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........................................................................................102.3.1. 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?...........334.4.1. “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...............................................................585.3.1. 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

List of figures and tables

iii

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 Baltic Energy Market Interconnection PlanBSR Baltic Sea RegionCADSES Central European Adriatic Danubian South-Eastern European SpaceCBSS Council of the Baltic Sea StatesCEB Council of Europe Development BankCF Cohesion FundCoR Committee of the RegionsDR Danube RegionEC European CommunityEIB European Investment BankENPI European Neighbourhood Policy InstrumentERDF European Regional Development FundESF European Social FundEU European UnionEBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentEUSBSR European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea RegionEUSDR European Union Strategy for the Danube RegionHELCOM Helsinki Commission; Baltic Marine Environmental Protection CommissionIPA Instrument for Pre-Accession AssistanceIR International Relations MEP Member of the European ParliamentMLG Multi-level GovernanceNGO Non-governmental OrganizationNUTS Nomenclature of Territorial Units for StatisticsSEA Single European Act SME Small and Medium EnterprisesSWOT Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats TFEU 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 macro-

regional 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 Multi-

level 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 31.2.Ibid.3 Ibid.4 Europa 2001.

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 2010.6 European Commission 2009a.7 Healey P.2003 : 5-6.8 Adams N., Alden J., Harris N. 2006 : 3-4.

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.

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

9 Krumrey P., Schmik C., 2009.

3

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.

1.

2.

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.

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. 10 European Commission 2011a.11 Ruszkowski J. 2006.12 Jolly S. 2007.13 Hooghe L., Marks G. 1996.14 ScanBalt 2011.

4

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

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 15 Samecki P. 2009.16 European Commission 2009b.

5

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

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 17 Committee of the Regions 2010.18 Theoretical consideration section. 19 European Community 1957 : 2.

6

the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least-

favored 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 macro-

regional 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.

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

20 European Community 1992 : 33.21 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 2.3.1.24 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.

7

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 macro-

region 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 macro-

region 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.

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:

25 Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013 2010.26 Biedrzycka K. 2011.27

Pop V. op.cit.28 based on BSR and DR.

8

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

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,

29 European Commission 2009c

9

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

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

30 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 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.

10

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

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.

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

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),

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 macro-

region 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 38 European Commission 2011b.39 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.40 Samecki P., 2009 op.cit. 41 Ibid.

12

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

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 macro-

regional strategies will be govern. Once a macro-region is installed it may start to act. Using

42 Dubois A., Hedin S., Schmitt P., Sterling J. 2009 : 5-7.43 Ibid. 44 Ibid.45 Ibid.

13

RussiaMember StatesEU's regions

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.

46 Ibid.47 Ibid.

14

6 regions form the non-EU states

M e m b e r S t a t e s8 r e g i o n s o f t h e E U ' s

Figure 1: The composition of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and for the EU Strategy for the Danube Region

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 macro-

regions 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.

15

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 macro-

regional 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.

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

48 Yin Robert K. 2003 :4.49 Ibid. : 9-11.50 Gillham B. : 2000 : 8.51 Bryman A. 2004 : 394.

16

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.

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

52 Ibid. : 9-10.53 Regions which are lying in the territory of the Member States accessed the EU before 2004.54 Regions which are lying in the territory of the Member States accessed the EU after 2004.

17

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

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:

1.2.

2.2. Research question as a point of departure

18

3.0.Methodology

4.0.Theoretical consideration

19

4.4. Theoretical explanation of establishing the EU macro-regions?

4.4.1. Distinguishing “old” and “new” macro-regions.

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?

Theories of European integration 4.1. Functionalism 4.2. Neo-functionalism 4.3. Federalism

Aim of creating the EU Strategies for the BSR and the DR.

4.5. Applying Multi-level Governance Theory

3.1. Method3.2. Design

5.0. Aim of the EU Strategies in the light of practice.

6.0. Conclusion

7.0. Perspectives

20

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.

6.1.Evaluation of the theoretical part. 6.2. Outcomes from the practice - SWOT analysis for the EU

Strategies for the BSR and DR

Future perspectives for the other macro-regional strategies.

Tendency of the regional development in the EU.

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.

21

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

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 co-

operation 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

55 Cram L. 1997 : 7.56 Mattli W. 1999 : 19. 57 Warleigh A. 2002 : 18.58 Malhotra K.V. 2004 : 168.59 Warleigh A. 2002: 18 – 19.60 Ibid.61Malhotra K.V. 2004 : 171.

22

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

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, 62 Warleigh A. 2002 : 20.63 Malhotra K.V. 2004 : 16964 Ibid.65 Mazey S., Rhodes C. 1995 : 30.66 Ibid.67 Warleigh A. 2002 : 25.68 Cram L. 1997 : 11. 69 Ümit K. 2009 : 45-51.

23

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

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

70 Ibid. 71 The real implications of this theory can be seen in the achievements of the United Nations, in the non-political fields and success of its specialized agencies.72 Niemann A. 2006 : 12.73 Stone Sweet A. 2010.74 Cini M. 2007 : 86 – 88.75 Rosamond B. 2000 : 62.76 Cini M., 2007 op.cit.77 Niemann A. 2006 op.cit.

24

by any external or internal pressure.78 Moreover, unlike Mitrany and his followers, the neo-

functionalists 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

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 “authority-

legitimacy” 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 spill-

over, in which national interests groups or political parties have an influence on changes

in international sectoral integration.85

78 Ibid. 79 Ibid.80Cram L. 1997 : 14.81 Ibid.82 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.

25

Another very important condition affecting the dynamics of integration, according to neo-

functionalists, 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

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

86 Ibid87 Ibid. 88 Schmitter P. C. 2002.89 Niemann A. 2006 : 14.90 Schmitter P. C. 2002.91 Ibid.

26

“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

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).

92 Ibid.93Mattli W. 1999 : 28. 94 In neo- functionalism : interests groups, local politicians, or national authorities.95 Schmitter P. C. 2002.

27

Figure 2: Regional Integration in neo-functionalist’s view.

-Member State

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 macro-

28

Supranational organization (EU)

National and local authorities

Interest groupsTechnocratic groups

EU’s institutions

Macro-region

Macro-regionInfluence

Figure 3: Regional integration inside the EU at present.

Power to act

regions 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

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

96Christiansen T., Jørgensen E., Wiener A. 2001 : 32-38.97 Ibid.98 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.

29

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

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 policy-

making 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 macro-

regions 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

102 Burgess M., 2000 : 15. 103 The Federalist’s idea of federation is based on democratic principles.104 Burgess M., 2000 : 24-29.105 Ibid.106 Chryssochoou D. N. 2000 : 136.

30

“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,

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 macro-

regional 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

107 Ibid.108 Ibid.109Michelmann H.J., Soldatos P. 1994 : 17-18.110 Ibid. 111Dosenrode S. 2010.

31

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.

Table 1: Main political theories of European integration.

Character

Theory

The driving forces of integration

Focus on The core concepts Goals of integration

Functionalism

-Nation-state-Technocrats-Experts

-Cooperation in technical areas- Transnational governance

- Functional spill-over-Organization is created only to fulfill technocratic functional tasks

- Public welfare- Securitization

of the international peace

Neo-functionalism

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

Federalism -Assumption that nation-state are responsible

-Regional units- Democracy- Shifting the power

-Constitutionalized powersharing on a non centralized basis-Building a

-Securitization of the continental peace

32

for wars and citizens problems.

multinational federal state by relocating the power from state to federal organization (EU concept)

-Transnational governance

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

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

33

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 macro-

regions. 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

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

112 Schmitter P. C. 2002.113Ibid.

114 Ibid.115 „upward –grading” cycle - shift In decision-making process towards wider community (regional or international).

34

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

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 macro-

regions 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 macro-

regions, 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

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.117 Ibid.118 INTERact 2011.

35

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

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

119 Schmitter P. C. 2002.120 Ibid. 121 Hesse J.J. Wright V. 1996 : 10-25.122 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.

36

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

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

126Dubois A., Hedin S., Schmitt P., Sterling J. 2009.127 Eurostat 2007.

37

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

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

128 Antomonte C., Nava M. 2005 : 302.129 Eurostat 2007 op.cit.130 Sapir A. 2004 : 73 -74131 Ibid.

38

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

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 macro-

regional 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 macro-

regional strategies has been connected with the approach concerning the coherence of policy

132 Ibid..133 Ibid.134 Defined in the section 4.4.1.

39

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

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

135 Dubois A., Hedin S., Schmitt P., Sterling J. 2009 op.cit. : 9-10.136 Bache I., Flinders M. 2004 : 3.137 Ibid.138 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.

40

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 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 trans-national

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

142 Rosamond B. 2000 : 110.143 Keulen M. 2006, : 36-38.144 “bargaining arena” – forum of mutual interactions among different actors presenting different set of interest.145 Ibid.146 Ibid.147 Stocchiero A. 2010.148 Ibid.

41

“[…] 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

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. Multi-

level 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 149 Committee of the Regions 2009.150 Ibid.151 European Commission 2001.152 Ibid.

42

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

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

153 Dubois A., Hedin S., Schmitt P., Sterling J. 2009 : 24.154 Committee of the Regions 2009 op.cit.155 Brask H.2008 : 5.

43

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 macro-

regional 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

156 Kramer E. 2010.157 Ibid.158 TFEU 2010a.159 TFEU 2010c.

44

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

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

160 Ibid.

161 TFEU 2010d.162TFEU 2010e.163 TFEU 2010f.

45

“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

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.

164 TFEU 2010g.165 TFEU 2010h.166 Europa 2010. 167 Dubois A., Hedin S., Schmitt P., Sterling J. 2009 : 23.

46

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

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 neo-

functionalists view. Especially the aspects of solving problems with connection to the territory

can be seen here.

168 Europe Baltic Intergroup – informal group of MEPs under the chairmanship of the British conservative Christopher Beazley.169Bolarin Moreno J.170Krumrey P., Schymik C. 2009.171 European Commission Directorate-General for Regional Policy 2009.172European Commission 2010.

47

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 173 Regional Capacity Building Initiative 2011. 174 Samecki P. 2009 op.cit.175 European Commission 2010 op.cit. : 3-5.

48

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

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 place176 Ibid.177 Ibid.178 Ibid.

49

2. A prosperous place

3. An accessible and attractive place

4. A safe and secure place179

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” 179 Ibid.180 Bengtsson R. 2009.181 Ibid.

50

or "Strengthen multi-level governance, place-based planning and sustainable

development",”Built a regional identity”. 182 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

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 Trans-

European 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

182 European Commission 2010.183 European Commission 2009i.184 Ibid.185 Samecki P. 2009 op.cit.

51

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

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 inter-

governmental 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 186 Ibid. 187 Ibid.188 Ibid.189 Stocchiero A. 2010.

52

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.

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 Programme192 (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

190 Dubois A., Hedin S., Schmitt P., Sterling J. op.cit.191 European Commission 2009i. 192 European Commission 2011c.193 European Commission 2009i. 194 European Commission 2011c.

53

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:

€ 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. 196 Ibid.197 Krumrey P., Schymik C. 2009 op.cit.198 Ibid.199 Baltic Development Forum 2011.

54

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.

200 Ryba J. 2010.201 European Commission 2010 b.

55

BALTADAPT – which prepares the first regional climate change adoption plan.

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.203 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.

56

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 : 29.210 Ibid.211 European Commission 2011 b.212 Ibid.

57

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 European Commission 2010 c.214 European Commission 2011 d.

58

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 Number of actions

A. Connecting the Danube Region

1.To improve mobility and multimodality

- Inland waterway: Austria, Romania-Rail, road and air:Slovenia Serbia (interested Ukraine)

17

2.To encourage more sustainable energy

Hungary, Czech Republic 17

3.To promote culture and tourism, people to people contacts

Bulgaria, Romania 14

B. Protecting the Environment in the Danube Region

4. To restore and maintain the quality of waters

Hungary, Slovakia 14

5. To manage environmental risks

Hungary, Romania 8

6.To preserve biodiversity, landscapes and the quality of air and soils

Germany (Bavaria), Croatia

16

C. Building Prosperity in the Danube Region

7. To develop the Knowledge Society (research, education and ICT)

Slovakia, Serbia 8

8.To support the competitiveness of enterprises

Germany (Baden-Württemberg), Croatia

7

9.To invest in people and skills Austria, Moldova 8D. Strengthening the Danube Region

10. To step up institutional capacity and cooperation

Austria (Vienna), Slovenia 9

11. To work together to promote security and tackle organized and serious crime

Germany (Federal Ministry of Interior, in cooperation with Bavaria), Bulgaria

11

Source: based on the European Commission’s Action Plan of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region.

215 European Commission 2010 d.

59

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 non-

Member 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.217 European Commission 2010 e.218 Ibid.219 Danube Summit 2010.220 European Commission 2010 e op.cit.

60

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.222Ibid.223 Ibid.224 Ibid.225 European Commission 2010 d op.cit.

61

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.227 Ibid.228 Ibid.229 Ibid.

62

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.

7. Fostering balanced economic development in the regional network.230 Dubois A., Hedin S., Schmitt P., Sterling J. 2009 : 25.231 Ibid.232 Ibid.

63

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 Samecki P., 2009 op.cit.234 Ibid.

64

Table 5: SWOT analysis for the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and for the Danube Region.

Positive Negative

Inte

rnal

fact

ors

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.

- Multi-level Governance organizes the wide scope of the multi-sectoral, multi-actor and multi-sources strategy.

- 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.

- 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.

Exte

rnal

fact

ors

Opportunities Threats

- 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.

- 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 macro-region 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.

65

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.

66

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-neo-

functionalism has given the solid basis for understanding the reason why these “new” macro-

regions 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 macro-

regions 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 macro-

regions 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

67

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

68

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.

69

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 non-

governmental 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

the effort to push forward the idea of establishing new, well justified strategies for the new

236 Ibid.237 Ozolina Ż., Reinholde I., Rostoks T. 2010 : 276-279.238 Adriatic Ionian Initiative 2011.239 Bolarin J.M. op.cit.

70

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.

71

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%20the%20regions.channels%20of%20regional%20representation.pdf> [26.04.2011]

72

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/public/The%20impact%20of%20the%20Treaty%20of%20Lisbon%20on%20regional%20policy.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/contribution-ruszkowski.pdf> [27.02.2011]

Sapir A., An Agenda for growing Europe The Sapir Report, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004.

73

Schmitter P. C., A Neo-Neo-Functionalism , European University Institute, 2002,<http://www.eui.eu/Documents/DepartmentsCentres/SPS/Profiles/Schmitter/NeoNeoFunctionalismRev.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_sweet&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_08112010_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].

74

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_baltic_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].

Samecki P., Macro-regional strategies in the European Union, European Commission, Stokholm, 18.09.2009,

75

<http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/baltic/pdf/macroregional_strategies_2009.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%20Award/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://eur-lex.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://eur-lex.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://eur-lex.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.<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0201:0328:EN:PDF>[4.05.2011].

76

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://eur-lex.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://eur-lex.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://eur-lex.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://eur-lex.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.<http://www.cor.europa.eu/pages/DocumentTemplate.aspx?view=detail&id=04e01838-8661-4143-b231-9b85f572db39> [ 28.05.2011]

77

EurActiv, EU regional policy after enlargement, Last update: 29.01.2010,<http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/eu-regional-policy-enlargement/article-117535>, [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 Co-operation, , 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.interact-eu.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/COR_cms/ui/ViewDocument.aspx?siteid%3Ddefault%26contentID%3De7291f96-13c6-4408-92fd-1abd2c876171+Mantica+A.+Address+at+the+Forum+cor,eu&hl=pl&gl=pl&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjZoMfFG8IO6arYeGxFuhXVOqDJBRHTpPDMAhevniLVUTM5ILuHsILj526e1m2KegUsSHnf_NVB0ALjrR_94kXL8_Rcxqtn0fHqi_fzrSFKRK277Zc-NJApJxrrdBeLEQm0hlW1&sig=AHIEtbQDnjtNX5fO7ijvqLuG2-SOWUL3sw&pli=1> [26.03.2011]

78

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-07-020-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 RegionRegional 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].

79