Helsinki, 8th of September 2000

Summary and presidency conclusions from the Consultation meeting on Russian and Belarussian participation in the Baltic Sea Region Interreg III B programme

hosted by the Ministry of the Interior, Finland.

Date: Tuesday, 5 September 2000, 13:30 to 19.00 hours.

Location: Helsinki, Merimiehenkatu 11, Conference Room 202.

Participants: See attached list.

The meeting was arranged by the Finnish Ministry of the Interior on behalf of the all the partner states participating in the preparation of the new Baltic Sea Region Interreg IIIB programme. It was chaired by Mr Mårten Johansson, Deputy Director General, Ministry of the Interior, Finland and assisted by the Common Interreg IIC Secretariat. This paper sums up the main messages in relation to the objectives of the meeting and the conclusions drawn by the presidency:

1) Information on the Baltic Sea Region Interreg III B programme and experience on Russian participation in the present Interreg II C programme:

The Russian and Belarussian representatives at the meeting were informed about the objectives of the Baltic Sea Region Interreg III B programme by Mr Wilfried Görmar, (Federal Board for Building and Regional Planning, Germany, member of the Interreg III B Joint Programming Committee(JPC) and chairman of JPC working group1.)

New elements in the BSR Interreg III B programme:

  • starting point for all projects should be that transnational solutions are needed to provide responses to common problems;

  • there is a stronger East-West focus in the new Interreg III B programme compared to the present II C programme;

  • more emphasis is put on strategic development zones (i. e. Via Baltica development zone);

  • stronger focus on making use of tourism opportunities in the BSR;

  • there was a need identified to address energy networks;

  • SME development is added as new element in the programme;

  • institution building will receive emphasis - in particular in relation to the Eastern BSR;

  • small scale infrastructure investments will be possible as first step towards larger investments;

  • strong involvement of regional level is envisaged as already started in the present Interreg II C programme.

During the previous Interreg IIC programme only 2 out of the approved 45 projects had got Tacis-funding amounting to 20.000 Euro (2 micro projects *10.000). Experience of co-operation with Russian and Belarussian project partners was provided by two Interreg II C co-financed projects currently being implemented.

BERNET (22), (Baltic Eutrophication Network - Eutrophication of Coastal Waters in the Baltic Region - Planning and Management of Coastal Water Quality) presented by Mogens Michael Möller, project manager, Fyns Amt, Denmark (other partners: from FIN, D, SWE, EE and RUS (Kaliningrad City Hall, International Relations Department). The Russian partners were co-funded through the Danish National Environment Protection Agency (99.000 Euro)

(for info on the project contact: www.bernet.org ).

E 18 (74) (European Road E 18 Co-operation Project: Spatial Planning Network for Urban and Regional Development); presented by Keijo-Kalevi Nyström, project co-ordinator, Regional Council of Southwest Finland, Turku, Finland (other partners from NOR, SWE, RUS (Institute for Urbanistic Studies St Petersburg). The Russian partners were granted 20.000 Euro from the Regional Council of Kymenlaakso (For info on the project contact www.e18.net ).

Practical recommendations for future transnational co-operation based on experience in the present Interreg II C programme:

  • it was needed to synchronise funding instruments Interreg and Tacis (Phare) programmes including reporting requirements;

  • long-term support needed to stabilise co-operation structures (min 5 years);

  • develop long lasting co-operation and networks through follow-up support (-10 years);

  • provide support to IT tools to facilitate communication among partners;

  • identify relevant partners for the issues addressed (partners should match in qualification, responsibilities, and in relation to the institutional framework);

  • allow for meetings, plan budget in details; employ regional co-ordinator for each project partner;

  • allocate sufficient funds to transnational co-operation;

  • select projects with high commitment and motivation;

  • try to find additional bilateral funds to facilitate start-up of involvement of Russian partners.

2) Commitment of participation of the Russian and Belarussian partners to the Interreg III B programme

  • All Russian representatives present at the meeting, i. e. Karelia, St Petersburg, Leningrad Region and Kaliningrad declared their interest and willingness to participate in the BSR Interreg III B programme.

  • For Russia, a note of the Federal Russian Ministry of Economic Development and Trade Affairs, Moscow, signed by Ms E. Nabiullina, Deputy Minister for Economy and Trade, expressed the interest of the Russian involvement in the Interreg III B programme.

  • From the Murmansk Region, a written announcement of interest for participation was conveyed.

  • Mr Shljamin, Foreign Minister of the Karelian Republic pointed out that the BSR programme was combining BSR and the Barents Region. He recommended to make links to other regions in the Barents area mentioning the Archangelsk Region, the Nenetz Autonomous County, and the Komi Republic. Furthermore he recommended to have a representatives from the Russian Federation to work in the common secretariat and Russian/Barents representation both in the monitoring and steering committees.

  • Also the involvement of the Russian regions of Pskov and Novgorod was recommended.

  • The Belarussian delegation had already declared their willingness to participate at a very early stage of the programming process.

3) Prioritised areas for co-operation of Russian partners in relation to the priorities of the BSR Interreg III B programme

Mr Valerij Shljamin, for the Republic of Karelia:

Mr Shljamin thought that the programme should reflect the Northern Dimension Strategy in a more concentrated way giving special emphasis (special quota for Barents projects) for development of the economic potential in the Barents region. The Karelian Republic wishes to build on transport corridor projects as previously already initiated (Kaspnet; Blue Road). Emphasis is also put on cross-border projects in the framework of the Euroregion Karelia. For the Murmansk Region, similar priorities were envisaged.

Mr Sergei E. Naryshkin, Leningrad Oblast:

Transport projects (such as E 18) have main priority.

Interest in common development projects such as those with St Petersburg including partners from the Nordic countries was also expressed.

Ms Elena Ivanova, City of St Petersburg:

Priorities for the City of St Petersburg is at environment projects, transport corridors (E18 connection); IT society project. Twinning type-activities, such as joint projects in developing public management and institution building are also relevant.

Mr Dimitri Ofitserov, Kaliningrad Oblast:

Mr Ofitserov referred to priorities developed in the context of the Northern Dimension action programme and promised submit concrete project proposals by the end of September. Interreg III B should be more oriented towards local and regional development.

Mr Vladimir Volosski, Programme Manager Energy and Cross-Border Co-operation, Co-ordinating Unit for EU Technical Assistance at the Russian Ministry of Economy:

He referred to the list of project proposals for the 2000 Tacis CBC Action Programme of Murmansk and Karelia. He also presented a proposal from the ECOenergy 50 aimed at improved coordination of joint Interreg-Tacis projects and implementation of projects related to the Northern Dimension Initiative Action Plan.

Mr Anatoly Nichkasov, Mr Leonid Orlov, Mr Dimitry Semenkevich, Belarus:

Belarus proposes to focus on development of transport corridor programmes, such as the linkage between Baltic harbours and South Russia/Ukraine and between Moscow and Kaliningrad; inland waterways, green networks, and urban co-operation areas. In relation to cross-border co-operation, it is important to support the Euroregion Niemen.

4) Available funding instruments and need for funding of Russian project partners:

Irina Karelina, expert, Leontief Centre, St. Petersburg:

Ms Karelina noted that the main concern was to harmonise the Tacis CBC and Interreg III B programme. She referred to a paper earlier presented to the JPC. She also presented a indicative list of spatial development projects which could be relevant for St Petersburg. The paper was distributed at the meeting.

Mr Vladimir Volosski, Programme Manager Energy and Cross-Border Co-operation, Co-ordinating Unit for EU Technical Assistance at the Russian Ministry of Economy:

Mr Volosski informed the meeting that since 26 August 2000, the responsibility of the National Co-ordinator for the Tacis programme moved to the First Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Kristyenko, while Ms E. Nabiullina was appointed Deputy National Co-ordinator. The national Co-ordinating Unit is now attached to the Deputy National Co-ordinator. The Unit is currently being re-organised. In addition, the European Commission (EC) is funding a Tacis support unit to help implement the new dialogue driven approach with the Tacis partners in Russia. Constant changes in DG Relex staff responsible for Tacis implementation lead to further instability of the co-ordination of the Tacis programme.

Mr Volosski draw the attention to some basic differences between the Interreg and the Tacis programme including the CBC-Small Project Facility:

  1. Interreg: regional decision making is done by respective EU Member States whereas for Tacis decision making takes place at the EC in Brussels;

  2. The beneficiary regions have no say on selection of projects;

  3. Timing of selection of projects for Interreg and Tacis is not in line. Tacis projects suffer from high bureaucratic burden, and slow, in-transparent and cumbersome decision and monitoring procedures.

Mr Volosski, Mr Cremonini, Mr Orlov and Mrs Varis assessed the different options (Tacis national programme, Tacis CBC. the regional programme (Inter-state), Bistro, Tempus, Institutional building) to use Tacis-funding.

The following conclusions were drawn from the discussion:

  1. The national Tacis programmes (both Russia and Belarus) do not seem to be suitable instruments for co-funding Russian/Belarus' participation in the BSR Interreg III B.

  2. The Tacis CBC indicative programme seems to be the most appropriate funding instrument, in particular its Small Project Facility. The budget is subject to annual approvals. Some 22.5 Meuros is available for the year 2000, but the indicative programme proposes that 30 Meuro per annum could be allocated for the years 2000-2003. The indicative CBC programme is expected to be approved in near future (September).

It is a multi-country programme covering specific (CBC) border regions of Belarus, Moldova, Russia and the Ukraine. The programme has three priorities:

  • Development of infrastructure networks,

  • Promotion of environmental protection and management of natural resources;

  • Support to the private sector and assistance for economic development.

There is no specific mentioning of spatial development projects, but such projects could be funded under the three different priorities provided they have a clear cross-border impact.

It was felt that the thematic scope of the three priorities is broad, but it was underlined that spatial development projects have to be adjusted to the CBC priorities in order to fit into the scheme.

Most of the CBC funding goes into large projects (>1 Meguro, but in practice much bigger) in particular border-crossings, but the Small Project Facility (SPF) will continue to be an important element (up to 25 % of total CBC-funding). The SFP is also the most flexible part of the CBC for Interreg-type projects.

The new CBC indicative programme foresees an annual launch of applications. Regular calls for proposals under the SPF are also foreseen. The programme has a stronger regional accent: „Where there are recognised and representative cross-border agencies or other similar institutional frameworks in place, Tacis CBC will give priority to projects which are clearly in-line with agreed strategies set up by the regional and local organisations“.

  1. In addition, the special budget line B7-537 'Special action in favour of the Baltic Sea Region' introduced by the European Parliament could be a useful instrument, provided it stays in the EU-budget. The allocation of 5 Meuro for the year 2000 is already committed for 3 large projects, but the focus of this budget line could be shifted to better match Interreg B already in the year 2001. This special budget-line follows Tacis CBC-rules.

  2. The Tacis Regional Programme (former Inter-State) could be relevant for projects involving Belarus and Kaliningrad. (Total indicative funding 2000-2003 of 120 Meuros).

  3. It was noted that bilateral funds from EU Member States as well as from national Russian/Belarus' budget sources also in the future will be relevant to secure participation of Russian and Belarussian partners in common projects. The Russian regions and Belarus expressed their commitment to provide the necessary national co-financing to Tacis funds.

To further improve co-ordination between Interreg and Tacis, the following recommendations were made:

  • The participants felt it was important that the Commission, as was announced in the Tacis Management Committee earlier this year, will work out joint operational guidelines (implementation rules) in order to improve the interoperability between Tacis CBC and Interreg.

  • Regular and co-ordinated calls for proposals were held important as well as the introduction of a new selection criteria giving priority to joint Interreg-Tacis projects in Tacis CBC application forms.

  • It was proposed that responsible partners should rise the proposals to increase interoperability between Tacis and Interreg with the task managers of DG Relex and DG Regio.

  • Information events for potential Non EU project partners should be organised in the framework of existing organisations or/and ad hoc in order to generate joint projects. This networking approach could be applied both from EU and Russian/Belarussian side.

  • There should be one contact person in the new Interreg III B secretariat to help identify funding options for CEEC/NIS project partners.

  • It was noted that national funds of CEEC/NIS was needed in order to identify projects and promote start-up activities.

  • Several participating regions felt that part of Tacis CBC-funds could be managed by the regions concerned (meaning to set up a Small Project Fund cross-border management committee in the regions concerned).

 

5) Representatives of Russia (including the regional administrations) and Belarus to the BSR Interreg III B Steering and Monitoring Committees (SC/MC):

On behalf of the BSR Joint Programming Committee, Mr Harry Ekestam, Finnish Ministry of Interior, pointed out:

  • The representation in the SC/MC: from Russia, there should be two representatives in each in SC/MC but not the same persons. A rotation system could be applied.

  • There was a need from the Interreg III B programme to set up national sub-committees;

  • On behalf of the participating EU Member States, the Swedish Minister of Industry, Employment and Communication will send a Letters of Invitation to the Russian and Belarus authorities. A response was expected as soon as possible.

In response, Mr Valerij Shljamin indicated to discuss the Letter of Invitation and the representation of regions at the upcoming Russian North West Association meeting in St Petersburg the following week. Being the chairman of the association, he promised a response by the end of September 2000.

The results of the consultation meeting will be reported to the Joint Programming Committee meeting in Copenhagen on the 12th of September 2000.

On behalf of the BSR Joint Programming Committee:

Mårten Johansson

Chairman of the meeting