Internal and external borders of the European Union in the light of spatial policy. The case of Poland.

Transcription

1 Tomasz Komornicki Andrzej Miszczuk Faculty of Earth Sciences and Spatial Management Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Lublin Internal and external borders of the European Union in the light of spatial policy. The case of Poland. Abstract With the introduction of the Schengen Treaty, regimes of the internal and external boundaries of the EU were polarized. It has created challenges for the European and national territorial policies and politics. In the paper, as an example, the Polish borders are analysed. Reference is made to the documents on spatial policy at both levels: the European Union (EU Territorial Agenda 2020) and Poland (the New National Spatial Development Concept 2030). The latter document dedicates spatial policy for a new category of near-the-border functional areas. In this paper, the outcome of the research which was carried out at the internal (Polish-Slovak) and external borders of the European Union is presented. The analysis of cross-border interactions with tourism, exports and cooperation agreements is carried out. At the same time, transport infrastructure is studied using the methodologies of time and potential accessibility (international dimension). The summary indicates a strong correlation between transborder interactions, border functions and transport accessibility. The borders with high or full legal permeability are still the spatial barriers due to the low level of transport accessibility. At the same time the socio-economic bilateral interactions are intensified, but frequently geographically shifted from the border areas. Alternative methods of delimitation of the border areas are proposed (as the areas which need the separate intervention). Simultaneously, the situation has become diversified also along the borders with intense re-formalization (the external border of the EU). As a consequence of the 25-year transformation period and the functioning of deficient neighbouring markets, some local economies from the borderland developed an ability to obtain benefits from the vicinity of a firm and impermeable border. The presented discussion leads to the conclusion that the actions addressed to the borderland should be more diversified, which can be identified with territorialisation of development policies advocated at the EU level. 1

2 1. Introduction With the introduction of the Schengen Treaty, regimes of the internal and external boundaries of the EU were polarized. It has created challenges for the European and national territorial policies and politics. In the paper, as an example, the Polish borders are analysed. Reference is made to the documents on spatial policy at both levels: the European Union (EU Territorial Agenda 2020) and Poland (the New National Spatial Development Concept 2030). The aim of this paper is to juxtapose results of the empirical research with provisions of the strategic documents and to formulate, in this context, proposals for new understanding and rules of delimitation of the border areas. The paper presents the outcome of the research which was carried out at the internal (Polish-Slovak border; see Więckowski at al. 2012) and external (Poland s eastern border; cf. Komornicki, Miszczuk 2010) borders of the European Union. The analysis of cross-border interactions with tourism and exports is carried out. At the same time, the transport infrastructure is studied using the methodologies of time and potential accessibility (international dimension). The total opening of borders within the European Union signified de facto elimination of the specific transport infrastructure on the borders (including border crossings, customs terminals etc.; Komornicki 2010). Consequently, potential development of the mutual social and economic relations between the neighbouring states began to be determined by the real crossborder transport infrastructure, understood as tangible existence of roads and railways crossing the frontiers, as well as quality (standard) of these routes (Komornicki 1999). In view of the above-mentioned factors, transport accessibility is a convenient measure of actual permeability of borders. Simultaneously, on the external EU border the function of a barrier has been preserved or even reinforced. The strength of transborder relations still depends there on formal and legal factors. However, such conditions do not have to adversely influence the local economic development. In order to estimate this impact it is helpful to carry out a spatial analysis of the intensity of bilateral social and economic interactions (Komornicki 2003). The paper is based on the results of evaluation projects carried out for the Polish Ministry of Infrastructure and Development (formerly: the Ministry of Regional Development), the results of ESPON projects (primarily ESPON TRACC) and of INFRAREGTUR project implemented by the Polish and Slovak Academies of Sciences within the framework of the European Territorial Cooperation. 2

3 Since the mid-20 th century frontiers have been viewed as spatial barriers. Kolosov (2005) traces the emergence of the functional approach in the research on frontiers to the beginning of the 1950s, when the solely negative impact of frontiers on the development of the adjacent areas was questioned. W. Christaller (1963) already claimed that centres located near stable borders can derive benefits from the development of commerce, storage etc. In the course of time, the line of frontiers ceased to be the main research topic of political geography in Europe, replaced by the functions fulfilled by borders. Frontiers started to be viewed as mobile which resulted in the temporary character of barriers to flows. Their gradual reduction was expected with the progress of spatial integration processes. Frontiers began to be studied from the perspective of various sciences and the research was gradually extended to include whole borderland and cross-border areas (cf. J.Z Garcia 2003). The aim of this paper is also to demonstrate that the new perception of borders is significant in the context of development policies of the spatial character. 2. Spatial policies documents 2.1.European level In May 2011 in Gödöllő, during an informal meeting of ministers competent in spatial planning and territorial development in EU member states, a document entitled: Territorial Agenda 2020 was approved. The factual basis for the Agenda was a study: Territorial State and Perspectives (Damsgaard et al. 2011) prepared by a panel of experts convened by the Hungarian Presidency. This basic document was a detailed study on the most current issues of the spatial (geographical) character. Continuing the work on the territorial dimension of development policies, in the 2 nd half of 2011 the Polish Presidency of the EU prepared a document concerning reinforcement of the territorial dimension in the European cohesion policy (Boheme et al. 2011; Zaucha et al. in 2014). It was a continuation of the Agenda s provisions and its purpose was also territorialisation of Europe 2020 Strategy adopted at the same time. The Territorial Agenda 2020 specified challenges for the territorial development of the European Union. A detailed description of these challenges was included in the abovementioned basic document: Territorial State and Perspectives. The statements contained in this document are largely based on results of the spatial research. A significant part of it was conducted within the ESPON programme ( In the context of transborder relations, the following challenges have been identified: 3

4 Increased exposure to globalisation: structural changes after the global economic crisis; Challenges of the EU integration and the growing interdependence of regions (EU Territorial Agenda 2020, of 2011). Unlike other documents (EU Territorial Agenda 2007), EU Territorial Agenda 2020 looks at the growing interdependence of regions, including interdependence in the local (transborder) dimension, from the angle of potential threats to local development. On the basis of the above-mentioned challenges and as a result of consultation between the team preparing the Agenda and their governments, six territorial priorities for the development of the European Union have been identified: 1. Promoting polycentric and balanced territorial development; 2. Encouraging integrated development in cities, rural and specific regions; 3. Territorial integration in cross border and transnational functional regions; 4. Ensuring global competitiveness of the regions based on strong local economies; 5. Improving territorial connectivity for individuals, communities and enterprises; 6. Managing and connecting ecological, landscape and cultural values of regions. From the perspective of cross-border relations, it seems that three of these priorities are especially significant: directly referring to integration in transnational functional regions (Priority 3), improving territorial connectivity (transport dimension, Priority 5) and ensuring global competitiveness of the regions (Priority 4). Introduction of the territorial cohesion to the Treaty of Lisbon (as the third dimension, apart from the economic and social cohesion) became a guideline to search for the basis of the local development in endogeneous resources. These resources include also specific features of geographical position, sometimes also the borderland location. Hence, the borderland needs not be equivalent to peripherality and even less so to troublesomeness of some areas. Such an attitude is a prerequisite to looking for new indicators describing the situation of local economies and evaluating strength and character of transborder relations. This is consistent with the principles of the place-based policy (Barca 2009) and the stipulation to strengthen the territorial dimensions of the sectoral policies (Camagni 2011). It entails, for instance, shifting the main emphasis of the investment policy in road transport from trans-european networks towards internal connections within a country and secondary road networks. In the TSP, the focus is on various effects of particular investments (measured by spatial accessibility) from the European, national and regional perspectives. In the Base Report of the Polish Presidency (Bohme et al. 2011) it is suggested that different positions of 4

5 particular regions regarding their accessibility at the European and national level should determine the extent and character of potential support within the community policy. 2.2.National level Currently, the basic document shaping the Polish spatial policy is the new National Spatial Development Concept 2030 (NSDC 2030), approved by the government in December The Concept specifies the following 6 objectives: 1. To improve the competitiveness of Poland s major urban centres in the European context through functional integration while preserving the pro-cohesive polycentric settlement structure. 2. To enhance internal cohesion and balance the territorial development of the country across regions by promoting functional integration, creating conditions for spreading of development factors, multifunctional development of rural areas and using the internal potentials of all territories. 3. To improve Poland s connectivity in different dimensions by developing transport and telecommunications infrastructure. 4. To develop spatial structures supporting the achievement and preservation of Poland s high quality natural environment and landscape. 5. To enhance spatial structure s resistance to natural disasters and loss of energy security, and to develop spatial structures supporting national defence capabilities. 6. To restore and consolidate spatial order. From the point of view of transborder relations, the complementary objectives 2 and 3 are especially important. Moreover, objective 1 has some significance, as well, because large infrastructural investments crossing the frontiers improve also the accessibility of the borderland. Furthermore, its should be noticed that (in contrast to earlier documents) the NSDC 2030 uses a different approach to the development of main elements of the transport network. The emphasis on international connections of the continental character is replaced in the document with strong reinforcement of investments joining main national centres (mutual daily accessibility) and actions aimed at improvement in accessibility of peripheral areas (including borderland). In the international dimension, there is a marked preference for development of connections with Germany and the Czech Republic (in comparison to other neighbouring states). 5

6 One of the tools for accomplishment of the Concept s objectives is indication which types of functional areas require a different spatial policy or a policy mix. Along with many other types of functional areas, the NSDC 2030 distinguishes the functional areas that require restructuring and development of new functions with the use of regional policy instruments (Figure 1). Those are the areas where socio-economic problems accumulate, raising a barrier to the achievement of spatial cohesion of the country. One of the categories distinguished in this group is the borderland. According to the NSDC 2030, it is necessary to pursue a different policy in the areas bordering the EU states (the Schengen Area, the German, Czech, Slovak and Lithuanian borderland). Figure 1 Areas where restructuring and development of new functions is necessary, according to the NSDC 2030 Source: NSDC

7 2.3.Regional level A policy towards borderland and transborder relations is also pursued at the regional level. In this case, documents shaping the spatial policy are: strategies for development of particular provinces and their spatial development plans. The new, modified and consistent with the EU documents approach to the regional strategic planning for the years provides for in line with the concentration principle identification (within the development strategy) of goals, directions, objects and indicators of intervention towards geographically distinguished areas within a province. Furthermore, the spatial development plan of a province takes into account the principles of the regional development strategy, e.g. as regards delimitation of problem areas and rules of their management. The problem areas which require support are frequently borderlands, especially located along frontiers of low permeability. The approach generally occurring in the above-mentioned documents prepared at the regional level is delimitation of border areas and definition of the intervention scope from the Polish perspective only, without proper coordination with actions implemented in the regions on the other side of the frontier. A pioneering example of abandoning such at attitude is the Strategy of the Cross-Border Cooperation among Lublin Province, Volyn Oblast, Lviv Oblast and Brest Oblast for , compiled in on the initiative of the Local Government of Lublin Province. The Strategy was created with the support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland, as part of the project: Building Partnerships for the Development of a Cross-Border Strategy for The Strategy covers 4 regional units (Figure 2) and focuses on the following actions: creation of positive conditions for the development of entrepreneurship and investment by foreign capital, strengthening of natural and cultural potential and its use for the development of tourism, support for actions aimed at improvement of external and internal communication accessibility, building of knowledge-based economy by promoting cooperation between universities and scientific institutions in the area of research and education. Innovation of the Strategy of the Cross-Border Cooperation among Lublin Province, Volyn Oblast, Lviv Oblast and Brest Oblast for lies e.g. in the fact that this project was prepared by a panel of Polish, Ukrainian and Belorussian experts, and after social 7

8 consultation it was approved by the local authorities of the four regions: Lublin Province in Poland, Volyn Oblast and Lviv Oblast in Ukraine and Brest Oblast in Belarus. The Annex to the Strategy contains the most important recommended projects whose main (but not the only) source of financing will be the Cross-Border Cooperation Programme Poland-Belarus- Ukraine Figure 2 Area covered by the Strategy of the Cross-Border Cooperation Source: Strategy of the Cross-Border Cooperation among Lublin Province, Volyn Oblast, Lviv Oblast and Brest Oblast for , Lublin The case of the Polish eastern border transborder relations analysis 3.1.Economic relations Economic relations with the neighbouring states are analysed as the strength of interaction between local economies and Russia, Belarus and Ukraine treated as a whole (Komornicki, Szejgiec 2011; Komornicki, Miszczuk 2010, Komornicki, Miszczuk 2011). Figure 3 presents the total share of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine in exports from particular regions in the years 2005, 2007, In some regions located near the border, this share is noticeably higher than deep inside the country. This refers particularly to the regions bordering Ukraine and Belarus. 8

9 Figure 3 Total share of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine in exports from particular regions (2005, 2007, 2009) Source: Komornicki, Szejgiec 2011 The scope of the above-mentioned regions is narrowing. This process was visible already in as an effect of Poland s accession to the European Union and the resulting increased exchange between the eastern regions and the EU partners (especially Germany). The study of the total exports to eastern neighbouring states confirms the thesis that the role of the borderland location as a factor stimulating intense economic relations is decreasing. Therefore, it can be claimed that in the circumstances of the economic crisis and downturn (covering also market squares) only single regions maintained their position of re-exporters to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. Nevertheless, the share of these three partners is, as it has already been mentioned, visibly higher in eastern Poland than in other regions of the country. Nevertheless, this is a level of 10-15% of the total exports value vs. 1-5% in western Poland. 9

10 Another approach to the same issue is demonstrated in Figure 4. It presents the regions in which at least one of the three eastern partners has the third (or upper) place among the biggest markets for a particular region. It can be assumed, in simplification, that these are the regions benefitting from the location on or nearby the eastern border. Such regions are sometimes concentrated around transport corridors leading to the frontier (e.g. Via Baltica corridor). Location of the regions benefitting from the borderland position as regards registered trade relations refers to distribution of border crossings functioning already in the first half of the 1990s. Therefore, it has been conditioned by historical and infrastructural factors. At that time, the development of market relations stimulated economic activity in retail trade (and also small production in south-eastern Poland), which in the course of time started functioning also as official exchange. Figure 4 Location of the regions in which one of the eastern partners (Russia, Belarus, Ukraine) is one of the three largest markets for exports Source: Komornicki, Miszczuk Social relations The study of the incoming tourism from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus was carried out on the basis of data of the Central Statistical Office of Poland regarding accommodation for 10

11 foreigners according to regions and nationality of tourists. The share of the eastern Poland in the total foreign incoming and registered tourist movement is slight. In Poland, tourist movement is concentrated in Warsaw, Cracow, western Pomerania and the Sudetes. This is exemplified by distribution of accommodation of Ukrainian tourists. It indicates that the bilateral interactions are the most intense in the biggest Polish cities, firstly in Warsaw and Cracow, and secondly in Wrocław and Gdańsk. Furthermore, a significant number of Ukrainian tourists travel in transit along the routes: Dorohusk-Warsaw-Poznań-Berlin and Przemyśl-Cracow-Wrocław-Drezno (with a branch to Cieszyn; Figure 5). Figure 5. Accommodation provided for citizens of Ukraine in 2010 Source: Komornicki, Miszczuk 2011 At the same time, the whole area of Podkarpackie Province and Lublin Province is characterised by a very high share of Ukrainians among foreigners staying overnight. It results mostly from the low level of development of international tourism in this area. A relatively higher amount (and a share) of accommodation provided to Ukrainians is visible also in the areas along the border with Germany (especially in Lubuskie Province), which is most probably an effect of using the last opportunity of cheap accommodation in transit journeys. 11

12 4. The case of Polish-Slovak border accessibility analysis In literature on the subject, spatial accessibility is defined in various ways. In this context, four basic methodological approaches can be distinguished (detailed descriptions can be found in the work: Komornicki et al 2010): Accessibility understood as the density of infrastructure network and/or public transport network in relation to measures of space or population (traditional approach). Time (cost) accessibility manifested in time (minutes) or economic distance to particular centres (network nodes); presented most frequently by isochrone maps or tables showing accumulation of potential (demographic or economic) within a given isochrone. Daily accessibility, demonstrating possibility of a return journey to a given destination (or destinations) within one day; taking into account both infrastructural capacity and organisation of public transport. Potential accessibility (methodological basis e.g.: Holl, 2007; Spiekermann et al., 2013, Gutierrez, 2011; Stępniak and Rosik, 2013) showing a sum of relations between all elements (centres, regions) of the examined group, by means of a synthetic indicator, taking into account length of a journey and significance (attractiveness) of a given unit in the system (demographic, economic or other potential). The paper uses the analyses of time and potential accessibility, with focus on accessibility in road transport. This results from objective factors (dominance of this branch in transport) and technical factors. The Polish-Slovak borderland is located on the outskirts of the EU. Value of the potential accessibility indicator examined in the ESPON system at the level of NUTS3 is low for the units located on both sides of the frontier. In the paper it is assumed that time (isochrone) accessibility of the Polish-Slovak borderland is identical as accessibility of the bilateral frontier itself (Figure 6). If the road network is evenly distributed over the whole examined area, isochrones should have the shape of an ellipse, arranged latitudinally. Deviations from such pattern indicate that some areas have better infrastructure or otherwise some of them are particularly disadvantaged in this respect. In view of the adopted principles, high density on the eastern side of the examined area results from a strong spatial barrier which is the frontier 12

13 of Poland and Slovakia with Ukraine. Furthermore, in the direct vicinity of the Polish-Slovak borderland the system of isochrones is partly disturbed by orographic factors. The areas with better accessibility of the borderland can be provisionally called access channels. They are noticeable especially to the west of the studied area. The four channels are definitely the most conspicuous: of Bratislava, Prague, Wrocław and Łódź. In general, differences in the duration of a journey to the bilateral frontier from the north and the south are slight. However, taking into account the aforementioned orographic system, it means that the infrastructure on the Slovak side is relatively better. In particular, it is noticeable that there are no external access channels in the direction of Warsaw and Budapest, the largest metropolises, apart from Vienna, located at a distance smaller than 500 km from the discussed area. Figure 6. Isochrones of access to the Polish-Slovak border Source: Więckowski et al, 2012, Więckowski et al,

14 Distribution of short-term potential accessibility is determined by the location relative to big urban centres, especially the Upper Silesian conurbation and Cracow, and in a lesser degree also Bratislava. Thus, the highest level of the indicator is noted in the western part of the Polish side of the borderland. The values decrease towards the east and the south. In the central part of the discussed area (broadly understood Tatra Mountains region) the value of the indicator is considerably higher on the Polish side and relatively very low on the Slovak side. This proves that the Slovak sub-tatra region remains less attractive to weekend tourists from the largest cities of southern Poland, due to limited transport accessibility. The whole eastern part of the examined region does not have in practice any transport conditions for the development of short-term tourism. The presented differences in potential accessibility within the discussed area remain visible, even though in a significantly alleviated form, also in case of medium-term tourism (Więckowski et al, 2012). Figure 7. Change in potential accessibility as a result of road investments planned in the Polish-Slovak borderland until Source: Więckowski et al, 2012, Więckowski et al, 2014 The analyses carried out reveal a strong influence of potentially implemented road investments on accessibility indicators in the borderland. Figure 7 presents changes in potential accessibility on both sides of the border resulting from possible implementation of currently planned road investments. Therefore, it can be noticed that in the conditions of a 14

15 fully permeable border, investments in one country strongly influence accessibility of areas in the neighbouring country. In this context, transborder area can be viewed as a zone. Bilateral permeability is not determined by formal factors and even not by a number of roads crossing the frontier. The key issue here is the whole transport system functioning in both neighbouring states and its mutual integration (including coordination of long-term plans). 5. How to delimit border areas? As it has already been mentioned, the New National Spatial Development Concept 2030 distinguishes border areas located at internal and external frontiers of the EU. It points out disadvantages of their development. In fact, as it has been demonstrated above, the problem of delimitation is complex, because borderland location brings both chances and threats to development. Therefore, the starting point for the analysis was delimitation of the areas located along the borders, and then elimination from this group the units whose situation is favourable due to benefits resulting from the borderland location or from good external accessibility. The issue to discuss is adoption of an appropriate delimitation unit. There were preliminary tests of communes / gminas (two layers communes adjacent to the frontier and neighbouring communes), and districts (counties; one layer). It was considered that delimitation on the gminas level was more appropriate owing to more regular line of the internal boundary of the borderland. Furthermore, in reality the problems connected with the borderland location frequently affect not only the units in the direct vicinity of the border. Their determinant is rather asymmetry of the broadly understood social and economic base. The designated set excludes communes located within the isochrone of a 45-minute journey by road transport to the nearest capital of a province (18 centres). It has been assumed that disadvantages of the borderland location are counterbalanced by good access to bigger labour markets. Location within 60- and 45-minute isochrones was tested (Figure 8). In literature, the former isochrone is frequently identified with the scope of the labour market. Nevertheless, the 45-minute criterion was finally selected. This resulted from the situation in western Poland where a significant part of the borderland lies within the 60-minute distance from one of the major cities of Lubuskie Province which are not huge labour markets. As a consequence, only a couple of units in the regions of Szczecin, Białystok and Opole were eliminated. However, it has also been decided that towns with the population exceeding , situated within the originally designated border area should be eliminated as well (due to their own development potential counterbalancing negative impact of the border). 15

16 Accordingly, eight centres were eliminated (Suwałki, Biała Podlaska, Chełm, Przemyśl, Jastrzębie Zdrój, Wałbrzych, Jelenia Góra, Szczecin) Figure 8 Time of a journey to regional capital cities (2012) Minutes > 60 (1208) (542) < 45 (728) Source: compiled by the author on the basis of data of the Institute of Geography and Spatial Organisation of the Polish Academy of Sciences, cooperation: Marcin Stępniak In the following stage, communes located in districts with relatively high value of exports to the neighbouring state were eliminated from the group. It has been considered that these units rather benefit than lose from their borderland location. Moreover, it has been assumed that a boundary value of these benefits must be different on the internal and external border of the EU. The levels of 250, 500 and 1000 USD per 1 inhabitant of a region were tested (Figure 9). In the case of regions bordering two countries, export to both states was taken into account. On the basis of the spatial picture compiled, the following boundary conditions of elimination can be suggested: External EU border 500 USD per 1 inhabitant Internal EU border 1000 USD per 1 inhabitant 16

17 Figure 9 Districts involved in intensive trade cooperation with a neighbouring state (2009) Exports per capita to the neighbouring country USD over 100 (5) 500 to (12) 250 to 500 (6) below 250 (43) Source: prepared by the author on the basis of data of the Central Statistical Office, cooperation: P. Silka According to this principle, borderland communes from seven districts were eliminated. The resultant arrangement is presented in Figure 10. The areas marked with red colour are the border areas which possibly require support from the regional policy. Units marked with yellow are border areas in the purely geographical sense, with benefits resulting from good spatial accessibility or economic relations with the neighbouring state. Figure 10 Final proposition of borderland delimitation. 17

18 Source: own elaboration 6. Conclusions Summing up, it should be claimed that the situation of the border areas in the European Union and in new member states undergoes transformation caused by geopolitical, economic and infrastructural factors. The presented results of the research confirm polarization in this respect. This is a consequence of polarization of border regimes which occurred when most states of the Central and Eastern Europe joined the Schengen Area. Polarization has been noticed in the spatial policy both at the EU level and the national level. Nevertheless, borderland is still predominantly perceived in the following two basic contexts: As peripheral and problem areas (in accordance with the concept: core-peripheries), requiring support from the traditionally understood regional policy (transfer of funds); As a subject of transborder cooperation, frequently supported due to political reasons, not always reflected in real actions (including investment). At the same time, according to the transport policy at the EU level and at the national level, borderland is perceived mainly from the perspective of large infrastructure investments (trans- European networks). However, reality proves to be more complicated. The permeable frontiers (within the Schengen Area) assume again the character of a zone (similarly to classical frontiers). With the disappearance of the formal and legal barriers, mutual relations are again frequently shaped by the infrastructural barriers or even by the physical and geographical barriers. 18

19 Investments on both sides of the border affect each other. They may even determine the basis of local economy development in the neighbouring country. Simultaneously, the situation becomes diversified also along the borders with intense reformalization (external border of the EU). As a consequence of the 25-year transformation period and the functioning of deficient neighbouring markets, some local economies from the borderland developed an ability to obtain benefits from the vicinity of a firm and impermeable border. In the conditions of instability in the Eastern Europe, these are the economies strongly exposed to geopolitical risk. The presented discussion leads to the conclusion that the actions addressed to the borderland should be more diversified, which can be identified with the territorialisation of development policies advocated at the EU level. Moreover, the sectoral policies should also be territorialised (e.g. transport policy), both at the national and cross-border level. In the sphere of political geography, we certainly need a more flexible approach to evaluation of cross-border barriers and to delimitation of border regions. In the latter case, these cannot be only administrative criteria or social and economic measures. Instead, the convenient tools are: indicators of spatial interactions, including cross-border ones (at the local level), accessibility measures as tools for delimitation and later evaluation of development policies in the transborder dimension. Bibliography Barca F., 2009, An agenda for a reformed Cohesion Policy. A place-based approach to Meeting European Union Challenges and Expectations. Independent Report prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, Commissioner for Regional Policy. Available at Böhme, K.,.Doucet, P., Komornicki, T., Zaucha, J., Świątek, D., How to strenghten the territorial dimension of Europe 2020 and the EU Cohesion Policy. Report based on the Territorial Agenda 2020, Poland: Ministry of Regional Development, Warsaw. Camagni, R. (2011) Local knowledge, national vision: challenge and prospect for the EU regional policy. in: Territorial Dimension of Development Policies, Warsaw: Ministry of Regional Development, pp Christaller W., 1963, Ośrodki centralne w południowych Niemczech (Central places of Southern Germany; Polish translation), PZLG, 1, IG PAN, pp Damsgaard O., Doucet P., Drahos Z., Gere L., Illés I., Jetmar M., Komornicki T., Lopez I., Péti M., Prokai R., Radvánszki Á., Ricz J., Salamin G., Schmidt-Seiwert V., Schön P., Somfai Á., Sütő A., Tomay K., Vanautgaerden L., Zaucha J., 2011, The Territorial State and Perspectives of the European Union update. Background document for the Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020, Vati, Budapest; 90 p. 19

20 Garcia J.Z., 2003, Directions in border research: an overview, The social science journal 40 (2003) Gutiérrez, J., Condeço-Melhorado, A., López, E., Monzón, A., Evaluating the European added value of TEN-T projects: a methodological proposal based on spatial spillovers, accessibility and GIS. Journal of Transport Geography 19, Holl, A., Twenty years of accessibility improvements. The case of the Spanish motorway building programme. Journal of Transport Geography 15, Kolosov. V., 2005, Border studies: Changing perspectives and theoretical approaches; Geopolitics 10: pp Komornicki T., 1999, Granice Polski. Analiza zmian przenikalności w latach (Boundaries of Poland. Analysis of changes in permeability in the years ; in Polish), Geopolitical Studies vol. 5, IGiPZ PAN, Warszawa Komornicki T., 2003, Przestrzenne zróżnicowanie międzynarodowych powiązań społeczno-gospodarczych w Polsce (Spatial differentiation of international socioeconomic connections in Poland; in Polish), Prace Geograficzne, 190, IGiPZ PAN, Warszawa, 255 pp. Komornicki T., 2010, Transborder transport, w: A dictionary of transport analysis (Ed. K.Button, H.Vega, P.Nijkamp), Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, Northampton Komornicki T., Miszczuk A., 2010, Eastern Poland as the borderland of the European Union, Questiones Geographicae 29 (2), ed. P. Churski, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań, pp Komornicki T., Miszczuk A., 2011, Transgraniczne powiązania województw Polski wschodniej (Transborder linkages of Eastern Poland regions), report for the Ministry of Regional Development, Warszawa Komornicki T., Szejgiec B., 2011, Handel zagraniczny znaczenie dla gospodarki Polski wschodniej (Foreign trade the role in Eastern Poland economy), report for the Ministry of Regional Development, Warszawa Komornicki T., Śleszyński P., Rosik P., Pomianowski W., 2010, Dostępność przestrzenna jako przesłanka kształtowania polskiej polityki transportowej (Spatial Accessibility as a Background for Polish Transport Policy), Biuletyn KPZK 241, Komitet Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju PAN, 167 p., Warszawa, NSDC, National Spatial Development Concept Poland: Ministry of Regional Development, Warsaw. Spiekermann, K., Wegener, M., Květoň, V., Marada, M., Schürmann, C., Biosca, O., Ulied Segui, A., Antikainen, H., Kotavaara, O., Rusanen, J., Bielańska, D., Fiorello, D., Komornicki, T., Rosik, P., Stępniak, M., TRACC Transport Accessibility at Regional/Local Scale and Patterns in Europe. Draft Final Report. ESPON Applied Research. Stępniak, M., Rosik, P., Accessibility improvement, territorial cohesion and spillovers: a multidimensional evaluation of two motorway sections in Poland. Journal of Transport Geography 31, Strategia Współpracy Transgranicznej Województwa Lubelskiego, Obwodu Wołyńskiego, Obwodu Lwowskiego i Obwodu Brzeskiego na lata , Lublin TA, Territorial Agenda of the European Union: Towards a More Competitive Europe of Diverse Regions (Agreed upon on the occasion of the Informal Ministerial Meeting on Urban Development and Territorial Cohesion in Leipzig on 24/ 25 May 2007). 20

21 TA, Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020 Towards an Inclusive, Smart and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions (Agreed at the Informal Ministerial Meeting of Ministers Responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development on 19th May 2011, Hungary: Gödöllő). Więckowski M., Michniak D., Bednarek-Szczepańska M., Chrenka B., Ira V., Komornicki T., Rosik P., Stępniak M., Székely V., Śleszyński P., Świątek D., Wiśniewski R., Road accessibility to tourist destinations of the Polish-Slovak borderland: prediction and planning. Geographia Polonica 87 (1), Więckowski Marek, Michniak Daniel, Bednarek-Szczepańska Maria, Chrenka Branislav, Ira Vladimir, Komornicki Tomasz, Rosik Piotr, Stępniak Marcin, Szekely Vladimir, Śleszyński Przemysław, Świątek Dariusz, Wiśniewski Rafał: Polish-Slovak borderland transport accessibility and tourism. Warszawa: PAN IGiPZ, p. Prace Geograficzne IGiPZ PAN; 234 Zaucha, J., Komornicki, T., Świątek, D., Böhme, K., Żuber, P., Territorial keys for bringing closer the Territorial Agenda of the EU and Europe European Planning Studies 22(2),