Discussion Papers 2008.
Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA) 99-106. p.

13  European Territorial Cooperation within the
Carpathian area
13.1 Situation and problems
The Carpathian region is a specific area of Europe, even from the point of view of European
(international) cooperation. There are few places of the world, where in a relatively small area, the
borders  of  so  many  countries  meet.  The  most  outstanding  example  can  be  found  in  the  North-
Eastern  Carpathians.  By  drawing  a  circle  with  60  km  radius  around  the  town  of  Mukacheve,
(Ukraine, Transcarpathia region), some areas of 5 countries will be covered in the circle (Poland,
Slovakia,  Ukraine,  Hungary  and  Romania).  There  are  only  three  places  in  the  World  in  similar
situation:  beside  Mukacheve,  Darjiling  in  India  (India,  Bangla  Desh,  Nepal,  Bhutan  and  China)
and Katuna Mulilo in Namibia, Afrika (Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Angola).
If there is one area in Europe for which European cooperation is of vital impor-
tance, then it is the Carpathian region. The area which was delineated for the pro-
ject includes 14 state border sections in 4466 km length (AT–CZ, PL–CZ, CZ–SK,
PL–SK, PL–UA, SK–UA, SK–HU, SK–AT, HU–AT, HU–UA, HU–RO, RO–UA,
HU–SRB, RO–SRB). It includes 81 NUTS3 units, of which, according to EU defi-
nition, 52  are  border regions.  Most of its  large  rivers  are  flowing  through  several
countries. The Danube catchment area covers – at least in a small part of all 8 Car-
pathian countries. Tisa catchment area covers 5 countries. The new member states,
with the exception of the Czech Republic, all are on the external border of the EU.
It  is  therefore  justified  that  the  6  EU  member  countries  in  the  Carpathian  region
have  a 28 percent share of the “European cooperation” Structural Funds support of
the EU (2173 thousand €, 2004 prices for 2007–2013).
Cross-border cooperation between Carpathian countries has two main forms:
−  Bottom-up initiatives which, of course, can enjoy EU support to their activi-
ties. Such initiatives are the Euroregions and Working Communities (Figure
16);
−  Top-down  initiatives  of  the  European  Commission,  that  is  the  cross-border
and Trans-national Structural Funds programmes.
13.1.1 Bottom-up initiatives
The main types of bottom-up cross-border regional cooperations in the Carpathian
area are the  Euregions  or Euroregions. The  prototype  of  these regions  was  estab-
lished as early as the 1970s on the German-Dutch border. Its organisational struc-
tures  served  as  a  model  for  all  later  established  similar  regions,  at least formally.
They  emerged  first  along  the  Western  borders  of  Germany.  After  the  political

Illés, Iván : European Territorial Cooperation Within the Carpathian Area.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 99-106. p. Discussion Papers, Special

102
VISIONS AND STRATEGIES IN THE CARPATHIAN AREA (VASICA)
The Euroregions and their members can submit, as any other juristic or natural per-
son  an  application  for  INTERREG  and  PHARE-CBC  project  support.  Of  course,
the  organisational  framework  of  the  Euroregion  facilitates  some  coordination  of
these  project  proposals  and  applications,  and  it  is  an  advantage  of  this  organisa-
tions.  But,  for  the  time  being,  establishing  a  Euroregion  is  rather  of  political  sig-
nificance,  signalling  the  intention  to  cooperate.  There  are  only  few  Euroregions
which can boast with tangible results.
At present, there are 20 Euroregions or “Euroregion type” organisations in the
Carpathian area (see Table). It is more than 20 percent of all such organisations in
Europe.
Organisational consolidation, however, did not follow the quantitative increase.
In  many  cases,  even  the  organisational  form  is  not  yet  cleared.  Are  they  associa-
tions, or corporations or interest groups? Sometimes national governments do not
know  how  many  Euroregions  are  on  their  borders,  because  Euroregions  are  sub-
jects neither to Association Act, nor to Corporation Act and there is no obligation
to register the establishment of a Euroregion. The list below, can be therefore only
of  tentative  character.  The  recent  regulations  of  the  European  Commission  con-
cerning “European Groupings of territorial co-operation” might facilitate and pro-
mote the activities of Euroregions also in the Carpathian area.
One example: The Carpathian Euroregion. Its birth and its activities 1992–
After the democratic change in Central and Eastern Europe, enthusiasm for transnational and
cross-border cooperation increased both within the respective countries and outside the region. A
New York based institute, the Institute for East-West Studies, took the initiative in 1991, and pro-
posed to establish a cooperation system in the North-Eastern Carpathian area. The family of the di-
rector of the Institute, Mr. John Edwin Mroz, stemmed from this area. That was one reason for his
and his institute’s commitment to the cause of transnational cooperation in the region.
But,  after  the  first  months  of  general  enthusiasm,  already  the  first  steps  of  organisation  met
some difficulties. Initially, in 1992, counties and districts from all 5 counties applied for member-
ship in the cooperation scheme. But the governments of Slovakia and Romania vetoed their appli-
cation with the argument: their regions were not entitled for entering into international contractual
relationship  without  the  permission of  the  central  government.  So,  the  Slovak  and  Romanian  re-
gions became not members but only observers in the new Euroregion. Later, however, they joined
the Carpathian Euroregion.
In the first years, after the foundation, the Institute for East-West Studies persuaded one Japa-
nese Foundation, the Sasakawa Foundation, to support financially the Carpathian Euroregion. The
Council  of  Europe  included  into  several  publications  their  contribution  to  the  foundation  of  the
Carpathian Euroregion, but, as a matter of  fact,  after the  foundation they never contacted the re-
gion  any  more.  Concerning  the  European  Union,  the  Carpathian Euroregion  was  not  eligible  for
EU support since none of the founding countries was – by the time of founding – member of the
EU, not even candidate in the year 1993. It was a strange situation: a European region on a very
critical point of the continent could be established and could operate only with the organisational
help of an American institute and with the financial help of a Japanese foundation.
Somewhat  later  the  Carpathian  Euroregion  lost  one  of  its  most  important  external  financing
sources.  The only  substantial funding  resource remained  the membership fee of the participating

Illés, Iván : European Territorial Cooperation Within the Carpathian Area.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 99-106. p. Discussion Papers, Special
EUROPEAN TERRITORIAL COOPERATION WITHIN THE CARPATHIAN AREA
10
3
regions. But the Ukrainian regions were unable, from the beginning, to pay any membership fees,
and the same applies to the Romanian and Slovak regions which joined later. Only the Hungarian
and Polish regions paid the membership fee, but under these circumstances, it became quite high.
Some  Hungarian  members  found  the  costs  of  membership  higher  than  its  benefits  and  left  the
Euroregion.
Beyond financial problems, there were organisational and logistic problems as well. The first
seat  of  the  common  secretariat  was  located  –  as  a  symbolic  act  –  to  Ukraine,  to  the  city  of
Uzhgorod, in Transcarpathia region. It turned out soon that this choice entails a lot of logistic dif-
ficulties.  Phone  contact  to  Ukraine  was  extremely  difficult,  electronic  (e-mail,  internet)  contact
was  almost  impossible.  The  city  of  Uzhgorod  is  23  km  from  the  Hungarian  and  6  km  from  the
Slovak  border  but  border  crossing  required  several  hours  because  of  the  slow  and  bureaucratic
procedures. Consequently, the Secretariat had to be transferred to Hungary, to Debrecen, later to
Nyíregyháza. The seat of the Carpathian Foundation was initially Košice in Slovakia, later it was
also relocated to Eger, Hungary.
Difficulties have arisen also from the fact that the roles, competencies and the autonomy of re-
gions in the participating countries were quite different. Members of the Council of the Euroregion
were  exclusively  heads  or  leading  officials  of  regional  governments,  no  representatives  of  the
business or scientific community, no NGOs.
The experts of the Euroregion prepared an excellent strategic document for the development of
the area, a good operational programme and several project proposals. Unfortunately, with the ex-
ception  of  some  conferences  and  study  tours  (and  the  cooperation  of  the  respective  universities)
nothing was implemented from these strategies, programmes and projects during the 15 years ex-
istence of the Euroregion. The  main reason for it  was the lack of  financial resources, but the in-
ability  of  taking  decisions  and  the  lack  of  connections  to  the  business  community  played  also  a
role in this failure. Important factor was also the lack of an effective neighbourhood policy of the
EU in these years.
Now, from 2007, there are possibilities for the efficient support of transnational cooperation in
this area. The institutions, instruments, legal regulations and resources are in place. Unfortunately,
in the meantime the Carpathian Euroregion has lost its dynamics, enthusiasm, and also a large part
of its membership. Perhaps it has been established too early.
13.1.2  Top-down initiatives: the Structural Funds Interreg and Territorial
cooperation programmes
Interreg was a Community initiative which aimed to stimulate interregional coop-
eration  in  the  European  Union.  It  started  in  1989,  and  was  financed  under  the
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). It was designed to stimulate coop-
eration between the member states of the European Union on different levels. One
of  its  main  targets  was  to  diminish  the  influence  of  national  borders  in  order  to
attain  equal  economic,  social  and  cultural  development  on  the  whole  territory  of
the European Union. Interreg was launched as Interreg I for the programming pe-
riod  1989–93,  and  continued  as  Interreg  II  for  the  subsequent  period  1994–99.  It
has moved on to Interreg III for the period 2000–2006. Candidate countries could
join  the  programme  from  1995  (those  who  had  EU  member  neighbour).  From
1996,  the  programme  was  extended  to  borders  between  candidate  states  (it  was
financed from the PHARE pre-accession financial support instrument).

Illés, Iván : European Territorial Cooperation Within the Carpathian Area.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 99-106. p. Discussion Papers, Special

104
VISIONS AND STRATEGIES IN THE CARPATHIAN AREA (VASICA)
Nevertheless, in the first period, there were several problems during the imple-
mentation of Interreg-PHARE-CBC programmes:
−  Candidate countries were obliged, to spendt the largest part of their PHARE-
CBC  allocation  on  the  borders  to  EU  member  states,  while  most  needs  and
problems emerged on the other borders;
−  Interreg  was  financed  from  the  Structural  Funds,  PHARE-CBC  from  pre-
accession aid. The two financial support funds were managed by two differ-
ent  DG-s  in  the  European  Commission.  Their  regulations,  methodologies,
timetables were totally different. Under such conditions it was extremely dif-
ficult (if not impossible) to implement a really common programme.
−  Not  only  regulations  but  basic  objectives  were  also  different.  Basic  invest-
ment  needs  in  the  border  regions  of  member  states  were  satisfied  from  na-
tional resources and from Objective 1 support. Interreg was used mainly for
the  satisfaction  of  secondary,  not  so  basic  and  urgent  needs.    In  contrast,
PHARE-CBC  was  the  only  source  of  EU  support  in  the  border  regions  of
candidate states and they used it to satisfy basic needs (water supply, sewage
systems,  access  roads  and  so  on).  Anyway,  PHARE-CBC  was  very  useful,
but  programmes  could  not  be  regarded  as  really  common  ones,  they  were
rather parallel ones.
−  A serious problem was that these funds could not be used along borders with
non-member  and  non-candidate  states,  though,  these  border  regions  were  –
mostly – in the worst and most critical situation.
The situation turned for much better after 2004, when candidate states became
members  and  they  had  access  to  the  Structural  Funds.  It  improved  further  from
2007  when  the  neighbourhood  programmes  and  the  ENPI  (European  Neighbour-
hood  and  Partnership  Instrument)  was  introduced.  The  new  instruments  enabled
non-member states  to participate in these programmes on equal conditions. Regu-
lations  became  more  harmonised.  Besides  cross-border  programmes,  neighbour-
hood programmes play a more important role in European cooperation.
The main financial data of the programmes are the following.
As it can be seen, ERDF allocations to these programmes between 2004–2006
and 2007–2013 have increased six-ten times. It means that substantially more and
larger projects can be implemented.
The other strand of INTERREG (Territorial cooperation) is trans-national coop-
eration. This strand aims at the cooperation within large European regions, includ-
ing  regions  from  several  states.  Until  2006, the  Carpathian  region  as  a  whole  be-
longed  to  the  CADSES  (Central  European,  Adriatic,  Danubian  and  Southeast
European Space) programme area, including 17 states from Poland to Greece. By
preparing  for  the  next  –  2007–2013  programming  period,  the  Commission  and
some  member  states  found  this space too  large  for trans-national cooperation  and

Illés, Iván : European Territorial Cooperation Within the Carpathian Area.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 99-106. p. Discussion Papers, Special
EUROPEAN TERRITORIAL COOPERATION WITHIN THE CARPATHIAN AREA
10
5
divided  the  CADSES  area  into  two  cooperation  areas:  Central  Europe  (including
the Carpathian countries Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia),
and Southeast Europe (including the Carpathian countries Austria, Slovakia, Hun-
gary,  Romania  and  Serbia).  As  it  can  bee  seen,  the  Carpathian  area  had  been  di-
vided  into  two  halves.  Launching  projects,  embracing  the  whole  Carpathian  area
will be not impossible, but undoubtedly more difficult than before.
Nevertheless, it can be stated, that even in the past period, very few CADSES
projects were devoted to the problems of the Carpathian area. Out of the 1600 pro-
ject partners of the CADSES projects, only 70 (4,3%) were located in the Carpa-
thian  area.  Out  of  the  134  lead  project  partners,  only  4  (3%)  were  located  in  the
Carpathian area (Krakow,  Vsetin, Karviná, Miskolc). And even out of these four,
only one was engaged in the problems of mountainous areas (Shining Mountains,
Miskolc) (Table 14).
Table 14
CADSES projects in the Carpathian Area, 2002–2006
Programme
Financial resources
Financial resources
2002–2004
2004–2006
Total
ERDF contri-
Total
ERDF contri-
million €
bution million €
million €
bution million €
POLAND – SLOVAKIA cross-

21.0
185.2
157.4
border programmes
CZECH REPUBLIC – SLOVAKIA
18.2
13.7
109.1
92.7
cross border programmes
HUNGARY – ROMANIA cross-
42
23.9
275.0
224.0
border programmes
HUNGARY – SLOVAKIA cross-
27.8
23.8
176.4
207.6
border programmes
CZECH REPUBLIC – POLAND
46.0
34.5

219.4
cross-border programmes
AUSTRIA – CZECH REPUBLIC
69.2
38.3

107.4
cross-border programmes
AUSTRIA – SLOVAKIA cross-

19.0

59.9
border programmes
AUSTRIA – HUNGARY cross-
77
71
96.8
82.3
border programmes
POLANDS – BELARUS–

37.8

186.2
UKRAINE  neighbourhood
programmes
HUNGARY – (ROMANIA) –

31.7

68.6
SLOVAKIA – UKRAINE
neighbourhood programme
Source: Collected by the author.