PART III
ISSUES OF REGIONAL/ SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT
191 192 CONTENT
PART III ISSUES OF REGIONAL/SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT 191
12. THE URBAN SYSTEM 197 12.1 Historical Roots of the Urban System in the Danube Space 197 (1) Urbanisation took off centuries later than in Western Europe 197 (2) A Socialist model of industrialisation 198 (3) Rapid urban population growth starting around 1950 198 (4) Urbanisation under the Socialist system was a very specific process 198 12.2 Typology of Urban Settlements 200 (5) European cities 200 (6) Cities of significance for the Danube Space ("Danubic cities") 200 (7) Regional cities 201 (8) Small towns and villages 201 (9) General characteristics of the settlement patterns in the Danube Space 201 12.3 Urban Changes during the Transition Period 202 (10) Changing roles for different types of towns and cities 202 (11) Ongoing agglomeration processes; emergence of suburbanisation 204 (12) Issues related to the housing estates 205 (13) Social segmentation and ethnic segregation in urban areas 206 (14) Level of infrastructure and public service endowment in urban areas 207 12.4 Urban Environmental Issues 208 (15) Urban environmental legacies 208 (16) Additional environmental threats of the transition 208 (17) Financing of the infrastructure investments in urban environmental protection 209 12.5 Issues Related to Urban Governance 210 12.6 Cross-Border Issues Related to Urban Systems 211
13. RURAL REGIONS 215 13.1 Rural Areas in the Danube Space 215 13.2 Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics 216 (18) Demographic evolution 216 (19) Population ageing 217 (20) Employment structure 218 13.3 Infrastructure and Equipment of Rural Settlements 220 13.4 Main Challenges Related to the Evolution of Rural Areas 223
193 14. BORDERS AND BORDER REGIONS 225 14.1 The Permeability of Borders 225 (21) New opportunities and challenges 225 (22) Natural and cultural homogeneity 225 (23) Social and economic disparities 226 14.2 Border Crossings 227 (24) General issues 227 (25) Road border crossings: an overview 228 (26) Rail border crossings: an overview 232 (27) Railway traffic and delays at border crossings 233 14.3 Main Border Crossing Activities 237 (28) The main issues 237 (29) Activities induced by the EU 238 (30) Bilateral and trilateral initiatives 239 (31) Euroregions 239 (32) Multilateral issues 240 14.4 The Spatial Impact of Cross-Border Co-operation 243
15. THE TRANSPORT NETWORKS 245 15.1 The Pan-European Transport Corridors in the Danube Space 245 (33) The concept of the corridors 245 (34) Corridor IV 247 (35) Corridor V 248 (36) Corridor VI 248 (37) Corridor VIII 249 (38) Corridor IX 249 (39) Corridor X 249 15.2 Inland Waterways 250 (40) Corridor VII: the Danube river 250 (41) Danube traffic 255 15.3 Maritime Shipping Activities in the Danube Space 256 15.4 Air Transportation in the Danube Space 260
16. THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKS OF REGIONAL POLICY AND SPATIAL PLANNING 263 16.1 Introduction 263 (42) Clarifying terminology 263 (43) Institutional settings shape the notion of planning 264 16.2 The Former Period 264 (44) Regional development as an outcome of sectoral plans 264 (45) The former backbone: the 5-year economic plans 265
194 16.3 Features of Transition 266 (46) Weak regional level 266 (47) Changing conditions: new "players", new politics, new laws 267 (48) Driving forces: Foreign Direct Investments and major infrastructure projects 268 (49) The weakness of the public sector 268 16.4 The Main Settings of Regional Policy 269 (50) Great variety of territorial structures ... 269 (51) ... of actors 270 (52) ... of legal framework 270 (53) ... of funding 270 (54) Examples of instruments 270 16.5 Perspectives 274 (55) Distinctive features of the starting situation 274 (56) The institutional conditions for future transnational planning 274 (57) The political significance of regional policy 275 (58) The key objectives 276 (59) Developing (regional) spatial planning 276 (60) An unresolved issue: the financial power of the sub-national authorities 277
195 TABELLENVERZEICHNIS
Table 35 Main Border Crossing Activities and Transnational Co-operations 241 Table 36 Port Traffic in the Balkan Region 256 Table 37 Conceptual Structure of Spatial Development Policy Issues 263 Table 38 Main Settings of Regional Policies 272 Table 39 Comparative Review 275
196 ABBILDUNGSVERZEICHNIS
Map 27 Topography and Cities 213 Map 28 Main Border Crossing Points 235 Map 29 Transeuropean and Paneuropean Transport Network - Roads 251 Map 30 Transeuropean and Paneuropean Transport Network - Railway Lines 253 Map 31 Transshipment Volumes in Danube Ports 257
197 14. BORDERS AND BORDER REGIONS
14.1 The Permeability of Borders
(21) New opportunities and challenges
State borders and border regions in the Danube Space present a great variety of geographic and natural conditions, bearing also a bundle of specific socio-economic and cultural characteristics. Border regions in the core area make up over 50% of the core countries' area and affect about 60% of their population.
The wide variety of geographic conditions along the borders entails numerous issues to be considered within the framework of their spatial impact: some acting as natural barriers (e.g. mountain ranges mostly dividing or isolating like the one between Austria and Slovenia or Bulgaria and FYROM), others being natural potential bridges (e.g. the rivers Oder, Prut, and most of all, the Danube).
The basic geography of the Danube Space provides, with some exceptions, favourable pre- conditions for fostering a West-East spatial cohesion.
The spatial significance of borders and border regions in terms of (spatial) accessibility and permeability gained a new dimension in the transformation processes. In this context, spatial issues are related to the new opportunities and challenges for integration and co-operation, as border regions represent:
(a) the interface between the EU countries and the CEECs, between the core area and the periphery, between the Danube Space and other macro-regions and continents;
(b) gates for the penetration of global economic trends;
(c) spearheads for the development of new functions.
(22) Natural and cultural homogeneity
Most of the national borders in the Danube Space have a fair level of permeability for fulfilling their bridging functions (e.g. the Hungarian-Romanian, the Hungarian-Austrian, the South- eastern border of Slovenia with Croatia, the South-western border of the Czech Republic with Bavaria-Germany).
225 Some of these borders offer special conditions for access, as the Northern border of Slovenia with Italy - with its lowest passes through the alps to south-eastern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean.
The Danube, which is a natural border of over 600 km between Bulgaria and Romania, has a spatial significance that goes beyond the immediate border regions.
Major bio-geographical elements of the Danube Space overlap the national borders of two or three countries (e.g. the biosphere reserve of the Eastern Carpathians shared by Poland, Ukraine and the Slovak Republic; the Danube Delta at the border between Romania and Ukraine or the national parks in the Czech-Bavarian and Upper Austrian border region).
Common history and traditions are also reflected in a high degree of homogeneity of the cultural environment in the border regions (e.g. the presence of the baroque architecture on both sides of the borders between Austria, Hungary and the Slovak Republic; the high-spire small wooden churches in the border regions of Poland, Ukraine and Romania).
(23) Social and economic disparities
A different perspective emerges when considering socio-demographic conditions, economic growth and infrastructure in the border regions. They mirror both the legacies of social and economic development over a longer historical period and - especially - the path and pace of the transition in the CEE countries.
Disparities existed prior to 1990, in terms of demographic characteristics, settlement-structure and economic growth, but in part have been exacerbated during the transition period.
The high density of population and demographic growth are long-time features of the Northern and South-eastern periphery: Southern Poland, Ukraine and Moldova, as well as Serbia and FYROM are "younger societies". In the medium term, this can be a factor of stress, bearing the potential threat of out-migration to more developed regions. A broader spatial impact is to be expected by maintaining the peripherality at the northern and south-eastern peripheries of the Danube Space.
In contrast, there are "ageing societies" at the western periphery (in Bavaria, bordering Austria and the Czech Republic) and in North Bulgaria (bordering Romania). The already existing cross-border migration and even commuting may result in pressures on the labour markets in the border regions.
Patterns of urban settlements differ at the two sides of the border (e.g. the Czech-Polish, the Romanian-Hungarian, the Hungarian-Slovak border regions), suggesting different paths for
226 transformation. The presence of large cities on one side of the border region would favour a more rapid transformation, through higher locational quality, multifunctional development and FDI opportunities. The arising risk on the other side of the border is that of a slowed down development and labour market pressure.
Specific cases of non-homogenous border regions include the capital areas of Austria, Slovak Republic, Hungary, and Romania. Their presence brings an additional opportunity for development concentration in the short term. In the longer term, there are the downside risks in breaking the spatial homogeneity of development along the borders. On the other hand, regions along the lengthy geographic borders inside the core area are hardly expected to develop homogeneously, as mentioned above between Hungary-Slovak Republic and Romania-Bulgaria. In the latter case, the spatial role of the border regions in Romania and Bulgaria would be shaped, to a large extent, by the evolution of the transport along the Danube (Corridor VII). Nevertheless, concerted action is needed on both sides of the Danube to enhance spatial coherence in the Danube Space, to prevent the land-locking of larger areas and increased disparities to the North and South of the Danube.
The Black Sea as the external border of the Danube Space represents an opening to another European maritime basin. From the spatial point of view, the current economic importance of the coastal regions of Romania and Bulgaria, points to the opportunities that the Black Sea region - both as part of the Danube Space and of the larger Black Sea Economic Co-operation Region - offers for development.
14.2 Border Crossings
Border crossings play a key-role in enhancing the permeability of national borders and spatial boundaries, facilitating the integration of border regions in major European and international flows and connecting border regions to the more dynamic centres and inner regions within each country.
(24) General issues
Changes which occurred in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe during the past decade had significant impacts on transport systems and even more on border crossings, since in the former Socialist systems, borders between Western and Eastern Europe were generally closed, and the transnational transport of commodities was mainly through rail. The introduction of the market economy and the dramatic increase of road freight transportation at the expense of railways, has put strong pressure on border crossing points.
227 Pressure on the border crossings does not result only from transnational long-distance traffic flows. It is also generated by the need for increased cross-border relationships at the regional level, which leads in a number of cases to requests for the opening of new border crossings (as for instance along the Greek-Bulgarian border).
Construction of new and expensive customs infrastructure raises the issue of their use after EU enlargement when these borders become internal EU borders. The external borders of the EU will move eastward in various stages during the coming decade.
Over the transformation period, border crossings developed so as to cope with increased traffic movements between the CEECs and between the core area and its Western periphery (Germany). The present development of border crossings and their infrastructure accentuate the East to West character of transit flows and relationships.
During the war in Yugoslavia, transit through Romania and Bulgaria to Southeast Europe and the Middle East gained momentum. However, an insufficient number of border crossings and the lack of multimodality are thwarting the further development of movements to the Southeast (through the Romanian-Bulgarian and the Bulgarian-Greek borders) and to the North and Northeast (from Romania towards Moldova and Ukraine).
(25) Road border crossings: an overview
The Central European Border Study (ARUP, 1995) observes that the international movement of freight within Central Europe is predominantly through the borders of the EU with much less trade between neighbouring Central European States and only a minority of the total traffic crossing the borders into the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Of the traffic into the CIS, a significant portion is transit traffic from the EU, suggesting there is little trade between Central Europe and the CIS.
Traffic figures provided by the countries which are the subject of the study show that in 1994 there were about 7.85 million truck movements across their borders. Analysis of this figure shows that:
■ the great majority of the traffic is across the EU border (5.28 million vehicles);
■ the predominant direction of the traffic is East to West (6.86 million vehicles);
■ traffic movements between the PHARE countries themselves are small (1.86 million vehicles) and about half of this traffic crosses the new border between the Czech and Slovak Republics (0.59 million vehicles) and between Hungary and Romania (0.33 million vehicles);
228 ■ traffic between the CIS and PHARE countries is only 0.67 million vehicles, less than 15% of that through the EU/PHARE borders.
Most Central European cross-border traffic is bi-lateral between neighbouring countries with high levels of regional traffic, particularly between Germany and its neighbours. Significant transit traffic is seen only along the Balkan route. While the present Balkan customs corridor commences at the Austrian-Hungarian border, a significant contribution to its trade is the route via the Czech border with Germany at Rozvadov and hence via Bratislava to Budapest.
The study has classified the various border crossings into two categories, primary and secondary according to the volume of cross-border traffic and to their location with respect to the main corridors.
Traffic projections for the year 2005 provided in that study, predict that this pattern will be reinforced with an even higher proportion of traffic through what will probably be, by then, the former EU border. Without accession to the EU, the traffic growth along these borders would swamp even the new facilities available at present.
This projection predicts a particularly strong increase in cross-border truck traffic at the following crossings:
Primary border crossings
■ Rozvadov - Frankenreuth (Czech-German border)
Jiříkov - Ebersbach
■ Sežana - Andrea (Slovenian-Italian border)
Hegyeshalom - Nickelsdorf (Hungarian-Austrian border)
■ Kittsee - Jarovce (Austrian-Slovak border)
■ Cieszyn - Český Těšin (Czech-Polish border)
Náchod – Kudowa - Zdriój
Secondary border crossings
■ Heiligenkreuz - Rabafüzes (Austrian-Hungarian border)
■ Harrachov - Jakuszyce (Czech-Polish border)
■ Drasenhofen - Mikulov (Austrian-Czech border)
■ Vojtanov – Schönberg (Czech-German border)
■ Vrtojba - Andrea (Italian-Slovenian border)
229 ■ Pince – Tornyszent mikosou (Slovenian-Hungarian border)
Similar projections are not available for the southern borders of the Danube Space (for instance Romania-Bulgaria, Bulgaria-Turkey, etc.). It can be expected that cross-border truck traffic grows also significantly at some of these border crossings.
Today a truck driver travelling between the EU and Eastern or Southern Europe can expect to spend about the same amount of time waiting for clearance at the borders of the Central European countries as they will spend in motion on the route. These delays result from the increase in truck traffic between the EU and the Central and East European countries and are caused by inadequate resources at the border crossings in terms of both physical infrastructure and administration. Clearly, these bottlenecks are a hindrance to a movement towards a more liberal and integrated trading regime.
Two categories of traffic bottlenecks have to be distinguished at the border crossings: those related to infrastructure, equipment and facilities and those related to procedural and institutional factors.
The general inadequacies of existing infrastructure, equipment and facilities may be summarised as:
■ poor connecting road infrastructure linking the border crossing stations with their hinterland;
■ insufficient parallel lanes for customs and border police inspection;
■ insufficient parking;
■ inadequate accommodations for staff;
■ poor communications between border stations on opposite sides of the border and between their respective headquarters;
■ poor service areas for crossing traffic, e.g. restaurants, telecommunication facilities, etc;
■ poor lighting.
230 The bottlenecks related to procedural and institutional factors mainly concern:
■ the lack of sufficient customs staff for clearance;
■ the lack of motivation and the often inadequate level of training of customs staff (weak attractiveness of the profession because of low salaries; recruitment of trained customs officers by private forwarding agencies);
■ the final clearance of goods at border posts instead of simplified clearance procedures allowing a truck to be sealed at the border and then to proceed to an inland customs house for final clearance;
■ double checking instead of joint customs controls between neighbouring countries;
■ closure of specific services (veterinary, phyto-sanitary, forwarding agencies) during the night and the week-ends;
■ difficulties related to the introduction of new procedures and techniques (guarantees procedures for the Common Transit System to be adopted by the Central European countries; introduction of computerised information systems);
■ lack of compatibility and of integration of computer networks;
■ lack of co-operation between customs, police and veterinary officials at some border crossings.
In addition to the factors causing delay at the border crossing, it was observed that inspection is by far not optimal at numerous border posts:
■ Anti-smuggling measures at borders tend to concentrate on fiscal irregularities such as evasion of duties rather than prohibited goods such as drugs. Detection of prohibited goods generally requires a greater degree of sophistication and appropriate information systems. If the EU is to maintain its policy of maximum deterrence at its borders, it is imperative that its expertise is transferred to the next wave of members in Central Europe prior to their accession.
■ There exists a lack of special inspection areas where suspect vehicles may be screened (separate from waiting traffic) with special equipment (examination pits, unloading bays and appropriate labour resources, examination equipment to include basic tool sets, air tools and optical equipment, radio-activity detection equipment).
Within the predominance of traffic through the external EU borders, the most intractable problems remain the borders with the CIS countries. Even though the current economic and security situation in the Ukraine has depressed traffic into that country, serious bottlenecks occur at all the major crossing points into the CIS. While these borders need major infrastructure improvements, their problems will not be improved unless a major change in the administration of the posts is undertaken.
231 While there have been few improvements to posts between neighbouring Central European countries themselves, there are few major bottlenecks at these crossings other than those along the newly created border between the Czech and Slovak Republics. The problems at the borders are being addressed by the provision of new infrastructure.
In recent years, significant improvements were made at numerous border posts with the EU, thanks to the financial support of PHARE and TACIS. These improvements concerned both the provision of infrastructure and facilities and the institutional and procedural aspects. In the meantime, cross-border road traffic increased significantly, so that there are still a number of bottlenecks at the border within the Danube Space, but in general the situation improved.
The implementation of major improvements at border crossings concerning borders of countries which will soon join the EU have to take into account that after accession, customs and police control at the then new internal borders will disappear. While large parking areas could have alternative uses once the border posts are no longer required, it is doubtful if this could be said of the specialist customs buildings. Most of the building needs of the current EU/PHARE borders could be adequately met by temporary accommodation which would be quicker and cheaper to provide.
(26) Rail border crossings: an overview
Rail traffic is much more evenly distributed across the central European borders than road traffic, which is heavily oriented towards EU-bound traffic. Available figures for rail traffic, although incomplete, indicate that more than 50% of the commercial traffic is between PHARE countries, and the PHARE/EU and PHARE/TACIS freight traffic volumes are similar, despite the gauge change problems with the TACIS countries. Although railways are often regarded as secondary to road transport and have seen their traffic volumes fall in recent years, they are still the predominant mover of freight between the Central and Eastern European countries.
The cross-border problems suffered by the railways usually do not arise from infrastructure deficiencies at the borders, but from a lack of co-ordination by the responsible authorities to identify the areas in which improvement could be made and to propose coherent plans for their solutions. While there are undoubtedly infrastructure measures that are needed to facilitate cross-border railway traffic, these are rarely needed in the immediate vicinity of the borders and usually are of greater benefit to passenger rather than freight traffic.
A particular deficiency in infrastructure is for instance the lack of cross-border connection between the national railway networks, as it is the case between Bulgaria and FYROM. This is however a rather exceptional case in the Danube Space.
232 The railways have a particular problem with the different gauge system used in the CIS. The change from the 1.43 m standard gauge to the 1.51m Russian gauge is currently undertaken through a laborious process of bogie changing which is both labour intensive and time consuming. The technology is available and used elsewhere to allow simple mechanical adjustment of the bogie gauge. Adoption of special wagons equipped with adjustable gauge- bogies would dramatically reduce waiting times at the CIS border, but would also make significant investments in the rolling stock necessary.
Improvement of railway infrastructure at borders will come about as part of the overall upgrading of routes between major centres and should not be considered as a specific cross- border issue except where the link itself is of a significantly lower standard than in the remainder of the network.
The major obstacles to the free passage of goods by rail between neighbouring countries are to be found in the documentary and administrative procedures necessary to hand over the control of a train from one system to another. The delays occur because of the extensive procedure involved before the train can be accepted into the importing country. These may include: locomotive changeover, completion of the braking sheet, driver and guard changeover, technical inspection on transfer, train documents which give technical details of the wagons, train formation (marshalling), labelling of wagons, RIV (Regolamento Internazionale Vehiculi) documents which control the commercial use of wagons by another railway system, tail light changeover.
The countries of Central Europe must work on bi-lateral agreements to reduce the organisational and commercial obstacles to the free running of trains between their countries. Until the restriction imposed by the present control can be removed, there can be little progress to reduce the time taken to move freight internationally.
The customs control of a train is rarely a significant factor in border delays since the procedures are less extensive than for road transport and because the railways deal with fewer, more trusted consignees. The measures recommended to improve the working methods of the customs authorities in Central Europe through the provision of equipment, particularly computer networks, and training, will have a beneficial effect on the railway controls.
(27) Railway traffic and delays at border crossings
The "Central European Border Study" (ARUP, 1995) has produced a classification of railway border crossings for freight trains that uses two categories (primary and secondary border crossings) and has provided statistical information about traffic and delays. This study covers a rather large part of the Danube Space with data referring to the year 1994.
233 The analysis concerning the primary railways border crossings reveals the importance of the following ones with more than 500 wagons per day:
■ the border crossings at the Czech/Slovak border: Lanžhot/Kutý (1,465 wagons per day); Mosty u Jablunkova/Čadca (1,358 wagons): Horní Lideč/Lysá pod Makytou (810 wagons),
■ the border crossing Dečin-Bad Schandau at the German/Czech border (980 wagons),
■ the border crossing Břeclav-Hohenau at the Czech-Austrian border (786 wagons),
■ the border crossing Horni Dvorište-Summerau at the Czech-Austrian border (543 wagons).
Average handover time for freight trains at the border crossings is particularly high in the case of Bohumín-Chalupki (Polish-Czech border) with 11.9 hours, and is also significant in the case of Horní Lideč - Lysá pod Makytou (Czech/Slovak border) with 4 hours and at Curtici (Romanian-Hungarian border) with 5 hours. Generally, average hand over time for freight trains is comprised between 2 and 3.5 hours. Procedural improvements are in many cases necessary.
It is also essential in future to ensure proper security for through movement. Loss or damage to goods in transit can seriously affect a users perception of the value of a service. Security at border posts is a particular problem in various areas.
The future of railway freight services is the development of "block trains" and the movement of bulk commodities over long distances without an interruption of service. Such services can be provided at comparatively low cost, usually to the convenience of the customer and with complete control and improved security. Concentration on such low cost services ensures that consumption of nationally scarce resources is minimised and the transport operators can maximise their own efficiency. Using financial criteria, the range of costs between good and bad operational and technical efficiency in railway transport is substantial. The cost per ton carried on a fully loaded "block" train running over distances of 500 km and more can be 1/20 of past movement involving trains picking wagons up at stations and having them sorted for onward movement in marshalling yards and standing awaiting a second load having been discharged. The introduction of block trains puts high efficiency requirements at border stations.
234 14.3 Main Border Crossing Activities
(28) The main issues
Cross-border co-operation in the Danube Space developed in successive stages, reflecting the aim of gradually preparing the CEECs for integration and of inducing positive effects throughout the CEECs.
The first beneficiary CEECs were the countries situated at the external border of the EU, i.e. all the neighbouring countries of Austria and Germany: Slovenia, Hungary, Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic.
The main aim of EU support for cross-border co-operation besides a general increase in the number and intensity of co-operation is raising public awareness for a Europe without internal borders. As a consequence of the INTERREG programmes a distinction between cross-border and transnational activities has evolved:
■ Cross-border activities focus on border regions that may be considered bridges within the integration on a European scale. For many countries in transition the importance of external support or incentives for activities in border regions is due to the distrust of the central administration - border regions are often areas relatively remote from the "central power", often inhabited by ethnic communities of the neighbouring country.
■ Transnational areas are geographically continuous areas transcending borders of a number of countries (according to the ideas of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP)) - issues are e.g. ecological networking, water management, improving the position of small towns in rural areas. A core issue for most countries are the Transeuropean Transport Networks including considerations on multi-modal transport.
Viewed by main initiating forces, three different types of cross-border co-operation exist:
■ bottom-up initiatives (activities of the municipalities and the regions; e.g. Euroregion Tatry (initiated by Slovak and Polish municipalities) or in Upper Silesia (Czech Republic - Poland),
■ initiatives for cross-border co-operation launched by the central government (mainly cross-border infrastructural issues), and
■ a variety of mixed cases, i.e. that local or regional actors co-operate with institutions at the national level; this refers e.g. to several Euroregions in the Danube Space.
237 In the following section existing border crossing activities and transnational co-operations will be briefly summarised. A rather pragmatic approach differing between
■ EU induced activities,
■ bilateral and trilateral issues,
■ Euroregions, and
■ other multilateral forms of co-operation has been chosen.
(29) Activities induced by the EU
All six Accession Countries of the Danube Space take part in PHARE CBC programmes with neighbouring countries. With the exception of Romania, all countries border EU member states. For the Hungarian-Romanian border regions, a pilot CBC programme within the PHARE CREDO Programme has been launched. As an example: the priorities of PHARE-CBC Germany - Czech Republic are transport, environment and technical infrastructure, agriculture and rural development (also human resource development and forest regeneration) and small projects funding (i.e. small projects which are considered as potential incentives for large-scale co-operation). Especially the dominance of transport, environment and technical infrastructure applies to most of the CBC programmes.
The above mentioned PHARE CREDO Programme aims at stimulating cross-border co- operation projects between CEECs' and CEEC-NIS (New Independent States) border regions. A wider objective of the programme in the context of pre-accession is also its contribution towards decentralisation in CEECs by promoting local action embedded in local strategy frameworks. Only institutional bodies operating independently from the central governments or private non-profit organisations are invited to participate.
In the Danube Space, the INTERREG IIC has become an important tool for transnational co- operation. The four Member States Germany, Austria, Italy and Greece have launched the so- called CADSES programme, together with fourteen European non-member countries. The aim of the programme for the Central, Adriatic, Danubian, Southeast European Space (CADSES) is to address issues mainly arising from unbalanced spatial development along the external border of the EU.
The lead project of this programme VISION PLANET - Elaboration of Perspectives and Strategies of Spatial Development Policy in the Central and Danubian Area within a Planning Network is carried out by the Member States Germany, Austria and Italy together with the Accession Countries Poland, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania and Bulgaria. Croatia also is co-operating in the project, other states of the region, especially
238 the former Yugoslav Republics along the Danube, are declared desirable and welcome partners, but have not yet joined.
The constituent two parts of the project are the
■ elaboration of the Document Visions and Strategies for the Central European and Danubian Space (VISION document) and the
■ dialogue concerning spatial planning in the Central and Danubian Space within a network of institutions dealing with spatial development and spatial policy (PLANET document).
(30) Bilateral and trilateral initiatives
This category summarises a great variety of actual and possible bilateral and trilateral issues within the Danube Space.
In general the following types of issues are addressed:
■ border crossing points and transport infrastructure,
■ specialised cross-border infrastructure (cross-border industrial zones, railway link with split ownership, ...),
■ cross-border natural heritage as incentive for co-operation in the field of tourism,
■ issues concerning cross border labour markets - this refers especially to the Czech Republic (with Germany and Austria), Hungary (Austria) and to the Slovak Republic (with the Czech Republic and to a small extent Austria),
■ safety issues concerning nuclear power plants (Czech and Slovak Republic with Austria), and
■ minority issues.
As far as bilateral issues are concerned, the Czech and the Slovak Republic are in a special situation due to their history. Crucial issues are dual citizenship and labour market.
(31) Euroregions
Border crossing regions are probably the approach most strongly linked to raising public awareness for the further integration of Europe. These regions derive from different initiatives and are either bottom-up or top-down.
According to the information available, regions of the Czech and the Slovak Republic and to a lesser extent Hungarian regions are strongly involved in such co-operation projects. In most
239 cases the co-operation is based on bilateral commissions or other bodies working in defined fields (e.g. transport, culture, tourism). Rather unclear is the position of the Euroregion Carpathians since it is not clear whether all states involved have approved its existence.
(32) Multilateral issues
The category summarises the most important multilateral issues deriving mainly from the following backgrounds:
■ The river Danube itself is an important issue of multilateral co-operation. On the one hand a Working Community of Danube Space Countries (Arge Donauländer) exists as an established form of co-operation. On the other hand the Danube Environmental Programme is a more recent driver in multilateral co-operation. It has elaborated the Danube Strategic Action Plan in 1996. In 1998 the Danube Convention was established for its implementation. This Convention has been signed by the governments of the participating Danube countries.
■ The promotion of economic integration among the Danube Space countries - all countries investigated are members of the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA) aiming at trade liberalisation. One of the main targets is to avoid discriminatory trade regimes between the countries before the background of the EU accession.
■ The Alpine-Adriatic Working Commission consisting of Italian, Austrian and Hungarian regions as well as Bavaria, Croatia and Slovenia is also an established co-operation dealing with spatial issues.
240 Table 35 Main Border Crossing Activities and Transnational Co-operations
Country EU Induced Bilateral and Trilateral Issues Euroregions Other Developments - Multilateral Issues Bulgaria PHARE CBC Greece – programmes with FYROM in preparation none Crete corridors are considered as transportation, environment (e.g. no railway link exists) a crucial issue PHARE CBC with Romania (under focus on border crossing points for the Danube Environmental Programme PHARE CREDO) has been started Greek-Bulgarian as well as Turkish- CEFTA recently Bulgarian border additional ferry links over Danube (Romania) Greek investors in border region (SMEs) Czech Republic PHARE CBC Austria various agreements with the Slovak Tesínske Slezsko (CZ, PL, SK) VITECC - cf. Slovak Republic PHARE CBC Germany Republic (especially labour force, dual Silesia, Praded, Glacensis (CZ, PL) CEFTA citizenship) PHARE induced co-operation Nisa (CZ, PL, DE) cross border labour markets with Bielsko-Biala (PL), RDA Žilina (SK) Labe, Krusnohory, Egrensis (CZ, and RDA Ostrava (CZ) Germany emerge (Cheb) DE) Bohemian-Polish association of towns South Bohemia and South Moravia Cross Border Business Park with Austria (CZ, AT, SK) (ACCESS) Šumava (CZ, DE, AT) - tourism nuclear power plants safety issues (Austria) Sudetý (CZ, PL) - trade, economy Hungary PHARE CBC Austria Cross Border Industrial Zone with Austria West Pannonia (Burgenland (AT), Alpine Adriatic Working Gy r-Moson-Sopron and Vas Community (Italian and Austrian Pilot PHARE CBC Romania (under Austrian-Hungarian jointly owned railway ő PHARE CREDO) - Bereg, Hajdú- GySEV county) provinces, Hungarian counties, Bavaria, Croatia, Slovenia) Bihar, Szabolcs-Szatmár regions, Fertő-Hansag National Park (AT, HU) transportation, flood prevention Working Community of Danube labour market issues (commuters, Space Countries exchange of volunteers (AT, HU) Danube Environmental Programme
241 Table 35 (Continued) Main Border Crossing Activities and Transnational Co-Operation
Country EU Induced Bilateral and Trilateral Issues Euroregions Other Developments - Multilateral Issues Romania Pilot PHARE CREDO CBC Hungary ferry links with Bulgaria Danube, Mureş, Tisza (HU, RO) Danube Environmental Programme Satu Mare, Bihor, Timi , Arad regions ş with Germany limited labour permits for Lower Carpathians CEFTA the German minority Slovak Republic PHARE CBC Austria various agreements with the Czech Tatra mountains (PL, SK) - Bratislava, Györ, Brno Vienna - Republic (especially labour force, dual economy, tourism, culture and information network (VITECC) PHARE induced co-operation citizenship) information Bielsko-Biala (PL), RDA Žilina (SK) Danube Environmental Programme and RDA Ostrava (CZ) transport connections Bratislava - Tesínske Sleszko (CZ, SK) Working Community of Danube Vienna Ipel (SK, HU) (Nógrad, Nitra region) Space Countries nuclear power plants safety issues Carpathians (SK, UA, HU, RO, PL) - CEFTA (Austria) SK as an observer Hungarian minority Beskydy, Zywiec (PL, SK) - environment, tourism, border crossings Slovenia PHARE CBC Austria trilateral Landscape Park (HU, SLO, AT) Alpine Adriatic Working Community - tourist infrastructure PHARE CBC Italy - transportation, (Italian and Austrian provinces, environment, culture, economy improving border crossings with Croatia Hungarian counties, Bavaria, Croatia, Slovenia)
Source: Danube Space Study - Country Reports
242 14.4 The Spatial Impact of Cross-Border Co-operation
The spatial impact of the various forms of cross-border co-operation developed so far must be assessed along two main lines: their effectiveness at the external borders of the EU and the positive effects induced in the CEECs.
Concerning the external borders of the EU in the core area (i.e. of Austria), the positive impacts underline the idea of the need for continuity, for sustained financial efforts and for partnership. The complex process of building-up cross-border partnership shows its benefits over a longer period of time. It includes learning, development of institutional structures and management capabilities. Its effectiveness (as in the case of the Hungarian and of the Slovenian border with Austria) may lead to the reversing of the peripheral status of the border region in the respective neighbouring country.
In the CEECs not having a common border with the EU it is too early to assess the effectiveness of co-operation in terms of spatial impact in the border regions. However, on the evidence of the present stage of co-operation, it has to be noted that a proper balance should be stricken between continuity and new orientation. Co-operation developed so far includes a very wide range of projects, differing in size, scope and sometimes with overlapping issues. Small projects, sectoral co-operations, joint utilisation of resources, short and medium-time issues need to be included in a broader, strategically-oriented framework. A broader spatial planning and regional policy approach would build up the basis for promoting actions of strategic significance, which would actually speed up development. Meanwhile, new incentives should be elaborated to intensify and improve cross-border dialogue and co-operation through the establishment of professional regional management bodies in the border regions.
A special concern for enhancing the effectiveness of cross-border co-operation is the need for more flexibility. As every border has a set of specific characteristics, short- and medium-term opportunities for cross-border and transnational co-operation encompass a wide range of issues. In this respect, long borders between countries in the core area of the Danube Space (such as Hungary-Slovak Republic, Romania-Bulgaria) and between the core area and the periphery (e.g. Hungary-Croatia, Romania-Moldova) are of particular concern. Long geographic borders and their adjacent large border regions need a specific framework approach, including short- and medium-term measures and the gradual building of organisational structures in the border regions. In spatial terms, this would avoid spatial discontinuity in the Danube Space and a rise in internal disparities within the respective countries.
243 All cross-border co-operation needs a clear definition of the policy level concerned. This should be the proper basis in harmonising actions between EU Member and Non-member States and in establishing the proper relationships between neighbouring countries.
244