ISSN 0354-8724 (hard copy) | ISSN 1820-7138 (online)

Cross-Border Cooperation in the -Lined Romanian/Bulgarian Border-Space. Geographical Considerations

Săgeată RaduA*, Dumitrescu BiancaA, Damian NicoletaA Received: March 2009 | Revised: May 2010 | Accepted: May 2010

Abstract Since a number of transnational issues have been cropping up, the need was felt for the existence of a unitary sys- tem to tackle them. So, the building of some cross-border co-operation structures both at local level (cross-bor- der zones) and at regional level (Euroregions) appeared as highly necessary and desirable. Their typology depends on the intensity and character of cross-border fluxes, the existence of local convergence cores, and of elements of complementariness and homogeneity between the two frontier spaces. The Danube-lined Romanian-Bulgarian frontier represents an axis of discontinuity between two natural regions, each with its own district traits: the Ro- manian Plain in the north and the Pre-Balkan Mountain in the south. As a result, the limitrophe border zone shows particular social and economic characteristics. Although the Danube River has favoured the emergence of an ur- ban area, yet the respective towns do not form a coherent system, the zone itself being extremely rural as a whole. The Romanian-Bulgarian cross-border zone in the Danubian sector features by a sudden variation in transver- sal fluxes, concentrating on certain directions imposed by the pattern of communication routes and the layout of doublet towns. Most fluxes pass through the -Ruse sector, a strong argument in favour of establishing a Euro-region based on the cross-border cooperation between the two towns. Key words: Cross-border cooperation, Cross-border zone, Euroregion, Doublet settlements, Danube, , .

Theoretical and methodological border region gravitating towards one of the co- considerations participant states. The contradiction between institutional divisi� The issues that fuel the dynamic of the cross- on of the territory���������� and the ex�istence���������������� of cross-�bor���� border zones are part of the level of harmonization der issues that have requested a unitary approach of the policy for the development of the two cross- and consequently a cross-border cooperation led border zones that come in contact. The areas sit� to the appearance of new types of regional coop� uated on each side of the border have, or have not eration structures. Which coincide with the state the tendency to evolve in the same way, as a result frontiers: cross-border zones and Euroregions. This of central and local policy, but also the local specif� kind of cooperation should take into consideration ic situations, which impose the cross-border zone the fact that between the two cross-border zones type. there is a strip of frontier and, most of the times, there are different legislations that induce differ� Cross-border zones. ent requests regarding the cooperation framework. Types of cross-border zones Consequently, the braking up process represents Largely speaking, the cross-border zone stands for the main threat to the cross-border regions; if this the space situated on each side of the frontier, with process is not properly coordinated at the central breadths varying between 30 and 60 km, charac� level, there is the risk of loosing control, the cross- terized by a clear variation of human and mate�

A Institute of Geography, Romanian Academy, , Romania * Corresponding author: Radu Săgeată, e-mail: [email protected]

Geographica Pannonica • Volume 14, Issue 2, 67-75 (June 2010) 67 Cross-Border Cooperation in the Danube-Lined Romanian/Bulgarian Border-Space. Geographical Considerations

rial fluxes. The decisive elements that define the Cross-border zones and their role in setting up cross-border space are the structure and config� Euro-regions. Types of Euro-regions uration of state frontiers that give the cross-bor� Analysing the cross-border zones with Romani� der fluxes certain peculiarities according to mass, an participation from this point of view, it can be structure and also the layout of local convergence said that while the southern cross-border zones core, which impose the directions of these flux� (Romanian-Bulgarian one and Romanian-Ser� es. Consequently, the identity of the cross-border bian one) have characteristics similar to those in space depends on the elements of complementa� the first category; those with the Republic of Mol� riness and homogeneity between the two frontier davia and , due to the spreading of the spaces, while the polarization of the cross-border Romanian ethnic block on each side of the border, cooperation directions is influenced by the layout join the second category. The Romanian-Hun� of human settlements, especially those with local garian cross-border zone can also be included in and regional polarization role. the second category; the Romanian authorities Depending on population’s homogenous or see this zone as an opening gate towards the Oc� heterogeneous characteristic, national minorities cident, the European and Euro-Atlantic struc� presence or absence, the degree of infrastructure tures, while sees it as a linking gate with development and, not least, the historical back� the Hungarian communities from Transylvania. ground that in time favoured or limited the cross- That is why this cross-border zone was extend� border fluxes, cross-border zones have different ed by setting up the first Euro-region with Roma� characteristics. The intensity and variation of lo� nian participation: the Carpathian Euro-region, cal transversal fluxes had as a result the individu� Danube-Mureş-Tisa Euro-region (DKMT) and, re� alization of two theoretical models of cross-bor� cently, Bihor-Hajdú Bihar Euro-region, based on der zones (Bădescu, Dungaciu, 1995): the Oradea-Debrecen collaboration. 1. Cross-border zones characterized by a sud� Near the eastern Romanian border there were den variation of fluxes due to the homogene� constituted three: The Upper , The - ous trait of the populations within the two ar� Prut-Nistru and The Lower Danube both with eas that come in contact and relatively closed participation of two and three states: Romania, borders that overlap naturally inaccessible re� the Republic of Moldavia and Ukraine. Their uni� gions with low inhabiting potential and less ty is based first of all on ethnic element since they developed infrastructure. They coincide with unify territories with compact or majority Ro� mountainous or desert regions or great rivers manian population, which were governed by the that have functioned as barriers for the popula� former Soviet Union following the second Sovi� tion exchanges and, depending on them there et ultimatum at June, the 28th, 1940, a direct con� appeared the world important cultural cutting sequence of the secret German-Soviet treaty for up. This is the case of the Himalayan moun� non-aggression (Ribbentrop-Molotov). The in� tainous system, which lies between the Bud� tense inhabiting on both banks of the river Prut dhist Tibet and the Indian sub-continent, as also had an important contribution, the doublet- well as the Sahara that was a barrier in the Arab settlements acting as relays of inter-connection civilization’s spreading towards the southern of the two settlement systems, crystallized on a Africa. In their turn, the Andes, the Pyrenees or common historical background. the Pamir functioned as separation areas, be� In the ethnic unity is the main bound between ing ideal domains for mapping out. the territories on the left and right side of the riv� 2. Cross-border zones within which transversal er Prut that make up the three Euro-regions, Ro� fluxes vary slowly due to a progressive popula� mania’s approaches for the integration with� tion mixing, minorities’ presence on each side in the European and Euro-Atlantic cooperation of the border as a result of old interaction rap� structures request safer frontiers in the East and ports established in time under the influence the control of migratory fluxes on this direction. of a favourable natural environment, well-in� Thus, the river Prut is on the one hand an integra- dividualized settlement systems and comple� tion axis due to the continuity of the ethnic and mentary economies. The interior borders of linguistic element, density and inhabiting conti� the European Union are a typical example, the nuity on its both banks, and on the other hand as identity of cross-border zones being given by a fragmenting one, because it may become a rela� the way in which frontiers have transgressed tively stable border NATO and European Union, and regressed in history time. From rupture el� which requires a milieu specific for cross-border ements for the two political entities with dif� cooperation. ferent traits, they become welding, harmoniza� So, Euro-regions represent territorial struc� tion spaces with specific economic and cultural tures created to intensify the inter-regional and peculiarities. cross-border cooperation, so as to obtain a coher�

68 Geographica Pannonica • Volume 14, Issue 2, 67-75 (June 2010) Săgeată Radu, Dumitrescu Bianca, Damian Nicoleta

ent space for economic, scientific, social and cul� leni, Grozeşti-Grozeşti, Răducani-Tochil Răducan, tural development. Pogoneşti-Pogoneşti, etc.). Their cropping up is closely related to the in� In time, the nuclei of cross-border demograph� tense cross-border cooperation within the west� ic concentration act as embryos of Euro-regions’ ern European space; urban nuclei of cross-border birth through the extension of the low border polarization and state border configuration are traffic at a macro-territorial scale based on the ex� the main factors that generate them. The rapid in� isting relationships within the settlements sys� dustrial development in the post war period and tems from the coterminous administrative-terri� the liberalisation of customs regime has contrib� torial units (Figure 1). uted to the development of urban agglomerations This is also the case of the cross-border zone that have extended, exceeding the national terri� from the Romanian-Danube sector; throughout tory. The first Euro-regions were at the Swiss bor� the centuries, the river was both an important axis der, based on the polarization areas of Basel (Regio of transversal fluxes structuring and the main nav� Basilensis), Geneva (Regio Genevensis), Milan (Re- igation thoroughfare, which favoured the longitu� gio Insubrica) towns, the fluxes complementarities dinal fluxes between Central Europe and the Black and linguistic unity representing the main factors Sea Basin. Its presence generated a real “urban that have cropped them up. belt” in the southern part of this country, contrib� Another category of Euro-regions, mainly set uting to the appearance of a specific economic ac� up after 1990, stands for macro-territorial struc� tivity, thus increasing the polarisation potential of tures that are result of the aggregation of the first harbour towns. The latter is closely related to the rank administrative-territorial units, general� process of connecting harbours to the land trans� ly structured along the important pan-European port system, as well as the role of some towns that traffic corridors. The North Euro-region, based on are customs points (Tălângă, Braghină, 2000). The the cooperation among Kent English County and doublet settlements with a leading role in setting Trans-Pyrenees Mediterranean Euro-region that in� up the connection among Central Europe, the Bal� cludes Catalonia, Languedoc-Rousillon and Midi kan Peninsula and Asia Minor have the function Pyrenees regions or the Saar-Lor-Lux (Saar-Lore� of guiding the cross-border fluxes in the Danube- na-Luxembourg) Euro-region are typical exam� lined sector of the Romanian-Bulgarian border. ples of this kind of Euro-regions. Cross-border fluxes along the Doublet settlements and their role Romanian-Bulgarian sector of Danube. in structuring the cross-border Evolutions and characteristics cooperation directions The separation caused by the hydrographical sys� The Danube-lined Romanian-Bulgarian border tems led to the individualization of some nuclei of represents an axis of discontinuity between two transversal fluxes concentration, as a result of the natural regions, each with its own distinct traits: favourable local topographic conditions. in the north – the Romanian Plain that comes in Thus, the presence of crossing fords has led to touch with the Danube River in a sector of flood population concentration on both banks and grad� plains and well-developed terraces, and in the ually doublet settlements appeared, with local or south – the Lugodorie Plateau, a part of eastern even regional polarization role. Such examples are Danube plain, Bulgaria, with altitudes between numerous, still typical are those on Rio Grande, at 200 and 400 m, gradually descending northwards the Texan-Mexican border (El Paso-Ciudad Juárez, reaching 100 m nearby the Ruse town. Thus, since Presidio-Ojinaga, Eagle Pass-Piedras-Negras, Lare� historical times a well-individualized natural bor� do-Nuevo Laredo, Rio Grande City-Ciudad Camar� der was established, due to the numerous tribu� go, Brownsville-Matamoros), on the Congo river taries that flow into the Danube River within the (Bangui-Zongo and Brazzaville-Kinshasa), or those hydrographical convergence area near on the Oder-Neisse line, at the German-Polish (, Tisa, , ), which virtually dou� border (Ahlbeck-Swinujscie, Pomellen-Szczecin, bles its flow; this border has always been difficult Schwedt-Angermünde-Chojna, Küstrin-Kietz-Ko� to cross, having defensive function, too, except for strzyn, Frankfurt am Oder-Slubice, Guben-Gubin, some fords that are the result of the favourable re� Cottbus-Forst-Olszyna, Bad Muskau-Leknica, lief and that gradually became transversal circu� Görlitz-Zgorzelec and Zittau-Sieniawka) (Wacker� lation axes. These have favoured the individual� mann et al., 1991) or the settlement doublets lining ization of some nuclei of human concentration, the lower course of the Prut River on the frontier leading to the appearance of doublet settlements between Romania and the Republic of Moldo� with local or regional polarization function: Ca� va, some of these settlements actually bear the lafat – , Rast – Lhom, Bechet – Oreahovo, same name, e.g. Sculeni-Sculeni, Medeleni-Mede� Turnu Măgurele – Nikopol, Zimnicea – Sviştov,

Geographica Pannonica • Volume 14, Issue 2, 67-75 (June 2010) 69 Cross-Border Cooperation in the Danube-Lined Romanian/Bulgarian Border-Space. Geographical Considerations

CROSS-BORDER ZONE BORDER

Settlement Z Settlement X

Subordination Subordination Settlement A Settlement B Competition Subordination

Settlement Z

Border space A Border space B (30-60km) (30-60km)

BORDER

Administrative-territorial Administrative-territorial units I units II

EURO-REGION

Figure 1 The role of the human settlements in the Euro-region structure

Moldova Orșova I 1 II III 9 Nouā 6 2 10 A Șviniţa 7 Tekija 3 11 S E R B IA Kladovo 4 12 BUCHAREST A 5 8 13 Călărași Prahovo Olteniţa Cetate Ostrov Vidin Giurgiu B Rast Bechet A Turnu Măgurele Zimnicae Lhom RUSE Oreahovo Nikopol Sviştov B U L G A R I A 20 0 60km

Figure 2 The doublet settlements within the Danube-lined sector of the Romanian border and categories of connections materialized through them I. Settlements: 1. 100,000-500,000 inh., 2. 50,000-100,000 inh., 3. 25,000-50,000 inh., 4. 10,000-25,000 inh., 5. 0-10,000 inh.; II. Type of realized connection: 6, Capital, 7, International traffic, 8, Low border traffic; III, Others: 9, Bridge (A – existent, B – by project), 10. Lake, 11. Island, 12. The Danube, 13. Border.

70 Geographica Pannonica • Volume 14, Issue 2, 67-75 (June 2010) Săgeată Radu, Dumitrescu Bianca, Damian Nicoleta

Giurgiu – Ruse, Olteniţa – Tutrakan and Călăraşi rope and with the Northern Sea. The advantage – Silistra (Figure 2). could not be capitalized, first because of the em� The relatively closed characteristic of the fron� bargo imposed Yugoslavia, then because of the tier, due to specific natural, historical and social damages caused by the American bombardments characteristic features, has been reflected also in on , which blocked the navigation in the the dynamics of cross-border exchanges. The Dan� Novi-Sad area, causing immense prejudices to ube sector of the Romanian–Bulgarian cross-border the economies of the two countries downstream. area is characterized by a relatively sudden variation The removal of these destructions and the naviga� of transversal fluxes, as a result of the homogene� tion reopening offer new perspectives for the re� ousness of the populations within the two bound� vitalization of the Danube axis in general and the ary areas that come in touch with one another, in cross-border collaboration between Romania and the conditions of an uneven dwelling system and a Bulgaria in particular. poor communication infrastructure. It is also worth The Cross-border Cooperation Programme mentioning the historic stability; in its lower sector, “Romania-Bulgaria 2007-2013” is aimed at coor� the Danube River acted as a segregation axis since dinating the cooperation development actions of Antiquity. “The Danube line” was marked by the fol� several actors (economic, political, institutional, lowing Roman settlements: (downstream of local authorities, etc.) in order to make the best Vidin), (Ghighen, where the river flows use of the opportunities offered by the joint devel� into Danube), Novae (Sviştov), Durostorum (Silis� opment of the cross-border region. tra), Axiopolis (Cernavodă) and Carsium (Hârşova). There was also a “line” of the Dacian Danube, old� The delimitation of the Romanian border er than that of the Roman Danube: Călăraşi (near the river ), -Oescus and Zimnicea – No� space within the Danube sector vae (bridge extremities) (Popp, 1988). The topographic peculiarities, preferential direc� During the 485 years of Ottoman domina� tionalization and the intensity of the cross-bor� tion, the main directions of the cross-border vec� der fluxes are the factors that establish the indi� tors were given by the doublet settlements by the vidualization and characteristics of a cross-border doublet settlements Giurgiu-Ruse (Rusciuc) and area. The delimitation of the Romanian sector of Turnu-Nikopole, because they become rayahs in the cross-border area depends on two essential el� order to better control the commerce and naviga� ements: on the one hand the closed character of tion on the Danube River and also as a result of the border, which imposes its narrowness, and the construction of the Giurgiu-Bucharest rail� on the other hand the preferential orientation of way in 1867, the second oldest railway in Roma� the transversal circulation axes, which causes the nia, having a great strategic importance, connect� width in some specific sectors of maximum inten� ing the capital with the biggest Romanian port at sity of the cross-border fluxes. These are given by that time. The social-economic and cultural Eu� the exchange vectors caused by the doublet set� ropean influence was felt in the Danube harbours tlements, location and type of the customs points beginning with the 19th century. (low frontier traffic, international traffic etc) and After the Second World War, the Danube Riv� not least by the specific of the bound axis (bridge er became an axis which attracted different indus� or ferry-boat), which determines the intensity of tries: chemistry at Vidin, Drobeta–Turnu Severin, cross-border fluxes. The newly constituted Eu� Turnu Măgurele, Sviştov and Giurgiu; thermo-elec� ro-regions within the Romanian Danube sector trical power stations at Galaţi and Ruse; integrated – The Danube 21st and Giurgiu-Ruse are also of a metallurgic complexes at Galaţi and Călăraşi; nu� great importance (Table 1). The nuclei of the po� clear power stations at Kozlodui and Cernavodă. larization of transversal fluxes are represented by The consequence – ecological problems with cross- the pair-towns Calafat - Vidin, – Negotin, border implications, favoured by northeast and Kula – Zaječar and Giurgiu – Ruse and also by the northwest winds; this has tensioned the Roma� two bridges that cross the Danube from the Ro� nian-Bulgarian relationships various times. The manian-Bulgarian border sector, one already ex� commercial fluxes were almost exclusively concen� ists, the other one is to be built. trated on the Giurgiu-Ruse direction, on the one Consequently, we have highlighted the Roma� hand because of the importance of the two towns nian border space adjacent to the Romanian-Bul� within the national urban systems, and on the oth� garian frontier in the Danube sector, which is er hand because they were connected by the only made up of all the territorial-administrative units bridge that crosses the Danube River in the Roma� coterminous to the Danube, with extensions in� nian-Bulgarian frontier sector. side the country in the vicinity of the main align� In 1992, the Danube-Main-Rhine canal con� ments of cross-border fluxes concentration: Cala� nected the Danube River with North-Western Eu� fat – Vidin and Giurgiu – Ruse:

Geographica Pannonica • Volume 14, Issue 2, 67-75 (June 2010) 71 Cross-Border Cooperation in the Danube-Lined Romanian/Bulgarian Border-Space. Geographical Considerations

Table 1 Euro-regions at the Romanian/Bulgarian border space (2009)

Euro-region, Set-up Countries Administrative - territorial units Polarising cores year, Surface 1 town (Giurgiu) and 14 communes (Băneasa, Daia, Frăteşti, Romania Găujani, Gogoşari, , Izvoarele, Mihai Bravu, , Giurgiu GIURGIU-RUSE, 2001, , Putineiu, Slobozia, Stăneşti and Vedea) 2,784 km2 7 municipalities (Borovo, Dve Mogli, Pârgovo, Ruse, Slivo- Bulgaria Ruse Pole, Ţar Kaloian and ) 1 town (Calafat) and 4 communes (Cetate, Ciupercenii Noi, Romania Calafat Desa and Poiana Mare) DANUBE 21, 8 municipalities (Belogradcic, , Kula, Lom, Mokres, Bulgaria Vidin 2002, 9,500 km2 Novo Selo, Rujiniti and Vidin) 8 municipalities (Bolivat, Bor, Kladovo, Kniajevat, Majdanpek, Serbia Zaječar Negotin, Sokobanja and Zaječar) Romania 1 county (Giurgiu) Giurgiu DANUBIUS, 2 8 municipalities (Borovo, Byala, Dve Mogli, Ivanovo, Ruse, 2002, 6,310 km Bulgaria Ruse Slivo Pole, Tsenovo and Vetovo) 4 towns (Alexandria, Roşiori de Vede, Turnu Măgurele and Alexandria, Roşiori de Vede, Romania SOUTH DANUBE, Zimnicea) Turnu Măgurele, Zimnicea 2002, 1,646 km2 Bulgaria 3 municipalities (, Sviştov and Nikopol) Belene, Sviştov, Nikopol Constanţa, Călăraşi, Romania 3 counties (Călăraşi, Constanţa, Ialomiţa) DANUBE – DOBROGEA, Slobozia, Mangalia 2002, 24,177 km2 Bulgaria 2 districts (, Varna) Varna, Dobrich, Silistra

Source: Ilieş, 2004, p. 115, 127, 131, 137, 143.

• Mehedinţi county: Pristol, Gârla Mare and Salcia; having a symbol value (, , Buda� • Dolj county: Cetate, Maglavit, Calafat, Ciuper� pest, , Belgrade), its lower sector acted as cenii Noi, Desa, Poiana Mare, Piscu Vechi, Rast, a natural frontier long time ago when two coun� Negoi, Bistreţ, Măceşu de Jos, Gighera, Ostrov� tries - Romania and Bulgaria appeared. It is a well- eni, Bechet, Călăraşi and Dăbuleni; individualized natural border, due to the numer� • : Islaz, Turnu Măgurele, Ciu� ous tributaries that flow into the Danube in the perceni, Traian, Seaca, , Zimnicea, hydrographical convergence area near Belgrade Năsturelu and Pietroşani; (Drava, Tisa, Sava, Morava), which practically • : Găujani, Vedea, Slobozia, double its flow; in the course of history, this bor� Săneşti, Giurgiu, Frăteşti, Daia, Oinacu, Gos� der was intended to be a difficult border to cross, tinu and Prundu; since it had defensive functions. Thus, in spite of • Călăraşi county: Chirnogi, Olteniţa, Spanţov, the natural population exchanges, a cross-border Chiselet, Dorobanţu, Ciocăneşti, Grădiştea, zone of relatively sudden variation of transversal Cuza Vodă and Călăraşi. fluxes appeared; perhaps it is the most character� istic zone of this type at the Romanian borders. These administrative-territorial units are part There were some exceptions – some fords, which of the area in which the Cross-border Coopera� were the result of the favourable relief and which tion Programme “Romania-Bulgaria 2007-2013” in time became transversal circulation corridors. has become effective. There are seven Romani� Among these, Giurgiu-Ruse became in the course an counties bordering on the Bulgarian frontier- of time the most important connection point in line (Mehedinţi, Dolj, , Teleorman, Giurgiu, the Danube sector of the Romanian-Bulgarian Călăraşi and Constanţa) and eight Bulgarian dis� border. The importance of this bipolar urban nu� tricts close to the frontier with Romania (Vidin, cleus and its distinct position regarding the Ro� , Montana, , Veliko Tyrnovo, Ruse, manian-Bulgarian cross-border axes derive from Silistra and Dobrich). the two towns’ size and importance for the na� tional urban systems on the one hand and from Case Study: The Delimitation of the their connection by the only bridge existing so far in the Romanian-Bulgarian border sector. That is Giurgiu – Ruse Euroregion why before 1989, commercial fluxes between the If in its upper and central course, the Danube Riv� Balkan countries and the rest of the continent er flows through countries, towns and some capi� passed almost exclusively through the Giurgiu- tals, being a unifying element, in some cases even Ruse sector (Batvarov, 1998).

72 Geographica Pannonica • Volume 14, Issue 2, 67-75 (June 2010) Săgeată Radu, Dumitrescu Bianca, Damian Nicoleta

The position potential is the result of the posi� Occident. The established routes tend to avoid the tioning of the two towns on the connection axis Russian Federation and Belarus Republic, pass� between Bucharest and the Balkan Peninsula, ing through Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania, with part of the traffic corridor that connects the Euro� ramifications towards West (Hungary – ) and pean countries with Asia Minor and Near Orient, North (through Poland and the Baltic countries). which gives it, from the Romanian point of view, Taking into account the international and re� a strategic importance for the Romanian-Bulgari� gional geo-political context, the local authorities an cross-border collaboration. There is also worth in the two towns initiated the cropping up of the mentioning the Nabucco and AGRI Projects, con� Giurgiu–Ruse euro-region (Figure 3). ceived by the European Union and supported by Its delimitation was made considering the ur� the U.S., having as main objective the exploitation ban polarization area, unifying the administra� and transport of the huge hydrocarbon deposits tive-territorial communes units that gravitate to� from the Caspic Sea, Central Asia and Caucasus wards the two towns, based on the distances on area in which Russia used to have, until very re� land thoroughfare. In the whole, there were elect� cently, a quasi-monopole and none of these states, ed 20 communes, 14 from Romania and 6 from except for Georgia, had direct way towards the Bulgaria; the discrepancy is the result of the dif�

Urban territory ROMANIA (formation nucleus of the Euro-region) Mihal Bravu 1 Băneasta Prundu 2 Izvoarele Danube Daia Gostinu Frăteşti Stăneşti Oinacu Slivo Pole

Gogoşari Putineiu GIORGIU

Slobozia Vedea RUSE

Găujani

Pârgovo Velovo

Danube Borovo Tap Kaloian

Rural territory Dve Moghili 3 BULGARIA 4 0 10 20km

Figure 3 Giurgiu – Ruse Euroregion. 1. Urban administrative territory in Romania (Giurgiu), 2. Urban administrative territory in Bulgaria (Ruse), 3. Rural administrative territory in Romania, 4. Rural administrative territory in Bulgaria.

Geographica Pannonica • Volume 14, Issue 2, 67-75 (June 2010) 73 Cross-Border Cooperation in the Danube-Lined Romanian/Bulgarian Border-Space. Geographical Considerations

Table 2 The administrative-territorial units that make up the Giurgiu-Ruse Euro-region and the distances (km) to the polarising cores

Cores Administrative-territorial units (km) Prundu (36), Gostinu (21), Băneasa (19), Mihai Bravu (35), Daia (12), Oinacu (11), Frăteşti (9), Izvoarele (23), Giurgiu (km) Stăneşti (12), Slobozia (6), Putineiu (20), Vedea (20), Gogoşari (24), Găujani (28). Ruse (km) Slivo-Pole (19), Vetovo (35), Pârgovo (10), Ţar Kalojan (36), Dve Mogli (31), Borovo (45).

ferent structures of local administrative units in Becart, A., Brodaty, S. 1998. La coopération trans� the two countries: if the average surface of a Ro� frontalière et le dévelopement local. Hommes et manian commune is 80.27 km2, that of Bulgari� Terres du Nord 1, 35-43. an ones (obstina) is approximately 6 ties larger, on Deică, P. 1997. Regiuni transfrontaliere sau eu� the average 466 km2 (Săgeată, 2002) (Table 2). roregiuni? Cross-border regions or Euroregions. The advantages of this delimitation are given by Comunicări de Geografie, III, Ed. Universităţii the functionality of the resulting territorial struc� din Bucureşti, 365-368. ture, the 14 Romanian and 6 Bulgarian settlements Dobraca, L. 1997. Cross-border relations in the laying at relatively short distances to the two urban Giurgiu-Ruse Danube sector. Geographical re� cores; in time, they may form functional metropol� marks. Revue Roumaine de Géographie 41, 57-67. itan zones, such as Bucharest and Oradea metro� Engel, C., Rogers, J.H. 1996. How Wide is the bor� politan zones. Moreover, being situated in the vi� der? American Economic Review 86, 5, 1112-1125. cinity of Bucharest, but in a profound rural area Fourcher, M. (coord.) 1999. Géopolitique du Dan� characterized by a high poverty rate, few possibil� ube. Ed. Ellipses, Paris, 95 pp. ities of professional reconversion and poorly de� Gaunard, Marie-France 1998. La recomposition veloped infrastructure, they may attract some in� territoriale des zones frontalières en Pologne vestments, contributing to the area’s revitalization, par la mise en place d’Eurorégions. Bulletin de transforming it into a hinterland of the capital city, l’Association de Géographie Français 76, 4, 429- spreading as far as the Danube. The limited finan� 442. cial resources of the local involved communities Gonin, P. 1994. Régions frontalières et dévelope� represent the disadvantages since we are not con� ment endogène: de nouveaux territoires en sidering administrative units at county scale. Still, construction au sein de l’Union Européenne. they can be rectified by implementing a viable local Hommes et Terres du Nord 2-3, 61-70. autonomy functioning at the commune level, the Guran, L., Nancu, D., Săgeată, R., Dobre, S. 2002. success of the Euro-regions within the central con� Socio-economic potential of the Romanian- tinent, delimitated according to the same princi� Bulgarian border space. Topical geographi� ples, being unchallenged. cal consideration. Forum Geografic. Studii şi As a general conclusion, it can be said that Cercetări de Geografie şi Protecţie a Mediului, cross-border spaces are extremely sensible and I, 1, Ed. Universitaria, Craiova, 122-132. vulnerable domains at the geographical chances, Iacob, Gh. 1959. Giurgiu. Physical and Economic their identity being the result of the association geographical Considerations. Probleme de Ge� of some specific ethnical, cultural, geographi� ografie, VI, Ed. Academiei Române, 239-251. (in cal, historical, economic, demographical and po� Romanian) litical factors. The intensification of cross-border Ilieş, Al. 2003. Romania between Millenniums. fluxes as a result of urbanization and industriali� Borders. Border areas and Border cooperation. zation, unifies areas that were politically and eco� Ed. Universităţii din Oradea, Oradea, 236 pp. nomically divided in the past; Euro-regions are (in Romanian) becoming ever more territorial structures with Ilieş, Al. 2004. Romania. Euroregions. Ed. Univer������� their own traits, generated by cross-border flux� sităţii din Oradea,���������������������������� Oradea, 218 pp. (in Romani� es, which in their turn generate globalizing flux� an) es (Săgeată, 2004). Menville, J. 1996. Frontières et capitale – risque ré� gional. Sciences de la Société 37, 97-109. (in Ro� manian) References Mihghi, J.V. 1963. Boundary studies in political ge� Batvarov, M. 1998. Les fonctions changeantes des ography. Annals of the Association of American frontières bulgares. Revue Géographique de l’Est Geographers 53, 407-428. XXXVIII, 4, 151-157. Nedea, M. 2005. A Model of European integra� Bădescu, I., Dungaciu, D., 1995. Sociology and tion. Euroregion System from Germany’s east� geopolitic of border I-II, Ed. Floarea Albastră, ern border. GeoPolitica, III, 13, Ed. Top Form, Bucureşti, 354-357 (in Romanian) Bucureşti, 75-82. (in Romanian)

74 Geographica Pannonica • Volume 14, Issue 2, 67-75 (June 2010) Săgeată Radu, Dumitrescu Bianca, Damian Nicoleta

Neguţ, S. 1998. Les eurorégions. Revue Roumaine Săgeată, R. 2006. Human Settlements. Political- de Géographie, 42, Ed. Academiei Române, 75- Administrative Function and Organisation 85. (in Romanian) of the Geographical Space. Ed. Universităţii Popp, N. 1988. Danube Basin. Nature, man, econ� Naţionale de Apărare „Carol I”, Ed. Top Form, omy. Ed. Litera, Bucureşti, 205 pp. (in Romani� Bucureşti, 393 pp. (in Romanian) an) Săgeată, R. 2009. Cultural globalisation and Glo� Popa, N. 2001. Racines des ­évolutions trans� bal culture. Regional and Local in Cultural Ge� frontalières en Europe centrale. Geographica ography. Ed. Universitară, Bucureşti, 256 pp. (in Timisensis X, 55-65. (in Romanian) Romanian) Popa, N. 2006. Borders, Border regions and Re� Săgeată, R. (coord.), Guran L., Dumitrescu B., gional development in Middle Europe. Ed. Uni� Damian N., Baroiu Dr. 2004. Solutions to op� versitatii de Vest, Timişoara, 286 pp. (in Roma� timize the territorial-administrative organisa� nian) tion of Romania in the perspective of the EU Popescu, G. 2000. Cross-border Zones. Terra XXX accesion. Ed. Ars Docendi, Bucureşti, 128 pp. (L), 1, 91-92. (in Romanian) (in Romanian) Popescu, G. 2003. Euro-regional economy. Giur� Seguy, R. 1998. L’Eurorégion, un espace econo� giu-Ruse Euroregion from poverty to econom� mique en construction? Hommes et Terres du ic development. Studies and Reseach. Ed. ASE, Nord 3, 171-174. (in Romanian) Bucureşti, 134 pp. (in Romanian) Simileanu, V., Săgeată, R. 2009. Geopolitic of Ro� Reynolds, D.R., McNutty, M. 1968. On the analy� mania. Ed. Top Form, Bucureşti, 466 pp. (in Ro� sis of political boundaries as bariers: a percep� manian) tual approach. East Lakes Geographer 4, 21-28. Tălângă, C., Braghină, C. 2000. Considerations Rougier, H. 1999. De la notion de région à celle on the Functional evolution of the Danube Port d’éurorégion. Bulletin de l’Association de Géog- towns. Terra XXX (L), 2, 87-89. (in Romanian) raphes Français 76, 4, 394-396. Vernier, A. 1993. Problèmes posés aux régions Savey, S. 1994. Régions frontalières, régions trans� frontalières. Revue de l’Institut de Recherches frontalières et/ou pionnieres. Bulletin de la So- Economiques et Sociales 2, 65-92. (in Romanian) ciété Languedocienne de Géographie 28, 1-2, 227- Waack, C. 1996. Russe und Giurgiu – Nachbars� 235. taedte an der Donau. Europa Regional 3, 1-12. Săgeată, R. 2002. Cross-border cooperation struc� Wackermann, G. 1990. Les échanges intercul� tures. Giurgiu-Ruse Euroregion. Forum Ge� turelles dans les espaces transfrontaliers. Bul- ografic. Studii şi Cercetări de Geografie şi letin de l’Association de Géographes Français 67, 5, Protecţie a Mediului, Ed. Universitaria, Craio� 347-356. va, 140-149. Wackermann, G. 1991. Sociétés et aménagements Săgeată, R. 2004. The Role of the Doublet Settle� face aux disparités transfrontalières. Revue ments in the Euro-regions Structure. A Case Géographique de l’Est XXXI, 2, 89-98. Study: The Romanian-Bulgarian border Space *** 2000, 2005. The Lisbon Strategy. Europe� in the Danube Sector. „Poland and Romania an Union, www.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Lisbon_ Enlargement of European Union and NATO”, Strategy, www.mae.ro IGU Political Geography Commission, Carta *** 2006. Community Strategic Guidelines on Blanca, Warsaw, 125-131. Cohesion 2007-2013 (Council Decision No Săgeată, R. 2004. Models of Political-administra� 2006/702/EC), http://ec.europa.eu/region� tive regionalisation. Ed. Top Form, Bucureşti, al_policy/sources/docoffic/2007/OSC/index_ 160 pp. (in Romanian) ro.htm Săgeată, R. 2004-2005. Systems of human settle� *** 2008. Romania-Bulgaria Cross-Border Coop� ments and cross-border cooperation in the Prut eration Programme 2007-2013, European Un� Basin. Studii şi Cercetări de Geografie, LI-LII, ion, Government of Romania & Government of Ed. Academiei Române, Bucureşti, 65-78. (in Bulgaria, www.mdlpl.ro, www.cbcromaniabul� Romanian) garia.eu

Geographica Pannonica • Volume 14, Issue 2, 67-75 (June 2010) 75