1. Introduction The division of Europe into West and East is a long lasting phenomenon and borders of such division were changing during the history moving from east to west (Hryniewicz, 2015). For ages ‘West’ was almost a synonym to ‘Europe’ (Ferguson, 2005). His- torians mentioned about ‘eastern’ tribes penetrat- ing ‘West’ after the  collapse of the Roman Empire. Later, there was a division of Europe following the belongings of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church (Hryniewicz, 2015). After that, Poland could be seen as a bastion against ‘East’ helping survive Europe against the mighty Turks. Later on the frontier has been moved even further as founded St. Petersburg was for Russians ‘a win- dow on Europe’ (Ferguson, 2005). The Battle of War- saw has settled the border between Poland and the USSR as ‘a defensive wall’ of ‘West’ protecting from communism. In the XX c. the border between ‘East’ and ‘West’ were settled by the Cold War on the Elbe River. Nowadays we can say that boundaries of ‘West’ Journal of Geography, Politics and Society 2016, 6(2), 32–44 DOI 10.4467/24512249JG.16.011.5456 CROSS-BORDER ISSUES IN POLISH SUPRAREGIONAL STRATEGIES ON EXAMPLE OF STRATEGIES FOR WESTERN AND EASTERN POLAND Jan Maciej Smutek (1), Przemysław Łonyszyn (2) (1) Faculty of Geosciences, University of Szczecin, Mickiewicza 16, 70-383 Szczecin, Poland, e-mail: jan.smutek@univ.szczecin.pl (corresponding author) (2) Faculty of Geosciences, University of Szczecin, Mickiewicza 16, 70-383 Szczecin, Poland, e-mail: lonyszyn@onet.eu Citation Smutek J.M., Łonyszyn P., 2016, Cross-border issues in Polish supraregional strategies on example of strategies of western and eastern Poland, Journal of Geography, Politics and Society, 6(2), 32–44. Abstract The main purpose of this paper is to present areas and directions of integration and disintegration in East-Central Europe. It is based on the comparison of the two development strategies for the two supraregional areas in Poland namely: Western Poland and Eastern Poland. Supraregions are groups of highest administrative units in Poland – voivodeships. It is not any kind of administrative unit, and neither statistical. The reason for supraregional strategies are common challenges of development of groups of voivodeships. In our analysis we present differences between those strategies in scope of cross-border coopera- tion. We concentrate on four thematic issues: transport connections, economy, academia and a role of foreign institutions in a preparation and a modification of documents. In this way, we confirm that in the East-Central Europe are existing areas of integration and disintegration reflecting also long lasting division of Europe into West and East. We stress that those disintegra- tion areas, mostly the eastern frontier of the European Union, are the result of state policies. Key words supraregional strategies, Western Poland, Eastern Poland, cross-border cooperation. Cross-border issues in polish supraregional strategies on example of strategies for western and eastern Poland 33 are the boundaries of the European Union. It moves because frontiers are mainly in our minds, are men- tal, and it’s much deeper then we could ever recog- nize. Of course, they shows the boundaries of politi- cal control but real frontiers shows the boundaries of the cultural influences as well as the style of living (Ferguson, 2005). Borders influence strongly on the development challenges of regions. Central regions have differ- ent development possibilities than borderlands and therefore usually are growing faster (Miszczuk, 2013). It happens especially with regions where the borders that are closed or poorly permeable, and are a physical barrier of movement and contacts. The splits can appear not only between countries and regions, understood as a group of countries, but also within states. This type of divisions is present in Poland and it has its West-East dimension, somehow long lasting. In scope of socio-economic and cul- tural development Poland is divided into so called ‘Poland A’ and ‘Poland B’. Although it is a stereotypic approach, omitting a lot of details, it is a very pop- ular point of view in a discussion about division of Poland. The separation line was different during his- tory, once it was Vistula river or Bug and San rivers, then former border between Prussia and Russia in XIX. This break has been strengthen during the inter- war period but its beginning was even earlier, after the partitions of Poland. The Poland A is mostly the ex-Prussian partition with a higher level of transport and industry development. The Poland B is mostly the ex-Russian partition where lands were mostly agricultural with a low level of urbanization. It’s now a XXI century but this breakdown still exists and the experts shows that it’s even bigger, both economi- cally and politically. What is  important to mention that division is symbolic, therefore sometimes could be seen as not fully logical, as from some points of view ‘East’ starts in Konin (especially for people living in Poznan), but then it starts on Vistula river (and also part of Warsaw that is on East bank could be seen in stereotypic way as in East Poland). In Polish minds this line is the frontier between ‘East’ and ‘West’ or, even more politically incorrect, as a border between ‘Europe’ and ‘Asia’. Moreover, the two ‘Polands’ are quite the same as the supraregions of Western Po- land and Easter Poland and its strategies are the sub- ject of this analysis. The division into Western Poland (so called Po- land A) and Eastern Poland (so called Poland B) over- laps the geopolitical division of Europe. After acces- sion of Poland to the group of western countries (first NATO in 1999, then EU in 2004 with Schengen Zone in 2007) the possibilities of cooperation and integra- tion of development were improved on Western and Southern Polish border. Therefore Western Poland could benefit from growth of cross-border move- ments. In the same time borders in Eastern Poland were experiencing different changes and its perme- ability has been decreased. It is of course not a case of border with Lithuania but it is only 104 km length and Slovakia that is longer (541 km) but has a moun- tain character. That division into Western and Eastern Poland is reflected in a specific of Polish documents that are covering areas of two or more voivodeships. Those documents, called supraregional strategies, were created for Eastern and Western Poland and adopt- ed by Polish Council of Ministers. Therefore aim of the paper is to depict differences between two su- praregional strategies: Strategy for development of Western Poland 2020 and Strategy for Socio-eco- nomic development of Eastern Poland until 2020 in scope of cross-border cooperation. Then those results will be used for presentation of integration and disintegration areas in Polish borderlands. The authors do not aim to validate the mentioned strate- gies. The comparative analysis should only be a base to start a discussion about the future of the suprar- egions and its strategies but also to point out pos- sible guidelines for institutions preparing strategies for territories with bigger or smaller area. 2. Supraregional strategies in Poland Supraregional strategies are a new and quite unique type of documents on regional development. In Poland they are common strategies for group of voivodeships that are prepared by the ministry re- sponsible for the regional development (at present – the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development; before – the Ministry of Regional Development) with a cooperation of regional authorities. Those strate- gies are based on observations that some regions have similar, common challenges, that cannot be solved by themselves alone or only through the bi- lateral cooperation. This is the reason for preparation of supraregional strategies in Poland. It is similarly as added value of cooperation is a reason for preparing macroregional strategies in the EU (the EU Baltic Sea Region Strategy, the Danube Region Strategy, the Adriatic-Ionian Region Strategy and the Strategy for Alp Region). Describing it in the other way suprare- gional strategies like other documents settled above administrative borders are based on the territorial approach and the subsidiarity principle. The territo- rial approach, as well as subsidiarity criteria, is con- nected with challenges that are above borders and possibilities of regions. The subsidiarity principle is 34 Jan Maciej Smutek, Przemysław Łonyszyn fulfilled due to the fact that from one side not every development challenge mentioned in strategies can be solved by regions by themselves and from the other side there are different challenges in differ- ent regions of the country (Strategie ponadregion- alne…, 2015). Therefore strategies have to differ from each other, as they have to face different chal- lenges. Further in the paper there will be presented how the differences in situation of each region are reflected in the priorities of the strategies. The legal basis for the supraregional strategies are created in the Act on principles of development policy. There are now strategies for four suprar- egions in Poland: Eastern Poland, Western Poland, Southern Poland, and Central Poland. In the EU no- menclature voivodeships are NUTS 2 regions. Supra- regional strategies can be for NUTS 1 regions (as it is an example of Central Poland and Southern Poland), but in some cases (Western Poland) they are for two NUTS 1 regions or are for a NUTS 1 region plus an ad- ditional voivodeship (Eastern Poland). The present situation (August 2015) of the supraregional strat- egies in Poland is presented on figure 1. Only two voivodeships are not involved into any supraregion- al strategy: Pomorskie and Kujawsko-Pomorskie. The supraregional strategies in their structure contain (Strategie ponadregionalne…, 2015): • a diagnosis of development conditions in the field of a strategic programming with a scope of a state of the environment and the territorial dif- ferentiation, • a forecast of development trends, • a definition of priority policies, an intervention aims with indicators of success, • a system of implementation, conditions and pro- cedures regulating process of implementation of strategy, • financial frameworks. The first prepared supraregional strategy it was the Strategy for the Eastern Poland for the years 2007– 2013. It was prepared for better spending of addi- tional EU funding from Cohesion Policy for weakest regions of EU in term of the GDP per capita, for the moment of negotiations of the EU Budget (Polish re- gions lost that status in 2007 after the accession of Bulgaria and Romania). The spending of that special support was organised in form of the Operational Programme for all eligible regions. That cooperation was assessed as a success although a low level of the development, that was the reason for the spe- cial support from the EU, is a long lasting phenom- enon and it was impossible to overcome all of the development obstacles. Therefore some other stra- tegic documents, especially the National Strategy for Regional Development 2010–2020 (pol. Krajowa Strategia Rozwoju Regionalnego 2010–2020) found valuable a further special support for that area. As a result of that political support, the new strategy for the next programming period of the EU (2014–2020) was prepared. Other regions, especially that one, that were los- ing their economic position in the period after the Fig. 1. Supraregional strategies in Poland Source: Strategie ponadregionalne…, 2015. Cross-border issues in polish supraregional strategies on example of strategies for western and eastern Poland 35 accession of Poland to the EU were expressing their interest in an additional special support (Lubuskie and Zachodniopomorskie). Some other arguments had been used, among them the problem of a col- lapse of the former state farming (pol. Państwowe Gospodarstwa Rolne) and a loss of some economic functions of the borderlands due to accession to the Schengen Zone. Regions in the Western Poland al- ready were cooperating strongly in different issues (mostly on Odra river and the development visions for the Polish part of the Borderland of Poland and Germany) and therefore they were ready for a joined action as a group of five voivodeships and applied to the state for a special Operational Programme from the EU Founds. That additional support hadn’t been given but at the same time the added value of the integration of priority policies had been found by the regional authorities and the state government. Therefore strategy for Western Poland was created. Other voivodeships were observing the struggles of the Western Poland and had decided to prepare their own supraregional strategies. The Strategy for socio-economic development of Eastern Poland un- til 2020 was approved in July 2013. The Strategy for development of Southern Poland was adopted in January 2014 and the Strategy for development of Western Poland was approved in April 2014. In time of writing that article the Strategy for Central Poland is in preparation. 3. General geographical characteristic of Western and Eastern Poland The supraregion Western Poland consists of 5 voivodships: Zachodniopomorskie, Wielkopolskie, Lubuskie, Dolnośląskie, and Opolskie. The suprar- egion borders with the Czech Republic in the South, Germany in the West, and the Baltic Sea in the North (and by that with Sweden and Danemark). The west- ern frontier is delineated mostly on the Oder and Neisse rivers. The region is rather better developed than average for Poland although some of its parts face large problems with restructuring economy. The biggest cities in region and their functional urban areas are booming, especially Wrocław and Poznań (Szczecin is facing troubles of economic re- structuring). High level of welfare is characteristic for Legnica-Głogów Copper Mining District, where is lo- cated one of the largest producer of copper and sil- ver in the world. A linking element of the whole su- praregion is the Oder river which flows through four out of five voivodeships. A high level of agriculture is characteristic for Wielkopolskie, Dolnośląskie and Opolskie, while Lubuskie and Zachodniopomorskie have a large percentage covered by forests. The su- praregion has locations attractive for tourist like sandy beaches with high cliffs in the North and the Sudety mountains in the South. The Western Poland is generally better urban- ised with smaller importance of agriculture than in the Eastern Poland. There are located three big cities that are changing into metropolitan areas: Wrocław (population of 634 ths. in 2014), Poznań (546 ths.) and Szczecin (407 ths.). For example, they were iden- tified as weak Metropolitan European Growth Ar- eas (MEGA) by ESPON (ESPON 2005…, 2004) and as metropolitan areas by National Concept for Spatial Development 2030 (Koncepcja Przestrzennego…, 2012). There are other capitals of voivodships but much smaller like Gorzów Wielkopolski (124  ths.), Opole (120 ths.), and Zielona Góra (119 ths.). The supraregion called Eastern Poland consists of 5 voivodships: Warmińsko-Mazurskie, Podlaskie, Lubelskie, Świętokrzyskie, and Podkarpackie. Its eastern frontier is mostly the eastern border of the EU. The economy mostly depend on agriculture (es- pecially in the central part – Lubelskie voivodeship) and forestry (in the North, Warmińsko-Mazurskie and Podlaskie Voivodeships). A high development potential of the southern part of the supraregion is created by the Podkarpacie Aviation Valley (pol. Podkarpacka Dolina Lotnicza) in Rzeszów. Very im- portant for the region is its high value of natural re- sources although sometimes it creates barriers for transport links. The supraregion borders with Slova- kia in the South, Ukraina, and Belarus in the East, and with Lithuania, the Russia Federation, and the Baltic Sea in the North. There are no big geographical bar- riers other than the Bug River in the East and the Car- pathians in the South. Comparing to rest of Poland the supraregion is sparsely populated. The cities in the Eastern Poland are generally smaller than in the Western Poland. The biggest city is Lublin with population of 342 ths., then Białystok (295  ths.), Kielce (199 ths.), Rzeszów (185 ths.) and Olsztyn (174 ths.). They are not seen as a metro- politan areas neither by Polish researchers (e.g. Smętkowski et al., 2009) or European studies (ES- PON 2005…, 2004). For the reason of not wasting a development potential of this area the National Concept for Spatial Development 2030 (Koncepcja Przestrzennego…, 2012) called them as the poten- tial metropolitan areas. What differs Western from Eastern Poland it is a long lasting level of infrastructure development. It is connected e.g. with development of railway trans- port in the XIX century in Germany and Russia. Look- ing from the historical perspective the railway trans- port is better developed in the Western Poland (the 36 Jan Maciej Smutek, Przemysław Łonyszyn German Empire before WWI) than in the Eastern (the Russian Empire before WWI). Although an investment negligence of railway transport in the transition time contributed to balance the density of railways, still there are differences in dual-track lines. Some of the differences are also the result of the contemporary policies. Only the A4 highway was built further to the East than the line of the Vistula river. Nowadays the missing connections of express motorways are built. Taking into account all certainly justified arguments, that are influencing the development policies of Pol- ish transport infrastructure on West and East, the dif- ferences in those policies are influencing the possi- bilities of cooperation between regional capitals and other regions in cross-border area. 4. Criteria of analysis of documents It was necessary to make a profound reading to do a comparative analysis of both strategies. They were read almost simultaneously chapter by chapter. For- tunately, the structure of the strategies was close enough that the task was relatively easy to do. More- over, after finishing reading of both documents the general conclusions has been made. Another way to make good and valuable analysis was a separate reading by both authors of the paper without mak- ing any consultation. Thanks to that the higher level of intersubjectivity has been achieved. All collected conclusions has been analysed and then separated twice. The first split was for the general and detailed separation. The second split took the detailed con- clusions and separated them into four different categories: transport connections, an economic co- operation, an academic cooperation and a role of foreign institutions in preparation and modification of documents. This split is reflected in the further part of this paper. 5. General differences between documents In that part we refer only to differences and com- mon characteristic only in areas that are not object of deeper analysis. Some of the differences between strategies are coming from the very beginning. As we wrote it before, the intentions of creating that documents were different. The Strategy for East- ern Poland has been inspired by the national gov- ernment and among main purposes was a proper spending of the EU Founds. The inspiration of the Strategy for Western Poland was from the voivode- ships that had to convince the ministry for that ini- tiative. Therefore the Strategy for Eastern Poland is more concentrating on themes that are connected with special financing from the ERDF (European Re- gional Development Fund) and the ESF (European Social Fund). One of the examples connected to this is a problem of a social inclusion. That isn’t present in the Strategy for Western Poland, whereas, it is impor- tant in the implementation system of the Strategy for Eastern Poland. Due to the process of the documents prepara- tion the Strategy for Western Poland looks more like a strategy for regions in a federal state. Therefore documents look like a result of a bargaining of dif- ferent interests from different responsible for devel- opment of their regions. In the same time, the style of the Strategy for Eastern Poland in much more for unitary state where the state decides (with consul- tation among regional authorities) what is good for those regions. The differences between those two strategies can be illustrated by a statement that the vision of Western Poland will be possible ‘only with full involvement in a close cooperation of the re- gions’ (Strategy for Western…, 2014, p. 60). That kind of statement is not included in the text of the Strate- gy for Eastern Poland. For analysis of the integration and disintegration areas it should be stressed that the Strategy for Western Poland see a interregion- al and cross-border cooperation as the most (the first) important condition for the best development (Strategy for Western…, 2014, p. 60). Such issues, es- pecially an interregional cooperation, are hardly vis- ible in the Strategy for Eastern Poland. There are some differences that are coming from the regional specificity. One of that issues is the general difference in the economic development, which is higher, generally, in the Western Poland than in the Eastern Poland. Interesting is the impor- tance of the capital of the country which it is much smaller in the Strategy for Western Poland. It should be noted that both of the strategies see a develop- ment potential of their regions as an improvement of connections mostly with ‘west’. For the Strategy of Western Poland it is Germany and generally the EU. For the Strategy of Eastern Poland it is the Central Poland, mostly Warsaw but also Gdansk and Cracow, and then countries and regions further to the West. Another difference between those two strategies is a presence of tourism issues. It isn’t included in the Strategy for Eastern Poland but it is considered as a potential for the development of some regions of the Western Poland. The common characteristic of those strategies is a big concentration on ‘repairing mistakes of the past’, and overcoming the weakness from the SWOT analysis. The authors find it as a quite common prob- lem of Polish strategic documents. Cross-border issues in polish supraregional strategies on example of strategies for western and eastern Poland 37 The vision of the regions in those two documents is similar. The Western Poland sets stronger empha- sis on mobilisation of its endogenous potential, bet- ter integration (also transport) of area and innova- tiveness (Strategy for Western…, 2014, p. 62). The Eastern Poland sets priorities on a supraregional, en- dogenous specialisation, a knowledge based econ- omy and an accessibility of the region (Strategy for Socioeconomic…, 2013, p. 72). The differences are in fact that the Western Poland is pointing on tourism as one of its potentials that can be used thanks to better accessibility of the Western Poland for tourist from the countries richer than Poland. The Eastern Poland is more concentrated on strengthening the major functional urban centres due to the fact, that they are weaker than in the West. The main difference in visions in those two strategies is that the Strategy for Western Poland threat more about an integration of the whole area, and the Strategy for Eastern Poland concentrates on a general growth of economic performances. It  could be seen when we compare the objectives from both strategies, although they are quite similar. For the Western Poland they are (Strategy for West- ern, 2014, p. 63): I. Spatial and functional integration of the suprar- egion. II. Building the macroregion’s economic offer. III. Strengthening the scientific and research poten- tial of the supraregion. For the Eastern Poland the aims are following (Strat- egy for Socioeconomic…, 2013, p. 72): 1. Increasing the level of innovativeness of the mac- ro-region (…). 2. Activating labour resources and improving the quality of human capital (…). 3. Increasing the external accessibility and internal consistency of the macroregion (…). As we can see transportation issues are on the first place in the Strategy for Western Poland and on the last in the Strategy for Eastern Poland. An improvement in innovativeness is on the first place for the Eastern Poland and on the last for the West- ern Poland. The Strategy for Eastern Poland concen- trates on issues connected with a development of human capital while the Strategy for Western Po- land emphasizes more a better fit and use of exist- ing economic assets (and of course their improve- ment – among them human capital) in a scope of innovativeness. Beside those small differences the main objectives and visions for both areas are quite similar what is an example of one of the weaknesses of present development policies in Poland (Górniak, Mazur, 2012). 6. Differences between documents in scope of cross-border cooperation In our paper we’ve examined differences in the fol- lowing thematic areas: transport infrastructure, an economic cooperation, an academic cooperation and a preparation of documents. From the perspec- tive of a cross-border cooperation they are impor- tant, because they enable exchange of goods and ideas (transport connections), make it valuable in scope of exchange of goods (economic cooperation) and ideas (academic cooperation). Any kind of cooperation is based on good or bad experiences from the past, therefore actions taken for better flow of information on any level should have potentially positive impact on future coop- eration. Among those actions is listening to interest expressed by people and institutions from neigh- bouring regions and countries. Because of that all, the above-mentioned areas of analysis had been chosen. 7. Transport connections One of the most visible results of development strat- egies is an improvement in a transport infrastruc- ture. Quick and comfortable transport connections are one of the most important conditions of devel- opment. Bad transport accessibility was described by entrepreneurs as one of the biggest barriers of the economic development in Poland (Stryjakie- wicz,1999). However, there are also researchs argu- ing that investments in infrastructure have a mar- ginal impact on economic development (Crescenzi, Rodríguez-Pose, 2008), especially when it is not the worst barrier for development. From the perspective of cross-border coopera- tion investments in transport infrastructure are cru- cial. Lack or poor quality of transport infrastructure is harmful for a cross-border cooperation. It is about general transport connections and specific border infrastructure, namely border crossings. It has to be mentioned that the number and capacity of border crossings on the Polish eastern border were grow- ing slower than on the West and are a barrier for development (Komornicki, Miszczuk, 2011). In that scope, it must be stressed the difference between the Western Poland and the Eastern Poland. All of the borders in the Western Poland are internal bor- ders of the EU and the Schengen zone. The situation is quite opposite in the Eastern Poland. Only the bor- ders with Lithuania and Slovakia are the internal bor- der of the EU. Crossing the borders with the Russia Federation, Belarus and Ukraine is possible only on 38 Jan Maciej Smutek, Przemysław Łonyszyn border-crossings, therefore its existence is crucial for a cross-border cooperation. The differences between the Strategy for West- ern Poland and the Strategy for Eastern Poland in transportation issues are quite clear. Generally, in the strategy for Western Poland transport issues on the interregional scale are more important than in the Strategy for Eastern Poland. What has to be men- tioned, it’s that they are concentrating on different axes, not only East-West. Summary of those differ- ences was presented in table 1. One of the objectives of the Strategy for Eastern Poland is to get better access to the biggest cities by some kind of centripetal connections or saying this in other words – by investments realized in each re- gion. That should strengthen the paths connecting the Voivodship cities of the Eastern Poland with the biggest cities of Poland: Cracow, Warsaw, and Tricity. These connections with the Polish economic core should allow diffusion of innovative products. This strategy accepts only two transport paths – express roads (without highways) and railroads. The Strategy for Western Poland treats transpor- tation in a totally different way. At the beginning of the objectives description, there is mentioned that the supraregion should be functionally integrated with cities of Poland, Germany, Czech Republic and Scandinavia. Following this guideline there are sentences about building highways and express roads with a supraregional significance and also about modernization of the existing rail infrastruc- ture that could allow connect Western Poland with Warsaw, Tricity, Katowice, Berlin, Dresden, Prague, Vienna and Scandinavian cities. In the result of this actions the transborder relations should be bet- ter and stronger (Strategy for Western…, 2014, p. 43–44). The differences in thinking about cross-border transport connections in both strategies are clear and bright. The Strategy for Eastern Poland omits the significance of transport connections with the adjacent countries, not only with Russia Federation, Belorussia or Ukraine but also with the EU-members like Slovakia or Lithuania. The very important Via Baltica – a road with a key importance for the EU regarding integration with the Baltic States – has been omitted in the development directions and in the diagnosis as well. For the Western Poland, it looks totally different. The transborder connections have a key role in its development plans. It looks like both strategies concentrate on transport in only one direction – due west, but it means something differ- ent for both supraregions – for one it’s the central Poland, for another it’s something abroad. An element that appears only in the Strategy for Western Poland it’s a use of water transportation. This document contains sentences about a restora- tion of the Oder Waterway and connecting it with all European inland waterways. There is also mentioned about its role in strengthening the competitiveness of the Szczecin-Świnoujście Harbour. The restoration of this waterway should give another platform for a cross-border cooperation within e.g. water man- agement and flood control (Strategy for Western…, 2014, p. 43). There is no information about water- ways in the Strategy for Eastern Poland although the E40 waterway goes across that supraregion. 8. Economic cooperation Economic cooperation is a field of human activity that in contemporary economies is not ruled by gov- ernments. However, economic issues due to their Tab. 1. The presence of transport issues connected with a cross-border cooperation in the Strategy for Western Poland and the Strategy for Eastern Poland Western Poland Eastern Poland • Aims: • improvement of transport connections with Warsaw, Silesia, Gdańsk, Berlin, Prague, Wien and Dresden • modernization of Oder River waterway and improve- ment of the cross-border cooperation • better transport connections with Berlin and Dresden than with Warsaw and central Poland especially for Szc- zecin and Wrocław • bigger importance of North-South than East-West con- nections in infrastructure priorities • Baltic-Adriatic connections among them importance of Central European Transport Corridor CETC ROUTE-65 – European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation • stressing peripheral location without strong connections with activities • more important is the connection of Eastern Poland with Warsaw and further, to the West • missing information about Via Baltica • limited information about development of transport connections not only with countries outside of the EU but also within EU that are bordering with Eastern Poland (Lithuania and Slovakia) Source: own analysis. Cross-border issues in polish supraregional strategies on example of strategies for western and eastern Poland 39 influence on society, are one of the main topics of political discussions. Therefore states are trying to improve their economic development by various measurements. That role is specific in a scope of international economic relations. Although states are not involved in direct economic cooperation, they  are generally trying to influence decisions of firms on location of their activities. Within that in- fluence is the public aid. From the perspective of an EU-member country possibilities of direct financ- ing of  economic cooperation are very limited. The EU regulations generally forbid the public aid, but there are some exceptions (among them is special support for cohesion regions with the framework of a regional aid). Among instruments of the public aid is support for an international cooperation and an entering of firms on new international markets. There are also other forms of support for a cooperation that are growing in importance. Some of the very important factors are formal and informal links of cooperation within chambers of commerce, clusters and other associations of entrepreneurs. Unfortunately analy- sis of existing clusters in both strategies does not show any with cross-border members or ambitions for that kind of development even in some of clus- ters were in more than one voivodeship. Cross-border and international economic links are playing generally bigger role in Western Poland than in Eastern. Remarkably it could be seen on the example of Slovakia. Although it is the neighbour of Podkarpacie in the Eastern Poland supraregion the country is not mentioned in the Strategy for Eastern Poland in issues of economic cooperation. The dif- ferent situation is in the Western Poland, where it has been mentioned as an important partner in de- velopment around the Central European Transport Corridor (CETC 65) (Strategy for Western…, 2014, p. 32). The inflow of direct foreign investments is gener- ally bigger in the Western Poland than in the Eastern, although differences are getting smaller (Strategy for Western…, 2014, p. 44). It is due to differences in investment attractiveness (Godlewska-Majkowska, Zarębski, 2011). It is understandable that countries lying west and north-west (Scandinavia) of Poland are better developed and the biggest inflow of for- eign investments comes from the developed coun- tries. For  companies from Germany (and Denmark or Sweden in Zachodniopomorskie) Poland is one of the closest location for the international expansion. Geographical proximity to European growth areas is seen by the Strategy for Western Poland as play- ing an important role in the competitive position of the supraregion (Strategy for Western…, 2014, p. 15). It is more important for the Western Poland re- gions, cause they are closer than regions in Eastern Poland. From that point of view the cross-border co- operation with neighbouring countries is important for those regions and it could bring directs political benefits for their authorities. Differences in the economic situation of the West- ern and the Eastern Poland in a scope of a cross-bor- der cooperation and a policy response to it is seen in table 2. As it can be seen the economic situation is very different and policy responses are not so much. 9. Academic cooperation Role of innovations, innovativeness, entrepreneur- ship and creativity in contemporary economy is  growing. One of the elements of innovativeness is close cooperation of science with business. One Tab. 2. The presence of economic cooperation issues connected with a cross-border cooperation in the Strategy for Western Poland and the Strategy for Eastern Poland Western Poland Eastern Poland • spatial proximity to European growth zones as a chance for the economic development • local industry heavily export-based (compared with the rest of Poland) • strong economic links with Germany because of the FDI • cooperation of Zachodniopomorskie with Scandinavia in maritime economy • building an economic offer for new investments is crucial for the economic success of the supraregion • there is no information about smart specialisations for the whole region • the location peripheral to the European growth zones as a threat for economic development • local industry weak export-based with weak external economic links • a small inflow of foreign investments seen as a problem for development • relatively weak information about economic connections with the neighbouring countries and with the develop- ment plans • the main model of development is based on the use of endogenous potential • smart specialisations of the whole region are chosen with- out any connections with the neighbouring countries Source: own analysis. 40 Jan Maciej Smutek, Przemysław Łonyszyn of the theory explaining relationships between eco- nomic growth, innovations and role of the state, business and academia, is triple helix theory (Ran- ga, Etzkowitz, 2013). Strategy of Eastern Poland is mentioning it and describing with emphasis that it is crucial element of improvement in innovative- ness of whole region (Strategy for Socioeconomic…, 2013, p. 47). Strategy for Western Poland do not refer to that theory, although is highlighting role of trans- fer of knowledge between academia and business (Strategy for Western…, 2014, p. 72). In general view both of the strategies are similar in scope of academic cooperation and differ only in relation to the fact, that generally scientific cen- tres in Western Poland are better developed than in Eastern (Smętkowski et al., 2009). Therefore Strategy for Eastern Poland is giving stronger emphasis on general development of scientific centres (Strategy for Socioeconomic…, 2013, p. 76) and Strategy for Western Poland is concentrating more on coopera- tion of existing institutions but mostly within suprar- egion (Strategy for Western… 2014, p. 71). Although it should be mentioned that those differences are very slightly cause supraregional and cross-border cooperation is one of the way Strategy for Eastern Poland is planning to improve position of scientific centres (Strategy for Socioeconomic…, 2013, p. 76). Surprisingly cross-border scientific cooperation is not mentioned within the directions of interven- tion in the Strategy of Western Poland (Strategy for Western…, 2014, p. 72). It is weakness of that strat- egy, especially cause neighbouring regions from Germany and Sweden with Denmark (via Baltic Sea) are on much higher level of innovations and scien- tific research, what was recognized by authors of the Strategy (e.g. referring to European Regional Innova- tion Scoreboard 2012) (Strategy for Western…, 2014, p. 72). Taking into account that scientific centres in Western Poland are generally better developed, situation that cross-border links for scientific cooper- ation are not envisaged in strategy, is also huge loss. It is even if there is existing institutional cooperation between universities from neighbouring cities, like mentioned in strategy cooperation on Collegium Polonium in Słubice. Talking about the development of scientific centres in the Strategy for Eastern Poland it has to be mentioned that it is based on an implementa- tion of academic institutions from this supraregion into the network of strong partners in Poland and abroad (Strategy for Socioeconomic…, 2013, p. 76). It is not mentioned from which country or regions those partners will probably come. Similar situation is for the strategy of Western Poland. The Strategy for Western Poland in terms of the scientific and tech- nological development is based on similar founda- tions as the Strategy for Eastern Poland (Strategy for Western… 2014, p. 71). Presence of cross-border is- sues in international academic cooperation for both of strategies is presented in table 3. 10. Role of foreign institutions in preparation and modification of documents An active role of foreign institutions in the process of preparation and modification of documents is some- thing what is difficult for administration on local, re- gional and state level due to the legal and cultural barriers. In most of the countries in Europe law is gen- erally limiting possibilities of an influence of institu- tions from other states on local and regional strate- gies. One of the exemptions from that is cross-border environmental impact assessment existing (only for countries that are in the European Union) since 1985 (Council Directive 85/337/EEC). Beside of that, the influence of authorities from neighbouring coun- tries are generally limited and based on a goodwill of Tab. 3. The presence of academic cooperation issues connected with cross-border cooperation in The Strategy for West- ern Poland and The Strategy for Eastern Poland. Western Poland Eastern Poland • concentrates on support of supraregional and interna- tional cooperation but do not mention cross-border academic cooperation • mention common research centre Collegium Polonicum in Słubice established by Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań and European University Viadrina in Frankfurt (Oder), • academic centres from neighbouring countries are sup- posed to be included in general process of consultation of multilevel management of the development of Western Poland • mentioned cooperation of Lublin with Lviv and Bialystok with Vilnius on issues of academic cooperation • mentioned general cooperation with Ukraine, Russia and Belarus • threat of a leapfrog development cooperation of Warsaw with Minsk and Kiev without participation of academics from Eastern Poland • cross-border dimension is important in improvement of R&D cooperation Source: own analysis. Cross-border issues in polish supraregional strategies on example of strategies for western and eastern Poland 41 cooperating partners. It is fully understandable that states are somehow trying to protect their interest from the interest of other states and their adminis- trative units. From a perspective of the political co- hesion, it is also understandable that formal restric- tions are bigger for regions than for communes. It is a case of Poland, where voivodeships are obliged to determine priorities of international cooperation, that needs to be approved by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Ustawa z dnia 8 marca 1990 r. o samorządzie gminnym, 1990). Such obligation is not required from communes (gminas) and districts (poviats). Therefore, it is worth to mention that priorities of the international cooperation of regions in Poland also depend on priorities of the state foreign policy. Due to differences in political climate there could be seen differences in the role of foreign institutions in the preparation process of documents. Existing tradition of the interregional and the cross-border cooperation in the Western Poland, as we describe it in a further chapter, and strong bottom-up pressure on state administration have influenced to the fact that foreign institutions were included in prepara- tion of the strategy for that supraregion. Those insti- tutions are envisaged in further evaluation of strate- gies and coordination with other documents. There are existing some documents of a common vision for the Polish Borderland in Western Poland (Studi- um Integracji…, 2013). In contrast such hearings of voices from other side of the border is not envisaged in the Strategy for Eastern Poland. Authors find it as one of the weakness that could be easily overcame and is not connected with high additional costs. It is important for example for investments priorities cause motorways on both sides of the border have to meet on border crossing and for higher utility they should be built in similar time. Such a need of cooperation concerns not only linear infrastructure but also the development of hu- man capital, joint provision of regional and local ser- vices (higher education, health care or fire preven- tion). On the Polish western border with Germany, it resulted with subregional studies and projects that can serve for both sides. A good example of an exist- ing cooperation on different issues on a local level is the Szczecin Metropolitan Transborder Area (Tölle, 2014). This example is especially important when we compare present level of cooperation with existing in that borderland the postwar prejudices and a fact that on the beginning the cooperation was not de- veloping rapidly (Miłosz-Augustowska, 2014). The existence of that cooperation stimulates coordina- tion of development from both sides and therefore improve efficiency of spending public money on both sides of the border. That efficiency can be bet- ter ensured only through cooperation and coordina- tion of common investment priorities. The differences in a way how institutions from foreign states could be seen in both of the strategies is presented in table 4. 11. Other supraregional strategic documents concentrating on development of analysed area Talking about differences between both analysed documents it cannot be omitted the differences in tradition of cooperation of regions in field of spatial planning and development programming. Such tra- ditions are quite strong in Western Poland and quite week in Eastern Poland. Cooperation of voivode- ships in Western Poland was conducted in many cases in relation to neighbouring countries, mostly Tab. 4. The role of foreign institutions in process of preparation and changes of The Strategy for Western Poland and The Strategy for Eastern Poland. Western Poland Eastern Poland • existence (or being in preparation) of common strate- gies for development of Polish-German and Polish-Czech neighbouring regions • participation of foreign partners in the consultation pro- cedure (among them: the Berlin Senate) • existence of cross-border operational programmes taken under consideration by the managing authority (although in a limited spectrum) • generally predicted participation of foreign institution in evaluation, coordination and consultation of changes in strategy • foreign institutions are envisaged in a multilevel manage- ment of the development of the Western Poland • participation of foreign institution was not mentioned either envisaged in any step of preparation or modifica- tion of the document • existence of cross-border operational programmes for Poland and Lithuania as well as for Poland and Slovakia are not mentioned in the document Source: own analysis. 42 Jan Maciej Smutek, Przemysław Łonyszyn Germany. One of the most important issues of co- operation was Odra river, that is also in some part border with Germany. Some of the documents were prepared together with other side of the border, some were prepared only for one part. Purpose for that split is better preparation for future binational cooperation. Examples of documents on spatial de- velopment of Polish and German side of the border prepared in last 25 years are (Studium Integracji…, 2013): Concept for support of Odra region (pol. Kon- cepcja wspierania regionu Odry) from 1991 and called after name of initiator of the projest, who was a prime minister of Land Brandenburg, as Stolpe Plan – which was rather suspiciously received by Polish side, Polish-German borderland as a problem of re- gional politics (pol. Pogranicze niemiecko-polskie jako problem polityki regionalnej) – so called Willers Plan and was also prepared by German side, The Study of directions of spatial development of area along Polish-German border (pol. Studium kierunkowego zagospodarowania przestrzennego obszaru wzdłuż granicy polsko–niemieckiej) – pre- pared by Polish side, The Guideline Study of Spatial Development alongside the Polish-German Border from 2005 (pol. Studium kierunkowe zagospodarowania przestrzen- nego obszaru wzdłuż granicy polsko–niemieckiej) that was prepared by team from Polish Academy of Science under coordination of prof. G. Węcławowicz and was referring only to Polish part, Study on Integration of Poland and Germany Borderland – Polish Part from 2013 (pol. Studium Integracji Pogranicza Polski i Niemiec) – that was prepared by planning administration from three neighbouring regions on Polish side: Zachodniopo- morskie, Lubuskie and Dolnośląskie, Maps of investments plans for Polish-German Borderland from 2009–2011 (pol. Mapa zamierzeń inwestycyjnych polskiej części pogranicza Polski i Niemiec) – that document was prepared separately first by Polish side by ministry of infrastructure, and then by German side by Federal Institute on Build- ing, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development. Some of the documents listed above were ob- jects of huge critique from both side (Guz-Vetter, 2002). Nature of them and atmosphere of coopera- tion is changing. Mostly it was way from naïve expec- tations that via that cooperation all of the problems on borderland could be resolved. Then after first bit- ter experiences sometimes connected with misun- derstanding it was switch to scepticism mixed with some sort of hostility and rivalry especially among public servants (in purpose from protecting interest of their regions) that were involved in process of cooperation. Further cooperation change involved people expectations about motivation and possibili- ties from other side. People learn how to cooperate from each other and what they can afford via work- ing together and what they cannot. It has also to be mentioned, that is existing also special intergovern- mental agreement of Poland and Germany on issues that has to be implemented. Poland does not have such a document signed with any other countries. Similar strategies for socio-economic spatial devel- opment were prepared for Polish and Czech Bor- derland (Polish-Czech border region development study, pol. Studium zagospodarowania przestrzen- nego pogranicza polsko-czeskiego). They are exist- ing studies on development of Polish-Slovak Border- land (Więckowski et al., 2012). Such documents are not existing on Eastern Poland although there were prepared studies for use of cross-border cooperation in OP Eastern Poland 2014–2020 (e.g. Komornicki, Miszczuk, 2011). Other important issue connected with cross- border cooperation is existence and nature of eu- roregions. All of Polish borders are covered by eu- roregions, although generally speaking euroregions on west are smaller and bottom-up initiatives. On Eastern border they are rather bigger and top-down initiatives and therefore they are more fragile on pre- sent changes in international policies (Kaczmarek, 2005). 12. Summary Analysis conducted in that article proved that there are existing areas of integration and disintegration in space of Central-Eastern Europe. Western bor- der of Poland and in some extent North-West and South-West border are areas of integration. In con- tradict Eastern border of Poland, than in most part is also external border of the EU, is area of disinte- gration. Unfortunately in strategies like Strategy for Eastern Poland it is not clearly visible that there is no big political reasons for strong development of cooperation with other EU countries: Slovakia and Lithuania. The north-south connections are hardly visible in Strategy for Eastern Poland, what is one of the weakness and threat for future cross-border inte- gration of supraregion. In out article we can confirm what was stated in expertise conducted by T. Komornicki and A. Misz- czuk (2011) for Eastern Poland Strategy for that su- praregion border is rather barrier than development possibility. Unfortunately Strategy for Eastern Poland rejected ex-ante evaluation result for implementing Cross-border issues in polish supraregional strategies on example of strategies for western and eastern Poland 43 cross-border issues in its content. When the state on the frontier of the EU do not see it as an important issue, then it could be seen as a threat for further deepening of division of Europe into West and East and further disintegration of continent. Strategy for Eastern Poland is prepared in order to minimise existing differences within Poland and division into so called Poland ‘A’ and ‘B’. Existing poli- cies are decreasing differences although in some scope they are deepening them or threatening that they will be deeper in future. One of that kind of is- sues is general accessibility of regions in different di- rections. While strategy for Western Poland is taking actions in purpose for general accessibility of region from all directions also cross-border relations, strate- gy for Eastern Poland concentrate mostly on accessi- bility to fastest growing economic centres in Poland. It is understandable, as far as bad accessibility from economic centres is one of main present challenges of development for that region. However, in future it is threatening development of that region cause it will remain accessible only from one direction and therefore stay longer as a periphery. It is also grow- ing threat that frontier of the EU will remain disinte- gration area in scope of transport connections and therefore economic performances. Of course all of other assumptions and conditions for development have to be taken into account and threat of overin- vestments (Crescenzi, Rodríguez-Pose, 2008) in infra- structure in Western and Eastern Poland is existing. For development of cross-border intraregional cooperation socio-economic situation of biggest cit- ies is very important. The difference in development of metropolitan functions between cities in Eastern and Western Poland (Smętkowski et al., 2009) has negative impact on cross-border cooperation in Eastern Poland. Foreseen by the strategy, support for development of metropolitan functions in big- gest cities in Eastern Poland will help in minimalizing existing barriers of economic and academic cross- border cooperation. It should be also mentioned that cross-border scientific cooperation is not fully utilized in strategy for Western Poland and is less vis- ible than in strategy for Eastern Poland. It is threat for integration of that area with European Science Area. Comparing both of the strategies we can see that interregional and cross-border cooperation and transport connections are generally more important for strategy that was bottom-up initiative (Strategy for Western Poland). Cross-border scientific coop- eration is more important in strategy for Eastern Poland although potential benefits from coopera- tion with cross-border partners are bigger in West- ern Poland (as those regions are better developed in that field). Lack of concentration of cross-border scientific research on western border is a bad prog- nosis for future integration of Poland into European Research Area. Another type of activities that are im- portant for local and regional authorities is tourism. It has its reflection in documents, where cross-bor- der changed for tourism development are visible in strategy for Western Poland and tourism is omitted in Eastern Poland. On example of strategies for Western and Eastern Poland we can show that integration and disinte- gration of European space strongly depends from general geopolitical situation. Therefore success or defeat in economic development of regions is de- pending strong from changes in geopolitics (Misz- czuk, 2013), although they are not only one reasons for economic development. Generally speaking opening of borders improve economic performance of regions. Those influences are not always clear and easy to predict. Sometimes even general opening of economy and abolition of border control can have negative effects on development of border regions due to the fact of leapfrog development. Opening of the economy can influence also a directions of trade and therefore has negative impact of devel- opment of some regions. One of the good example of that king of bad influence of general geopolitical changes is development path of Szczecin and Zach- odniopomorskie in socio-economic transformation of Poland (Smutek, Łonyszyn, 2014). Beside of those exemptions EU integration is supporting of integra- tion on western border of Poland and disintegration on eastern direction. 13. Recommendations for state policy Analysis of those two strategies in context of cross- border issues enabled authors for policy recommen- dations in future changes of those documents. Rec- ommendations for future supraregional strategies are: • for strategy for Western Poland – bigger support of cross-border scientific cooperation of suprare- gion with nearest big academic centres (mainly Berlin, Oresund region and Prague), • for strategy for Eastern Poland – development of cross-border transport connections, especially on north-south axes, with countries within EU and not only with biggest Polish economic cen- tres (mainly Warsaw), • for strategy for Eastern Poland – involvement of foreign institutions, mostly cross-border, in pro- cess of future changes, evaluation and imple- mentation of next edition of the strategy. 44 Jan Maciej Smutek, Przemysław Łonyszyn References Crescenzi R., Rodríguez-Pose A., 2008, Infrastructure endow- ment and investment as determinants of regional growth in the European Union, European Investment Bank Papers, 13(2), 62–101. ESPON 2005. Potentials for polycentric development in Europe. Project ESPON 1.1.1, Project report, 2004, ESPON Coordi- nation Unit, Luxembourg, http://www.espon.eu/export/ sites/default/Documents/Projects/ESPON2006Projects/ ThematicProjects/Polycentricity/fr-1.1.1_revised-full.pdf [11.07.2015]. Ferguson J., 2005, ‘Dreams of Europe and Western Civilization: Culture and Frontiers’ in ‘Essays in History, Politics and Cul- ture’, http://www.international-relations.com/History/ Civilization.pdf [18.07.2015]. Godlewska-Majkowska H., Zarębski P., 2011, Atrakcyjność inwestycyjna polskich regionów, jako podstawa korzyści aglomeracji, [in:] H. Godlewska-Majkowska (ed.), Atrakcyjność inwestycyjna regionów jako uwarunkowanie przedsiębiorczych przewag konkurencyjnych, Kolegium Nauk o Przedsiębiorstwie, Szkoła Główna Handlowa, War- szawa, 7–34. Górniak J., Mazur S., 2012, Analiza polityk publicznych i pro- gramowanie w obszarze strategii rozwoju, [in:] J. Górniak, S. Mazur (eds.), Zarządzanie strategiczne rozwojem, Minis- terstwo Rozwoju Regionalnego, Warszawa, 185–221. Guz-Vetter M., 2002, Polsko-niemieckie pogranicze. Szanse i zagrożenia w perspektywie przystąpienia do Unii Europe- jskiej, Instytut Spraw Publicznych, Warszawa. Hryniewicz J.T., 2015, Polska na tle współczesnych podziałów przestrzeni europejskiej oraz współczesnych przemian gosp- odarczych, społecznych i politycznych, Wydawnictwo Nau- kowe Scholar, Warszawa. Kaczmarek T., 2005, Struktury terytorialno-administracyjne i ich reformy w krajach europejskich, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań. Komornicki T., Miszczuk A., 2011, Transgraniczne powiązania województw Polski wschodniej, Ekspertyza wykonana na potrzeby nowej strategii rozwoju Polski Wschodniej, Min- isterstwo Rozwoju Regionalnego, Warszawa. Miłosz-Augustowska J., 2014, Współpraca instytucjonalna na pograniczu polsko-niemieckim – stare narzędzia, nowe wyzwania. Transgraniczne doświadczenia samorządów w kontekście wyborów regionalnych, Biuletyn Niemiecki, 53, 2–16. Miszczuk A., 2013, Uwarunkowania peryferyjności regionu pr- zygranicznego, Norbertinum, Lublin. Koncepcja Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju 2030, 2012, Ministerstwo Infrastruktury, Warszawa. Krajowa Strategia Rozwoju Regionalnego 2010-2020: Regiony, Miasta, Obszary Wiejskie, 2010, Ministerstwo Rozwoju Re- gionalnego, Warszawa. Ranga M., Etzkowitz H., 2013, Triple Helix Systems: An Analyti- cal Framework for Innovation Policy and Practice in the Knowledge Society, Industry and Higher Education, 27(4), 237–262. Smętkowski M., Gorzelak G., Jałowiecki B., 2009, Obszary met- ropolitalne w Polsce: problemy rozwojowe i delimitacja. Ra- porty i Analizy EUROREG 1/2009, Warszawa. Smutek J., Łonyszyn P., 2014, Szczecin and Zachodniopomor- skie Voivodeship – declining city and region? Example of impact of transformation on maritime economy and agriculture, [in:] C. Mądry, D. Dirin (eds.), The economic transformation of the cities and regions in the post-commu- nist countries, Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznań, 175–190. Strategie ponadregionalne – wymiar terytorialny polityki ro- zwoju, 2015, Ministerstwo Infrastruktury i Rozwoju, War- szawa, https://www.mir.gov.pl/media/3355/20150312_ strategie_ponadreg_wymiar_teryt.pdf, [28.07.2015]. Stryjakiewicz T., 1999, Adaptacja przestrzenna przemysłu w Polsce w warunkach transformacji, Wyd. Naukowe UAM, Poznań. Studium Integracji Przestrzennej Pogranicza Polski i Niemiec – część polska, 2013, Ministerstwo Rozwoju Regionalnego, Warszawa. Strategy for Western Poland until 2020, 2014, Ministry of Infra- structure and Development, Warsaw. Strategy for Socioeconomic Development of Eastern Poland until 2020. A revision, 2013, Ministry of Infrastructure and Development, Warsaw. Tölle A., 2014, Transnational metropolitan development strat- egies and governance in a post-socialist setting: the case of Szczecin, Questiones Geographicae, 33(4), 43–56. Więckowski M., Michniak D., Bednarek-Szczepańska M., Chrenka B., Ira V., Komornicki T., Rosik P., Stępniak M., Szekely V., Śleszyński P., Świątek D., Wiśniewski R., 2012, Polish-Slovak Borderland. Transport accessibility and tour- ism, series: Geographical Studies, No 234, Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization. Polish Academy of Science, Warsaw. Ustawa z dnia 5 czerwca 1998 r. o samorządzie o województwa, 1998, (Dz.U. 1998 nr 91 poz. 576). Ustawa z dnia 8 marca 1990 r. o samorządzie gminnym, 1990, (Dz.U. z 1998 nr 162 poz. 1126 z pozn. zm.). Ustawa z dnia 6 grudnia 2006 r. o zasadach prowadzenia poli- tyki rozwoju, 2006, (Dz.U. 2006 nr 227 poz. 1658). Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the en- vironment, 1985, (OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40–48).