Territorial concepts and policy frameworks at the EU s external border Spotlight on the Finnish-Russian border Matti Fritsch, University of Eastern Finland
Some reflections on EUrope Europe - a contested concept and geographical expression confusions about the two different notions of Europe as an idea and as a project (Agnew 2005, 578-579) Sakwa (2006, 21-25) Civilisational Europe Pan-Europe Official Europe EUrope: fusing of the institutional embodiment and its territory (Bialasiewicz 2011)
Some reflections on the External Border A marker of EUropean territoriality? practices of inclusion, exclusion and boundary-making Integration/cohesion on the inside vs. stronger demarcation towards the outside? it is reasonable to argue that space, territoriality and boundaries is based on a dialectic between two languages, the language of difference and the language of integration Paasi (1996, 15) Fortress Europe Aspirational vs. hard territoriality (Bialasiewicz, Elden & Painter 2005) space of values and area of solidarity; it evokes the ideal of territorial cohesion border controls, jurisdictional limits and a concern with territorial integrity and sovereign rights
Discontinuities in GDP
Perceptions of interdependence between the EU and Russia how to develop interaction with countries in the EU s neighbourhood that are not foreseen or do not desire to become members of the EU Geopolitical competition between the EU and Russia Both aiming to exert influence on their neighbours Russia is a normative power, too Eurasian Union Russia and the ENP/ENPI; strategic partnership through Common Spaces (including Roadmaps) claims an equal footing in the cooperation with the EU Third largest trading partner of the EU Energy relations and trade (aiming to be) a transport bridge between Europe and Asia
Perceptions of interdependence between the Finland and Russia
Rather unproblematic border
Russia is Finland s most important trading partner
Steadily increasing tourism; mostly shopping
Migration from Russia to Finland Venäjänkielisten asukkaiden suhteellinen osuus kunnittain 2011 Rovaniemi Osuus (%) 0,0-0,5 0,6-1,0 1,1-1,5 1,6-3,7 Oulu Kajaani Kokkola Vaasa Seinäjoki Kuopio Joensuu Jyväskylä Pori Tampere Mikkeli HämeenlinnaLahti Kouvola Lappeenranta Turku Maarianhamina Helsinki Vuoden 2012 aluerajat Lähde: Tilastokeskus Source: Statistics Finland
Mitigation of peripherality against slowly improving accessibility
The External border/neighbourhood and regional development Potential schism between cohesion and neighbourhood policies regional development almost completely missing from many from priorities for co-operation with the neighbourhood (Gaubert & Yann 2010) General agreement in the literature that securitisation and hard threats are overemphasised in ENP Memorandum of Understanding for the establishing of a dialogue on regional policy between the EU and the RF ENPI CBC
The role of territorial co-operation and CBC element of EU cohesion policy the EU has been striving to transform the old political borders into simple administrative boundaries (Drevet 2002) EU (internal) trans-border territorial co-operation probably the most advanced in the world territorial integration: the process of reshaping functional areas to make them evolve into a consistent geographical entity; this entails overcoming the various negative effects stemming from the presence of one or more administrative borders, which hamper harmonious territorial development (Böhme et al. 2011) Multi-level governance, Europe of the Regions : opportunity structures provided by the EU, utilised by regional and local actors subnational actors important Networking, synergies, doing things together and knowledge exchange across (a) border(s) To what extent is this possible at the external border? Ambiguity between co-operation and control (Cronberg 2003), negative and positive funtion of the border
(Geo)political framework conditions for territorial co-operation on the FIN-RUS border Legacy of a closed border during Soviet times increasing permeability of the border from the 1990s onwards enabled interregional co-operation and contacts Decentralisation by default in Russia facilitated regional co-operation EU enters the picture in 1995 the first common EU-Russian border: Finland as well as the EU redefine their relations with the neighbouring former superpower within the context of European Union integration Russia weak, willing to accept anything but institutions of EU integration This enthusiastic phase culminated in the setting up of the Euregio Karelia Post-2000: consolidation of the European Union and an increasingly self-assertive Russia changed the picture of co-operation EU launches the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP); an increasingly self-confident Russia in a stronger economic position refuses privileged relationship and demanded a special status based on the bilateral Common Spaces co-operation with the EU in the institutional frame of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (1997)
Territorial cooperation on the Finnish- Russian border 1992: Neighbouring Area Co-operation (NAC) coordinated by the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs EUR 293 million were channeled into co-operation projects with Russia from 1992 to 2009 promotion of environmental protection and nuclear safety, combat of the spread of risks related to contagious diseases and drugs, and support of civil society development and administrative and legislative reforms 1995: EU enters picture. Combination of INTERREG (cohesion policy, on the Finnish side) and TACIS (external policy, on the Russian side) programmes Originally, these two programs were separate in terms of aims, geographical extent and decision-making.
Territorial cooperation on the Finnish- Russian border (cont.) 2007: launch of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) (only signed for implementation by the Russian Federation in 2010) single budget, common management structures, a common legal framework and implementation rules) Single application and selection process on both sides of the border Russia provides its own funding; ownership Thematic calls
Deployment of CBC on the Finnish- Three programmes spanning the Finnish-Russia border: programming areas are very different from each other 1. Kolarctic-Russia (SE, FI, NO, RU) 70.48 mio 2. Karelia-Russia (FI, RU) 46.40 mio 3. South East Finland-Russia (FI, RU) 72.36 mio Russian border
ENPI CBC on the ground similar domains to those CBC activities which take place at most of the EU-internal borders aims of the projects are more modest across the external border of the European Union visible asymmetry persisting across the border in terms of participation levels and the diversity of actors Limits set by low cross-border accessibility and populations numbers CBC can be influenced by developments at the higher echelons of political relations and decision-making and the general geopolitical setting between Finland as well as the European Union and Russia.
Some concluding thoughts Russia s self-assertiveness and status as a noncandidate a good thing? Acknowledgment of differences e.g. limits to subnational emancipation in Russia many things take place outside official territorial co-operation schemes Need to pay more attention to regional development aspects at the external border EUBORDERREGIONS FP7 Specific borderland contexts
Thanks for your attention