# Spatial evolution of cross-border regions. Contrasted case studies in North-West Europe

Pauline Pupier

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Pauline Pupier. Spatial evolution of cross-border regions. Contrasted case studies in North-West Europe. European Planning Studies, 2019, 28 (1), pp.81 - 104. 10.1080/09654313.2019.1623975. hal-03256910

HAL Id: hal-03256910

https://hal.science/hal-03256910

Submitted on 27 Feb 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Spatial Evolution of Cross-Border Regions. Contrasted Case Studies in North-West Europe

Pauline Pupier<sup>a*</sup>

<sup>a</sup>Research unit ‘Discontinuités’ EA 2468, Artois University, Arras, France

*Corresponding author: Maison de la Recherche, 9 rue du Temple, F-62000 Arras, France; pauline.pupier@gmail.com

As a former planner and political scientist, Pauline Pupier is working on a PhD thesis in political geography at Artois University (Arras, France). Her research investigates cross-border metropolitan regions and their scalar building process in western Europe. Her research field focuses on cross-border agglomerations such as the Eurometropolis Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai, the Franco-Belgian littoral EGTC, the Eurodistrict Strasbourg-Ortenau and the Trinational Eurodistrict Basel. Specializing in cross-border cooperation since 2010, she has worked as a consultant on territorial development and INTERREG project manager at the borders of France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and Poland. She is now an academic member of the Institute of Borders and Discontinuities and of the Transfrontier Euro-Institut Network.

Pupier, P. (2019). Spatial evolution of cross-border regions. Contrasted case studies in North-West Europe. European Planning Studies, 28, 81–104.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1623975
Spatial Evolution of Cross-Border Regions. Contrasted Case Studies in North-West Europe

The building process of cross-border territories in the EU is addressed in this paper with a geographical and political approach. The spatial evolution of institutionalized cross-border cooperation is investigated comparatively on two borders: the Cross-Channel Euroregion between France, Belgium and the United Kingdom, and the Upper Rhine region between France, Germany and Switzerland. Data collection on these case studies categorize the spatialization of cross-border cooperation. The links between the set of partners and the perimeter raise questions about the territorialisation process. The emergence, adjustments and even the disappearance of cross-border regions are examined, leading to a new quantitative and qualitative understanding of the spatial evolution of cross-border regions. Phenomena of juxtaposition and scaling fuel the multiplication of cross-border regions, while processes of shrinkage or disappearance are the exception. Adjustments of the cross-border perimeter are primarily due to enlargement, expansion and fusion. A few cross-border cooperation initiatives are developing a new relationship to their cross-border region, distinguishing the institutional perimeter of the partnership from the functional perimeter of projects. In an uncertain European context, cross-border regions tend to multiply and extend. Showing similarities with 'soft spaces', they prove themselves to be very adaptable in their spatial (re-)definition.

Keywords: cross-border cooperation; cross-border region; perimeter; territorial governance; spatial evolution.
## Introduction

Since the beginning of 1990, the territorial scope of INTERREG programmes has steadily grown. The historian Birte Wassenberg and the geographer Bernard Reitel, whose analysis of 25 years of INTERREG programmes was edited in 2015 by the European Commission, underline the progressive evolution of perimeters of cross-border cooperation. The geography of INTERREG programmes shows both a multiplication process – new programmes at new borders – and an expansion process – bigger programmes' perimeters along the borders and into hinterlands. This historic perspective of growth illustrates an enthusiastic development of cross-border regions in Europe in recent decades (Wassenberg, Reitel & Peyrony, 2015). The success of cross-border regions is not the only explanation for this growing trend. The shift from an experimental project to a systematic policy, the financial attraction of farther regions, the national management needs are important reasons for the increasing size of INTERREG eligibility perimeters.

By contrast, the negotiations for the forthcoming budget for the European Union (EU) in the post-Brexit area has caused anxiety amongst stakeholders of European regional development and cross-border cooperation. A so-called ‘Cohesion Alliance’ launched an intense lobbying action in October 2017 to ensure a strong Cohesion Policy for all regions after 2020. The challenge was to avert the European Commission’s proposals to cut by 26-33% the European Structural and Investments Funds (European Commission, 2018a). Finally, the Cohesion Policy will remain the EU’s most powerful investment tool over the years 2021-2027, with a budget of €330 billion, and cross-border issues will still be financially supported through a significant INTERREG programming period by €8.43 billion (European Commission, 2018b). Yet this event reveals on the one hand the kind of instability and insecurity cross-border regions must
deal with in their strategies and projects, and on the other hand their resilience and
adaptability in less prosperous times. We would argue that while most European cross-
border regions have existed for more than 20 years, they still do not seem to be spatially
stabilized, to have an enduring and clearly defined territory. In the context of European
integration, cross-border regions reflect the emergence of intergovernmental
territoriality. Their cross-border territory 'provides an opportunity to address
mismatches between administrative and functional areas'. As such, they can be
considered a form of 'soft spaces', the object of political negotiations and temporal
dynamics (Allmendinger, Chilla & Sielker, 2014).

This paper aims to explore the instability and adaptability of cross-border
regions from a spatial perspective. It analyses the perimeters of cross-border regions and
questions their evolution. The perimeter of a cross-border region defines the bounded
territorial scope on which cross-border cooperation implements a spatial strategy. The
question of the limit of the perimeter is a clue to territorial construction (Amilhat-Szary
& Fourny, 2006). The stability of the cross-border region perimeter is in fact crucial for
any long-term spatialized policy, and especially for spatial planning. Focusing on
perimeters is meaningful for further reasons: it reveals the set of local authorities
involved as members of the cross-border cooperation. It is also linked to the
representation of the spatial structure of the territory, and shows which spaces are
considered – or consider themselves – to be border spaces. It can then be part of an
identity narrative related to a cross-border territorialisation process.

In that sense, this article is rooted in political geography: it follows theories of
territorial construction, arguing that cross-border regions are the outcome of a process
of social and political construction (Keating, 1997; Newman, 2003; Paasi & Metzger,
2017; Perkmann, 2003). Historical, geographical or economic characteristics are
instrumentalized in order to essentialize a cross-border region. Even the understanding
of a border as a resource (Sohn, 2014) means that political stakeholders mobilize it in
their strategy of spatial development and territorialisation. The limits and thus the
perimeter are fundamental pieces in the construction of a region (Paasi, 1986); we
would argue that this is also true for cross-border regions. A methodological approach
to grasp this process of territorial construction is to consider the institutionalization of
cross-border cooperation (Perkmann, 2003). Through the institutionalization process, a
cross-border region will define the territorial governance (Leloup, Moyart, & Pecqueur,
2005) that will apply within a bounded perimeter. As spatial and social objects, cross-
border regions are categorized in various ways, mostly depending on their structure
(natural and rural, urban or metropolitan cross-border regions), their scale (regional or
local, sometimes intermediate), their institutionalization (from informal to the most
complex governance structure) or on their purpose (Durà, Camonita, Berzi & Noferini,
2018). Some literature focuses on the spatial structure of cross-border regions. Joachim
Blatter undertakes a broad comparison of cross-border cooperation in Europe with that
in North America. His spatial findings reveal that ‘all European institutions have
defined their spatial scale of activity and developed maps to demarcate their turf’, so
that their geographical scales correspond to ‘clear-cut definitions and congruence’,
whereas North American cooperation operates on ‘variable and fuzzy’ ‘territories or
networks’ (Blatter, 2004). He argues that a European geography based on ‘spaces of
places’ resulted in governance that was much more territorial than functional (Blatter,
2004). In the 2007 ESPON report, the Belgian geographer Christian Vandermotten
defines Morphological Urban Areas (MUAs) and Functional Urban Areas (FUAs) all
over the EU and manages to produce demographic figures and maps despite the delicate
work involving non-homogenous data. Transborder FUAs are one interesting result of
his typology, which identifies seven different types of transborder FUAs, depending on
the continuity or discontinuities of the MUAs and FUAs across the border (ESPON,
2007). In the 2011 ESPON report entitled METROBORDER, Tobias Chilla and his
Luxembourgish team examined the potential of polycentricity in a large-scale cross-
border region. A qualitative analysis of the Greater Region and the Upper Region, partly
commissioned by their representatives, concludes by introducing the term ‘cross-border
polycentric metropolitan region’ (ESPON, 2010). Cross-border metropolitan regions in
the EU are the subject of a recent study which investigates the relation between the
centre and the periphery, and between the two national sides of the cross-border area. It
puts forward a distinction between three models ‘by specialization, by polarization or by
osmosis’ (Decoville, Durand, Sohn & Walther, 2014).

In addition to these comparative works, numerous case studies provide insights
into the spatial structure of individual cross-border regions in Europe. It is in fact a
common practice for every institutionalized cross-border region to publish a more or
less solid description of its territorial scope and its self-estimated strengths and
potentials. Such publications are often financed by INTERREG and reflect a politically
oriented strategy rather than a scientific analysis. Yet there is a convincing example for
instance in the analysis done by the Trinational Eurodistrict of Basel. Entitled *Eine
Zukunft zu dritt – Un Avenir à Trois* ('Three sharing a future') (Eurodistrict Trinational
de Bâle, 2009). A collection of academic publications applies a complementary
analytical approach to individual case studies, sometimes with a thematic focus. The
spatial structure of the cross-border region around Lille has for instance been studied in
terms of a metropolitan approach (Paris, 2002), through cross-border flows of residents
(Clément, 2015), and of workers or consumers (Letniowska-Swiat, 2002), through the
question of the integration process (Durand & Perrin, 2017), or through projects of
urban planning (Reitel & Moullé, 2015). Additionally, the local urban planning agency published an impressive *Atlas of the cross-border Metropolitan Area of Lille* (ADULM, MBM & INSEE NPdC, 2012). By comparison, the literature on some cross-border regions is more scarce. The Eurodistrict Strasbourg-Ortenau or the Franco-Belgian littoral are principally studied through the political lens of governance and institutionalization into a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) (Comité des Régions, 2017; Fricke, 2015). The cross-border region around Strasbourg is often part of a broader analysis of the whole Upper Rhine Region (Beck & Wassenberg, 2010; Beyer & Reitel, 2011; Reitel, 2014; Wassenberg, 2007; Woessner, 2014). Depending on the cross-border region concerned, the spatial structure of urban cross-border regions in western Europe is thus an issue on which we have unequal knowledge.

Based on these models of spatial structure and case studies, we would like to raise the question of the evolution of the territorial scope of cross-border initiatives. The aim is to grasp a subject for which it is simple enough to collect and compare data, but which is significant enough to enable discussion of the spatial evolution of cross-border cooperation in western Europe. The dynamic approach in this article might contribute to the debate on the spatial form of cross-border regions. How stable is the perimeter of a cross-border region? Can we identify specific patterns for the spatial evolution of cross-border regions? Finally, does institutionalization provide stable perimeters for cross-border regions? The first task is to check whether the multiplication and expansion of cross-border regions is as notable at EU internal borders as it is for INTERREG programmes. Our thesis is that European cross-border cooperation entered a less favourable period after its successful launch in the 1990-2000 time period.
Our sample gathers case studies along two borders in western Europe. It consists of two geographical borders and their cross-border cooperation. Selected for their long tradition of cross-border cooperation, the British-Franco-Belgian border and the Franco-German-Swiss border offer numerous examples for our methodology. Both borders are approximately 200 kilometres long, from Dunkerque-Oostende to Maubeuge-Charleroi on the one border, and from Karlsruhe to Basel on the other border. They both show initial processes of social construction of cross-border regions before 1980. They both connect three countries: the United Kingdom across English Channel, France and Belgium (distinguishing at the regional level between Flanders and Wallonia) in the first case, and France, Germany and Switzerland in the second case.

Following Markus Perkmann's definitions, a *cross-border cooperation* will be understood as 'a more or less institutionalized collaboration between contiguous subnational authorities across national borders', and a *cross-border region* is understood as 'a bounded territorial unit composed of the territories of authorities participating in a CBC initiative' (Perkmann, 2003). The definition and distinction between cross-border cooperation and cross-border region are easy to operationalize and makes it possible to enumerate them in our two case studies. It allows us to perform a qualitative analysis of the perimeter of individual cross-border regions, to identify differences and similarities in their spatial evolution, and to aggregate results into patterns.
<table><caption>Table 1. Analytical matrix for spatial evolution.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">Temporality</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Existence</th><th>Evolution</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th rowspan="2">Dynamics</th><th>Increase</th><td>Multiplication</td><td>Expansion</td></tr><tr><th>Decrease</th><td>Disappearance</td><td>Shrinkage</td></tr></tbody></table>

Based on the results obtained by Birte Wassenberg and Bernard Reitel (Wassenberg et al., 2015), we developed an analytical matrix of possible spatial evolution (see Table 1). The analytical matrix covers two temporal dimensions (existence and evolution) and two dynamic dimensions (increase and decrease). Trends of multiplication and expansion were noticeable for INTERREG programmes, but do they also apply for every cross-border region? Are they not the opposite phenomena of disappearing and shrinking? This assumption is supported by the results of the project COOP-RECOT II. The geographers from the *Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona* put together an exhaustive database of what they call ‘Euroregions’ in Europe. ‘From a total 214 Euroregions, 158 were active and 56 were inactive’ (Durà et al., 2018). This proportion of 26% of Euroregions that were inactive might have experienced decreasing phenomena of disappearance or shrinkage.

The observation of increase and decrease phenomena should not lead to normative misunderstandings. Our analysis does not argue ‘the more, the better’ or ‘the bigger, the better’. Besides, an increasing trend does not necessarily mean ‘debordering’, nor does a decreasing trend mean ‘rebordering’ (Van Houtum, Kramsch,
& Zierhofer, 2005). Multiplication and expansion phenomena rather signify very strong interest in cross-border cooperation amongst local authorities and territorial stakeholders. Questioning the reasons leading to this interest/lack of interest is not the point of this article. Even if disappearing and shrinking can be consequences of crisis and disengagement, they might potentially indicate that strategies and projects have been successfully completed, or that the cross-border region is implementing a reorganization reform, or an institutional shift towards new strategies and projects.

Besides, we do not believe that there is any 'correct perimeter'. In a geography of places and flows (Blatter, 2004; Castells, 1998), the spatial planner Noémie Hinfray even talks about 'the myth of the relevant perimeter' (Hinfray, 2010). Therefore, we cannot offer any recommendation as to what an adequate perimeter for cross-border regions would be.

The analytical matrix opens up two hypotheses (see Figure 1). The *existence* hypothesis deals with the number of cross-border regions. It assumes that there is a multiplication of the number of cross-border regions in our sample in western Europe (n), but that it is slowing down with time (t). The multiplication could be due to a context of intensive debate about European spatial planning (Faludi, 2010) and the financial opportunity of INTERREG programmes. The slowing down could be geographically explained by the number of potential configurations on a limited border coming to an end. The *evolution* hypothesis concerns the adaptation of the perimeters. It builds on the temporal dynamics of 'soft spaces' (Allmendinger et al., 2014). It imagines a process of size fitting and experimentation in the set of members and in the perimeter. Large cross-border regions might tend to shrink, while small cross-border regions might tend to extend. Cross-border regions might experience softening or hardening of their territories.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Hypothesis of spatial evolution.</figcaption></figure>

The data that we have collected concerning the perimeter of cross-border regions comes from a cross-over of four types of sources. Firstly, we used scientific publications from the field of ‘Border Studies’ and especially from historians and political scientists, to establish the founding of individual cross-border regions. Secondly, the agreements, statutes and funding documents for cross-border cooperations mostly give exact information about the date of creation, the partners in the collaboration and the territory concerned. Thirdly, the cross-border cooperations refer to their perimeter in a diverse corpus of grey literature including strategy papers, institutional websites and other publications. They also forward information to the *Mission Operationnelle Transfrontalière*, whose publications form a corpus of solid knowledge (Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière (MOT), 2007). Finally, interviews were conducted to clarify some evolutions which were not always written down in new legal documents. Thirty-four interviews took place during two research field trips in 2015-2017, in the framework of the ‘EXplore-project’ in the former Cross-Channel Euroregion and of the ‘RUS²-project’ in the Upper Rhine region.
**Existence hypothesis: multiplication of cross-border region**

To verify the existence hypothesis, we count the number of distinct cross-border regions
on the two borders under investigation and clarify their historical legal evolution. The
criteria for this exhaustive list come from Perkmann’s definition: cross-border regions
operate ‘in the realm of public agency’, in ‘a collaboration between subnational
authorities’, they are ‘concerned with practical problem-solving’ and present ‘a certain
stabilization’ over time (Perkmann, 2003).

***Multiplication: political construction processes at the British-Franco-Belgian***
***border***

Cross-border cooperation on the British-Franco-Belgian border has been studied in
geographic monographs (Hamez, 2004; Perrin, 2013; Verger, 2011) and in numerous
articles (Church & Reid, 1999; Duhamel & Renard, 2002, 2007; Durand, 2013; Durand
& Nelles, 2014; Durand & Perrin, 2017; Heddebaut, 2004; Leloup, 2010; Maneveau,
2008; Paris, 2002; Perrin, 2012). At first sight, the British-Franco-Belgian border
consists of two urban cross-border regions: the one around Lille, and the other one on
the Franco-Belgian coastline.

(1) A first cross-border region lies on the Franco-Belgian coastline. In the 1970s, the Communauté urbaine de Dunkerque and the West-Vlaamse Intercommunale started informal cooperation in the fields of economic development and spatial planning. This initiative was supported by an agreement between the Département du Nord and the Provincie West-Vlaanderen in 1989. Finally, the ‘Cross-Border Platform West-Vlaanderen / Flandre-Dunkerque-Côte d’Opale’ was founded in 2005. In 2009, it grew into a EGTC, including all levels of
government from both sides. Because they declined invitations to join the Platform and the EGTC, British partners from Kent and Dover only participate on the basis of *ad hoc* projects. They do not belong to this cross-border region.

(2) A metropolitan cross-border region emerged around Lille and the Belgian surrounding intermunicipalities, thanks to a coalition of political leaders and economic stakeholders. Their purpose was to emerge from the shadow of London, Paris and Brussels. The cross-border cooperation was first institutionalized in 1991 through the *Conference permanente intercommunale transfrontalière (COPIT)*, a standing cross-border conference of intermunicipal organizations. A European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG) followed, and a Local Grouping of Cross-Border Cooperation<fnref n="1" /> was established in 2005 under the name 'Lille Franco-Belgian Metropolis'. It turned into the very first EGTC in Europe in 2008: the 'Eurometropolis Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai'. Its territory unites the intermunicipalities of the three main cities, Lille in France, Kortrijk in Flanders (Belgium) and Tournai in Wallonia (Belgium), and results in a mixed geographical structure of an urban network with rural areas.

These two cross-border regions are well known in Europe, but they hide three other cross-border regions which we must consider in our analysis of perimeter evolution: the Hainaut Cross-Border Nature Park gets less attention, the Metropolitan Area of Lille is often forgotten, and the Cross-Channel Euroregion is no longer active.

<footnote n="1">¹ This legal form comes from the Karlsruhe Agreement and has been renamed 'European district' or 'ED'.</footnote>
(3) The Hainaut Cross-Border Nature Park comes from a memorandum of understanding signed in 1983 by the regions Wallonia and Nord-Pas-de-Calais. Projects received financial support in the INTERREG I and II periods at a time when cross-border cooperation was not institutionalized. The cross-border park was created in 1996 as a cooperation between the two pre-existing national nature parks, the *Parc regional naturel Scarpe-Escaut* on the French side, and the *Parc naturel des Plaines de l'Escaut* on the Belgian side.

(4) The Metropolitan Area of Lille is a second Franco-Belgian cross-border region larger than the Eurometropolis. It must be distinguished because it does not fit into its temporal development and its territorial scope. Indeed, the *COPIT* signed the declaration of intent of 2005 with other members. The Metropolitan Area of Lille was created as an association in 2007. Its logic is to involve the partners of the whole functional area of the Franco-Belgian metropolis. For this reason, it covers the same Belgian area as the Eurometropolis on the northern side but a much larger area in France on the southern side. It extends to Hazebrouck, Arras, Cambrai, Valenciennes and even Maubeuge. Although the members claim to stick to the metropolitan functional area, the perimeter reveals two curiosities: Maubeuge is isolated from the rest of the territory, and the neighbouring Belgian city of Mons does not belong to the cross-border region.

(5) The only cross-border region with British members is the Cross-Channel Euroregion. The high-speed train connection to the continent and the digging of the Channel Tunnel were huge construction works which provided an opportunity for cross-border cooperation. The Cross-Channel Euroregion was created in 1987 through an agreement between the region Nord-Pas-de-Calais and the county of Kent. In 1991, the three Belgian regions (Flanders, Wallonia
and Brussels Capital) joined the partnership, widening the perimeter of the cross-border cooperation to the whole country. It was dissolved in 2004.

It is worth discussing why other kinds of extant or previously existing cross-border cooperation are not included in this list. The cross-border theatre *Le Manège* in Maubeuge rather operates as a network with theatres in Mons but also in Gent and Brussels (Perrin, 2012). There is no continuity of subnational authorities and therefore no cross-border region. The cross-border natural region of *La Thiérache* presents a lot of INTERREG projects but has never defined a proper territory or stable cooperation. Cross-border health management between France and Belgium led to definition of seven zones along the border. The so-called ZOAST (*Zones Organisées d'Accès aux Soins de Santé Transfrontaliers* or planned cross-border health treatment zones) indeed present cross-border territoriality, but are a case of centrally managed administrative zoning rather than institutionalized cross-border cooperation (Delecosse, Leloup & Lewalle, 2017; MOT, 2007). Such networks, projects and administrative divisions might indeed cross borders, but they were not taken into account here due to their lack of institutionalization or territoriality.
<table><caption>Table 2. Overview of spatial evolution of cross-border regions on the British-Franco-Belgian border</caption><thead><tr><th>Date</th><th>Name</th><th>Spatial evolution</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>Local scale</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1991</td><td>Conférence permanente intercommunale transfrontalière COPIT</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>ED Lille Franco-Belgian Metropolis</td><td>Unchanged</td></tr><tr><td>2008</td><td>EGTC Eurometropolis Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai</td><td>Unchanged</td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>Cross-border Nature Park Hainaut</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>Intermediate scale</strong></td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>Cross-Border Platform West-Vlaanderen/Flandre-Dunkerque-Côte d'Opale</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td>2009</td><td>EGTC West-Vlaanderen/Flandre-Dunkerque-Côte d'Opale</td><td>Enlargement and concentration</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>Metropolitan Area of Lille</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>Regional scale</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1987</td><td>Euroregion</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td>1991</td><td>EEIG Cross-Channel Euroregion</td><td>Enlargement</td></tr><tr><td>2001-2002</td><td>Cross-Channel Region</td><td>Withdrawing partners</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>Dissolution</td><td>Dissolution</td></tr></tbody></table>

On the British-Franco-Belgian border, we can count *five creations of different cross-border cooperations* which have a clearly identified perimeter. Table 2 presents the evolution of these cross-border cooperations, distributed in three scales (local, intermediate and regional), and listed from the west to the east, and from the oldest to the newest. The British-Franco-Belgian border thus comprises *five cross-border regions* resulting from a process of social and political construction, as described.
*Multiplication: counting cross-border regions at the Franco-German-Swiss border*

The situation is much more complex on the Franco-German-Swiss border. Thanks to the work of political scientists, urbanists and historians (Beck & Wassenberg, 2010; Dupeyron, 2005; MOT, 2007; Wackermann, 2008; Wassenberg, 2007), an overview of the most significant cross-border cooperation initiatives is shown in Table 3 (listed from north to south). According to our criteria, whilst the listing claims to be exhaustive in terms of the number of cross-border cooperations and regions, it could not be exhaustive from a historical or legal point of view, due to changes of status and names.

Looking at the spatial evolution of cross-border regions, the table focuses on the creation of cross-border cooperation at a new perimeter and changes in the set of members of existing cross-border cooperation initiatives. Despite this methodological caveat, the list of potential cross-border cooperation initiatives and of their evolution is much longer for the Franco-German-Swiss border than for the British-Franco-Belgian border.
<table><caption>Table 3. Overview of spatial evolution of cross-border regions on the Franco-German-Swiss border</caption><thead><tr><th>Date</th><th>Name</th><th>Perimeter</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">Local scale</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>ED Wissembourg-Bad Bergzabern</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td>1990</td><td>Joint municipal Council in Strasbourg and Kehl</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>Commission Strasbourg-Kehl</td><td>Unchanged</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>ED Vis à Vis</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>ED Pays des Deux Brisach/Zwei-Breisacher-Land</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td></td><td>Expansion</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>ED Centre Hardt/Mittelhardt</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td></td><td>Expansion</td></tr><tr><td>1995</td><td>Trinational Agglomeration Basel</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>Association Trinational Agglomeration Basel</td><td>Unchanged</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>Trinational Eurodistrict Basel</td><td>Expansion</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td></td><td>Shrinking</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Intermediate scale</td></tr><tr><td>1988</td><td>PAMINA Space</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>Regio PAMINA</td><td>Unchanged</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td></td><td>Expansion</td></tr><tr><td>2008</td><td>ED Eurodistrict Regio PAMINA</td><td>Unchanged</td></tr><tr><td>1991</td><td>INFOBEST PAMINA</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td>1993</td><td>INFOBEST Kehl-Strasbourg</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td>1993</td><td>EEIG Euro-institute Kehl-Strasbourg</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>Eurodistrict Strasbourg-Ortenau</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td>2009</td><td>EGTC Eurodistrict Strasbourg-Ortenau</td><td>Unchanged</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td></td><td>Enlargement</td></tr><tr><td>1964</td><td>Communauté d'Intérêt Moyenne Alsace-Breisgau</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>Eurodistrict Region Freiburg - Centre et Sud Alsace</td><td>Unchanged</td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>INFOBEST Vogelgrun-Breisach</td><td>Creation</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>1993</td><td>INFOBEST PALMRAIN</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td>2008</td><td>Metrobasel</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Regional scale</td></tr><tr><td>1971</td><td>Standing Tripartite Conference</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td>1975</td><td>Southern Tripartite Regional Committee</td><td>Unchanged</td></tr><tr><td>1995</td><td>Regio TriRhena</td><td>Creation (fusion of three national Regios)</td></tr><tr><td>1975</td><td>Northern Bipartite Regional Committee</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td>1991</td><td>Franco-German-Swiss Conference of the Upper Rhine</td><td>Creation (fusion of the two Regional Committees)</td></tr><tr><td>1975</td><td>Franco-German-Swiss Intergovernmental Commission</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td></td><td>Expansion</td></tr><tr><td>1976</td><td>Franco-German consultative group of representatives</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td>1991</td><td>Permanent meetings of the Council and the Land representatives</td><td>Unchanged</td></tr><tr><td>1997</td><td>Upper Rhine Council</td><td>Unchanged</td></tr><tr><td>1983</td><td>Tripartite Congresses</td><td>Creation</td></tr><tr><td>2008</td><td>Trinational Metropolitan Region of the Upper Rhine</td><td>Unchanged</td></tr></table>

The complexity and diversity of the list again raises the question of what a cross-border region actually is. Perkmann's definition ends up being very inclusive. Accordingly, cross-border institutions and events like the Joint Municipal Council in Strasbourg and Kehl, the Franco-German-Swiss Intergovernmental Commission, the Upper Rhine Council and Tripartite Congresses are cross-border cooperations. They are indeed 'more or less institutionalized collaboration[s] between contiguous subnational authorities across national borders' and meet the four criteria of 'public agency', 'subnational authorities', 'practical problem-solving' and 'stabilization' over time (Perkmann, 2003). The INFOBEST and the Euro-institute provide cross-border expertise to enterprises, citizens and local authorities from a bounded territory, and they
are supported and financed by public authorities. Metrobasel could be a controversial example because it was created as a public-private association, but its objective is still the development of an integrated trinational metropolitan region around Basel involving all types of stakeholders, from local authorities and associations to companies and individual citizens. The Trinational Metropolitan Region of the Upper Rhine joined the list even if it is an emanation of the Franco-German-Swiss Conference and of the Tripartite Congress. It could be interpreted as a labelling and branding policy within existing cross-border cooperation, but the fact that has existed for 10 years, and that dedicated staff regularly work for it in different institutions (pillars), made the difference. By contrast, the list does not contain the *Regio Basiliensis* (or the other national Regio), although it has been promoting cross-border cooperation since 1963. But it is difficult to call it cross-border itself, as it represents the Swiss cantons in different matters and in several cross-border institutions. The Euroairport Basel-Mulhouse or the joint administration of the port of Kehl is not cross-border regions, as they are not clearly bounded territorial units.

In total, the Franco-German-Swiss border delivers no less than 22 *creations of cross-border cooperation*. To sum up, our methodology yields 13 different perimeters of cross-border cooperation, resulting in 13 *different cross-border regions* on the Franco-German-Swiss border. Six of them are local cross-border regions:

(1) Wissembourg-Bad Bergzabern

(2) Strasbourg-Kehl

(3) *Vis-à-Vis*

(4) Brisach-Breisach

(5) *Centre Hardt/Mittelhardt*

(6) Trinational Eurodistrict of Basel
Four are intermediate cross-border regions:

(7) PAMINA

(8) Strasbourg-Ortenau

(9) Region *Freiburg – Centre et Sud Alsace*

(10) Metrobasel

And three are regional cross-border regions:

(11) The Northern Bipartite Regional Committee

(12) *Regio TriRhena / Southern Tripartite Regional Committee*

(13) The Upper Rhine region

This result could be open to discussion, as some perimeters are very similar. For instance, one could argue that the Trinational Eurodistrict of Basel and Metrobasel are merely the same cross-border region. Another issue is the recognition of former perimeters of cross-border cooperation as cross-border regions, as in the case of the Northern Regional Committee (and of the Cross-Channel Euroregion).

*Creation and replacement, layering, juxtaposition and scaling*

The distinction made by Markus Perkmann between a cross-border cooperation and a cross-border region is very meaningful. The British-Franco-Belgian border delivers 5 *cross-border cooperations* in 5 *cross-border regions*, while the Franco-German-Swiss border delivers 22 *cross-border cooperations* in 13 *cross-border regions*.

Based on the perimeter analysis, we cannot conclude that there are as many cross-border regions as cross-border cooperations at the Franco-German-Swiss border. For instance, the Franco-German-Swiss Intergovernmental Commission, the Franco-
German-Swiss Conference, the Upper Rhine Council, the Tripartite Congresses and the Trinational Metropolitan Region all cover the same perimeter, which is called the Upper Rhine region. They are not the same cross-border cooperation, have different statuses and organizations, but they work together and pursue very similar goals for a unique territory. This *phenomenon of layering* also applies to other cross-border cooperations.

For most of the cases, the perimeters of the INFOBESTs coincide with the perimeters of the Eurodistricts; the Eurodistricts implement an integrated spatialized strategy while the INFOBESTs provide sectoral expertise.

In our spatial understanding, several sectoral cross-border cooperations on the same perimeter result in a single cross-border region; this is a phenomenon of layering.

A cross-border region can then include an unlimited number of cross-border cooperations. This can fuel a process of multiplication of cross-border cooperations, but maintain the number of cross-border regions at a low level. There are fewer cross-border regions than cross-border cooperations, as a region can encounter several cooperations. The geographical scope of cross-border cooperation primarily defines the cross-border region.

Both borders present indubitable activity in relation to creating and reforming cross-border cooperation. There is a real phenomenon of *multiplication of cross-border cooperation*. Eurocity, Eurodistrict, Euroregion, Eurometropolis... the names given to cross-border initiatives these last 50 years sound ambitious. In terms of representation, they promise flagship projects of spatial planning, innovative structures of governance or iconic visions of a future integrated territory. However, these ambitious names do not always last, and seem to belong to the trendy vocabulary of public policies. While some of these names appeared recently and others disappeared after several years, it is clear that they contribute to variable territorial marketing. Yet the diversity of names could
have suggested a higher number of cross-border cooperations, but most of them are
simply the result of reform of a single cross-border cooperation; a Platform becomes an
EGTC, a Space becomes a *Regio*, an Association becomes an Eurodistrict. These events
are *replacements*, transformations of a cross-border cooperation with the same
perimeter. Thus they cannot be understood as the creation of a new cross-border
cooperation.

A comparison of the two borders underlines the extreme intensity of cross-border cooperation between France, Germany and Switzerland, and a process of *multiplication of cross-border regions*. At this border, many phenomena of *juxtaposition* and *scaling* take place. Juxtaposition can be illustrated by the Eurodistricts which are contiguous to one another and almost cover the perimeter of the Upper Rhine region. Scaling is when a cross-border region is nested in a bigger one. For instance, the Trinational Eurodistrict of Basel lies within the perimeter of Metrobasel, which lies within the perimeter of the *Regio TriRhena*, which lies within the perimeter of the Upper Rhine region (see Figure 2). Cross-border regions which are in a spatial relationship of juxtaposition or scaling are independent and distinct, but very often cooperate in processes of mutual information and even in inclusive policies or projects.

A phenomenon of juxtaposition is the presence of several contiguous cross-border regions. Juxtaposition can be understood in a strict sense, as two contiguous perimeters with a shared limit, or in a wider sense, as two perimeters slightly overlapping or slightly distant. A phenomenon of scaling is a special topology of several cross-border regions which are interwoven. Due to their embedded structure, a larger cross-border region would contain one or several smaller cross-border regions.

With phenomena of juxtaposition and scaling, the multiplication of cross-border regions at a border is potentially endless.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2. Juxtaposition and scaling: Perimeters in the Upper Rhine Region (Eurodistrict Trinational de Bâle, 2009) © Trinational Eurodistrict Basel</figcaption></figure>

Evolution hypothesis: extending, shrinking and even disappearing cross-border regions

Beyond the multiplication of cross-border regions and their spatial distribution, this section aims to clarify the spatial evolution of individual cross-border regions. In an increasing trend, cross-border regions very often extend, although in a decreasing trend, very few shrink or disappear.
## Expansion of cross-border regions: a widespread phenomenon

Expansion of a cross-border perimeter is a very common phenomenon which can happen in slightly different situations.

### Enlargement

When a new local authority joins an existing cross-border cooperation, its territory is added to the former perimeter and hence enlarges the cross-border region. We call this phenomenon *enlargement*, referring to the enlargement of the EU to the east.

This applied for instance to the Cross-Channel Euroregion as we saw earlier. Another case is the Eurodistrict Strasbourg-Ortenau (see Figure 3) which took the legal form of an EGTC in 2010 with one French member, the *Communauté urbaine de Strasbourg*, and six German members, the *Landkreis Ortenaukreis*, and the towns or cities of Offenburg, Lahr, Kehl, Achern and Oberkirch. In 2013, three French local authorities joined the EGTC. The *Communautés de Communes du Pays d'Erstein, du Rhin et de Benfeld et environs* accepted a kind of 'cross-border cooperation *acquis*' when they joined. Through this, the French side of the cross-border region doubled in size, softening the geographical asymmetry of the former cross-border perimeter.

The Franco-Belgian littoral EGTC experienced an enlargement too. During the discussions and negotiations about the new legal form of the cross-border cooperation in 2009, the five official members of the Platform West-Vlaanderen/Flandre-Dunkerque-Côte d'Opale (*Provincie West-Vlaanderen*, intermunicipalities WVI, *Commaunauté urbaine de Dunkerque* and *Pays Moulins de Flandre*, and the urban planning agency AGUR) opened up the talks to other potential members in the surrounding areas. British partners kept up to date with the process but decline to join,
whereas three continental members signed the statutes of the new EGTC: the *Regionaal Sociaal-Economisch Overlegcomité Westhoek*, the *Communauté de Communes des Hauts de Flandre* and the *Syndicat mixte du Pays Cœur de Flandre*. This case is rather one of making official the former cross-border cooperation, and a reorganization of governance, as these members were already involved in informal decision-making of the Platform. Nevertheless, the replacement of the Platform by the EGTC resulted in a phenomenon of official enlargement of the cross-border region.

<caption>Figure 3. Examples of enlargement, expansion and concentration</caption>
Enlargement
on an institutional
logic:

EGTC Eurodistrict
Strasbourg-Ortenau

© ADEUS

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

2010

Création: Ortenaukreis, Communauté urbaine de Strasbourg

2013

Elargissement: Communautés de Communes du Pays d'Erstein, du Rhin, de Benfeld et environs

Expansion
on a functional logic:

Trinational
Eurodistrict Basel

© Trinational
Eurodistrict Basel

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Concentration
on a functional logic:

EGTC West-
Vlaanderen/Flandre-
Dunkerque-Côte
d'Opale

© GECT West-
Vlaanderen/Flandre-
Dunkerque-Côte d'Opale

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
### Expansion

At the same moment, the *Communauté urbaine de Dunkerque* extended and became the *Dunkerque Grand Littoral Communauté urbaine*. That changed the set of members of the cross-border cooperation but not the cross-border region. By contrast, territorial reform in Lille had consequences for the cross-border region of the Eurometropolis Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai. In 2015, the French bills *NOTRe* and *MAPTAM* reorganized metropolitan territorial units and the *Communauté urbaine de Lille* turned into *Métropole Européenne de Lille* with the addition of a few municipalities. Consequently, the municipalities automatically joined the Eurometropolis as it was, and adopted its cross-border cooperation *acquis*. In the end, the Eurometropolis Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai extended its cross-border region without any changes in membership. We call this phenomenon an *expansion* of an institutional logic.

On the Franco-German border, three local European districts (ED) also experienced an expansion in 2017 due to the French territorial reform. The *Eurométropole de Strasbourg* integrated the *Communauté de Communes des Châteaux*, expanding once again the perimeter of the Eurodistrict Strasbourg-Ortenau. The French intermunicipalities *Pays de Brisach* and *Essor du Rhin* merged, even if each of them was a member of a cross-border cooperation. Consequently, the ED *Pays des Deux Brisach/Zwei-Brisacher-Land* and the ED *Centre Hardt/Mittelhardt* both expanded on their French sides.

Expansion took a different course in the replacement of the Association Trinational Agglomeration Basel by the Trinational Eurodistrict Basel in 2007 (see Figure 3). The membership remained generally unchanged (being an association, new memberships can occur smoothly), but the perimeter widened significantly. In fact, the former perimeter had been defined as an urban project territory which did not cover the
whole territory of the partners. In 2001, the Association Trinational Agglomeration Basel distinguished between an inner perimeter and an expanded perimeter in its strategy. This logic is strongly influenced by functional reflections about the size of the agglomeration and the importance of economic interdependency and worker flows. The activities of the association were concentrated on the inner perimeter, while the Eurodistrict took the expanded perimeter as the new reference point. But this distinction should not be understood in a strict way. This division into perimeters is the result of years of cross-border cooperation under the flexible form of an association. It reflects a cooperation of ‘variable geometry’; different partners work together on areas within the perimeter, depending on their current project. In a less administrative understanding of territoriality, the perimeter is not deduced from the members of the cross-border cooperation. This distinction is very well expressed in the German expression of *Vertragsraum*, the space of the parties to the contract, the institutional perimeter, and the *Mandatsraum*, the space of mandate, the strategic perimeter of projects (ESPON, 2010; Evrard, 2013; Evrard & Chilla, 2014). In the Trinational Eurodistrict Basel, the *Mandatsraum* is the only official perimeter, and it coincides with the cross-border region. Here Perkmann’s definition does not quite fit. The cross-border region of the Trinational Eurodistrict Basel is not ‘a bounded territorial unit composed of the territories of authorities participating in a [cross-border cooperation]’ (Perkmann, 2003).

The flexibility of the associative structure and the pragmatic project-based approach differs from the territorial approach of the Eurometropolis Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai, for instance. This expansion took place on a functional logic.

## Fusion

After enlargement and expansion, the observation of increasing evolution would not be
complete without the phenomenon of *fusion*. The Franco-German-Swiss border offers
two examples of fusion, while no counter-example of splitting could be found.

The Bonn agreement, signed in 1975, established three different cross-border
cooperations: the Franco-German-Swiss Intergovernmental Commission covered the
Upper Rhine region, the Bipartite Regional Committee lay in the north, and the
Tripartite Regional Committee lay in the south (it replaced a previous Standing
Tripartite Conference). After their third meeting in 1991, the two Regional Committees
merged, creating the Franco-German-Swiss Conference of the Upper Rhine. This fusion
means the disappearance of two cross-border regions, although cross-border
cooperation still exists in a merged cross-border region.

The evolution of the *Regios* follows a different path, as they were created
separately but in a parallel way: the *Regio Basiliensis* in Basel in 1963, the *Regio du
Haut-Rhin* in 1976 in Colmar, the *Regio Freiburg* in Freiburg im Breisgau in 1985.
Each of them acted on a strictly national perimeter, but they built a 'spirit of regional
community' (Wassenberg, 2012) thanks to cross-border cooperation around Basel. At
that point, we cannot count them as cross-border regions. But in 1995, together they
founded the cross-border association *Regio TriRhena*. In this case, the fusion is a simple
creation: cross-border cooperation gets institutionalized and a new cross-border region
arises. Interestingly, the perimeter of the *Regio TriRhena* matches the perimeter of the
former Tripartite Committee.

***Disappearance: a rarity***

As the opposite phenomenon to multiplication and expansion, decreasing spatial
evolution is very rare at both borders. Cross-border cooperation may be a delicate
practice of ‘micro-diplomacy’ (Wassenberg, 2007), so that criticism and disagreement
would be part of the process, along with shrinkage, withdrawal and disappearance.

These decreasing phenomena could be signs of a crisis, of success or of reorganization.

Yet our research shows only one case of withdrawal followed by dissolution. This happened in the Cross-Channel Euroregion.

The Channel Tunnel was a great challenge for cross-border cooperation before and after its opening in 1994. The members of the Cross-Channel Euroregion later cooperated in the framework of INTERREG projects. When the important project SPACE (Spatial Planning And Cities in the Euroregion) came to an end in 2000, the members began to question the goals of the cross-border cooperation. The construction work and necessary regulation linked to the Channel were over. The new connection obviously facilitated exchanges, but also strengthened economic competition. Over the course of a few months in 2001 and 2002, the three Belgian regions withdrew one after the other: Brussels Capital, then Flanders and finally Wallonia. The cross-border region has therefore progressively shrunk, losing the territory of each member as it leaves. For a few months, the cross-border region had a curiously discontinuous perimeter, with Brussels appearing as a hole. The office of the Euroregion had to leave Etterbeek-Brussels for Lille in 2002. The French and British attempted to build new bilateral projects in the field of tourism, and introduced the name 'Cross-Channel Region'. On 4 June 2003, the liquidation of the EEIG Euroregion was ongoing and an extraordinary general assembly with representatives from the five regional members voted for the dissolution of the Cross-Channel Euroregion. This cross-border region disappeared.

According to the results of the COOP-RECOT II study, 26% of cross-border regions in Europe simply remain inactive (Durà et al., 2018). Cross-border regions had been active in the past but did not show any sign of activity (no projects, no online updates, no emails and no response to contact) at the time the study was conducted. This
means that a significant number of cross-border regions no longer cooperate, but they
have not undertaken either withdrawal or dissolution, hence leaving their official
perimeter untouched. In that sense, the Cross-Channel Euroregion constitutes an
extreme case of the dissolution of a cross-border cooperation subsequent to three
withdrawals. In spatial terms, it resulted in a phenomenon of *disappearance* subsequent
to three phenomena of *shrinkage*. A shrinkage phenomenon is a decrease in the
perimeter of a cross-border region, explained in this case by the withdrawal of a
member. A cross-border region disappears when the last cross-border cooperation on its
perimeter is dissolved, which means that members render the end of their cross-border
cooperation official. A shrinkage is related to the evolution hypothesis of a decreasing
perimeter of cross-border regions, while a disappearance is related to the existence
hypothesis of a decreasing number of cross-border regions.

***Barely any shrinkage phenomenon***

The Trinational Eurodistrict Basel presents the only other example of a shrinking cross-border region. The French municipality of Steinbrunn-le-Bas is located at the north-west limit of the Trinational Eurodistrict Basel. In 2013, it decided to join the newly created Mulhouse Alsace Agglomeration and consequently left the *Communauté de Communes de Sierentz*, which is part of the TEB perimeter. The reason for this shrinkage phenomenon is rather a pull factor, in sense of the attraction of the Mulhouse urban area, than a push factor, in the sense of a withdrawal from the Trinational Eurodistrict Basel. Nevertheless, it resulted in a small shrinkage of the cross-border region (see Figure 3).

Apart from the very singular case of the Cross Channel Euroregion and the small
shrinkage of the Trinational Eurodistrict of Basel, almost no cross-border regions
experienced a shrinkage or a disappearance. Disagreements and conflict certainly occur
in cross-border cooperation, without leading to spatial evolution of the perimeter.

In the Upper Rhine region, the southern cantons regularly express criticism of
the low efficiency of cross-border cooperation compared to the multiplicity of
institutions. The cantons of Aargau, Solothurn and Jura call for more pragmatism and
project realization. They joined the Franco-German-Swiss Conference of the Upper
Rhine quite recently, with the Basel Agreement of 2000. However, the criticism mainly
aims to achieve improvement, and no withdrawal is on the agenda.

On the British-Franco-Belgian border, the EGTC Eurometropolis faced an
important crisis in 2015, in which the representative did not attend the meetings, the
assembly could not make decisions, other decision-making bodies did not work. The
whole board of directors resigned, the strategy was put on hold and questions about the
future of the Eurometropolis were raised. Nevertheless, no member of the cross-border
cooperation has left, and the cross-border region has remained the same. Amongst other
members, the Mayors of Lille, Kortrijk and Tournai committed to continue the cross-
border cooperation in the Eurometropolis. New statutes were signed in 2017 and a new
direction reorganized work in the agency. Such political momentum rather consists in
an internal reorganization which seems to be part of the construction process of a cross-
border region.

Whilst shrinkage in the form of a withdrawing member happened only in the
Cross-Channel Euroregion, we looked for other potential types of shrinkage. The only
case we could refer to here is a phenomenon of *concentration* in the Franco-Belgian
littoral EGTC (see Figure 3). At the creation of the littoral EGTC, the members defined
a two-scale territory. A core territory includes the border areas, on the French and
Belgian sides, from the coastline to the hinterlands. More distant areas like Kortrijk,
Calais or Boulogne are included in the periphery of the EGTC West-Vlaanderen/Flandre-Dunkerque-Côte d'Opale. This evolution recalls the functional logic of the case of the Trinational Eurodistrict of Basel and the distinction between a Mandatsraum and a Vertragsraum, but in the opposite way. In Basel, an evolution in the strategy opened up a broader territory in addition to the original small one. On the Franco-Belgian coastline, the new EGTC statutes hierarchized the original wide territory into a core territory and the rest. This soft concentration can hardly be understood as a form of shrinkage of a cross-border region.

## Conclusion: patterns of spatial evolution

The analysis of cross-border perimeters on the British-Franco-Belgian and the Franco-German-Swiss border proves fruitful in terms of revealing patterns of spatial evolution (see Table 4). Cross-border cooperation and cross-border region are interconnected but not identical. This challenges the identification and definition of cross-border regions.

<table><caption>Table 4. Spatial evolution of cross-border cooperation and cross-border regions</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">Temporality</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Existence</th><th>Evolution</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th scope="row">Increase</th><td>Multiplication:<br/>- Replacement<br/>- Layering<br/>- Juxtaposition<br/>- Scaling</td><td>Expansion:<br/>- Enlargement<br/>- Expansion<br/>- Expanding partner<br/>- Fusion</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Decrease</th><td>Disappearance:<br/>- (Replacement)<br/>- (Fusion)<br/>- Dissolution</td><td>Shrinkage:<br/>- Withdrawal<br/>- Concentration</td></tr></tbody></table>
Multiplication of cross-border perimeters can have different geographical meanings. Regarding the multiplication of cross-border cooperation, a replacement is the transformation of a cross-border cooperation by a new one on the same perimeter. It does not affect the cross-border region, as the territorial scope remains unchanged. A layering is a superposition of several cross-border cooperations on a single cross-border region. It results in only one cross-border region. Regarding the multiplication of cross-border regions, juxtaposition is when two cross-border regions are contiguous one to another. Scaling is when a cross-border region is nested in a bigger one. Topological relations of cross-border regions such as layering, juxtaposition and scaling explain how the number of cross-border cooperations and cross-border regions can continue to grow.

Counting cross-border cooperations and cross-border regions yield impressive figures, especially at the Franco-German-Swiss border. In 2018, there were 22 cross-border cooperations in 13 cross-border regions. A specificity in comparison with the British-Franco-Belgian border is that several cross-border cooperations coexist on the same perimeter and form one single cross-border region. By contrast, every cross-border cooperation on the British-Franco-Belgian border consists in its own cross-border region. Figure 6 allows us to answer the existence hypothesis. Perimeters of cross-border cooperation reveal a few initiatives in the Upper Rhine in the 1960s. There is a significant increasing trend of multiplication from 1985 onwards, but only a very slight slowing down can be identified from 2000 onwards. However, the period 1990-2000 was no golden age for cross-border cooperation. INTERREG funding might have been an important incitement to start cross-border cooperation in the first place, but cross-border cooperation was not necessarily successful. It rather corresponds to a period of naïve cross-border euphory – Stefanie Dühr and Phil Allmendinger refer to ‘hype’ in this regard (Allmendinger et al., 2014; Dühr, Colomb & Nadin, 2010). Since
2000, a normalization process has taken into account the normative and regulatory function of even open borders, and cross-border cooperation replaces symbolic projects with a more realistic management.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4. Multiplication of cross-border cooperation initiatives and cross-border regions</figcaption></figure>

From a dynamic point of view, the spatial evolution of cross-border regions presents many cases of expansion. A fusion of two cross-border regions can be understood as an expansion. However, at the same time fusion leads to the creation of a larger cross-border region and to the disappearance of both former cross-border regions. An enlargement is another kind of expansion. It is the addition of the territory of a new member to the perimeter of an existing cross-border region. An expansion is different; this means that the cross-border region grows without any changes in the set of members of the cross-border cooperation. It can be due to an expanding member, or to a
change in the *Mandatsraum* (Evrard & Chilla, 2014) of the cross-border cooperation,
i.e. the strategic perimeter of projects. The difference between the two expansion
phenomena is the distinction between an administrative and a functional logic, which is
conceptually based on a ‘spaces of place’ and ‘spaces of flows’ logic. According to
Joachim Blatter, territorial governance would generate geographical scales with clear-
cut definitions and congruence, whereas functional governance would accept fuzzy
geographies (Blatter, 2004). Even in the EU, where territorial governance is closely
related to ‘spaces of place’, some cross-border regions demonstrate spatial evolution
which can be linked to ‘spaces of flows’. Such functional governance leads us to
question Perkmann’s definition with regard to its relation between cross-border
cooperation and cross-border region: a cross-border region is not necessarily the sum of
the perimeter of the members of the cross-border cooperation.

In opposition to the variety of increasing phenomenon, only a few case studies
show decreasing trends of cross-border perimeters. The concentration phenomenon
witnessed in the Franco-Belgian littoral EGTC rather corresponds to an internal
reorganization. Cross-border cooperations might encounter various difficulties, but
generally have no effect on cross-border regions. Only the case of the Cross-Channel
Euroregion provides an example of dramatic withdrawal and disappearance.
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5. Patterns of spatial evolution in cross-border regions</figcaption></figure>

Figure 5 gives an overview of the different patterns of spatial evolution that have been identified. In terms of the evolution hypothesis mentioned earlier, cross-border regions mostly grow and barely shrink. The size-fitting process works only in one way: despite the spectacular crisis, shrinkage and disappearance of the Cross-Channel Euroregion, the majority of cross-border regions tend to stay stable or to extend.

Answering our initial question, institutionalization of cross-border regions does provide stable perimeters at the British-Franco-Belgian border and at the Franco-German-Swiss border. The spatial evolution of cross-border regions does not indicate a crisis in cross-border cooperation in Europe. Yet we cannot conclude that spatial evolution perfectly reflects the health of cross-border cooperation. Incontestably, the diversity of phenomena of spatial evolution shows the ability of cross-border cooperations to rethink their perimeters. In that geographic sense, a cross-border region is the ‘result of a
process of political and social construction', but not strictly 'a bounded territorial unit composed of the territories of authorities participating in a [cross-border cooperation] initiative' (Perkmann, 2003). The link with the perimeter of the local authorities can be loose. In a political geographical understanding, a cross-border region is *the perimeter to which one or several cross-border cooperation initiatives refer*, which means *the bounded geographic scope on which cross-border cooperation asserts implementation of a spatial strategy*.

Cross-border cooperations and regions prove to be very adaptable by adjusting their perimeters, which might preserve them from instability and disappearance. This flexibility is a privilege given to cross-border regions as ‘soft spaces’, which differentiates them from administrative national regions. In that sense, cross-border regions are free from ‘various form of essentialism and fetishism’ (Paasi & Metzger, 2017) and have the opportunity to experiment in time and space. The building process of cross-border regions proves to be erratic and progressive (Wassenberg, 2007). Cross-border cooperation exercises creativity and flexibility and can be considered a laboratory of territorial construction in Europe. Cross-border regions contribute to the ‘complex, evolving, and contested nature of reterritorialization of European space’. (Allmendinger et al., 2014).
This work was supported by the *Collège doctoral Lille-Nord-de-France* under Grant for
International Mobility [numbers 14 and 16], the *Conseil Régional du Nord-Pas-de-
Calais* and the *Université d'Artois* under Grant for doctoral research.
References:

Agence de développement et d'urbanisme de Lille Métropole, Mission Bassin Minier, & INSEE Nord-Pas-de-Calais. (2012). *Atlas de l'Aire Métropolitaine de Lille*. Lille.

Allmendinger, P., Chilla, T. & Sielker, F. (2014). Europeanizing territoriality – towards soft spaces? *Environment and Planning A*, 46, 2703–2717.
https://doi.org/10.1068/a130037p

Amilhat-Szary, A.-L. & Fourny, M.-C. (2006). *Après les frontières, avec la frontière. Nouvelles dynamiques transfrontalières en Europe*. Paris: Editions de l'Aube.

Beck, J. & Wassenberg, B. (2010). *Grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit leben und erforschen. (Vol. 2): Governance in deutschen Grenzregionen*. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Beyer, A. & Reitel, B. (2011). La Gouvernance des transports publics comme mesure de l'intégration transfrontalière en Europe de l'ouest. L'exemple de trois Eurodistricts de Sarrebruck, Strasbourg et Bâle. *Géo-Regards – Mobilité et Développement Transfrontalier*, (4), 77-94.

Blatter, J. (2004). "From Spaces of Place" to "Spaces of Flows"? Territorial and Functional Governance in Cross-border Regions in Europe and North America.
*International Journal of Urban and Regional Research*, 28 (September), 530–548.

Castells, M. (1998). *L'Ère de l'information. Volume 1, La Société en réseaux*. Paris: Fayard.

Church, A. & Reid, P. (1999). Cross-border co-operation, institutionalization and political space across the English Channel. *Regional Studies*, 33(7), 643–655.
Clément, G. (2015). Migrants transfrontaliers et inégalités d'accès à l'espace européen.
*Belgeo. Revue Belge de Géographie*, 2, 0–11.

Comité des Régions (CoR) (2017). *EGTC Monitoring Report 2016 and Impacts of
Schengen Area Crisis on the Work of EGTCs*. https://doi.org/10.2863/63042

Decoville, A., Durand, F., Sohn, C. & Walther, O. (2014). Approche comparée de l'intégration métropolitaine transfrontalière en Europe. In J. Beck & B. Wassenberg (eds.), *Vivre et penser la coopération transfrontalière. (Volume 6): Vers une cohésion territoriale?* (pp. 175–194). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Delecosse, E., Leloup, F. & Lewalle, H. (2017). *La coopération transfrontalière dans le
domaine de la santé: principes et pratiques*. Luxembourg: Union Européenne.
https://doi.org/10.2776/69124

Duhamel, S. & Renard, J.-P. (2002). Le Détroit du Pas-de-Calais et la politique de coopération frontalière. *Hommes et Terres Du Nord*, (2), 7–13.

Duhamel, S. & Renard, J.-P. (2007). La coopération transfrontalière institutionnelle:
outils d'analyse et démarche scientifique. *Territoire En Mouvement*, 4, 94–110.

Dühr, S., Colomb, C. & Nadin, V. (2010). *European Spatial Planning and Territorial
Cooperation*. Oxford: Routledge.

Dupeyron, B. (2005). *Acteurs et politiques de la coopération transfrontalière en
Europe. Les expériences du Rhin Supérieur et de l'Eurorégion Méditerranéenne*.
(Doctoral thesis). Université Robert Schuman Strasbourg III et Universitat
Autònoma de Barcelona.

Durà, A., Camonita, F., Berzi, M. & Noferini, A. (2018). *Euroregions, Excellence and
Innovation across EU borders. A Catalogue of Good Practices*. Retrieved from
https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/llibres/2018/189399/RECOT_CRII_Catalogue.pdf

Durand, F. (2013). Émergence d'une gouvernance métropolitaine transfrontalière au sein de l'eurométropole Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai. Analyse des relations entre les organisations dans le domaine du transport public transfrontalier. *Annales de Geographie*, **123**(691), 290-311. https://doi.org/10.3917/ag.691.0290

Durand, F., & Nelles, J. (2014). Binding Cross-Border Regions: An Analysis of Cross-Border Governance in Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai Eurometropolis. *Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie*, **105**(5). https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12063

Durand, F. & Perrin, T. (2017). Eurometropolis Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai: Cross-border integration with or without the border? *European Urban and Regional Studies*. https://doi.org/10.1177/096977640200900304

ESPON (2007). *Study on Urban Functions*. 1.4.3 Final Project Report.

ESPON (2010). *METROBORDER*. Cross-border Polycentric Metropolitan Regions. ESPON Final Report, Luxembourg.

Eurodistrict Trinational de Bâle (2009). *Un Avenir à Trois: Stratégie de Développement 2020. Vol. 1: Les fondamentaux de l'Agglomération Trinationale de Bâle*. Basel.

European Commission (2018a). Communication. *A new, modern Multiannual Financial Framework for a European Union that delivers efficiently on its priorities post-2020*. 98 final.

European Commission (2018b). *Proposal for a Regulation laying down common provisions on the ERDF, the ESF Plus, the CF, and the EMFF and financial rules for those and for the AMF, the ISF and the BMVI*. 375 final.

Evrard, E. (2013). *Suprarégionalisation transfrontalière? Grande Région Saar-Lor-
*Lux*. (Doctoral thesis). Université de Luxembourg.

Evrard, E. & Chilla, T. (2014). Asymétries institutionnelles et territoriales. Quelles conséquences pour la gouvernance transfrontalière ? In J. Beck & B. Wassenberg, (eds.), *Vivre et penser la coopération transfrontalière. (Volume 6): Vers une cohésion territoriale?* (pp. 63–78). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Faludi, A. (2010). European Spatial Planning: Past, Present and Future. In A. Matern, S. von Löwis & A. Bruns (eds.), *Integration Aktuelle Anforderungen und Strategien in der Stadt-, Raum- und Umweltplanung* (pp. 9–26). Hannover: Verlag der ARL.

Fricke, C. (2015). Spatial Governance across Borders revisited: Organizational Forms and Spatial Planning in Metropolitan Cross-border Regions. *European Planning Studies*, 23(5), 849–870.

Hamez, G. (2004). *Du transfrontalier au transnational: approche géographique. L’exemple de la frontière franco-belge*. (Doctoral thesis). Université de Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne.

Heddebaut, O. (2004). The Euroregion from 1991 to 2020: an ephemeral stamp? In B. Hooper & O. Kramsch (eds.), *Cross-Border Governance in the European Union* (pp. 70–88). Abingdon: Routledge.

Hinfray, N. (2010). *Les Espaces transfrontaliers, nouveaux territoires de projet, nouveaux pôles de développement au sein d’une Europe polycentrique?* (Doctoral thesis). Université François Rabelais - Tours.

Keating, M. (1997). The Invention of Regions: Political Restructuring and Territorial Government in Western Europe. *Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy*, 15(4), 383–398.
Leloup, F. (2010). Le développement territorial et les systèmes complexes : proposition d'un cadre analytique. *Revue d'Économie Régionale & Urbaine*, October (4), p. 687. https://doi.org/10.3917/reru.104.0687

Leloup, F., Moyart, L. & Pecqueur, B. (2005). La gouvernance territoriale comme nouveau mode de coordination territoriale? *Géographie, Économie, Société*, 7(4), 321-332.

Letniowska-Swiat, S. (2002). *Mobilité de la population et recomposition de l'espace périurbain: Le cas de la métropole lilloise*. (Doctoral thesis). Université de Lille 1.

Maneveau, R. (2008). *L'Eurorégion – un processus d'institutionnalisation manqué*. (Master thesis). IEP de Paris.

Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière (MOT) (2007). *Atlas de la coopération transfrontalière* (2nd edition). Paris.

Newman, D. (2003). On Borders and Power: A Theoretical Framework. *Journal of Borderlands Studies*, 18(1), 13-25.

Paasi, A. (1986). The Institutionalization of Regions: a Theoretical Framework for Understanding the Emergence of Regions and the Constitution of Regional Identity. *Fennia*, 164(1), 105-146. Retrieved from about:newtab

Paasi, A. & Metzger, J. (2017). Foregrounding the Region. *Regional Studies*, 51(1), 19-30.

Paris, D. (2002). Lille, de la métropole à la région urbaine. *Mappemonde*, 66(2), 1-8.

Perkmann, M. (2003). Cross-Border Regions in Europe. Significance and Drivers of Regional Cross-Border Co-operation. *European Urban and Regional Studies*, 10(2), 153-171.
Perrin, T. (2012). La Coopération culturelle dans l'Eurorégion Nord-Transmanche: une institutionnalisation sans institution? *Fédéralisme Régionalisme, 12*. Retrieved from http://popups.ulg.ac.be/federalisme/document.php?id=1132

Perrin, T. (2013). *Culture et eurorégions: la coopération culturelle entre régions européennes*. Brussels.

Reitel, B. (2014). Les Villes, des collectivités structurantes de la région transfrontalière du Rhin supérieur. In J. Beck & B. Wassenberg (eds.), *Vivre et penser la coopération transfrontalière. (Volume 6): Vers une cohésion territoriale?* (pp. 205-228). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Reitel, B. & Moullé, F. (2015). La resémantisation de la ligne frontière dans des régions métropolitans transfrontalières: Le jardin des 2 Rives à strasbourg et la place jacques Delors à Lille. *Belgeo* (2), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.4000/belgeo.16527

Sohn, C. (2014). Modelling Cross-Border Integration: The Role of Borders as a Resource. *Geopolitics*, 19(3), 587-608.

Van Houtum, H., Kramsch, O. & Zierhofer, W. (2005). *B/ordering Space*. Aldershot:
Ashgate.

Verger, S. (2011). *Les chemins multiples de la coopération transfrontalière franco-belge. Analyse des dynamiques institutionnelles*. (Doctoral thesis). Université de Grenoble et Université catholique de Louvain.

Wackermann, G. (2008). Démarches transfrontalières pionnières sur le Rhin supérieur – Une rétrospective des débuts du façonnement d'un paysage européen du savoir.

*Revue Géographique de l'Est*, 48(3-4).

Wassenberg, B. (2007). *Vers une Eurorégion? La coopération transfrontalière franco-*
germano-suisse dans l'espace du Rhin supérieur de 1975 à 2000. Brussels: Peter Lang.

Wassenberg, B. (2012). De l'esprit "Regio" aux Eurodistricts: la place de la société civile dans la coopération transfrontalière du Rhin supérieur (1963-2008). *Basler Schriften Zur Europäischen Integration*, 100, 81–93.

Wassenberg, B., Reitel, B. & Peyrony, J. (2015). *Territorial Cooperation in Europe - A Historical Perspective*. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

https://doi.org/10.2776/374386

Woessner, R. (2014). Les ponts sur le Rhin dans l'espace de la Conférence du Rhin supérieur. In J. Beck & B. Wassenberg (eds.), *Vivre et penser la coopération transfrontalière. (Volume 6): Vers une cohésion territoriale?* (pp. 229–246).

Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.