Borders have been given relatively little priority during the more than thirty-year long construction and history of Andean integration. For that reason, initiatives aimed at border development and integration have been implemented basically as part of national policies or under bilateral agreements between pairs of countries with common borders that favor the exclusion of "third parties" in varying degrees, including the very integration bodies the countries themselves have helped to create and of which they are a part. Without presuming to make a value judgment on the situation, I must say that it leads to the States’ having a perception of borders that is still heavily tinged with the notion of exclusive territorial sovereignty.

In 1987 the Quito Protocol amended the Cartagena Agreement by introducing a new article that refers to the importance of national borders and their priority for Andean integration of. It states that: "The Member Countries shall take measures to promote the comprehensive development of border regions and to incorporate them effectively into Andean national and subregional economies." (article 144 of the official coded text of the Cartagena Agreement).

While this article constitutes only a statement of intent with regard to the matter, its inclusion as part of the text of the Cartagena Agreement, together with the progress made in some of the Member Countries’ bilateral initiatives (i.e. the Support Program for Bolivian-Peruvian Border Integration or the projects furthered by the Colombian-Venezuelan Presidential Commission on Border Matters), was decisive in fostering the project "Programming of Border Development and Integration Activities among the Andean Countries." With technical and financial support provided by the Inter-American Bank (IDB), the existing Board of the Cartagena Agreement (JUNAC) proceeded to carry out this project between 1990 and 1991 in order to "Define a border development and integration strategy and to draw up plans of action providing for Community and national initiatives that may be more relevant and effective in promoting the border integration of the Andean Group countries." .

Even so, the IDB-JUNAC Project did not make much headway, despite the preparation of highly precise diagnoses of the border situations existing between pairs of countries, the border development and integration strategy proposals they contained and the short- and medium-term projects they proposed. One reason for the project’s failure may be because it did not offer any clear alternatives for financing the fairly broad array of border investment initiatives; but it is also due to the fact that the governments of the Member Countries did not fully approve some proposal documents that they could have construed as being an invitation to relieve them of a role which, as part of their notion of sovereignty, had been theirs exclusively in the past.

This national or binational approach to the development and integration of Andean borders underwent a radical change with the approval, by the Fourth Meeting of the Andean Council of Foreign Ministers in May 1999, of Decision 459 "Community Policy for Border Integration and Development." This instrument contains the Community border development and integration policy principles, general guidelines, objectives, institutions and mechanisms; in other words, it establishes a common Andean policy framework on the subject and creates the basic Community institution for dealing with and promoting the matter, as represented by the High-Level Working Group for Border Integration and Development. In the course of its five meetings held up until November 2001, this body worked intensively on analysis, studying proposals and evaluating what has been accomplished. Its efforts materialized in the drafting of two Andean Decisions, which were approved by the Andean Council of Foreign Ministers at their Eighth Meeting in June 2001: Decisions 501 "Border Integration Zones (BIZ) in the Andean Community" and 502 "Binational Border Service Centers (BBSC) in the Andean Community" and in the strong support given to the creation of the Andean Community Border Integration and Development Projects Bank.

Even so, the Fifth and most recent meeting of the Working Group (Lima, Peru, November 26 and 27, 2001) found that the implementation of these Decisions is progressing very slowly and that, in actual fact, no country has yet set up a Binational Border Service Center (BBSC) or a Border Integration Zone (BIZ) as specified in the cited Decisions, although several pairs of countries have taken significant advances towards establishing BBSCs.

The purpose of this essay is to contribute to a better understanding of the concept of border, the importance and dimensions of the organic and, when necessary, joint efforts of the Andean Countries in their border territories and the different geographic scales of possible intervention for carrying out border development and integration initiatives by offering some very concise proposed definitions and a series of reflections.

Border is a complex term that is difficult to define. People with different backgrounds or engaged in different activities (jurists, military officers, businessmen, national, regional or local authorities, farmers, and members of native communities) interpret it dissimilarly in light of their own everyday experiences, heritage and cultural backgrounds, specific interests or professional or occupational idiosyncrasies.

Actually, two different notions, those of "linearity" and "zonality" are intertwined in the perception of the border phenomenon.

Ever since they emerged, modern States have described themselves as sovereign spatial entities, making linearity –the precise knowledge of the boundaries of the territory in which the State exercises its jurisdiction —a necessity. For that reason, the notion of linearity or of borderline has a basically juridical connotation that becomes perfectly tangible when international border treaties are signed and executed accordingly.

Borders, in the context of zonality, are seen in social and economic, rather than juridical terms, in the sense that they constitute the expression, within a portion of a State’s territory, of organized forces that operate from one side to the other of the dividing line and whose vectors are the population and the developments of all kinds (i.e. paths, highways and other means of intercommunication; electric power lines; farms and stock ranches; industrial plants; educational or health centers, etc.). All of these spur the movement and exchange of persons, goods and services, in the course of time building up solidarities and common interests that give shape within certain spaces of a feeling of "belonging to the border."

In a broad sense, it is relevant to emphasize the sociological and economic content of the term border by stating that it constitutes the materialization of an intense relationship, even an interdependence, of the various expressions of social life, promoted and executed by population groups living on either side of the dividing line between two countries, up to a given point (see point V regarding the underlined text).

Referring to the border in the context of socioeconomic development means acknowledging both the existence of one human community’s ties with another which, although a neighbor, belongs to another national jurisdiction; and that the border can be only be perceived in the degree to which those spaces within a State’s territory have a defined demographic base –thus defined, the border is always an active border. Lacking a population, the essence of the concept of border is diluted and parts of a State’s territory that are neither settled nor developed (and at times not even crossed occasionally) become "empty spaces," "spaces that are not incorporated" into the national economy and society. In this situation in which the linear notion of border becomes fully applicable, we have a non-active border.

Consequently, a border is a complex notion and reality, but one that always constitutes a space for shared action, the scenario for a dense mass of economic, social and cultural interrelationships. But it is a space which, by reason of the dynamic relationships that exist within it, can only be determined in a very approximate and temporary way, inasmuch as the everyday nature of those relationships, the heterogeneousness of the situations seen to exist within it, its momentary balance and, as a result, its continuing evolution in time and space, are its very essence.

Therefore, if we were to take a cross section that would allow us to rapidly glimpse all of the borders of a given country, we would find that a variety of situations existed, each with its own problems, its own component elements and with differing degrees of coordination and integration internally (with its own country) and externally (with the neighboring country). This dynamic situation created by the specific characteristics of each sector of the border between two countries and prevailing at a given moment can be called a "border situation."

In the present international context characterized by the growing interdependence of countries and economic blocs brought about by impressive contemporary technological progress and the increasing importance of international trade as the driving force for development, national borders have taken on new importance and priority for any country and integration bloc on at least three levels:

1. Insofar as the overcoming of regional development imbalances is concerned

No one is unaware that because of the existence of centrally-oriented development models that have always considered national borders implicitly ---and on occasion explicitly also— as "reserve areas" that can be incorporated into the active national space at any time in the future, national borders in the Andean Subregion are for the most part peripheral and marginal spaces that enjoy little or no integration with their respective national economies and societies. The results of this thinking are reflected in the fact that the economic, social and cultural problems in the border areas today are in the end at least as critical, if not more so, than those existing in many rural areas in the interior of our countries.

In the face of this situation, it is essential to achieve the effective "inward" integration of border territories for the benefit of each country and particularly to help resolve the serious imbalances in regional development. Border development should be adopted as a national aim, irrespective of the "border situation" that exists at a given moment. Bilateral initiatives between bordering countries can be an important part of the strategy to be put into effect for that purpose. If border areas are made a field of joint action by adjoining States, border cooperation and border integration initiatives in those territories will undoubtedly offer fertile ground for developing and strengthening more free-flowing bilateral relations as a whole.

2. As for the reinforcement of economic cooperation and integration processes

The countries of the Andean Subregion are participants in the integration system governed by the Cartagena Agreement. The purpose of this Agreement is to build an enlarged economic space for the steady growth of the Subregion’s capacity to produce goods and services and to exchange and consume them with increasing efficiency and ever more competitively by incorporating a growing number of actors and new geographic areas.

Inasmuch as land transport is the favored mode of a large percentage of the growing flow of persons and goods fostered by integration, intra-Andean borders should be properly equipped to efficiently interlink our national economies by operating as a kind of "hinge" that facilitates reciprocal trade between bordering Andean countries and also between them and other members of the Community.

It is important, however, to carry out this adjustment of the border areas with full consideration for their existing economic and social situations, in order not to disturb the delicate socioeconomic balance that has been reached with the changes that have been made in the people’s lifestyle and in the orientation of their economic activities brought about by the meeting or "clash" of two national systems within those spaces. These changes have taken place over the ages because of differences in the monetary, tax, labor, migration and other policies that each State adopts autonomously and with sovereignty –without, of course, considering the extent of their possible impact on the border area, where they come up against those of the neighboring State. This "clash" has been fostered, as well, by the launching since the 1970s of Andean integration mechanisms (trade liberalization; some elements of the agricultural policy, particularly those associated with agricultural health; removal of reserved cargo in sea transportation and the formal option of transporting cargo overland using the international customs transit regime, among others) that have generally had a negative effect on the lifestyle and level of earnings of the border populations by reducing the "margin of preference" they had painstakingly built up as part of their survival strategies by capitalizing on the border confrontation of the different elements of the respective national economic policies.

It is necessary, therefore, for the border developments to include measures and projects for administrative simplification, documentary simplification and harmonization, road and railroad construction and improvement, installation of equipped premises at border crossings (border complexes for traffic registration and control; construction of warehouses or storerooms; the supply of loading and unloading equipment; services for vehicle passengers and crews). It is very important for these measures and projects not to transmit an exclusively "metropolitan" view of the borders in the sense of interpreting the priorities and interests of trade, tourism and other economic activities with an extra-border origin and destination only. They must, instead, be carried out with the aim of helping to overcome distortions present in border areas that promote the cited "survival strategies" (smuggling, the making and sale of shoddy goods, working as loaders and porters and as paperwork handlers and, in general, all of the activities in the "refuge" service sector). These measures and projects must also seek to create opportunities for productive employment, to increase and diversify the supply of services originating in the area and to incorporate local products and services into bilateral, Community and international trade flows.

Only in that way will the border areas be given a role to play in building the enlarged Andean economic space and will Andean integration contribute to the modernizing, diversification and growth of the economic base in the common border areas.

On this level, it is considered important to identify a role for the border areas that will involve their dynamic participation in the efforts to expand and diversify the Andean Countries’ exportable supply in order to improve the terms of the Subregion’s participation as a whole in the international economy and in the context of economic globalization.

In this necessary opening to the world, some trade corridors and centers of development that link up interior regions of the Andean countries with the Subregion’s Pacific and Atlantic ports through their border territories should enable the latter to become true crossroad spaces, whose privileged geographic position would be their main asset. In this macro scenario, it is extremely important to actually carry out the physical integration projects –in particular, the road, railroad or multimodal corridors that have already been identified by the governments and financial and regional integration organizations (IIRSA Initiative), in order to give the Andean economy an international projection.

We must, however, insist on the need for these South American physical integration projects to contribute to the economic take-off of the border regions. The requirements for their operation should involve the use of local factors, primarily labor and services in the border area and also options for the progressive incorporation of goods produced in the border regions in the trade flows that cross over them.

Within a conception of border that recognizes as an essential element of its definition the existence of a dynamic relationship between groups that live in geographic proximity to each other, but that belong to two different States, border development and border integration are related notions. Even so, it is possible to prepare specific and differentiated definitions of the two terms, especially for purposes of study and for drawing up proposals.

2. Border integration

This is the process whereby two States agree through specific accords or treaties to further the development of their adjacent border territories by making joint and complementary use of their potentials, resources and affinities, as well as by sharing costs and benefits. It is generally a key element for strengthening and advancing the overall bilateral relationship. The first step towards border integration is to define a border system. Stated otherwise, this means putting into effect one or several agreements that aim to deregulate the movements of people, goods and means of transport in preestablished zones; the joint or shared use of public social services (health, education) and the complementing of telecommunication, electric energy and other services, etc. These efforts not only make it easier for border populations to tolerate the disadvantages of their peripheral location within their respective national territories; they also help to eliminate the age-long spontaneous nature that has characterized border relations by laying the groundwork for formal and organic integration with goals and strategies mutually agreed upon by the two countries involved.

3. Border cooperation

Complementary to this, it is considered useful to propose a definition of border cooperation. By this, we mean the array of initiatives committed by two countries with adjoining border areas that are sparsely populated and that have little connection with each other and with the rest of their respective countries (non active borders), in order to pave the way for the future development and integration of those spaces by taking measures and executing projects in areas such as the evaluation of natural resources, the protection of shared ecosystems, the implementation of mutual security and confidence-building measures and assistance to indigenous communities, among others.

When studying the border phenomenon, a question –and at the same time a need— that frequently arises is to know just how far the border area extends from the dividing line. Is it possible for the perception of the processes characteristic of the national borders to coincide with the boundary lines of the administrative areas into which a country’s territory has been divided (departments, states, provinces, groupings, cantons, municipalities, districts or parishes, in the case of the Andean countries)?

In actual fact, it is extremely difficult to demarcate the border. It can be said that "there is more of a border area" in places where daily relations between the social and economic actors that operate from one side of the border to the other are more intense, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that the relationship between border and geographic distance is inversely proportional (the closer to the dividing line, the broader the border area). Nevertheless, considering the intensity with which the border is expressed or "lived," the everyday nature of the relationship already cited, and the varying degrees of interconnection between the border, as a process, as the objectives of regional development or of bilateral cooperation and integration, it is worthwhile to identify, in principle, three territorial border scales, made up in each case of territorial portions of the two countries with a common borderline.

This is generally a narrow territorial strip (a few square kilometers in size) that functionally is closely associated with the idea of linearity. The tangible manifestation of the border phenomenon in that area is on a local scale and is made patent with the operation of border crossings –some outfitted by agreement between the States involved and others informal— and the existence of infrastructure and services connected with their use (public services to register and control two-way traffic installed at National or Binational Border Service Centers –NBSCs or BBSCs—or at border control posts, complementary services, such as currency exchange, telecommunications, military or surveillance posts; local populations that move intensively to provision themselves with goods or services in the adjoining locality within the framework of "survival strategies" associated with trade in shoddy goods or smuggling). For practical purposes, it might be advisable to perhaps compare the "border areas" in the active border sectors with the category 4 statistical territorial units (STUs) as defined in the "Draft Decision on the Classification of Andean Statistical Territorial Units – NUTE," whose jurisdiction extends to a segment of the international boundary where there is a border pass, formal or informal, from side-to-side.

According to that Draft Decision, the STU correspondence or equivalence between Andean Countries is as follows:

This is a larger territorial area than the border, where it is possible to carry out development efforts organically in the degree to which there are cities with urban functions that are more or less differentiated or complementary and that are endowed with basic developments (although they are generally urban centers of the third order within the national urban hierarchy). The border zones also possess a certain amount of transportation, energy and communications infrastructure, together with the organized presence of economic actors and other groups belonging to civil society (trade associations, chambers of commerce and production and cultural associations). It is therefore possible to offer support from the border zone to the border area and to operate as a link between it and a national region. Each national part of a border zone can probably be defined as the addition of several geographically contiguous STU 3s and in some cases consider a complete STU 2.

To the extent that it contains a more or less defined urban structure, a specific level of organization of the representative forces of society, and a certain productive and service base in operation, a border zone can be said to possess the essential elements of a basic geoeconomic entity in which the establishment of the initial Border Integration Zones (BIZs) could be undertaken, as stipulated in Andean Community Decision 501.

3. Border region

Within the context of development planning, a region is a subnational sphere for the programming and management of development that generally coincides with the boundaries of the larger political and administrative units, and therefore encompasses more than one STU 2 or comprises one STU 1, in both cases on each country’s individual scale.

Three essential aspects must be recognized in each regional situation –in other words, in each territorial segment that operates as a larger geoeconomic unit:

- The existing links among its inhabitants, but not only the ethnic, social or economic relations that are conducive to the maturing of a regional identity and solidarity (the feeling of "belonging" to a region), but also those that through a dense tangle of networks can lead to recognizing in the region, among other elements of cohesion, specialized production systems ("agricultural regions," "mining regions," "industrial regions"); an orderly hierarchy of urban centers; diversification and specialization of service activities, such as financial services, centers of higher education and specialized research, port services, and so forth. These links alone are not enough to create a region, however, inasmuch as they are not sufficient to establish a strong and lasting economic and social organization.

- The organization of regional activities around a center. The links referred to in the previous paragraph are forged within an urban center, in a regional capital. The capital city, which should always be a multifunctional metropolis, occupies a position in the vanguard within the national urban system; it organizes and governs the surrounding space through a series of road, telecommunication, banking, commercial, and air traffic networks, among others, that the different actors –the government and private companies— create progressively..

- The fact that the region exists only as a component part of a whole –in other words, its links abroad, its place and its functions in the national whole, are an essential element of its definition. In this sense, a region can be said to be both open and integrated. .

The national component of the border region would be the largest spatial structure for the interconnection of each country’s border development strategies with the respective national development strategy, proposed binationally. It would be the privileged and advanced scenario of the bilateral relationship, a kind of "pilot program region" for testing courses of what could constitute a bilateral integration capable of addressing elements that go beyond the exclusively economic terrain. Today, however, when the regions in most of the Andean countries are more of a collective aspiration or goal to be reached than a finished geoeconomic reality, it is inevitable that we should assume that the operation of binational border regions among the Andean countries is still a possibility for the future.