Introduction
Institutional forms of cross-border co-operation in Poland after 1989 took various forms in particular border regions. This was caused, among other things by formal, organizational, historical and economic factors. In the north-eastern parts of Poland the fi rst signifi cant initiatives connected with creating cross-border co-operation did not appear until the mid 90s of the 20th century. They took on a formal character in the form of Euroregions – Euroregion Nemunas (in 1997) and Euroregion Baltic (1998) and the inclusion of this region in the Phare Baltic Sea Region CBC Programme (1995–2003). Co-operation in this period was of relatively low intensity based mainly on an administrative/self-government model and hardly refl ected grass-roots initiatives. An example of this is the Euroregions, which were created as a result of top-down initiatives (in the case of Poland the initiators were Voivodes) (see Euroregions..., 1999). Thus, it was being shaped differently than in the western or southern border regions (see S. Ciok, A. Raczyk, 2007).
What needs to be highlighted is the occurrence of a number of initiatives connected with the shaping of co-operation in the Baltic Sea region e.g.
VASAB (see T. Palmowski, 2000). It seems, though, that the advancement of regional operation is much greater than that of cross-border co-operation in this area.
One of the important factors conditioning the development of co-operation was the lack of signifi cant fi nancial support in the pre-accession period. Most of the programmes realized at that time were not strictly connected with the shaping of cross-border co-operation but focused on infrastructure development with a much lower budget compared to Polish-German border regions. (e.g. The Eastern Programme 1996, The Integrated Eastern Border 1997, Management and Infrastructure at the Eastern Border 1998, The Integrated Eastern Border 2000, Phare CBC Poland-the Baltic Sea Region 1995 and its subsequent editions). The real cross-border co-operation
64
among Poland, Lithuania and the Russian Federation actually started at the moment of European Union enlargement in 2004. Consequently, lasting structures of trans-border connections had not yet been developed and partners in the border regions are now starting to establish direct contacts and identify spheres for close operation. Therefore, co-operation is at an early stage of development. Due to specifi c conditions existing in these border regions the co-operation may also take on specifi c forms.
Aim and scope of the research
The basic objective of the research was to evaluate the implementation of cross-border co-operation as part of Poland, Lithuania, Kaliningrad Region of Russian Federation Neighbourhood Programme Interreg IIIA / TACIS CBC 2004-2006. The evaluation focused on the size, generic structure of the projects and institutional structure of the programme benefi ciaries. The relationships between the type of benefi ciary, project type as well as its location were also scrutinized. The realized projects were also analyzed with regard to their spatial distribution.
The research hypothesis assumed that projects refl ect the real shape of institutional co-operation in the Polish-Lithuanian-Russian border region.
However, the authors are fully aware that they do not cover the whole spectrum of this co-operation. Nevertheless, these projects constitute the important element of illustrating the actual state of trans-border co-operation and not its declarative aspect, existing only ‘on paper’. The analysis does not include informal operation which can greatly affect formal co-operation.
The study was conducted in the regions covered by funds from the Poland, Lithuania, Kaliningrad Region of Russian Federation Neighbourhood Programme Interreg III A / TACIS CBC 2004–2006 in relation to the commune level (LAU 2). The data concerning the projects was obtained from the Ministry of Regional Development.
Specifi cation of co-operation conditions
Interreg III A programme was one of the four components of European Union Community Initiatives. Its aim was to fi nance cross-border co-operation. The Polish north-eastern border region has been supported since Polish accession to the EU in 2004. The analysed programme had trilateral character. As Interreg Initiative Programme is only available to the EU Member States (Poland and Lithuania) for the border regions of non-member countries, special programmes supporting co-operation were established. The Russian Federation (Kaliningrad Oblast) was covered by
Sylwia Dolzblasz, Andrzej Raczyk
65 TACIS CBC programme between 2004-2006 (community support programme for the former Soviet republics and Mongolia – excluding Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia).
Therefore, Neighbourhood Programme was fi nanced by two budgets:
on the Polish side from the European Regional Development Funds (ERDF) and on the Russian side from TACIS CBC funds. Between 2004–2006 the Polish side allotted EUR 24.2 mln from ERDF for the Programme, the Lithuanian side EUR 12.3 mln, and the Russian side EUR 9.5 mln from TACIS CBC funds. This distinct asymmetry in the funds accessibility on both sides of the border constitutes a signifi cant hindrance in the development of real connections and the realization of true trans-border projects. This may result in a situation in which co-operation programmes on both sides of the border will be realized largely ‘autonomously’ despite their joint institutional system.
A very important factor affecting the quality of co-operation was the fact that the programme was managed by the Lithuanian side. It strictly followed the European Commission guidelines for Interreg III A programme.
It had a signifi cant impact on the procedures adapted for the choice of projects and consequently on their type and quality. In this respect this programme stood out from the remaining Interreg III A programmes realized in Poland.
Another distinctive element of the programme was the participation of three partners, including two EU Member State countries and one non-member country. This situation complicated preparations and implementation of the programme. Special attention has to be paid to specifi city of the Kaliningrad Oblast which is separated from the rest of the country and surrounded by EU Member States. Moreover, the country’s border is a very strong barrier in the context of the fl ow of people, goods and information. Therefore, establishing grass-roots co-operation proves much harder than co-operation initiated and run by supralocal institutions.
All the problems connected with the functioning of a border are easier to overcome in the case of central institutions or regional self-government than in the case of local associations or particular local leaders. This is connected with the problem of centralization of the administrative system in Russia. This barrier may be further reinforced after Poland’s accession to the Schengen Agreement on 21 December 2007. The functioning of the Kaliningrad Oblast in such conditions may on the one hand deepen its isolation or on the other may stimulate its future cross-border co-operation.
An important role in this choice between isolation and co-operation will surely be played by political decisions.
Poland’s and Lithuania’s accession to the Schengen Agreement and the lack of natural barriers at the Polish-Lithuanian border may result in the
Do specifi c conditions affect co-operation? An assessment of cross-border co-operation ...
66
acceleration of integration processes in the Polish-Lithuanian border region and their weakening in the Polish-Russian border area. As a result, the actual co-operation with Russia is very likely to be declarative to a considerable extent. In this situation the trilateral programme will only affect two partners.
Additionally, a crucial role will be played here by economic, social and historical factors. Among economic ones, the most important seem to be the disproportions concerning both development and economic structures of particular regions (see ESPON in progress, 2004). Historical factors resulting, among other things, from the change of borders following World War II and the collapse of USSR also play a signifi cant role. They contributed to large-scale migration movements and the exchange of local population which took place mainly in the region of former East Prussia. Lack of historical continuity largely shapes the co-operation in the Polish-Russian border region. In the Polish-Lithuanian border region, however, this continuity was never completely broken. As a result, territorial identity and cultural integrity is considerably stronger there. It is also partly caused by the occurrence of national minorities- Lithuanian in Poland and Polish in Lithuania.
Moreover, the quality and intensity of co-operation depends on the level of human and social capital development in particular regions. Polish cross-border regions are characterised by a generally low level of human capital compared to the rest of the country. Social capital, on the contrary, is relatively high (K. Janc, 2006). Additionally, in both cases there are signifi cant spatial disproportions. This may cause spatial distribution of co-operation to take on the character of “concentrated masses”, limited only to the areas characterized by the most favourable conditions for its realization.
The size of the supported regions (especially on the Polish side) is responsible for its little spatial coherence. Additionally, it is distinguished by large disproportions in the level of social and economic development as well as spatial development. On the one hand, it may result in a multi-layer co-operation. On the other, however, it may lead to varying expectations regarding potential effects of co-operation among local communities and, in consequence, diffi culties in formulating joint enterprises.
The research conducted by the authors concerning other Polish border regions indicates that one of the basic factors conditioning real co-operation is the occurrence of an integrating factor, common to the regions on both side of the border. Regarding the Polish-Lithuanian-Russian border regions, the role of such a factor could be played by tourism based on precious natural and anthropogenic values (e.g. lake districts, coasts, forest complexes, monuments and non-material culture).
Sylwia Dolzblasz, Andrzej Raczyk
67
Co-operation specifi city – project analysis
In the period under examination, within the framework of the Polish-Lithuanian-Russian programme, 124 projects were approved for implementation on the Polish side (excluding Technical Assistance projects).
The total sum allocated from ERDF was around EUR 22mln. The projects analysed amounted to over EUR 20mln. It means that the programme covered a vast majority of the projects and its results can be considered reliable for the whole programme.
In the north-eastern border region the volume structure was largely dominated by small and very small projects with the subsidy value below EUR 100 000 (Fig. 1). There were no big enterprises with subsidy value exceeding EUR 1 mln. This was mainly the result of the generic structure of the realized projects.
Figure 1. The values of projects realized in the Polish part of the Polish-Lithuanian-Russian border area within the framework of Interreg III A programme
Source: own study based on the data of the Ministry of Regional Development.
The beneficiary structure was dominated by the local units of the territorial self-government (communes) (Fig. 2). However, their participation was the lowest among all the Interreg III A programmes realized in Poland (about 45%). It could have resulted, inter alia, from the following:
Do specifi c conditions affect co-operation? An assessment of cross-border co-operation ...
03 06 09 12 15 18 21
0
68
weaker preparation of the communes in the east of Poland for the
•
participation in the programme and probably none at all for the utilization of the Structural Funds. This was the result of the lack of considerable previous experience in this area;
lower intensity of the contacts with partners on the other side of the
•
border. This resulted from diffi culties in maintaining contacts with Russian partners – e.g. due to strong centralization on the other side of the border which resulted in the lack of a match at a local level;
the largest nationwide participation of associations (over 21%). This
•
was probably the consequence of formal arrangements connected with the programme promoting enterprises connected with real co-operation (the lead partner rule). Partly, it was also caused by a relatively high level of social capital development;
a relatively high participation of central administration units.
•
Overrepresentation of these institutions in the north-eastern border regions was probably caused by the centralization of decision taking on the other side of the border (Kaliningrad Oblast) and easiness in overcoming formal obstacles in co-operation.
Poviats and regional self-government units constituted about 12% each, which was similar to other projects.
Figure 2. The benefi ciaries’ structure of projects realized in the Polish part of the north – eastern and western border area within the framework of Interreg III A programmes Source: own study based on the data of the Ministry of Regional Development.
Sylwia Dolzblasz, Andrzej Raczyk
69 The analysis of project type was based on intervention categories used in monitoring and reporting by the European Commission. The generic structure was dominated by enterprises from the fi eld of tourism, culture and sport (cultural and sports events) which were mainly non-material in character – around 42% (Fig. 3). Material investments in tourism were scarce – about 6%. The main difference in relation to the other cross-border programmes in Poland was the relatively low significance of basic infrastructure which was crucial for these programmes. It covered road investment, social infrastructure, sewage system, bicycle lanes etc. (each category below 5%). Additionally, the projects connected with human capital development were important for this co-operation (jointly about 15%). A signifi cant role was played by the projects whose objective was to create integrated crisis management systems realized by medical, police and fi re services. This indicates a previous lack in this respect, especially in activities which have joint (trans-border) character. The features distinguishing the structure of projects within the framework of Poland-Lithuania-Russia programme from other cross-border programmes were mostly connected with:
dominance of projects connected with tourism being the result of
•
favourable natural features;
formal requirements of the programme focusing on truly joint projects
•
and therefore having a notable trans-border effect;
higher participation of projects connected to human capital
•
development;
a much lower participation of basic infrastructure projects, above all
•
social infrastructure, health care and sewage system;
general dominance of soft projects.
•
Such structure of projects indicates a signifi cant role of the integrating factor (natural features and local cultural heritage) which focused the programme on the development of trans-border tourism and joint cultural activities.
The formation of a particular specifi city in the programme realization, despite similar rules and implementation structures nationwide seems to be a positive phenomenon as it combines the general objective of the Interreg III A programme of co-operation development with the already existing opportunity for local development. It seems that enterprises realized in the Polish-Lithuanian-Russian border regions were characterised by a more favourable generic structure. There were definitely fewer infrastructural projects, usually of low trans-border effect. A relatively bigger role was played by ‘soft’ projects, which had greater trans-border effect.
Do specifi c conditions affect co-operation? An assessment of cross-border co-operation ...
70
Spatial distribution of projects was also unusual (Fig. 4 ). They are mainly concentrated in the regions which have real potential for co-operation, e.g.
located very near the border and in the greatest urban centres. In this respect the Polish-Lithuanian border region stands out the most (communes of Puńsk, Sejny). There was a defi nite lack of projects in subregions not directly adjacent to the Lithuanian or Russian border (Łomżyński and Słupski subregions). This questions the advisability of including the more remote regions into co-operation programmes.
Areas of Intervention by category (OJ L 063 , 03/03/2001): 1306 Renovation and development of villages, 1307 Diversifi cation of agricultural activities, 1312 Protection of the environment, 163 Business advisory services, 164 Shared business services, 171 Tourism, physical investment, 172 Tourism, non-physical investment, 173 Shared services for the tourism industry, 181 Research projects based in universities and research institutes, 182 Innovation and technology transfers, 183 RTDI Infrastructure, 21 Labour market policy, 23 Developing educational and vocational training, 24 Workforce fl exibility, 3122 Regional/local roads, 3123 Cycle tracks, 314 Airports, 315 Ports, 319 Intelligent transport systems, 323 Services and applications for the citizen, 324 Services and applications for SMEs, 343 Urban and industrial waste, 344 Drinking water, 345 Sewerage and purifi cation, 351 Upgrading and rehabilitation of industrial and military sites, 352 Rehabilitation of urban areas, 353 Protection, improvement and regeneration of the natural environment, 354 Maintenance and restoration of the cultural heritage, 36 Social and public health infrastructure
Figure 3. The number of projects realized in the Polish part of the north – eastern and western border area within the framework of Interreg III A programmes according to intervention category
Source: own study based on the data of the Ministry of Regional Development.
Sylwia Dolzblasz, Andrzej Raczyk
71
Figure 4. Distribution of projects realized in the Polish part of the Polish-Lithuanian-Russian border area within the framework of Interreg III A
Source: own study based on the data of the Ministry of Regional Development.
Nearly 80% of the projects were realized in rural areas. This resulted, above all, from the fact that the institutions capable of co-operation realization (e.g. associations) were located there and were characterized by suffi cient development of human and social capital. The “concentrated masses” character of spatial distribution was the effect of significant disproportions in the level of socio-economic development of the supported area. Consequently, such spatial distribution resulted in a considerable spatial concentration of the projects – 10 communes concentrated around 70% of all the projects. Merely 10% of communes from the supported areas participated in the realization of projects under Interreg III A programme.
The analysis of correlation between the type of beneficiary and intervention category proved the preferences of benefi ciaries (observed nationwide) regarding the realized enterprises. On the whole, central administration and local self-government units preferred basic infrastructure projects. However, associations and higher education institutions focused more on tourist, cultural and educational activities (‘soft’ projects). This indicates that the process of changing the structure of projects should be combined with relevant changes in the structure of the programme’s benefi ciaries.
Do specifi c conditions affect co-operation? An assessment of cross-border co-operation ...
72
As regards area types it needs to be stressed that only associations and communes proposed projects in rural areas (15% and 23% respectively).
This indicates the need for supporting grass-roots initiatives of local communities as they have true potential to be successful. Interestingly, there are no single activities in rural areas proposed by regional and central administration. This may mean that in their activities they do not give enough consideration to levelling off spatial disproportions.
Conclusions
Based on the conducted analysis it may be stated that trans-border co-operation in the Polish-Lithuanian-Russian border area was being shaped differently than in the other Polish border regions. This resulted from a number of specifi c conditions. Therefore, it seems that at present the integrating factor (tourism and culture) does not yet play its due role.
Although the programme’s benefi ciary structure was dominated by communes, the role of associations was relatively high and it infl uenced the type of realized enterprises. They are dominated by small size projects, mostly ‘soft’ ones. Apart from the benefi ciary structure, this was also the consequence of formal requirements of the programme and the integrating
Although the programme’s benefi ciary structure was dominated by communes, the role of associations was relatively high and it infl uenced the type of realized enterprises. They are dominated by small size projects, mostly ‘soft’ ones. Apart from the benefi ciary structure, this was also the consequence of formal requirements of the programme and the integrating