Despite decades of European financial stimulation for cross-border projects, the attention for cross-border cooperation (CBC) is still volatile. The focus on CBC has been fluctuating for decades, depending on political and economic trends among other aspects. Irrespective of that, it remains difficult to encourage citizens in the Dutch-German borderland to engage in cross-border working and living. Without commitment among citizens at grassroots level, CBC will primarily remain an enjoyable pastime for the euroregional elite. Based on scientific debates on border studies, this paper highlights CBC by reflecting on border-related policy. By way of illustration, this research will zoom in on the northern Meuse-Rhine Euroregion, one of the Dutch-German Euroregions. Based on some contemplations on Dutch-German cooperation in recent decades, this article concludes with some action-oriented principles for CBC which could contribute to strengthening its impact.
Palabras clave:
Cross-border cooperation, Borderland, Cross-border policies and guidelines
Pijnenburg: Contemplations on and practical guidelines for cooperation in the Dutch-German borderland
1. INTRODUCTION
The years 2020 and 2021 explicitly highlighted the challenges associated with cross-border
cooperation (hereafter: CBC). The will among public authorities for CBC is present,
but the cooperation cannot yet sufficiently prevent citizens from being hindered by
the effects of their proximity to the national border. This became evident for example
during Covid19 in many European borderlands. One of these borderland is the Dutch-German
borderland. An area characterised by decades of strong tradition in cross-border cooperation
and lively border dynamics. Here Covid19 clearly highlighted the dichotomy between
two very different narratives: that of citizens at grassroots level on the one hand
and that of the euroregional network on the other hand. Or, to put it another way,
an unpredictable daily reality at the border versus good but often insufficiently
forceful intentions to prevent citizens from the barrier effect of the border.
In one narrative, citizens and companies experienced in recent years the negative
consequences of living and conducting business in the borderland. Due to Covid19,
their daily urban system was split into two different realities at times, due to the
differences in legislation, policy and measures enforced by the different member states
of the European Union. In addition, systematic monitoring of Covid19-related data
often tailed off completely at national borders (), which resulted in crossing the border becoming an even greater barrier. Furthermore,
unambiguous communication in the border regions generally left much to be desired,
making it difficult for example for tourists, students and employees to find out what
measures were in force in places just a few kilometres away from their homes. From
a consumer perspective, at moments, crossing the border to go shopping was made nearly
impossible, even for those who normally do their daily shopping in a supermarket or
pharmacy on the other side of the border.
Also, retailers in the border region that rely heavily on consumers from the neighbouring
country were hit particularly hard by this dissuasion policy designed to prevent cross-border
movement. While food retail benefited massively from the lockdowns, this was not the
case for food retailers targeting consumers from the neighbouring country. And finally,
a recent study by the shows that little consideration was given to the border regions when rolling out national
measures to keep the coronavirus under control. As a result, entrepreneurs who work
in one country and live across the border in a neighbouring country were not eligible
for compensation in some cases, for example, the temporary financial support arrangement
for entrepreneurs.
The other narrative is that of the existing euroregional network, which is primarily
made up of administrators, politicians and government bodies. A network that sustains
itself through mutual congratulation. Something which is perfectly understandable
in view of the exemplary role that administrators and other public figures have in
fostering and facilitating CBC. However, the way the network fulsomely praised the
excellent coordination between the neighbouring countries during the Covid19 crisis
was rather questionable, especially for those who, during covid19, are particularly
affected by the lack of bi-national coordination (). Besides, there is no doubt that cooperation has also led to success, for example,
in making hospital beds available to patients from across the border.
It is true that a positive message is what citizens and above all the euroregional
network needs in order to keep people aware of opportunities across borders. However,
in times of crisis, it is precisely the proper management of negative effects that
should be given priority. Nonetheless, many citizens and entrepreneurs suffered from
the lack of adequate CBC. In most cases, the national administrations on each side
of the border only took action when citizens and entrepreneurs had already been subjected
to extreme duress.
Covid19 has clearly shown that CBC is anything but self-evident along Europe’s internal
borders. Years of step-by-step policies towards more intensive CBC have suddenly been
shattered by an unexpected crisis. On top of that, according to recent research by
, border regions are less resilient and actually more vulnerable to sudden economic
shocks like that caused by the Covid19 pandemic than more inland regions, which in
turn is partly caused by the proximity of the national border (). This once more demonstrates the importance of CBC, both for shock prevention and
shock response.
The above findings concern only a few indicators that reveal something about the impact
of CBC. Nevertheless, these indicators show that the cooperation seems to be not robust
enough in times of crisis. There is a serious chance that crises such as Covid19 would
have lesser impact if CBC would be more intensive. That CBC can have an impact on
for example the agglomeration force and resilience of the cross-border region, has
already been demonstrated in several studies (; ; ). Despite the fact that governments on both sides of the border are increasingly
developing policies aimed at CBC, which is evidenced by, among other things, the Dutch
government's 'Regio Deals’, the unprecedented opportunities of CBC remain mere words, confined to policy papers.
This paper aims to present a bird’s eye view on cooperation in the Dutch-German borderland
in recent decades. The observation that Covid19 has shown that CBC along the Dutch-German
border still has a long way to go before citizens are capable in optimally using the
opportunities a border context is providing them, calls for a perspective on the cooperation
as it is today, and at the same time for practice oriented guidelines for action in
order to improve and enhance the robustness the cooperation. The purpose of this study
is not to examine the effectiveness of different cross-border policy instruments like
the European Union's financing tool INTERREG, but to identify a number of principles
for cross-border cooperation for the future. The formulation and implementation of
such principles is a step that precedes the development of policy instruments.
2. THEORY AND METHODOLOGY
Action research in the Dutch-German borderland
This study, from a methodological perspective, is characterised by a mixed methods
approach. The most common quantitative and qualitative data collection methods have
been used: statistical data and document analysis, interviews and observations and.
The data collection has been an ongoing process in 2020 and 2021 of exploring the
Dutch-German border landscape. It can be seen as an itinerary, a series of actions
and activities implemented to engage stakeholders and civil society in cross-border
cooperation. Interviews were conducted with representatives from government, business,
politics and education from both sides of the border. In addition, several workshops
and webinars were attended for observational purposes.
The border between Germany and the Netherlands has been a fairly stable area for the
last 200 years and, as a border between two members of the Schengen Agreement, it
is also largely barrier-free. Physically crossing the border is unimpeded by any obstacles.
Though, the border is more than just a line on the map and still affects our mind-sets
and habitual approach to daily life and work, which are coloured by a primarily inland-oriented
focus. This is one of the reasons why CBC remains necessary.
The Dutch-German borderland is characterised by the presence of several euroregions.
This study focuses on the Dutch-German Venlo – Lower Rhine region (Figure 1). This area is located primarily within the territory of the long-standing public
body – founded in 1978 – ‘euroregion rhine-meuse-north’. The euroregion rhine-meuse-north
(henceforth: euroregion), as one of the four binational cross-border regions along
the Dutch-German border, can be spatially classified (), from a European perspective, as a polycentric in-between border region amidst three
metropolitan core areas, i.e. the Randstad, the Ruhr Area and the Flemish Diamond.
Since the borderscape is a flexible concept, it is not possible to frame a cross-border
relational space in one spatial grammar, that of territory. Using the term euroregion,
is solely intended to be able to make it workable as a subject of study.
The euroregion under study forms an important logistical-economic connection between
the ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam and the European hinterland. The economic composition
of the region is fairly unambiguous on both sides of the border: agri-food, manufacturing
and logistics are the three most strongly represented economic sectors (). In addition, from a cross-border mobility perspective, there is a strong cross-border
dynamic in the areas of tourism and retail. A study by shows that Germans spend 691 million euros annually in the Province of Limburg, the
area that includes the Dutch part of the euroregion, for daily shopping and recreational
purposes.
Much has been written about borders and CBC in recent decades. Before we look at ways
to improve border policy, we need to understand how the meaning of borders has been
changed over time. This helps us to understand on the one hand the complex and multifunctional
character of borders and dynamics in borderlands and on the other hand how cross-border
policies and actions changed over time.
Borders are complex, ambiguous and ambivalent phenomena. When we look at the literature
on borders, we see that the study of borders has moved from a prevalent concern with
formal state borders to the study of borders at diverse socio-spatial and geographical
scales (). Today, within border studies scholars are more interested in the way that borders
are socially constructed and managed as well as by how they impact our daily practices
in the transition spaces and borderlands that are in a constant state of flux (). It is people who give meaning to the border and their actions are influenced by
national regulations and legislation, among other aspects. The meaning of the border
is therefore highly subjective and diverse, and as such associated with a low level
of certainty. For demonstration, Covid19 shows that the function of the border can
change rapidly, from an invisible, open border to an equally invisible, yet more closed
border. At present, nobody knows whether such unforeseen incidents will lead to structural
changes in cross-border mobility. As a result, actors, be they retailers, educational
institutions or consumers, have to deal with a high degree of uncertainty.
Before 1950, in fact, border regions were viewed as buffer zones that helped to protect
the nation from invasion. Borders and border regions functioned as territorial demarcations,
as lines of spatial distinction whose function was to safeguard state sovereignty.
In the decades after WWII the interest in border studies declined due to the focus
on states and its institutions. Borders were relevant to this line of inquiry only
to the extent that they separated one government’s economic policies from those of
neighbouring states.
It was only in the early 1960s that border studies began to focus on the functional
characteristics of borders and the ease with which they could be crossed and enable
trans-boundary contact (). From the 1970s to the 1990s border practices were characterized by processes such
as globalization and the emergence of new spatial entities: cross-border regions.
The emergence of cross-border regions in Europe includes but is not limited to what
has become known as ‘euroregions’: territorially delimited entities characterized
by the presence of national borders cutting through them. During the 1980s and 1990s,
border studies dedicated a great deal of attention to the analysis of transboundary
cooperation and functionality of cross-border regions (; ; ).
Especially the early 1990s, according to, marked a period of extraordinary geopolitical change. Borders were characterized
by their increasing openness partly as consequence of the EU’s enlargement, the end
of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union; and the fall of the Iron Curtain
(). As stated: “Borders rapidly became highly important during the 1990s, in the wake of
the end of the Cold War’s dividing line between the capitalist and socialist blocks,
the rise of many new states from the ruins of the former socialist states, the awakening
of old nations and ethnic groups, and the acceleration of globalization”.
As the European Community was taking shape and cross-border regions were multiplying,
the geographical research community started a debate about CBC (). This phenomenon has been related to economic and regional geographic studies and
linked to concepts such as clusters, districts, networks, trust, transaction costs
and learning (). The launch of the Community Initiative INTERREG gave a boost to CBC, which had
been previously dominated by sporadic, bottom-up initiatives (). The INTERREG funding regime acted as a catalyst for cross-border institution-building,
often in the form of euroregions. However, recent academic studies have tended to
criticise its project-driven culture, excessive bureaucracy and vanished spontaneity
().
The development of ‘fenced’ borders and more restricted regimes to enter territories
are processes of re-bordering (). These measures are a geopolitical response that uses the closure of borders as
a safety mechanism against threats from beyond. An increased border securitization
has followed the ‘war on terror’, economic protectionism, and anti-immigration sentiments
().
In recent decades border studies have grown interested in multi-disciplinary approaches
and concepts such as cross-border regions, cross-border metropolises, borderlands
and borderscapes. Whereas the border region was previously conceptualized as a European
laboratory for development (), the current academic debate conceives borderlands, border landscapes and borderscapes
as central spatial concepts (). The conceptual meaning of the border has changed in recent decades: rather than
a closed entity, it is now seen as a dynamic construct that depends on interpretation,
narration, and confirmation (; ). As points out: “The border must be conceptualized as a part of daily life to understand
the logics and concrete processes of its diverse perpetuations instead of seeing it
as an abstract construct.”
The attention in border studies has moved towards the dynamics that take place in
close proximity to the border. Nowadays, the border is seen much more in relation
to its immediate surroundings. The focus is not only on the protectionist function
of the border, but also on the influence of the border on people's daily lives. For
that reason, cross-border interactions are an important starting point in the discussion
on borderlands and border landscapes. It is all about people and interaction, about
practice and daily life. That brings us back to practice in the German-Dutch borderland.
3. DYNAMICS IN THE DUTCH-GERMAN BORDERLAND
CBC in the Dutch-German borderland has increased significantly over the past years,
partly thanks to the European INTERREG funding programme. At the same time, in spite
of numerous good intentions, we see from a more quantitative perspective that the
number of people who live, work or study on the other side of the border is still
very limited. An economist would question whether the benefits of crossing national
borders justify the costs. This chapter provides some quantitative facts and figures.
Such data do not paint a complete picture of the dynamics in the border area, nor
foresee they in a complete set with indicators in order to measure the impact of CBC.
Yet they do offer an indication.
Figures from the show that the trade volume between the two countries in 2021 was around 206 billion
euros. The trading relationship between the Netherlands and Germany, which includes
both goods and services, is only exceeded in terms of trading volume by the trading
relationship between two much larger nations, the United States and Canada.
For the Netherlands, Germany is by far the most important trading partner, both in
terms of imports and exports. Germany is followed at a comfortable distance by the
Netherlands' only directly adjacent neighbour via land, Belgium. The Netherlands comes
second to Germany when it comes to imports and fourth when it comes to exports. In
addition to the Netherlands, Germany actively trades with countries such as China,
France and the United States (). This strong trade relationship is reflected in the goods and services trade figures.
When we consider the four European freedoms - the free movement of goods, capital,
services and labour - as the cornerstones of the internal European market, we see
that goods and services cross national borders with little difficulty.
Figures from the national statistical agencies in the Netherlands and Germany, respectively
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek and Destatis, show that in 2021 the Netherlands
has imported goods worth about 92 billion euros from Germany. On the other hand, the
Netherlands has exported goods from the Netherlands to Germany worth 133 billion euros. To put these figures into perspective. The Netherlands imported only 52 billion
euros from Belgium and exported only 62 billion euros worth of goods to Belgium. Especially
in the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics level 3 areas along the border
(hereafter: NUTS3), many goods exporters export to neighbouring Germany. Here more
than 60% from all the exporters exports at least to Germany in comparison to less
than 45% in many NUTS3 regions in the western part of the country. Furthermore, almost
30% of all goods exports from the Province of Limburg go to Germany ().
When we look at the export of services, we see there is also a strong trade relation
between the Netherlands and Germany. Services worth about 22 billion euros were imported
in 2021 from Germany to the Netherlands. This is just over 10% of the total services
imported to the Netherlands. Germany, in turn, imported services worth 27 billion
euros from the Netherlands. Again, a comparison with Belgium shows that trade relations
between the Netherlands and Germany are strong. Only 14 billion euros was imported
from Belgium and 12.5 billion euros of services were exported from the Netherlands.
There can be no doubt that the sheer volume of trade, worth roughly 190 billion euros
in the years before Covid-19, and 206 billion euros in 2021 is evidence of an intense
trading relationship between the Netherlands and Germany. The above figures show that
many companies, including those in the borderland must be involved in a certain way
of business with and in the neighbouring country.
Another European freedom, the free movement of capital, is also immense between the
Netherlands and Germany. Investments from the Netherlands generally end up in the
German federal states of North Rhine-Westphalia, Hesse and Bavaria. Of the total investment
volume in Germany, 20% comes from the Netherlands (). The other way round, more than 10% of all capital investments from Germany flow
to the Netherlands.
When we look at the free movement of ‘labour’ in Europe, the figures paint a completely
different picture. There is hardly any cross-border commuting to work (i.e. labour). Figure 2 shows that in most NUTS3 regions along the Dutch-German border, the number of cross-border
commuters is between 0.1 and 3% of the employed population.
Only about 43.000 people living in Germany cross the border every day to work in the
Netherlands. Many of them are Dutch nationals who live in Germany and in turn work
in the Netherlands. The flow in the other direction amounts to just over 9.000 people
who live in the Netherlands and travel to their work in Germany (). So, in spite of the Schengen Agreement, a European or euroregional labour market
is still very much an illusion. In recent years, several border information points
have been set up along the Dutch-German border to inform job-seekers and employers
about working across borders. The future will show whether this policy will increase
the number of cross-border commuters.
Figure 2.Cross-border commuters between the Netherlands and Germany in 2017
Note. From Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek Grensdata, 2022.
Apart from employment reasons, people can also cross the border for other purposes,
such as living and leisure. When it comes to living, the number of people who live
on the other side of the border is small. A few years ago 77.000 Germans are residing
in the Netherlands (). A number that has been rising steadily for years. According to Destatis, 150.530
Dutch citizens were living in Germany in 2020. Two thirds of them live in the states North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony, which
border the Netherlands. Reasons for Dutch people to live in the neighbouring country
are mainly the lower prices of housing and living (). Germans choose the Netherlands for its social climate and the joy of living. An
important reason for not living in the neighbouring country is the administrative
burden.
From a leisure point of view, we see that many people find the effort worthwhile to
cross national borders. The border opportunities outweigh the border barriers to such
an extent that many citizens cross the border in their spare time. There is a strong
cross-border flow of day trippers and tourists who have booked overnight stays. Hardly
surprising, as recreation requires little in the way of preparations and effort. And
the benefits are many, for example, differences in prices, product range and experience
(). If we disregard Covid19 for the moment, people who cross the border for leisure
purposes do not have to familiarize themselves with laws and regulations. On top of
that, crossing national borders gives many people even a kind of exotic holiday feeling
().
Other than living, working and leisure, there can be a fourth reason for crossing
the border: education. For Germans, the Netherlands comes in second place behind Germany
as the most popular country for a course of study. This number has increased from
less than 5000 students in 2000 to almost 25000 students in recent years. This cross-border mobility from Germany to the Netherlands is encouraged by factors
such as the widespread availability of courses with English as the working language
in the Netherlands and the more practice-oriented approach in Dutch universities of
applied science compared to the type of education offered in the equivalent institutions
in Germany. The higher education institutions in the border region in particular,
such as Maastricht University and Fontys University of Applied Sciences are cleverly
exploiting the proximity of German students.
Conversely, Dutch nationals who enrol for a course of study in Germany do so mainly
as part of the European Union programme for education, training, youth and sport,
known as the Erasmus+ programme, which only lasts for one semester. Germany, however,
is not the most popular Erasmus+ destination. Most Dutch students choose to go to
Spain, followed by the United Kingdom in second place. Germany is third on the list
().
In summary, cross-border mobility is not widespread in practice. It involves a group
of people who, in the border area, effectively exploit the opportunities that the
border situation offers. For example, people acting in the role of consumers, entrepreneurs
or tourists. The facts presented above do not present the whole story. It is therefore
not fair to associate the success of CBC only with these quantitative indicators.
For example, less is known about the impact of cross-border commuters on the intercultural
awareness and skills of foreign colleagues in the organisation they work for, the
number of companies cooperating with for example suppliers from the neighbouring country
and the way students from the neighbouring country integrate into the daily dynamics
of the city or region. Furthermore, the research has shown that citizens often come
across CBC, but do not register it as such. For example, people work together with
their colleagues from the neighbouring country, do their weekly shopping and buying
fuel across the border, and have a daughter with some of their friends from the neighbouring
country. In such examples, it is difficult or even impossible to directly connect
these border-related dynamics to cross-border policies effects.
4. CROSS-BORDER POLICIES
When comparing the theoretical viewpoints on borders with daily practice in borderlands,
an interesting paradox becomes apparent. A paradox between daily practices and dynamics
in the border region on the one hand and, on the other hand, the static manner in
which the border is still often seen and defined in policies. In many policy documents,
the border is often still referred to as a distinct line that separates two systems,
languages and cultures from each other. An integrated approach that takes into account
social developments in the border region and the influence on them caused by the proximity
to the state border is still awaited.
This chapter discusses the results of the interviews, observations and document analysis
that together form an important part of the foundation of this study.
At the moment CBC is a hot topic, which is illustrated by among other things that
the Dutch national government in recent years strongly has been paying attention to
CBC. The former responsible Secretary of State oft-repeated the slogan: “growing at
the border, rather than the border as barriers to growth’’ (). On the German side of the border, the federal state authority in North Rhine-Westphalia
is also intensely interested in cooperation with the Benelux countries in particular.
Even since a few years both governments together organize the annual ‘Borderland conference’ and annually develop a ‘borderland agenda’.
In addition, a growing interest in CBC at regional level can be observed, both among
regional and local authorities and within education. This is demonstrated by the cross-border
focus of regional grants and the recurring consultation structures initiated by the
euroregion. Furthermore, in the rhine-meuse-north euroregion, economic development
boards and agencies are increasingly active in cross-border cooperation. This cooperation
is strongly driven by regional public authorities. In addition, in recent decades,
German-Dutch bodies have emerged, such as the Business Club Maas Rhein, in which entrepreneurs,
authorities, educational parties and cultural institutions meet monthly. Education
on both sides of the border is also increasingly cooperating in the rhine-meuse-north
euroregion, especially at the secondary, vocational and higher education levels. These
are initiatives that come about partly through Interreg, but also through new subsidy
programmes aimed at German-Dutch cooperation.
The growing focus on CBC means that more and more people are involved in cross-border
governance at different levels. However, as history shows us time and again, this
positive focus can also evaporate almost immediately in the aftermath of elections
and shock events such as 9/11. The latter event caused a change in sentiment away
from CBC towards a greater focus on national sovereignty and more restrictive borders.
This does not mean that projects immediately came to a standstill, but the political
trend in both countries was more focused on keeping national sovereignty. Respondents
are afraid that Covid19 has caused a loss of interest in the neighbouring country
among citizens. One the one hand, Covid19 has forced the existing euroregional networks
to engage in more intensive discussion with each other regarding health and socio-administrative
policy alignment and the continuation of projects. On the other hand, citizens and
entrepreneurs have clearly experienced that borders took on a much more distinctive
outline due to partial border closures and dissuasion policies.
CBC continues to be heavily dependent on political interest, which makes the intensity
of the cooperation susceptible to political whims. The border is often used in politics
and policy, and sometimes abused, as an instrument for binary framing (). Open versus closed, central versus peripheral, in versus out. This gives the border
a hard, inflexible and moreover multifunctional character, which is diametrically
opposed to the developments we see in the theory, as outlined before. The border as
no more than an invisible dividing line between two regulatory systems.
Furthermore, the study shows that the Dutch-German cooperation is largely driven by
individuals. A small network of enthusiasts is the driving force here. It could be
referred to as a euroregional bubble. For people from outside this bubble it seems
to be difficult to enter. If one of the aims of CBC is to involve young people, the
euroregional network must start by defining exactly what opportunities are open to
them. Most citizens will not be spurred into action by only the prospects for peace
or trade. The euroregional network must ask themselves whether their message is still
powerful and appealing enough for younger generation. Generations that were brought
into contact with the neighbouring country in their youth to a lesser degree. Reasons
for this are: the decrease of available TV channels from the neighbouring country,
the fact that the subject German is no longer obligatory in secondary schools, and
the increased mobility and globalisation which made people less dependent on their
own region.
In addition, the study reveals that there is no clear problem owner of border related
challenges. This is probably one of the causes that there is no unified vision of
the borderland. The ‘common sense of urgency’ is insufficiently strong (). A clear guiding principle, a Leitmotiv, is lacking. Many parties stand to benefit from CBC, but few experience short-term
negative consequences if they do not participate. Furthermore, people and companies
can walk away from the border situation, in order to profit from different circumstances
elsewhere, but the region itself cannot. This makes it a task that is mainly felt
regionally, and that has difficulty in sinking in in the political capitals of both
countries.
This theme calls for shared ownership. Many parties, from the national to the local
level, benefit from cross-border cooperation, which suggests that creating a shared
ownership should be likely. Governments have already taken up the challenge. Though,
there is a general lack of cross-border political will to develop an integral and
well thought-out approach and perspective for the borderland, as already stated in
2015 by . Due to the largely non-binding character of CBC to date, a lack of coherence between
cross-border initiatives and the lack of a clear problem owner, the greater part of
the population has not yet been reached. In other words, CBC is not yet bearing fruit
in spite of its decades long history.
After years of many stand-alone initiatives, respondents emphasize that it is now
time for a joint approach. An approach that is supported in both the political capitals
of both countries and the region. In order to realize that, an ecosystem must be created
within which it is clear what each other's strengths and pitfalls are, how parties
can complement each other, and what is needed to develop effective policy. Furthermore,
as a next step, in order to create a joint responsibility, the creation of an integrated
and non-political vision on CBC is of utmost importance. An integrated vision of the
borderland from an economic, demographic, inclusive and socio-cultural perspective,
that goes beyond just that line on the map. A vision that could contribute to make
the available grants, policies and actions more effective.
5. RESULTS & DISCUSSION
This study has shown that at the moment CBC is a hot topic in many political and administrative
circles. As yet, the growing attention for this topic is not reflected in the statistics
and sentiments on the streets. CBC is currently a phenomenon in the margins of society
and therefore fragile. The cooperation is not yet sufficiently resilient to unexpected
crises such as Covid19. The borderland is in need of a permanent and widely adopted
focus. One of the requirements for creating an effective and inclusive vision to ensure
that all those who live in the borderland can benefit from the opportunities on either
side of the border, is that the euroregional network must distance itself from its
current image as a hobby and plaything of public administrators. Furthermore, the
Dutch-German borderland requires a clear and consistent vision, meeting the following
principles: a vision that guides action; a vision that shows what it stands for and
shows how the borderland as a collective aims to develop; a vision that is not fettered
by political trends; and a vision that must primarily benefit ordinary citizens.
The fact that opportunities are available across the border is nothing new. This extends
far beyond cheap fuel and groceries. The next question actors in the borderland must
ask themselves is: how do we, as a whole, intend to exploit these opportunities? A
way need to be found to reduce the ‘personal effort’ of overcoming border related
barriers and increase the ‘benefits’ of crossing borders. And a final, yet not unimportant
question, is who is responsible for realizing all this.
There is no such thing as an off-the-shelf package of measures that converts cross-border
opportunities into results. History teaches us that cooperation across borders is
an incremental process that requires long-term commitment. It was nearly sixty years
ago that the first cross-border regions, the euroregions, were set up, the Schengen
Agreement came into effect already more than thirty years ago and the euroregions
have been using INTERREG funding to promote CBC for more than thirty years. In spite
of these positive developments, CBC has gone through times of fluctuating interest.
From a quantitative cross-border mobility perspective, the current approach to CBC
seems inadequate. In practice, CBC remains something vague that most border residents
have difficulty in bringing into lasting focus in their conscious mind. Despite that,
a situation in which the national border becomes invisible based on regional mobility
data is not realistic, and may even be undesirable, more is required to achieve a
structural breakthrough in CBC. This chapter presents the most important results of
the study by introducing a set of principles for CBC. The intention of this set is
not to provide a comprehensive overview. Moreover, not all findings apply to each
cross-border initiative or project. The results outline the main thread. Principles
which could help in achieving structural improvement and initiating action.
Changing perspectives
CBC is invariably associated with terms like periphery and population decline. People often think in terms of the centre versus the periphery. Bustling economic centres versus quieter country areas. The border regions are still
often seen as peripheral, far away from everything. The place where the country we
know comes to an end. That periphery is often directly linked to barriers and obstacles.
It is obvious that national borders are associated with a number of barriers, such
as differences in language, culture, regulations and law.
On the one hand, the question is whether this terminology is correct, and on the other
hand, whether it is desirable. Everyone probably has an image of what the centre of
the country means. But is that image unambiguous among citizens? And does the centre
even exist? Is it where the nation’s politicians come together, is it the place where
most people live and work, is it the place with the most congestion, or is it the
place with the most expensive housing prices?
A legitimate question is whether this conceptual framework is still justified in times
of far-reaching globalization. What if people were to follow the example set by and think of the border area as a starting point and opportunity, rather than the
outer limit of some geographical construct? What would their daily living environment,
their daily urban system, look like if they did? What if they started thinking much
more in terms of regional interests? It would certainly be appropriate in the light
of the greater role and significance of the region on a cross-border scale.
Referring to the term periphery, in primary and secondary school, pupils are encouraged
to think of the border as the area where the country as we know it comes to an end,
so they automatically adopt an inward-looking attitude in later life. If, in the future,
people continue to seeing the border merely as a barrier rather than an opportunity,
it will continue to have an inhibiting effect on the development of the border region
in economic, social and demographic terms. So a shift in perspective from ‘national
decentral’ to ‘international central’ is of huge importance to revitalize the living
environment in border regions. After all, without euroregional awareness, there can
be no efficient euroregional action.
Starting with ‘Why’
CBC often still focuses too much on the ‘what’: CBC. A better choice, as Simon Sinek
once stated, is to start with the ‘why’. The Golden Circle is a conceptual model that
Sinek created after researching successful leaders and brands. It assumes three levels on which organizations and people operate: what you do,
how you do it and why you do it. His contention is that true success remains elusive
because the third component is generally not given the attention it deserves. And
that is exactly what is happening within the field of CBC. Although CBC is not a business,
the 'why' is not sufficiently transparent, with the result that CBC has little followers.
Within the euroregional bubble, it must therefore be made clear why i.e. companies
should doing business across the border and why a cross-border attitude can be beneficial
for young people. Or in other words, clarifying what an organisation would miss if
they did not operate across borders.
If we start from the ‘why’ in our analysis, we will hopefully be able to abandon non-intuitive
terms used by civil servants, such as ‘euroregion’ and ‘CBC’. These are terms that
refer to the means and not the aims. Using such terms are hardly calls to action that
inspire entrepreneurs or students. Furthermore, the added-value narrative has changed:
the aim is no longer solely keeping the peace between European member states. Although
this is obviously one of the functions of the border and cross-border institutes,
there are many others as well nowadays. Speaking about goals and exploiting opportunities,
as opposed to talking about euroregional cooperation, may lead to a different course
of action. And finally, segmentation is also of utmost importance: solutions need
to be customized. This is necessary given the diversity of target groups. A pupil
for example should be treated differently from a tourist or job seeker.
A multidisciplinary approach
Another aspect that currently characterizes CBC is its monodisciplinary character.
Both in policies as in cross-border projects discussions often revolve around the
language in the neighbouring country, regulations, cultural differences or innovations
within a narrowly defined sector. Now one group of young people learning the language
of the neighbouring country, and another group in a border area familiarizing itself
with regulations and legislation.
What is missing so far, is an integrated perspective that connects multiple dots.
Dynamics in the borderland, such as labour market, demographical and economic dynamics,
are strongly interconnected. In this context, the presence of the border is a binding
and determining factor. Demographic decline, for instance, is influenced by the proximity
of the national border. Or perhaps more accurately, due to a lack of skills among
people to operate across borders. In many cases, young people feel compelled to leave
the border region because of a prevailing feeling of a lack of opportunities, which
has enormous consequences for the regional labour market. While the business field,
on the other hand, needs skilled workers with an affinity to the neighbouring country.
Such demographic developments, in turn, result in educational and sports facilities
having to close. The border region thus enters a negative and self-reinforcing spiral
(). Proposed solutions, resulting from grants and policies, are often unilateral in
nature. Due to a lack of coherence between these one-sided but certainly good initiatives,
the actual impact is rather limited.
If people really need to be enabled to be active across borders, then, for example,
only neighbour language education is not enough. Depending on the motive of the cross-border
mobility, one needs competence in networking across borders, differences in digitalisation,
intercultural skills, tax systems or legislation. In other words, an integral approach
is required within the Dutch-German borderland.
An inclusive approach
From a border context perspective, inclusiveness could be described as every citizen
must being able to take advantage of the opportunities in his or her immediate surroundings.
Policy should at least allow citizens to make the best possible use of the opportunities
in the nearby region.
If the euroregional ecosystem succeeds in creating a 360-degree community feeling,
citizens will automatically come into contact with both sides of the border in the
future. The pressing question is how a 360-degree perspective can be facilitated for
each citizen. Retail and the tourism sector are already successfully exploiting the
opportunities that exist in the neighbouring country, both from a supply and consumer
perspective. Supermarkets, amusement parks and other recreational facilities already
intelligently match their offer to consumers in the neighbouring country.
Education is of crucial importance to generating structural attention for the neighbouring
country among citizens. Education can be a very powerful tool for raising euroregional
awareness, thereby indirectly contributing to meeting the private sector's need for
both low-level and high-level qualifications that are functionally relevant in an
international environment. Start, for example, by ensuring that all elementary school
children can playfully get to know the area that defines who we are. And look for
exchange possibilities with schools across the border. At secondary school level,
subjects such as history, geography and social studies should reflect past events
and events unfolding in the present just across the border. One can potentially create
a continuous euroregional learning path by extending this line to secondary and higher
vocational education.
Simultaneous action is required on the part of government authorities in order to
initiate and give impetus to this shift. Public authorities bordering the neighbouring
country should structurally ask themselves if and how decisions affect the inclusive
nature of the surrounding region. Politicians and the government have the power to
bring about change in the entire education system (). The Dutch Regional Deals are a good example of this. A Regional Deal is a collaboration between central government
and the regional and local authorities that aim to enhance the region’s strength.
Central government and the regional and local authorities work together in Regional
Deals to improve the living environment for residents and entrepreneurs in the region.
Within the Regional Deal in North Limburg, which is a part of the rhine-meuse-north
euroregion, educational partners are working together with businesses to set up a
continuous euroregional education learning path.
Multilingualism
A characteristic of the current German-Dutch debate is the importance of speaking
the neighbouring language. The neighbouring language is spoken to an ever decreasing
extent. This is partly due to the increase in the importance of the English language over
the past decades, and also because of the shrinking number of German television channels
available in the Dutch border regions. A few decades ago, only a few television channels
were offered, of which a few channels from the neighbouring country in the borderland.
That language is an indispensable prerequisite for communicating with each other at
all is a fact. The main question is whether the focus will lie exclusively on German
or Dutch in the future. If it is up to the older generation, it is. In addition, little
English is spoken in the smaller and medium-sized enterprises and family businesses,
especially on the German side of the border. In contrast, among the German and Dutch
youth English is increasingly the language of communication. Furthermore, it can be
observed that teaching courses in English is slowly becoming more prevalent in German
education. Obviously, this process will take time. At present, using English in many
German SMEs and family businesses is often ‘not done’, but an interesting question
is what the situation will be in 20 years’ time. Taking the above developments into
account, there seems to be a transition phase taking shape that is slowly moving towards
English as a general language in the Dutch-German borderland.
Another interesting question is whether the desire of a relatively small group of
advocates of German-Dutch cooperation can turn the tide in terms of speaking the neighbouring
language. In the end, probably global developments will overshadow and decide the
debate on the choice of language, also in border regions. The principle should therefore
be: communicating with each other is key, no matter what language is used.
Shared ownership and responsibility
Finally, CBC is an important theme for many parties. However, this broad interest
also leads to significantly fragmented initiatives. At the same time, CBC is still
underexposed. CBC is often the first item to be dropped from the list of priorities
in times of emergency. As stated before, there is no clear problem owner. No organization
feels that it has an intrinsic duty to take the lead in this area, so most parties
adopt a wait-and-see attitude. An explicable phenomenon because of the multifaceted
nature of the border context.
Yet CBC transcends the individual interest. This therefore calls for a collective
approach with a multiple objective. Together placing a wide supported dot on the horizon.
In the rhine-meuse-north euroregion, this initiative is already being taken by means
of a cooperation between German and Dutch governmental bodies, educational parties
and the business field. This in-development economic action agenda should in the future serve as a policy framework for new projects.
In conclusion, decades of attempting to implement CBC teach us that there is probably
still a long way to go before one can truly speak of a fully integrated Dutch-German
borderland. In order to make further steps towards this goal, it is of importance
to discuss the right issues and not being afraid of working together to exploit opportunities
and boost innovation. Furthermore, political jargon that tends to act as a deterrent:
i.e. terms like euroregions and CBC, needs to be avoided. Instead, one should talk
about opportunities, possibilities and addressing obstacles.
Anderson, J. & Wever, E. (2003). Borders, border regions and economic integration:
one world, ready or not. Journal of Borderlands Studies 18(1), 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2003.9695599
3
Arts, C. (2021). Cross-border shopping in the Euregio Rhine-Meuse-North. In V. Pijnenburg,
P. Szillat and J. Lucas (Eds.), Cross-border Business Development in the Dutch-German Borderland (pp. 41-64). Shaker Verlag GmbH.
Buoli, A. (2015). BorderScaping. An explorative study on the North Moroccan/Spanish border landscapes [Doctoral dissertation, Politecnico Milano]. http://hdl.handle.net/10589/107249
Diener, A. C. & Hagen, J. (2009). Theorizing borders in a ‘borderless world’: globalization,
territory and identity. Geography Compass 3(3), 1196-1216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00230.x
11
Doevenspeck, M. (2011). Constructing the border from below: narratives from the Congolese–Rwandan
state boundary. Political Geography 30(3), 129-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2011.03.003
Eker, M. & Van Houtum, H. (2013). Borderland: Atlas, Essays and Design. History and Future of the Border Landscape. Blauwdruk
14
Grenslandconferentie. (2020). Grenslandconferentie. Duisburg: Stadt Duisburg en Euregio Rhijn-Waal. Minister für Bundes- und Europaangelegenheiten,
Internationales sowie Medien und Chef der Staatskanzlei. https://mbei.nrw/de/grenslandconferentie
15
Gualini, E. (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
16
Institute for Transnational and Euregional cross border cooperation and Mobility.
(2020). Cross-Border Impact Assessment 2020. The impact of the Corona crisis on cross-border
regions. Maastricht University.
17
Janssen, J. & Dagevos, J.F.L.M.M. (2022). Wat is er aan de rand? Het kwetsbare ontwikkelingsperspectief
van perifere regio’s in Nederland. In Raad voor het Openbaar Bestuur (Ed.), Brede welvaart, grote opgaven! (pp. 84-95). Den Haag: Raad voor het Openbaar Bestuur.
18
Johnson, C., Jones, R., Paasi, A., Amoore, L., Mountz, A., Salter, M. & Rumford,
C. (2011). Interventions on rethinking ‘the border’ in border studies. Political Geography 30(2), 61-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2011.01.002
Kramsch, O., Pijpers, R., Plug, R. & Van Houtum, H. (2004). Research on the Policy of the European Commission towards the re-bordering of the
European Union. Project Study Report. University of Nijmegen.
21
Newman, D. (2006). The lines that continue to separate us: borders in our ‘borderless’
world. Progress in Human Geography 30(2), 143-161. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132506ph599xx
22
Paasi, A. (2013). Regional planning and the mobilization of ‘regional identity’: From
bounded spaces to relational complexity. regional studies, 47(8), 1206-1219. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.661410
23
Perkmann, M. & Sum, N. (2002). Globalization, regionalization and cross-border regions. Houndsmills, Palgrave.
24
Pijnenburg, V. (2019a). Collaborative borderscaping in the Dutch-German borderland. Towards a cross-border
practice in spatial planning. Ipskamp Printing. https://hdl.handle.net/2066/202219
Van Hoof, J. (2019). Knops: 'Kansen grensregio's onvoldoende benut'. 1Limburg.
33
Van Houtum, H. (2000a). III European perspectives on borderlands: an overview of European
geographical research on borders and border regions. Journal of Borderlands studies 15(1), 56-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2000.9695542
34
Van Houtum, H. (2000b). Introduction; Current issues and debates on borders and border
regions in European Regional Science. In, M. Van der Velde and H. van Houtum (Eds.),
Borders, regions and people (pp. 1-12). PION.
35
Van Houtum, H. & Eker, M. (2015). Redesigning Borderlands: Using the Janus-Face of
Borders as a Resource. In, C. Brambilla, J. Laine, J. W. Scott and G. Bocchi (Eds.),
Borderscaping: Imaginations and Practices of Border Making (pp. 41-52). Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
36
Van Houtum, H. & Van Naerssen, T. (2002). Bordering, Ordering and Othering. Tijdschrift voor economische en Sociale Geografie 93(2), 125-136. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9663.00189
Pijnenburg, V. (2022). Contemplations on and practical guidelines for cooperation in the Dutch-German borderland . Revista Galega de Economía, 31(2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.15304/rge.31.2.8369
