sign in sign up
<<
Home , Danube, European Watershed

PART I

INTRODUCTION

11 12 CONTENT

PART I: INTRODUCTION 11

1. THE SPACE 15 1.1 Space without Qualities? 15 (1) Space in the limelight ... 15 (2) ... but yet unknown 15 (3) Macro-structures: huge, landlocked and distinctive 16 (4) Many nations, many languages and even more peoples 16 (5) What a space 17 1.2 The Notion of the Danube Space 17 (6) There is no common notion of the Danube Space 17 (7) Perception depends on point and scale of view 18 1.3 Defining the Study Area 18 (8) Working definition, no definite solution for Danube Space delimitation 18 (9) The core countries 19 (10) The periphery of Danube Space 20 1.4 Relations to Other Macro- 21 (11) The Danube Space as a bridge 21 (12) Danube Space and the 21

2. THE DANUBE SPACE STUDY 23 2.1 The Objectives of the Study 23 (13) Three objectives 23 (14) A tool for co-operation (and for promoting co-operation) 23 2.2 The Study's Approach 24 (15) Focus on the regions of the Accession Countries of the core area 24 (16) First starting point: The long term effects of the 1989 bifurcation 24 (17) Second starting point: The process of 25 (18) Reviewing the driving forces of regional processes 26 (19) In-depth analysis of the spatial drivers and impacts on the core 27 (20) Synthesis of issues and trends by types of regions 27 (21) Policy orientations 27 2.3 Methods Applied and Procedures 28 (22) The methods applied 28 (23) Availability of regional information: disappointing 29

13 2.4 Information Base and Data Issues 30 (24) Severe impediments for empirical analysis 30 (25) Very different results of recent statistical regionalisation 32

3. INTRODUCING THE CORE COUNTRIES 33 3.1 33 3.2 35 3.3 37 3.4 39 3.5 41 3.6 Slovak Republic 43 3.7 45

14 TABELLENVERZEICHNIS

Table 1 Territorial Shares of the Danube Basin 19 Table 2 Size of NUTS-regions in the Danube Countries 34 Table 3 Data for Austria on the NUTS II Level 1997 34 Table 4 Data for Bulgaria on the NUTS II Level 1997 36 Table 5 Data for the Czech Republic on the NUTS II Level 1997 38 Table 6 Data for Hungary on the NUTS II Level 1996 40 Table 7 Data for Romanian on the NUTS II Level 1996 42 Table 8 Data for the Slovak Republic on the NUTS II Level 1996 44 Table 9 Data for Slovenia on the NUTS III Level 1996 46

ABBILDUNGSVERZEICHNIS Map 5 Austria - Territorial Units, NUTS II and NUTS III 34 Map 6 Bulgaria - Territorial Units, NUTS II and NUTS III 36 Map 7 Czech Republic - Territorial Units, NUTS II and NUTS IV 38 Map 8 Hungary - Territorial Units, NUTS II and NUTS III 40 Map 9 Romania - Territorial Units, NUTS II and NUTS III 42 Map 10 Slovak Republic - Territorial Units, NUTS II and NUTS III 44 Map 11 Slovenia - Territorial Units, NUTS III 46

15 11 1. THE DANUBE SPACE

1.1 Space without Qualities?

(1) Space in the limelight ...

In the Commission document, " 2000+", the Danube Space was identified as one of the ten transnational regions where enhanced co-operation could create new incentives for positive development. Ever since, the Danube Space has been attracting more and more attention. The number of initiatives and projects, conferences, seminars and programmes that refer to the Danube Space keeps increasing every year.

The growing interest in this part of Europe may be attributed to a number of reasons of which the highest ranking is its unique intermediate geographical position between the economic core of Europe and the , as well as its regained geopolitical importance and the positive metaphorical power of the eternally flowing river.

The limelight focused at the Danube Space creates great expectations in the public debate - inside and outside the area - with respect to the speed of the evolution underway and with respect to the attainable results of political action. Such expectations easily turn into frustration if they are not met and frustration in turn may cause the interested parties and actors to reduce their efforts and hence causing even poorer results than would otherwise have happened.

(2) ... but yet unknown

It is very obvious for anyone studying the Danube Space that in general there is little information and even less knowledge on the subject. This seems to be true not only for the outsiders (in a spatial sense), but also for those living in the area. The latter are sometimes more interested in other far away regions and affairs rather than in their own and their neighbour's affairs, language barriers being only one of the reasons. Although the amounts being invested by public and private bodies in building up a knowledge base on the Danube Space is increasing, it is still low and needs to be raised substantially in order to achieve a fruitful dialogue within the Danube Space and its reference areas.

Knowledge about the Danube Space is fragmented both in terms of the territories and in terms of the topics. Most likely, time will eliminate this lack of knowledge and resulting lack of mutual understanding. But for the time being, it is necessary to acknowledge this disturbing fact so as to avoid neglecting its consequences when making assessments and decisions.

15 (3) Macro-structures: huge, landlocked and distinctive

The Danube Space is a very large area within the European context. The territory covered by the Danube river basin measures almost 1 million km². This is roughly one third of the EU-15's territory (3.2 mn km²).

The greater part of the area is landlocked and surrounded by large mountain ranges: The in the west and the stretching out from the North of the Danube Space down to the east and southeast and finally the Balkans and the Rhodopes stretching to the south. Two of the three large basins which form the territory are also landlocked: The Czech and northern Austrian highlands also form the between the Black Sea, and , as well as the central plains ranging from eastern Austria and South to the Carpathians and south to the Dinaric mountains.

The lowlands east of the Carpathians in Romania, Bulgaria, and south open to the sea.

Evidently, the Danube river and its major tributaries, of which the most important are the , the , the , the , the and the , shape the landscapes in the lowlands and the mountainous areas.

(4) Many nations, many languages and even more peoples

The Danube Space touches or covers as many as 18 sovereign states. Some of which are rather young, while others have very long as states, but all of them pride themselves with long-standing traditions of culture and society.

The languages spoken are hardly fewer in numbers, especially when taking into account the minority languages that are not official languages in any of the Danube countries such as Turkish, Russian, Albanian and Roma.

This is an indication of the fact that the Danube Space is populated by a multitude of peoples of more or less different socio-cultural characters. This heterogeneity is partly the result of the frequent changes in the political powers that ruled the territories over the centuries, which led to a comparatively low overlap of settlement territory and political territory. Very often, this heterogeneity has been blamed for causing the persistent, at times openly and at times latent social conflicts. In view of the armed conflicts of the 1990's in ex-Yugoslavia, this threat cannot be denied. On the other hand, examples of peaceful, respectful and fruitful co-existence of the Danube Space's peoples are by far more numerous, outweighing the periods of conflict in intensity and duration. Moreover, the variety of cultures and traditions, which are sometimes closely intertwined, constitute a major source of creativity and adaptability for the societies concerned, a fact that is becoming more and more widely recognised.

16 (5) What a space

Although the Danube Space is characterised by a diversity so varied and rich in features that it may even appear to be (over)loaded with history and culture, it still displays very little self- confidence and sense of identity. Its lack of a "sense of direction" reminds one of Ulrich, the protagonist of Robert Musil's opus magnum "Man without Qualities". "Fit for any task, trained in all arts, he remains passive and deprived of orientation for mastering the challenges of life".

Ulrich, the passive observer is very much a character of the Danube Space, not only in the actual novel itself, but also in a metaphoric sense. Like Ulrich, the Danube Space has as yet to live up to expectations and achieve its actual significance. It is therefore a rewarding undertaking to look for the possibilities of how it could come to realise its full potential.

1.2 The Notion of the Danube Space

(6) There is no common notion of the Danube Space

Talking about the Danube Space is easy as long as one is not asked to state exactly where and what it is. An environmentalist's answer might be different; it might refer to the river and its surrounding area, only to then take into account the whole catchment area, thus being quite different from the answer of a politician, sociologist or economist. Even geographers have been giving different answers over time.

This lack of a common notion of the Danube Space is also reflected by the transnational institutions active in this context. In the light of the different directions from which the sources of interest in the Danube Space is coming, it seems necessary to integrate several dimensions when defining the Danube Space. Although these dimensions show considerable interlinkages and overlapping areas, the following may be distinguished:

■ the political dimension,

■ the economic dimension,

■ the environmental dimension, and finally

■ the cultural dimension.

All four have to be taken into account in order to conceptualise the Danube Space as an entity that will eventually be able to play an active part in Europe's development.

17 (7) Perception depends on point and scale of view

It is a consequence of its multidimensional character that the Danube Space is perceived differently depending on the point of view of the observer and/or actor. To name only a few of these points of view, there is:

■ the perception from the inside or from the outside,

■ a regional view and a geopolitical view,

■ a view from the west and from the east, etc.

Even more striking are the differences depending on the scale of the view. Starting with a view of the Danube Space as a single entity, the gamut runs from the view as a unit or a group of countries with individual as well as common features, interests and aspirations to a view of (sub-national) regions geographically connected. All of which necessarily produce different "Danubian Spaces" with a considerable discrepancy regarding their perception. Spatial policy can bridge these gaps to a certain degree, but it cannot eliminate them.

This is not only relevant when defining objectives, but has considerable influence on the policy- making process in the Danube Space, because strategies and actions will always, in some way or other, reflect these differences in perception.

1.3 Defining the Study Area

(8) Working definition, no definite solution for Danube Space delimitation

It has become clear that the definition of the Danube Space is not only an issue of expert deliberation. Nevertheless, a meaningful working definition has to be found in order to structure the search for information and select the territories of interest relating to the analytical conclusions and consequently, the policy recommendations.

In order to arrive at such a working definition, the river basin in the hydrographical sense served as the starting point. The Danube river basin covers an area of 817,000 km² and extends to 18 European states, 10 of them being riparian on the Danube river itself. Starting from the west, these are given in Table 1.

18 Table 1 Territorial Shares of the Danube River Basin

Percentage of state territory Riparian state belonging to the Danube basin

Germany 16 yes

Switzerland 6 no Austria 97 yes Czech Republic 29 no

Slovenia 78 no Hungary 100 yes Slovak Republic 95 yes

Croatia 58 yes Bosnia-Herzegovina 78 no and 91 yes

Romania 100 yes Bulgaria 46 yes Moldova 38 yes Ukraine 5 yes

Italy, , , and FYROM only have very small parts covered by the Danube basin (less than 2%)

In a next step, it seems appropriate to distinguish between a core and a periphery of the Danube Space. This approach basically defines those regions as belonging to the core for which the different dimensions, i.e, political, economic, ecological and cultural are important at the national level for the respective states and for the interaction within the area.

The periphery of the Danube Space comprises those regions which are connected, but are generally more closely interlinked with other macro regions. The depth of research and the focus of the results presented in this study will reflect this subdivision of the Danube Space concentrating on the core area and only referring occasionally to the periphery.

(9) The core countries

In line with this approach, only entire states were selected as belonging to the core area. Technically speaking, the states to be included in the core area have to satisfy two criteria:

■ a considerable portion of the country's territory must belong to the Danube catchment area, and

■ it must be a member of the EU or an applicant country.

19 This leads to seven countries, which together form the core area of the Danube Space, namely:

■ Austria

■ Bulgaria

■ Czech Republic

■ Hungary

■ Romania

■ Slovak Republic

■ Slovenia

(10) The periphery of Danube Space

The periphery comprises the neighbouring regions of this core that satisfy the criteria of having some, albeit small share of the river basin and having at least potentially strong ties with one or more of the core countries.

The result can be grouped geographically in a western, a northern and a south-western periphery, the regions of which also have other important features in common.

The western periphery includes:

■ the north-east of ,

■ , and

■ the two southern-most regions of , Baden-Württemberg and ;

The northern periphery is made up of ■ Poland's regions adjacent to the Czech and Slovak Republics,

■ the western part and the Odesa-Region of the Ukraine, and

■ Moldova.

The states on the territory of former Yugoslavia - with the exception of Slovenia - are labelled the south-western periphery of the Danube Space.

20 1.4 Relations to Other Macro-Regions

(11) The Danube Space as a bridge

Regardless of its technical definition, the Danube Space has been functioning as a bridge for long-lasting periods. Its embeddedness in other macro-regions, in fact, is one of its most prominent features and certainly one source of the difficulties that arise when drawing a clear cut delimitation.

The bridge function first of all links the European mainland in the west and the Black Sea region in the south and east. Whereas the east European mainland is clearly disjunct from the Danube Space - even if one chooses to consider the Upper as being part of it - there is considerable overlap in the south-east, where, for example, Romania and Bulgaria belong to both macro-regions.

The overlap in the west is more pronounced when considering the Alpine area or the Alpine arc with Slovenia providing the lowest Alpine passes and thus serving as a bridge to the .

From a geographical point of view, the Adriatic space may be seen as a potentially "competing" central/south-east European bridge, although its west-east dimension with Italy on one side, and mainly and Albania on the other side, seems more prominent.

The Adriatic Sea and its northern or southern subspaces - Alpine Adriatic, Adriatic Ionian - would be the most appropriate neighbouring regions to the Danube Space, but today the Balkan constitutes a geographical gap between them.

(12) Danube Space and the Balkans

Until even up to a few months ago, hopes abounded that the 19th century notion of the Balkans - geographically mislabelled and politically unfortunate - would at last vanish, following the long since passed away empires (Ottoman, Russian, Austrio-Hungarian) that had created it. But the war and the diplomacy ending it established this unfortunate misconception of the space once again as a political fact.

Owing to the tremendous human suffering and (technical) destruction imposed on the regions by the lack of a civil society and the emergence of political power vacuums, the regions composing the ex-Yugoslavian states minus Slovenia, but plus Albania now have to find a new equilibrium of power(s) and socio-economic base, and self-contained (i.e. non-excluding)

21 identity. Nobody doubts that this process will be counted in decenniums rather than in years. The Stability Pact signed in in summer 1999 will be of crucial help in this process.

However, in this context one should take into account that a) the countries of the Stability Pact (with the exception of Bulgaria) for political reasons cannot be considered as belonging to the core of the Danube Space, whose integration as a whole (i.e. including Romania and Bulgaria) into the EU is of utmost priority, and b) co-operation between the Danube Space countries and the Stability Pact countries cannot run along the same lines, neither in terms of organisation, nor of funding, nor of policy making.

Conceiving the Danube Space as being clearly (politically) distinct from the Balkans, represented today by the Stability Pact countries, has a number of repercussions on (transnational) spatial policy. Not least, it embraces the necessity to maintain and develop relationships with this neighbouring region, albeit in the form of "external" relations.

22