The Institutionalization of Transboundary Cooperation ...

0 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size Report
James Wesley Scott*. The year 1993 ... Scott: Transboundary Cooperation in Europe with these ...... Jansen, Paul G., Viktor von Malchus and Ralf Meyer. 1989.
Journal of Borderlands Studies Vol. VIII, No. 1

39

The Institutionalization of Transboundary Cooperation in Europe: Recent Development on the Dutch-German Border James Wesley Scott* The year 1993 will mark the inauguration of Europe's Single Market —an achievement of over thirty years of close cooperation between EC member states. At the same time, the road to a fully fledged political and economic union along the lines of a federated "United States of Europe" will not be easy. Resistance towards the Maastricht Agreements, the BritishGerman row over monetary policy, persistent ideologies of national sovereignty and frequent mistrust of the EC bureaucracy in Brussels suggest that a closer dialogue between citizens, communities, regions, and nationstates will be needed to maintain the pace of European integration. Not surprisingly, the unsolved problems of European political and economic union manifest themselves most clearly at the borders. These problems include: (a) the harmonization of tax and social-welfare legislation, (b) the free circulation of labor, capital and goods, (c) the integration of national transport planning policies, (d) monetary union, (e) international planning and urban and regional development coordination and (t) the coordination of crime-prevention and drug-traffic suppression. Scholars of border regions and transboundary cooperation recognize that national borders serve two important but contradictory functions. While they are defensive in nature, defining the contours of nation-states and safeguarding national sovereignty, they are also a point of contact and exchange between two or more countries and, as such, an area of international cooperation (Solana 1987). Herzog (1990) has characterized international border regions as "transboundary ecosystems" sharing common environmental, social and economic problems but often incapable of dealing *The author is Research Associate at the Institut für Regionalentwicklung und Strukturplanug (Institute for Regional Development and Structural Planning), Berlin.

40

Scott: Transboundary Cooperation in Europe

with these problems due to the existence of national boundaries and different political systems. As a result, the logic of interdependence and mutual problem-solving frequently clashes with ideologies of national sovereignty (Hansen 1984) and institutional barriers created by internation "asymmetries" between transboundary actors (Duchacek 1987a, 1987b, 1988). Stoddard (1978) suggests that a reconceptualization of border regions and the role of transboundary cooperation is needed. A doctrine of "mutual necessity" would require that national governments deemphasize the exclusionary character of their borders, recognize the reality of economic, ecological, social and cultural interrelationships between border communities and allow for the creation of formal, regional problem-solving mechanisms (Stoddard 1984). This, in effect, calls for a negotiated institutionalization of transboundary cooperation that respects principles of national sovereignty and at the same time allows locally involved government actors to deal with specific issues particular to border regions. International experience has shown that the demands of transboundary cooperation in areas requiring large financial resources and broad jurisdictional authority quickly exhaust informal approaches to international problem-solving. Informal and private-law forms of transboundary cooperation, such as that pursued by the renowned Regio Basiliensis, have often proved disappointing because of their limited scope of action and inherent difficulties in working with public institutions on an international level. Accordingly, the real test of progress in transboundary cooperation lies in its degree of institutionalization. Paying particular attention to legal and organizational aspects, this article attempts to analyze transboundary institution-building within the context of European integration and changes in European regional policy. Based on a short case study of the Dutch-German EUREGIO, it is argued that new EC regional development programs and national government support have helped this border area association define strategies enabling it to circumvent legal technicalities, establishing defacto (although not dejure) public agencies responsible for coordinating transboundary cooperation efforts. Additionally, the EUREGIO and other Dutch-German border area associations have vigorously pursued transboundary economic development schemes that have tended to cement working relationships and elicit central government support. Europe's progress in transboundary cooperation must be viewed in the context of developments taking place there, especially the growth of a unitary market and political and economic union. Nevertheless, it is

Journal of Borderlands Studies Vol. VIII, No. 1

41

suggested that North American border regions may be able to learn from European experience —particularly in the light of the North American Trade Agreement— developing strategies that mobilize local political sentiment and help overcome the influence of ideologies of national sovereignty at regional, state and national levels. The Legacy of informal Cooperation in Europe: an Overview

Transboundary cooperation in Europe has been closely linked to the process of international reconciliation and the movement for political and economic union. Nationalism and militarism, responsible for the ravages of 1939 to 1945, stifled communication across borders and poisoned relations between communities in international border areas. Despite the immense anti-German sentiment resulting from the war, it is surprising how rapidly Western Europe has grown together, overcoming historical rivalries and territorial disputes.1 In the context of lasting peace and European unity, border regions have been able to work together across national boundaries in dealing with a variety of complex problems, gradually establishing a political agenda for greater central government support of transboundary cooperation. Most of this progress has been achieved by a slow and often difficult process of establishing informal working relationships across national borders between local officials, business people, universities, cultural institutions and the media. Indeed as elsewhere, informal transboundary cooperation in Europe has developed out of day-to-day contacts between political and economic actors in international border areas. Since the 1950s, informal but generally permanent bodies responsible for promoting and improving transboundary dialogue have been gradually established in Western Europe's border regions. Examples of such border region associations, particularly along Germany's western borders, have been widely documented (Palussiére 1983, Briner 1986, Koch 1974). Among these are the Dutch-German EUREGIO, founded in 1954, and the Swiss Regio Basiliensis, established in 1963. In recent years, the number of these semi-official associations has increased dramatically (to fifty-four as of 1992), and have been established in the Alpine regions, Scandinavia, and along virtually the entire length of Germany's western borders. Within the last few months, local governments located in German-Polish and GermanCzech border areas have taken steps to formally create their own borderregion associations.

42

Scott: Transboundary Cooperation in Europe

Almost all European border region associations can be characterized as nongovernmental private law bodies that provide an informal vehicle for international diplomacy. Local, regional, and occasionally senior government representatives can thus participate in transboundary dialogues —along with business people, planning experts and other private citizens— while respecting the groundrules of national sovereignty. Such legal arrangements provide the associations a great deal of flexibility. The Regio Basiliensis can, for example, act either as an informal planning advocacy lobby or, if protocol so requires, as a representative of the Swiss cantons of Basel-Town and Basel-Land (Scott 1989). Bilateral and occasional trilateral transboundary cooperation efforts are only part of the picture. Multilateral regional interest groups have also been established covering large portions of the alpine areas and extending along the Danube river and the Adriatic Sea. The "Working Group Alps" (ARGE ALP), founded in 1972, covers western Austria, Bavaria, large portions of Switzerland and Northern Italy. Except for the Swiss cantons, these regions are simultaneously represented in the "Working Group AlpsAdriatic" (ARGE ALPEN-ADRIA) established in 1978, which also includes as members the eastern Austrian states, Veneto and Friaul, the Republics of Slovenia and Croatia, and four Hungarian counties (Horváth 1991). An Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) was formed in 1971 in order to give this heterogeneous collection of transboundary associations a semblance of unity at the European level. Among the AEBR's principal aims are: (1) promoting information exchanges between local governments and transboundary actors, (2) representing border region interests at national levels and in conjunction with consultative activities in the European Commissions and the Council of Europe, (3) assisting border regions in developing problem-solving strategies and (4) creating a public forum to disseminate information on border region issues (AEBR 1987). Notable accomplishments of the AEBR include the elaboration of regional development strategies for border areas based on the principle of endogenous growth and the drawing up of a political action program, or "Charta," for the integration of border regions within the European policymaking process. Presently situated in Gronau, Germany (where it shares the offices of the Dutch-German EUREGIO) the AEBR will probably move to Strasbourg in order to strengthen its working relationships with the Council of Europe and the European Parliament.

Journal of Borderlands Studies Vol. VIII, No. 1

43

The Transboundary Role of Business and Government Initiatives

Private-sector initiatives represent another significant example of informal transboundary cooperation. Business organizations, such as Chambers of Commerce, trade associations and lobbies, can be seen as counterparts to local government cooperation and border-region associations. Often business interests have shown more alacrity than political actors in recognizing that the Single European Market will force regional economies to adapt to more intense international competition. Consequently, border area business elites have been among the most visible promoters of a transboundary economic perspective. Progress in transboundary cooperation has been particularly marked between small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and their lobbies. Over the years, SMEs have developed a solid framework for cooperation by creating information networks, financing joint studies and research and, ultimately, establishing joint programs and agencies that aim at achieving research and development and marketing synergies within border regions (McDonnell and Gamier-Raymond 1990). Examples of these business initiatives are the Franco-Spanish Development and Training Association of the Pyrenees (ADEPFO), the Dutch-German Business Innovation Scheme for the Rhine-Waal Region and the Franco-Italian "Working Group for the Western Alps." A wide variety of transboundary advisory groups have also been created by the Council of Europe, the European Commissions and by multilateral agreement between individual member states. It is a study in complexity: alongside the EC-bodies are those in which all twenty-one Council of Europe member states participate. Some advisory groups operate on a national level, while some are of strictly regional character. Examples of these advisory bodies include the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, the Standing Conference of European Planning Ministers, the Assembly of European Regions, the Franco-German Governmental Committee and the Franco-Swiss-German Regional Committee. Since they are advisory, none of these committees or standing conferences can directly affect events in transboundary cooperation. Nevertheless, their official status carries some power of persuasion and a degree of influence on national governments. They also serve the vital purpose of institutionalizing regular information exchanges between governments, ministers and technical departments. The role of these

44

Scott: Transboundary Cooperation in Europe

governmental advisory groups will undoubtedly expand with the development of the Single Market.

Hindrances to Progress in Transboundary Cooperation: Legal Uncertainties and Administrative Mismatches

Considerable progress in transboundary cooperation has been achieved at the local level by private-law associations and informal advisory groups. Unfortunately, these efforts have not been sufficiently supported by senior government action. Despite a plethora of transboundary actors and a multitude of unofficial and semi-official associations and commissions, no clear agenda on border region problems has emerged at national or EC levels. Furthermore, the various levels of transboundary interaction have not meshed adequately, frustrating attempts to create a clear institutional framework for transboundary cooperation. National government participation in transboundary cooperation, predominantly in the form of advisory groups, has held out the promise of direct support for border region initiatives. In fact, however, nationally oriented policies have so far invariably prevailed on the most important planning issues (transportation, environmental protection, and land use).2 The first level of transboundary cooperation, strictly informal and basically voluntary in nature, is of obvious importance due to its immediacy and the relative ease of its use in managing local transboundary concerns. Because of their generally peripheral situation and frequent lack of senior government support, border regions must often substitute international "microdiplomacy" for multilateral treaties and agreements. There are, however, many disadvantages in such informal and private-law methods. In effect, private-law solutions involve a trade-off and inverse relationship between flexibility and effectiveness. Their inherent weaknesses include: (1) an inability to assure democratic supervision of public issues and a dissemination of information pertaining to matters of public interest in a degree necessary for the decision-making process (Gabbe 1992), (2) a limited capacity to reconcile conflicting national policies at the local level (Stoddard 1984), (3) the difficulty in locally coordinating the activities of various levels of government and different government agencies (Valencia n.d.), (4) an acute vulnerability to changes in political climates (e.g. elections) and to "turnover" of government officials (Sloan and West 1977) and (5) the sheer necessity to often limit the scope of local cooperation in order to avoid controversy, bureaucratic complications and, depending on the problem, the

Journal of Borderlands Studies Vol. VIII, No. 1

45

intrusion of external policy-makers (Nalven 1984, Kjos and Peterson 1985, Sloan and West 1977). At the border region level, bi- or trinational legal frameworks for official transboundary cooperation do not as yet exist. Private and public bodies engaged in such cross-border activities are generally bound to the legal statutes that apply in the countries in which they are registered. If the legal systems of two neighboring countries differ appreciably from one another, it is virtually impossible to designate one legal person (one common coordinating body) responsible for transboundary cooperation (Gabbe 1992). It is thus exceedingly difficult to find legal formulas that allow equal recognition of local transboundary actors in two or more countries. Central governments remain stubbornly unwilling to transfer authority to bodies that operate outside their national jurisdictions. In addition, the problem of internation asymmetry often presents itself in transboundary situations. Asymmetry arises when partners in subnational diplomacy are unequal because of differences in political systems, jurisdictional structures, local finances and decision-making authority. As a rule, centrally organized states (such as France) keep a tight political and fiscal rein on local governments, whereas federal states (Germany, Switzerland) confer a much greater degree of local autonomy. In the classic case of the Upper Rhine Valley, for example, both internation asymmetry and ideologies of national sovereignty have been sources of conflict, effectively blocking many trinational planning attempts (Becker-Marx 1992). Attempts have been undertaken to solve the legal dilemma facing public and private-law transboundary actors. The Outline Convention for International Agreements between Local Governments, drawn up by the Council of Europe in 1980, was widely hailed as an important step in the normalization of transboundary cooperation (Hansen 1984). However, it has since proved a disappointment. Despite the fact that fourteen countries have ratified it to date, and that it provides precise legal definitions of public and private law models of transboundary cooperation, local officials still feel intimidated by the complexity of formal agreements and generally avoid using the Outline Convention (Becker-Marx 1992). International experience has shown that only formal treaties provide a stable framework for most critical areas of transboundary cooperation. Political solutions, applied for example in dealing with resources management on the US-Mexican border, are generally a less desirable alternative (Hayes 1991). The Outline Convention has largely failed to serve its purpose because of its lack of legal clarity with regard to the

46

Scott: Transboundary Cooperation in Europe

administrative responsibilities of local transboundary actors. Legal assurances to local government can only be based on national legislation and model transboundary legislation must be backed by formal agreements between two or more states. Unfortunately, only two such treaties have been concluded in Europe —the Benelux Treaty of 1986 (which Belgium has yet to ratify) and the 1991 Dutch-German Treaty. The Upper Rhine Valley: Regional Initiative at an Impasse The difficulties facing transboundary cooperation are exemplified by Europe's trinational Upper Rhine Valley, where Switzerland, Germany and France share a common border and waterway. Some of Europe's largest chemicals and pharmaceutical companies are located on the Swiss side. The French side (Alsace), much longer and more heavily industrialized, has large chemical firms, potassium mines, industrial waste sites and nuclear power plants. Ironically, the German bank of the Rhine is almost rural in quality and depends to a considerable extent on tourism and the wine industry for its well-being. The Regio Basiliensis (headquartered in Basel, Switzerland) realized early on the necessity to reconcile these highly conflicting uses through international dialogue. At the same time, it argued for trinational efforts to create a more diversified regional economy and to prevent Basel's isolation within an evolving European Community. Since its inception, the Regio has been one of the most visible and enterprising of Europe's border region associations. Thanks to the efforts of Hans Briner, Christian Haeffliger and others, the association has won international acclaim for its in-depth analyses of border region problems and its transboundary planning concepts. More importantly, the Regio Basiliensis has played a vital role in helping establish international advisory commissions (in particular the Swiss-FrenchGerman Tripartite Committee) and bringing the Upper Rhine region to the attention of the national governments. The Regio was also instrumental in launching the so-called Upper Rhine Program of Innovation, a trinational research and development initiative based on cooperation between universities, research institutes and regional firms (Scott 1989). To this effect both a European Confederation of Upper Rhine Universities (EUCOR) and a trinational European Management School have been established (Streith 1990 and Klein 1990). The activities of the Regio culminated in the "Basel summit" of December 1989 which brought together French President Mitterand, German Chancellor Kohl and Swiss President Delamuraz. The three heads

Journal of Borderlands Studies Vol. VIII, No. 1

47

of state signed a declaration expressing their intent to support transboundary cooperation efforts in the Upper Rhine. The declaration specifically mentioned support for a transboundary public transport network, and increased cooperation between universities and business in the region. Nevertheless, despite the Upper Rhine's high-visibility and wellpublicized attempts at trinational cooperation, the actual state of transboundary cooperation in the region is disappointing —if not disillusioning. Years of planning advocacy and lobbying senior governments, and even the Basel Declaration, have failed to create an effective crossborder transportation network. Although a regional air quality monitoring system (REICLIP) is being established, very little progress has been achieved in the area of environmental protection, an extremely sensitive issue along this vital waterway (Sattler 1992). In another case, small but symptomatic, a mutual information center was planned for businesses and private citizens in the Upper Rhine in order to prepare them for changes in EC social, economic and environmental legislation. Funding for this project was assured by Brussels. As Switzerland is not an EC-member country, the information center was to be located either on the French or German side. Despite the relatively straightforward nature of this transboundary initiative, conflict between French and German authorities blocked a final location decision, leaving the information center in limbo.3 The Changing Role of the Border in a "Europe of Regions"

Two emerging developments may be setting the stage for more rapid progress in transboundary cooperation. The first is the EC's self-avowed aim of "regionalizing" regional development. The second is Europe's attempt to achieve a federalist structure wherein regions play a more active political role. Both of these goals are based on the principle of subsidiarity.4 Both call for active participation of regions in formulating and executing regional policy, and introducing elements of "grass-roots" democracy through greater local and regional representation in national politics.5 Reforms in European regional programs also give evidence of attempts to decentralize economic development policy. As in other industrialized parts of the world, a "paradigm shift" in European regional development has taken place that emphasizes technological innovation, small and medium-size enterprises and synergies achieved through local research and development cooperation between firms, universities and research facilities (OECD 1987).6 The 1988 modifications of EC social, structural

48

Scott: Transboundary Cooperation in Europe

and agricultural policies reflect this paradigm shift by: (1) emphasizing longterm development programs instead of individual capital investment projects, (2) decentralizing the policy-making and execution process via cooperation between Brussels, national governments and local bodies, (3) defining specific target regions for development aid and (4) tailoring development policies to specific regional needs through so-called community initiatives (European Commissions 1991). Europe's border regions have clearly benefitted from this incipient "regionalization" of EC policy. Indeed, EC Ordinance 2051 of 1988 stipulates financial support for transboundary pilot projects that promote investment, stimulate comprehensive planning, support infrastructural development and contribute to transboundary activities in economic development. As a result, several new regional development programs have been created, designed specifically to deal with border area problems. The most important of these is the Community Initiative INTERREG, which funds transboundary planning, development and capital investment projects in those border regions particularly affected by unemployment and industrial decline or, in the case of rural areas, by underdevelopment. The objectives of INTERREG are: (1) to prepare border regions for the introduction of the single market, (2) to terminate the economic and social isolation of border regions through direct problem-solving measures, (3) to promote transboundary cooperation and networking and (4) to prepare border regions on the external boundaries of the EC for their role as gateway to the single market. Approximately 800 Million EMU (1.16 Billion US$) have been appropriated by the EC for INTERREG projects for the period 1990-1993.7 While close to 80 percent of INTERREG funds are targeted for underdeveloped areas (Spain, Ireland, Southern Italy, Portugal and Greece) a variety of transboundary pilot projects in central and northern European border regions have also received support. The LACE-initiative (Linkage Assistance and Cooperation in European Border Regions) is an EC pilot project which promotes the exchange of information and the establishment of data networks between border regions. Through LACE, workshops and seminars on strategies to improve transboundary cooperation have been conducted in more than twenty border regions, including some in Eastern Europe (AEBR 1992). LACE-funded activities are in great demand, particularly in Southern Europe, where transboundary cooperation exists only in rudimentary form. They provide valuable information and counseling on economic

Journal of Borderlands Studies Vol. VIII, No. 1

49

development, grant sources, environmental problems and the coordination of transboundary activities. As an added incentive for transboundary cooperation, the EC Commissions have recommended, and in certain cases required, the formulation of so-called Transboundary Development Programs. In return, border regions will receive regional development aid. The EC first made recommendations for the elaboration of Transboundary Development Programs in 1976. Five years later, the Dutch-German "Ems-Dollart Region" produced a project list for the infrastructure improvement, environmental protection, and promotion of local industries, but the effort was criticised by the EC for lacking comprehensiveness (Malchus 1992a). Accordingly, the next such transboundary program, completed in 1985 by the trinational EUREGIO Rhine-Maas, was thus drawn up under the supervision of national ministries and the EC Commissions, and conforming to guidelines previously set out by the EC. In the following seven years, all remaining EUREGIOs on the German-BeNeLtux (Belgium-NetherlandsLuxemburg) border completed Transboundary Development Programs along the lines of the Rhine-Maas plan. As an indication of how the subsdiarity principle is being integrated into European regional policy, the EC has required operational programs of the German-Benelux EUREGIOs as a precondition for granting 1993 INTERREG funds. These operational programs are based on the goals established by Transboundary Development Programs, and are to be worked out under the supervision of national economic ministries (Manthey 1992). Eventually, all EC border regions will be subject to the same development grant conditions. Theoretically, border area actors who work together in applying for development grants and in project management not only cement working relationships, but also establish a record of cooperation that potentially can result in greater national government support of transboundary activities. Institution Building in international Border Regions: the Case of the German-Dutch Border

The primary stumbling block to more forceful transboundary cooperation in Europe has clearly been the failure of local transboundary actors to obtain international treaties empowering them to set effective guidelines for development. Solutions to border area problems have so far largely depended on the ingenuity and initiative of local actors. It is therefore an encouraging sign that n EC-initiatives are assisting border

50

Scott: Transboundary Cooperation in Europe

region associations in drawing up transboundary regional development programs. In the short term, mature and well-organized border region associations will benefit most from these new policies. In the case of DutchGerman associations, attempts at transboundary planning and development were well under way before the inauguration of INTERREG and LACE. This has enabled them to take full advantage of EC-programs and to assume a pioneer role in the institutionalization of transboundary cooperation. The EUREGIO, located in the central portion of the Dutch-German border, has been held up as a model border region association. (Figure 1) EUREGIO - A Model for the institutionalization of Transboundary Cooperation

Based on their own experiences, representatives of Dutch-German border associations have suggested an incremental strategy for securing formal national government recognition of transboundary cooperation. Before binational agreement recently opened up the possibility of an international public law mechanism, Dutch-German border associations increasingly rode piggyback on national legislation, obtaining formal or semiformal status in their home countries, and then establishing informal private law ties to their counterparts on the other side of the border (Gabbe 1992). The precondition for this sort of legal convergence was a high level of interaction between local councils of government and the existence of a wellstaffed and organized office to coordinate the activities of the partner associations. Proponents of the public-private law strategy argue that it lays the necessary groundwork for institutionalizing transboundary cooperation. The most prominent example of use of this strategy is the Dutch-German EUREGIO located between Gronau (Germany) and Enschede (Holland). The beginnings of the EUREGIO date back to the 1954 creation of the Rhine-Ems local government association on Germany's border with central Holland. One of the association's principal aims was improved cooperation with Dutch communities. In 1960 two Councils of Governments (COGs) were created on the Dutch side of the border, and a period of intensive but informal consultations ensued regarding infrastructure, economic development and other areas of transboundary concern (Gabbe 1985). In 1966 a Dutch-German EUREGIO working group was established, and in 1978, the three COGs consolidated their transboundary activities by creating an EUREGIO-Council.

Journal of Borderlands Studies Vol. VIII, No. 1



51

Figure 1

GERMAN-BeNeLux BORDER REGION ASSOCIATIONS

oe'=7°

EMS-DOLLART



Bremen

Amsterdam

HOLLAND

RHINE-WAAL

*E ssen

RHINE-MAAS NORTH



• Min .Brussels

• Bonn

BELGIUM



GERMANY

Adapted from: Institut für Landes- und Stadtentnicklungsforschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (ILS), 1985

52

Scott: Transboundary Cooperation in Europe

Currently, the three COGs represent 109 jurisdictions (towns, cities and counties) and a population of roughly 1.9 Million. The region is experiencing general industrial decline, has a relatively large agricultural sector, and is in a peripheral location with regard to the main economic centers of Holland and Germany. While service-sector growth has been remarkable, it has not compensated for heavy job losses in manufacturing — particularly textiles and apparel. Current unemployment levels within the EUREGIO are as high as 18 percent. Common problems of economic decline and marginality, as well as strong cultural and linguistic affinities, have helped create a transboundary regional identity. Furthermore, problems of internation asymmetry between Holland and Germany have not been as acute as elsewhere. Dutch provinces and German states, responsible for supervising municipal affairs, enjoy a considerable degree of political and financial autonomy. The EUREGIO has been able to capitalize on these advantages (CarmonaSchneider 1987). A decisive step towards institutionalizing transboundary cooperation was the 1978 creation of the EUREGIO-Council, Europe's first transboundary parliamentary body representing local municipalities. The Council comprises twenty-nine Dutch and thirty-one German representatives elected by the three member COGs, is the EUREGIO's main consultative and coordinating body, supervising all aspects of transboundary cooperation (Figure 2). The Council based on international private law, is neither a legislative nor an executive body, but it can indirectly exert considerable influence upon municipal officials, especially because its members are elected by the three local COGs. At senior government levels, the Council operates as a well-organized lobby, submitting recommendations for improvements in regional transportation, land use planning, drug enforcement, public safety, disaster relief and other areas of transboundary cooperation. Advisory members of the Council include representatives of the European Parliament, the Dutch and German governments, the German states of North Rhine-Westfalia and Lower Saxony and the Dutch provinces of Gelderland and Overijssel. The Council is the EUREGIO's direct response to national sovereignty problems that stand in the way of comprehensive transboundary cooperation. Thus, three public-law COGs interact directly through an international private law entity, avoiding legal complications. Policies agreed by the Council are executed by another private-law body, the EUREGIO Working Group, composed of twenty senior civil servants from Dutch and German local governments. A steering committee including representatives

Journal of Borderlands Studies Vol. VIII, No. 1



53

Figure 2

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE EUREGIO 109 member counties and

communities

3 Councils of Government 60 delegates: 29 Dutch/31 German a. KGRE (Kommunalgemeinschaft Rhein-Ems/Germany)

b. ST (SamenwerIcingsverband Twente/Holland) c. SOG (Samenwerkingsverband Oost Gelderland/Holland)

EUREGIO

EUREGIO COUNCIL STEERING COMMITTEE: Consultative participation of senior government representatives including: the European Community, Dutch and German Economic Ministries, German Federal Government, Dutch Government, State of Northrhine-Westfalia, Dutch Provinces of Gelderland and Overijssel, German Regierungsbezirke (administrative regions).

EUREGIO WORKING GROUPS

EUREGIO ADMINISTRATION

AND SECRETARIAL OFFICES (Gronau, Germany)

FIELDS OF ACTIVITIES Labor Relations

Social Problems

Economic Issues Transport

Agriculture

Environment

"Everyday Concerns" Technology

Culture Tourism Education and Training

54

Scott: Transboundary Cooperation in Europe

of European Institutions and senior governments of both countries advises the Council, the working Group and the EUREGIO central office in

Gronau.

Since 1985 the EUREGIO has had a central coordinating and business office with a Dutch-German staff, located directly on the border in Gronau. The operation of a single binational o ffi ce emphasises the operational philosophy of the EUREGIO to work strictly binationally, transcending more piecemeal and ad-hoc forms of transboundary cooperation that, in effect, do little to alter border region fragmentation.8 Some Results of EUREGIO Activities

The EUREGIO's more tangible successes have included transport planning, regional development policy, grant sourcing for a variety of regional projects, and a partial coordination of services (fire protection and health) across the border. For example, the EUREGIO succeeded in obtaining crisis area status for a large portion of its jurisdiction, thereby securing from the EC and Dutch and German governments badly needed economic development funds for the textile industry (Gabbe 1992). It has also influenced transport policy to the extent that vital road links have been built, and planned suspensions of rail service to EUREGIO communities halted. The EUREGIO appears to have developed lobbying and opinionmaking influence at the national level. It is also an effective —if informal— policy maker at the local level. As an international body, the EUREGIO has no public-law status or decision-making authority, but both the Dutch and German senior governments treat it as a defacto official institution involved in the regional planning process of both countries. In cases where the presence of both Dutch and German representatives in planning consultations is not permissible, the EUREGIO can convey the opinions of local governments across borders via its member COGs and thus represent the region as a whole (Gabbe 1992). At the regional and municipal level, the EUREGIO is supported by member communities who pay into the EUREGIO system, helping to finance not only administrative operations but also cultural activities, EUREGIO-related services (information offices, schools, adult education centers, libraries, etc.), and economic development programs. Many of these programs are also funded through grants provided by the Dutch and German governments and matched by EC-funds.

Journal of Borderlands Studies Vol. VIII, No. 1

55

Regional Development Projects: A Public Agency Role for Private Law Associations

Along with the other Dutch-German border region associations, the EUREGIO has developed a Transboundary Development Program. These programs not only pursue economic development goals but also work to eliminate obstacles to cooperation and seek to strengthen transboundary regional identity. All programs contain the following elements: 1. an analysis of strengths and weaknesses, and a discussion of the most pressing regional problems (environment, industrial decline and distance from national centers); 2. a definition of transboundary problem areas, such as infrastructure, transportation, conflicts of land use, health and public safety and administrative obstacles to cooperation; 3. a definition of development goals aimed at overcoming regional marginality and obstacles to cooperation and addressing problems; 4. the development of problem-solving strategies to achieve development goals and; 5. the implementation of problem-solving strategies through the development of specific measures and programs. The implementation element includes a detailed analysis of individual measures showing: (a) total costs, (b) sources of possible financial support and (c) identifying the local, regional and national authorities whose cooperation is needed.

As noted above, the EC has mandated that requests for regional development funds in border areas be supported by operational programs based on the goals defined by Transboundary Development Programs. In attempting to promote the political principle of subsidiarity, the EC has also begun to require that applications for development grants be worked out by both regional representatives and national ministries. The INTERREG Program, spread out over a four year period (1990 to 1993), has earmarked approximately 21,000,000 DM (13,720,000 US $) for the EUREGIO. These funds will be matched by national and regional

56

Scott: Transboundary Cooperation in Europe

contributions, and supplemented by other EC funds, bringing total regional development resources to 70,000,000 DM (45,740,000 US $ ) (EUREGIO 1992).9 By mutual agreement, the EUREGIO has been designated project manager for the INTERREG initiative. The EUREGIO receives and reviews individual project proposals, and submits those that most closely meet the aims of the operational program for approval by the EC Commissions. A steering committee consisting of EUREGIO members and representatives of Dutch and German senior governments is responsible for identifying possibilities for co-financing the projects. In keeping with EC guidelines for appropriating INTERREG funds, the EUREGIO has identified seven areas where project grants can be made available. These are: (1) networking and transboundary communication, (2) transportation and infrastructure, (3) tourism and recreation, (4) technical training and employment, (5) environmental protection and agriculture, (6) innovation and technology and (7) border area research and project management. Included in the final project list are the establishment of a EUREGIO School of Management and a transboundary database, the coordination of local public transit systems, and a waste-management program. The realization of all these projects will require the cooperation and financial support of a number of regional, provincial-state and national agencies as well as that of private companies. The waste-management project, for example, involves the EUREGIO municipalities, their COGs, private enterprises, the Dutch provinces of Gelderland and Overijssel, the German counties (Kreise) of Bentheim, Borken, Coesfeld and Steinfurt, the ministries of the environment of Holland, and the German states of North Rhine-Westfalia and Lower Saxony. As the regional coordinating body for transboundary projects, including those funded by INTERREG, the EUREGIO has been able to assume direct policy responsibilities similar to those of public law institutions. As such, the EC role in mandating specific procedures for regional aid applications has been of considerable help. Senior governments have been encouraged, perhaps even firmly advised, to promote the participation of border area associations. In an international interagency agreement signed in July 1990, Holland and the German states of North Rhine-Westfalia and Lower Saxony agreed to create an INTERREG partnership with the EUREGIO, the Regio Rhine-Waal and the RhineMaas North border regions. This agreement determined that project funding should be shared by the EC (a maximum of 50 percent of total costs), national agencies (co-financing up to 30 percent of total costs) and the border regions (20 percent). Through this partnership, the border region

Journal of Borderlands Studies Vol. VIII, No. 1

57

associations process applications for project grants, submit the applications to intergovernmental steering committees in each of the border regions, and, after having established conditions for co-financing projects, transfer accounting responsibility to a semi-private bank in North Rhine-Westfalia. Actual project management, however, remains a responsibility of the border area associations. The Dutch-German Treaty of Transboundary Cooperation Among Local Governments

To date, only one treaty has been ratified establishing a framework for European transboundary cooperation based on public law institutions at local and regional levels. The Dutch-German Treaty on Transboundary Cooperation between regional and local authorities was signed in May 1991 by the Dutch Home and Foreign Secretaries, the German Foreign Secretary and the Prime Ministers of the German States of North Rhine-Westfalia and

Lower Saxony. The treaty defines three possible areas in which transboundary cooperation can be covered by international law. These are: (1) cooperation between special districts or COGs, (2) the conclusion of specific international agreements by local and regional governments and (3) the creation of international working groups and committees. Because of their governmental character, special districts and COGs are the central institutions of transboundary cooperation designated by the treaty

(EUREGIO 1992). Special districts and COGs have no legal authority beyond their jurisdictions or outside the countries in which they operate. To circumvent this legal problem, the treaty allows for an "interagency mandate transferral." Special districts in one country can thus operate beyond national borders provided they do under the authority and in the name of a corresponding district in the neighboring state. It must be noted, however, that such mandate transferrals can involve considerable bureaucratic complications particularly when the operational aims of special districts affected by transboundary decision-making differ appreciably (EUREGIO 1992). The EUREGIO is in the process of developing an interagency agreement based on the Dutch-German treaty.

58

Scott: Transboundary Cooperation in Europe

Institutionalization: Generalizations and Recommendations for Future Action

The EUREGIO-model represents an advanced but by no means perfect or ultimate form of transboundary policy-making institution. It is still too early to tell whether the 1991 Dutch-German Treaty on Transboundary Cooperation represents an appropriate instrument for creating alternative public-law forms of transboundary cooperation. However, European experiences, particularly the EUREGIO model, do suggest a flexible step-by-step approach to improving transboundary cooperation. Under advantageous circumstances, this could provide a framework for future institutionalization. These experiences, and observations made by Jens Gabbe, Viktor von Malchus and other experts, are the basis for the following recommendations for improving transboundary cooperation. 1. Transboundary cooperation should be promoted via greater citizen participation and local activism. Ideally, a relationship of subsidiarity between local and senior governments should be encouraged in order to address border areas problems more effectively, and with greater emphasis on the needs of the communities. Similarly, to strengthen the political voice of border areas, a sense of transboundary regional identity should be promoted by public and private actors. 2. Economic cooperation, ideally through cooperative strategies along the lines of Transboundary Development Programs, has the potential for reinforcing working relationships between public and private transboundary actors. Furthermore, it can also encourage closer cooperation between regional and national authorities if care is taken to emphasize the mutual benefits of transboundary regional development. Where development grants are scarce, pressure should be put on senior governments to create new regional programs. This is particularly important in view of recent free trade agreements (e.g. NAFTA). Furthermore, it is important that the private sector be mobilized to assure project funding. Finally, joint management of development projects by public and private actors within border regions has the potential of creating permanent transboundary organizations whose functions can be expanded over time.

Journal of Borderlands Studies Vol. VIII, No. 1

59

3. Institutionalization is a slow and painstaking process. Consequently steps must be taken to assure that various avenues of transboundary cooperation (informal, semi-official, and, where applicable, official) are gradually built up and organized around permanent or semi-permanent agencies or associations. A vital element in such institution-building is the establishment of an association with the express duty of coordinating transboundary cooperation activities, and serving as a focal point of transboundary information exchanges. This association (ideally, international in character in accordance with the EUREGIO philosophy) should be endowed with wellstaffed administrative offices, and should structure its activities around specific technical, economic, and socio-political areas of cooperation. Such an association could help assure continuity in professional working relationships, and also be expanded as cooperation develops. 4. Flexibility as to the legal status of transboundary cooperation is essential. While informal agreements may deal with certain day-to-day problems, broader forms of cooperation require the participation of public institutions and governments. Where establishment of public-law forms of cooperation across borders are legally impossible or politically unwise, it is expedient to rely on politically neutral solutions. In the case of the EUREGIO, public law institutions (COGs) in Holland and Germany have established a private international association to promote cooperation among them. This association has developed into a well-organized regional lobby and, due to the official status of its parent organizations, has been able to function like a public law institution. 5. Border regions should apply pressure on national governments to conclude bilateral treaties facilitating transboundary cooperation between local governments. The more effective the transboundary cooperation, and the better the internal organization and lobbying talents of the border region associations, the more forceful the regional voice.

60

Scott: Transboundary Cooperation in Europe

Concluding Note

Despite the recommendations presented here, it is not suggested that European experiences in the institutionalization of transboundary cooperation are universally applicable to situations in other parts of the world. Without the political support and funding provided by the EC and without the integrative momentum of the single market, it is doubtful that local transboundary initiatives would have achieved as much as they have. Furthermore, the EUREGIO has been able to operate and develop under singularly advantageous circumstances that include strong cultural affinities and socio-economic homogeneity. Thus criticisms of transboundary cooperation in the Upper Rhine Valley or in other regions not as far along as the EUREGIO must be tempered with an understanding of the local sociopolitical context. Regional cultural and economic heterogeneity, differences between national political and legal systems, the degree of popular support for transboundary regionalism and, in certain cases, isolationist tendencies all play an important role in defining the groundrules of transboundary microdiplomacy. This article has shown that formal institutions of transboundary cooperation can be created and funded through international agreement at local or senior government levels. European experts argue that the ultimate form of institutionalization lies in establishing border-region parliaments, or other executive bodies capable of assuming some of the decision-making authority now vested in individual municipalities, counties or regional councils. This, however, is a long-term goal and one which may not be feasible in other transboundary settings. In the case of the U.S.-Mexican borderlands, it is conceivable that free trade might provide an opportunity for strengthening transboundary cooperation, particularly if special border region programs are created and funded within the NAFTA framework. European experience has shown that transboundary project management in economic development, infrastructural planning and other areas has helped solidify working relationships and promote institutional forms of cooperation. Local-federal as well as international partnerships in administering such programs would also work towards establishing a new transboundary policy framework along the lines of that proposed by Ellwyn Stoddard (1984). The establishment of U.S.-Mexican REGIOs along the lines of the Dutch-German EUREGIO does not appear likely in the near future. However, a voluntary and wholly informal U.S.-Mexican border region association might, under certain circumstances be a possible alternative. An

Journal of Borderlands Studies Vol. VIII, No. 1

61

essential component of such an association, however, would be a border region information and coordination center, equipped with a small but fulltime staff. Such a center could serve as a focal point for research, exchanges of information, cultural events and, most important, as a local lobby for more senior government support of transboundary activities. Regardless of the institutionalization strategy that is pursued, institutional forms of transboundary cooperation should not aim to bureaucratize the process by assuming the role presently played by personal contacts and informal interaction. Instead, such institutions should provide an extra tier of transboundary relationships, unaffected by turnover and changes in political climate and capable of promoting long-term problemsolving.

62

Scott: Transboundary Cooperation in Europe

Notes 'Unfortunately, events in Eastern and Southeastern Europe are tragically recreating this context of ethnic and territorial conflict. The development of high-speed trains is a clear example of this prevailing nationally-oriented thinking. Although France, Spain and Germany operate such systems, international high-speed links were not included in original plans, due to incompatibility, protectionism and particularism. 3This incident was documented by Sattler (1992). A political event with far more serious consequences for transboundary cooperation in the Upper Rhine was the Swiss referendum of 6 December 1992 which, all political and economic repercussions notwithstanding, has effectively blocked Switzerland's entry into the European Economic Zone (EEZ). Only the francophone and the German-speaking cantons of Basel-Town and BaselLand voted in favor of EEZ-membership. Entry into the EEZ has been offered by the EC to "third party" states in Western Europe and is a precondition for future full membership in the EC. Thus, the outcome of the EEZ-referendum was basically a vote for continued Swiss isolationism. 4Subsidiarity implies a mutual understanding between senior and local governments in which responsibilities are devolved to regions and cities and other local governments under the condition that the latter demonstrate greater political initiative and self-reliance and contribute more actively to the policy-making process. 5The Maastricht Accords of December 1991 signified two important advances in the representation of local and regional governments in the EC (Hoffschulte 1992). Article 3b of the new EC Treaty upholds the principle of subsidiarity in defining the responsibilities of municipal and regional governments. More importantly, Article 198 (A-C) establishes that a Regional Committee, made up of 189 local representatives from the twelve member nations, is to participate in consultations on European legislation and policy. Article 198, in effect, creates a formal parliamentary body entrusted with promoting regional interests and counterbalancing the powerful influence of national governments. 6To quote the OECD: "the endogenous aim, formulated in most OECD countries, is to give outlying regions the resources with which to make the most of their own assets. This development model is drawn directly from the observation of the spontaneous development of certain regions, which, thanks to the diversification of their economies, and the

Journal of Borderlands Studies Vol. VIII, No. 1

63

cohesiveness of their social and cultural fabric, have been better at adapting to recent economic needs": pp. 8-9. 7An additional 100 Million EMU (145,000,000 US$) has been appropriated for transboundary projects from the EC Regional Development Fund.

8Indeed, the EUREGIO does not view itself so much as a border region (a geographical area made up of two or more distinct national subunits) but as a European Region that has transcended traditional concepts of boundaries and national sovereignty. 9As of 28 October 1992, 1 US$ = approximately 1.53 Deutsche Mark (DM). References

Association of European Border Regions. 1987. Europäische Charta der Grenz-und grenzüberschreitenden Regionen; Ziele und Aufgaben der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Europäischer Grenzregionen Gronau (Germany): EUREGIO. Association of European Border Regions. 1982?. Wirtschaftliche Entwicklungsstrategie für die europäischen Grenzregionen: Anpassung ihrer Wirtschaftsstruktur an die Zwänge und Möglichkeiten der 80er Jahre Bonn: AEBR. Association of European Border Regions. 1992. Bericht über die Aktivitäten des LACE-Pilotprojektes vom Juli 1990 bis Ende Dezember 1991 Gronau (Germany): EUREGIO. Becker-Marx, Kurt. 1992. Modelle grenzüberschreitender Kooperation am Oberrhein Hanover: Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (ARL). Briner, Hans. 1986. "Regional Planning and Transfrontier Cooperation: the Regio Basiliensis," pp. 45-53 in Oscar Martinez, ed., Across Boundaries: Transborder Interaction in Comparative Perspective El Paso: Texas Western Press. Carmona-Schneider, Juan J. 1987. "Euregio," Standort 2 (Spring):3-9. Duchac,ek, Ivo. 1987a. Comparative Federalism: the Territorial Dimension of Politics Philadelphia: Center for the Study of Federalism. Duchacek, Ivo. 1987b. Toward a Typology of New Subnational Actors in International Relations, Working Paper 87-2, Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California.

64

Scott: Transboundary Cooperation in Europe

Duchacek, Ivo. 1988. Petforated Sovereignties and International Relations:

Trans-Sovereign Contacts of Subnational Governments New York:

Greenwood Press. EUREGIO. 1992. Geschäftsbericht 1991 Gronau (Germany): Euregio. European Commission. 1991. Leitfaden für Gemeinschaftsinitiativen im

Rahmen der Reform der Strukturfonds Luxemburg: Publications O ffice of the European Communities. Gabbe, Jens. 1985. "EUREGIO - regionale grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit," pp. 174-186 in Akademie für Landes- und Stadtentwicklungsforschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (ILS), Staatsgrenzen überschreitende Zusammenarbeit des Landes Nordrhine Westfalen Dortmund: ILS. Gabbe, Jens. 1992. "Institutionelle Aspekte der grenzüberschreitenden Zusammenarbeit," pp. 174-186 in Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (ARL), Grenzübergreifende Raumplanung: Erfahrungen und Perspektiven der Zusammenarbeit mit den Nachbarstaaten Deutschlands Hannover: ARL. Gamier-Raymond, Marie and Paulo da Silva Santos. 1990. Projet LACE: Assistance des Liaison et de Cooperation pour les Regions Frontalieres London: LRDP (South Bank Technopark, 90 London Road, London SE1 6LN, UK). Hansen, Niles. 1984. "Regional Transboundary Cooperation Efforts in Centralist States: Conflicts and Responses in France and Mexico," Publius: the Journal of Federalism 14(Fall): 137-152. Hayes, Douglas L. 1991. "The All-American Canal Lining Project: A Catalyst for Rational and Comprehensive Groundwater Management on the United States-Mexico Border?," Transboundwy Resources Report 1(Spring):1-3. Herzog, Lawrence A. 1990. Where North Meets South Austin: University of Texas press. Hoffschulte, Heinrich A. 1992. "Maastrichter Gipfel: Auswirkungen auf die Kommunen," Stadt und Gemeinde 3(March):79-84. Horváth, Gyula. 1991. "Regions in Competition, International Division of Labour and Regional Policy," pp. 11-24 in Gyula Hon/áth, ed., Regional Policy and Local Governments Pécs (Hungary):Centre for Regional Studies. 1989. Jansen, Paul G., Viktor von Malchus and Ralf Meyer. Grenzüberschreitendes Entwicklungs- und Handlungskonzept der Regio

Journal of Borderlands Studies Vol. VIII, No. 1

65

Rhein Waal Dortmund: Institut für Landes- und Stadtentwicklungsforschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (ILS). Kjos, ICaare and John Peterson. 1985. "Agua: an International Bridge, a Basic Right," California Planner 8(July):1-10 and (August):1-11. Klein, André. 1990. "La naissance due Centre Européen de Management," Bulletin de la Societé Industrielle de Mulhouse 3(Autumn):99-100. Koch, Susan J. 1974. "Towards a Europe of Regions: Transnational Political Activities in Alsace," Publius: the Journal of Federalism 4(Summer):25-41. "Strategische Zielsetzungen der Malchus, Viktor v. 1992a. grenzüberschreitenden Zusammenarbeit unter Auswertung der belgischen, deutschen and niederländischen INTERREG Programme," Paper presented at the LACE-Seminar in Maastricht, 13 February 1992. "Empfehlungen für die künftige Malchus, Viktor v. 1992b. grenzübergreifende Zusammenarbeit auf dem Gebiet der Raumplanung an den deutschen Staatsgrenzen," pp. 290-225 in Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (ARL). Grenzübergreifende Raumplanung: Erfahrungen und Perspektiven der Zusammenarbeit mit den Nachbarstaaten Deutschlands Hannover: ARL. 1992. "MOglichkeiten der gemeinschaftlichen Manthey, Gunther. Regionalpolitik für die Entwicklung der Grenzregionen," pp. 31-44 in Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (ARL), Grenzübergreifende Raumplanung: Erfahrungen und Perspektiven der Zusammenarbeit mit den Nachbarstaaten Deutschlands Hannover: ARL. McDonnell, Valerie and Marie Gamier-Raymond. 1990. Business Cooperation and Development in Border Regions London:LRDP (South Bank Technopark, 90 London Road, London SE1 6LN,UK). Nalven, Joseph. 1984. "A Cooperation Paradox and an 'Airy' Tale Along the Border," New Scholar 9(1 & 2):171-200. OECD. 1987. Recent Regional Policy Developments in OECD Countries Paris: OECD. Palussiére, Martine A. de la 1983. Die grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit auf dem Gebiet der Raumordnung Hanover: Vincenz. Sattler, Karl-Otto. 1992. "Europa's Modellregion verpaßt ihre Chancen," Frankfurter Rundschau, (February 5):17.

66

Scott: Transboundary Cooperation in Europe

Scott, James. 1989. "Transborder Cooperation, Regional Initiatives, and Sovereignty Conflicts in the Upper Rhine Valley," Publius: the Journal of Federalism 19(Winter):139-156. Sloan, John W. and Jonathan P. West. 1977. "The Role of Informal Policy Makers in US-Mexico Border Cities," Social Science Quarterly 58(2):270-282. Solana, S.M. 1987. "Lalloci6n y los instrumentos de cooperación transfronteriza," Paper presented at the 4th European Conference of Frontier Regions in Zaragoza (Spain) 23-26 March. Stoddard, E. 1978. "Functional Alternatives to Bi-National Border Development Models: the Case of the U.S.-Mexico Border Region," Paper presented at the American Sociological Association (September) in San Francisco. Stoddard, E. 1984. "Northern Mexican Migration and the U.S./Mexico Border Region," New Scholar 9(1 & 2):51-72. Streith, Jacques. 1990. "La collaboration régionale des Universités du Rhin Supérieur," Bulletin de la Societe Industrielle de Mulhouse 3(Autumn):77-86. Valencia, Nestor. n.d. Community Planning and Coordination Across an International Border: United States and Mexico, unpublished paper circulated by the Department of Planning, City of El Paso, Texas.