1. Introduction Surfacing 20,273 km² with 2,066,000 inhabitants (est. 2014) Slovenia count to smallest European countries. Thanks to geographical location between Alpine Arc, Dinaric mountain ranges and hills, Car- pathian basin and edge of Mediteranean, many geo- graphical descriptions named the country as geo- graphical laboratory (Adamič Orožen, 2004), due to variety of different landscapes coming close togeth- er on short distances and making a pitoresque pay- sages. Sure, that slovene traditional settlement terri- tory represent a culturally contact area between the Italian, German, Hungarian and Croatian ethnic area. While the classic geographical impressions of the slovene cultural landscapes give major importance to the contiguity of natural geographical units, the modern way of understanding these features should merge more to past and recent dynamics of social and economic processes. Within these-ones the po- litical borders and border regimes are playing very important role, while in the frontier areas represent certain a key factor. The contribution will take atten- tion exactelly to these “border” factors and border landscapes, which has been influencing particularly during last three decades. The border areas are a special type of cultural landscape, the creation of which is due to local char- acteristics and in particular the wider hinterland and international circumstances. They represent the re- sultant of internal and external forces of closer and wider hinterland. Ethnic minorities assume a spe- cial role therein as in the last century having gone through the different stages of relationships, i.e. the Journal of Geography, Politics and Society 2017, 7(1), 10–18 DOI 10.4467/24512249JG.17.002.6201 SLOVENE BORDER LANDSCAPE TRANSFORMATION Jernej Zupančič Department of Geography, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Aškerčeva 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, e-mail: jernej.zupancic@ff.uni-lj.si Citation Zupančič J., 2017, Slovene border landscape transformation, Journal of Geography, Politics and Society, 7(1), 10–18. Abstract The paper is analyzing the contemporary processes inside border areas. Due to different political destinies trough near past, the distinct border sectors developed various types of borderlands: mainly open and structurally asymetric in the west and north and close-like and symetric on the east. The border toward Croatia is the youngest and therefore still in turbulent acco- modation to the border-situations. The paper take special attention to recent spatial processes: from close and rich crossborder cooperation to ignorance or abandonding of planning measures and avoidance. Second main attention is taken to the minori- ties settled inside borderlends and their influence to borderlands. Key words Slovenia, borders, crossborder relations, minorities, political geography. Slovene border landscape transformation 11 competition, genocidal policies and ignorance of participation (Zupančič, 2008). In this context, the structural characteristics of border areas are an im- portant or even crucial factor in passive fostering these relationships. Positioned in southern part of Central Europe, Slovenia is a true „border country“: a good half of state territory lies inside of 25 km – border belt. Slovenia is bordering to four neighbour countries: Italy, Austria, Hungary and Croatia. The total border length is 1,334 km; almost exactely half of Slovenia‘s land border is with Croatia: 670 km, 25 % with Aus- tria, 17% with Italy and 8% with Hungary (National Atlas of Slovenia, 2001). By another recapitulation, the borderness can be measured by share of km of international border-line per 100  km² of state sur- face: Slovenia is the second country in Europe with 5.7  km of border/100  km² (Bufon, 2004). The slo- vene maritime border (towards Italian and Croatian territorial water in Upper shelf sea) is still (in 2016) disputing. The decision should be done by Interna- tional Arbitrary Court during next years1. The second question here is the influence of recent geopoliti- cal features in regional neighbourhood. This might be area of collaboration (collaborative area) or re- gions and states of competition or, in some cases, to a potential conflict. That’s why the relevant attention must be done to these regional factors. This contribution examines the influence of mi- nority groups in three key-studies: the Slovenian- Italian (Gorizia – Nova Gorica), Austrian-Slovenian (Radgona – Gornja Radgona), Slovenian-Hungarian border and with some special remarks, the long- est of them, with Croatia. Based on a comparative analysis of the border area structure, the effects of motherland and minority policies and the activities of minorities, the main processes in the border areas are outlined by means of five indicators monitored, namely political climate, spatial paradigms, socio- economic development, protection of minorities and activities of persons belonging to minorities. 2. The recent geopolitical features of Slovenia and neighbourhood Slovenia lies in a strategic bridgehead and Slovenes are a nation at the crosswinds. For the review of modern geopolitical picture of Slovenia and for the determination of the main premises of its situ- ation we can use the three main parameters: the 1 Both diplomatic representatives, slovenian and croatian, agreed in 2012 to abjure the boundary decision (maritime and terestical in whole) to International Arbitrary Court. macrostructure of Slovene space, elements of traffic transfer and the involvement of the country in in- ternational connections. All these can reflect to the border-situation and their various functions directly and indirectly. The first parameter is mostly structur- al and therefore plays a passive role, the other two being functional; therefore the national policy can evidently put the directions and manage the chal- lenges that come from close and wide. Findings of the geopolitical situation has also assessed the ad- equacy and effectiveness of the management skills of Slovene politics with natural and acquired spatial and social elements. The starting point for it are de- mographical features, education, employment skills, the mentality in a very general and large under- standing, as well as the organization (administrative, social, safety and in this context especially military security). Problem free ethnic relations are an impor- tant cornerstone of stability and social cohesion and therefore always subject to geopolitical assessments of the country. The minority issues are almost ever relevant directly to border features due to historical reasons. First we have to asses macrostructure of Slovene state territory. In the center of the state lies Ljublja- na where around a third of the population, around 700,000 people are concentrated in the urban ag- glomeration. Ljubljana’s central location gives the town an undisputed primacy and the role of macro- regional center. It is directly linked to transport and industrial axis with Gorenjska Kranj (43,000 inhab- itants) and Jesenice (20,000 inhabitants). In the di- rection to the south is Dolenjska with Novo Mesto (28,000 inhabitants). The third largest city is Celje (50,000 inhabitants) in the narrow valley which has a weak hinterland. Maribor, the second largest city (100,000 inhabitants) lies close to the border with Austria and faces regional competition of much stronger Graz; Maribors’ hinterland is predominantly peripheral and rural. At the edge of the state there are also Nova Gorica (20,000 inhabitants) and Koper (26,000 inhabitants). The first was formed close to the border because of political defiance. After its industrial development failed it has become a lead- ing gambling city in the region. Seaside city of Koper is close to the Italian and Croatian borders. Despite less favorable conditions, it has become an impor- tant northern Adriatic port (Zupančič, Pipan, 2012). The weakest is the eastern part of Slovenia. Mur- ska Sobota (15,000 inhabitants) does not constitute a proper development center. Due to the preva- lence of hilly and mountainous physical geography Slovene state territory is divided internally, certain areas have poor access to major centers and the resi- dents of them have poor access to the appropriate 12 Jernej Zupančič services. In the light of border issues it is to note that more than half of regional urban centres are quite close to the border and some municipal cities like Nova Gorica, Sežana, Radgona, Metlika, Ormož, Dra- vograd, Jesenice, Brežice, Rogaška etc. beside direct- ly or very close to international border-lines. That’s why the border issues are of a vital importance in national context. A special part of the state macrostructures rep- resent political boundaries and with them related cross-border relations. Slovene Italian border on the north ridge to the south of Gorizia and Trieste takes place in the middle of the inhabitable space and has at many border crossings highly cohesive charac- ter. Most of the Austrian border runs along natural barriers (mountain ridges and rivers) and is by its nature thus separating. However, in recent history it has nevertheless predominantly integrating char- acter and like the Slovene-Italian border has distin- guished itself by a high degree of cross-border coop- eration. Minorities play an extremely important role. Slovene-Hungarian border runs at an average at the lowest ground, but due to the past policies (the Iron Curtain) was distinctly separating and poor transient border region which was also passive. Border with Croatia is the youngest in its status, but is in indi- vidual sectors (more than two thirds) significantly older. As it had in the past have only administrative- political character it was developed as a serpentine line adjusted on legal-property and not primarily on the security situation. Therefore, in many sectors it is open to local traffic, but due to recent regional poli- cy, most of the border area is strongly peripheral and economically passive, and thus sensitive (Zupančič, 2015). The second strategic element is geopolitical situ- ation of Slovenia which is predisposed as a transi- tional territory – bridgehead – and this despite of the mountainous character described above. The shortest route between the North Sea or the Baltic coasts in the north and the upper Adriatic, thru the heart of the European continent to the edge of the Mediterranean Sea passes thru Slovene territory. In between there lies industrial and economically strong Central European core (Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic and Poland) where central portion of the European population and economic axes are located. Iberian economic arc which reaches areas of northern Italy, southern France in Spanish Catalonia begins in Northern Italy. Slovenia is on the edge of the area, but the Ljubljana hub brings together 9th pan-European TEN corridor with trans-Alpine region. On the way from northern Italy it crosses the Posto- jna Gate, which lies 600 m above the sea and rep- resents the broadest and lowest natural gateway to the entire Alpine-Dinaric arc!Tauern-corridor passes thru Ljubljana, while Pyrin road passes thru in Mari- bor. Pyrn roads. 9th TEN Corridor leads towards the east to Budapest and further into Eastern Europe. Other transport corridor represent the line that fol- lows from the Baltic to Adriatic, which extends from the north of Central Europe to the northern ports. Parts of the Slovene state territory are included into this old transport route from Vienna to Trieste (and now the Port of Koper) and also as a gateway to Rijeka in Croatia. Transalpine roads continue east to the Balkans. Slovenia has a relatively dense and high-quality motorway network, which corresponds to the transit nature of its territory. However, key nodes are to modestly equipped and therefore the economic benefits from transit are not adequate, es- pecially if the environmental pollution is taken into account. The railway network is relatively dense, but very outdated and its- the modest inter-modality is inhibited already in transit traffic, so that it is not able to service and promote economic development. The country has three airports, but only Ljubljana airport has appropriate European macro-regional character. The location of this airport is far from the city and has no direct railway or/and highway connection. In contrary, there are three important regional air- ports very close to Slovene borders: in Zagreb (Croa- tia), Graz (Austria) and Ronchi – Trieste (Italy). Port of Koper has developed a modern maritime trans- port strategy and acquired a wide hinterland, but highway and rail infrastructure does not support it properly. The third parameter of the geopolitical posi- tion Slovenia represent the inclusion of Slovenia in international flows and organizations in the recent period. Central European position of Slovenia is usu- ally proven by its membership to cultural circle in Central European cultural circle, which historically meant political affiliation with the Habsburg Monar- chy, industrial regions of Central Europe and vibrant cultural communication with the northern area. An important element is also Catholic and to a lesser extent Protestant provenance as the foundation of the most of Slovene society, although extensively hidden by the newer socialist doctrine and atheism. The socialist era was also a time of attachment to the Yugoslav or the wider Balkan area. Independence also meant return to the concept of Central Europe, accession to the EU (2004 pragmatic upgrade of the previously established economic and cultural ties. Membership in NATO (2004) and later in the Euro- zone and the Schengen area of Europe (2007) con- cluded the main range of new alliances and Slove- nia positioned itself in the international arena. This sequence reads like a successful transition story. Slovene border landscape transformation 13 Slovenia was also the first country of Eastern Europe to preside EU, thus demonstrating confidence in in the international environment. No less important is symbolic construction of the Western Balkans fol- lowing the formula: former Yugoslavia minus Slove- nia plus Albania. Achieved external success had experienced a break during the international financial crisis from 2008 onwards. Since then not only economic, but also internal political crisis has escalated. It cannot be interpreted simply as a reflection of the instabil- ity of Western economies. It is necessary to look for much deeper reasons in the political and economic structure of the country and, ultimately, in the men- tality of executives in politics, economy and public administration. However, one should also take into account large, even radical geopolitical changes af- ter 2008, at which none of the key actors (EU, NATO) did not show a successful response, which only deepen the crisis. Crisis of these associations have consequently impact particularly on Slovenia. Fur- thermore, in 2015 came the completely new political challenge: the immigrant influx. Enormous masses of people from large areas in Near East and Northern African countries and regions (most of them have any documents for exact personal and therefore re- gional / national identification) were driven trough the “Balkan way” to Central Europe. Slovene-Croa- tian border is there second (first is greek-) “schen- gen-border”. In a short period, the nature of former open or even not-controlled border line has been changed radically. After several months of different attempts how to control and secure the border line and border zone, the Slovene policy followed the Hungarian example: they put the border razor-wired border fences along whole border-line. After a dec- ade of open border and philosophy of crossborder collaboration these lines became the frontiers and securization the main principle, not easy, but any- way largerly accepted principle. 3. The creation of Slovene national boundaries and border-typology Recent Slovene political borders have a rich history behind. Almost a half of total border-line have their roots deep in 18th century. They are direct or indi- rect successors of inner Austrian lands-borders. The “lands” were relatively large administrative units in former Hapsburg Empire, Austrian part. It was after the First and Second World Wars and the collapse of Yugoslavia in 1991 when the Slovenian political boundaries were formed. The border with Italy was drawn in 1954 provisionally and have been fully accepted in 1975 by the Treaty of Ossimo (Klemenčič, 1987). The border with Austria was agreed upon with the St. Germain Peace Treaty in 1920, and a year later the border with Hungary with the Treaty of Trianon (Celar, 2002). Subsequently, there has been no alter- nation thereof. The border with Croatia was estab- lished by proclamation of independence and mutual recognition of the two countries in June 25th, 1991. However, there are still some outstanding border is- sues on land and at sea between the two countries. A significant milestone as regards the border issue is the Slovenia’s  and Hungary’s accession to the EU (2004) and further into the Schengen area (2007); namely when direct military, police and customs control of the boundary have been abolished. The border area structure dynamically reflected the general modernisation processes and at the same time was adjusted to the influence of national centres. As minorities had certain influence, the bor- der area was therefore structured in a specific way. The border areas examined belong to three different types of border areas, namely cohesive, passive and isolation border areas. The Slovenian–Italian border stretches between the foothills, the Karst plateau and the Friuli plain, whereas one part is drawn in a way the natural ob- stacles taken into account (mountain crest and reef ) and the other crosses the densely populated and economically active area. Longitudinally, it goes through densely populated area of the Friuli plain in Italy and the Vipavska valley in Slovenia. Old political boundaries (between the Habsburg Monarchy and the Venetian Republic and its successor, the Kingdom of Italy) were held slightly to the west. Therefore, the area was for centuries characterised by intensive cul- tural and economic contact. Urban centres are in the middle of the Soča river valley. A regional centre of Nova Gorica was established, directly on the border, demonstrating the defiant nature of these decisions. As regards the structure, the areas are complemen- tary as certain forms of cross-border cooperation are required that results in the dependence thereon. Thus, the area represents a type of cohesive border. In this respect, the Slovenian minority is an essential factor in increasing the cohesiveness as a result of many familial ties and friendships local population has a lot of personal motives for cross-border coop- eration. Moreover, the 10th European transport cor- ridor crosses the city and the region. Beside this, the border is crossed by many daily working commut- ers from Slovenia to Italy, while the opposite flow is much less evident (Zupančič, 2002). The Slovenian–Austrian border in the section Bad Radkersburg – Gornja Radgona is an example of pas- sive border. The geographical structure of areas on 14 Jernej Zupančič both side of the border is quite similar. The broad plains along the Mura River represent the central part thereof, and dense, but highly dispersed popu- lated hills dominate in the background. The area has quite agrarian character and there are two smaller centres, i.e. Bad Radkersburg (slov. Radgona) and Gornja Radgona, the latter nestled directly along the border. As the areas are self-sufficient, the cross- border communication was limited for decades. The border was drawn exclusively with respect to water- courses; one part along the Mura river, which was due to its role fortified with embankment in order to maintain the flow, and then on the stream Kučnica, flow of which was adjusted to the agreed border. Similarly, there was a negative attitude to minority by both sides. While the German population of the Apaško polje was mostly banished, the Slovenian minority in Radgona / Radkersburg area remained practically ignored for decades (Zupančič, 1999). The border between Slovenia and Hungary rep- resents the type of isolative border. The border is drawn across relatively ethnically homogeneous and entirely agrarian area. The northern part follows the watershed and the eastern part, however, goes through some settlements. Decades of separate de- velopment accelerated depopulation and periph- erization of the area. As, due to the specific policy of separation, the border was extensively fortified (military infrastructure of the Iron Curtain) and con- trolled, cross-border contacts were practically pre- vented. Even though the structure of the areas on both side of the border is quite similar (agriculture and industry) and represent the periphery of Slo- venia or Hungary, their development was entirely separate. Even after the accession of both countries to the EU and the “Schengen area” the features of separation are preserved; on both sides the passivity is canned with the designation of protected areas. Almost exactly half of Slovenian border line is with Croatia. This is the type of developing border, due to rapid changes of border regimes and border situations during last 25 years. The border is mainly drawn along the old line of the administrative bor- der2, which was formed between the 16th and 18th centuries (Zgodovina, 1979). In spite of somewhat different competences, the conditions had been provided for the formation of a settlement struc- ture, traffic order, property law and other public and 2 The perception, that political borders between yugoslav federal units (republics) have »only« administrative character, is completely wrong. The federal repuplics have large autono- my and competences and were, first among all, political enti- ties and were structuralized like states (countries). But they were not securized trough army, police and custom. private regulations, forming the cultural region. Life was different, but due to relatively close languages and the same (catholic) cultural provenience, there were many contacts, as well as many mixed mar- riages. The regions lived in intense contact. Towards the end of the 18th century, the cadastre meas- urement began to form, which differed in details (technique as well as surveying starting points). In region of Žumberak (recent Gorjanci mountain) the border line was drawn according to the possession of land-owners residence and adopted the line “me- andering” a lot, making in the area some enclaves (or exclaves) (Celar, 2002), perhaps because of spe- cial right of the settlers there, a real “frontiermen” – s. c. Uskoki3. Once the double monarchy was formed according to the Austro – Hungarian agreement (1866), the introduction of the internal economical control between Hungarian and Austrian lands saw the implementation of partial harmonisation and straightening out of the border line: legal heritage of today’s “cadastre” border (Zajc, 2006), which later, in the Yugoslav era, went through several redrawings; those are where most of the non harmonised cases of the cadastre route of the border line of the current Slovenian – Croatian border stem from. The border on the Mura river was drawn inside one common cadastral measurement (Hungarian part of Austro- Hungary), so that the contemporary differences were done later during Yugoslav period. In the sector of Istria, the border is entirely new and was formed with agreements after World War II. This part is still a subject of debate and dispute due to a series of un- clear aspects within the border line drawing process itself (Kristen, 2006). Beside this, the area of Istria was long under Republic of Venice and has there- fore, a venetian juridical tradition. Austrian authori- ties just adopted them after conquering the area in 18th century (Zgodovina, 1979). Another source of border issues stems from mainly erosion - accumu- lation processes by Drava, Mura and Sotla, which changed the subject characteristics and access to property. The third source of issues is the layout of the infrastructure, especially traffic related one, since it crosses the border line several times and there is no clear competence regarding maintenance and control. A series of open question relates to energy facilities (hydroelectric power plants, nuclear power plant Krško) directly at the border or close to it. The fourth group of problems includes interventions, which were formed after the establishment of the 3 Uskoki – people mainly serbian ethnic origin, who were refugees from areas under ottoman rule, and settled the fron- tier of Habsburg empire. They have special competences and rights for compensation of military border service. Slovene border landscape transformation 15 countries. There were several shortages because of border. All these circumstances significantly influ- enced the considerable dynamic of changes of the border cultural landscape. 4. Minorities as a decision factor in borderlands Minorities are the result of demarcation processes, no matter what were the criteria thereof. The crea- tion of political boundaries was primarily a reflec- tion of the military and political power of national centres that conquered the territory for strategic reasons. The negotiators often relied on criterion of ethnic homogeneity of the future countries, this was however often neglected. Minorities are thus the re- ality of border areas, minority policy is a reflection of the political wisdom of the political elites as well as the realisation of humanistic principles that is con- sistently proclaimed by all diplomacy, yet with great difficulty realised. The areas examined are typical heirs of the European nationalisms that considered minorities as a foreign body, a suspicious element that is meaningful to assimilate. The result was indis- posed, cautious and often even aggressive attitude towards minorities and their settlement areas. According to Italian official estimations there is in Italy close to 52,000 Slovenes, while Slovenian au- thors estimates by linguistical criteria their popula- tion from 80,000 to more than 100,000. In Austria, the last census in 20014 counted around 13,000 of them in the Carinthia, the estimations are evidently high- er: 45,000 in the same province. In Hungary, there are close to 3,000 and in Croatia 17,000 by census in 2002, while still a decade before there were more than 25,000. The Slovenian community in Croatia is much more a dispersed urban diaspora and just in smaller part a real territorial minority. Otherwise, in Slovenia there are around 3,000 of Italians and close to 10,000 Hungarians by estimations, while the of- ficial number is smaller. Beside this, there are round 10,000 Roma and relatively strong Serbian (around 60,000), Croatian (43,000) and Bosniak (40,000) di- aspora (Zupančič, 2004). Before WW2, the strongest ethnic minority were the Germans; to some estima- tions around 45,000 (Zupančič, 2004) or even more (Karner, 1998), due to its much larger number at last Census in Hapsburg Monarchy in 1910; there were around 105,000 Germans on recent Slovene national territory, according to the linguistical criteria. In contrary, the motherland considered a minor- ity from viewpoint of demographic, cultural and 4 The census in 2011 has no linguistical evidence. often also political potential and occasionally terri- torial pretensions. In this light, mostly, patronising and generally ethno-centralistic policy was held. Minorities were the object of instrumentalization of bilateral relations, convenient to occasionally raise an “issue” or to “sacrifice” a minority for the higher in- terests of bilateral relations. Due to their competences to cope with the lan- guage, culture, customs, traditions and in particular by the existence of social networks, which evolved through controlled political borders, members of minority groups provided in particular services. Mi- norities and their social and spatial functions were directly and indirectly affected by certain policies re- lated to border and border areas. Support for minori- ties either by the countries or motherland proved to be a valuable investment in terms of improved inter- national relations. Minorities can play economically and culturally unifying role in various fields and are an important development factor. 5. Recent border landscape transformation: the case studies Comparison of the critical times (1949, 1978, 1990 and 2004) outlines the time-section of four different periods of modern European economic and political history, which is strongly reflected in the marginal and minority policies. This was a time of nationalist Europe that evolved from almost half a century geo- political polarisation towards the current integration phase. A decade after World War II was characterised by the beginning of geopolitical polarisation and the creation of the concept of closed borders. In the Gor- ica region, as an act of defiance, a parallel regional centre was established, directly on the border with the street system, facing the „old“ Gorizia, as if it was a single location. In the pic of geopolitical competi- tion, a border became a cut-off point; the term “Iron Curtain” developed as a concept of strongly secured cumbersome border. In our case, the concept did not long persist, except on the border with Hungary. After the Cominform resolution of 1949 there was a deterioration of relations between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union and its political satellites. Conse- quently, the border with Hungary was hermetically closed; it became a real „iron curtain“ with two little frequented border crossings, and even less in partic- ular after the Soviet intervention in Hungary in 1956. The border with Austria was also strongly controlled since it was legally and politically reconstructed only with the State Treaty for Austria of 1957. 16 Jernej Zupančič In the seventies, the border regimes experienced major changes. According to the Constitution of 1974 the republics of former Yugoslavia had greater autonomy, which enabled Slovenia to focus primar- ily on the markets of the European Economic Com- munity (EEC). Border regimes were liberalised, the frequency of transitions increased. Italy and Austria were among the most Slovenia’s important partners. As a result, there was a great increase in cross-border traffic of goods. The Treaty of Ossimo in 1975 ena- bled the concept of open borders. Only in the Gorica region there were 28 crossings of different grades or one to 2.3 km, which is an exceptional density in the world! With the active participation of the Slo- venian minority in Italy, cross-border activity rapidly increased, in particular in the fields of education, agriculture and trade as well as providing services to companies. Investment and innovation entered in the border area. In contrast to industry, a tertiary paradigm of economic development evolved. The Gorica region became an elite winemaking, culinary, tourism and gambling region, although Slovenia was then in the culmination of agrarian-industrial paradigm of development. On the contrary, the east- ern border in the Prekmurje region vegetated along the closed iron curtain and minorities were isolated from the core-centres. Ten years later, the border area experienced the following series of changes associated with the dis- solution of the bloc, the collapse of Yugoslavia and the creation of new political boundaries. Due to the economic and political crisis and lack of resources, the border areas in Italy and Austria specialised in shopping tourism of exceptional character. Minori- ties assumed therein a very important role because of language competence, which also contributed to their affirmation. The decisive turning point oc- curred on the border with Hungary. The concept of the Iron Curtain was interrupted and construction of cross-border relations began to accelerate. Here, this process took place much more slowly. Since there were no habits of border areas developed and even less capacity available for successful cross-border communication, they remained at least at the begin- ning rather passive. Now a completely different picture can be ob- served. After joining the EU and the Schengen re- gime there were transitional borders in place. The political climate was improved and cross-border cooperation became a political imperative of lo- cal and regional elites, minorities were recognised their role of importance not only as the medium but also a catalyst for cross-border communication. In the Gorica region, incentives for cross-border co- operation were not at all needed as there a wealth of diverse contacts between the minority and the local population had already been in place. Gorica (it. Gorizia) and Nova Gorica developed elements of building common urban policies. As regards the bor- der area with Austria, some forms of employment in Austria and project performance were developed and strengthened. The border area with Hungary remained however largely passive and there was a strong need for incentives and assistance. Starting regional development was based primarily on moth- erland interventionism. A perception of „protection“ of the border area was preserved; the role of the „iron curtain“ and the area dotted with bunkers was perfidiously dominated by the logic of large-scale protected areas. Finally, what happened along slovene-croatian border since both countries became independant? Briefly: markation and demonstration first, followed by internal and international pressure to securiza- tion, symbolization in-between, then quick attempts to economization and distinct attempts to close bor- der area: abandoning any touch due to avoid possi- ble confrontation in the north and intensive border urbanization as well as parkization, all close together in the southern, coastal space! The most obvious sign of the establishment of border is its symbolic marking and the establish- ment of institutionalised control. At the points of road and railroad crossing, wide installations of bor- der infrastructure were set up, border crossings of various ranks in the presence of police, customs and sanitary control. Many local paths and roads were closed, or the transition thereon was allowed ex- clusively in a limited and conditional scope. The se- curing of the border line triggered the formation of two types of zones in the border area: intensification zones along the traffic corridors and peripherization zones in the areas with less traffic. In the case of the Slovenian – Croatian border, the investment pres- sure in the first type of areas increased after the end of the Balkans interethnic conflicts in 1995; then, the traffic increased rapidly. This was followed by the tertiarization of the border area, which replaced the older industrial – agricultural paradigm. On the other hand, the new infrastructure was provided to entirely remode areas in the Gorjanci and Kočevsko regions. Due to military – strategic reasons, several roads were renewed and built5 in a shorter period of time, with other forms of technical infrastructure be- ing installed, which was meant to aid the local popu- lation and, at the same time, be at the disposal to the security forces in the border control function. 5 Two completely new local roads, built exclusively for sup- plying small military base on Gorjanci mountain slopes. Slovene border landscape transformation 17 The second significant change is of a mainly symbolic character. The border area is important for countries and thus, frequently, if not always, also an area of symbolisation. The border is marked with boards and signs directly on the border line as well as the traffic corridors, which cross the border. Gradually, a symbolic aspect can evolve for the el- ements of the cultural and historical heritage and natural monuments: all of them speak of “our” coun- try. These elements are generally also attractive and thus subject to visits. Symbolisation then gradually leads to the expansion of services in border areas and in the case of the Slovenian - Croatian border culture, too, it was so. A special variation of symbolisation is the estab- lishment and maintenance of parks, wider under- stood as a strategy of protection of the border area, specifically in the phase of the removal of control. The protection of the border area, wherein various “valuable” elements of living and unliving nature are recognised, as well as material cultural heritage, makes sense at first sight, as it neatly complements the visibility of the local environment and contrib- utes to its tourist promotion. However, protection is also a form of new, indirect control over the border area, for which a particular part of other develop- ment perspectives are heavily restricted and con- trol is increased. With this, the national care and the tutorship of the state over the local environment is highly increased, with the motive being mainly na- tional and thus conservative: it attempts to maintain the border area such as it is. Thus, next to the Mura and Drava rivers, most of the area is within “Nature 2000” while certain smaller reservations have an even stricter regime. Along the Sotla river, there is the Kozjansko park, Jovsi, and in a certain way also upper Sotla river area, the design of which, however, goes back to the 80s, similarly to Gorjanci, Kolpa riv- er area and Snežnik mountains. Somewhat different- ly: more than two thirds of the border area is under a certain protection regime. Doubtlessly the most interesting habitat of all are the salt pans of Sečovlje, the maritime part of which continues into the shal- low and actually sensitive area of the Northern Adri- atic: the Piran bay. But this has, due to its border po- sition and two decades of a border dispute, resulted in an entirely different way: with symbolisation. Both countries, in their rush to prove the ownership of this sea area, attempted to prove the “Slovenianness” or “Croatianness” of Piran bay. While Slovenia declared the protection of this area and also limited it, Croatia exposed another name (Savudrijska vala) (Kladnik et al., 2014), the need to develop mariculture (by far the most intense in the entire area of Western Adriatic), development of tourism (two casinos directly by the border - and according to Slovenian convictions already in the area of protected nature) and finally also construction work of areas which have previ- ously been entirely vacant, of the cape of Savudrija, with exclusive villas and an appartment settlement (Zupančič, Pipan, 2012). The third form of influence in the border area is represented by the abandonment of any use. This is especially present in the “mature” phase and lat- er, when the broad range of border infrastructure if not necessary any more. To avoid border disputes in a time, when the question of borders in a subject of international arbitration, the countries abandoned the use of it; for example the border sand quarries on Mura and Drava rivers. But they have also aban- doned the maintenance of anti-flood enbankments and thus, due to problems, farm use in certain pe- riphery is also abandoned. The exploatation of sand, rubble and lignite deposits by Mura has nearly ceased. To keep the energy buildings in use, many compromises had to be made. The use of railway by Sotla river was nearly abandoned6, and mainly the care for it: as it is on the border. With the entry of Cro- atia into the EU (2013), the need for the use of broad border infrastructure should slowly be reduced, with said infrastructure being abandoned and possibly decaying. It seemed so in 2013. But development in the wider European area with a large immigrant in- flux to Central Europe turned the colaborative ideas and easing of border controls on its head. The secu- rity question became primary common issue. In the last months of 2015, Slovenia, in order to provide the so-called Schengen border control still acceptable, introduced a high wire fence along almost whole slovene-croatian border. Despite considerable initial outcry and public opposition, this new securization infrastructure remained. 6. Conclusion In the changed conditions due to European inte- gration, globalisation, informatisation and accom- panying processes, the mobility of the population significantly increases. Regarding establishing and maintaining ties members of minorities, despite small in number, have significantly contributed to an increase in cross-border cooperation in various fields. Due to the changing role and power, the pro- tection of minorities by the motherland is a priori ex- pected to be reduced and replaced with a functional one. A comparative analysis of the four border areas 6 This railway is in bad technical condition and probably out of use. 18 Jernej Zupančič indicates the persistence of spatial structures. De- spite their true efforts, local authorities are however susceptible to the heritage of the past. Slovenian borderlands reflects the long and rich history, where the dominant factors influenced from their centres: austrian, venetian, later Italian, hun- garian (and strong Russian-soviet influence during socialist period, either) and, of course, the Yugoslavi- an. The minorities settled there have been important “inner” factor: sometimes understood as “bridge- maker” and quickly thereafter a nonwishable men- ace. But they survived. The borders were places of contact and confrontation, memories, demonstra- tion of power and violence still some decades ago, became then a good reasons for cooperation and stimulated by new European friendship-spirit, a real crossborder cooperators. The cities grown beside the border, despite it and against it. Now, they are close to some common spatial decisions, but still far away from common management. They remain spaces of double-interests: inner (or local) and central – ones. 2015 and beyond the Slovene – Croatian border facing with completely new challenge: the immigra- tion influx. In less than half a year (2015) the border has been crossed by nearly 800,000 refugees and migrants on their main routes through Turkey and the Balkans. Their goal is to reach primarily the areas of rich countries of Central Europe and Scandinavia. Due to the extreme pressure of migrants, the Slove- nian government followed the Hungarian example: to limit the uncontrolled immigrant influx they in- stalled protective razor-sharp wire fencing. The se- curization of outer EU schengen-border became and remain until recent times the ultimate goal. Security measure has been effective, although it has been criticized and several public protests has been done by some political groups. References Adamič Orožen M., 2004, About Slovenia, [in:] O. Adamič Orožen (ed.), Slovenia: a geographic overview, ZRC Založba, Ljubljana, 7–10. Bufon M., 2004, Slovenia as a european contact area, [in:] O.  Adamič Orožen (ed.) Slovenia: a geographic overview, ZRC Založba, Ljubljana, 21–26. Celar B., 2002, Slovenija in njene meje, Visoka policijsko-var- nostna šola, Ljubljana. Karner C., 1998, Die deutschsprachige Volksgruppe in Slowenien, Verlag Hermagoras / Mohorjeva, Klagenfurt, Ljubljana, Wien. Kladnik D., Pipan P., Gašperšič P., 2014, Poimenovanja Piran- skega zaliva, Založba ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana. Klemenčič V., 1987, Državna meja na območju SR Slovenije in obmejna območja kot geografski fenomen, Razprave in gradivo / Treatises and documents, Insitute for ethnic stud- ies, 20, 57–81. Kristen S., 2006, Meje in misije. Dileme slovensko-hrvaške razmejitve v Istri v vojaškem, političnem, diplomatskem in obveščevalnem primežu II. svetovne vojne, Založba 2000, Ljubljana. National Atlas of Slovenia, 2001, Rokus Publishing House, Lju- bljana. Zajc M., 2006, Kje se slovensko neha in hrvaško začne. Slovensko- hrvaška meja v 19. in na začetku 20. stoletja, Modrijan, Lju- bljana. Zgodovina S., 1979, Cankarjeva založba, Ljubljana Zupančič J., 1999, Slovenci v Avstriji / Slovenes in Austria, se- ries: Geographica Slovenica, 32, Institute of Geography, Ljubljana. Zupančič J., 2002, Grenzüberschreitende Pendelwanderung aus Slowenien nach Österreich und Italien. Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft, 144, 145–157. Zupančič J., 2004, Ethnic structure of Slovenia and Slovenes in neighbouring countries, [in:] O. Adamič (ed.), Slovenia: a geographical overview, Association of the Geographical Societies of Slovenia, Založba ZRC, Ljubljana, 87–92. Zupančič J., 2008, Značaj in funkcije političnih meja v Evropi, Ars & humanitas, 2(1), 82–96. Zupančič J., Pipan P., 2012, Slovensko morje in obala: Severni Jadran v geopolitični perspektivi ter problemi razmeje- vanja med Italijo, Slovenijo in Hrvaško, [in:] D. Ogrin (ed.), Geografija stika Slovenske Istre in Tržaškega zaliva, Znan- stvena založba Filozofske fakultete, Ljubljana, 13–35. Zupančič J., 2015, Disputed and transformed: recent chang- es in the Slovenian-Croatian border landscape, [in:] M. Sobczyński (ed.), Geographical-political aspects of the transborder conservation of natural and cultural heritage: borderlands and contemporary changes of the politics in border regions, Region and regionalism, 12(1), 151–159.