that citizens possess as to when the emergency Per NUTS 3 level, the highest decrease of school health system should be used. population – between 17% and 19% - was

RESULTS OF THE STAKEHOLDERS’ SURVEY: Top problems in the field of health

Other 0.5%

General health of the population in the cross-border area 16.1%

Poor access to public health services 17.2% Population remoteness/ isolation generates specific needs 16.9% in the field of public health Population ageing generates specific needs in the field of 24.0% public health Poor quality of public health services 25.3%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

25 Living conditions are also a factor that the two cross-border areas in terms of contributes negatively to the attractiveness of population connected to the public wastewater the cross-border area, as here citizens have a treatment plants: the Romanian area reports smaller housing space available per person (35 lower percentages, with some exception m2 in the Bulgarian cross-border area and 21 (Mehedinți and Constanţa), than the Bulgarian m2 in the Romanian cross-border area) area. The differences in access to utilities can compared to the EU 28 average (42.56 m2). also be determined by the different reporting The evolution of the housing surface (m2) methodologies in the two countries. available per inhabitant shows a deepening gap between the more urbanized counties (Dolj, The emergency response capacity in the cross- Constanţa, Olt, Pleven and Veliko Tarnovo) and border area benefits from being part of well- the more rural ones (Giurgiu, Călărași, structured national systems. However, Mehedinți). Even though housing surfaces varies continuous financing and expansion is necessary between the counties, in the more rural ones, in order to face the multiple challenges present the distribution of the population on housing in the area. units is less dense, the availability of housing In both countries, an integrated approach was space for population being more important in the main guideline for the planning and the urban counties. operationalisation of the national emergency response. The fundamental objective of the The urban utilities' infrastructure in the cross- national emergency response system strategies border area, both in Romania and in Bulgaria, is is to consolidate the capacity of specialized precarious and needs to be developed in order agencies and local governments for national to meet European standards. prevention of emergency situations and for In Romania, the situation regarding access to their management. The main factors that will utilities is most concerning, being below the EU mark emergency management in the next 10 and Bulgarian average. There are similarities years and will have a strong impact on the between the two cross-border areas in ensuring territory are in relation to: the risk of Danube drinking water for population, in Romania the floods; an increased regularity of emergency rate of population connected to the central situations arising from natural causes; aging and drinking water systems is approximately 70%, demographic decline; community service while in the Bulgarian area the rate is requirement on the increase; concentration of approximately 75%. In terms of population population in urban hubs; decrease in collective connected to the public sewage system, the solidarity; emergence of new technologies that situation of the two sides of the cross-border lead to a potential risk of producing large-scale area is different: the Romanian area reports emergencies of higher intensity and complexity, lower percentages than the Bulgarian area, the as well as other risks referring to medical or difference being in some cases around 50%. industrial hazards etc. There is also a significant difference between

26 Data Source: Own calculaon based on NIS /INS

Data Source: Populaon and Household Census

Photo source: Facebook Constanta Cityhall

06.

GOVERNANCE General information Administrative structure local county (RO) national 6 NUTS 2 regions* FUNCTIONAL AREA (potential 15 NUTS 3 regions for policentricity) district (BG) *not fully included in the programme area Connected to four major highly centralised, differences in structure - harder on cooperation urban centres: BUCHAREST, SOFIA, BELGRADE, ISTANBUL

South - West Mehedinți, Dolj, Olt

South - Muntenia Teleorman, Giurgiu, Călărași

South - East Constanța DESI RANKING - 2019 - regions Severozapaden Vidin, Montana, Vratsa, Pleven RO - 27/28 Severn tsentralen Veliko Târnovo, Ruse, Silistra counties/districts BG - 28/28

Severoiztochen Dobrich

Territorial cooperation Quality of governance Organizational models for inter-jurisdictional agreement

Specific priority 2000 axis or OP (ISUD) Intgrated territorial investment 1000 Community-led local development low quality of governance* (CLLD) * lower than the EU average; amongst the lowest EU planned ITI funding (mil.)

omania in the EU based on the components of corruption, Bulgaria R impartiality and quality

Government performance Digitalisation Indicators of government performance (2016) Indicators of digitalisation (2015)

Eu28 rank Romania Bulgaria Indicator e-government users Access to government Romania - 28th place (EU28) information 23 16 Bulgaria - 9th place (EU28) Transparency of government 27 24

online services Control of corruption 26 28 Romania - 27th place (EU28) Bulgaria - 24th place (EU28) Societal consultation 23 17

Trust in government 19 19 ease of doing business Romania - 19th place (EU28) Government effectiveness 28 27 Bulgaria - 20th place (EU28)

29 06. GOVERNANCE

Main challenge regarding governance: Reduced quality of governance, determined by reduced coverage of digital public services, relatively low level of stakeholders’ involvement, reduced transparency of government, insufficient reliable and/or relevant statistical data, relatively week intermunicipal cooperation. poor cross-sectoral cooperation, as well as still insufficient capacity for project preparation, implementation and evaluation, while having as main impacts the societal distrust in government, the loss of available funds, the insufficient capitalisation on previously implemented actions, the low impact of public policy on the development process, the difficulties in overcoming cooperation obstacles, as well as the reduced interaction between the government and community and businesses.

9 Romania and Bulgaria and their development The opportunity of using tools for integrated regions included in the cross-border area usually territorial development, such as ITI and CLLD, ranked among the last ones at European level can bring several advantages to the Romania- regarding the quality of governance. Bulgaria cross-border area, as they can provide At regional level, the South-Muntenia region in a specific framework for cooperation, as well as Romania and Severn Tsentralen region in a place-based and integrated approach to local Bulgaria register slightly higher values regarding challenges. the overall quality of governance, the However, taking into consideration the impartiality dimension, as well as the insufficient experience at European level and corruption dimension. the lack of examples in Romania and Bulgaria in applying these tools at cross-border level, their The Romania – Bulgaria cross-border area has a possible implementation can bring new certain level of cohesion, based on the challenges in adapting the European regulations territorial interdependencies between the two both to the cross-border context, as well as to countries and can therefore be considered and both national legal frameworks. The current analysed as a functional area. Interreg V-A Romania-Bulgaria Programme The main development engines of the territory together with the European Commission tried are the major urban centres which have the promoting the establishment of an ITI in the capacity to attract socio-economic Ruse-Giurgiu area in 2018, in time for it to be development, while also influencing their integrated in the future Programme. While surrounding territories. However, synergies are interest from the stakeholders was shown, no not strong, both because of the limited number action was taken. At the moment, there is no of connections between the two countries over EGTC in place in the cross-border region (pre- the Danube, as well as the low density of major requisite condition for an ITI/CLLD within a urban centres. cross-border programme).

In order for this area to develop in an efficient Even though both countries have taken manner, a series of territorial and significant steps in the implementation of the administrative obstacles that hinder digital transformation process, they still occupy cooperation need to be overcome. the last positions in the European rankings. These barriers cover a wide range of fields such In the case of Romania, even though the ICT as the differences in the administrative industry is growing at a very fast peace, the structures of Romania and Bulgaria that impose digital transformation process has severely difficulties to similar units in their cooperation fallen behind. This problem is caused on the since they can have different statutes. In one hand by the reluctance of public employees addition, both countries are highly centralised to re-think the process of governance, and on countries, which determines numerous the other hand by the relatively high share of dependencies between the various older population and of the population living in administrative levels. This can be considered rural areas that do not have access to the one of the causes or in direct relation with the internet. Bulgaria has been more preoccupied in reduced institutional capacity at local level recent years with introducing e-government which, combined with a relatively reduced level services and progress in this area has been of stakeholder involvement and consultation, significantly more visible than in other sectors. has in turn determined a low level of trust in This can be seen in the high percentage of e- the government. These factors can be government users, the extensive coverage of considered obstacles both in the horizontal fixed broadband, including in districts in the cooperation between relevant stakeholders at cross-border area such as Silistra, Pleven, Ruse local and regional level, as well as in the or Veliko Tarnovo, or in the overall percentage vertical coordination and complementarity with of e-government index at global level. other regional / national / European policies and programmes.

RESULTS OF THE STAKEHOLDERS’ SURVEY: Top problems in the field of trust and cooperation

Other 1.1% Rather low levels of trust between the two sides of the 13.8% border Low cross-border labour force mobility 27.3%

Language barriers are considered obstacles to cooperation 28.4% Low cross-border networking between public institutions, 29.5% private actors and citizens 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

31 The Romania-Bulgaria cross-border area is also obstacle in shared practices of spatial characterised by a series of territorial development challenges that also play a crucial role in • Externalities of the uncontrolled facilitating or preventing a fruitful cooperation development of capital cities and their between the two countries. surrounding territories that could affect These challenges regard: valuable resources in the cross-border area • A relatively reduced strength of the regional (for example, natural, cultural, historic etc.) network of cities because of the barrier effect of the Danube river and the limited It is of utmost importance that Romania and number of major urban centres Bulgaria would cooperate in order to develop a • Insufficient connections over the Danube stronger and prosperous cross-border area. river, especially in the areas of pairing cities The advantages of further cooperation between of the two countries that could facilitate the the two countries are numerous and they can link to the major national transport contribute to the development of a cohesive infrastructure; territory that can efficiently manage its • Insufficient development of small and resources and flows based on an extended medium sized cities that could influence the critical mass and knowledge network, the development of their surrounding territories reduction of inner and external peripheralities • The river Danube as one of the main by means of an increased connectivity of the obstacles in collaboration for all the area, as well as to the increased socio-economic stakeholders in the cross-border area competitiveness of the territory through a • The differences in the administrative stronger polycentric network of cities and structures of the two countries and the related rural areas. different statute of localities represent an

32 07. Territorial Diagnosis

Starting from the SPATIAL Project (Common cross-border territory. Between 2012 and 2018 Strategy for Sustainable Territorial Development districts like Vidin and Montana lost more than of the cross-border area Romania-Bulgaria, 10% of their total population, Teleorman is also funded by Romania-Bulgaria Cross-border close to the 10% mark and most territories Cooperation Programme 2007-2013) many issues encounter heavy losses. Constanța is the only highlighted in the territorial diagnosis remain county with a slow decrease of populations valid. The main urban agglomerations outside (beyond 2%). However, population growth the cross-border area, Bucharest and Sofia, occurred mostly in metropolitan areas of larger continue to polarize the territory, attracting cities like Constanța and Craiova, as a result of people from the surroundings. Secondary poles urban expansion/periurbanisation. Rural areas haven't grown enough in order to foster a more are mostly affected by depopulation, especially polycentric region. Unfortunately, the growth of those on the Bulgarian side of the border. Even Sofia and Bucharest happened mostly at the in an optimistic scenario, population might expense of secondary centres and surrounding decline by approximately 33% in the cross- rural territories. Main cities in the cross-border border region (even 52% in Vidin) by 2060. The region did not manage to capitalize on Romania-Bulgaria cross-border region is losing resources provided by their surroundings and population mostly due to migration towards functional urban areas. The urban fringe is still larger cities in the surroundings (Bucharest and affected by urban sprawl and is therefore Sofia) or due to people moving abroad. Cities in characterized by unsustainable growth patterns. the region are not attractive enough to retain the youth and the highly qualified professionals, Population decline, fuelled by aging and which is reflected in the decrease of the emigration, is one of the core problems of the number of students. As qualified workforce moves away, the districts and counties within relatively high potential in wind and solar the cross-border territory remain between the power generation ensures a high share of poorest in EU. renewable energy for heating and domestic hot water production of residential buildings. The This accentuated socio-demographic decline cross-border region is also important for the endangers the future development of the production of electricity. Each country has one Romania-Bulgaria cross-border area and calls for nuclear power plant located along the Danube. targeted interventions to maintain the current In Romania, the Cernavoda (Constanta county) inhabitants (e.g. better public services nuclear power plant, produces approximately provision, access to better-paid jobs, an 20% of the country's electricity, while in improved quality of life etc.), to prevent Bulgaria, the Kozloduy (Vratsa district) nuclear outmigration and to attract diaspora and former power plant generates about 35% of Bulgaria's inhabitants that left to larger cities (e.g. electricity. These also imply significant Bucharest, Sofia, Varna, etc.). technological risks.

Even though the cross-border territory faces The Romania-Bulgaria cross-border regions important socio-demographic challenges, the remains disconnected from the Core of Europe local economy grew at a fast rate over the last in terms of major transport infrastructure. The years. With a 40.7% growth of GDP / capita two thematic TEN-T corridors (Rhine Danube between 2012 and 2018, the cross-border region and Orient East Med) are still not completed. managed to grow faster than the EU28 average The only exception is the link between (12.7%). However, it is still lagging behind the Constanța and Bucharest (highspeed rail and other EU regions, and even behind the national motorway). The north-south (Pan European averages and other regions in Romania and Corridor IX) lost its priority status at national Bulgaria. Knowledge-intensive sectors are level and railroad transport in Romania was declining in terms of competitiveness, R&D&I rerouted due to a bridge collapsing in 2005, levels and technological transfer are still which hasn't been repaired by now. Except for reduced, and brain drain is limiting the the Constanța-Bucharest line, other railway economic development. lines are either degraded or not electrified. Only two railways cross the border, but they The Danube and the Black Sea remain the main can't compete with road traffic in terms of assets of the Romania-Bulgaria cross-border time, mostly due to the fact that the Romanian territory, especially in terms of natural sections are not electrified while those on the heritage. However, their potential is Bulgarian territory need to be modernized. Both endangered by the landslides and high flood Eurovelo corridors passing the cross-border risk, especially on the Romanian bank of the territory are incomplete. Within Eurovelo 6, the Danube, soil erosion, particularly on the Black Romania-Bulgaria border region is the last Sea Coast and various industrial risk factors missing link. Navigation on the Danube slightly along the Danube in Călărași and in the Giurgiu increased, but there are still sever issues due to Ruse area. periodic drought when several segments are not navigable. The quality of multimodal facilities, The large diversity of touristic attractions in the port capacity and hinterland accessibility Romania-Bulgaria cross-border area manages to remain important challenges for Danube ports attract an increasing number of tourists. By far in the cross-border region. the most attractive counties/ districts are Constanța and Dobrich, on the Black Sea coast. Romania-Bulgaria cross-border region remains a The seaside destinations are active mostly in territory of contrasts: the population decline the summer, with an average stay of 3.8 and slow progress on infrastructure and public overnights in Constanța and 4.87 in Dobrich. services development are paralleled by a trend The potential of the Danube as a tourist of economic growth, the quality of destination remains undercapitalized. The other environmental factors is worsening, while the counties and districts along the Danube account sustainable energy share and potential is high, a for only 17% of the total amount of overnight tradition of cross-border cooperation, stays within the cross-border territory. paralleled by a lack of trust in the administration and language barriers. Moreover, As regards the environment, the Romania- counties in the cross-border area share similar Bulgaria cross-border region continues to have economic development challenges but do not low rates of waste recycling, in some cases have the internal resources to address them. equal to 0, and high quantities of generated Being relatively peripheral in their own national waste. Also, air quality is worsening, especially contexts and dominated by traditional in the urban areas where high levels of PM10 industries undergoing transformation, both sides and PM2.5 remain a concern. On the other of the cross-border area need support to hand, both countries continue to capitalize on overcome their peripherality and to catch up the natural resources of the region. The with the rest of Europe.

34 08. Key Pointers

• Improve the framework conditions required to strengthen economic development based on innovation, by increasing cooperation between companies, the research Po1 environment, administration and civil society; A smarter • Support the SME development and cooperation and the entrepreneurship as ways to Europe - create jobs and counteract migration and braindrain; innovative and • Invest in workers upskilling in connection to current market demands and with the smart regional priorities on smart specialization; • Support the economic transformation and modernisation of the area by encouraging economic the development and cooperation in promising sectors such as agri-food, circular transformation economy, tourism etc. and through partnerships for manufacturing restructuring in declining areas; • Focus on a few common sectors of activities/ common interests regarding local and regional economic development and promote a cluster approach; • Define common cross-border products and services and support their access to the national and international markets; • Analyse the potential for interregional innovation projects for the development/ contribution to European value chains; • Take stock of existing digitalisation initiatives (especially in major cities) and promote a more systematic approach to digital public services, to benefit citizens and companies from both sides of the border.

• Capitalize on and consolidate the current cooperation on risk prevention and rapid Po2 response management; increase the response capacity in case of floods, seismic A greener, events and other natural hazards; low-carbon • Develop joint climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies and measures, Europe with a strong focus on sustainable and eco-friendly measures (e.g. flood plains and reforestation); • Develop joint management and protection measures for the seacoast and the Danube banks; • Develop cooperative measures (e.g. joint planning, strategies, mapping) related to nature and landscape protection and promotion; • Counteract illegal activities affecting biodiversity, protected areas and environmental quality, such as illegal exploitations and poaching. • Increase awareness and promote recycling and a responsible attitude towards the environment; • Support learning and networking for sustainable local economic development activities capitalising on the local assets (agricultural land and tradition, biodiversity etc.) – e.g. in the fields of agri-food, sustainable tourism, circular economy

• Convert Danube from a barrier to a sustainable mobility and transport corridor, by improving navigability and water transport and connecting to the European routes - Po3 Eurovelo A more • Further strengthen cross-border links, especially by renewing and completing the connected existing railway infrastructure (missing railway cross-border links); Europe - • Improve road safety by joint measures and the further development of large mobility and infrastructure (bypasses, expressways/ highways) regional ICT • Improve cross-border mobility between the twin cities along the Danube by linking local public transport routes in these cities (support green public transport routes if connectivity possible) and by improving intermodality on connections between the twin cities • Support in-land navigation and river management authorities, river users, investors and local authorities to better exploit Danube navigation (link to the EUSDR) • Increase the digitalisation level of the border region through a commonly agreed cross-border strategy and action plan focusing on improving general conditions for joint e-solutions (e.g. education, health care, business support, cultural cooperation) and by reducing urban-rural gaps through the improvement of broadband access in rural, sparsely populated and remote areas.

35 • Develop joint strategies to counteract emigration and braindrain; Po4 • Improve cross-border labour mobility and education through cross-border traineeships or placements and student exchange programmes for young graduates A more social and students; Europe - • Improve cross-border education through joint education schemes and programmes, implementing including digital tools and methods; the European • Improve the insertion on labour market through supporting inter-regional partnerships between universities/ technical education units, the business Pillar of Social environment and local authorities; Rights • Invest in workers upskilling in connection to current market demands and with the regional priorities on smart specialization; • Develop entrepreneurial skills and an entrepreneurial culture through educational, networking and support activities; • Increase multilingualism through more extensive and structured language-learning activities (including English learning) as a vector for building trust and an employment-boosting factor; • Support healthcare systems in the area by tackling border obstacles to cross-border healthcare and developing joint investments and services (including e-health).

• Improve cooperation and cross-border mobility and exchanges between twin cities Po5 based on joint integrated strategies; Europe closer • Develop and implement joint integrated strategies for specific types of territories/ to citizens regions in the cross-border area, capitalising on the local assets and specific (e.g. Dobrogea, the Black Sea Coast); • Consider the development of joint strategies for the development of the lagging rural areas; • Develop cooperative measures (e.g. joint planning, strategies, mapping) related to nature and landscape protection and promotion; • Define common cross-border products and services (touristic, but not only) and support their access to the national and international markets; • Connect tourism development efforts with European initiatives, touristic and cultural routes along the Danube in order to increase the opportunities to capitalise on the area's untapped touristic potential. • Improve administrative and technical capacity for cooperation; [Interreg • Support the development of multi-stakeholder thematic networks/ partnerships in priority areas for the development of the cross-order territory (e.g. local economic specific] development, tourism, heritage and culture, risk prevention and emergency A better response); Interreg • Map and tackle border obstacles on the provision of cross-border public services and support the development of cross-border public services, including digital services; governance • Test innovative approaches for cross-border governance and services that could overcome the legislative differences between the two countries; • Improve governance and cooperation in the cross-border area through digitalisation (consider interoperability); • Improve cross-border data collection - identify the sectors where important cross- border data is missing and support initiatives that would fill the gaps (e.g. in cooperation with national statistical offices, by supporting regional data portals etc.)

• Capitalize on and consolidate the current cooperation on risk prevention and rapid [Interreg response management; specific] • Counteract illegal activities affecting environmental quality, such as illegal A safer and exploitations and poaching; • Increase rapid response capacities and further develop joint intervention more secure procedures/ schemes. Europe

36 09. Programme Vision

The vision for Interreg Romania-Bulgaria 2014- Last but not least, the current COVID-19 2020 saw the Romania-Bulgaria cross-border pandemic revealed the poor current state of region as the potential Eastern gateway of the health systems in both countries. Moreover, EU, reinforcing economic and political such pandemics clearly hamper the economic cooperation between the countries of Central development in any region. The future and Western Europe and Asia. The vision was Programme should consider to contribute to the based on the potential to develop combined reinforced preparedness in a joint context so river and sea transport (the Danube and the that future similar events can be better Black Sea) or sea and road/railroad transport of approached, with smaller losses in terms of goods, which could have become an important both human lives and economic development in sector for the economy of the region, thus the border area. increasing its attractiveness for businesses and for foreign investments, capitalizing on its The vision builds on the polycentric strategic location and the high availability of development concept, which was also part of transport infrastructure, such as Pan-European the 2014-2020 Programme's vision, proposing a transport corridors, roads and railroads, an network of key urban hubs along the Danube, international port, and international airports in with enhanced institutional collaboration and its vicinity. However, the analysis shows that economic synergies that could start articulating there is still much to be done in order to ensure a common development strategy in order to a reliable and sustainable transport system, mutually strengthen the secondary and while key structural issues related to socio- peripheral cities. The network of small and demographic decline, the loss of human capital, medium-sized cities, such as the twin cities ensuring the accessibility and quality of public along the Danube, is already developed across services and economic transition affect both the region, which is a plus in terms of services sides of the border. Moreover, the natural risks provided to the rural areas around them or to and the effects of the climate change due to the potential for better service provision and the specificities of the territory encompassing jobs creation. Improving connections between the banks of the Danube and the Black Sea urban and rural areas and transforming small Coast add more pressure on the communities cities into support centres that provide services and the local authorities. to the neighbouring villages with an emphasis on public services is a direction to be considered, as is the provision of digital public In this context, the proposed services to remote or peripheral areas. The programme vision focuses on the cross-border area is still facing a dual challenge: on the one hand, in rural and small reinforcement of the socio-economic urban peripheral areas, the challenge is one of fabric of the Romania-Bulgaria cross- generating and capturing employment border territory, through developing opportunities by exploiting regional assets more and retaining human capital, creating effectively, and improving access to opportunities for personal and opportunities elsewhere through improved connectivity (both physical and digital); on the professional development, providing an other hand, in the urban hubs, the challenge is attractive, safe and sustainable living of upgrading competitiveness in order to reduce environment and supporting innovation the gap to the European level and to deliver the and entrepreneurship. value added commensurate to support upward wage pressure.

37

Photo source: Facebook Constanta Cityhall The Interreg Romania-Bulgaria 2021-2027 should services and transnational collaboration in areas also keep pursuing the objective of the such as health, transport, etc. along with Romania-Bulgaria Cross-Border Cooperation strategic priorities such as growth, Programme 2014-2020 to foster the transition employment, research, innovation or towards a “Consolidated” territorial sustainable development. A more strategic cooperation programme, by gathering cooperation approach in the programme thestakeholders' commitments through a “maturation process” is necessary in order to common vision of the area's territorial compensate for the lack of critical mass that development priorities in the framework of the characterises many public and private activities so called “Smart Cooperation or cooperation of within the Programme area. secondgeneration” that boosts cross-border

THE CONSOLIDATED TERRITORIAL COOPERATION CHARACTERISTICS TYPE OF GOVERNANCE MOTIVATION SCALE MEASUREMENT IMPACT BENEFICIARIES STRUCTURES Continued A more strategic Public Scope for using reliance on approach is authorities Increasing levels of harder external emerging and leading with Larger institutionalisation quantitative funding but attempts are some strategic appointment of measures that emerging made to involvement impact dedicated staff focus output s domestic coordinate from other and results commitments efforts sectors

Source: ESPON, 2012, TERCO - European Territorial Cooperation as a Factor of Growth, Jobs and Quality of Life

Complementary, the economic development connecting the cross-border territory to the rest vision for the area is geared towards the of Europe along the Danube would also bring development of critical mass and an original added value to the region. combination of activities and competences for the development of innovative products and From an environmental perspective, effective services. Counties in the cross-border area risk prevention mechanisms and actively share similar economic development challenges fighting climate change would secure a resilient but do not have the internal resources to cross-border territory. Moreover, the natural address them. Being relatively peripheral in and cultural heritage are to be promoted their own national contexts and dominated by through sustainable tourism. traditional industries facing intense international competition and, in some cases, Last but not least, modern and effective pubic decline, as well as low added value agriculture administration is necessary in order to and services, the two economies face the need capitalize on the benefits of digitalization and to diversify into more knowledge-based working together with businesses, universities, activities and to build critical mass around the research environment and the civil society these. Some emerging activities can be built on in order to improve the life of their community expertise developed in traditional industries and to foster territorial cooperation. through the creation of cross-border clusters or networks to foster learning and innovation In conclusion, the Romania-Bulgaria synergies in different fields, particularly based Interreg Programme 2021-2027 should on the regional/ national smart specialization strategies. Nevertheless, the economic aim to boost the cooperation in order transformation should take into account the to ensure the socio-economic opportunities provided by the Green Deal and development of the region, lifting it the shift towards circular economy should be from the last places in the European considered. rankings, and transforming it into a In terms of connectivity, there are still several sustainable and competitive bottlenecks in the cross-border network, both in community, by capitalising in a terms of road and railway transport. The region responsible manner on the territorial would benefit in addressing these bottlenecks, specificities and the resources offered if possible. The railway transport is a priority, as by the presence of the Danube and the it is the more sustainable solution. The development of the Eurovelo 6 route, Black Sea Coast.

38

Photo source: Facebook Mehedinti County Council, by Horia Goliciu The content of this material does not necessarily represent the official position of the European Union