Magdalena Belof
Regional Bureau of Spatial Planning in Wroclaw,
Lower Silesia, Poland
e-mail:
Reflection on cross border cooperation in Lower Silesia, Poland
Ladies and Gentlemen!
It is a great honor to speak today on this forum. I represent Polish region of the Lower Silesia that borders with two countries: Czech Republic and Saxony in the Federal Republic of Germany. I work in the Regional Bureau of Spatial Planning in Wroclaw, where I am responsible for international co-operation.
The full implementation of Interreg III A in new member states began only in the year 2004, so it is too early too early to assess its effectiveness. Nevertheless I would like to share with you some reflections on the present structure of Interreg IIIA, which - in my opinion - limits the chance for support of some important transborder initiatives.
I will illustrate my observation with examples from Lower Silesia and they will refer to 4 basic problems:
· strengthening the planning issues in transborder programs,
· involvement of regional level in practical cross-border cooperation,
· one border - one program issue,
· trilateral cross border cooperation.
As a planner, I observe with big satisfaction the gradual "maturing" of spatial dimension in the European Union policy. The decision to introduce the third priority - territorial cohesion in the period 2007-2013, I view as truly decisive. However, while tracing the programming discussion I have an impression that in cross border cooperation the spatial and strategic planning sphere is relatively weak.
The future international strand (present Interreg IIIB) will underline strongly the need for creating common spatial visions and development concepts for greater European territories. The same way of thinking we can find regarding the regional strand - present Interreg III C. Also the ESPON extension proves the importance of spatial background in European policy making.
But in case of cross border cooperation programs, the spatial dimension is not being articulated strongly enough. And yet the common borderland areas are exactly the territories which have to find their new identification and position in European space. Coherent spatial development visions and strategic concepts are - to my understanding - the first steps to reach this goal.
In Lower Silesia the Interreg III A Initiative very seldom serves as a tool for managing the spatial planning projects. I wonder why? To some extent the program documents limit the implementation of such concepts. However, here we also touch upon another problem, which I would like to speak about. Namely, it is the inefficiency of public bodies eligible to apply for Interreg III A funds in undertaking initiatives of this type.
In Poland, the Czech Republic and Saxony we have three different planning systems with different delegation of power regarding the administration level. The responsibility on NUTS III level varies substantially from country to country. For example in Poland there are no bodies responsible for space management and planning on this level. The rights to determine the spatial policy have the lowest local administration (NUTS V) however their actions are limited to small territorial units. All decisions concerning development of significant cross border infrastructure, protection of natural resources, flood control and the like are delegated to the regional or state level. And yet those topics are explicit priorities of transborder cooperation.
All in all, the institutions located in the eligible area strive to accomplish the program goals in the best possible way, most often submitting projects of social, cultural and educational character. Regarding spatial development and planning each party usually constructs elements of local infrastructure which undoubtedly raise the quality of life in the borderland, but their real impact in terms of improving territorial connections of neighboring states is rather weak.
In my view, in order to better realize the goal of territorial cohesion in upcoming years, the borderland areas need the spatial development visions as well as strategic projects in each sector. This requires active participation of regional level in cross border cooperation programs.
To illustrate this problem I will use the example of the "Sudety Mountain Way" project, accomplished by the Regional Spatial Planning Bureau in Wrocław. The aim of this project was to activate the Polish-Czech borderland in Lower Silesia by identifying the most favorable course of the tourist car route in mountain and piedmont areas. The project points out the investments necessary to vivify this strip with full respect to nature and landscape protection.
The idea of the project was presented and accepted by the Czech party that proposed preliminary course of the analogous strip on their side. This project - although its regulations are not compulsory for local authorities in Poland - is being already utilized by them and developed on a local scale. Certainly the project was completed on regional level, without any support from the European funds and it would be really difficult to find adequate financing line for it. However - in my opinion - the regulation for new financing period could make room for projects of similar character. This could be solved in many ways, as for example introducing a special priority for this sort of "umbrella projects".
Moving to the third problem I would like to ask you to have a glance at the Polish-German borderland. Cooperation in the framework of Interreg IIIA is being realized within three independent programs: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern / Brandenburg (D) - Zachodniopomorskie (PL), Brandenburg (D) - Lubuskie (PL) and Saxony (D) - Lower Silesia (PL)
Yet, some initiatives significant for the development of the whole Polish - German borderland have no chance for support because they are not enclosed within fixed limit of neither program. Parallel application to two or three of them in practical terms is burdensome and it does not guarantee effectiveness. So we are dealing here with some paradoxical situation, where - on one hand - we try to remove state frontiers and on the other hand - we create new ones, determined with frameworks of programs! If in the new financing period the idea: 1 border - 1 program, does not get wider recognition, we should try to find another instrument to allow for the implementation of cross-border projects that do not fit one program only.
As an example I can mention the concept of the common digital map of the Polish - German borderland. All the regions along the border support this idea that could provide the necessary cartographic base for many other initiatives. However, finding the right financial instrument that could enable completing the project has not been successful so far. The present Interreg III A seems to be too tight and Interreg III B - too broad. The intermediate chain is probably missing as the letter between A and B, that actually exists in both - Polish and German alphabets...
And finally - the last problem: the need for the efficient tool enabling cross-border cooperation of three countries. Together with Czech and Saxon partners, Lower Silesia makes an effort to co-ordinate the tripartite actions on the area of borders pin. And again - it is very difficult to locate such projects into Interreg III A programs. At its present formula, in order to find support for a truly common trilateral project with a balanced financial structure, we would need to submit 6 applications to 3 different programs - an action which is almost impossible to coordinate. And therefore some important trilateral initiatives including common development vision of this strategic point of Central European space are still waiting for better times.
To conclude - cross border cooperation constitutes one of the essential elements of harmonious development of European territory. In the new financial period 2007-2013 the structures of this cooperation should ensure more flexibility in terms of involvement of various administration levels (according to the individual need of the country) and coordination among separate programs – along one border as well as between more than two countries.
It is also my belief that the future programs should give more space - at least at the borders of new member countries – to stronger visionary approach regarding transborder areas. These visions should be based on the understanding of and respect to our common space.