Why does the EU need macro-regions?
Comparative analysis based on the
theoretical explanation and a survey of the
enforcement of the EU’s Strategy for Baltic
Sea Region and the Strategy for the Danube
Region.
Master’s Thesis
June 2011
Author: Monika Bogacz
Supervisor: Søren Dosenrode, Dr. Phil; Coordinator of European Studies at
Aalborg University
Table of Contents
List of figures and tables .............................................................iv
Abbreviation .................................................................................... v
Abstract ............................................................................................ vi
1.0. Introduction ............................................................................1
2.0. Problem formulation. ..........................................................4
2.1. Region in focus....................................................................................... 4
2.2. Research Question. ................................................................................ 9
2.3. Rising interest. ..................................................................................... 10
2.3.1. Defining macro-regions. ...................................................................................................... 12
3.0. Methodology. ....................................................................... 16
3.1. Method. ................................................................................................. 16
3.2. Design. ................................................................................................... 18
4.0. Theoretical consideration of the regional integration in
Europe. ................................................................................... 22
4.1. Functionalist Theory.............................................................................. 22
4.2. Neo-functionalist’s integration project. .................................................. 24
4.3. Federal Europe. ..................................................................................... 29
4.4. The EU’s macro-regions. What kind of theoretical explanation? .......... 33
4.4.1. “Old” and “new” macro-regions - what differs one from the other? ............................... 38
4.5. Multi-level Governance - key to understand the EU macro-regional
strategies. ..................................................................................................... 40
5.0. Aim of the EU macro-regional Strategies in the light of
practice. ................................................................................. 45
5.1. Post-Lisbon changes in the EU regional policy. ....................................... 45
5.2. EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. .................................................... 47
ii
5.2.1. Policy. .................................................................................................................................. 49
5.2.2. Governance. ........................................................................................................................ 52
5.2.3. Financial perspective. .......................................................................................................... 54
5.2.4. EU Strategy for the BSR, after one year of practical actions. .............................................. 56
5.3 EU Strategy for Danube Region. ............................................................ 58
5.3.1. Policy................................................................................................................................... 59
5.3.2. Governance ......................................................................................................................... 61
5.3.3. Financial perspective. .......................................................................................................... 62
5.4. Role and aim of the macro-regional Strategies....................................... 63
6.0. Conclusion. ........................................................................... 68
6.1. Evaluation of the theoretical part. ......................................................... 68
6.2. Outcomes from the practice - SWOT analysis for the EU Strategies for
the BSR and DR. ............................................................................................ 69
7.0. Perspectives. ........................................................................ 71
8.0. Literature. ............................................................................. 73
iii
List of figures and tables
Figure 1: The composition of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and for the EU
Strategy for the Danube Region ............................................................................................... 15
Figure 2: Regional Integration in neo-functionalist’s view. .................................................... 28
Figure 3 Regional integration inside the EU at present............................................................ 29
Figure 4: The areas of the Baltic Sea Region ........................................................................... 49
Figure 5: Different type of founding in the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. ............... 56
Figure 6: Countries covered by the EU Strategy for the Danube Region. ............................... 59
Table 1: Main political theories of European integration........................................................ 33
Table 2: The demographic thresholds of the NUTS levels. ..................................................... 38
Table 3: Pillars and priority areas of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. ................... 51
Table 4: Pillars and priority areas of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region. ....................... 60
Table 5: SWOT analysis for the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and for the Danube
Region. ..................................................................................................................................... 66
iv
Abbreviation
BEMIP
BSR
CADSES
CBSS
CEB
CF
CoR
DR
EC
EIB
ENPI
ERDF
ESF
EU
EBRD
EUSBSR
EUSDR
HELCOM
IPA
IR
MEP
MLG
NGO
NUTS
SEA
SME
SWOT
TFEU
Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan
Baltic Sea Region
Central European Adriatic Danubian South-Eastern European Space
Council of the Baltic Sea States
Council of Europe Development Bank
Cohesion Fund
Committee of the Regions
Danube Region
European Community
European Investment Bank
European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument
European Regional Development Fund
European Social Fund
European Union
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region
European Union Strategy for the Danube Region
Helsinki Commission; Baltic Marine Environmental Protection Commission
Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance
International Relations
Member of the European Parliament
Multi-level Governance
Non-governmental Organization
Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics
Single European Act
Small and Medium Enterprises
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
v
Abstract
After introducing the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region macro-regions have gained
the international attention. At first sight, this Strategy seemed to draw inspiration from other
types of the EU policies. Although, the closer look suggests that the Strategy and the macroregional concept as such have some unique features.
The purpose of this thesis was to contribute to the current debate on the European integration
by identifying the aim of the new EU’s Strategies for the macro-regions. In order to do that,
the author focused on both, theoretical and practical sides of emerged EU’s Strategies
for the Baltic Sea Region and for the Danube Region. The author have argued
that the creation of the strategies represents the new way of working in terms of the European
cooperation.
Both, qualitative and quantitative methods were used in this thesis. Dividing the thesis
into the theoretical consideration and the practical analysis have allowed to present the whole
spectrum of the macro-regional strategies, to understand why they have appeared
and to define what role they are playing in the EU.
Essential for this case study was to investigate why the macro-regional strategies have been
created within the EU structure. In this specific case, the author has utilized the combination
of the neo-functionalism and the federalist theory. This theoretical framework has placed
macro-regions beyond the states and within the EU environment. Moreover, the thesis
has also indicated that the primary motivation for this specific form of cooperation is strictly
functional. In the matter of governing the EU’s strategies, the author has applied the Multilevel Governance approach. In consequence, from the analytical part the author has learned
that the Multi-level Governance approach is reflected with the practical coordination
of the macro-regional strategies.
In the next part of the thesis, the author has analyzed in details the EU’s Strategies for the
Baltic Sea Region and for the Danube Region. The analysis was preceded with a short
introduction of the Lisbon Treaty, which amendments have a great influence on the EU
Regional Policy and on the macro-regions. Results of this analysis were presented in the form
of the SWOT analysis. They revealed the strong and weak points of these strategies in the
internal and external surroundings. The both cases were perceived as an innovative concepts
of the EU macro-regional cooperation and the tool to improve the territorial cohesion among
vi
regions. Furthermore, the author has indicated that they were also created to boost the general
development within and outside the EU borders.
In the final part, the thesis pointed out the success of the Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region
and for Danube Region by showing rising interests in creating another EU’s macro-regional
strategies.
Keywords: macro-region, EU’s Strategies, Baltic Sea Region, Danube Region, aim,
objectives, European integration, cooperation, development, Neo-functionalism, Federalism,
Multi-level governance.
vii
1.0. Introduction
The last half century has brought a completely new standard of governance in Europe, where
the process of nation-states integration resulted in creating one policy-making unit –
the European Community, European Union at present. The integration has affected not only
single Member States, but above all regions within the EU and the citizens of those regions.
The most significant problem in 1950s was how to reduce and eliminate in the future
disparities among Community’s regions. Moreover, the question was who would take
responsibility for it – national or international authorities. The Treaty of Rome
and the European Social Found (ESF) were framed in the context of social policy and linked
with the regional sphere. Their main goal was to improve mobility of the labour market
and to combat the structural unemployment in disadvantaged European regions. Before 1975,
the regional policy lay in the hands of the State’s authorities.1
The first step towards taking the regional economic development more seriously
was the creation of the main financial instrument of the EU’s Regional Policy – the European
Regional Development Found (ERDF) in 1975.2 The European Commission outlined
that a “high priority” should be given to eliminate structural and wealth disparities between
its regions. However, not until The Single European Act had been signed in 1986
was the official EU’ Regional Policy established by merging two founds the ERDF
and the ESF.3
Since then, the Regional Policy has become an instrument of solidarity and cohesion
of the EU, it aims to strengthen economic, social and territorial cooperation by reducing
differences in the level of development among regions and at the same time the Member
States.4 Furthermore, it is designed to bring about concrete actions and obtain tangible results
by using three specific financial instruments: (mentioned above) the European Regional
Development Found, the European Social Found and the Cohesion Found known
also as a Structural Found. In the small circle of West-European countries the effects have
been very quickly seen. Progress made by the regional reforms allows to control and eliminate
wealth disparities between states. However, after the EU’s enlargement in 2004, challenges
1
Bache I. 1998 :20 31.
.Ibid.
3
Ibid.
4
Europa 2001.
2
1
facing the Region have increased. Huge gaps in economic development, weak transport
accessibility and disproportions in the field of environmental protection, were the main
difficulties which needed to be tackled urgently.5 Most of these problems could only be
addressed through better coordination of the EU’s Regional Policy and its financial funds,
which in this case were used also to improve competitiveness among regions. Furthermore,
the states within regions have gained the opportunity to exchange ideas and best practices.
The EU’s policy helps to finance concrete projects for regions, towns and their inhabitants.
The main purpose of the regions initiative was an economic change for the better. Thus,
the whole Regional Policy is in accordance with the goals set by the EU for growth and jobs.6
Currently, we are observing an increase in spatial strategy-making on regional scale
in the EU. This extension could be explained in the context of new EU’ strategies directed
towards Baltic Sea Region and Danube Region. Spatial strategy-making is defined in many
different ways, actions may take on dissimilar forms. Everything depends on legal,
institutional or traditional framework. According to Healey, spatial planning takes place
at the level of the region, city or rural settlement. Planning systems tends to stress how
projects fit into a wider area.7 To simplify, spatial strategy-making can be described
as a specific form of public policy which combine all dimensions of social interest, starting
from economic development, environmental preservation through transport policy, health
care and ends up in education and culture. Strategies built upon such a wide range
of dimensions are significant for policy-makers, mainly because they need to address
particular decisions for a specific place.8 Hence, the geographical factor constitutes
an important element of the spatial planning process, and the question “where concrete sectors
of policy should be reform?” seems to be an integrated part of it. The outcomes
from incorporated changes are derived from the interactions of policy field with the qualities
of the area to which they are applied. Only under such circumstances are policy-makers able
to assess the effectiveness of the strategy. The regional policy and the strategies created
by the EU’s institutions were mainly directed to the regions on the national-level.
The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region is relevant because of its innovative
and experimental character. It is built on the transnational level of governance within the EU,
what may imply that the focus from the states is shifting to the broader units, such as macro-
5
EurActiv 2010.
European Commission 2009a.
7
Healey P.2003 : 5-6.
8
Adams N., Alden J., Harris N. 2006 : 3-4.
6
2
regions.9 This thesis will also take a close look on the second EU Strategy, for the Danube
region, which has also popularized the macro-regional nomenclature. Essential for this case
study is to investigate why these two strategies have been created within the EU framework.
9
Krumrey P., Schmik C., 2009.
3
2.0. Problem formulation.
In the proceeding section the author intends to formulate a guiding research question
and to identify the overall objective of this thesis, by discussing firstly the general background
of the EU macro-regional strategies. Moreover, a brief explanation of why this particular
instance constitute an interesting case is also given in this chapter.
2.1.
Region in focus.
This thesis aims to contribute to the new debate on the regional integration, in the framework
of the EU and identify the aim of the new concept of the EU macro-regional strategies.
As a background the latest strategies for the Baltic Sea Region and for the Danube Region
will serve for this thesis. These two strategies were prepared together by the European
Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and with a help
of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy (working mainly as an advisor).10 The EU
Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region has supported the creation of a very equivalent project,
addressed to the Southern European region of Danube and brought on the agenda new
economic and political dimension – sub-national. This implies two contradicting trends which
occurred in the EU governance:
- Supra-national level, which sees the whole integration process as an inter-governmental
cooperation of sovereign and equal actors, which unanimously agree to shift some power
to the “external” collective institutions of over-state character. In result, supra-national
institutions are acting on behalf of the Member States with the consideration
of their participation in the decision-making process.11
- Sub-national level, on the contrary, is favorable for regional mobilization and encouraging
small states to take an initiative.12 Cooperation at this stage has an effect on involvement
of regional political parties as well as individual business actors and citizens. Sub-national
“governments” are very active in designing and implementing the development projects
for their regional communities.13 Furthermore, their visibility is noticed most notably
in the structures of the EU Committee of the Region.
10
European Commission 2011a.
Ruszkowski J. 2006.
12
Jolly S. 2007.
13
Hooghe L., Marks G. 1996.
11
4
Created in the sub-national cooperation framework, current macro-regional strategies are
consequently corresponding to the logic of cooperation at regional level and development
in different area of interests.14 This thesis focuses only on macro-regional implications.
However, discussing the general regional development based on development surveys
of every single country of the EU may constitute another interesting topic. Especially when
each Member Sate has got different tradition of local government system, which
automatically implies the different structure and development driven mechanism.
Even though the Strategy for the BSR and Strategy for the DR might differ in details, since
mentioned regions constitute dissimilar economic and social conditions, in general, they will
be examined in thesis as an integral example of a new European concept. They are considered
to be first two trial cases for the macro-regional approach. The macro-regional strategies are
supposed to deal with a considerably wide range of issues like for instance, vulnerable energy
supplies and region’s imperatives. So far, the experience has shown, that a country let alone
with such problems cannot cope with them successfully. However, setting priorities
for the large European regions at the EU level requires special tools and an urgent need
to define concrete actions for cross-border cooperation. For this reason the EU has decided
to create a special and unique programme that covers a macro-regions.15
Until now, the EU convergence objective has been to promote growth conditions and factors
leading to the better condition economic of the least-developed Member States and regions.
According to the European Commission, in the European family of 27,
“16 regions with a total of 16.4 million inhabitants has got a GDP only slightly above
the threshold, due to the statistical effect of the larger EU. The amount available under
the Convergence objective is EUR 282.8 billion, representing 81.5 % of the total. It is
split as follows: EUR 199.3 billion for the Convergence regions, while EUR 14 billion
are reserved for the “phasing-out” regions, and EUR 69.5 billion for the Cohesion
Fund, the latter applying to 15 Member States.” 16
The information presented above indicates, that if the EU wants to be an attractive area
to invest, it must strengthen competitiveness and employment among its regions, for instance
through joint local and regional initiatives. Therefore, the natural goal for regional
14
ScanBalt 2011.
Samecki P. 2009.
16
European Commission 2009b.
15
5
cooperation is to utilize existing resources more effectively, in order to improve different
economic branches and to better tackle some problematic spheres, like for instance: pollution,
social development, immigration issues or security policy. Particularly active in this matter is
the European Committee of the Region, which calls for and advises the Member States and
the Commission to pay attention when working on solutions for the recent problems
in accordance with EU rules and regulations. Moreover, one of the CoR rapporteur
and a member of the Bremen Regional Parliament, Hermann Kuhn is going even further,
by saying that another reasonable step will be to create a strategy for the North Sea.17
This may mean that the Baltic Sea and the Danube strategies might to become a pattern
in the future cooperation between regions inside the EU. In order to understand the process
of establishing the macro-region strategies, why they have emerged in the first place,
it is necessary to explore the theoretical background of the integration process, which has led
to the creation of the EU. Secondly, defining the macro-regions and distinguishing the “old”
from the “new” macro-regions, will prevent this thesis from generalization.18 Thirdly, before
analyzing the Strategies for the BSR and the DR, it is essential to explain in this thesis
the present situation of the EU Regional and Cohesion Policy. This section is mainly based
on the analysis of the Treaty of Lisbon which came into force on 1th December 2009, owing
to a number of provisions which this Treaty has brought to the legislative and governance
system of the Regional and Cohesion Policy. Including this section in the thesis, makes
it possible to understand more precisely the legislative side of the EU path towards tightening
the regional cooperation.
Although, the dynamics of the cooperation at different policies stages are changing in time
(like it has been noticed in Common Agriculture Policy of the EU), there are some priorities,
which despite duration, stay the same. The above-mentioned before, the Treaty of Rome,
signed in 1957, illustrates the first commitment towards regional integration.
“Anxious to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious
development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the
backwardness of the less favored regions.”19
17
Committee of the Regions 2010.
Theoretical consideration section.
19
European Community 1957 : 2.
18
6
After thirty-five years, there is still vivid evidence, presented in the quote below, of how
important it is for European Union to preserve regional integration on a high priority level.
“In order to promote its overall harmonious development, the Community shall
develop and pursue its actions leading to the strengthening of its economic and social
cohesion. In particular, the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between
the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the leastfavored regions, including rural areas.”20
Integration at the European level has been growing and deepening in time and space. This has
resulted in the creation of a unique model of integration among the Member States and
its citizens, based on institutional framework of the treaties. It is much more difficult to assess
the long-term process of the regional integration within the EU, since this practice has been
initiated lately and the tangible results are presumed to emerge in the nearest future.
It is expected to proceed until better economic and social conditions are achieved21. Thus,
the European Union require a reconsideration of its cohesion and regional policy of enlarged
territory. On the one hand, supposed added value of the macro-regional strategy, understood
as a contribution tool to the more productive, multi-level coordination of social and economic
development challenges, in terms of integrated approach, implicates a governance challenge
and idea of the progress.22 On the other hand, composition of new regional units, which lies
somewhere between the country and the continent,23 can be a generator of anxiety among
some politicians and European citizens. The main concern could be based on the question: is
it not just another starting point in a long European integration process? Eventually, new
macro-regions and strategies created for them imply splitting Europe which has been finally
merged. However, produced strategies do not mean that the great achievement
of the European integration among countries will be wasted. The author rather sees the macroregional strategies in the light of positive perspective for better understanding of the problems
of the EU peripheral areas, as well as a cooperation tool for the regional development
in the EU. Therefore, such worries are assessed in this work as a groundless fears and they are
not included in this thesis concern.
20
European Community 1992 : 33.
Krieger-Boden Ch., Morgenrot E., Petrakos G., 2008 : 1-3.
22
Samecki P., 2009.
23
Detailed elaboration of the macro-region definition is presented in section 2.3.1.
21
7
Instead, the emphasis is put on the examination of the balances between efficiency
and legitimacy of macro-region, based on analyzed example of the EU Strategy for the BSR
and DR. An interesting point in this specific regional debate is also to advance the knowledge
about interconnections between strategies goals and the efficacy of their actions results.24
Moreover, looking on the European macro-regional strategies from the territorial cooperation
programme point of view, it seems that they may overlap with some priorities which have
been already established by the Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013.25 Particularly
in the matter of environmental protection or building business attractiveness of the Region
could be noticed some doubling elements, like for instance Flagship Projects of the EU
strategy and the Strategic Projects of the Baltic Sea Region Programme. A concern is
also caused by different European initiatives and HELCOM projects, which raise similar
issues on the agenda.26 Nevertheless, since it can be explained by the fact that the EU Strategy
for the BSR does not provide their own sources for financing, the other initiatives can be
understood as sustainable tools to co-finance the Flagship Projects.27 Additionally, it is worth
mentioning that the coordinators are trying to deal with matters as they arise, for instance
by calling a meeting, and because of that the effect of the synergy of the actions is
provided. The meetings supported by the presence of the states representatives and the EU’s
leaders, help in the better framing of new Action Plans or technical proposals.
There is, therefore, a sign of territorial convergence among regions inside the EU. After
setting up the Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and preparing similar Strategy
for the Danube Region, on the EU arena there has been a visible rising interest to establish
other macro-regions. Thus, the question is what measures should be used to define the macroregion and to determine its specificity. Current discussion also has to take into consideration
the external and internal factors of the European regions, before it will constitute a macroregion and a proper strategy. Furthermore, an interesting point the author can make is posing
a question whether this macro-regional practice28 will be addressed only to the regions lying
in the area of the new Member States or just the old EU-15. However, this question, at least
for this thesis, will remain without an answer, since it is a matter of future actions of the EU.
24
This section is based mainly on the analysis of the first annual report of the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea
Region , prepared by European Commission and publicized in October 2010.
25
Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013 2010.
26
Biedrzycka K. 2011.
27
Pop V. op.cit.
28
based on BSR and DR.
8
2.2.
Research Question.
The first overall objective of this work is to identify and frame the macro-regions through
theoretical consideration of the EU integration process in the context of the existing EU
cooperation. Another one is to explain and try to answer through current regional strategies
(BSR and DR) analysis, the following research question:
What is the aim of creating the EU Strategies for the Baltic Sea Region and for
Danube Region in the context of existing territorial cooperation in the EU?
Starting from a broader question of why macro-regions have emerged in the EU environment,
the author will then gradually move towards finding out what kind of attitudes inclined
the EU to take such a step. Theoretical together with analytical part, will be formulated
in order to understand what is the aim of the EU’s macro-regional strategies. Furthermore,
from this guiding question author expects to find out whether those Strategies might be
considered as a shift in direction of the European integration - from national-level to wider
macro-regional level.
Further examination of the EU steps taken in the area of regional cooperation, allows
the author to formulate a conclusion whether these macro-regional strategies are
complementary or just have a duplicate character in relation to the previous concepts
of the EU.
Moreover, the evaluation of these two strategies during its implementation and adoption will
allow the author to discover the tendency of the EU policy regarding the regional
development. Looking on the macro-regions from strictly political perspective, one could
argue that, in the future, they might give an impulse for transforming the EU governance.
The implication from of such situation might be seen in two directions. A more positive
scenario would stress that macro-regional cooperation might help to achieve more tangible
effects in facing common challenges and opportunities. However, the other side of the coin
presents the case in which this situation may lead to decentralization of the EU
and its institutions. Nevertheless, the author would only focus on the present implication
coming from the adoption of the EU macro-regional strategies.
The cases which author discusses in this thesis cannot be assessed either as an example
of the best practice, or the worst practice of the EU. They are constituting an interesting,
and above all, innovating way of dealing with regional problems in a new macro-regional
9
setting. Even though the territorial and cross-border cooperation has a long tradition
in the integration history of the European Union, which is indicated by the fact
that interregional cooperation works at pan-European level, is covering all EU-27 Member
States. Moreover, there are currently 52 cross-border programmes under the European
Territorial Cooperation Objective.29 Nevertheless, macro-regional approach has brought to
the EU agenda not only a new co-operational unit but also a new sort of social environment,
where Europeans obtain the empowerment.30 These changes might be considered
as the evidence of the fact, that despite the huge effort of the EU, its citizens and local
decision-makers were not satisfied enough. Right now the EU has to incorporate these
changes into new regional environment. The potential extension of this approach is very
probable, since it is addressed to creating other regions of the Union.
To obtain the tangible results an action plan, or something comparable, must be provided.
In the context of this master’s thesis, the results are presented only in the case of the Strategy
for the BSR, since the Strategy for DR has not yet been implemented.31 There is also a need
for choosing a proper theory which justifies the reasons for creating macro-regions, allows
to explain their aims and role in the European Union setting.
Another potentially interesting debate the author could obtain by addressing the following
speculations: could those two strategies influence the way of EU governance in the future?
Could they head the EU towards the path to the federal Union (and rehashed the idea
of the United States of Europe)? There is a possibility, unjustified yet, that those strategies
might be considered in the future as a beginning of the completely new way of governing
the EU – at regional level, since interest among local decision-makers is rising. Nevertheless,
it is always difficult to predict the future, therefore the concern throughout this work will not
be taken into account as a reliable part of deduction.
2.3.
Rising interest.
European Union example constitutes a very fascinating case for the study of the regional
policy from region diversity perspective. Following Michael Keating32, development
European Commission 2009c
Dubois A., Hedin S., Schmitt P., Sterling J., 2009 : 14.
31
The aim of the present Hungarian presidency is to prepare and complete the Strategy for Danube Region so
the implementation can start as soon as the Member States approve it, at the June meeting of the Council of
Europe. If for some reasons this will not be done, the task be entrusted in the hands of Polish Presidency.
32
Michael Keating - Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario and Professor of Political
and Social Sciences at the European University Institute in Florence. Author of numerous publications on the
29
30
10
on regional level became more and more politicized over the past thirty years. An especially
strong impulse has been given by the rising pressure from within regions. The local politicians
and economic leaders were showing their commitment to strengthening regional unity
by taking part in regional initiatives. At the same time, the governments have realized
the power of regional and social forces. This cooperation between governments and regional
authorities can be described as a mutually beneficial relationship or a non-zero-sum-game,33
in which everyone is winning. Peripherals and relatively poor regions gain growth, more
economically advanced regions decline in relentless congestion and the national authorities
gain the overall growth and out-put to the economy.34 In result many European countries have
decided to adopt regional development policies into national plans since they have seen more
pros than cons.
Therefore, over the last decade, there has been a growing interest in the regional cooperation
among countries, within the EU, which can was mainly focused on the economic, social,
natural and cultural factors. Even though, the diversity is nothing new in Europe, the concern
among policy-makers was triggered off by “big enlargement” in 2004 and accession
of relatively poor Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, which brought again to the EU’s agenda
the problem of two opposite poles: poverty-stricken and wealthy EU regions. The adoption
of the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) in June 2009 effected
the inauguration of the first macro-regional strategy within the context of European Union
integration.35 The economic crisis, could also have an impact on creating such a unity
and setting up the priorities. Arising need of action allows the regional organizations, like
for instance Baltic Development Forum36 or Nordic Council of Ministers37, to take a real
initiative in shaping the regional agenda. Publishing reports on topics vital to the development
of the Baltic Sea Region and proposing priorities for action shows the great effort to place
their local problems in the wider European context. Thus, there is no small wonder
that the first idea of the so-called macro-regional strategy aiming to boost the development
field of European politics, nationalism, public policy, urban and regional politics and society, and social science
methodologies.
33
Barry J., Keating M. 2001 : 2 – 5.
34
Ibid.
35
Dubois A., Hedin S., Schmitt P., Sterling J. 2009 op.cit. : 9.
36
Leading high-level Network for decision-makers from business, politics, academia and media in the Baltic Sea
Region.
37
The Nordic Council of Ministers was formed in 1952 along with the Nordic Council, and has 87 elected
members from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden as well as from the three autonomous
territories; the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland. It is a unique form of international co-operation were
Political discussions are held with members of the governments of the five Nordic countries and the three
autonomous territories.
11
in the area had its source in the Baltic countries initiative after 2004. The Danube strategy,
which is also analyzed broadly in this thesis, was built upon Strategy for the BSR and is
influencing the regional agenda by focusing mainly on transport, environment and economic
development. This sort of actions are assessed by the author as a catalyst, facilitator
of specific partnerships and projects. In general, a path for the sustainable growth for these
regions.
Recent publications and legal documents reveal a rising interest in macro-regional approach,
international environment in general and on the European politics arena in particular.
Discussions about creating similar strategies for new macro-regions confirm that not only
the study of regions is back in fashion, but above all, there has been a huge progress in this
matter, by putting this study into EU practice, what seems to be innovative idea in terms
of the regional integration. Thus, in consequence, the comparative analytical research in two
EU “testing strategies” and their possible influence on the EU regional policy is required.
There are already several materials about the EU regional and cohesion policy implications,
but only a few in the studies of macro-regional cooperation which is resulting in the creation
of special EU strategy (since this case is relatively new issue on the EU agenda). It is,
therefore, perhaps worth attempting to offer also some insight into financial rules in the
strategies and projects, since they will be based only on existing institutions and strategic
regional funds. According to the European Commission, no additional financing is
anticipated.38 In this thesis, the author discusses and theorizes about macro-regions operating
as an integral part of the EU governance. However, whether the success of a macro-regional
approach depends on efficient cooperation among local institutions and decision-makers only,
or whether it also a sense of regional identity (cultural homogeneity) remains an open
question.
2.3.1. Defining macro-regions.
In order to understand the origin and evolution of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region
and the Danube Strategy the following section will apply the definition of the macro-region.
According to Paweł Samecki39, the standard definition for macro-regions does not exist. This
term has been used to describe the global actors (consist of nations, like the EU or ASEAN),
38
European Commission 2011b.
Paweł Samecki - Commissioner in charge of Regional Policy from 4.07.2009.He was designated by the Polish
government for appointment as a Member of the European Commission following the resignation of Danuta
Hübner, who was elected Member of the European Parliament.
39
12
as well as groups of administrative regions within the state (for instance in Germany
and Australia). However, during the preparation of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region,
the European Commission has defined the macro-region as “an area including territory from
a number of different countries or regions associated with one or more common features
or challenges.”40 This explanation is very widen and provides no implication of scale.
Thus, Samecki has developed the definition in the context of the territory. The EU macroregion may consist of several regions from several states, but the number of the Member
States should be fewer than all Members of the Union.41 Furthermore, these units can be
created on the basis of their common features and challenges which lies in the different areas
of interest (geographic, economic, environmental or cultural). Another detailed explanation
of macro- region one can find in the report prepared during the Swedish presidency in 2009,
by Nordregio working group.42 According to them, definition of macro-region is strictly
related to the way of how the region is defined. Starting from this point, the term “region” can
be described as an administrative unit or as a functional area. Bjorn Hettne has defined
a different forms of the region. It can be described as a:
1. Geographical unit, marked by natural, physical or ecological barriers.
2. Social system which assumes the existence of trans-local relations between human groups.
3. Organized cooperation in various areas (cultural, economic, political or military).
4. Civil society, when the organizational framework promotes social cooperation, distribution
of values and communication among society through the whole region.
5. Acting subject with its own features (identity, actor capability, legitimacy and structure
of decision-making).43
Alexandre Dubois argues that the regions as well as macro-regions might be considered
as a products of intended actions of international, national or regional stakeholders. They are
created in the process of strategic and interest-led expression of power. Into this complicated
process are involved different kinds of political influences or capacities. These influences are
further activated to initiate or push forward the political bargaining process in order to install
a new regional unit.44
Regarding the policy of macro-region, it is assumed by Dubois and his colleagues from
the Nordregio report that stakeholders mobilizes their powers in order to better shape
40
Samecki P., 2009 op.cit.
Ibid.
42
Dubois A., Hedin S., Schmitt P., Sterling J. 2009 : 5-7.
43
Ibid.
44
Ibid.
41
13
the macro-regional structure and to provide fruitful negotiations. In practice, this means
that macro-regions coordinates the institutional arrangements from which they might gain
anew scale of territorial governance to achieve the goals. This new scale of political multi
level-system is characterized by Swyngedouw as a highly contested in comparison to already
existed levels of interactions.45 Nevertheless, they constitutes the new objects in terms
of the EU policy attention as well as the challenge to install a new mode of governance which
will fit into its organizational and institutional framework. It is then worth to look
at the Multi-level Governance approach, in order to find implications about how the macroregional strategies will be govern. Once a macro-region is installed it may start to act. Using
new channels of capabilities, macro-regions implements new projects. However,
its functioning might consumes many resources and creates additional expenses of other fields
in politics and planning area.
Besides
obvious
macro-regional
connection
between
territory,
common
features
and cooperation among different actors, Ricardo Cappellin also stresses that the boundaries
of these macro-regions are not exclusive. The character of the European macro-regions
is described as a “interregional network”.46 Cappellin claims that there is no “single” space
in Europe but rather overlapping networks and multiple soft-power identities.47 In general,
both forms, regions and macro-regions are socially and politically constructed units.
The process of establishing these units is held through mutual interactions among various
actors. Furthermore, binding territories together into one macro-region is seen in the light
of a functional relation to social-economic development. Here it should be stated that
in the case of the Baltic Sea Region, the EU Strategy includes regions and whole countries
coming from the EU’s Member States plus Russia. The Danube Region covers parts of eight
EU countries as well as six non-EU states what at the beginning makes this Strategy
challengeable in terms of coordination.
45
Ibid.
Ibid.
47
Ibid.
46
14
Figure 1: The composition of
the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and for the EU Strategy for the Danube Region
EU's
regions
Russia
Member
States
8
regions
of the
EU's
6 regions
form the
non-EU
states
Member
States
15
3.0. Methodology.
In order to investigate the research question, presented already in the problem formulation
chapter, the author explains the methods used in this thesis and the reasons for choosing them
among others. Additionally, the reasons why this specific method was chosen is stated here.
3.1. Method.
By studying macro-regional issues the main goal is to draw conclusions about why the macroregions were created in the first place. Furthermore, after defining macro-regional approach,
it is crucial to determine the aim and role of macro-region strategies in the context
of the present EU regional policy. This requires using an appropriate method.
The focus on contemporary phenomenon within the real-life context is usually lying
in the case study area of interest. Since this master’s thesis also relies on, assessed
by the author, macro-regional phenomenon, a case study seems to be a suitable method
for studying this complex matter. This particular method is used to answer the research
question:
What is the aim of creating the EU Strategies for the Baltic Sea Region and for Danube
Region in the context of the existing territorial cooperation in the EU?
Choosing the two EU’s Strategies, instead of one, constitutes an example of “replication
logic”48 and their analysis is supposed to reveal support for obtaining similar results. The key
role that case study plays in the analysis part is based on explanatory function. The first step
is to review the context from which the research question has derived. To be able to do
that it is necessary to adopt a proper theory. Setting up the theoretical propositions aims
to provide the understanding of the regional context of European integration, defining macroregional approach and differences between regions and macro-regions, as well as to work
as a framework of what is being studied in this thesis. Moreover, organizing the theoretical
consideration in the way that the characteristics of chosen theory will be presented firstly aims
to help in developing a logical structure.49The outcomes obtained from theory and analysis
are expected to justify a new pattern of integration within the EU, at macro-regional level.
48
Yin Robert K. 2003 :4.
49
Ibid. : 9-11.
16
The thesis also includes the exploratory view by discussing the future of macro-regions
and adequate strategies for them in perspective chapter.
Case study is mainly based on quasi-judicial/naturalistic research method50. This means that
the author will observe and search for the role of the macro-regions in the EU.
An investigation has its own dynamic in which posing questions, clarifying definitions,
collecting data is recognized as crucial element to obtain a reliable results. To be able to do
that the multiple sources of evidence are required. In the analysis part the author will use
different sources, like for instance documents about the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region
and for the Danube Region, archival records, articles, and finally the author’s observations.
Putting the data collection into practical use conditions the validity and objective perspective
of the thesis. Therefore, a hermeneutic analytical approach will be used since this method is
concerned with interpretation of documents (or other sources).51
In this work, qualitative method will be used in order to help in deeper understanding of what
has given an impulse to create macro-regions and to find out the aim of the brand new EU
strategies. Furthermore, the qualitative method is data driven and eventually the answer of the
problem formulation comes from the empirical data. Even though, this specific method is
acknowledged as a descriptive or inferential, and sometimes criticized for its “soft” character,
using it is also necessary, because in some cases numbers and statistical results do not speak
for themselves.52 Nevertheless, also quantitative method will be used in order to show
the “hard” evidence.
In the analysis chapter the author incorporates the SWOT analysis which will be used
as a tool and it should indicates potential strength and weak points which could emerged
during the implementation of the two macro-regional strategies in internal and external
surrounding. When indicating the opportunity and threats of the Strategy for the BSR and DR
the author will seek for external implications of a new macro-regional approach. Here, it is
worth mentioning that SWOT analysis can be subjective, hence, it will not be presented
in the main part of this thesis. SWOT analysis is then used as a guide in creating the future
perspective.
50
Gillham B. : 2000 : 8.
Bryman A. 2004 : 394.
52
Ibid. : 9-10.
51
17
3.2. Design.
In order to explain the research question, this thesis is divided into two major parts :
theoretical and analytical. Further information about chapters are stated below.
In chapter 4 the author presents the theoretical consideration of the main integration theories
of the EU which might constitute a potential explanation for the macro-regional appearance
within the EU structure. In order to grasp the new macro-regional concept, the author tests
three
main
theories:
Functionalism,
Neo-functionalism
(and
its
newest
version)
and Federalism. From this, the author expects to incorporate one or a combination of two
theories, in order to explain
an emergence of the macro-regional units within the EU.
Afterwards, the theoretical consideration includes also the section about “old”53 and “new”54
macro-regions which suppose to clarify the distinction and reveals differences between them.
Furthermore, from this section author expects to find out whether creation of macro-regions is
not just a modern trend among European states. Finally, the last section of this theoretical
chapter will constitute the presentation of the Multi-level Governance approach in order
to understand the multi-sectoral Strategy for the BSR and DR. It is presumed that this theory
might constitute the core assumption of how to govern the strategies.
The chapter 5 aims to evaluate the EU Strategies for macro-regions in the light of the practical
actions. The analysis firstly provides the short description of post Lisbon changes in the EU
regional policy. Then, the main characteristic of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region
and the Strategy for the Danube Region will be presented in order to determine their aims.
Additionally, in the case of the Strategy for BSR (only) the author will present the first
annual report of this strategy in order to investigate what has been achieved so far in this
matter. Furthermore, in this section, the author will make use of empirical (qualitative as well
as quantitative) comparative perspective data to learn to what extent the two macro-regional
strategies are innovative. Thereafter, the author expects discover the role of the macro-regions
on the EU arena. It should be noted that case study is about to take into consideration
combined evidences from political, economic and environmental spheres, since these
strategies are based on such matters.
The study also includes a short financial analysis for each EU Strategy. This perspective is
very important in recognizing the whole process of establishing and managing those strategies
by the EU. In this chapter the SWOT analysis will be includes in order to provide a suitable
53
54
Regions which are lying in the territory of the Member States accessed the EU before 2004.
Regions which are lying in the territory of the Member States accessed the EU after 2004.
18
framework for reviewing strategies and conclude the main information about their goals,
capacities, internal and external positions.
Conclusion chapter 6, sums up the results of the theoretical and analytical investigation and
will serve as a section in which the final conclusions about aims of the two EU Strategies will
be presented.
The chapter 7 will constitute the last part of this master’s thesis – perspectives. It will aim to
provide short discussion about future perspectives for the macro-regions and possibilities
of spill-over effect for creating another EU macro-regional strategies. The essential part
consist in showing the general tendency of EU regional development path.
Detail structure of the thesis can be seen as follows:
2.2.Research question as a point of departure
What is the aim of creating the EU Strategies for the Baltic Sea
Region and for Danube Region in the context of the existing
territorial cooperation in the EU?
3.0.Methodology
3.1. Method
3.2. Design
19
4.0.Theoretical consideration
Theories of European integration
 4.1. Functionalism
 4.2. Neo-functionalism
 4.3. Federalism
4.4. Theoretical explanation of
establishing the EU macro-regions?
4.4.1. Distinguishing “old” and
“new” macro-regions.
Aim of creating the EU
Strategies for the BSR and
the DR.
 4.5. Applying Multilevel Governance Theory
5.0. Aim of the EU Strategies in the light of practice.











5.1. Post-Lisbon changes in the EU regional policy.
5.2. EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region.
5.2.1. Policy
5.2.2. Governance
5.2.3 Financial perspective
5.2.3. EU Strategy for the BSR after one year of practical
actions.
.
5.3. EU Strategy for the Danube Region.
5.3.1. Policy
5.3.2. Governance
5.3.3 Financial perspective
5.4. Outcomes from the practice - SWOT analysis for the EU
Strategies for the BSR and DR.
20
6.0. Conclusion


6.1.Evaluation of the theoretical part.
6.2. Outcomes from the practice - SWOT analysis for the
EU Strategies for the BSR and DR
7.0. Perspectives


Future perspectives for the other
macro-regional strategies.
Tendency of the regional
development in the EU.
21
4.0. Theoretical consideration of the regional integration in
Europe.
To explain the aim of created the EU Strategies for the new macro-regions, firstly it is
necessary to understand the theoretical background of the regional integration among
European countries. In this chapter an overview of the key theoretical approaches to the study
of European integration is examined in order to employ one, which in its essence might
constitute a potential explanation for establishing macro-regions within the EU.
Regional integration process has been on the research agenda from the early 1950s, and it is
still very actual topic, mainly because of dynamic of current integration among countries and
regions all over the world. In Europe, or more precisely in the EU, Strategies for the Baltic
Sea Region and for the Danube Region have opened again the debate of how integration
at European level would be developing and under what kind of rules the macro-regional
strategies would be acting if the process of creating other macro-regions moved forward. This
current area of political inquiry requires setting up the theoretical framework for the new
European case.
The explicit effort to theorize about the process of European integration began
within the political science subfield of International Relations (IR), and many theories
of integration were developed at that time.55 Most scientists studying regional integration have
been mainly interested in understanding the political nature of integration as a new way
of preserving the international peace (at least in Western-Europe).56 One explanation of why
deepening and widening the regional integration in Europe is continued, might be seen
in the functionalist theory, neo-functionalism and federalism. For this reason this section will
take them into consideration the in order to find out the explanation why the macro-regions
have emerged.
4.1. Functionalist Theory.
Functionalism popularized by David Mitrany is one of the international relations theories
which might explain the regional integration process. It holds that integration can be seen not
as a struggling power between nation-states, but as a “cluster of cooperation” between
55
56
Cram L. 1997 : 7.
Mattli W. 1999 : 19.
22
diversified states.57 It presumes willingness of nation and citizens to work together, especially
in technical areas. However, Mitrany emphasizes, that at the same time state boundaries
prevent people from achieving maximum satisfaction and obtaining their social-economic
needs. The functionalists plan to satisfy multifarious needs can only be achieved by cooperation at international level.58 Furthermore, it argues that peaceful economic development
is boosted not by voting in elections but by active participation of citizens in defeating
the specific industrial and economic problems.59 Thus, this theory provides a normative basis
for the flexible integration and a new way of governance among cooperative states.
Functionalist theory have two primary objectives which are inseparably linked. Executive
power of the state should ensure the public welfare, which will further provide with the social
protection, as well as security against war.60 One of the main arguments of this theory is
that states are responsible for the war. This point of view is justified by the opinion
that national authorities, by not fulfilling the citizens demands, are constructors of potential
dangers and external enemies.61 For Mitrany, the national authorities are suffering from
internal and external pressure, which might results in insufficient functioning of the whole
state. According to functionalists idea, technical actors or experts are the main units which
fabricate cooperation. Therefore, they strongly puts emphasis on technocrats as a collective
force in building cooperative institutions. The best way to combat lack of internal and external
productivity is to organize the international management by creating overlapping agencies.
Only in this way can states help to attain high functionality of the international organization.62
In consequence, international governance consists of economic or technocratic cooperation
and mutual agreements to submit common structures in order to fulfill functional tasks.
In general, functionalism has a positive meaning and according to Mitrany its goal is
to guarantee the peace and prosperity through a high degree of social participation.
The essence of his idea is that “form should follow function”63, by which he means,
that the process of establishing the institutions should grow out of the peaceful performance,
and should not correlated with force. Functionalism presumes progressive expansion
of activities areas which in time would pass from the state responsibility to the organization
(spill-over effect). This also means that if the states works to mutual advantage, the learning
57
Warleigh A. 2002 : 18.
Malhotra K.V. 2004 : 168.
59
Warleigh A. 2002: 18 – 19.
60
Ibid.
61
Malhotra K.V. 2004 : 171.
62
Warleigh A. 2002 : 20.
63
Malhotra K.V. 2004 : 169
58
23
process benefits them with experience.64 The logic of the functionalist theory is best seen
in the relationship between problem solving and territory in modern world. Mitrany argues
that strictly authoritative territorial structures (states) are not the only ones which may
sufficiently deal with challenges.65 The example of controlling the Rhine or Danube region
shows that the problems such as pollution, the weak management of the air traffic do not
necessarily requires the state control. The principal of rule could be also seen in functional
terms Comparably efficient in solving problems might be also the independent experts,
private sector or international actors.66
Nevertheless, functionalism is often criticized for overestimating normative issue
and ignoring the importance of politics in the same time.67 Therefore, it is sometimes assess
as a naïve belief, rather than a realistic approach.68
Separating political activities from economic and social ventures or passing over the pressure
coming from the interest groups or local parties, indicates that this theory is not taking into
consideration crucial factors which are in fact (on the EU example) one of the driving forces
of the regional cooperation.69 Moreover, the concept of macro-regions inside the EU,
in the functionalists view, is not possible since according to Mitrany, functionalism stays
in opposition to the continental unification or integration which is derived from a territorial
closure and defined territory.70 Hence, even though general functionalist’s idea of how
cooperation at international level should look is valid,71 nevertheless, it does not take
into consideration factors, like territory, interests groups, dealing with local problems, which
from the EU point of view have led to the creation of macro-regional strategies. For this
reason, this theory will not be used in the further analysis.
4.2. Neo-functionalist’s integration project.
When seeking the theoretical basis for the EU macro-regional strategies it is worth to consider
the neo-functionalist theory. It was developed by Ernst Haas and his continuator Leon
Lindberg.72 Haas has anticipated that problem-solving process might take place at broader
64
Ibid.
Mazey S., Rhodes C. 1995 : 30.
66
Ibid.
67
Warleigh A. 2002 : 25.
68
Cram L. 1997 : 11.
69
Ümit K. 2009 : 45-51.
70
Ibid.
71
The real implications of this theory can be seen in the achievements of the United Nations, in the nonpolitical fields and success of its specialized agencies.
72
Niemann A. 2006 : 12.
65
24
levels than just a state. An integration within a specific region formed by these states, which
have taken a formal decision to integrate European elites (private, regional actors, firms,
and public officials, experts) is led to seek regional – rather than national – solutions
for shared problems.73 Often named as a functional spill-over process and based
on the assumption that the cooperation in one policy area would give an impulse to other
policy field, can lead to deeper integration.74 The concept of spill-over defines also the idea
of coordinating the integration at the regional or states level.75 What in the macro-regional
case seems to be relevant.
For the European Union, this neo-functionalist theory seems to be interesting approach, since
most of the writers have focused mainly on the European integration.76 This approach is
a combination of ideas borrowed from functionalism and Jean Monnet pragmatic idea
of integration. From Mitrany the functionalism took over the interest of learning process,
spill-over effect, based on prosperity, decision-making rules and correlation between solving
problems and territorial aspects.77 Nevertheless, there are many serious differences between
these two approaches. In neo-functionalists view, supranational organization is not
determined by concrete tasks, but its actions flows autonomously by the fact that it is not bind
by any external or internal pressure.78 Moreover, unlike Mitrany and his followers, the neofunctionalists gave an integration a regional focus, what means that they were paining more
attention to territorial aspects of integration. In Haas and Lindberg writings there is
an important reflection which suggests that conceptual framework of the neo-functionalism is
at the same time a plan for actual actions.79 Less idealistic, neo-view recognized the real
importance of local, political elites, and the fact that
the chief role in driving forces
the integration process is playing the interest-oriented politics.80
“As the process of integration proceeds, it is assumed that values will undergo change,
that interests will be redefined in terms of regional rather than a purely national
73
Stone Sweet A. 2010.
Cini M. 2007 : 86 – 88.
75
Rosamond B. 2000 : 62.
76
Cini M., 2007 op.cit.
77
Niemann A. 2006 op.cit.
78
Ibid.
79
Ibid.
80
Cram L. 1997 : 14.
74
25
orientation and that the erstwhile set of separate national group values will gradually
be superseded by a new geographically larger set of beliefs”. (Haas,1958:13)81
Furthermore, the essential point of neo-functionalism constitutes the concept of societal
groups role in the integration process. The interests groups and political parties are the main
actors in driving the integration forward. In this context, despite some differences
in conception of how to achieve the goals, the actions which groups will choose to attain
these goals drives forward the integration process.82 This influence is linked with a normative
side of integration. Haas argues that values and beliefs are transforming from national level
to supranational organization. This shift from national loyalties was recognized and developed
further by Lindberg and Scheingold in 1970s. They added the importance of the “authoritylegitimacy” transfers83 which provides a measurable indicators of progress in new regional
organization.84 Furthermore, the shift of decision-making process to the new centre results
in reorientation of national expectations and political activities towards development
at supranational level. This particular process was named by Walter Mattli as a political spillover, in which national interests groups or political parties have an influence on changes
in international sectoral integration.85
Another very important condition affecting the dynamics of integration, according to neofunctionalists, is upgrading the common interests.86 It usually occurs when the states
experience in dealing with difficulties is insufficient. In such case, reaching a common
standards at international level brings a mutual benefits. In practice, upgrading the common
interests relies on seeking compromises among members in order to create a common policy
and give the power to the central institution.87 Under these conditions theoretical
formalization may play a particularly fruitful role.88 Lindberg based on Haas analysis,
extended his conclusion and defined European integration as:
“The process whereby nations forgo the desire and ability to conduct foreign and
domestic policies independently of each other, seeking instead to make joint decisions
81
Ibid.
Cini M., 2007 op.cit.
83
“Authority-legitimacy” transfers might be described as a shift in decision-making process from national
authorities to the international institution.
84
Cram L. 1997 op.cit.
85
Mattli W. 1999 : 26.
86
Ibid
87
Ibid.
88
Schmitter P. C. 2002.
82
26
or to delegate the decision-making process to new central organs: and the process
whereby political actors in several distinct settings are persuaded to shift their
expectations and political activities to a new centre”.89
In essence, this definition presents the neo-functionalist perspective where the interest goes
beyond the state in order to reach a consensus which will stay in line with expectations. Even
though this scope of theoretical framework is taking into account much more factors than
really have an influence on the integration process, it is highly criticized for its “positive
bias”. Philippe Schmitter argues that previous functioning of the neo-functionalism has failed
to meet expectations, because it has not taken into consideration the influences coming from
the negative externalities. His version of the neo-neo –functionalism restores the role
of the national-authorities in favor by saying that the national actors have to reassess the level
and scope of the regional institutions. They have a power to decide whether withdraw or stay
with their obligations towards community. Furthermore, he adds that shift from national
to supranational level will not happen automatically, like in older version, and the crisis
is something that may occur.90 In Schmitter’s view, under certain conditions, it is better
to resolve the crisis by expanding states mutual obligations towards international institution
(spill over) rather than reverse (spill-back). 91 In such a cycle of activities, integration
“consists not of a single continuum or even of a multitude of continua, nor does
it involve any assumptions about automatic, cumulative and irreversible progress
toward a single goal. Successive cycles of induced decision-making may involve
complex movements “upward” and “downward” simultaneously in different issue
areas. Various strategies, national and regional, may be adopted and various outcomes
or endpoints are possible and even likely”.92
Neo-functionalism, after the 1970s, has begun to be criticized by intergovernmentalist
representatives. However, it is important to note that a number of critics arose
from misrepresentation or interpretation the theory’s claims and arguments selectively
and narrowly. Criticism is based on the shortcomings of the neo-functionalism. For instance,
the framework does not specify the conditions under which societal demands for integration
89
Niemann A. 2006 : 14.
Schmitter P. C. 2002.
91
Ibid.
92
Ibid.
90
27
are accepted at national level.93 The theory only assumes that if there is a problem and social
need, actors will mobilize their resources to shift the function to the supranational institution
and then the problem should be solved. In reality, not every problem can be solved
so smoothly, hence, the neo-functionalist’s approach is often named as naïve. Further, it has
been argued that this theory underestimates the impact of nationalism on the integration
process. However, presented below Schmitter’s corrections modernizes it and gives a more
probabilistic perspective.
Keeping in mind Haas and his followers view on the European integration, the question
remains: is this theoretical setting fits to the present situation regarding macro-regional
strategies in the EU? The neo-functionalist model improved by Philippe Schmitter, indeed
provides with an open system of explanation why the regional integration is evolving.
According to Schmitter, this process takes place when the current policy in democratic state
does not solve the problems. In such a situation, the actors94 decides to negotiate
at international level. In result, they adopt the joint strategy which includes their interests,
goals and allows to create the new channels of influences and transactions.95 This theoretical
setting seems to be appropriate regarding the reason why the EU’s macro-regional strategies
have emerged. In spite of the fact that neo-functionalism illustrates the process of European
integration, it is taking into account only one line of direction: states and other actors are
shifting their powers to the supranational institution (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Regional Integration in neo-functionalist’s view.
National and local
authorities
Interest groups
Technocratic groups
Supranational
organization (EU)
93
Mattli W. 1999 : 28.
In neo- functionalism : interests groups, local politicians, or national authorities.
95
Schmitter P. C. 2002.
94
28
Figure 3: Regional integration inside the EU at present.
-Member State
EU’s institutions
Power to act
Macroregion
Influence
Macro-region
However, macro-regions constitutes a bit altered instance, where new sort of integration are
taking place inside the EU in order to solve problems and improve local welfare (Figure 3).
Impulse is coming directly from national and regional authorities, interests groups, which
have the same or similar sense of identity and are dealing with the same local problems. These
actors, despite the fact that they are already included in the EU policy, are seeking to
redefined and to improve its smaller environment. Macro-regions might be seen as a arena
for such actors, which are striving to gain more attention from the EU. Creation of the macroregions inside the EU may be perceived also as a return to federalization. Therefore, it is
worth to look into other theory, which includes federal aspects of integration, to find out
whether macro-regions have features of federal units.
4.3. Federal Europe.
The federalism theory encloses the intellectual consideration of the future shape of European
Union. This theory belongs to the field of International Relations, and it was usually used
to explain the nature of the modern federal state, like for instance Germany. Federalism
origins from the United States. However, a certain progression has been made in terms
its classical definition.96 The focus from the institutional side of the state-centric approaches
has shifted to the political actions, and eventually to a broader comparative understandings
of federalism. Before looking at federalism, especially its European variant, it is important to
96
Christiansen T., Jørgensen E., Wiener A. 2001 : 32-38.
29
crystallize the definition. Daniel Elazar defines federalism as the “combination of self-rule
and shared rule through constitutionalized powersharing on a non centralized basis”.97 By
this, he means that the federal system can exist without creating the federal state. He found
the essence of the federalism in institutionalization of the relationship among
“the participants in political life”.98 According to Preston King, federation is seen
as an ideological or philosophical outlook. This view automatically implies establishing
the institutional procedures of sovereign states, but in the form of the governance through
the regional units.99 In Europe, especially active scholars in the field of federalism theory,
were Altiero Spinelli, Henri Brugmans and K.C. Wheare. These federalists have presented
the different version of the federal approach in order to response to the European situation
after II World War. They have pointed the nation-states as the units fully responsible
for the war.100 Hence, they have called for the changes in the European political order.
The alternative should consist in a disaggregation of power away from
the centralized
government and relocate it among individual but linked levels of authority in a multinational
federal unit.101 The federalists concern is to secure a fragile continental peace by establishing
the transnational governance. The idea of a transnational Europe, organized according
to the federalists principles has got a solid basis, because was built upon the criticism
of the dangers coming from the nationalism and the tragedy of war. Michael Burgess stresses
that
“the European federal tradition suggest that the EU should be a union of states and
citizens in which the limits to central authority are clearly identified. However, this
would suggest a shift from the language of treaty to the language of constitution”.102
Therefore, his conception assumes that division of power and competences among
democratic103 Member States and regional units can be only legitimized by the constitution
what in such specific circumstances may lead to the limitation of the central authority. As we
know now, this project has been brought again on the EU agenda in 2004, in the form
of The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. However, this idea was very quickly
abandon, after the French and Dutch rejection in referendum in 2005. This indicates that
97
Ibid.
Ibid.
99
O’Neil M. 1996 : 21.
100
In the European federalists view, nation state is from its nature evil and conflictual (it acts to gain power).
101
Ibid.
102
Burgess M., 2000 : 15.
103
The Federalist’s idea of federation is based on democratic principles.
98
30
European citizens are not ready for the EU federation. Here, it is important to clarify the terms
“federalism” and the “federation”. Burgess argues that many scholars simplifies these two
terms, by using them synonymously. King defines federation as an institutional arrangement
in the form of the sovereign state. Burgess agree with this definition and is even more precise
when arguing that federalism is a process which leads to the creation of its “final product” –
federation (union in the European case).104 Nevertheless, he also stresses that not every
federalism must lead to the federation. In the European integration context, it is significant
to remember that the federation consist of sovereign states and the local authorities.
Furthermore, the EU is a union of those states and not a state sensu stricto. However, Burgess
puts the emphasize on the EU several institutional features of federation. Especially policymaking procedures involving co-operation and co-decision between intergovernmental
and supra-national EU institutions recall for these mechanisms which runs the federation.105
These features will be used in the context of understanding the appearance of the macroregions in the EU. It is also fair to suggest that any other theory has so far been able
to provide with such complete evaluation of the relationship between federalism
and democracy. Those two concepts have been viewed as a by-product of the interchange
of conceptual, structural and operational factors. 106
“Federalism and democracy have been largely viewed as constantly searching
for an accommodation of the varying interests of different
collectivities within
a viable political framework based on the explicit consent of the demos, the amicable
settlement of societal disputes, and the rule of law as an indispensable instrument for
the protection of essential liberties”.107
Chryssochoou in contrary, indicates the evolving pattern of transforming relationship, capable
to take different forms of organizational expression, from relatively small communities to
a larger public involvement. In result, linkage between federalism and democratic rules allows
to manage common affairs. 108
After the war the federalism constituted the very present idea. It has been seen in Churchill
speech and Monnet’s community method of integration. The core of the federal organization,
104
Burgess M., 2000 : 24-29.
Ibid.
106
Chryssochoou D. N. 2000 : 136.
107
Ibid.
108
Ibid.
105
31
according to federalists, consist on the division of powers between two or more levels
of government.109 R.W.G. Mackay suggest that this principle can be seen in both cases: while
joining existed states and creating the federal governments as well as when shifting the power
from unitary state to regional authorities (a tool for the reform of the state). In the macroregional context of the EU, the Mackay presents the definition which might be a good
explanation of why the macro-regional strategy and macro-region itself has appeared
in the EU: “The essence of federalism lies in the decentralization of power wherever needs
can be satisfied at lower levels of government, closer to the citizens”.110 Indeed, the idea
of government being closer to the citizens and their problems can justify the reason
for establishing the macro-regions. However, statement about satisfying the needs, bring
us back to the neo-functionalism approach. This is not only one point which links those two
integration theories with each other. Søren Dosenrode have found several assumptions which
federalism and neo-functionalism (especially its renewed Schmitter’s version) have
in common.111 First, the integration is seen in the light of the process which leads to
the creation of more efficient unit than the state. Second, the main driving force
of the integration is interest. Third, the integration is initiated by an external factor (negative,
like war, crisis). Fourth, the actors involved in the integration are democratic. Fifth, elites
attitude is also an important factor. Thus, the thesis will incorporate only these features
of federalism which explains reasons for the macro-regional appearance and not how they are
constructed, since federalism sensu stricto, sees mainly states and international organization
as a main actors of the European integration.
109
Michelmann H.J., Soldatos P. 1994 : 17-18.
Ibid.
111
Dosenrode S. 2010.
110
32
Table 1: Main political theories of European integration.
Character
The driving
forces of
integration
Focus on
The core concepts
Goals of
integration
-Nation-state
-Technocrats
-Experts
-Cooperation in
technical areas
- Transnational
governance
- Functional spillover
-Organization is
created only to fulfill
technocratic
functional tasks
- Public welfare
- Securitization
of the
international
peace
Nation-states
-Interests
groups
- Political
elites
-Local
authorities
-Political,
economic and
social
integration
-Territorial
aspects
-Democracy
- Functional and
political Spill-over
- Interest goes
beyond the state,
towards
supranational center
- Impulse for
integration is
autonomous
-Maximization
of welfare
- Upgrading the
common
interests
-Assumption
that nationstate are
responsible
for wars and
citizens
problems.
-Regional units
- Democracy
- Shifting the
power
-Constitutionalized
powersharing on a
non centralized basis
-Building a
multinational federal
state by relocating
the power from state
to federal
organization (EU
concept)
-Securitization
of the
continental
peace
-Transnational
governance
Theory
Functionalism
Neofunctionalism
Federalism
4.4. The EU’s macro-regions. What kind of theoretical explanation?
After presenting the main assumptions and features of above-mentioned theories
of the European integration, it is time to put the theoretical settings for the EU macro-regions
in order to understand why they have been established at first place.
Following Schmitter words, it is important to recognize that no single theory can explain
properly The European Union’s dynamics and development. While working on the EU case,
which is already the most complex polity and economic formation in Europe, very often
33
the selection of the theory is made by momentary simplification of events, policies or trends.
Nevertheless, the theory should be able to explain not only why the states has decided
to cooperate with each other and to shift some of their prerogatives to common institutions,
but also provides understanding of further development of such international organization.
It is, to some extent, valuable to notice that most of the regional integration theories are
deprived from their capacities to readdress them to the new circumstances. Hence, a lack
of endogenous and exogenous explanation status of the temporal processes and factors, makes
the theory not adequate.
In order to explain an emergence of the macro-regional units within the EU, this thesis will
apply combination of two major theories of the regional integration. Presented in chapters 4.2
and 4.3 neo-functionalist and federalist characteristics, have given a solid basis
for the possible explanation of the macro-regional occurrence. The most vivid evidence
that the neo-functionalism supplements the federalism and vice-versa, is that both of them are
putting emphasis on the regional units and its influence on the European integration process.
When the neo-functionalism is pointing out the necessity to upgrade the common interests
as an objective, the federalism defines the next step – establishment of the transnational
governance. Schmitter has realized the interconnection between these two theories.
Furthermore, he developed the macro-hypotheses which constitutes a relevant explanation
for the macro-regional construction. In a neo-neo-functionalism perspective, the tensions
(positive and negative) are coming from the international or regional environment
and initiates the unexpected performance. This results in searching for an alternative means
and reaching the same goals.112 In general this means that the actors are revising their policies
regarding the scope and level of regional decision-making and they seeks to obtain
the common aims.113 This particular situation explains the reason behind creating macroregions. When the strong tensions or internal contradictions will show up at the national level,
it is likely to widen the units which are interested in active participation in international
integration. Schmitter hypothesized that this may cause a shift in actor expectations and direct
them from states to the regional center. According to him, the regional integration takes place
when all actors relies on the effects of their joint solutions and established interests. They are
creating specific channels of influences in which they will be acting to gain benefits.
Moreover, the integration process begins when the number of exogenous and endogenous
112
Schmitter P. C. 2002.
Ibid.
113
34
conditions are met in the same time. In consequence, the regional decisions are made
and from this stage the macro-regions will be affecting more or less the national structures
and national policy.114 Of course, Schmitter also stresses that his hypothesis generates a model
which in essence cannot be treated as what would really happen. Nevertheless, predictability
should increases with successive “upward-grading” cycle.115 Integrating units, after common
negotiations, will be finally able to adopt common policies vis- à-vis non-participating actors.
However, each decisional level must includes the reconsideration of used in the future
cooperation plans and main objectives of the strategies. Schmitter has developed
“the hypothesis of additivity”, which consist in the fact that
“[…] actor perceptions of the impact of regional processes enter into their calculations
of interest, as do variables in a stepwise multiple regression equation, - one at a ‘time
with - each successive one contributing (positively or negatively) to the prediction
of a remaining portion of the variance”.
From his observations, the present shape of the European Union, after some periods
of stagnation, was always followed by a wider and sometimes deeper commitment
to the common objectives and like it is seen now, in the case of the EU macro-regions.
Schmitter has summarized the most important variables which influences the initiation
of the “priming cycles,”116 which also explains the creation of macro-regions within the EU
structures.
They are as follows:
1. Equitable Distribution of Benefits – this variable means that the changes in costs
and benefits have increased from regionally triggered transactions which were
redistributed among participating units. In the case of macro-regions distributions
of benefits as well as the costs will be divided among local authorities (coming from
different Member States) of the macro-region.
2. Regional Group Formation – according to Schmitter, this is the pattern which allows
to form and participate a new non-governmental or quasi-governmental unit.
At the same time such a unit is representing some or all of members across national
114
Ibid.
„upward –grading” cycle - shift In decision-making process towards wider community (regional or
international).
116
“priming cycles” – rising importance of distinctive regional process initiate the cycle of the regional-level
rules and distribution of gains within the regional units.
115
35
borders and helps in effective interests promotion of, sectors, professions, causes
at the regional level.
3. Development of Regional Identity – consist in extent to which participating units are
taking part in the regional processes. The first impulse is made by the willingness to
gain strictly material benefits, afterwards this satisfaction is creating emotional
and symbolic bond and a larger sense of regional loyalty.
4. Regional Reform-mongering – consist in degree to which the actors are linked
with the new regional institutions. They are taking part in the promotion of the new
policies or strategies on the basis of intellectual, economic or technical demand
of politicians or interest representatives.
5. International Status Effect – is determine the extent to which the states or region is
perceived as dependent upon the performance of regional institution. The macroregions are dependent from the EU, since they do not have its own, independent
sources of financing.117
Next step to improve the EU development, according to Schmitter, consist in the capacity
of the EU institutions. They are able to directly influences the regional processes
by negotiating with the regional NGOs or sub-national governments, even if this sometimes
means bypassing the national authorities. This also seems to be the case of the EU macroregions, since the first negotiations concerning the establishment of them has taken place
on this line.118 By inventing and promoting new symbols, naming challenges of the regions
and building the common sense of the regional identity, the EU institutions, local NGOs,
national or regional authorities can actively work together and obtain set up goals.119
The number of different actors will then begin to form a transnational coalition and create
the policy which should emerge at the EU level
“in terms of joint strategies, spill-over seems increasingly likely to occur either
as the result of package deals designed to appeal to a broad transnational coalition
of interests or as necessary accommodation to the region’s new status as a global
player.”120
117
Ibid.
INTERact 2011.
119
Schmitter P. C. 2002.
120
Ibid.
118
36
Although this assumption concerns the macro-regions and the way that they are acting, it is
not likely that macro-regions become a global payer, since they constitutes a part
of the European Union. This point leads us to the federalism theory. Based on the federalism,
one can argue that the macro-regions have been created on the power of self-enforcing
agreement, what links this theory with neo-functionalism.121 The federalists raised
the question about the reasons of creating the regional units. In their view, the answer is rather
simple; the state or international institution might shift some power to the regional units,
if they are not able to accomplish the objectives on its own.122 Murray Forsyth claims that
the process of European integration from the same beginning was discussed in the federal
terms regarding the ideas, practical solutions and relationships among states and the EU
institutions.123 Jean Monnet’s124 concern about timing constitutes the best example of this.
His pragmatic idea was to adjust the practical recommendations into supranational changes
in order to reflect political realities. Moreover, the process of integration should have a further
perspectives to sustain the transnational cooperation at different levels.125
Those two theoretical approaches are corresponding to the creation of the macro-regions
in the way that neo-functionalism explains it by introducing the “upward grading” process
and federalism presents a model in which power from higher center has been giving
to the regional units (top-down model). Macro-regions are placed somewhere between, since
they have emerged beyond the states, but the power to act has given to them from higher
European center. Neo-functionalism is putting emphasis on the regional functionality
and the connection between territory and resolving the problems, what gives a solid basis
to understand those features are included in the macro-regional concept. The macro-regions
indeed were created to deal with regional challenges and to improve living standards for their
citizens. The evidence of this is seen in the light of prepared the EU strategies as an example the Baltic Sea Region has been established to better address the problems and
challenges of the territories of those Member States which are bordering with the Baltic Sea.
Strategy in this case is in the same a plan of how to achieve the goals set up by the regional
and national authorities (both of them are included in the macro-regional development). This
121
Hesse J.J. Wright V. 1996 : 10-25.
Ibid.
123
Ibid.
124
Jean Monnet is regarded as a co-founder of the European Union. His method of uniting Europe was based
on the economic factors. Monnet has been described predominantly as a functionalist. However, some of his
ideas were strictly federal.
125
O’Neil M. 1996 : 24.
122
37
theoretical framework will serve the thesis as a background I order to understand the practical
implication coming from the Baltic Sea and Danube Strategy.
4.4.1. “Old” and “new” macro-regions - what differs one from the other?
The issue of regional cooperation has been expressed in terms of economic and social
cohesion already in the Preamble of the Treaty of Rome, and since then it has become one
of the major goals of the EU. The interesting part consist on the fact that macro-regions were
frequently addressed objects in the field of the EU transnational cooperation and accounted to
the EU programmes since 1970.126 Therefore, it is interesting to investigate and to realize
the difference between new concept of macro regions in relation to the old one.
The first time when the macro-regions have appeared in the EU nomenclature was by the way
of creating the NUTS system. The Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS)
was introduced by Eurostat more than 30 years ago and until 2003 the system was managed
only under a “gentlemen agreement” between Member States and the EU. It has divided
the EU’s territory in order to develop a coherent system of regional statistics for
the Community.127 The NUTS regions were created according to three main criterions. First
principle consist of three-level hierarchical classification, which regulates minimum
and maximum population thresholds for the size of the regions (see table 2).
Table 2: The demographic thresholds of the NUTS levels.
LEVEL
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
NUTS 1
3 million
7 million
NUTS 2
800 000
3 million
NUTS 3
150 000
800 000
Source: Eurostat
The old macro-regions, in the case of the Eurostat, belongs to the NUTS 1. They can be
described as an aggregated administrative regions which may represents a whole state or only
a part of it.128 Second NUTS criterion, often named also as a normative, favors administrative
126
Dubois A., Hedin S., Schmitt P., Sterling J. 2009.
Eurostat 2007.
128
Antomonte C., Nava M. 2005 : 302.
127
38
divisions. According to this, the normative regions expresses the political will of the Member
States in term of allocation of territorial communities, size of population, economic,
historical, cultural and other factors.129 Finally, the last principle favors regional units
of a general, geographical character. This means that territorial units may sometimes be used
by certain Member States for specific fields of activity, like for instance when creating mining
regions, or rail traffic regions. According to those NUTS criterions, in the EU of 15 Member
States, there has been distinguished six lagging behind macro-regions: Greece, Spain, Ireland,
Portugal, the six German Lands and six Italian regions, called the Mezzogiorno.130 This
distinction allows the EU to transfer a great deal of money from structural and cohesion funds
on their development. In terms of growth, their average GDP has increased, and was more
closer to the rest of the European countries, what means that the convergence was
successful.131 The emphasis on the macro-regions was also present at the end of the 1990s and
it was related to the process of creating the transnational cooperation programmes during this
period (INTERREG IIC period 1996-1999 and INTERREG IIIB period 2000-2006).
INTERREG IIC and IIIB are corresponding to the macro-regions, since they are promoting
trans-national cooperation among local, regional and national authorities in the area
of regional and spatial planning. This framework aims to achieve deeper territorial cohesion
and spatial integration. Therefore, the whole Community wad divided into macro-regions,
where territorial cooperation activities were financed from the EU regional founds. Those
macro-regions are, for instance: North-Western Metropolitan Area, South-Western Europe,
Baltic Sea Region, North Sea Region, Western Mediterranean and CADSES. The last region
constitute very interesting case from geo-political side. Established in 1997 was covering four
Member States and fourteen (then) non – Member States. The CADSES macro-region
concerned the largest and most diversified cooperation area which, because of non-EU
members, has been constantly hindered by socioeconomic disparities.132
Looking at those evidences of macro-regional existence within the EU, one can argue that
NUTS system has seen the macro-regions as regional units cooperating within the borders
of one Member State. INTERREG, in contrast, has brought to the EU agenda a regional
object which is going beyond the one Member State, and went even further, the integration
in those regions has included also areas from non-Member States.133 However, in study
129
Eurostat 2007 op.cit.
Sapir A. 2004 : 73 -74
131
Ibid.
132
Ibid..
133
Ibid.
130
39
from the late 1990s, the macro-regions, in the sense that we understand them now. They were
described as meso-regions, but it can be stated here that the EU “macro-region” concept
presented decade ago is an evident that present macro-regions has actually replaced other
concepts. Similarly, over 10 years later, the renewed focus on the macro-regions, especially
theirs functional side, may be a better way to develop transnational cooperation within the EU
context. Looking at the examples of new and old macro-regions134, presented above, it can be
noted that rather traditional attitude of dividing nation-states into macro-regions has been
changed. Moreover, the macro-regions are considered to be the units which in there essence,
are not only about the merging homogeneous territories. The widen territorial dimension
results in cooperation based on heterogeneity within macro-region In brief, the macroregional cooperation was created in order to strengthening the previous initiatives
and deepening the regional identity. The macro-regions are, above all, seen in the light
of the functional and territorial concept for the integration, aiming to deal with regional
problems and to improve social and economic conditions by implementing and monitoring
the policies originated from and within the EU political framework, and not just a modern
trend.
4.5. Multi-level Governance - key to understand the EU macro-regional
strategies.
A closer examination of MLG is relevant for this thesis to better understand this sort
of governance which is indicated by the EU institutions as a optimal approach in regard to
coordination the EU Strategy for the BSR and for DR. The political concept of the macroregional strategies has been connected with the approach concerning the coherence of policy
actions at different levels.135 The MLG was popularized by Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks
and it includes both vertical and horizontal dimensions of interdependent governance
operating at various territorial levels.
Hooghe and Marks divided the MLG into two types. The first one has its foundation
in federalism and is concerned with power sharing aspects among actors at different levels.136
This concern is corresponding to the European macro-regional logic, since it is focused
on the
strong functional relations between local governments and the regional
134
Defined in the section 4.4.1.
Dubois A., Hedin S., Schmitt P., Sterling J. 2009 op.cit. : 9-10.
136
Bache I., Flinders M. 2004 : 3.
135
40
communities.137 The local authorities reflects the general purpose to exercise comprehensive
care for the community’s problems at different levels. Hooghe and Marks described
the governance in the European Union as “a polity-creating process in which authority and
policy-making influence are shared across multiple levels of government – subnational,
national and supranational”.138 An alternative form of MLG constitute the second type
of this particular approach, distinguished by Hooghe and Marks, which says that governance
is organized across numerous territorial scales. The jurisdiction in this case fulfill the specific
tasks rather than general purpose. In the term of the decision-making, it generally speaks
of multi-centred governance. Also Schmitter has mentioned overlapping domains which acts
in order to solve common problems and produce tangible results.139
This type of the MLG is quite common at the local level. 140
These two types argues to be the case of macro-regional strategies introduced by the EU,
national and regional stakeholders. Indeed, according to Alexandre Dubois, Sigrid Hedin,
Peter Schmitt, José Sterling the territorial dimension of the macro-regional strategies was
design to handle three sets of tasks which are corresponding to the MLG;
-
multi-sectoral – actions are based on the coordination of sectoral policies.
-
multi-instrumental - the wide scope of actions in many sectoral policies require using
many instruments.
-
multi-actor – final results of actions can be obtain only by collaboration between
different types of actors at various governance levels.141
Thus, theoretical consideration in respect of above mentioned macro-regional tasks requires to
imply the Theory of Multi-level Governance. The MLG approach has been widely developed
in the 1990s in regard to the EU structural and cohesion policy. Governance in this case refers
to the creation of public policy through state and non-state interactions. It is emphasized
by Ben Rosamond that multiple actors, starting from high to low government levels, through
private sector and civil society, are involved in policy-making process in the EU.142
Moreover, sub-national actors, including regional stakeholders interests groups, lobby
representatives, private firms and non-governmental organizations, have a huge impact
on the formation of the regional plans and policies at the EU level, what have finally resulted
137
Ibid.
Liesbet Hooghe L., Marks G., 2001 : 2.
139
Ibid.
140
Bache I., Flinders M. 2004 : 20.
141
Dubois A., Hedin S., Schmitt P., Sterling J. 2009 op.cit.
142
Rosamond B. 2000 : 110.
138
41
in introducing Multi-level Governance in other EU policy areas.143 MLG studies puts its
emphasis on the increasing importance of departments in policy-making. Non-state actors,
independent agencies together with national and local authorities constitutes so-called
“bargaining arena”144, where they are lobbying their specific interests.145 Originally, those
bargains has taken place on the government level and responsible for it were departments
of Economic or Foreign Affairs. However, with the increasing volume of the EU legislation,
the interactions are evolving not only from top-down, but also from bottom-up perspective.146
Thus, Multi-level Governance perceives national authorities as a units which are no longer
monopolists of the flows between the domestic and international level of influences
in the European policy-making environment.
The macro-regional strategies might be described in terms of multi-level or trans-national
governance, added value for the EU coordination process.147 They involves the local,
regional, national, European levels as well as civil society and private stakeholders in a transnational scale. According to Stocchiero this new multi-level and multi-actor approach
on trans-national territorial development, allows EU to act in the area of macro-regional
strategies without an urgent demand to create a new institution.148
Macro-regional strategies might be seen as a way to increase the involvement of both regional
and local actors in European policymaking. Committee of the Regions in White Paper
on Multi-level Governance identified that
“[…] multilevel governance to mean coordinated action by the European Union,
the Member States and local and regional authorities, based on partnership and aimed
at drawing up and implementing EU policies”.149
The Committee of the Regions indicates as an examples of macro-regional strategies, based
on MLG principles, the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region as well as the Strategy for
the Danube Region. For the Committee of the Regions the success of macro-regional
143
Keulen M. 2006, : 36-38.
“bargaining arena” – forum of mutual interactions among different actors presenting different set of
interest.
145
Ibid.
146
Ibid.
147
Stocchiero A. 2010.
148
Ibid.
149
Committee of the Regions 2009.
144
42
strategies rely also on applying the MLG ”which defines a new type of partnership bringing
together the strategic approaches of the internal and external policies of the Union”.150
Alexandre Dubois, Sigrid Hedin, Peter Schmitt, José Sterling argues that this multiple
dimensions of the macro-regional strategies are linked with the development of the EU
sectoral and regional policies and, in the same time, with the specific form of governance.
The best example of such connection might be seen in the European Commission’s White
Paper on European Governance. The Commission has identified five principles underpinning
good governance: effectiveness, openness, participation, responsibility, and coherence. Multilevel governance approach should ensure that these principles are firstly implemented, then
maintained
and
enhanced,
it
should
constitute
a
specific
web
of
interactions
and communications between EU actors.151 Even though, the Commission does not explicitly
refers to the macro-regions, the whole development framework presented in White Paper
indicates the necessity to improve regional cooperation on macro-regional level:
“At EU level, the Commission should ensure that regional and local knowledge and
conditions are taken into account when developing policy proposals. For this purpose,
it should organize a systematic dialogue with European and national associations
of regional and local government, while respecting national constitutional and
administrative arrangements”.152
This statement clearly identify the macro-regional web of mutual interactions when
developing the EU policies. Furthermore, the Commission puts emphasis on the multi-sectoral
cooperation within the EU and necessity to expand the involvement of the regional and local
authorities in policy-making process. The expansion of the EU activities, from the same
beginning, have been affecting the regions, cities and localities within the Member States, but
reverse situation has been occurred very rarely. Commission has realized that the way
in which the EU is currently working does not allows to fully use the potential of multi-level
partnership. Thus this five principles should reinforced the subsidiarity for macro-regional
dimension of the various challenges facing Europe. In essence, the macro-regional strategies
aims to promote cross-sectoral initiatives in order to optimize the influence of European
spatial policies on different territorial units.153
150
Ibid.
European Commission 2001.
152
Ibid.
153
Dubois A., Hedin S., Schmitt P., Sterling J. 2009 : 24.
151
43
The need to replace, to some extent, the top-down approach, regarding regional cooperation
within the EU, has been also recognized by the macro-regions. Hans Brask, Director of Baltic
Development Forum, calls for shifting the focus from high profile political integration to
more low oriented harmonization – on macro-regional level. However, this shift should also
mean the alternative actions. Multi-level governance, according to the Committee
of the Regions, will allow
“to plan and launch initiatives aimed at disseminating good practices in the area
of partnership, linked to the definition of local, regional, national and supranational
political priorities in the Member States […], in order to apply the principle
of partnership with local and regional authorities, not only during the policy
implementation phase but also, and above all, during the preparation of these
policies”.154
Furthermore, a bottom-up approach, used in the macro-regional strategies case, by identifying
different areas for action, including solutions through private-public partnerships is moving
forward the European development from low to high levels and guarantees the effectiveness
of the common EU policies.155
154
155
Committee of the Regions 2009 op.cit.
Brask H.2008 : 5.
44
5.0. Aim of the EU macro-regional Strategies in the light of
practice.
After presenting the theoretical consideration of the macro-regional strategies and defining
the macro-regions as a new type of cooperation within the EU framework, it is time to
investigate the practical actions in the matter of two European Strategies, for BSR and for DR.
5.1. Post-Lisbon changes in the EU regional policy.
The Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December 2007 and entered into force on 1 December
2009, has introduced new amendments which have directly affected the legislative procedures
and, above all, the whole scope of the governance system of the Regional and Cohesion
Policy.156 These changes in legislative procedure will be especially important for
the upcoming decisions on the General Regulation on Structural Funds after 2013.
The first major modification of the Treaty of Lisbon consist in making the European
Parliament a legislator in matters of Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund.157 Currently,
according to article 177 and 178 TFEU, the decisions regarding Regional and Cohesion
Policy decisions are made by the Council and the Parliament in the ordinary legislative
procedure, after consultation with the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the Regions.158 This indicates that the Committee of the Regions have gained some “soft”
power on the future coordination of the regional policy an at the same time on the macroregional strategies. Furthermore, the Committee of the Regions has got the right to bring
actions before the Court of Justice of the EU in two cases:
1. “[…] for the purpose of protecting their prerogatives”.159
2. “[…]the Committee of the Regions may also bring such actions against legislative acts
for the adoption of which the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
provides that it be consulted”.160
The second change in the field of Cohesion policies alongside with changed legislative
procedures, is that now the EU explicitly recognized the “territorial cohesion”. According
to the Title XVII of Part Four of the TFEU, the previous area of “Economic and social
156
Kramer E. 2010.
Ibid.
158
TFEU 2010a.
159
TFEU 2010c.
160
Ibid.
157
45
cohesion”, has been devoted to “Economic, social and territorial cohesion” and the former
Articles 158-162 of the Treaty of the European Communities has been changed into Articles
174 -178. What is more important, all three aspects of Regional and Cohesion Policy are
placed in the field of shared competences between the EU and Member States.161
The significant point regarding the macro-regions, is presented in Article 174 TFEU precise
definition of those regions which deserves more attention within the framework of Regional
Policy:
“Among the regions concerned, particular attention shall be paid to rural areas, areas
affected by industrial transition, and regions which suffer from severe and permanent
natural or demographic handicaps such as the northernmost regions with very low
population density and island, cross- border and mountain regions”.162
This exhaustive definition means, that the Treaty of Lisbon is changing recent tendencies
from the former Treaties, such as limiting the spectrum of regional interests only to poorest
areas. The new concept of territorial cohesion is strictly connected with the subsidiarity
principle. According to this principle, the EU acts when
“the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member
States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason
of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level”.163
In addition, the Lisbon Treaty in article 4(2) in Consolidated version of the Treaty
on European Union clearly distinguish the local and regional autonomy by saying that
“The Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well
as their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political
and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government”.164
In the case of macro-regions this statement constitute very significant point, since it changes
the perception and potential role of regional units within the EU. Another connection
to the macro-regional strategies might be seen in the article 14 TFEU, where the general
161
TFEU 2010d.
TFEU 2010e.
163
TFEU 2010f.
164
TFEU 2010g.
162
46
economic interest is presents as a shared value. The article stresses that in this matter, Union
together with Member States should use its powers to promote social and territorial cohesion
in order to improve social, economic and financial conditions.165
In general, The Treaty of Lisbon brings significant changes in regard to the EU Regional
and Cohesion Policy in the area of economic, social and territorial cohesion by introducing
the principle of territorial cohesion as a one of the main
EU’s objectives. Moreover,
it strengthens the role of the regions and defines the principle of subsidiarity also in regard
to the regional and local level. Regional policy has already become a central part of the EU’s
focus and expenditure, aiming to build both economic competitiveness and social cohesion
throughout the Union’s regions and macro-regions. 166
5.2. EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region.
The core of this chapter is to analyze the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and similar
Strategy for the Danube Region (not yet implemented), paying special attention to find
implication from the practical steps which were taken in the macro-regional area
of cooperation. This analysis should point the aim or aims of those two EU strategies.
The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region is a document that explicitly addresses territorial
development for the macro-region, in this instance the Baltic Sea Region. It is consider to be
a “pioneer” document in the work of the European Commission towards greater territorial
cohesion stated in the Treaty of Lisbon.167 What is more important, the EUSBSR is based
on the idea of building the highly heterogeneous area in environmental, economic and cultural
terms.
The very first idea to develop the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region was brought up in
the late 2005 by the Europe Baltic Intergroup.168 What might be surprising, in that time,
the initiative was not met with an enthusiastic response. However, neither Finland nor
Germany during their presidencies were willing to give up the idea They were encouraging
the European Council to agree. As an result, European Council invites the Commission
165
TFEU 2010h.
Europa 2010.
167
Dubois A., Hedin S., Schmitt P., Sterling J. 2009 : 23.
168
Europe Baltic Intergroup – informal group of MEPs under the chairmanship of the British conservative
Christopher Beazley.
166
47
to present such a Strategy by June 2009.169 Finally during the Swedish presidency, in the
second half of the 2009 the European Council endorsed the EUSBSR.170
Baltic Sea’s 8 000 km coastline is shared by eight EU Member States – Sweden, Finland,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Denmark, Poland, Germany, and each with its own priorities and
cares, its economic imperatives and political concerns.171 According to the Action Plan
published by the Commission in June 2009, this particular strategy is directed only to areas of
the Baltic Sea Region which lies in the territory of the EU Member States, since this is
a European Union strategy.172 Nevertheless, the Commission indicates issues and proposes
other fora where the discussion and cooperation with external partners would take place.
For instance Russia, which will be involved only in specific EU’s projects can act under
the existing regional framework of Northern Dimension. The dialogue and concrete
cooperation under this external framework will also includes Iceland and Norway.
Furthermore, the cooperation may take place also in connection to other international
organizations like CBSS or HELCOM.
The large area of the Baltic Sea Region, thanks to the EU strategies, are able to join their
forces in order to strengthen the competitiveness of this macro-region. The challenges are not
the only one factor which binding them together. The countries around the Baltic Sea have
also similar history and other common features. Nevertheless the major aims and the reason
behind creating the EUSBSR is to overcome environmental problems, to assure prosperity
and improve security. This is an evidence that macro-regions are built according to neofunctionalists view. Especially the aspects of solving problems with connection to the territory
can be seen here.
169
Bolarin Moreno J.
Krumrey P., Schymik C. 2009.
171
European Commission Directorate-General for Regional Policy 2009.
172
European Commission 2010.
170
48
Figure 4: The areas of the Baltic Sea Region
Source: Regional Capacity Building Initiative.173
5.2.1. Policy.
The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region has been developed according to
themost urgent needs of the macro-regional concerns. Here it should be noted that, in general,
the macro-regional strategies are added value to all interventions taken by the EU as well as
national and regional authorities and their main objective is to strengthen the functioning
and to promote a more balanced development of the macro-regions.174 The core
of the EUSBSR constitute the Action Plan which justifies the selection of set up priorities
and the way of how those priorities would be achieved. According to the Commission,
the Action Plan consist of 15 “priority areas” which are the main fields where the EUSBSR
should tackle the challenges and problems as well as maximize the efficiency in transnational
and cross-border matters.175 These priority areas are organized into 4 thematic “pillars”
and one horizontal section. Commission specifies that every pillar is addressed to a wide
range of different policies which are linked and interdependent. Further, the priority areas are
implemented through “actions”, which might have a strategic or cooperative character.
Strategic actions are design to tackle important issues regarding regions, its citizens
and business partners. Cooperative is mainly based on improving the cooperation on matters,
which have already been set up and Members States or other actors are ready to act. Every
173
Regional Capacity Building Initiative 2011.
Samecki P. 2009 op.cit.
175
European Commission 2010 op.cit. : 3-5.
174
49
priority area has got a “flagship projects”.176 These sort of projects requires to have
a responsible leader and a deadline for implementation. Furthermore, depending on their
importance, they may be launched and implemented on fast track. Flagship project
as examples are: 2.1.“Create marine protected areas”, 3.5. “Control of Hazardous
Substances in the Baltic Sea Region”, 6.1.“Remove remaining single market barriers”
7.5. “Setting up a Baltic Science Link”.177 Hence, the Strategy provides a unique plan which
should be carry out with the close cooperation at EU as well as national and regional level,
in order to ensure the highest efficacy. Each priority area firstly, presents the issue
by providing the general background of it. Afterward, the “hotspots” – the urgent problems
are pointed. Furthermore, the Commission also indicates added value of every action for
the Baltic Sea Region. Finally the actions and flagship projects are presented.
“The European Commission considers the proposed actions to be important
and suggests that the crisis is used as an opportunity to review the priorities
of Member States”. 178
In addition to above mentioned statement, Commission also pays special attention to those
points of the Strategy which regards the quality of citizens life and sustainable environment.
This connection might be specified on the example of the business opportunities, which
through the EUSBSR, have an opportunity to create in the future so-called “green
enterprises”. Furthermore, Commission perceives these set up actions and priority areas
as a probable aid programme, which may minimize the consequences of the economic crisis
and even constitute a part of the national recovery packages, thus, condition the economic
growth.
The 4 pillars together with 15 priority areas, 70 actions, 80 flagship projects and 10 horizontal
actions, of the EU Strategy are constructed to make The Baltic Sea Region:
1. An environmentally sustainable place
2. A prosperous place
3. An accessible and attractive place
4. A safe and secure place179
176
Ibid.
Ibid.
178
Ibid.
179
Ibid.
177
50
Detailed information about priority areas within pillars presents table no. 3
Table 3: Pillars and priority areas of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region.
Source: Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies.180
In addition to these 4 pillars there are numbers of horizontal actions which among other
things concentrate its attention on the maritime sphere. Horizontal actions includes ideas
about how to properly use the research from policy decisions, furthermore, in its concern
remains also improving the effective transposition of EU directives and building a regional
identity.181 As an example, one can mention: “Develop integrated maritime governance
structures in the Baltic Sea region”, “Develop and complete Land-based Spatial Planning”
or
"Strengthen
multi-level
governance,
development",”Built a regional identity”.
182
place-based
planning
and
sustainable
This Action Plan constitute a vivid evidence
that in the area of Baltic Sea macro-region, the Commission points that many EU policies
and programmes are involved and directly affecting the Strategy. Of course, the main is
180
Bengtsson R. 2009.
Ibid.
182
European Commission 2010.
181
51
the Cohesion Policy, but linkage can be also seen with the Common Fisheries Policy,
Common Agriculture Policy, the Single Market policies, Lisbon Agenda and the TransEuropean Networks.183 This is an evidence of multi-sectoral approach incorporated into
macro-regional governance.
5.2.2. Governance.
The 4 pillars of the Action Plan, together with the priority areas, created and presented by
the European Commission, constitutes in fact the 4 main goals of the EUSBSR. These
objectives as well as the actions and projects are described also in the “Communication From
The Commission” and, thus, might be perceived as a guide of how to achieve these goals.
Nevertheless, the Action Plan is a political document and set up goals and actions as well
as anticipated amount of money, which will be transferred on every action or flagship project,
requires the implementation and effective governance.
The core of the governance in the Strategy for the BSR is based on two essential decisions
taken by the EU. There is no new legislation and no new institutions anticipated for this
specific macro-regional strategy. Instead, as it was stated before, the strategy is incorporated
into the EU Multi-level Governance framework and elaborated through a process
of consultation with the relevant stakeholders at national, regional and local levels, under
the initiative of the Commission. Furthermore, it is representing the specific approach which
seeks to combine top-down and bottom-up process.184 According to Samecki, any additional
body established to coordinate this Strategy would be superfluous and wasteful.185
The Commission clearly indicates the responsible units for governance and implementation
of the EUSBSR.

In regard to the policy development, Commission states that the Member States should
cooperate with each other on concrete measures and the general oversight of the
situation should be present on Community forum. Then, the Commission will transfer
some recommendation to the Council, and Council must update every progress
of the strategy.186

Responsible
for
co-ordination,
monitoring,
reporting
and
facilitation
of the implementation and follow-up is Commission, which in close cooperation with
regional stakeholders should prepare progress report, and whenever it is required, use
183
European Commission 2009i.
Ibid.
185
Samecki P. 2009 op.cit.
186
Ibid.
184
52
its power to initiate further progress of the strategy. This multi-level coordination
requires also preparing regular reviews of how used founds are contributed
to the priority areas of the strategy. For implementation on the ground are responsible
Member State or other equivalent authorities to coordinate Priority Area, such
as Ministry, agency, or other body to lead flagship projects187 (Annex 1).

For the practical implementation are responsible actors which are already acting
in the region. In accordance to the EUSBSR, they are aligned with the objectives
and targets of the strategy. Furthermore, In order to identify appropriate bodies which
will be coordinating concrete level of priority areas and flagship projects,
the Commission works with other EU institutions, Member States, regions,
international financing institutions, transnational programming bodies and intergovernmental organizations.188

Another important part of governing the EU strategies is organizing the annual forum,
which brings together partners concerned with different aspects of this strategy.

Commission also identify the relations with third countries as a relevant side
of cooperation through EUSBSR and indicates that they should be conducted through
Northern Dimension.
These arrangements were constructed by the Commission in the close cooperation with other
above mentioned actors to strengthen the policy coordination. In result, such governance will
allows the Community to be more effective when applying the legislation and coordinating
the founding instruments. The real added value of the macro-regional governance where seen
in each of cooperation (central, regional and local) levels. They are based on the willingness
to share power and to pool resources when implementing the actions and flagship projects
in Baltic Sea Region. 189
In general, this practical information about the Strategy reveals its strictly functional
character. On the one hand, it is a vivid evidence that stakeholders are upgrading the common
interests in the form of the Action Plan, what connects the practice with the neo-functionalism
theoretical assumptions. On the other hand, the macro-regions relies on the international
center what in turn gives the linkage with the federalism. In addition, the Multi-level
Governance approach constitutes the EU core plan of how to govern the strategies.
187
Ibid.
Ibid.
189
Stocchiero A. 2010.
188
53
The Commission underlines the importance of all multi-level components involved in
implementation process.
5.2.3. Financial perspective.
The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, as the Commission have pointed, does not require
any ad hoc founding. This means that the implementation of the actions and projects,
indicated in Action Plan, would be funded through already existed European, national
orregional schemes.190 The Commission stipulates that major sources of the Strategy founding
are the Structural Founds: European Regional Development Fund, Cohesion Fund, European
Social Fund, European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, European Fisheries Fund191
and other financial programmes, like for instance: Central Baltic Interreg IVA Programme
2007-2013, Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013, South Baltic Programme 2007-2013,
Bonus-169 – Joint Baltic Research Programme or Long Life Learning Programme 192 (see
Figure 4). In addition, Member States have agreed to finance some of the projects and actions
aligned with the Strategy priorities from their own sources. Furthermore, in this matter also
the European Investment Bank, Nordic Investment Bank and other international and regional
financial institutions have decelerated to contribute.193 To improve smooth implementation
of the large number soft actions, the EU has anticipated special financial instruments (not
new) which will help to coordinate this process, there are:
 JEREMIE – responsible for access to finance for micro business and SMEs in
the regions of the EU.
 JESSICA – responsible for sustainable development for urban areas.
 JASMINE – is an European Commission Initiative responsible for development
of micro-credit in Europe.
 JASPERS – this is a Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions.194
In regard to detailed financial aspects of this Strategy, a little has been written so far.
The Commission in the “Communication From The Commission” indicates only examples
of financing. According to this document, in the field on environment expenditure
for the period 2007-2013 is estimated at:
190
Dubois A., Hedin S., Schmitt P., Sterling J. op.cit.
European Commission 2009i.
192
European Commission 2011c.
193
European Commission 2009i.
194
European Commission 2011c.
191
54

€ 3.1 billion for waste water treatment.

€ 2.3 billion for clean urban transport.

€ 1.6 billion for household and industrial waste.

€ 1.2 billion for water distribution.

€ 1.6 billion for other actions, like improving air quality, promotion of biodiversity
and risk prevention.195
What in total gives € 9.8 billion. This founding scheme represent only money coming from
the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund. In addition, other financial
programmes and institutions will adds their contribution. Following, for the prosperous pillar
it is estimated, in total, € 6,7 billion in the field of making the Baltic Region an accessible
and attractive place € 27,1 billion and the last pillar, which aims to make the region safe
and secure place € 697 million.196 Hence, the total costs of the Strategy amounts around € 45
billion.
The interesting part constitute the fact, that even that no new, specific financial framework
has been allocated for the EUSBSR, there is no gaps in financing Action Plan’ projects.
This situation might be justified through Multi-level Governance, which allows to overlap
between different financial sources (national, regional, local) in one priority area. However,
this situation might also bring potential danger of confusion - who is responsible for what,
since in the implementation process are involved numbers of actors - and affect
the efficiency.197 In European Parliament, the Polish and Lithuanian governments have
endorsed the idea to create separate budget for the Baltic Sea Strategy. However, those voices
are only few, the majority seems to comply with the Commission project.198 There are slight
chances for any changes in this matter at least until 2013, when the negotiations about the EU
budget framework for 2014 - 2020 period will start. Although, the Commission has created
the first report after adoption the EUSBSR, the wider review from implementation will be
available during the Polish presidency in second half of this year.199
195
Ibid.
Ibid.
197
Krumrey P., Schymik C. 2009 op.cit.
198
Ibid.
199
Baltic Development Forum 2011.
196
55
Figure 5: Different type of founding in the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region.
Source: Ryba J.200
5.2.4. EU Strategy for the BSR, after one year of practical actions.
One year after the establishment of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, the European
Commission has prepared the report about its implementation process. This initial report is
only a draft and it presents an overall progress made in a very short time (since 1.10.2009 to
30.06.2010).201 The full report on the Strategy has been already requested by the Council
and it is expected to come out during Polish presidency.
Commission shows that in this period new projects were created and financed in response
to the Action Plan. The evidence is most vivid in Environmental Pillar, where certain action
has been initiated, there are for instance:
 Baltic DEAL – to reduce eutrophication in the Baltic Sea Region.
 InnoShip – to reduce ship and port emissions.
 CleanShip - which rewards clean ships.
 BALTADAPT – which prepares the first regional climate change adoption plan.
200
201
Ryba J. 2010.
European Commission 2010 b.
56
However, there are also some projects in other pillars which have already started or they are
in their last phase to start working. As an example:
 StarDust
 BATMAN
 BSHR Health Port
 The transport networks in the Baltic Sea Region
Commission underlines that more new actions can be expected in the nearest future.202
The preparation process has brought many positive amendments, which as Commission
considers, help in better coordination the actions and projects. One of these amendments is
the added focus on priorities identified in Action Plan regarding the Baltic Energy Market
Interconnection Plan (BEMIP).203 Furthermore, as the first successes might be consider also:
the creation of new macro-regional networks in the areas previously dominated by
the national actors, the extension of networks in other areas (for instance Health Priority),
creation new forums of macro-regional policy discussions (BaltFish).
Of course, one can argue that, after one year, EUSBSR has only few tangible results
to show.204 However, as Peter Madsen205 questions, “if it's fair to expect results after just one
year, with no extra institutions set up, no new legislation or extra money to implement
the actions”. He also ads, that the efficiency of this Strategy could be higher, when this
specific macro-regional policy become a part of a new multi-annual budget after 2013.206
In contrary,
Anders Lindholm from the Commission's Regional Policy Directorate, points out that “lack
of founding is not a problem” and that it is important to remember that “structural founding is
a long-term oriented and a lot of the programmes were already running when the strategy
came into force”.207
The report clearly indicates that, despite what has been done already, there is a high
awareness of what still needs to be done to make the Strategy a success. Commission sees
theprocess of implementation as mainly focused on the individual Priority Areas, rather than
on cross-cutting and cross-sectoral themes. Furthermore, important implication, coming from
the report, says that in order to implement the actions more efficiently some additional work
202
Ibid.
Ibid.
204
Pop V. 2010.
205
Peter Madsen - regional politician from Denmark's Zealand region just south of Copenhagen.
206
Pop V. 2010 op.cit.
207
Ibid.
203
57
has to be done when aligning different sources of funding to the Strategy.208 Commission
underlines that a systematic approach should be incorporated, in order to better tackle
the process of combining Structural Funds with other EU financial programmes, national
and regional funding. During the early stages of the implementation of the EUSBSR,
one problem has revealed relating to the funding opportunities. Especially, the first part
of 2010 has been marked by a number of priority area kick-off meetings about improving
the efficiency of the implementation.209 Furthermore, Commission in order to improve
communication between Strategy coordinators and stakeholders, has decided that a number
of consultations should be organized in BSR countries. However,
it has turned out
that organization of such meetings is rather expensive and that not all BSR countries can
shoulder the additional financial burdens.210
5.3 EU Strategy for Danube Region.
In February 2009, Austria and Romania puted before the EU’ members a proposal to prepare
strategy aiming to strengthen cooperation among the Danube basin states. It met with very
positive response of the EU and yet in the 2009 the European Council formally asked the
European Commission to prepare an EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR). Finally,
in this year, on April 13, the ministers of the 27 EU Member States formally adopted the EU
Strategy for the Danube Region - the second EU macro-regional strategy.211
The Danube Region consist of regions from 14 countries. What makes this Strategy
challengeable and interesting at the same time, is that among these 14 countries, are 8 EU
members: Germany, Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Bulgaria
and Romania; and the other 6 non-EU states: Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Montenegro, Ukraine and Moldova.212 The Danube Region is a large area defined by its river
basin in which lives around 100 million people. In the past, the region has been affected by
many turbulent events like conflicts, movements of population and undemocratic regimes.
The transformation process after 1989 brought on the agenda certain challenges which are
also indicated by the Commission. The major challenges in the Danube Region are: low
mobility, low competitive energy market, environmental pollution and other risks, like
208
European Commission 2010 b op.cit.
209
Ozolina Ż., Reinholde I., Rostoks T. 2010 : 29.
Ibid.
211
European Commission 2011 b.
212
Ibid.
210
58
flooding, industrial pollution, droughts. Socio-economic disparities and organized crime
constitutes another serious challenges. Nevertheless, among these urgent problems,
Commission indicates also certain opportunities of Danube Region, like for instance
outstanding natural beauty, rich cultural diversity, renewable energy sources.
After the EU enlargement in 2004 and 2007 the biggest part of this region is lying in the
Union territory and the others want to become the EU Members in the nearest future. Thus,
the EU feels responsible to improve better conditions to all of its regions.213
Figure 6: Countries covered by the EU Strategy for the Danube Region.
Source: European Commission214
5.3.1. Policy.
In response to all challenges and opportunities of the Danube Region, European Commission
has prepared the Strategy for the Danube Region. The core of the EUSDR constitute
an Action Plan which indicates the general areas of interest. It is constructed in the same way
as for the EUSBSR.
The Danube Strategy, based on the Baltic experience, underlines an integrated, multi-level
approach in the way to achieve sustainable development. The Action Plan seeks to name
the main priorities and propose the action for them. Furthermore, the actions and objectives
indicated by the Commission should be supported by all involved actors,. The projects should
213
214
European Commission 2010 c.
European Commission 2011 d.
59
have an impact on the whole macro-region or just a part of it and be realistic in technical
and financial as well as coherent and mutually supportive.215 The 4 pillars and 11 priority
areas within, are like in the Strategy for the BSR, constituting the 4 main objectives for
the Danube Region.
Table 4: Pillars and priority areas of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region.
Pillar
Priority area
Coordinators
A. Connecting the
Danube Region
1.To improve mobility and
multimodality
- Inland waterway:
Austria, Romania
-Rail, road and air:
Slovenia Serbia (interested
Ukraine)
Hungary, Czech Republic
B. Protecting the
Environment in
the Danube
Region
C. Building
Prosperity in the
Danube Region
D. Strengthening
the Danube
Region
2.To encourage more
sustainable energy
3.To promote culture and
tourism, people to people
contacts
4. To restore and maintain the
quality of waters
5. To manage environmental
risks
6.To preserve biodiversity,
landscapes and the quality of
air and soils
Number
of
actions
17
17
Bulgaria, Romania
14
Hungary, Slovakia
14
Hungary, Romania
8
Germany (Bavaria),
Croatia
16
7. To develop the Knowledge
Society (research, education
and ICT)
Slovakia, Serbia
8
8.To support the
competitiveness of enterprises
9.To invest in people and skills
10. To step up institutional
capacity and cooperation
11. To work together to
promote security and tackle
organized and serious crime
Germany (BadenWürttemberg), Croatia
Austria, Moldova
Austria (Vienna), Slovenia
7
Germany (Federal
Ministry of Interior, in
cooperation with Bavaria),
Bulgaria
11
8
9
Source: based on the European Commission’s Action Plan of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region.
215
European Commission 2010 d.
60
Strategy provides a political support to the current EU’s initiatives which aims to reinforce
the cooperation at different levels between the EU’s institutions, Member States, regional
and private stakeholder, other international institutions and above all, to encourage the nonMember States to active participation.216 In order to ensure the consistency of the realization,
the Commission underlines, that the EU legislation and policies will work for this Strategy as
a framework. Especially useful, for the Danube Region Strategy are policies in relation to the
Single Market, environment as well as the transport and energy. Moreover, “Communication
from the Commission” indicates the impact of the new, EU’s growth strategy “Europe 2020”,
aiming to reach the high level of employment, productivity and social cohesion in the Danube
Region and in the whole EU. In comparison to the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region,
the Strategy for Danube Region also must take into account the non-EU neighbours. Hence,
this Strategy is supported by the EU external policies, like the European Neighbourhood
Policy and its regional initiatives (e.g. the Eastern Partnership). 217
5.3.2. Governance.
The Danube Strategy policy and governance aspects, are in great part built on the experience
of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. Thus, numbers of solution in regard to
the implementation and managing are adopted from the Baltic Sea Strategy.
Likewise the EUSBSR, the Danube Strategy seeks to make best use of those instruments,
policies and funding which are available. Hence, the Commission do not anticipates new EU
legislation, new additional EU structures and no new funds.218 Based on Declaration
of the Bucharest Summit on Danube219, responsible for coordinating the Strategy are all,
involved stakeholders. According to this document, actions should be implemented
and actively supported by the authorities at national, regional levels and by international
cross-border organizations.220 Using such, specific framework will prevent from
the duplication and allow to build a strong synergy instead.
Commission is even more precise and presents the governance of the Danube Strategy
on coordination, implementation and funding stage. Regarding the policy-level coordination,
the Commission points itself, as a responsible unit. In this matter, the Commission will be
assisted by the High Level Group of all Member States. Non-EU members will be invited
216
Ibid.
European Commission 2010 e.
218
Ibid.
219
Danube Summit 2010.
220
European Commission 2010 e op.cit.
217
61
to the Group, when the consultation will include the issues concerned with their
involvement.221 The main tasks of the Commission are to consult, modify the action Plan
(when required), report and monitor.
For the coordination of each priority area responsible are EU’s Member States together with
non-EU’s Member States, regions and relevant EU’ agencies or regional bodies. Non-EU
members and regions are excluded from coordination at the EU level, actions considering
security, serious and organized crime. The additional role in coordination plays the National
Contact Points which will be monitoring the practical aspects of the taken actions.
Commission underlines that governance of the EUSDR should be trans-national, inter-sectoral
and inter-institutional, which indicates using the Multi-level Governance approach.222
Concerning the implementation process, the actions will be transformed into concrete
projects. All of the actions should be elaborated and have its project leader, timeframe and
financial plan. Commission makes responsible for it states, regional, urban and local
stakeholders.223 The essential part of the coordinating the Strategy is reporting and evaluation.
This should be done by the Commission in partnership with the Priority Area Coordinators
and other stakeholders. The reports should includes identified by the Coordinators, progress
in relation to implementation of the Action Plan.224 In addition, in order to rise efficiency
of the implementation of the Strategy, the Commission also organizes an Annual Forum.
Participators ( state’s and regional authorities, the EU institutions, the private sector and civil
society) are gathering to discuss, consult and revise actions.
5.3.3. Financial perspective.
As it was mentioned before, The Strategy for Danube Region is implemented in the way that
does not require any new source funding. Actions are financed in compliance with general EU
framework. The main sources of financing constitutes the EU funds, such as the Structural
Funds 2007-2013.225 Only from this source, the first pillar of the Danube Strategy which aims
to improve mobility, the energy market and to promote the culture, it is anticipated to obtain €
34,5 billion. For second pillar “Protecting the Environment in the Danube Region”, total
expenditure is estimated at € 19,5 billion. Following, for the third, prosperous pillar
221
Ibid.
Ibid.
223
Ibid.
224
Ibid.
225
European Commission 2010 d op.cit.
222
62
expenditure budget is estimated at € 38,1 billion. Finally, the forth pillar (strengthening
the Region) will obtain around € 3,4 billion.226
Furthermore, several EU’s programmes contributes to these pillars founding, in particular:
the Trans European Transport and Energy Networks, the 7th
Research Framework
Programme, the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development, the European Fisheries
Fund, the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme, the EU Civil Protection Financial
Instrument National, Cross-border Cooperation and Multi-beneficiary country programmes.227
According to the Commission, the projects and actions can be also financed by the national,
regional funds or private investors in accordance with appropriate framework.
What distinguish the EUSBSR from the EUSDR is using the new financial instruments which
are directed to non-EU countries belongs to the Danube Region, there are the Instrument
for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) and the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument
(ENPI).228
In addition, significant financial contribution is already provided to a large number of projects
from various international and bilateral finance institutions such as the European Investment
Bank (EIB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the World
Bank, the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB) or other lenders.229
5.4. Role and aim of the macro-regional Strategies.
The macro-regional strategies created for the Baltic Sea Region and for the Danube Region,
presented in the precious sections, provides the new framework for the cross-border territorial
development initiatives. Moreover, they also presents the new way of working in terms
of the European integration. Even though they have some differences, both of them have been
established to speed the process of the spatial integration of the regions in the European Union
and EU’ neighboring areas, like in the case of the Danube Strategy. The core idea consist
on the fact, that this particular macro-regional integration is based on the consensus between
the actors, rather than making compromises, like it was in the case of bargains between EU’s
Member States. Macro-regional strategies identifies and specifies the common challenges
as well as the potentials of cross-border territory. Based on this, they are formulating the joint
responses in the form of the Action Plan. Implementation of the Action Plan allows to ensure
226
Ibid.
Ibid.
228
Ibid.
229
Ibid.
227
63
greater coherence in respect of the EU’s policies and practical actions impact on the local
development.230 Such cooperation helps to develop and connect large European projects with
macro-regional added value. The diffusion of already existed EU’s policies and instruments
results in strengthening the best practices across regional and local stakeholders. Furthermore,
the integration on this macro-regional scale might be more effective than when it seize
the whole territory of the EU, especially when the EU consist of the countries and regions
within, which remains on different economic, cultural and administrative levels. As an effect
these strategies have given the impulse for the larger regional economies development.
At the same time, the potential for enhancing the competitiveness and potential growth not
only for those macro-regions, but above all for the all EU are anticipated. Here, it is worth
mentioning that the national borders are still an obstacle, even despite the great effort
of the EU’s legislation. In functional terms, this means that the Member States are mainly
interested in making benefits for their home market, rather than focusing on the cross-border
development. This tendency were seen in the actions of the EU institutions which were
predominantly focused on the national market. Until now, the European spatial policies were
dominated by the national component.231 Nevertheless, some of the problems cannot be
solved effectively on a national level and, thus, the problems have to be readdressed
on a regional or in this case macro-regional level, with the help of supranational EU
institutions. In general, the main aim of this new EU’s macro-regional strategies is to ensure
sustainable development in the functional European macro-region, based on Multi-level
Governance approach (including multi-sectoral policies, multi-actor and multi-financial
sources) and close territorial cooperation, which will carry out multiple tasks232:
1. Improving coherence of policy actions at different levels.
2. Increasing involvement of national, regional, local and international stakeholders
in the implementation of European policies.
3. Unifying common macro-regional features and challenges.
4. Integrating regions beyond the national sphere.
5. Action-driven cooperation grounded in joint challenges and met on a variable
geographical scale.
6. Better coordination of the means and impacts of the territorial financial instruments
and initiatives.
230
Dubois A., Hedin S., Schmitt P., Sterling J. 2009 : 25.
Ibid.
232
Ibid.
231
64
7. Fostering balanced economic development in the regional network.
The principal and detailed objectives of these two European strategies can be found in each
Action Plan. As mentioned in previous section, the pillars are,at the same time, aims of each
strategy. In general, they concerns its focus on environmental challenges, sustainable
economic development, infrastructure, energy market, safety and security issues and the
culture and touristic aspects. Thus, the answer on the research question would be that the
strategies are about achieving common goals and aspirations regarding the macro-region’s
future. Their appearance is justified more by the regional potential and problems which needs
to be tackle in wider cluster of cooperation than by its past history and achievements.233
Macro-regional strategies, in this case, are perceived as a tool for the European integration,
which aims to increase territorial cohesion within the EU borders, improve the macro-region’s
competitiveness as well as to strengthening the external cooperation on the sustainable
European development in general. These general objectives are real added value to all
interventions, projects and actions taken by the EU, national, regional, private or NGO’s
actors. According to Paweł Samecki, there is a possibility to create the other macro-regional
strategies which, in theirs essence, might differ from these prepared for the Baltic Sea Region
and for the Danube Region. They may not be stimulating by the obvious urgent issues
or problems. Such joint strategies for the macro-regions can be also seen in the light of new
way of working across a wide range of sectors in order to compete in the global marketplace
while maintaining the social and environmental standards is crucial.
234
Nevertheless, the EU
should focus its attention on projects which are already in progress, monitoring its strength
and weak points in order to react and improve the implementation process.
233
234
Samecki P., 2009 op.cit.
Ibid.
65
Table 5: SWOT analysis for the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and for the
Danube Region.
Positive
Negative
Strengths
Weaknesses
- Functional character of the macro-region.
- No new legislation, no new institutions.
Pooling, already used, EU know-how to
make the region work.
Internal factors
- Multi-level Governance organizes the
wide scope of the multi-sectoral, multiactor and multi-sources strategy.
- No new founding can limit the efficacy of
the implementation process.
- Problems to compromise on sensitive issues
due to the different ideas and convictions of
large number of stakeholders.
- Multiplicity of the actors and stakeholders
may constitute the potential field of tensions.
- The Strategy express very clear political
will.
-It constitute the concrete response on
challenges, problems and opportunities of
the macro-regions in the form of the Action
Plan.
- The Strategy builds a strong web of
interactions and communication among
different stakeholders.
-The scales of strategies are delineated by
natural common goods: the hydrographical
basins of a sea and a river.
Opportunities
External factors
- Bridge to the EU’s neighboring areas .
- Chance for the non-EU Member States to
enhance the social , economic and
environmental situation.
- In the Baltic area, the strategy influences
the positive relationship with Russia,
Iceland and Norway.
- In the Danube case, the strategy is linking
the Western Balkan countries to the
possible, future enlargement process.
Threats
- The issues connected with the EU foreign,
military and, in general, security aspects
cannot be elaborated together with Russia.
- Blurring the Strategy focus from the macroregion to external relations.
- In the case of the external partners the MLG
has very weak appeal, since the managing is
an attribute lying in the central government’s
hands.
66
SWOT analysis, presented above, may constitute the useful tool to measure the progress
of carried out actions as well as to work as an indicator of positive and problematic spheres
during the implementation process. In this particular case, the outcomes coming from it,
shows that the internal surroundings of the strategies for the BSR and for the DR have got
many strong points which might in the future conditions about its success. Despite
the illustrations of good practices and a structured, multi-layered network of involved
partners, several problems might be seen when analyzing the opportunities and threats of the
strategies. This indicates that external relations still requires polishing up.
67
6.0. Conclusion.
This thesis has focused on both theoretical and practical sides of emerged EU Strategies for
the Baltic Sea Region and for the Danube Region. The author concludes that the both cases
represents the innovative concepts of the EU macro-regional cooperation which influences
the territorial cohesion among regions within and outside the EU. As a main aim, the thesis
indicates improving competitiveness of the EU’s regions and sustainable European
development.
6.1. Evaluation of the theoretical part.
In theoretical chapter the author argues that the macro-regions have emerged as an results
of various
tensions
among
international,
national,
regional
and
private
actors.
The stakeholders after revising the scope and level of their present policies seeks to take a part
in new initiative in order to obtain the common goals. This regional performance results
in shifting the expectations from the nation states toward regional, cross-border center which
represents the same interests. Combining the neo-functionalism theory with federalism have
resulted in building very interesting framework to explain the reason behind establishing
macro-regions in this specific form. Especially using the Schmitter version of neo-neofunctionalism has given the solid basis for understanding the reason why these “new” macroregions have emerged. This thesis indicates that the primary motivation for this specific form
of cooperation is seen as a strictly functional. What means that the pooling of policies
and resources for economic, political, cultural reasons are beneficial on the ground of shared
interests and shared actions. In addition, the significant factor which has led to the macroregions creation was identified by the neo-neo-functionalism as the geographical factor.
In the case of the EUSBSR the region has been constituted around the Baltic Sea,
and in the case of EUSDR macro-regions was made from territories lying around the Danube
River. Furthermore, the thesis consist in the fact that these two theoretical approaches are
corresponding to the creation of the macro-regions. Neo-functionalism explains their
appearance by introducing the “upward grading” process and federalism presents a model
in which power from higher institution has been given to the regional units (top-down model).
Hence, the macro-regional emergence was identified beyond the states and the power to act
has been given to them from the higher European center. The author indicates that the macroregions are placed somewhere between top-down and bottom-up model. Neo-functionalism
in this thesis is also putting emphasis on the functionality of the macro-regions, while
68
federalism focuses on disaggregation of power away from centralized government and
relocation it among individual but linked levels of authority. is corresponding to theirs
character. Binding territories together into the macro-region, which consist in the different
levels of authority, is seen in the light of a functional relation to the social-economic
development and it is corresponding to character of the actual macro-regions. Moreover,
it automatically implies necessity of using multi-dimensional power in order to govern these
units.
Decision-making process in this case requires preparing and adopting concrete plan
or strategy which will guide the practical actions. Strategies for the macro-regions are thus
perceived as a EU tool to obtain common goals in line with the Community objectives.
Theoretical consideration points out the Multi-level Governance approach as the only one
which can ensure that these principles will be firstly implemented, then maintained
and enhanced. Indeed, the macro-regional strategies are strictly connected with the MLG,
since they includes the three dimensions: multi-sectoral, multi-actor and multi-instrumental.
Thus, the author presents macro-regions in the light of the EU’ half-international
organizational model – somewhere between a network of countries and a European federal
state.
6.2. Outcomes from the practice - SWOT analysis for the EU Strategies for
the BSR and DR.
The author argues that the creation of the strategies represents the new way of working
in terms of the European integration. The analysis of the two European Strategies, one
for the Baltic Sea Region and the second for the Danube Region constitute an evidence that,
despite some differences, in general, both of them were established to speed the process
of the spatial integration as well as to boost the economic growth of the regions
in the European Union and areas neighboring with the EU. The model value of the Strategy
for the Baltic Sea Region has already proved its viability, since the Danube initiative is
moving forward. The principal and detailed objectives of these two European strategies can
be found in each Action Plan. This thesis indicates that the pillars are perceived as detailed
aims of each strategy. In general, they focuses on environmental challenges, sustainable
economic development, infrastructure, energy market, safety and security issues
and the culture and touristic aspects. Thus, the strategies are about achieving common goals
and aspirations regarding the macro-region’s future. Author concludes that, to a large extent,
the EU’s macro-regional strategies constitutes a new type of functionality within the EU’s
69
Members States as well as among the EU’s neighboring countries, based on cooperation
in different policy areas and boosting the economic growth in the specific parts of the EU.
Furthermore, the macro-regional strategy creates the specific forum of interactions among
international, national, regional and private actors. The strategies are focused on action-driven
cooperation grounded in joint challenges and met on a variable geographical scale. In order to
sum up implications coming from the analysis, the author introduces the SWOT analysis.
In general it provides with a very optimistic and positive implications coming from these two
EU’ Strategies. The potential threats might be seen in the area of external relations, especially
concerning the relationship with Russia.
The macro-regional strategies for the BSR and for the DR were design to develop cooperation
among not only states but regions within. Furthermore, from a synergistic perspective they
also contributes to the establishing of more profound relationships with neighboring territories
and states, both within and outside the EU.235 The author concludes, that these macro-regional
strategies have a complementary character in relation to the previous concepts of the EU
regional cooperation.
Presented in section 4.1. the Lisbon Treaty amendments strengthens the role of the regions
and defines the principle of subsidiarity in regard to the regional and local level. Thus,
the author argues that presented in the thesis macro-regional strategies could constitute
an effective way of solving region-specific problems in accordance with the general EU
objectives and do not duplicate the old solutions and structures.
235
Mantica A. 2010.
70
7.0. Perspectives.
The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region has given the foundations of new, close network
of multifunctional cooperation among intergovernmental, interparliamentary and nongovernmental actors within and in the EU’s neighborhood. It is perceived as a model
of the future form of the European integration. As one can imagine, the expectations are very
high. This strategy already has served as an example for the launch of a European Strategy
for the Danube Region.236 Some stakeholders have been overcome by euphoria only from
the fact that these Strategies were created. Nevertheless, the implications from
the implementation process of each Strategy should be recognized in long-term perspective.
As an evidence the Commission draft report, one year after the implementation, shows only
few results. It is still too early to undertake the work of evaluation the EUSBSR.237 As it was
mentioned before, more detailed report is expected to appear during the Polish Presidency.
Principles and practical mechanisms are still needs to be improved in order to obtain
the highest effectiveness. Hence, the already established strategies requires continuous
observations and reactions when some problems appears. Currently there are plans to create
other macro-regional strategies. The latest news coming from the Brussels says that the EU
as well as interested states are on their way to create another macro-regions. Based
on the Adriatic Ionian Initiative, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, Italy,
Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia are making their efforts to get the EU support to establish
the EU Strategy for the Adriatic Ionian Region.238 According to this, in the long-term
perspective, the EU will be testing the outcomes coming from the Baltic Sea Strategy
and the Strategy for the Danube Region. The further European discussions includes also ideas
to create similar strategies for the North Sea, Atlantic Arc, Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea
areas.239 Hence, there is a high probability that identifying and addressing the specific
challenges as well as good points of the future macro-regions will result in deepening
the European integration at the regional level. The Strategies will make a significant
contributions in helping the EU to switch to a new kind of governance strategy, much more
focused on the specific of the macro-regions and their problems. Although, the general
tendency of the EU consists on the stakeholders political will. As long as they will make
236
Ibid.
Ozolina Ż., Reinholde I., Rostoks T. 2010 : 276-279.
238
Adriatic Ionian Initiative 2011.
239
Bolarin J.M. op.cit.
237
71
the effort to push forward the idea of establishing new, well justified strategies for the new
macro-regions, the EU will support the initiative. Various European regions have realized
their vital interests in boosting the growth and overcoming the obstacles in the same
geographical area by working together. For the EU, as a whole it also might be the right way
to obtain tangible results and making the whole continent more prosperous, safe
and competitive in economic terms. The presented EUSBSR and EUSDR might
also constitutes the pattern of the European integration in the future. After a good start there is
a great chance that the first two EU macro-regional strategies are yet to be seen
as a successful way to strengthening cooperation among regions in order to improve
the development of the EU and its neighboring territories.
72
8.0. Literature.
Books and Scientific Articles
Adams N., Alden J., Harris N., Regional Development and Spatial Planning in an enlarged
European Union, Ashgate Publishing Limited , Hampshire, 2006.
Antomonte C., Nava M., Economics and Policies of an Enlarged Europe, Edward Elgar
Publishing, Cheltenham, 2005.
Bache I., The Politics of European Union Regional Policy – Multi-level Governance or
Flexible Gatekeeping?, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 1998.
Bache I., Flinders M., Multi-level Governance, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004.
Barry J., Keating M., The European Union and the Regions, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2001.
Brask H., Towards a European Baltic Sea Strategy. The Second Wave of Integration, Baltic
Development Forum, BDF Magazine, 2008.
Bryman A., Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004.
Burgess M., Federalism and European Union: The Building of Europe, 1950 – 2000,
Routledge, London, 2000.
Cini M., European Union Politics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007.
Cram L., Policy-making In the European Union. Conceptual lenses and the integration
process, Routledge, New York, 1997.
Christiansen T., Jørgensen E., Wiener A., The social construction of Europe, SAGE
Publications Ltd, London, 2001.
Chryssochoou D. N., Democracy in the European Union, I.B. Tauris, London, 2000.
Dosenrode S., Federalism theory and Neo-Functionalism: Elements for an analytical
framework, Centro Studi sul Federalismo, Perspectives on Federalism, Vol. 2, (3) 2010
<http://www.on-federalism.eu/attachments/079_download.pdf> [24.04.2011]
Gillham B., Real World Research – Case Study Research Methods, Continuum, London,
2000.
Healey P. , Making Strategic Spatial Plans. Innovation in Europe, Routledge, London, 2003.
Hesse J.J. Wright V., Federalizing Europe?, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996.
Hooghe L., Marks G. “Europe with the regions”: Channels of Regional Representation in the
European Union, Publius, The Journal of Federalism 26:1, 1996,
<http://www.unc.edu/~gwmarks/assets/doc/hooghe.marks%20%20europe%20with%20t
he%20regions.channels%20of%20regional%20representation.pdf> [26.04.2011]
73
Hooghe L., Marks G., Multi-Level Governance and European Integration, Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, INC., Oxford, 2001
Jolly S. How the EU Fuels Sub-National Regionalism, Maxwell School of Syracuse
University, 2007,
<http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/skjolly/HowEUFuels.pdf> [27.04.2011]
Keulen M., Going Europe or Going Dutch. How the Dutch Government Shapes European
Union Policy, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2006.
Kramer E., The impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on Regional Policy, European Parliament,
IP/B/REGI/NT/2010_01 , Brussels, 2010,
<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/webnp/webdav/site/myjahiasite/users/nsalliarelis/publi
c/The%20impact%20of%20the%20Treaty%20of%20Lisbon%20on%20regional%20pol
icy.pdf> [16.05.2011]
Krieger-Boden Ch., Morgenrot E., Petrakos G., The impact of the European Integration on
Regional Structural Change and Cohesion, Routledge, New York, 2008.
Malhotra K. V., International Relations, ANMOL Publications PVT.LTD., New Delhi, 2004
Mattli W., The Logic of Regional Integration. Europe and Beyond., Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1999.
Mazey S., Rhodes C., The State of the European Union. Vol. 3 Building a European Polity?,
Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., Colorado, 1995.
Michelmann H.J., Soldatos P., European Integration. Theories and Approaches, University
Press of America, Maryland, 1994.
Niemann A., Explaining decisions in the European Union, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2006.
O’Neil M., The politics of European Integration, Routledge, London, 1996.
Ümit K., Europe of Monnet, Schumann and Mitrany: A historical glance to the EU from the
Functionalist perspective, European Journal of Economic and Political Studies (2) 2009,
<http://ejeps.fatih.edu.tr/docs/articles/24.pdf> [25.04.2011].
Rosamond B., Theories of European Integration, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2000.
Ruszkowski J., Supranationalism as a challenge for the European Union in the Globalized
World, European Commission, Global Jean Monnet Conference ECSA, European
Commission, 2006,
<http://ec.europa.eu/education/programmes/llp/jm/more/confglobal06/contributionruszkowski.pdf> [27.02.2011]
Sapir A., An Agenda for growing Europe The Sapir Report, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
2004.
74
Schmitter P. C., A Neo-Neo-Functionalism , European University Institute, 2002,
<http://www.eui.eu/Documents/DepartmentsCentres/SPS/Profiles/Schmitter/NeoNeoFu
nctionalismRev.pdf> [26.04.2011]
Stocchiero A., The geopolitical game of the European Union strategy for macro-regions:
Where does the Mediterranean stand?, CeSPI and Medgovernance project ,Working
Papers 74/2010, Rome, 2010,
<http://www.medgov.net/sites/default/files/WP%2074%20Stocchiero%20macroregioni.
pdf> [19.05.2011]
Stone Sweet A. Neo-functionalism and Supranational Governance, SelectedWorks, January
2010,
<http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=alec_stone_swee
t&sei-redir=1#search="Neo-functionalsim+what+is+a+macro-region"> [27.04.2011]
Yin Robert K. , Applications of case study research , Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2003.
Warleigh A., Flexible Integration. Which Model for the European Union?, Sheffield
Academic Press, London 2002.
Reports and Strategy Papers
Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013, Power of cooperation. 46 transnational projects,
eu.baltic.net, June 2010,
<http://eu.baltic.net/Publications.191.html?> [28.04.2011].
Biedrzycka K., The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, Voivodship Inspectorates for
Environmental Protection, 04.01.2011,
<http://www.gios.gov.pl/artykuly/783/The-EU-Strategy-for-the-Baltic-Sea-Region>,
[19.04.2011].
Carsten Schmik, Peer Krumrey, EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, Working Paper FG1,
2009/08, April 2009, SWP Berlin
<http://www.cespi.it/GOVMED/krumrey.pdf> [28.04.2011].
Committee of the Regions, The Committee Of The Regions’ White Paper On Multilevel
Governance, EU, Brussels, 2009,
<http://web.cor.europa.eu/epp/Ourviews/Documents/White%20Paper%20on%20MLG.
pdf>, [7.05.2011].
Danube Summit, Declaration of the Bucharest Summit on Danube, Bucharest, 8.11.2010,
<http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/danube/pdf/bucharest_declaration_081
12010_en.pdf> [ 18.05.2011]
Dubois A., Hedin S., Schmitt P., Sterling J., EU macro-regions and macro-regional strategies
– A scoping study, NORDREGIO ELECTRONIC WORKING PAPER 2009:4,
Nordregio, Stockholm, 2009,
<http://www.nordregio.se/inc/openitem.asp?id=88929&nid=2112>,[25.03.2011].
75
European Commission, European Governance – a White Paper, Brussels, 25.7.2001
COM(2001) 428 final,
<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf>,
[21.04.2011].
European Commission 2009a, EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, Europa, last modified
on: 16-02-2011,
<http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/baltic/index_en.htm> [19.04.2011]
European Commission 2009i, Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament , the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions – European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region ,
Brussels, 10.6.2009, COM(2009) 248 final,
<http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/communic/baltic/com_bal
tic_en.pdf> [19.04.2011]
European Commission 2010a, Action Plan, Commission Staff working document
concerning the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, Brussels,
SEC(2009)712/2, December 2010 version.
European Commission 2010b, Report from the European Commission The implementation of
the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, 2010,
<http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/baltic/documents_en.htm>
[22.04.2011]
European Commission 2010c, Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament , the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions – European Union Strategy for Danube Region, Brussels,
8.12.2010, COM(2010) 715 final.
<http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/baltic/documents_en.htm>
[23.04.2011]
European Commission 2010d, Action Plan, Commission Staff working document concerning
the European Union Strategy for the Danube Region Brussels, 8.12.2010, SEC(2010)
1489 final,
<http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/communic/danube/action
_plan_danube.pdf> [6.05.2011].
European Commission 2010e, Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament , the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions – European Union Strategy for Danube Region, Brussels,
8.12.2010, COM(2010) 715 final.
European Commission, 2011b, EU Strategy for the Danube Region, Regional Policy Inforegio, Last modified on: 23-03-2011,
<http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/danube/index_en.htm>, [24.04.2011]
Krumrey P., Schymik C., EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. Core Europe in the Northern
Periphery?, Working Paper FG 1, SWP Berlin, April 2009,
<http://www.cespi.it/GOVMED/krumrey.pdf> [15.03.2011].
76
Samecki P., Macro-regional strategies in the European Union, European Commission,
Stokholm, 18.09.2009,
<http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/baltic/pdf/macroregional_strategies_2
009.pdf > [1.03.2011].
ScanBalt, Position Paper:EU Cohesion Policies and the Importance of Macro-Regions and
Regional Clusters for Smart Growth and Smart Specialization, ScanBalt BioRegion,
March 2011,
<http://www.scanbalt.org/files/graphics/ScanBalt/Activities/ScanBalt%20Bridge%20A
ward/SB%20position%20paper%20Cohesion%20Policies.pdf> [14.04.2011].
Treaties
European Community, Preamble to the Treaty of Rome, 25.03.1957,
<http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/emu_history/documents/treaties/rometreaty2.pdf
>, [12.03.2011].
European Community, The Maastricht Treaty, Provisions Amending the Treaty Establishing
The European Economic Community With A View To Establishing The European
Community, TITLE XIV :ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COHESION, ARTICLE 130 a,
7.02.1992,
<http://www.eurotreaties.com/maastrichtec.pdf>, [12.03.2011].
TFEU 2010a, Consolidated Version of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Title XVII of Part Four - Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion, Article 174,
30.03.2010.
<http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0047:0200:EN:PDF>
[4.05.2011].
TFEU 2010b. Consolidated Version of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Part Six, Institutional And Financial Provisions, Title I Institutional Provisions, Chapter
1 The Institutions, Section 5 - The Court Of Justice Of The European Union, Article
263, 15.03.2010.
<http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0047:0200:EN:PDF>
[4.05.2011].
TFEU 2010c, Protocol 2, article 8, 30.03.2010.
<http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0201:0328:EN:PDF>
[4.05.2011].
TFEU 2010d, Consolidated Version of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Title I Categories and Areas of Union Competences, Article 4.2c, 2010.
77
<http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0201:0328:EN:PDF>
[4.05.2011].
TFEU 2010e, Consolidated Version of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Title I Categories and Areas of Union Competences, Title XVII of Part Four, Article
174, 2010.
<http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0047:0200:EN:PDF>
[4.05.2011].
TFEU 2010f, Consolidated Version of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Title I Categories and Areas of Union Competences , Article 5(3),2010.
<http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0047:0200:EN:PDF>
[4.05.2011].
TFEU 2010g, Consolidated Version of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Title I Categories and Areas of Union Competences, Article 4(2), 2010.
<http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0047:0200:EN:PDF>
[4.05.2011].
TFEU 2010h, Consolidated Version of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Title I Categories and Areas of Union Competences, Article 14, 2010.
<http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0047:0200:EN:PDF>
[5.05.2011].
Press Releases and Websites
Adriatic Ionian Initiative, Brussels Declaration, Brussels, 23.05.2011,
<http://www.aii-ps.org/index.php/june-2010-may-2011-montenegro> [5.06.2011]
Baltic Development Forum, Uffe Ellemann-Jensen met 15 Polish Ambassadors, 23.03.2011.
<http://www.bdforum.org/show/english/news/polish_ambassadors.aspx> [20.05.2011]
Bolarin Moreno J., State of play of the debate on the macroregions approach in Europe:
current situation in the European territories, Commission Intermediterraneenne,
<http://www.medregions.com/pub/doc_travail/gt/140_en.pdf> [19.05.2011]
Committee of the Regions, Committee of the Regions calls for European North Sea Strategy,
CoR, Europa, 05.10.2010.
78
<http://www.cor.europa.eu/pages/DocumentTemplate.aspx?view=detail&id=04e018388661-4143-b231-9b85f572db39> [ 28.05.2011]
EurActiv, EU regional policy after enlargement, Last update: 29.01.2010,
<http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/eu-regional-policy-enlargement/article117535>, [12.02.2011].
Europa, Policy areas, Regional Policy, Last update: 13.01.2001,
<http://europa.eu/pol/reg/index_en.htm>, [8.02.2011].
Europa, Treaty of Lisbon – Policies for a better life, 2010,
<http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/better_life/index_en.htm> [4.05.2011]
European Commission Directorate-General for Regional Policy, Panorama EU Strategy for
the Baltic Sea region at glance, European Communities, Brussels, 2009,
<http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/baltic/pdf/panorama/minipano_en.pdf
> [21.04.2011]
European Commission 2009a, Regional Policy – Inforegio, 15.01.2009,
<http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/why/index_en.htm> [8.02.2011]
European Commission,2009b Regional Policy – Inforegio. European Territorial Cooperation, , Last modified on: 17-12-2009,
<http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/index_en.htm>, [15.03.2011].
European Commission, 2009c, Regional Policy – Inforegio. Key objectives, Europa, last
modified on: 23-11-2009
<http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/object/index_en.htm> [23.03.2011].
European Commission 2011c, EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. Source of funding,
Regional Policy-Inforegion, Last modified on: 20-03-2011,
<http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/baltic/funding_en.htm> [15.04.2011]
European Commission 2011d, EU Strategy for the Danube Region. Maps and Photos, Last
modified on: 23-03-2011,
<http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/danube/maps_en.htm> [13.05.2011]
INTERact, EU Macro-Regional Strategies, Date of modification 18.02.2011
<http://www.interacteu.net/macro_regional_strategies/macro_regional_strategies/283/3921> [3.03.2011]
Mantica A., European macro-regions. Integration through territorial co-operation, Secretary
State for Foreign Affairs of Italy, Brussels, 13.04.2010,
<https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:fM6gqe3Nf68J:www.cor.europa.eu/CO
R_cms/ui/ViewDocument.aspx?siteid%3Ddefault%26contentID%3De7291f96-13c64408-92fd1abd2c876171+Mantica+A.+Address+at+the+Forum+cor,eu&hl=pl&gl=pl&pid=bl&sr
cid=ADGEESjZoMfFG8IO6arYeGxFuhXVOqDJBRHTpPDMAhevniLVUTM5ILuHsI
79
Lj526e1m2KegUsSHnf_NVB0ALjrR_94kXL8_Rcxqtn0fHqi_fzrSFKRK277ZcNJApJxrrdBeLEQm0hlW1&sig=AHIEtbQDnjtNX5fO7ijvqLuG2SOWUL3sw&pli=1> [26.03.2011]
Ozolina Ż., Reinholde I., Rostoks T., EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region: A Year After and
Beyond, Zinātne , UDK 327(4)(082), 2010,
<http://szf.lu.lv/files/Biblioteka/EU%20Strategy.pdf> [17.05.2011]
Pop V., Baltic Sea strategy yields few results after one year, Euobserver, 07.10.2010,
Brussels,
<http://euobserver.com/880/30974> [20.04.2011].
Pop V., EU 'macro-regions' could get own funding from 2014, EUobserver, 7.10.2009
<http://euobserver.com/9/28787>, [17.04.2011].
Tables and figures
Table 6: The demographic thresholds of the NUTS levels.
Eurostat, Regions In the European Union, Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics
NUTS2006/EU-27, European Communities , Luxembourg, 2007,
<http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-07-020/EN/KS-RA-07020-EN.PDF>, [3.05.2011].
Table 7: Pillars and priority areas of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region.
Bengtsson R. An EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region : Good Intentions Meet Complex
Challenges, European Policy Analysis, Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies,
(9) 2009.
<http://www.cespi.it/GOVMED/Swedish_institute_rapport_baltique.pdf> [12.04.2011].
Figure 7: The areas of the Baltic Sea Region
Regional Capacity Building Initiative, Baltic Sea Region. Map, Last update 16.05.2011
<http://www.rcbi.info/cgi-bin/migc_preview.pl?lg=1&page=60> [11.04.2011]
Figure 8: Different type of founding in the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region.
Ryba J., The EU Strategy for the Baltic sea region. History revisited or new opening?, UKIE
analytical paper series n.19: 13. 2010.
Figure 9: Countries covered by the EU Strategy for the Danube Region.
European Commission 2011 d, EU Strategy for the Danube Region. Maps and Photos, Last
modified on: 23-03-2011,
<http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/danube/maps_en.htm> [26.04.2011].
80