European experience of cross -border cooperation: existing problems and ways to solve them
Traditionally, the borders between European states have always been seen as an obstacle to the development of border regions, and daily contacts on borders were not possible for individual historical reasons and for security reasons.
Since the beginning of European integration processes, the importance of border as a barrier between the European Union Member States has decreased significantly, especially within the Schengen area. These processes began in the late 1980s, when trade and other contacts between the members of the then European Community have increased significantly as a result of progress in the direction of a single market. There was a need to simplify the movement through the internal borders of the community.
The transformation of internal borders from the barriers to the “door” has become one of the main tools of European policy. The abolition of control at internal borders has created the need to ensure the barrier function of general external borders. After the EU extension in 2004 and
2007 and the Schengen Zone in 2007, a visa regime was introduced at the new EU borders.
One of the main conditions of cross -border cooperation is a well -functioning border, which guarantees border security and minimizes the negative effects of cross -border crime, while providing a slight crossing of the border. Corruption actions of government representatives at the border are a major obstacle to effective cross -border cooperation on the EU Eastern border. Smuggling of high -cost goods undermines the business of honest entrepreneurs in border areas, which as a result leads to a decrease in fiscal income.
Although cross -border cooperation on the external borders of the EU creates many challenges, at the same time it is one of the advantages of regions located on the eastern border of the European Union. Cross -border cooperation is also one of the main factors of dynamic development of good neighborly relations between European countries.
Cross -border cooperation is an integral part of economic and social planning that allows the border regions to catch up with other parts of their countries, as well as to become “connection points” within the integrated Europe. Finnish and Norwegian experience in cooperation at their borders with Russia can be considered as models of successful cross -border cooperation. Despite the fact that the operating environment in the north has its peculiarities, most of the cross -border practices of Finland and Norway deserve a detailed study of other EU -EU border regions, as well as Eastern Partnership countries.
It is important that the responsibilities of regional development and cross -border cooperation are clearly entrusted with the law on regional power or the Association of Local Authorities at the regional level. It is implied by the responsibilities of managing programs to regional authorities, which must have the necessary level of competence and resources. Although national development strategies are directly related to the development of regions, only the regional level is capable of recognizing the real needs on the ground. The main task of structures at the State and EU level is the creation of a stable legal and institutional framework and ensuring the necessary co -financing for the development of cross -border cooperation between regional actors. At the same time, it is extremely important that regional and local actors demonstrate their commitment to cross -border cooperation through their own financing of certain projects in addition to the central level resources.
The main prerequisite for successful cross -border cooperation is the identification of actors of common needs, interests and directions of development of territories on both sides of the border. Unlike the financial competition of regions, the preparation and implementation of projects aimed at solving common problems are much more effective. This requires the application of the bottom -up approach to identifying the most significant issues in EU cross -border cooperation programs and constant consultations with stakeholders in the establishment of geographical borders of programs. Examples of Finnish-Russian and Norwegian-Russian borders show that this approach is effective in the face of well-developed cooperation between regional and local authorities.
For example, Karelian experience shows that the Euroregion, which consists of relevant regional authorities in the area of the EU cross -border cooperation program, can make a serious contribution to the development and implementation of this program. Members of the Board of the Euroregion can use their significant influence in their capitals and Brussels to promote the goals of their region. The positions and opinions of the participants of the Euroregion on the Joint Regional Development Strategy are also taken into account by the governing bodies of the program in the process of project management and selection.
The creation of permanent platforms in cross -border political cooperation is very important for maintaining a sustainable relationship. For example, in the Barents region, the structures of multilateral cooperation at the regional and national levels have created a valuable platform for political contacts, implementation of joint initiatives and identifying problematic zones.
The ENPI Cross -Border Cooperation Program Karelius has decided to use the so -called Dual -program management methods that have not been used in cross -border projects on the EU Eastern border. Conducting thematic competitions led to an increase in the number of high quality design applications that supplemented each other and provided a significant impulse in the development of specific sectors. The use of two -phase rounds of application has also proven effective. In the first stage, short concepts are invited to present project ideas. This method has avoided unnecessary time, since only the applicants have selected in the first stage are suggested to prepare full applications in the second stage. Another example of the use of new methods is the successful experience of the Norwegian Small Grant Program aimed at supporting cross -border initiatives. Simple, easy -to -understand applications and reporting procedures allow you to participate in a wide range of stakeholders.
Finnish experience demonstrates that border management should be based on clear national legislation and agreements between neighboring countries. In order to protect incidents on borders from diplomatic crises, the right of daily border management must be transferred to the regional level. The system of delegation of border functions on the Finnish-Russian and Norwegian-Russian borders demonstrated its power in this respect.
It has been estimated that billions of euros are lost annually through the queues of transport on the EU Eastern border, poor border infrastructure, corruption or unprofessional actions by border agencies. Investments in high quality border infrastructure have proven benefit from all EU external borders.
One of the traditional obstacles to the well -functioning border management is the rivalry between different power structures on the border. In some countries, disputes over jurisdiction can lead to delays, and often duplication of purchases of technical equipment.
In Finland, these problems were realized early. Cooperation and coordination of police, customs and border agencies have significantly improved productivity at border crossing points and quality of technical supervision. An additional advantage of this approach is a more effective prevention of corruption. Although the Finnish model was included in the Schengen catalog of the best practices, it was not adopted as a basis on other EU borders. Along the Finnish and Norwegian borders with Russia, it is possible to observe well -developed cooperation between the governing bodies of the borders of the respective states, which consists in both joint exercises and jointly performing their duties.
Finland, like a small country with a large external border, had to study various methods of work that would make border procedures most effective while maintaining the required level of safety. Several innovations were introduced to achieve this. Low levels of corruption among customs and border guards are ensured by the use of modern technologies. In addition, Finnish border services conduct regular surveys of people at the border for their satisfaction with the level of service in order to improve the system. These methods deserve attention and should be taken into service with other EU countries and “Eastern Partnership” in order to reduce queues, prevent corruption and improve the safety of borders as a whole.
The adoption of a single Schengen visa has greatly facilitated the movement of other countries of other countries to the EU. Schengen visa is one of the main tools for preventing illegal migration and cross-border crime for EU Member States. It is important that the requirements of the EU Vision Code prevent entry into the Schengen area of persons who are included in the special list in the Schengen information system. Finnish experience shows that flexible and effective methods of working on the border can be used within the existing rules.
Small Border Movement Agreements (MPRs) have been concluded in many parts of the new EU Eastern border. Relatively small abuse of the MPR conditions were recorded by the EU member states. These regimes are generally contrary to the general Schengen principle of control of external borders and abolition of internal borders. Finland claims that a flexible multiple visa system is a better method of maintaining effective control than granting permission to residents of border regions enter the entire Schengen area. Visa Simplification Agreements can be concluded between the EU and neighboring countries in order to consolidate reciprocity in the field of border cooperation. The main problem remains technical: the frequent crossing of the border quickly exhausts space for stamps in passports. Considering this, the search for innovative solutions is important to overcome the problem.
