Content uploaded by Tomasz Studzieniecki
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tomasz Studzieniecki on May 04, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not
been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process which may
lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as
doi: 10.1111/rsp3.12414
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Studzieniecki Tomasz (Orcid ID: 0000-0002-1272-0908)
Jakubowski Andrzej (Orcid ID: 0000-0003-2368-7426)
Key Conditions for Euroregions Development at External EU
Borders: a Case Study of the Polish-Belarusian Borderland
Tomasz Studzieniecki1 | Andrzej Jakubowski2 | Beata Meyer3
1 Gdynia Maritime University, Department of Management and Economics, Poland
2 Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Institute of Social and Economic Geography and
Spatial Management, Poland
3University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Institute of Spatial Economy and Socio-Economic
Geography, Poland
Correspondence:
Tomasz Studzieniecki, Gdynia Maritime University, Department of Management and
Economics, ul. Morska 81/87, Gdynia, 81-225, Poland.
E-mail: t.studzieniecki@wpit.umg.edu.pl
ABSTRACT
External borders of the European Union constitute a significant spatial and formal legal barrier for
mutual relations. The key role in overcoming this barrier is played by cross-border cooperation
implemented by subnational units. The objective of this article is to identify key conditions for the
cross-border cooperation on the Polish-Belarusian border, constituting the external border of the EU.
An additional objective is to develop a concept of institutionalisation of the cross-border cooperation,
and to point to the possibilities of its implementation in the area of the Polish-Belarusian Euroregion
Przybuże. This objective has been implemented by means of the triangulation method with the
application of interrelated research techniques such as focus group interview, moderated workshop,
surveys, and desk research. The research discovered long-term, intense cross-border relations existing
in the said region. The leaders of the cooperation were identified on both sides of the border. The
institutionalization of this cooperation through the creation of the Euroregion was recognized by the
stakeholders as an opportunity to dynamize social and economic development and to more effectively
absorb EU funds. The developed concept of Euroregions creation and the case study analysis enrich
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
the scientific output related to the theory of territorial cooperation, and offer practical solutions useful
in the development of cross-border areas, with particular consideration of regions located at the
external borders of the EU.
KEYWORDS
cross-border cooperation, borderlands, Euroregion, Poland, Belarus
1. INTRODUCTION
The extensive scientific literature regarding cross-border cooperation primarily
focuses on the already existing cross-border regions analysis. There are few studies on the
very process of planning new cross-border regions and the institutionalization of cross-border
cooperation in such areas. Cross-border regions develop at the external borders of the EU
particularly rarely. Each new initiative in the scope deserves a thorough insight.
In 2019, the “Agreement Regarding the Appointment of the Organisational Committee for
the Establishment of Euroregion Przybuże” (the Przybuże Agreement) was signed in the city
of Biała Podlaska on the Polish-Belarussian borderland. Further complex research and
concept activities provided the basis for the development of a model solution for the
establishment of this Euroregion. Against this background, the paper presents a model for the
creation of a Euroregion at the external border of the EU, which was put into practice and
enabled the development of optimal solutions for a specific Polish-Belarusian border.
Taking into account the fact that the cooperation at external borders is very complex and
encounters numerous barriers, the analysed case study provides valuable information and the
developed solutions can be applied in other cross-border areas. The development of cross-
border cooperation is supported politically and economically by the European Union
(Studzieniecki and Meyer, 2017). Territorial cooperation, including cross-border,
transnational and interregional cooperation, is an important objective of the EU's cohesion
policy. The INTERREG community initiative plays a particularly important role in
facilitating the implementation of cross-border projects. At the EU's external borders, cross-
border cooperation is strongly supported under the EU's neighbourhood policy (Gumenyuk
and Studzieniecki, 2018).
The European mechanisms of territorial cooperation are constantly being improved
(Studzieniecki and Przybyłowski, 2017). However, innovative instruments, such as the
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation, Integrated Territorial Investments, or
Community Led Local Developments have just started to be introduced at the internal
borders of the EU (DeBardeleben and Nechiporuk, 2019). In this situation, it can be assumed
that, despite its imperfections, the concept of Euroregions remains the most effective form of
cross-border cooperation at the external borders of the EU (Telle, 2018; Durà, Camonita,
Berzi, and Noferini, 2018).
2. CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
The issue of cross-border cooperation and development of cross-border regions is a
dynamically developing area of interdisciplinary studies experiencing a renaissance in the
21st century (Newman, 2006b). Despite quite popular theses regarding the evolution of the
global system leading to the development of “a borderless world” (Paasi, 2009; 2019;
Newman, 2006a), state borders still constitute an important factor determining the course of
socio-economic processes occurring in their vicinity, and due to the scale and character of the
effect (Haselsberger, 2014), the issue of near-border areas and cross-border cooperation has
become an important subject of research in the scope of regional studies. This results from
the fact that borders still constitute a significant barrier for the development of near-border
regions (Capello, Caragliu, and Fratesi, 2018a; 2018b), as particularly manifested in the case
of areas located at the external borders of the European Union (Topaloglou et al., 2005).
Due to the progress of European integration and developed comprehensive forms and
manifestations of cross-border cooperation, borders inside the EU are becoming increasingly
“invisible”, with evidently decreasing importance (Medeiros, 2018). The reduction of border
barriers favours regional development, leading to intensification of cross-border contacts and
commercial exchange (Anderson and O’Dowd, 1999; Durand and Decoville, 2020; Durand,
Decoville, and Knippschild, 2020; Jakubowski, 2018). Meanwhile, the external borders of the
EU constitute a significant spatial and formal legal barrier for mutual relations. However it
has been proved that cross-border co-operation becomes a valuable instrument for reducing
this barrier and establishing collaborative relations between EU and neighbouring countries
(Bobylev, Gadal, Kireyeu, and Sergunin, 2020). Quite a broad range of solutions for the
development and governance of cross-border cooperation have been admittedly developed,
but in many cases the cooperation still remains limited and inefficient (O’keeffe and
Creamer, 2019; Tiganasu, Jijie and Kourtit, 2020). This results in certain ‘limits of
integration’ on the European scale (Eskelinen, Liikanen, and Scott, 2013) that permanently
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
and negatively affect cross-border relations and the socio-economic conditions of areas
located at the external border of the EU. It is of great importance because the development of
near-border areas is largely motivated by the relation of cooperation and level of
development of negotiation structures on both sides of the border (Krätke, 1996; Gualini,
2003; Sohn, 2014a; 2014b; Capellano and Kurowska-Pysz, 2020). It is therefore desirable to
develop research on shaping efficient tools and forms of cooperation of cross-border regions
at the borders of the European Union (Studzieniecki, 2016; Rongxing, 2018). The
development of a governance mechanism becomes an important vehicle for efficient
territorial governance of an area divided by a state border (Blatter, 2004; Guo, 2015). A
characteristic feature of this mechanism is the leading role of subnational units (Haugseth,
2018), i.e. regional and local authorities. In the case of EU Member States, subnational units
enjoy considerable autonomy (Perkmann, 1999). Outside of the borders of the EU, however
(particularly in the countries of the former Soviet Union), their independence is much more
limited (Abrudan and Duda-Dajanu, 2012; Vinokurov and Libman, 2012). In practice, cross-
border cooperation undertaken by cities and regions requires the approval of central
authorities (Jackson, 2017).
The motivations for the engagement of local and regional stakeholders in cross-border
governance initiatives range widely between rooted opportunistic behaviours and emergent
strategic attitudes. This is observed in terms of the main goals of addressing cross-border
initiatives (Gualini, 2010), namely access to funding, cost-benefit sharing, promotion of local
assets, lobbying, positioning in international competition and intergovernmental relations, or
policy exchange and sharing of best practices.
“Euroregion” has become an instrument and symbol of cross-border cooperation. This term
stems from “Euroregio”, the oldest initiative of cross-border governance which was
implemented in 1958 in the area adjacent to the Dutch-German border. The term
“Euroregion” has various interpretations (Hooper, and Kramsch, 2004). No unambiguous
definition exists, either scientific or legal. “Euroregion” is understood both as a “tool for
development of a border area” (Tkachenko, 2014), and as a “functional territorial unit
established basing on a mutual agreement between local or regional authorities of two or
more countries” (Stverkova, Pohludka, Kurowska-Pysz, and Szczepańska-Woszczyna, 2018).
Euroregions located at the external borders of the EU show considerable similarities. The
model of Euroregions functioning in Poland and Belarus is presented in Figure 1.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
A Euroregion is a specific cross-border organisation of no legal personality. It is managed by
the Presiding Body and Executive Body. The Presiding Body usually has a form of general
meeting of members or their representatives (for example associations of local governments).
It appoints the Executive Authority implementing its goals through Secretariats located in the
territory of the cooperating countries. The legal basis for the Euroregions operations are
statutes and regulations prepared pursuant to the guidelines of the Council of Europe,
including the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between
Territorial Communities or Authorities of 1980. Activities of many Euroregions are financed
from European cross-border cooperation programmes. They permit the implementation of
projects of the cooperating beneficiaries.
Euroregions constitute the most institutionalised form of cross-border cooperation. It may be
defined as the cross-border areas’ thrust towards institutional autonomy to improve co-
operation and foster development in those areas (Gasparini, 2014). Euroregions are
established primarily through concluding partnership agreements between units of the local
government (Bielecka, 2011).These agreements can both strengthen cross-border cooperation
and lead to the development of new forms of collaboration, sometimes competitive towards
the existing Euroregions (Medeiros, 2011).
Cross-border organisations are required to fulfil specific crucial conditions for the successful
functioning. They must find a leader that would deal with all organizational issues (Radek,
2011). They should create a situation where it is beneficial for stakeholders to participate in
cross-border initiatives. They are expected to convince the stakeholders to unreservedly fulfil
their commitments (Maslov, 2018).
Scientific research devoted to territorial cooperation planning (Braunerhielm, Olsson and
Medeiros, 2019; Durand and Decoville, 2018; Kurowska-Pysz, Castanho and Loures, 2018)
highlights the important issue of identifying the geographical boundaries of cross-border
cooperation areas. A number of factors are taken into account in the delimitation process,
including historical, spatial, demographic, cultural, data, institutional, economic,
infrastructural and environmental factors (Medeiros, 2019). In practice, however, the
conditions for cross-border cooperation at the EU's external borders are so diverse that
proposing a universal model of delimitation becomes impossible and requires an individual
approach, adapted to the specificity of a given borderland (Studzieniecki, 2016).
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
3. METHODOLOGY
The concept of Euroregion‘Przybuże’ required building up and implementing a model
for creating a cross-border region at the external border of the European Union. For this
purpose the triangulation method was used, including research techniques such as FGI (Focus
Group Interview), moderated workshop, survey research and desk research. It was assumed
that the application of the model would allow to indicate the optimal formula for the
development of the Euroregion, taking into account the external and internal conditions of
cross-border cooperation (Figure 2).
The process of creating the Euroregion included three stages of delimiting the area of cross-
border cooperation: identification of the current area of cross-border cooperation, projection
of a potential area of cross-border cooperation and indication of the optimal area of cross-
border cooperation (Figure 3).
The process of the Euroregion creation was divided into a diagnostic and a prognostic part.
Stakeholders selected by experts, such as initiators of establishing the Euroregion, their
partners in cross-border cooperation, representatives of beneficiaries and observers,
participated in each stage. The participation of individual categories of stakeholders in the
research is presented in Figure 4.
The process of the Euroregion creation began with the FGI. A meeting was organized by an
expert who acted as a moderator. The initiators, beneficiaries and decision-makers took part
in the interview. This meeting enabled an initial diagnosis to be made and a decision on
further actions to be taken. For in-depth diagnosis, desk research was used and a survey was
conducted among potential members of the Euroregion. Desk research delivered more
complete information on cross-border relations and completed cross-border projects. The
questionnaire survey was used to obtain answers to the questions of how stakeholders
evaluate the cooperation so far and what it should look like in the future. The development of
the final concept took place through moderated workshops. The participation of observers in
the workshop works helped to develop optimal solutions.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
4. PREPARATION OF THE CONCEPT OF EUROREGION PRZYBUŻE
4.1 Development of the cross-border "Euroregion Przybuże" initiative
The signing of the "Euroregion Przybuże Agreement” in 2019, initiated by the
authorities of the city of Biała Podlaska and the commune of Terespol, was the impulse to
institutionalize cross-border cooperation at the analysed Polish-Belarusian border. The
agreement stipulated appointing an association of local government units from the Polish part
of the Polish-Belarusian borderland interested in cooperation. Then, the association would
conclude further arrangements with partners from Belarus. The will to join the association
was expressed by the following local governments: Bialski Poviat [County], cities: Biała
Podlaska and Terespol and communes of: Biała Podlaska, Janów Podlaski, Kodeń,
Konstantynów, Leśna Podlaska, Terespol, Tuczna, and Zalesie (Figure 5).
Initiators of the Agreement turned to the experts of the Research Institute of Territorial and
Inter-organisational Cooperation in Dąbrowa Górnicza with a request for practical support of
further activities aimed at an effective appointment of a Polish-Belarusian grouping –
Euroregion Przybuże. This task involved the delimitation of the Euroregion and pointing to
units whose participation in the cooperation would offer a chance for efficient functioning of
the association. Cross-border connections between potential partners were recognised as an
important delimitation criterion. The area covering local government units that signed the
“Przybuże Agreement” was given the name of the Declared Euroregion Przybuże (DEP). It
was determined, however, that a larger area should be subject to the analysis, called the
Potential Euroregion Przybuże (PEP). It was assumed that only the analysis of PEP would
result in the proposal of delimitation of the Optimum Euroregion Przybuże (OEP).
Research work also involved the participation of observers such as representatives of the
European Commission, state authorities and the consular corps who were expected to support
the development of Euroregion Przybuże. Advantage was taken of the knowledge of the
Polish-Belarusian cross-border cooperation programmes beneficiaries owing to their
experience in the implementation of joint projects. Soon, a decision was made to organise a
workshop aimed at clarifying the formula of Euroregion Przybuże.
Moderated workshops were held in February 2020. They were attended by representatives of
the entities from Poland and Belarus. The Polish side was represented by signatories of the
Przybuże Agreement, and Belarus by the delegation of the city of Brest, an important partner
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
in cross-border cooperation. The workshops resulted in the diagnosis of the situation,
including the identification and assessment of current experiences of local governments
within the Polish-Belarusian cooperation. A survey was conducted in the course of the
workshops. The questionnaire included five open questions for respondents from 11 local
governments from Poland (members of the Przybuże Agreement) and the city of Brest in
Belarus. Eight questionnaires were returned. The survey evidenced the variability of
experiences, priorities, and concepts of further cooperation. Local governments from Poland
are members of various national and international partnerships the functioning of which is
sometimes mutually competitive, with particular consideration of competition for limited
funds allocated for Polish-Belarusian cooperation. Beneficiaries of the cross-border
cooperation of the State School of Higher Education in Biala Podlaska (PL) and The Road
Maintenance Company in Brest (BY) identified obstacles to cooperation, including legal,
organisational, economic, and social barriers resulting from the existence of the external EU
border. An important role in the research was played by observers, namely the Consul of the
Republic of Belarus and a representative of the European Commission. Their aid resulted in
the identification of guidelines for cross-border initiatives development that would
correspond with the priorities of Polish-Belarusian cooperation and could obtain practical and
financial support of the European Commission.
4.2 Conditions of cooperation at the Polish-Belarusian border
The Polish-Belarusian borderland covers an area along the 418 km long Polish-
Belarusian border (constituting the external border of the EU and Schengen Zone),
characterised by poor socio-economic development1, as well as low population and urban
density. An important factor determining the modern image of the area was the delineation of
the state border on the Bug River in 1945. The border of a subsequent, i.e. secondary nature
against the existing forms of spatial management (Hartshorne, 1933), led to a break-up of
centuries-long functional connections in the current borderland. For several decades it had
constituted a barrier limiting almost all contacts, and the adjacent areas gained features of
peripherality not only in geographical, but also socio-economic terms. The borderland
continues to be characterised by insufficient number of transport connections and border
crossings.
1 GDP per capita according to the parity of purchasing power in the Polish part of the borderland varied from
38.0% to 58.0%, and in the Belarusian part – from 31.7% to 36.6% of the average value for the European Union
(data for 2017).
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
It was not until the fall of the Communist system that an opportunity for development of
Polish-Belarusian cross-border contacts emerged. They are, however, still characterised by
relatively low intensity, disproportionate to the potential role of the borderland in geopolitical
and geo-economic terms, as the area of contact between the European Union and the Eurasian
Economic Union (Jakubowski et al., 2017). In this context, the location on the New Eurasian
Land Bridge, the fastest and safest connection for railway cargo transport on route from
China to the EU, has a potentially substantial effect on the perspectives of the area
development (Jakubowski et al., 2020).
In each case, the achieved degree of cross-border cooperation and the perspective of its
development depend on a combination of various political, administrative-legal, social, and
geographic factors (Sousa, 2013). In the case of the Polish-Belarusian borderland, the most
important conditions of cross-border cooperation include (Svensson, 2015; Jakubowski,
Bronisz, and Miszczuk, 2017; Dołzbłasz, 2018):
a. different vectors of integration processes – whereas Poland has been a Member State
of the European Union since 2004, Belarus is a part of the confederate Belarus-Russia Union
State, and since 2015 of the Eurasian Economic Union2, participating in various types of
integration initiatives developed under the auspices of the Russian Federation, which has a
negative effect on the development of the framework of mutual cooperation at the inter-state
level;
b. nature of the state border and changes in its permeability – the level of openness of the
Polish-Belarusian border over the last thirty years has been subject to numerous changes as a
result of political and economic transformations: from an increase in openness after 1991,
through its sealing due to Poland’s accession to the European Union (2004) and Schengen
Zone (2007), to another insignificant increase in permeability as a result of recent
introduction by Belarus of a limited visa-free regime. The designation of the Local Border
Traffic zone, however, negotiated still in 2009, has not been implemented so far on the
Polish-Belarusian borderland, and the shape of the cross-border cooperation is strongly
determined by severe formalisation of the external EU border and different legal regulations
in both countries (Dołzbłasz, 2018). Pursuant to the terminology proposed by O. J. Martinez
(Martinez, 1994), due to the character of the Polish-Belarusian border, the relations of the
adjacent near-border areas are still at the transitional stage between coexistence and
2 The Eurasian Economic Union also includes Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
cooperation;
c. variability of the institutional space and different scope of competences of public
administration units – whereas the administrative reform implemented in Poland in 1998
strengthening the position of local governments and granting them a number of entitlements
(among others in the scope of local development and cross-border cooperation) is considered
as one of the greatest achievements of the political transformation (Swianiewicz, 2020), in
Belarus, the system of organisation of largely centralised territorial administration inherited
from the Soviet Union has been vastly preserved (Mazol, 2015). Limited possibilities of
independent shaping of cross-border relations by units at the local and regional level in
Belarus generate the necessity of the central authorities involvement as a decision making
entity, largely complicating the implementation of common cross-border undertakings
(Jakubowski et al., 2017);
d. current experiences in the scope of cross-border cooperation as well as available
support instruments and forms of cross-border cooperation – although the history of the first
initiatives of cross-border cooperation on the Polish-Belarusian borderland dates back to the
mid-1990s when the Euroregions of Bug (1995), Niemen (1997), and Puszcza Białowieska
(2002) were established, these projects were of top-down character, translating into their
limited activity. The efficiency of the implemented activities was also negatively affected by
the large surface of the Euroregions (Euroregion Bug and Euroregion Niemen are among the
vastest areas of the type in Europe), as well as a broad scope of tasks inadequate to the actual
possibilities. The development of present connections and implementation of cross-border
projects in the Polish-Belarusian borderland is also difficult due to the evident asymmetry in
the availability of financial resources on both sides of the border (Dołzbłasz and Raczyk,
2011), and limited – against areas located at the internal borders – availability of financial
support in the scope of the European Union cross-border cooperation programmes
(Jakubowski, Bronisz, and Miszczuk, 2017).
4.3 Conditions for the development of Euroregion Przybuże in the context of surveys
Surveys showed that all respondents cooperated with a foreign partner.
Representatives of the city of Brest pointed to five entities, including the city of Biała
Podlaska, Terespol and Terespol Commune from the Polish part of the Potential Euroregion
Przybuże (PEP). All entities from Poland cooperated with local governments of the Brest
Oblast located in three Raions [Counties in Belarussian]. These local governments include:
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Brest Raion,
City of Brest,
Communes of the Brest Raion (Klejniki and Łuszczyce Cmmunes),
Communes of the Ivanava Raion (city of Ivanava),
Communes of the Kamenets Raion (Wysokaie Commune).
The cross-border cooperation primarily covered soft project areas such as development of
culture, sport and tourism. It is worth noting that the cross-border cooperation also brought
tangible effects in the field of road infrastructure at the borderland.
Project partners from Poland pointed numerous failures in cross-border cooperation.
For example, the Centre for Brest - Biała Podlaska Cooperation has not been established so
far, and a pedestrian bridge on the Bug River has not been constructed. These problems
resulted from the inability to obtain sufficient funds from cross-border cooperation programs.
Moreover, Polish and Belarusian self-governments also had serious problems in finding
foreign partners with whom they could develop cross-border projects.
Respondents were also asked about experience with cooperation in the scope of Euroregion
Bug. Half of the respondents answered that they cooperated with the said Euroregion. One of
the respondents (city of Biała Podlaska) answered that cooperation with the Euroregion was
discontinued because it did not bring the expected results, and particularly did not facilitate
obtaining funds. The respondents also mentioned weak points of Euroregion Bug, such as too
large area and greater pressure on the Polish-Ukrainian than Polish-Belarusian cooperation.
Respondents were also asked what tasks should be implemented by the prospected
Euroregion. According to the respondents, the main task of the Euroregion should be to
initiate and coordinate the activities of its members as well as to make efforts to obtain funds
for cross-border cooperation.
4.4 Partnerships in the Potential Euroregion Przybuże
For the purposes of the study, it was assumed that in spatial terms, the Potential
Euroregion Przybuże (PEP) on the Polish side covers the Bialski Poviat and communes from
neighbouring counties remaining in partnerships with communes from the Bialski Poviat. On
the Belarusian side, the area of PEP was assumed to cover the territory of units included in
the partnership groupings with participation of the Polish part of PEP. Such a delimitation
resulted from the fact that the signatory of the “Przybuże Agreement” was the Bialski Poviat
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
where all the remaining communes that signed the Agreement were located. Therefore, the
need occurred to identify all partnership groupings with participation of potential members of
PEP. Five partnership groupings with the participation of local governments from Poland and
Belarus were identified in the analysed area (Figure 6).
Two partnership groupings comprise only two units (partnership of Biała Podlaska and Brest
cities, and partnership between the Bialski Poviat and the Brest Raion). In the remaining
cases, the number of units included in the partnership groupings varied from 5 to 9. In the
majority of cases, one local government unit is included in only one partnership grouping.
The activity of the Bialski Poviat deserved attention (participation in four partnership
groupings), as well as the city of Biała Podlaska (participation in three partnership
groupings). The number of units included in partnership groupings varied from 2 to 9.
Partnership groupings in the area of PPE are characterised below.
a. Przybuże Agreement
The Przybuże Agreement refers to the agreement concluded by Polish local governments:
Bialski Poviat, the city of Biała Podlaska, Biała Podlaska, Janów Podlaski, Kodeń,
Konstantynów, Leśna Podlaska, the city of Terespol, Terespol Local Government, Tuczna,
Zalesie
b. Partnership of Biała Podlaska - Brest
The partnership is based on the agreement signed in 1991. It stipulates priority areas of
cooperation such as3:
exchange of groups of residents, particularly the youth,
cultural, sports, and scientific exchange,
exchange of specialists and experiences in the scope of urban economy, services,
environmental protection, education, health protection, social assistance, and export.
The city of Biała Podlaska used to cooperate with the city of Brest when Belarus was still a
republic of the Soviet Union. Therefore, the partnership of both cities has a long tradition,
and is very efficient. Its effect are numerous joint cross-border projects and initiatives.
The projects concern not only soft activities (culture, sports, education), but also development
of infrastructure, including transport infrastructure. Many meetings are held with local
government authorities, social and economic organisations and schools of higher education.
3 Website of the Municipal Office of Biała Podlaska, http://www.um.bialapodlaska.pl/index.php?ps=26.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
c. Partnership of Bialski Poviat – Brest Raion
The partnership agreement concluded in 2000 is extended every five years. Cooperation
based on the agreement occurs at the level of local government authorities, economic and
social organisations, as well as education and cultural institutions. The primary areas of
cooperation include economy, agriculture, environmental protection, crisis management,
education and culture, sports and tourism. In the scope of the cooperation, Bialski Poviat has
participated in the organisation of foreign economic missions, meetings, and international
seminars involving participation of entrepreneurs4. In 2013, the Bialski Poviat and Brest
Raion implemented the project “Development of cross-border cooperation in the area of
Bialski Poviat and Brest Raion”.
It was funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs resources within the scope of the “Support
of the civil dimension of Polish foreign policy 2013” task. The objective of the project was
“building mutual and friendly relations between two units from Poland and Belarus
(particularly from the area of the Bialski Poviat and Brest Raion), and promotion of the
positive image of Poland”.
d. Region of Biała Podlaska – Brest
The Region is a cross-border area covering the Bialski Poviat on the Polish side, and the
Brest Raion and Kamenets Raion on the Belarusian side. It was designated as a potential
cross-border tourist destination. A cross-border strategy of tourism development was
prepared for the region. No governing structure managing tourism has been appointed thus
preventing efficient tourist cooperation of all local governments operating in the region.
e. Euroregion Bug
Euroregion Bug5 functions as a cross-border grouping with no legal personality. It was
established in 1995 by representatives of the governmental administration of Poland and
Ukraine. The boundaries, structure, and model of governance of the Euroregion have changed
several times since then. In 1998, the Euroregion also covered the Brest Region in Belarus
and the neighbouring Bialsko-Podlaskie Voivodeship in Poland.
As a result of the territorial reform in Poland, the number of voivodeships decreased from 49
4 Rozwój współpracy transgranicznej na obszarze Powiatu Bialskiego i Rejonu Brzeskiego (Development of
cross-border cooperation in the area of the Bialski Poviat and Brest Region), Podlaska Fundacja Wspierania
Talentów, Biała Podlaska 2013.
5 The name of the Euroregion stems from the name of the cross-border Bug River located within the territory of
all three countries.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
to 16. The entire Polish part of Euroregion Bug used to be located within the boundaries of
the Lubelskie Voivodeship. Euroregion Bug currently brings together subnational delegations
from Poland, Ukraine, and Belarus, whereas exclusively in Poland, communes, counties and
voivodeships are local government units with legal personality and considerable entitlements
for undertaking cross-border cooperation6. The Euroregion is characterised by extensive
structure (Figure 10) covering the Euroregion Council, Euroregion Presiding Body,
Euroregion Secretariat, and Working Groups dealing with the implementation of statutory
tasks of the Euroregion. The Euroregion is represented by the President alternately appointed
among representatives of the delegations of Belarus, Poland, and Ukraine
The Delegation of the Polish side comprises the Euroregion Bug Association consociating
local government administrative units of the Lubelskie Voivodeship. The association is a
coordinator of cross-border cooperation in the Polish part of Euroregion Bug. It plays an
important role in the development of cross-border projects and distribution of EU funds. The
Association activities are governed by the Management Board appointed by the General
Meeting. In 2020, the Association included 68 units7.
f. Partnership grouping “Zielawa Valley”
The “Zielawa Valley” Partnership grouping covers communes from Poland, Belarus, and
Ukraine. The Polish part of the Partnership is a compact area located in the northern part of
the Lubelskie Voviodeship within the Bialski and Parczewski Poviats. It occupies an area of
732.24 km2. The Partnership grouping includes three communes from the Bialski Poviat,
namely the communes of Rossosz, Wisznice, and Sosnówka, and three from the Parczew
Poviat – communes of Milanów, Jabłoń, and Podedwórze. The partnership also covers two
foreign communes, namely Znamienka in Belarus (Brest Raion of Brest Oblast [Belarussian
Administrative Region]) and Zabrody in Ukraine (Kivertsi Raion of Volyn Oblast). The
development of the Partnership cooperation is based on the common strategy. The primary
objective is the development of economic specialisation in the scope of livestock farming,
plant production and food processing. For the purpose of implementation of this task, a
strategy governing structure was appointed. Next to the commune authorities, it comprises
representatives of local communities, including farmers, entrepreneurs, non-governmental
organisations, and Rural Homemakers’ Associations.
6 The reform of local government in Ukraine, launched in 2014, aims to increase the scope of competences and
income of local government units, similar to local government units in Poland.
7 The Euroregion Bug Association, https://www.euroregionbug.pl/index.php/stowarzyszenie-samorzadow-
euroregionow-bug/wladze-stowarzyszenia, 14.07.2020.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
In the analysed area, in addition to cross-border partnerships on the Polish side of the border,
in 2015, the functional area of "Active Borderland" was established8. It included the Polish
communes of Janów Podlaski, Kodeń, Konstantynów, Leśna Podlaska, Łomazy, Piszczac,
Rokitno, Sławatycze, Terespol, Terespol City, Tuczna and Zalesie. These communes
developed a common strategy which mentioned the need for closer cooperation with Belarus.
Unfortunately, the Polish-Belarusian partnership was never established.
4.5 Projects implemented in the Potential Euroregion Przybuże
Local governments located in PEP have implemented 19 projects financed from the
funds of the European Union and Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland. The
budget oscillated between Euro 0.03 and 4.51 million. The projects concerned soft areas such
as: education, culture, health, social integration, economic cooperation, cooperation of local
governments, and safety. Three projects aimed at the development of infrastructure. The
majority of projects (11) were implemented by two partners (1 from Poland, 1 from Belarus)
located in the area of PEP (Table 1).
The implementation of the projects involved participation of 24 partners. There were 12
partners from Poland and 12 from Belarus (Table 2). The majority of them were local
government units. The highest number of projects was implemented by the State School of
Higher Education in Biała Podlaska. In the majority of cases, the units implemented only one
project with a foreign partner. In other words, the partnership concluded within the project
was of one-off character. The exception is the State School of Higher Education in Biała
Podlaska which implemented three projects with the Pushkin State University, and two
projects with the Brest State Technical University. Hospitals in Biała Podlaska and Brest
implemented a joint project twice.
4.6 Cross-border relations between members of the Potential Euroregion Przybuże
Partnership agreements between local governments of the PEP and partnerships
8 Zintegrowana Strategia Rozwoju Przygranicznego Obszaru Funkcjonalnego „Aktywne Pogranicze” na lata
2015-2020, Lublin-Tuczna 2015.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
resulting from the implementation of joint cross-border projects (Figure 7) played an
important role in the development of cross-border relations. A total of 11 of the former ones
were implemented, and 9 of the latter.
The partnerships overlapped in four cases:
City of Brest – City of Biała Podlaska,
Brest Raion – Bialski Poviat
Tuczna Commune (PL) – Klejniki Commune (BY),
Wisznice Commune (PL) – Znamienka Commune (BY).
The majority of local governments included in the Przybuże Agreement (6 local
governments) maintained relations with a Belarusian partner resulting from partnership
agreements or from the implementation of cross-border projects
5. CONCEPT OF THE OPTIMAL EUROREGION PRZYBUŻE (OEP)
The analysis of the conditions of cross-border cooperation and conclusions resulting
from FGI and the moderated workshop permitted the development of the concept of
Euroregion Przybuże. The thesis that the form of the Euroregion would be the most optimal
tool for cooperation was confirmed. It was decided that the area of EP should cover the
Bialski Poviat including the city of Biała Podlaska on the Polish side, and the Brest Raion
together with the city of Brest on the Belarusian side (Figure 8).
Based on the current experience, the Brest - Biała Podlaska Region, also covering the
Kamenets Region, did not prove to be a successful tourist destination in practice. There are
no obstacles, however, which would prevent the neighbouring counties (including the
Parczew County where the Zielawa Valley partnership is located) from participating in
specific initiatives and potential projects. The survey showed that the core of EP should be
two central cities with strong cross-border relations, surrounded by counties/regions with
equally strong connections. Such a region would be compact in territorial terms, and cover
analogical categories of units, i.e. central cities and the surrounding regions. An important
argument in favour of the solution would be the possibility of including communes in the
area of the Bialski County and Brest Region in the cooperation. Cross-border relations have
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
already been initiated between some communes. Counties as local governmental units of the
second degree could simultaneously support third degree local government units. It is also
important that both the Polish and Belarusian part are located in the area of one local
government unit of the third degree, i.e. the Lublin Voviodeship in Poland and Brest Oblast
in Belarus.
In accordance with the concept of the Euroregion, formalisation of cooperation is necessary
(Figure 9).
The institutionalisation requires concluding a partnership agreement between the association
representing stakeholders of the Polish side and representatives of the Belarusian side. It
would be necessary to appoint a common secretariat covering two national offices. An
optimal solution would be their location in both central cities of Brest and Biała Podlaska. In
the initial period, they would be maintained from funds of both cities.
The conducted moderated workshop permitted formulating three tasks finalising the
establishment of the Euroregion. Coordinators of the Przybuże Agreement were obliged to
implement them, i.e. the city of Biała Podlaska and Terespol Commune. The tasks include:
registration of the Association of Local Governments “Przybuże” covering the Bialski
Poviat and city of Biała Podlaska;
preparations of the draft of the partnership agreement to be concluded between the Polish
Association and representation of the Belarusian side;
development of a budget and action plan of the Euroregion for the nearest period.
Pursuant to the Polish and Belarusian law, the establishment of the Euroregion requires the
approval of the central authorities of both countries. It was therefore decided that drafts of the
articles of association of the Euroregion would be shortly submitted to the authorities of
Poland and Belarus.
The concept of EP took into consideration different conditions of cross-border cooperation on
the Polish and Belarusian sides. Therefore, the model of EP operation assumes differentiation
of organisational solutions on both sides of the border.
6. DISCUSSION
Planning the development of a new structure of cross-border cooperation turned out to
be a complex task, requiring the consideration of a number of factors determining the success
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
of this initiative. A model for the creation of the Euroregion was developed which was
successfully applied in the analysed part of the Polish-Belarusian borderland. The
triangulation method, assuming the simultaneous use of research techniques such as desk
research, FGI, interview and questionnaire, made it possible to obtain information on the
conditions for the development of cross-border cooperation. The research allowed defining
the boundaries, structure and tasks of the Euroregion.
The research showed that the analysed Polish-Belarusian borderland was characterized by
quite well developed cross-border relations. The subjects of these relations were local
government units, universities, hospitals, cultural centres and municipal enterprises. Their
cooperation contributed to cross-border integration, including the development of
interpersonal and inter-organisational contacts. Integration was strengthened by partnership
cooperation agreements signed by local governments from Poland and Belarus. Many of the
contracting entities were partners in cross-border projects.
The delimitation of the Optimal Euroregion Przybuże turned out to be particularly important.
It made it possible to identify stakeholders who had similar interests and were interested in
developing the cooperation. A territorially coherent area was created, covering the border
crossings between Poland and Belarus. It was important to identify the cooperation leaders.
These were the 2 focal points of the Euroregion, i.e. the city of Biała Podlaska in Poland and
the city of Brest in Belarus. It was their priorities that largely determined the formula and
structure of the Euroregion. The euroregional structure was strengthened by the inclusion of
supra-communal administration in the cooperation, that is the Bialski Poviat from Poland and
the Brest Raion from Belarus.
It should be noted that the initiators of the cross-border cooperation concept development
were local governments from Poland. They offered the Belarusian side solutions to be
approved by the state authorities. Therefore, it was not possible to harmonize the
organizational structures of the Euroregion on the Polish and Belarusian sides. In the opinion
of the majority of Polish self-governments located at the Belarusian border, the currently
existing cross-border structures did not fully meet the needs of stakeholders. An important
premise for establishing a new Euroregion was the opinion that Euroregion Bug was more
focused on cooperation with entities from Ukraine than with Belarus. A symbolic proof of
this is the location of the Polish secretariat of the Euroregion Bug near the Ukrainian border.
It should be noted that entities located in the area of the functioning Euroregion have decided
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
to leave the existing euroregional structures and establish a new grouping despite the fact that
there are no formal obstacles for local governments to be members of several Euroregions. It
has been shown that a large Euroregion (Euroregion Bug covers an area comparable to the
Czech Republic) is not able to meet the needs of all its members. It was concluded that
smaller Euroregions, located in only 2 countries, are more efficient.
The initiators of Euroregion Przybuże took into account the fact that the new structure could
be perceived as competitive to the existing Euroregion Bug. Therefore, it was rational to
consult the initiative with the state authorities, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The development of optimal substantive and organisational solutions was carried out with the
participation of experts. Using the workshop technique, they identified the main expectations
towards the Euroregion, that is, assistance in matching partners, preparing projects and
obtaining funds. It remains to be expected that the founders will not lack determination and,
despite the problems related to the epidemic situation, Euroregion Przybuże will soon launch
its activities.
7. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY
Taking into account the fact that territorial cooperation, which includes cross-border
cooperation, is one of the priorities of the cohesion policy and the neighbourhood policy, it
becomes necessary to improve the existing tools and search for new solutions. This is
especially important at the EU's external border, which significantly restricts this cooperation.
Positive trends are noted when analysing the current EU legislative process regarding
provisions for the European territorial cooperation goal (Interreg) supported by the European
Regional Development Fund and external financing instruments in the period 2021-20279. In
the opinion of the authorities of the European Union, cross-border bodies should be
“responsible for managing a sub-program, an integrated territorial investment or one or more
small project funds, or to act as sole partner”. The draft regulation took into account the
suggestions of the Committee of the Regions and literally indicated Euroregions as examples
of such cross-border bodies. This is very important, as the experience to date shows that the
institution of the Euroregion seems to be the most relevant institutional form of cooperation
at the EU external border. The position of the Euroregions would undoubtedly be
9 Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on “European Territorial Cooperation”
(2019/C 86/09), (2019/C 86/09)
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
strengthened by their firmer inclusion in the management of cross-border cooperation
programmes. Such a chance should also be given to the emerging Euroregions meeting the
criteria defined by the European Commission. However, these criteria are still being worked
out.
Undoubtedly, cross-border cooperation within Euroregions is not perfect and faces various
barriers. These include political (relations between states), social (prejudices between
nations), organisational (incompatibility of administrative structures) and economic (lack of
funds for the implementation of statutory objectives) barriers. Therefore, it is worth
continuing the research that will help in the identification and elimination of these barriers.
Identifying the optimal area of cross-border cooperation for a specific borderland is
extremely important in the context of the scope, quality and effectiveness of activities carried
out by key entities. Each delimitation is, on the one hand, an opportunity for cooperation for
entities located in a given area, and on the other hand, the exclusion of entities that will be
outside the area. Planning the development of cross-border cooperation should be the result
of a compromise between the concept most beneficial for the socio-economic development of
the area and the solution most beneficial for the greatly influential leaders of the cooperation.
The method of achieving such a compromise is put forward in the model for creating the
Euroregion presented in this article.
ORCID
Tomasz Studzieniecki - 0000-0002-1272-0908
Andrzej Jakubowski - 0000-0003-2368-7426
Beata Meyer - 0000-0001-9730-7532
FUNDING
This work was supported by the Gdynia Maritime University under Grant WPiT/2019/PZ/09
and National Science Centre of Poland under Grant 2018/02/X/HS4/01728.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
REFERENCES:
Abrudan, D., Duda-Daianu, C. (2012). Cross-borders cooperation inside the euroregions. Case of
DKMT Romanian Euroregion. Nierówności społeczne a wzrost gospodarczy, no 27, pp. 80-87.
Anderson, J., and O’Dowd L. (1999). “Borders, Border Regions and Territoriality: Contradictory
Meanings, Changing Significance.” Regional Studies 33 (7): 593–604.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343409950078648.
Bielecka, M. (2011). Partnerstwo terytorialne dla rozwoju regionalnego i lokalnego. Barometr
Regionalny. No 4(26), pp. 45-52.
Blatter, J. (2004). From Spaces of Place to Spaces of Flows? Territorial and Functional Governance in
Cross-Border Regions in Europe and North America. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, vol. 28, no. 3, 2004, pp. 530-548.
Bobylev, N., Gadal, S., Kireyeu, V., Sergunin, A. (2020). EU-Russia cross-border co-operation in
the twenty-first century: Turning marginality into competitive advantage. Regional Science
Policy and Practice, vol. 12 (5): 841-859. DOI: 10.1111/rsp3.12316
Braunerhielm, L., Olsson, E. A. and Medeiros, E. (2019). The importance of the Swedish–Norwegian
border citizens’ perspectives for bottom-up cross-border planning strategies. Norwegian Journal
of Geography 73(2), pp. 96-109.
Bruns, B. (2019). “Homogenous and Extra-Territorial Border Regime? Migrations and Control
Efforts Across the Eastern EU External Border.” Journal of Borderlands Studies 34 (4): 509–
26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2017.1402194.
Capello, R., Caragliu, A., and Fratesi, U. (2018) a. “Measuring Border Effects in European Cross-
Border Regions.” Regional Studies 52 (7): 986–96.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1364843.
Capello, R., Caragliu, A., and Fratesi, U. (2018)b. “Breaking Down the Border: Physical, Institutional
and Cultural Obstacles.” Economic Geography 94 (5): 485–513.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2018.1444988.
Cappellano, F., and Kurowska-Pysz, J. (2020). “The Mission-Oriented Approach for (Cross-Border)
Regional Development.” Sustainability 12 (12): 5181. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125181.
DeBardeleben, J., Nechiporuk, D. (2019). Diverging views of EU-Russian borders: points of
congruence and difference in EU and Russian analyses. Journal of Contemporary European
Studies. Vol. 27 Issue 2, pp. 196-207. DOI: 10.1080/14782804.2018.153472.
Durà A., Camonita F., Berzi M. and Noferini A. (2018). Euroregions, Excellence and Innovation
across EU borders. A Catalogue of Good Practices. Barcelona, Department of Geography,
UAB,
Dołzbłasz, S. (2018). “A Network Approach to Transborder Cooperation Studies as Exemplified by
Poland’s Eastern Border.” Geographia Polonica 91 (1): 63–76.
https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0091.
Dołzbłasz, S., and Raczyk, A. (2011). “Projekty Współpracy Transgranicznej Na Zewnętrznych i
Wewnętrznych Granicach Unii Europejskiej – Przykład Polski.” Studia Regionalne i Lokalne 3
(45): 59–80.
Durand, F., and Decoville, A. (2020). “A Multidimensional Measurement of the Integration between
European Border Regions.” Journal of European Integration 42 (2): 163–78.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2019.1657857.
Durand, F., Decoville, A., and Knippschild, R. (2020). “Everything All Right at the Internal EU
Borders? The Ambivalent Effects of Cross-Border Integration and the Rise of Euroscepticism.”
Geopolitics 25 (3): 587–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2017.1382475.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Durand F. and Decoville A. (2018). Establishing Cross-Border Spatial Planning. In: Medeiros E. (eds)
European Territorial Cooperation. The Urban Book Series. Springer, Cham.: pp. 229-244.
Gasparini, A. (2014). The euroregion as an institutional technology for planning and managing the
cross-border cooperation. Teorija in Praksa, No (51), pp. 262-284.
Gualini E. (2010). Cross-border Governance: Inventing Regions in a Trans-national Multi-level
Polity. DISP - The Planning Review, No 39(152), pp. 43-52.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2003.10556833.
Guo, R. (2015). Cross-Border Management Theory, Method and Application. Springer – Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg.
Gumenyuk I. S., Studzieniecki T. (2018) Current and Prospective Transport Connections between
Poland’s Border Voivodeships and Russia’s Kaliningrad Region, Baltic Region 10(2), pp.
114—132. DOI: 10.5922/2079-8555-2018-2
Heikki E., Liikanen, I., and Scott, J. W. eds. (2013). The EU-Russia Borderland. New Contexts for
Regional Co-Operation. London-New York: Routledge.
Hooper B., Kramsch O. (2004). Cross-Border Governance in the European Union, Oxfordshire:
Routledge.
Enrico, G. (2003). “Cross-border Governance: Inventing Regions in a Trans-national Multi-level
Polity.” disP - The Planning Review 39 (152): 43–52.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2003.10556833.
Hartshorne, R. (1933). “Geographic and Political Boundaries in Upper Silesia.” Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 23 (4): 195–228.
Haselsberger, B. (2014). “Decoding Borders. Appreciating Border Impacts on Space and People.”
Planning Theory & Practice 15 (4): 505–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2014.963652.
Haugseth P. (2018). High North scenarios and subnational realities: policies and practices in the
Norwegian/Russian borderzone. Arktika i Sever, no. 33, pp. 116–132.
Jackson T. (2017). Paradiplomacy and Political Geography: The Geopolitics of Substate Regional
Diplomacy. Geography Compass, 12, pp. 1-11.
Jakubowski, A. (2018). “Asymmetry of Economic Development of Cross-Border Areas in the Context
of Perception of Near-Border Location.” Barometr Regionalny. Analizy i Prognozy 16 (2):
123–31.
Jakubowski, A., Bronisz U., and Miszczuk, A. (2017). “Polityka Spójności Oraz Europejski
Instrument Sąsiedztwa i Partnerstwa Jako Narzędzia Wsparcia Współpracy Transgranicznej Na
Wewnętrznych i Zewnętrznych Granicach Unii Europejskiej.” Roczniki Nauk Społecznych
9(45) (3): 73–89. https://doi.org/10.18290/rns.2017.45.3-5.
Jakubowski, A., Komornicki, T., Kowalczyk, K., and Miszczuk, A. (2020). “Poland as a Hub of the
Silk Road Economic Belt: Is the Narrative of Opportunity Supported by Developments on the
Ground?” Asia Europe Journal, May. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-020-00571-6.
Jakubowski, A., Miszczuk A., Kawałko, B., Komornicki T., and Szul, R. (2017). The EU’s New
Borderland: Cross-Border Relations and Regional Development. Regions and Cities. London-
New York: Routledge.
Kurowska-Pysz, J., Castanho, R A. and Loures L. (2018). Sustainable planning of cross-border
cooperation: a strategy for alliances in border cities. Sustainability 10 (5): 1416. DOI:
10.3390/su10051416.
Krätke, S. (1996). “Where East Meets West: The German—Polish Border Region in Transformation.”
European Planning Studies 4 (6): 647–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654319608720372.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Maslov, Y. (2018). The EU Strategy For The Danube Region as an inclusive form of cross-border
economy, Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 4(50), pp. 200-208. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2018-4-5-200-208
Mazol, A. (2015). “Local Self-Governance in the Republic of Belarus.” 22. BEROC Policy Paper
Series. Minsk. http://eng.beroc.by/webroot/delivery/files/Local_self-governance.pdf.
Medeiros, E. (2018). “Should EU Cross-Border Cooperation Programmes Focus Mainly on Reducing
Border Obstacles?” Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica 64 (3): 467.
https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/dag.517.
Medeiros, E. (2011). (Re)defining the Euroregion Concept, European Planning Studies, 19:1, 141-
158, DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2011.531920.
Medeiros E. (2019). Delimiting Cross-Border Areas for policy implementation: a multi-factor
proposal, European Planning Studies, 28:1, pp. 125-145.
DOI:10.1080/09654313.2019.1687654
Newman, D. (2006a). “The Lines That Continue to Separate Us: Borders in Our `borderless’ World.”
Progress in Human Geography 30 (2): 143–61. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132506ph599xx.
Newman, D. (2006b). “Borders and Bordering: Towards an Interdisciplinary Dialogue.” European
Journal of Social Theory 9 (2): 171–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431006063331.
O’keeffe, B., and Creamer, C. (2019). “Models of Cross-Border Collaboration in a Post-Brexit
Landscape – Insights from External EU Borders.” Irish Geography 52 (2): 153–73.
https://doi.org/10.2014/igj.v52i2.1376.
Paasi, A. (2009). “Bounded Spaces in a ‘Borderless World’: Border Studies, Power and the Anatomy
of Territory.” Journal of Power 2 (2): 213–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/17540290903064275.
Passi, A. (2019). “Borderless Worlds and beyond: Challenging the State-Centric Cartographies.” In
Borderless Worlds for Whom? Ethics, Moralities and Mobilities, edited by Anssi Paasi, Eeva-
Kaisa Prokkola, Jarkko Saarinen, and Kaj Zimmerbauer, 21–36. Oxon-New York: Routledge.
Perkmann M. (1999). Building Governance Institutions Across European Borders. Regional Studies ,
Volume 33, Issue 7, pp. 657-667.
Radek, R. (2011). „Wpływ euroregionalnej współpracy Polski z sąsiadami na początku XXI wieku na
rozwój obszarów transgranicznych.” In: M. Stosunki Polski z sąsiadami w pierwszej dekadzie
XXI wieku, edited by M. Stolarczyk, pp. 329-343). Katowice : Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Śląskiego
Rongxing, G. (2018). Cross-Border Resource Management, Elsevier.
Sohn, C. (2014a). “Modelling Cross-Border Integration: The Role of Borders as a Resource.”
Geopolitics 19 (3): 587–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2014.913029.
Sohn, C., (2014b). “The Border as a Resource in the Global Urban Space: A Contribution to the
Cross-Border Metropolis Hypothesis: The Border as a Resource in the Global Urban Space.”
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38 (5): 1697–1711.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12071.
Sousa, L. (2013). “Understanding European Cross-Border Cooperation: A Framework for Analysis.”
Journal of European Integration 35 (6): 669–87.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2012.711827.
Studzieniecki, T. (2016). The development of cross-border cooperation in an EU macroregion - a case
study of the Baltic Sea Region. Procedia Economics and Finance, vol.39, pp. 235-241.
Studzieniecki, T., Meyer, B. (2017). The programming of tourism development in Polish cross-border
areas during the 2007-2013 period. Conference Proceeding of 6th Central European Conference
in Regional Science (CERS) - Engines of Urban and Regional Development, pp. 506-516.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Studzieniecki, T. Przybylowski, A. (2017). Multilevel governance issues in EU macroregions.
Conference Proceedings of 6th Central European Conference in Regional Science (CERS) -
Engines of Urban and Regional Development, pp. 486-494
Stverkova H., Pohludka M., Kurowska-Pysz J., Szczepańska-Woszczyna K. (2018). Cross-border
enterprepreneurship in euroregion Beskydy. Polish Journal of Management Studies. Vol.1 8,
No.2, pp. 324-336.
Svensson, S. (2015). “The Bordered World of Cross-Border Cooperation: The Determinants of Local
Government Contact Networks within Euroregions.” Regional & Federal Studies 25 (3): 277–
95. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2015.1043995.
Swianiewicz, P. (2020). “Local Government: Progress in Decentralisation.” In Social and Economic
Development in Central and Eastern Europe: Stability and Change after 1990, edited by
Grzegorz Gorzelak, 54–74. London-New York: Routledge.
Telle, S. (2018). Euroregions as Soft Spaces: Between Consolidation and Transformation. European
Spatial Research and Policy, 24(2), 93-110. https://doi.org/10.1515/esrp-2017-0011
Tiganasu, R., Jijie, T., Kourtit, K. (2020). Effectiveness and impact of cross-border cooperation
programmes in the perception of beneficiaries. Investigation of 2007-2013 Romania-Ukraine-
Moldova programmes. Regional Science Policy and Practice, vol. 12 (5): 885-861 . DOI
10.1111/rsp3.12342.
Tkachenko, Y. (2014). Euroregion as A Tool For Sustainable Development of Border Areas: The
European Experience And Ukrainian Features. Visegrad Journal on Bioeconomy and
Sustainable Development, vol. 3, no 2, pp. 58-63.
Topaloglou, L., Kallioras, D., Manetos, P., Petrakos, G. (2005). “A Border Regions Typology in the
Enlarged European Union.” Journal of Borderlands Studies 20 (2): 67–89.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2005.9695644.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Table 1. Projects implemented by partners in the Potential Euroregion Przybuże
Source: own elaboration
Project
Area of
cooperation
Program
Budget
[mln
EUR]
Number
of
partners
Number
of partners
from PEP
Pr. 1 Improvement of the accessibility to
Bialski Poviat and Brest Raion due to
building and reconstructing communication
infrastructure leading to Slawatycze-
Domaczewo border crossing
Infrastructure
PUB 2014-
2020
2,06
2
2
Pr. 2 Education and cooperation - Euroregion
communication security
Education
PUB 2004-
2006
nd
3
2
Pr. 3 Improvement of epidemiological safety
in the Polish-Belarusian border area
Health
PUB 2014-
2020
2,58
2
2
Pr. 4 Development of technology for the
construction of clean and energy efficient
houses with composite filling timber frame
Infrastructure
PUB 2007-
2013
1,98
2
2
Pr. 5 Development of cardiological support
for the Polish population and Belarusian
population within Cross-border Cooperation
Programme Poland - Belarus - Ukraine 2007-
2013
Health
PUB 2007-
2013
4,19
2
2
Pr. 6 Youth of the Border Area: Together For
Security
Safety
PUB 2007-
2013
0,44
5
2
Pr. 7 Improvement in the transport
accessibility in the cities of Brest and Biala
Podlaska
Infrastructure
PUB 2014-
2020
2,49
2
2
Pr. 8 Development of cross-border economic
and educational cooperation between the city
of Biała Podlaska and Brest Oblast
Education
PUB 2000-
2006
-
2
2
Pr. 9 Polish-Belarussian cross-border security.
Strengthening of the potential of fire brigades
and rescue services
Safety
PUB 2014-
2020
4,51
4
2
Pr. 10 Development of cross-border
cooperation in helping people with autism in
the Polish-Belarusian borderlands
Health
PUB 2014-
2020
2,31
2
2
Pr. 11 Creating a cross-platform Biznestrans
promoting and supporting cooperation
between business and academic institutions in
the direction of better links
Economic
Cooperation
PUB 207-
2013
0,16
2
2
Pr. 12 Bicycle route - Traces of the Bug River
Secrets
Tourism
PUB 2007-
2013
0,30
2
2
Pr. 13 Development of technology for the
construction of clean and energy efficient
houses with composite filling timber frame
Infrastructure
PUB 2007-
2013
0,19
2
2
Pr. 14 Building partnerships for the
development of tourism in the Biała Podlaska
– Brest Region
Tourism
PUB PUB
2004-2006
0,11
2
2
Pr. 15 International Festival of East Slavic
Christmas Carols
Culture
PUB 2004-
2006
nd
4
2
Pr. 16 The improvement of work with
Teenagers of Deviant Behaviour
Health
PUB 2007-
2013
nd
3
2
Pr. 17 Improving access to the tourist area
“Zielawa Valley” and partner communities at
the border of Poland, Belarus and Ukraine
Tourism
PUB 2007-
2013
2,64
7
4
Pr. 18 Polish-Belarusian meetings of
borderland cultures
Culture
PUB 2014-
2020
0,06
3
3
Pr. 19 The development of cross-border
cooperation of the Bialski Poviat and Brest
Raion
Social
cooperation
Polish
Ministry of
Foreign
Affairs
0,03
2
2
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Table 2. Partners of projects implemented in the Potential Euroregion Przybuże.
Source: own elaboration
Partner
Location
Status
No. of
projects
PL 1 Bialski Poviat
Biala Podlaska County
Self-government
4
PL 2 Hospital in Biala Podlaska
Biala Podlaska
Public entity
2
PL 3 State School of Higher Education in Biała
Podlaska
Biala Podlaska
Public entity
5
PL 4 Biala Podlaska City
Biala Podlaska
Self-government
2
PL 5 Municipal Headquarters of the State Fire
Service in Biała Podlaska
Biala Podlaska
Public entity
1
PL 6 Association for Assistance to Autistic
Children and Youth and the Youth and Children of
the related disorders "Common World”
Biala Podlaska
Non-government
Organization
1
PL 7 Cultural Centre in Terespol
Terespol
Public entity
1
PL 8 Drelow Commune
Drelow
Self-government
1
PL 9 Rossosz Commune
Rossosz
Self-government
1
PL 10 Wisznice Commune
Wisznice
Self-government
1
PL 11 Sosnówka Commune
Sosnówka
Self-government
1
PL 12 Tuczna Commune
Tuczna
Self-government
1
BY1 The Road Maintenance Company in Brest
Brest
Public entity
2
BY 2 Internal Affairs Board of the Brest Regional
Executive Committee Brest
Brest
Government Unit
1
BY 3 Hospital in Brest
Brest
Public entity
2
BY 4 Brest State Technical University
Brest
Public entity
2
BY 5 Brest Regional Board of the Ministry of
Emergency Situations of the Republic of Belarus
Brest
Government Unit
2
BY 6 Pushkin State University
Brest
Public entity
3
BY 7 Brest City
Brest
Self-government
2
BY 8 Cultural Centre in Brest
Brest
Public entity
1
BY 9 Brest Region
Brest Region
Self-government
2
BY 10 Znamienka (selsavet) [self-government]
Znamienka
(Brest Region)
Self-government
1
BY 11.Klejniki (selsavet)
Klejniki
(Brest Region)
Self-government
1
BY 12 Domaczewo (selsavet)
Domaczewo
(Brest Region
Self-government
1
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Figure 1. Model of Euroregions operating at external EU borders in Poland
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Figure 2. Model for creating a Euroregion
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Figure 3. Euroregion delimitation process
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Figure 4. Stakeholder participation in research work.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Figure 5. Area covered by signatories of the "Przybuże Agreement"
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Figure 6. Partnership grouping in the area of the Potential Euroregion Przybuże
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Figure 7. Cross-border relations in the area of the Potential Euroregion Przybuże
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Figure 8. Optimal area of Euroregion Przybuże
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Figure 9. Optimal structure of Euroregion Przybuże.
