DOCSLIB.ORG

Border Bites 7.Pub

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Border Bites 7.Pub “Digesting the world’s borders …One bite at a time” The northernmost external border of the Schengen zone in connental Europe lies above the 69th parallel north, running between Norway and Russia. Despite its remoteness, the hosle climac condions and sparse populaon density, unl recently this borderland was seen as an example of im- proved relaons between West and East. Such a reputaon greatly relied on the Barents Euro-Arcc region – an instuonal frame- work that came into being in 1993 to replace Cold War confrontaon with collaboraon. Years of coordinated joint acvies among the northern parts of Finland, Norway, Russia and Sweden resulted in numerous social networks, simplified border-crossing rules for Barents’ residents and, as some argue, the creaon of a disnct Barents identy “concentrated in the triangle Kirkenes–Murmansk–Rovaniemi”1. BORDER BITES Since perestroika and the opening of the formerly closed border, contacts between border municipalies - Pechenga Rayon (Murmansk Oblast, Rus- sia) and Sør-Varanger commune (Finnmark fylke, Norway) - have been in- tense and diverse. Although local cross-border interacons have never City twinning on the Russian‐ Norwegian border: from neighbours to twin cies and back been the focus for Barents’ cooperaon, on several occasions border mu- nicipalies have played the role of trailblazers in exercising transfroner lifestyle and cross-border cooperaon (hereinaer CBC). In this piece I trace the dynamics of a recent border-blurring experiment that was iniat- Ekaterina ed and agreed upon naonally and implemented locally – the launch of the twin city relaonship. To provide a more grounded analysis, I use both sec- ondary sources as well as empirical data (interviews and a survey) collect- Mikhailova ed in the Russian-Norwegian borderland in 2013-2016. As the concept of twin cies sll causes more controversy than agreement Lomonosov Moscow in academic debates, let me clarify that in this piece twin city is under- stood as a rather demanding type of intercity relaonship which implies State University coordinated strategies and acon plans towards building joint future, com- bined with grassroots networking and mutual empathy of residents. Typi- cally, in the context of internaonal twin cies, the selements involved in ———————————————————————————————————————————— 1 Heikkilä, M. (2014) “Editorial: Tesng the Barents identy” Barents Studies Supplemen- tary Issue. [Online] Available from: hps://lauda.ulapland.fi/bitstream/ handle/10024/59414/barents_pop_3_Tesng-the-barents-identy_screen.pdf? Seventh Course sequence=2 [Accessed: 20th March 2017] . 1 twinning are cies adjacent to the border and to each other. In contrast to twin cies, neighbouring cies do not have strict limitaons in terms of their geographical proximity and eagerness to work together towards a joint future. Keeping these definions in mind, let me proceed with the case analysis. Figure 1: Map of the Barents region and border municipalies on the Russian- Norwegian border. Image by Øystein Rø, Transborder studio BORDER BITES Nikel and Kirkenes: establishing a tradion of cross‐border dialogue Today, the administrave centers of the border municipalies of Nikel and Kirkenes, small Arcc towns 57 km apart from each other, have coexisted for about eight decades (for populaon details see the Table below). Their City twinning period as neighbours includes a number of shared experiences, such as early mining specializaon, transformaon into strategic outposts and on the Russian‐ balefields during the Second World War, and liberaon within the same military operaon by the Red Army. Aer liberaon, these border sele- Norwegian ments faced off along one of the most isolated Soviet froners – the only one that separated the Soviet Union from a founding member of the North border Atlanc Treaty Organizaon. As interviews show, at that me residents of both towns felt as if they were living at the edge of the world. Country, total Russia 146,674,541 Norway 5,258,317 Border region Murmansk Oblast 756,897 Finnmark fylke 75,758 Regional capital Murmansk 299,834 Vadsø 5,107 Ekaterina Border municipality Pechenga Rayon 37,181 Sør-Varanger 10,199 Municipal center Nikel 11,600 Kirkenes 3,564 Mikhailova Other towns in the Zapolyarny 15,202 Bjørnevatn 2,528 border municipality Pechenga 2,936 Hesseng 1,780 Table 1: Populaon stascs for the Russian-Norwegian cross-border region (by January 2017, based on Russia’s Federal State Stascs Service and Stascs Norway) Although such a historical background suggests that before the 1990s the border was a sealed barrier, according to survey results, one third of in- formants see the contemporary intermunicipal cooperaon as a connua- Seventh Course on of Soviet-Norwegian dialogue. Construcon of the Boris Gleb hydro- 2 power plant on the Pasvik river by Norwegian specialists in 1960-1964 was the main interstate collaboraon project during the Cold War period. The state border runs through the middle of that river and hence down the centre of the Boris Gleb dam. Not long aer the dam was built, in 1973 the border municipalies signed their first cooperaon agreement. Since then communicaon between Pechenga Rayon and Sør-Varanger commune has taken on various forms – from delegaon exchanges in the 1980s, humani- tarian aid flowing from Norway to Russia, parcularly to these neighbour- ing region in early 1990s (aer the dissoluon of the Soviet Union and the consequent worsening of the economic situaon on the Russian side), to joint project work from 2000s onwards. Cooperave es among border municipalies were popping up in all spheres of life – from arts to health care. I’ll provide a few examples that proved acve and durable, and have become flagships of Russian- Norwegian local collaboraon. One of the pioneers of cooperaon were municipal libraries, whose representaves first met back in 1983. Their un- quenchable enthusiasm helped to put their dialogue on a regular foong and to maintain it without external funding or in- volvement from naonal, BORDER BITES regional or local authori- es. Border libraries proved to be highly experi- mental and tried out joint seminars for experience transfer, temporary ex- City twinning changes of books, employ- ees, whole exhibions and on the Russian‐ other material, as well as ideas and best pracces. Norwegian The sphere of pre-school Figure 2: Kirkenes central square is dominated with the border educaon presents another Sør-Varanger library, the frontrunner of local example of long standing cross-border cooperaon since 1983. All photos CBC. Ties between kinder- by the author unless otherwise stated. gartens evolved from direct contacts in the 1990s to coordinated partnerships supervised by the two city halls. Seeking to share the experience of cross-cultural exchange with the whole borderland community, from early 2000s kindergartens started arranging an annual joint exhibion of children’s drawings called “Russia and Norway through children’s eyes”. Aer being displayed in Kirkenes in Ekaterina the Borderland Museum for half a year, the exhibion is relocated to Nikel. The other borderland ‘brand’ is an internaonal twelve-kilometer long ski- Mikhailova ing-track called ‘The Ski of Friendship’ that takes place annually at the tri- border point where Norway, Finland and Russia meet. Coined by the Gen- eral Consul of Russia in Kirkenes, the idea for such a compeon received governmental support from all countries involved and has been aracng hundreds of parcipants annually since 1994. Looking just at these three examples, one may conclude that two municipalies developed various connecons long before the twin city iniave arrived to the Russian- Seventh Course Norwegian borderland. 3 Figure 3: An identical copy of the tri‐border point where Russia, Norway and Finland meet was erected in front of the municipal administration in Nikel in 2015. Twin city between Nikel and Kirkenes ‐ a temporary project? BORDER BITES The idea of twin city es between Nikel and Kirkenes was formulated in an instrucon leer sent from the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs to the mayor of Sør-Varanger. In 2008, as soon as the iniave received that support among municipal and naonal authories on both sides of the border, the Pechenga Rayon and Sør-Varanger communes declared the City twinning start of collaboraon in a twin city project. Within the first five years of interacon under the twin city project umbrella, rhetoric about twinning on the Russian‐ was widely present on both sides of the border. The two municipalies tried fostering their es by re-engineering exisng cooperave ventures Norwegian and by incorporang actors that hadn’t yet taken part in transfroner ac- vies. Ties were intensified through the launch of working groups to co- border ordinate cooperaon in parcular fields, and through so-called ‘mobile seminars’ - seminars ‘on wheels’ that took place on both sides of the bor- der, with parcipants moving from one city to the other (and crossing the border) together, and brainstorming on their way. Several organizaons, such as register offices, museums and voluntary associaons, met their counterparts from the other side of the border for the first me through these iniaves. At that me, there were a number of events sporng the ‘twin city’ label. Ekaterina Some scholars have assumed that the use of this prefix for any type of co- operaon between Nikel and Kirkenes was evidence of the intenon of the two municipalies to apply for European funding2, as similar local integra- Mikhailova on projects have been quite successful in acquiring EU funds. However, such expectaons have not been borne out (yet). The understanding of the twin city iniave as being “just a temporary project” only crystalized aer 2013. In interviews, both sides emphasized ———————————————————————————————————————————— 2 Figenschou, A. (2011). The Twin Cies of Petchenga Rayon and Sør-Varanger Municipal- Seventh Course ity. Master Thesis. The Faculty of Humanies. University of Oslo. 4 that intermunicipal co- operaon was iniated much earlier than the twinning project, and that its scope today is more extensive.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Joint Barents Transport Plan Proposals for Development of Transport Corridors for Further Studies
    Joint Barents Transport Plan Proposals for development of transport corridors for further studies September 2013 Front page photos: Kjetil Iversen, Rune N. Larsen and Sindre Skrede/NRK Table of Contents Table Summary 7 1 Introduction 12 1.1 Background 12 1.2 Objectives and members of the Expert Group 13 1.3 Mandate and tasks 14 1.4 Scope 14 1.5 Methodology 2 Transport objectives 15 2.1 National objectives 15 2.2 Expert Group’s objective 16 3 Key studies, work and projects of strategic importance 17 3.1 Multilateral agreements and forums for cooperation 17 3.2 Multilateral projects 18 3.4 National plans and studies 21 4 Barents Region – demography, climate and main industries 23 4.1 Area and population 23 4.2 Climate and environment 24 4.3 Overview of resources and key industries 25 4.4 Ores and minerals 25 4.5 Metal industry 27 4.6 Seafood industry 28 4.7 Forest industry 30 4.8 Petroleum industry 32 4.9 Tourism industry 35 4.10 Overall transport flows 37 4.11 Transport hubs 38 5 Main border-crossing corridors in the Barents Region 40 5.1 Corridor: “The Bothnian Corridor”: Oulu – Haparanda/Tornio - Umeå 44 5.2 Corridor: Luleå – Narvik 49 5.3 Corridor: Vorkuta – Syktyvkar – Kotlas – Arkhangelsk - Vartius – Oulu 54 5.4 Corridor: “The Northern Maritime Corridor”: Arkhangelsk – Murmansk – The European Cont. 57 5.5 Corridor: “The Motorway of the Baltic Sea”: Luleå/Kemi/Oulu – The European Continent 65 5.6 Corridor: Petrozavodsk – Murmansk – Kirkenes 68 5.7 Corridor: Kemi – Salla – Kandalaksha 72 5.8 Corridor: Kemi – Rovaniemi – Kirkenes 76
    [Show full text]
  • Health and Environmental Impacts in the Norwegian Border Area Related to Local Russian Industrial Emissions
    OR 40/2013 Health and environmental impacts in the Norwegian border area related to local Russian industrial emissions Knowledge status Authors: Torkjel M. Sandanger (UiT/NILU), Erik Anda (UiT), Tore F. Berglen (NILU), Anita Evenset (Akvaplan-niva), Guttorm Christensen (Akvaplan-niva) and Eldbjørg S. Heimstad (NILU) Scientific report 1 Preface NILU - Norwegian Institute for Air Research has in collaboration with the University of Tromsø (Institute of Community Medicine) and Akvaplan-niva, performed a literature review of impacts from local industrial pollution on ecosystem and human health in the Norwegian border region to Russia. During the last decades several studies addressing the state of the environment in the Norwegian-Russian border region have been conducted. There has been a need to assess and clarify whether the pollution from Nikel and Zapoljarny has negative effects on human health and the environment, both in Norway and in Russia. These investigations have partly been conducted through Norwegian or Russian monitoring programs, bilateral (Norwegian-Russian) or trilateral (Norwegian-Finnish-Russian) cooperation. However, the results from the studies are scattered and not easily accessible, and some of the studies are outdated. At present there is a need to compile updated knowledge concerning the state of the environment, potential impacts on human health as well as the food security situation. The requirement includes a literature survey of the severity of exposure from pollution, the geographic distribution of the pollution (including time trends) and newly acquired exposure - effect relationships between pollution and human health, independent of the maximum exposure levels set forth by local governments. The aim is to identify important knowledge gaps in relation to environmental and health effects so that stakeholders, scientists and governmental institutions together can decide on the appropriate future cause of action.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study Report
    EUBORDERREGIONS FP7 RESEARCH PROJECT CASE STUDY #1 NORWAY - RUSSIA Case Study Report Elaborated by The Barents Institute Team UIT The Arctic University of Norway 1 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 The border, the border region and the border traffic zone ............................................................. 4 1.2 Data material and network analysis ................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Historical background ....................................................................................................................... 8 1.4 The impact of the past on current cross-border relations ............................................................. 10 1.5 Minorities and their impact on current cross-border relations ..................................................... 11 2. Socio-economic characteristics ................................................................................................... 13 2.1 Finnmark County ............................................................................................................................. 13 2.2 Murmansk Region ........................................................................................................................... 14 2.3 Regional indicators compared to national indicators ..................................................................... 16 2.4 Differences
    [Show full text]
  • Norway's Arctic Policy Creating Value, Managing Resources, Confronting Climate Change and Fostering Knowledge
    norway's arctic policy Creating value, managing resources, confronting climate change and fostering knowledge. Developments in the Arctic concern us all. CHANGING FAST: the arctic In Bodø, new Introduction and traditional industries are developing side by side. PRIME MINISTER ERNA SOLBERG a sustainable future Every time I visit North Norway, I am inspired emergency preparedness and response, and by the dynamism of the people and industries in search and rescue services must all meet high the region. I am confident that we will succeed standards. The Government intends to deal with in further developing North Norway and turning these issues through responsible management. it into one of the most creative and sustainable regions of the country. We need to address key Norway has both interests and responsibilities challenges today to equip the High North to meet in the Arctic. It is therefore essential that we the demands of the future. play an active role in the area both to protect our rights and to fulfil our obligations in the The Arctic as a region is defined by its natural region. The Norwegian Coast Guard has a par- environment, its resources and its inhabitants. ticularly important role to play in this context. There is great potential for value creation in The Government will continue to ensure a high the interplay between traditional industries level of operational capability in the the north. and modern technology. The Government’s aim is to assist the business sector in the region in realising this potential by drawing on a sound // knowledge base and a dynamic education and research community.
    [Show full text]
  • New Building Blocks in the North
    New Building Blocks in the North The next Step in the Government’s High North Strategy Photos front page: Arild Lyssand/MFA Norway, Norwegian Coast Guard, Jan Fredrik Frantzen/Norwegian Centre for Telemedicine, Kjell Ove Storvik/Norwegian Seafood Export Council, StatoilHydro, Christian Houge, Scanpix, Elkem FOREWORD NORWAY IN THE NORTH interest in the Arctic and the world’s north- – THE WAY FORWARD ernmost regions will continue to grow. It is our intention to stay ahead of these develop- The High North is Norway’s most important ments. strategic priority area. My Government made this clear in its inaugural address, and we Implementing the High North Strategy has followed up by presenting our High North given us opportunities to listen and learn Strategy on 1 December 2006. The overall from many sources in the north and in the aim is to enhance knowledge in and about the rest of Norway, as well as in our contact with north, increase our activity and presence in other countries. We have gained experience the area and lay the foundations for sustain- and have received valuable input. This has able economic and social development in the provided a basis for setting the course ahead. years to come. Part I of this publication – New Building More than two years have now passed since Blocks in the North – presents the Govern- the Government presented its High North ment’s platform for its further efforts in this Strategy. During this period we have gained field. further insight into the opportunities and challenges created by developments in the Part II of the publication provides the north, particularly in the fields of climate and backdrop to Part I.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDICES JOINT BARENTS TRANSPORT PLAN Appendix 1: Basic Cross-Border Routes/Corridors of the Barents Region
    APPENDICES JOINT BARENTS TRANSPORT PLAN Appendix 1: Basic Cross-Border Routes/Corridors of the Barents Region Introduction The experts have defined main cross-border routes of great importance to the Barents Region development. The transport network in the Barents Region should be branched and provide a sufficient number of efficient transport routes to enhance the competitiveness of trade and industry and to ensure the attractiveness of the Barents Region for living, tourism and entrepreneurship. It should be noted that some routes, for example, the Bothnian Corridor encompassing road and rail from Helsinki to Stockholm, only partly lie within the Barents Region. The transport plan focuses on the Barents part of the route. Some of the routes overlap somewhat. In these cases, the overlapping part is included in only one of the route descriptions. Reference is made in discussions of the other route(s) to where descriptions can be found. The prioritized transports corridors are illustrated in figure 1.1. The two maps on the opposite page show transport networks prioritized by the EU and the Russian Federation. Figure 1.1 Prioritized transport corridors in the Barents region. 1 Figure 1.2 Prioritized road network by the EU and the Russian Federation. 2 Figure 1.3 Prioritized rail network by the EU and the Russian Federation. 3 The table below provides a brief presentation of the transport routes considered most important by the experts1: From – To Route name if Name of roads and rail sections Length existing (km) (Helsiki-)Oulu- The Bothnian
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Barents Transport Plan
    Draft JOINT BARENTS TRANSPORT PLAN Proposals for development of transport routes 2016 TABLE OF CONTENT PREAMBLE............................................................................................................. 3 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 4 2. OBJECTIVES OF THE BARENTS REGION TRANSPORT SYSTEM ................................. 7 3. KEY STUDIES, WORK AND PROJECTS OF STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE ......................... 9 4. GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND PERSPECTIVES OF THE BARENTS REGION ................ 12 5. MAIN CROSS-BORDER ROUTES OF THE BARENTS REGION .................................... 18 5.1. “THE BOTHNIAN CORRIDOR”: OULU – HAPARANDA/TORNIO – UMEÅ .......................... 22 5.2. ROUTE: LULEÅ – NARVIK .................................................................................. 28 5.3. ROUTE: VORKUTA – SYKTYVKAR – KOTLAS ARKHANGELSK – VARTIUS – OULU ........... 34 5.4. “THE NORTHERN MARITIME CORRIDOR” ARKHANGELSK – MURMANSK – THE EUROPEAN CONTINENT ....................................................................................................... 39 5.5. CORRIDOR: “THE MOTORWAY OF THE BALTIC SEA”: LULEÅ/KEMI/OULU – THE EUROPEAN CONTINENT ....................................................................................................... 45 5.6. ROUTE: PETROZAVODSK – MURMANSK – KIRKENES ............................................... 49 5.7. ROUTE: ROVANIEMI – SALLA – KANDALAKSHA ..................................................... 54
    [Show full text]