The New Horizons of the Cohesion Policy in the European Union:

The Challenge of the
Danube Strategy

Attila Ágh,
Tamás Kaiser,
Boglárka Koller (eds)

Kossuth Publishing Corp.

Table of contents

Preface

I. Cohesion in a new context

Danube Strategy and Europe 2020 Strategy: The organic link between the bottom-up and the top-down EU projects Attila ÁGH

Introduction: the unfolding scenario of macro-regions

I. The Danube Saga:  an age-old new vision for territorial integration

1. The macro-regions uploaded: the first steps

2. Danube Strategy reloaded: conflicts, expectations and illusions

II. Reinventing the macro-regions for the post-crisis world

1. The functional macro-regions in the globalising world

2. The territorial challenge from governance side: the functional macro-region

3. Territorial challenge from the policy side: “different is beautiful”

Conclusion: the DRS and the ongoing reform of the European Governance

References

Macro-regions and territorial cohesion: a case of an integrated approach Tamás KAISER

Introduction

1. Macro-regional strategies and territorial cohesion

2. Macro-regions in practice: policy interventions and debates

3. Integrated approach: wishful thinking or a case of an innovative governance?

4. Macro-regions in the making: seeking balances between coordination and governance

Conclusions

References

”Place -based” identities? Considerations on the re-territorialized identities in Europe Boglárka KOLLER

Introduction

European identity and the evolution of the place-based approach

Territorial identities – theoretical considerations

People or place? Re-territorialisation of identities

A threat to European identity? – the boundary issues of re-territorialisation

Conclusions

References

Whom to empower in a multi-level system– acquainting Cohesion Policy in Central Europe Judit KELLER

Introduction

Development, governance and institutional change

The Europeanization of Hungarian sub-national developmental governance

Variation in the transformation of micro-regional governance

Explaining variation in cases

Variation in institutional change

Variation in entrepreneurship

Variation in developmental dynamics

Conclusions

References

Agenda Setting and Institutional Design in the European Strategy for the Danube Region - From Theory to Reality Jürgen DIERINGER and Johann-Jakob WULF

Macro-regional cooperation and the Danube

Background

Agenda setting and policy proposals

The ESDR polity: Agenda-setting, policy formation and adaptation phase

Conclusion

References

Official documents

Macro-region or macro-regions in the Mediterranean area Anna MOLNÁR and Csilla SIPOSS

Introduction

Euro-Mediterranean Partnership

One macro-region for the whole Mediterranean

More macro-regions in the area

Adriatic-Ionian macro-region

The Adriatic-Ionian Initiative

Priorities of the Adriatic-Ionian Initiative:

Latin Arch

Priorities

Conclusion

References

Regionalism, ENP Review and the Arab Spring Zoltán SIMON

Introduction: globalisation-cum-regionalisation and bilateralism versus multilateral regionalism in EU Foreign Policy

The EU, its southern neighbourhood and the Arab Spring

The ENP review and the “new regionalism”

Conclusion: Six arguments for re-strengthening multilateral regionalism in the southern Mediterranean

References

II. Case-studies

Critical Analysis of the EGTC Regulation: Will the European Border Regions have an effective MLG-platform for territorial cooperation? Dániel HEGEDŰS

Introduction

1. The European and national experiences with the EGTC platform

2. The focal points of EGTC supervision on European level

3. National supervisions between 2007 and 2011

Conclusion

References

The possibilities of implementing the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation in South Transdanubia Zoltán PÁMER

Introduction

1. The evolution of the tools and institutions of territorial cooperation

2. EGTSs in Hungary

3. Characteristics of special structures in South Transdanubia – vectors of cross-border cooperation

4. An initiative from South Transdanubia: the Pannon EGTC

5. Experiences of Hungary–Slovenia–Croatia trilateral cooperation

Conclusions and recommendations

References

ANNEX

Tables

Maps

Figures

III. Research note

The Evolution of Cohesion Policy and Predictions for its Future between 2014 and 2020 Zsolt PÁLMAI and Lóránd BALÁZS

Introduction

Theoretical background

The most important stages of the evolution of the Cohesion Policy

The Cohesion Policy of the post 2013 period – a scenario based on real needs

Table 3 Probable CP scenario based on the real needs

Conclusions

References

IV. Communication from the YCDN

An example of the bottom-up approach of the Danube Region - The Young Citizens Danube Network (YCDN) Johann-Jakob WULF and Juliane GIERACH

Introduction

Young Citizens Danube Network (YCDN)

Pre – YCDN-Phase

Initiating Phase of YCDN – Danube Future Leaders’ Conference and 2nd Freiburg Summer Academy

Initiating Phase of YCDN – Brussels and Ruse

Organising a youth conference “The young generation of the Danube area as a key to European integration”

Timing of the conference

Young Citizens Danube Network Declaration Budapest 2011

Conclusion

References

Annex

Workshop A: National identity, myths and feeling

Workshop B: Protecting the environment in the Danube region

Workshop C: Building prosperity in the Danube region

Workshop D: Strengthening the Danube region

Preface

The previous five volumes of this book series have dealt with the main issues of the Spanish– Belgian – Hungarian (SBH) team presidency. This strategic project began with the 9th volume of this series – The prospect of the team presidencies: Integrative balancing in the new member states (2008a) – that focussed on the clarification of the role of team/rotating presidencies in the EU system of institutions, with special regard to the involvement of the new member states (NMS) in the presidency roles. The 10th volume – New perspectives for the EU team presidencies: New members, new candidates and new neighbours (2008b) – expanded the horizon to the enlargement/widening issue, since beyond the pre-accession process in the West-Balkan states, the widening of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) to the Eastern Partnership (EaP) was also high on the agenda. Obviously, after the outbreak of the global crisis the interest of the strategic project turned to the impact of the crisis on the EU in general and on the presidency agenda in particular, thus this was the topic of the 11th volume (The global crisis and the EU responses: The perspectives of the SBH presidency, 2009). The 12th volume concentrated on the transition between the two mega-projects, the Lisbon Strategy and the EU2020 Strategy (From the Lisbon Strategy to the Europe 2020 Strategy: Think European for the Global Action, 2010a). The 13th volume looked at a real novelty in the EU, the macro-regionalization in the Danube Valley (Europeanization of the Danube Region: The Blue Ribbon Project, 2010b). The 14th volume on its part has continued the topic of the 12th volume with the title “Heading for the competitive post-crisis Europe: How to avoid the Core-Periphery conflict?” The present, 15th volume has further elaborated the topic of the 13th volume on the Danube Strategy.

There is no doubt that the European Union arrived at crossroads and it is necessitated to deal with the European perspectives after the global crisis in the top-down approach of the EU2020 Strategy and in the bottom-up approach of the renewed cohesion/regional policy. The second part of the former 14th volume has exposed the volatile issue of the future of European cohesion policy by comparing the regionalization process and regional competitiveness in the old and new member states. It has also provided a comprehensive view on the role of the Committee of the Regions in the post-Lisbon EU, it has dealt with the regional competitiveness in general and with the case of the Baltic Sea Region Strategy in particular. This analysis of the EU regional policy connects this former volume with the present book, which returns to the perspectives of the Danube Strategy in its present implementation phase.

The present volume consists of two parts. The contributions in the first part offer first of all a theoretical analysis and outline some perspectives for the functional macro-regions in the EU, while in the second part the papers are basically case studies in the sub-national regions concerned. This combination of the top-down and bottom-up approaches gives the specificity of this edited volume and it provides a big advantage, since the Danube Strategy – the Danube Region Strategy, with a usual abbreviation, DRS – can only be approached at the same time from “above” in the framework of the EU2020 general strategy and from “below” through the efforts of its constituent parts, i.e. the countries, sub-national regions and localities, including the capital cities.

The introductory papers of Attila Ágh and Tamás Kaiser have focused on the general context of the DRS in the EU renewal efforts in the post-Lisbon period, i.e. after the Lisbon Treaty. The main issue is the new cohesion policy in the next financial period (2014-2020), which is decisive for the fate of the new member states’ catching up efforts. The DRS is a multipurpose exercise, it promotes not only cooperation and integration in the Danube Valley, but also intensifies the catching up activities of the new member states, while including them into the life circle of pre-accession process in the West-Balkans. Equally important for the future of DRS in the 2010s is what happens to the Southern Rim of the European Union because from the beginnings of the Eastern Enlargement in 2004 the Eastern and Southern Neighbourhood has been in a competitive position, and the events that have been called the Arab Spring have influenced very strongly the EU policies in general and the Eastern Partnership (EaP) in particular. Therefore, the paper of Zoltán Simon on these events deserves special attention, as also the paper of Anna Molnár and Csilla Siposs on the virtually emerging macro-region in the Mediterranean. The theoretical part of the volume deals with three other relevant issues. Namely with the perspectives of the regional identity in the DRS discussed by Boglárka Koller, with the multi-level governance (MLG) construct of the DRS or the relationships between the sub-national units and the macro-regions as a whole in the paper of Judit Keller, and finally, with the main question of this first part, that is how to turn “theory into reality” in the beginning of the implementation phase of the DRS as suggested by the paper of Jürgen Dieringer and Johann-Jakob Wulf.

The second part completes and supports the conceptual analyses in the first part with three cases studies presented as research notes. Daniel Hegedűs has taken the case of the EGTC cooperation in border regions as a new MLG-type of territorial cohesion. The paper of Zsolt Pálmai and Balázs Lóránd has explored the evolution of cohesion policy in a bottom-up view from the stakeholders’ position. Zoltán Pámer has described the South Transdanubian Region in its relationship to these new developments of the EU regional/cohesion policy. Finally, our volume includes an interesting contribution from the Young Citizens Danube Network by Johann-Jakob Wulf and Juliane Gierach. Altogether, this volume reflects the discussions in the current stage of the DRS and it can also be considered as the starting point for the next period of activities in the Blue Ribbon project.

The editors

I. Cohesion in a new context

Danube Strategy and Europe 2020 Strategy: The organic link between the bottom-up and the top-down EU projects
Attila ÁGH

“The Danube Region has changed dramatically. (...) The world’s most international river basin is now largely a European Union (EU) space.” (European Commission (2010f:3). “Macro-regional strategies are prime test case of what territorial cohesion means in practical terms.” (European Commission, 2010a:1).

Introduction: the unfolding scenario of macro-regions

The “cohesion challenge” has been present from the very beginning in “the diverse Europe” (ESPON, 2010:8). The historical evolution of regional policy indicates that it has finally widened into a comprehensive cohesion policy within the EU. Thus, there has been a long history in the EU vocabulary from “regional” policy to “cohesion” policy in both practical-structural and conceptual-theoretical dimensions. But the main function of the regional/ cohesion policy has always been to “reduce socio-economic disparities and promote real convergence in the European Union by investing in structural change” (European Commission, 2010e:2). By now cohesion policy has turned to be the key policy field in the EU27 and regional policy has been treated as its special application. All in all, regional/ cohesion policy is meant for merging the competitiveness and cohesion together in a common public policy with a territorial perspective or territorial development strategy. The cohesion challenge has also appeared from the very beginning in the special form of “territorial challenge”. Territorial challenge means that the particular (idiosyncratic) development of all territorial units has to be optimalized within the EU general development according to their different territorial potentials. This process can be described as turning the special territorial capital into an increased social capital.

Regional policy and cohesion policy have overlapped to a great extent, they still have to be distinguished, since both regional and cohesion policies have also their own special history. Thus, it is necessary to note briefly that regional policy has also produced its ramifications.

After the widening and deepening in the eighties, the “Europe of the Regions” was the famous slogan in the nineties. The Committee of the Regions (CoR) was established in 1993 that gave a big impulse to the regional-territorial representation in the EU, and since then the CoR and the DG-Regio have been the main drivers of the territorial challenge “in the diverse Europe”. Although the trend of Europe of the Regions has declined after the late nineties, nonetheless, many analysts have reacted positively to the question whether the Europe of the Regions has been a “Rhetoric or Reality?” Thus, for instance, José Magone has argued in two books that regions still matter in the EU. First, in the early 2000s he stated in his Introduction that “the ‘Europe of Regions’ is no longer a catchword, but an important reality” (Magone, 2003:1). And second, almost a decade later, he again confirmed in his Conclusion on regional policy that the main direction is “towards a Europe of the regions” (Magone, 2011a:339).{1}

The debate on the particular role and importance of the subnational EU regions (NUTS2) is still open (see Elias, 2008), but the territorial challenge in general has increased in the early 21st century in many ways. First, the “Europe of the Regions” in the global age has its own extension as well, in the form of the mega-regions like the EU itself, fighting in the world system for its “regional” competitiveness. Second, the EU has developed its “globalization cum regionalization” policy in the international and/or global systems through the European Neighbourhood Policy. Third, the macro-regions have opened up a new dimension of regionalization that will be explained in this paper as the “transnational subnational”. Altogether, the regionalization issue has three levels, (1) the mega-regions as the emerging continental size units like the EU, (2) the macro-regions as the organizations embracing some countries and/or their parts across national borders, like the Baltic and Danube Strategies within the EU, and (3) the meso-regions as subnational units like the NUTS2 regions within the EU member states, composed of micro-regions of different kinds and sizes (see Ágh, 2011b).

Analysing the territorial challenge at the global level, the New Regionalism as a pioneering approach in international relations has distinguished between regionalization and regionalism, or between the traditional regionalization and the new region-building based on “strategic design”. This new proactive-strategic perspective is very important for the whole theoretical-conceptual framework of the territorial challenge or the current regional development policy. The EU2020 is in fact the strategic design for the EU27 as a mega-region, in which the regionalization inside and outside may be qualified as regionalism, since both are strategically planned and carefully monitored processes. The EU2020 Strategy is also the fully blown “particular” regional policy with its all levels of localization-regionalization (mega-regions, macro-regions and meso-regions). It embraces not only the “general” cohesion policy as the key integrated policy of EU global competitiveness, but it tries to build on the mobilization of the regions and localities at all levels. Therefore, the latest development on the regionalization issue, the organization of the macro-regions in the Baltic and the Danube Strategy is very important, since they are indeed obvious cases of a pilot study in “regionalism”, that is macro-regions with strategic design.

Thus, neither the member states, nor the subnational regions (NUTS2) but the macro-regions between the EU level and member state level can offer a new organizing principle and conceptual framework for the EU2020, since in the renewed cohesion policy the new macro-regional strategies may be the breakthrough towards “the Europe of the Macro-Regions”.

The Danube Region Strategy (DRS) as a development project embodies the real territorial challenge for both the old and new EU member states concerned as well as for the potential members and the neighbours. On one side, the enlargement fatigue in the old member states has also seriously been aggravated by the global crisis, while on the other side the new member states (NMS) are still in their early consolidation process and they have also been shaken by the global socio-economic crisis to a great extent. The new member states, however, can also benefit from the accelerated process of the pre-accession in the West Balkan (WB) region and from the widening in the Eastern Partnership (EaP), since both can provide an extension of the internal market or the common economic area with shared social progress. It is an opportunity for a radical change with policy innovations to cope with the “governance deficit” at the EU and macro-regional levels. In the last decade the EU has been less and less able to act as a “magnet” or the centre of gravity for the West Balkan countries by providing the proper attraction and mobilization in their pre-accession process for implementing the conditionalities (I have termed it as “carrot crisis” in Ágh, 2010a). This situation can be basically changed by the DRS as a genuine “European perspective” for the WB countries to reorganize their societies based on the EU values and regulations, and for the EaP countries for more intensive Europeanization.{2}

When conventional wisdom loses its explanatory power, then a new analytical design has to be elaborated. The new concept involves the functional macro-region (FMR) as a new kind of governance on the institutionalization side, and the “glocality” (the globalized locality) as the globally open thinking and acting environment in local societies and economies according to the slogan “Think Global – Act Local” on the policy side that may also be called “territorialization”. This programme can be translated into the main message of this paper that Europeanization presupposes a new MLG type governance system for the widening of the EU policy universe to respond to the global challenge: “Think European – Act Regional”. The “Think European” aspect has also presupposed that the strategic design for the “globalization cum regionalization” is in fact the new concept of Europeanization, since the EU cannot play an eminent global role without the regionalization-Europeanization of its neighbourhood. In the “Act Regional” aspect it is evident that the globalizing world has direct “domestic” implications for the “globalized locality” or “glocal process” in the EU policy-making. The “Think European” and “Act Regional” aspects have made the application of territorial cohesion – in combination with economic and social cohesion – into a central requirement of the EU development projects in the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty.{3}

The DRS exemplifies that the elaboration and implementation of the new conceptual framework is urgent. Accordingly, the first part of this paper discusses the Danube Saga, the ongoing history of the territorial challenge in the Danube Valley in its two phases. The second part offers an explanatory framework by introducing new concepts both for the functional macro-regionalization and for the specific “territorialization” of regions. Finally, the vision for the role of DRS in the European Governance (EG) of the post-crisis world has been outlined in the conclusion.

I. The Danube Saga:
an age-old new vision for territorial integration

1. The macro-regions uploaded: the first steps

The Danube Valley with its riparian states has always been some kind of a territorial unit with the constant territorial challenge to organize more intensive economic, social and cultural contacts. It is an age-old history that faded away only somewhat in the hectic period of the emerging national states and national identities, but was seriously damaged by the Cold War period. The rebirth of the idea has been connected with the unification of Europe that has re-united the Danube Region, too. The macro-regionalization itself has begun much later in its two phases, and it has been seriously constrained by the global crisis.{4}

The original idea as a need for an organic territorial development in the Danube Region has come back as a new macro-project with vengeance within the EU. However, it is very difficult to start a new macro-project in the EU and to “upload” it into the EU policy universe, i.e. getting accepted it as part of the EU official programme. The EU has always suffered from both the internal crisis of deepening-widening, and, as nowadays, from a very deep external crisis. Therefore, it has a tendency to marginalize those issues, which are not directly related to the crisis management and may create further internal controversies. But it is true, on the other side, that in this quickly changing global world the EU has also been forced to elaborate long-term strategic projects, like the former Lisbon Strategy and the recent EU2020 Strategy, which have badly needed concretization, i.e. detailed elaboration from a bottom-up perspective. This has been the case with the EU2020 as well, since this mega-project needs solid underpinnings and comprehensive localization through a series of macro-projects. The December 2009 Presidency Conclusions have noticed about the EU 2020 Strategy that a new reflection is needed for “a more efficient and transparent governance structure (…) to improve coordination of economic policies and on the best way of using country recommendations to strengthen the link between national and EU measures, and enhance national ownership through more active involvement of social partners as well as of regional and local authorities.” (European Council, 2009b:7).{5}

This need has offered the opportunity for the macro-regional projects to get through. The breakthrough has been accomplished by the most integrated part of the EU, the Baltic Sea Region that has acted as an icebreaker. Following the suit, the Danube Region has also been given the chance to realize the age-old idea of the Danube Valley territorial organization, which is an unfolding macro-project. The story of the Europe of the Macro-Regions had begun with uploading the Baltic Sea Region Strategy (BRS) in the EU officialdom in October 2009 during the Swedish Presidency. This Strategy was downloaded, copied, and transformed, then uploaded by the Danube Region Strategy (DRS). The Baltic Sea Region is the most intensively cooperating part of the EU, hence the initiative for creating a macro-region came from here, but the idea was taken after a short while also by the Danube Region, and later there have been some other macro-regional efforts, too. Concerning the DRS there have been many claims about who launched the initiative, but there is no doubt that the main effort and the decisive push have been given by the South German provinces of Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria, seconded by the Austrian provinces, and they have been the main players of the DRS since the very beginning. The reason lies in the economic geography of the Danube Valley combined with the historical-cultural traditions in these provinces for an economic expansion to the South-East, which has also developed its parallel traditions in the territories concerned because it has produced mutual advantages.{6}

The Danube Strategy story at the EU level goes back to the announcement by the European Commission at the Committee of the Regions plenary session held in Brussels on 8 October 2008 that the EU would draw up its own strategy for the Danube area, similar to the strategy that already exists for the Baltic area. On 18-19 June 2009 the European Council requested the Commission to elaborate this strategy by the end of 2010. “The European Council calls for work to be taken forward rapidly on the Commission’s communication on the Baltic Sea region (...) It also invites the Commission to present an EU strategy for the Danube region before the end of 2010.” (European Council, 2009a:13).{7}

Accordingly, the main message of the EU is that “Following the accessions of 2004 and 2007, there is a need and an opportunity to overcome the legacy of former divisions and for the potential of the Region as integral part of the European Union to be more fully realised. This EU Strategy for the Danube is also within the EU 2020 framework being adopted at the Spring European Council. In addition, it is in line with the adopted Lisbon Treaty which states that the EU shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States. Macro-regional strategies are prime test case of what territorial cohesion means in practical terms.” (European Commission, 2010a:1). This conclusion reaffirms the above statement that the DRS has been considered as the localization-regionalization of both the EU2020 Strategy and the “renewed” cohesion policy.{8}

In fact, in this uploading period there were three types of meetings until the June 2010 European Council (EUCO) summit. First, there were the official meetings of the EU institutions, and second, those of the national governments of member states with the other states concerned, both being of top-down character. Third, there were some stakeholder and expert meetings of bottom-up character as well, although it is disturbing that the official name of the national government meetings was “the stakeholder meeting”, since the Commission wanted to emphasize the commitment and ownership of these governments. These three kinds of meetings produced different outputs, the two types of official meetings issued documents and declarations, combined with the recommendations of the CoR and DG-Regio. The EU level institutions initiated public debates, the CoR organized a Danube Intergroup for expert discussion, and the governments concerned published their “non-papers” on DRS. While the stakeholder meetings of the bottom-up character offered a wide range of ideas for design and implementation, and they also mobilized the larger public for the DRS. It meant altogether that the DRS was rather high on the agenda in the first half of 2010 in the EU communication. All in all, until June 2010 the first phase of uploading was successfully completed, and the DRS was accepted as a would-be EU macro-project.{9}

Starting the series of the official “stakeholder” meetings of national governments, Germany organized its conference on 1-2 February 2010 in Ulm and Hungary on 25-26 February 2010 in Budapest. It was followed by a common Vienna/Bratislava meeting of Austria and Slovakia (19-21 April 2010), then by the Ruse/Giurgiu meeting of Bulgaria and Romania (10-11 May 2010) and the Constanta closing conference of Romania (9-11 June 2010), altogether five official EU conferences took place – and one more on 8 November 2010 in Bucharest as part of preparation of the Commission’s DRS “Long Paper”. These “stakeholder conferences” were organized by the European Commission and they all had a high level attendance by prime ministers and other leading politicians, so they legitimized the DRS on the part of the participating EU member states and by this they put it even legally on the right track. These official conferences have sent out the basic messages on the DRS. The Ulm Declaration (2010:1-2) has noted that “An EU strategy for the Danube region should treat the Danube as a common EU responsibility and draw up a common vision for the region’s development (…) make existing EU policies, programmes and projects more effective by utilizing the scope for the increased coherence and synergies in their implementation and ensuring optimal use of the region’s territorial potential”. In the Declaration of the Budapest Danube Summit (25 February 2010) the government representatives of Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia have welcomed the decision of the June 2009 European Council. The Declaration of Budapest has demonstrated the political will of the countries concerned that the Danube region “is to be developed into a European region of security, stability and prosperity“, since it has an outstanding significance for the Union’s territorial cohesion and it has felt a joint and shared responsibility for its sustainable development. At the end of the series of DRS conferences the Commissioner for Regional Policy has finally emphasized in Constanta: “We are experiencing a true Danube boom.” (European Commission, 2010d:1).{10}

At the same time, Commissioner Hahn has issued a warning that the concept of the Danube region should not be overstretched towards Eastern Europe and the Black Sea Region because it will lose its contours and its proper identity: “Some would like to see this Strategy extend to the waters and maritime issues of the Black Sea. I believe we should keep our focus on the Danube. (…) But we should not duplicate the work that is being done under the Black Sea Synergy, which already provides a multilateral framework for tackling the most pressing issues.” (European Commission, 2010d:3). It has proven that the “Danube boom” generated also other claims that could have overburdened the original project and by involving the big outsiders as Russia and Turkey this extension could have jeopardized this project. Because of the “Danube boom”, i.e. the fashion of establishing macro-regions, many other actors were mobilized in 2010 in the hope of getting a more favourable position in the EU budget, although the “territorial cohesion” of the suggested macro-regions and the willingness of their potential participants were by far not satisfactory.

Given the big interest and pressure from various sides, the CoR organized a series of meetings on the macro-regions in Brussels. First of all, on 13 April 2010 the Forum on Macro-Regions took place as the “first ever” conference on the topic and then a next one on 1 July 2010. There was especially big interest on the part of the Med Programme (MEDGOV), consisting of 13 countries from the Northern Mediterranean area. In the April conference some new actors took part, e.g. the North Sea – English Channel would be macro-region, the CoR supported their claim to establish a new macro-region. There was an even bigger attendance at the July conference that was organized in the building of the European Parliament. Altogether, there was a “macro-regional fever” felt in many parts of Europe, first of all in the Med region. It turned out that the potential macro-regions could be found everywhere in the EU. At the July conference some participants emphasized that the macro-regional trend was already underway, whereas some others issued warnings about “the macro-regional bubbles” and asked about what the added value of the suggested macro-regions could be. Nevertheless, it was clear that all participants had in mind the preparations for the next budgeting period between 2014 and 2020, and intended to prepare their claims for the start in 2014. The conference contributions showed conceptually two main features. On one side they pointed out the perceived problems and weaknesses of BRS and DRS, on the other side they indicated the moves and intentions to launch new macro-regional initiatives of different kind. Actually, however, in this period no direct claims were formulated yet and no official announcements were made.{11}

{1} This paper has been written in the framework of the OTKA (Hungarian National Research Fund) project “Competitiveness of the Hungarian regions in the EU” (ID: 77659). This short introduction summarizes the conceptual framework of my recent paper on regionalization (Ágh, 2011f). This recent paper has concentrated on the general theory of regional/cohesion policy, and this paper deals with its special application to the macro-regions, which are important to create a Cohesive Europe. At the same time, this paper continues the efforts of my former paper on Danube Strategy (Ágh, 2010d) and returns briefly to its major findings, but it deals mostly with the new developments and the innovative conceptual constructs. Although there is still no generally accepted terminology for abbreviations, yet in the latest EU documents the terms of BRS and DRS are the most common, therefore I will use them here instead of EBS and EDS from our former Danube volume.

{2} In my former papers I have indicated that the NMS have been worst hit by the global crisis in the EU. Analyzing the policy performance of the NMS, the authors have confirmed my statement (Jahn and Kuitto, 2011:723,734,739), on this issue see also Jacoby, 2010. There has been a large literature on regionalism and globalism, which gives the conceptual background of my analysis, see Farrell et al., 2005, Tavares, 2004, Telo, 2006, 2007, 2009, and Vasilache et al., 2011.

{3} The most powerful presentations of this idea are the volumes of Think Global – Act European by the Notre Europe Institute in Paris (see Fabry, 2011). The South German regions have played a positive role in initiating the EDS and they have to keep the momentum, at the same time also the other regions have to organize their agencies for the proper interest representation and aggregation.

{4} In my former paper (Ágh, 2010d) I dealt at length with the Danube Commission, but in this paper I do not go back to the long prehistory of Danube cooperation. Its continuity can be found in the EU documents. E.g. on 23 October 2000, the „Directive 2000/60/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy” or, in short, the EU Water Framework Directive (or even shorter the WFD) was finally adopted. The Directive was published in the Official Journal (OJ L 327) on 22 December 2000 and entered into force the same day. See on this pre-history also Horváth, 2010:139-141 and Pálmai, 2010:128-130.

{5} “The EU 2020 strategy must go local. (…) The new EU 2020 strategy will only work if all levels of governance are involved (…) (and) it will not work if it’s not connected to the regions and cohesion policy.” (Luc van der Brande President of CoR, 2010:1-2). The relationship between the territorial capital and social capital is one of the most intriguing questions of political science and public administration, although both have been defined in a large literature.

{6} The “transit” from BRS to DRS was facilitated to a great extent by Danuta Hübner then Commissioner for Regional Development (I have described it in my former paper, Ágh, 2010d). There has been a large literature on the Baltic macro-region, see first of all Antola, 2009, Behr and Jokela, 2011, Bengstsson, 2009, Dühr, 2011, Gänzle and Kern, 2011, Herrschel and Tallberg, 2011, and Ozolina et al., 2010. Baden-Württemberg established its Donaubüro in 2002, and since then there have been so many events generated by them, as e.g. Brussels conferences in 2006,2008,2010, and also a series of interesting publications for a larger public, see for instance Reinhart, 2008 and Zwey, 2010.

{7} See Opinion of the Committee of Regions: An EU Strategy for the Danube area, 81st plenary session, 5-7 October 2009, RELEX-IV-025 (www.cor.europa.eu). On 26 November 2009 the Committee of Regions at its Sixth Atelier meeting dealt with topic of “EU Macro-Regional Strategies and European Governance”, in the Session 1 with “Macro-regions: a case of multilevel governance?”, later the working paper of David Sweet and the presentation of Gianluca Spinaci outlined the main features of the DRS (see also Stahl and Spinaci, 2010). The first important EU documents are the European Parliament resolution on 21 January 2010 on a European Strategy for the Danube Region (RC-B7-0031/2010) and the European Commission’s “Scoping Paper for the public consultation” entitled as the EU Strategy for the Danube Region (Brussels, 2 February 2010, REGIO/E1/EN/NV/OB D(2010). In fact, the EP document contains all major topics and concerns that have been repeated at the official meetings. On 2 February 2010 the European Commission officially launched a public consultation targeted at the citizens, organizations and public authorities on the website www. interact-eu.net/news/ec_consult_danube. This Interact website connects the DRS with the European Territorial Cooperation as well.

{8} “All participants highlighted the importance and timeliness of the new EU macro-regions. Most notably, the discussion centred upon the challenges and opportunities facing the recently established Baltic Sea macro-regional strategy and the transferability of this model to other parts of Europe. A number of presentations touched upon the issue of regional identity: i.e. whether the mostly ‘functional’ and, occasionally, apolitical nature of such initiatives (initiated from ‘above’) would not clash with the deep-seated logic of regional identities and communication culture (stemming from ‘below’)”. (CoR, 2009b:6).

{9} There were so many events about the DRS, mostly at the real stakeholder conferences. There were a series of other Danube conferences like on 29 June 2009 in Linz for regional leaders, on 15 January 2010 in Vienna (Europaforum), on 20 January Bucharest conference on Danube Strategy, 1 March 2010 in Regensburg (Bavarian Stakeholder Conference) and on 18 March 2010 in Budapest (Expert and on 18 March 2010 in Budapest (Expert Conference in King Sigismund College). On 13 April 2010 there was a meeting in Brussels about the macro-regions (Europe’s macro-regions: Integration through territorial cooperation, Forum at the Committee of Regions, www.cor.europa. eu/macroregions). So the calendar seems to be overburdened by the official events about the engagement of the governments concerned and there is a danger of repeating the same generalities about the Danube Strategy. This paper does not want to cover all these events and their official documents, since it focuses on the governance and policy dimensions of the DRS.

{10} The Budapest Declaration has mentioned energy security among the strategic policy areas, accordingly the other Budapest Declaration was issued on the V4+ Energy Security Summit on 24 February 2010 (see both Budapest Declarations: www.kum.hu/ kum/en/bal/actualities/spokesman_statesments). It is high time for a similar Summit on transport and environment, etc for V4+states.

{11} On the CoR conferences see www.cor.europa.eu. The Centro Studi di Politica Internazionale (CeSPI) was the most active institution in the Med area, they published all documents, beyond the reports of the above conferences many papers, first of all two interesting papers of Andrea Stocchiero as Working Papers 65/2010 and 74/2010 (see www.cespi/it/GOVMED).