Borders in Globalization Review Volume 1, Issue 1 (Fall 2019): 43-53 https://doi.org/10.18357/bigr11201919258

Cross-Border Cooperation _R in the Carpathian : ARTICLE and the EU Tatiana Shaban *

Cross-border cooperation among the Eastern neighbours of the European Union can be understood as a new approach to public policy and border governance in the region. There was no border cooperation strategy between communist and European countries during Soviet times. The question of the management of the Eastern border of the EU, especially with Belarus, Ukraine, and Moldova, came on the agenda in 1997, when accession to the union was finally opened to Eastern and Southern European candidates. With the Partnership and Coop- eration Agreement that came into force in 1998, Ukraine signalled its foreign policy orientation as European, asserting that Western integration would help modernize its economy, increase living standards, and strengthen democracy and rule of law. The European Commission required “good neighbourly relations” as a further condition for accession and in conjunction, the concept of “Wider Europe” was proposed to set up border-transcending tasks. The Carpathian Euroregion was established to contribute to strengthening the friendship and prosperity of the countries of this region. However, the model was not fully understood and had only limited support of the national governments. This article uses the Carpathian Euroregion as a case study to show that overall Ukraine and the EU’s Eastern neighbourhood presents more opportunities for effective cooperation with the EU rather than barriers or risks.

Introduction

Border politics of the European Union (EU) is a of the policy was to draw both old and new neigh- complex range of programmes, policies and imag- bours closer into the EU’s political, economic and inaries of the political community in which borders cultural realm, short of full membership. It implied are used as resources for different specific aims. increasing openness and inclusionary politics where The question of the management of the Eastern the neighbourhood could be jointly negotiated border of the EU, especially with Belarus, Ukraine, between the EU and its regional partners. The and Moldova, came on the agenda in 1997, when first financial instruments, including the European the prospect of accession was finally opened to Neighbourhood Policy Instrument (ENPI), in the Eastern and Southern European candidates. The framework of the ENP, additionally suggested European Commission (henceforth, the Commis- that “Wider Europe”1 aimed at blurring the EU’s sion) required “good neighbourly relations” as a external borders. In the post Cold War context, further condition for accession and in conjunction Wider Europe was seen to represent a new spatial the concept of “Wider Europe” was proposed to set imaginary that went beyond the old East-West up border-transcending tasks. The overall objective divide (Liikanen, Scott & Sotkasiira 2016, 2), To sum

* Tatiana Shaban, PhD, is non-resident fellow at the Centre for Global Studies, University of Victoria, Canada. Contact: [email protected] https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/bigreview Creative Commons https://biglobalization.org/ CC-BY-NC 4.0 Borders in Globalization Review | Volume 1 | Issue 1 | Fall 2019 Shaban, “Cross-Border Cooperation in the Carpathian Euroregion” _R

up, the original proposition of a policy towards the communities and their representative bodies, local EU’s neighbours was very much linked to the idea executive authorities and relevant authorities of of reinforcing sub-regional cooperation, especially neighboring states within competences defined in creating an “Eastern Dimension”—and, later on, by respective national legislation (Law of Ukraine Black Sea cooperation (to complement the already 2004, 2015). The Law of Ukraine on CBC defines existing “Northern Dimension” and the “Union for its basic concepts, purposes and principles, as the Mediterranean”). In turn, Ukraine formalized its well as organisational and governmental forms of foreign policy posture as European since the Partner- support. Local municipalities and regional authori- ship and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) came into ties become responsible for assisting enterprises to force in 1998 and asserted that European integration develop external economic links and export poten- would help modernize its economy, increase living tial, as well as international cooperation, including standards, and strengthen democracy and rule of law. the establishment of joint ventures. Likewise, the Hence, this paper assumes that European integration Concept of the State Regional Policy2 in Ukraine (with or without EU membership) is good for Ukraine. directly influences CBC by stipulating that the powers of local authorities need to be strength- According to the Commission, governance beyond ened. The legal basis of Ukraine-EU dialogue on EU borders means establishment and operation of regional development, regional and cross-border “institutions” (in the sense of rules of the game), cooperation is based on Article 70 of the PCA and which define actors and their responsibilities, both defined by the chapter “Cross-Border and Regional in cooperation towards society’s objectives and Cooperation” of the Association Agreement. It has in the resolution of any conflicts that may arise. been argued that CBC activities contribute to trans- From 2011, the EU has initiated various forms of forming the operation of power across the various governance—supporting local initiatives, diversi- levels of governance and a “new mode” of gover- fying stakeholders, and speaking to all levels of nance emerges from this development (Delcour society (Casier et al. 2013). Therefore, the change 2001; Kramsch & Hooper 2004; Liikanen, Scott, that is occurring in governance policy cannot be Sotkisiira 2016). From the EU side, to effectively fully grasped without considering the importance cooperate and understand actors and rules of the of border governance and its impact on the local game in the Eastern neighbourhood, it needs to be border communities outside the EU. a responsible cross-border manager as well as a good strategic actor in the international arena. In Ukraine, the regional topic remains a prominent feature of the state’s policy since the country gained On 14 February 1993 the Ministers of Foreign Affairs its independence in 1991. Ukraine has only existed in of , , and Ukraine ( its present boundaries since World War II. Before, the would join in 1997 with the last county accepted current territory of western Ukraine had no experi- in 2000) ratified a declaration in the Hungarian ence of Soviet rule and had never been a single state city of Drebecen, stating that the establishment within the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which of the Carpathian Euroregion (CE) would greatly was established in 1922. Western Ukraine (Eastern contribute to strengthening the friendship and Galicia, Volyn’ and Northern Bukovina regions) prosperity of the countries of this region and would was annexed by the Soviet Army in 1939 based on guarantee active application of the principles of the the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Zakarpattia or Helsinki Act (1975), the Charter of Paris for a New Transcarpathia region added to Ukraine in 1946. As Europe (1990), and other instruments. Ukraine also a result, regional political, economic and cultural joined the European Outline Convention on Trans- disparities became one of the biggest problems for frontier Cooperation between Territorial Communi- independent Ukraine. Moreover, after the collapse of ties or Authorities in 1993. are normally the Soviet Union, Eastern Ukrainian economic and defined as organizations of border (transboundary) cultural links inherited from Soviet times remained interregional (intermunicipal) cooperation aimed very strong and heavily dependent on exports to at establishing good neighbourly relations as well Russia (Kolossov & L. Van Well 2016). Last but not as addressing common problems singled out by least, Ukraine, torn between two region-building constitutional documents regulating the territories projects of the EU in its Eastern neighbourhood and of three or more states (Council of Europe 1980). Russian Federation in its post-Soviet space, experi- They represent institutional structures set up by two enced Russian military intervention in the Donbass or more states to support cross-border cooperation, region of Ukraine in the last decade. and as such represent a framework for meeting the needs for participation, transparency and develop- Ukraine’s movement toward European integration ment of cooperation strategies (Gasparini 2017). emphasized cross-border cooperation (CBC). This referred to joint action aimed at developing Within the framework of the Euroregion, Ukraine economic, social, scientific, technical, environ- and EU member states are also reaching general mental, cultural and other relations between local European level. In the case of Ukraine, which is

44 Borders in Globalization Review | Volume 1 | Issue 1 | Fall 2019 Shaban, “Cross-Border Cooperation in the Carpathian Euroregion”

implementing the Association Agreement and Deep including good neighborly relations among its Cooperation and Free Trade Agreements with the actors and participants on the principles of sover- EU, the union acts as a transformative power, aiming eignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of state to promote reforms across a broad spectrum of borders; considering power and authority of the governance areas: rule of law, public administration, subjects of CBC during conclusion of relevant agree- democratic institutions, economics, and various ments; coordinated removal of political, economic, standards and regulatory issues. However, largely administrative and other obstacles for mutual coop- due to the lack of strategic vision for the develop- eration (Article 2, Law of Ukraine for “Cross-Border ment of the Carpathian Euroregion (CE) and other Cooperation”). Ukrainian bordering territories enter operating Euroregions in Ukraine, examples of into four Euroregions3 at the same time: the largest practical cooperation at the EU level have been very of these is the Carpathian Euroregion (CE) which limited. According to Mytryaeva (2007), in order unites territories of four EU member states as well to succeed in integration efforts, it is necessary to as the Transcarpathia, Lvivska, Ivano-Frankivska, have effective executive structures with a certain and Chernivetska regions of Ukraine. Mytryaeva legal status at various levels within the Euroregion (2007) envisions Euroregions as an instrument of structure. This paper is an examination of Ukraine’s external policy of sovereign countries, which aspire current course of European integration within the to establish and maintain good neighbourly rela- framework of the Carpathian Euroregion (CE), from tions on a regional (municipal) level. According to the viewpoint of cross-border governance. Likewise, her observation, it was due to activity within the it questions the governance of borders in Eastern framework of the Euroregions that territories of the Europe and specifically the role of the EU in it. Eastern Carpathians, at the watershed of the Tisza river, were not turned into a conflict zone. In fact, at This article uses SWOT analysis to analyse strengths present, the Carpathian region is one of the most (S), weaknesses (W), opportunities (O) and threats stable regions in Eastern Europe. Transcarpathia (T) for EU governance within the framework of the also made its first successful steps by using Eurore- Carpathian Euroregion. The method is based on gions as an integration instrument. identifying and measuring internal and external indicators of a cross-border area, making it possible The CE was founded as a mechanism of cross-border to evaluate them as positive or negative, according regional cooperation between several post-commu- to the intensity of their presence. nist countries—Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, Hungary— which signed an agreement on the formation of The article is structured as follows. Section one the international association named the Carpathian reviews historical development of the Carpathian Euroregion in 1993, with Romania joining in 1997. It Euroregion by exploring the progress of Ukrainian was the only Euroregion in Europe which included integration with the EU. Section two reviews relevant the bordering territories of five post-communist literature debates and shows how existing institutional states characterized by different economic devel- mechanisms and cross-border cooperation instru- opment and with heterogeneous ethnic, religious, ments influence the European integration course of and cultural structures (Mytryaeva 2007, 126). In the Ukraine—if at all. Section three defines the organi- 20th century, this area was governed by six succes- sational structure of the Carpathian Euroregion and sive entities (the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Czecho- offers a review of the SWOT method for analysing slovakia, Poland, Hungary, the Soviet Union, and major CBC tendencies in Ukraine. Finally, the paper’s Ukraine) with occasionally shifting borders. At the conclusion summarizes the impact of cross-border cooperation in the context of the Euroregion on the transformation of Ukrainian public/state policies and identifies major issues arising.

1: Historical Development of Carpathian Euroregion and the European Integration Course in Ukraine

After the fall of Communism, citizens and institu- tions of the Ukrainian borderlands found themselves confronted with tough processes of re-scaling and re-territorializing. As mentioned above, CBC policy with the EU is a reasonably new policy for Ukraine. The aim of cross-border cooperation has been defined as the development of social, economic, Figure 1. Carpathian Euroregion. Association of European academic, technical, cultural and other relations, Border Regions. Source: https://www.aebr.eu.

45 _R Borders in Globalization Review | Volume 1 | Issue 1 | Fall 2019 Shaban, “Cross-Border Cooperation in the Carpathian Euroregion” _R

beginning of the 20th century, most parts of Ukraine preparatory steps, EU missions were organized to belonged to the Russian Empire, and the rest to the five EaP countries, except for Belarus, in April–May Austro-Hungarian Empire. In 1919, the International 2011, to inform stakeholders about the concept, and Conference in Paris made Eastern Galitsia a part of a seminar was organized in Brussels in June with Poland. In 1921, according to the Riga Agreement, representatives from partner countries and EU the western part of Volynska oblast also became a Delegations to launch the programme. It is the task part of Poland. The Russian part of Ukraine joined of the regional and local partners on both sides of the Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in 1922 and the border to analyse their common needs and to became one of the Soviet socialist republics. In the identify priorities and actions, most relevant to their five states, various nationalities lived together in local situation. The ENPI,5 the financial instrument a heterogeneous area that was also characterized employed for ENP and addressed to ENP partner by a mixture of major religions (Orthodoxy, Greek countries, offered co-funding for promoting good Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Calvinism, Protes- governance and equitable social and economic tantism, Judaism, and Roma) (Tanaka 2006, 65). development process. In the perspective of rein- Together, all of these features characterize the area forcing cooperation with countries bordering the as “a mosaic zone of ethnicities, cultures and reli- EU, the ENPI included a component specifically gions” and “a microcosm of new Europe” (Research targeted at CBC. CBC’s strategy has four key Center of the Slovak Foreign Policy Association objectives: (1) to promote economic and social 2001a, 6–11). Today Ukraine remains the only state development in border areas; (2) address common within the Carpathian Euroregion framework with challenges; (3) ensure efficient and secure borders; clear aspirations for EU integration. and (4) promote people-to-people cooperation.

EU programmes for its neighbourhood gained a The management of CBC programmes was assigned separate status and a budget in 2007–2009 within to a local or national authority jointly selected by the Eastern Partnership (EaP) policy framework. all participating countries. CBC is also financed by The EaP policy of the EU was adopted in 2007 and the European Regional Development Fund. For directed at Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, example, the EaP Territorial Cooperation Support Moldova and Ukraine. Before 2007 the regions of Programme promotes sustainable cross-border Ukraine (Volynska, Lvivska, Transcarpathia, Ivano- cooperation between border regions of EaP coun- Frankivska, Chernivetska, and Odeska) were subject tries by building the capacities of local and regional to the TACIS4 programme. In 2007 the ENP began authorities to effectively manage cross-border to replace earlier EU programmes to intensify CBC programmes in the region. The time frame of the between its border and neighbouring regions and period between 2012–2015 had a budget of €5.5 improve resource allocation to allow local commu- million (Regulation of the EP and of the Council nities to advance more efficiently. An important on ENPI, 2006; Executive Summary of the ENPI element of coordination between Ukraine and the CBC Strategy Paper, 2007). CBC used an approach EU was the involvement of Ukraine’s regions on largely built on Structural Funds principles such as a regular basis in activities of European regional multiannual programming, partnership, and co-fi- associations, in particular the Assembly of the nancing, adapted to take into account the speci- European Regions, Council of European Municipali- ficities of the Community’s external relations rules ties and Regions, Conference of European Regional and regulation. One major innovation of the ENPI Legislative Assemblies, Association of European CBC lied in the fact that the programmes involving Border Regions, Conferences of Peripheral Maritime regions on both sides of the EU border shared one Regions, European Association of Elected Repre- single budget, common management structures, sentatives from Mountain Areas, and EUROCITIES. and a common legal framework and implementa- tion rules, giving the programmes a fully balanced Depending on the nature of specific projects, the partnership between the participating countries. EaP initiative allocates funds to various beneficia- ries. Comprehensive Institution-Building projects, The ENPI supported cross-border and trans-regional public administrations of partner states, EU member cooperation as well as gradual economic integration states, and EU institutions use specific instruments in of recipient countries with the EU beneficiary coun- training and other institutional reform programmes: tries. In 2011–2012 the ENPI CBC Programme with a Twinning, Technical Assistance and Information budget of €500,000 implemented a project with a Exchange (TAIEX), and EU advisory missions. For focus on training activities enabling job placement Pilot Regional Development Projects, beneficiaries for the disadvantaged population in Beregovo include public administrations of partner states, (Ukraine) and , Hungary. The overall objective local authorities, small and medium enterprises, and of the action was to contribute to the intensification non-governmental organisations. Funding, foreseen and deepening of cooperation between institutions in the amount of €75 million, started in 2012 from in Zakarpatska, Ukraine and Hungary. As a result, the 2012/2013 ENPI budget of €62 million. As unemployed people (especially Roma, women,

46 Borders in Globalization Review | Volume 1 | Issue 1 | Fall 2019 Shaban, “Cross-Border Cooperation in the Carpathian Euroregion”

and the disabled) gained new skills to successfully Euroregion is defined as a consultative and - coor apply for jobs in Miskolc and Zakarpatska regions. A dinating body directed at the expansion of trans- further benefit was that the initiative strengthened boundary cooperation of its member states and regional and institutional cooperation between between different stakeholders at local, regional, Miskolc and Beregovo. CBC also set up a network cross-border, national, and supranational levels. of civil society organizations in the EU and partner The Ukrainian bordering territories enter into the countries. EU assistance in this area provided four euroregions. The Carpathian is the largest; administrative and financial support for coopera- it unites the territory of four member states as tion across the region and sub-regions between well as Transcarpathia, Lvivska, Chernivetska and various civil society organizations. The Conference Ivano-Frankivska regions of Ukraine. Scholarly of Regional and Local Authorities (CORLEAP)6 was literature analyses the Carpathian Euroregion as established by the Committee of the Regions (CoE) an evolutionary form of governance, meaning that in 2011 to bring a regional and local dimension into the established institutions can produce bottom-up the EaP. It brought together thirty-six regional and initiatives in the border region and as an EU inte- local elected representatives from the EU and EaP gration mechanism: a border regime or a builder countries. President of the European Committee of of bridges. The bordering states to the east of the the Regions and CORLEAP co-chair Ramón Luis EU were actively involved in various transboundary Valcárcel Siso stressed that an important factor projects of a bilateral and multilateral nature. In enabling multi-level governance to function effec- 2004 the EU Task Force, which comprised repre- tively was greater political and fiscal autonomy for sentatives of Ukraine, Central European neighbours, regional and local authorities. The three EaP priori- and EU experts, started ENP cooperation projects, ties of public administration, fiscal decentralization, among them Poland–Ukraine–Belarus, Hungary– and regional cooperation were addressed in a report Slovakia–Ukraine, and Romania–Ukraine. However, submitted at the CORLEAP meeting in Lithuania in according to Mytryaeva (2007), the Lvivska region, November 2013. CORLEAP members stressed that for example, was cooperating more or less actively decentralization and territorial cooperation were with Polish regions mostly on a bilateral level. There- key to a successful implementation of the Associa- fore, she concluded that Euroregions did not live up tion Agreements and economic, political, and social to the set expectations, directed at transboundary development. According to Michel Lebrun, a CoR cooperation, due to established structures which President and CORLEAP co-chair, “decentralisation were functioning on a community project basis reforms and more cross-border cooperation” can (Mytryaeva 2007, 122–136). lead “to greater legitimacy of policies on the local level and provide concrete solutions to problems Ukraine was involved in a smaller number of project for people living on both sides of a frontier” (the applications compared to Poland and Hungary. Annual Meeting of the CORLEAP, 2014). Being EU members, Poland and Hungary applied for thirty-to-forty projects every year, whereas The well-known EaP instruments for institu- Ukraine applied for only two or three. Sotnikov and tion-building also supported the authority’s admin- Kravchenko (2013) argue that Euroregions did not istrative capacity to implement CBC policies at use their full potential as organizational forms of both local and national levels. They included TAIEX, CBC whose task was to facilitate obtaining funds Twinning,7 Support for Improvement in Gover- for cross-border co-financing projects from struc- nance and Management (SIGMA) for the European tural funds and other international financial insti- Neighbourhood region, and recent comprehensive tutions. However, they point out that cross-border institution-building programmes. The EaP obvi- industrial zones represented the main component ously created new multilateral institutions in EU of institutional innovation and an investment model policy towards the East (Delcour, 2011). However, in for economic development not only of border areas parallel it drew the line for reinforcement of bilateral but in the region as a whole. cooperation at various levels, i.e., of the contractual relations with the neighbours through the negotia- Hungarian researcher Ludvig (2003) shows a tion of Association Agreements, Deep and Compre- number of negative factors affecting Carpathian hensive Free Trade Agreements, visa liberalization, Euroregion development: (1) differences in the cooperation in the field of energy, support to social context of the CE; (2) the size of the participating and economic policies, and finally assistance aimed areas; (3) its structural institutional problems; (4) at strengthening institutional capacities in order to financial matters; (5) ambiguity of the division of meet the requirements of negotiated agreements. labour between the district/local government and the central government; (6) historical inheritances; and (7) problems related to the introduction of the 2: Literature Review Schengen Acquis Communautaire. Likewise, the Polish agency of the CE (CE Secretariat) recognized As an international association, the Carpathian that it faced three types of crises: first, a crisis of

47 _R Borders in Globalization Review | Volume 1 | Issue 1 | Fall 2019 Shaban, “Cross-Border Cooperation in the Carpathian Euroregion” _R

self-recognition, which refers to a lack of knowledge, According to scholarly research, the greater the information, and consciousness; second, a crisis density of interaction, the more likely it will generate of representation, in which neither the low-level behavioral change on the part of domestic actors, local self-governing bodies nor non-profit organi- with outsiders working through informal coalitions zations nor private enterprises were able to send and acting as the glue that brings together the their representatives to both the Council of the CE domestic players that shape their reform prefer- and the national organization of the CE. The third ences (Schimmelefennig and Sedelmeier 2005; crisis related to participation where local residents Langbein 2015). There is no shortage of regional were completely uninterested in the CE’s issues cooperation initiatives in the Carpathian Euroregion. (Stworzyszenie na Rzecz Euroregionu Karpackiego However, for obvious reasons the CE model was not Euro-Karpaty 2002, 11–17). fully supported by the national governments. First, strongly centralized and oppressive states were not When it comes to governance issues, according to effective in pursuing policies and delivering public Tanaka (2006), firstly the CE must be examined by services. Second, Soviet legacy in Ukraine has long analysing the region’s characteristics, as an evolu- remained clearly visible in both the structure of local tionary form of governance. Secondly, taking the governing arrangements and in people’s expecta- perspective of public space encourages consider- tions of their authorities, as well as their lack of trust ation of the degree to which the everyday economic in the process of governing. This explains the strong space and the public space have been formed sentiment that the state, rather than the community, (Tanaka 2006). Kramsch and Hooper when exam- should take care of people’s needs. Third, ineffec- ining cross-border governance in Europe conclude tive unchanged governance processes triggered that cross-border areas in Europe were faced with apathy and lack of responsibility in post-communist the following four “dilemmas of multi-governance”: Ukrainian society. Therefore, the concept of auton- (1) Euroregions were used as a convenient admin- omous self-governance as a form of local democ- istrative policy for local elites to access funding racy was losing its support in Ukraine. In addition, sources from Brussels; (2) ties among economic citizens of Ukraine have little knowledge of local actors were not developed automatically in the self-government, preferring either to passively wait borderlands; instead, extensive economic relation- for the resolution of their problems by local author- ships at the national and global levels outdid those ities with state support, or to solve the problems of cross-border areas; (3) public awareness of cross- by themselves with no consideration for the wider border initiatives was decreasing among locals community (UNDP 2008, 29–30). All of these of the Euroregion; and (4) it remained difficult to factors combined presented a key challenge for the establish an effective democratic system of trans- effective delivery of EU programmes and initiatives boundary institutions (Kramsch & Hooper 2004, 3). directed at its Eastern neighbourhood.

These trans-border and trans-level actions alter the identity of the regional actors and precipitate the 3: Organizational Structure of the Carpa- formalization and Europeanization of cross-border thian Euroregion and SWOT Analysis regions themselves. Takahashi (2006) emphasizes that although the boundary of the Euroregion was The CE is an organization for cross-border regional determined by the EU, the motivations and solu- cooperation among 18 border autonomous units at tions of Euroregion participants vary depending on a similar level (region, province, county) belonging issues, resulting in an amorphous form of governance. to five East European countries (Makowski 1993; However, by disregarding bottom-up initiatives of Rebisz 2003, 35–43 cited in Tanaka 2006, 67). the region, the institutionalization of the Euroregion According to the agreement, Interregional Associ- causes a problem. Van Kersbergen and Van Waarden ation Carpathian Euroregion goals are to organize (2004) note that in recent decades shifts in gover- and coordinate activities that promote cooperation nance have occurred not just in the private, semi-pri- in the fields of economy, ecology, culture, science, vate, and public spheres, but at (and in-between) and education with assistance in elaborating the local, regional, national, transnational, and global concrete projects, and to promote various contacts levels. According to these authors, such changes take at different levels along with good neighbourly place in the forms and mechanisms of governance, relations. The CE is composed of four parts: the the location of governance, governing capacities, and Council with Presidium and Chairman, Secretary styles of governance. Overall, analysis of recent schol- General, National Offices (Agencies), and Working arly research on CBC and organizational-economic Commissions. The supreme body of the CE is the mechanisms shows that problems of development Council, which consists of three representatives of interregional and transborder cooperation have from each member country. The Council meets received substantial attention. However, public space every six months. It discusses and unanimously with multiple layers and multiple issues is not actively accepts common projects and makes decisions on developed along the eastern border region of the EU. important topics relevant to cooperation (appoint-

48 Borders in Globalization Review | Volume 1 | Issue 1 | Fall 2019 Shaban, “Cross-Border Cooperation in the Carpathian Euroregion”

ment, budget, and organizational changes). The significant amount of relatively well-qualified labor Chairman is elected every two years to manage the force and most importantly, positive cooperative session, representing the Council to the outside. attitude with a strong desire of partnership with The Secretary General (Executive Director) as well neighbouring states towards its western border. is elected every two years, has authority to present Major geopolitical challenges of the CE include bill drafts to the Council and conducts daily coop- its role in the Euro-Atlantic integration of Ukraine. eration activities. The CE has a network of national The SWOT analysis method is based on identifying offices, each of which has the responsibility to internal indicators of a cross-border area, as well as maintain regular contact with the Council, dealing external ones. It is vital to subsequently measure with all the cooperation initiatives and taking charge indicators by making it possible to evaluate them of one Working Commission’s works. as positive or negative, according to the intensity of their presence. Through complex data processing, Specific work is performed by Commission for SWOT analysis made it possible to define the condi- Regional Development (its coordinator at the tions of CBC in a specific area and, at the same time, Hungarian side); Commission for Tourism (coordi- helped to highlight any potential for cooperation nator at the Polish side) and Environment (coordi- by working on the existing elements (Gasparini & nator at the Hungarian side); Trade Development Ferluga 2005) so as to emphasize strengths (S) (coordinator at the Romanian side); Commission for and opportunities (O), while limiting the negative Prevention of Natural Disasters (coordinator at the effects of weaknesses (W) and risks or threats (T). Slovak side); Commission for Social Infrastructure SWOT analysis may be used in any decision-making (coordinator at the Ukrainian side); and Audit and situation when a desired state objective is defined. Control Committee (coordinator at the Hungarian It may also be used in preventive crisis manage- side. Working Commissions have five fields of activity: ment. The SWOT method can be used to evaluate regional development, environmental protection and the ‘strengths’, ‘weaknesses’, ‘opportunities’ and tourism, social infrastructure development, trade ‘threats’ involved in any organizational activity. exchange development, and auditing (Rebisz 2003, In this study, firstly the general position of SWOT cited in Tanaka 2006). Every national party contrib- analysis in the cross-border cooperation process utes an equivalent of 35,000 USD a year to the CE is explained, secondly the components of SWOT budget (Helinski 1999, cited in Tanaka 2006, 67–68). are examined. Strategic planning allows an entity to be more proactive than reactive in shaping its The important issues for this paper are institu- own future; it allows any organization to initiate and tional, including challenges of improving efficiency. influence, rather than just respond to, activities and According to Article Three of the Charter of the thus to exert control over its own destiny (David Interregional Association “Carpathian Euroregion”, 2003, 15). its main objectives are: coordination and organiza- tion of joint activities; promotion of cooperation in Strengths of the Carpathian Euroregion consist of: economy, science, ecology, education and culture (1) institutional factors for effective CBC such as among its members; support in the implementa- signatory of the European Outline Convention on tion of cross-border projects in the conditions of Transfrontier Co-operation (Madrid, 21 May 1980); common interest; promoting contacts among popu- signatory of the 1995 Additional Protocol to the lation of the territories included in the Euroregion, Madrid Convention; signatory of the 1998 Second promotion of good neighborly relations among its Protocol to the Madrid Convention; internationally members; cooperation with international institutions recognized borders; good institutional and legal and organizations. At the beginning of the European framework (based on EU requirements). The CE integration, Slovakia launched National Conventions is a potential EU Objective area which includes for European Integration in Moldova and Ukraine nature conservation, environmental protection, and the Centre of Transfer of the Slovak Experi- rural development, ethnic groups in a backward ences from the Accession Process at the Ministry of situation, educational infrastructure to be devel- Foreign Affairs in Bratislava. Using standard tools oped. Administrative factors for effective CBC are and additional financial capacity, the International among the factors of successful development of Visegrad Fund8 started with flagship projects aimed the CE and in their turn include official definition at the promotion of the Slovak Democratization and of cross-border areas and local authorities’ co-op- Transformation experience, development of regional eration with foreign partners. (2) Economic factors cooperation, and support of civil society. for cooperation include participation in Interreg/ Phare projects; efficient and well-connected infra- SWOT Analysis of the Carpathian Euroregion structure: road, rail, and waterway networks; and favourable natural environment for agricultural The development strategy of the Carpathian Eurore- production; good conditions for thermal, hunting, gion contains clearly defined priorities. It benefits and cultural tourism; a considerable number of the from favorable natural and ecological conditions, a cheap relatively well-qualified labour force; -ambi

49 _R Borders in Globalization Review | Volume 1 | Issue 1 | Fall 2019 Shaban, “Cross-Border Cooperation in the Carpathian Euroregion” _R

tions for recognition and application of effective various international arrangements. As a further mechanisms of a market economy; growing interest threat, the falling of the CE behind the central towards the opportunities offered by the EU; and regions of the member countries is increasing and proximity to countries of the Eastern neighbour- a peripheral situation is mounting with marginal- hood and their markets. (3) Linguistic, cultural, and ization problems where possibilities for self-gov- historical factors for CBC include common historical ernment are becoming limited. Additional threats background; common language or knowledge of include increase of isolation due to the deteriora- the neighbouring country’s language; ratification of tion of accessibility: worsening of the state of public the 1995 Framework Convention for the Protection roads and the further loss of the role of railways. The of Ethnic Minorities; tradition of cooperation; and website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine established transboundary transport routes. provides only a few examples of practical coop- eration: presentation of Dnipropetrovsk region in Weaknesses of the CE consist of: (1) institutional Brussels in April 2012 and presentation of Vinnytsa obstacles to CBC, including state centralization; region in Brussels on 15 September 2011. There is no lack of adequate state/non-state structures; significant foreign capital in the region in following conflicting capabilities on either side of the border; years, therefore, prospects for investment and prac- restrictive legal regulations on cross-border rela- tical cooperation are limited Thus, the function of tions; lack of credibility; low mutual knowledge the CE as an international bridge can be lost. and trust; different political orientations and insuf- ficient financial resources. (2) The main economic obstacles include uneven development levels; weak Conclusion or non-existing response to opportunities offered by CBC; considerable distance from the national This article aimed to identify mechanisms, and and Western European economic centres; limited benefits of cross-border cooperation in the form local resources; and lack of financial resources for of Carpathian Euroregion in Ukraine. It intended to essential public expenditures. (3) Socio-cultural show how existing institutional mechanisms and obstacles include presence of negative stereotypes; instruments of CBC influence the European integra- language barriers; weak accessibility; underdevel- tion course of Ukraine. It highlighted potential strat- opment of tourism; and the small number of experts egies and policies that the EU adopted to make its and professionals speaking foreign languages and role in the region more effective. However, largely mastering the situation along both borders. To add, due to the lack of strategic vision for the develop- weak points of the CE include its peripheral location, ment of the Carpathian Euroregion, examples of possibly adverse demographic trends, unemploy- practical cooperation at the EU level have remained ment, and low income in general. limited. EU regional programmes address matters which do not fully correspond to Ukrainian national Opportunities (as external indicators) consist of the priorities. This reduces the effective partnership establishment and development of direct contacts and limits its ownership by the ENP partners. The between municipalities, local authorities, civic EU’s contribution to strengthening its governance organisations and citizens. The border guards of through regional programmes is also rather limited, both countries interact on a permanent basis clearly reflecting the scarce resources allocated to these showing that it is worth developing channels of areas of cooperation. wide-ranging information and experience exchange. Therefore, given the similarity of problems faced by It is not clear where the limits of the EU regional the authorities at the regional and municipal levels, influence actually lie. Assuming that regional coop- it should be possible to introduce joint programmes eration and increasing economic interaction are and projects in the fields of personnel training. among the most important prerequisites for stability in the post-Soviet era, an important lesson can be Common threats (as external indicators) comprise drawn that the EU vision of regional partnership Illegal trafficking and organized crime in the can thrive through a mutually shared vision of polit- cross-border region; traffic jams and smuggling ical social, economic and cultural engagement in and corruption on the border. There is also strong neighbouring countries. To conclude, the role of the migration in the border area, which may affect bordering territories of the Carpathian Euroregion not only area’s demographic structure but also its in international cooperation is of great significance occupational skills structure. Additionally, central from governance perspectives, and in relation to the government bureaucracy hinders local agencies and European integration course of the Ukrainian state. authorities from launching their own cross-border However, its further development needs funda- projects and programmes. Therefore, participation mental institutional changes. This means greater of Ukraine (and other members of the CE) in the EU attention to security sector and judicial reform, Schengen Area makes cooperation less depen- policing, infrastructure, energy, customs and border dent not only on national governments but also on control, and the fight against corruption, as well

50 Borders in Globalization Review | Volume 1 | Issue 1 | Fall 2019 Shaban, “Cross-Border Cooperation in the Carpathian Euroregion”

as conflict mediation, democratization, reviving border regions in cross-border cooperation is well-devel- the economy and the formation of more effective oped and quite sufficient. It includes: strategy and mechanisms for cooperation with European structures. a. The Council of Europe acts: European Outline Conven- tion on Transfrontier Cooperation between Territorial Communities or Authorities (ratified by the Decree of Verkhovna Rada of 14 July 1993) and European Charter of Annex 1: Abbreviations Local Self-Government (Ratified by the Act of Ukraine of 15 July 1997). AA: Association Agreement CBC: Cross-Border Cooperation b. National legislation: Act of Ukraine on Local Self-Gov- ernment (adopted 21 May 1997); Act of Ukraine on Local CE: Carpathian Euroregion State Administrations (adopted 9 April 1999); Act of CoE: Council of Europe Ukraine “On Transfrontier Cooperation” (adopted 24 June CoR: European Committee of the Regions 2004 and defining the objectives and principles of the national policies in the field of transfrontier cooperation; CORLEAP: Conference of Regional and Local Authorities powers of Ukrainian entities involved in transfrontier coop- DCFTA: Deep Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement eration; and the principles and methods of the government EaP: Eastern Partnership support to transfrontier cooperation including the national funding); Decree by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine ENI: European Neighbourhood Instrument “On the Measures to Implement the Concept of the State ENP: European Neighbourhood Policy Regional Policy” (adopted 13 September 2001); Decree ENPI: European Neighbourhood policy Instrument by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “On Some Issues of the Development of Cross-border Cooperation and the EU: European Union Euroregions” (adopted 29 April 2002). The Law of Ukraine INTERREG: cooperation programmes between regions “On Fundamentals of State Regional Policy”. 5 February funded by the European Regional Development Fund. 2015. No. 156-VIII1. PCA: Partnership and Cooperation Agreement PHARE: Poland and Hungary: Assistance for Restructuring their Economies Notes SIGMA: Support for Improvement in Governance and 1 As such the concept seeks to “develop a zone of Management (for European Neighbourhood Region) prosperity and a friendly neighbourhood – a ‘ring of SWOT: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. friends’ - with whom the EU enjoys close, peaceful TACIS: Technical Assistance for Commonwealth Indepen- and co-operative relations” [COM (2003) 104]. It was dent States the key document for the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) of the EU launched in 2004. In June 2006 The Ukrainian SSR: The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic the EU Council reiterated that the EU is open to any country that fulfils Art.49 of the European Treaty and Annex 2: Data Collection would meet the conditions for membership. 2 The first legislative act that laid the foundation of the Content documentary analysis is applied to various cate- legal framework for the state regional policy was “The gories of primary documentary sources, as follows. Concept of the State Regional Policy” approved by the Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 341/2001 on the Ukrainian legislation: The Constitution of Ukraine has the 25th of May, 2001. highest legal force. Laws and other normative legal acts are adopted on the basis of the Constitution of Ukraine 3 Article 2.1 of the 1980 Madrid Convention defines and shall conform to it; laws and legal acts of the Ukrainian transfrontier co-operation as “any concerted action Parliament (Verkhovna Rada); by-laws where laws are designed to reinforce and foster neighbourly relations supplemented by so-called normative acts - regulations, between territorial communities or authorities within instructions, decrees, and orders. These documents are the jurisdiction of two or more Contracting Parties and issued by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (the highest the conclusion of any agreement and arrangement executive authority), ministries, public bodies and commit- necessary for this purpose.” Council of Europe, 1980. tees, and local government bodies. Normative acts contain www.coe.int. mechanisms for law implementation. The Cabinet of Minis- ters of Ukraine issues Regulations (legal acts of a norma- 4 During the years 2004–2006 about €20 million were tive nature) and Decrees (legal acts covering operational allocated to the Ukrainian partners involved in projects and ongoing issues that are not of a normative nature); directed at the strengthening of transboundary and and Presidential Decrees. Under the general provisions transnational cooperation between the EU and Ukraine of the Constitution of Ukraine, the President is entitled to within the framework of the EU programmes. Slovakia, issue Decrees on all matters referred to his jurisdiction. Poland, and Hungary were financed under INTERREG, and Romania by PHARE. Annex 3: Legal Framework 5 The ENPI is a more flexible and policy-driven mecha- nism, as the allocation of funds depends on a country’s The legal framework for the involvement of Ukraine’s needs and absorption capacity and its level of imple-

51 _R Borders in Globalization Review | Volume 1 | Issue 1 | Fall 2019 Shaban, “Cross-Border Cooperation in the Carpathian Euroregion” _R

mentation of agreed reforms. As from 2014, the ENPI Makowski, J. 1993. Embankments on the Lower Vistula, was replaced by the European Neighbourhood Instru- historical shaping, present state and behavior during ment, which provides increased support to 16 partner substantial freshets. IBW PAN, Gdansk [in Polish]. countries to the east and south of the EU’s borders. Mytryaeva, S. 2007. “Carpathian Euroregion as an instru- 6 CORLEAP is the political forum of local and regional ment of Ukraine’s Eurointegration strategy”. In Region- authorities. It is the only EU platform that offers an ality and/or Locality (pp. 122–136). Discussion Papers, opportunity to discuss the contribution by cities and Pecs Centre for Regional Studies. regions in the development of the EaP. Schimmelfennig, F., & U. Sedelmeier. 2005. The European- 7 According to the Working Plan of the Administrative ization of Central and Eastern Europe. Ithaca: Cornell Office of the Twinning Programme, there were 61 University Press. Twinning projects for 2013 in Ukraine. Sotnikov, Y., & I. Kravchenko. 2013. “Cross-border cooper- 8 Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak ation development of Ukraine: Forms and instruments Republic. Information about Visegrad is also available of competitiveness increase”. Economics and Manage- here: http://visegradfund.org/home/ ment 18/1: 95–101. http://doi.org/ddkq Stworzyszenie na Rzecz Euroregionu Karpackiego Works Cited Euro-Karpaty (in Polish), 2002. The Carpathian Euroregion Project: Institute for East-West Casier, T. 2013. “Belgium, Luxembourg and the Neth- Studies. Atlanta–Bardejov. https://www.eastwest.ngo/. erlands”. In M. David, J. Gower, & H. Haukkala (eds), Takahashi, K. 2006. “Sub-regionalism in the border regions National perspectives on Russia. European foreign between the EU and Russia”. In H. Taga & S. Igeroshi, policy in the making? Routledge. 118–131. The new international relations of sub-regionalism: David, F. R. 2003. Strategic management - concepts and Asia and Europe. Routledge Studies. cases. USA: Pearson Education. Tanaka, H. 2006. “Carpathian Euroregion and cross-border Delcour, L. 2011. Shaping the post-Soviet space? EU governance”. The Journal of Comparative Economic policies and approaches to region-building. London: Studies 2: 59–80. Persistent URL: https://EconPapers. Ashgate. repec.org/RePEc:cos:epaper:v:2:y:2006:p:59-80 Gasparini, A., & E. Ferluga. 2005. “SWOT analysis in three van Kersbergen, C. J., & F. van Waarden. 2004. “Gover- cross-border areas. Strategies and actions to plan nance’ as a bridge between disciplines: Cross-disci- cross-border co-operation,” ISIG Quarterly of Interna- plinary inspiration regarding shifts in governance and tional Sociology 19/2. URL: http://www.isig.it problems of governability, accountability and legit- imacy”. European Journal of Political Research 43/2: Gasparini, A. eds. 2017. “The Walls between conflict and 143–171. http://doi.org/fqr7v7 peace,” International Comparative Social Studies 34. http://doi.org/ddkp. Kolossov, V., & Van Well, L. 2016. “Eastern Neighbourhood: Documents territorial cooperation implies a common energy European Commission. 2003a. “Wider Europe-Neighbour- strategy” in P. Beckouche, P. Besnard, H. Pecout (eds). hood: a New Framework for Relations with Our Eastern Atlas of challenges and opportunities in European and Southern Neighbours”. Brussels, COM (2003) 104 Neighbourhoods. Paris: Springer International final. Publishing. European Commission. 2006. “European Neighbourhood Kramsch, O., & Hooper, B. (eds). 2004. Cross-border and Partnership Instrument”. governance in the European Union. London and New York: Routledge. Cross-Border Cooperation. Strategy Paper 2007-2013. Executive Summary of the ENPI CBC Strategy Paper. Langbein, Y. 2015. Transnationalization and regulatory change in the EU’s eastern neighbourhood: Ukraine Konstytucia Ukrainy [The Constitution of Ukraine]. 1996. between Brussels and Moscow. London: Routledge. http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?n- reg=254%EA%2F96%2D%E2%F0. Laszlo, B. 2001. “The Organizational Structure of the Carpathian Euroregion” in B. Laszlo, Carpathian On the Cross-Border Cooperation: Law of Ukraine of Euroregion. Borders in the Region – Cross-Border 24.06.2004. 1861-IV // Voice of Ukraine. 2004. http:// Co-operation. : European Study Centre zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=1861-15. Programme of the University of Debrecen. Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 of the European Parlia- Liikanen, I., J. Scott, & T. Sotkisiira (eds). 2016. The EU’s ment and of the Council of 24 October 2006. Eastern Neighbourhood: migration, borders and regional stability. London and New York: Routledge Research Center of the Slovak Foreign Policy Association. Series on Russian and East European studies. 2019. http://www.sfpa.sk/en/. Ludvig, Z. 2003. Hungarian-Ukrainian cross-border coop- Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 587 eration with special regard to Carpathian Euroregion of 29 April 2002 “Some issues of the Cross-border and economic relations. Warsaw: Batory FOundation. Cooperation and Euroregions Development” (with

52 Borders in Globalization Review | Volume 1 | Issue 1 | Fall 2019 Shaban, “Cross-Border Cooperation in the Carpathian Euroregion”

amendments and changes introduced in accordance The Law of Ukraine for “Cross-Border Cooperation”, with the CM Resolution No. 270 of March 1, 2003 and official release, Supreme Council of Ukraine, N45, 1402 of September 4, 2003). http://mfa.gov.ua/ua. Art.499, 2004; Strategic Development Programme for the Carpathian The Law of Ukraine “On Fundamentals of State Regional Euroregion Interregional Association. 2004. Policy”. 5 February 2015, no. 156-VIII1. The Carpathian Euroregion Strategy 2020 & Beyond The Ukrainian Concept of the State Regional Policy. 2001. (2015). Regional Development Association for the The Strategy of Transboundary Cooperation Development Carpathian Euroregion. in the Carpathian region “Carpathians 2003-2011”, The Concept of the Common Development of the Ukraine’s October 2003. and Hungary bordering Territories, approved June Zakon Ukrainy “Pro Formuvannya Mistsevyh Organiv 2003. Vlady i Samovryaduvannya” [The Law of Ukraine “On The Conference of the Regional and Local Authorities for the making of the bodies of local power and self-gov- the Eastern Partnership. The Annual Meeting. Tbilisi, ernment”]. (1994). http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/ 2014. laws/main.cgi?nreg=3917-12.

53 _R