kaliningrad oblast of russia in the transborder region south

Transcription

University of Gdańsk — Department of Regional Development Geography
C O A S TA L R E G I O N S 1 9
KALININGRAD OBLAST OF RUSSIA
IN THE TRANSBORDER REGION
SOUTH-EASTERN BALTIC
Gennady Fedorov, Valentin Korneevets, Yury Zverev
Gdańsk–Pelplin 2011
Scientific Committee:
Nikolay Bagrov (Symferopol), Gerhard Bahrenberg (Bremen),
Roger Bivand (Bergen), Marek Dutkowski (Szczecin), Gennady
M. Fedorov (Kaliningrad), Valentin S. Korneevets (Kaliningrad),
Thomas Lundén (Sztokholm), Tadeusz Palmowski (Gdynia),
Jerzy J. Parysek (Chairman, Poznań), Eugeniusz Rydz (Słupsk),
Stasys Vaitekūnas (Klaipėda), Jan Wendt (Gdańsk).
Editor’s address:
Tomasz Michalski (secretary)
Department of Regional Development Geography
Institute of Geography, University of Gdańsk
ul. Bażyńskiego 4, 80–952 Gdańsk (Poland)
e–mail: [email protected], http://www.kgrr.univ.gda.pl/
Reviewer:
Tadeusz Palmowski
© by Author
Wydawnictwo „Bernardinum” Sp. z o.o.
ul. Biskupa Dominika 11, 83-130 Pelplin
phone: +48 58 5361757, fax +48 58 5361726
e-mail: [email protected]
Skład, druk i oprawa: Drukarnia Wydawnictwa „Bernardinum” Sp. z o.o., Pelplin
ISBN 978-83-7380-916-1
Contents:
1. Transborder regionalization in the Baltic Sea area ............................... 5
2. Transborder region South-Eastern Baltic ............................................. 16
3. Special position of the Kaliningrad region as a Russian
exclave in the Baltic Sea area .................................................................. 23
4. The Kaliningrad Oblast in the transborder region
of South-Eastern Baltic ............................................................................. 48
References ...................................................................................................... 62
1. Transborder regionalization
in the Baltic Sea area
Most researchers believe that the current development of globalization
intensifies the process of regionalization. The term ‘globalization’ was
introduced in 1985 by R. Robertson and J. Chirico (1985, p. 219–242). In 1992,
the author coherently presented the concept of globalization, defining it
as “a compression of the world and the intensified perception of it as one
whole” (R. Robertson, 1992, p. 8). Growing regionalization is one of the
consequences of globalization. Economic globalization in its essence is
a tendency towards the formation of the global investment environment
and integration of national capital markets. It results in the formation of
a global economic space, the objects of which follow the same laws. There
is a single global market, living according to uniform laws. But these
objects are not identical in their parameters; they differ in their dynamics
and position in the single space.
But if the essence of economic globalization is the intensification of
various links in the global space, then the formation of certain focal points,
intersections of these links, is inevitable Apart from these intersections,
there are also peripheral areas. There cannot such a phenomenon as
a homogeneous global space, since not all economic objects are parts of the
global space and the global market. This leads to the fragmentation of the
global space, caused by unequal participation of its individual subspaces
in global economic interactions. National and regional economic spaces
and their respective markets do not disappear – in fact, the differences
between them deepen due to increasing inter-regional competition and
a lack of border, customs and other barriers in the global market.
Regionalization, due to increasing competition on the global market,
leads to the formation of economic communities, the most advanced
of which is the European Union, being an increasingly integrated and
advanced supranational political unity. All countries in the Baltic region,
except the Russian Federation, are EU member states.
A new feature emerged among the characteristic features of
regionalization in the context of globalization. Not only transnational
6
regions (resulting from the interaction of states) are formed more actively,
but also transborder regions (formed as a result of interaction between
the administrative-territorial and municipal bodies of neighbouring
countries) begin to take shape and develop. One of the factors, influencing
the process of their creation, is the enlargement and revitalization of
transnational corporations. For them, the weakening of the barrier
function of borders under globalization made it possible to locate their
production facilities in the neighbouring border territories, to form
networks, use human resources of the neighbouring territories, and have
access to a single market of goods and services.
But the formation of transborder regions stimulates not only the
activities of transnational corporations. In the border areas of neighbouring
countries one can observe better co-operation between independent small
and medium businesses, even individual entrepreneurs (e.g. cooperation
in the technological field, affecting different stages of production, and the
so-called “component parts” cooperation, when component parts for the
following assembly of finished products are produced in neighbouring
countries). Such cooperation is rapidly developing, particularly between
enterprises of the Kaliningrad region and the neighbouring territories of
Poland. Thus, the border regions of Poland host the production of parts
for furniture assembling enterprises in Kaliningrad.
Transborder regions are created in the course of cooperation between
administrative and municipal entities of the neighbouring states.
Socio-cultural regions usually include regions of the neighbouring
countries similar to each other in a number of important parameters
– historical, linguistic, and religious ones. They belong mostly to the
so-called coherent regions, because the basis of their formation is the
existing links between territories of different countries, rather than just
territorial proximity. There are many examples of neighbouring border
territory of different countries, having similar features: for example, the
same ethnic composition of the population, similar or close economic
specialization, or a similarity of historical and cultural landscape
(especially if these territory of different countries, used to belong to the
same state). In this case, in our opinion, it is appropriate to talk about
transborder zones.
Market services, transport, trade (not only international, but also
internal), and tourism increasingly influence the development of crossborder links and, accordingly, the process of regionalization. The role of
the developing international links in the social sphere, particularly, in
education and research is enhancing (see Table 1).
International regions have common features, which include the
following ones:
7
Transborder regionalization in the Baltic Sea area
• the continuity of the territory (territorial waters), i.e. there is a possibility
of establishing direct transport links, without crossing the borders of
the region;
• the presence of various administrative governing bodies, performing
various functions – from advisory ones (the decisions which are not
mandatory), to policy ones (if they are based on international treaties
that have priority over national laws);
• relatively strong economic (trade and investment) links between the
subjects forming a region;
• fairly strong social ties (in culture, sports, education, and science);
• often – the presence of a common or well-coordinated infrastructure
(transport, and energy);
• often – the presence of a shared name of the region (the Baltic Sea region,
the Mediterranean region, the region of the Alps, or the Balkans);
• sometimes – ethnic similarity;
• sometimes – the presence of a common historical past.
Table 1. International cooperation in transborder regions
Subjects of
cooperation
Aims of cooperation
Spatial forms
of cooperation
Forms of cooperation
Regional
authorities
Exchange of experience;
attracting investors; facilitating
cooperation between legal
persons and individuals
Joint target commissions; joint
events (conferences, seminars,
and meetings)
Territorial networks;
euroregions; growth
triangles
Local authorities
The use of international
experience; attracting investors
Joint events (seminars, meetings)
Territorial networks;
euroregions
Economic entities
Economic profit
Trade; investments; Joint ventures;
exchange of experience
Territorial clusters
and complexes
Social institutions
Exchange of experience;
attracting public attention
Joint events (conferences,
seminars, study visits, competitions,
contests, concerts); research and
education programmes
Territorial networks
Non-profit (public)
organizations
Public awareness campaigns
pursuing the goals of non-profit
organizations
Seminars, meetings; jointly
organized events
Religious
organizations
Promoting religious ideas
Providing support to religious
communities in the neighbouring
countries
Informal groups
of people
Communication based on
common interest
Meetings
No
Source: Own studies.
8
The European Union pursues a policy of supporting transborder
cooperation. The EU has created tools for developing this form of
cooperation, ‘euroregions’ being one of them. Apart from administrativeterritorial and municipal regions of the EU member-states, similar
formations of countries – immediate neighbours of the EU can participate
in their activity. The “immediate neighbourhood policy” implemented by
the EU aims at involving border regions of the EU and its neighbouring
countries in the cooperation initiated by the EU.
The European Union uses the development of transborder links for
strengthening integration processes. The European Union developed and
tested a variety of methods of new spatial forms of international economic
cooperation (NFEC) – euroregions, “large regions”, “growth triangles”,
etc. Some regions and municipalities of the Russian Federation take part
in transborder cooperation implemented by the EU regions. However,
the intensity of this cooperation is lower than that of EU regions when
cooperating with each other.
Transborder regionalization is one of the priorities of the current
EU policy. This process can result in the formation of certain networks,
allowing to create diagrams of border (transborder) cooperation. The EU
implements a number of large scale programmes (such as “Interreg”),
aiming at promoting cross-border cooperation and integration at
internal and external borders of the EU. Firstly, cross-border cooperation
is regarded as a perspective tool for accelerating the development of
peripheral territories, located on the borders of national states. Herewith,
the integration and the levelling up of development rates across the EU
are its main purposes. Secondly, local authorities and economic actors are
actively trying to use to the full the possibility of forming new regional
alliances (since it provides funding from various EU programmes and, in
addition, leads to gaining additional political power through participation
in the strategically important network cooperation). Thirdly, the EU
regions have a sustainable belief that a whole variety of natural, cultural
and economic features of the EU can contribute significantly to the
development of different spheres of public life (J. Hakli).
The Baltic Sea region belongs to a group of macro-regions, where crossborder cooperation is particularly dynamic. The elaboration of regional
policies supporting cross-border cooperation is one of the activity areas
of the Nordic Council of Ministers (established in 1971), the organization
of intergovernmental cooperation among the five Nordic countries
(Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) and three autonomous
regions (Greenland, the Faroe and Aland Islands). Since the beginning of
the 1990s, the NCM has been active in the Baltic Sea region and NorthWest Russia. In 2002, a new international project – “Regional cross-border
9
cooperation in the neighbouring territories” was launched to enhance
cross-border cooperation between the Baltic States and North-West part
of Russia. The project (2002–2004) was implemented in the light of the
EU enlargement, facilitating the creation of a network of regions engaged
in transborder cooperation (Euroregions) in neighbouring regions. The
project promoted close links between the newly established network
of Euroregions and the existing transborder cooperation network of
the Nordic countries. The new network comprised twelve Euroregions,
including seven – with the participation of the Russian Federation.
The project “Regional cross-border cooperation in adjacent areas”
has now been completed. Nonetheless, the NCM considers it necessary
to further support and ensure the development of cooperation between
the established network of Euroregions (for example, in the framework
of a new joint pilot project implemented by the NCM and CBSS). The
aim of this project is to elaborate joint programmes aimed at developing
transborder cooperation along and across the external borders of the EU in
the Baltic Sea region. The NCM also believes it to be feasible to implement
other projects in the area together with the CBSS. Such an approach will
allow for joint actions of all countries in the Baltic Sea region, and improve
coordination of the organizations whose activity affects the development
of Northern Europe. According to NCM, the further development of
cooperation on the border between the EU and Russia requires the
identification of new specific focus areas, as the general wording “supporting
cross-border cooperation” used by Nordic countries to date, is too
broad and difficult to accomplish, given the new border between EU and
Russia.
In general, the EU enlargement in 2004 led to the cardinal review
of mechanisms of interaction between the EU and its neighbouring
countries, including Russia. New initiative of the European Union, called
“Wider Europe – New Neighbourhood” was proclaimed in 2003. The aim
of this initiative was to improve conditions for free movement of goods,
services, capital and people, as well as to develop a zone of prosperity and
good neighbourhood in Europe. The “New Neighbourhood” initiative
has a particular focus on strengthening relations and cooperation
with Russia. Practical implementation of the new policy spelled out in
the document “Towards a new mechanism for the Neighbourhood”,
adopted by the European Commission, presupposes the creation of
a new mechanism for solving common problems that may arise in the
process of interaction at the external borders of the enlarged EU. The
new mechanism of neighbourhood (NNM) is designed to provide the
necessary conditions for the development of cross-border, regional or
transnational cooperation at the external borders of the EU. NNM affects
10
not only the implementation of the foreign policy of the EU, but also the
economic and social integration.
Priorities for the New Neighbourhood Mechanism:
• economic and social development of border areas;
• joint activities and addressing common challenges in such areas as
environment, health, and combating organized crime;
• ensuring efficiency and security of borders;
• organizing activities that promote contacts between people at the local
level.
It was assumed that the implementation of the new good neighbourhood
mechanism was to begin after 2006, all the legal and budgetary issues
being settled. The period 2004–2006 was seen as a transitional one. The
major goal of this period was to strengthen interaction between the
existing mechanisms of cooperation through the establishment of the
Neighbourhood Programmes. These programmes were created and
implemented by ad hoc working groups established on both sides of the
border. The programme was financed by the Interreg, TACIS, RHARE
and other programmes and organizations. The application procedure and
selection procedure for cross-border projects were elaborated and agreed
upon. A key requirement for the participation and getting funding in the
Neighbourhood programme was an active engagement in cooperation
activities both within the EU and outside it.
In 2004–2006, Russian regions participated in six Neighbourhood
Programmes. One of them – “the Baltic Sea Region” – was among the 13
transnational Neighbourhood programmes of Interreg III B (Fig. 1.). St.
Petersburg, the Leningrad, Pskov, Novgorod, Arkhangelsk and Murmansk
regions, Karelia and the Nenets Autonomous District of the Russian
Federation participated in the programme.
Five programmes with the participation of Russian regions were
among the 68 Neighbourhood Programme Interreg III A projects (2):
• Kolarctic;
• Karelia Euroregion;
• South-East Finland / Russia;
• Estonia / Latvia / Russia;
• Lithuania / Poland / the Kaliningrad region of Russia.
The total territory of the Russian regions, implementing the
Neighbourhood Interreg III A and the Interreg III B programmes, covered
the whole North-West Federal District of Russia, with the exception of
the Komi Republic and the Vologda region. But the Nenets autonomous
district is a territory involved in the Interreg III programme “The Baltic
Sea Region”. The Novgorod region did not participated in the Interreg III
A programme. Each of the regions, participating in Interreg III, usually
11
Fig. 1. Neighbourhood programm Interreg III B “the Baltic Sea Region”
Source: INTERACT.
took part in one of the neighbourhood programme. St. Petersburg and the
Leningrad region participated in two programmes – South-East Finland/
Russia and Estonia / Latvia / Russia.
Project participants – regional and municipal authorities, social institutions, non-profit organizations, business associations – could participate
in projects, either as full members (if they provided a small co-funding),
or as associate members (no co-funding was necessary; the right to take
part in the project activities – conferences, seminars, meetings, etc.).
12
The last Neighbourhood programmes (2004–2006) were completed
in 2010, when all mutual financial settlements were finalized. By that
time, the EU, assessing the efficiency of the implemented projects of the
programmes of European territorial integration, including the Interreg,
adopted a new plan for 2007–2013 (Fig. 2.)
Fig. 2. Neighbourhood programmes with the participation of Russian regions (2004–
2006)
Source: INTERACT.
13
It should be stated that the EU has gained extensive experience
in implementing international projects, including the ones with the
participation of neighbouring countries, which are not EU members. The
EU encourages and supports the European territorial cooperation through
joint programmes, projects and networks, funded from the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF).
In 2007–2013, the EU finances 52 programmes of cross-border
cooperation within the framework of Interreg IVA (5.6 billion euro budget),
13 programmes of transnational cooperation of Interreg IV B (1,8 billion
euro budget), as well as inter-regional cooperation programme Interreg
IVC (321 million euros budget) and 3 network programmes – URBACT II,
ESPON, and INTERACT II (121 million euros).
These programmes include adjacent areas of neighbouring countries.
Transnational cooperation programmes cover a larger territory, which
may include countries not bordering on each other. The following
priority areas were identified: providing support to the development
of entrepreneurship (especially SMEs), the development of tourism,
culture and cross-border trade, the improvement of co-management of
natural resources, support to rural-urban partnership, the improvement
of transport and networks, the development of shared infrastructure,
administration, employment and creation of equal opportunities.
Transnational co-operation programmes cover not only large parts
of Europe, but in some cases, go beyond it. These include the following
programmes: the Northern periphery, the Baltic Sea, North-West Europe,
the North Sea, the Atlantic coast, the Alpine Space, Central Europe, SouthWest Europe, the Mediterranean, South-Eastern Europe, the Caribbean
area, Azores – Madeira – Canary Islands (“Macaronesia”) and the Indian
Ocean area.
Interregional cooperation includes regions of all 27 EU countries,
including those not bordering on each other. Network programmes cover
the majority of EU regions, and sometimes, regions of the neighbouring
countries with developed market economies (Norway, Switzerland,
Iceland and Liechtenstein the ESPON programme) (Regional Policy
Inforegio – Territorial cooperation).
Special mechanisms have been elaborated for the implementation of
the programmes, which purposefully involve countries that are not EU
members.
Cooperation with EU candidate countries and potential candidate
countries, preparing for their accession to the EU is funded under the
IPA (Instrument for EU accession). 11.5 billion euros is allocated for
these purposes, including 600 million euros to be spent on transborder
cooperation.
14
The development of EU interaction with the neighbouring countries,
which are candidates for EU accession, is sustained by the European
Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). 11.2 billion euros
is allocated from ENPI for this purpose. Some of these funds – 1118
million euros are earmarked for the development of transborder and
transnational co-operation between the EU states and their immediate
neighbours, including Russia (ENPI – CBC) (Regional Policy Inforegio –
Territorial cooperation). In total, the ENPI – CBC instrument launched
15 programmes. Their priorities are facilitating economic and social
development in border regions, addressing common challenges, ensuring
efficient and secure borders, as well as developing cooperation between
people (Cross-Border Cooperation within the European Neighbourhood
and Partnership Instrument (ENPI)). Russia can participate in the projects
that were funded under the previous neighbourhood programmes.
Through the implementation of international programmes the
EU is trying to, firstly, create a more integrated economic, cultural,
demographic, and, naturally, political space. Hence, increasing influence
of more economically developed countries within the EU. Secondly, the
EU space is gradually expanding as a result of consecutive enlargements
and applications for accession from candidate countries. Thirdly, the EU
seeks to involve its neighbours in the sphere of its influence.
The analysis of the Neighbourhood Programmes done by Russian
experts and representatives of the authorities, shows that Russia was
a “weak link” in the implementation of the programmes, as L. Vardomsky
puts it. By funding separate cooperation projects, the EU sought to increase
its influence in the neighbouring regions of Russia and, simultaneously, to
ensure adequate supplies of fuels and raw materials (ВВП Латвии рухнет
еще на 20%). That is, cooperation between Russia and the EU was not
equitable.
In addition, the previous Neighbourhood programme implemented
activities which, according to some experts, helped to create “centres
of the EU influence” in the border regions of Russia. L. Vardomsky and
E. Skaterschikova mention a network of centres (centres of excellence) to
be set up in order to assist authorities in the promotion of neighbourhood
programmes (Л. Б. Вардомский, E. E. Скатерщикова, 2010, p. 220).
That is why Russia did not plunge into the implementation of joint
activities within the ENPI, striving to achieve a more equal partnership
status. As a result, the Russian participants in “Baltic Sea Region”
programme are only associate members (due to the fact that at the
time of application, the financial and organizational issues of Russia’s
participation in the programme were not settled).
Nevertheless, one cannot deny the positive impact of transnational and
cross-border cooperation on the Russian border regions. Project participants
15
from Russia received, if not totally applicable recommendations, but new
knowledge and skills of the development of various projects (originally,
the consent of both parties was required for initiating such projects). Later,
after lengthy negotiations, Russia, while increasing its co-funding of joint
projects, was able to provide somewhat greater impact on the project
selection procedure. September 15, 2010 was the application deadline
for the first round of applications within the 5 programmes – Kolarctic,
Euregion Karelia, South-East Finland/Russia, Estonia / Latvia / Russia,
Lithuania / Poland / the Kaliningrad region of Russia.
16
2. Transborder region South-Eastern Baltic
South-eastern part of the Baltic Sea region includes the Kaliningrad
region of Russia, Klaipeda, Marijampolsky and Tauragė regions (counties)
of Lithuania, the Warmia and Mazury region, and Pomerania in Poland
(Fig. 3).
Fig. 3. The South-Eastern Baltic
Source: Author’s map.
In 2008, Pomerania in South-Eastern Baltic had a higher level of
economic development with a gross regional product of more than 17
thousand dollars per capita. The Warmia and Mazury, Kaliningrad and
Klaipeda regions occupy a middle position with 13–14 thousand dollars
per capita. The least developed are the agrarian Marijampole and Tauragė
regions of Lithuania (6–9 thousand dollars per capita) (Table 2).
17
Transborder region South-Eastern Baltic
Table 2. Transborder regions of South-eastern Baltic, 2008
State,
administrative-territorial
body
Gross regional product
Population
Territory,
th. km2
Population density,
people/km2
Total,
th. people
urban, %
Billion US
dollars
Dollars per
capita
Warmia and Mazury
1427
60
24.2
59.0
18.8
12900
Pomeranian Voivodeship
2220
66.4
18.3
121.2
38.2
17140
937
76.6
15.1
62
11.7
12600
Klaipeda region
379
72.6
5.2
72.7
5.4
14230
Marijampole region
181
49.6
4.5
40.6
1.6
8800
Taurage region
127
41.1
4.4
28.9
0.8
6480
Poland:
Russia:
Kaliningrad region
Lithuania:
Source: Own studies based on: Central Statistical Office of Poland; Россия в цифрах. 2009: краткий
стат. сб., 2009; Statistics Lithuania.
On the one hand, the three countries belonging to the south-eastern
part of the Baltic Sea are competitors on the world market of goods
(shipbuilding and repair, amber processing, fish and, partly, agricultural
produce) and, particularly, services (transport, tourism). On the other
hand, they develop cooperation in various fields, including the production
of goods, tourist services, the implementation of joint scientific and
educational projects, exchanges of best practices, joint measures aimed at
the protection of environment). Being mutually beneficial, this cooperation
increases the competitiveness of each partner.
Factors that impede the development of cross-border cooperation in
this region are, first and foremost, a lack of a common economic space
of Russia and the EU, lack of cooperation in the sphere of production,
the existing visa regime, and considerable differences in legislation. In
some cases, political differences and certain tension between the central
authorities of Russia, on the one hand, Poland and Lithuania, on the other,
as well as cooling relations between Russia and the EU play a negative
role. In addition, both in Poland and in Lithuania there are political forces
opposing the improvement of Russian-Polish and Russian-Lithuanian
relations (albeit, the border regions of Poland and Lithuania are extremely
interested in the development of mutual relations, and the influence of
18
the above-described attitudes is negligible). The local authorities generally
support the enhancement and deepening of trans-border cooperation.
International projects with the participation of Russia, implemented by
the European Union, play an important role in the formation of a transborder
region in south-eastern Baltic. In 2004–2006, a Neighbourhood programme
Lithuania – Poland – Kaliningrad Oblast of the Russian Federation was
being implemented (the last project of the programme were completed
in 2009). Territories covered by the programme (Fig. 4), are slightly wider
than the South-Eastern Baltic mezoregion identified in this work, but the
economic and social ties between Podlaskie voivodeship of Poland (not
included in the mezoregion) and the Kaliningrad region are extremely
weak and there is no passenger transport connection between the two
regions. In Poland, the Podlaskie voivodeship is more oriented towards
Warsaw in its development than, say, to Olsztyn or Gdansk.
Fig. 4. Territories cover by Neighbourhood programme “Lithuania – Poland – the Kaliningrad region” (2004–2006)
Source: Nordic Archipelago Cooperation.
The Neighbourhood Programme had the following priorities:
1. Raising competitiveness and productivity in the territory of cooperation
through the development of border infrastructure and border security,
sustainable economic development and scientific and technological
cooperation.
19
2. Cooperation between people, socio-cultural integration and the
development of the labour market.
44.5 million euros was spent on the implementation of 162 projects.
In the Neighbourhood Programme “Lithuania – Poland – the
Kaliningrad region” both Russian and Polish partners are involved only in
6 out of 46 projects. Among the 6 projects one should mention the projects
“Support to SMEs of the neighbourhood region through cooperation and
technology transfer” (partners – Elblag and Kaliningrad City District
Information and Technology Centre), “Preparation of investment to
improve water quality in the border region of Goldapa and Gusev
(Goldap City Administration, Gusev City Administration), and projects
projects aimed at implementing joint cultural activities (conferences
devoted to the 200th anniversary of the Peace of Tilsit, On-line Literary
Festival Euroreading – 2007, the organization of football matches between
children’s teams, the Polish-Russian school of cultural heritage – Studenka
2007).
The Immanuel Kant State University of Russia is a participant of
several neighbourhood projects implemented jointly with Russian and
Polish and (or) Lithuanian experts and experts from other countries
in the Baltic region. The University is a project participant or a project
leader. Naturally, the University is turning to be a resource centre for the
development in the Kaliningrad region. One of the priority areas for the
University is the implementation of international projects. Partnership in
these projects has a fairly wide coverage – both in terms of the geography
of cooperation, and in the profiles of the participating organizations:
regional and local authorities, cultural institutions, business associations,
and non-governmental organizations.
The University participated in various small scale Tacis projects
(including projects aiming to develop the Euroregion Baltica), was
a member of the project the Interreg programme consortia as a nonfunding partner. The University’s participation in the projects allowed it
to establish a wide group of partners for further projects, elaborate project
proposals, prepare joint projects applications and implement international
projects.
As a financial partner, the I. Kant University is involved in three
projects of the Baltic Sea programme. Together with the Ministry of
Economy of the Kaliningrad region the University is a partner in the
project “Cooperation between the cities and surrounding areas as a basis
for accelerated regional development in south-eastern Baltic Sea region”.
The project was implemented within the framework of BSR Interreg IIIB,
aimed at promoting cross-border cooperation in the Baltic Sea region. The
TACIS program provides funding for Russia’s participation in the project.
20
The project involves 16 partners from Germany, Poland, Russia, Lithuania
and Latvia. The main partner for the Tacis project is the Ministry of Labour,
Construction and Regional Development of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
(Germany). The project aims to strengthen the role of medium-sized cities
in regional development and inter-network cooperation among cities. The
project “Window: East-West” is developed under the VASAB initiative
aimed at enhancing the role of North-West Russia in the processes of
economic and territorial integration in the Baltic Sea region. The I.Kant
University, the Administration of St. Petersburg, the Association for
Experts in the Economic Development of Territories (Saint-Petersburg),
the Ministry of Environment of Denmark, the Danish Agency for Forestry
and Nature Conservation, the Federal Ministry of Transport, Building
and Housing of Germany, the Nordic Centre for Spatial Development
(Nordregio), the Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communications
of Sweden and Polish partners – the Ministry of Regional Development of
Poland and the Maritime Institute in Gdansk take part in the project.
The project will be implemented within three areas:
• Business cooperation, which affects the urban development;
• Availability of infrastructure and knowledge;
• Transnational sea-use planning and integrated coastal zone
management.
The third project – “The Lagoon Area: cultural and historical crossroads
of the South-east Baltic Sea” (“Crossroads”) is one of those projects
where the I. Kant University is a major partner, other partners being the
Zelenogradsk municipality of the Kaliningrad region, Kaliningrad history
and art museum, the Polish Maritime Museum, Klaipeda University, the
European Foundation for Cultural Heritage Preservation, the Kaliningrad
Regional Youth Organization “The traditional group “Talking Water”.
The Ministry of the Regional Development of the Kaliningrad region
together with the I. Kant University have implemented another joint project
– ”The partnership of local authorities of the Republic of Poland and the
Kaliningrad region as a basis for developing cross-border cooperation”.
The major objective of the project was to build mutually beneficial and
friendly relations between local authorities of the Kaliningrad region and
the Republic of Poland for the socio-economic development of border
areas. In general, the effect of this project for the neighbouring states will
translate into increased efficiency of local authorities in sustaining socioeconomic development of their territories.
Another cross-border cooperation programme “Poland – Lithuania –
Russia: 2007–2013” is taking shape only in 2010 due to numerous delays
in the signing of financial documents between the relevant authorities of
the Russian Federation and the EU. Consequently, the implementation of
21
the approved project proposals will begin only in 2011. The contribution
of the European Commission to the programme will be 132 million euros.
Moreover, it is assumed that Russian co-financing will be provided from
the federal budget (44 million euros) and participants of the project will
contribute 10% of the budget of the project.
Compared to the previous Neighbourhood programme, the area of
“Poland – Lithuania – Russia: 2007–2013” will be significantly expanded
(Fig. 5). It includes two zones (European Neighbourhood & Partnership
Instrument
Cross-Border…;
Правительство
Калининградской
области) located near the border – the basic zone (core areas) and the
adjacent one, located at some distance from the border. It was only
subjects (public authorities, research, education and culture institutions,
non-governmental organizations) that were allowed participation in
the previous Neighbourhood program. These subjects belonged to the
current basic/main zone. Even now, the subjects are located in the adjacent
area, cannot initiate projects themselves, but can participate in them as
additional partners under the condition that there are main partners
representing the corresponding state.
Fig. 5. The territory of the “Lithuania – Poland – Russia 2007–2013” project of the European
Neighbourhood Instrument
Source: Cross-border Cooperation Programme Lithuania – Poland – Russia 2017–2013.
22
In Poland, the basic/main zone includes the Warmia and Mazury
region, the eastern part of the Podlaskie voivodeship (with Bialystok)
and the Pomeranian voivodeship (with Gdansk – Sopot – Gdynia); the
adjacent zone includes the western part of the Podlaskie and Pomorskie
voivodeship, the Kujawsko-Pomorski province (having Bydgoszcz as its
centre) and the north of Mazowieckie voivodeship.
In Lithuania, the main area includes Klaipeda, Marijampolsky and
Tauragė regions, while the adjacent area is constituted by the Alytus,
Kaunas, Siauliai and Telsiai regions.
Near border territories of the three countries belonging to the first
zone (which in its composition is close to the territory of the previous
Neighbourhood programme), are cooperating closely enough. There
are some production links between them, as well as tourist exchanges,
joint projects in education and culture, environment, etc. Belonging to
the second zone municipalities of Lithuania and Poland have not yet
established efficient reciprocal links, nor have they been working closely
with the municipalities of the Kaliningrad region. They are included in
the programme in order to establish the necessary communication and
links (under the leadership of the subjects included in the first zone).
The range of priorities of the new programme is sufficiently wide
(Правительство Калининградской области):
1. Contribution to the solution of common problems and meeting
challenges.
2. Implementation of the social, economic and territorial development,
as well as “horizontal” priority associated with cooperation between
people.
The measures enumerated below specify the proposed priorities:
For Priority 1:
1.1. Sustainable use of environment;
1.2. Improvement of accessibility;
For Priority 2:
2.1. The development of tourism;
2.2. The development of human potential through improved social
conditions, better management and educational opportunities;
2.3. Raising the competitiveness of SMEs and further labour market
development;
2.4. Joint territorial and socio-economic planning.
In our opinion, the most important priority could be cross-border
economic cooperation – the development of industrial cooperation,
the coordination of banking and insurance sectors, setting up joint
consultancy companies, etc. But, unfortunately, it is business enterprises
that are excluded from a list of possible project participants (although
their participation on the principles of co-financing could be helpful).
3. Special position of the Kaliningrad region
as a Russian exclave in the Baltic Sea area
The Kaliningrad region has a special position in the Baltic Sea region.
It was founded in 1946 in the territory of the former Eastern Prussia. It
was quite an ordinary region of the USSR up to the second half of the
1980s.The regions was closed to foreigners, which came as little surprise
considering the fact that during the Cold War foreign citizens were not
let in to many other regions of the USSR (though we should not forget
that similar restrictions existed for Soviet citizens in the U.S.). During the
Soviet period of the region’s history, a well-developed fishing industry
and a powerful army also were not the hallmarks that distinguished
the Kaliningrad region from other regions – the same features were
characteristic of the Murmansk, Sakhalin and Kamchatka regions, just to
name a few. Being a part of the Soviet Union, the Kaliningrad region was
not really isolated from the Russian Soviet Socialist Federative Republic.
It is enough to say that in some publications of the time (for example,
in a 20-volume encyclopaedia “Countries and Peoples”) the fact that the
Kaliningrad region is geographically separated from the RSFSR by the
territories of other Soviet republics was not mentioned at all.
Since the second half of the 1980s the situation has changed. Firstly,
separatist movements in the Baltic republics complicated transport
connection of the Kaliningrad region with the main part of Russia and
other Soviet republics. Secondly, after the Soviet Union recognized the
independence of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia on September. 6, 1991,
the Kaliningrad region became de jure an exclave of the Soviet Union
and RSFSR, separated from the mainland Russia by the territories of
independent states. Finally, after the demise of the Soviet Union in
December 1991, the Kaliningrad region became an exclave of the Russian
Federation, and now it is separated from the territory of Russia not only
by independent Baltic States, but also by the independent Republic of
Belarus. The year 2004 marked another large-scale shift in the geopolitical
situation of the area when the Kaliningrad region became a “Russian
island” within the enlarged EU and NATO.
24
So, this formerly ordinary Russian region and Russia in whole faced
the need to solve problems of survival and, later, development under
radically changed geopolitical conditions. The Russian Kaliningrad
region confronted the following problems.
1) It was necessary to secure regular cargo traffic between the region and
the rest of Russia and compensate for the rupture of connections with
former soviet republics. Prior to the collapse of the USSR, the region
had been firmly integrated into the soviet economy. Seventy per cent
of the Kaliningrad produce was exported to other parts of the USSR,
which, in their turn, provided the region with raw and semi-finished
materials and fuel, machines and equipment, consumer goods and
foodstuffs.
2) The residents of the Kaliningrad region should have an opportunity to
travel to mainland Russia through the territory of foreign states, and
the residents of other regions – to the Kaliningrad region.
3) Another issue was the provision to the region of fuel and energy – mainly,
electricity, – which, in the Soviet times, was supplied predominantly
form the Ignalina NPP in Lithuania. In the new conditions, it would
have been both expensive and strategically unsafe.
4) There was a need for a new regional economic specialisation, which
would be based on the advantages of the new geopolitical and
geoeconomic position and minimise its disadvantages.
Furthermore, one should not forget that the radical change in the
geopolitical position of the Kaliningrad region was concurrent with the
weakening of the two pillars of regional life – the fishing industry and the
army. This problem also needed a response.
The fishing industry was deprived of sufficient state support, which it
received in the Soviet times. As a result, there was no money either for the
renovation of the old or the construction of new fishing vessels. Moreover,
fuel prices rose dramatically and the Kaliningrad region, situated at
a significant distance from its usual fishing areas in the Atlantic Ocean,
the East Pacific and the South-East of the Indian Ocean became a poor
base for the Russian fishing industry. To cover the maintenance costs, the
fishers were selling most of the fish abroad without transporting it into
the region, which negatively affected regional fish canning factories.
The reasons for the reduction of the military group in the Kaliningrad
region were the end of the cold war and the incapability of Russia
to maintain the military forces of the same size as earlier under the
conditions of the acute economic crisis. Other problems that led to the
reduction Russian armed forced in the region were as follows:
• the need to provide accommodation for retired or transferred to
reserve members of the forces (potential “civil” employment required
re-training);
Special position of the Kaliningrad region as a Russian exclave in the Baltic Sea area
25
• the defence conversion in newly vacant military towns;
• the disposal of surplus military property, first of all, the large supplies
of expired ammunition and the rocket fuel transported into the region
after the disestablishment of a diesel missile submarine base in Liepaja
(Latvia).
Strictly speaking, the region had two possible development trajectories
– either to remain a closed Russian outpost in the West (which would
not facilitate the solution of the problems mentioned), or to open to the
world and try to use the advantages of the region’s position in the rapidly
developing and integrating Baltic region and the vicinity to developed
European states for the benefit of the region and Russia in whole. The
latter did not reduce itself to the notorious “demilitarisation” of the
Kaliningrad region and the withdrawal of Russian troops – something
that certain international “politicians” and “experts” still call for – but
rather consisted in the optimal, form the national perspective, ratio of
military and civil functions in the regional development.
The problem of regional economic specialisation was solved under
the new conditions mainly by granting the region the status of, firstly,
free and, then, special economic zone (FEZ/SEZ) (the Yantar FEZ was
established in the region in 1991).
The present research does not aim to give a comprehensive review of
the history, results and prospects of the FEZ/SEZ. We will only mention
that the FEZ/SEZ, in particular, the duty free import of consumer goods
for internal use, let the Kaliningrad region survive the difficulties of
the 1990s. And the 1996 Federal law on SEZ, which provided duty free
import of raw materials and component parts into the region and the
duty free export of finished products to mainland Russia, facilitated the
development of new import substitution enterprises in the Kaliningrad
region, which were oriented towards the national market. Production units
manufacturing new to the local industries products started to appear in
the region. These are, first of all, advanced home appliances (televisions,
video players, DVD players, vacuum cleaners, microwave ovens, washing
machines, home refrigerators, etc), motor cars, motorcycles, scooters,
and ATVs. In 2006, the Kaliningrad region accounted for 75% of the
national production of televisions and 84% of vacuum cleaners. Almost
41 thousand cars of such well-known international manufacturers as KIA
Motors, BMW, and General Motors were produced in the region. More
than 60 companies, thanks to the duty relief SEZ regime, are involved in
certified furniture manufacturing; 80% of the produce is exported to other
regions of Russia. Approximately 200 enterprises process imported meat
(predominantly, from Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Ireland, and
the Netherlands).
26
The main mechanism of the SEZ, according to the new Federal law of
2006 is not the duty but the tax relief for large domestic and international
investors1. A the same time, the new law stipulates that the companies
that enjoyed the SEZ regime in the framework of the 1996 law retain the
duty relief over the ten year “transition period”. It will allow more than
one thousand residents of the old SEZ to recoup the investment and align
production with the new conditions.
The 2006 law was designed to develop in the SEZ not only import
substitution but also export oriented production units, which implies
the implementation of V. A. Mau and O. V. Kuznetsova's idea about the
transformation of the Kaliningrad region from an “unsinkable aircraft
carrier into an assembly shop” (О. В. Кузнецова, B. A. May, 2002). However,
there are other obstacles to the export of Kaliningrad goods to Europe
apart from the general negative image of Russian produce, mainly, those
related to certification and standardisation rather than tariffs.
To assess the current conditions and factors of the development of the
Kaliningrad region, one can employ the well-known methodology of
SWOT analysis (Table 3)2. The table below shows the internal strengths
and weaknesses of the region as well as the external opportunities and
threats to its development, i.e. the strengths and weaknesses are the
characteristics of the region per se, while opportunities and threats lie
beyond it.
1
2
The corporate tax rate is 0% over the first six years of the investment project implementation and 50% over the subsequent six years; the corporate property tax rate is 0%
over the first six years. The necessary condition to enjoy the relief is that the volume of
investment by the SEZ resident into the project is not less than 150 million roubles over
three years.
The SWOT abbreviation stands for S – strengths; W – weaknesses; O – opportunities,
T – threats.
27
Table 3. The SWOT analysis of the conditions and factors of the development
of the Kaliningrad region
SWOT analysis
based on K.Andrews's methodology
Opportunities (external)
1.
The Law on the Special
Economic Zone (SEZ) in the
Kaliningrad region.
2.
The «Development of the
Kaliningrad region until 2015»
federal target programme.
3.
The supportive rate policy of
the Russian railways.
4.
The EU-Russian cooperation.
Threats (external)
Strengths (internal)
Weaknesses (internal)
1.
The geographical location on
the Baltic Sea, near developed
European countries.
1.
The territorial isolation from the
rest of Russia.
2.
2.
Natural resources and
environment (mild climate;
coastal area; oil, amber).
The «fragility» (dependence
on external factors) of regional
economy.
3.
The developed transport
infrastructure.
4.
The education and research
institution network.
Opportunities for exploiting the
strengths
Opportunities for overcoming
weaknesses
1.
The maintenance of Russian
external economic ties.
1.
2.
A more efficient use of natural
resources and environmental
potential: the development of
agriculture, tourism, mining.
3.
The development of import
substitution and export-oriented
industries.
The use of the SEZ
mechanism for exporting goods
manufactured in the region
from imported raw materials
to the Russian market and
importing those manufactured
from Russian raw materials.
2.
4.
The adoption of innovations
and the development of
innovative industries.
Attracting federal support to
develop industrial and social
infrastructure, the development
of connections between
enterprises and the formation
of industrial complexes and
clusters.
Using strength to reduce threats
The repeal of the SEZ law
(hypothetical).
1.
2.
More complicated and
expensive communication with
the rest of Russia.
2.
3.
The prospective accession of
Russia to the WTO and the
subsequent loss of the free
customs zone advantages (due
to the tariff reduction).
The production of valuable less
material-intensive products,
a more extensive use of local
raw materials.
3.
The increase in the value
added through the production
of goods from imported raw
material for export to other
Russian regions.
4.
The strengthening of ties with
Belarus; gaining access to
American, African and Asian
markets.
1.
4.
The deterioration of RussianEU relations (hypothetical).
The development of service
and innovative industries.
Overcoming weaknesses to reduce
threats
1.
The conclusion of a Russia-EU
agreement on the viability and
development of the Kaliningrad
region.
2.
The reduction of the regional
economy's dependence on the
SEZ law (that on duty reliefs
– by means of increasing the
value added in the region; on
tax reliefs – by a more efficient
development of industrial
potential).
28
The SWOT analysis gives a clear overview of the problems of the
Kaliningrad region and possible solutions to it. The opinions on the
solutions differ a lot. The situation pertaining to the exclave position of
the Kaliningrad region and the diversity of the interests concentrated
in the region and beyond became the topic of numerous research works
produced by Russian and international experts.
Different theoretical variants of the regional development concepts
that had been formulated prior to the adoption of the 2006 law on the SEZ
can be classified on the basis of the correlation of possible economic and
political scenarios determining the regional development (Table 4.).
Table 4. The concept of regional development
Economy
1
Region dependent on
federal support
2
Standard economic
regime of Russian
constituent entities
3
Special
economic
zone
4
Withdrawal from
Russian economic
space
A
Federal territory governed by
the Centre
A1
A2
A3
A4
B
Standard region, constituent
entity of the Russian Federation
B1
B2
B3
B4*
C
Special political status
C1
C2*
C3
C4
D
Independent state
D1*
D2*
D3*
D4
Politics
* impossible combinations.
Source: Клемешев А. П., Мау В. А. (eds.), 2007; Стратегии развития Калининградской области.
The table shows 16 types of concepts with different economic
and political scenario correlations. Some of the combinations are not
feasible and, thus, are not seriously developed. For instance, only D4
– the withdrawal from Russian economic space – can comply with the
independent state scenario, thus, D1-D3 are not taken into account. It is also
impossible to imagine a situation when a usual Russian region withdraws
from the national economic space (B4). And a standard economic regime
is not compatible with a special political status (C2). Currently, only one
of possible scenarios (B3) is being implemented (politically – a standard
region, economically – a Special Economic Zone).
Here is the list of authors who described different concept types in
their works:
A1:
A2:
A3:
A4:
B1:
B2:
B3:
29
The inertial scenario after the repeal of the SEZ law.
N. Smorodinskaya, A. Kapustin, V. Malygin (1999).
A. P. Khlopetsky (2000); V. N. Abramov (2001).
A. Yu. Ignatyev (1998), S. Dewar (2000).
V. V. Ivchenko (2003).
V. P. Nikitin (1991).
Yu. S. Matochkin, A. Ya. Barinov (1990); V. Bilchak, I. Samson, G. Fedorov
(1999); V. Yegorov (2001); O. V. Kuznetsova (2001); O. V. Kuznetsova,
V. A. Mau (2002); V. A. Mau (2002); V. P. Zhdanov, G. M. Fedorov
(2002); V. Zhdanov, O. Kuznetsova, V. A. Mau, M. Plyukhin,
S. Prikhodko (2002); S. V. Kortunov (2003); M. A. Tsikel, V. P.
Zhdanov, G. M. Fedorov (2003); A. A. Sergunin (2004), A. N. Pilyasov
(2004), I. Samson (2004); the “cooperation region” strategy.
C1: The outpost strategy – S. Shakhrai (1994).
C3: A. P. Klemeshev, S. D. Kozlov, G. M. Fedorov (2002, 2003);
A. P. Klemeshev, G. M. Fedorov (2004).
C4: W. F. Christians (1989); IEDC (1992) (see G.M. Fedorov, Y.M. Zverev,
1995); Stolz (1992) (see G.M. Fedorov, Y.M. Zverev, 1995); the
“pilot region”: Ch. Wellmann (2000), N. V. Smorodinskaya (2001),
N. V. Smorodinskaya, S. V. Zhukov (2003); Ye. Vinokurov (2004);
H. Timmermann (2001).
D4: “the forth Baltic republic” (R. Ozolas (see J. Paleckis, 1993),
V. Landsbergis (see A. Khikhlya, 1994); “the Koenigsberg Euroregion”
(the Hanseatic region of the Baltic, 1992) (see G.M. Fedorov, Y.M.
Zverev, 1995); A. A. Gorodilov, M. S. Dudarev, S. G. Kargapolov,
A. V. Kulikov (2003).
Versatile individual concepts may be developed within each basic type.
For instance the B3 type encompasses both the concepts that support the
current import substitution development strategy and those that call for
the transition to the export orientation. Moreover, individual concepts
try to cover different approaches (for example, the source of regional
development can be interpreted both as the federal support and the SEZ
mechanism; it is typical of many B1 and B3 type concepts).
Summing up the research works on the Kaliningrad region, one
can distinguish four basic guidelines as to the strategy for regional
development:
1) to treat the region as a regular constituent entity of the Russian
Federation, which requires federal support, focusing on retaining the
region in the national economic space and strengthening regional
economic safety;
2) to consider a region as a special constituent entity of the Russian Federation, solving the problems of regional development in the frame-
30
work of the federal social economic policy towards the region (including the special economic regime – the special economic zone – and the
financial support pertaining to the Federal target programme);
3) since Russia lacks resources sufficient to create the due conditions for
the regional development, to expand the support to the region from
the West (mainly, the EU) and to grant the region a special political
status;
4) to try to balance the mentioned approaches, the first of which, in our
opinion, serves the federal, the second – the regional interest, and the
third – the interests of the West (or international interests, since other
countries have limited interests in the region). Such approach seems
to be optimal, though rather complicated due to the fact that different
groups of interests often contradict each other and, moreover, there are
discrepancies in the positions of actors forming each group.
In fact, it is the second concept trying balance the federal and regional
interest that has been implemented since 1990s. International aspects are
taken into account as more acute problems affecting the viability of the
region arise (such as, for example, the accession of Lithuania to the EU).
Although, the adopted at the regional level declaration on the strategic
partnership entitled “The strategy for the socioeconomic development of
the Kaliningrad region as a region of cooperation until 2010”3 implied
the harmony of national, regional, and international interests. However,
its international aspect has never gained sufficient support. Otherwise, it
would require the adoption of corresponding documents concerning the
region at the federal and international levels. As a result, a new “Mid- and
long-term strategy for the socioeconomic development of the Kaliningrad
region”, which included many positive aspects of the previous document
but, at the same time, put more emphasis on the strategic priorities of the
state development and the changing external and internal conditions of
regional development, was drawn up and adopted on March 9, 2007.
Since the existence of SEZ is limited to 25 years, the new strategy for
the socioeconomic development of the region is a long-term one covering
the period until 2031. The development of the strategy was accompanied
by the drawing up of the Programme for the socioeconomic development
of the Kaliningrad region for 2007–2015, which was adopted by the
Kaliningrad Regional Duma on December 25, 2006.
For the economic development of the Russian exclave on the Baltic Sea,
territorially disconnected from the rest of Russia, the federal policy towards
3
The declaration was signed by the governor of the region, the chair of the Regional
Duma, the mayor of Kaliningrad, representatives of NGOs and business community
– the association of municipalities, the Public Chamber, local trade union committees,
the Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, the Baltic Business Club, the Union of
Developers, and the Union of Farmers.
31
the Kaliningrad region is of great importance. This policy is expressed,
first of all, in the law “On the Special economic zone in the Kaliningrad
region” and the Federal target programme for the socioeconomic
development of the region. These documents, to a great extent, frame
the economic activity in the region contributing to the mitigation of the
negative for the regional economy factor of exclavity. They form the basis
for the implementation of the regional development strategy.
The development of a feasible strategy for the economic development
of the Kaliningrad region is impossible without taking into account the
geopolitical position of the latter. Indeed, the conditions for the passenger
and cargo transit between the region and the rest of the country are
contingent on the political relations between Russia and the transit
countries and the EU (the latter, to a great extent, affects the position of
Lithuania and Latvia). At the same time, the economic activity in the
region largely depends on the character and intensity of the economic
relations of Russia with other countries of the Baltic region.
Thus, the strategy for the development of the Kaliningrad region is
inevitably determined by the regional policy of the Russian Federation
and, on the other hand, the relations of Russia with the EU, particularly,
the Baltic region states, and Belarus. In both cases, it is essential for the
economy of the region to overcome the disadvantages its exclavity.
In terms of both internal and external policy, the exclavity of the
Kaliningrad region is the specific geopolitical factor that distinguishes
it from other Russian regions and, thus, deserves special attention in
the framework of the development of a successful strategy for regional
development. Moreover, one should not ignore that all enclave territories,
including the Russian exclave on the Baltic Sea, are conflictogenic
(А. П. Клемешев, 2005). It concerns not only the possibility of political
conflicts but also serious difficulties in economic and social development
of the exclave region. The Russian exclave on the Baltic Sea earlier
confronted these difficulties, which resulted in serious economic changes
(T. Гареев, Г. Федоров, 2005; А. П. Клемешев, В. А. Мау (eds.), 2007).
The expert estimation of the possibilities to overcome the conflictogenity
largely depends on which political school the expert belongs to. If they
represent a school of political realism, which claims that the only agent of
international relations is a state serving its own interests (sometimes – an
intergovernmental organisation) and that certain disagreements between
neighbouring countries are inevitable, the exclave region will always
be, at least, potentially, conflictogenic. If the experts support the ideas
of political idealism and believe in the possibility of the harmonisation
of interests in the international arena (here, not only states but also
international organisations, intrastate regions, transnational corporations,
32
etc are considered as agents of international relations), they can expect the
exclave conflictogenity to be fully overcome.
As experts differ in opinion and neither of the approaches has been
proven correct4, it is sensible to consider different scenarios of the exclave
development in terms of both political realism and political idealism.
Their extreme cases are the vision of the region’s future as a “development
corridor” (А. П. Клемешев, Г. М. Федоров, 2004), ensuring the
communication between Russia and the EU and as a “double periphery”
respectively (H. Смородинская, 2001). Since ideal models are seldom
implemented in practice, the actual vector of regional development must
be located between those two extreme positions, but where exactly?
Let us consider the situation that had developed by the beginning of 2010
on the basis of the research conducted by the authors of the monograph.
Firstly, let us address the internal political factors of regional economic
development – the measure taken by the federal centre regarding the
Kaliningrad region, which significantly affect the development of regional
economy and help overcome the disadvantages of the exclavity of the
region. Then, we will define the character and intensity of external political
factors. As a result, we will attempt to formulate several requirements
such future strategy for the development of the region that would take
into account the geopolitical features of the latter.
External political factors. After the 1992–1998 steep economic recession
(which severely affected the industry of the region, where the decrease
in production was much more significant than the national average), the
economic upturn commenced in 1999 (Fig. 6.).
The stimulating effect of the 1996 federal law “On the Special economic
zone in the Kaliningrad region” became apparent during the first stage
of the upturn (1999–2005) (Об Особой экономической зоне в Калининградской области: Федеральный закон от 22 января 1996 г. № 13-ФЗ).
The Law provided the opportunity for the duty free import of raw and
semi-finished materials into the Kaliningrad region and the duty free export of the finished products manufactured with these raw materials if
the VAT generated in regional enterprises was not less than 30% (or 15%
for electronics and technologically advanced home appliances). Against
the background of the accelerating growth of the import of raw and semifinished materials (Fig. 7.) the industrial production based on partial import substitution – motor car, television, furniture, and carpet manufacturing, meat processing etc. – started to develop rapidly in the region.
4
The global financial and economic crisis of the end first decade of the 21st century
showed that the role of state in economy, politics, and international economic relation
was still crucial in the conditions of globalisation, which strengthened the position of
the supporters of political realism.
33
Fig. 6. Dynamics of industrial production, 1990–2010
Source: Территориальный орган Федеральной службы государственной статистики по
Калининградской области.
Fig. 7. Dynamics of external trade in the Kaliningrad region, 1992–2010
Source: Территориальный орган Федеральной службы государственной статистики по
Калининградской области.
34
Prior to the 2008 economic crisis, the Kaliningrad region accounted
for 75% of the national TV set production (the Telebalt, Baltmixt, and
Radioimport-R companies, the Polar (Televolna factory) and Rolsen
Electronics (Tovary Buduschego factory), the PKiV company group)
(A. Денисенков, 2009). 150 million dollars have been invested into the
television cluster over the recent years; the employment within the cluster
reached 12,000 people (A. Денисенков, 2009). Regional enterprises also
produced such home appliances as vacuum cleaners (84% of the national
produce in 2006 (Отчет о результатах функционирования Особой
экономической зоны в Калининградской области в 2006 году, 2007)),
microwave ovens, DVD-players, etc.
As to the motor car industry, in 2007, the Avtotor motor company
produced 106,700 cars becoming the largest manufacturer of international
makes of car in Russia (П. Куликов, 2008).
Other large import substitute sectors of the Kaliningrad economy are
meat processing and future manufacturing industries.
Approximately 200 manufacturers (including small enterprises
and plants) (M. Анисимова, 2010), predominantly using imported raw
materials, operated within the industry in 2007. In 2006 they accounted
for 22.6% of national canned meat production (more than in other regions
of Russia) (Российский рынок мясных консервов: текущее состояние и
перспективы развития до 2012 г., 2007).
More than 60 enterprises manufacturing certified furniture operate
within the Kaliningrad furniture industry, which employs more than
3000 people (Отчет о результатах функционирования Особой
экономической зоны в Калининградской области в 2006 году, 2007).
Earlier, the region accounted for 6% of national furniture sales (Мертвый
мебельный сезон).
The 2001 Federal target programme for the development of the region
until 20105 (Программа развития Калининградской области на
период до 2015 года, 2001–2010) (which replaced the poorly implemented
programme for the development of the SEZ in the Kaliningrad region
for 1998–2005) (О Федеральной целевой программе развития Особой
экономической зоны в Калининградской области на 1998–2005 годы,
1997) encouraged the development of industrial and social infrastructure
of the region.
However, this growth potential had been exhausted by 2005, thus, the
decision was reached to alter the Law on the SEZ so that it could stimulate,
first of all, the implementation of large-scale mainly export-oriented
projects. The new law “On the Special economic zone in the Kaliningrad
5
Later the program term was extended until 2015.
35
region and on Amending Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian
Federation” (Об особой экономической зоне в Калининградской
области, 2006) was adopted in 2006. The Law stipulated that the duty relief
would be extended for the legal entities that enjoyed it earlier and granted
tax exemption to major investors participating in large-scale projects
(investing not less than 150 mln roubles over 3 years). On May 6, 2009,
60 resident companies and a stated investment of 36.1 bln roubles were
registered in the special economic zone (Реестр резидентов. 06.05.2009).
The new Law on the SEZ boosted industrial growth in 2006–2007,
particularly, that of the import substitution production. The volume
of residential development, transportation, and service production
increased substantially. Nevertheless, positive results were not achieved
in agriculture. The new Law did not take into account the interests of
the regional motor transportation companies, which accounted for
a significant part of transportation between Russia and other states: road
trains were classified as imported goods subject to customs clearance. It
drastically reduced their competiveness in comparison to international
motor transportation companies, which forced the Kaliningrad companies
out of the market of Russian export and import goods transportation.
However, as Professor Ivan Samson from Grenoble, who supervised
the research on the economy of the region in the late 1990s, put it, the
regional economy based on the SEZ reliefs remained “fragile”, i.e. quite
sensitive to external factors (И. Самсон (ed.), 1998, p. 7) – for example, the
reduction or repeal of customs duties on certain raw and semi-finished
materials throughout the country, and on imported goods similar to
those manufactured in the region or the deterioration of the conditions of
transit via the territory of Lithuania (rise in price, complication, increase
in the time of transportation).
The attempts to create a more stable economy in the region were
related to the implementation of a number of large-scale projects, which
could provide the basis for the establishment of several enterprises within
different industries. These are the following projects:
• the construction of the Baltic NPP (the Prime Minister of the Russian
Federation signed an order for the construction of the NPP in September
2009);
• the establishment of a tourism-recreation zone (according to the
Russian government’s resolution of February 2007);
• the establishment of the “Yantarnaya” gambling zone (as one of four
gambling zones where all Russian gambling facilities should be
concentrated after July 1, 2009).
The construction of the “Primorskoye koltso” motorway ring road
commenced in August 2008 in order to improve the regional transport
infrastructure.
36
However, these projects were meant to be implemented when the
global financial crisis had already started or was deepening and they
did not manage to change the character of regional economy. The rapid
industrial development of the region was predominantly extensive and
contingent on putting new production capacities into operation and the
creation of new jobs. It was based, firstly, on SEZ exemptions and high
demand for the high-quality produce of Kaliningrad enterprises, which,
on the Russian market, was more attractive in terms of price than that
manufactured in other regions.
However, the production cost of Kaliningrad produce, according
to the estimation of the minister of economy of the Kaliningrad region
A. V. Smirnova, is 25–30% above that in the neighbouring countries –
namely, Poland and Lithuania – which, to a great degree, is related to
steep gas prices (the gas supply cost for retail consumers is twice as much
as in other regions of the RF) and to high railway rates (Александра
Смирнова: Наша задача…, 2010).
These negative factors resulted in the increasing “fragility” of Kaliningrad
economy and its dependence on external factors. It was vividly shown by
the world economic crises that began in the second half of 2008. In Russia,
the crises was deeper and longer than in most developed countries, while
in Kaliningrad it was more acute than on average in the country (see
Table 5.).
Table 5. The 2005–2010 dynamics of selected indicators for the Kaliningrad region
and the Russian Federation
Indicator
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
GDP/GRP
GRP of the Kaliningrad region, %
from the previous year
103.6
115.3
119.9
104.7
91.5
…
Russian GDP, % from the
previous year
106.4
108.2
108.5
105.2
92.2
104.0
Industrial production index
Kaliningrad region, % from the
previous year
127.4
166.6
114.4
101.8
95.3
131.2
Russia, % from the previous year
105.1
106.3
106.8
100.6
90.3
108.2
Processing industry index
Kaliningrad region, % from the
previous year
106.3
131.0
128.1
101.2
93.0
147.6
Russia, % from the previous year
107.6
108.4
110.5
100.5
84.8
111.8
... Data not available.
Source: Федеральная служба государственной статистики.
37
The regional 2009 unemployment rate (calculated by the ILO
methodology) was above the national average by 18.3%. The share of the
population with substandard income, which reduced from 20% in 2005
to 12.4% in 2007, started increasing again and amounted to 14.4% in 2009
(2.9% above the national average).
First of all, the crisis led to a dramatic decrease in the number of new
import substitution enterprises, which earlier were the driving force of
economic growth. As to the TV assembling cluster, the causes of recession
were as follows:
• the world economic crisis, in which large manufacturers make their
production units run at full capacity at the expense of licensed
production facilities. In 2009, such international brands as Sony and
Panasonic went out of the Kaliningrad region;
• the falling demand in the internal market under the crisis conditions;
• the abolition of duty relief for the import of plasma modules and LCD
screens according to the Government decree of September 11, 2008 No.
659, which deprived Kaliningrad assemblers of the SEZ benefits6;
• the extremely low duty on the import of home appliances, which made
import more lucrative than the assembling in Russia7.
Due to all the factors mentioned, for the first time in the 9 months of 2009,
the TV assembling decreased by 80%, microwave oven production – by 85%,
digital laser player production – by 80% and vacuum cleaner production
by 87% from the previous year (B. Лихтин, 2009). The employment rate
within the TV assembling cluster in the Kaliningrad region had reduced
from 12 to 2.5 thousand people by the end of the first quarter of 2009
(A. Денисенков, 2009).
The regional motor car industry had faced problems before the crisis. In
2006, there was an attempt to deprive Avtotor of duty relief for the import
of vehicle sets, which the company enjoyed according to the Law on the
SEZ. This decision was explained by the aspiration of the government to
avoid the situation when the Kaliningrad car assemblers might threaten
the interests of other automakers (including the international ones
operating in the framework of the Decree No. 166 on industrial assembly).
The company’s competitors, naturally, supported (if not lobbied) this
approach. As a result, in spring 2008, Avtotor stopped assembling Chinese
cars Chery (more than 40000 cars of the make were assembled in 2007),
which competed not only with other assemblers of international makes of
car, but also with AvtoVAZ.
6
7
It is rumoured that this decision was lobbied by large international companies – Flextronics and Jabil – which assemble Sony, Panasonic, Philips, NEC, etc. electric appliances in mainland Russia (T. Пальмовский, 2004).
The duty on the import of assembled LCD and plasma TVs amounted to only 10%.
38
Further problems arose from the economic crisis, which limited the
solvent demand for the company’s produce in the Russian market and
from the absence of state support during the crisis (evidently, due to the
negative attitude to the company, which had formed in the Ministry of
Industry and Trade) (Министр промышленности: «Был кризис, есть и
будет», 2010; Александра Смирнова: Наша задача…, 2010). Although,
in 2009, Avtotor was still the largest national producer of interntional
makes of car, in 2007–2009, its output fell from 107 to 60 thousand cars per
year (Льготы с дисконтом, 2008; «Автотор» стал первым по выпуску
иномарок в России, 2009).
As a result of the falling demand for furniture both in the Kaliningrad
region and other regions of Russia, its production had decreased, by
summer 2009, by 50% from the previous year; 8% of jobs were shed within
the industry (Мертвый мебельный сезон). Many furniture production
facilities moved to either a three-day working week or the week-on/weekoff schedule. The office furniture segment was affected most.
In the conditions of the crisis, the region’s connections with both foreign
states and other regions of the Russian Federation were weakened; the
volumes of cargoes processed in regional ports dramatically decreased. In
mid-2008, due to the non-competitive railroad rates for cargo transportation
in Kaliningrad direction via the territory of Lithuania, the cargo traffic
was diverted to other ports of Russia and the Baltics, which led to
a dramatic decrease in cargo transported by Kaliningrad railways (from
18.5 mln tonnes in 2008 to 12.2 mln tonnes 2009) and the reduction in the
freight turnover in the ports of Kaliningrad (from 15.4 to 12 mln tonnes)
(Сводный доклад о результатах и направлениях деятельности 2009.
Калининград: Правительство Калининградской области, 2009). In
September 2008, as a result of escalating problems, the leading Kaliningrad
airline KD avia, which until then had been successfully implementing
the project of transforming the Khrabrovo airport in Kaliningrad into
a hub connecting other Russian regions with European countries, ceased
operation. It led to Kaliningrad being deprived of direct flights to many
Russian cities. Now they can be reached only by a connecting flight from
Moscow or Saint Petersburg.
However, the major projects launched in the region have not been
cancelled. The implementation of the large project financed from the
state budget in the framework of the Programme for the socioeconomic
development of the region – the construction of the “Primorskoye koltso”
motorway ring road – is still underway. The total investment in the
construction – 7 billion roubles (155 million Euro) – was not cut in 2009;
the Kaliningrad – Khrabrovo Airport – Zelenogradsk section opened
at the end of the year. In 2010, the works on the coastal section of the
39
road continued. The preparatory works for the construction of the Baltic
nuclear power plant began in the north of the region; preparatory works
for the free tourist economic zone are taking place on the Curonian spit.
However, the project of the gambling zone in the environs of the village
of Yantarny has not been launched yet. The land plots have already been
allocated, but the bidding did not take place, since no prospective buyers
indicated willingness to participate.
Apart from the economic crisis, as it was mentioned by the governor
G. V. Boos on May 17, 2010 at the parliament hearing of the Committee
on Economic Policy and Entrepreneurship on the results and prospects
of the development of the Special economic zone in the Kaliningrad
region, tax exemptions granted to investors resulted into a 1,702.6 mln
rouble tax gap (Стенограмма парламентских слушаний Комитета
по экономической политике и предпринимательству на тему:
«О результатах деятельности и перспективах дальнейшего развития
Особой экономической зоны и Калининградской области»). It
complicated the implementation of social policy in the region, since the
mentioned gap was not closed (as it was expected) by the transfers from
the federal budget. It led to rising tension caused by the deterioration of the
financial situation of the population due to the economic crisis.
To consider the external political aspects of regional development let us list
the principal actors defining them. These are Russia (the federal central),
the interacting EU states (first of all, Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland, then
other countries of the Baltic region) and the EU, and Belarus. Of lesser
importance are the relations in the framework of intergovernmental
organisations (the Council of the Baltic Sea States) and the connection
between the region and its municipalities with regions and municipalities
of the neighbouring countries. Of even lesser significance are the relations
of economic entities, non-governmental organisations, regional population
and its neighbours. Thus, although one can list numerous types of
interacting actors (which is peculiar for such branch of political idealism
as transnationalism), the crucial role is played by intergovernmental and
Russian-EU relations, i.e. those of the agents typical of the political realism
concepts.
At the beginning of the 21st century, Russian-EU relations have been
following the direction of neither economic integration (which is what
many Russian and international experts hoped for in the 1990s addressing
the Kaliningrad region as a possible “pilot” region of such interaction),
nor of close cooperation. A distinct sign of a certain chill in relation was
the sabotage of the signing of the new Partnership and Cooperation
Agreement instead of the one that expired in 2007 by the Western party.
The negotiations on a new agreement have not been concluded yet.
40
Moreover, the decisions reached at Russia-EU summits are not always
fully implemented. As we know, a decision to build four common spaces
(Common Economic Space, Common Space of Freedom, Security and
Justice, 3 Common Space on External Security, Common Space on Research,
Education, Culture) was made at the Russia-EU summit in Saint Petersburg
in May 2003. The “road maps” aimed to implement the plans of the four
spaces were adopted at the Moscow summit in May 2005. However, the
progress concerning the “road maps” has been extremely slow. Even the
agreement on the construction of the crucial for a number of EU countries
Nord Stream gas pipeline (which actually commenced in April 2010)
faced many complications. The export of Russian goods – including those
produced in the Kaliningrad region or transported via its territory – into
EU countries is impeded by numerous non-tariff related restrictions
imposed by the countries-possible consumers of the Russian produce.
Other Russian agents of cross-border cooperation (regions, municipalities,
non-governmental organisations), unlike the analogous agents in the
EU still do not have an adequate legislative framework to strengthen the
cooperation with the neighbours across the border, while their financial
resources are insufficient to enter such cooperation independently. The
adoption of the RF Law on cross border cooperation has been postponed;
the new versions of the law still grant very little rights and opportunities
to agents interested in cross-border cooperation.
As a result, the most intensive cross-border connections of the Kaliningrad
region are the import of consumer goods from the neighbouring countries,
as well as raw and semi-finished materials that are meant to be processed
in Kaliningrad enterprises and exported to the Russian market, as well
as the trips of numerous Polish and Lithuanian “shuttle traders” in the
Kaliningrad region to buy petrol and cigarettes (and, to a lesser degree, the
tourist and shopping trips of Kaliningaders).
The industrial cooperation between the economic entities of the
Kaliningrad region and the regions of neighbouring countries is hardly
developing, although there are scientifically grounded suggestion
regarding the establishment of a “bipolar” (Tricity: Gdańsk, Gdynia,
Sopot – Kaliningrad) (T. Пальмовский, 2004) or even a “tripolar” (Tricity
– Kaliningrad – Klaipėda) territorial system with close internal socioeconomic connections (Г. М. Федоров, Ю. М. Зверев, B. C. Корнеевец, 2008).
Moreover, U. Kivikari (2001) entertains the possibility of the formation of
such well-known form of cross-border cooperation as South Baltic “growth
triangle” on the basis of the interaction of the regions of the countries of the
Southern Baltic Sea.
Therefore, the interactions of the external policy agents related to the
external economic ties of the Kaliningrad region give an impression that,
41
despite the optimistic opinions of the supporters of political idealism, the
actual facts prove the point of the experts adhering to the ideas of political
realism. It attaches increasing significance to the position of the federal
centre as to the role the Kaliningrad region should play in the internal
and external economic strategies of Russia and the determination of
measures, including international agreements, necessary to ensure the
normal functioning of the Russian exclave region.
The analysis of the role of external factors in the economic development
of the region allows us to claim that the main provisions of the new strategy
for the development of the Kaliningrad region should rest on the allRussian strategy for modernisation, innovative development and, at the
same time, take into account the geopolitical factor.
Innovations, labour-saving and environmentally friendly technologies
should become the priority areas of development. Special attention
should be drawn to the implementation of large-scale projects and the
subsequent formation of small and medium-sized business clusters.
Of great importance for the transition of the region to innovative
development should be the establishment of the Baltic federal university
and its innovation park in Kaliningrad. The region should become
increasingly significant in the promotion of Russian external economic
relations. Another centre of attention is the restoration of the fishing and
agricultural industries focused on environmentally friendly produce.
The Kaliningrad region should become the outpost of Russian culture
in the Baltic macroregion targeted at both the Russian population of the
macroregion states and all those interested in the Russian language and
culture. The region will also play an important role in strengthening
Russian defence potential.
One should take into account that, under the current conditions of
recovering from the financial and economic crisis, regional authorities
should simultaneously deal with two extremely acute and partially
contradictory – due to the limitedness of resources – though, mutually
complementary issues: the strategic and tactical ones.
In terms of strategy, it is necessary to continue the implementation of
large-scale projects that can boost the development of the region economy
in whole (the Baltic NPP, the Kaliningrad CHPP-2, coastal motorway
ring road, the restoration of the Kaliningrad airline hub, the tourist and
recreation zone on the Curonain spit, the gambling zone, etc). These
projects will give rise to new cross-industry clusters including both large
and medium-sized economic entities.
The Strategy and the Programme for regional development need
a stronger innovative component and should ensure development as
a result of increasing labour efficiency, cross-industry redistribution of
42
labour force with minimum attraction of labour migrants. There is also
a need for further expansion of cooperation both with other Russian
regions and Baltic neighbours aimed to mutually beneficial projects and
the formation of goods and service markets. The region, which as the
other regions of North-West Russia, remains in the Russian economic
space, should become a link with the economic space of the Baltic region,
for example, through the implementation of joint energy (the Baltic energy
ring), transport, education, cultural, environmental and other crossborder cooperation projects and programmes.
An important task in terms of tactics is alleviating the consequences of
the crisis – increasing the employment rate and the income of population
and implementing social programmes aimed to support the low-income
groups. The attention of federal authorities should be drawn to extra
expenditure incurred by the region as a result of its exclavity; sufficient
financial resources should be pulled to compensate for the exclave
position.
A number of measures to be taken in the framework of the federal
support were listed by the regional authorities at the mentioned
parliamentary hearing and the working meeting of the President of the
Russian Federation and the governor of the Kaliningrad region on May 21,
2010 (Состоялась рабочая встреча Президента Российской Федерации
Дмитрия Медведева с губернатором Калининградской области
Георгием Боосом). These measures are as follows:
• the compensation from the federal budget for the tax gap resulting
from the tax exemptions for investors;
• the reduction of natural gas prices for the Kaliningrad region to the level
of average rates for European territories of the Russian Federation;
• the reduction of railway rates in the Kaliningrad direction;
• the removal of limitations placed on Kaliningrad motor transportation
companies, whose vehicles should not be subject to customs clearance
during either export-import or domestic transportations;
• the preparation of the Agreement on the specific features of the
transportation of goods and vehicles from the territory of the
Kaliningrad region of the Russian Federation to the rest of the
territory of the Customs Union and from the rest of the territory of
the Customs Union into the Kaliningrad region, which would take
into account the deterioration of transit conditions for the residents of
the region due to the formation of the common customs space of the
Customs Union states;
• the alteration of the federal law “On the Special economic zone in
the Kaliningrad region and on Amending Certain Legislative Acts of
43
the Russian Federation” (2006): a five year extension of the transition
period provisions for legal entities operating on the basis of the federal
law “On the Special Economic Zone in the Kaliningrad region” (1996).
The strengthening of federal support will become an important factor in
overcoming the disadvantages of the exclavity of the region and a stimulus
to restructure its economy in line with the development of advanced
innovative industries fully exploiting the benefits of the geographical
position of the region and contributing to the transformation of the latter
into a “development corridor” between mainland Russia and the EU
states.
The Kaliningrad region evolved into a special region type – a development
corridor, which connects Russian regions and foreign countries.
The development corridor region type was distinguished by
J. Friedmann (1972) alongside core regions and growth centres, upward
transition regions, development corridors, resource frontiers and
downward transition regions. A development corridor rapidly evolves
as a result of its position between core regions and adopts innovations
created in each of them.
Among the “development corridor” regions one can distinguish the
following subtypes: a) regions with predominantly domestic interregional
ties; b) regions with the focus on international relations. The Kaliningrad
region belongs to the second subtype (Fig. 8). It is an “international
cooperation region” integrated in the Baltic regional market, distinguished
by the rapidly developing market relations, accelerated development
of the tertiary sector, market infrastructure, and small and medium
enterprises.
European Union
Kaliningrad region
Russian Federation
Fig. 8. The Kaliningrad region, a prospective development corridor
44
The distinctive feature of the Kaliningrad region as a “development
corridor” is its position between Russia and Europe, which allows the
region to adopt innovations both from Russia and abroad.
The Kaliningrad region cannot become a “growth pole” like Moscow
or Saint Petersburg that can rely on internal innovative potential,
since it is rather a link between different regions including innovation
generators and recipients than a generator per se. However, innovations
can be tested in the region and, depending on the result, either rejected or
recommended for wider application. Thus, the region, using the special
economic zone mechanism and implementing the “cooperation region”
strategy can turn into a specific pole of the economic growth in Russia, an
“integration pole”.
The goal of entering the economic space of the Baltic region was set in
2003 in the Strategy for the socioeconomic development of the Kaliningrad
region as a cooperation region until 2010, which became necessary due
to rapid qualitative changes both in external and internal development
conditions. Such changes are, first of all, the positive developments in the
Russian economy and the new strategic direction of the socioeconomic
development of the country focused on modernisation.
The new export oriented strategy included in the common strategy of
Russia and the Baltic Sea states until 2031 should ensure the sustainable
and rapid development of the region, which is evolving into a “growth
centre” of the Russian economy. It is specified in other documents: the
Programme for the socioeconomic development of the Kaliningrad
region for 2007–2016, regional programmes, and individual projects,
strategies and programmes of municipal development. The strategy sets
two principal interrelated goals of regional development:
1) the increase in the competitiveness of the Kaliningrad region at both
national and global levels, which should form the basis for the GRP
growth at a rate of 10-15% over ten years;
2) the improvement of living standards, raising them to a level comparable
to the European one.
To reach these goals, it is necessary to make the maximum use of the
favourable “external” conditions (duty and tax reliefs, geographical
uniqueness of the region) and “internal factors” (labour and capital
efficiency, the quality and sources of growth, the new “resource portfolio”)
the region relies on. It means a more efficient integration into the economic,
industrial and technological, transport, culture and settlement system of
the Baltic macroregion. If earlier the emphasis was placed on the “special
status” of the region on the Baltic Sea, today its resources should be
included into the macroregional economic processes, which implies:
• the development of a common labour and capital market;
• the connection to the European system of motorways;
45
• the integration of regional energy system into the EU Baltic energy
ring;
• the specialisation of the harbour in line with the national strategy;
• the solution to the problem of non-tariff-related restrictions imposed
on Russian goods in services in the trade with the EU;
• the harmonisation of the cultural policy of the Russia Federation with
that of other Baltic Sea states.
There is also a need for the export-oriented transformation of the economy
structure.
To reach the goals set, it is necessary to concentrate the limited
resources of the state budget on the priority areas forming the basis for
the socioeconomic breakthrough. At the same, state authorities should
facilitate the implementation of a set of legal measures stimulating the
investment and entrepreneurial activity in the region.
Such developments require a strategy for the continued presence of
Russia in the Baltic region, the creation of optimum conditions for the
development of key infrastructural industries (transport and energy), and
the formation of a favourable legal and investment environment through
solving the problems pertaining to the trade relations with the EU, both
related and non-related to tariffs.
The regional authorities must take it upon themselves to solve social
problems and promote enrepreneurship, which will involve creating
favourable urban environment, maintaining ecological standards,
introducing hospitality technologies, etc. Investors and entrepreneurs
need a business-friendly legislation on the issues within the capacities
of regional authorities; they also expect priority support to be given to
key region-targeted investment projects (primarily, export-oriented
leadership-aspiring ones in the Baltic macro-region).
The Stragedy’s developers believe that the scenarios of the Kaliningrad
Oblast’s socio-economic advancement may be described as two
alternatives:
1) between the predominant orientation of domestic produce towards
national markets and/or the prevailing export to European markets;
2) between the on-going diversification of economy (alongside the absence
of leading industries) and the stimulation of major actors, ensuring
massive investment projects.
The above said justifies four major scenarios of regional development:
• The Status quo scenario (1) suggests the preservation and moderate
growth of the already settled segments of the Russian market;
• The Competition in the Russian North-West scenario (2) will necessitate
a strong positioning of the region on Russian market;
46
• The European outsourcing scenario (3) will prescribe the incorporation
of traditional and emerging productions and services into the value
added chains unfolding in the EU;
• The Macroregional leadership scenario (4) will involve the formation
of large investment project packages with active expansion into EU
markets.
Scenarios 3 and 4 are more likely to enhance economic growth. Choosing
between the two the region will have to determine whether it primarily
sees the prospects of socio-economic development in the existing local
industries or is seeking for external investors’ support. The combination
of different scenarios is a more plausible variant though.
The Strategy gives priority to projects in the areas as follows:
• transport;
• tourism and entertainment;
• agriculture and food industry;
• energy infrastructure.
The policy of forming competitive clusters is viewed as the most
promising one in terms of industrial development. It is assumed that the
clusters may emerge on the basis of the region’s traditional industries:
1) maritime transport using the advantageous geographical situation of
the Kaliningrad ports;
2) individual segments of fishing industry (fisheries and fish
processing);
3) production of certain types of consumer goods (furniture-making,
clothing industry);
4) retail trade sector;
5) tourism and hospitality industry.
Alongside those projects, ones in the areas of transportation, port
facilities, energy complex, heath care , tourism recreation technologies,
oil processing and other large-scale (flagship) projects could be launched
and implemented. The tax incentives within the new version of the SEZ
Law have already promoted the arrival of large investors to the region.
As of beginning of May, 2009, 60 SEZ residents were registered with the
declared investment volume above 36 bln roubles (Реестр резидентов.
06.05.2009). They are large industrial, construction and transportation
enterprises. Part of their projects has been completed by now. Here are
some examples:
• The TV Assembly Line Tovary Buduschego OOO (Rolsen Electronics),
Kaliningrad;
• R&D DTS (Digital television systems) OAO – the production of digital
adaptors for ethereal television (Gussev);
47
• Prancor OOO producing satellite dishes and receiver cases (Gussev);
• Slavsk Technopark created with massive participation of Swedish
business;
• The Arvi Company (Lithuania) plant for mixing and aggregation of
mineral fertilizers (Chernykhovsk);
• Russia’s largest industrial terminal complex Sodruzhestvo Soya ZAO
for deep processing of oleaginous cultures (located to the south of
Volochayavskoye village);
• The German baby food company HiPP (Mamonovo);
• Afrus ZAO- an aircraft cabin seat company (Gussev – the industry has
been moved from Ulyanovsk).
Promotion of tourism largely depends on the apparent creation of a local
free economic zone on the Curonian Spit, and on the fact whether the
Kalininrad Oblast will be among the regions to house Russia’s gambling
zones.
The labour force issue may be resolved by increasing immigration,
particularly from ‘near abroad’ – i.e. former Soviet states. On June 22,
2006 the then President V. Putin issued the Decree On the Measures to
Support Voluntary Migration of the Compatriots Residing Abroad to the Russian
Federation. The Kaliningrad Oblast became one of the 12 pilot regions in
Russia to implement the project. The programme on assisting voluntary
immigration into the Kaliningrad region from overseas for the years
2007–2012 is aimed to attract and accomodate 300,000 immigrants.
In fact, the inflow of immigrants appeared to be significantly below
expectations. In the period between May 21, 2007 – March 09, 2009,
only 4745 people8 arrived in the Kaliningrad region. Nevertheless, the
figure comprises nearly half of the under 10 000 immigrants to Russia
(the inflow was expected at 1 mln) (Л. Л. Емельянова, A. B. Косс, 2009,
p. 116). The immigration balance in 2007–2008 remained at the same level.
The demand for additional labour force was met due to involvement of
previously unengaged economic actors and nearly 10.6 thousand-strong
foreign workforce (with the exception of illegal migrants), according to
the labour force balance sheet of the Kaliningrad Oblast.
The efficiency of the new development strategy will depend on the
degree of attention it will pay to the economic, political, and social
issues in the exclave region, its regard for the federal interests alongside
international ones, and particularly the interests of the neghbouring states
and the EU as a whole. Moreover, the local regional strategy should be
better integrated into the common policies of the Baltic states harmonizing
mutual interests in economic, social, political and ecological spheres.
8
As of beginning of March 2010: 6 600 people.
48
4. The Kaliningrad Oblast in the transborder
region of South-Eastern Baltic
Promotion of transnational and transborder cooperation and integration
alongside the formation of NSFIEI (new spatial forms of international
economic integration) and transnational and transborder regions
will enhance the competitiveness of the neighbouring states’ border
regions. To this end, in addition to the enhanced economic relations,
cooperation in the spheres of science and technologies should be
promoted, along with sustainable industrial relations between national
and international corporations operating in the region. A great
importance is attached to the cooperation in social spheres, especially
by way of combining effort of neighbouring states’ universities in
training qualified specialists and the implementation of joint projects
promoting innovative economies.
With the advance of market policies in the East of Europe and their
integration into the global market, the institutional features of economies
and the implementation practices of external economic relations in the
Baltic states have become better related. Nevertheless, the economic space
of the Baltic region remains to be fairly differentiated. First of all, because
Russia is still remaining beyond the WTO; secondly, for the reason of her
being a non-EU state unlike other Baltic states.
Due to the specific geo-political and geo-economic situation of the
Kaliningrad region bordering exclusively on foreign states, the exclave
enjoys a set of institutional mechanisms allowing the Federal government
to maintain sustainable development of the territory. The regulating
documents (the Law on the Special (Free) Economic Zone, the Federal Targeted
Development Programme) undergo revision and adaptation depending on
the current situation, whether external or domestic.
Secondly, multiple conceptions and development strategies emerge
in an attempt to resolve the thorny issues stemming from the exclave
situation. Most of those strategies view the exclave as a link between
Russia and the European states, even though they significantly differ
from each other.
The Kaliningrad Oblast in the transborder region of South-Eastern Baltic
49
There also exist extreme positions suggesting, on the one hand, intensive
integration into the Baltic political and economic space to the detriment
of the ties with mainland Russia; on the other hand, they primarily focus
on internal economic and social connections and a better use of home
potential of the region in order to ensure its economic security.
The strategy of regional development implemented since 2006 focuses
on servicing Russian external economic relations and on the development
of export industries alongside the maintenance of earlier importsubstituting enterprises.
For the Kaliningrad Oblast it is crucial to develop various forms of
transborder cooperation in order to overcome the deficiency of its exclavity
and to take advantage of the proximity of the EU. The development of the
Kaliningrad region as an exclave within the new EU states has become
a priority in recent years. Situated in the heart of the South-Eastern Baltic,
the region has all the prerequisites to enhance its socio-economic role by
way of intensifying its transborder ties.
One of the prerequisites to promote cross-border cooperation is the
settling of institutional, administrative and legal issues. Firstly, those
of transportation to and from mainland Russia are to be resolved, thus
ensuring a mechanism for the mobility of free labour, capital, goods and
services across the borders. Secondly, in order to promote various forms
of cross-border cooperation there is a need for joint projects in the area of
border infrastructure of transborder significance. Thirdly, there is a need
to maintain an on-going dialogue with the bordering states on the issues
of barrier-free transit across their territories; on the harmonization of
tariff policies, and a better use of the port complex of the Kaliningrad
region. Fourthly, the legal and legislative basis should be enhanced and
expanded in the framework of bi- and multilateral regional cooperation.
The Kaliningrad region’s participation in transborder cooperation, both
regionally and locally, takes various forms, such as:
1. Participating in international networks (the Council of the Baltic Sea
States, CBSS; the Baltic Sea States Subregional Cooperation BSSSC, the
Northern Dimension Partnership, ND).
2. Participating in the EU-Russia Cooperation programme.
3. Participating in the Interreg programme via the national subcommittee.
4. Participation of regional authorities in bi- and multilateral international
cooperation on inter-governmental level (for example, between Russia,
Lithuania and Poland); in certain circumstances, the cooperation
between Russian regions and governments of neighbouring states,
as the case is in the long-term partnership between the Kaliningrad
50
Oblast and Lithuania, under the auspices of the Council on Long-term
Cooperation.
5. Bilateral agreements on cooperation with bordering regions of
neighbour states. On contractual and legal bases, such agreements
are being implemented with Pomeranian, Warmian-Masurian,
Podlaskie voivodeships; there are economic partnerships with the
regions of Lithania, Sweden, Denmark, etc. The vital development of
international collaboration, transborder one in particular, suggests
enhanced partnership ties with all European states, the Baltic States
coming first on the list. It is explained by the internationalization of
economies causing border and multilateral contacts to extend beyond
the neighbouring states alone.
6. Bi- and multilateral agreements on partnership and cooperation on
local levels.
The geographical position of the Kaliningrad Oblast justifies the
reasoning of its participation in the better part of the projects dealing
with the spatial planning in the Baltic Sea area.
Participating in Euroregions is a specific form of border cooperation
in the North-Western Federal District of the Russian Federation. For the
Russian regions, Euroregional cooperation opens up new opportunities
for coordinating their plans, decision-making, and the promotion
of regional interests on a vaster international scale; it also helps to
form a steady and consistent circle of partners for the implementation
of joint projects. Apart from the traditional forms of international
economic cooperation encompassing trade and the attraction of foreign
investments (far from massive in the Kaliningrad Oblast), various forms
of transborder cooperation are being developed involving regions (the
state administrative-territorial entities) and municipalities. As far as
international significance, one of the most auspicious and important forms
of such cooperation is Euroregions – the associations of border regions
and municipalities of different states. Such Euroregions with Russian
participation began to emerge in the late ‘90s. Today, the Kaliningrad
Oblast is represented in five Euroregions: Baltic, Neman, Saule, Lyna-Lava,
and Sheshupe.
The most successful among them, the Baltic Euroregion (1998) comprises
the Association of local authorities of Blekinge län (county); the Association
of local authorities of the Kunnoberg county; the Regional Council of the
Kalmar län (Sweden); the regional municipality of Bornholm (Denmark);
the Union of Gminas (municipalities) of the Baltic Euroregion of Poland;
the Association of Municipalities; the Administration of the Kaliningrad
regiom, Russia; the municipalities of Klaipeda, the Klaipeda region,
Palanga, Neringa, Kretinga, Silute, Skuodas (Lithuania) (see Fig. 9).
51
Fig. 9. The Baltic Euroregion
Source: Г. М. Федоров, Ю. М. Зверев, В. С. Корнеевец, 2008; Россия на Балтике: 1990-2007 годы.
The Baltic being the most successful of Euroregions, it has made
noticeable progress in drafting a general development strategy and its
justification in the context of concrete projects. In 2005, the designing of
the Baltic Euroregion’s Strategy was completed. If still being fleshed out
towards strengthening the institutional structures and expanding spatial
planning capacity, the Strategy forms the basis for projected investments
into the market infrastructure and environmental protection, thus
ensuring sustainable socio-economic development of the Southern Baltic
region.
The territory of the Baltic Euroregion exceeds 101 sq. km, with over
6 mln inhabitants.
Initially, the Charter of Euroregion Baltic was signed in 1998, to be later
amended in 2002 and 2004. The objectives set are as follows:
1. Betterment of living conditions for the inhabitants of the Euroregion.
2. Promotion of mutual contacts.
3. Establishing closer relations between municipalities.
4. Eliminating long-standing prejudices.
52
The ultimate managerial and coordinative power is vested in the
Council chaired by the Euroregion member states in a year-by-year
succession. The Council elects the 6-strong Presidium of the Euroregion
with one representative from each state. In 2004, a permanent Secretariat
was set up in Elbląg, Poland. There also are national secretariats in each
state, the one of Russia based in Baltyisk.
Currently, three working groups are being active: a spatial planning
and regional development, an environmental, and a social issues ones.
Among the implemented projects are: the South East Baltic Transport
Link (SEB–Trans-Link) project on the development of transport south-north
corridors in the Baltic region (via the Kaliningrad region); the projects of
tourism and resort infrastructure development; the Green Circle Schools
project on ecological education; the project on the reconstruction of the
old centre of Baltyisk, and the Karskrona- Baltyisk ferryline project.
The prospects of further development of the Baltica Euroregion were
set in 2001 in the framework of ERB joint project. In 2005, the SeagullDevERB (the Baltic Euroregion’s Development Strategy) was finalized.
The project with the total budget of € 3.3 mln was funded from several
sources: the EU within the Interreg IIIB, PHARE and TACIS programmes,
and the governments of Denmark and Sweden. The project was focused on
working out a long-term strategy and a common transnational programme
of the development of the Euroregion. It included five working packages:
• a long-term strategy and a general development plan;
• water resourses management;
• innovation environment;
• rural development;
• information circulation.
Within this project, the Russian part of the development strategy of the
Baltic Euroregion called Seagull RC was done in 2004–2005.
In 2006, Seagull II was launched with the aim to strengthen
institutional structure and enhance special planning capacities in the
Baltica Euroregion.
The objective of the Saule (‘the Sun’) Euroregion set up in 1999 is to
promote the construction of the Via Hanseatica moterway (Elbląg –
Kaliningrad – Shaulai – Riga); to forward the servicing infrastructure of
the nearby territory and to foster the latter’s economy. The Euroregion
embraces the Sovyetsk, Neman and Slavsk districts, the Shaulay and
Taurage provinces (Lithuania), Jelgava and the region (Latvia), and the
Skone Len (Sweden) (see Fig. 10).
The territory of the Euroregion occupies 25,000 sq. km with the
population of 900,000 inhabitants. The supreme authority is the Council
composed of up to 3 representatives of each country. The states succeed
53
each other in the presidency. The Council elects its president for the term
of one year, this year’s vice-president to become next year’s president.
Working groups are formed to implement joint projects. The Euroregion’s
president sets up a Secretariat whose headquarters move to the country
of the current president.
Fig. 10. Euroregion Saule
Source: Г. М. Федоров, Ю. М. Зверев, В. С. Корнеевец, 2008; Россия на Балтике: 19902007 годы.
The main projects currently implemented in the Euroregion are as
follows:
• designing strategy and development programmes;
• growth of the Baltic tourism network down the Via Hanseatica
transport corridor;
• promotion of ecological entrepreneurship in rural areas in midBaltics;
• development of the South Baltic zone (South Baltic Arc);
• creation of Rail Baltica- high-speed railways;
54
• organizing bicycle trail networks;
• creation of a cooperation network.
In 2002, the Chernyakhovsk, Gussev, Ozersk, Nesterov and
Krasnoznamensk districts of the Kaliningrad oblast joined the Neman
Euroregion, set up in 1997 and including the Grodno region (Belaruss),
Podlaskie voivodeship, Poland, and the Lithuanian provinces of Alytus,
Marijampole, and Vilnius.
The Neman Euroregion occupies 89,000 sq. km, and has the population
of 4.8 mln.
The supreme body is the Council formed of 6 representatives from each
state and headed by the Committee to which each country delegates three
members. Each state participating in the euroregion has set up a Steering
board whose directors make up the Secretariat of the Euroregion. In
the Kaliningrad Oblast the Chernyakhovsk administration fulfils the
functions of the Steering board.
Six working groups are operating in the framework of the euroregion
on economy, tourism, environmental, social and healthcare issues, culture
and sports, and spacial planning. The euroregion is implementing dozens
of joint projects yearly. The largest projects deal with the development
of territories along the Via Hanseatica transport corridor; up to 80% of
projects are joint Polish-Lithuanian ones. Russia’s share in the euroregion
has been insignificant so far, for the Kaliningrad Oblast only recently
joined the euroregion.
In 2003, the Lyna-Lava euroregion was set up. Russia is represented
there by the heads of Bagrationovsk, Pravdinsk, Ozersk, Nesterov,
Guryevsk, and Mamonovo districts, alongside members of the regional
administration. The Polish party is composed of Bartoszyce, Elblag,
Gizycko, Goldap, Кetrzyn, Lidzbark, Olecko, Olstyn and Wegorzewo
counties. There also is an association based in Bartoszyce (Poland). The
euroregion has raised the issue of the reconstruction of the Mazury canal
which first had not been completed by Germany and then destroyed
during World War II.
The Sheshupe euroregion was organized in 2003. It includes four
municipal bodies from the Kaliningrad region (Krasnoznamensk,
Nesterov, Gussev and Ozersk districts); six from Lithuania (Shakaj,
Vilkavikis, Kazlu-ruda, Calvaria, Mariyampole, Jurbarkars); two Polish
provinces (Goldap and Kowale-Oleckie), and the Swedish commune
Eksjo. The Sheshupe Euroregion embraces the territory of 12,000 sq.km
with the population of 370,000 people. The administrative bodies are the
Council and the Executive board along with working groups.
55
The most noticeable projects are:
• The bicycle trail Krasnoznamensk (Russia) – Goldap (Poland) – Ilguva
(Lithuania);
• Water supply and sewage systems in small towns and villages;
• Alternative water sources in the euroregion.
The Baltic, Neman and Saule Euroregions are members of the European
Association of Border Regions (AEBR), which was set up in September
1971 and is now encompassing 90 border and transborder regions.
Although the euroregions where the Kaliningrad region is represented
are relatively young and yet in the making, they have achieved noticeable
results in coordinating the activities of countries’ authorities . They help to
form the public opinion encouraging the mutually beneficial cooperation
of border territories of different states. Both ethe EU and Russia are more
eagerly allocate funds for the infrastructural enhancement of border
areas. Currently, in the Kaliningrad Oblast there are 20 border crossing
points (Fig. 11) whose construction was supported with the funding from
EU projects.
1 — Zhelesnodorozhnyi — Skandava (railway); 2 — Bagrationovsk — Bezledy (motor vehicle);
3 — Bagrationovsk — Bartoszyce (railway); 4 — Mamonovo — Gronowo (motor vehicle); 5 — Mamonovo
– Branowo (railway)); 6 — Gussev —Goldap (motor vehicle); 7 — Port Vostochnyi; 8 — Morskoye
— Nida (motor vehicle); 9 — Khrabrovo Airport; 10 — Svetlyi Port; 11 — The Kaliningrad Marine Port;
12 — The Kaliningrad River Port; 13 — The Kaliningrad Passenger Port; 14 — Pogranichnyi Ramoniskiai
(motor vehicle); 15 — Chernyshevskoye – Kibartai (motor vehicle); 16 — Nesterov – Kibartai (railway);
17 — Sovietsk - Panemune (motor vehicle); 18 — Sovietsk - Pagegiai (railway); 19 — Sovyetsk
– Jurbarkars (river); 20 — Sovyetsk - Rusne; 21 — Mamonovo; 22 — Grzechotki (motor vehicle, under
construction).
Fig. 11. Border crossing points
Source: В. П. Гутник, А. П. Клемешев (eds.), 2006; Балтийский регион как полюс экономической
интеграции Северо-Запада Российской Федерации и Европейского союза.
56
As compared to the planning typical for the countries of former socialist
camp before their transition to market economy in the 90s, contemporary
scenario-type strategic planning is distinguished not only by the absence
of directives but is marked with its attitude: namely, there is practically
no planning of the production of goods. However, the development of
industrial and social infrastructure is still present and pressing, making
a more perceptible impact on industries, construction and trade (border
trade in particular).
There is no doubt that non-governmental business entities, dominant
in trade and goods production, are hard to plan, even strategically.
Nevertheless, the state and municipalities – if to a lesser degree – are
entitled to significantly influence economy including the emergence of
new investors and productions by way of improving regional legislation
and creating industrial infrastructure, primarily in transport and energy
spheres.
Apart from tax incentives for large investors, the Law on the Special
Economic Zone in the Kaliningrad Oblast encourages launching of new
industries inevitably followed by construction boom. The tax incentives
have brought about Polish, Lithuanian, German, and Swedish businesses
who have invested into many industries orientated towards the Russian
market and often based on the use of pre-fabs from the countries mentioned
above (furniture making, canned meat production, car making, TV and
home appliances assembly, etc.). Thousands of Polish and Lithuanian
jewelers use amber from the Kaliningrad coast in their work.
We believe that strategic planning in the euroregions could enhance
the formation of new industrial clusters based on the cooperation of
businesses from neighbouring countries. To do that, the authorities
in charge of the formation and development of the region will have to
involve businesses in their work on border cooperation projects.
Apart from euroregions, there are the so-called ‘arcs’ among the specific
forms of interregional cooperation in the Baltic area. The Russian subjects
are part of the South Baltic Arc project which is being implemented in
the context of the Interreg IIIB BSR programme. The project’s territory
stretches along the southern coast of the Baltic sea from Germany via
Poland, the Kaliningrad Oblast and Lithuania, as far as Latvia, down the
Via Hanseatica transport highway. The project embraces the authorities
of 13 regions.
The ‘growth triangles’ are very popular in the East and South-East Asia
where they are transnational economic zones residing on fairly vast, but
geographically precisely designated areas. In such zones the differences
in development factors of three or more states and /or subregions are
used in order to promote external trade and attract foreign investments.
57
The functions of the ‘growth triangles’, have a greater capacity in
the economic development than those of euroregions for they allow
combining various types of regions in possession of complementary types
of resources. Ideally, each of the three regions are supposed to contain
one component of the economic system: land – labour – capital; the fourth
component – the entrepreneurship capacity results from the interaction of
all the three regions /or types of region. Therefore, creating such strategic
associations the contiguous regions can use the principle of comparative
advantages.
The regions and states of the Baltic area significantly differ from each
other in terms of development levels and their specificity, which makes it
possible to implement the idea of ‘growth triangles’.
The Finish professor Urpo Kivikari taking from the experience of
Asian countries suggested, in succession, the ideas of South-Baltic and
East – Baltic ‘growth triangles’. According to him, the first one could
include:
• Regions of economically developed states: North Germany, Poland,
and Southern Sweden;
• Regions of the states in transition economy – candidates to the EU (now
already members) : Northern Poland, Lithuania, Western Latvia;
• Regions of the closest neighbours of the expanding EU: North-Western
Belarus and the Kaliningrad Oblast (Л. И. Попкова, 2005).
The second growth triangle could form in the Gulf of Finland to embrace
Southern Finland, Estonia and the province of Saint Petersburg (М. Ю.
Плюхин, 2009).
But the economic effect can be achieved not only by way of combining
various resources into one single whole. It is advantageous to cooperate
in the processing industry, for the enhanced specialization of cooperating
parties results in the concentration of the production ensuring lower
costs. Joint use of transport ways, tourist and recreational complexes, the
formation of a common energy system and joint environmental protection
are also productive.
It is not accidental that the ideas of economic cooperation relate to the
Baltic euroregion – the most advanced project with Russian participation.
It is here that the idea of industrial cooperation emerged: the Polish
professor of geography Tadeusz Palmowski from Gdynia suggested
creating a bipolar Russian-Polish territorial system Trehgradye (‘three
cities’): Gdańsk – Gdynia – Sopot – Kaliningrad. The distance between
its two parts is 120 km by motorway (Информация Торгпредства РФ
в Финляндии; Т. Пальмовский, 2004). He remarks: ‘ The specialization
and cooperation in industrial production open ways for a more efficient
use of the existing material and human resources along with promotion
58
of innovations and raising competitiveness. It will result in new types of
production and industrial modernization’ (Информация Торгпредства
РФ в Финляндии).
We believe, all the prerequisites are in place for the creation of a far
larger tri-polar system including, on top of that, Klaipėda (Lithuania)
sitting 125 km (Fig. 12) away from Kaliningrad. In the Soviet period the
two cities used to enjoy rather close ties, including the cooperation in
the Baltic economic region’s fishing industry and interaction of fishing
ports. After the demise of the Soviet Union those ties broke up. There
were attempts to coordinate efforts of the Commerce ports of Kaliningrad
and Klaipeda in servicing Russian and Belarusian exports and imports
(Project 2K), but they failed.
Fig. 12. The formation of the tri-polar territorial system Threecity – Kaliningrad –
Klaipėda
Source: Г. М. Федоров, Ю. М. Зверев, В. С. Корнеевец, 2008; Россия на Балтике: 1990-2007 годы.
Industrial cooperation is possible and economically effective in
marine vessel construction, oil processing, TV, complex home appliances
assembly, furniture making, fishing, amber and other industries. It is
highly promising in the sphere of coordinating marine port and airport
operation, in servicing transit motor- and railway traffics. The largest
Baltic tourism and recreational area could grow here using the resources
of the sea coast, including the two spits – the Baltiyskaya (Vistula) Spit
59
shared by Russia and Poland, and the Curonian Spit shared by Russia
and Lithuania. One can also use the potential of cultural and historic
sights in the area and the resources of eco- and bicycle tourism. The
cities will provide for various entertainments, while the marine ports
open up the possibilities of marine cruises, both along the coast and to
the ports of Nordic countries. Moreover, the Baltic Euroregion includes
the subregions possessing all the specific features U. Kivikari delineated
in the proposed South – Baltic ‘growth triangle’ (including Swedish and
Danish investment resources, Polish and Lithuanian labour potential,
and the oil resources of the Russian party). Therefore, the experience of
‘growth triangles’ could be used in Baltic Euroregion planning to enhance
its economic component.
The growing competition between countries and regions is calling
for the use of all possible resources to raise industrial efficiency. The
development of transborder cooperation through the formation of
euroregions encompassing, on top of interaction in social and cultural
spheres, industrial operation, not only curtails the disadvantages of the
border location of the regions, but has the potential to turn them into
unique ‘development corridors’ between interior regions of different
countries. Some of such regions through which external relations of the
states in question are fulfilled (i.e., Saint-Petersburg, and, under certain
circumstances, Kaliningrad) can, together with their partners, become
trans-border ‘growth poles’, rather than a ‘double periphery’.
This is why Russian regions would benefit from their active participation
in euroregions and promote the designing and implementation of the
strategic plans.
A crucial result of the Kaliningrad Oblast’s participation in the
transborder cooperation and our party’s involvement in international
projects at different levels is the formation of an operational platform
for the interaction with foreign partners and for taking into account
the interests of the Kaliningrad Oblast and the Russian Federation in
the strategic documents on the development of the South-Eastern part
of the Baltic Sea region. As an efficient tool of regional marketing, an
active involvement in this area could significantly contribute to the
implementation of the strategy of development of the Kaliningrad
Oblast as a region of cooperation of the Russian federation and the EU.
A more active participation of Russia’s Baltic regions and their municipal
bodies in transborder cooperation will promote the inclusion of Russia
in the integration of economic processes in the Baltic macro-region, thus
creating additional competition advantages for the participating subjects
and Russia as a whole. To provide for a more active participation of the
Russian Federal subjects and their municipal bodies in the international
60
cooperation and the formation of transborder regions several crucial
issues are to be resolved. Firstly, there is a need for the normative and
legislative basis for transborder cooperation.
The legislative basis of external ties of Russian regions includes:
• The articles of the Constitution of the Russian Federation;
• The federal laws and normative-legislative acts;
• Charters and Constitutions, along with other regional legislative acts;
• A number of Russia’s agreements and contracts.
Nevertheless, while the legislative basis of transborder cooperation
is elaborately fleshed out in EU countries, it is hardly developed in
Russia. The federal legislation bypasses the possibilities of developing
international ties on the municipal level, while the regions are treating
municipal bodies in the same way – if tougher – as they are treated by the
Centre.
The legislations of Federal subjects practically never feature the
possibilities of developing international ties by city/town districts and
municipalities, to say nothing of townships and rural settlements.
It is beneficial to use international experience for the elaboration of
a system of legislative acts dealing with trans-border cooperation on all
territorial levels of governance. Special attention should be paid to the
formation of new spatial forms of transborder cooperation (euroregions,
‘large regions’, ‘growth triangles’) which enable institutionalizing
transborder regions. On the federal level this means the federal law On
Border Cooperation in the Russian Federation whose draft is still being
discussed, as of mid 2010. On the international level there is a need
for the new version of the Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation
between RF and EU where the rights and obligations of the parties are
stipulated, and the new forms of spatial of cooperation reflected – the
latter are developing but are not legalized.
For the Russian border regions, it is crucial to sign an agreement on
the border visa-free 30 km or 50 km zone which is also being under
discussion. However, to resolve the issue cardinally, it would be good to
sign the agreement on the visa-free regimes between RF and the Schengen
states.
Secondly, the border subjects of the Russian Federation and their
municipal bodies (as a rule, economically less developed and budgetlacking) need the required funds for the development of transborder
cooperation.
Thirdly, Russian partners in transborder cooperation have an access
to financial resources of structural foundations of the EU, which could
be used for the implementation of infrastructural projects. The Russian
federation should also envisage the funding of similar projects.
61
Fourthly, business representatives are not involved in the developing
cross-border cooperation situation in the framework of joint projects
of social planning in the Baltic region although it would be beneficial
to foresee their participation in one form or another (by attracting
associations of manufacturers, chambers of commerce, etc.)
On the national level, it would be profitable to monitor cross-border
cooperation in order to discover its propitious forms, the need for
supporting projects, etc. The monitoring of transborder ties is to take into
account the crucial points as follows:
• The number of international projects and programmes on transborder
cooperation in the sphere of education, health care, environmental
protection and energy;
• Attracting external funding for international projects and
programmes;
• The geography of international cooperation, the expanding of
partnership relations with border states and the Baltic states;
• Developing tourism: inflow and outflow of tourists;
• Developing new, and supporting existing forms of border cooperation.
References:
• Central Statistical Office of Poland, URL: http://www.stat.gov.pl
(viewed in 10.12.2009).
• Cross-border Cooperation Programme Lithuania – Poland – Russia
2017–2013, URL: http://lt-pl-ru.eu/en,1,7 (viewed in 22.06.2010).
• Cross-Border Cooperation within the European Neighbourhood and
Partnership Instrument (ENPI), URL: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/
where/neighbourhood/regional-cooperation/enpi-cross-border/
index_en.htm (viewed in 02.08.2010).
• Dewar S., 2000, What is to be done? [in.:] J. Baxendale, S. Dewar,
D. Gowan (eds.) The EU and Kaliningrad. Kaliningrad and the Impact
of EU Enlargement, Federal Trust, London, p. 231–264.
• European Neighbourhood & Partnership Instrument Cross-Border
Cooperation, Strategy Paper 2007–2013. Indicative Programme
2007–2010. Executive summary, URL: http://soderkoping.org.ua/
page16693.html (viewed in 10.06.2010).
• Friedmann J., 1972, A general theory of polarized development [in:]
N. M. Hansen (ed.) Growth Centers in Regional Economic Development,
Free Press, New York, p. 82–107.
• Hakli J., Cross-border identities in the new Europe: chost of the past or
sign-post to the next millennium, URL: http://www.may.ie/staff/
dpringle/igu/hakli. Pdf (viewed in 11.12.2009).
• INTERACT, URL: http://event.interact-eu.net/604900/604902/603765/
605347 (viewed in 22.06.2010).
• Kivikari U., 2001, A Growth triangle as an application of the Northern
Dimension Policy in the Baltic Sea Region. Russian-Europe Centre for
Economic Policy, Policy Paper, May 2001. URL: http://www.etelasuomi.fi/english/pdf/kivikari.Pdf (viewed in 24.12.2009).
• Nordic Archipelago Cooperation, URL: http://www.skargardssamarbetet.org/index.php?view=article&id=51&tmpl=component&p
rint=1&page=&lang=sv-SE&Itemid=1&option=com_content http://
www.skargardssamarbetet.org/index.php?view=article&id=51&tmpl
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
63
=component&print=1&page=&lang=sv-SE&Itemid=1&option=com_
content (viewed in 5.05.2010).
Paleckis J., 1993, Das Litauische Resumee: Die Zukunft des Gebiets
Kaliningrad (Königsberg). Ergebrisse einer intrnationalen Studiengruppe,
Sonderveroffentlichung, BIOst, Juli, Köln, p. 27–30.
Regional Policy Inforegio – Territorial cooperation, URL: http://ec.
europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/index_en.htm (viewed in
2.08.2010).
Robertson R., 1992, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture,
Sage, London.
Robertson R., Chirico J., 1985, Humanity, Globalization and Worldwide
Religious Resurgence: A Theoretical Exploration, Sociological Analysis,
No 46(3), p. 219–242.
Statistics Lithuania, URL: http://www.std.lt/web/main.php (viewed
in 11.12.2009).Timmermann H., 2001, Kaliningrad: eine Pilotregion fur
Gestaltung der Partnerschaft EU- RuSland?, SWP-Studie, Berlin.
Wellmann Chr., 2000, Historische Miszelle. Die russische Exklave
Kaliningrad als Konfliktsyndrom,, Die Friedens-Warte, No 3-4, p. 391–
406.
«Автотор» стал первым по выпуску иномарок в России, AutoDaily.
2009-12-28. URL: http://autodaily.ru/news/main_news/6410.
html?comments (дата обращения: 16.04.2010).
Абрамов В. Н., 2001, Перспективы Калининградской области:
Дискуссионные вопросы регионального развития, Регион
сотрудничества, Вып. 17, p. 4–12.
Александра Смирнова: Наша задача – негатив в отношении
«Автотора» превратить в позитив, RUGRAD.EU. 24/03/2010. URL:
http://rugrad.eu/opinion/378960/ (viewed in 16.04.2010).
Анисимова М. Денежное мясо, Новый Кёнигсберг. Калининградский
деловой журнал. Ноябрь 2007. URL: http://newkenigsberg.ru/index.
php?type=501&newsid=207 (viewed in 16.05.2010).
Бильчак B. C., Самсон И., Федоров Г. М., 1999, Калининградский
полюс интеграции. Стратегия развития эксклавного региона
России, Янтарный сказ, Калининград.
Вардомский Л. Б., Скатерщикова Е. Е., 2010, Внешнеэкономическая
деятельность регионов России: учебное пособие, КНОРУС,
Mocква.
ВВП Латвии рухнет еще на 20 %, Riga-Lt. 2009. URL: http://rigalv. com/blog/2009/10/02/vvp-latvii-ruxnet-eshhe-na20/ (viewed in
24.12.2009).
Винокуров Е., 2004, Идея европейско-российской зоны свободной
торговли в Калининградской области. Россия и Европейский союз,
64
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
РОО «Содействие сотрудничеству Института им. Дж. Кеннана
с учеными в области социальных и гуманитарных наук», Москва,
p. 249–257.
Гареев Т., Федоров Г., 2005, Плюсы и минусы режима Особой
экономической зоны, Космополис, № 3(13), p. 83–89.
Городилов А. А., Дударев М. С., Каргополов С. Г., Куликов А., 2003,
ХХI век: Интеграция Калининградского субъекта Российской
Федерации в Европейский союз, Янтарный сказ, Калининград.
Гутник В. П., Клемешев А. П. (eds.), 2006, Балтийский регион как
полюс экономической интеграции Северо-Запада Российской
Федерации и Европейского союза, Изд-во РГУ им. И. Канта,
Калининград.
Денисенков А., 2009, Кластер на краю рынка, Эксперт, № 9(648),
URL: http://www.expert.ru/printissues/expert/2009/09/klaster_
na_krayu_rynka/ (viewed in 24.05.2010).
Егоров В., 2001, Российский регион в центре Европы, Вопросы
экономики, № 11, p. 80 –87.
Емельянова Л. Л., Косс А. В., 2009, Региональная миграционная
политика в Калининградской области [in:] Миграционная
политика в регионах Российской Федерации: законодательство
и правоприменительная практика, Изд-во РГУ им. И. Канта,
Калининград, p. 149–160.
Жданов В., Кузнецова О., Мау В., Плюхин М., Приходько С.,
2002, Проблема экономического развития Калининградской
области как эксклавного региона России, Институт экономики
переходного периода, Москва.
Жданов В. П., Федоров Г. М., 2002, О стратегии развития
Калининградской области в условиях расширения НАТО
и Европейского союза на Восток, Проблемы внешней и оборонной
политики России, № 9.
Ивченко В. В., 2003, Программно-стратегическое развитие
приморского региона России, Изд-во КГУ, Калининград.
Игнатьев А. Российско-европейская зона свободной торговли как
стратегическая перспектива развития Калининградской области,
1998, Морская индустрия,. №3, p.18-20.
Информация Торгпредства РФ в Финляндии, Минэкономразвития
РФ. Министерство регионального развития Российской Федерации.
URL:http://209.85.135.132/search?q=cache: xlX7pag07lsJ: publish2.
economy.gov.ru:17000/mert%3Fds%3Dwebds/www.economy. gov.
ru/wps/wcm/myconnect/economylib/mert/ welcome/economy/
economiccooperation/econcoopintorg (viewed in 24.12.2009).
Клемешев А. П., Козлов С. Д., Федоров Г. М., 2002, Остров
сотрудничества, Калинингр. ун-т, Калининград.
References
65
• Клемешев А. П., Козлов С. Д., Федоров Г. М., 2003, Особая территория
России, Изд-во КГУ, Калининград.
• Клемешев А. П., Федоров Г. М., 2004, От изолированного эксклава
— к «коридору развития»: альтернативы российского эксклава на
Балтике, Изд-во КГУ, Калининград.
• Клемешев А. П., 2005, Российский эксклав: преодоление
конфликтогенности, Изд-во СПбГУ, Санкт-Петербург.
• Клемешев А. П., Мау В. А. (eds.), 2007, Стратегии развития
Калининградской области, Изд-во РГУ им. И. Канта,
Калининград.
• Кортунов С. В., 2003, Калининград — мегапроект для большой
Европы, Вестник аналитики,. № 4(14), p. 33–64.
• Кристианс В., 1989, Особая промышленная, Новое время, № 37,
p. 24.
• Кузнецова О. В., 2001, Федеральная экономическая политика
в отношении эксклавного региона, Вопросы экономики, № 11,
p. 96–106.
• Кузнецова О. В., May В. А., 2002, Калининградская область: от
«непотопляемого авианосца» к «непотопляемому сборочному
цеху», Комитет «Россия в объединенной Европе», Mocква.
• Куликов П., 2008, Льготы с дисконтом, Секрет фирмы, № 13(245),
URL: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=876136 (viewed
in 16.04.2010).
• Лихтин В., 2009 Почему кризис 2009 года в КО сильнее
общероссийского? Калининградский городской портал РуГрад.
еу. 07.12.2009, URL: http://rugrad.eu/communication/blogs/
Eco/915/(viewed in 16.04.2010).
• Льготы с дисконтом, 2008, Секрет фирмы, № 13(245), URL:
http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=876136 (viewed in
16.04.2010).
• Маточкин Ю. С. Баринов А. Я. (project managers), 1990, Концепция
зоны свободного предпринимательства в Калининградской
области. Калининград.
• May B. A., 2002, Проблемы Калининградской области [in.:]
Калининград: евромост или евротупик, Комитет «Россия в объединенной Европе», Москва, p. 22-27.
• Мертвый мебельный сезон, Новый Калининград.Ru. URL: http://
www.newkaliningrad.ru/articles/our/business/946691.html (viewed
in 16.05.2010).
• Министр промышленности: «Был кризис, есть и будет», Новый
Калининград.Ru. 2010 г. 18 марта, URL: http://www.newkaliningrad.
ru/news/economy/k1045009.html (viewed in 16.04.2010).
66
• Никитин В. П., 1991, Переход к рынку и региональное
хозяйствование [in.:] Географические проблемы экономической
самостоятельности Калининградской области, Yн-т, Калинингрaд,
p.12–22.
• О Федеральной целевой программе развития Особой
экономической зоны в Калининградской области на 1998–2005
годы. Постановление Правительства РФ от 29 сентября 1997 г.
№1259, Российская газета. 1997. 21 окт.
• Об особой экономической зоне в Калининградской области.
Федеральный закон от 10 января 2006 г. № 16-ФЗ, Российская
газета. 2006. 19 янв.
• Об Особой экономической зоне в Калининградской области:
Федеральный закон от 22 января 1996 г. № 13-ФЗ, Российская
газета. 1996. 30 янв.
• Отчет о результатах функционирования Особой экономической
зоны в Калининградской области в 2006 году, 2007, Правительство
Калининградской области; Администрация особой экономической
зоны в Калининградской области, Калининград.
• Пальмовский Т., 2004, Новая Балтийская биполярная модель межрегионального сотрудничества, Вестник Калининградского государственного университета. Сер. Регионоведение, № 4, p. 66–75.
• Пилясов А.Н. , 2004, Калининградская область - препятствия
и предпосылки для перехода к модели экспортоориентированной
экономики, Регион сотрудничества, Вып. 16 (41), Изд-во КГУ,
p. 34–54.
• Плюхин М. Ю., 2009, Трансграничное сотрудничество
Калининградской области: проблемы и перспективы, Балтийский
регион, № 1, p. 77–80.
• Попкова Л. И., 2005, Приграничное пространство как особый тип
территории (на примере российско-украинского пограничья),
Изв. Рус. Геогр. о-ва., Т. 137. Вып. 1, p. 83–89.
• Правительство Калининградской области, URL: http://id.gov39.
ru/index.php/ru/international-programms-projects.html (viewed in
3.06.2010).
• Программа развития Калининградской области на период
до 2015 года, Федеральные целевые программы России. URL:
http://fcp.economy.gov.ru/cgi-bin/cis/fcp.cgi/Fcp/ViewFcp/
View/2011/135/ (viewed in 30/08/2001).
• Реестр резидентов. 06.05.2009, Правительство Калининградской
области, URL: http://www.gov39.ru/index.php?option=com_conte
nt&view=article&id=7025&Itemid=113 (viewed in 26.05.2010)
• Российский рынок мясных консервов: текущее состояние
и перспективы развития до 2012 г., Yarmarka.net.. 01.11.2007. URL:
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
67
http://www.yarmarka.net/marketplace/articles/%D0%BA%D0%BE
%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D1%8B.asp (viewed in
16.05.2010).
Россия в цифрах. 2009: краткий стат. сб., 2009, Росстат, Mocква.
Самсон И. (ed.), 1998, Калининградская область: диагностика
кризиса, Калинингр. ун-т, Калининград.
Самсон И., 2004, «Волюнтаристкая» стратегия проекта PROMETEEII для Калининградской области, Регион сотрудничества,. № 5(30),
Калининград, p. 5–22.
Сводный доклад о результатах и направлениях деятельности 2009,
Калининград: Правительство Калининградской области, 2009, URL:
http://www.gov39.ru/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&vie
w=category&id=68:22--2009-&download=625:zpo_22122009_0&Itemi
d=145 (viewed in 16.05.2010).
Сергунин А. А., 2004, Сотрудничество по Калининграду как
фактор укрепления безопасности, Итоговый аналитический
отчет по гранту БалтМИОН № КИ 098-2-Калининград.
Смородинская Н., 2001, Калининград в условиях объединения
Европы: вызов и ответ, Вопросы экономики, № 11, p. 106–127.
Смородинская Н. В., Жуков С. В., 2003, Калининградский анклав
в Европе: заплыв против течения, Институт Восток-Запад,
Москва.
Смородинская Н., Капустин А., Малыгин В., 1999, Калининградская
область как свободная экономическая зона (оценка условий
и результатов развития в 1994–1998 гг.), Вопросы экономики, № 9,
p. 90–107.
Состоялась рабочая встреча Президента Российской Федерации
Дмитрия Медведева с губернатором Калининградской области
Георгием Боосом, Правительство Калининградской области.
URL:
http://www.gov39.ru/index.php?option=com_content&vie
w=article&catid=34%3Atopnews&id=11523%3A2010-05-21-15-1914&Itemid=58 (viewed in 26.05.2010).
Стенограмма парламентских слушаний Комитета по экономической политике и предпринимательству на тему: «О
результатах деятельности и перспективах дальнейшего развития
Особой экономической зоны и Калининградской области»,
Правительство Калининградской области. URL: http://gov39.ru/
zip/17052010parlamslush_stenogr.pdf (viewed in 26.05.2010).
Территориальный орган Федеральной службы государственной
статистики по Калининградской области, URL: http://kaliningrad.
gks.ru/default.aspx (viewed in 15.06.2010).
Федоров Г. М., Зверев Ю. М., Корнеевец В. С., 2008, Россия на
Балтике: 1990–2007 годы, Изд-во РГУ им. И. Канта, Калининград.
68
• Хихля А., 1994, Интернационализм, да не тот..., Калининградская
правда, 11 ноября.
• Хлопецкий А. П., Федоров Г. М., 2000, Калининградская область:
регион сотрудничества, Янтарный сказ, Калининград.
• Цикель М. А., Жданов В. П., Федоров Г. М., 2003, Эффективность
и совершенствование механизма особой экономической зоны
в Калининградской области, Изд-во КГУ, Калининград.
• Шахрай С., 1994, Калининград – Кенигсберг – Кролевец, Независимая газета, 26 июля.

kaliningrad oblast of russia in the transborder region south

Transcription

Similar documents

(1) occupied the present day United States and Canada undis

IPO Process and Listing Recent Experience from the Baltic States

Exhibition–Bazaar of New Russian and West Literature

Marine Biological Centre

Kallima - Press Release - Exhibit-e

Dr. Zhivago`s Russian.pptx

Towards new conditions for life

Russia

Making Music Together - Schlern International Music Festival

our mission