Discussion Papers 2001.
Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union 81-100. p.
Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union
0 Edited by Zoltan Cal, Pecs, Centre for Regional Studies, 2001
THE ROLE OF REGIONS OF
THE SOUTH-EASTERN SPACE IN THE
ENLARGING EUROPEAN UNION
Gesho Geshev
Introduction
In the process of preparation for joining the European Union, the countries —
candidates, from Central and South-East Europe, are also solving at the same
time problems concerning the creation of regions for management of spatial
development at the NUTS II level. The solution of this problem is not a simple
one and is determined by the specificity of the corresponding country.
South-East Europe, as a space characterised by the greatest dynamics of
transformation accompanied by conflict situations and emerging of new sover-
eign states, needs the creation of large territorial units — regions for planning.
These regions should conform to the requirements of sustainable development
in the context of the European regional policy on the one hand, and to create
the territorial framework for national consolidation and transborder co-opera-
tion in the South-eastern European space on the other hand.
The present report will consider the prerequisites for the formation of the
regions, the priorities of their development, the analyses of the regional
schemes and the possibilities for their use under the conditions of future en-
largement of the European Union.
In connection with the preparation of the report, the materials from the First
Project Meeting in Thessaloniki (16-17 October, 1998) of the ESTIA' Project
"Spatial Development Strategies and Policy Integration for the South-East
Europe" from the INTERREG IIC Programme have been used. This project is
developed by the Spatial Development research Unit under Aristotle University
of Thessaloniki — Greece, with partners from Bulgaria (Institute of Geography
with team leader — the author of the present report) and Rumania (Urban proj-
ect, Bucharest). The regional spatial development schemes of the Serbian Re-
public and the Republic of Macedonia have also been used in the report.
ESTIA — European Space and Territorial Integration Alternatives.

Gesho Geshev : The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies, 2001. 81-100. p.
Discussion Papers. Special
82
G. Geshev
Prerequisites for the formation of the regions
The region of South-East Europe, as a part of CADSES 2  is used as a term for
naming the countries from the Balkan Peninsula. The goodwill towards this
region as a part of Europe is implied by this term. In a geopolitical aspect the
use of the term "the Balkans" is a synonym of a region where local, regional
and world wars in Europe originated during the passing 20 th  century.
Again, during the transition to democratic communities and market econ-
omy, repeated drastic conflicts occur during the disintegration of the Yugo-
slavian Federation since 1991 till now. They have an adverse effect not only on
the region but also on the neighbouring countries from Central Europe, and
even the world community has been involved in the face of the North Atlantic
allies.
The historic reasons for the conflicts have been founded since the middle of
the 19th  century, and especially after the end of the First World War when the
"sovereign" states on the Balkans were formed under the action of external
forces.
The gradual liberation of the Balkans in the course of almost 90 years
(1827-1918) from the suppression of the Ottoman Empire was the strategy of
the Great Powers for the preparing the new division of spheres of influence in
this region. At the same time the invasion of the Austrian—Hungarian Empire,
which also collapsed during the First World War, started from the west.
The ethnic diversity of the Balkans was the main trump for the division of
the zones of influence in combination with the different religious identity.
The tearing apart of the historically formed cultural-ethnic geographical re-
gions into several neighbouring countries created the most permanent prerequi-
sites for opposing contradictions between the states in the course of the rather
long period of about 80 years.
In this way the mutual isolation between the countries was "founded" and
efforts are made just now to overcome it. However, this is difficult to achieve
because of the numerous obstacles and delay due to the historical factors of
ethnic separation. At the end of the 20 th  century the Balkans, South-East Europe
in particular, still does not represent a distinguished European region with eco-
nomic and infrastructural consolidation.
From a regional point of view, three zones could be distinguished in the
Balkans according to the geopolitical orientation and degree of regional inte-
gration:
2  CADSES — Central, Adriatic, Danubian and Southeastern European Space.

Gesho Geshev : The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies, 2001. 81-100. p.
Discussion Papers. Special
The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union
83
1) The North-western-Western zone  in the framework of Slovenia and Croa-
tia (and probably later the Moslem—Croatian Federation with restricted
sovereignty) is directed to Central Europe. This represents a marginal
zone, its borderline being expressed by Bosnia and Herzegovina after the
agreement in Dayton in 1995.
2) The  Yugoslavian—Serbian zone  is represented by the new Serbian Repub-
lic (with restricted sovereignty at the territory of Bosnia) and Union Re-
public of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Monte Negro). This is the zone of the
conflicts caused by the national identification and keeping the integrity
of the sovereign states. After the solution of the problem about autonomy
or independence of the Albanian minority in Kosovo in future, the possi-
bilities for regional co-operation between the regions connecting this
zone with the rest part of the region will be displayed. This zone, and
especially Serbia which occupies progressively the place towards Central
Europe in the region, is of special importance for the European integra-
tion. Depending on the impending restoration of the damages (and espe-
cially of the transport infrastructure) and of the political relations with
the neighbouring countries, the possibilities and trends for regionalism
and connecting of the national spatial structures in the regional European
co-operation will be delineated. Albania can be partially affiliated to this
zone since it is adjacent to the Kosovo conflict area and is engaged to a
greater extent in it because of the ethic identity with the neighbouring
Serbian province, dominated by the Albanian community. At the same
time Albania exhibits solidarity and has an active position for regional
co-operation in the framework of the transport corridor No 8, by means
of which it is possible to consider this country in the regional formations
of the third zone.
3) The third zone is the  zone of political and ethnic stability  and it incorpo-
rates the greater part of the territory and the population of the region.
Processes of co-operation financially supported by the EU programmes
take place in it, which are co-ordinated by Greece as a member-state of
the EU. Regions for co-operation are formed according to the EU
requirements in the framework of the INTERREG IIC programme
between: Greece and Bulgaria, the including of the Republic of
Macedonia being envisaged in the near future; Bulgaria and Rumania, or
between the three countries — Greece, Bulgaria and Rumania. Formally,
South-East Moldavia and Odessa district from the Ukraine should be
incorporated in this zone since they belong geopolitically to the region.
The zone belongs together with Eastern Thrace from the European part
of Turkey to the Black Sea zone of economic co-operation and is an

Gesho Geshev : The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies, 2001. 81-100. p.
Discussion Papers. Special
84
G. Geshev
important factor for the connection of the regional systems of the
Danubian and Black Sea space.
The above-mentioned differentiation in three zones of South-East Europe re-
flects the transition character of the situation towards regional integration in the
region as a whole. The proposed by us division should not be considered as the
development of new spheres of geopolitical influence and opposing. The differ-
entiation is rather due to temporary prerequisites occurring during the transition
period, "residual" prerequisites from the unsolved national and ethic problems.
The most important priority factor for the spatial consolidation of the region
and its "opening" towards the whole European space is clearly outlined on the
background of the historical and contemporary geopolitical prerequisites: the
further construction of the objects and equipment of the European transport
corridors No 8, No 4, No 9 and No 7. They are the most important condition for
the integration of the region — the joining of the regions for co-operation is
ensured by the connection of the national regional and local roads with these
Euro-corridors.
Aims and principles for the use of the regions
The countries from the South-eastern European space as a whole tend to use the
macro regions (regions for management and planning, programme regions) as a
territorial framework for the spatial (regional) planning. Only in Greece these
regions are administrative-territorial units. The situation in Bulgaria is similar
to the operating one till 1998-1999 administrative-territorial units correspond-
ing to the NUTS II level.
Greece is divided in 13 regions that constitute only administrative units with
no legal personality. A General Secretary appointed by the Government heads
each region. The General Secretary chairs the Regional Council, a collective
semi-corporatist advisory organ comprising representatives of the local gov-
ernment and of the social economic partners of the region (Gianakourou,
1998).
At the present stage and according to the strategies of the national plans for
spatial development of the countries in the region, the introduction of adminis-
trative-territorial units at the NUTS II level has not been envisaged in them.
The main purpose of the macro region creation is to use the spatial planning
and to answer the requirements of the EU for incorporation in the European co-
operation with the aim of joining the union.
Long-term tasks of the regional policy are being solved on the basis of these
main regions for the objective identification of the compatible mosaic-like

Gesho Geshev : The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies, 2001. 81-100. p.
Discussion Papers. Special
The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union
85
structures of impact regions (zones), in which the differentiated regional policy
is being applied in middle-term plan and with one-year parameters.
The regions are connected with the following three basic aims of the long-
term national policies for spatial development:
1) Creation of prerequisites for sustainable development of the single re-
gions;
2) Decreasing the differences between the regions concerning the employ-
ment and income of the population compared to the average parameters
for the countries;
3) Realisation of regional and transborder co-operation and European inte-
gration.
The principles and criteria for the formation of the basic macro regions en-
sue from the above-mentioned three aims.
Having in mind the cited three basic aims of the regional policy, the fol-
lowing generally valid criteria for these aggregated in South-eastern Europe
regions can be developed:
— Their size is balanced in the national spaces. The number of the adminis-
trative-territorial units included in them is optimal and favourable for the
position of the country as a whole.
— The regions have a heterogeneous character and are almost compatible
with respect to their natural and human potential. Their economic struc-
ture is diverse. This allows the definition of their common and basic pri-
orities of development.
— All the regions comprise multifunctional big cities with a well-expressed
system of middle and local centres, creating the connections for sustain-
able development of the common regional space.
The principles for the formation and use of the regions for management and
planning are reduced to the agreement and free will for the formation of the
regions, for example in Rumania (Dumitru, 1998), or as is the case in Bulgaria
— to the expert proposal and co-ordination with the district governors and the
approval of the Interdepartmental Council for Regional Development of the
Government. In the Union Republic of Yugoslavia (in the framework of Serbia)
the principles are stated in the National Plan for Regional Development, but are
still not used for management. Because of the restricted sizes of the territory of
the rest of the countries from the former Yugoslav Federation, these countries
are still under the process of preparation for the performance of radical admin-
istrative-territorial reforms. The Republic of Macedonia, which has accepted
recently (in the beginning of 1999) its plan for spatial development, considers
the problem of creating of three macro regional centres, several mezoregional

Gesho Geshev : The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies, 2001. 81-100. p.
Discussion Papers. Special
86
G. Geshev
ones and corresponding micro regional ones, but the hierarchical system of re-
gioning has not yet been outlined. Similar ideas exist in the National Plan of
Albania, which is being under the process of preparation.
The plan of the Serbian Republic (founded as a result of the Dayton agree-
ment), developed by the Institute of Architecture and Town Planning of Serbia,
treats micro regions (several municipalities united by impact centres).
The responsibilities towards the region concern two more important trends,
which are mutually interrelated:
1) National: implementation of the system for regional planning; develop-
ment of programmes and proposals for the use of the national fund for
regional development and of the other specific funds with regional im-
portance;
2) Transnational and transborder co-operation: development of strategies
and arrangement schemes of the border regions as a territorial framework
for the development of the network for co-operation; use of resources
from the prior-to-joining funds of the EU.
Analysis of the regional schemes
The greatest changes in the geopolitical development, that have taken place in
the development of the South-eastern European space since the beginning of
the 90-ies till the resent moment, are substantially reflected on the necessity of
creation and adopting of regions for management and impact. From this point
of view South-eastern Europe could be considered in the following manner:
1) Countries with unitary arrangement and traditions in regioning: Bulgaria,
Rumania and Greece. Albania as a unitary state has no traditions in re-
gioning.
2) The countries from the former Yugoslav Federation, whose territorial ar-
rangement accepts each of the former 6 republics as a macro region of
the federation. Even now, in some of the already sovereign republics ex-
ist cultural-geographical (historical-ethnographic) regions. These regions
have also ethnic character only in Serbia, as is the case with Kosovo and
Metochia, which are strongly dominated by the Albanian community,
and, with Voevodina that has several basic ethnic groups but the Hun-
garian minority is the dominating one. For this reasons these two regions
were autonomous ones till 1989. The Serbian Government cancelled this
autonomy and this is probably one of the important causes for the Alba-
nian separatism in Kosovo.

Gesho Geshev : The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies, 2001. 81-100. p.
Discussion Papers. Special
The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union
87
As already mentioned, as one of the three countries with a traditional unitary
state system, Greece is divided in 13 regions with an administrative status,
which correspond to the EU requirements. The specific spatial structure and the
existing thousands of islands require the greater number of regions than the
necessary number for a monolithic continental country. The regions in the con-
tinental part are relatively equal according to their spatial potential. They have
a traditional historical character and have the names of the districts as Macedo-
nia, Thrace, Athens, etc. In this respect Greece approaches the regions of most
of the member-countries of the European Union, where these regions exist ac-
cording to the federal principle.
The regions from the NUTS II type are widely used in Greece as a basic
administrative regional level of management. In comparison with the regions of
most of the EU member-countries, they could be accepted according to their
functions as the so-called "deconcentrated regionalisation" with a transition to
decentralisation. The separation of North Greece (Aegean Macedonia and
Thrace) with the deputy of the Government (Minister of North Greece) in
Thessaloniki strengthens the regional competence of the regions from this vast
continental territory, which are the real contact zone for the transborder co-op-
eration and the starting place for the enlarging of EU in South-eastern Europe.
After long consultations and iterations, the Bulgarian National Report for
"Vision Planet" had accepted 3 regions, since in 1998 the 9 administrative dis-
tricts with their approximate sizes of the NUTS II level still existed. The three
regions in several modifications concerning their range and situation, as well as
a version with four regions constituted the NUTS I level (Geshev, 1998). After
the introducing of 28 administrative districts the concept of the regions was
reconsidered again and the conclusion was that the country needs territorial
units of the NUTS II type.
Bulgaria has extremely rich traditions in the regioning process and this is the
reason for adopting of these particular units as integral regions or economic and
later on — social-economic regions.
The extremely dynamic discussions on the macro regional schemes, carried
out mainly in the Institute of Geography of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
(since its foundation in 1950 till now), is imposed by the fact that in the case of
Bulgaria it is impossible to rest on our historical-geographical regions, because
the contemporary Bulgarian state includes only parts from Moezia, Thrace,
Macedonia and Dobroudzha. But these particular historical areas in South-east-
ern Europe (and the European part of Turkey) can form the backbone of the
transborder Euroregions in the more remote perspective of united Europe.
The several exhaustive academic studies published in the collective mono-
graphs (published in one, two and three volumes) "Geography of Bulgaria" in

Gesho Geshev : The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies, 2001. 81-100. p.
Discussion Papers. Special
88
G. Geshev
1961, 1989 and 1998, substantiate and present the schemes of the macro re-
gions.
The analysis and assessment of these schemes according to the above men-
tioned criteria have led to the 6-part macro regional scheme (three regions in
North Bulgaria and three regions in South Bulgaria), which proved to be the
scheme with the longest existence in the country. One unconventional solution
is the transfer of the Rousse city with its affiliated district to North-Central
Bulgaria, which corresponds to the corridor No 9 and to the respective border
region in Rumania.
The accepted on July 15th, 1998, Law of Regional Development in Rumania
implies the association of the districts (judez) according to their free will in 8
macro regions, which correspond to the NUTS II level. The macro regions in
Rumania are not based on historical-geographical regions, since they also can-
not be used as a basis for balanced sustainable development. According to the
law, their basic functions consist in the following:
— To define and implement the regional development programme;
— To obtain necessary funding from the National Board for Regional Devel-
opment;
—To manage the Regional Development Fund for tasks that can be best
solved on local level.
Undoubtedly their strategic destination is to use them in the territorial plan-
ning system.
From all the countries in the second group — from the former Yugoslavian
Federation, only Serbia uses 6 regions in the National Plan for Spatial Devel-
opment. Except these regions corresponding to the NUTS II level, in the analy-
ses of the countries the three historical regions are also used: Central Serbia,
Voevodina and Kosovo. In our opinion these regions are only fixed ones, but
are not used in the regional policy, probably because of the drastic situation in
the country in the present moment.
The National Plan of Macedonia, as already mentioned, shows the centres
which could be used in delineating of three regions: Skopie, Shtip and Bitola.
The creation of administrative-territorial level of management in the country
will be performed in the near future, since only the municipal structures repre-
sent the administrative-territorial arrangement at present. The constantly grow-
ing number of the municipalities however (which are already about 120), im-
poses the necessity of this process.

Gesho Geshev : The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies, 2001. 81-100. p.
Discussion Papers. Special
The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union
89
The regions in Bulgaria during the period prior to joining
the European Union
The regions for planning (planning regions) are presented in this report as a
new level of the management of regional development. Their creation is deter-
mined mainly by the substantial changes in the administrative-territorial ar-
rangement of the country and by the necessity of a suitable level of planning
and of corresponding governing authorities, which can directly use financial
resources from the prior-to-joining funds of the European Union. The consid-
eration is focussed on the arguments for the creation of the planning regions,
the existing normative basis, the approach to their creation, the proposed
scheme of regions with their basic characteristics, as well as, the regions for
impact within them.
Types of regions in the regional development
The performing of a regional development policy presupposes the presence of
two types of regional units — regions for management of the spatial develop-
ment and impact regions. These two types of regions differ in their essence, in
the extent of covering the territory of the country, as well as in the essence of
the regional development policy carried out in them.
The regions for management of the spatial development cover the whole ter-
ritory of the country, while the second type of regions are defined to cover only
a part of it, so that selective, oriented towards certain priorities spatial devel-
opment policy could be carried out.
The regions for management of spatial development are used for performing
of more or less independent (decentralised) policy, while the regions for pur-
poseful impact represent in principle an object of the national policy of regional
development — by the identification of the regions themselves and their an-
nouncement, and by national financial support and frequently controlled na-
tional programmes for their development.
The impact regions are first of all objects of regional policy, while the re-
gions for management are subjects first of all.
The development of the scheme for the territorial range of the planning re-
gions is performed by society with the intensive consulting with specialists
from the Institute of Geography of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, from
the Department of Geography of the Sofia University "St. Kl. Ohridski" and
from the Department of Geoeconomy of the University of National and World
Economy. The contribution of the consulting aid related with the EU pro-
gramme for support of regional development has been of extreme importance.

Gesho Geshev : The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies, 2001. 81-100. p.
Discussion Papers. Special
90
G. Geshev
At the end of April this year, the Supreme Council approved the developed
scheme for Territorial and Settlement Arrangement and by the Council for Re-
gional Development of the Government.
Criteria and requirements
The determining of the territorial range of the planning regions is based on a
number of criteria, the more important of them being as follows:
The number of the regions should be sufficiently small and they should be
sufficiently large and diverse from the point of view of their natural-re-
source potential and social-economic development, so that the realising of
greater programmes and projects will be possible;
— The regions should not be too large, so that they could be "managed" —
i.e., the number of the district-partners is not so large to hamper the inter-
relation between them and to lead to difficulties in the functioning of their
councils, the territory of the region allows the realising of intensive direct
(personal) contacts between the partners from the different districts, etc.;
The regions should have common (uniting) problems and there should be
a desire for joint work on the side of the local subjects of regional devel-
opment;
The basic natural-geographic units and the historical traditions should be
considered during the formation of the regions;
The delineated regions should have a comparatively well developed net-
work of urban centres, including well expressed growth centres;
The existing in the past schemes for the regional development of the
country should be taken under consideration for orientation in the process
of distinguishing of the planning regions;
The planning regions should include whole administrative-territorial units
(districts).
The lack of clearly distinguished regional communities with stable traditions
and identity, which are the basis for determining the regions on the NUTS II
level in the other European countries, was a serious obstacle for the determina-
tion of the territorial range of the regions.
After their formation the planning regions conform to the following two ba-
sic requirements:
1) They should be used only for the purposes of their creation — i.e., for the
purposes of the regional development (planning and carrying out of pro-
grammes for regional development);

Gesho Geshev : The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies, 2001. 81-100. p.
Discussion Papers. Special
The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union
91
2) They should be stable in the course of time — i.e., no changes of their
borders should be allowed for a considerably long period, at least one
planning period of the National Plan for Regional Development.
The last requirement should be explicitly recommended for including in the
agreements between the district governors.
Territorial range of the planning regions
The discussed number of the regions during the consultations versions varied
from 3-4 to 8-10 regions. The proposed scheme (Tables 1, 2) with 6 planning
regions turned to be the most acceptable one from the point of view of the
above mentioned criteria.
The adopted version is characterised by the following main features:
1) The regional breakdown of the country into 6 regions, with minor modi-
fications, is accepted for use during a long time period.
2) The number of districts in one planning region varies between 3 and 6
and can be considered acceptable from the point of view of interactions
and communications between the partners from the single districts.
3) The regions are comparatively well balanced in terms of their territory
(for an average area of 18495 sq. km , only two regions have a greater de-
viation from the average value — the North-western [57%] and the South-
Central one [149%]).
4) The differences are greater when the population is concerned. The de-
viations are explained to a considerable degree by the influence of the
big city situation in the South-western and the South-Central region.
5) All of the regions with the exception of the North-western one, have well
expressed growth centres (regions) (according to the distribution of the
regions of purposeful impact).
6) All regions contain diverse in their problems territories, which can be as-
sessed on the basis of the determined various types of impact regions.
The only exception is the North-western region where no growth centre
has been distinguished.
As seen from the brief comments, the basic problem of the proposed scheme
of planning regions is the Planning-planning region. It has been determined
mainly on the basis of the criteria for available common problems and desire
for co-operation of the local subjects of the regional development.

Gesho Geshev : The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies, 2001. 81-100. p.
Discussion Papers. Special
92
G. Geshev
Table 1
Planning regions for the national and district plans for
regional development
Names of the regions and
Territory,
Population
Number of Number of
Density of
of the districts included in
square
(1.1.1997)
municipa-
settlements population,
them
kilometres
lities
people/sq.
(1.1.1999)
km
North-western Region
10,588.04
603024
33
398
57.0
Vidin district
3,034.67
144061
11
141
47.5
Montana district
3,617.64
197513
11
130
54.6
Vratsa district
3,935.73
261450
11
127
66.4
North-central Region
18,023.71
1,251,148
40
1,044
69.4
Pleven district
4,333.54
327,576
10
119
75.6
Lovech district
4,132.44
180,275
8
150
43.6
Veliko Turnovo district
4,666.69
308,565
10
336
65.1
Gabrovo district
2,107.28
155,522
4
356
73.8
Rousse district
2,783.76
279,210
8
83
100.3
North-eastern Region
19,895.85
1,361,507
49
943
68.4
Varian district
3,834.01
446,711
12
158
116.5
Dobrich district
4,711.44
227,848
8
215
48.4
Shoumen distrct
3,306.81
217,318
10
151
65.7
Targovishte district
2,533.15
146,652
5
188
57.4
Razgrad district
2,646.07
167,233
7
113
63.2
Silistra district
2,844.37
155,745
7
118
54.8
South-eastern Region
14,645.10
834,367
22
486
57.0
Bourgas district
7,753.14
431,513
13
257
55.7
Sliven district
3,536.58
231,795
4
120
65.5
Yambol district
3,355.38
171,059
5
109
51.0
South-Central Region
27,552.71
2,089,272
66
1,513
75.8
Plovdiv district
5,975.92
729,516
16
215
122.1
Stara Zagora district
5,146.86
389,388
11
205
75.7
Haskovo district
5,524.53
298,108
11
261
54.0
Pazardzhik district
4,458.00
321,062
11
117
72.0
Smolyan district
3,231.87
148,845
10
243
46.1
Kurdzhali district
3,215.53
202,353
7
472
62.9
South-western Region
20,269.76
2,143,882
52
956
105.8
Sofia-city district
1,326.13
1,190,547
1
38
897.8
Sofia district
7,020.21
272,558
22
284
38.8
Blagoevgrad district
6,450.75
350,327
14
281
54.3
Pernik district
2,388.36
156,561
6
171
65.6
Kyustendil district
3,084.30
173,889
9
182
56.4
Total for Bulgaria
110,975.16
8,283,200
262
5,340
74.6

-
•
•
•
Gesho Geshev : The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the
•
Enlarging European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies, 2001. 81-100. p.
Discussion Papers. Special
The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union
93
00Q--.0,0000r-- 000-.071c
,000
r-
0cn op r- d-000Nootr)ONO- -,
tnen0
.
.
N  tr,
.6 M6 N6 6 tri o;
4 N O,  '0  6  4  ,-..  .
01.1.,
4  o:
O 4 c v:,  i
t--- .4  -ci-  N •-s  en t- 0
•cfc v')0
oo
N
N cn ,--,
0
N '71'
In
N oo
(988 0,27,7.00?) 88,?c,N0,0-,0)a, N.1.
0,r--0
s000v:)Nen
cr) c7,
en en  6 N 6 ri (--:  T  v:) -, N  00 - 6 vi 6 4 N
6 oe)
,-, 4 ,-, .6
1
1  tel  ,--. • 1 - N ,-,
0
VD
M00 '.0
N
on v:  --,
-
v)
enenNNNO--,
0000 \00tr)0 \ONN71-
CN1
00
sN
scene.00.0  kr) ON 0 N O 7:1- cry,  s0
N
cs-; xr;  (-4 c; c;
v-;
kr; (3  4 4 6 <5
N en N ).0
1 1  N en 71- N
00
V)71-
N
N cn
97
19
t--  VD
00  (r) 0  71 0 0 0 0 t-- 0 N go 7h N 00 cn
en
N
O
w

N N oo  en en  ',or  0  0 -1.  Cr, r-- 0 -lc go CN N.  N  0
004 v1 6 6 N <5 0 in 06 t--: so o: 6 6 .6  N  ir;
6 --.
—
N 00 1
0
N
en en 0
N N krl
00
7-. N
oo .1-
--. N
0 °,--,
,-s
N  ,z,
ions
00
•
N
00 0 en2.0cc)071-Q000ent---7C
00
reg
N 71-
.°
ON
-er
v1
O
v")
\O 0 cn kr) -7  ON
.
z
N
00  <5
oc
:
0  o
c. ;  d'
od
o:
c•-;
N •-s
v) N
.0
`r3
ing
1
en  H
"
N
nn
la
'cad b
p
.7J-
en o --,  ‘c)  00 0 0 0 0 -71-  0 s.0 0  ,-.  s10  cn 7h
0
E '8 0
N --, •-∎  71-  oo N 0 0 0 Cr, en 0 N  0  N 0 r-- 0
r--- s0
he
sci en kr; ,r1  6 6 o: 6 .6 Iri rs-;  kr; N  <-_-.5 N c-Ni c:::; O.6 N
t
U
U co a)
4:,
-
...I -- v:,
1
1  %O
(-sr •-•  en an  c
)r)  •71" "
f
z
N
en  6
a
N fn
o
t
ics
00
C
-I' In 00 N 0,  cn 0 0 --, 0 en 0 vO 0 kr) 0 \ N  O\
cn )r)
O
y-) 0 N I-- 00 en 0 0 C- C. vr)  0  t--- 0 00 en N.  ‘.0
en 71-
r
is
z
0: 03 N t--: 6  6  t--: cc; 4 •-•  O\  .6  o: 6 t--: N 4 ri
6 c:)
te
kr)
)r)
1
kr) •-s
71-  N --, CO N 0
kr)
en
r---  kr)
c
N
t-- 00 -4
N
ra
ha
-0
CO
l c
II--
O
>
CA
0 al
'0
,---.. ON
O.
0
t
ica
O
--I
O. --.  -o --
c.)
O
I
z
0
,,,
,- N
C
CO C
t
is
yo cr,
Si
\ 0
T
a
-5 '' ,,
C  0
\ .°  -1,..1‘ P., ON
oh ‘.
... a
o  E
'au  ._,  0
ON  0
0.
O
0 ..0
Sta
a
L'
4,
O
,--
U
-O
s-•
..."  -O
0
6--
8
I
V 1..) 0
O
cu
----,
C
c..)
,,E,  0 ,- ,---
oo
eu
,44
cu e.
.E7.,
u 0
01 ,...
,- .0
CT
0
CL)  4-r
Q' Q. '"'''
-al
,c)
"
a.) 6.s
)... ..0
=  0
C.)
."
...5 "--d
N
0 >
,
-'   -0
‘...
..9.,

O"
-a  a .'
,
O
ct
ns
45
,.0 i- C
O
.....
bo
e ,-.
1 0
LL.
1 CO '-' 0
0)

io
.2  4-s
4.)
.= C I.
-0
Y) 0
"
O  `'-'
1.*
0
8
,... 4-,
0
, .9 - -.
,9 .2
0 E
M.
0 '-' 0
%)
CO
0 .5  4..  .
5 o ....
0 0
(
0  E
reg
•E -,-. 0 0 t,:., 0:,
,-
.0 ,,,
tu
E --5- E c
,
e„..  . .., 0
0
0 a) .
>-. 1.)
a)
ies
o
o,
,p_  E vs -
-
4
E o 0
ing
.4 ...., -
• -
it
v,
0
c
.-
-.,  t' 0 a)
U
0  o c
._
> ,.,
0
,
°
..E, `E. ,... c  o
0.
'
o. >,  o
l- >
., ,..
o
-
. -
nn
t
iv U v,  .- 0 ,,,
c
.
o o ,  o
ca
°  4-4
,I. C  0
0 ,..., 0 R. ,  t
c .0 C > .°
-a-cl

Pla
`' e
a
e ta. 0 0
.,
,- ,...
g
a tu) 1c  ;...
O
c
0..  0
O
0 0 0 - cat
'-'
e
,, ..... .-,
4.) 0 .... "
0
•
:c:") C)

/
t,I ..-. "
''
c..)  0
om
- c  0.. ,.' =1
c..  v-, -0
0 1,-,
iin O'D bi) 1-  0*. E "z
ters
•
0  o
.,..,
s'-' i... 0 0 0 a)
w

fr • = =  0 ON = 4.-
,..
.... fa,  t„o
c  bo >-. P-t 73  7.3o
a)
. - .... .-
O
E o
0 a.)  CO
„....
-0 -0 ..1 N
a)
me
E g . A  4-.  °
r.,) ,-. w w a.) a E
0 0 0 a)
C
o
CO
E CO 0..0 0
0 1::,-. 0 0 > 0 0
U c.)
c.)
,.., O,
.
0.,
3
0 ,  "
0  8 0 0 11) C  C.)
nc 0 0 0
.=
a"
0 v)
Parame
E 21
a.
¢ Z a) cia u u -a -de. =

•
-
-
Gesho Geshev : The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies, 2001. 81-100. p.
Discussion Papers. Special
94
G. Geshev
0 Q• 0 7
kr)
M N s.0 N
00
N
N s•C
en op
•-•
71
en to 0 0
In
N s.0 00
tri ON as'
ON
•:1:'
ON
tn.  ces  en
6  oo  en .1-
N
N
en
—•
-1 0 Q. en
0
r--
Cs crs
en
as 0 O0
.71- 0
•ct:, 0 Cs Ch
":1:
as 0  N 0w
CT.  0s•
00 0
O
M 00 tri
v:)
In
7 C. 7  qz)
N
N O 0 •cr
N 00 N ON N
In
s.0 M N
N 0 0 trt
O
M ‘.0 s.t M
N
.O, en 00 00
s
0 ••
6
v1
erc
v5
0 en
en
7,8 8
O
0 as  0  kr. ON 1-- kr) sC 00 00
kr) In "zr 0  ‘‘)
'0 N •ch r--
en  06
06
en" .-.. en 0 ON - k$  ce  eri  r-
°
e-A
„,_, .-. tr)
N
71-
ON
0 Q
I 00 0
oC)
In
0 0
0 I  VD  ‘.0
.0
en
0
0 0
0.0
kr)
ON
_. en 0 crk
en..
se
6  c4
O
r-- en'
N
71-
Ws a)  c  0
0 N
N
71-
N
v
d-  0
%N L
's1
E  "a  0
•cr OP.  0 r-
en
N  v=3  00
r-
en
N  00  esi
c74'
U  c
d eu
06
re) •cr
•
•.zr
Z
00
N
en
ON I
t--
▪
O
-** 0

. 9  .9.
°DP'
N
C) (r.'
ON VD en
Z
rn a\  6'  Irc
tr)
r--
4
6
c•F
en —
71-
Le)
en
U
..0
T
.
,..
IC't
0
O
e.z...
'7
"0
=
(1)
---, tt
=
=
)

w
0
0
.0
0
....,
--
a  .r,
O
Ncz
km
L„,,
E
cc:
I...
I-,
,_,

a>
a)
ti)
0.)
05
0)

E-.
C.
C
M.
..-.
`') C .
C
/sq.
s...
-E o
0
0
ti
9
7.7)
t
hor.
c-)
ions
8.,  e's.  ,1
ce:
o
ti 0
0
km
,c2
,..)
.3
a)
- c, 03
a
c.)
c .0  ....
c
au
3....
o
E
3...
—
c
—  4.
.,..,  1:3  .-.
=
i
he
reg
k (
= (1) bl) Mi 4)
d 4) b4 M: a.)
"7
0
,...,
4 .
(1) •
E
t
I .•
....
.172
0.) .c E
I. ....
= ..... 0 a c' 0
V)
a. ...E, ,i)  2
_ r.„
ing
04 =
twor
4  )
,- - - -
8
t - 61 ti . ..
. •.:
...  .
C.')
.2
d by
bo c
as
..... > w 4_, m
_ _
a)  0
— ....
e.e „
te
>, ... ,c  . .
— ..ss ..=
-
';'
''l 1:2  f:
:
, -
‘ 4     - :21
Plann
d ne
,,,, —
:
,... . .
- 1 I
... ,... ,...9. ,.., .
L
-
la
,..
/
O
o 0.) a .;  4-,
C
fz.  a
.9 .=
,_,
-.
0 w
',..
lcu
o .
'---  w
O.
,...
0,,.. 0 . 0,4 5
.
f roa
0  .
o  c.-,
o
c.-.
0  a

CO CO CO
ters
o
c  0 "87'
0
0
° .  711
, . c c c o CO
' '  o
r° .  -6
>  . c c c
Ca
o ,,, ,... 4)
o —  0  o o o •...L.- o
0  o o o
:

ity
T >-,
..=
at
0  0  0 60 >  -0 Fiz, Eb • ill al  -a ,
a) -0
— .-,
Gt. 0
Oa 00 00
0.)
.- .-. 0 0  C  a> a.) a) 7 a) 07) C
)
tu a
.7
1%
..
) 4-4 §1  bo . Ea4-ciwixf:48.a4-(:3a4c4r:4
Parame
Dens [—. 3 w 4.) 1240
In.,
Source

Gesho Geshev : The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies, 2001. 81-100. p.
Discussion Papers. Special
The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union
95
Impact regions
The fulfilment of the regional policy priorities is realised in the mosaic-like
situated regions for purposeful impact in the framework of the 6 planning re-
gions:
1) The growth regions cover 10630 sq. km  of the national territory or 9.07%
with a population of 2970561 people or 35.6% from the total for the
country. In fact these are the fields of influence of the cities of Sofia,
Plovdiv, Stara Zagora, Bourgas, Varna, Rousse and Pleven.
2) The regions for development cover 6721.4 sq. km  of the national terri-
tory or 6.06% with a population of 800677 people or 9.67% from the to-
tal for the country. The fields of influence of the towns of Blagoevgrad,
Haskovo, Yambol, Dobrich, Shoumen, Veliko Turnovo and Vratsa refer
to them. They are situated in almost all planning regions (one in each re-
gion) and only the Northeastern region contains two — the towns of Do-
brich and Shoumen.
3) The regions with industrial decline on the national territory are about 8.
They cover 7238.4 sq. km  or 6.52% with a population of 438294 people
or 5.29% from the total for the country.
4) The declining rural regions occupy 27001.2 sq. km  or 24.33% with a
population of about 1007655 people or 11.2% from the total for the
country. They are concentrated in a compact manner mainly in the North-
western and North-eastern region. Their situation is connected yvith the
available natural conditions and resources and traditions in the devel-
opment of Bulgarian agriculture.
5) The regions for transborder co-operation and development coincide with
the territories of a number of the above mentioned regions and estimated
to have a territory of about 32685.8 sq. km  or 29.5% from the total for
the country with a population of 1615298 people. These are mainly ter-
ritories along the western, southern and northern borders of the Republic
of Bulgaria and they are directly related with the national policy for
"opening" of the physical space.
6) The European transport corridors are tangential to or cross almost all of
the planning regions. For example, corridor No 8 crosses the South-
western, South-Central, South-eastern and North-eastern regions.
Corridor No 4 crosses the North-western and the South-western region.
Corridor No 7 is tangential to the North-western, North-Central and
North-eastern regions, and corridor No 9 crosses the Northeastern and
South-eastern regions. The role of the North-Central region in North

Gesho Geshev : The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies, 2001. 81-100. p.
Discussion Papers. Special
96
G. Geshev
Bulgaria and of the South-Central region in South Bulgaria as con-
nections between corridors No 4 and No 9 is very important.
The fact that all the regions are densely covered by fields of influence of re-
gions for growth and for development of important infrastructural corridors,
provides the ground to consider that the territorial framework basis for trans-
border co-operation has been created in the South-eastern European region, as a
prerequisite for the EU enlargement.
Possibilities for the use of the accession funds of the European Union
for regional development
The practical realisation of the regional development policy is directly con-
nected with the chosen policy of Bulgaria for joining the European Union.
During the accession period the specially created for the candidate-member
countries instruments which allow the possibilities for financial support of
measures in areas of crucial importance for the joining of EU, are specially
relied upon. The ISPA and SAPARD instruments have been developed as ana-
logues correspondingly of the Cohesion Fund (concentrated on the measures in
the field of transport and environment) and of the Agrarian Fund (concentrated
on the measures in agriculture and rural regions). The intentions of the Euro-
pean Commission are to make the PHARE programme functioning as an ana-
logue of the European Fund for Regional Development and of the European
Social Fund.
The resources of the EU for regional development are principally directed to
two main levels — regions at the NUTS II level (according to aim 1 — to support
the development and structural adapting of regions lagging behind in their de-
velopment) and at the NUTS III level (according to aim 2 — to transform re-
gions seriously affected by industrial decline, and according to aim 5b — to en-
courage the development and structural adapting of rural regions).
There are several countries whose whole territory is considered as a region
according to aim 1. Such will be the approach to Bulgaria in the process of
joining and after the joining the EU. According to aim 1 programme for spatial
development in regions corresponding to the NUTS II level are worked out with
the national plans for development in the member-countries. The member-
countries, which do not have administrative-territorial units at this level, de-
velop planning regions (Ireland, Portugal and Greece).

Gesho Geshev : The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies, 2001. 81-100. p.
Discussion Papers. Special
98
G. Geshev
Summary and conclusions about the role of the prospects of the spatial
development of the South-Eastern European space
The described standpoint is motivated by the participation in the ESTIA project
and in the "Vision Planet" Expert Group.
The Kosovo crisis, which was transformed into a military conflict against
the Union Republic of Yugoslavia, exerts its impact on the wholesome destabi-
lisation of the region. The possibilities for overcoming the isolation and the
including of the countries in the European integration will be more clearly out-
lined depending on the outcome of the conflict, the returning of the refugees
back home from the neighbouring countries of Kosovo (Albania and Macedo-
nia) and the political situation for restoring the destruction and the indirect
losses. The role of the regions in this respect is not debatable.
According to the "VISION PLANET" Expert Group several key elements
for sustainable development actions could be recommended to find their ex-
pression in the regions:
a) Transport Infrastructure Networks
This is the decisive and most important priority element of the spatial
structure of the South-eastern European Space for the future structure lo-
calisation. The interregional and international accessibility to the regions
determines their attractiveness for investments and generally for their
economic development. In this context, special attention should be paid
to two aspects:
—Transfer of the concept for the large European Transportation Corri-
dors in concrete proposals for improvement of the inter-regional trans-
portation infrastructure ("TINA" project) in the Southeastern Euro-
pean region.
—Initiation and development of multi-modality transport systems con-
tributing to the internal and external accessibility to the space of the
regions in South-eastern Europe as:
—Construction of bridges across the Danube (in the Bulgarian-Ruma-
nian section): structures that have acquired great actuality for
changing the transport direction after restrictions and breaking the
connections through Serbian territory;
—Creation (construction) of Ro-Ro system for major connections
between the Black Sea and West Europe in order to reduce the
heavy fright traffic on the overburdened international roads;
—Considering intra-urban accessibility improvements as necessary
means for securing the functioning of the existing major urban cen-
tres.

Gesho Geshev : The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies, 2001. 81-100. p.
Discussion Papers. Special
The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union
99
b) Cross-Border Co-operation
The identification of "Priority Cross-Border Development Areas" for ac-
tive connections between two and more countries. This first priority
category should comprise those regions where future "external" borders
of the European Union (resulting from the envisaged first round of acces-
sion) will encounter particularly difficult situations in at least two neigh-
bouring countries.
Four of the seven pointed out in CADSES "Priority Cross-Border Develop-
ment Areas" (zones III, V, VI and VII) are situated in the Southeastern Euro-
pean space.
This example of the "VISION PLANET" Expert Group conclusions should
be considered carefully and it does not exhaust the possible conclusions for
similar zones in the region.
The proposed idea for "overlapping" macro regions within the CADSES
space gives the main trends for the EU enlargement from Central to South-east-
ern Europe in three target geopolitical spaces:
—Carpathian;
—Danube and Adriatic Sea.
All these target spaces (CADSES macro regions) can be used as cultural
historical structures, connecting Central and South-eastern Europe.
References
Dimitru, V. 1998: Institutions and instruments of spatial development policy and plan-
ning in Romania. —  Proceedings of the ESTIA First Project Meeting.  Thessaloniki,
16-17 October 1998.
Geshev, G. 1997a: Southeastern challenges to the European development. —  EUREG.  5.
Geshev, G. (ed.) 1997b:  The Geographical Space — an Instrument for the 21 Century.
Sofia, Institute of Geography, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
Geshev, G. 1998: Comparative perspectives of spatial development and planning in
Bulgaria. —  Proceedings of the ESTIA First Project Meeting.  Thessaloniki, 16-17
October 1998.
Giannakourou, G. 1998: The spatial planning system in Greece: a brief overview.  —
Proceedings of the ESTIA First Project Meeting.  Thessaloniki, 16-17 October 1998.
Horvath, Gy. 1996:  Transition and Regionalism in East-Central Europe.  Tubingen,
Zentrum fur Foderalismus-Forschung.
Kafkalas, G. 1998: Spatial development trends in Greece: geographical position and
spatial structure. —  Proceedings of the ESTIA First Project Meeting.  Thessaloniki,
16-17 October 1998.

Gesho Geshev : The Role of Regions of the South-Eastern Space in the Enlarging European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies, 2001. 81-100. p.
Discussion Papers. Special
100
G. Geshev
Marinov, V. 1998: Spatial planning systems in Bulgaria. — Proceedings of the ESTIA
First Project Meeting. Thessaloniki, 16-17 October 1998.
Planning regions — necessity, essence and territorial range, 1988: Report of the National
Centre for Regional Development and Housing Policy. Sofia.
Spatial plan of the Republic of Macedonia. Summary. Skopie, February 1999.
Spatial plan of the Republic of Serbia. Abridged version, 1997: Belgrade, Institute of
Architecture and Town Planning of Serbia.
Summary of conclusions of VISION PLANET Expert Group. Second meeting. Ulm,
11-12 December 1998.